# Religion megathread-



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

Making this thread for all religious debate, news stories about religion, debating religions' history and effect on society, etc etc.

in short: get your rant on _here_


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Nov 6, 2010)

I know religious threads flog dead horses, but seriously: Some actually stay on topic. 
This thread has no point except so that people can B'aww. 

B'AWWWWWWWWWWWW I haet this thred............ :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I know religious threads flog dead horses, but seriously: Some actually stay on topic.
> This thread has no point except so that people can B'aww.
> 
> B'AWWWWWWWWWWWW I haet this thred............ :V


 All the dead horses are starting to seriously reek though, and the inquisition dead horse is a puddle.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 6, 2010)

Relligious threads are not very likely to stay alive. No relligious megathreads as well. I myself think it's a bad idea.
It can only cause flame wars in the long range, I believe.

There are only christians ranting about relligion - I'd just tell them to quit that relligion.

I have nothing to rant about as a jew. I already know that there is no possible god.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Nov 6, 2010)

Bad Cannonfodder! BAD!
Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done!


----------



## Conker (Nov 6, 2010)

It's funny, I was reading Dawkins again last night and had some stuff I wanted to post should a religious thread come up, and now that one has, I can't for the life of me remember what I wanted to post 

"If God be all knowing that means he knows what we do before we do it. If this is the case, then he can see into our futures. Then, do we really have free will, for in God's magical eyes, our futures are set in stone"

It wasn't that :V But that'll do.


----------



## Corto (Nov 6, 2010)

Ok I can see this working, if only 'cause it gives me a very definitive reason to lock and infract any new religion threads.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 6, 2010)

Corto said:


> Ok I can see this working, if only 'cause it gives me a very definitive reason to lock and infract any new religion threads.


 
Yeah, let's sticky this, since it's such a popular topic, it should deserve it's own thread.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Nov 6, 2010)

Oh look another one


----------



## Banrai (Nov 6, 2010)

It's pretty unfortunate that people have to hate each other for their beliefs. =(


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 6, 2010)

Banrai said:


> It's pretty unfortunate that people have to hate each other for their beliefs. =(


 
When those beliefs are actively detrimental to society it's ok to hate.

+Awww my summary has been deleted :-(


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 6, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> When those beliefs are actively detrimental to society it's ok to hate.


 
Depends on what you define as "detrimental".


----------



## Alstor (Nov 6, 2010)

Oh boy. ANOTHER religion megathread. No one has tried this yet. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> When those beliefs are actively detrimental to society it's ok to hate.
> 
> +Awww my summary has been deleted :-(


 But what about individuals who contribute to society in a positive manner who are religious?


Corto said:


> Ok I can see this working, if only 'cause it gives me a very definitive reason to lock and infract any new religion threads.


 That was the point.


----------



## Pine (Nov 6, 2010)

This thread is offensive toward my religion and I'm going to baw about it until I at least feel like somebody gives a shit about my beliefs.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 6, 2010)

Imperium
Imperium

Christ was born in Bethlehem
Christ was born in Bethlehem
Christ was born in Bethlehem
And in a manger lay
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium

And Judas he betrayed the Christ
And sold him to the jews
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium

The jews they crucified the Christ
And the jews they crucified the Christ
And nailed him to a tree
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium

Joseph picked his body
And hid it in a tomb
And Mary she came weeping
And rolled away the stone
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium
Imperium


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2010)

Of course, should this thread die or become derailed and unmaintained by the mods, new thread creation becomes acceptable again.  So you must maintain actual discussion...FOREVER.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Of course, should this thread die or become derailed and unmaintained by the mods, new thread creation becomes acceptable again.  So you must maintain actual discussion...FOREVER.


 Oh sweet there's a xbox achievement for that :V


You know even though I live right next to baylor, there isn't as many christians as you'd think there'd be.  Then again the school has far fewer students than advertised.

Hey Lobar even though I am christian, I donate clothes to abuse victims and even would give the shirt off my back to a homeless guy.  Am I still detrimental to society, because I'm christian?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Hey Lobar even though I am christian, I donate clothes to abuse victims and even would give the shirt off my back to a homeless guy.  Am I still detrimental to society, because I'm christian?


 
There's no reason someone can't act beneficial in some ways and harmful in others.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 6, 2010)

Lobar said:


> There's no reason someone can't act beneficial in some ways and harmful in others.


 
How is being a Christian harmful to society? What is it about Christianity that makes me a more harmful person? Please, explain.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

Lobar said:


> There's no reason someone can't act beneficial in some ways and harmful in others.


 All right then I'll play game Lobar, irl I act very different(I just act as CannonFodder here) and have kept people from committing suicide countless times, helped abuse victims, helped a friend who's father was beating him, and have done more for helping others in the last ten years than most people will do in a lifetime even though I was going through a living hell.  How in what way am I harmful to society?
Just because is or isn't religious, does not mean by default they are detrimental to society.


----------



## Corto (Nov 6, 2010)

No you don't get it, one must be retarded to believe in God and Christians are the worst thing to happen since rectal cancer was invented.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2010)

Corto said:


> No you don't get it, one must be retarded to believe in God and Christians are the worst thing to happen since rectal cancer was invented.


 If I wasn't a christian, then there'd be dozens of people who would've committed suicide.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 7, 2010)

Holy crap, I've been watching this for some time and it still isn't locked? The entire basis of this thread makes it up for a lock!

Let's join in.


Corto said:


> No you don't get it, one must be retarded to  believe in God and Christians are the worst thing to happen since rectal  cancer was invented.


 By Christians, nonetheless.


----------



## Cacao (Nov 7, 2010)

I don't believe in God or churches, not until God shoves his faggot ass face into my cycle of life will I ever acknowledge him/her.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

God's a cool guy who invented the world, an heroed on a piece of wood, AND DOESNT AFARAID OF NOTHINK


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Cacao said:


> I don't believe in God or churches, not until God shoves his faggot ass face into my cycle of life will I ever acknowledge him/her.


 
But why should God reveal himself to you? By doing so would take away your choice in believing in him or not. Sounds like you want God to force you to believe.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But why should God reveal himself to you? By doing so would take away your choice in believing in him or not. Sounds like you want God to force you to believe.


 Because unlike when the Bible was written, we live in a time where evidence trumps all. Without evidence, how can we believe in such a celestial being?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Because unlike when the Bible was written, we live in a time where evidence trumps all. Without evidence, how can we believe in such a celestial being?


 
I believe there is evidence all around us. My own personal life experiences point to a "celestial being"
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only  because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I believe there is evidence all around us. My own personal life experiences point to a "celestial being"
> I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only  because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.


 The sun rises due to shit like physics and orbit. Hardcore motherfucking math.

If you believe hard enough, you'll find shit when it's not there. 

The mind works in crazy ways. So does math when you think about it. 2 + 2 = 4. How the motherfuck does that happen?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> The sun rises due to shit like physics and orbit. Hardcore motherfucking math.
> 
> If you believe hard enough, you'll find shit when it's not there.
> 
> The mind works in crazy ways. So does math when you think about it. 2 + 2 = 4. How the motherfuck does that happen?



So tell me where the laws of physics came from. What caused the sun into existence? And don't say the Big Bang because what caused that?


----------



## mitchau (Nov 7, 2010)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus 

You'll see that one /b/ a fair bit, but it's still marvelously worded.

I am not sure if I believe in god, but if I knew I did, he wouldn't be like any god the holy texts depict. 

What really stops me from following any of the traditional faiths (and I know they aren't all like this) is that they are fundamentally flawed when they punish people for not believing in such faiths, when what you believe isn't actually a choice, and if you do make it a choice, you are simply lying to yourself. 

So, thus it is obvious enough to me that the words of the holy texts are simply the words of regular men and not passed down from something divine, as it would surely be wiser.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So tell me where the laws of physics came from. What caused the sun into existence? And don't say the Big Bang because what caused that?


 The universe is ins ome crazy ass state where physics says it would happen no matter what. Or something. Or maybe God was all "LOOK AT THAT BLUE PLANET. ITS SO COOL AND SHIT. IMA BUKKEKE ALL OVER IT AND MAKE ME SOME PEOPLE" and tha'ts what happened.

Mircales man, I dunno what makes them happen.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

mitchau said:


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> ...





   The Bible describes God as holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 7:11), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), and sovereign (Daniel 4:17-25). These attributes tell us the following about God: (1) God is capable of preventing evil, and (2) God desires to rid the universe of evil. So, if both of these are true, why does God allow evil? If God has the power to prevent evil, and desires to prevent evil, why does He not prevent evil? Perhaps a good way to look at this issue would be to consider some alternative situations for how people might have God run the world:

1) God could change everyoneâ€™s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be â€œprogrammedâ€ to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. In doing so, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to do their own thing. They chose to do their own thing. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us, and those around us.

2) Another choice would have God compensating for peopleâ€™s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100% of the time. For instance, if a drunk driver causes an automobile accident, God would have to keep him and the people in the other automobile from getting harmed, for there would be many people who could possibly be caused to suffer from the accident or the death / injury of those involved in the accident. God would have to keep the drunk driver from crashing into power lines, buildings, etc. because these things would cause innocent people to suffer.

Another instance might involve a lazy person plumbing a house, and he doesnâ€™t bother to check the plumbing for leaks before the house is finished. God would have to make the plumbing not leak because otherwise the home buyers would have to suffer for the lazy personâ€™s sin.

If a father gets addicted to drugs and spends all of his money on drugs, God would somehow have to miraculously provide both the food and the social needs of the children so that they would not have to be adversely affected by the evil of the parent.

In such a world, God would be like a bad parent who enables a wayward childâ€™s destructive behavior. There would be no consequences for oneâ€™s actions, and as a result no one would learn integrity, purity, honor, responsibility, or self-control. There would be no â€œgood consequencesâ€ for right behavior, no â€œbad consequencesâ€ for wrong behavior. What would people become except more deviant and sinful?

3) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.

Instead of these or other options, God has chosen to create a â€œrealâ€ world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adamâ€™s choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse, and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely â€œdelayingâ€ in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to judge them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament Laws, He established laws that discourage and punish evil. He judged nations and kings who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise in the New Testament, God states that it is the governmentâ€™s responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially on the "innocent" (Mark 9:36-42).

In summary, we live in a real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences and indirect consequences upon us and those around us. Godâ€™s desire is that for all of our sakes we would obey Him that it might be well with us (Deuteronomy 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way and then we blame God for not doing anything about it. Such is the heart of sinful man. But Jesus came to change menâ€™s hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit. So He is able to do for those who will turn from evil and call on Jesus to save them from their sin and its consequences (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does prevent and restrain some acts of evil. This world would be MUCH WORSE were not God restraining evil. At the same time, God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil, He allows us, and those around us, to suffer the consequences of evil. Rather than blaming God and questioning God for why He does not prevent all evil - we should be about the business of proclaiming the cure for evil and its consequences - Jesus Christ.

Again, this is my belief, and please don't take this as me forcing it down your throat. I am just explaining my faith to the best of my ability.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> TTl/DR


 God knows all and therefore knows our future. He knows what we will do ten seconds and ten years from now. Our timeline is his to look and laugh at. If this is true then we have no free will for GOd knows what we will do before we do it.

HES JUST AN ASSHOLE BUT I"M COOL WITH ThAT <3


----------



## mitchau (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible describes God as holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 7:11), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), etc etc etc


 
It's definitely a good argument, but has nothing to do with my beliefs, that is clearly and atheistic quote, and if you read my post, I'm not an atheist.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> The universe is ins ome crazy ass state where  physics says it would happen no matter what. Or something. Or maybe God  was all "LOOK AT THAT BLUE PLANET. ITS SO COOL AND SHIT. IMA BUKKEKE ALL  OVER IT AND MAKE ME SOME PEOPLE" and tha'ts what happened.
> 
> Mircales man, I dunno what makes them happen.


 
I find it funny that you tell me God doesn't or can't exist but when I  ask you to explain how things happen you just tell me that its a miracle  ( a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent.  This is the actual definition of the word miracle)
or that you just don't know. If you don't know, why throw out an entire possibility just because you don't like it.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I find it funny that you tell me God doesn't or can't exist but when I  ask you to explain how things happen you just tell me that its a miracle  ( a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent.  This is the actual definition of the word miracle)
> or that you just don't know. If you don't know, why throw out an entire possibility just because you don't like it.


 Who says I don't like it or any of that other stuff you typed iwht letters? 

In all seriousness, I'm a theist, I just don't knwo what kind. I'm sure Jesus was a cool motherfucker in his day, but God is probably an asshole. I'm okay with that.

Or maybe we don't know what makes mircalse happen, maybe it's science! 

I <3 YOU DARWIN

Or maybe I"m really drunk. ONLY GOD kNOWS THE ANSWER TO THAT!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> God knows all and therefore knows our future. He knows what we will do ten seconds and ten years from now. Our timeline is his to look and laugh at. If this is true then we have no free will for GOd knows what we will do before we do it.
> 
> HES JUST AN ASSHOLE BUT I"M COOL WITH ThAT <3


 

I suggest you read my other post. Yeah its long but its a good explanation. But why reply to it if you won't read it?


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I suggest you read my other post. Yeah its long but its a good explanation. But why reply to it if you won't read it?


 I totally read it about five minutes ago. I don't quite remember what it said though. But I read it; I've done my time, I shant read it again! 

Something about stuff. I remember the letter E was used at least four times.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But why should God reveal himself to you? By doing so would take away your choice in believing in him or not. Sounds like you want God to force you to believe.



But then you go on to say



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I believe there is evidence all around us. My own personal life experiences point to a "celestial being"
> I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.



and



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So tell me where the laws of physics came from. What caused the sun into existence? And don't say the Big Bang because what caused that?



Wouldn't that qualify as God revealing himself? Please note that I am not stipulating that God exists; just that the two posts you made subsequent to the first one I quoted seem to contradict it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

GingerM said:


> But then you go on to say
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Ahh, I see what your getting at. What I meant as God revealing himself is like he actually appearing in front of someone and saying here I am. Yes, I believe the universe points to the existence of God. But it doesn't force someone to believe. Whereas if he appeared to someone it wouldn't really give that person a choice.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ahh, I see what your getting at. What I meant as God revealing himself is like he actually appearing in front of someone and saying here I am. *Yes, I believe the universe points to the existence of God. *But it doesn't force someone to believe. Whereas if he appeared to someone it wouldn't really give that person a choice.


 I'm completely serious when I say I'd love to hear your argument for that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2010)

Told you this thread would work, your welcome and goodnight.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ahh, I see what your getting at. What I meant as God revealing himself is like he actually appearing in front of someone and saying here I am. Yes, I believe the universe points to the existence of God. But it doesn't force someone to believe. Whereas if he appeared to someone it wouldn't really give that person a choice.


 
And I in turn see now what you meant, though I'll just note in passing that people seem to have an amazing capacity for self-delusion. Not only do they/we regularly see things that aren't there, we very often fail to see things that are there, as witness any number of drivers who have fallen afoul of trees that apparently materialized out of thin air to go by their accounts


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> I'm completely serious when I say I'd love to hear your argument for that.


 
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous  explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was  the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the  universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
  Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated,  "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in  that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature  in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in  motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into  being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
  Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of  this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million  degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
  The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused  that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light  and matter.



Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day  after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a  counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the  speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
  How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
  "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is.  There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone  one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs  from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way.  It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change  unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which  things pop in and out of existence."
  Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,  said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are  rules at all is a kind of miracle."

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.  Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you  know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed  instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may  know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:  110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program  what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made  up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C.  These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and  so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!  Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific  reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program  telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction  manual.
  Why  is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program  wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are  chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how  the person's body should develop.
  Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation  when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,  precise information like this, without someone intentionally  constructing it.

Quote below from Marilyn Adamson*:
*"I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of  people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists  that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting  something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that?  When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those  poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely  ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged  those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could  convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the  question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they  were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go  about my life.
  I  didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on  my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out  that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we  would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he  keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I  couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I  chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you  win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by  people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
  I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge,  socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow,  besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered,  "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second  from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so  earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God,  and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and  reluctant convert in all of England."
  Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result  of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully  admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I  became amazed by his love for me."




I can continue with why I believe the universe points to God, But I figure that I have posted enough for now.


----------



## Ratte (Nov 7, 2010)

ITT we don't know about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I also don't see why, just because we don't know the EXACT ORIGIN of something (yet), we must make up some invisible man who loves being an absolute prick to people and hates women and gays.

but lol idk :V


----------



## 9livesbunny (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm going to miss George. He was brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 7, 2010)

Nice copypasta Rukh.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous  explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was  the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the  universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
> Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated,  "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in  that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature  in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in  motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into  being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
> Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of  this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million  degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused  that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light  and matter.


 
First of all the big bang was not an explosion it was an expansion but I assume that's what you meant. Your reason contains a logical fallacy. If we do not yet know where everything came from it does not mean God did it. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day  after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a  counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the  speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?



Everything is so reliable because if it was not we would not be here. Google Anthropic Principle.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is.  There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone  one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs  from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way.  It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change  unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which  things pop in and out of existence."
> Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,  said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are  rules at all is a kind of miracle."



Once again it's explained by the anthropic principle in conjunction with a multiverse. I think you'll find Richard Feynman was not exactly the most religious person and that that quote is taken completely out of context. Here'sthe speech. He also says this.
_Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it._



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.  Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you  know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed  instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may  know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:  110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program  what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made  up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C.  These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and  so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!  Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific  reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program  telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction  manual.
> Why  is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program  wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are  chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how  the person's body should develop.
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation  when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,  precise information like this, without someone intentionally  constructing it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg Watch that video. It gives a nice summary of the theory of abiogenisis. You have to remember things started simpler. The first cell would not have had the complex genome of any organism alive today. 




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Quote below from Marilyn Adamson*:
> *"I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of  people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists  that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting  something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that?  When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those  poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely  ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged  those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could  convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the  question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they  were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go  about my life.
> I  didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on  my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out  that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we  would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he  keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I  couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I  chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you  win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by  people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
> I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge,  socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow,  besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered,  "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second  from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so  earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God,  and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and  reluctant convert in all of England."
> Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result  of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully  admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I  became amazed by his love for me."



I fucking LOL'd. Atheists argue with the religious because like it or not the religious are in the majority and their crazy ideas will affect future policy. If the religious person sees that what they believe in is based on nothing then they will stop trying to enforce their religious laws and morals on others.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2010)

"Our problems are man made; therefore, they can be solved by man" -John F. Kennedy


----------



## Corto (Nov 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> If I wasn't a christian, then there'd be dozens of people who would've committed suicide.



(That was sarcasm)


----------



## Kendrubbin (Nov 7, 2010)

You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend ~Richard Jeni

That's all I can come up with at this time in the morning... afternoon. Ugh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> Nice copypasta Rukh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
         [FONT=&quot]In physics and cosmology, the *anthropic principle* is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact that the Universe's fundamental constants are within the narrow range thought to allow life is not remarkable.[/FONT]

That is not a Scientific argument, its a philosophical one. And it basically says, life just is. It gives no explanation at all. Its one of the weakest "life just happened arguments" I have ever seen
Any scientist will show you the statistics of the probability of creating life. Its very remote. If life is not remarkable then why haven't we found another planet like ours that can support life.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]In physics and cosmology, the *anthropic principle* is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact that the Universe's fundamental constants are within the narrow range thought to allow life is not remarkable.[/FONT]
> 
> That is not a Scientific argument, its a philosophical one. And it basically says, life just is. It gives no explanation at all. Its one of the weakest "life just happened arguments I have ever seen"
> Any sciencetist will show you the statistics of the probability of creating life. Its very remote. If life is not remarkable then why haven't we found another planet like ours that can support life.



How is the anthrophic argument flawed? It gives a pretty good explanation to why the laws in our universe suit us.
Of course the odds of life being created are huge I'm not arguing that they are not. But if the basic chemicals are there with the right conditions for billions of years then statistically something will happen. We haven't found another planet with life on it because we have only observed *8*(not including moons) in detail out of *hundreds of billions*.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous  explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was  the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the  universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
> Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated,  "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in  that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature  in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in  motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into  being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
> Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of  this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million  degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused  that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light  and matter.


Two things. One, the "big bang" wasn't so much a giant explosion as a natural expansion, as someone else said. The "big bang" was coined by someone who thought the idea was batshit stupid, but people rolled with it because the thought of EXPLOSIONS is cool as hell. 

The other thing is that light moves at a constant speed. The universe couldn't really be filled with light. It doens't move fast enough to do that, even at the start where the universe wasn't as big as it was today. 

As to why the universe is the way it is? I don't know. But, if the idea of a multiverse is ever proven, then there could be evidence in that. With, let's say a billion universes, a few are bound to show up with the right mechanics to support life. 



> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day  after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a  counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the  speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is.  There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone  one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs  from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way.  It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change  unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which  things pop in and out of existence."
> Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,  said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are  rules at all is a kind of miracle."


I think, for a universe to exist at all, it would need to have some form of stability to it. For all we know, our universe is just one of many in an unfathomable timeline of universes. We just got lucky and got a stable one that didn't implode or something.


> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.  Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you  know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed  instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may  know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:  110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program  what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made  up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C.  These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and  so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!  Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific  reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program  telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction  manual.
> Why  is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program  wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are  chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how  the person's body should develop.
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation  when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,  precise information like this, without someone intentionally  constructing it.
> I can continue with why I believe the universe points to God, But I figure that I have posted enough for now.


Well, that can be explained with evolution. Little bit by little bit, these things form.

Of course, if it takes a complex thing to make something, God must be complex. Who made him? Infinite regress and whatnot :V


But, to the atheists. If God were every 100% proven, would you change your lifestyle at all? Kerkigaard believes that most people wouldn't act any differently weather God was 100% proven or not. I kinda have to side with that.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

I find it interesting how Rukh is now attributing various scientific things to God, yet the church has openly discredited science for centuries. Funny how suddenly science is your friend if it has a handy little reason why it might have something to do with God.

Look at Charles Darwin.

He did his research and studies. He wrote one of the most influential books of all time. And the church hounded him for it. They bullied him to the point where he was forced to renounce his scientific claims, and seek a life repenting for his sins. And then decades later, the church goes "Actually, this is what happens. Darwin? Who the fuck is Darwin? This is Gods work you heathen."


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> I find it interesting how Rukh is now attributing various scientific things to God, yet the church has openly discredited science for centuries. Funny how suddenly science is your friend if it has a handy little reason why it might have something to do with God.
> 
> Look at Charles Darwin.
> 
> He did his research and studies. He wrote one of the most influential books of all time. And the church hounded him for it. *They bullied him to the point where he was forced to renounce his scientific claims, and seek a life repenting for his sins.* And then decades later, the church goes "Actually, this is what happens. Darwin? Who the fuck is Darwin? This is Gods work you heathen."


 Don't think I've ever heard that.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Don't think I've ever heard that.


 
Apparently it wasn't Darwin. It was someone like Darwin who made a major scientific work and was fucked over by the church for it. Gonna look this one up.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

Imagine if I told you that I was friends with a celebrity, and I could get you tickets to their show

but I didn't tell you who it was, and instead gave you a list of possible celebrities

if you wanted to get tickets you had to guess which one it was, and follow certain rules

you also had to tell all your friends you were going to see them

if you got it wrong you don't get to go, having spent all that time following stupid rules and telling your friends you were going to see them



replace "tickets to celebrity's show" with "not going to hell" and you have religion

nobody can say that this isn't true


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Apparently it wasn't Darwin. It was someone like Darwin who made a major scientific work and was fucked over by the church for it. Gonna look this one up.


 
Galileo


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Apparently it wasn't Darwin. It was someone like Darwin who made a major scientific work and was fucked over by the church for it. Gonna look this one up.


 
Might you be thinking of Galileo?


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Apparently it wasn't Darwin. It was someone like Darwin who made a major scientific work and was fucked over by the church for it. Gonna look this one up.


 
Galileo and (I think) Copernicus.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Don't mind Rukh, he's so self-contradictory you could find his avatar next to it in the dictionary.  In earlier threads, I've pointed out his self-contradiction in regard to Old Testament / Old Covenant alone (wherein in about a half-dozen posts he changed his stance on such an equal amount of times, sometimes within the same post).  There's also "Oh yeah well who made these Physics something can't come from nothing!" which then leads to the hilarious follow up of "Where did God come from" which is answered with "He was always there, which I accept purely on faith that no-one can dislodge".  Also factor in where he's told people that they have no right to interpret the Bible / are interpreting it wrong, yet he's free to change "God sicks two she-bears to kill 42 youths for mocking one of his priests" into "God mercifully slightly injures 42 adults for continuously harassing and blaspheming against the Lord and thus we should all bask in his infinite kindness".

Similarly, there's "Blasphemers / Non-Christians are less important than Christians / less good" which he implies often.  For example:  It's perfectly fine for 42 youths / adults to be mauled if they insult a priest of God.  People who say they're Christian but don't preach that Homosexuals are damned to hell are "Disgusting".  No problem in seeing 2/3 the world instantly damned to hell as being morally just because "They could have been Christians but chose otherwise" is the only justification.  Etcetera.

Getting into a debate with Rukh is a literal "Debating with a brick wall".  The difference here is said brick wall is about as thick as a planetoid, denser than a black hole, and refuses to acknowledge any other brick walls as a brick wall unless said brick wall meets the exact standards Brick Wall Numero Uno sets down.  Furthermore, said brick wall can't change its tune whenever things go against it (Ex:  "Homosexuality is a sin!  Porn is a sin!" "Look what we found in your favorites, and your commissions."  "Those aren't porns, I never commissioned that!  Trust me, even though I'm not even going to look at either and call you a liar anyways!" "We have proof they're on your page, we could screenshot." "Well, I never said Homosexuality is a sin.  Merely giving in to the desires.  And it's still not porn!  It's art!  Jeeze!").


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Pfft. My God is better than all your Gods anyway.

Does your heaven have a beer volcano or stripper factory?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

ITT: Rukh going through EVERY FUCKING ARGUMENT that's ever been created against science, or for religions like Christianity. 



TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists. 
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe.  Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
 


MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists. 
MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists. 
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
 ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
 (1) Billions of people believe in God.
 (2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
 (3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
 (1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
 (2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
 (3) I propose that God exists.
 (4) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Seriously. Rukh, you can word them HOWEVER you like, but these arguments have already been gone over with fine-tooth combs by *people, where virtually there ONLY job in life was to disprove these arguments. *Meaning  they've done SHIT-tons more research, have DECADES of experience, and  have probably practiced for and against these arguments in heated  debates. This isn't an appeal to authority, this is "Make up a new god  damn argument, and stop rehashing long-ago refuted ones".

1) Inductive fallacy

2) Does not inherently define a personal God, leads to infinite regress  if you apply same logic to God (and Christians don't like that).

3) Does not prove more than the person who uses this argument, is insane. They're proving God TO and FOR themselves only.

4) Same as above, isn't coherent enough to prove God exists to more than the single individual.

5) God is not necessary (this argument more or less defeats itself in  the first premise), pretty much an appeal to authority I think. 

6) Argument from design, my favourite. It presupposes God's existence in the premise, (typically) compares something supernatural (God) to that of which is man-made (a watch), fails to explain *why* things are so complex (if there is such a powerful creator), and this argument also can lead to infinite regress. 

7) More or less the same as above.

8) Batshit insane.

9) (Argument from creation) - Creates a false dilemma (if evolution isn't true, then my religion is true)

10) (Argument from numbers) - Appeal to popularity

11) (Argument from fallibility) - Argument defeats itself from the get-go. If human reasoning is inherently flawed, then there is no reason to believe God exists, because the only way we would know of God, is from an inherently flawed book - Written by humans. 

Annnnnnnd the over-arching thing here:
1) The burden of proof inherently remains on the believers (no passing the buck).
2) Arguments typically do not prove a specific (say, Christian) God exists (see Arg. from Design, Ontalogical, Teleological, Cosmological), and thus would require more premises to lead to a specific god.
3) There are waaaaaaay many more arguments, too many to list, and all of them (as far as I know) have been either refuted, or turned to mush (can't prove certain god exists).


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

But, to the atheists. If God were every 100% proven, would you change  your lifestyle at all?

Reasking that because it got tacked on at the end of a Rukh reply and probably skipped over.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> But, to the atheists. If God were every 100% proven, would you change  your lifestyle at all?


  Agnostic, but that's where Misotheism comes into effect (assuming it was a God based off one of the major religions).


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> But, to the atheists. If God were every 100% proven, would you change  your lifestyle at all?
> 
> Reasking that because it got tacked on at the end of a Rukh reply and probably skipped over.


 
To me: this depends on a few factors. 

1) Are we proving he simply exists? Or proving he exists AND that he did everything? Just proving he exists does nothing for me. 
2) Which God are we talking about here :v? Christian God? Zeus? >_> That's an important factor too. 
3) Does it involve proving all of his powers as well?


Also: it would not change my anti-theism. Potentially my Atheism, given the proper factors.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> ITT: Rukh going through EVERY FUCKING ARGUMENT that's ever been created against science, or for religions like Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

And none of the "arguments" you have come with have any standing testable proof. Scientists have theorys on how it all started, but none of therm are testable. Its guessing at its best. And every couple years a new theory comes out and then its used to explain why the last one can't be true. Even though when that last theory came out they said it was the the way the universe was made.
Science has no answer that can be proven to how everything came to be. Its not possible. Furthermore your arguments are the same old ones as well to why God can't exist. (Even though scientists who have a wealth more knowledge than you do say they cannot disprove the existence of God.)


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> To me: this depends on a few factors.
> 
> 1) Are we proving he simply exists? Or proving he exists AND that he did everything? Just proving he exists does nothing for me.
> 2) Which God are we talking about here :v? Christian God? Zeus? >_> That's an important factor too.
> ...


 Hmm. Didn't think about any of those. There are lots of Gods. I suppose we could assume it is the God of Christianity since that seems to be the religion of most debate on this forum.
Assume he did something, if he did nothing then there wouldn't be much of a reason for him to exist or for anyone to change their minds
Not sure about question three :V


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> But, to the atheists. If God were every 100% proven, would you change  your lifestyle at all?
> 
> Reasking that because it got tacked on at the end of a Rukh reply and probably skipped over.


 
Yes.

I would live the most hedonistic lifestyle possible just so I could piss off that misogynistic genocidal homophobic sadist. Then when I'm judged and sent to hell I'd smile with the knowledge that the eternal bliss in heaven is just another type of torture in the long run.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 7, 2010)

I believe in God. I can't prove He exists so if someone doesn't believe I won't really harp on it. It only pisses me off when people say "I KNOW HE DOESN'T EXIST" or "I KNOW FOR A FACT HE EXISTS!"
The only thing we have is a something-thousand year old book that's been translated umpteen million times over. I take the Bible stories with a grain of salt. There's a lot of questions about the bible as a whole. Like:
Why does it stop when the stories have been going on for apparently thousands of years?
Why do angels reveal themselves to people in the bible but are nowhere to be found in this day and age?
Where did God come from?
Why'd He create us?
and so forth


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And none of the "arguments" you have come with have any standing testable proof.


 
Say, it's a good job we have clear and undeniable proof of God then, isn't it. What with all these totally unrepeatable scientific experiments and all.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And none of the "arguments" you have come with have any standing testable proof. Scientists have theorys on how it all started, but none of therm are testable. Its guessing at its best. And every couple years a new theory comes out and then its used to explain why the last one can't be true. Even though when that last theory came out they said it was the the way the universe was made.
> Science has no answer that can be proven to how everything came to be. Its not possible. Furthermore your arguments are the same old ones as well to why God can't exist. (Even though scientists who have a wealth more knowledge than you do say they cannot disprove the existence of God.)



You just pointed out science's greatest strength. Science modifies it's theories when new facts come to light while religion does not. Science gets closer to the truth while religion does not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Say, it's a good job we have clear and undeniable proof of God then, isn't it. What with all these totally unrepeatable scientific experiments and all.


 
So your saying science can repeat the creation of the universe? Please show me when that has been done. Or the fact that we can't create something from nothing. Show me where science has done that. Oh wait, that breaks the laws of physics...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> You just pointed out science's greatest strength. Science modifies it's theories when new facts come to light while religion does not. Science gets closer to the truth while religion does not.


 
They are not facts. They are guesses. They cannot be proven. It can't be proven that there is a mutli universe out there.
To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that   categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric  of the  universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator.   Science is not  the end of all things, but merely one of the means by  which man may glorify God.   This is because God is the creator of all  that is.  He has hidden the treasures  of his ominous glory in the very  universe in which we exist.  The power in the  atom, momentum, energy,  mass, time, etc. are all creations of God and,  therefore, under his  authority.  The more the Christian learns of these things,  the more He  can glorify God.  Science must be subservient to Him, not the other  way  around.  Science is not God's replacement. Every Christian should know  that.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So your saying science can repeat the creation of the universe? Please show me when that has been done. Or the fact that we can't create something from nothing. Show me where science has done that. Oh wait, that breaks the laws of physics...


 who says there was nothing? Who is to say that it wasn't already there?


----------



## Willow (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm Christian because my family is, but I believe in coexistence. 

No one can explain how the Earth was created, duh, but you can make guesses based on evidence. It's called the Big Bang _Theory_ for a reason, it's liable to change if new evidence is found. Just like the Tectonic Plate _Theory_. Discoveries can only advance as far as the technology of the time will let them.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And none of the "arguments" you have come with have any standing testable proof.


Such as your Bible translations, assertions that Old Covenant does / doesn't apply (seriously Whitefang my boy, which is it:  Do they or don't they?), general things such as "God exists", and so on?

Also note that "We have the Bible that's proof he exists" doesn't count, unless you also want to say all them other religious texts that say their God / god(s) exist are equally valid.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Scientists have theorys on how it all started, but none of therm are testable.


  Let's test whether God exists.  "God, we need proof that you exist.  If you exist, turn the background behind my entire post - avatar, content, everything, into purple."

Oh hey, I made a simple request, something definitely within a God's power.  Now, obviously, when this doesn't happen, you're going to say "It doesn't mean anything".  Because it actually is a shitty argument.  But you know what else is a shitty argument for proving existence?  "Bible says so, ergo it's there."  Similarly, "Something needs to have made the order, ergo God's there" (but that one's more because "Then who made God?" than anything else).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its guessing at its best.


I really, really hope you only mean this in regard to theological searches by scientists, and not science in general.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And every couple years a new theory comes out and then its used to explain why the last one can't be true.


Oh, no, it's highly probable you mean science in general.  Great.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Even though when that last theory came out they said it was the the way the universe was made.


  Because the Bible has never been changed, nor common stances of Christianity.  I mean, it's not like the church _ever_ condemned people for saying the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Would just be silly.  Yep, good thing we have the good ol' reliable church and Bible to replace science.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has no answer that can be proven to how everything came to be. Its not possible. Furthermore your arguments are the same old ones as well to why God can't exist. (Even though scientists who have a wealth more knowledge than you do say they cannot disprove the existence of God.)


  Which I'm sure is why they have proven the existence too.

Absence of evidence does not prove falseness, either in regard to arguing the existence of a deity or the non-existence thereof.  



Conker said:


> Hmm. Didn't think about any of those. There are lots of Gods. I suppose we could assume it is the God of Christianity since that seems to be the religion of most debate on this forum.
> Assume he did something, if he did nothing then there wouldn't be much of a reason for him to exist or for anyone to change their minds
> Not sure about question three :V


Then again, Misotheism because it's a dick.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

ITT: Rukh misses the point of everything


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So your saying science can repeat the creation of the universe? Please show me when that has been done. Or the fact that we can't create something from nothing. Show me where science has done that. Oh wait, that breaks the laws of physics...


  Hm, here's a question for you:  Show me proof that God made the universe.  That isn't the Bible.  Oh, and saying "Something had to make it" doesn't count, unless you want to at the same time say something made God.  Go on, explain such.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They are not facts. They are guesses.


Guesses that can, coincidentally (when talking about Science as a whole), often be proven via replication of experiment and lack of contradictory argument (or sufficiently strong argument) when under peer review.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They cannot be proven. It can't be proven that there is a mutli universe out there.


By the same token, it cannot currently be proven that there is a God out there. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that   categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric  of the  universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator.


  Which is it, he created everything - which includes things such as Sin, the path that led people down the path of it, and so on - or that he didn't create everything?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science is not  the end of all things, but merely one of the means by  which man may glorify God.


Provided it suits current dogma.  See:  The sun must obviously orbit the Earth.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is because God is the creator of all  that is.


Great, then you admit he created sin and further corroborate my "God's a dick" mentality. :mrgreen:  But a quick question, then:  Did God create itself?

Also, glad to see that science should bend its knee to Christianity, not, I 'unno, people putting science and fact ahead of faith.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> who says there was nothing? Who is to say that it wasn't already there?


 
Science has proven that the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding. And I believe science has calculated that rate of expansion. But because the universe is expanding that means it had a staring point. The universe wasn't always there. It had a beginning. And science points to that.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has proven that the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding. And I believe science has calculated that rate of expansion. But because the universe is expanding that means it had a staring point. The universe wasn't always there. It had a beginning. And science points to that.


  And, again, you'll kindly point to me where God came into existence?  What with the whole "Something can't come from nothing". 

 Also I don't think you get the concept of "Big Bang" quite right.  At all. Let me guess, you think it means "Suddenly, lots of matter!", yes?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And none of the "arguments" you have come with have any standing testable proof. Scientists have theorys on how it all started, but none of therm are testable. Its guessing at its best. And every couple years a new theory comes out and then its used to explain why the last one can't be true. Even though when that last theory came out they said it was the the way the universe was made.
> Science has no answer that can be proven to how everything came to be. Its not possible. Furthermore your arguments are the same old ones as well to why God can't exist. (Even though scientists who have a wealth more knowledge than you do say they cannot disprove the existence of God.)


 
I thought I had put "And there are a lot more arguments" somewhere in there, but yeah. I know that scientists often come out with new theories every so often, but there's a reason for that - New break-throughs, new technology, which comes with new understanding. Your build up sounds just like you're about to say (but never quite do), "Science is always changing! Always changing! At least with the Bible, we have one consistent proof." or something of that nature. 

You're also forgetting the "to date" part. It IS possible, just not at this exact point in time. I know my arguments are the age-old ones, I mentioned them (and pointed out why I was mentioning them, which you pointed out I was mentioning them; totally forgoing that I already said why i was mentioning them), because you were starting to go into some of the arguments. You started going into the code of human cells (Arg. from complexity), at the end of the first paragraph, you were one step away from the Arg. from Design. Going into "Universe had a start, what caused that?" Which typically, the next step is, "God was the first mover", or the like.

"Why is the universe so reliable" - Which forgoes the mention of the multi-verse theory and such, but still, like before, is one step away from "God created it". 

And I know Conker said it, I'm sure others are thinking it - You pushed in quickly at the end, the argument from complexity or design, but either fail to mention, or fail to see, that if God created things so complex...Then he also must be equally or more complex, which leads to an infinite regress of designed designers. Not only that, but like I mentioned above - Things are unnecessarily complex, if an omnipotent God existed.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 7, 2010)

I believe in God because I don't believe in the big bang. I understand that they believe that chemicals exploded to form our universe, which kinda makes sense, but you have to think outside the box.. What created those chemicals/elements? They couldn't have been there since the beginning of time. What is the beginning of time? What was before time?

These questions should not be asked from anyone, as the effects could range from a headache to driving them to insanity. But I'm an asshole... it's what I do. I also get off topic, and refuse to go back to my original point. I suggest you think about the first paragraph.

EDIT: Don't you just hate it when you take some really long time typing something... only to be able to read it in 15 seconds? >.>


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has proven that the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding. And I believe science has calculated that rate of expansion. But because the universe is expanding that means it had a staring point. The universe wasn't always there. It had a beginning. And science points to that.



From a relative perspective, the Universe needed some form of starting point.
And in a way, a "divine" entity or thing would be required to be able to create something from nothing. 
But the Judeo-Christian conception of "God" is not what attained it.

The Judeo-Christian conception of God, along with the Zoroastrian conception of a divine being is more a continuation of the animistic, "magical" beliefs of many Middle Eastern cultures.


----------



## Willow (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has proven that the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding. And I believe science has calculated that rate of expansion. But because the universe is expanding that means it had a staring point. The universe wasn't always there. It had a beginning. And science points to that.


 That's basically what the Big Bang theory is.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has proven that the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding. And I believe science has calculated that rate of expansion. But because the universe is expanding that means it had a staring point. The universe wasn't always there. It had a beginning. And science points to that.


 
Also, look into the whole "Universe collapses, then expands, then collapses again" thing. I can't remember what it's called, but it's another theory for the universe - That is always has existed in one state or another, but over billions of years, it 'restarts' itself.


----------



## aiden749 (Nov 7, 2010)

hey, just stopping by and I wanted to say:

Almost every religion in the world has a skeleton in its closet, whether it be war, inquisitions, killing, squabbling and the violence and shunning that follows it, plus the radicals are annoying

science is filled with backdoor deals, ruined dreams, and false theories

atheists are complete blowhards that can't shut up

agnostics need to grow a pair and pick a side

the spiritual people need to GTFO

scientology, you're not a religion, stop pretending to be one

that is all


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

The universe is the result of a stable time-loop.

Something at the end of the universe created the big bang that started it all.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 7, 2010)

aiden749 said:


> hey, just stopping by and I wanted to say:
> 
> Almost every religion in the world has a skeleton in its closet, whether it be war, inquisitions, killing, squabbling and the violence and shunning that follows it, plus the radicals are annoying
> 
> ...


 If you're not going to contribute anything useful or intelligent then kindly gtfo


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> The universe is the result of a stable time-loop.
> 
> Something at the end of the universe created the big bang that started it all.


 
Lies.

Obviously, a big God did it and ran away.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Attaman said:


> And, again, you'll kindly point to me where God came into existence?  What with the whole "Something can't come from nothing".


 

http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs010.asp#ixzz14dADDQ8D​

[FONT=&quot]From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.

 [/FONT]


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Also, look into the whole "Universe collapses, then expands, then collapses again" thing. I can't remember what it's called, but it's another theory for the universe - That is always has existed in one state or another, but over billions of years, it 'restarts' itself.


 
I read about that once or twice, never framed as much more than a hypothesis.  I think I read about it in either "A Brief History of Time" or "The Universe in a Nutshell," and I can't verify this.  It's commonly referred to as the "Big Crunch" theory, and basically its premise is dependent on the mass of the universe.  (The shape of the universe also depends on its mass.)  If the universe has enough mass, then its expansion will eventually halt and reverse, resulting in all the matter-energy of the universe compressing back into a singularity.  It's purely hypothetical what would happen after achieving singularity, though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> If you're not going to contribute anything useful or intelligent then kindly gtfo


 
I think in context he was making a more general point how everyone's full of shit but they try to play it off like that shit don't stink.

In any case, it's pretty much fruitless to have this discussion about the origins of the universe and take it seriously since most people on here, and I feel safe assuming this, aren't respected members of the scientific community when it comes to theoretical physics or could even hold a wrench for the guys and gals over at CERN, nor are they respected scholars in religion nationally accredited in religious study.  I am also none of these things.

The topic of the origin of the universe has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on what we do with our time now.  Arguing over shit that happened billions or thousands of years ago depending on who you ask doesn't make us better people, nor does it accomplish the ultimate goal of a debate, convincing people you're right since both sides are headstrong on their theories.

Science has the built in advantage because it's willing to amend itself at will, even though there are some politics involved.  Orthodox religion isn't open at all to amending itself, but luckily those who casually practice faith leave themselves to an open mind of finding out the "How" but still having the "why" open.  At the end of the day, figuring out the "how" in scientific terms is going to be what's better for humanity, not arguing that God sneezed and "Suddenly, Matter!"


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> ​
> 
> [FONT=&quot]From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.
> 
> [/FONT]



"...If the general picture, however, of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct - What happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter? And then the matter suddenly, somehow created? How did that happen? Many cultures, the customary answer is that a God, or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude the universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it (was) always here. These are not easy questions..." - Carl Sagan.


Also, you're using the god of the gaps argument. See why I listed all those arguments above? You're openly stating God is not created, but the universe is. That is special pleading. What you posted is _presupposing_ that something created the universe, and that something has to be more complex than the universe, as well as exist outside of the universe, but is not created itself. :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Also, look into the whole "Universe collapses, then expands, then collapses again" thing. I can't remember what it's called, but it's another theory for the universe - That is always has existed in one state or another, but over billions of years, it 'restarts' itself.



Your talking about the big crunch theory. And that was disproven years ago.

   The Big Crunch is one of the scenarios predicted by scientists in which the Universe may end. Just like many others, it is based on Einsteinâ€™s Theory of General Relativity. That is, if the Big Bang describes how the Universe most possibly began, the Big Crunch describes how it will end as a consequence of that beginning. It tells us that the Universeâ€™s expansion, which is due to the Big Bang, will not continue forever. Instead, at a certain point in time, it will stop expanding and collapse into itself, pulling everything with it until it eventually turns into the biggest black hole ever. Well, we all know how everything is squeezed when in that hole. Hence the name Big Crunch. For scientists to predict with certainty the possibility of a Big Crunch, they will have to determine certain properties of the Universe. One of them is its density. It is believed that if the density is larger than a certain value, known as the critical density, an eventual collapse is highly possible. You see, initially, scientists believed that there were only two factors that greatly influenced this expansion: the gravitational force of attraction between all the galaxies (which is proportional to the density) and their outward momentum due to the Big Bang. Now, just like anybody that goes against gravity, e.g. when you throw something up, that body will eventually give in and come back down for as long as there is no other force pushing it up. Thus, that the gravitational forces will win in the end, once seemed like a logical prediction. But that was until scientists discovered that the Universe was actually increasing its rate of expansion at regions farthest from us. To explain this phenomena, scientists had to assume the presence of an unknown entity, which they dubbed â€˜dark energyâ€™. It is widely believed that this entity is pushing all galaxies farther apart. With dark energy, and what little is known about it, in the picture, there seems to be little room for the possibility of a Big Crunch. Right now, measurements made by NASAâ€™s Chandra X-ray observatory indicate that the strength of dark energy in the University is constant. Just for added information, an increasing dark energy strength would have supported the possibility of a Big Rip, another universe ending that predicted everything (including atoms) to be ripped apart. Even with an unchanging dark energy strength, an ever expanding universe is still the most likely scenario. So unless data that contradicts these properties are collected, the Big Crunch will have to remain as a less favored theory.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.[/FONT]


 
Would you like to come up with something that isn't copypasted bollocks picked at random from your current God-proving wankrag?

The ability to press ctrl+c, ctrl+v does not infer automatic intelligence, just that you're running around trying to sound intellectual, in the hopes people start to believe you actually have opinions of your own that aren't bred from religious doctrine, or the inane ramblings of your friendly neighbourhood totally not a kiddy fiddler clergy.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

I think my stable time-loop theory is the most likely scenario here

bitches don't know 'bout my paradox logic


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 7, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think in context he was making a more general point how everyone's full of shit but they try to play it off like that shit don't stink.
> 
> In any case, it's pretty much fruitless to have this discussion about the origins of the universe and take it seriously since most people on here, and I feel safe assuming this, aren't respected members of the scientific community when it comes to theoretical physics or could even hold a wrench for the guys and gals over at CERN, nor are they respected scholars in religion nationally accredited in religious study.  I am also none of these things.
> 
> ...


 
Deep, man. Deep.


----------



## aiden749 (Nov 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> If you're not going to contribute anything useful or intelligent then kindly gtfo


 heretic!

that shit was not only useful but also an intelligent insight for example:

Christianity has a checkered past of the crusades, the great schism, and the off-on wars in Europe, the inquisition and not to mention the salem witch trials
Muslims...u guys can figure that out
Judaism has had off and on conflicts between unorthodox and orthodox groups
look up almost any asian religion and you'll find a type of conflict

Einstein was constantly ridiculed, Tesla got fucked over by Edison, we are constantly finding theories to be false to this day, so technically almost nothing can be taken as a truth in this world

atheists are in here right now and for some reason they can't help but, like I said, shut up and leave it alone

agnostics are constantly on the border, they shy away from saying there is a god BUUUUUUT they won't say there isn't one because science tells them to, it's called being "wishy-washy"

explain why your spiritual or leave, because telling people that someone is spiritual means NOTHING

scientology was started by a science fiction writer...do the math

NOW I'll GTFO


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs010.asp#ixzz14dADDQ8D​


  Was this supposed to be invisible?  Or did you intend for us to see it?  Either way, the linked article essentially says "Because some things have to have existed, ergo it must have been God that pre-existed and thus NO NEED TO PROVE IT!"  Which is funny, as it's partially begging the question and predominantly red herring.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist.


Er, why is this upsetting?  Unless you meant in regard to upsetting as in getting the scientific community prancing around style of "upsetting", and not "people should be gloomy that ebil scientists are trying to use dat logic to say the creator might not exist" upsetting, which is kind of a given in that case.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We know the universe is a created thing.


Pre-supposition to have your argument hold any water.  Your entire argument to defend why God must have created the universe is "Something must have created the Universe".



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist.


But why must God, in this case, be a non-created thing, or the universe be a created thing?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time.


Wasn't one of your big things that the God of Old Testament _changed_ come new Testament?  Thus, I 'unno, making it a changing being and thus inside time and thus a created being?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Deep, man. Deep.


 
Yeah, and now football's on kids.  Get me a beer and some of those mini hotdogs.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

I was REALLY hoping my big post of the arguments for God would've impacted Rukh more, but he seems fully intent on repeating the arguments I stated and refuted there. 

Seriously, I will post that whole post again if I have to, Rukh. Compare what you're about to say, to what I posted there, and see how it's refuted. This is meant to be a "megathread" so I offered a "megarefutation" post, which is clearly being ignored :v


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

you guys are missing the facts here

time travel, guys

_time travel_


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh, the way you're presenting your argument is hurting it.  There's a difference between supporting your argument with citations and relying entirely on cited texts to argue for you, especially when you present the citation of words you never authored as your own words.



aiden749 said:


> scientology was started by a science fiction writer...do the math



Would you like someone to order you a Guy Fawkes mask, aiden?



aiden749 said:


> NOW I'll GTFO


 
Thanks.


----------



## Willow (Nov 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I was REALLY hoping my big post of the arguments for God would've impacted Rukh more


 You were hoping for too much. Because HE DOESN'T WAVER IN HIS BELIEFS OF DA LORD


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Willow said:


> You were hoping for too much. Because HE DOESN'T WAVER IN HIS BELIEFS OF DA LORD



He hasn't got beliefs.

He has a set of things he has been told to believe, and he has a second, much more specific set of beliefs fed to him by his pastor. None of them are his own. He has been taught to regurgitate other peoples beliefs and prejudices, and he has been threatened with eternal damnation if he doesn't adjust his mind to accomodate these indoctrinated views.

Really, we should pity Rukh. He has never known mental or spiritual freedom.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 7, 2010)

everyone is sitting watching this topic waiting for someone to post

don't be afraid guys


----------



## Aleu (Nov 7, 2010)

aiden749 said:


> heretic!
> 
> that shit was not only useful but also an intelligent insight for example:
> 
> ...


No shit Christianity has a bloody past. Anyone that believes Christianity was all happily ever after bullshit needs to be smacked with bibles laced with nails.

Agnosticism isn't "wishy-washy" it's called "I'm not going make an ass of myself and say I know something for a fact when it can't be proven one way or another". It's called FAITH not fact.

Didn't really know/care about that Scientology deal but it makes sense.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.


Wrong. You have either simplified or never understood the speculation of the Big Bang. It is based in the physics and math of subatomic particles like leptons and quarks, and even smaller fragments of energy and light. The math I would need to post would be damn near endless and this post would take up hundreds of pages if I trie to explain it. Go look it up. Take a look, it's in a book, reading rainbow and all that.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent,


This is mathematical. And gravity is not consistent. Gravity differs based on rotational force, certan speeds approaching light and sound, etc.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold,


This one is fairly simple. Thermal equlibrim is merely based on mass, temperatures, and time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Rukh_Whitefang said:


> the earth rotates in the same 24 hours,


That's wrong. The Earth rotates but not in 24 hours. Thus we have leap years.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change?


Math, science; continuous, rigorous, reliable, testing, retesting and peer review of shitloads of data collected over hundreds of years.
Also note: Picking a quote from a religious scientist doesn't herald the views of all scientists. Fail.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!! Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.


This both butchers genetic science and at the same time glosses over it to make it seem more potent than it is. The nucleotide bases of the double helix structure are in fact, just chemicals. The DNA we see often in deuterstomic and protostomic animals is evolutionarily derived from the more simple prokaryotic DNA, which would have been easily formed in begging earth's atmosphere. The Miller-Urey experimets show that the chemicals and climate of early earth were good for the synthesis of basic components that through modification over time would develop into today's simple bacterial DNA which is as archaic as we have to explore in our modern times.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.


This is bullshit. This assumptions heaves out the window all the scientific data and murders the further pursuit of knowledge and understanding in order for us to bury our heads in the sand and go "I dunno I geuss it's God's mystery" which means we abandon information and cling to ignorance.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can continue with why I believe the universe points to God, But I figure that I have posted enough for now.


No it's not. You posted unscientific lies, psuedoscientific bullshit, and personal views of a few scientists which by no means reflects upon anything about the topic other than their personal views. And I don't want their personal views, I want the facts and data they and other scientists have collected. Facts, or get the fuck out.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> That's wrong. The Earth rotates but not in 24 hours. Thus we have leap years.



It also depends on your reference frame, too. Rukh, you say the earth has a 24-hour day? Is that a solar day or a sidereal day? And were you aware that the solar day varies by as much as 16 minutes throughout the year?


----------



## Ames (Nov 7, 2010)

This is awesome reading material. :V


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

I think that the mods should watch this thread, and delete any responses that are obviously copied and pasted. In other words, pretty much everything from Rukh. If everyone else is making an effort, so should he.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Willow said:


> I'm Christian because my family is, but I believe in coexistence.
> 
> No one can explain how the Earth was created, duh, but you can make guesses based on evidence. It's called the Big Bang _Theory_ for a reason, it's liable to change if new evidence is found. Just like the Tectonic Plate _Theory_. Discoveries can only advance as far as the technology of the time will let them.


 The word "theory" in a science setting is different from that of a regular day to day setting. Calling something a theory means it is a highly tested and retested hypothesis. 

It implies a lot of argumentative weight.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Scientists have theorys on how it all started, but none of therm are testable. Its guessing at its best.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They are not facts. They are guesses.


You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is. It is a* huge* culmination of data, observations, and tested hypothesis. It is the halfstep below a scientific law. The theory you are thinking of is in a more linguistics point meaning geuss, and a scientific theory is basically a goddamned absolute. You arguing a "theory" is just a geuss means you have never taken a biology or physics class outside of the 11th grade. Or if you did you ignored everything to wallow in your misconceptions like a fat filthy pig.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And every couple years a new theory comes out and then its used to explain why the last one can't be true. Even though when that last theory came out they said it was the the way the universe was made.


We don't make new theories every couple of years. We make new hypothesis, we make alterations based on new evidence to old theories. Science adapts to new information. It expands and looks back with further scientific inquiry. An example: Hundreds of years ago they thought the earth was flat. Then they found out they could sail around it and it was round. Now we know that it is not a perfect sphere but bulges out at the equator. Science looked upon it's data, modified it's views to be closer to reality. Science is the persuit of reality and the knowledge and understanding of that which surrounds us. Nothing more. Nothing less.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They cannot be proven.


YET. Scientific progress is amazing. The things that we will come to understand in our lifetimes is absolutely thrilling.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing.


No. Just because something exists does not mean that it had/has a creator. This jump has no evidence and is merely an assumption. Bullshit.
Your abuse of copypasta is starting to annoy the hell out of me. Can't you voice your own opinion for once?



Smelge said:


> Would you like to come up with something that isn't copypasted bollocks picked at random from your current God-proving wankrag?





Smelge said:


> I think that the mods should watch this thread, and delete any responses that are obviously copied and pasted. In other words, pretty much everything from Rukh. If everyone else is making an effort, so should he.


This so hard. THIS. FUCKING THIS.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

$10 says that Rukh is rooting for CERN because they are looking for the God Particle, not knowing what the fuck they actually mean, but assuming it means God can be proven, and not a particle that explains a load of currently undetermined processes.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 7, 2010)

Should also lead Rukh to Youtube:

Cdk007: For more evolution, and advanced information on "origins" (the universe, genes, life, etc.)
Thunderf00t: Used to deal more in science, refuting (by means of mockery, but the information is still there) Christianity/God/the Bible/etc. And the arguments.
QualiaSoup: General philosophical intelligence, deals with logic (and debates like that of which we're having). 

AronRa and Donexodus2 are applicable, but are more evolution than anything.


(Also, Rukh hasn't been in this thread for over an hour or so :V)


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh, if you're going to copypasta at least take the two seconds needed to convert the font and size to that of a regular forum post so it's not so blatantly obvious.

Or, you know, cite the source instead of plagiarizing it. Plagiarism is theft, which God says is morally wrong (plus it makes you look like a stupid twat)


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Rukh, you twat


 
I felt your post was a touch long-winded, so edited it accordingly to come in line with the general sentiments of the forum.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Rukh, if you're going to copypasta at least take the two seconds needed to convert the font and size to that of a regular forum post so it's not so blatantly obvious.
> 
> Or, you know, cite the source instead of plagiarizing it. Plagiarism is theft, which God says is morally wrong (plus it makes you look like a stupid twat)



This. Rukh you are stealing intellectual property when you blatantly plagiarize. For committing the sin of theft you are going to hell. Just as if you committed the sin of homosexual fornication. 
sux2bu


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> An example: Hundreds of years ago they thought the earth was flat. Then they found out they could sail around it and it was round.


 
Well before Magellan circumnavigated the Earth, Ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes helped cement the idea of a round Earth by calculating its circumference to within a 2% - 20% margin of error.

Using observation.

And Greek math.

The moar you know.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well before Flagellan circumnavigated the Earth, Ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes helped cement the idea of a round Earth by calculating its circumference to within a 2% - 20% margin of error.


 
Quoting for a good point and laugh.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They are not facts. They are guesses. They  cannot be proven.





Deovacuus said:


> YET. Scientific progress is amazing. The things that we will come to understand in our lifetimes is absolutely thrilling.


 
Rukh, the scientific method isn't about 'proving' anything - in that respect, it's very much like religion. The difference is that the method is, in fact, to seek to disprove. Any hypothesis that fits observed data and can make reliable predictions remains only a hypothesis; once there is data that contradicts the hypothesis, it has to be re-worked to account for it, or else abandoned completely and a new hypothesis derived.

Facts are data, Rukh. Things that can be measured. Theories and hypotheses derive from the data, and are tested by using them to make predictions, then seeing if new measurements/data confirm the predictions. Consider the Copernican model of a heliocentric solar system; Copernicus thought - as many had thought for centuries previously - that the planets moved in circular orbits. However, Kepler had access to newer and more precise astronomical instruments, capable of resolving data that showed planetary orbits are in fact elliptical, not circular. Was Copernicus wrong? In hindsight, yes - but all that happened is his theory was modified to account for new observations; the notion of a heliocentric system did not absolutely require circular orbits. Should Copernicus be written off as a fraud? No - he made the best observations he could with the instruments he had.

By contrast, religious beliefs demand that their adherents reject any data which conflicts with 'revealed truth'. Any observations, any hypotheses based on those observations, any predictions made and verified by those hypotheses that disagree with the tenets and dogma of a faith must be stamped out, utterly eradicated by the faithful, because those FACTS and consequent theories are a threat to that religion; they reveal its inconsistencies and flaws.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> everyone is sitting watching this topic waiting for someone to post
> 
> don't be afraid guys


 No, I'm still waiting for someone to post something worth replying to.  The fact that I've chosen your post as the one to reply to speaks volumes.

The other posts pretty much amount to:

"BAWWW, this thread sucks."  (So far, I agree so... no response needed.)

"Christianity sux!  Christians are teh dumb!"  (As a Christian myself, I disagree but I see no reason to enter a debate with someone who'll simply counter all of my arguments with: "That's stupid.  You're stupid!")

<Tired old argument against religion I've seen a million times.>  (See below.)

STRAWMAN!  (Oh wait, that's this post.)

Actually, I normally love getting into debates about religion.  But I've given up doing so here.  When I spend two hours crafting a response to a challenge to my faith and I get nothing but "tl;dr" from everyone, including the person I'm responding to, then those two hours are nothing but wasted time. Of course, to heap insult onto injury, I also get called "stupid" for even trying.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

Telnac said:


> "Christianity sux! Christians are teh dumb!" (As a Christian myself, I disagree but I see no reason to enter a debate with someone who'll simply counter all of my arguments with: "That's stupid. You're stupid!")



I have not claimed that Christians are stupid. I refute the points they make and shine light onthe holes in their logic. Perhaps I am your worthy opponent, oh ambivilant one?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 7, 2010)

Again, my points are less against Christianity (when Christianity is the topic of discussion) and more that its God is a dick.  You don't sick two she-bears on a group of kids because they mocked your priest.  You don't set people up for the sins they haven't committed yet with the punishment already planned out.  You don't insta-screw several billion people for reasons ranging from "They didn't accept my existence purely off faith" to "Bitch shoulda been born in a country which has heard of me."  

Christianity is something else altogether.  Christianity's God, however, is a dick, and I have absolutely no regrets in thinking it such.  It's when people then try to tell me "Oh no, that's perfectly just, who are you to question [x] for saying it's alright to dash those filthy heretic babies heads against rocks?" ([x] being the deity in question) that I start to take it up with followers, or when the followers start to preach things that're disgusting (ex:  Christians that aren't preaching "Homosexuality = ENJOY HELL PIGFUCKERS" = Good in my eye, at least in that regard.  Hindu practice of there being "untouchables", not so much).


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Telnac said:


> No, I'm still waiting for someone to post something worth replying to.  The fact that I've chosen your post as the one to reply to speaks volumes.
> 
> The other posts pretty much amount to:
> 
> ...


 
Go on then. Give us something to talk about that isn't just rehashing old religious assertions that have been spoonfed to you. We can quite happily talk about religion, as long as we don't have to deal with complte fuckwits who keep telling us how we are evil sinners for not believing their own particular brand of crazy.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 7, 2010)

I am openly pagan. I have gotten into arguments with Christians AND Atheists, more then once at the same time. Personally, I've come to the theory that everyone's an asshole, no matter what divine anthropomorphic figure they pray to (or don't pray to). 

BTW, hail Eris.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Go on then. Give us something to talk about that isn't just rehashing old religious assertions that have been spoonfed to you. We can quite happily talk about religion, as long as we don't have to deal with complte fuckwits who keep telling us how we are evil sinners for not believing their own particular brand of crazy.


 
I don't think that anyone told you/anybody else that they are going to Hell (Rukh, maybe? x3). Buuut, yeah, this. 

And I don't think we could talk about religion without bringing up passages in the bible. Unless we're talking about issues in the Catholic church (Such as priests raping little boys, the pope, etc.)


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I don't think that anyone told you/anybody else that they are going to Hell (Rukh, maybe? x3). Buuut, yeah, this.
> 
> And I don't think we could talk about religion without bringing up passages in the bible. Unless we're talking about issues in the Catholic church (Such as priests raping little boys, the pope, etc.)


 
There is no such thing as religious debate with Rukh around. He has his very specific, though remarkably flexible (when it suits him) doctrine. And evreyone who doesn't agree with him is evil, going to hell, sinner, etc. There are no rights. No wrongs. None of that making your own mind up. Rukh has a God Hotline, access to a Googlesworth of religious nuts spurting stuff that he counts as evidence, and God help you if you don't agree. Or are gay. Or a woman.

Sure, he ladles out bible quotations, but at best they are inconsistent with what he has already quoted, or at worst irrelevant. Also, dependant on what he is arguing about, we need to obey the Old Testament, when it's relevant to stuff in there, but then in the same response, he'll claim the Old Testament is no longer valid. When it suits his purposes.

No. We'll have a proper religious debate/discussion, when we get someone who is able to talk to everyone else like they are real people, and not condemn people to damnation and hellfire because they have ovaries, or a liking for the same sex. Or question things.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

Smelge said:


> There is no such thing as religious debate with Rukh around. He has his very specific, though remarkably flexible (when it suits him) doctrine. And evreyone who doesn't agree with him is evil, going to hell, sinner, etc. There are no rights. No wrongs. None of that making your own mind up. Rukh has a God Hotline, access to a Googlesworth of religious nuts spurting stuff that he counts as evidence, and God help you if you don't agree. Or are gay. Or a woman.
> 
> Sure, he ladles out bible quotations, but at best they are inconsistent with what he has already quoted, or at worst irrelevant. Also, dependant on what he is arguing about, we need to obey the Old Testament, when it's relevant to stuff in there, but then in the same response, he'll claim the Old Testament is no longer valid. When it suits his purposes.
> 
> No. We'll have a proper religious debate/discussion, when we get someone who is able to talk to everyone else like they are real people, and not condemn people to damnation and hellfire because they have ovaries, or a liking for the same sex. Or question things.


I agree so much with these statements. Rukh's use of google and copying and pasting means that he is spewing arguements that are not his own thoughts. What's worse is that he is not citing his sources which is both stealing and by not citing we cannot go back and see the contect of such places where he could be free to pluck information out of hand. Whereas we cite a Biblical quote he rages to high heaven that we are simply not understanding the context and have not given the proper Rukh-approved context of the 3,000 year old happenings. 
His quotes after so many pages of plucking and skimming different sources often counteract earlier points. Like he said that "God had a plan for him" but then that humans have free will. If there is a master plan (Determinism) free will cannot exist. There can only be one or the other. Which is why his doctrine is strict yet flexible. It allows for loopholes for himself at any given moment and restrictions on the actions of others such as gays or women. He also does personal attacks. I believe last thread we had like this Rukh told me to fuck myself with a spiked dildo in his righteous fury. Not a very level headed guy or a good debater. 

This is why if you are religious, Christian or otherwise, I would step forth and present your points. Otherwise Rukh is the only voice here to speak for religious/Christian views and you may not approve of what he says or how he says it.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> I am openly pagan. I have gotten into arguments with Christians AND Atheists, more then once at the same time. Personally, I've come to the theory that everyone's an asshole, no matter what divine anthropomorphic figure they pray to (or don't pray to).
> 
> BTW, hail Eris.


 
To the prettiest one fnord


----------



## Nothing (Nov 7, 2010)

the only hate i have for religion is the the various forms of suppression it puts on people, like sexual suppression.   everything else is ok with me.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 7, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> BTW, hail Eris.


 
Yes.  Who else could troll the crap out of vain, stuck-up snobs enough to start a war on Earth that's still talked about 3,000 years later, just by tossing an apple into their midst?  She explains a lot.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> This is why if you are religious, Christian or otherwise, I would step forth and present your points.


 
As a Catholic, I don't feel the need to defend Christianity.  I don't have to justify my faith to other people.  At the same time, it should go without saying that Rukh doesn't speak for the majority of Christians of any denomination in this country or this forum.

When it comes right down to it, discussion is ultimately pointless if the line of questioning is going to be about whether or not specific events actually happened as described in Genesis, or if social values that were deemed acceptable in 3000 BC to 500 AD are going to be relevant today.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 7, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Yes.  Who else could troll the crap out of vain, stuck-up snobs enough to start a war on Earth that's still talked about 3,000 years later, just by tossing an apple into their midst?  She explains a lot.


 
And that's why we love her.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 7, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> And that's why we love her.


Who's Eris?


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 7, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Who's Eris?


 
Greek goddess of chaos, madness, and discord. Patron goddess of the semi-religion Discordianism. Also, a hilarious guest-villain on "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy."


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 7, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> Greek goddess of chaos, madness, and discord. Patron goddess of the semi-religion Discordianism. Also, a hilarious guest-villain on "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy."


*Facepalms*

How could I forget that...


Edit: 314... Oh yes, pies.


----------



## Deo (Nov 7, 2010)

We're negating Greek gods and goddesses now? It does seem only fair. After hat I want to go angainst the Norse ones and try to remember what shreds I know of old-AngloSaxxon.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> This is why if you are religious, Christian or otherwise, I would step forth and present your points. Otherwise Rukh is the only voice here to speak for religious/Christian views and you may not approve of what he says or how he says it.


 Very well.  Since it's been mentioned, I'll start with the paradox of free will.

I believe that God created us to have the ability to choose our own path in life.  That said, God also knows what choice we'll ultimately take.  Does that mean we never had a choice to begin with?

I at it this way: imagine we had the ability to create a satellite that could record all the events taking place in the Universe.  It also has the ability to travel through time.  The satellite is launched fast enough to leave our Solar System and galaxy, and while deep in intergalactic space, it stays far enough away from matter so that it doesn't interact with the rest of Universe in any way.  It dutifully records the entire history of the Universe from now to end.  After the Universe ends (however that ends up taking place), it goes back to be beginning and starts recording the early universe, too.

But something goes wrong and instead of finding the fledgling Milky Way and Earth, it veers off course and remains deep in intergalactic space.  So now, there's this satellite out there somewhere that possesses the entire record of the Universe's past and future.  If the satellite will never be found, does the mere existence of the satellite mean that I don't have the free will to choose what I'm going to eat for dinner tomorrow night?


I believe there are many paradoxes that arise from our limited understanding of things such as free will, or infinity.  The question "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" boils down to a simple math question: Is Infinity A bigger than Infinity B?  The answer is undefined, because there really is no way to define what infinity is.  Thus, you have the paradoxical answers such as: Infinity + 1 = Infinity.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> We're negating Greek gods and goddesses now? It does seem only fair. After hat I want to go angainst the Norse ones and try to remember what shreds I know of old-AngloSaxxon.



Greek Gods get a pass since you can run around and kill them again and again to your heart's content.

[yt]NRFNX9ma9Zc[/yt]


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

So, You guys want me to prove to you God exists. Why? You wouldn't believe in him anyways. Why? Because you don't want to. I can give you the statistics of probability of life on this planet. How it can't be an accident. But either you won't read it, or you just post that I am stupid. Your looking for someone to prove to you God exists. Problem is, its a choice to believe. It can't be forced. Secondly as I have stated many times that the existence of God cannot be disproved.

As for a list of different theories on the beginning of the universe, I will list a few:

Ekpyrotic Universe: The ekpyrotic scenario provides an alternative to the widely accepted  Big Bang theory. It suggests that, unlike the Big Bang that began from  singularity, our universe is one of a pair of universes that collided.  The effect of the collision resets the universe. From there, it expands  for billions of light years (the way we imagine the Big Bang occurring)  until it contracts back to the Big Crunch. The speed and energy of that  reduction creates another massive collision and the  universe is reborn.  The cycle continues for infinity.
The Problem with this theory is, that the Big Crunch has been disproven. Why?, Because of the discovery of dark energy. And that theory was disproven back in 2003 I think. Thats when NASA found dark energy.

The Big Bang Theory:  The premise of the Big Bang is  that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball,  which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in  the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an  instant. Yes, that's the theory. This does not account for where everything came from to start the big bang. The laws of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created. They can only move from one form to another basically. And the laws of physics are absolute truths. They cannot be disproven.

Multi Universe Theory: The multiverse concept is  founded upon the idea that what we have hitherto considered to be â€œthe  universeâ€ is but a small component of a vast assemblage of universes.  According to the multiverse thesis, each universe may differ with  regards to their physical laws, in such a way that all conceivable  constants and laws are represented in a universe somewhere. The  hypothesis is intimately associated with the so-called Anthropic  Principle, which states that our own existence acts as a selection  principle determining which properties of the universe we can observe.  That is to say, any observed properties of the universe which may at  first seem to be astonishingly improbable can only be seen in their true  perspective after we realize that other properties couldnâ€™t be observed  by us, since we can only observe properties of the universe which are  conducive to our own existence. The Anthropic Principle is thus used by  many people, often in conjunction with the Multiverse principle, to show  why we shouldnâ€™t be surprised at the astonishingly improbable  fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. But the multiverse explanation is  highly problematic. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence  of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified. The  model is thus ad hoc and contrived. Second, given that the  biofriendliness of the universe is in no way conducive to cosmic  sustainability, no form of selection process or â€œcosmic evolutionâ€ can  be invoked. Third, if the multiverse thesis is to commend itself as a  plausible hypothesis, then a mechanism for generating such universes  needs to be advanced. The concept of a â€˜bubbleâ€™ of universes, each with  their own fundamental constants and values, only throws the paradox back  one step -- as one could easily ask who built the generator to give  rise to this cosmic lottery.

Roger Penrose of Oxford  University has calculated that the odds of our universeâ€™s low entropy  condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10123,  an inconceivable number. If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a  much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly  more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The  probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:1060, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10123. Did you read that. Look at the odds of the universe just being a random accident. Science is founded on the  notion of the rationality and uniformity of nature. The universe is  ordered in a rational way, and scientists seek reasons for why things  are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is without  transcendency or purpose, then it exists without reason. It is therefore  ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are subsequently invited to  contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of  reasoning are ultimately grounded in absurdity. The concept of a cosmic  order would then have no foundation. Thus, the multiverse theory  undercuts the very premise upon which the scientific method is founded.

What people here seem to be saying is that life is an accident. Here is the problem, if life was an accident, that means everything we have thought is an accident. So how can someone elses accidental thought be better than anyone elses. If the universe was an accident, then logically thinking, the laws of science, logic and mathematics are accidents. But the laws of science are considered an absolute truth. But how can an absolute truth exist if everything was a giant accident.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, You guys want me to prove to you God exists. Why?


 Well, for starters, if you're insisting "I'm right you're wrong the Big Bang's impossible it must have been God!", then it kinda helps to be able to prove - I 'unno - both that God exists and that it had a creator?  Otherwise, some part of the equation (either "God exists" or "Complex changing thing like the universe needs to be created") is proven wrong / false / unverifiable? 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You wouldn't believe in him anyways.


  Hm, where have we seen this before.  Presentation of facts, but stern refusal to listen to them... I know!

Hm, wait, no.  See, in those scenarios (not the ones regarding proof / disproof of God, things like morality or something happening) burden of proof is actually _fulfilled_.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why? Because you don't want to. I can give you the statistics of probability of life on this planet. How it can't be an accident.


  I can give you the statistics that I would be born, doesn't necessarily require some omnipotent being.  Fuck, if you're the child of a man who routinely jerked off once a week in his teenage years, your odds of existence are still stupidly slim, yet here you are.  Slim probability does not require an omnipotent being to pull through:  Ask anyone who exists.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But either you won't read it, or you just post that I am stupid.


So, I take it this means you won't provide any sort of evidence for your arguments that the Big Bang was wrong that aren't horribly convoluted or the like?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your looking for someone to prove to you God exists. Problem is, its a choice to believe. It can't be forced. Secondly as I have stated many times that the existence of God cannot be disproved.


 _Nor can it be proven._  Occams Razor, buddy.  There's two solutions, Big Bang or big sky man.  Overall, and this might be shocking to you, Big Bang is the simplest of the two solutions when you don't jerk off to "OH YEAH GOD MUST EXIST" and actually do some actual looking into what would be required in the scenario.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Big Bang Theory:  The premise of the Big Bang is  that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball,  which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in  the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an  instant. Yes, that's the theory. This does not account for where everything came from to start the big bang. The laws of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created. They can only move from one form to another basically. And the laws of physics are absolute truths. They cannot be disproven.


  I mean, that's why we have things like Quantum Physics and the like.  Though I'd like to hear how "universe randomly coming into existence" is so much more farfetched than either "big sky man always in existence" or "big sky man spontaneously comes into existence".  Please, I'm all ears, why is one more far-fetched than the other?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence  of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified.


Hm, this sounds a lot like something else...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The  model is thus ad hoc and contrived.


Wait, what?  So... you're saying Christianity is ad hoc and contrived?




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Roger Penrose of Oxford  University has calculated that the odds of our universeâ€™s low entropy  condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10123,  an inconceivable number.


Wait, 1:10123 as in one in ten thousand, one hundred and twenty three?  Fuck, unless I'm off that's better odds than you being the one born from the jizz that conceived your mother.  And that's considered inconceivable?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a  much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly  more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The  probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:1060, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10123.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Did you read that. Look at the odds of the universe just being a random accident.


Look at the odds of being born, bucko, especially the further you go back.  The odds of being born as of three years prior, ten, twenty, a hundred.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What people here seem to be saying is that life is an accident. Here is the problem, if life was an accident, that means everything we have thought is an accident.


 Yes, and?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So how can someone elses accidental thought be better than anyone elses.


  Deep philosophical question, but the answer here would most probably be "being more successful with said thought than other beings".  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If the universe was an accident, then logically thinking, the laws of science, logic and mathematics are accidents. But the laws of science are considered an absolute truth. But how can an absolute truth exist if everything was a giant accident.


  I'm... not following you?  How can laws exist if there wasn't a designer?  Are you one of those people who feel that someone can't have a moral code without religion?


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Shite.


 
Fuck off. I'm not even going to bother to read that shit properly. A quick skim shows it is yet another copy/paste job. Again, regurgitating other peoples work as your own. Again, presenting no actual opinions or arguments of your own, just what others have said, as long as it ties in vaguely with whatever shit you are currently defending.

Go away. Get out of this thread, don't come back until you are willing to actually write your own stuff.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Very well. Since it's been mentioned, I'll start with the paradox of free will.
> 
> I believe that God created us to have the ability to choose our own path in life. That said, God also knows what choice we'll ultimately take. Does that mean we never had a choice to begin with?


So to clarify, your point of veiw is more of God as the Divine Watchmaker? He created, and then has no interference and is an merely observer?
Or are you trying to put forth that both free will and determinism occur simultaneously?


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I like to steal, steal, steal any words I can,
> oh, I like to steal, steal, steal anything dear man!
> With a highlight and a click, anything I pick,
> can be stolen to regurgitate that schtick!



STOP STEALING. You are breaking God's commandments. He's probably killing Bosnian orphans for your sinful crimes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2010)

You know you'd think this thread would get sticky already, also here's my two cents, "going to a church doesn't make you anymore of a christian, anymore than standing in a garage make me a car".


----------



## Conker (Nov 8, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Very well.  Since it's been mentioned, I'll start with the paradox of free will.
> 
> I believe that God created us to have the ability to choose our own path in life.  That said, God also knows what choice we'll ultimately take.  Does that mean we never had a choice to begin with?
> 
> ...


 Bravo. I'm not sure how to tackle this really. I'm looking forward to seeing what some of the others have to say, but I do like what you've posed.

I'm also just blissfully happy that someone who isn't dumber than a box of shit has come up to the plate to discuss :3


----------



## Riley (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> obvious copypasta



Hey Rukh, I know you don't like to think that the universe and humans just happened, and that god was always doing stuff and whatnot, but then how did he happen?  I mean, stuff can't just pop into existence, right?  Somehow god would have had to been created.  So if god can pop into existence at random, why can't the atomic elements?  You say the universe and everything that composes it had to have been created, because they could not have always been there.  But doing that creation is a god, who has always been there.  The key belief in creationism is undone by itself, Rukh.  Believe what you will, but don't say that your way is the only right one when it has such glaring flaws.

I'm aware this is probably no less of a regurgitated argument than anything Rukh's ever said.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Nov 8, 2010)

One of my friends cut me out of her life cause she was doing stuff she wasn't suppose to  be doing and I told her not to and Now she went back to being all christian. Only hanging out with her Christian friends. This honestly pisses me off but I told people that if she tried to blame her sins on me then she got something coming...


----------



## Yrr (Nov 8, 2010)

Hey Rukh, you said yourself, matter cannot be created or destroyed.

So uh...

Where does that put God?

How did the "mighty creator" "create" if it's impossible.

think your arguments through _oh wait_, you copy and paste

welp


----------



## Conker (Nov 8, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Very well.  Since it's been mentioned, I'll start with the paradox of free will.
> 
> I believe that God created us to have the ability to choose our own path in life.  That said, God also knows what choice we'll ultimately take.  Does that mean we never had a choice to begin with?
> 
> ...


 I think I found a flaw in your logic. The satellite may have our complete future history on it, but the satellite isn't the celestial being that judges our deeds to see if we are fit to enter Heaven. If we don't find or ever know about the satellite, nothing is lost. But God poses a price to pay for our work on Earth. He doesn't just passively watch, at the end of it all, he takes what he has seen and makes his judgment. Shouldn't he then, know if we are going to go to heaven long before our death? If that's the case, then that takes some of the meaning out of life, doesn't it? Since Heaven should be the goal seeing as it's a forever and ever place of existence.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

TrinityWolfess said:


> One of my friends cut me out of her life cause she was doing stuff she wasn't supposed to be doing and I told her not to and Now she went back to being all Christian. Only hanging out with her Christian friends. This honestly pisses me off but I told people that if she tried to blame her sins on me then she got something coming...


Don't be vindictive. What she did is wrong, but enjoying another's misfortunes is equally wrong. And i would chalk this one up more to immaturity and trying to fit in rather than Christians are people who do bad things, blame others, and then pretend to be perfect. Some do this, many more do not. A small lot do believe that they have a direct connection to god and that they are literally holier and more perfect than others. These types of people can be nitpicky and quick to point out others flaws in order to validate to themselves that they are more righteous. But again this is a very small percentage and this arrogance occurs in any religion or non-religion any race, age, ethnicity, culture, geocenter, etc. It is more human nature.

*ALSO: Anyone want to debate me about God and Morality? 8D Cause that is something I'm itching for.*


OK. Back on track. _Free will. Determinism. Deism. GO!_
Firstly I would like to take the time to note the key proponents and opponents of this argument: Augastine and Pelagius, Luther and Erasmus. A book I read on the topic was the lovely text written by E. Gordon Rupp & P. Watson, titled Luther And Erasmus: Free Will And Salvation I highly recommend it.

If God had created the universe, as it is argued, then the universe would have to follow universal laws, since God is not a god of disorder. A strictly ordered universe poses serious logical problems for a belief in a free will. It thus follows that the entire course of the universe was laid out at its inception. There is, in this, no room for a free will. The whole of existence is a theatre and we are puppets on strings. Even though we actually feel we make choices, this is an illusion. When you choose A, be it such a trivial thing as what to eat for breakfast or a more life-altering decision, there really was no possibility, the universe being exactly as it was at the time, for you to act differently. These (apparent) facts really have stunning implications for ethics. We punish lawbreakers at least partially as a deterrent against crime. However, if there is no free will, then a murderer or rapist really had no choice whether to commit the crime or not. Moral culpability is only meaningful if there is a possibility for choice. In this a person would find themselves living in a total paradox to argue it is in any way meaningful to strive for a better life, to avoid accidents, to punish wrongdoers for their crimes, and indeed at all behave like there is anything to gain from making any initiative for action as it is predetermined by a sovereign deity.


Now then, if people have free will, and accountability for their actions and transgressions, determinism cannot exist. God cannot have a "master plan" or be omniscient. And since in life where we _can_ genuinely choose between either A or B, decide our pant colors and the cereals we consume, we can argue that people do in fact have a free will. And if free will exists it means that a person is not predestined to commit a sin or crime under the knowledge of God and through His enforcement of pre-laid out time. Either God is omniscient and Determism is right and we have no free will, _or_ God is not omniscient and we do in fact have free will. Both sides are mutually exclusive of the other.

However, an omniscient God that punishes his creations with eternal damnation for a fate he laid out for them at the creation of the universe is malicious. A malicious God is directly contrary to an all omniscient, omnipotent, loving, kind God. If God is not omniscient then he does not know of our mistakes beforehand and has not laid out our actions for us. A non-omniscient God could feasibly be a kind, loving, non-malicious God. But if is he is not omniscient is it correct to label such a supposed being as "God"?

I typed this thing out on Word. I'm sorry if it gets scrambled in text and color.
ALSO: I switched my avatar to a more open minded one. lol. Tinfoil hat and X-Files insignia.


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 8, 2010)

I see things like this: God allows bad things to happen to watch us grow, kinda like a "sink or swim" thing. I guess. He loves us and wants to watch us mature as people and as a species, so we have to learn from our mistakes. He gave us some rules (don't kill, lying is bad, don't steal, etc), and sent us on our way. I think he'd be proud of how far we've come.

 I'm REALLY bad at this shit, so yeah. I'm not atheist, I just don't believe in god the same way.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You know you'd think this thread would get sticky already, also here's my two cents, "going to a church doesn't make you anymore of a christian, anymore than standing in a garage make me a car".


 
A religion thread, stickied?  Surely, you jest.  Tell ya what.  If we wind up having to deport this thread to our purgatory board, I'll sticky it there for ya.  :3c

Also, your two cents are worth a whole lot more than face value.  :>


----------



## Corto (Nov 8, 2010)

Like we don't have enough retarded threads stickied already.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

8-bit said:


> I see things like this: God allows bad things to happen to watch us grow, kinda like a "sink or swim" thing. I guess. He loves us and wants to watch us mature as people and as a species, so we have to learn from our mistakes.



However this assumes that God doesn't know about the future and cannot therefore predetermine our fate and actions. If He is omniscient and omnipotent then our sins are known to him and predetermined before we make the choice to persue such actions: thus no choice at all. However a God who knows our faults and sets into motion our actions eons before we were born and still "let's us sink or swim" and punishes us severely is malicious and goes against your last arguement; that God is loving. Free choice though could give us a loving God in a non-determinate universe. However free will strips any such Creator of "Godlike" powers.


----------



## Corto (Nov 8, 2010)

I think I once heard the explanation "of course we have free will, we make our own choices. He only sees the choices we've taken and will take". Sounds nice so I stick by it.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> However free will strips any such Creator of "Godlike" powers.


 
Divine Intervention


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> However this assumes that God doesn't know about the future and cannot therefore predetermine our fate and actions. If He is omniscient and omnipotent then our sins are known to him and predetermined before we make the choice to persue such actions: thus no choice at all. However a God who knows our faults and sets into motion our actions eons before we were born and still "let's us sink or swim" and punishes us severely is malicious and goes against your last arguement; that God is loving. Free choice though could give us a loving God in a non-determinate universe. However free will strips any such Creator of "Godlike" powers.



I don't believe in that future bullshit. I believe he makes a guess. I never said he could see our actions in the future. 

Like I said, I'm utter shit when it comes to talking about my beliefs (I'm a pussy).


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Corto said:


> I think I once heard the explanation "of course we have free will, we make our own choices. He only sees the choices we've taken and will take". Sounds nice so I stick by it.


  Issue is, that kinda nullifies the Omnipotence bit.  Don't get me wrong, you could probably tear apart Christianity just enough to say "God wasn't Omnipotent", and it's not like 99% of all the schtick of the Bible is disproved.  Just that, well, you can't be Omnipotent and not be Omnipotent at the same time, 'sall.  If God can only see actions taken and which will be taken, that's a lack of omniscience.  A lack of omniscience means a lack in a certain field / power, thus a being not "all powerful", thus non-Omnipotent.

So, if you worship a non-Omnipotent version of God, no flaws there.  It's just when you worship such (or, in some peoples' cases, later arguments specifically hinge around such) that problems start to seep in.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Corto said:


> I think I once heard the explanation "of course *we have free will*, we make our own choices. *He only sees the choices* *we've taken and* *will take*". Sounds nice so I stick by it.


 
If God sees and knows those choices/actions before you make them though, then it is not free will but merely you fullfilling the clockwork mechanicality of the universe over time with the illusion of free will.
And if you are merely doing as She/He foresaw you doing (both right and wrong, good and sinful choices taken and will take) then She/He has predestined you to commit those "choices". If She/He has predestined you to commit those sins, of which She/He foresaw and thus preplanned, then She/He has already pre-destined every individual to Hell or Heaven before they are even born. Meaning that nothing in this life is of value, nothing is to be sturggled against, and every wrong doing is set in stone and the perpetrators are not morally culpable.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> If God sees and knows those choices/actions before you make them though, then it is not free will but merely you fullfilling the clockwork mechanicality of the universe over time with the illusion of free will.
> And if you are merely doing as She/He foresaw you doing (both right and wrong, good and sinful choices taken and will take) then She/He has predestined you to commit those "choices". If She/He has predestined you to commit those sins, of which She/He foresaw and thus preplanned, then She/He has already pre-destined every individual to Hell or Heaven before they are even born. Meaning that nothing in this life is of value, nothing is to be sturggled against, and every wrong doing is set in stone and the perpetrators are not morally culpable.


 
I think it's more or less God predicting what will happen to you, and you have free will of what to do about it.

i.e. God can predict your mother dying; will you kill everyone in sight, or will you deal with it in a positive way?


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> I think it's more or less God predicting what will happen to you, and you have free will of what to do about it.
> 
> i.e. God can predict your mother dying; will you kill everyone in sight, or will you deal with it in a positive way?


 
Well, I can predict your mother dying. In fact, I would even go so far as to predict that every living thing will die. Does that mean that I have the same abilities as God?

And this not knowing of how you will react is a hole in His/Her omniscience.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Riley said:


> Hey Rukh, I know you don't like to think that the universe and humans just happened, and that god was always doing stuff and whatnot, but then how did he happen?  I mean, stuff can't just pop into existence, right?  Somehow god would have had to been created.  So if god can pop into existence at random, why can't the atomic elements?  You say the universe and everything that composes it had to have been created, because they could not have always been there.  But doing that creation is a god, who has always been there.  The key belief in creationism is undone by itself, Rukh.  Believe what you will, but don't say that your way is the only right one when it has such glaring flaws.
> 
> I'm aware this is probably no less of a regurgitated argument than anything Rukh's ever said.


 
You assume that God lives within our boundaries in the universe. God made space and time, Its stated in the Bible that he was, is, and will be. He is not bound by our laws. Why would you assume that if God made everything, that he would be bound by what he made. God exists outside space and time.
 God was      acting before time began. He created time, along with the other      dimensions of our universe. God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time      (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of      time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is      eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself      is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational      evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a      finite      ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape is the      invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed      experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

In other words, God exists in a timeless eternity.

What your trying to do is make God work in in our understanding of the universe. But he created everything, so why would he be bound to it.




Deovacuus said:


> Well, I can predict your mother dying. In fact, I  would even go so far as to predict that every living thing will die.  Does that mean that I have the same abilities as God?
> 
> And this not knowing of how you will react is a hole in His/Her omniscience.


 
Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we *can't* do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have *chosen*  to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's  foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God. In  this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed  any more than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello)  was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the  parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word  "hello," I pondered which word to write. My pondering was my doing and  the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when  choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter  what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it  doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.
By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are  preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I  am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing  that it will happen. Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl  of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is  chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict a  child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free  to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon the child when they  makes it.
God does not restrict free will.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God has no need to have been created...Hence God is      eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself      is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational      evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a      finite      ~13.7 billion years ago.
> 
> In other words, God exists in a timeless eternity.



Well as fun as it is comparing something natural, and something supernatural, trying to say one created the other is awesome...Your argument still does not prove God. If we're going to say that God is eternal, then we can also say the universe is eternal, and thus defeating the purpose of a God. Why? 

Here's how:
You want to uphold the scientific end to what evidence we have (the universe is probably finite), but just freely blather away upon something non-scientific, without any semblance of evidence, and really nothing more than an unsubstanciated story book that's been translated countless times into hundreds of languages over the course of thousands of years, with no other backing, similar, or parallel (minus things like The Book of the Dead that came before the Bible) books. That's not how this game works. 

The first step in this (admittably asinine and arbitrary) game, is proving your side exists. We can, more or less, prove the universe currently exists (Barring brains-in-a-jar theory). So we move onto step two. Proving the universe had a beginning. It's not 100% solid, but we're running with it, so we can justify moving onto the next step, even if it may be a bit premature. God is still stuck on step one. If you can't prove he exists (which you haven't, and you've effectively eliminated yourself from doing so by default, claiming he is essentially outside the knowable), then you can't prove he did or did not have a beginning. If you can't prove that, then you can't prove he created anything, but you still have to somehow prove his existence. Not only that, but you have to prove that it's *your specific god.* An even more monumental task.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we *can't* do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have *chosen* to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God. In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed any more than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made.


But if your actions were known before the universe was made, which is before you considered them, they are not your ideas nor your intentions. Thus not your choice by free will, merely you goin down the path that was pre-established in time falsely clouded by the illusion of free will. Like I said, mutually exclusive. I am willing to speculate on a nearly omniscient God can exist along with free will, but an absolutely omniscient God must by his very existence and foreplanning exclude free will. 




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write. My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine.


Yes, you did ponder that. You did choose. That free will of yours though is mutually exclusive to the characteristics you assocate with God. The choice was yours beyond God's foreknowledge. If He/She exists then for free will to exist and for Him/Her to be loving and kind God, He/She must not be omniscient.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.


His knowing before hand does though ensure that no choice of yours is ever free. Only the satisfying illusion of freedom can be there if God is omniscient. See my other posts. I believe I have articulated on this. If you have a more precise point please bring it up.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen. God does not restrict free will.


This assumes that God has no influence on this world and it's persons. These analogies are placing the person as an observer incapable of having any effect. In this same scenario it would place God as impotent and incapable of even a small capacity to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, events, of the earth/universe. Be that affect miracles, salvation, etc.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well as fun as it is comparing something natural, and something supernatural, trying to say one created the other is awesome...Your argument still does not prove God. If we're going to say that God is eternal, then we can also say the universe is eternal, and thus defeating the purpose of a God. Why?
> 
> Here's how:
> You want to uphold the scientific end to what evidence we have (the universe is probably finite), but just freely blather away upon something non-scientific, without any semblance of evidence, and really nothing more than an unsubstanciated story book that's been translated countless times into hundreds of languages over the course of thousands of years, with no other backing, similar, or parallel (minus things like The Book of the Dead that came before the Bible) books. That's not how this game works.
> ...



I can hit you with the same question. Prove to me God doesn't exist. You won't be able to. People believe in the multi universe theory. But it can't be scientifically proven (but in fact it doesn't follow the laws of physics). So why can't God exist? Being unable to disprove something means their is a possibility of it being true. And yet you throw that out. I already know that I cannot convince anyone here that God exists. I accept that. But your not going to tell me that God doesn't exist when you can't prove it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> But if your actions were known before the universe was made, which is before you considered them, they are not your ideas nor your intentions. Thus not your choice by free will, merely you goin down the path that was pre-established in time falsely clouded by the illusion of free will. Like I said, mutually exclusive. I am willing to speculate on a nearly omniscient God can exist along with free will, but an absolutely omniscient God must by his very existence and foreplanning exclude free will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Again, God isn't restricting us to choose something. He isn't restricting our free will. He simply knows what we will choose. How is that restricting our free will?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Quick question, since Rukh ignored my responses last page and is back to walls of text:  If God is creating / influencing things, doesn't that put it in time?  And thus, something with a beginning / end?

Oh, also:  If you know everything's going to happen, and you're omnipotent, and you created all that stuff, you are technically responsible for all the consequences.  You could change them WHENEVER YOU WANT.  Even in the most obscure law circles, that's an accomplice.  If you go by your "God has a plan for me" you said earlier, then it was pre-planned by God meaning it then directly was involved in your action - no longer a mere accomplice.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I already know that I cannot convince anyone here that God exists. I accept that. But your not going to tell me that God doesn't exist when you can't prove it.



 Correction, Rukh: You can't convince some of us that the Christian God exists. For myself, I think it is the rankest arrogance to believe that a Being which created something as vast and magnificent as the universe is concerned with such picayune trivialities as whether or not I choose to have sex with another woman as opposed to a man, or that I might decide to have more than one lover in my life. I also refuse to accept that the Creator has, on this planet circling a fairly average G3 star about two-thirds of the way out in one arm of a thoroughly normal spiral galaxy - one of billions in the cosmos - instituted a scapegoating system whereby one being was sacrificed, however willingly, to absolve the sins of all others.

Which, by the way, begs the question: If there are other sentient races on other planets, did Jesus die upon the cross for them as well? Or does "Son of Man" mean the salvation he brought is limited to _H. sap._?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Quick question, since Rukh ignored my responses last page and is back to walls of text:  If God is creating / influencing things, doesn't that put it in time?  And thus, something with a beginning / end?
> 
> Oh, also:  If you know everything's going to happen, and you're omnipotent, and you created all that stuff, you are technically responsible for all the consequences.  You could change them WHENEVER YOU WANT.  Even in the most obscure law circles, that's an accomplice.  If you go by your "God has a plan for me" you said earlier, then it was pre-planned by God meaning it then directly was involved in your action - no longer a mere accomplice.



Why should he use his magic wand and fix everything? Your actualy asking why doesn't God fix every problem. If he fixes every problem then how do we learn? You seem to forget that discipline is a form of love.  Consider that If God were to control and manipulate his creation, the  experiences that we/he generated would be robotic and meaningless.

Your also forgetting that God is fixing the world. Remember he sent his son to die for us so we can be saved. Jesus willingly died in our stead when it was our fault that the universe is so screwed up. God could have started over. Wiped everything away. But instead he choose to fix the problem.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> *ALSO: Anyone want to debate me about God and Morality? 8D Cause that is something I'm itching for.*


 
What specifically?  Are you talking about things like eating meat on Friday being an offense punishable by death or something?

If so, I've already covered that briefly.  We're talking about people writing their morals down based on societal standards from roughly 3000 BC to 500 AD.

What's preached now then is what's uniformly acceptable by today's standards with more left to interpretation.  I can't say I've ever really heard a priest or nun tell me that bears will come tear me to shreds if I played a practical joke on them.  I only found out that was even in the Bible by reading it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Correction, Rukh: You can't convince some of us that the Christian God exists. For myself, I think it is the rankest arrogance to believe that a Being which created something as vast and magnificent as the universe is concerned with such picayune trivialities as whether or not I choose to have sex with another woman as opposed to a man, or that I might decide to have more than one lover in my life. I also refuse to accept that the Creator has, on this planet circling a fairly average G3 star about two-thirds of the way out in one arm of a thoroughly normal spiral galaxy - one of billions in the cosmos - instituted a scapegoating system whereby one being was sacrificed, however willingly, to absolve the sins of all others.
> 
> Which, by the way, begs the question: If there are other sentient races on other planets, did Jesus die upon the cross for them as well? Or does "Son of Man" mean the salvation he brought is limited to _H. sap._?


 
Define extraterrestrial life? Contrary to belief the Bible actually says there is extraterestrial life. Just not the way you are thinking.The Bible is by no means silent about real extraterrestrial 			life in all its great abundance. The beings spoken of in the Bible are real. They 			have appeared and spoken directly to humans (Genesis 3:9-10; 4:9; 16:9). The Bible 			records the existence of many millions of angelic beings (Revelation 5:11) who are 			"ministering spirits" to mankind in fulfillment of God's purpose (Hebrews 			1:13-14). The Bible talks of beings (Angels and Demons) that are not from this world. So extraterrestrial life does exist.
The Bible states that God created man in his image and likeness. Mankind is the highest form of physical life that God made. So how could there be other beings like us in this physical world. The Bible is pretty clear that only we (mankind) were created in His image.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, God isn't restricting us to choose something. He isn't restricting our free will. He simply knows what we will choose. How is that restricting our free will?


I have given my evidence of the mutual exclusion of Free Will and Determinism. You however have not made any point of why they are not. Any you have I have already refuted. I am dissapointed in your lack of refutation and yet you demand more evidence of my points when I have made it clear and even cited a book for further reading. You can either counteract my evidence or dismiss the point and wheedle for more, and you are choosing the latter. I refuse to debate the topic of Free Will and Determinism further with you if you cannot make a good debate.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What specifically? Are you talking about things like eating meat on Friday being an offense punishable by death or something?
> 
> If so, I've already covered that briefly. We're talking about people writing their morals down based on societal standards from roughly 3000 BC to 500 AD.
> 
> What's preached now then is what's uniformly acceptable by today's standards with more left to interpretation. I can't say I've ever really heard a priest or nun tell me that bears will come tear me to shreds if I played a practical joke on them. I only found out that was even in the Bible by reading it.



I was thinking on the topic that some believe that morality exists only because God exists and that living without God is living without morals. And this is something I'd love to sink my devil teeth into. (Haha furfag-religious pun. Devil).


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why should he use his magic wand and fix everything? Your actualy asking why doesn't God fix every problem. If he fixes every problem then how do we learn?


  There's a difference between "Fixing every problem", and not instantly damning someone because they didn't believe in some vague philosophy / religion.  Or not making many small toddlers get raped to prove that one man was bad.  Or so on.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You seem to forget that discipline is a form of love.


  Oh yes, I've heard you say how merciful and loving God was for the whole she-bears thing.  

Furthermore, there's a difference between disciplining someone for their own choice (See:  "You stole from the cookie jar, bad!"), and disciplining someone for doing something you specifically forced them to do (See:  "God has a plan" wherein the above becomes "TAKE FROM THE GODDAMN COOKIE JAR!  TAKE IT OR I BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT!  GOD DAMMIT, HOW DARE YOU TAKE FROM THE COOKIE JAR!").



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Consider that If God were to control and manipulate his creation,


You mean like the plan he had for you? :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> the  experiences that we/he generated would be robotic and meaningless.


  So, the experiences drawn from the Bible - being a control and manipulation mechanism - are worthless?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your also forgetting that God is fixing the world.


I'm going to love hearing this.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Remember he sent his son to die for us so we can be saved.


  Christian God, yes.  Arguably Judeo and Islamic too, if I'm not mistaken, though in such case there's some variances.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus willingly


I thought you said Jesus was God and thus by extension denying Jesus was denying God?  Not this thread, but a while back, and I did just remember such.  Also, again, "God has a plan" kinda kills the "willingly" part.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> died in our stead when it was our fault that the universe is so screwed up.


See:  Rukh continuing to ignore points we raise because it might force him to ask questions.  Points being:
1) If God made everything, then God made the "faults".
2)  If God didn't make everything, we can question what God did make.  Furthermore, if God has a plan, in the manner Rukh commonly proposes, God directly led to such "screw ups" anyways, which leads back to the conclusion of point one.

Also, not quite a point, but:  You do realize there's more to the universe than Earth, yes Rukh?  Earlier you seemed to show some grasp, but now you seem to think that Earth is dead-center and one of the most important things that humans trashed horrendously.  When, frankly, the Earth is a drop in a bucket taken from an ocean from a planet the size of Saturn.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God could have started over. Wiped everything away. But instead he choose to fix the problem.


  Someone does not get the points of "Omnipotence", "Benevolence", or any of that.

Then again, someone also thinks dashing heathen women and children heads against rocks is moral, so "benevolence" misunderstanding is at least to be expected.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I was thinking on the topic that some believe that morality exists only because God exists and that living without God is living without morals. And this is something I'd love to sink my devil teeth into. (Haha furfag-religious pun. Devil).


 
I'm a Catholic and I even know that's not the case.  Societies simply don't function without certain morals or rules.

"Don't kill your neighbor" is one of the simplest, especially if you're living in a pre-historic community where you depend on certain people in your tribe to perform a certain task: hunting, gathering, etc.

Religion may not have created rules and morals, but it does act as a reinforcing agent, for better or worse.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 8, 2010)

Religion is what keeps the poor from eating the rich. 

I forget who said that, but it's always rang true to me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I have given my evidence of the mutual exclusion of Free Will and Determinism. You however have not made any point of why they are not. Any you have I have already refuted. I am dissapointed in your lack of refutation and yet you demand more evidence of my points when I have made it clear and even cited a book for further reading. You can either counteract my evidence or dismiss the point and wheedle for more, and you are choosing the latter. I refuse to debate the topic of Free Will and Determinism further with you if you cannot make a good debate.


 
The debate of Free Will vs Determinism is a complicated one. Your question is better asked to a theologian who has studied this matter more than I have. It is my personal belief that determinism is not true. Because the Bible clearly states that God gave us full free will. (I believe in predestination, which is the doctrine of the Bible) So in my opinion the belief of Determination contradicts with the Bible.
But since you asked me for an opposing argument here is my best I can think of right now.
God is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If God has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an event, then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not out of obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have free will to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before you make it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn) any more than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change your mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free will in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with free will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the future or not does not alter your free will.
Now I believe in predestination, which is completely different from determination. Predestination, the doctrine of the Bible, says that God has a purpose  and He is working all things out according to His own will and purpose.Predestination teaches that God does nothing nor does He permit anything except that which serves to carry out His purpose. This means that GOD IS the SOVEREIGN of the world, the One who does all things as He wills.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can hit you with the same question.


 

I know you dont like this game, but its no reason to cheat. The burden proof is on yiu, not me, trying to shift the burden of proof into me isa fallacy, I'm peetty sure.

Its not that I can't, its I dont HAVE to


----------



## Telnac (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> So to clarify, your point of veiw is more of God as the Divine Watchmaker? He created, and then has no interference and is an merely observer?
> Or are you trying to put forth that both free will and determinism occur simultaneously?


 The latter.  I was use the satellite as a "hands-off" example, not as a statement as to whether I believe God is a Divine Watchmaker.  That's worthy of a conversation all its own.





Conker said:


> I think I found a flaw in your logic. The  satellite may have our complete future history on it, but the satellite  isn't the celestial being that judges our deeds to see if we are fit to  enter Heaven. If we don't find or ever know about the satellite, nothing  is lost. But God poses a price to pay for our work on Earth. He doesn't  just passively watch, at the end of it all, he takes what he has seen  and makes his judgment. Shouldn't he then, know if we are going to go to  heaven long before our death? If that's the case, then that takes some  of the meaning out of life, doesn't it? Since Heaven should be the goal  seeing as it's a forever and ever place of existence.


Whether or not we're judged based on our actions doesn't mean we don't have the free will to choose those actions or not.  But the concept of God existing outside of time is certainly where the concept of predestination comes from.  However, I don't take that to the extreme that the Calvinists do, and preach that some people are just destined to go to Heaven and others to Hell.  With that mindset, why bother preaching to the Lost?  For that matter, why did Jesus bother coming to Earth in the first place?  No, I believe God does call those who believe to share our beliefs with others in the home that come may come to know God.  Because we're called to do so, then that means people do have the ability to choose to accept of reject the Lord... even if God ultimately knows who will do so or not.


Oi, another page & a half of responses appeared before I could finishing editing this one?!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Furthermore, there's a difference between disciplining someone for their own choice (See:  "You stole from the cookie jar, bad!"), and disciplining someone for doing something you specifically forced them to do (See:  "God has a plan" wherein the above becomes "TAKE FROM THE GODDAMN COOKIE JAR!  TAKE IT OR I BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT!  GOD DAMMIT, HOW DARE YOU TAKE FROM THE COOKIE JAR!").


To use your example. God made the world, He then gave us free reign of it. He then forbid us from going in the cookie jar (the apple) We disobeyed and went into it anyways. But God decided to forgive us (Sending Jesus Christ to atone for our disobedience)



Attaman said:


> So, the experiences drawn from the Bible - being a control and manipulation mechanism - are worthless?


Your forgetting than one does not have to believe in the Bible. So therefore its not controling you if you have the choice to believe or not.


Attaman said:


> I'm going to love hearing this.


Again, God has a plan for fixing the world. We may not understand his timeline but he still has a plan. We are now waiting for Christ's second coming.


Attaman said:


> Christian God, yes.  Arguably Judeo and Islamic too, if I'm not mistaken, though in such case there's some variances.


Islam does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, neither does Judaism.


Attaman said:


> I thought you said Jesus was God and thus by extension denying Jesus was denying God?  Not this thread, but a while back, and I did just remember such.  Also, again, "God has a plan" kinda kills the "willingly" part.


Jesus is God, as well as the Holy Spirit is God. He is a trinity.


Attaman said:


> See:  Rukh continuing to ignore points we raise because it might force him to ask questions.  Points being:
> 1) If God made everything, then God made the "faults".
> 2)  If God didn't make everything, we can question what God did make.  Furthermore, if God has a plan, in the manner Rukh commonly proposes, God directly led to such "screw ups" anyways, which leads back to the conclusion of point one.


God didn't make the faults, unless you consider free will a fault. He allowed us to make mistakes/faults.


Attaman said:


> Also, not quite a point, but:  You do realize there's more to the universe than Earth, yes Rukh?  Earlier you seemed to show some grasp, but now you seem to think that Earth is dead-center and one of the most important things that humans trashed horrendously.  When, frankly, *the Earth is a drop in a bucket taken from an ocean from a planet the size of Saturn.*



And? your point is what?
 Earth is not the dead center of everything. I thought after talking with me you would realize that I have been saying that God is the center of everything.


----------



## mitchau (Nov 8, 2010)

So some people were scared of dying, they created religion. I am not using this as an argument to whether god exists or not, that's an endless topic, but I see the benefits in discussing the legitimacy of any religion.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 8, 2010)

mitchau said:


> So some people were scared of dying tried to figure out how the universe worked, they created religion. I am not using this as an argument to whether god exists or not, that's an endless topic, but I see the benefits in discussing the legitimacy of any religion.


 
fix'd.

The afterlife is merely an extension of the bigger questions of how things are and operate.


----------



## mitchau (Nov 8, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> fix'd.
> 
> The afterlife is merely an extension of the bigger questions of how things are and operate.


 
That too, but I'd assume they were mostly just looking for salvation from death.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In other words, God exists in a timeless eternity.


 
A God "outside time" completely flies in the face of the account of creation given in Genesis.  It clearly states the universe was created in seven (well, six) days, and has a clear order in which everything was created.  Both are impossible "outside time".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> A God "outside time" completely flies in the face of the account of creation given in Genesis.  It clearly states the universe was created in seven (well, six) days, and has a clear order in which everything was created.  Both are impossible "outside time".


 
And you do know the Bible speaks in metaphors right? First of all, one should look at what a day is to God. Could be 1,000 years or a million years. The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or  symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the  undeniable reality that Creation  happened.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> A God "outside time" completely flies in the face of the account of creation given in Genesis.  It clearly states the universe was created in seven (well, six) days, and has a clear order in which everything was created.  Both are impossible "outside time".


 I believe the creation of time happened at the same time as the creation of matter.  God is certainly aware of time, but He sees the entire timeline, and (for those of you who believe in a non-deterministic Universe), all possible timelines as well.


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you do know *the Bible speaks in metaphors* right?


Holy shit.
Holy shit. You made the arguement before that the Bible is "the word of God" and the literal truth of God's will given to man. For you to randomly decide that NOW the Bible is metaphorical is preposterous andoutright proves that you twist and contort the book to the precise moment's argument in however way best supports YOUR point of views without any objective or stable understanding of the book. It is incredibly arroagant to use this as an arguing point and to manipulate the book while crying foul on everyone who so much as posts a quote without full and rigorous context.
Holy shit, indeed.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To use your example. God made the world, He then gave us free reign of it. He then forbid us from going in the cookie jar (the apple) We disobeyed and went into it anyways. But God decided to forgive us (Sending Jesus Christ to atone for our disobedience)


1)  Below, you just said Jesus Christ is God.
2)  God "forbid" us from doing such... knowing full well anyways that the Crime he was setting down would be enacted in the future anyways.  For a reason he set down, from factors he created (the temptation, a creation of God, the crime itself, a concept created by God, the tempter, created by God).

You can't just pick and choose, Rukh.  Especially when you say you must use the Bible as a whole, 100%.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your forgetting than one does not have to believe in the Bible. So therefore its not controling you if you have the choice to believe or not.


  But those were not gleamed by the readers of the Bible from their own free will.  Those were what they were manipulated to believe, that such are what they should practice.  Furthermore, they set down guidelines and the like - controls - for what followers should and should not do.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, God has a plan for fixing the world. We may not understand his timeline but he still has a plan. We are now waiting for Christ's second coming.


  No, you are waiting for it.  I am a bit alarmed by how readily you're willing to debate until your throat is hoarse how wrong other people's opinions and the like are, but refuse to even slightly admit that some religious philosophy of yours could be wrong, skewed, or questionable.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Islam does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, neither does Judaism.


  Then they're in the same boat as you, as you just said that you don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God but God itself.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is God, as well as the Holy Spirit is God. He is a trinity.


  See?  A being can not be its own Son, unless we're getting into some really fucked up quantum mechanics here.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God didn't make the faults, unless you consider free will a fault. He allowed us to make mistakes/faults.


  So, you admit God didn't create everything.  And, by the same token, admit that there is room for things to be created outside God, highly complex things, without God's intervention?  Complex things like, say, the universe?  Especially since you stated fault within the entirety of the universe, not just this one chunk of it?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And? your point is what?


  You just said "universe".  As in we influenced the entirety of everything.  If so, and we're responsible for all faults, this leaves a gaping hole in your "The universe is so complex it must have been created by God" bit considering that all the flaws - stated by you just a few posts ago - are by Man's creation, and thus a highly complex thing can be modified and shaped by a non-divine.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you do know the Bible speaks in metaphors right? First of all, one should look at what a day is to God. Could be 1,000 years or a million years.


I thought you said God was outside time, and thus - you know - had no such concept as "Days" or the like.

Rukh weaseling out of "God has to have created the Universe as it's a constant outside of time!", "The Bible is Always Right!", and "That's a metaphor in the Bible God is within time and has concepts of such" in five. :mrgreen:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or  symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the  undeniable reality that Creation  happened.


 "Undeniable Reality". 

Again, people, it looks like this is an argument we cannot win against Rukh.  He's at the "I believe it ERGO IT'S TRUE LALALALA" stage.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you do know the Bible speaks in metaphors right? First of all, one should look at what a day is to God. Could be 1,000 years or a million years. The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or  symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the  undeniable reality that Creation  happened.


 
Are you not a biblical literalist anymore, Rukh?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Holy shit.
> Holy shit. You made the arguement before that the Bible is "the word of God" and the literal truth of God's will given to man. For you to randomly decide that NOW the Bible is metaphorical is preposterous andoutright proves that you twist and contort the book to the precise moment's argument in however way best supports YOUR point of views without any objective or stable understanding of the book. It is incredibly arroagant to use this as an arguing point and to manipulate the book while crying foul on everyone who so much as posts a quote without full and rigorous context.
> Holy shit, indeed.



Wait what? The Bible is the word of God. I am saying God has used metaphors and parables to speak to us.(Not that the Bible is all a metaphor) Never did I state the Bible is not 100% true. I have no idea where you got that from.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait what? The Bible is the word of God. I am saying God has used metaphors and parables to speak to us.(Not that the Bible is all a metaphor) Never did I state the Bible is not 100% true. I have no idea where you got that from.


 
So then, you admit God is inside time what with having a conception of such and all?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait what? The Bible is the word of God. I am saying God has used metaphors and parables to speak to us.(Not that the Bible is all a metaphor) Never did I state the Bible is not 100% true. I have no idea where you got that from.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My journal on my FA page is only talking about people who call themselves Christians but do not believe in the Bible 100%. I use 2nd Timothy 3:16-18 to counter their claim.
> 16*All Scripture is God-breathed* and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
> 
> This clearly states the Scriptures is from God. And the Bible says God is perfect. Therefore anyone who claims to be a Christian and says the Bible is not perfect is in fact saying God is not perfect. And if God is not perfect then Jesus was not perfect. Which means that he could not have died for our sins because it required a perfect sacrifice. Which finally leads to the path that Christianity would be false. So for any one who claims to be a Christian to say the Bible is not 100% means that they do not believe in God or Jesus Christ.
> ...



pwnt


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Attaman said:


> So then, you admit God is inside time what with having a conception of such and all?


 
I admit God speaks to us in ways that we can understand.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I admit God speaks to us in ways that we can understand.


  I got it "In five" again!  I'm on a roll, that's twice with Rukh so far.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> pwnt


 
Uhm, I stated in there the Bible is 100% true. And what I was specifically talking about is this "mainstream Christianity" that seems to permeate this country. I am talking about Christians who change their stance or what the Bible says to be socially acceptable. I am talking about people who serve the world and God. And I am saying that is not possible. Either you serve the world, or God, not both.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm, I stated in there the Bible is 100% true. And what I was specifically talking about is this "mainstream Christianity" that seems to permeate this country. I am talking about Christians who change their stance or what the Bible says to be socially acceptable. I am talking about people who serve the world and God. And I am saying that is not possible. Either you serve the world, or God, not both.


 
So why did you spend so much time shitting on the Big Bang if Genesis is all metaphor anyways?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am talking about Christians who change their stance or what the Bible says to be socially acceptable.


Lobar, I'm about to head to bed.  Would you mind linking to one of the posts where Rukh says the Old Testament is both out-dated and being used in an argument at the same time?  As well as the thread wherein he argues the semantics of the She-Bear bit so it's no longer mauled children who mocked an old man?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Lobar, I'm about to head to bed.  Would you mind linking to one of the posts where Rukh says the Old Testament is both out-dated and being used in an argument at the same time?  As well as the thread wherein he argues the semantics of the She-Bear bit so it's no longer mauled children who mocked an old man?


 
I was gonna go play Fallout. :<

Someone else can dig around if they're brave enough to delve that deep into the stupid.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 9, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I got it "In five" again!  I'm on a roll, that's twice with Rukh so far.


 
What are you talking about? All I stated is God speaks to us in ways that we can understand because we cannot fully understand God.



Lobar said:


> So why did you spend so much time shitting on the Big Bang if Genesis is all metaphor anyways?


I never stated all of Genesis was a metaphor. I only stated that the 7 day Creation is a metaphor.
I believe in the Big Bang, but I believe that God caused the Big Bang. What I stated earlier is the Big Bang cannot by itself explain how or why it happened.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I was thinking on the topic that some believe that morality exists only because God exists and that living without God is living without morals. And this is something I'd love to sink my devil teeth into. (Haha furfag-religious pun. Devil).


 Dawkins has a whole damn chapter devoted to that :3 If that comes up, I'll have to go grab the book! He makes some pretty compelling arguments on this topic.


Telnac said:


> The latter.  I was use the satellite as a "hands-off" example, not as a statement as to whether I believe God is a Divine Watchmaker.  That's worthy of a conversation all its own.Whether or not we're judged based on our actions doesn't mean we don't have the free will to choose those actions or not.  But the concept of God existing outside of time is certainly where the concept of predestination comes from.  However, I don't take that to the extreme that the Calvinists do, and preach that some people are just destined to go to Heaven and others to Hell.  With that mindset, why bother preaching to the Lost?  For that matter, why did Jesus bother coming to Earth in the first place?  No, I believe God does call those who believe to share our beliefs with others in the home that come may come to know God.  Because we're called to do so, then that means people do have the ability to choose to accept of reject the Lord... even if God ultimately knows who will do so or not.


 But, if it's known, how is it really a choice? Let's say we have a timeline with points A, B, C, D, and E on it. All of these points represent something in our life, maybe major or minor, but a specific event. Even if we are at point A, God knows what will happen in points B, C, D, and E. To God, we cannot change these points. Let's say point B is a major decision in our life that affects C, D, and E. God knew that point B would happen before we did, and he knew the outcome which would effect the other points on the timeline. If this is set in stone, how is freewill truly there? It's an appearance of free will.

If point A is being born and point E is death, God knows when and how we will die. He also knows our destination of heaven or hell before we arrive there. If the point of living is to learn and better ourselves, yet he knows before we are born if we will fail or succeed in that possible point of life, then is there a point to life at all? 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you do know the Bible speaks in metaphors right? First of all, one should look at what a day is to God. Could be 1,000 years or a million years. The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or  symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the  undeniable reality that Creation  happened.


And here we come to the biggest bullshit ever. "Oh, that part that I like? Yeah, that's 100% true. That part that I don't like and counters my argument? No no no! Tha'ts a metaphor. A parable. Of course that didn't really happen."

You can't just pick and fucking chose what to believe literally and what not to believe literally based on your argument. That's serious fucking bullshit and not how arguing works.


----------



## Azure (Nov 9, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Lobar, I'm about to head to bed.  Would you mind linking to one of the posts where Rukh says the Old Testament is both out-dated and being used in an argument at the same time?  As well as the thread wherein he argues the semantics of the She-Bear bit so it's no longer mauled children who mocked an old man?


 u mad?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

Let's play count Rukhs  ligical fallacies, misinterpretations, and outright lies!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> Dawkins has a whole damn chapter devoted to that :3 If that comes up, I'll have to go grab the book! He makes some pretty compelling arguments on this topic.


 
It's basic ethics and sociology.

A community of higher organisms living together working towards mutual gain.  With or without God, humanity required a certain set of social guidelines to thrive in the way it has over thousands of years.



> I never stated all of Genesis was a metaphor. I only stated that the 7 day Creation is a metaphor.



If we can't fully understand God and His Word is the Bible, then how can you be so sure that the 7 day part of Genesis is a metaphor?  What authority do you have to be able to make that determination?  Because there are plenty of people today who will argue that the 7 day thing is 100% fact, in the clergy or otherwise.  So what makes you right on this and them wrong, other than it's your interpretation?


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's basic ethics and sociology.
> 
> A community of higher organisms living together working towards mutual gain.  With or without God, humanity required a certain set of social guidelines to thrive in the way it has over thousands of years.


 True, but he attacks the problem in such a fun and almost sarcastic way that I'd have to quote him :3

But, unlike Rukh, I'd attribute my quotes to him and his book and not pretend they were my own >:[


----------



## Ratte (Nov 9, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Let's play count Rukhs  ligical fallacies, misinterpretations, and outright lies!


 
Can one even fucking count that high


----------



## GingerM (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I never stated all of Genesis was a metaphor. I only stated that the 7 day Creation is a metaphor.
> I believe in the Big Bang, but I believe that God caused the Big Bang. What I stated earlier is the Big Bang cannot by itself explain how or why it happened.


 
So some of the Bible is metaphor and some isn't. Which bits are which? It strikes me as a fairly key thing to know.


----------



## DReaper3 (Nov 9, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If we can't fully understand God and His Word is the Bible, then how can you be so sure that the 7 day part of Genesis is a metaphor? What authority do you have to be able to make that determination? Because there are plenty of people today who will argue that the 7 day thing is 100% fact, in the clergy or otherwise. So what makes you right on this and them wrong, other than it's your interpretation?


 
If God didn't make the sun and moon untill the forth day so technically how can they be divided into days? Our days may have a different meaning then the days of an ageless being.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> God didn't make the sun and moon untill the forth day so technically how can they be divided into days? Our days may have a different meaning then the days of an ageless being.


 That's not so much the point; the point is that some parts of the Bible are TRUTH and some are METAPHOR and only the religious people get to pick which is which depending on what and how they are arguing a point.

Which is unfair and all around bullshit.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> God didn't make the sun and moon untill the forth day so technically how can they be divided into days? Our days may have a different meaning then the days of an ageless being.


 
But in the Bible it says 7 days.  And if we are to be taking this as the LITERAL WORD OF GOD, then literally speaking, 7 days is a (roughly) 24 hour period of time.

And if we are to consider the intent of the writers, which could be anywhere between 150 BC to 1000 AD, I doubt days as metaphors was a concept that they regularly employed, or even if they had, would know that people reading their words would automatically get this as a metaphor.

In short, you're making excuses to prove why your interpretation is right, or could hold ground.  In that debate it may hold ground, but in this debate, what I'm asking is what gives you the authority to tell other people what is and isn't a metaphor, or that the Bible is intended to be taken as metaphor at all?


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 9, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Let's play count Rukhs  ligical fallacies, misinterpretations, and outright lies!


 
I say we make a drinking game out of it. :3


----------



## DReaper3 (Nov 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> That's not so much the point; the point is that some parts of the Bible are TRUTH and some are METAPHOR and only the religious people get to pick which is which depending on what and how they are arguing a point.
> 
> Which is unfair and all around bullshit.


It's their religion and they can (and will) interpret it the way they want.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> In short, you're making excuses to prove why your interpretation is right, or could hold ground. In that debate it may hold ground, but in this debate, what I'm asking is what gives you the authority to tell other people what is and isn't a metaphor, or that the Bible is intended to be taken as metaphor at all?


I didn't make an interpretation.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> It's their religion and they can (and will) interpret it the way they want.


 But there has to be some logic behind how you interpret the text. If you throw reason out the window, then the church can say whatever the hell it wants to say and expect no one to question them. That's just wrong.

I like to side with Turtillian who says faith and reason are incompatible. In a way, they are. Reason will alwasy trump faith, specially in this day and age. But if you separate the two then you give the church way too much power and end up believing for the sake of believing. That's wrong.


----------



## DReaper3 (Nov 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> But there has to be some logic behind how you interpret the text. If you throw reason out the window, then the church can say whatever the hell it wants to say and expect no one to question them. That's just wrong.


I think thats the difference between Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.



> I like to side with Turtillian who says faith and reason are incompatible. In a way, they are. Reason will alwasy trump faith, specially in this day and age. But if you separate the two then you give the church way too much power and end up believing for the sake of believing. That's wrong.


Some of them believe because the threat of man's law is not enough.  I think that if not for the promise of eternal damnation many people who are now good Christian people would probably murder quite a few people.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> I didn't make an interpretation.


 
Then what you're saying is 100% fact according to you?  That's an interpretation.

Otherwise you need to provide me with sauce.  Because I'm not buying that what you're saying is the official dogma of the various sects of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.


----------



## DReaper3 (Nov 9, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Then what you're saying is 100% fact according to you? That's an interpretation.


I didn't state a fact, i asked a question.


DReaper3 said:


> If God didn't make the sun and moon untill the forth day so technically how can they be divided into days? Our days may have a different meaning then the days of an ageless being.


See


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> I didn't state a fact, i asked a question.


 
Your question is leading on to the idea that you believe what you're saying.

Are you playing devil's advocate or do you generally believe what you're asking me?  Because I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.


----------



## DReaper3 (Nov 9, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Your question is leading on to the idea that you believe what you're saying.
> 
> Are you playing devil's advocate or do you generally believe what you're asking me? Because I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.



I wasn't trying to go anywhere with it.  I was just pondering the idea of day and night with no sun.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait what? The Bible is the word of God. I am saying God has used metaphors and parables to speak to us.(Not that the Bible is all a metaphor) Never did I state the Bible is not 100% true. I have no idea where you got that from.


 I made the claim that Revelations was a metaphor based inthe style of writing known as apocalyptic. You said that since it was in the Bible it was 100% factual telling of the end times literally stated.

Now I restate. HOLY SHIT.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Someone else can dig around if they're brave enough to delve that deep into the stupid.


 
I'll have to sort through the massive amounts of these last few later (threads from newer to older)...
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85249-Rant-Aborted-fetuses-found-in-dumpster.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85265-THE-BIBLE.-YES-IT-IS-THAT-TIME-AGAIN.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/84738-Rant-Double-Standards.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/83419-Religion-let-s-bicker-get-in-here.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/82350-Science-and-religion




EDIT: It's 1 am and I'm tired. I'll help sort this for quotes tommarrow guys, but I think I'll need some help. (All thse threads together are like 60 pages long.)


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What I stated earlier is the Big Bang cannot by itself explain how or why it happened.



I think I just found ze problem. The Big Bang theory doesn't attempt to explain how things got to that point (doesn't address 'first mover' problem); it starts off with a singularity already (or always) existing, and through various extreme processes, expands over the course of billions of years. Even if you reverse the big bang theory, you would stop at the point where everything returns into a singularity. 

Though I do admire, and yet pity at the same time, Rukh casually going through every refuted argument - Be it a nonsensical post, copypasta from the Internets, logical fallacies, or what have you. He's adamantly rehashing age-old, dead and buried arguments :v 

Nobody is sure why, but it sure is fun.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> But, if it's known, how is it really a choice? Let's say we have a timeline with points A, B, C, D, and E on it. All of these points represent something in our life, maybe major or minor, but a specific event. Even if we are at point A, God knows what will happen in points B, C, D, and E. To God, we cannot change these points. Let's say point B is a major decision in our life that affects C, D, and E. God knew that point B would happen before we did, and he knew the outcome which would effect the other points on the timeline. If this is set in stone, how is freewill truly there? It's an appearance of free will.
> 
> If point A is being born and point E is death, God knows when and how we will die. He also knows our destination of heaven or hell before we arrive there. If the point of living is to learn and better ourselves, yet he knows before we are born if we will fail or succeed in that possible point of life, then is there a point to life at all?


 Good questions indeed. Before I answer, I wanted to clarify: I don't know if the Universe is truly deterministic or not.  Theoretical scientists who are much smarter than I are debating that topic as we speak.  Quantum mechanics seems to imply that the Universe is non-deterministic, but that the variances are only observable on the atomic level or even smaller.  Classical and relativistic physics seems to imply that the Universe is 100% deterministic.  Until we find out how these things all fit together, we simply don't know.

That said, a deterministic Universe poses a much greater challenge to the idea of free will, which is why I chose to make my example one that presupposes a deterministic Universe.  As I said in an earlier post, if God does exist and if the Universe isn't deterministic, surely He can see not only the entire timeline, but all possible timelines as well.  So this discussion still has a bearing on a non-deterministic Universe as well.

OK, all that said, back to your questions (and back to assuming a deterministic Universe for sake of discussion):
To answer a question with a question: how does someone (be it God or a satellite in deep space) knowing what choice you'll make somehow diminish your ability to make that choice?  You say it's an illusion of free will.  If that's true, is it only because we can't see the future as well as we see the past?  Clearly, if we could see the future and the past and are doomed to make a bad choice anyway, no one would argue that we wouldn't have free will in that situation.  While that may be true, I believe the fact that we *don't* know the future makes the choice a truly free one.  Regardless of the underlying neural activity or the laws of physics or whether nor not God or a satellite in deep space can predict with absolute certainty what choice I'm going to make, the choice is _*still mine... *_and so are the consequences of making that choice.

Criminals get put in jail based on the fact that they chose to commit a crime.  The Universe didn't choose for them, nor did society, or God.  They made that choice.  A consequence of that choice is that they get to rot in jail.  If the Universe is deterministic and they were always destined to make that choice, does that mean they deserve to suffer the consequences of that choice any less?


----------



## Ben (Nov 9, 2010)

Technically, neither Creationism or the Big Bang Theory explains how everything was created, as both claim that the materials which created the first life have just always been there. Difference is that, a bunch of rocks floating in space always being there makes more sense than a super-powerful sky genie having just always "existed."


----------



## Coyotez (Nov 9, 2010)

*Sees forum revolving around religion*
*joins*

"GUYS THERES NO GOD"

*await rage*


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

Ben said:


> Technically, neither Creationism or the Big Bang Theory explains how everything was created, as both claim that the materials which created the first life have just always been there. Difference is that, a bunch of rocks floating in space always being there makes more sense than a super-powerful sky genie having just always "existed."



Actually, I think Creationism takes the stance that God existed outside of existence, and 'created' the singularity, then Genesis 1:1. 

The Big Bang Theory takes the stance that the Universe existed within a singularity, which under extreme circumstances, rapidly expanded and cooled. 

There's really no reason for the Universe to not exist (even in singularity), and then suddenly pop into existence as a singularity, then expand. I am (as well as the scientific community) pretty satisfied with the singularity and onward :v


----------



## Ben (Nov 9, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Actually, I think Creationism takes the stance that God existed outside of existence, and 'created' the singularity, then Genesis 1:1.


 
The silliness of someone existing out of existence just caused my head to spin around on its axis.
Thank you for the correction though.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

Ben said:


> The silliness of someone existing out of existence just caused my head to spin around on its axis.
> Thank you for the correction though.


 
Actually, I should correct myself. Genesis 1:1 encompasses the creation of the universe. So, God existing outside/before existence, and then Genesis 1:1. :v


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Coyotez said:


> *Sees forum revolving around religion*
> *joins*
> 
> "GUYS THERES NO GOD"
> ...


 You suck at this and you make everyone look bad. You post is bad, you should feel bad. Everyone right now is legitimately putting effort into having a thoughtful debat (except for Rukh who puts no effort into STEALING). So either put forth the necesary effort and add to the discussion and stop being a dick or GTFO.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Criminals get put in jail based on the fact that they chose to commit a crime. The Universe didn't choose for them, nor did society, or God. They made that choice. A consequence of that choice is that they get to rot in jail. If the Universe is deterministic and they were always destined to make that choice, does that mean they deserve to suffer the consequences of that choice any less?


Moral culpability is why I believe in free will and not determinism. It is also why I do not believe in an Omniscient God. Like I said before God can be an omniscient-punisher IF he is malicious, otherwise if he is a loving-punisher then he must not be_ fully_ omniscient.  I'll grant you gournd and leeway to say that he is almost fully omniscient AND kind even though he is the judge of souls. And God's omniscience when it comes to free will... Conker sums this up rather nicely, and if you'd be so kind to suspend your previous beliefs to examine the logic...


Conker said:


> But, if it's known, how is it really a choice? Let's say we have a timeline with points A, B, C, D, and E on it. All of these points represent something in our life, maybe major or minor, but a specific event. Even if we are at point A, God knows what will happen in points B, C, D, and E. To God, we cannot change these points. Let's say point B is a major decision in our life that affects C, D, and E. God knew that point B would happen before we did, and he knew the outcome which would effect the other points on the timeline. If this is set in stone, how is freewill truly there? It's an appearance of free will.
> 
> If point A is being born and point E is death, God knows when and how we will die. He also knows our destination of heaven or hell before we arrive there. If the point of living is to learn and better ourselves, yet he knows before we are born if we will fail or succeed in that possible point of life, then is there a point to life at all?


 

Also this is a very good observation on the strategy of debate for Rukh. And Rukh I hope if you read this you either clarify your discrephrancy or realize your terrible mutilation of the Bible.


Conker said:


> And here we come to the biggest bullshit ever. "Oh, that part that I like? Yeah, that's 100% true. That part that I don't like and counters my argument? No no no! Tha'ts a metaphor. A parable. Of course that didn't really happen."
> 
> You can't just pick and fucking chose what to believe literally and what not to believe literally based on your argument. That's serious fucking bullshit and not how arguing works.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Someone else can





Lobar said:


> dig around if they're brave enough to delve that deep into the stupid.


 
Random Rukh to be sorted for hypocrisy, begging the question, being arrogant and prideful, using double standards of on whom the burden of proof lies, and the discrephrancy of his arguments of the Bible being a literal textâ€¦ Oh and it also turns out heâ€™s been reusing THE EXACT SAME POSTS AGAIN AND AGAIN WORD FOR WORD. Anyone else mad about that opt out of thought and effort? (I collected these in Word, so I apologize for any zany text happenings in that conversion. TO BE CONTINUED). 




Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> I actually agree with some of the OP. Many people claim to be Christians just because their parents are, that they read the Bible or go to church.





Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> What a real Christian is, is someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he died (to save us) and rose again according to the Scriptures. *Everything else is just rules that we are called to follow. But those rules don't make someone a Christian*






Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> And I think anytime you open your mouth its just to argue louder than everyone else. You think you are always right, you have the worlds biggest ego. And frankly I am sick and tired of you following me everywhere I go on here. So I will respond to how many times you have cursed at me, insulted me or was just plain rude.





Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> Screw yourself with a spiked dildo. Sodomize yourself with a sharpened stick. Or just plain fuck yourself. I don't care about anything you say. Mainly because your ego is so large that you think you have to win every e-argument that you get into.


 
Rukhâ€™s words in http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/82350-Science-and-religion/page9



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, the Bible teaches you to* love your enemies*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepperâ€¦. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This means that, truth, morals, and all ethical standards mean absolutely nothing. In fact, this would mean *everything means nothing*. This means no one is smarter than someone else because everything is a chemical reaction. this also means love, tragety, happyness are all empty feelings as those are also just random chemical reactions.
> I can go on to say, why should I follow the law, The law was just someones chemical reaction, and that means nothing.
> Which would lead me to say, nothing is true, and everything is permited.
> And if this is true, then the world would be utter chaos.
> ...





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What I meant is, why should I follow someones elses law, I mean its just someones chemical fizz, the same as mine. *Therefore my laws hold the same merit. My reasoning is just as good as someone elses.*





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but *an exercise in self-deception*. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them.
> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God,* is a blind leap of faith*, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there wasn't intellegent design, then explain how the world is not an accident.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You cannot disprove God doesn't exist. *One would think using logic, if you can't disprove of something, then that leads to the possibility of it being true*. But oh no, you can't even believe that. Science even states not to throw out all the possibilites. And here I have been the only one that has been able to explain where everything has come from. Just saying we don't know is a load of crap. And you know it.


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is no meaning to anything, then why should I help humanity? I ask you what the point of this whole thread is. Because your not even open to the possibility that God exists. Anyone can deny anything even if proof is sitting right in front of them. Logic showed me that God exists.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You cannot explain where morality, ethics, or even the laws of science come from. Because in this universe, everything has to have a source. But you cannot give me an account for it. I asked you to give me a scientific reason to where everything came from. And you can't. And science cannot give an explanation for it. *To say that we have not yet found out yet, or we just don't know is illogical.*
> But I already know that you will still say God doesn't exist.
> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.
> There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?
> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of? Please examine the real reason why you are running from God.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its also states that he is a trinity, The Father, Son and holy spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. I guess the best way to describe it, is describe what I felt when I believed. Everything just clicked. Like I knew it was true even if I couldnt comprehend it. I can`t acurately describe how I felt. Its behond our minds capabilities.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now this is where faith comes in. Since we as humans cannot describe God, in the sense of how is just is. We just believe. That is what faith is, believing in the uncomprehendable. Its is very difficult to explain how God justs exists. He is the uncaused cause for the Universe.
> Are you willing to bet your eternal life that God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose believing in God. But if I am right, well I assume you know the consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that?
> I do not fear death. In fact I welcome it, And sometimes I wish it I was already gone from this world. But I am not, which means my task here is not complete. And when it is, my time is up.
> You probably look upon this post and think of me as a freak. And I am okay with that. More than that I love it.
> ...


----------



## Yrr (Nov 9, 2010)

I wish I knew what it was like to actually believe all that shit rukh says

even when I was a kid and went to church I spent most of the time unintentionally finding problems with what I was told


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

A continuation of Rukh's saying to be sorted for inconsistancy later, from this thread http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/83419-Religion-let-s-bicker-get-in-here




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *I will quote 2 things from the Bible. Love your neighbor as yourself* (as in love everyone) *And turn the other cheek* (as in do not follow an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth) If those to simple yet hard quotes were actually followed.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *I am shaking with rage right now. You dare take what you want from the Bible and mis quote it.* You didnt even finnish the story of Mathew 15. Forgot that part didnt we.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Dont ever manipulate what the Bible says to fit your needs. *
> And agian you miss quote Mathew 10 by taking snippets of text and taking them completely out of context.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again you took the verse from numbers an left out other passages. The Lord commanded Moses to kill the Midianites





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *You take what you want out of the Bible. Take it out of context and then twist it to serve what you want it to mean*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Except you dont tell me where that is in the Bible. I cant comment on it until I find it in the Bible and read the entire text*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again *tell me where is says this* so I can see it for myself and explain it. Just posting of verses without reference wont work.


 
We feel the same way about your anonymous copypastas.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Give the the verse and *I can give you the context of its meaning* to the best of my ability.
> Now then I believe what was meant by she knew no man is, she was never married. Her life was dedicated to the Lord. No where in there does it say that she was killed for a sacrifice.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really, a guide to aithiesm? lol





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Im sorry but no, just no. I can prove aithiesm isnt true.
> And yet agian, the entire site takes certain versus, not givng the backround to what is going on and why, *ad then claims to say it contradics itself*. *You cant take what is said out of contet.* *How many times do I have to say it. I can take anything out of context and then say its violent.* But I won`t because I dont know what was going on, what happened afterwords, or what went on before said text.
> 
> *Furthermore, do not try and pull anything out of the old testoment to use against me. The site you linked did this as well. The Old Testoment is the old covonent. Which is gone. When Jesus came to the earth he started the new covenent with us. Thereby changing the laws we are to follow.*
> *The laws this website speaks of were directed at the Israelites alone and no one else. It was part of a covenant. Which was fufilled when Christ came. And when Christ came he started the new covenant*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Give me the verse. You still havent. Probably because you cant.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And as stated before, the Old Testoment is the Old Covenant, which was fufilled when Christ came. *The laws were specific to thepeople of Isaeal only.* Christ came and began the New Covenant.


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have plenty more "evidence" as you put it. *I can explain every piece of Scripture you throw at me*. But it doesn`t matter because you won`t read it, because you think you are absolutely correct. I have better things to do than debate with a brick wall. You hear only what you want to hear. I can get countless people who have studied the Scriptures for longer than you have been alive and you still would`t believe them.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Otherwise quit trolling.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But I will come to the defence of Christianity anytime I see people bashing it and tainting the Scriptures.
> This thread should be locked as all it is, is now bashing of Christianity.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You keep telling me my explanations are no good, Even if I get a pastors own explanation (someone who has studied the Bible more than you have) And yet. I can say the same thing about your explanation, that it isnt any good and its not true. Now what? Do you see the facily in your Logic. You cant believe what I say is true because you don`t want it to be true.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have studied the Scriptures as well. So now it boils down to he said she said doesnt it. I can definatley tell you I would have the backing of mutiple universities and religous scollars in my interpetation of the Scriptures.But you wont take anyone elses word but your own.


That is pride. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I will share with you, what happened to me last night. This is on my FA page





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, for the last couple days I have been involved in some pretty heated debates on Science Vs. God, which boils down to Aitheism Vs. God.For 3 days I have been defending God using science and other truths. Well I was at it again tonight when it finally hit me. Why was I defending God. He doesn`t need me to defend him. He can clearly do that himself. So that got me wondering what the real reasons behind me continuing posting in these threads. And God hit me (spiritually speaking)It was my pride. I had to be right. I had to win the argument. I thought at the time I stated posting in these threads that I was doing the right ting.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Dont ever manipulate what the Bible says to fit your needs.



I am laughing so hard right now


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Quotes from Page 1-28 (ALL OF THAT SHIT.) Of http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/84738-Rant-Double-Standards



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is called a double standard. This needs to stop *now*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> all I am doing is asking people to keep things civil and respect each others different viewpoints.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity does not preach that anyone is better than anyone else. What the *difference* is, that Christians accepted a free gift.


Oh, their different but not better than everyone else. Seperate but equal. Segregated but equal. Drinking fountans, buses...




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Exactly, people can state the





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> ir view points and opinions in a civil matter. But they nearly always put* rude and inflammatory comments* in knowingly that it will start a flame fest. As in, they are trying to start shit.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And that is your opinion. I disagree but *I am not going to get upset about it and start calling you a fucking moron who is to stupid to live and should go slit his throat*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> People can respectfully disagree with each other.


*(Now do remember this is the same guy who told me to shove a spear up my ass and fuck myself with a spiked dildo because I did not agree with himâ€¦)*



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God's holiness and purity is actually deadly.
> We walked away from God. It was Mans choice. God may a way back to him. Which meant Jesus had to die for us as the final sacrifice. I would say that is a very loving God.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It would be perfect justice for everyone on this planet to be sent to hell. Our consciences have grown so callous by the corrupting effect of our own sin, that we have no conception of how deserving of hell every one of us is. Not one of us has kept our own moral standards, much less Godâ€™s holy standards.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since _â€œall have sinned and come short of the glory of Godâ€_ (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is God. Have you heard of the Trinity? God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Its all God. He is 3 in one. They are separate and yet they are the same.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its not up to me to judge another person. Only God is the perfect Judge.


but dem gheys oh dem gheys is disgusting.....>



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I honestly did not know about any of this. But, I will not take that as 100% truth. Because *unfortunately, anybody can say anything*.* I mean that article shows no records of what happened. Its as if we have to take someones word for it*.


But the bible is totally legit y'all.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> All Scripture is God-breathed.
> This states that the Bible is from God. Christianity and the Bible state that God is perfect, and if a Perfect God "breathed the Scriptures" Then that makes the *Scriptures perfect.* *So to say the Bible is not 100% true is saying God is not 100% true*, which in turn means God is not perfect. *One cannot pick and choose* what part of Christianity they want to believe in. According to the Bible, its all or nothing.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> HarleyRoadkill said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit "bluntly". you just have been sugarcoating! jesus says that if you don't live how he wants you to he will send you to *suffer in HELL FOREVER*.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> HarleyRoadkill said:
> 
> 
> > BUT HE LOVES EVERYONE SO MUCH.
> ...





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the *Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians.*





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, It is a form of sexual immorality. It is stated again in the NT





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Romans 1:18-32 states God will judge those who *practice* homosexuality.
> 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 states homosexual behavior has no place among Christians.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible states homosexuality is a sin. God hates sin. He finds sin detestable.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I believe the rest of the universe was created to showcase the awesome power of God.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for homosexuality in animals: When we first sinned (Adam and Eve) We brought sin into all of creation. All of creation is affected by what we did. Creation is full of sin now. Not just us.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No what I mean is when Man sinned it tainted all of creation too. All of creation has fallen. We live in a fallen world according to the Bible. Thats why there are natural disasters. The world itself is not perfect anymore. And thats because Man screwed up.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Rukh_Whitefang said:
> 
> 
> > The earth was perfect, *Mankind it screwed up* (by sinning). Thus now the *universe* is out of whack. This is what the Bible states.
> ...


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 9, 2010)

You know, Deo, after that wall of text that almost dwarfs China's Great Wall, I've become mystified as to how people like Rukh_Whitefang are able to keep a smile on their face while saying that sort of thing. I couldn't possibly repeat that stuff without thinking that God, if He exists, is basically a huge prick!

Speaking of annoying people, check out this article by Bryan Fischer (I think you know him already, Deo). The real gem, though, is the comments section. Best comebacks ever.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Ok. 'm going outside to play flag football with the girls of my dorm floor on central campus. I will be back to accumulate the quotes from http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85265-THE-BIBLE.-YES-IT-IS-THAT-TIME-AGAIN and http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85249-Rant-Aborted-fetuses-found-in-dumpster . I will need help sorting and pointing out the manipulation of the Bible and it's quotes being used out of context by Rukh. And this is on topic as it is basically a mashing of all those religious mega-threads into this fuckingmega religious mega thread.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

That was awesome Deo :v

I love seeing him say that the OT was originally only for the Israelites, but one should follow it, because it has good morals (and such). That he also preaches from it, and follows it (Adam & Eve/first sin, etc.)

Though I still think that homosexuality is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible without the Old Testament...Which "is gone", and "Only applies to the Israelites" (presumably of that time period). Seeing the two only mentions of homosexuality in the NT, neither of them (according to KJV) explicitly or even imply that homosexuality is a sin (in fact, might be able to argue it doesn't even claim it's wrong :v Especially lesbians).

Furthermore, do not try and pull anything out of  the old testoment to use against me. The site you linked did this as  well. The Old Testoment is the old covonent. Which is gone. When Jesus  came to the earth he started the new covenent with us. Thereby changing  the laws we are to follow.
The laws this website speaks of were directed at the Israelites alone  and no one else. It was part of a covenant. Which was fufilled when  Christ came. And when Christ came he started the new covenant.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

DReaper3 said:


> Some of them believe because the threat of man's law is not enough.  I think that if not for the promise of eternal damnation many people who are now good Christian people would probably murder quite a few people.


 The thing is, you aren't a good person (Christian or otherwise) if you want to do bad things but are afraid to do them because of some form of judgment, be it God or just society. You might be called a smart person, weighing consequences with actions, but it doesn't make you a moral person. To be a good moral person (or in this case, Christian), you should want to act how the Bible wants you to act (disregarding most of hte Old Testament of course. Wouldn't want you training any bears to attack kids :V). 

If you are believing and acting souly on fear, then there is a problem.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 9, 2010)

Woah this thread's intelligence and lulz have increased 100 fold.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 9, 2010)

Sad.
As a jew, I can't really speak about any of the new christian stuff, and I never read the bible in English.
I have no idea how to explain anything.

Although, in any case, what is there to prove? Let's start with the Ten Commandments.
It was written twice in the Torah, the first series of books in the bible. Once in the second book, when Moses took the stone tablets from the Sinai mountain.
The second time was in the fifth book, which has a general review of all the previous four books, approximately.
They were different.

There were changes, such as instead of "×–×›×•×¨ ××ª ×™×•× ×”×©×‘×ª ×œ×§×“×©×•"(Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy) the second one had "×©×ž×•×¨ ××ª ×™×•× ×”×©×‘×ª ×œ×§×“×©×•"(Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you).  Instead of just remembering it, you must observe it, keep it, save it as it is and not forget it ever, vow to it - by the non traditional reviewing of it, it sounds as if there was no god to tell the writer, which by the traditional reviewing was always moses. The writer either forgot, or wanted to make it harsher, by the command of god.
There were other changes, that put the slave, the ox and the donkey, and the woman up front. It seems as if nation Israel peeked less into god, and more into the society. It's a revolution, in ten f*cking commandments.
Nation Israel cares less about it's god.
There was no god to remind Moses, or god changed it himself - proving that god did wrong the first time. Did god make his mistake intentionally? That would make him stupid and not perfect. If he had a mistake, it means he is not a god anymore. Also, adding the fact that god is an arrogant, mercyless heaven dweller, it adds to the fact that god is not perfect.
If god must be described perfect, and the god is not perfect, then either god doesn't exist, or an upper being deity that is not in the level of god, tried to lead Israel.
In any case, today, god doesn't rule nobody.
How can I prove it? He won't do anything if I shouted against him, cursed him, insulted him, or blackmailed him. No fire from sky dillema. A bunch of orthodox jews will throw rocks on me, but only if I was hanging in orthodox societies.


jew > christian


----------



## Riley (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You assume that God lives within our boundaries in the universe. God made space and time, Its stated in the Bible that he was, is, and will be. He is not bound by our laws. Why would you assume that if God made everything, that he would be bound by what he made. God exists outside space and time.
> God was acting before time began. He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe. God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
> 
> In other words, God exists in a timeless eternity.
> ...



What a bullshit copout.  You're basically overstating the ending to Men In Black.  Something can or can't pop into existence or already exist, not act and behave in whatever way is convenient for your latest attempt at an argument.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why should he use his magic wand and fix everything? Your actualy asking why doesn't God fix every problem. If he fixes every problem then how do we learn? You seem to forget that discipline is a form of love. Consider that If God were to control and manipulate his creation, the experiences that we/he generated would be robotic and meaningless.
> 
> Your also forgetting that God is fixing the world. Remember he sent his son to die for us so we can be saved. Jesus willingly died in our stead when it was our fault that the universe is so screwed up. God could have started over. Wiped everything away. But instead he choose to fix the problem.



Your god is fixing the world by destroying the environment, causing overpopulation, decreasing the amount of resources we have, killing off animal species, and all the other things that are happening in today's world?  Or it your god fixing the world by letting us do all that?  Either way, there's not a whole lot of fixing going on.


If you can take a simple book as ultimate law, Rukh, then so can I.  My weapon is...  Ringworld, by Larry Niven!  Now, in this book, the "Ringworld" in question is an ancient superstructure supposedly built by one of the first races to arise after the Great Suicide of the Thrint.  The Pak, as they are called, built the ringworld large enough to house perfect 1:1 scale replications of the map of every known and inhabited world.  The structure itself was as large as Earth's orbit, with walls 1 thousand miles high on each side.  Its exact surface area was something along the lines of three million times the surface area of Earth, giving a whole lot of room to work with.  Countless intelligent species evolved on the ringworld, and many had a religion that stated the land they lived on was a flat plane, with a gigantic arch built overhead from which the sun was suspended.  Now obviously, from an outsider's perspective, they would know that the world is a band orbiting around a sun, but the inhabitants of the structure, without space travel, do not know this.  

So Rukh, what I propose is that we are all living on the Map of Earth that resides on the ringworld, and everything that screams in our faces otherwise is a combination of teleporters, holograms, and other alien technologies to keep us from realizing that we are not a single planet.  Refute my logic.  I will argue for it the same way you have been arguing for yours.


----------



## Lucien Pyrus (Nov 9, 2010)

silly furries. We all know that we live on a large disc that is resting on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle,  named Great A'Tuin that swims through space. That is the truth, right?


----------



## Yrr (Nov 9, 2010)

It's all a VR simulation


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 9, 2010)

What supports the turtle?


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

Telnac said:


> OK, all that said, back to your questions (and back to assuming a deterministic Universe for sake of discussion):
> To answer a question with a question: how does someone (be it God or a satellite in deep space) knowing what choice you'll make somehow diminish your ability to make that choice?  You say it's an illusion of free will.  If that's true, is it only because we can't see the future as well as we see the past?  Clearly, if we could see the future and the past and are doomed to make a bad choice anyway, no one would argue that we wouldn't have free will in that situation.  While that may be true, I believe the fact that we *don't* know the future makes the choice a truly free one.  Regardless of the underlying neural activity or the laws of physics or whether nor not God or a satellite in deep space can predict with absolute certainty what choice I'm going to make, the choice is _*still mine... *_and so are the consequences of making that choice.
> 
> Criminals get put in jail based on the fact that they chose to commit a crime.  The Universe didn't choose for them, nor did society, or God.  They made that choice.  A consequence of that choice is that they get to rot in jail.  If the Universe is deterministic and they were always destined to make that choice, does that mean they deserve to suffer the consequences of that choice any less?


For the record, I don't believe in a God who possess all power, knowledge, and love. The three qualities, to me, cannot fit together with how the world operates. He may possess two of the three, or all three in less extreme qualities, but to me, a being that possess all three qualities to an extreme point is a contradiction. This being would also be horribly boring from a simple character perspective. 

Onto the hypothetical then. I still think it's an appearance of free will. Even though we do make the decisions in our life, the outcomes are already known. Like, I had a test today. I didn't study for it because I couldn't be made to give a fuck about the material. Odds, are, my lack of studying will result in a less than stellar grade. I made this choice. Yet, this outcome was already known to an all knowing God. Nothing that would get me excluded from heaven of course, but still.

We view our lives based on the choices we can and do make. God views our lives based on a straightforward timeline. He might be able to see our choice options and even go down those paths, but in the end, we can only pick choice A or B in any given situation, and he knows which one will will pick and which way we will head on the cosmic timeline. 

To us, our lives are based around free will, to God, they are set in stone.  I woke up today and said "today is the day I take a test" God saw me wake up today and said "today is the day he fails a test." This wouldn't be a problem except that we are judged by these choices which he already knows will happen.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You assume that God lives within our boundaries in the universe. God  made space and time, Its stated in the Bible that he was, is, and will  be. He is not bound by our laws. Why would you assume that if God made  everything, that he would be bound by what he made. God exists outside  space and time.


If God lies outside of our established boundaries, how can you worship him? Living outside the boundaries of our universe means he lives outside of our established laws and ideas. Where is the substance of which we can latch onto? If God is that different from us, then we are basically worshiping an alien entity who we do not understand.

If God is bound by laws that we do not understand or know, then how can we make any claims about him at all? How do we even know he is loving or just if his laws do not coincide with our own? If what you say is the case, how do you know you aren't worshiping some evil deity?


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

These are quotes from http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85265-THE-BIBLE.-YES-IT-IS-THAT-TIME-AGAIN.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My belief is Christianity, so why wouldn't I believe what the Bible says?





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh yes, I have an answer for this.
> 
> *Question: "Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the â€œyouthsâ€ for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?"
> 
> ...




*Kings 2:24* 
×•×™×¤×Ÿ ××—×¨×™×• ×•×™×¨××
×•×™×§×œ×œ× ×‘×©× ×™×”×•×”
×•×ª×¦×× ×” ×©×ª×™× ×“×‘×™×
×ž×ŸÖ¾×”×™×¢×¨ ×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”
×ž×”× ××¨×‘×¢×™× ×•×©× ×™
×™×œ×“×™××ƒ

*×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”*
*×™×œ×“×™×*
×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”; to split in half, or tear.
×™×œ×“×™×; children 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was Godâ€™s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It wasn't children. Its talking about youths, young men. They knew what they were doing.
> Again this was a very large group of young men cursing him and God.






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again it clearly states that they were mauled., not killed.
> 
> Here is the definition of maul:
> 1. To beat and bruise with a heavy stick or cudgel; to wound in a coarse manner.
> ...






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Blasphemy in the old testament meant death.
> In the new testament it clearly states that Blasphemy against God is unforgivable.
> 
> Blasphemy by Ignorance is forgivable, but blasphemy when one knows better is not.







Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My journal on my FA page is only talking about people who call themselves Christians but do not believe in the Bible 100%. I use 2nd Timothy 3:16-18 to counter their claim.
> *All Scripture is God-breathed* and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
> 
> This clearly states the Scriptures is from God. And the Bible says God is perfect. Therefore anyone who claims to be a Christian and says the Bible is not perfect is in fact saying God is not perfect. And if God is not perfect then Jesus was not perfect. Which means that he could not have died for our sins because it required a perfect sacrifice. Which finally leads to the path that Christianity would be false. So for any one who claims to be a Christian to say the Bible is not 100% means that they do not believe in God or Jesus Christ.
> ...






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> MojoTech said:
> 
> 
> > Leviticus 11:19 lists bats as birds.
> ...






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You have taken what I have said completely out of context. Since you go to church you should know the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the old covenant. No longer are we bound the the old laws. Jesus made a new covanant.
> As an example, remember when the Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus who had committed adultery. The pharisees said to Jesus under mosaic law she should be stoned to death. Jesus answered back, let the person who has never sinned be the one to throw the first stone. Since everyone sins, the crowd walked away. Jesus forgave the woman and said, go and sin no more. (telling her to not commit adultery again)
> 
> 
> ...






Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> I am non denominational. I do not believe in denominations of Christianity. I only go by what the Bible says. If what I hear doesn't line up to what the Bible states I speak up.
> Now saying all this, it is impossible to 100% understand the Bible. God is not 100% understandable. We can only catch glimpses of Him. I learn something new every time I read the Bible.
> If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
> 
> I respect that you have said I have a right to believe in what I want. Boiling it all down, its a choice. I am not here trying to force what I believe on anyone. I only explain what I believe in. And people don't like that. I am not here to condemn or chastise anyone who doesn't believe in what I do. That is not my job.


 


Rukh_WhiteFang said:


> The shouts you are alluding to are to this: http://www.furaffinity.net/journals/fpc/#jid:1781615
> This was a discussion about a sermon.
> 
> Edit: And my Journal on false teachings: using Matthew 25:31-46
> ...




OK. Since this thread was locked Iâ€™ve been having a horrible time directly quoting it so you can go and see the exact posts for yourself. From here on in I am just going to copypasta the dierect quotes without the post number stuff. It will still be from the same thread, from page 6 onwards.


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> First of all. I do not feel threatened in any way. I have no doubt in my beliefs. I do not doubt my faith.
> And as for me making pronouncements about homosexuality, you don't know me personally. You don't know what I have dealt with. So your making a baseless assumption about me.
> We were perfect, God gave us free will. And we choose to rebel against God, thus bringing Sin into the universe and making the universe imperfect.






			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Many argue that mankind is generally good. Actually, mankind is generally bad. Just look at history. Just look at small children (we don't have to teach them how to steal cookies or strike siblings).
> 
> Why did God give us free will then? Wouldn't it have been easier and nicer to create mankind as inherently good. Well, God's purpose with mankind is to have eternal fellowship with those who truly love Him. Therefore, to create us as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, would not allow for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is TRUE LOVE. Voluntary choice is the key - love isn't genuine if there's no other option.



Also, around this time in the thread it got ridiculously awesome as Corto demanded that we all make our arguments in rhyme or he would shut the thread. I urge to read it for the lulz http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85265-THE-BIBLE.-YES-IT-IS-THAT-TIME-AGAIN./page8


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Aslo from the same thread cont.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I should clarify, that I was disgusted that these people who say they are Christians say that homosexuality isn't wrong.


 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> **facepalm* that is really stretching it to say that the Bible says... **you took this completely out of context, again...*


 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Dude, its clear what Paul meant. Men having sex with men is sin. Its clear as day in Romans 1. To say we don't know what exactly he meant is entire crap. That is just ridicules that anyone can even pull that out of the text. It is so clearly written.
> This website you referenced is basically saying that Paul is mistaken about homosexuality.
> This boils down to then saying the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, and yet:
> Psalm 18:30 states the Bible is perfect.
> ...


 



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> All the verses you pointed to me are ripped out of context first of all.
> So, homosexual behavior is sin, being attracted to the same sex, anyone who says that means they are attracted sexually to the same sex. That means they have lustfulll thoughts about them, and that is a sin. So again you can't get around that either.
> 
> And your going to tell me, that someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex will abstain from sex with the same sex their entire life?


 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *I would also like to add that I too once struggled with homosexual thoughts**.*


 
Rukhâ€™s porn collection on FA is, well revealing to say the least.
But alas heâ€™s cleaned out the hardcore gay yiff and the cub rape. All I have thatâ€™s still on his fave list is this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3705478/ and this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3632669/.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Now only that delicious abortion thread to go where he specifically states that killing babies is immoral. But God killing babies and having his followers kill babies is moral.

Now seriously guys, I need help organizing shit and placing opposing quotes side by side fr obvious effect. I just read though and compiled like a hundred pages of crap for you, help a devil out yo.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Now only that delicious abortion thread to go where he specifically states that killing babies is immoral. But God killing babies and having his followers kill babies is moral.


 I think we get the point Deo :3 Rukh's a brainwashed moron who lacks logic in his arguments. You might just be raping a dead horse at this point.


----------



## Riley (Nov 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Now only that delicious abortion thread to go where he specifically states that killing babies is immoral. But God killing babies and having his followers kill babies is moral.


 
Harvest aborted fetuses for stem cells.  We're playing god, so it's perfectly moral.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 9, 2010)

The Bible contradicts itself so many times that it's not even funny anymore.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 9, 2010)

Riley said:


> Harvest aborted fetuses for stem cells.  We're playing god, so it's perfectly moral.


I agree with this... Not the playing god part though.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 9, 2010)

Riley said:


> Harvest aborted fetuses for stem cells.  We're playing god, so it's perfectly moral.


 
Nah. They aren't recognized as human, in the eyes of God, until after they have been baptized. (Since it began, it was considered necessary for salvation. As well, it proved to them the baby wasn't a demon/monster in disguise... a lot of cultures had 'rites of passage' like this.)

So anyway, it's fair game until baptism.
Technically.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 9, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Nah. They aren't recognized as human, in the eyes of God, until after they have been baptized. (Since it began, it was considered necessary for salvation. As well, it proved to them the baby wasn't a demon/monster in disguise... a lot of cultures had 'rites of passage' like this.)
> 
> So anyway, it's fair game until baptism.
> Technically.


If they're not recognised as human before baptism, then why do they say abortion is wrong? 

Also, nice viewpoint.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Nov 9, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Nah. They aren't recognized as human, in the eyes of God, until after they have been baptized. (Since it began, it was considered necessary for salvation. As well, it proved to them the baby wasn't a demon/monster in disguise... a lot of cultures had 'rites of passage' like this.)
> 
> So anyway, it's fair game until baptism.
> Technically.


 
Completely depends on your denomination.
In many denominations kids under a certain age are automatically saved if they die, it varies a bit though from between 2 years old to 5 years old.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 9, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> If they're not recognised as human before baptism, then why do they say abortion is wrong?


 
Because of someone's personal agenda. I dunno, it doesn't really make sense.

All I know is that abortion wasn't considered religiously wrong until sometime within the last hundred years. How convenient, eh?


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A aborted baby *has* to be buried or cremated. Not discarded in the trash.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait, its our job to feed Africa? This is news to me.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I love how you think you do know everything, about everything.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So the child , who has done nothing wrong should pay for someones decision to have unprotected sex?





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Rape sucks, But 2 wrongs don't make a right.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes pregnancy and giving birth is very painful. There is a reason for that according to my belief.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes I did state that. My belief gives me a reason for that. But why should I post it, because you don't believe what I believe. So its kind of pointless.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> When God asked Adam: â€œWhere are you?â€ Adam answered â€œI heard you, in the garden. I was afraid and hid from you, because I was naked.â€ Adam was scared to come in front of the loving God and he was trying to run away from God. Then God asked Adam â€œWho told you that you were naked? Did you eat the fruit that I told you not to eat?â€ Through this *Jesus showed me* itâ€™s the â€œforbidden fruitâ€ that made Adam run away from the loving God. Then Adam answered â€œThe women you put here with me gave me the fruit, and I ate it.â€ From the moment Adam ate the fruit he lost the freedom to say the truth to God. The Lord asked the woman, â€œWhy did you do this?â€ She replied, â€œThe snake tricked me into eating it.â€ From the moment Eve ate the fruit, fear started to rule her. *Eve also lost the freedom to take the responsibility for what she did.* God said to Eve, â€œI will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth.â€ God told Eve, since she was controlled by the knowledge of the forbidden fruit she will have trouble during pregnancy and *she had to experience pain in giving birth.* (Genesis 3:17).
> So in summery according to what I believe, God cursed Eve with pain in childbirth because she sinned. And God cursed the ground because he sinned.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought what I said was clear. I personally believe that abortion is wrong. *To me, murder is murder. I just can't justify killing an innocent baby.* Thats my personal belief. I am not going to argue about it. I believe what I believe. And I respect other peoples decision who don't believe abortion is wrong.


.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

A link to more Bible quotes postedâ€¦ http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85249-Rant-Aborted-fetuses-found-in-dumpster.?p=2220941



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *And every one of those you have pulled, you completely out of context. You grab one verse without looking into the context it is being used in. Again. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.*





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *And again every one those verses is pulled from the OT.*


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read through Revelations and see what it is written he will do. When the end times comes, if you read through all of Revelations you will see God will kill half of the worlds population in 7 years. We are aprouching 7 billion people on the Earth. So thats at least 3.5 billion people in 7 years. Thats equals 500 million a year. This pales in comparison to anything written in the OT





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In some instances, *God ordered the killing* of entire populations, presumably including the killing of *babies and children*. *Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor,* since, if they had grown up opposed to God, they would have gone to hell. If God were to have spared some of the children, it would have been difficult to determine the cutoff age. A one-year old is probably still relatively uncorrupted by his parents, but what about a two-year old?


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I wish to depart and be with Christ which is far better, but I know that my task here is not complete. And only when it is complete will I depart this world. So I will continue on, continuing my task God has laid out for me until it is finished.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Not once have I claimed to be persecuted. *You are the only one to have said that.
> You are just mad that you cannot convince me to drop my faith in God. I happily ignore anything that doesn't line up with the Bible.
> Again I will state, there is nothing that you or anyone else can say to shake my faith in God. Ever.
> You can go and believe whatever you want.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, they are not the "same rules" IE the Sacrificial system. Again its a guidepost. You need to use Christs teachings to interpret the Old Testament.
> 
> Furthermore, I was *disgusted* that Christians werw preaching that it is okay to practice homosexuality. Remember the Bible states the *Act* of homosexuality is a sin. It does not say someone who calls themselves a homosexual is. Its the act of sexual impurity that is a sin. Temptation is not a sin. I never, ever stated I *hate* anyone. You assume because *I am disgusted* at those who preach that sexual impurity is okay to practice that I hate a homosexual.
> 
> I have not threatened anyone. I have stated many times that I believe in God and Jesus. You don't have to. Its your choice. This is my belief, and you don't have to follow it. So is there a point for you to continue to tell me that my faith, what I believe in with my entire being is wrong?


 
_Rukh you threatened me. Donâ€™t I count as a â€œneighborâ€?_




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You seem to think that God is this hippy kind of guy. God is a vengeful God, again go read Revelations. I believe God is perfect. I believe it is.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no double standard.
> Under God's new covenant, God's law is inside us. It is no longer external set of rules. The Holy Spirit reminds us of Christ's words. The law (OT)was never intended to save people but to point out sin and point us toward Jesus.The Old Covenant was never meant to be permanant. The Bible says this very clearly.
> You cannot grab one part of Christianity and then fling it in my face and say this is why I don't believe, because you don't believe in what your flinging at me anyways.
> *I can label God as God because he is God.*If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
> ...


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Everyone deserves death according to the Bible*.


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I wish to depart and be with Christ which is far better, but I know that* my task here is not complete*. And only when it is complete will I depart this world. So I will continue on, continuing my task God has laid out for me until it is finished.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your example is definitely a gray area, and to be honest I don't think I can answer that. That is a question I will definitely ask my pastor though.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus said he was God. And God said in Leviticus 18 that homosexuality is wrong. And if Jesus is God that means he also sated homosexuality is wrong.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The story of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?
> He is very "straight" about it.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I personally believe no. I can ask my pastor who has studied the Scriptures for far longer than I have.


Around this time in the thread we found out Rukh has a drinking buddy who makes child porn of himself in fursuit. A pink gay as all get out fursuit. But he only fucks little girls so Rukh says not to hate the sinner and he can have friends who are sinnersâ€¦ sâ€™aaawwwlright. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3708401/




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I did not know of anything he has done. I don't even know the guy. I posed with a random fursuiter at a con and got a picture.


 
So then later I go Biblical. http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/85249-Rant-Aborted-fetuses-found-in-dumpster.?p=2220014 This is a link because Iâ€™m too lazy to redo all those quote things for those bible verses.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible clearly states that Life begins at conception. Therefore since life begins at conception it is murder when you kill the unborn child.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Shall I get the verses to back it up. According the the Bible abortion is murder.


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Here you go.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus demonstrated the love of God for children often during His ministry. Jesus tells us not to despise or look down upon the least powerful and significant (by human standards) of humans. It is ironic that the most helpless humans are those inside the womb.
> 
> The Old Testament provides most of the information on God's view of life before birth, since it gives us the law. Life begins at conception. The Bible forbids murder. (Thou shall not kill, 10 commandments)
> Therefore according to the Bible. An abortion is killing a human life. Which is a sin.


 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Scriptures undeniably teach that God Himself Personally *creates* every child in the womb of the mother, and knows them *intimately* before they are even born. (NOTE: Iâ€™m willing to bet that God knows full well what He is doing when He creates a child in the womb.)





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore, God is the One Who â€œopens and closes the wombâ€ -- He decides when children are conceived. (NOTE: Yet so many today feel that they know better than God whether or not they should have a child, rape is not the point. Why?)
> It is also clear that God desires the *birth* of children; all children, *regardless of the circumstances*, are *a blessing* - His *gifts*.
> To take the life of the unborn is therefore a violation of Exodus 20:13 -- it is murder. In fact, the case laws in Exodus address abortion in a way.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Old Testament is not to be thrown out. Instead we are to look at what the Old Testament says through what Jesus said. The OT is not obsolete. We are to apply what is says using what Jesus has said.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I was talking about the old covenant. And the old covenant was fulfilled my Jesus.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).
> 
> In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to â€œlove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mindâ€¦and to love your neighbor as yourselfâ€ (Matthew 22:37-39). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.


.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

OK. That it. Lets sort this pile of crap.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought what I said was clear. I personally believe that abortion is wrong. *To me, murder is murder. I just can't justify killing an innocent baby.* Thats my personal belief. I am not going to argue about it. I believe what I believe. And I respect other peoples decision who don't believe abortion is wrong.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor,* since, if they had grown up opposed to God, they would have gone to hell. If God were to have spared some of the children, it would have been difficult to determine the cutoff age.


----------



## Riley (Nov 9, 2010)

I think we need to just get Rukh an ED page and call it a day.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 9, 2010)

Linkie to aid Deo.  Also, it's where I got my first "Rukh in five..." prediction correct.

There's some more contradictions pointed out by several people in the thread after this post, actually.  The most clear one, still, is Rukh's "The Old Testament is a Guidepost" "THE OLD TESTAMENT HATES US! IT HATES THE PRECIOUS'!" "The Old Testament is designed to help guide people into Jesus' light" "THE OLD TESTAMENT BURNS US!  THE OLD COVENANT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRECIOUS'!" jumping back and forward, wherein he keeps applying quotes from the Old Testament or justifying some parts of it, whereas at the same time saying stuff like this:


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore, do not try and pull anything out of the old testoment to use against me. The site you linked did this as well. The Old Testoment is the old covonent. Which is gone.



Yes, that quote is really one of my favorite.  Especially when you see Deo's earlier posts wherein Rukh keeps talking about using the Old Testament and justifying / using passages from such... but then here says someone is wrongfully using the Old Testament against him (and that an entire site is wrong) because the Old Testament is "Gone".

You also get gems when combined with the above, such as "Abortion = Wrong", yet when you combine it with the earlier "Sicking two she-bears on a bunch of kids / young adults is merciful" and "dashing heads against rocks was justified because they were heathen-babies" (paraphrased).


And when the hell'd Asswings get banned?


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Linkie to aid Deo. Also, it's where I got my first "Rukh in five..." prediction correct.
> 
> There's some more contradictions pointed out by several people in the thread after this post, actually. The most clear one, still, is Rukh's "The Old Testament is a Guidepost" "THE OLD TESTAMENT HATES US! IT HATES THE PRECIOUS'!" "The Old Testament is designed to help guide people into Jesus' light" "THE OLD TESTAMENT BURNS US! THE OLD COVENANT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRECIOUS'!" jumping back and forward, wherein he keeps applying quotes from the Old Testament or justifying some parts of it, whereas at the same time saying stuff like this:
> 
> ...


Thanks Attaman, through all this crap I'm always amazed at your relentless truthfulness and lack of leniency on people bein hypocrites. So thanks for the help in this, I've gone back over those pages of Rukh post vomit and narrowed down his TL;DR while keeping it to his exact words.
And I'm not surewhy Asswings got banned. I'll check out the R&R 'furfaggotry' chatroom and see if she's there later and ask her.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2010)

We've laid into Rukh so hard (because it's so easy), that I'm not sure anyone else is gunna hit this thread.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> We've laid into Rukh so hard (because it's so easy), that I'm not sure anyone else is gunna hit this thread.


 Yeah. I've really been enjoying this thread to. So far, the conversation that hasn't been attacking Rukh (though I've enjoyed that :3) has been really fun and at least intellectually stimulating if nothing else.

I'd hate for this to die away because of all the attacks (some perhaps not deserved) against Rukh.


----------



## Deo (Nov 9, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> We've laid into Rukh so hard (because it's so easy), that I'm not sure anyone else is gunna hit this thread.



Are you kidding? 
They are furries, this is a dead horse.... _oh yeeeaaaaah_ they'd hit that. Murr.
:V


----------



## Lobar (Nov 9, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> What supports the turtle?


 
Ah, after that it's turtles all the way down.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 9, 2010)

Okay, who's the twat that just banned Deo >:[


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Okay, who's the twat that just banned Deo >:[


 
20 bucks says she was banned for a mix of spam and calling out users.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Okay, who's the twat that just banned Deo >:[


 
This. 

Wow, Deo just roasted Rukh.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Okay, who's the twat that just banned Deo >:[



Don't tell me somebody made Rukh a mod...


----------



## GingerM (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define extraterrestrial life? Contrary to belief the Bible actually says there is extraterestrial life. Just not the way you are thinking.The Bible is by no means silent about real extraterrestrial 			life in all its great abundance.


 
Which is to answer a question I didn't ask. I asked specifically about Jesus and salvation for beings living on other planets (if there are any, concerning which the jury is still out). I did not ask about angelic beings, or demons or any other being that would be considered supernatural.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 9, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Which is to answer a question I didn't ask. I asked specifically about Jesus and salvation for beings living on other planets (if there are any, concerning which the jury is still out). I did not ask about angelic beings, or demons or any other being that would be considered supernatural.


 
Don't worry, you're not alone.  One of Rukh's favored tactics is "Post a response to a question you didn't ask to speak on a field he has ready articles to copy-paste from".  Provided that fails, next comes "I don't have room to speculate on the Bible, but I have faith God will make the right choice".

Though I'll agree with Conker here in that we kinda need a new topic.  Debating with Rukh has come to the usual walls, Telnac is neither radiating crazy nor gathering responses that do such, Roose hasn't been spotted for a bit...  

Is it time to move onto a different religion?  If so, which?  Hinduism?  Judaism?  Islam?  Oh, can we do Greek Mythology?  It's so fun discussing things like Narcissus.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 9, 2010)

I vote greek mythology. I don't know much about it and it would give me a better reason to continue lurking here; although I do enjoy a good roast it gets tiring after a while.


----------



## Conker (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm cool with any religion, though I know the most about Christianity (or rather, the most ways to argue with nut jobs that reside in that religion). I do like Hinduism and any polytheistic religion. The idea of multiple gods with more humanistic qualities is nice and appeals to the lover of literature and writer in me. 

Plus, motherfucking Thor man! 

I actually wrote a research paper on Shiva for a religious class a few semesters ago. He's cool to. Or "it" as the case is.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 9, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Don't tell me somebody made Rukh a mod...


 
Really? you think I had anything to do with her being banned. I was at work from 8am to 6pm.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really? you think I had anything to do with her being banned. I was at work from 8am to 6pm.


 
Ummm, I think he was joking... 

Calm down bro.


----------



## Lucien Pyrus (Nov 9, 2010)

I like religion in moderation. It gives people guidelines to play nice in the world. I really think in some ways the world is better with religion in it. 

What I don't like are extremists who are willing to persecute others. Keep your beliefs to yourself people


----------



## Telnac (Nov 9, 2010)

Apologies for not being able to respond to more of the thread's posts.  I only have the time to respond to a couple of posts in any given day.  I wish I had more time, as some of the discussions (aside from Rukh Gaffe Bashing) have started to get pretty interesting.



Conker said:


> To us, our lives are based around free will, to God, they are set in stone.  I woke up today and said "today is the day I take a test" God saw me wake up today and said "today is the day he fails a test." This wouldn't be a problem except that we are judged by these choices which he already knows will happen.



OK, it sounds like we're arguing semantics.  So let's assume that I agree with you and say that in a deterministic Universe, free will is an illusion.  Why does it matter when one is being judged for their actions?  As far as you know, you deserved the failing grade on a test you didn't study for, and you made the choice to play WoW instead of studying.  If your professor could see the entire time line, and knew beforehand that you wouldn't study, would they be unjust in giving you a failing grade on your test?


Conker said:


> If God lies outside of our established boundaries, how can you worship him? Living outside the boundaries of our universe means he lives outside of our established laws and ideas. Where is the substance of which we can latch onto? If God is that different from us, then we are basically worshiping an alien entity who we do not understand.
> 
> If God is bound by laws that we do not understand or know, then how can we make any claims about him at all? How do we even know he is loving or just if his laws do not coincide with our own? If what you say is the case, how do you know you aren't worshiping some evil deity?


God's character and nature is revealed through His Word.  I wasn't raised a Christian; I was an Atheist until I was around 11 and a pagan until I converted to Christianity when I was 18.  Even after my conversion, I was skeptical about the Bible and its teachings.  But after reading it over & over again and pondering its application in my life, I found more and more that I can trust its teachings.  No, it's not a science book and shouldn't be read as such.  I do believe the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical.  But what I can glean from the Bible is a great deal about God's character.  

It was God's mercy that first caught me my surprise, because I'd always thought of God as some vindictive being who enjoys sending people to burn for all eternity.  Yet I came to learn that He wants us to come to Him, but doesn't force us to do so.  Sin exists, yes.  And with sin, judgment.  But so too does a way for the price of sin to be paid for those who are willing to believe.

Later on, I came to learn about God as a Father.  He doesn't snap his fingers & make things right for us.  He doesn't give us all rewards regardless of our personal choices in life.  No, He gives us challenges to be overcome and things to learn from.  He wants us to grow as children do.  A parent who gives their child whatever they want and expect no effort from the child to improve isn't a good parent at all!  But a parent who correct the child, who gives rewards when the child is good and punishes the child when they're bad... that is a good parent indeed.  So I don't pity the homeless as much as I pity the greedy executives who have everything but still have an insatiable lust for more.  God hasn't turned His back on the homeless, but the greedy executive has already turned his back on God and God's done likewise.  The executive is just forging his own path to destruction.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 9, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Good questions indeed. Before I answer, I wanted to clarify: I don't know if the Universe is truly deterministic or not.  Theoretical scientists who are much smarter than I are debating that topic as we speak.  Quantum mechanics seems to imply that the Universe is non-deterministic, but that the variances are only observable on the atomic level or even smaller.  Classical and relativistic physics seems to imply that the Universe is 100% deterministic.  Until we find out how these things all fit together, we simply don't know.
> 
> That said, a deterministic Universe poses a much greater challenge to the idea of free will, which is why I chose to make my example one that presupposes a deterministic Universe.  As I said in an earlier post, if God does exist and if the Universe isn't deterministic, surely He can see not only the entire timeline, but all possible timelines as well.  So this discussion still has a bearing on a non-deterministic Universe as well.
> 
> ...



DeeEEEeeEEp.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 10, 2010)

I have reason to believe that God created sin.
So he's blaming us for it? He really needs to get his shit straight.

On the topic of a deterministic Universe, God is the big variable to everything. He would presumably be able to see everything, and be the only one with the power to change it all. So why do bad things happen? Because God enables it.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

OK. I've got my Rukh quotes organized, now I think I may ask Ben to hide my previous posts of non-organized quotes. But these future quotes will not have link backs, so if you see something go check it out on the previous posts in this thread before/if they get hidden. I really hate doing this wall of text on you guys. I'm sorry.

I never said I was persecutedâ€¦


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> * Not once have I claimed to be persecuted. *_You are the only one to have said that._
> _You are just mad that you cannot convince me to drop my faith in God. I happily ignore anything that doesn't line up with the Bible._
> _Again I will state, there is nothing that you or anyone else can say to shake my faith in God. Ever._
> _You can go and believe whatever you want._


 
vs I AM PERSECUTED WOE IS ME.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I understand that completely, What I am talking about is when someone says: You're a fucking stupid cunt because you believe in an imaginary God, Conservatives can go and just die. Go suck my balls you fucking Christian.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _Otherwise quit trolling._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _But I will come to the defence of Christianity anytime I see people bashing it and tainting the Scriptures. _
> _This thread should be locked as all it is, is now bashing of Christianity._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> T_his is called a double standard. This needs to stop *now*._


_______________________________________________________________________


I hate gays. 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _1st Corinthians 6:9-10 states homosexual behavior has no place among Christians.__The Bible states homosexuality is a sin. God hates sin. He finds sin detestable._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _I should clarify, that I was disgusted that these people who say they are Christians say that homosexuality isn't wrong._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _Dude, its clear what Paul meant. Men having sex with men is sin. Its clear as day in Romans 1. To say we don't know what exactly he meant is entire crap. That is just ridicules that anyone can even pull that out of the text. It is so clearly written._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _ So, homosexual behavior is sin, being attracted to the same sex, anyone who says that means they are attracted sexually to the same sex. That means they have lustfulll thoughts about them, and that is a sin. So again you can't get around that either._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _And your going to tell me, that someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex will abstain from sex with the same sex their entire life? _
> _The story of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell? _
> _He is very "straight" about it._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _Jesus said he was God. And God said in Leviticus 18 that homosexuality is wrong. And if Jesus is God that means he also sated homosexuality is wrong._


 
vs I do not hate gays


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _And as for me making pronouncements about homosexuality, you don't know me personally. You don't know what I have dealt with. So your making a baseless assumption about me._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *I would also like to add that I too once struggled with homosexual thoughts *


 
______________________________________________________________________________


Old Testament is not for Christians 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *Furthermore, do not try and pull anything out of the old testoment to use against me. The site you linked did this as well. The Old Testoment is the old covonent. Which is gone. When Jesus came to the earth he started the new covenent with us. Thereby changing the laws we are to follow.*
> _*The laws this website speaks of were directed at the Israelites alone and no one else*_





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _And as stated before, the Old Testoment is the Old Covenant, which was fufilled when Christ came. *The laws were specific to the people of Isaeal only.* Christ came and began the New Covenant._





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the *Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians.*_
> _Since you go to church you should know the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. _





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today_.


 
vs. Old Testament is still the laws we must follow.


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _Again its a guidepost. You need to use Christs teachings to interpret the Old Testament. _





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> _The Old Testament is not to be thrown out. Instead we are to look at what the Old Testament says through what Jesus said. The OT is not obsolete. We are to apply what is says using what Jesus has said._


 
Rukh often uses Deuteronomy and Leviticus (Old Testament texts) as key evidence in his debate on why homosexuality is a sin. So many times that itâ€™s stupid for me to list them again.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 10, 2010)

Romans is NT...


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

True Christians 
_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			What a real Christian is, is someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he died (to save us) and rose again according to the Scriptures. *Everything else is just rules that we are called to follow. But those rules don't make someone a Christian*

Click to expand...

_ 
vs those damn posers who just like Jesus.
_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			I actually agree with some of the OP. Many people claim to be Christians just because their parents are, that they read the Bible or go to church.
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _talking about people who call themselves Christians but do not believe in the Bible 100%. This clearly states the Scriptures is from God. And the Bible says God is perfect. Therefore anyone who claims to be a Christian and says the Bible is not perfect is in fact saying God is not perfect. And if God is not perfect then Jesus was not perfect. Which means that he could not have died for our sins because it required a perfect sacrifice. Which finally leads to the path that Christianity would be false. So for any one who claims to be a Christian to say the Bible is not 100% means that they do not believe in God or Jesus Christ. __The Bible is the one true source for Christians. _


_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			And again, I told you the reasons why for a Christian to believe in Jesus the Bible has to be perfect. The Bible states that God is perfect, it also states he breathed the Scriptures (2nd Timothy 3:16-1)
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _So to say the Bible is not perfect is to say God is not perfect, Which means Jesus isn't perfect because Jesus is God. And saying Jesus isn't perfect throws out all of Christianity._
> _Christianity is black and white. One cannot believe in only part of it and call themselves a follower of Christ. _


________________________________________________________

I am not holier than thou, 
_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			Its not up to me to judge another person. Only God is the perfect Judge.
		
Click to expand...

__


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			I am not claiming I am holier than thou.
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _In fact I am more humble because I believe I need God_


 

vs I damn well can judge you idiots
_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			And I think anytime you open your mouth its just to argue louder than everyone else. You think you are always right, you have the worlds biggest ego. And frankly I am sick and tired of you following me everywhere I go on here. So I will respond to how many times you have cursed at me, insulted me or was just plain rude.
		
Click to expand...

__


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			What I meant is, why should I follow someones elses law, I mean its just someones chemical fizz, the same as mine. *Therefore my laws hold the same merit. My reasoning is just as good as someone elses.*

Click to expand...

__


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			And I love how you think you do know everything, about everything.
		
Click to expand...

__________________________________________________

I am civil, you should be too,
_



			Actually, the Bible teaches you to* love your enemies*.
		
Click to expand...

__


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


*I will quote 2 things from the Bible. Love your neighbor as yourself* (as in love everyone) *And turn the other cheek* (as in do not follow an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth) If those to simple yet hard quotes were actually followed.
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _all I am doing is asking people to keep things civil and respect each others different viewpoints_


_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			Exactly, people can state their view points and opinions in a civil matter. But they nearly always put* rude and inflammatory comments* in knowingly that it will start a flame fest. As in, they are trying to start shit. And that is your opinion. I disagree but *I am not going to get upset about it and start calling you a fucking moron who is to stupid to live and should go slit his throat*.
		
Click to expand...

__


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			People can respectfully disagree with each other.
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _I have not threatened anyone. I have stated many times that I believe in God and Jesus. _


 
vs FU ALL Iâ€™LL THREATEN YOU!
_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		


			Screw yourself with a spiked dildo. Sodomize yourself with a sharpened stick. Or just plain fuck yourself. I don't care about anything you say. Mainly because your ego is so large that you think you have to win every e-argument that you get into.
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				RukhWhitefang said:
			
		

> _Are you willing to bet your eternal life that God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose believing in God. But if I am right, well I assume you know the consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that? _


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

You canâ€™t explain these verses because you lack context



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *I am shaking with rage right now. You dare take what you want from the Bible and mis quote it.* You didnt even finnish the story of Mathew 15. Forgot that part didnt we.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *You take what you want out of the Bible. Take it out of context and then twist it to serve what you want it to mean*.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *Dont ever manipulate what the Bible says to fit your needs. *





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> And yet agian, the entire site takes certain versus, not givng the backround to what is going on and why, *ad then claims to say it contradics itself*. *You cant take what is said out of contet.* *How many times do I have to say it. I can take anything out of context and then say its violent.* But I won`t because I dont know what was going on, what happened afterwords, or what went on before said text.






			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *And every one of those you have pulled, you completely out of context. You grab one verse without looking into the context it is being used in. Again. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.*





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> **facepalm* that is really stretching it to say that the Bible says... you took this completely out of context, again*





But I CAN explain them!



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *Except you dont tell me where that is in the Bible. I cant comment on it until I find it in the Bible and read the entire text*.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Give the the verse and *I can give you the context of its meaning*.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Now then I believe what was meant by she knew no man is, she was never married. Her life was dedicated to the Lord. No where in there does it say that she was killed for a sacrifice.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I have plenty more "evidence" as you put it. *I can explain every piece of Scripture you throw at me*. But it doesn`t matter because you won`t read it, because you think you are absolutely correct. I have better things to do than debate with a brick wall. You hear only what you want to hear. I can get countless people who have studied the Scriptures for longer than you have been alive and you still would`t believe them.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Oh yes, I have an answer for this.
> 
> *Question: "Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the â€œyouthsâ€ for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?"
> 
> ...





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> It wasn't children. Its talking about youths, young men. They knew what they were doing.
> Again this was a very large group of young men cursing him and God.
> Again it clearly states that they were mauled., not killed.






			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Here is the definition of maul:
> 1. To beat and bruise with a heavy stick or cudgel; to wound in a coarse manner.
> 2. To injure greatly; to do much harm to.
> 
> Notice the Bible would have had to state they were mauled to death. But that it not what the text says. It states they the young men were mauled. They did live.


 
At this point I would like to point out that the original Hebrew allows for no such manipulation or twisting out of context, it is very fucking clear.

*Kings 2:24*
×•×™×¤×Ÿ××—×¨×™×•×•×™×¨××
×•×™×§×œ×œ××‘×©××™×”×•×”
×•×ª×¦×× ×”×©×ª×™××“×‘×™×
×ž×ŸÖ¾×”×™×¢×¨×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”
×ž×”×××¨×‘×¢×™××•×©× ×™
×™×œ×“×™××ƒ

*×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”*
*×™×œ×“×™×*
×•×ª×‘×§×¢× ×”; to split in half, or tear.
×™×œ×“×™×; children


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

DONâ€™T CALL ME STUPID



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You cannot disprove God doesn't exist. *One would think using logic, if you can't disprove of something, then that leads to the possibility of it being true*. But oh no, you can't even believe that. Science even states not to throw out all the possibilites. And here I have been the only one that has been able to explain where everything has come from. Just saying we don't know is a load of crap. And you know it.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> If there is no meaning to anything, then why should I help humanity? I ask you what the point of this whole thread is. Because your not even open to the possibility that God exists. Anyone can deny anything even if proof is sitting right in front of them. Logic showed me that God exists.


 
YOU STUPID ATHEISTS!



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but *an exercise in self-deception*. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God,* is a blind leap of faith*, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? *Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. *At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You cannot explain where morality, ethics, or even the laws of science come from. Because in this universe, everything has to have a source. But you cannot give me an account for it. I asked you to give me a scientific reason to where everything came from. And you can't. And science cannot give an explanation for it. *To say that we have not yet found out yet, or we just don't know is illogical.*
> But I already know that you will still say God doesn't exist.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of? Please examine the real reason why you are running from God.





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Really, a guide to aithiesm? Lol





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Im sorry but no, just no. I can prove aithiesm isnt true.






			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You keep telling me my explanations are no good, Even if I get a pastors own explanation (someone who has studied the Bible more than you have) And yet. I can say the same thing about your explanation, that it isnt any good and its not true. Now what? Do you see the facily in your Logic. You cant believe what I say is true because you don`t want it to be true.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

I'd also like to mention the amount of "D'AAAWWWW I LOVE YOU GUYS" I felt when I was banned and came back and saw that you guys noticed/cared.


----------



## Corto (Nov 10, 2010)

Okay, who's the twat that just unbanned Deo >:[


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Telnac said:


> OK, it sounds like we're arguing semantics.  So let's assume that I agree with you and say that in a deterministic Universe, free will is an illusion.  Why does it matter when one is being judged for their actions?  As far as you know, you deserved the failing grade on a test you didn't study for, and you made the choice to play Halo instead of studying.  If your professor could see the entire time line, and knew beforehand that you wouldn't study, would they be unjust in giving you a failing grade on your test?


Perhaps we are arguing semantics then. I suppose another way to put it could be like this. I view my life from the present, God views it like a movie or anime *he has already seen. *Perhaps he's on episode two and going "Oh, this is the part where Lucy is going to break that seashell and upset Kohta" and then he ponders and goes "Gosh, I'm looking forward to watching the last episode to see Lucy have her final fight with #37." A movie will always pan out the same way. No matter how many times I put in _Jaws_, the shark will always die at the end, and that little boy will always die in the beginning (causing the mother to don black and slap the sheriff who knew thar be sharks in there). Those events are predetermined to happen. To God, my life is predetermined to happen. 

I do know this is a big argument among theologians and philosophers. When I brought it up in one of my classes, my professor sort of blanched and said "we don't have enough hours left in the semester to cover that topic" then he tossed out a few authors I might want to look up, but I never wrote them down. It's a big topic; I wish I could argue it better but I"m not that well learned in it.



> God's character and nature is revealed through His Word.  I wasn't raised a Christian; I was an Atheist until I was around 11 and a pagan until I converted to Christianity when I was 18.  Even after my conversion, I was skeptical about the Bible and its teachings.  But after reading it over & over again and pondering its application in my life, I found more and more that I can trust its teachings.  No, it's not a science book and shouldn't be read as such. * I do believe the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical.  But what I can glean from the Bible is a great deal about God's character.*


But here's the thing. When the Genesis first came about, whatever year that may have been, was it written to be metaphorical or was it written as word to show a possible explanation for how the world came to be? There are many events in the Old Testament that are obviously wrong or could not happen. Look at the flood. Enough rain to flood the earth would have made breathing impossible for Noah and his crew, let alone all the other problems with that story. The creation story has been disproven by science unless you turn it into a metaphor.

But at one point, were these considered metaphors or the literal happenings of God? Society has moved forward, the Bible has not, to compensate, society picks parts of the Bible and says "that's a metaphor now." 

But who decides which parts of the Old Testament are metaphors? The story of Moses and his rescuing of the Israelites from that one douche is something most would look at and go "fact!" Because that's a nice story where God isn't an asshole and could be plausible. But, what about parts of that story where God orders Moses and his crew to go kill and conquer? That part of the story, God isn't a nice deity at all, and Moses isn't a kind character either. Does that part of the story become some form of metaphor or parable? Or do we just assume that God was a vengeful sunofabitch and Moses could be caught up in his own bloodlust from time to time (which may have lead to rape)? The latter part doesn't make either character out to be all that good or worthy of praise.


> It was God's mercy that first caught me my surprise, because I'd always thought of God as some vindictive being who enjoys sending people to burn for all eternity.  Yet I came to learn that He wants us to come to Him, but doesn't force us to do so.  Sin exists, yes.  And with sin, judgment.  But so too does a way for the price of sin to be paid for those who are willing to believe.


I'm guessing this was all gleamed from the New Testament, yes? Because the God of the Old Testament isn't the kindest of fellows. He's quite a prick, actually. Him and mercy don't go hand in hand in the Old Testament. I will give you that Jesus and God of the New Testament are pretty nice fellows, Jesus being one cool motherfucker all in all. 


> Later on, I came to learn about God as a Father.  He doesn't snap his fingers & make things right for us.  He doesn't give us all rewards regardless of our personal choices in life.  No, He gives us challenges to be overcome and things to learn from.  He wants us to grow as children do.  A parent who gives their child whatever they want and expect no effort from the child to improve isn't a good parent at all!  But a parent who correct the child, who gives rewards when the child is good and punishes the child when they're bad... that is a good parent indeed.  So I don't pity the homeless as much as I pity the greedy executives who have everything but still have an insatiable lust for more.  God hasn't turned His back on the homeless, but the greedy executive has already turned his back on God and God's done likewise.  The executive is just forging his own path to destruction.


I'm unable to argue with that, mostly because I'm not sure there's anything to argue.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2010)

Corto said:


> Okay, who's the twat that just unbanned Deo >:[


 
Maybe there is a_ loving_, _merciful _supreme being!


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2010)

Why has no one mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church?
I know Christianity is a HUGE topic here though on thoughts of religious matter what about cults that make NO sense at all?


note: i remember now reading where someone said "beer volcano and a stripper factory" being a reference to FSM. Though my question still stands.
What about cults and other religions that don't seem to make any sense then again I suppose none really do.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2010)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Why has no one mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church?
> I know Christianity is a HUGE topic here though on thoughts of religious matter what about cults that make NO sense at all?



Because the "cult" in question was invented as a joke.


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because the "cult" in question was invented as a joke.


 Actually, there was a point to that joke. The school district that person was a part of wanted to teach Creationism alongside evolution. He thought that was stupid. If this school district was going to teach that creation myth, then they should be teaching other creation myths (or no creation myths at all.) FSM was born!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> Actually, there was a point to that joke. The school district that person was a part of wanted to teach Creationism alongside evolution. He thought that was stupid. If this school district was going to teach that creation myth, then they should be teaching other creation myths (or no creation myths at all.) FSM was born!


Yeah, I thought it was something like that.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 10, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Ah, after that it's turtles all the way down.


 
I was waiting ages for someone to come back with that line.

Damn Deovacuus your pwnage of Rukh is sublime.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Why has no one mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church?
> I know Christianity is a HUGE topic here though on thoughts of religious matter what about cults that make NO sense at all?


 
Pastafarianism was a "religion" made up to prove a point to the Kansas school board that if they wished to teach Creationism side by side with evolution than other religions would have to be allowed to have their views taught as well. As such it was made up to be absurd. It was pointed satire to showcase how wrong it is to allow religion (in this case they wanted to ONLY teach the views of Christians ) to be forcibly taught to all children under the name of science is. 
So Flying Spaghetti Monsterism/Pastafarianism sprung forth to combat the idea of religion being taught in public, government regulated, tax payer subsidized schools.

See, our public schools are for _all_ children, whether Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, agnostic. The schools are supported by _all_ taxpayers, and therefore should be free of religious observances and coercion. It is the sacred duty of parents and churches to instill religious beliefs, free from government dictation. Institutionalizing prayers in public schools usurps the rights of parents. 
It is also important to see that not only does it interfere with the secularism of public schools, but it harms children. When religion has invaded our public school system, it has singled out the lone Jewish student, the class Unitarian or agnostic, the children in the minority. It was even commonplace prior to the Supreme court decision against school prayer to put non-religious or nonorthodox children in places of_ detention_ during bible-reading or prayer recitation. 

Now more about FSMism is that I actually talked to the 'Prophet' Bobby Henderson. (When I go home for Thanksgiving I can scan and show you the generic letter he wrote me!). The 'cult following' of FSMism is just the opposition to religion encroaching in places tat should be secular to allow for freedom between all religious and nonreligious practitioners. It has less to do with "THIS IS THE TRUE GOD" as it is_ completely satirical_. 



As for cults we'd also have to make sure that they are not just spinoff satire religions (ie, Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn-ism and such).
If you have a cult you'd like to discuss please present it.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Telnac said:


> OK, it sounds like we're arguing semantics. So let's assume that I agree with you and say that in a deterministic Universe, free will is an illusion. Why does it matter when one is being judged for their actions? As far as you know, you deserved the failing grade on a test you didn't study for, and you made the choice to play WoW instead of studying. If your professor could see the entire time line, and knew beforehand that you wouldn't study, would they be unjust in giving you a failing grade on your test?


That would be true, except in the scenario under God of a short 60-80 year life with eternal damnation or eternal bliss as the consequence of the actions taken in that lifetime. However if you are to be punished or rewarded for all time and the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion you were set up before hand with no hope of ever changing anything. Before you were born you would be pre-determined to fail or succeed without any influence of your own capacity. By juding us and punishing us for the actions we have taken while under such absolute duress then God is still malicious. I am having a difficult time putting this to words. If there is a cookie on a string, and you are told your whole life to strive for that cookie on that string, only to find out that all along it was a paper cut out, you never had a chance to get that cookie. In your fate you would never have gotten it even wth hard work and enginuity. It was all a set up, but you are still blamed and punished for not having gotten the cookie. Even though you were set up to fail before you even tried. 



Telnac said:


> God's character and nature is revealed through His Word. I wasn't raised a Christian; I was an Atheist until I was around 11 and a pagan until I converted to Christianity when I was 18. Even after my conversion, I was skeptical about the Bible and its teachings. But after reading it over & over again and pondering its application in my life, I found more and more that I can trust its teachings. No, it's not a science book and shouldn't be read as such. I do believe the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical.


Then for your moderation, and the time you took to examine all sides of the issue and to read and re-read the Bible I commend you. Religion is wonderful in moderation. And it can go hand in hand with science and civil morality. In this I feel you may agree. I find it abrasive when people though use religon as an excuse to never study or understand the world around them and are appeased with "It's God's way" or "It's magic". Neither of which are applicable answers in the face of many of science's answers. For example, I had a friend who every fall would go on and on about how the leaves changing colors was magic, and as the will of God it was un-understandable. Any discussion on the light wave absorption of chlorophyllic cells of the leaves was dismissed because she refused to know more. This 'ignorance is bliss' method of thinking I believe helps many create a "God of the Gaps" (a term coined by Dawkins). This God can be found in the gaps of science, and science is therefore a threat as the more science encroaches and comes to understand the world. The less gaps in our knowledge the smaller God is forced to become to linger in those gaps. However if God can coexist with science He/She stands a far better chance of surviving when the gaps may in the future fill in.





Telnac said:


> But what I can glean from the Bible is a great deal about God's character.
> It was God's mercy that first caught me my surprise, because I'd always thought of God as some vindictive being who enjoys sending people to burn for all eternity. Yet I came to learn that He wants us to come to Him, but doesn't force us to do so. Sin exists, yes. And with sin, judgment. But so too does a way for the price of sin to be paid for those who are willing to believe. Later on, I came to learn about God as a Father. He doesn't snap his fingers & make things right for us. He doesn't give us all rewards regardless of our personal choices in life. No, He gives us challenges to be overcome and things to learn from. He wants us to grow as children do.


I will have to disagree on the topic of God not being vindictive. His character in the Bible is marked by his jealousy, revenge, wrath. I can quote the verses, but being familiar as you are with the Bible too, I will hold off for now. I would however like to hear more on this and further our discussion here if you would be so kind.



Telnac said:


> So I don't pity the homeless as much as I pity the greedy executives who have everything but still have an insatiable lust for more. God hasn't turned His back on the homeless, but the greedy executive has already turned his back on God and God's done likewise. The executive is just forging his own path to destruction.


I understand what you are saying though I hope you don't legitimately believe the stereotype about "greedy" "insatiable" executives applies to all of them. lol  So what about the executive who is a fervent Christian, is he marked out of heaven by wealth? (Camel through the eye of a needle?) And what of the homeless man, who perhaps could have been an ex-con who by his crimes is unable to get a job? Does God play favoritism based on ecomonomic status?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Deo, you never answered my counter argument to determinism.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The debate of Free Will vs Determinism is a  complicated one. Your question is better asked to a theologian who has  studied this matter more than I have. It is my personal belief that  determinism is not true. Because the Bible clearly states that God gave  us full free will. (I believe in predestination, which is the doctrine  of the Bible) So in my opinion the belief of Determination contradicts  with the Bible.
> But since you asked me for an opposing argument here is my best I can think of right now.
> God  is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If God  has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an event,  then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not out of  obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have free will  to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before you make  it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn) any more  than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change your  mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free will  in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with free  will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the future or  not does not alter your free will.
> Now I believe in predestination,  which is completely different from determination. Predestination, the  doctrine of the Bible, says that God has a purpose  and He is working  all things out according to His own will and purpose.Predestination  teaches that God does nothing nor does He permit anything except that  which serves to carry out His purpose, the One who does all things as He  wills.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, you never answered my counter argument to determinism.


 
Oh shush, you never answer anyone either.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Riley said:


> Oh shush, you never answer anyone either.


 
Really? I make it a point to try and answer every question directed at me.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really? I make it a point to try and answer every question directed at me.



Then go back and answer the 5 questions I asked you in other threads, as well as countless other questions you ignored because the answer wasn't convenient enough for you.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really? I make it a point to try and answer every question directed at me.


 
I answered your question already. How about you answer this: Over the last few pages I have compiled some of your contradictions, hypocrisy, arrogance and pride, double standards, and the discrephrancy of his arguments of the Bible being a literal text, now seeing all that _how do you manage to ignore the obvious?_
That you are a hypocritcal mysoginistic Bible manipulating twat.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The debate of Free Will vs Determinism is a complicated one.


  Not if you believe God "Has a Plan", as you've insisted before.  In such a case, you don't have Free Will.  Unless, of course, you want to admit God's plan has faults.  Which then, I 'unno, also opens up the possibility that all the "faults" in the universe you insist are man-made aren't necessarily man-made, but could be divine-made.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your question is better asked to a theologian who has studied this matter more than I have.


This seems to be something you respond with a lot, when you can't post / re-interpret a Bible quote / copy from another site speaking on such.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It is my personal belief that determinism is not true.


So you admit God doesn't have a plan for you, or that God can be wrong.  Got you.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because the Bible clearly states that God gave us full free will.


  Hm, which passage if you don't mind me asking?  I mean, you've already said 50% of the Bible's content doesn't hold, best to make sure it's not from that 50%.

Oh, by the way, "God gave us free will because he says he gave us free will" doesn't normally work in a debate.  I'm willing to accept it, though, because you must admit with the repeating of such that either God does not have a plan, or that God can fault.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> (I believe in predestination, which is the doctrine of the Bible)


Pre-destination... isn't that you're fucked or blessed regardless of what you do?  As in "Yeah, by the way, when you die you're going to Hell"? That's... not really much better for your "God is not a dick" arguments against me.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So in my opinion the belief of Determination contradicts with the Bible.


  The Bible contradicts the Bible, you're going to have to do a bit more than that.

Furthermore, pre-destination kinda gives a bit of a spin on Free Will:  You can choose what you want, but your outcome is already set.  Such a free will... doesn't really seem that good.  At all.  It's like saying "You can pick pizza, soup, chili, salad, pasta, gruel, icecream, tofu, or whatever you want for dinner," and then giving them fruit cake.  I mean, they had the free will to pick what they wanted, said free will didn't matter in the end because your intentions and choices were given no attention at the end.

See:  One more point to my "God's a dick" theory.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible.


 Just like he's a just, moral, kind being?  Oh, wait a minute...

How about like how he's outside time?  No, dammit...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If God has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an event, then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not out of obligation or lack of choice  about the event.


If God already knows the future, the future is already determined.  If the future is already determined, then we have no control over our actions.  It's done for humor purposes, but quite a valid comic.  The "punished for our actions", however, can be ignored in this case, since according to Rukh we're already pre-destined so our actions mean jack-squat (unless the pre-destination is in regard to future actions, in which case the last few lines of the comic come into play).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you were going to change your mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free will in all matters.


  Meaning the actions were already set in stone, so to speak.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Also, you will still  make the same choices (with free will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the future or not does not alter your free will.


  Er, it kinda does.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now I believe in predestination, which is completely different from determination. Predestination, the doctrine of the Bible, says that God has a purpose  and He is working all things out according to His own will and purpose.Predestination teaches that God does nothing nor does He permit anything except that which serves to carry out His purpose. This means that GOD IS the SOVEREIGN of the world, the One who does all things as He wills.


  See:  Chalk one more point to "God's a dick".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I answered your question already. How about you answer this: Over the last few pages I have compiled some of your contradictions, hypocrisy, arrogance and pride, double standards, and the discrephrancy of his arguments of the Bible being a literal text, now seeing all that _how do you manage to ignore the obvious?_


 
First off, I am not God. I am not perfect. I sin just as much as someone else. I have let my pride and my anger get the better of me sometimes (when I have insulted people). And for that I apologize. But I stand by what I have said about the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself. It is the truth, in whatever form it takes shape in. Truth in a metaphor, literal text, or in a parable. And you did not answer my counter agrument about determinism, in the fact that determinism is not the doctrine of the Bible.

God  is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If  God  has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an  event,  then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not  out of  obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have  free will  to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before  you make  it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn)  any more  than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change  your  mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free  will  in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with  free  will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the  future or  not does not alter your free will.

The Bible's doctrine is pre destination. And that is what I described above. He could directly control us as you say he does, but then it would be forced love that we give Him, which isn't love at all.

Edit: And you claim that just because you have read the Bible through twice you completely understand it.





Deovacuus said:


> I read the Bible cover to cover twice.


 Thats it? You read it front to back twice and you think you get it? A person can read the same couple versus and learn something new every time. (as in get new insight into God)
Your claiming to understand the Bible just as much as someone who has spent their entire life reading it (ie a theologian) You call me ignorant because I believe 100% in the Bible. I call you ignorant because you think you understand all of it by reading it only twice.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, I am not God. I am not perfect. I sin just as much as someone else. I have let my pride and my anger get the better of me sometimes (when I have insulted people). And for that I apologize. But I stand by what I have said about the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself. It is the truth, in whatever form it takes shape in. Truth in a metaphor, literal text, or in a parable. And you did not answer my counter agrument about determinism, in the fact that determinism is not the doctrine of the Bible.



The bible is only truth to the people insane enough to believe what was written over a thousand years ago in a language that doesn't exist anymore.  Go look at my post last page or wherever (another thing you've ignored for convenience) about me using a book to preach my own religion that's based off of this text.



> God  is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If  God  has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an  event,  then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not  out of  obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have  free will  to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before  you make  it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn)  any more  than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change  your  mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free  will  in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with  free  will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the  future or  not does not alter your free will.



This is not free will.  If something already knows what you're going to do, you haven't chosen, you've just gone along with what they told you would happen.  Or didn't if this particular thing happens to be a huge, pretentious dick.  Like god is.



> The Bible's doctrine is pre destination. And that is what I described above. He could directly control us as you say he does, but then it would be forced love that we give Him, which isn't love at all.


 
Direct mind control is bad, but using pissed off bears (and floods, and earthquakes, and plagues, and meteors, and all that other good stuff) to kill people into belief is a-okay.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Let's play a game, Rukh:  Tell me how this is less correct than what you said:


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God  is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If  God  has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an  event,  then you will freely *be forced to* choose  this based on your *lack of* free will, not  out of  obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have *no* free will  to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before  you make  it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn)  any more  than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change  your  mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full *no* free  will  in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with*out*  free  will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the  future or  not does not alter your free will. *A set future path does alter your free will.*



Explain what's wrong with that, besides "it's wrong".  Notice that all I did, for the most part, was change around a few words of yours and present it as fact, which is what you did barring the changing of words.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Let's play a game, Rukh:  Tell me how this is less correct than what you said:
> 
> 
> Explain what's wrong with that, besides "it's wrong".  Notice that all I did, for the most part, was change around a few words of yours and present it as fact, which is what you did barring the changing of words.


 
Well first of all, you changed what I said to make it sound like you are being forced a path to follow. And I have stated many times it pre destination that the Bible teaches. I look at it this way. God sees all possible outcomes of our decisions. In other words, there are many futures depending on what choice we pick. But God can see all of them. You still get to choose your decision. Just that God sees all outcomes.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But I stand by what I have said about the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself. It is the truth, in whatever form it takes shape in.


 
Oh good. Can I get to use my own copypasta? Taken from Internet Infidels because they are awesome. I can get more, but you get the point. And there are over 400 contradictions and I don't want to spam/post vomit them all here. So here are a few of the first I could find, look up, and verify.

*War or Peace?*
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

*Who is the father of Joseph?*
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

*Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?*
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

*Which first--beasts or man?*
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

*The number of beasts in the ark*
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

*How many stalls and horsemen?*
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

*Is it folly to be wise or not?*
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

*The sins of the father*
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

*The bat is not a bird* 
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

*Righteous live?*
PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

*Jesus' last words*
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

*Years of famine*
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

*God be seen?*
EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9 
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

*CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:*
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

*Tempts?*
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

*Who bears guilt?*
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

*Hellfire for Jesus?*
Matthew 5:22, Jesus says, "Whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool', shall be in danger of hell fire." 
Luke 11:40, Jesus says, "Thou fools! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also?"

*Do you answer a fool?*
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

*Judging*
1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

*When is the second coming?*
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
(See also 1TH 4:15-18)

*Moved David to anger?*
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the _LORD_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And _SATAN_ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is omniscient. Since God is omniscient, He is also infallible.


If the Bible is God breathed truth, and God is infallible, THEN WHY IS THE BIBLE FALLIBLE AND CONTRIDICTORY OF ITSELF?




More books on the topic of the Bible's contradictions.
_Self-Contradictions of the Bible_ by William Henry Burr (written in 1859 as a response to fundamentalism).
_The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures_ by Ben Edward Akerley
_The Bible Handbook._ (This is a compilation of several previous works by several authors, including W.P. Ball, G.W. Foote, and John Bowden. It's a collection of biblical contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies, obscenities, unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises. This 372-page volume will give the atheist tons of scriptural ammunition for shooting down the flimsy arguments of the reality impaired.)
_Classified Biblical Extracts Or, The Holy Scriptures Analyzed: Showing Its Contradictions, Absurdities And Immoralities_ by Robert Cooper (originally published in 1840).


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well first of all, you changed what I said to make it sound like you are being forced a path to follow. And I have stated many times it pre destination that the Bible teaches. I look at it this way. God sees all possible outcomes of our decisions. In other words, there are many futures depending on what choice we pick. But God can see all of them. You still get to choose your decision. Just that God sees all outcomes.


 First:  Will you please answer my questions in regard as to "God's Plan" and "God feths up"?  

Second:  That's just it.  Your post is, pretty much, a vague statement with specific words thrown in to imply that Free Will is obvious.  

Third:  God sees all paths... but is never wrong?  In which case, the path is set out.  Meaning you don't have choice in the matter.  Again, you're looking at it on a "If I do this now that happens right after". What you're ignoring is that such _extends_ to include "If I skip lunch today five years down the road I'm going to rape a woman and kill my mother three years after."  God sees that entire line, and you're already set down on it.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, I am not God. I am not perfect. I sin just as much as someone else. I have let my pride and my anger get the better of me sometimes (when I have insulted people). And for that I apologize. But I stand by what I have said about the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself. It is the truth, in whatever form it takes shape in. Truth in a metaphor, literal text, or in a parable. And you did not answer my counter agrument about determinism, in the fact that determinism is not the doctrine of the Bible.
> 
> God  is omniscient. Since God is  omniscient, He is also infallible. If  God  has infallible foreknowledge  that tomorrow you will engage in an  event,  then you will freely choose  this based on your free will, not  out of  obligation or lack of choice  about the event. You still have  free will  to engage in the event; God  merely knows your choice before  you make  it. You are not obliged to make  choice 'A' (mowing the lawn)  any more  than choice 'B' (playing tennis).  If you were going to change  your  mind, God would have seen that also,  so you still have full free  will  in all matters. Also, you will still  make the same choices (with  free  will), even if God chose to not see the  future. Seeing the  future or  not does not alter your free will.
> 
> ...


 
Wrong. That's Determinism. You clearly don't know what "free will" means, because you're just saying that we have it despite it being completely illogical for your argument.
Predestination would mean, for example, that I will stab Jim in the  future. My life and choices up until that point would not be determined  or known, just that I will eventually stab Jim. In order for Predestination and free will to both exist, God would have no clue what's going to happen in my life except that at some point I will shank ol' Jimmy.
In order for us to have free will, God would have to not know what choices we are going to make. If he knows we are going to do something bad, and does nothing to stop it, then he is at fault as well.

The Bible is a nice piece of fiction. It's constantly misunderstood, constantly misquoted, and constantly flip-flopping between metaphor and literal. If it is truly God's word given to us, then it proves a fault in God. If God made it that hard to understand, than he is well and true an idiot.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm going to stay out of this thread because I will inevitably piss somebody off.

All I'm going to say is that if you follow any sort of organized religion, I think you're a moron. Nothing personal, believe what you want.


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I'm going to stay out of this thread because I will inevitably piss somebody off.
> 
> All I'm going to say is that if you follow any sort of organized religion, I think you're a moron. Nothing personal, believe what you want.


 Nice non sequitur there bro.

"I don't want to piss anyone off, but if you're religious you're an idiot"

The fuck dude? 

@Rukh. Everything I've been saying to Tel could apply to your argument. The difference is Tel seems to know what the fuck he's talking about while you do not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Oh good. Can I get to use my own copypasta? Taken from Internet Infidels because they are awesome. I can get more, but you get the point. And there are over 400 contradictions and I don't want to spam/post vomit them all here. So here are a few of the first I could find, look up, and verify.
> 
> *War or Peace?*
> EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
> ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


 Is is not reasonable to say that God can both be a warrior and a God of peace, as the circumstances require? Can a person not be a soldier at some time in there life, during a time of war, and say a golf instructor during a time of peace? Is God not allowed to act to what we do as He sees fit?
The Exodus was a time when God advanced on behalf of Israel for conquest. it is certainly         appropriate that this hymn of praise to Him extolled that virtue and         practice. Romans 15:33 is the salutation of a letter, when blessings         are offered. The "genre gap" here is vast, to say nothing of the historical         contexts. A contradiction would only exist if God were described as being         of war and peace at the *same time* and performing the same action.That simply isn't the case here. Being warlike and peaceful are not permanently,         mutually contradictory states, for they each involve complexes of interaction         with persons and actions that are encountered over time. Thats the best I can do to explain that.


Deovacuus said:


> *Who is the father of Joseph?*
> MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
> LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


 Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one  problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at *Adam* and goes to *David*. Matthew's genealogy starts at *Abraham* and goes to *David*. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: *Nathan* (Mary's side) and *Solomon* (Joseph's side).There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other  is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the  father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. Also, you do know that Jacob was 100s of years before Joseph right?


Deovacuus said:


> *Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?*
> JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
> JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


 You need to understand the Trinity here. Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all God, separate yet the same.


Deovacuus said:


> *Which first--beasts or man?*
> GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
> GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


 This is just recapping what God did, then showing that he made Adam the caretaker of the world.


Deovacuus said:


> *The number of beasts in the ark*
> GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
> GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


 Not sure what your getting at. Previously Noah had been told to be ready to    bring a pair of each of the animals of the area (both domestic and wild), and    birds into the ship.    Perhaps these were stabled in the ark well ahead of the event. Seven days    before the flood was expected he was told to take in seven pairs of the clean    animals and birds which were suited for his family to eat during the five    months period of the flood. As in the previous chapter, a pair of each kind of clean (fit for eating) and unclean domestic animals    (such as donkeys) and birds of that area were taken into the ark seven days    before the deluge occurred. Here "everything that creeps on the ground" should    read "animals that walk on all fours."


Deovacuus said:


> *How many stalls and horsemen?*
> 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
> 2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


 To this I believe it is a copy error. I had to do some research and came up with the fact that  the words 40 and 4 look very close in Hebrew ××¨×‘Ö¼×¢×™× (40) is an old copyist's error for ××¨×‘Ö¼×¢×”   (4)
Anyways, the versus are pointing out how wealthy Israel was during Solomon"s reign. I don't think the number is too important.


Deovacuus said:


> *Is it folly to be wise or not?*
> PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
> ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
> 1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


You know the saying ignorance is bliss. The verses are kind of eluding to this. The more you increase in wisdom the more you see the problems of the world, thus it can increase your sorrow. As for 1st Corinthians 1:19 its alluding to those who are pridefull in their wisdom. God will put down the prideful and raise up the humble.



Deovacuus said:


> *The sins of the father*
> ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
> DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


 Is. 14:21 comes from a song of vengeance that it is predicted will be sung by the Israelites; it isn't expressing doctrine at all. 


Deovacuus said:


> *The bat is not a bird*
> LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
> LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
> LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
> ...


 The Bat was listed in there because it was an animal (as in not a insect) and had wings.


Deovacuus said:


> DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
> DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
> DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
> DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
> ...


 Again see above.


Deovacuus said:


> *Righteous live?*
> PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
> ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


 When you rip verses out of context, of course they won't make                            sense.  Psalm 92 is a psalm of praise.                             It is speaking of the righteous in eternity.                             In other words, it speaks of the blessed                            hope.  "Though the wicked spring up                            like grass and all evildoers flourish, they                            will be forever destroyed".  You                            see, while the wicked may flourish in this                            life on earth, the righteous will flourish                            for eternity with the Lord.  If you                            read the entire Psalm, the                            meaning becomes abundantly clear. Now, the verse in Isaiah, is speaking of                            the present.  Reading the verse in                            context helps tremendously. Isaiah 57:1-2 states  The righteous                            perish, and no one ponders it in his heart;                            devout men are taken away and no one                            understands that the righteous are taken                            away to be spared from evil.  Those who                            walk uprightly enter into peace; they find                            rest as they lie in death. When the righteous perish, they are being                            spared from evil and enter into an eternity                            of peace.  They flourish while the                            wicked spend eternity in hell.  No                            contradiction here.  Just a lack of                            context. Which seems to be a recurring theme...


Deovacuus said:


> *Jesus' last words*
> MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
> LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
> JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


 When Jesus took *all* of the sin of the *entire* world upon himself, God could not look at him. God cannot be in direct contact with sin. Therefore since God is perfect and in that moment Jesus  (although blameless) took all the sin onto himself God couldn't be with Jesus. I can expand on this further if you want me too.


Deovacuus said:


> *Years of famine*
> II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
> I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


 Again that may just be a copyist error. And its a very small one at that. Now I know what your going to say. "You said the Bible is 100% true" And it still is. To futher my point there are actually around 400,000 variations in the Bible comparison to older manuscripts. But its either a misspelling or just a re wording. Either way, the verses meaning doesn't change whatever number you put in there. It still means the same thing.


Deovacuus said:


> *God be seen?*
> EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
> God CAN be seen:
> "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
> ...


 Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the  Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus. If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem because in John chapter one it states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one  has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father.  This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father.  We see this verified in Jesus own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty  God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation.  There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the  Trinity must be true. So what you just did is prove that the Trinity must be true. Congratulations Deo.


Deovacuus said:


> *CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:*
> "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
> "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
> "For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
> ...


 Again cannot God choose when to be merciful or unmerciful?


Deovacuus said:


> *Tempts?*
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)



 Again, I searched Using the Hebrew and Greek words and found this, The Greek word peirazo and its Hebrew equivalent, nasah carry the meaning of "to try, prove as well as to tempt. God tested Abraham, not tempted. Big difference there. Genesis 22:1 NIV Version states this: Some time later God *tested* Abraham. He said to him, â€œAbraham!â€ â€œHere I am,â€ he replied. 
 


Deovacuus said:


> *Who bears guilt?*
> GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
> GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.


 There is no contradiction here because two different words are used in  Galatians 6:2 and 6:5. The word in 6:2 is used for a more heavy crushing  load, whereas the word for burden in 6:5 is used for a light load. Are  you bearing your own load? But remember, the Lord said that His yoke was  easy and His burden was light â€“ an invitation from Him to help shoulder  your load. This is the whole text. 
Carry each otherâ€™s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.  If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in  themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else,  for each one should carry their own load. 


Deovacuus said:


> *Do you answer a fool?*
> PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
> PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


  Proverbs has much to say about fools. They despise wisdom, they are right in their own eyes, they are deceitful, and scornful. Solomon who wrote Proverbs gives instructions on how to deal with fools. Instructing a fool is pointless because his speech is full of foolishness and he does not want wisdom and understanding. The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of the verses you put up there Deo. It tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are  actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where  one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool  on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he  is. The phrase according to his folly in verse 5, on the other hand, tells  us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his  foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him  according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words,  rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his  words and reasoning. Either way What Solomon is getting at is either you ignore what a fool is saying or reproof him depends on the situation


Deovacuus said:


> *Judging*
> 1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
> 1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."


The answer is both. Christians are to discern truth and error, right and  wrong, good and evil based upon righteous of the Bible. The Holy  Spirit inspired Scripture is then the final arbitrator of truth. On the  other hand, they are to shun judgments based upon based upon man. 



Deovacuus said:


> *When is the second coming?*
> MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
> MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
> LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
> (See also 1TH 4:15-18)


 uggg..Jesus was actually not directly talking about the second coming. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem 70AD. He alludes to the second coming by making reference to it. But the part about this generation will not pass is directly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.


Deovacuus said:


> *Moved David to anger?*
> II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the _LORD_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
> I CHRONICLES 21: And _SATAN_ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.


 The difficulty in reconciling the statement here, "Satan provoked David," etc. with that of Samuel, "the Lord moved David," is not serious.* All temptation is permitted by God*. When evil spirits tempt us, they do so by permission.  If Satan therefore provoked David to number the peopIe, God allowed him. So God allowed David to get angry. But Satan was the one who tempted David. That is the difference between the verses.


Now Deo, I actually applaud you for taking the time to look up all those verses. These verses are hard to understand and require a lot of thought and time into them. One cannot just skim read them, but they must look deeply and read in between the lines per say. I will fully admit the Bible is hard to read. But it makes it so the person reading it must think.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To this I believe it is a copy *error.*





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> All scripture is God-breathed and 100% accurate and true.


___________________________________________________



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> When Jesus took *all* of the sin of the *entire* world upon himself, God could not look at him. God cannot be in direct contact with sin. Therefore since God is perfect and in that moment Jesus (although blameless) took all the sin onto himself God couldn't be with Jesus.


But you said God IS Jesus. This would make God in direct contact with sin. Is Jesus God, the triumvirate, or are they seperate and God cannot look at him? Which witch is which?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus. If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem because in John chapter one it states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father. This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father. We see this verified in Jesus own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true. So what you just did is prove that the Trinity must be true. Congratulations Deo.


Bullshit. That garbled mangled paragraph you typed proves nothing. It is all begging the question and wheedling. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Proverbs has much to say about fools. They despise wisdom, they are right in their own eyes, they are deceitful, and scornful.


Huh. You know, I know someone like that...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> uggg..Jesus was actually not directly talking about the second coming. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem 70AD. He alludes to the second coming by making reference to it. But the part about this generation will not pass is directly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.


I AM SHAKING WITH RAGE RIGHT NOW. NO. You are manipulating the Bible and taking it out of context. You can't take it out of context. Where is the verse? You didn't cite it. I am shaking with rage. That is really stretchig it to say what you just said, it flies against the words of the holy scripture. I AM ENRAGED. HOW DARE YOU TWIST WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS TO FIT YOUR NEEDS. _ENRAGED. _



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> *I am shaking with rage right now. You dare take what you want from the Bible and mis quote it*.
> *facepalm** that is really stretching it to say that the Bible says... you took this completely out of context, again.*
> *You take what you want out of the Bible. Take it out of context and then twist it to serve what you want it to mean*.
> *Dont ever manipulate what the Bible says to fit your needs.*


 






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now Deo, I actually applaud you for taking the time to look up all those verses. These verses are hard to understand and require a lot of thought and time into them. One cannot just skim read them, but they must look deeply and read in between the lines per say. I will fully admit the Bible is hard to read. But it makes it so the person reading it must think.


I already told you that I have read it twice. Once to be a good Christian and once because I thought I made a mistake in reading it the first time and went over it very carefully. I still skim it, the Qu'ran, and my copy of the Rig Veda from time to time to keep it fresh. But telling me that I "skimmed" it and never read it or that I did not "read it and think" is _insulting,_ patronizing, and arrogant_._


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Wrong. That's Determinism. You clearly don't know what "free will" means, because you're just saying that we have it despite it being completely illogical for your argument.
> Predestination would mean, for example, that I will stab Jim in the  future. My life and choices up until that point would not be determined  or known, just that I will eventually stab Jim. In order for Predestination and free will to both exist, God would have no clue what's going to happen in my life except that at some point I will shank ol' Jimmy.
> In order for us to have free will, God would have to not know what choices we are going to make. If he knows we are going to do something bad, and does nothing to stop it, then he is at fault as well.
> 
> ...



First of all, if Determinism is true, then that means everyone is forced  to believe in God. No one has a choice or not to believe in him...This  is simply not the case. Do some research on predestination and you will  see it is completely different than determinism.

The scriptures teach the foreknowledge of God. God is able to "declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things are not yet done..." (Isa. 46: 10). Since God's scheme of redemption was planned from the original creation, it is obvious that God knew Adam and Eve would sin, etc. (1 Pet. 1: 20, Eph. 1: 4,5, cf. Matt. 25: 34, Rev. 13: 8, 17: 8). Even though God knew Adam and Eve would sin, he did not force or program them to sin. As free moral agents, they elected to sin (Gen. 3). Man's will is involved in his salvation, not God's irresistible coercion (Jn. 3:16, Matt. II: 28-30). Nonetheless, God knew some would accept before they accepted (Acts 18: 9-11). Hence, some were "ordained to eternal life" because God knew they would obey the gospel when they heard it (Acts 13: 48). 

If no one had a choice then why is John 3:16 in the Bible: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 

That verse alone says their is a choice being made.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> But you said God IS Jesus. This would make God in direct contact with sin. Is Jesus God, the triumvirate, or are they seperate and God cannot look at him? Which witch is which?


 Again the Godhead is 3 in one. They are separate yet the same. Do research on the Trinity. And as I stated before you actually helped prove that the Trinity is true.
I also like how you didn't respond to hardly anything I said in the previous post. I took the time to fully answer every Bible verse you put up. As to the verses about Jesus and the second coming. Did you read the text before it and after it to see what he was talking about?



Deovacuus said:


> I already told you that I have read it twice. Once to be a good Christian and once because I thought I made a mistake in reading it the first time and went over it very carefully. I still skim it, the Qu'ran, and my copy of the Rig Veda from time to time to keep it fresh. But telling me that I "skimmed" it and never read it or that I did not "read it and think" is _insulting,_ patronizing, and arrogant_._



Wait, you think that because you read the Bible *only twice* that you completely understand it? And you call me ignorant...Just wow. One cannot read the Bible twice and fully get it. You are suggesting that you understand the Bible better than a theologian who has been studying the Bible for their entire lifetime. A person can read the same chapter in the Bible and get something new out of it every time. (Getting new insight to God)
Furthermore by saying you understand the Bible completely is saying that you are like God.(Hey, its the first sin all over again from Genesis) One cannot fully understand everything the Scriptures said. That is why there are different denominations in Christianity. And the fact that if we fully understood the Bible then we wouldn't need to grow in our faith or walk with God because we know everything already.


----------



## Willow (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait, you think that because you read the Bible *only twice* that you completely understand it? And you call me ignorant...Just wow.


 And how many times have you read the Bible in its entirety Rukh?

Though it doesn't hurt to you know, read a post thoroughly before jumping the gun on a conclusion.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again the Godhead is 3 in one. They are separate yet the same. Do research on the Trinity. And as I stated before you actually helped prove that the Trinity is true.
> I also like how you didn't respond to hardly anything I said in the previous post. I took the time to fully answer every Bible verse you put up. As to the verses about Jesus and the second coming. Did you read the text before it and after it to see what he was talking about?
> 
> 
> ...


 
Going by your FA page, it says you're 23.  While I personally find that extremely hard to believe based solely on your minuscule level of maturity, we'll say it's true for the sake of simplicity.  
*You cannot be a theologian if you are 23.*  Do you have a degree in theology?  Have you attended the multitude of schools necessary to 'master' your trade?  Just because you have mommy issues and need to seek retribution within a cult as large as your ego does not make you a practiced expert on a subject based entirely on opinion.  Your reliance on coming up with a new angle to argue from every time you're called out is getting really fucking irritating.  It's not witty, it's not divine, it's not intelligent - it's just you being a disgusting coward.  You aren't a messenger for some deity, you're just delusional, and most likely in need of psychiatric help.  You whining at people for stuff like this leaves you in no position to claim superiority, as you haven't bothered to actually do anything to prove this assumed superiority.  

If you're going to try to subtly convert us, try actually defending your own views in substantiated, realistic ways.  Don't change what you've said just because you suddenly realize you can't actually figure out a way to defend it, don't accuse people for taking bible quotes, the things which exist _only_ to be taken out of context, out of context when you yourself do so every other post, and perhaps most importantly of all, DO NOT BLASPHEME.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, if Determinism is true, then that means everyone is forced  to believe in God. No one has a choice or not to believe in him...This  is simply not the case. Do some research on predestination and you will  see it is completely different than determinism.


No. If Determinism is true, and we don't all believe in God, then God doesn't really know what he's doing. If Predestination is true, then God only has a general knowledge of the future and not the details.. so he is not fully omniscient.
I did research the terms. I know that they are different. However, you're putting together a Deterministic scenario, calling it Predestination, and then giving examples of free will and choices with no basis or rationale. If God knows everything you will ever do and will ever think, you don't have free will. There's a logic there that "nuh-uh, you do!" or "scripture says" doesn't address.

So God planned our redemption right from creation because he knew we would sin? Why create us with the ability to sin at all then? He wanted us to have free will? It sounds like the only purpose he gave us free will was to punish us if we use it.



> Wait, you think that because you read the Bible *only twice* that  you completely understand it? And you call me ignorant...Just wow. One  cannot read the Bible twice and fully get it. You are suggesting that  you understand the Bible better than a theologian who has been studying  the Bible for their entire lifetime. A person can read the same chapter  in the Bible and get something new out of it every time. (Getting new  insight to God)
> Furthermore by saying you understand the Bible completely is saying that  you are like God.(Hey, its the first sin all over again from Genesis)  One cannot fully understand everything the Scriptures said. That is why  there are different denominations in Christianity. And the fact that if  we fully understood the Bible then we wouldn't need to grow in our faith  or walk with God because we know everything already.



The problem with written language is that it can be re-interpreted however we want, to suit whatever conclusions we want them to. *That is why there are different denominations in Christianity.* Reading it a thousand times doesn't make ambiguous wordings any less ambiguous. A theologian who's been studying Bible all their life will have a stronger opinion. Opinion.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Willow said:


> And how many times have you read the Bible in its entirety Rukh?


 
I haven't even counted how many times I read the Bible. It doesn't matter, because as I stated before I can read the Bible continuously for the rest of my life and still not understand all of it.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I haven't even counted how many times I read the Bible. It doesn't matter, because as I stated before I can read the Bible continuously for the rest of my life and still not understand all of it.


 
You need to pick up some better authors.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> So God planned our redemption right from creation because he knew we would sin? Why create us with the ability to sin at all then? He wanted us to have free will? It sounds like the only purpose he gave us free will was to punish us if we use it.


 

Because if we were all robots we wouldn't truly love God. Forced love isn't love at all. Love is a choice.



Heimdal said:


> The problem with written language is that it can  be re-interpreted however we want, to suit whatever conclusions we want  them to. *That is why there are different denominations in  Christianity.* Reading it a thousand times doesn't make ambiguous  wordings any less ambiguous. A theologian who's been studying Bible all  their life will have a stronger opinion. Opinion.


 
And someone who only read it twice is claiming to understand all of it.

Edit: Sounds like what your saying is someone can read any book a thousand times and won't understand it better than the first time they read it. So explain teachers. Like a math or science teacher. How can they teach something. Because they studied the subject. Quantum Mechanics is hard to understand and a lot of it seems like its ambiguous. So does that mean someone who studied and majored on it doesn't understand it better than a person reading about it the first time?


----------



## Willow (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It doesn't matter, because as I stated before I can read the Bible continuously for the rest of my life and still not understand all of it.


 It _does_ matter. Just because you've read the material more times than someone else doesn't give you any right to judge whether or not what they're saying is invalid or that they're ignorant. While you sit here and let Google>copy>Ctrl+V do all the talking for you. 

Though I'll say it again since it seems you blatantly ignored that last little section to tell me about how qualified to tell us all how wrong we are. It helps to read a post through thoroughly.


----------



## Kihari (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore by saying you understand the Bible completely is saying that you are like God.(Hey, its the first sin all over again from Genesis) One cannot fully understand everything the Scriptures said.



"Mine children, take ye this book, which be impossible to comprehend, and base thine entire lives off of its contents--and most importantly, guide thy neighbor with thine own interpretation of what thou does not fully understand... but fuck ye this up, and thou shall spend all of eternity *in HELL!!!*"

Capital idea there, God.

Actually I wanted to cite a couple quotes from Deo's handy-dandy wall o' text that fly right in the face of the one here, but I decided against it.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Religion is just a myth.

No, really.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait, you think that because you read the Bible *only twice* that you completely understand it? And you call me ignorant...Just wow. One cannot read the Bible twice and fully get it. You are suggesting that you understand the Bible better than a theologian who has been studying the Bible for their entire lifetime. A person can read the same chapter in the Bible and get something new out of it every time.


Oh no you don't. You don't get to turn your attack on me into a 'blame the victim'. You attacked me. 

*I never ONCE EVER stated that I "completely understood" the Bible. I never called you "ignorant". I never even implied that I "understood the Bible better than a theologian". (Are you implying that you ARE that theologian?) Here you are being insulting. "Oh you've ONLY read it twice, your opinion doesn't count." *

*And your false accusations of me, which by the way is a sin, are wrong.* You are setting up a strawman. Just because I said I read the Bible and that you shouldn't be so caustic, doesn't grant you the right to tell me that I claimed I understood things better than scholars. You just shoved a fist full of words down my throat. 
*You made these lies up Rukh, now look at them. You have slandered another of God's creation, unprovoked.* Even if I don't believe in God your attacks are still morally wrong and unfounded.

If you _continue to be insulting, arrogant, and lie about what I say_ and counter rebuttals with character attacks I will not respond to you. And I doubt after seeing how you 'debate' anyone else will either.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore by saying you understand the Bible completely is saying that you are like God. (Hey, its the first sin all over again from Genesis)


 
Proverbs 6:16-19- "*There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him*: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, *a false witness who breathes out lies*, and one who sows discord among brothers."

Exodus 20:16- â€œ*You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor*."

Proverbs 19:5- "*A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape*."


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

THIS IS WHAT I SAID:


Deovacuus said:


> I already told you that I have read it twice. Once to be a good Christian and once because I thought I made a mistake in reading it the first time and went over it very carefully. I still skim it, the Qu'ran, and my copy of the Rig Veda from time to time to keep it fresh. But telling me that I "skimmed" it and never read it or that I did not "read it and think" is _insulting,_ patronizing, and arrogant_._


 
THIS IS THE FALSE WITNESS OF YOU CLAIMING THAT I SAID THINGS I DID NOT.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait, you think that because you read the Bible *only twice* that you completely understand it? And you call me ignorant...Just wow. One cannot read the Bible twice and fully get it. You are suggesting that you understand the Bible better than a theologian who has been studying the Bible for their entire lifetime. A person can read the same chapter in the Bible and get something new out of it every time. (Getting new insight to God)
> Furthermore by saying you understand the Bible completely is saying that you are like God.(Hey, its the first sin all over again from Genesis) One cannot fully understand everything the Scriptures said. That is why there are different denominations in Christianity. And the fact that if we fully understood the Bible then we wouldn't need to grow in our faith or walk with God because we know everything already.


 
TELL ME WHERE IN THAT ORIGINAL POST I CLAIMED TO KNOW EVEYTHING.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> YOU ARE DAMNED.
> BY GOD I DAMN YOU.
> MAY YOU WANDER AND NEVER BE SATED.
> MAY OUR OBSESSIONS AND ADDICTIONS PLAGUE YOU AND GRANT YOU NO RESPITE.
> MAY YOUR BREATHE THAT BREATHES LIES GROW THICK AND CHOKE THEE.


 
Jesus Deo, this is exactly the kind of stuff I hear on Youtube when I watch videos of crazy people to make myself feel normal.

And I don't mean they're crazy because they're religious. I mean people who are crazy and just happen to be religious.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> THIS IS WHAT I SAID:
> 
> 
> THIS IS THE FALSE WITNESS OF YOU CLAIMING THAT I SAID THINGS I DID NOT.
> ...


 
Deo, you are a cool lady.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because if we were all robots we wouldn't truly love God. Forced love isn't love at all. Love is a choice.



Doesn't work. Why does God require our love? That sounds insecure.
Besides, many pastors would say that God is love. That we love through God.

Anyways... threatening mankind with damnation is forced love. So why give us free will at all if it's just to punish us when we use it?



> And someone who only read it twice is claiming to understand all of it.


It's not a science text book. You cannot determine a 'wrong' understanding from a 'right' understanding except to say that 'you think it's wrong'. Whether the person read it once or a million times, it does not make a difference. These threads, and the many Christian denominations, prove how much it's interpretations can vary.

Edit - Logical science is completely different from "quoting from a book". A studied scientist knows the subject internally, and does not require the book anymore. In fact, they also attempt to disprove the books when they can.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Jesus Deo, this is exactly the kind of stuff I hear on Youtube when I watch videos of crazy people to make myself feel normal.
> 
> And I don't mean they're crazy because they're religious. I mean people who are crazy and just happen to be religious.


 
Sometimes you fight fire with fire. This seems to be all that he can understand. So be it. He has cast his stones and gilded himself a pedastal that he will fall from.

AND NOW I'M *FUCKING MAD.*


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Sometimes you fight fire with fire. This seems to be all that he can understand. So be it. He has cast his stones and gilded himself a pedastal that he will fall from.
> 
> AND NOW I'M *FUCKING MAD.*


 
I never say this, but

I think I love you.

As much as a man-humping heathen like me can love a woman, that is.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Oh no you don't. You don't get to turn your attack on me into a 'blame the victim'. You attacked me.
> 
> *I never ONCE EVER stated that I "completely understood" the Bible. I never called you "ignorant". I never even implied that I "understood the Bible better than a theologian". (Are you implying that you ARE that theologian?) Here you are being insulting. "Oh you've ONLY read it twice, your opinion doesn't count." *


 
Yes, you have called me Ignorant, you have called me nearly every name in the book. And your statement "I have read the Bible twice" implies that you understand all of it. I am saying that no one can fully understand the Bible. To do so is to fully understand God and is claiming to be like God. I have stated many times that I do not fully understand the Bible. I have never stated I was a theologian. You tell me I am arrogan and insulting, wait a minute. How about all those times you attacked my belief and said that you understand the Bible better than anyone else. Is that not arrogant and insulting too? My accusation to you about claiming to understand the Bible even though you read it only twice is not a false accusation. You posted it. The senstance "I read the Bible twice front to back" Implies you understand it better than anyone.
I have not made up lies about Christianity, everything I have stated comes right from the Bible.
I responded to all 65 verses you put up in full detail. You won't respond. Now why is that? Is it because I actually explained all of it?

Now after I responded to your wall post you refuse to answer any of it. Why post it if you don't want me to answer to it. Now you just go back to calling me a liar, and ignorant person and who knows what else. I am seeing a pattern here. Anytime I respond and you don't have a good response you just attach me. Why is this?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Two things:

1)  Rukh, address my post.  You've ignored it several times now, seemingly to engage in attempts to discredit other posters and pamper your own credibility.  Now might be a good time to show you aren't in a flailing downward spiral, and, I 'unno, address a simple "X or Y" post that at worst disproves half of what you said earlier instead of being seen as avoiding the question.  You also, still, have yet to counter stuff from page eight.  If you're going to get on Deo's case from posts barely two days old, I can now bring up my post from that page and ask you to go into such. 

2)  Saying how Deo's opinion doesn't matter for reading the Bible in its entirety twice and several times brushing up on it, but that your opinion does (to the point of implicating yourself to be a theologist and be able to truly interpret the Bible) while at the same time _refusing to answer a simple "How many times have you read the Bible, non-stop, front to back_ question could also be seen quite readily as "avoiding what doesn't aid you".


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Is is not reasonable to say that God can both be a warrior and a God of peace, as the circumstances require? Can a person not be a soldier at some time in there life, during a time of war, and say a golf instructor during a time of peace? Is God not allowed to act to what we do as He sees fit?
> The Exodus was a time when God advanced on behalf of Israel for conquest. it is certainly appropriate that this hymn of praise to Him extolled that virtue and practice. Romans 15:33 is the salutation of a letter, when blessings are offered. The "genre gap" here is vast, to say nothing of the historical contexts. A contradiction would only exist if God were described as being of war and peace at the *same time* and performing the same action.That simply isn't the case here. Being warlike and peaceful are not permanently, mutually contradictory states, for they each involve complexes of interaction with persons and actions that are encountered over time. Thats the best I can do to explain that.


 
  God can be a warrior; heâ€™s a pretty damn good one considering how much destruction and loss of life heâ€™s caused. Heâ€™s pretty damn good at raging and murdering people in the Old Testament. The flood being one example, having Moses kill the Midianites and allowing them to rape the women who were virgins being another nice example. This happens somewhere near Numbers 31: 18. He has/allows Moses kill a lot of other people to. Of course, this all happened in the Old Testament and so it wonâ€™t count unless you find a way to make it fit your argument. Then itâ€™s good!

  God can be a warrior and a peaceful deity, but ONLY if his divine benevolence is taken off the table. Admit heâ€™s a dick, and Iâ€™m good with this contradiction of character. 




			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You need to understand the Trinity here. Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all God, separate yet the same.


 
  If they are â€œseparate yet the sameâ€ then why is Jesus saying one is higher than himself. That would imply that they are not the same, that one is higher than the other. 





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> You know the saying ignorance is bliss. The verses are kind of eluding to this. The more you increase in wisdom the more you see the problems of the world, thus it can increase your sorrow. As for 1st Corinthians 1:19 its alluding to those who are pridefull in their wisdom. God will put down the prideful and raise up the humble.


 
  Iâ€™ll buy your reading of the first two verses there, seeing as Iâ€™m way too lazy to go look up the paragraphs they come on. But your reading of the third verse is kind of appalling. God will strike down those prideful because they gained wisdom? Why is pride such a bad thing? If I work hard at something, I should hold pride in what I achieved, wisdom being one of many things that one could work towards. 




			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> When Jesus took *all* of the sin of the *entire* world upon himself, God could not look at him. God cannot be in direct contact with sin. Therefore since God is perfect and in that moment Jesus (although blameless) took all the sin onto himself God couldn't be with Jesus. I can expand on this further if you want me too.


 
  Why canâ€™t God be in direct contact with sin? Heâ€™s an all powerful being, what harm could sin have against him? Heâ€™s above sin. Hence, ALL POWERFUL! Is it that heâ€™s just too prideful? Is he afraid of sin? Allergic to it? You cannot combat sin if you arenâ€™t willing to get your hands dirty.

  If God cannot come into contact with sin, then no one is going to get into heaven. As you yourself said, no one is without sin. Guess none of us can come into contact when we die. 




			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Again that may just be a copyist error. And its a very small one at that. Now I know what your going to say. "You said the Bible is 100% true" And it still is. To futher my point there are actually around 400,000 variations in the Bible comparison to older manuscripts. But its either a misspelling or just a re wording. Either way, the verses meaning doesn't change whatever number you put in there. It still means the same thing.


 
  Religion: The only thing on Earth that can state â€œnumbers donâ€™t mean anything.â€ 




			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions.


 
  The fact that you cannot admit that something in the Bible might be incorrect is saddening. â€œThe unquestioned life is not worth livingâ€ ~ Some philosopher. Probably Aristotle or Plato. If you seen an error, why are you so quick to assume itâ€™s your own fault and not the texts fault? Why are you so quick to twist and mangle language around until the problem rights itself? Entering a problem with already knowing the solution isnâ€™t any way to answer the problem.




			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Instructing a fool is pointless because his speech is full of foolishness and he does not want wisdom and understanding.


 
  I laughed




The ones I didn't bother with I couldn't find any contradiction or I don't know enough to actually argue one way or the other. I took a look at these because I didn't like the logic used. 



By now, it seems like were all just arguing for the sake of arguing though.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really? I make it a point to try and answer every question directed at me.


 
Come on Rukh, live up to at least one thing you've said.  Answer Attaman's, Conker's, Heimdal's, and my posts.  It'll be fun, I promise.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, you have called me Ignorant, you have called me nearly every name in the book.


To be fair, when someone tells another someone to sodomize themselves with highly dangerous instruments and implies moral superiority over them while doing such, kind of easy to understand why one would go through with such.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And your statement "I have read the Bible twice" implies that you understand all of it.


Which is worse than your... nigh-claims that you understand all of it, so far as to tell other interpreters they're dead wrong?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am saying that no one can fully understand the Bible.


  Then how can one tell if such is 100% truth?  If you can't fully understand a work, how can such a thing be known 100% about?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have stated many times that I do not fully understand the Bible.


You have also belittled and out-right lied to people by telling them they can't use certain interpretations while at the same time making your own interpretations off materials you _directly told them_ do not matter any more.  _Several times._




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have never stated I was a theologian.



Who is the theologian you were referring to, then?  Since you specifically stated that Deo's claims mean she's implying herself to be better than a theologian.  Or is this about to become another case of "Old Covenant doesn't matter" "The Old Testament is vital for [x] [y] and [z]"?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How about all those times you attacked my belief and said that you understand the Bible better than anyone else.


  To my understanding, zero.  I have yet to see her tell people that their interpretations of the Bible are disgustingly wrong, completely invalidated due to faulty logic that's only applied when necessary, tell them that their interpretation is completely off simply because she doesn't interpret it that way (instead of doing something such as providing original text examples), or so on.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My accusation to you about claiming to understand the Bible even though you read it only twice is not a false accusation. You posted it. The senstance "I read the Bible twice front to back" Implies you understand it better than anyone.


  You:  "DO FUCKING RESEARCH!"
Her:  "I DID I READ IT TWICE AND STILL READ IT!"
You:  "OH SO NOW YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN A THEOLOGIAN HUH?!"

Or, in other words, another case of "Person says one thing, Rukh changes them to say something else in the hope no-one calls them out so as to argue something that was never argued."



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have not made up lies about Christianity, everything I have stated comes right from the Bible.


  Which is why you constantly do stuff like, say, change your tune every five posts (if that) on subjects like The Old Covenant, how important reading the Bible is, how one gets into the Afterlife, and so on?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You won't respond. Now why is that? Is it because I actually explained all of it?


  Rukh, don't play the "YOU DIDN'T RESPOND!" game.  You won't win.  At all.


----------



## Willow (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, you have called me Ignorant, you have called me nearly every name in the book.


And so have several other members of this forum. Nothing new. 



> And your statement "I have read the Bible twice" implies that you understand all of it.


Oh okay, and you've read it so many times you can't even count or give an estimate. What of it? 



> I am saying that no one can fully understand the Bible. To do so is to fully understand God and is claiming to be like God. I have stated many times that I do not fully understand the Bible.


Yea, but you seem to have a bit of a God complex. 



> I have never stated I was a theologian.


You keep mentioning it like that's going to prove a point or something. 



> My accusation to you about claiming to understand the Bible even though you read it only twice is not a false accusation. You posted it.


I don't recall Deo ever saying she fully understood it, but that she's read it through twice and skims over it as a refresher from time to time. 



> The senstance "I read the Bible twice front to back" Implies you understand it better than anyone.


Not really. 



> I have not made up lies about Christianity, everything I have stated comes right from the Bible.


Or you just copied and pasted it from some religious website.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 10, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1)  Rukh, address my post.  You've ignored it several times now, seemingly to engage in attempts to discredit other posters and pamper your own credibility.  Now might be a good time to show you aren't in a flailing downward spiral, and, I 'unno, address a simple "X or Y" post that at worst disproves half of what you said earlier instead of being seen as avoiding the question.  You also, still, have yet to counter stuff from page eight.  If you're going to get on Deo's case from posts barely two days old, I can now bring up my post from that page and ask you to go into such.
> 
> 2)  Saying how Deo's opinion doesn't matter for reading the Bible in its entirety twice and several times brushing up on it, but that your opinion does (to the point of implicating yourself to be a theologist and be able to truly interpret the Bible) while at the same time _refusing to answer a simple "How many times have you read the Bible, non-stop, front to back_ question could also be seen quite readily as "avoiding what doesn't aid you".




I am sorry, could you re post your questions. I am not intentionally  ignoring them. I simply lost track because of how fast the thread is  moving.
I also never said Deo's opinion doesn't matter. What I am saying is not one person can say they fully understand any book just because they read it twice. As for how many times I have read the Bible, IDK, 10 times. Thats a guess. I don't pay attention to how many times I have read through it. Because that doesn't tell anyone that you actually understand the Bible.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, you have called me Ignorant, you have called me nearly every name in the book.


QUOTE IT. I looked through ALL of your posts to make sure I did not attribute a quote to you that you did not say word for word. WHY did I go through all that effort? Because I wanted to be fair and honest and not lie or put words in your mouth. You obviously can't grant me the same respect.
Thus I state again, I have not called you ignorant, niether have I "called you nearly every name in the book". Get the quotes to prove your LIES.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And your statement "I have read the Bible twice" implies that you understand all of it.


No, you told me not to skim it. I posted that I read it twice to IMPLY THAT I READ IT. I responded to you, and said I read it. You attacked me. And are still trying to pin the blame of your lies and gaffes on me. No. Everyone who reads this thread will know. God will know. You may decieve yourself, but someday you'll know too.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How about all those times you attacked my belief and said that you understand the Bible better than anyone else. Is that not arrogant and insulting too?


You've attacked me too. Stop living in a damn glass house. Or don't you remember telling me to fuck myself with a spiked dildo and a spear in my ass? That doesn't count?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My accusation to you about claiming to understand the Bible even though you read it only twice is not a false accusation. You posted it. The senstance "I read the Bible twice *front to back*" Implies you understand it better than anyone.


You got the quote wrong again.
"I already told you that I have read it twice. Once to be a good Christian and once because I thought I made a mistake in reading it the first time and went over it very carefully."




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now you just go back to calling me a liar, and ignorant person and who knows what else. I am seeing a pattern here. Anytime I respond and you don't have a good response you just attach me. Why is this?


Why is it that you lie and attack your fellow man without turning the other cheek or forgiving us not 7 times, but seven times 77 times? 
And then you attack us and belittle and slander and insult us. 

Print this thread out. Take it to your pastor. Ask him if he thinks you are bearing false witness. I will not talk to you any longer.


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have never stated I was a theologian.


Yes you did.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you call me ignorant...Just wow. One  cannot read the Bible twice and fully get it. You are suggesting that  you understand the Bible better than a theologian who has been studying  the Bible for their entire lifetime.


 See?  Right there.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for how many times I have read the Bible, IDK, 10 times.


 Oh come on, I've read fucking Redwall more than 10 times.  Show a little devotion.


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am sorry, could you re post your questions. I am not intentionally  ignoring them. I simply lost track because of how fast the thread is  moving.


 Probably not much of a need. It was more the conversation with Telnac about free will and whatnot, and the arguments we'd have would just continue to go in a circle until we ran out of metaphors and examples.

I do have some replies addressed to you in post 340 though. The tone isn't all that nice :V


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am sorry, could you re post your questions. I am not intentionally  ignoring them. I simply lost track because of how fast the thread is  moving.


 
With pleasure, I'll even snip out the hostility.



Attaman said:


> 1)  Below, you just said Jesus Christ is God.
> 2)  God "forbid" us from doing such... knowing full well anyways that the Crime he was setting down would be enacted in the future anyways.  For a reason he set down, from factors he created (the temptation, a creation of God, the crime itself, a concept created by God, the tempter, created by God).
> 
> Then they're in the same boat as you, as you just said that you don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God but God itself.
> ...





Attaman said:


> So then, you admit God is inside time what with having a conception of such and all?





Attaman said:


> Not if you believe God "Has a Plan", as you've insisted before.  In such a case, you don't have Free Will.  Unless, of course, you want to admit God's plan has faults.  Which then, I 'unno, also opens up the possibility that all the "faults" in the universe you insist are man-made aren't necessarily man-made, but could be divine-made.
> 
> So you admit God doesn't have a plan for you, or that God can be wrong.  Got you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

I have to stop reading this thread. All the posts end up in my head, which puts voices to them, which are all shouting and it's giving me a massive headache.

For content:



Riley said:


> See?  Right there.


 
As much as I hate to say this, I don't think one can infer he's referring to himself.


----------



## Willow (Nov 10, 2010)

Riley said:


> See?  Right there.


 To be fair though Riley, I don't think Rukh is saying that he _is_ a theologian, but rather that Deo believes she knows more about the bible than someone who's been studying it for years. 

Also, Rukh just assumes that Deo fully understands the Bible after reading through it. She only states that she's read through it twice. 
Unless this happened a few pages back, well then, I'm too lazy to go sift through 13 pages of shit flinging to find it.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> As much as I hate to say this, I don't think one can infer he's referring to himself.


 If he's not referring to himself you have to wonder who he's referring to, considering Deo hasn't really been arguing with anyone else.


----------



## Conker (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> As much as I hate to say this, I don't think one can infer he's referring to himself.


 He probably wasn't, but honestly, I got the impression that he was referring to himself like a few others have. Just the way the sentence was worded.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Willow said:


> To be fair though Riley, I don't think Rukh is saying that he _is_ a theologian, but rather that Deo believes she knows more about the bible than someone who's been studying it for years.
> 
> Also, Rukh just assumes that Deo fully understands the Bible after reading through it. She only states that she's read through it twice.
> Unless this happened a few pages back, well then, I'm too lazy to go sift through 13 pages of shit flinging to find it.


 


rainingdarkness said:


> If he's not referring to himself you have to wonder who he's referring to, considering Deo hasn't really been arguing with anyone else.


 
See that above thing. I couldn't be arsed to search my brain for all of the things needed to explain.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> As much as I hate to say this, I don't think one can infer he's referring to himself.


 I think one can _very_ easily, considering the only person who is even at risk through Deo's debate is Rukh.  She has said nothing challenging how well other people understand the Bible opposed to herself (mainly stating that she has read the Bible, twice, after being told by Rukh to "do some research"), and yet Rukh makes the claim that she is saying she's better at understanding the Bible than a theologian.  The only possible "theologian" whose understanding could even possibly be put under pressure is Rukh's.


----------



## Deo (Nov 10, 2010)

Riley said:


> Oh come on, I've read fucking Redwall more than 10 times. Show a little devotion.



My favorite book is John Gardner's GRENDEL, I've read it 44 times. (But it's also really short.)


----------



## Riley (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> I have to stop reading this thread. All the posts end up in my head, which puts voices to them, which are all shouting and it's giving me a massive headache.
> 
> For content:
> 
> ...


 


Willow said:


> To be fair though Riley, I don't think Rukh is saying that he _is_ a theologian, but rather that Deo believes she knows more about the bible than someone who's been studying it for years.
> 
> Also, Rukh just assumes that Deo fully understands the Bible after reading through it. She only states that she's read through it twice.
> Unless this happened a few pages back, well then, I'm too lazy to go sift through 13 pages of shit flinging to find it.


 
I misread it then, whoops.



Deovacuus said:


> My favorite book is John Gardner's  GRENDEL, I've read it 44 times. (But it's also really  short.)


 I wouldn't call Redwall my favourite book (The Mote In God's Eye would probably take that spot) but it's a solid fantasy adventure novel that I remember fondly from my unjaded childhood.  I still make a point to re-read it every couple of years, though.

</offtopic>


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 11, 2010)

Ok, I think we've officially proven that Christians and Atheists cannot play nice together. Yay. 

Can't we all come together in harmony under the "LAWL SCIENTOLOGY" banner?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2010)

Riley said:


> I misread it then, whoops.


 If you misread it, it's only because it's extremely easy to make the mistake.

Several weeks ago, in a separate thread, Deo states she has read the Bible multiple times after being told to do some research.

A few hours ago, Rukh says Deo claimed to have a better understanding of the Bible than theologians through the post. "Your claiming to understand the Bible just as much as someone who has spent their entire life reading it (ie a theologian)".  In fact, the closest she comes to any of this is saying that Rukh would claim her to be a horrible interpreter of the Bible for disagreeing with him.  Sure enough...


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I think one can _very_ easily, considering the only person who is even at risk through Deo's debate is Rukh. She has said nothing challenging how well other people understand the Bible opposed to herself (mainly stating that she has read the Bible, twice, after being told by Rukh to "do some research"), and yet Rukh makes the claim that she is saying she's better at understanding the Bible than a theologian. The only possible "theologian" whose understanding could even possibly be put under pressure is Rukh's.


 
I have never stated that someone else doesn't understand/has never read the Bible. Since this is the internet I have no idea if the person I am talking to has never read it, or has read it fifty tmes. I don't make such assumptions. I never say that people don't understand something because they merely skimmed it, and I would not attack people who clarify that they didn not just merely skim it. I also don't insult people and make up lies about them when they say they read something relevent to the argument.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 11, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> Ok, I think we've officially proven that Christians and Atheists cannot play nice together. Yay.
> 
> Can't we all come together in harmony under the "LAWL SCIENTOLOGY" banner?


 
Who's stated that they're Atheist? I know I haven't.

So far it's been a battle of Christians vs. Logic.

Also, this came to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM&feature=related


----------



## Riley (Nov 11, 2010)

Attaman said:


> If you misread it, it's only because it's extremely easy to make the mistake.
> 
> Several weeks ago, in a separate thread, Deo states she has read the Bible multiple times after being told to do some research.
> 
> A few hours ago, Rukh says Deo claimed to have a better understanding of the Bible than theologians through the post. "Your claiming to understand the Bible just as much as someone who has spent their entire life reading it (ie a theologian)".  In fact, the closest she comes to any of this is saying that Rukh would claim her to be a horrible interpreter of the Bible for disagreeing with him.  Sure enough...


 
Yeah, the wording was pretty terrible.  I took it as "I am a theologian, don't you dare claim to know more than me."  I'd already ranted about that earlier though, and didn't feel like just repeating myself.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 11, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Who's stated that they're Atheist? I know I haven't.
> 
> So far it's been a battle of Christians vs. Logic.
> 
> Also, this came to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM&feature=related



Sorry, I really couldn't bring myself to actually go through the fifteen pages to find out everyone's theological viewpoint... as a general rule, the only people who are willing to go to the trouble of spending fifteen pages arguing against Christianity are either atheists or trolls (and this is coming from a pagan). Upon further investigation, it seems to be more of a Ruhk v/s everyone else debate. Apologies, carry on.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Attaman said:


> With pleasure, I'll even snip out the hostility.


 
_1) Below, you just said Jesus Christ is God._
Please look up the Trinity. Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one and they are separate at the same time. This is very hard to explain, and I am not the best person to answer that question. 
_God "forbid" us from doing such... knowing full well anyways that the Crime he was setting down would be enacted in the future anyways. For a reason he set down, from factors he created (the temptation, a creation of God, the crime itself, a concept created by God, the tempter, created by God).
_ Your saying God created evil. This is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to evil.

 _[FONT=&quot]Then they're in the same boat as you, as you just said that you don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God but God itself._
Again please research the Trinity.

[/FONT]   _So, you admit God didn't create everything. And, by the same token, admit that there is room for things to be created outside God, highly complex things, without God's intervention? Complex things like, say, the universe? Especially since you stated fault within the entirety of the universe, not just this one chunk of it?_

In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. The reason their is faults in the universe is because we sinned. We (as in mankind) perverted his creation.

God is outside our time line. This has been stated many times. Considering he existed before creation (which includes the creation of time because that started when the universe was made)

God has a plan, But I would be a fool to say I know what it is. I do not know God's plan. I trust him knowing his plan is better than anything anyone on this planet can come up with.

As for the OT, Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant. The Mosiac Law was never meant to be a permanent set of laws. 

God gave us free will so we could love him under our own will. He doesn't need us. He didn't need to make us. I guess you could say the reason he did was to glorify Himself. 

 Predestination is not foreknowledge. God's  foreknowledge is that God knows everything before it happens. He knows  in advance what is going to happen to everyone, both good and evil, both  Christian and non-Christian. The Bible talks about God's foreknowledge  in many places (Ps. 139:1-6; Romans 8:29a). But God's foreknowledge and  God's predestination are two different things.                 Predestination was an act of God from eternity,  before time began, by which God not only foreknew but actually chose  some to be saved for all eternity (See Eph. 1:4-6). When God predestined  us, He not only knew that we would be saved, He caused it to happen by  His choice of us in Christ. But whether you are pre destined to be finally saved no one can know for sure, only God knows. 
Predestination is intended to be a teaching of the greatest comfort for  Christians - but only for Christians. Not predestination, but "the Lamb  of God who takes away the sin of the world" is to be preached to the  lost. It is most foolish to talk to non-Christians about predestination,  for this teaching is not intended for them. Rather, unbelievers should  be pointed to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to the Gospel that says  that God offers reconciliation, forgiveness, and eternal life, to  everyone who believes, regardless of their social status, race, sex, or  past life (See John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; Galatians  3:27). "He died for all" (2 Co. 5:15) is the message the non-believing  world needs to hear.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 11, 2010)

Ok so I understand religion. It is a complete GAGGLE FUCK. I have never been so confused and twisted round as to look at my own butt so many times reading all these- I suppose debates is what you would call them. Let's leave it at this...No one EVER can explain religion- how things got here- why they are here- and above all any thing in existence. To try and claim you know all and to derive all knowledge from a book that was INSPIRED by God but WRITTEN by man would be foolish. Learn to weave reason with religion.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Did I overact there? I am willing to reconsider that he wasn't just making up false witness against me, but I can't see it. Hey guys can you tell me what you think of that crap back there? I'm willing to apologize for the 'damnation' thing if I went too far.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Did I overact there? I am willing to reconsider that he wasn't just making up false witness against me, but I can't see it. Hey guys can you tell me what you think of that crap back there? I'm willing to apologize for the 'damnation' thing if I went too far.


 
Well, I liked it for my own reasons, so I can't truthfully ask you to retract it.


----------



## Willow (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Did I overact there? I am willing to reconsider that he wasn't just making up false witness against me, but I can't see it. Hey guys can you tell me what you think of that crap back there? I'm willing to apologize for the 'damnation' thing if I went too far.


 At the time, it seemed like a plausible reaction given the circumstances.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Well, I liked it for my own reasons, so I can't truthfully ask you to retract it.



Well moreso what I'm asking is am I reading it wrong? 
When I read it I see him lying about what I said and putting words in my mouth, is that what you guys see too?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Well moreso what I'm asking is am I reading it wrong?
> When I read it I see him lying about what I said and putting words in my mouth, is that what you guys see too?


 
Oh.

Yep.

It's like he has some sixth sense and is able to somehow stuff words into your mouth that you don't even want to say and make it so you said them.

Except this is a forum, all posts are logged by internet power, so all previous statements can be checked against current references.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

I am derp. Herpaderpa derp.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 11, 2010)

A bit over dramatic.

Makes me think you're taking this waaaaaay too seriously for what it's worth.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 11, 2010)

The casting of a curse was over the top.  Deserved or not, I really don't know, but definitely beyond where you needed to go.



Willow said:


> Also, Rukh just assumes that Deo fully understands the Bible after reading through it. She only states that she's read through it twice.



Genesis to Revelation, I assume, though she said she didn't stop rereading it even after that.  I can only say I ever did that once.

Kinda' surprised me when I read through Leviticus, how six of the first seven full chapters detail exclusively the Lord's commandments for performing animal and blood sacrifices, then to hear the more extremist varieties of Christians alleging without any evidence that Wiccans would perform animal sacrifices, neatly disregarding by either will or ignorance this rather important book in the OT.


----------



## Conker (Nov 11, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> A bit over dramatic.
> 
> Makes me think you're taking this waaaaaay too seriously for what it's worth.


 This whole thread has really turned into just verbally abusing Rukh no matter what he posts. I mean a page was spent on one poorly worded sentence...


----------



## Willow (Nov 11, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Genesis to Revelation, I assume, though she said she didn't stop rereading it even after that.  I can only say I ever did that once.


 I'm surprised no one in my family ever made me read the Bible, so I can't say I've ever read it. I'm a terrible Christian. ^^'


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 11, 2010)

Conker said:


> This whole thread has really turned into just verbally abusing Rukh no matter what he posts. I mean a page was spent on one poorly worded sentence...


 
There's a line where retro quoting for purposes of fucking with someone online crosses over into having no life and obsession.

This thread is teetering on that line at this point.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

My apologies Ruk for damning you. I did take it too far. You got under my skin by claiming that I was lying. 
See, I spent the time to go over your previous posts to ensure that when I quoted you it was exact. Not a paraphrase, not a lie, not a strawman. I wanted to quote you truthfully. And then I saw that you put words in my mouth where I had tread around doing so. It really really pissed me off. I am sorry. I overreacted. I went back and edited it out of that post. 


However, I still think that you have lied about what I have said. The posts here don't lie. They are word for word. And you did put words in my mouth.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2010)

Here are some religious links.

Why religious duties should not take precedence over secular law: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/an-inviolable-religious-obligation/

And some quotes forming part of the American Humanist Association's Consider Humanism campaign: http://www.considerhumanism.org/quotes.php


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 11, 2010)

So, how 'bout that Problem of Evil? That's a pretty fun philosophical topic-o. 

According to Rukh at least, and my fundamental understanding of Christianity and such: 

God is all-loving, God is everywhere, God is all powerful, god is all knowing, god is the ultimate (& only )good, and immutable. 

So inherently, looking at that ^, and then looking at the world, there seems to be a problem. Note, that NOTHING in the Old Testament applies here, because as mentioned before, it was intended for the Israel people, not everyone else....Except these "truths" (according to Creationists&Fundamentalists), which I would assume they're panned over into NT, but I've honestly no idea. I'm going on the assumption that they are (I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm simply ignorant of what impossible characteristic is what and where it's described). 

Actually (I had a much longer post, but), I think I can sum it all up in one phrase (that I made up for debates in my philosophy classes)

_God either wills, or permits evil to happen; therefore God must have some evil in him. Both premises hold him accountable, both premises are undeniable, and the conclusion leaves us in one fun rut. _
 
If God is love, and god knows all, then he would not lead us to sin (which leads us to hell), or would at least passively guide us away from sin...Or not let sin become a viable road in the first place. If God is just throwing the dice out there, turning, and walking away - Then there's something inherently fucked up about that. 

I swear, if there's is any of that "_But it builds character!" _bullshit, I will ... write in an angrier font.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What I am saying is not one person can say they fully understand any book just because they read it twice. As for how many times I have read the Bible, IDK, 10 times. Thats a guess. I don't pay attention to how many times I have read through it. Because that doesn't tell anyone that you actually understand the Bible.


*
DEO NEVER CLAIMED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE!*

She does claim to understand it enough to disagree with you on some major points, and you seem unwilling to recognize that she has any understanding of it.

As for 'repost your questions', you know what? Others here go back and find stuff themselves. Why are you so special that you don't have to as well?


----------



## GingerM (Nov 11, 2010)

(my apologies for short-sequence posting; I got carried away )



Heimdal said:


> Who's stated that they're Atheist? I know I haven't.
> 
> So far it's been a battle of Christians vs. Logic.


 
Not Christian, but not an atheist, either. I believe what I believe and it suffices me. However I refuse to give the more... enthusiastic promoters of Christianity here any ammunition, and they're free to place what interpretation they will on that.



Deovacuus said:


> Well moreso what I'm asking is am I reading it wrong?
> When I read it I see him lying about what I said and putting words in my mouth, is that what you guys see too?



No, I don't think you're reading it wrong, but Rukh may not see it that way. I think we all need to remember that he believes and that gives him a blind spot. I also think, however, that you've made a gesture of rapprochement by editing your post, and he needs to make some kind of gesture as well. If that consists of either ignoring you or claiming victory somehow, then my opinion - for what it's worth - is that you needn't regard him any longer.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 11, 2010)

*sighs*  This is why debating religion on teh Internets doesn't work well.  I'm responding to a post back on page 12 and I don't even have time to read pages 13-16!  





Conker said:


> Perhaps we are arguing semantics then. I suppose another way to put it could be like this. I view my life from the present, God views it like a movie or anime *he has already seen. *Perhaps he's on episode two and going "Oh, this is the part where Lucy is going to break that seashell and upset Kohta" and then he ponders and goes "Gosh, I'm looking forward to watching the last episode to see Lucy have her final fight with #37." A movie will always pan out the same way. No matter how many times I put in _Jaws_, the shark will always die at the end, and that little boy will always die in the beginning (causing the mother to don black and slap the sheriff who knew thar be sharks in there). Those events are predetermined to happen. To God, my life is predetermined to happen.
> 
> I do know this is a big argument among theologians and philosophers. When I brought it up in one of my classes, my professor sort of blanched and said "we don't have enough hours left in the semester to cover that topic" then he tossed out a few authors I might want to look up, but I never wrote them down. It's a big topic; I wish I could argue it better but I"m not that well learned in it.


OK, I thought of a better way to approach this.  Another topic in philosophy that's a favorite of mine is existentialism.  If all of our senses can be inputs from some enormous simulation, not unlike _The Matrix_, how can we know we exist at all?  Is reality itself a mere illusion?

Descartes dealt with a problem very similar to that one hundreds of years before the invention of the light bulb, much less the computer or the movie _The Matrix_, with the famous argument "I think, therefore I am."  He argued that even if he can be unsure of everything else, he can be sure of his own mind, of his own thoughts and therefore, his own existence.

Likewise, when you explore the concept of free will you're asking much the same question except you're also adding the dimension of time.  I don't know about the future.  I can't trust the past.  History books can all be fiction for all I know.  Even my memories can't really be trusted.  How do I know the Universe wasn't created 30 seconds ago, and my very memories are just part of the starting state the Universe was created with?  I don't.  But one thing I can be certain of is the present; right here, right now.

Free will is the ability to decide my own fate based on the limited and possibly flawed information I have available to me.  Space and time itself may be a mere illusion, but one thing isn't: my own mind, and this present moment.  Therefore, no matter if the future is written or not, I have the ability to choose what that future will be, and I am responsible for the consequences of any choices I make.



Conker said:


> But here's the thing. When the Genesis first came about, whatever year that may have been, was it written to be metaphorical or was it written as word to show a possible explanation for how the world came to be? There are many events in the Old Testament that are obviously wrong or could not happen. Look at the flood. Enough rain to flood the earth would have made breathing impossible for Noah and his crew, let alone all the other problems with that story. The creation story has been disproven by science unless you turn it into a metaphor.
> 
> But at one point, were these considered metaphors or the literal happenings of God? Society has moved forward, the Bible has not, to compensate, society picks parts of the Bible and says "that's a metaphor now."
> 
> But who decides which parts of the Old Testament are metaphors? The story of Moses and his rescuing of the Israelites from that one douche is something most would look at and go "fact!" Because that's a nice story where God isn't an asshole and could be plausible. But, what about parts of that story where God orders Moses and his crew to go kill and conquer? That part of the story, God isn't a nice deity at all, and Moses isn't a kind character either. Does that part of the story become some form of metaphor or parable? Or do we just assume that God was a vengeful sunofabitch and Moses could be caught up in his own bloodlust from time to time (which may have lead to rape)? The latter part doesn't make either character out to be all that good or worthy of praise.


You're forgetting the context the events which led to the formation of the first nation of Israel took place.  In late neolithic & early bronze age societies, nearly every war led to what we'd consider to be genocide.  History isn't pretty, and the OT doesn't sugarcoat that fact.  Brutal things were done during the time of Moses and Joshua, not just by the Hebrews but by nearly all societies of that time.

OT Law is also commonly misunderstood.  Early Israel wasn't a kingdom, but a theocracy.  The OT Law is a set of civil laws, nearly all of it applying only to Hebrews.  Some of the laws applied to anyone, Hebrew or Gentile, living in Israel.  But few of the laws apply to everyone, Hebrew or Gentile.  It's commonly believed (but not explicitly stated) that the Ten Commandments are the only ones that specifically apply to everyone.  NT doctrine clarifies this a bit by teaching that God has written the Law on the hearts of everyone, but Jesus taught what that really meant when He said that the Law really boils down to two commandments: Love God, and Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Some who practice legalism teach that ALL of the OT civil law applies to everyone today, but I see no basis for that teaching.  Quite the contrary, the NT in particular condemns that line of thought by saying that the teaching of legalism denies the Cross its power, for if we're obligated to obey ALL of the OT Law, then Christ died for nothing because salvation doesn't come from obeying the OT Law but by faith and by choosing to put that faith into action by choosing follow the teachings of Jesus.

Now, getting back to the teaching that the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical... yes, that's a recent teaching but not all THAT recent!  Until we had the ability to date rocks, even scientists thought that the Earth was at most a few million years old.  Until just a few decades ago, no one thought the Earth (or the Universe for that matter) was more than 1 billion years ago!

That said, there have been competing theories to Young Earth Creationism for hundreds of years, and many of them taught that the creation account in Genesis was metaphorical.  It's only recently that these competing theories had any scientific evidence to back them up and shine a dim light on YEC.



Sorry everyone, but this'll be my last post on this board until Tuesday of next week.  Between working long hours & driving to CA to visit my son, I simply don't have much time to be on here.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So, how 'bout that Problem of Evil? That's a pretty fun philosophical topic-o.
> 
> According to Rukh at least, and my fundamental understanding of Christianity and such:
> 
> ...


 
Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> My apologies Ruk for damning you. I did take it too far. You got under my skin by claiming that I was lying.
> See, I spent the time to go over your previous posts to ensure that when I quoted you it was exact. Not a paraphrase, not a lie, not a strawman. I wanted to quote you truthfully. And then I saw that you put words in my mouth where I had tread around doing so. It really really pissed me off. I am sorry. I overreacted. I went back and edited it out of that post.
> 
> 
> However, I still think that you have lied about what I have said. The posts here don't lie. They are word for word. And you did put words in my mouth.


 
To me your actions and posts lead me to believe what I have said is true, Because many, many times you gave grabbed Scripture pulled it out of context (IE, you don't read what it says before or after it) And then demand I explain it. To me it seems like you don't read into the text at all. If you see that God killed someone you say "God murdered people" Instead of looking into what caused Him to do so . The Bible is written the way it is to make people think, and think hard. This is why as I stated earlier that a person can read the same chapter of the Bible 100 times and learn something new about God and themselves every time. I don't have time to post any more as I am leaving for work.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


 
God created everything.

Therefore, God created the concept of evil.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me it seems like you don't read into the text at all. If you see that God killed someone you say "God murdered people" Instead of looking into what caused Him to do so .


 
And now you are advocating murder. It's totally ok to kill people if they don't believe in what you do.



Lastdirewolf said:


> If God is love, and god knows all, then he would not lead us to sin (which leads us to hell), or would at least passively guide us away from sin...


 
But God is not love. Why would a loving God damn people just for not believing in him. Or condemn people for minor offences while handwaving major offences if the person says sorry, with no regard to those fingers crossed behind the back. We know God is not infallible.

Look at that guy in the bible. He worships God. The devil pops up and says to God "I bet he'll stop worshipping you if you do bad things to him." So God goes and kills his family, crops, cattle, gives him herpes or some such shit. And through it all, he still worships God, because he believes that God is testing him for a reason.

Eventually, the Devil goes and admits that this guys faith in God is strong. God goes and brags about it and how awesome he is, until the Devil points out what God just did to his loyal follower. And God goes "wait...fuck." Because he was tricked into being a complete dick to this guy. Therefore he is capable of error.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 11, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> If God is love, and god knows all, then he would not lead us to sin (which leads us to hell), or would at least passively guide us away from sin...Or not let sin become a viable road in the first place. If God is just throwing the dice out there, turning, and walking away - Then there's something inherently fucked up about that.


 
After the whole Garden of Eden episode, whether it was meant as a metaphor or actual thing that happened, it appears to me that God pretty much washed his hands of us, aside from the few times He supposedly made his presence known.

The problem arises then when it seems like Christian God is gambling our souls with Satan like a more serious version of that old story of the sun and the wind.  If you want to look at it in an Eastern type of philosophy, darkness and evil is necessary in the overall balance of the universe.  Star Wars, with all it's Eastern influences, really gets the balance thing wrong since it means "getting rid of all the Sith or else there's no balance" which doesn't make any sense.

If God was at all concerned about balance, then He would have had to have created evil as a necessary thing.

It's interesting that one of the books which has greatly influenced modern Christianity other than the Bible, Paradise Lost, is probably the first to paint God in an overtly bad light.  The poem makes it seem like God plays favorites with people and angels alike, something which Satan resents, and most of us would think rightly so.  An all loving, all knowing God loving certain people more than others?  Even angels?  That seems like a pretty flawed deity.

I think there's no question that God would have created the concept of evil.  The question then becomes why?  As I mentioned above, it could have something to do with the concept of balance in the universe, or do to His own flaws.



			
				Rukh said:
			
		

> The Bible is written the way it is to make people think, and think hard. This is why as I stated earlier that a person can read the same chapter of the Bible 100 times and learn something new about God and themselves every time. I don't have time to post any more as I am leaving for work.



I'm not convinced.  Again, the texts of the Bible were accumulated from roughly 1000 BC to 500 AD.  Alot of what is written are anecdotes with some very clear messages.  Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."  Reading too far into the stories of the Bible can alter the meaning, or as you have been accused of, spinning the text of the Bible in order to fit your arguments, such as your defense of the bear mauling of 40-some people.  You argued semantics, but at the end of the day, God still had "youths" killed for the sole reason that they were young and said some mean things to a member of the clergy.  Not a very appealing idea.  Killing and damning people who don't buy into your sect of Christianity doesn't fly with a lot of people and seems really unfair, especially when there's no overwhelming evidence that one of the Judea-Christian religion is more right then the next.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh you never answered me.

If matter can be neither created nor destroyed, then where does that leave God, the "great creator"?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


 
If God did not create evil, then he lets evil exist. 

Lets also not forget, that according to the whole Creationism/Fundamental thing, God created everything. Not a single thing was without his hand in it, so that would lead to him creating evil. If your definition of evil is the absence of god in peoples hearts, God created that absence. 

(Also, as an Atheist and Anti-Theist, I'd like to think of myself as not-evil - Being my moral standards are moderately high :v )


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Lastdirewolf said:
> 
> 
> > So, how 'bout that Problem of Evil? That's a pretty fun philosophical topic-o.
> ...



God Created Lucifer (Satan) if God created everything. If God created Satan then either God created Evil and sin _or _Satan is more powerful than God. If Satan is less powerful than God, God would still be willing or permitting evil.


----------



## Riley (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


 
If the lack of god creates evil, then it is the presence of god that  allows evil to exist.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me your actions and posts lead me to believe what I have said is true,


My actions? How about my words that you mangled and added to? The posts are still there. You twisted what I said and lied about things that I did not say saying that I had said them. Please go back and look. Seriously. You said it yourself, you are human and you make mistakes. And you made quite the sinful gaffe back there.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because many, many times you gave grabbed Scripture pulled it out of context (IE, you don't read what it says before or after it) And then demand I explain it. To me it seems like you don't read into the text at all.


Now you're the one to judge my actions and words? "Oh well you don't agree with me and that means you've obviously never read it." This is why I originally told you I read it twice, just so you would not be able to hold yourself over my head with "oh I read it and you did not, that makes me correct/better at understanding it." Because I did read it. Not once, but twice. And you told me not to read into the text as that would manipulate it for my own needs. Or doyou get the double standard here and only you get to manipulate and twist the context to serve your own purposes?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you see that God killed someone you say "God murdered people" Instead of looking into what caused Him to do so.


If God kills people he IS murdering them. When you kill someone who can't defend themselves that is murder. Killing people is morally wrong.





Telnac said:


> *sighs* This is why debating religion on teh Internets doesn't work well. I'm responding to a post back on page 12 and I don't even have time to read pages 13-16!
> 
> Sorry everyone, but this'll be my last post on this board until Tuesday of next week. Between working long hours & driving to CA to visit my son, I simply don't have much time to be on here.


I will have toget a book on the topic of existentialism. And it does raise a good point. Also, could thoughts of God be such an input? If all we can be sure of is ourselves in the present plane of time, then is not God questionable?

Also, have fun in CA. i look forward to the rest of the debate.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible is written the way it is to make people think, and think hard.


 
Sorry, but I don't buy this.

The Bible, as it exists in post-1600 English versions, is a collection of texts which have undergone translations through languages which do not share comparable vocabularies, semantics, or even syntax in at least one case, with English.  The thing that makes the Bible most difficult to read is the fact that, despite millennia of labor being expended to translate the texts without losing or corrupting any of the intended meaning, the simple fact is that the loss and corruption of words happened anyway, invariably resulting in corruption of the meaning.

The word "witch" as used in the King James Version of the Bible ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" [EXO 22:18 KJV], for example) is but one example of a corrupted word corrupting the meaning of the passages in which it's used.  The original word which "witch" was chosen to translate means "woman who resorts to sorcery in order to commit evil deeds against others," but even then, the chosen word's meaning was expanding well beyond the meaning and intent of the translated language's word.  This was finally recognized in several post-KJV English translations by the use of the slightly more specific words "sorceress" or "evil sorceress," depending on version and verse.

Trying to understand what was lost or corrupted in the translations is what makes the Bible so difficult to understand, and trying to minimize and eliminate those errors, whether caused by commission or omission, is why the Bible is written the way it is.

This doesn't even address the decisions on what scriptures to include and what scriptures to exclude from the Bible (yes, a wealth of scripture was kept out of the canonical Bible), as anyone who's ever read Catholic and Protestant editions can see wasn't a unanimous one even in the Christian Era.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 11, 2010)

Could god create a wall he could not push?

Think about it.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 11, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Look at that guy in the bible (his name was Job). He worships God. The devil pops up and says to God "I bet he'll stop worshipping you if you do bad things to him." So God goes and kills his family, crops, cattle, gives him herpes or some such shit. And through it all, he still worships God, because he believes that God is testing him for a reason.
> 
> *Eventually, the Devil goes and admits that this guys faith in God is strong. God goes and brags about it and how awesome he is, until the Devil points out what God just did to his loyal follower. And God goes "wait...fuck." Because he was tricked into being a complete dick to this guy. Therefore he is capable of error.*




You give the BEST sermons, Smelge!  I'd go to church just to hear you preach this one.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 11, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Could god create a wall he could not push?
> 
> Think about it.


 
Ehh, logical impossibilities are typically avoided. There's no real  substance in trying to see if God can create a square circle, or a  boulder that he couldn't lift, etc.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 11, 2010)

religion is a big excuse to say who's invisible friend is better.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


 
Pfff.  So atheists are evil, inhuman and incapable of love?  Get fucked.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> religion is a big excuse to say who's invisible friend is better.



Is that a Swastika as your species? O_______O  Dude. I thougt I knew you from LJ Fursuit, but if you're a nazifur... I don't even.
And before you jump on this Rukh, Hitler was a Catholic Christian who was very spiritual AND supersticious.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Is that a Swastika as your species? O_______O  Dude. I thougt I knew you from LJ Fursuit, but if you're a nazifur... I don't even.
> And before you jump on this Rukh, Hitler was a Catholic Christian who was very spiritual AND supersticious.


 
I don't want to derail too badly, but the whole nazifur thing is 99% military uniform fetishism.  I've never met one that was actually anti-Semetic at all.  It's not something worth getting worked up over.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Is that a Swastika as your species? O_______O  Dude. I thougt I knew you from LJ Fursuit, but if you're a nazifur... I don't even.
> And before you jump on this Rukh, Hitler was a Catholic Christian who was very spiritual AND supersticious.


 
Several eastern and pre-Columbian American religions use swastikas to symbolize peace and/or the cyclic nature of the universe.  The most notable user of the swastika is Buddhism, which has used it since the Sixth Century BC or something absurdly long like that.  Its use in Buddhist contexts is so unremarkable that Japan uses the swastika to mark Buddhist temples on maps.

The swastika's use as a symbol of hate dates back less than a century, and even then, it's confined to representing a thousand-year tyranny not lasting more than twelve and a small collection of extremist cults surrounding it.

I have never seen Zrcalo post anything suggesting it's being used as a symbol of hate, and neither have I come across a report suggesting the same.  I think it's just a "who's noticing?" trolling tool.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Alright, big post time. I will be addressing Deo first then the rest of you. First of, Deo I am shocked that you would apologize to me. I fully accept the apology. In fact your apology has humbled me in a big way. I looked back and read all the spam post quotes you put up. And you are right, I came off as arrogant and prideful. I am truly sorry for this. It was not my intention to do this. Just because I have gotten angry or frusterated at you or everyone else doesn't not give me the right to lash out. So to all, I apologize for that. I would like to explain why I have gotten angry and frusterated. No, this is not an excuse that I am posting. I merely want to explain something. I have gotten continually frustrated at the fact that many people here pull a verse or several verses out of the Bible and then fling it in my face and demand I explain it. I kind of did the same thing, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. I guess the best way is to use a puzzle as an example. What i see continually on here is people using a puzzle piece (small parts of the Bible) to try and explain the whole puzzle (God and the Bible) One cannot use a single puzzle piece to describe an entire puzzle. This is what I have been trying to say about the Scripture. You need to look at all of it as a whole to get a clear picture. You need to look at who it is addressing, why it is addressing them.  And what the reason was for. Furthermore one cannot fully understand the whole puzzle completely (God and the Bible) We can continue to learn of Him, but we will never fully understand until we are united with Him in Heaven. Only then will we fully understand God. I hope that maybe you could see a small sliver of why I get frustrated. But again this does not give me the right to lash out. Now I get to further speak about that I have been corrected in the understanding of Numbers 31 (Deo this is for you, the story about the destruction of the Midianites)
I can't even believe that I missed something so obvious in the text. Yeah thats right I was wrong. Yup I said that. I have been corrected and I have learned a lot as well.(Also I am not perfect and I make mistakes like everyone else)

1 *The LORD said to Moses, 2 â€œTake vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.â€ * 3  So Moses said to the people, â€œArm some of your men to go to war against  the Midianites so that they may carry out the LORDâ€™s vengeance on them.  4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.â€ 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6  Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with  Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the  sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling. 
 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8  Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Rebaâ€”the five kings  of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12  and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the  priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab,  by the Jordan across from Jericho. 
 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14  Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ€”the commanders of  thousands and commanders of hundredsâ€”who returned from the battle. 
 15 â€œHave you allowed all the women to live?â€ he asked them. 16  â€œThey were the ones who followed Balaamâ€™s advice and enticed the  Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a  plague struck the LORDâ€™s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. 

Alright, what I have bolded is what God told Moses. Never did God instruct Moses to kill or plunder or take captive of anyone. All God said was 1 *The LORD said to Moses, 2 â€œTake vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.â€* No where in there does God state to raise an army*. *When God said to kill someone he stated it very clearly in the Bible. He was never vague about it. And when the Isaelites obeyed you will always find that it says "and they did it" written in the Bible when the Israelites completely obeyed God. (Like in Leviticus 24 where God directly commanded the stoning of a man who committed blasmphomy against God, And it says after it "and they did it")This is what I missed. Never in Numbers 31:1-18 does it state that Moses and the Israelites obeyed Gods direct command. It never says "and they did it." The question to actually ask is what vengeance is God talking about. Because vengeance does not have to be violent. We like Moses assumed that thats what God meant (that is meant violence). What Moses did was not what God told him to do.
Now I have a feeling of what might be said, but even if God meant to go to war against Midian, this does not mean to slaughter everyone. If war is what God was talking about, all he said was to beat the Midianites in battle. God never said to slaughter the boys or plunder the Midianites or take their women captive.

Furthermore, I would like to go back to Isaiah where it talks about the Mauling of 42 youths. First of all, the town these youths were from  Bethal. This was an Israeli city. So the 42 youths (by the way, 42 youths, thats not just a couple people throwing insults, that sounds like a riot to me) who knew that speaking blasphemy against a Prophet of God is speaking blasphemy against God. What you need to realize is in the Old Testament Blasphemy against God was not forgivable (the unforgivable sin from the OT) *In fact, you will not find anywhere in the OT in the sacrificial system where an intentional sin is forgivable.* An intentional sin is an affront to Gods throne. You will find what is called the day of atonement, *but even this sacrifice would not forgive blasphemy against God.* And Jesus carried this over into the NT, with a different application. Jesus stated that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgivable. And what this is talking about is unbelief, as in not believing in Jesus. Because the wages of sin is death. (eternal death, not the physical death)


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I don't want to derail too badly, but the whole nazifur thing is 99% military uniform fetishism. I've never met one that was actually anti-Semetic at all. It's not something worth getting worked up over.


Oh. I dunno. It's just, I don't see why you'd want to associate with the horrors that they committed or label yourself that. My mother's side of the family was driven into hiding and later escaped from Poland and the Nazis. My great grandfather used to tell me the stories my great grandmother wouldn't speak of it. I didn't mean to get worked up over it. It's just that I found it unsettling do to family history. I'm sorry.
I am happy to hope that it's some sort of military uniform fetish (never thought I would say that ever).

EDIT:


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Alright, big post time. I will be addressing Deo first then the rest of you. First of, Deo I am shocked that you would apologize to me. I fully accept the apology. In fact your apology has humbled me in a big way. I looked back and read all the spam post quotes you put up. And you are right, I came off as arrogant and prideful. I am truly sorry for this. It was not my intention to do this. Just because I have gotten angry or frusterated at you or everyone else doesn't not give me the right to lash out.


 

Rukh, I accept your apology for your pride an arrogance. However I would like to ask for a further apology for bearing false witness about what I said. I am sure that since you re-read it you probably have noticed this too. It may not mean much to you, but I am truthful in what I post (as far a my knowlegde is concerned, any untruths are gaps in my understanding of topics and when made aware of my mistakes I am willing to make corrections and apologize for my errors). And that truthfulness means a lot to me. I will not use lies in my argument. 

I would also like to note to Christians and theists out there that I read your posts and really think about them. I am open to the possibility of a god, even if I am an atheist. Do not mistake me for close minded, or think your arguments fall on deaf ears._ I listen, but I do ask in return that you listen to me as well and consider the ideas that I put forth as I consider yours._

Now as for the Midianites, Moses was in full communication with God. Though God is not understandable, he would have made himself clear to his prophet on earth. That and the unified, immidiate, and direct planning of an army shows that God and Moses were directly involved. Such a fighting force would have been extremely difficult at the time to so quickly gather and organize. And furthermore if God had wanted his veangence in another manner he would have corrected Moses beforehand as he knows the future or at least before the bloodbath.


Rukh, I agree that Biblical law states that of the time of the OT the penalty for blasphemy is death. It is arguable though that the law at this time was barbaric and it is immoral kill. It is also important to note that these were children, and they were not swiftly killed but "torn" by bears. Continuing to call them "youths" is a mangled translation. I know very little of Hebrew, but what I do know I will share with you as best I can. To clarify the original text in Hebrew calls them "little" and "children". Not youths or young men, but little children. I'm willing to bet based on the "youths" in this context that you have a copy of the NLT Bible, and I warn you that in it they do take some liberties with the text. You may want a few different tanslations to compare side by side.

And he went up×¢×œ×” 
from thence unto Bethel: ×‘×™×ªÖ¾××œ
and as he was going up×¢×œ×”
by the way,×“×¨×š
there came forth ×™×¦×
little ×§×˜×Ÿ
children × ×¢×¨
out of the city, ×¢×™×¨
and mocked×§×œ×¡
him, and said××ž×¨
unto him, Go up,×¢×œ×”
thou bald head; ×§×¨×—
go up, ×¢×œ×”
thou bald head. ×§×¨×—
And he turned ×¤× ×”
back,××—×¨
and looked ×¨××”
on them, and cursed×§×œ×œ
them in the name×©×
of the LORD.×™×”×•×”
And there came forth×™×¦×
two ×©×ª×™×
she bears×“×‘
out of the wood,×™×¢×¨
and tare×‘×§×¢
forty××¨×‘×¢×™×
and two ×©×ª×™×
children of them. ×™×œ×“


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2010)

Er, Rukh:  I'm sorry, but those quotes do not apply.  Moses was Old Testament, and, well, you see...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Er, Rukh:  I'm sorry, but those quotes do not apply.  Moses was Old Testament, and, well, you see...


 
What exactly doesn't apply? Your not being very clear here.

Edit: Deo I am not exactly sure what your getting at about the false witness. I have not lied about the Bible. In fact I just corrected myself when I found out I was wrong about Numbers 31.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 11, 2010)

Telnac said:


> "I think, therefore I am."



Good point, but I do think it cherry-picks philosophy in a way that doesn't work with religion.

If you conclude that all you can truly know is that yourself exists, then you are doubting everything beyond yourself. Even the concept of God would be doubted (in which case, you're an Atheist. Note,becausemanychristiansdontrealizethis: Atheist don't deny God, they just doubt him.)
If you open your conclusion up to "all you can truly know is that yourself and God exist", you can do that, but you're bringing a lot of baggage into it. God is omniscient, so while you can't truly know or trust the past or the future, God can. Time and space cannot be an illusion, because God knows what you will do and where you will go. All the things that would be logically extrapolate just from adding God to the equation makes this line of reasoning irrelevant.

No matter how the Universe is interpreted, the concept of an omniscient God will always conflict with Free will. The only way to accomplish both is to limit God's omniscience, either by believing he has boundaries, or that he sets his own boundaries. It doesn't make much sense, though.



> Could god create a wall he could not push?



Chuck Norris did, and then he pushed it.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What exactly doesn't apply? Your not being very clear here.


The ones you just used about God not instructing Moses to go medieval before going medieval was an idiom.  The Old Testament is thrown out, remember?  Different God and all that?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 11, 2010)

Attaman said:


> The ones you just used about God not instructing Moses to go medieval before going medieval was an idiom.  The Old Testament is thrown out, remember?  Different God and all that?


 
I have never stated that it was a different God. Please show me where I said this. Your not making any sense. What I stated is that Moses did not obey God's Command. Never did God command the Israelites to slaughter pillage and plunder. So how does explaining Numbers 31 not apply?


----------



## Willow (Nov 11, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Oh. I dunno. It's just, I don't see why you'd want to associate with the horrors that they committed or label yourself that. My mother's side of the family was driven into hiding and later escaped from Poland and the Nazis. My great grandfather used to tell me the stories my great grandmother wouldn't speak of it. I didn't mean to get worked up over it. It's just that I found it unsettling do to family history. I'm sorry.
> I am happy to hope that it's some sort of military uniform fetish (never thought I would say that ever).


 Well if you're going to go with the lesser of two evils, fetishism over true anti-Antisemitism seems like a reasonable choice.


----------



## Ames (Nov 12, 2010)

Ezekiel 23:19-20 really leaves a lot open to the imagination.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Willow said:


> Well if you're going to go with the lesser of two evils, fetishism over true anti-Antisemitism seems like a reasonable choice.


 
Wait so a uniform is evil? I think someone can like a uniform just because they think it looks cool, and not who wore the uniform.



JamesB said:


> Ezekiel 23:19-20 really leaves a lot open to the imagination.



Come on people...Didn't I just explain that you can't grab Scripture without reading the whole story to understand what was being said, to whom it was being said to and why.

Here is the entire text.
Ezekiel 23:1-20
*Two Adulterous Sisters*

 1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 â€œSon of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3  They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their  youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms  caressed. 4 The older was  named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth  to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.  5 â€œOholah engaged in prostitution while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyriansâ€”warriors 6 clothed in blue, governors and commanders, all of them handsome young men, and mounted horsemen. 7  She gave herself as a prostitute to all the elite of the Assyrians and  defiled herself with all the idols of everyone she lusted after. 8  She did not give up the prostitution she began in Egypt, when during  her youth men slept with her, caressed her virgin bosom and poured out  their lust on her. 
 9 â€œTherefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, the Assyrians, for whom she lusted. 10  They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed  her with the sword. She became a byword among women, and punishment was  inflicted on her. 
 11 â€œHer sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyriansâ€”governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way. 
 14 â€œBut she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans[a] portrayed in red, 15  with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all  of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea.[b] 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17  Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust  they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away  from them in disgust. 18  When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I  turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her  sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 



This is a parable about cities, its not literally talking about 2 women.

In Ezekiel 23, the prophet condemns the immorality of both       Samaria of Northern Israel and Jerusalem of Judah . In summarizing the history of these Israelite cities,       God likens them to two sisters who became harlots at a young       age and continued their practice to an old age.       Instead of being faithful to God, they constantly turned their       affections to nations like Egypt and embraced all of their       idols and false worship.
The people of Samaria also became infatuated with the might       and religion of Assyria, and incorporated its immorality       into their lives. Meanwhile they never gave up their lust for       Egypt. God would punish Samaria by delivering her "into the       hands of the Assyrians, for whom she lusted".       In other words, God allowed this foreign nation, with whom she       was fascinated, to execute judgment upon her for her sin. At the time Ezekiel spoke these words, the nation of Samaria       had already been punished for its sin and destroyed by the Assyrians.       The prophet speaks of this as an example lesson to the Israelites       in Jerusalem. He then declared that Jerusalem herself had become       defiled by a lust for the sin of Egypt, Assyria      and Babylon . She not only followed in "the       same way" of unfaithfulness as her sister Samaria,       she became more corrupt. Thus God would likewise punish       her. As God sent the Assyrians to destroy Samaria       in 721 B.C., He sent the Babylonians to level Jerusalem in 586       B.C. The great lesson of Ezekiel 23 is that we must learn from       the mistakes of others. The Israelites in Judah and Jerusalem       should have learned from the errors of their brethren in Samaria.       Sin and idolatry brought the wrath of God upon Samaria to its       extinction as a nation. Why didn't the people of Jerusalem reason       that if they did the same things, that they would receive the       same punishment? Failure to do so cost them their city, their       temple, their lives and their souls.


----------



## Willow (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait so a uniform is evil? I think someone can like a uniform just because they think it looks cool, and not who wore the uniform.


 I was talking about fetishism, not uniforms specifically. 

It really doesn't hurt to read a post before you reply to it, or the previous post for that matter.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait so a uniform is evil? I think someone  can like a uniform just because they think it looks cool, and not who  wore the uniform.


 
So would you wear an upside-down cross?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 12, 2010)

The problem with this thread is that, when it moves, it moves so fast that edits go unread by all but the *most* observant, especially if they wind up at the bottom of the previous page.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Willow said:


> I was talking about fetishism, not uniforms specifically.
> 
> It really doesn't hurt to read a post before you reply to it, or the previous post for that matter.


 
I stand corrected, sorry about that.


----------



## Ames (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Come on people...Didn't I just explain that you can't grab Scripture without reading the whole story to understand what was being said, to whom it was being said to and why.
> 
> Here is the entire text.
> Ezekiel 23:1-20
> ...


 
Was more interested in why it even went there in describing it.

I mean, really?  Was it REALLY necessary to compare the junk of Egyptian men to animal cock?


----------



## Fenrari (Nov 12, 2010)

In my honest opinion. People should follow the following:

Let other people believe what they want. 

Stop trying to convert people.

Forgive people for being stupid bigots. -> Be the better person and ignore them.

If you don't like how someone else is doing something, don't be like them and move on?


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What exactly doesn't apply? Your not being very clear here.
> 
> Edit: Deo I am not exactly sure what your getting at about the false witness. I have not lied about the Bible. In fact I just corrected myself when I found out I was wrong about Numbers 31.



You did not lie about the Bible, but you lied about me. You lied abou what I said. You placed words in my mouth that made me seem arrogant where I am not, you placed words in my mouth that made me seem like I felt I am better than you where I am not. You lied about what I said, and in doing so presented false witness to my words and to my person and to my character. (
Also, on my last post I heavily edited it for you to address what you brought up, sorry it took a bit to dig around and make sure my Hebrew was correct.)


----------



## Willow (Nov 12, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> The problem with this thread is that, when it moves, it moves so fast that edits go unread by all but the *most* observant, especially if they wind up at the bottom of the previous page.


 Or they get pushed to the next page, but would quoting the edit post help at all?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I stand corrected, sorry about that.


 No problem, danke schÃ¶n


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> \
> EDIT:
> Now as for the Midianites, Moses was in full communication with God. Though God is not understandable, he would have made himself clear to his prophet on earth. That and the unified, immidiate, and direct planning of an army shows that God and Moses were directly involved. Such a fighting force would have been extremely difficult at the time to so quickly gather and organize. And furthermore if God had wanted his veangence in another manner he would have corrected Moses beforehand as he knows the future or at least before the bloodbath.
> 
> ...


â€œYoung lads.â€ The KJV has â€œlittle childrenâ€ which really misses the  meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word â€œladsâ€ is  the Hebrew *naar* (which is used in 2nd Kings 2:23) and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old. 

This is a miss translation from Hebrew to English. All the research that I have done on 2nd Kings 2:23 has said the same thing.

Noun:
× ×¢×¨ \ × Ö·×¢Ö·×¨ (nÃ¡ar)  

physically-abled young man (e.g. 2 Samuel, 2:14)
Youth or adolescent.

Its not little children.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is a parable about cities, its not literally talking about 2 women.
> 
> In Ezekiel 23, the prophet condemns the immorality of both Samaria of Northern Israel and Jerusalem of Judah . In summarizing the history of these Israelite cities, God likens them to two sisters who became harlots at a young age and continued their practice to an old age. Instead of being faithful to God, they constantly turned their affections to nations like Egypt and embraced all of their idols and false worship.
> The people of Samaria also became infatuated with the might and religion of Assyria, and incorporated its immorality into their lives. Meanwhile they never gave up their lust for Egypt. God would punish Samaria by delivering her "into the hands of the Assyrians, for whom she lusted". In other words, God allowed this foreign nation, with whom she was fascinated, to execute judgment upon her for her sin. At the time Ezekiel spoke these words, the nation of Samaria had already been punished for its sin and destroyed by the Assyrians. The prophet speaks of this as an example lesson to the Israelites in Jerusalem. He then declared that Jerusalem herself had become defiled by a lust for the sin of Egypt, Assyria and Babylon . She not only followed in "the same way" of unfaithfulness as her sister Samaria, she became more corrupt. Thus God would likewise punish her. As God sent the Assyrians to destroy Samaria in 721 B.C., He sent the Babylonians to level Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The great lesson of Ezekiel 23 is that we must learn from the mistakes of others. The Israelites in Judah and Jerusalem should have learned from the errors of their brethren in Samaria. Sin and idolatry brought the wrath of God upon Samaria to its extinction as a nation. Why didn't the people of Jerusalem reason that if they did the same things, that they would receive the same punishment? Failure to do so cost them their city, their temple, their lives and their souls.



I don't think it is a parable. I don't think there is enough given here in the text to infer or claim it as a parable. Your extrapolations on the text add far more to it and manipuate what the text says.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> So would you wear an upside-down cross?



Devil worshipers screwed up the meaning the reversed cross which is actually known as the Petrine Cross (Cross of St. Peter) who was crucified upside down.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> â€œYoung lads.â€ The KJV has â€œlittle childrenâ€ which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word â€œladsâ€ is the Hebrew *naar* (which is used in 2nd Kings 2:23) and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old.
> 
> This is a miss translation from Hebrew to English. All the research that I have done on 2nd Kings 2:23 has said the same thing.


 
No. The Hebrew clearly states "little children". I even wrote it out and pointed it clearly (see below quote). CynicalCirno, who lives in Israel and speaks Hebrew pointed out in the "The Bible. Yes it is that time again" thread that the text reads "little children". We can ask her again, but the proper translation really, truthfully does state little children.


Deovacuus said:


> EDIT:
> Rukh, I accept your apology for your pride an arrogance. However I would like to ask for a further apology for bearing false witness about what I said. I am sure that since you re-read it you probably have noticed this too. It may not mean much to you, but I am truthful in what I post (as far a my knowlegde is concerned, any untruths are gaps in my understanding of topics and when made aware of my mistakes I am willing to make corrections and apologize for my errors). And that truthfulness means a lot to me. I will not use lies in my argument.
> 
> I would also like to note to Christians and theists out there that I read your posts and really think about them. I am open to the possibility of a god, even if I am an atheist. Do not mistake me for close minded, or think your arguments fall on deaf ears._ I listen, but I do ask in return that you listen to me as well and consider the ideas that I put forth as I consider yours._
> ...


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

^ Nice  *G*.



Deovacuus said:


> I don't think it is a parable. I don't think there is enough given here in the text to infer or claim it as a parable. Your extrapolations on the text add far more to it and manipuate what the text says.


 
That is definitely not a parable.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I don't think it is a parable. I don't think there is enough given here in the text to infer or claim it as a parable. Your extrapolations on the text add far more to it and manipuate what the text says.


 
"The word of the LORD came to me" The Word is Jesus. So Jesus in incarnate form appeared. Jesus is known to speak in parables. Secondly I have confirmed with my Pastor and several Elders in my Church, this is a parable. You can even Google the verses and all the sites will also tell you that it is a parable.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 12, 2010)

Are we also assuming that this is a huge gang of kids? Like they surrounded him '80's gangster style? Or mehaps Walker Texas Ranger style?

Or were they just kinda standing on the road, calling the dude a bald fag? Like he just walks by, and gets insulted, but they aren't actually 'ganging' on him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> No. The Hebrew clearly states "little children". I even wrote it out and pointed it clearly (see below quote). CynicalCirno, who lives in Israel and speaks Hebrew pointed out in the "Reigion: Let's bicker get in here" thread that the text reads "little children". We can ask her again, but the proper translation really, truthfully does state little children.



So the please would you explain why the same Hebrew Word Naar is to describe Issac when he was 28 years old?
Also why Is the word Naar used to describe a physically able man in Samuel 2:14?

Used an Hebrew to English translator: × ×¢×¨
*noun*

boy
youth
child
lad
youngster
stripling
laddie
As you can see the word has multiple meaning. This happens a lot in Hebrew. One word has many different meanings.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "The word of the LORD came to me" The Word is Jesus. So Jesus in incarnate form appeared. Jesus is known to speak in parables. Secondly I have confirmed with my Pastor and several Elders in my Church, this is a parable. You can even Google the verses and all the sites will also tell you that it is a parable.


 

Reading over your example again, the 'parable' you speak of in regards to the two sisters is not really a parable at all, but an allegory.  Christ DID speak in parables, but he also gave sermons and was a Rabbi to the people who followed him.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So the please would you explain why the same Hebrew Word Naar is to describe Issac when he was 28 years old?
> Also why Is the word Naar used to describe a physically able man in Samuel 2:14?


 
Depends on the context.  If you truly want an answer to that, dont ask one of the church elders, ask a Rabbi.   Hebrew isn't English; there are different linguistic rules.  It could be a homonym that was misunderstood and wrongly translated.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Devil worshipers screwed up the meaning the reversed cross which is actually known as the Petrine Cross (Cross of St. Peter) who was crucified upside down.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter


 I didn't know that; but I still feel that my question serves at least some point, especially considering the swastika was not only used by the nazis either.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So the please would you explain why the same Hebrew Word Naar is to describe Issac when he was 28 years old?
> Also why Is the word Naar used to describe a physically able man in Samuel 2:14?


 
I will look up Samuel 2:14, *but for the other one I need the verse because you left it out. *
*You can't just pull things out of the Bible without context or verse citation. *
*You made that clear to us, now I will hold you to do the same.*


EDIT: Samuel 2:14 says_ nothing_ about children.

Sam 2:17 comes close with "young men".
Wherefore the sin ×—×˜××”
of the young men × ×¢×¨
was very ×ž××“
great ×’×“×•×œ
before ×¤× ×™×
the LORD: ×™×”×•×”
for men ×× ×•×©
abhorred × ××¥
the offering ×ž× ×—×”
of the LORD. ×™×”×•×”

Once again, it comes down to context which is important in Hebrew. The previous words affect the meaning of certain words, "na`ar" being one of many many such cases. However, the context of "na`ar" in 2 Kings 2:23-24 explicitly shows that the term is used to mean "little children". A key point is the "×§×˜" which is "little" and "small".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Depends on the context.  If you truly want an answer to that, dont ask one of the church elders, ask a Rabbi.   Hebrew isn't English; there are different linguistic rules.  It could be a homonym that was misunderstood and wrongly translated.


 
See my edited post.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> I didn't know that; but I still feel that my question serves at least some point, especially considering the swastika was not only used by the nazis either.



Nope, it's a symbol of peace that has been used in ancient art and architecture for thousands of years before WW2.  Considering how much the modern (and grossly incorrect) meanings that are now associated with these two symbols (Petrine's cross and the swastika) you couldn't walk out the door and wear one in the open.  

Hell, I still get the odd stare or outright hostile look from time to time when I wear my pentacle.  Unless that one guy that passed me in the grocery store was just really angry at my boobs


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Nope, it's a symbol of peace that has been used in ancient art and architecture for thousands of years before WW2.  Considering how much the modern (and grossly incorrect) meanings that are now associated with these two symbols (Petrine's cross and the swastika) you couldn't walk out the door and wear one in the open.
> 
> Hell, I still get the odd stare or outright hostile look from time to time when I wear my pentacle.  Unless that one guy that passed me in the grocery store was just really angry at my boobs


 I simply stopped wearing one outside my clothes, although I'm not wiccan now (somewhere between pagan and agnostic).


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See my edited post.



It came up after I posted *L*.   It still falls within context, and backs up what i just said.  

Look at the word "duck".  It means either a water foul, or to dodge something.  But you can only know which one it means depending on the context of the sentence.  Naar means both children, and youth, and several other synonyms, but look at the glyph that comes _before_ Naan, that means 'little'.   That alone should tell you that these are younger youths, or children.   You're on the right track by trying out a Hebrew to English translator, but the nuances of the language which you'll need isn't so easilly understood unless you've taken classes, or speak it fluently.  Again, your best bet is to talk to a Rabbi if you want a clear answer.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 12, 2010)

Why do the arguments constantly fall back to differing interpretations? That's not a valid argument, it's a _convenient_ argument.

If only a handful of 'true believers' can know what something actually means, it just makes it all a bunch of crap.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See my edited post.


See my edited post.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> *Why do the arguments constantly fall back to differing interpretations?* That's not a valid argument, it's a _convenient_ argument.
> 
> If only a handful of 'true believers' can know what something actually means, it just makes it all a bunch of crap.



If you ever want to know why there are denominations, and why some of them fight each other, it's because of differing interpretations.  It's honestly the most rediculous thing you can fight over.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> If you ever want to know why there are denominations, and why some of them fight each other, it's because of differing interpretations. It's honestly the most rediculous thing you can fight over.


And so it goes.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> And so it goes.


 
Kinda like that song that doesn't end, isn't it?


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> If you ever want to know why there are denominations, and why some of them fight each other, it's because of differing interpretations.  It's honestly the most rediculous thing you can fight over.


 
Exactly. And I stand by the last bit of my post: "it's all a bunch of crap."

If there is a God, and by definition God is perfect, then "the word of God" should be assumed to be in perfect clarity. Mankind misinterpreting is impossible because that means God was not perfectly clear. That there are many interpretations leads me to think that either A) all interpretations must be equally correct, or B) God is not capable of perfect clarity and therefor not perfect.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

*waves to the lurkers*  Participate, you hosers! 



Heimdal said:


> Exactly. And I stand by the last bit of my post: "it's all a bunch of crap."
> 
> If there is a God, and by definition God is perfect, then "the word of God" should be assumed to be in perfect clarity. Mankind misinterpreting is impossible because that means God was not perfectly clear. That there are many interpretations leads me to think that either A) all interpretations must be equally correct, or B) God is not capable of perfect clarity and therefor not perfect.



Neat little paradox, isn't it?  But it's not perfect, or if it was at some point, it's been marred and sometimes hopelessly mutilated thanks to new translations that keep popping up.  There is in the works an honest to god LOLcat bible in the works.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1



> 1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
> 2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.
> 3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4  An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite  from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz  over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1




Now, this is for fun because some people have waaay to much time on their hands, but you see where i'm going with this.  Each paradigm shift requires change in the culture, and that unfortunately can affect religious texts.  Which means confusion for everyone, and people hating their neighbours because they say 'forgive those who tresspass, as we forgive those who trespass against us', instead of 'forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors' in the Lords prayer.

It's not perfect at all, but when you insist on the illusion of perfection, and all the other versions of that text do the same, then there are going to be problems.  I don't see why that's so hard to get. *shrugs*


----------



## Ragnock (Nov 12, 2010)

Religion is for the weak-minded. The end! =D

"When you tell me your deity created you in his image, I will reply that he must have been very ugly." 
                                                                                                -Some Guy I quoted just now


----------



## Ragnock (Nov 12, 2010)

By the by, don't start all that "NO U" stuff with me, because I have my own argument: All the world's problems were because of religion. Holocaust, Crusades, Terrorists, some other stuff that escape my mind for some reason, etc., are because of religion. Err.. were, in some cases. No religion = world peace? -shrugs-


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So the please would you explain why the same Hebrew Word Naar is to describe Issac when he was 28 years old?
> Also why Is the word Naar used to describe a physically able man in Samuel 2:14?
> 
> Used an Hebrew to English translator: × ×¢×¨
> ...


Further proof that language is unstable to the point where it cannot be successfully deconstructed for one cannot deconstruct the unstable!

/poststructuralism.

But, that's the problem. In going from Hebrew to English there are bound to be translation errors, mistakes, and just all around word choice changes. If a word has seven meanings, whoever translated it gets to choose which meaning they want.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> Religion is for the weak-minded. The end! =D
> 
> "When you tell me your deity created you in his image, I will reply that he must have been very ugly."
> -Some Guy I quoted just now



It's too easy to say that.  Sometimes religion is for the weak minded because it can require virtually no thought to follow rules.  However, if you want to GROW in your beliefs, you need to study and learn, then apply what you have learned as well as intelligently defend it.

I would not say my beliefs as a pagan are for the weak minded.  Many, many hours have been put in examining one text against another and forging my own path based on information I can find, because I HAVE no Bible or religious handbook to fall back on.   I know Christians who work very hard at study and understanding the gospel, then going out and facing scorn not because of anything they say, but just on the fact that they go to church.   It takes stong will not to crack under that.



Ragnock said:


> By the by, don't start all that "NO U" stuff with  me, because I have my own argument: All the world's problems were  because of religion. Holocaust, Crusades, Terrorists, some other stuff  that escape my mind for some reason, etc., are because of religion.  Err.. were, in some cases. No religion = world peace? -shrugs-


*sneaks this in*

No...not all the world's problems.  A lot of it is based on the aquiring of land, natural resources, and precious metals/luxuries.  It's just easier to hide it under the guise of Religion.


----------



## Ragnock (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> It's too easy to say that. Sometimes religion is for the weak minded because it can require virtually no thought to follow rules. However, if you want to GROW in your beliefs, you need to study and learn, then apply what you have learned as well as intelligently defend it.
> 
> I would not say my beliefs as a pagan are for the weak minded. Many, many hours have been put in examining one text against another and forging my own path based on information I can find, because I HAVE no Bible or religious handbook to fall back on. I know Christians who work very hard at study and understanding the gospel, then going out and facing scorn not because of anything they say, but just on the fact that they go to church. It takes stong will not to crack under that.



Never seen a Christian being scorned IRL. Maybe because in the real world, Athiests are hated like the devil himself, at least where I'm from. -loves internets ^.^- Christians, or any religion I've seen, don't really have many problems, except for the same shit everybody else is in.

You and I may have the exact same problems and have completely different beliefs, but only one of us will have buckets of shit tossed on us if we're on fire =) 

<<<<<<<<< (that's me, btw)


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> Religion is for the weak-minded. The end! =D
> 
> "When you tell me your deity created you in his image, I will reply that he must have been very ugly."
> -Some Guy I quoted just now


Don't ad hominem. We are trying to be respectful, and you are tarnishing that. I ruined it first, so learn from my mistakes. I was also disrespectful and down right abrasive at times, but I apologize for my ad hominems. I don't ask you to apologize, but do try to put more of an intellectual argument out there rather than "ur stoopid here's a quote from sumwheres". :\



Ragnock said:


> By the by, don't start all that "NO U" stuff with me, because I have my own argument: All the world's problems were because of religion. Holocaust, Crusades, Terrorists, some other stuff that escape my mind for some reason, etc., are because of religion. Err.. were, in some cases. No religion = world peace? -shrugs-


Such arguements are poorly worded. Everyone here has been "effortposting", I recommend you do so too. Taking the time to collect your thoughts and cite specific instances in good English will get you farther in this debate. Choppy English and half-formed reasoning will do more harm to your case and viewpoint than good. That said you have touched on cases where religion has been used for harm, good job. If you give more on that, like context and the influence of religion in that event, it becomes a very persuasive argument. Though saying that ALL the world's problems are because of religion is an absolute, and absolutes fall through absolutely. (hurrdurrpun). 

The Holocaust was influenced by religion as the Nazis, a very christian group, were rallied around purifying themselves of the Jewish threat. Thus a religious genocide. Hitler promised the Nazis that they were doin God's work and would be rewarded with the Reich and God would deliver the world into their hands. 
The Crusades over the holy land between the Muslims and the Christians were a huge loss of life in Europe. The promise of Heaven/Paradise to anyone who fought was a huge influence on peasants and knights who served as soldiers. It was also one of the more obvious times when religion has been used to incite war. For if no holy land existed they would not have fought and died for it's possession. The pressure of priests/pope and the imams was what drove these wars and fueled the back and forth seiges of Jeruselem.
Terrorists do come from all religious backgrounds. From the murder of Dr.Tiller to the fall of the world trade centers people who believe ferventy that killing is the only way to uphold a diety's word have no regrets and do not fear death. The lack of regret or remorse and the lack of fear make them more dangerous than almost any other threat. A man who has nothing to lose and everything to gain is very dangerous indeed. And certain teachings of certain texts can be manipulated to encourage violence against other faiths on the basis of cleansing, or retaliation, or to instill fear and dominance.
The Inquisition abused it's power and in it's us of torture and corrupt trials caused mssive harm and death across Europe. It's basis in Catholocism placed it's doings out of the reach of local governments due to the increasing power of the Church in that time period. These men were unaccountable for their actions because of the power and influence of the Church, and were able to get away with attrocities.
The War of the Roses and the Troubles are also noteworthy, but I'm tired of effortposting at the moment.



Ragnock said:


> You and I may have the exact same problems and have completely different beliefs



CAThulu is very open minded and has argued both sides of this debate. You labeling him to a side just shows how polarized you are. Also, yes atheists can be persecuted. All minorities can be. Now stop bawwing.


----------



## Ragnock (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Don't ad hominem. We are trying to be respectful, and you are tarnishing that. I ruined it first, so learn from my mistakes. I was also disrespectful and down right abrasive at times, but I apologize for my ad hominems. I don't ask you to apologize, but do try to put more of an intellectual argument out there rather than "ur stoopid here's a quote from sumwheres". :\
> 
> 
> Such arguements are poorly worded. Everyone here has been "effortposting", I recommend you do so too. Taking the time to collect your thoughts and cite specific instances in good English will get you farther in this debate. Choppy English and half-formed reasoning will do more harm to your case and viewpoint than good.



I'm more bored than anything else, it's 1:30 AM and trying to amuse myself =) I like seeing people's reactions to stuff.

Besides, I'm no speech-writer, I could really care less if my English no gud.

I apologize for my post =3 -hugs to make you feel better-


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 12, 2010)

Yeah, that's not going to help you last for any amount of time here.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> Never seen a Christian being scorned IRL. Maybe because in the real world, Athiests are hated like the devil himself, at least where I'm from. -loves internets ^.^- Christians, or any religion I've seen, don't really have many problems, except for the same shit everybody else is in.
> 
> You and I may have the exact same problems and have completely different beliefs, but only one of us will have buckets of shit tossed on us if we're on fire =)
> 
> <<<<<<<<< (that's me, btw)



That's probably because you live in Mississippi that you face that much hostility for being an Athiest.  Put a pentacle on and you'll get the same thing, if not worse.   Up here it's more lax, but it's still predominately Christian.  But you're talking to one now who has been ridiculed just on being a Christian.  I was one until I hit 19.  In highschool I was teased for it.  I didn't preach, but it was known.  There were these kids in my spanish class that would tease me about it all the time.  Finally one of the girls yelled out 'Hey Cat!  Is God like, your best friend or something?"  I looked at her, grew some balls, and said "yes."  Surprisingly, that stopped her.  Probably because I held my ground, stood up to the bitch, and told the truth.  And there was nothing she could say about it.   My brother also faced the same thing.  Yet he became a pastor and works with kids, and I am so damn proud of him and his strength he has in his faith.  Like I said, it's not easy. 

If you haven't seen it, or gone through it, it's hard to believe that it happens.  If you live with the understanding that people are generally assholes and will pick on another for anything, humanity is a lot easier to comprehend.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 12, 2010)

Hey guys, I seek knowledge, wondering if anyone here is knowledged in a certain belief.

Has anyone gotten acquainted with Zen Buddhism who would like to share?

I remember doing a paper showing parallels with it and a book, but I can't really remember much about it other than I liked it. A lot.



Ragnock said:


> I'm more bored than anything else, it's 1:30 AM and trying to amuse myself =) I like seeing people's reactions to stuff.
> 
> Besides, I'm no speech-writer, I could really care less if my English no gud.
> 
> I apologize for my post =3 -hugs to make you feel better-


 
What are you, 12?


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

^  I can try to help, or at least point you in the right direction


----------



## Xenke (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> ^  I can try to help, or at least point you in the right direction


 
Alrighty, you can post or PM me or whatever.

Regardless, I have to read it later tomorrow. I need to sleep and I have two exams and a class tomorrow.


----------



## Ragnock (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> That's probably because you live in Mississippi that you face that much hostility for being an Athiest. Put a pentacle on and you'll get the same thing, if not worse. Up here it's more lax, but it's still predominately Christian. But you're talking to one now who has been ridiculed just on being a Christian. I was one until I hit 19. In highschool I was teased for it. I didn't preach, but it was known. There were these kids in my spanish class that would tease me about it all the time. Finally one of the girls yelled out 'Hey Cat! Is God like, your best friend or something?" I looked at her, grew some balls, and said "yes." Surprisingly, that stopped her. Probably because I held my ground, stood up to the bitch, and told the truth. And there was nothing she could say about it. My brother also faced the same thing. Yet he became a pastor and works with kids, and I am so damn proud of him and his strength he has in his faith. Like I said, it's not easy.
> 
> If you haven't seen it, or gone through it, it's hard to believe that it happens. If you live with the understanding that people are generally assholes and will pick on another for anything, humanity is a lot easier to comprehend.



I see where you're coming from =) No way meant disrespect for you, just voicing my immature li'l opinion =3


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

The debates on this forum compelled me to sign up for a 300 level scripture class next semester. Well, that and I know the professor and he's cool :V


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> I like seeing people's reactions to stuff.


You were just being immature and inflammatory for a purpose then? Have a point to your argument. Make your posts valid and worth the space they take up on the page.



Ragnock said:


> Besides, I'm no speech-writer, I could really care less if my English no gud.


Then work on it. We're not asking for speeches, just fully articulated points to your arguments.



Ragnock said:


> I apologize for my post =3 -hugs to make you feel better-


I wasn't the one you insulted, but thank you fo the apology though I said you didn't have to. =) Also, don't rp here. No *hugs u* or *scritches ur tail* here please.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Alrighty, you can post or PM me or whatever.
> 
> Regardless, I have to read it later tomorrow. I need to sleep and I have two exams and a class tomorrow.



You got it. 



Ragnock said:


> I see where you're coming from =) No way meant disrespect for you, just voicing my immature li'l opinion =3



No insult taken, man.  And you're new, so it's cool.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 12, 2010)

Really?  You banned Deo AGAIN?!  What the FUCK, mods?!


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Really?  You banned Deo AGAIN?!  What the FUCK, mods?!



...the _hell_?!


----------



## Lobar (Nov 12, 2010)

We absolutely need to start having some transparency in moderator action because this is getting fucking retarded.


----------



## Azure (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> buckets of shit


Please, stop posting.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Nov 12, 2010)

The amount of butthurt in this thread makes me laugh, and I've only read a few posts, so I know there's got to be even more than I seen.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 12, 2010)

Ragnock said:


> By the by, don't start all that "NO U" stuff with me, because I have my own argument: All the world's problems were because of religion. Holocaust, Crusades, Terrorists, some other stuff that escape my mind for some reason, etc., are because of religion. Err.. were, in some cases. No religion = world peace? -shrugs-


 
Explain to me, using credible sources (meaning no Wikipedia), how the Cold War which lasted about 40 years was more religiously motivated than politically motivated.



			
				Lobar said:
			
		

> We absolutely need to start having some transparency in moderator action because this is getting fucking retarded.



It's pretty ridiculous.  I could understand the first time she was banned because of the two pages or so of nonstop quoting Rukh, but now it's a complete question mark to me.  How about some explanation mods?


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Explain to me, using credible sources, how the Cold War which lasted about 40 years was more religiously motivated than politically motivated.



The kid was shitposting last night because he was bored *L*.  Besides, I'm pretty sure he wasn't even born, or at least a toddler when the Cold War ended, so he's not going to know the answer to that any more than if you were to ask him the same question about Vietnam or the Korean war.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 12, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> The kid was shitposting last night because he was bored *L*.  Besides, I'm pretty sure he wasn't even born, or at least a toddler when the Cold War ended, so he's not going to know the answer to that any more than if you were to ask him the same question about Vietnam or the Korean war.


 
I realize this, but I figure I could give him a chance to redeem himself if he truly feels the way he does.

Besides, helps me make a point against a common argument I see that religion has been a primary factor in creating all of the problems of the world, which is a grossly exaggerated belief.  As much of a dumbass the kid may be, the argument he brings up is taken a little more legitimately by certain people.

And just because you weren't born during the Cold War doesn't mean you can't research it.  Hell, people in this thread have constantly tried to speak for a book hundreds of years old as if they were intimately involved in the writing and publishing process of it.  But they do research which makes them capable of arguing on a semi-intellectual level.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I realize this, but I figure I could give him a chance to redeem himself if he truly feels the way he does.


 
He apologized last night for said shitposting, and he's new, so I think we can forgive him for that one    But yeah, if he wants to elaborate (not redeem because he already said he was sorry, ergo, no redeeming needed) he should take a crack at it.  It's a good point.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Besides, helps me make a point against a common argument I see that religion has been a primary factor in creating *all *of the problems of the world, which is a grossly exaggerated belief.  As much of a dumbass the kid may be, the argument he brings up is taken a little more legitimately by certain people.


 
That one little word there, _'all'_,  is what makes the arguement fall apart before it gets off the ground.  Replace it with the word 'many' or 'most' and the opposition can't use the counter arguement that 'insert non-religious war here' wasn't about differing beliefs, and plez xplain, kthxbai. 

Being raised in a religious family where 3 members are pastors, and with dad being a deacon that uses Devils Advocate arguements to debate with university students in his college and career class, prepares one for this kind of strategic thinking.  It's probably why I aced Rhetoric in college *L*


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 12, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> *Why do the arguments constantly fall back to differing interpretations? That's not a valid argument, it's a convenient argument.*
> If only a handful of 'true believers' can know what something actually means, it just makes it all a bunch of crap.



Exactly. And yet you have believers loudly proclaiming that <insert holy book here> is perfect... despite the text being so open to misinterpretation (through writing styles and translations between wildly-dissimilar languages) that people can gain completely opposite conclusions _from the same passage._

Oh yeah, and the other convenient argument is that "you're missing the context", which all too often is used to hand-wave away some unpalatable interpretation of the actual passage text. 



Heimdal said:


> If there is a God, and by definition God is perfect, then "the word of God" should be assumed to be in perfect clarity. Mankind misinterpreting is impossible because that means God was not perfectly clear. That there are many interpretations leads me to think that either A) all interpretations must be equally correct, or B) God is not capable of perfect clarity and therefore not perfect.



Or c) *the "holy texts" were created by the writers pulling stuff out of their metaphorical arses *with NO divine intervention or inspiration to meet _their_ particular agendas - priests cementing their positions of power and/or supremacy over other beliefs, that sort of thing. Which further implies that either God doesn't exist, or just doesn't care to correct mistakes in the first place.

No matter what the reason, it doesn't say much for "God" having the ability to keep his story straight, does it?


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 12, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Or c) *the "holy texts" were created by the writers pulling stuff out of their metaphorical arses *with NO divine intervention or inspiration to meet _their_ particular agendas - priests cementing their positions of power and/or supremacy over other beliefs, that sort of thing. Which further implies that either God doesn't exist, or just doesn't care to correct mistakes in the first place.
> 
> No matter what the reason, it doesn't say much for "God" having the ability to keep his story straight, does it?


 
Your C falls into my B, just that I didn't bother following up that "if God is not perfect then he cannot exist, as God is perfect by definition."

I've always viewed the Bible as a random collection of propaganda stories and various stories that the authors might have even stated were fiction if you could ask them. I imagine 2k years in the future, people will view Batman as 'we' view Jesus.. and they will be all "this historical phone book proves there was a person named Bruce Wayne at that time, therefor Batman existed!" And then the holy trinity of Batman - The Incredible Hulk - Chuck Norris. At least it would be awesome tho!


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2010)

Sometimes I wish people would adjust their religion based on their beliefs, rather than changing their beliefs because of a religion.

You have an amazing thing called the human brain, USE IT!

Don't blindly follow something with no evidence because something/someone told you to.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Really?  You banned Deo AGAIN?!  What the FUCK, mods?!


 
Again? Whatever for?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 12, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Again? Whatever for?


 
Not anything in this thread, not even the last time.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying God created evil. This  is not possible. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God in  people's hearts.  It is the absence of love, humanity and faith. Love  and faith are like  heat and light. They exist, Their absence led to  evil.


 What about those that kill in the name of God and do so firmly believing that God is on their side? The 9/11 terrorists no doubt thought they were doing the work of God and that they would be rewarded when they died. God was in their hearts at the time of that attack, a very evil deed indeed.

And it's not like Catholicism has a blood free history. I'll concede that some of the killings done under Catholic leadership would have happened had the religion existed or not, but it still provided a rallying cry and soldiers that fought and did terrible deeds thought they were doing God's work. 

God in the heart doesn't necessarily mean no evil will be committed.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Really? You banned Deo AGAIN?! What the FUCK, mods?!


 
This so hard I smashed a hole in my keyboard.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

I hate touchy subjects like this.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I hate touchy subjects like this.


 Nice shitpost bro. If you don't have an opinion on anything, why post?


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> Nice shitpost bro. If you don't have an opinion on anything, why post?


 I get bashed for what I believe in.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I get bashed for what I believe in.


 That (probably) depends entirely on how you articulate your beliefs. 

You got me curious though :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> What about those that kill in the name of God and do so firmly believing that God is on their side? The 9/11 terrorists no doubt thought they were doing the work of God and that they would be rewarded when they died. God was in their hearts at the time of that attack, a very evil deed indeed.
> 
> And it's not like Catholicism has a blood free history. I'll concede that some of the killings done under Catholic leadership would have happened had the religion existed or not, but it still provided a rallying cry and soldiers that fought and did terrible deeds thought they were doing God's work.
> 
> God in the heart doesn't necessarily mean no evil will be committed.



If you read the Bible carefully there are very few times where God directly commands the death of someone. Most of what you find is prophesys about the future that men will die from [insert form of death here] God does not tell us to go and Kill in his name. Remember the 10 Commandments, "Thou shall not kill"
The killings done under Catholic leadership (ie the crusades) were not God ordained. The priests back then said to all those who fought that if they fought then all of their sin would be forgiven and absolved. That makes no sense, because belief in Jesus Christ is what absolves you of all of your sin. Jesus said let he who has never sinned be the first to throw the first stone"


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> That (probably) depends entirely on how you articulate your beliefs.
> 
> You got me curious though :V


 I believe that god is all the animals in the world and the devil is a human....


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I believe that god is all the animals in the world and the devil is a human....


 Holy shit you need to give me some reasoning for that or I'll just laugh and think you're a furfag :V



> If you read the Bible carefully there are very few times where God  directly commands the death of someone. Most of what you find is  prophesys about the future that men will die from [insert form of death  here] God does not tell us to go and Kill in his name. Remember the 10  Commandments, "Thou shall not kill"
> The killings done under Catholic leadership (ie the crusades) were not  God ordained. The priests back then said to all those who fought that if  they fought then all of their sin would be forgiven and absolved. That  makes no sense, because belief in Jesus Christ is what absolves you of  all of your sin. Jesus said let he who has never sinned be the first to  throw the first stone"


Yes yes. But I was more going off the wording of your post. God in the heart = no sin. But people sin with God in their hearts. It might not be correct, but it still happens. Ergo, it's not really a good argument.


----------



## Willow (Nov 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Really?  You banned Deo AGAIN?!  What the FUCK, mods?!


 


Lobar said:


> We absolutely need to start having some transparency in moderator action because this is getting fucking retarded.


 This this THIS. I'm pretty sure the topic of mod transparency has come up recently.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> Holy shit you need to give me some reasoning for that or I'll just laugh and think you're a furfag :V
> 
> 
> Yes yes. But I was more going off the wording of your post. God in the heart = no sin. But people sin with God in their hearts. It might not be correct, but it still happens. Ergo, it's not really a good argument.


 This I've been believing in upon for longer than I knew the fandom existed(about seven years). I've been in the fandom for about only two years now.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> This I've been believing in upon for longer than I knew the fandom existed(about seven years). I've been in the fandom for about only two years now.


 No no no. How did you come to believe such a thing? That animals are God and that people are Satanic? Because honestly, that's pretty damn ridiculous.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> No no no. How did you come to believe such a thing? That animals are God and that people are Satanic? Because honestly, that's pretty damn ridiculous.


 People destroy just to make them feel better, they pollute the clean air, they worry more about themselves than other things around them, and virtually everything that isn't "normal" is taboo. Animals are the deities of light no matter how big or small and they did nothing to this world, just survive.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> People destroy just to make them feel better, they pollute the clean air, they worry more about themselves than other things around them, and virtually everything that isn't "normal" is taboo. Animals are the deities of light no matter how big or small and they did nothing to this world, just survive.


 

On the other hand, humans can be selfless, caring and sympathetic.

Animsl are just out for themselves. Actually not even that, they just know what they want and not why, and just do it, because they lack the intelligence to be evil or good.

Animals rape, they bully and kill for fun, they eat other animals alive, keeping thema live and suffering for as long as possible.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> People destroy just to make them feel better, they pollute the clean air, they worry more about themselves than other things around them, and virtually everything that isn't "normal" is taboo. Animals are the deities of light no matter how big or small and they did nothing to this world, just survive.


 Nature's a motherfucker. But you know, animals kill each other all the time. Lions go and murder cubs to get lionesses horny so they can bang them, plenty of animals rape each other (certain species of ducks come to mind), and some monkeys will kill for shits and giggles. 

I don't think most people destroy things to make themselves feel better though. That's a minority. Pollution happens, I mean hell, cow farts are apparently bad for the ozone. We pollute, but there are laws to regulate that kind of thing. It's not like every human out there lacks feelings for our planet. Plenty of people recycle, for example. Pretty sure animals worry only about themselves and not those around them (unless it's to kill or fuck of course.) 

But it's your last sentence that has me. "virtually everything that isn't 'normal' is taboo." There's some truth to that, but I've been on this forum long enough to know that when furries say that, it's because they did something furfaggish and got called on it.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Wreth said:


> On the other hand, humans can be selfless, caring and sympathetic.
> 
> Animsl are just out for themselves. Actually not even that, they just know what they want and not why, and just do it, because they lack the intelligence to be evil or good.
> 
> Animals rape, they bully and kill for fun, they eat other animals alive, keeping thema live and suffering for as long as possible.


 Some are, but many ignore that.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> Nature's a motherfucker. But you know, animals kill each other all the time. Lions go and murder cubs to get lionesses horny so they can bang them, plenty of animals rape each other (certain species of ducks come to mind), and some monkeys will kill for shits and giggles.
> 
> I don't think most people destroy things to make themselves feel better though. That's a minority. Pollution happens, I mean hell, cow farts are apparently bad for the ozone. We pollute, but there are laws to regulate that kind of thing. It's not like every human out there lacks feelings for our planet. Plenty of people recycle, for example. Pretty sure animals worry only about themselves and not those around them (unless it's to kill or fuck of course.)
> 
> But it's your last sentence that has me. "virtually everything that isn't 'normal' is taboo." There's some truth to that, but I've been on this forum long enough to know that when furries say that, it's because they did something furfaggish and got called on it.


 I was never called out on anything. I hope....


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I was never called out on anything. I hope....


 Hard to believe, but you ignored the other 2/3 of my post.


----------



## Willow (Nov 12, 2010)

...humans are animals too y'know :S


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> Hard to believe, but you ignored the other 2/3 of my post.


 Now I understand.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Willow said:


> ...humans are animals too y'know :S


 I know that, but the thing is why would a species destroy another species just to benefit itself?


----------



## Willow (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I know that, but the thing is why would a species destroy another species just to benefit itself?


Basic instinct? Because animals do it all the time in nature, but they do it for food or survival. Humans only do it a majority of the time because they can.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I know that, but the thing is why would a species destroy another species just to benefit itself?


 If think animals don't do that then I suggest you turn on animal planet and enjoy having your established notions destroyed.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Willow said:


> Basic instinct? Because animals do it all the time in nature, but they do it for food or survival. Humans only do it a majority of the time because they can.


 But that's not instinctual harming, it intentional.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> But that's not instinctual harming, it intentional.


 And when the alligator goes and kills a buffalo and keeps it alive for a long time because it enjoys eating fresh meat, that's intentional. 

Animals do some nasty shit to each other. Ever see a cat play with an injured mouse or bird? That cat could kill that mouse or bird pretty easily, but it's more fun watching it scurry around with a few broken limbs and smacking it into submission before killing it. 

Mother nature is a motherfucker.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> And when the alligator goes and kills a buffalo and keeps it alive for a long time because it enjoys eating fresh meat, that's intentional.
> 
> Animals do some nasty shit to each other. Ever see a cat play with an injured mouse or bird? That cat could kill that mouse or bird pretty easily, but it's more fun watching it scurry around with a few broken limbs and smacking it into submission before killing it.
> 
> Mother nature is a motherfucker.


 Mother nature can also bring Karma.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> Mother nature can also bring Karma.


 I think people make fun of your religious beliefs because they are pants on head retarded. Sorry I asked :\


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> And when the alligator goes and kills a buffalo and keeps it alive for a long time because it enjoys eating fresh meat, that's intentional.
> 
> Animals do some nasty shit to each other. Ever see a cat play with an injured mouse or bird? That cat could kill that mouse or bird pretty easily, but it's more fun watching it scurry around with a few broken limbs and smacking it into submission before killing it.
> 
> Mother nature is a motherfucker.



Animals are like veyr young children.

They are capable of some horrible things, but can't really be held responsible for their own actions.

Humans are better than animals in some ways and worse in others, it all balances out really.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> I think people make fun of your religious beliefs because they are pants on head retarded. Sorry I asked :\


 No worries, it takes time getting used to.


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> No worries, it takes time getting used to.


 I don't plan on getting used to it.



> Animals are like veyr young children.
> 
> They are capable of some horrible things, but can't really be held responsible for their own actions.
> 
> Humans are better than animals in some ways and worse in others, it all balances out really.


Don't encourage him :V


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Animals are like veyr young children.
> 
> They are capable of some horrible things, but can't really be held responsible for their own actions.
> 
> Humans are better than animals in some ways and worse in others, it all balances out really.


 I agree a little bit but human depend on money to live when every animal has to fight for it's life every day.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> I don't plan on getting used to it.
> 
> 
> Don't encourage him :V


 Not trying to convert.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Once again, it comes down to context which is important in Hebrew. The previous words affect the meaning of certain words, "na`ar" being one of many many such cases. However, the context of "na`ar" in 2 Kings 2:23-24 explicitly shows that the term is used to mean "little children". A key point is the "





Deovacuus said:


> [FONT=&quot]×§×˜





Deovacuus said:


> [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]which is "little" and "small".  [/FONT]


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 

2 Kings 2:23, na'arim "youths"; "children" would be yeladim in Hebrew, so why not just use yeladim to say children instead of na'arim?. Ketanaim is the word little. 
[/FONT]   [FONT=&quot]The word ketanarim (plural of qatan) Used frequently in the scripture to denote a younger son. 
[/FONT]   [FONT=&quot]ketanaim(plural of qatan), which is translated by Our English word" little." Frequently in scripture it is used to denote a younger son. The word occurs in Genesis 27:42, where it is translated by our English word "younger," and is applied to Jacob at the time when he fled from his brother Esau at which time he must have been about seventy-seven. In Judges 1:13 the word is applied to Othniel, Calebâ€™s younger brother, who certainly must have been more than a "little child" because he was old enough and strong enough to storm and capture single handedly the city of Kirjathsepher.
It should be quite clear by now that these two Hebrew words are characterized by considerable elasticity. However, there are other places in Scripture where both words actually occur together, as they do in our problem passage. Take, for example, Samuel's
selection of David to be king: And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children (naâ€™arim)? And he
said, There remaineth yet the youngest (qatan), and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse: Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and, withal, of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to lookto (1 Sam. 16:11-12). Here David is referred to as the "youngest" of Jesses "children." Yet, down in verse 18 of the same chapter we are told that David, even at this time, was"...a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters. Certainly it can be argued that David was no mere child, but rather a strong young man well along in his twenties. For further study of the occurrence of the two words together, see 1 Samuel 20:35 and I Kings 11:17. These "little children" (2 kings 2:23) were not primarily little children at all, but rather boys and young men whose ages could vary anywhere from twelve to
thirty. These persons were old enough to know what they were doing, and cannot be excused for their vicious behavior on the grounds that they were under-aged.

[/FONT]    So again, 2 Kings 2:23 is not talking about little children, but young men from ages 12-30. And at that age they knew what they were doing.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]
> 
> 2 Kings 2:23, na'arim "youths"; "children" would be yeladim in Hebrew, so why not just use yeladim to say children instead of na'arim?. Ketanaim is the word little. [/FONT]


 
Because they didn't anticipate that several thousand years later someone would be using their word choice as a defense that there's a magic age where it's okay to BEAR MURDER people.

Also holy size and font tags, Batman.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Because they didn't anticipate that several thousand years later someone would be using their word choice as a defense that there's a magic age where it's okay to BEAR MURDER people.



See my post of blasphemy. The young men committed blasphemy against God. Which according to Leviticus Law is not forgivable. (The unforgivable sin in the OT) There was no sacrifice that could forgive this sin. And thus the punishment was death.

Also, you skipped over the part that they were not "little children".


----------



## Conker (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See my post of blasphemy. The young men committed blasphemy against God. Which according to Leviticus Law is not forgivable. (The unforgivable sin in the OT) There was no sacrifice that could forgive this sin. And thus the punishment was death.
> 
> Also, you skipped over the part that they were not "little children".


 Question for ya. If God is willing to go through is UBERCRAZY change from being a crotchety old asshole to super awesome kind fella in the OT > NT, whose to say he won't make another 180 degree flip in personality and be a douchebag again? 

Or hasn't already as the case might be :V

He seams like an unstable fellow from an emotional standpoint. How can I trust a deity with multiple personality disorder?


----------



## Riley (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh, I just got a divine email from god.  She says that you need to stop taking her so seriously.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See my post of blasphemy. The young men committed blasphemy against God. Which according to Leviticus Law is not forgivable. (The unforgivable sin in the OT) There was no sacrifice that could forgive this sin. And thus the punishment was death.
> 
> Also, you skipped over the part that they were not "little children".


 
Which is a mark against Leviticus law and He who made it, not those that broke it.  Bear murder for critical speech is unacceptable regardless of when it took place, who said it and however old they may have been.  It doesn't matter if they were children or not (though I still side with Deo and Cirno on that point regardless).


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Or hasn't already as the case might be :V


 
http://GodHatesEveryoneExceptForUs.com :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Question for ya. If God is willing to go through is UBERCRAZY change from being a crotchety old asshole to super awesome kind fella in the OT > NT, whose to say he won't make another 180 degree flip in personality and be a douchebag again?
> 
> Or hasn't already as the case might be :V
> 
> He seams like an unstable fellow from an emotional standpoint. How can I trust a deity with multiple personality disorder?



Well, I will quote Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The Old Leviticus Law has been fulfilled. Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice in the sacrificial system. The Old Law was never meant to be permanent. In fact it all points to that we cannot live up to God"s standards, and it points to the fact that we need Jesus.
The Law had three aspects and 613 commands. The _moral_ law was the commandments and Decalogue. The _ceremonial_ law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ. The _civil law_ was about such things as sanitation, crops, quarantine, diet, lawsuits, and crime.  The Law was a rule of life, not a way of salvation. Neither Moses nor any  other Jew was ever saved by keeping the Law. Abraham was saved by faith  before the Mosaic Law was even given: "And he believed in the Lord; and  he counted it to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Moses was saved by  faith in God's promises of blessing, and in his promises of forgiveness  through sacrifice. 
 The shedding of the blood of animals pointed forward to the death of  Christ, the per fect sacrifice for sin. Like Abraham, Moses was saved by  grace, through faith in the promise of Messiah to come. But Moses  proved, demonstrated, and gave evidence of his salvation by attempting  to keep the Mosaic Law which was God's rule of life for Israel.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Which is a mark against Leviticus law and He who made it, not those that broke it.  Bear murder for critical speech is unacceptable regardless of when it took place, who said it and however old they may have been.  It doesn't matter if they were children or not (though I still side with Deo and Cirno on that point regardless).


 
Again, they new what they were doing, and what they said was blasphemy. It was an unpardonable sin. However God choose to kill them is not important. The Law was broken and the consequence of breaking this law was death.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 13, 2010)

Not that I feel it amounts to a hill of beans anyways,  but I took Moses being denied to cross the river Jordan as a clear indication that he was _not_ saved.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, I will quote Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
> 
> The Old Leviticus Law has been fulfilled. Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice in the sacrificial system. The Old Law was never meant to be permanent. In fact it all points to that we cannot live up to God"s standards, and it points to the fact that we need Jesus.
> The Law had three aspects and 613 commands. The _moral_ law was the commandments and Decalogue. The _ceremonial_ law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ. The _civil law_ was about such things as sanitation, crops, quarantine, diet, lawsuits, and crime.  The Law was a rule of life, not a way of salvation. Neither Moses nor any  other Jew was ever saved by keeping the Law. Abraham was saved by faith  before the Mosaic Law was even given: "And he believed in the Lord; and  he counted it to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Moses was saved by  faith in God's promises of blessing, and in his promises of forgiveness  through sacrifice.
> The shedding of the blood of animals pointed forward to the death of  Christ, the per fect sacrifice for sin. Like Abraham, Moses was saved by  grace, through faith in the promise of Messiah to come. But Moses  proved, demonstrated, and gave evidence of his salvation by attempting  to keep the Mosaic Law which was God's rule of life for Israel.


 Ah, what the hell, I'll buy that.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Not that I feel it amounts to a hill of beans  anyways,  but I took Moses being denied to cross the river Jordan as a  clear indication that he was _not_ saved.


 
Not at all,
   In Numbers 20:8, the Lord told Moses, "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. *Speak to that rock* before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." Numbers 20:9-11 records Moses' response: "So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as He commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, â€˜Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?â€™ Then Moses raised his arm and *struck the rock twice* with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank." Numbers 20:12, Numbers  gives us the Lord's response, "*But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."*

What did Moses do that warranted such a severe penalty from the Lord? First, Moses disobeyed a direct command from God. God had commanded Moses to speak to the rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock with his staff. Second, Moses took the credit for bringing forth the water. Notice how in verse 10 Moses said, "must we (referring to Moses and Aaron) bring you water out of this rock." Moses took credit for the miracle himself, instead of attributing it to God. Third, Moses did this in front of all the Israelites. Such a public example of direct disobedience could not go unpunished. Mosesâ€™ punishment was that he would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12).


Nothings is said that he was not saved.



Big Edit: In fact when Jesus Christ went onto a mountain to pray, when he transfigured, 3 of his Disciples saw Him talk with Moses and Elijah. Thus proving that Moses went to Heaven. Mark 9:4, Matthew 17:3-4, Luke 9:30


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not at all,
> In Numbers 20:8, the Lord told Moses, "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. *Speak to that rock* before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." Numbers 20:9-11 records Moses' response: "So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as He commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, â€˜Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?â€™ Then Moses raised his arm and *struck the rock twice* with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank." Numbers 20:12, Numbers  gives us the Lord's response, "*But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."*
> 
> What did Moses do that warranted such a severe penalty from the Lord? First, Moses disobeyed a direct command from God. God had commanded Moses to speak to the rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock with his staff. Second, Moses took the credit for bringing forth the water. Notice how in verse 10 Moses said, "must we (referring to Moses and Aaron) bring you water out of this rock." Moses took credit for the miracle himself, instead of attributing it to God. Third, Moses did this in front of all the Israelites. Such a public example of direct disobedience could not go unpunished. Mosesâ€™ punishment was that he would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12).
> ...



He couldn't have been saved. It's a moot point.  That's a term that applies to christians, and christ was born thousands of years after Moses.

Besides; I prefer the NLCV translation of this passage: 



> Numbers 20:8-12 - 8  Oh hai, take dis stick an yu an yur kitteh Aaron go an makes meeting.  Speakz to teh pebbul and make it givez yu waturz. Give teh waturz to teh  Izrealites for dem an dem animalz." 9 Moses sayed bai to Ceiling Cat an maed meeting.10 Him an Aaron did meeting in fronts of pebbul an sayed to dem, "Hear, yu bad kittehs, we bringz watur out of pebbul!"11 Den Moses smack pebbul wiv stick an waturz caemed out an teh Izrealites drank.
> 12  But Ceiling Cat got angured at Moses an Aaron an sayed, "Yuz didz not  trusted meh enuf to callz me good in frontz of teh Izrealites. Cuz of  dis, yuz not takez dem to teh place I givez."



http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Numbers_20


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> He couldn't have been saved. It's a moot point.  That's a term that applies to christians, and christ was born thousands of years after Moses.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In fact when Jesus Christ went onto a mountain to pray,  He transfigured, 3 of his Disciples saw Him talk with Moses  and Elijah. Thus proving that Moses went to Heaven. Mark 9:4, Matthew  17:3-4, Luke 9:30



Matthew 17:3-4 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.  Peter said to Jesus, â€œLord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I  will put up three sheltersâ€”one for you, one for Moses and one for  Elijah.â€ 

Mark 9:4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 

Luke 9:30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Yeah?  So what?  Just because they apperaed beside Jesus didn't mean they were Saved in the Christian sense.  Remember that Christianity is the offspring of Judaism.  Being 'saved' means accepting christ as your personal lord and savior, thereby being saved from damnation.  These were prophets, which is a bit different.  The rules where changed when Christ came to earth, and died on the Cross, but that didn't mean people weren't accepted to heaven before that.

Like I said; moot point.  They're in Glory.  Why label the reason why?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Yeah?  So what?  Just because they apperaed beside Jesus didn't mean they were Saved in the Christian sense.  Remember that Christianity is the offspring of Judaism.  Being 'saved' means accepting christ as your personal lord and savior, thereby being saved from damnation.  These were prophets, which is a bit different.  The rules where changed when Christ came to earth, and died on the Cross, but that didn't mean people weren't accepted to heaven before that.
> 
> Like I said; moot point.  They're in Glory.  Why label the reason why?



They were in Heaven. They were saved from Hell. I was also answering Lobar as well when he said that Moses wasn't saved (as in he didn't go to Heaven)


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have never stated that it was a different God. Please show me where I said this. Your not making any sense. What I stated is that Moses did not obey God's Command. Never did God command the Israelites to slaughter pillage and plunder. So how does explaining Numbers 31 not apply?


My apologies, it was a different God.  You simply said that the Old Testament does not (wait, does [no wait, doesn't (sorry, does again [nope, doesn't])]) apply in several posts, either the Covenant within or the Testament in general (due to the Old Covenant being null).

Also, in light of your new post:  So, Moses was allowed into Heaven... despite not being a Christian and preceding the very concept of Christianity by 300 years (beating the death of Christ by 330+).  So... you don't need to be a Christian to get into heaven, then?  So, what does this mean about your "Jews can't get into heaven" / "Christian = 0 means Heaven = 0" statements?

EDIT:  Oh, wait, this could be rich.  If the post coming up is "You could get into heaven without being a Christian before Christ, but can only get into Heaven being a Christian after Christ", that chocks yet another point at "God = Dick", since that just means his "saving" _drastically reduced the number of potential candidates for Heaven_.  That's like saving people by randomly throwing live and dud landmines in the lifeboats you have.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They were in Heaven. They were saved from Hell. I was also answering Lobar as well when he said that Moses wasn't saved (as in he didn't go to Heaven)


 
Well if you're not going to use the same christian definition of 'Saved' as the rest of the planet, you're going to have to expect some negative feedback.


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 13, 2010)

I read that Moses and the rock thing. With standards like that, Heaven must be one empty chunk of real estate.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

BlackRabbit of Inle said:


> I read that Moses and the rock thing. With standards like that, Heaven must be one empty chunk of real estate.


 Hell has all the cool people in it. Like Superman. I want to meet him, ergo, I need to be an asshole and go to hell  IT'S THE MASTER PLAN


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Hell has all the cool people in it. Like Superman. I want to meet him, ergo, I need to be an asshole and go to hell  IT'S THE MASTER PLAN


 
According to all these religions, you don't have to be an asshole; you already have a ticket to Hell as soon as you drop out of your mother's womb.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Also, in light of your new post:  So, Moses was allowed into Heaven... despite not being a Christian and preceding the very concept of Christianity by 300 years (beating the death of Christ by 330+).  So... you don't need to be a Christian to get into heaven, then?  So, what does this mean about your "Jews can't get into heaven" / "Christian = 0 means Heaven = 0" statements?
> 
> EDIT:  Oh, wait, this could be rich.  If the post coming up is "You  could get into heaven without being a Christian before Christ, but can  only get into Heaven being a Christian after Christ", that chocks yet  another point at "God = Dick", since that just means his "saving"  _drastically reduced the number of potential candidates for  Heaven_.  That's like saving people by randomly throwing live and dud  landmines in the lifeboats you have.



Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, even though he's already been here according to scripture.  Before Christ, the only way you could get to heaven  was by following his commandments and observing the rituals and sacrifices that were put down in Mosaic Law.  Hence, why Moses wasn't 'Saved by Grace' (Christ's Grace, or redemption), but through following the rules set down by God after they left Egypt.

When Christ came, he was seen as a false prophet.  And I don't blame them.  Consider this, at the time there were several who were claming to be the messiah, including Herod Aggripa, and Caligula.  There was also the cult of Mithras to deal with.  Now a man from Gallile comes along that's healing the sick (sorcery) and raising the dead (Necromancy) and the Pharisees are supposed to just believe that he was the son of God?  Joshua bar Joseph (Jesus) undermined their power as well, preaching something completely different that the salvation of the Jews didn't rely on the temple and the priests any longer, but through him and his father.  It was very heretical.  

At the moment Jesus died on the Cross the curtain in the temple separating the outer sanctuary from the inner sanctuary ripped from TOP TO BOTTOM.    This is incredibly significant, as those suckers were most likely incredibly tall, and not made of a flimsy material.  The symbolism is loaded; God himself showed that there was no go-between anymore.  If someone wanted to talk to God, they didn't need to make a sacrifice to attone for their sins or talk to a priest, they just prayed to God alone.  It created a one-on-one, personal relationship with God, since those who came to accept his Son as their Savior were 'purified' of their sins if they asked God for forgiveness.  Essentially when Jesus died, he became the ultimate sacrificial lamb and asked for forgiveness for all of humanity for then-present, and future generations.   Christ 'vouches' for you to his Father in this life if you accept him as your redeemer, and when you die and stand in Judgement

That's how it works in a nutshell.  So no, saving doesn't drastically reduce the number of candidates before Christ was born, it's just the rulebook changed ^_^


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

BlackRabbit of Inle said:


> According to all these religions, you don't have to be an asshole; you already have a ticket to Hell as soon as you drop out of your mother's womb.


 The bitch baptized me  So I have to be an asshole.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> The bitch baptized me  So I have to be an asshole.



No, that's just an excuse for being an asshole.  Just renounce your faith.  You'll be in that handbasket to hell in no time


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2010)

Hey mods, since this thread is past 500posts, rather than close it and start again, sticky it.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

^ The 500-post limit only applies in Forum Games, not on any other subforums.

Actually, I was reading last night about what the Bible says regarding the fate of those who don't accept the free offer of the Gospel, and the answer I found is that it's not an automatic ticket to Hell after all.  In MATT 25:31-46, Jesus talks about the judgment of the nations in a parable about the sheep and the goats, and the point is that those who commit deeds whose means and ends are founded in the love of all human beings won't go to Hell, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not.  There's also a point somewhere in the NT where Jesus was asked what the greatest, most important of commandments was, and I'm having a hard time finding it again.  He said it was, slightly paraphrased, to love your god with all your body, all your mind, and all your spirit, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself, implying without regard to your neighbor's faith or lack thereof.  This message, that love was more important than acceptance, was reiterated in 1 COR 13:1-13, an entire chapter devoted to the importance of love.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

^





> In MATT 25:31-46, Jesus talks about the judgment of the nations in a  parable about the sheep and the goats, and the point is that those who  commit deeds whose means and ends are founded in the love of all human  beings won't go to Hell, regardless of whether they accept Christ or  not.



Nice find!  But doesn't that clash with John 3:16? ( For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.)   That's one of the fundimental tenants of Christianity, other then that Christ rose from the dead.


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> The bitch baptized me  So I have to be an asshole.


 
Doesn't count. The water was spoiled when a priest washed off his last altar boy. :V


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Hell has all the cool people in it. Like Superman. I want to meet him, ergo, I need to be an asshole and go to hell  IT'S THE MASTER PLAN


 
According to the Westboro Baptists, Hell's got everyone except the Phelps family of Topeka; it's even got Mr. Rogers of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

^ LOLWAT?!   Not Mr Rogers!

Although, now I have this horrible mental image of him taking a stroll through Hell whistling "It's a wonderful day in the neighbourhood..."


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> According to the Westboro Baptists, Hell's got everyone except the Phelps family of Topeka; it's even got Mr. Rogers of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."



They can't go to Hell. They are already there because they have to sit and listen to the old bastard.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> ^ LOLWAT?!   Not Mr Rogers!
> 
> Although, now I have this horrible mental image of him taking a stroll through Hell whistling "It's a wonderful day in the neighbourhood..."


 Mr Rogers is a terrible person because he informs kids that they are special when society says "no you aren't." He gives them false hope. HE WILL BURN


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> According to the Westboro Baptists, Hell's got everyone except the Phelps family of Topeka; it's even got Mr. Rogers of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."


 
Haha, if there is a hell I'm sure there is a special place there for that group. Full of a lot of penis's waiting to have their way with them.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Mr Rogers is a terrible person because he informs kids that they are special when society says "no you aren't." He gives them false hope. HE WILL BURN


 
Crap, that's right!   I forgot that there's a spell in the Lesser Key of Solomon that allows you to summon Mr Rogers, who's a lesser Duke of Hell.  Who knew PBS was run by a coven of black sorcerers?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Mr Rogers is a terrible person because he informs kids that they are special when society says "no you aren't." He gives them false hope. HE WILL BURN


 
Fox News actually had a Fox and Friends segment on the day he died that said exactly that.  But this isn't a politics thread.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> ^
> 
> Nice find!  But doesn't that clash with John 3:16? ( For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.)   That's one of the fundimental tenants of Christianity, other then that Christ rose from the dead.


 
The part that stands out most to me is "God so loved the World," not that any profession of faith is required.  The rest of that verse simply amplifies the extreme to which the god of the New Testament went.

It's unfortunate that it's being used by too many Christians as a retroactively contractual string: "You've just received the offer, and since you did, you're bound by it, so you'd better accept it or go to Hell."  Any god who would impose such a retroactive condition would have to be a devil posing as a god.

The second part, "that whoever believes in Him shall not perish," raises the question of what's required for belief.  Since, in the New Testament, God incarnated as a mortal human being and told people to follow him and the example he set, the thing most required for belief is to try following that example.  Since the whole point of Jesus's entire existence as a mortal being was love and forgiveness (and not just preaching it), things which can be accomplished even by those who don't believe gods exist, and things which have been accomplished by important figures in other religions' mythologies, one can follow that example without necessarily being Christian.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> ^ LOLWAT?!   Not Mr Rogers!
> 
> Although, now I have this horrible mental image of him taking a stroll through Hell whistling "It's a wonderful day in the neighbourhood..."



Yup.  They said it's because he never spoke against homosexuality, even though he never spoke about the subject of sexuality at all.



BlackRabbit of Inle said:


> They can't go to Hell. They are already there because they have to sit and listen to the old bastard.


 
Except they believe him.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 13, 2010)

Aww. you guys started a religion thread without me? Seriously? Could someone give me the TL;DR version of what's been said so far?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 13, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Aww. you guys started a religion thread without me? Seriously? Could someone give me the TL;DR version of what's been said so far?


 
Lets see here. Side one goes Rawr Science! The other side goes Rawr God!
Then they both go rabble rabble for a bit.

One group butchers science to support religion, and the other butchers religion to support science.
More rabble rabble to follow. There you go.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 13, 2010)

There really hasn't been much science in this thread, actually.  Mainly kibitzing over Scripture, which is a little pointless because the heart of rejecting religion has never been in the flaws of their texts but in the lack of any logical reason to accept any of them as true.


----------



## Azure (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh, your posts are made of nightmarishly illogical thinking.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you read the Bible carefully there are very few times where God directly commands the death of someone.


 
You do know that god killed upwards of about 2.5 million people directly in the bible, right? (Without counting the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of egypt, etc.)

And that Satan only killed 10 people in the book of Job, but only after he'd gotten direct permission from God, right?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> There's also a point somewhere in the NT where Jesus was asked what the greatest, most important of commandments was, and I'm having a hard time finding it again.  He said it was, slightly paraphrased, to love your god with all your body, all your mind, and all your spirit, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself, implying without regard to your neighbor's faith or lack thereof.


 
Aha, found it.  I paraphrased more than I thought, but not so much I got the message wrong.  MATT 22:34-40 and MARK 12:28-34 are the verses where Jesus answers.  LUKE 10:25-28 uses the same words, though not spoken by Jesus, and this passage leads into the parable of the good Samaritan to define who "your neighbor" is.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> My apologies, it was a different God.  You simply said that the Old Testament does not (wait, does [no wait, doesn't (sorry, does again [nope, doesn't])]) apply in several posts, either the Covenant within or the Testament in general (due to the Old Covenant being null).
> 
> Also, in light of your new post:  So, Moses was allowed into Heaven... despite not being a Christian and preceding the very concept of Christianity by 300 years (beating the death of Christ by 330+).  So... you don't need to be a Christian to get into heaven, then?  So, what does this mean about your "Jews can't get into heaven" / "Christian = 0 means Heaven = 0" statements?
> 
> EDIT:  Oh, wait, this could be rich.  If the post coming up is "You could get into heaven without being a Christian before Christ, but can only get into Heaven being a Christian after Christ", that chocks yet another point at "God = Dick", since that just means his "saving" _drastically reduced the number of potential candidates for Heaven_.  That's like saving people by randomly throwing live and dud landmines in the lifeboats you have.


 
Also, something Cathulu forgot to mention is this, In the Old Testament only God's Chosen people could be "saved". So when Jesus died he gave his gift to everyone (the gentiles) So in fact God wasn't reducing the amount of people as you put it, but He actually did the exact opposite.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> ^ The 500-post limit only applies in Forum Games, not on any other subforums.
> 
> Actually, I was reading last night about what the Bible says regarding the fate of those who don't accept the free offer of the Gospel, and the answer I found is that it's not an automatic ticket to Hell after all.  In MATT 25:31-46, Jesus talks about the judgment of the nations in a parable about the sheep and the goats, and the point is that those who commit deeds whose means and ends are founded in the love of all human beings won't go to Hell, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not.  There's also a point somewhere in the NT where Jesus was asked what the greatest, most important of commandments was, and I'm having a hard time finding it again.  He said it was, slightly paraphrased, to love your god with all your body, all your mind, and all your spirit, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself, implying without regard to your neighbor's faith or lack thereof.  This message, that love was more important than acceptance, was reiterated in 1 COR 13:1-13, an entire chapter devoted to the importance of love.



That parable is about people who think they are Christians. The  message is about the motive behind serving others. Look at  the Pharisees as an example. They claimed they were doing as God  commanded. But they followed the laws with pride. They thought they were  better than everyone else. You know the 'Holier than thou" problem.
Jesus is telling us to look at the true motive for following him. Is it pride (which is a sin) or is it out of Love for God.
Jesus is saying many people will claim to be serving him or doing his  work. When in reality these people are really serving the world looking  for approval from Man.
Man cannot have an allegiance to both the world and God. Its God or the  world. He is talking about who really serves Him in this passage. To further my point here is
Matthew 7:21-23:  Not everyone who says to me, â€˜Lord, Lord,â€™ will enter  the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father  who is in heaven. 22  Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did  we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in  your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never  knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Also, something Cathulu forgot to mention is this, In the Old Testament only God's Chosen people could be "saved". So when Jesus died he gave his gift to everyone (the gentiles) So in fact God wasn't reducing the amount of people as you put it, but He actually did the exact opposite.


  Ah, then that was technically not a reduction...

But what happened to the Jews, then?  You've said yourself that they aren't going to Heaven in several threads.  You're saying they now got the short straw, after several hundred years of service and being a chosen people, because... "everyone" is supposed to be saved (but said "everyone" still discounts a fuck-huge portion of the world population)?

I'm sure Moses is down-right cheerful knowing his people are now insta-damned.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Man cannot have an allegiance to both the world and God.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In the Old Testament only God's Chosen people could be "saved".  So when Jesus died he gave his gift to everyone (the gentiles) So in  fact God wasn't reducing the amount of people as you put it, but He  actually did the exact opposite.


 
I think I would prefer a man of the world, then a man of god >_>

Also, the term is used a bit more loosely, but "God's chosen people" are still the only ones that can be saved :v It varies per religion on who, but it still holds true I think.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Ah, then that was technically not a reduction...
> 
> But what happened to the Jews, then?  You've said yourself that they aren't going to Heaven in several threads.  You're saying they now got the short straw, after several hundred years of service and being a chosen people, because... "everyone" is supposed to be saved (but said "everyone" still discounts a fuck-huge portion of the world population)?
> 
> I'm sure Moses is down-right cheerful knowing his people are now insta-damned.



The Torah or Old Testement in the Bible has prophesy's about the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled every one of the prophesy's. The statistical probability of one man fulfilling over the prophesy's in pretty much impossible. Professor Peter W. Stoner who authored â€œScience Speaksâ€ stated that the  probability of just eight particular prophecies being fulfilled in one  person is 1 in 10 to the17th power, i.e. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000). And thats only 8  of them. Professor Stoner went on to consider 48 prophecies and says,  â€œâ€¦ We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be  1 in 10 to the 157th power. So the  odds of one man actually fulfiling all of them in pretty much  statistically impossible. And yet there is proof that Jesus fulfilled  all of them.
Jews that were before Jesus, did go to heaven. Moses, Elisha, Elijah, Noah, David, Solomon are some examples. I was directly talking about After Jesus went back to Heaven. They don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah that was prophesied about. Jesus has said that the only way to Heaven is through (belief in) Him. Moses probably would be crying out to "his people" to believe in Jesus.  And "his people" are not insta damned as you say. They like everyone else just have to believe. They still have a choice.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I think I would prefer a man of the world, then a man of god >_>


That is your choice to make. I choose to serve God.


Lastdirewolf said:


> Also, the term is used a bit more loosely, but "God's chosen people" are still the only ones that can be saved :v It varies per religion on who, but it still holds true I think.


 
God choose the Israelites,He came to them. That is why they were and still are called God's Chosen People. But his chosen people rejected him, so God took the promise he gave them and made it available for anybody.



Attaman said:


> EDIT:  Oh, wait, this could be rich.  If the  post coming up is "You could get into heaven without being a Christian  before Christ, but can only get into Heaven being a Christian after  Christ", that chocks yet another point at "God = Dick", since that just  means his "saving" _drastically reduced the number of potential  candidates for Heaven_.  That's like saving people by randomly  throwing live and dud landmines in the lifeboats you have.



*Abraham was saved by faith  before the Mosaic Law was even given*: "And  he believed in the Lord; and  he counted it to him for righteousness"  (Gen. 15:6). Moses was saved by  faith in God's promises of blessing,  and in his promises of forgiveness  through sacrifice. 
 The shedding of the blood of animals pointed forward to the death of   Christ, the per fect sacrifice for sin.* Like Abraham, Moses was saved by   grace, through faith in the promise of Messiah to come. *

Israelites were saved by grace through the faith of the promise from God of the Messiah to come.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 13, 2010)

You know I was thinking about saying this earlier. I figure, you know what why not? The thing about old religious text is that, taking it too literal is kind of silly. That would be like me deciding to live by the Code of Hammurabi. What works so many years ago for one group of people isn't exactly going to be...relevant to modern life. Just thought I point that out. I always felt that the whole point of text like the Torah, or the Bible, is to look for what bits of morality are relevant to today. Figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.

You take it too literally and you end up like the Fred Phelps cult, or the Waco cult, or the Al-quadi cult.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> You take it too literally and you end up like the Fred Phelps cult, or the Waco cult, or the Al-quadi cult.



I disagre, I take the Bible as 100% truth, whether it be in literal form, a parable or metaphore. I don't "throw out" any part of the Scriptures. Christianity does not say we get to pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures are relevant. Its all relevant.  Its when you inject your own will into what you think it should be, thats where the problem is. Its when people try and act like God. I like to use the phrase, there is a God. I am not him.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> You know I was thinking about saying this earlier. I figure, you know what why not? The thing about old religious text is that, taking it too literal is kind of silly. That would be like me deciding to live by the Code of Hammurabi. What works so many years ago for one group of people isn't exactly going to be...relevant to modern life. Just thought I point that out. I always felt that the whole point of text like the Torah, or the Bible, is to look for what bits of morality are relevant to today. Figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
> 
> You take it too literally and you end up like the Fred Phelps cult, or the Waco cult, or the Al-quadi cult.


Fucking this. I think one can compare the Bible with the American Constitution. The Bible isn't a text that can evolve; it is rigid in what it means. As society progresses, parts of the Bible become inapplicable (and some of the stuff relating to the world is proven to be scientifically inaccurate). The Constitution on the other hand was written to evolve with society, and it has. It is an every changing document and seems to fit our needs. The problem isn't with society then, it's with the Bible.


----------



## Jude (Nov 13, 2010)

I might get some hate for this, but I respect people who take the bible word for word exactly what it is slightly more than people who pick and choose parts that they deem to be moral. Come on, either follow through on the bible, or ditch it. I don't know, its just a bit annoying to me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I disagre, I take the Bible as 100% truth, whether it be in literal form, a parable or metaphore. I don't "throw out" any part of the Scriptures. Christianity does not say we get to pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures are relevant. Its all relevant.  Its when you inject your own will into what you think it should be, thats where the problem is. Its when people try and act like God. I like to use the phrase, there is a God. I am not him.


 
Man, this part, mixed with all the OT makes my head hurt. I'm never sure if you (or any other Christian for that matter) are using the OT, or not using it because it doesn't apply to anyone other than those specific people years ago, but then you say it's the truth, though not relevant/intended for Christians. 

Like you wanna use it, then you don't want to use it, and then you wanna use it again, but you don't wanna be held accountable for it. You're holding the "100% truth" thing, but practically in the same breathe, you're saying that the OT is not meant to be applied to you - Which would mean it's not 'the truth' for you. 

Also: 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God choose the Israelites,He came to them.  That is why they were and still are called God's Chosen People. But his  chosen people rejected him, so God took the promise he gave them and  made it available for anybody.


 
He made it available to everyone, yes, but those who do not know it, are eliminated. Kinda like going into your backyard with a few of your buddies, and announcing that you'll create a huge life of luxury for everyone in the world eternally, but if they don't come and claim it, they'll be tortured for eternity. It's a nice gesture, but you've not offered any sign of your wealth (no reason for people to believe you), and it's simply not fair :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Man, this part, mixed with all the OT makes my head hurt. I'm never sure if you (or any other Christian for that matter) are using the OT, or not using it because it doesn't apply to anyone other than those specific people years ago, but then you say it's the truth, though not relevant/intended for Christians.
> 
> Like you wanna use it, then you don't want to use it, and then you wanna use it again, but you don't wanna be held accountable for it. You're holding the "100% truth" thing, but practically in the same breathe, you're saying that the OT is not meant to be applied to you - Which would mean it's not 'the truth' for you.



As I have stated before, A Christian needs to look at the OT through the  teachings of Jesus. Also I should state again that some of the  Levictical Laws were governmental laws, remember the Israelites in  Leviticus were a theocracy. Right now my pastor is going through all of  Leviticus and showing us how it is still applicable to our lives. The  basic theme in Leviticus is God wants to be the center of everything.  Everything we do is supposed to reflect God. This is the basic reason  for God giving the Israelites these rules. So tell me how that is not  applicable for Christians today?






Lastdirewolf said:


> He made it available to everyone, yes, but those who do not know it, are eliminated. Kinda like going into your backyard with a few of your buddies, and announcing that you'll create a huge life of luxury for everyone in the world eternally, but if they don't come and claim it, they'll be tortured for eternity. It's a nice gesture, but you've not offered any sign of your wealth (no reason for people to believe you), and it's simply not fair :v



John 15:18-25
*If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.* 19  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is,  you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.  That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: â€˜A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24  If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not  be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both  me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: â€˜They hated me without reason.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As I have stated before, A Christian needs to look at the OT through the  teachings of Jesus. Also I should state again that some of the  Levictical Laws were governmental laws, remember the Israelites in  Leviticus were a theocracy. Right now my pastor is going through all of  Leviticus and showing us how it is still applicable to our lives. The  basic theme in Leviticus is God wants to be the center of everything.  Everything we do is supposed to reflect God. This is the basic reason  for God giving the Israelites these rules. So tell me how that is not  applicable for Christians today?
> 
> Irrelevant Bible Verse


 This, really doesn't make that much sense. A Christian needs to look through the OT, which you yourself have regarded as not necessary (nor necessary applicable) for Christians themselves, AND somehow, some of the laws are still applicable to our lives, despite it not being intended for anyone other than Israelites? Moreover, how are we choosing these laws that are still applicable? Not only that, but how do we exclude others from being applicable >_>? It might be neat to say, "Hey, this is cool, it says we shouldn't kill a man for (reason)" (despite God probably doing it anyways), but barring mere novelty comparison, it sounds like a hotbed for cherrypicking. 

And yeah, that Bible verse doesn't make sense to what I said. My point was, people who don't even know of God, by default, would be sent to hell for not believing in such - Lest somewhere in all that nonsense it says "Oh, but if you don't know of god, then you get a free pass to heaven", then I'm deeming it irrelevant. 

...Although I still see the "man of the world" thing, and I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing anymore :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> This, really doesn't make that much sense. A Christian needs to look through the OT, which you yourself have regarded as not necessary (nor necessary applicable) for Christians themselves, AND somehow, some of the laws are still applicable to our lives, despite it not being intended for anyone other than Israelites? Moreover, how are we choosing these laws that are still applicable? Not only that, but how do we exclude others from being applicable >_>? It might be neat to say, "Hey, this is cool, it says we shouldn't kill a man for (reason)" (despite God probably doing it anyways), but barring mere novelty comparison, it sounds like a hotbed for cherrypicking.
> 
> And yeah, that Bible verse doesn't make sense to what I said. My point was, people who don't even know of God, by default, would be sent to hell for not believing in such - Lest somewhere in all that nonsense it says "Oh, but if you don't know of god, then you get a free pass to heaven", then I'm deeming it irrelevant.
> 
> ...Although I still see the "man of the world" thing, and I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing anymore :v


 
How does "God wants to be the center of everything. Everything we do is supposed to reflect God" not make sense? That is the basic theme in Leviticus.
Matthew 5:17 *Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
* 

As for people who have yet to hear the good news, Thats why we Christians are here. That is our task. The Great Commission remember? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Hello everybody. This is going to be my introduction/view on religion. 
My name is Pak, I am a 15 year old male Wosky who is an extremely dedicated Christian and I wanted to share my video.
I don't know why I made this. I felt God was calling me to do it and so here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsooQpxEejI
I thank the Lord for giving me the opportunity to share this with you.
Please tell me what you think.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2010)

Your avatar is a recolor of "Takashi the Shiba Inu" by Zaush. I was expecting the video to be sarcastic.
I must say your naivite is refreshing.


----------



## slydude851 (Nov 13, 2010)

Is there such thing as a Christian religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> Is there such thing as a Christian religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality?


Unitarians come close; my paternal grandparents are UUs.
Very,* genuinely* nice people.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How does "God wants to be the center of everything. Everything we do is supposed to reflect God" not make sense? That is the basic theme in Leviticus.
> Matthew 5:17 *Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
> *
> 
> As for people who have yet to hear the good news, Thats why we Christians are here. That is our task. The Great Commission remember? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.


 
I actually wasn't talking about the part about God being an attention whore. I was talking about the part where Christians should regard in theory, but disregard in practice, the OT 

 Also, isn't Leviticus where it gets into maintaining your hair/body, animals you shan't eat, incest, bestiality, jerking, and to who/how/when to kill certain people doing any of the latter (especially guys who bang other guys)?  So which ones are still applicable, and why aren't the ones that are not, not considered applicable? I'm pretty sure we still have incest, animals, hair, wankers, and fags :v

As for the people who have yet to hear the goods news, about how they'll burn in hell if they don't believe, the first thing that comes to mind is babies! Up until around, what, 3-5 years old? Kids are pretty retarded for the most part. So I'd say at least upwards of 3 years old, preaching to them is relatively worthless, and that if they died, they'd go to hell, because they wouldn't believe what is taught to them. Go from 4-9 years old, I'd still hold the same position, except that kids at that age are typically parroting/echoing what people tell them - So not actual, heart-felt belief, but simple regurgitation. 

Beyond that, we get into two problems - Whilst one is actually persistent (not knowing of God, and say, living in a remote area where missionaries fail to show up to preach how they'll be eternally tortured if they don't believe - Creating a false belief out of fear, etc. etc.), the second, being...Why does god require humans to make people believe they'll go to hell if they don't believe :v? For someone capable of so much, souuuuunds pretty lazy.


Also:


pakthewosky said:


> Hello everybody. This is going to be my introduction/view on religion.
> My name is Pak, I am a 15 year old male Wosky who is an extremely dedicated Christian and I wanted to share my video.
> I don't know why I made this. I felt God was calling me to do it and so here it is:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsooQpxEejI
> ...


 
Troll? This seems like a bit too much effort for a troll...Hmm.

Sucks to be you kid, you've got the world ahead of you, and you're thanking someone who doesn't exist, for blinding you from the real world :v



((Also, I'm off to work, be back around midnight))


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2010)

I am going to write a science text book and I'm randomly going to include facts as well as stuff that isn't supposed to be taken literally but I'm going to give no indication of when I mean to be using one or the other.

"Sorry when I said 100 cc I really didn't mean 100 cc but 100 cc was supposed to be an allegory that meant use the correct amount."



> As I have stated before, A Christian needs to look at the OT through the   teachings of Jesus. Also I should state again that some of the   Levictical Laws were governmental laws, remember the Israelites in   Leviticus were a theocracy. Right now my pastor is going through all of   Leviticus and showing us how it is still applicable to our lives. The   basic theme in Leviticus is God wants to be the center of everything.   Everything we do is supposed to reflect God. This is the basic reason   for God giving the Israelites these rules. So tell me how that is not   applicable for Christians today?



No they should look at is as another form of  laws akin to the Code of Hammurabi.  It scares me that there are people who think Leviticus was anything more than a set of laws laid out by men who were fearful of a vengeful god because of their condition of life.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> Is there such thing as a Christian religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality?


 
If not, then they all fail to uphold Luke 6:37, which would make what follows amusingly karmic.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I actually wasn't talking about the part about God being an attention whore. I was talking about the part where Christians should regard in theory, but disregard in practice, the OT
> 
> Also, isn't Leviticus where it gets into maintaining your hair/body, animals you shan't eat, incest, bestiality, jerking, and to who/how/when to kill certain people doing any of the latter (especially guys who bang other guys)?  So which ones are still applicable, and why aren't the ones that are not, not considered applicable? I'm pretty sure we still have incest, animals, hair, wankers, and fags :v
> 
> ...


 
We as Christians don't make people believe. Our job is to go and tell others about Jesus Christ. And then live by example following the teachings of Jesus.
You bring up a good point about kids, and truthfully I do not know. But then again I am not God so I cannot fully understand why He does what he does.
The Old Leviticus Law has been fulfilled. Jesus Christ was the final  sacrifice in the sacrificial system. The Old Law was never meant to be  permanent. In fact it all points to that we cannot live up to God"s  standards, and it points to the fact that we need Jesus.
The Law had three aspects and 613 commands. The _moral_ law was the commandments and Decalogue. The _ceremonial_ law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ. The _civil law_  was about such things as sanitation, crops, quarantine, diet, lawsuits,  and crime.  The Law was a rule of life, not a way of salvation.

The Moral law is what we still follow. We do not need to follow the ceremonial laws anymore because Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. As for the civil law, remember This was a theocracy, it was a form of government.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> If not, then they all fail to uphold Luke 6:37, which would make what follows amusingly karmic.


 
Love the person, hate the sin.
*Galatians 6:1-2*
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the  Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you  also may be tempted. 2 Carry each otherâ€™s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 

*Matthew 18:15-17*
If your brother or sister sins,go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that  â€˜every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three  witnesses. 17  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a  tax collector.

*1 Corinthians 2:15**-17*
The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, â€œWho has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?â€ But we have the mind of Christ 

*The judgment that is forbidden is hypocritical judgement.The judgment that is commanded is judgement according to God's Word.
*


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Hello everybody. This is going to be my introduction/view on religion.
> My name is Pak, I am a 15 year old male Wosky who is an extremely dedicated Christian and I wanted to share my video.
> I don't know why I made this. I felt God was calling me to do it and so here it is:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsooQpxEejI
> ...


That was pretty stupid. Considering how religious people of almost every denomination will rant and rave about how homosexuals are going to hell, and seeing as how there are a large amount (but not the statistical majority) of homosexuals, bisexuals, etc in the furry fandom, God must frown upon furries.

Plus, pretty sure religious people frown on fapping, and that's what most furries do: fap to cartoon porn. 

But, most importantly, the phrase "yiff in hell furfag" isn't really to be taken literally...


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Love the person, hate the sin.
> Galatians 6:1-2
> Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the  Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you  also may be tempted. 2 Carry each otherâ€™s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
> 
> ...


 
Hate of a sin is still hate.  One does not use an evil to combat an evil and expect goodness to result.

Also, why is homosexuality treated as a sin separate from all other forms of sexuality in Christianity?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Hate of a sin is still hate.  One does not use an evil to combat an evil and expect goodness to result.
> 
> Also, why is homosexuality treated as a sin separate from all other forms of sexuality in Christianity?


I edited my post.
also, God hates sin, therefore we as Christians are to hate sin, but not the sinner. Because we also are sinners. Only God can hate the sinner.
Homosexuality is one of many sexual sins. Sexual sin is sexual sin. It is not separate from all other forms of sexual sin.


Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. 

Just showing that God does hate. But God hates all sin. Now the difference between sexual sin and every other sin is, sexual sin takes place inside of you. All other sins are external. Sexual sins are the only ones that are internal. And as a Christian your body is a temple to God because the Holy Spirit lives within. Therefore a sexual sin desecrates God's temple.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Um.... Conker? What the hell is your point. First of all, there is no such thing as "a 100% perfect christian." So how do you know that THEY are right? How dare you call this stupid. I just wanted to tell people that there is a loving God who forgives ANY kind of sin, from sexual deviants (if they even ARE sexual deviants, I'm BISEXUAL BTW.) to fappers. From theifs to murderers they are ALL forgiven. Thanks for making me feel welcome here.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

I just grabbed a quick pic from the web. Didn't put much thought into it. Plus I don't have alot of cash to be buying artwork and I SUCK at drawing.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Um.... Conker? What the hell is your point. First of all, there is no such thing as "a 100% perfect christian." So how do you know that THEY are right? How dare you call this stupid. I just wanted to tell people that there is a loving God who forgives ANY kind of sin, from sexual deviants (if they even ARE sexual deviants, I'm BISEXUAL BTW.) to fappers. From theifs to murderers they are ALL forgiven. *Thanks for making me feel welcome here.*


 Go be a furfag elsewhere, this isn't your hugbox and that damn video was stupid.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> Is there such thing as a Christian religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality?


 
Of course! Christianity! Nobody goes to hell because of being gay. There is only one ultimate sin, sadly. That, is not believing.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Of course! Christianity! Nobody goes to hell because of being gay. There is only one ultimate sin, sadly. That, is not believing.


Isa hu akbar!


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Go be a furfag elsewhere, this isn't your hugbox and that damn video was stupid.


 
Well, this certainly isn't your place to be inconciderate towards others.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Our job is to go and tell others about Jesus Christ. And then live by example following the teachings of Jesus.


  Don't you mean God?  You don't need to specify "Jesus" if Jesus is God, since they're one in the same being (which also brings up an interesting point such as Jesus' fit of rage in the temple and the like).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You bring up a good point about kids, and truthfully I do not know. But then again I am not God so I cannot fully understand why He does what he does.


  See:  Classic Rukh "The answer might be negative towards my faith, so I plead the fifth."  Your own arguments earlier, if they cannot properly believe the word of Christ then they are damned to Hell.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Old Leviticus Law has been fulfilled. Jesus Christ was the final  sacrifice in the sacrificial system. The Old Law was never meant to be  permanent.


  So then you redact all your posts making reference to Leviticus, such as the one regarding God wanting to be the center of everything and the like?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In fact it all points to that we cannot live up to God"s  standards, and it points to the fact that we need Jesus.


  I thought you said the Jews of Israel were doing just fine?  Or is this a case of God upping the standards, AKA "Being a dick" again?


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Abraham was saved by faith  before the Mosaic Law was even given*: "And  he believed in the Lord; and  he counted it to him for righteousness"  (Gen. 15:6). Moses was saved by  faith in God's promises of blessing,  and in his promises of forgiveness  through sacrifice.
> The shedding of the blood of animals pointed forward to the death of   Christ, the per fect sacrifice for sin.* Like Abraham, Moses was saved by   grace, through faith in the promise of Messiah to come. *
> 
> Israelites were saved by grace through the faith of the promise from God of the Messiah to come.


 
But now, the exact same people... are damned to a fiery inferno?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How does "God wants to be the center of everything. Everything we do is supposed to reflect God" not make sense?


 Because we were told by a certain someone earlier that God doesn't want to act and make itself the center of attention any more, but instead wants others to preach its word and how it doesn't need to act any more?

Also, "everything we do is supposed to reflect God" is both another sign of "lack of free will" (in this case more a "Do what I say or you're fucking disowned" manner) and means a few acts that God labels as sins have been committed by God (tell me this, Rukh:  If someone insulted the Islamic God, since you say they're at once the same and different, would you say they're justified in having forty two children slaughtered for the slight?  No?  Why not?).


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Isa hu akbar!


 
Well, although I'm a bit too young to understand what that means  I hope it's something good.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> I just wanted to tell people that there is a loving God who forgives ANY kind of sin, from sexual deviants (if they even ARE sexual deviants, I'm BISEXUAL BTW.) to fappers. From theifs to murderers they are ALL forgiven.


 


pakthewosky said:


> There is only one ultimate sin, sadly. That, is not believing.


 
So, wait, I'm fucked to hell, but murderers, rapists, pedophiles abusing clergy seats of power, and so on get to go on just fine?  Furthermore, 2/3 the current world population is insta-fucked because they don't believe?

You... aren't showing a Loving God.  At all.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> So, wait, I'm fucked to hell, but murderers, rapists, pedophiles abusing clergy seats of power, and so on get to go on just fine?  Furthermore, 2/3 the current world population is insta-fucked because they don't believe?
> 
> You... aren't showing a Loving God.  At all.


 
Quite on the contrary my friend. I'm giving you the opportunity of a lifetime! Eternal life.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How does "God wants to be the center of everything. Everything we do is supposed to reflect God" not make sense?


Man, I hate that logic. I don't think it's even possible for God to be at the center of everything, and I really don't think he should be. It's like when you're watching those award shows and the artists that get an award thank God, friends, family, workers, and not themselves. I don't see why pride is such a bad thing, especially when it's warranted. 

Plus, if God demands being at the center of everything, then he's a narcissistic douche. But we've been over that argument.



> So, wait, I'm fucked to hell, but murderers, rapists, pedophiles abusing  clergy seats of power, and so on get to go on just fine?  Furthermore,  2/3 the current world population is insta-fucked because they don't  believe?
> 
> You... aren't showing a Loving God.  At all.


I don't remember the exact quote from Jefferson, but it was something along the lines of "God should respect logical choices over those that worship him over blind fear"

Totally agree with you :V



> Well, this certainly isn't your place to be inconciderate towards others.


Totally disagree with you there. I expect many lulz from you.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Well, this certainly isn't your place to be inconciderate towards others.


 
Welcome to FAF.  You did ask what we thought of your video, and some of us don't hold back punches where opinions are concerned.

Off topic, you really shouldn't use someone else's character as yours.  I have the authority to remove it, and I have the responsibility to remove it if either the artist or the character's owner requests.  Use an avatar you own, one that you have permission to use, or nothing at all, please.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> So, wait, I'm fucked to hell, but murderers, rapists, pedophiles abusing clergy seats of power, and so on get to go on just fine?  Furthermore, 2/3 the current world population is insta-fucked because they don't believe?
> 
> You... aren't showing a Loving God.  At all.


John 3:16-21
*For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God  did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save  the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but  whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not  believed in the name of Godâ€™s one and only Son.* This is the verdict:  Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of  light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the  light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will  be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that  it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the  sight of God.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Quite on the contrary my friend. I'm giving you the opportunity of a lifetime! Eternal life.


  Eternity, quite frankly, is a bitch, and I wouldn't wish eternal life - painful, orgasmic, or otherwise - on my worst enemies.

Furthermore, you're offering one of many religious eternal life offers, and quite frankly a good bit are at least as credentialed as you and have much more favorable rewards and lesser penalties in my view than Christianity.  

Finally, God is not loving.  It is a dick.  I will repeat this again, since I have a hunch the concept / words are about to fly over your head:  God is a gigantic, raging cunt.  Murders youths for mocking its priests, damns 2/3 the world population by default, is prone to changing what gives someone paradise and eternal damnation on a whim, is the creator of sin, is responsible for suffering in the world, and so on.  I will not bow my knee to such a God.


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Welcome to FAF.  You did ask what we thought of your video, and some of us don't hold back punches where opinions are concerned.
> 
> Off topic, you really shouldn't use someone else's character as yours.  I have the authority to remove it, and I have the responsibility to remove it if either the artist or the character's owner requests.  Use an avatar you own, one that you have permission to use, or nothing at all, please.



Please forgive me, I didn't know that was someone else's. As for all of the comments, I believe there should be better ways to talk about religion without offending other people. I.e God is a narcisstic douche. (instead try "Do you think God is taking a little too much attention than he deserves?)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Please forgive me, I didn't know that was someone else's. As for all of the comments, I believe there should be better ways to talk about religion without offending other people. I.e God is a narcisstic douche. (instead try "Do you think God is taking a little too much attention than he deserves?)


Because the way you _talk_ about things is soooo much more important...


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> John 3:16-21
> *For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God  did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save  the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but  whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not  believed in the name of Godâ€™s one and only Son.* This is the verdict:  Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of  light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the  light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will  be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that  it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the  sight of God.


 
Ooohh...  I like this guy!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Man, I hate that logic. I don't think it's even possible for God to be at the center of everything, and I really don't think he should be. It's like when you're watching those award shows and the artists that get an award thank God, friends, family, workers, and not themselves. I don't see why pride is such a bad thing, especially when it's warranted.
> 
> Plus, if God demands being at the center of everything, then he's a narcissistic douche. But we've been over that argument.



The sin of pride is the sin of  sins. It was this sin, we're told, which transformed Lucifer, an  anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and  perfect in beauty, into Satan, the devil, the father of lies, the one for whom Hell itself was created. We're warned to guard our hearts against pride lest we too "fall into the same condemnation as the devil."

It was the sin of pride which  first led Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. In Genesis we read, "Then  the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows  that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be  like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree  was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree  desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave  to her husband with her, and he ate. And who do you think  was that serpent of old who first introduced Eve to this sin of pride?  It was none other than the devil himself, eager to share his condemnation with others. 

The sin of pride is a  preoccupation with self. It is thus very fitting that the middle letter  in the word is "i." Pride is all about "me, myself, and I." So even as  the word "pride" is centered upon an "i," the sin itself is also  centered upon "I." We read of Lucifer's fall, "How you are fallen from  heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the  ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: _'I_ will ascend into heaven, _I_ will exalt my throne above the stars of God; _I_ will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; _I_ will ascend above the heights of the clouds, _I_ will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."  Satan's enmity against God began with "I". And so it is with us. If you  are preoccupied with yourself, you are suffering from the sin of pride. 




God created everything, he is the Creator. We were created to worship him. Therefore he is the center of everything.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The sin of pride is the sin of  sins. It was this sin, we're told, which transformed Lucifer, an  anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and  perfect in beauty, into Satan, the devil, the father of lies, the one for whom Hell itself was created. We're warned to guard our hearts against pride lest we too "fall into the same condemnation as the devil."
> 
> It was the sin of pride which  first led Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.


I thought you said it was Human Sin that led to all the flaws in the universe, and we were the originators of sin and suffering and the like?  But right here, you just said _Satan_ was the first to suffer from the sin, he was the tempter, and lead to damnation.  Wouldn't be so bad... if this didn't mean the sins existed beforehand.  So, which is it?  We created sin, or God did (which is the case if Lucifer fell to the sin of Pride, since we can't retroactively create sins as humans)?


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The sin of pride is the sin of  sins. It was this sin, we're told, which transformed Lucifer, an  anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and  perfect in beauty, into Satan, the devil, the father of lies, the one for whom Hell itself was created. We're warned to guard our hearts against pride lest we too "fall into the same condemnation as the devil."
> 
> It was the sin of pride which  first led Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. In Genesis we read, "Then  the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows  that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be  like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree  was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree  desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave  to her husband with her, and he ate. And who do you think  was that serpent of old who first introduced Eve to this sin of pride?  It was none other than the devil himself, eager to share his condemnation with others.
> 
> The sin of pride is a  preoccupation with self. It is thus very fitting that the middle letter  in the word is "i." Pride is all about "me, myself, and I." So even as  the word "pride" is centered upon an "i," the sin itself is also  centered upon "I." We read of Lucifer's fall, "How you are fallen from  heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the  ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: _'I_ will ascend into heaven, _I_ will exalt my throne above the stars of God; _I_ will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; _I_ will ascend above the heights of the clouds, _I_ will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."  Satan's enmity against God began with "I". And so it is with us. If you  are preoccupied with yourself, you are suffering from the sin of pride.


You spent three paragraphs explaining the sin of pride and giving some history about it, but you really didn't explain why having pride is a bad thing. If I do something noteworthy, why can't I pat myself on the back and go "Conker, you done a good job." Why do I have to go "THANK GOD FOR ALL HIS HELP AND ALL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY BUT NOT ME EVEN THOUGH I'M THE ONE WHO DID MOST OF THE WORK"

Fuck that. I've been working on my Senior Thesis. It's a huge project. When I get that thing done the first thing I"m going to do is grab some booze and go "Damnit Conker, congrats for all your hard work and perseverance." God can fuck right the hell off, that will be MY project, not his.

Pride isn't bad.



> Ooohh...  I like this guy!


Not surprised, you both act like raging Christfags. Right now, I at least have some respect for Rukh for keeping up the debate and trying to explain why he believes what he does.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Please forgive me, I didn't know that was someone else's. As for all of the comments, I believe there should be better ways to talk about religion without offending other people. I.e God is a narcisstic douche. (instead try "Do you think God is taking a little too much attention than he deserves?)


 
Mine is not the one whose forgiveness you need, but you have it anyway.

Also, one thing you'll learn regarding religious discussions on forums, especially one as religiously diverse as this one, is that the only way to avoid offending other people is to not talk about religion at all.  Something you believe will offend someone, even if the name of his religious faith is the same as yours, and something someone else believes will offend you.  You can either let it bother you or not, and you can either say your peace and take the flak or not.  I think you shouldn't let it bother you.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

If you notice, he also didn't explain why Homosexuality is a lifestyle sin but other sexualities are not, besides "God decreed it".  Which, if we go by that logic, means that if God decrees suddenly "All first-born children must be slain, to refuse such is a damnable sin and thine firstborn must then slay thine parents at age of ten lest they too suffer damnation" then Rukh would be compelled to kill his first-born and would see no problem in the argument (even if there was no justification as to why such was a sin, beyond "Thou must").


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Mine is not the one whose forgiveness you need, but you have it anyway.
> 
> Also, one thing you'll learn regarding religious discussions on forums, especially one as religiously diverse as this one, is that the only way to avoid offending other people is to not talk about religion at all.  Something you believe will offend someone, even if the name of his religious faith is the same as yours, and something someone else believes will offend you.  You can either let it bother you or not, and you can either say your peace and take the flak or not.  I think you shouldn't let it bother you.


 
Absolutely, to me, as a christian some of my biggest enemies ARE other christians. Of course this place is religiously diverse! it's the internet, I didn't just think I was going to get all positive feedback on this, but mabye some constructive criticism? Why say hateful things anyway? It's just a waste of everyone's time. I also really didn't let this get to me however I did just have a small wish that there could be a topic where everyone could "share" ideas instead of blasting each other.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Absolutely, to me, as a christian some of my biggest enemies ARE other christians. Of course this place is religiously diverse! it's the internet, I didn't just think I was going to get all positive feedback on this, but mabye some constructive criticism? Why say hateful things anyway? It's just a waste of everyone's time. I also really didn't let this get to me however I did just have a small wish that there could be a topic where everyone could "share" ideas instead of blasting each other.


Not going to happen, at least not on public forums. This IS the internet after all.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> You spent three paragraphs explaining the sin of pride and giving some history about it, but you really didn't explain why having pride is a bad thing. If I do something noteworthy, why can't I pat myself on the back and go "Conker, you done a good job." Why do I have to go "THANK GOD FOR ALL HIS HELP AND ALL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY BUT NOT ME EVEN THOUGH I'M THE ONE WHO DID MOST OF THE WORK"
> 
> Pride isn't bad.



Pride in your work is not bad. Its when you get full of yourself and think your better than everyone else it is a sin. Remember Lucifer thought he was *better* than God. You have to have humility as well. Its a balance. And its not easy.



Attaman said:


> I thought you said it was Human Sin that led to  all the flaws in the universe, and we were the originators of sin and  suffering and the like?  But right here, you just said _Satan_ was  the first to suffer from the sin, he was the tempter, and lead to  damnation.  Wouldn't be so bad... if this didn't mean the sins existed  beforehand.  So, which is it?  We created sin, or God did (which is the  case if Lucifer fell to the sin of Pride, since we can't retroactively  create sins as humans)?


 
Lucifer was cast out and thrown into hell along with I believe 1/3 of Heaven who followed Lucifer (the absence of God) The creation had not been made yet, so what was their to pollute?




Attaman said:


> If you notice, he also didn't explain why  Homosexuality is a lifestyle sin but other sexualities are not, besides  "God decreed it".  Which, if we go by that logic, means that if God  decrees suddenly "All first-born children must be slain, to refuse such  is a damnable sin and thine firstborn must then slay thine parents at  age of ten lest they too suffer damnation" then Rukh would be compelled  to kill his first-born and would see no problem in the argument (even if  there was no justification as to why such was a sin, beyond "Thou  must").


 
I explained why sexual sin is bad. As a Christian our bodies are a temple because the Holy Spirit lives within us. Sexual sins are the only internal sin. And as Christians when we commit sexual immorality is desecrates the temple of God. Furthermore all sexual sins are a choice and a lifestyle in a way.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> As for all of the comments, I believe there should be better ways to talk about religion without offending other people. I.e God is a narcisstic douche. (instead try "Do you think God is taking a little too much attention than he deserves?)


If someone is going to smugly tell me I'm going to suffer for eternity because I do not believe in the same "loving God" and philosophy as them, I firmly reserve the right to tell said people that their God is a dick and their belief system is shitty in regard to morals.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Pride in your work is not bad. Its when you get full of yourself and think your better than everyone else it is a sin. Remember Lucifer thought he was *better* than God. You have to have humility as well. Its a balance. And its not easy.


  Again, so sin existed before man.  Man did not create sin / imperfection.  Imperfection existed as of the time of Angels, if not prior to that.  God created the sin of Pride.  God created sins.  It created the sins.  God created something negative.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

EDIT:  Double-post in a row, snipped content and added to above.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Pride in your work is not bad. Its when you get full of yourself and think your better than everyone else it is a sin. Remember Lucifer thought he was *better* than God. You have to have humility as well. Its a balance. And its not easy.


 But I am better than some people :<


----------



## pakthewosky (Nov 13, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Not going to happen, at least not on public forums. This IS the internet after all.


 
Yes... yes I truly understand that. 

                          Just wishing....


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Again, so sin existed before man.  Man did not create sin / imperfection.  Imperfection existed as of the time of Angels, if not prior to that.  God created the sin of Pride.  God created sins.  It created the sins.  God created something negative.


 
James 1:13-15
When tempted, no one should say, â€œGod is tempting me.â€ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
God             cannot be tempted, and He does not cause others to sin. We create             sin when we give in to it. It is like the little boy who knew that             pulling a girl's hair would hurt. He did it because he wanted to.             That is the way with sin. We know that God does not want us to disobey,             but we do it anyway. We create sin. We sin!
     Satan was created as a holy being, and so were Adam and Eve. *Satan created the sin in the spiritual realm and Adam created the first sin in this universe.* It is amazing to realize that these holy beings decided to sin. Just because a being is holy does not mean it cannot sin. God gave the angels and humans free will. God wants a relationship with us, but He wants us to desire it. He will not force us. Sin is a choice. It is a decision. Satan knew this fact very well. That is why he tried to cause Jesus to sin in the wilderness.[/FONT]

Sin began before any of these  events took place. The origin of sin took place even before Adam and Eve were  created (Genesis. 1:26-27). The beginning of sin took place prior to the  creation of the heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). Remember that before Adam  sinned, there was _already a sinful creature who was in the Garden of Eden_ and who  was in a fallen and wicked condition.


Edit: Angels have the same free will we do. God did not create sin.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> James 1:13-15
> When tempted, no one should say, â€œGod is tempting me.â€ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.


What about that story where Satan has God tempt that one dude with all sorts of shit to see if that guy would renounce his faith?


> Satan was created as a holy being, and so were Adam and Eve. *Satan created the sin in the spiritual realm and Adam created the first sin in this universe.* It is amazing to realize that these holy beings decided to sin. Just because a being is holy does not mean it cannot sin. God gave the angels and humans free will. God wants a relationship with us, but He wants us to desire it. He will not force us. Sin is a choice. It is a decision. Satan knew this fact very well. That is why he tried to cause Jesus to sin in the wilderness.
> 
> Sin began before any of these  events took place. The origin of sin took place even before Adam and Eve were  created (Genesis. 1:26-27). The beginning of sin took place prior to the  creation of the heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). Remember that before Adam  sinned, there was _already a sinful creature who was in the Garden of Eden_ and who  was in a fallen and wicked condition.


 Adam and Even story a metaphor for you or 100% fact? Because if it isn't a fact (and scientifically it isn't), then what was the "fall of man" sin? I doubt a piece of fruit was involved.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God cannot be tempted, and He does not cause others to sin.


But he created sin.  He created a flaw / negative in the universe, something you said earlier was solely the creation of man. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It is like the little boy who knew that pulling a girl's hair would hurt. He did it because he wanted to.


  The difference here is that said little boy isn't getting his arms chopped off as punishment, which in several sin cases is down-right _light_ for what God would do (indeed, you've gone so far as to say sending a bear to maul 42 children for mocking a priest is a merciful act).  If we're going to make comparisons, you might as well show how lopsided typical reactions to such actions are compared to Divine reactions.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We know that God does not want us to disobey,


  There's a word for this.  I'm having trouble thinking of it.  What is it called when someone tells you to do something, and threatens you heavily should you not go through with it?  Coercion, I think it was?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We create sin. We sin!


  You just said Pride existed pre-Humans elsewhere.  You are retroactively assigning sin creation to humans, instead of - I 'unno - taking the logical conclusion that if something doesn't exist at the time, there's a divine creator credited with creating everything present, and an object was made at a time certain other beings did not exist, then it's most probably the divine being that created such.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Satan was created as a holy being, and so were Adam and Eve.


  But they are not divine.  I mean, how could a complex concept such as sin exist if no-



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Satan created the sin


 So, then, if complex concepts such as the sin of Pride and the like can be created by non-divine beings, why could the universe not exist without the input of such a being?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Adam created the first sin in this universe.


  "Universe:  Anything that exists anywhere".  Which would include the Heavens.  Unless, of course, you want to say God is not what created the Heavens, but something else did?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It is amazing to realize that these holy beings decided to sin. Just because a being is holy does not mean it cannot sin.


So then, you admit God can sin then?

EDIT:  Oh yeah, just realized:  Rukh doesn't believe in Evolution.  Just a FYI.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> What about that story where Satan has God tempt that one dude with all sorts of shit to see if that guy would renounce his faith?
> 
> Adam and Eve story a metaphor for you or 100% fact? Because if it isn't a fact (and scientifically it isn't), then what was the "fall of man" sin?


The Adam and Eve story is not a metaphor. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of Creation and the fall of Man.



Conker said:


> I doubt a piece of fruit was involved.


So wait, you were there?


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Adam and Eve story is not a metaphor. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of Creation and the fall of Man.
> 
> 
> So wait, you were there?


 My head just exploded from your stupidity. 

It might take me a bit to put it all back together. There are lots of pieces. Blood to. 

I'd rather die and go to hell knowing I wasn't an ignorant fool than to enter Heaven as a complete moron.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> But he created sin.  He created a flaw / negative in the universe, something you said earlier was solely the creation of man.


God did not create sin. How many times do I have to say this. He gave angels and mankind free will. It was lucifers choice just as it is our choice to sin.



Attaman said:


> The difference here is that said little boy isn't getting his arms chopped off as punishment, which in several sin cases is down-right _light_ for what God would do (indeed, you've gone so far as to say sending a bear to maul 42 children for mocking a priest is a merciful act).  If we're going to make comparisons, you might as well show how lopsided typical reactions to such actions are compared to Divine reactions.


Elisha was a prophet. That is not a priest. A prophet is the voice of God. Again that story is talking about blasphemy. And I already explained that it wasn't little kids. See a couple pages ago. The age of those people was 12-30.




Attaman said:


> You just said Pride existed pre-Humans elsewhere.  You are retroactively assigning sin creation to humans, instead of - I 'unno - taking the logical conclusion that if something doesn't exist at the time, there's a divine creator credited with creating everything present, and an object was made at a time certain other beings did not exist, then it's most probably the divine being that created such.


 
Lucifer sinned in the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is not here.



Attaman said:


> "Universe:  Anything that exists anywhere".  Which would include the Heavens.  Unless, of course, you want to say God is not what created the Heavens, but something else did?


Since when is Heaven in this universe? 


Attaman said:


> So then, you admit God can sin then?


Uhm no. I never stated that. God is perfect. He gave free will to the Angels as well. Anyways I was talking about Angels. *God is not an Angel.* He created them.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> My head just exploded from your stupidity.


Instead of just insulting, why don't you actually explain why you think that I am wrong.



Conker said:


> I'd rather die and go to hell knowing I wasn't an ignorant fool than to enter Heaven as a complete moron.



well to that I can only say, have fun down there.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 13, 2010)

quick clarifier

*MORMONS ARE CHRISTIANS
THEY WORSHIP CHRIST NOT JOSEPH SMITH.*


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Instead of just insulting, why don't you actually explain why you think that I am wrong.


 Evolution kind of goes against the whole "let's put two humans into a garden" thing. Unless God took the first two humans that evolved and shoved em into a garden, but that would go against free will. Maybe they didn't want to go into that damn garden. Maybe they wanted to play and fuck their slightly lesser human buddies who were ALMOST there! 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> well to that I can only say, have fun down there.


Has to be more fun than the alternative. More interesting people, and I'm sure the booze is better.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God did not create sin. How many times do I have to say this. He gave angels and mankind free will. It was lucifers choice just as it is our choice to sin.


  So he chose a concept then that did not exist?  If God made everything, but Lucifer chose something not made by God, then he chose something that did not exist.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Elisha was a prophet. That is not a priest. A prophet is the voice of God. Again that story is talking about blasphemy. And I already explained that it wasn't little kids. See a couple pages ago. The age of those people was 12-30.


  I'm glad to see that you feel this justifies Gods acts.  No, wait, I'm horrified.  Horrified and sickened.  And, now this might come as a surprise to you, "Horrified and sickened" at a "Loving" deity horribly maiming 42 people (again, I do not buy your bullshit that they're not children, both because it's only through your interpretation of the text and it seems to strike a nerve with you the implication that God can be a dick to kids) is different than being "sickened / disgusted" at not preaching eternal damnation of Homosexuals.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Lucifer sinned in the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is not here.


  Weren't you earlier criticizing the multiversal theory for not having a leg to stand on... then right now proudly proclaiming a trust in the multiverse?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when is Heaven in this universe?


  Either it's not a part of this universe, in which case you have your case worked out for you to explain such and why the multiversal theories earlier are still discredited, or you admit it is in this universe.  Furthermore, creating the option for someone to follow is creating it.  God created the path that leads to sin, it could foresee such too.  You are going to be heavily trifled to argue that - if the universe can't spontaneously come into existence on its own - sin and concepts of such can spontaneously come into existence on their own.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm no. I never stated that. God is perfect. He gave free will to the Angels as well.


  But he's a Holy Being.  Just because something is Holy does not mean it cannot sin.  Furthermore, being "perfect" is through the word of God about itself.

But, again, you see no problem in saying mauling 42 youths or bashing heretic baby heads against rocks is moral, so this is a bit of a moot argument.

EDIT:  Since Rukh edited it in:

You were talking about Angels, but then said Adam and Eve.  Who, shall I remind you, were stated to be created "In God's Image".  So now we have those created in the image of God possessing sin.  Whereas, at the same time, other Holy Beings are shown to have Sin.  Seeing a bit of a connection forming here...


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I'm glad to see that you feel this justifies Gods acts.  No, wait, I'm horrified.  Horrified and sickened.  And, now this might come as a surprise to you, "Horrified and sickened" at a "Loving" deity horribly maiming 42 people (again, I do not buy your bullshit that they're not children, both because it's only through your interpretation of the text and it seems to strike a nerve with you the implication that God can be a dick to kids) is different than being "sickened / disgusted" at not preaching eternal damnation of Homosexuals.


 That was the Old Testament right? I'm surprised Rukh hasn't played the "that wasn't real" card. Unless that was in the New Testament, but then he could play "Well that was a parable" card.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Evolution kind of goes against the whole "let's put two humans into a garden" thing. Unless God took the first two humans that evolved and shoved em into a garden, but that would go against free will. Maybe they didn't want to go into that damn garden. Maybe they wanted to play and fuck their slightly lesser human buddies who were ALMOST there!



First off all, Evolution is still a theory over 100 years after Darwin published his book. We still are missing that missing link. How come it hasn't been found yet. You would think that if Evolution is true one should be able to find the missing link quite easily. It still has not been proven.



Conker said:


> Has to be more fun than the alternative. More interesting people, and I'm sure the booze is better.


You do know the description of Hell right, a burning lake of liquid fire. Hell is the absence of God, there will be no comfort in the presence of other people. So because Hell is the absence of God, there can be nothing that is good in Hell. Because God is good, and Hell is the absence of God, therefore Hell is the absence of all that is Good.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off all, Evolution is still a theory over 100 years after Darwin published his book. We still are missing that missing link. How come it hasn't been found yet. You would think that if Evolution is true one should be able to find the missing link quite easily. It still has not been proven.


  Oh, great, than with 2000 years you'll give proof of God's existence without begging the question (Ex:  God exists because the universe exists and the universe requires God)?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You would think that if Evolution is true one should be able to find the missing link quite easily. It still has not been proven.



Your mistake is assuming that discoveries are either easy or impossible, not that it could be difficult but still very possible.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> So he chose a concept then that did not exist?  If God made everything, but Lucifer chose something not made by God, then he chose something that did not exist.


Lucifer tried to be God. That was the sin.


Attaman said:


> I'm glad to see that you feel this justifies Gods acts.  No, wait, I'm horrified.  Horrified and sickened.  And, now this might come as a surprise to you, "Horrified and sickened" at a "Loving" deity horribly maiming 42 people (again, I do not buy your bullshit that they're not children, both because it's only through your interpretation of the text and it seems to strike a nerve with you the implication that God can be a dick to kids) is different than being "sickened / disgusted" at not preaching eternal damnation of Homosexuals.


Aghain, a few pages ago I posted why little kids is not correct.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]
> 
> 2  Kings 2:23, na'arim "youths"; "children" would be yeladim in Hebrew, so  why not just use yeladim to say  children instead of na'arim?. Ketanaim is the word little.
> [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]The  word ketanarim (plural of  qatan) Used frequently in the scripture to denote a  younger son.
> ...


 


Attaman said:


> Weren't you earlier criticizing the multiversal theory for not having a leg to stand on... then right now proudly proclaiming a trust in the multiverse?


Again, show me where in the Bible that it states Heaven is located in our universe/our existence. Heaven existed before the universe did. God exists outside of our concept of the universe.



Attaman said:


> Either it's not a part of this universe, in which case you have your case worked out for you to explain such and why the multiversal theories earlier are still discredited, or you admit it is in this universe.  Furthermore, creating the option for someone to follow is creating it.  God created the path that leads to sin, it could foresee such too.  You are going to be heavily trifled to argue that - if the universe can't spontaneously come into existence on its own - sin and concepts of such can spontaneously come into existence on their own.


Again see my above point.



Attaman said:


> But he's a Holy Being.  Just because something is Holy does not mean it cannot sin.  Furthermore, being "perfect" is through the word of God about itself.


I guess I should have used different words than holy beings (though it still does describe angels) I was only speaking about angels. God is not an angel.


Attaman said:


> But, again, you see no problem in saying mauling 42 youths or bashing heretic baby heads against rocks is moral, so this is a bit of a moot argument.


Again see my quote on how it wasn't little kids. 



Attaman said:


> You were talking about Angels, but then said Adam and Eve.  Who, shall I remind you, were stated to be created "In God's Image".  So now we have those created in the image of God possessing sin.  Whereas, at the same time, other Holy Beings are shown to have Sin.  Seeing a bit of a connection forming here...



Being created in God's image/likeness does not mean we are completely like God. There is no connection at all. God did not create sin. He created free will. God cannot sin.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 13, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Your mistake is assuming that discoveries are either easy or impossible, not that it could be difficult but still very possible.


 
Well one would think that if evolution is true, then we should find evidence of it everywhere.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well one would think that if evolution is true, then we should find evidence of it everywhere.


 Again, will you please give me our evidence of God?    Conclusive proof?  Technically, you actually have over 2300+ years of time to gather conclusive evidence for such.


----------



## Conker (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off all, Evolution is still a theory over 100 years after Darwin published his book. We still are missing that missing link. How come it hasn't been found yet. You would think that if Evolution is true one should be able to find the missing link quite easily. It still has not been proven.


Gosh you're horribly ignorant. First off: the word "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific setting. In science, it means a highly tested hypothesis. Were not talking "I have a theory, I think that one dude is gay" were talking "I have a theory because it has been tested by numerous scientists for the past hundred years and has never been proven incorrect" The word "theory" carries a lot of weight in the scientific community, and for good reason. It's basically a fraction of a step behind a law. Hell, the law of gravity garners more debate than evolution.

Two. We have found some missing links. Homoerectus being one of them. But, you have to realize that finding any fossil is a damn miracle. The fossilization process isn't an easy thing. It's also very very rare. The fact that we have so many fossils right now is amazing. 

Three. We don't NEED a missing link fossil to prove evolution. Hell, Darwin came up with the idea through simple observation of finches. What fossils we do have really help, but our best evidence comes from DNA. We could have zero fossils and still have plenty of proof that evolution is real. 



> You do know the description of Hell right, a burning lake of liquid fire. Hell is the absence of God, there will be no comfort in the presence of other people. So because Hell is the absence of God, there can be nothing that is good in Hell. Because God is good, and Hell is the absence of God, therefore Hell is the absence of all that is Good.


The fact that Hell has to be described in such a way makes it a fear tactic and nothing more. To a believer an "absence of God" should be enough to arouse fear, but no. Churches had to make it a firepit of burning liquid and pain for eternity. Yeah. Way to play on fears. Amazing how effective that tactic is though.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Plus, if God demands being at the center of everything, then he's a narcissistic douche. But we've been over that argument.
> 
> I don't remember the exact quote from Jefferson, but it was something along the lines of "God should respect logical choices over those that worship him over blind fear"



I believe you're referring to the following quote:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Letter_to_Peter_Carr_.281787.29


			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.



It would seem that TJ didn't have a terribly high opinion of the Bible either... 



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> *The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. *In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. *It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.*_ (emphasis added)_


----------



## Alstor (Nov 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off all, Evolution is still a theory over 100 years after Darwin published his book. We still are missing that missing link. How come it hasn't been found yet. You would think that if Evolution is true one should be able to find the missing link quite easily. It still has not been proven.


 Yeah. Because the _theory_ of gravity was never proven right also, right? :V


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2010)

Guys how can you not look at this beautiful world and doubt the existence of God!  Something so magnificent can't just happen.  ;v;


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Again, will you please give me our evidence of God?    Conclusive proof?  Technically, you actually have over 2300+ years of time to gather conclusive evidence for such.



You gotta have FAITH, man! FAITH! Faith in the unseen! Faith that God exists and loves us all and will send us to Hell if we're bad!

Oh, BTW the check's in the mail, that Nigerian prince e-mail sounds totally above-board, I have a bridge to sell you, and these herbal supplements will make your penis grow by 2 whole inches.


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You gotta have FAITH, man! FAITH! Faith in the unseen! Faith that God exists and loves us all and will send us to Hell if we're bad!
> 
> Oh, BTW the check's in the mail, that Nigerian prince e-mail sounds totally above-board, I have a bridge to sell you, and these herbal supplements will make your penis grow by 2 whole inches.


 
I have had faith for 5 days that my kitty would come home safe.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

Takun said:


> I have had faith for 5 days that my kitty would come home safe.


 
Has there been any change in the situation? He hasn't turned up dead, has he? Poor cat...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Conker said:


> Gosh you're horribly ignorant. First off: the word "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific setting. In science, it means a highly tested hypothesis. Were not talking "I have a theory, I think that one dude is gay" were talking "I have a theory because it has been tested by numerous scientists for the past hundred years and has never been proven incorrect" The word "theory" carries a lot of weight in the scientific community, and for good reason. It's basically a fraction of a step behind a law. Hell, the law of gravity garners more debate than evolution.
> 
> Two. We have found some missing links. Homoerectus being one of them. But, you have to realize that finding any fossil is a damn miracle. The fossilization process isn't an easy thing. It's also very very rare. The fact that we have so many fossils right now is amazing.
> 
> Three. We don't NEED a missing link fossil to prove evolution. Hell, Darwin came up with the idea through simple observation of finches. What fossils we do have really help, but our best evidence comes from DNA. We could have zero fossils and still have plenty of proof that evolution is real.



I suggest you read this http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
No this is not a Christian Website. It points out the major flaws in Evolution, using science.

True "science" must be observable and repeatable. No witness  was present as life "evolved" into its present state; therefore, these  events were not observed and cannot be repeated. The evolutionary theory  falls under "historical" science: man's interpretation, based on his  world view, of unobservable, unrepeatable events. Evolution must be  believed by faith: "â€¦firm belief in something for which there is no  proof," and Evolution cannot be proved.

_Australopithecus_ - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: _Australopithecus afarensis_,  popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the  inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are  not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more  upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. _Australopithecus afarensis_ is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. 

_Homo habilis_ - there is a growing consensus amongst most  paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and  pieces of various other types - such as _Australopithecus_ and _Homo erectus_. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such. 

_Ramapithecus_ - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it  has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan.

_Eoanthropus_ (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap  and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for  40 years. 
Nice to know the science community resorts to a hoax to try and prove something.

_Homo erectus_ - many remains of this type have been found around  the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an  appropriately smaller head (and brain size).  Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary _Homo sapiens_, suggesting that they lived together. 
The major problem is, Scientists cannot show the origin of homo erectus. Somehow it just appeared in the fossil record. As stated above those fossils sated above have all been proven wrong. So where did homo erectus come from? Secondly there is fossil records of homo erectus living along side homo sapiens. Homo erectus was supposed to have evolved into homo sapiens.

Darwin's original theory was replaced in the mid-20th century with the Modern Synthesis... Just thought you should know that.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

pakthewosky said:


> Quite on the contrary my friend. I'm giving you the opportunity of a lifetime! Eternal life.


 
Now, you see, this right here is the string I was referring to.  This saying it's not enough that I don't condemn, that I don't judge anyone with any standard other than what I expect measured back to me, that I don't have a problem forgiving wrongs against me, and that I do whatever I can in my extremely limited capacity to found all my acts with love for all.  (No, I'm not tree-huggy, and I don't need a hugbox.)  This saying that all of that isn't good enough, and that I have to adopt a system of belief and a method of thinking that, frankly, I could never genuinely hold in my heart, and pray to a god I don't recognize as a manifestation of my divine creator.  Sorry, but I made that mistake once and recognized it as a mistake a few years ago.  If my only choices are to pay lip service and be saved or to do good and be destroyed...  Well, I chose to do what good I know I can, even if I'm damned for it.


----------



## Corto (Nov 14, 2010)

Ruhk you make defending Christianity really hard.

That said, stop calling each others idiots or fucking stupid or whatever or I'll start handling out infractions (you know who I'm talking to). Openly and offensively insulting other users is against the rules and a privilege I reserve to myself.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

Corto said:


> Ruhk you make defending Christianity really hard.
> 
> That said, stop calling each others idiots or fucking stupid or whatever or I'll start handling out infractions (you know who I'm talking to). Openly and offensively insulting other users is against the rules and a privilege I reserve to myself.


 
You should do it a lot more.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Corto said:


> Ruhk you make defending Christianity really hard.


 
Would you care to elaborate on that thought?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Would you care to elaborate on that thought?


 
YOU INCUR A MASSIVE DEFENSE PENALTY TO CHRISTIANITY EVERY TIME YOU POST


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I suggest you read this http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
> *No this is not a Christian Website.* It points out the major flaws in Evolution, using science.



Bollocks. Not only does it use the term "evolutionists" (a favourite religious creationist term), the main part of the site is titled "A Creation Geology alternative to Plate Tectonics" _*and places a Bible quote at the foot of the main page.*_ Since when does a reputable scientific website feel the need to quote the Bible? 

The only way this site uses "science", as you've described it, is in the same way as a preschooler might quote from a computer technical manual: the words used sound good, but there's no actual understanding at all. And the content is pretty much the same pseudo-scientific piffle that I've seen on dozen of other creationist websites, all pushing the Bible in the background.

By claiming the website you linked isn't a "Christian" website when the damn thing even _links_ to Christian sites like "_Why does God allow evil?  Insight for Christians_", "_www.crev.info  Creation-Evolution Headlines - daily science news and commentary_" and "_www.ageoftheuniverse.com  The biblical case for an old universe - young biosphere_", you've proven yourself to be at the very least grossly ignorant of what you read... 

... or you're deliberately distorting the truth. Which I would have thought was a particularly un-Christian thing to do, right?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Tycho said:


> YOU INCUR A MASSIVE DEFENSE PENALTY TO CHRISTIANITY EVERY TIME YOU POST


 
First of all, whats with the caps lock crap, really. And what you stated is not an explanation at all. Just a veiled insult.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Would you care to elaborate on that thought?


 
I believe Corto means, "With friends like these, who need enemies?"

(Or alternatively: "God's gift to atheists.")


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Bollocks. Not only does it use the term "evolutionists" (a favourite religious creationist term), the main part of the site is titled "A Creation Geology alternative to Plate Tectonics" _*and places a Bible quote at the foot of the main page.*_ Since when does a reputable scientific website feel the need to quote the Bible?
> 
> The only way this site uses "science", as you've described it, is in the same way as a preschooler might quote from a computer technical manual: the words used sound good, but there's no actual understanding at all. And the content is pretty much the same pseudo-scientific piffle that I've seen on dozen of other creationist websites, all pushing the Bible in the background.
> 
> By claiming the website you linked isn't a "Christian" website when the damn thing even _links_ to Christian sites like "_Why does God allow evil?  Insight for Christians_", "_www.crev.info  Creation-Evolution Headlines - daily science news and commentary_" and "_www.ageoftheuniverse.com  The biblical case for an old universe - young biosphere_", you've proven yourself to be at the very least grossly ignorant of what you read...


 
I didn't go to the main page at all, so that would be my bad. I was linked straight to the presentation page. Secondly, did you even read what it said, or seen the sources at the bottom of the page?

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.  The *Second Law of  Thermodynamics* (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start              out concentrated together spread out over time.  If you heat              one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually              the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).               Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point              in time tells you the entropy.  Entropy              can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work.  Entropy              is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory              hits an impenetrable wall.  Natural processes proceed in only              one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.  Things fall apart over time, they do not get more  organized.  We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy,              but the Second Law prevents such a machine from  assembling  spontaneously from raw materials.  The *Law of Biogenesis* was established by Louis Pasteur  three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only  comes from life.  Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs  and seeds develop into animals and plants, but  chemicals never fall  together and life appears.  Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the  building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just  stack the building blocks together and you get life.  No one has ever done  that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were              clumps of amino acids.  Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals  in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard).  If one  were to succeed, you would know about it.  He would get every science  award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings,  statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this              matter.  For something to be a law of science,  it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of  trials.  No exceptions.  A theory that violates two laws of science is in big  trouble.

Can you explain this?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has  chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA.  Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has  the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see  where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it)  should know about meiosis. Since I'm not an expert, and you probably  want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject: Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an  offspring receives half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from  another. Because of this _an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents._ No exceptions.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has  chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA.  Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has  the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see  where I'm going with this?

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing. According to this page: Chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, human beings have 46 chromosomes, whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing _two whole chromosomes_ in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 14, 2010)

There is some kind of dichotomy in a being that creates a commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" (declaring killing a sin), but that being kills more than a few people himself and is still considered sinless. In other words, he reserves the act of killing for himself.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 14, 2010)

Hmm...
I wonder if meiosis ever messes up and produces things that don't die...hell, maybe they could actually reproduce.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing _two whole chromosomes_ in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.


 Apes didn't evolve into humans, we share a common ancestor. And I'll just assume you're twisting science around for the above claim like you did with the thermodynamics claim. Because a law about temperature and pressure = biology AMIRITE!

Also, one of the biggest contributor to evolution is mutation. Just sayin. It's been ages since I've had a biology class, but I do remember that little gem.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> Hmm...
> I wonder if meiosis ever messes up and produces things that don't die...hell, maybe they could actually reproduce.


 
You are wrong because you fail to take into account the main premise of  evolution ... namely, mutation.   Here, read up and see if you can make a  more persuasive argument evolution including the facts this  time:

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 14, 2010)

That's nice and all, but I'm not making an argument _against _evolution.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Conker said:


> Apes didn't evolve into humans, we share a common ancestor. And I'll just assume you're twisting science around for the above claim like you did with the thermodynamics claim. Because a law about temperature and pressure = biology AMIRITE!
> 
> Also, one of the biggest contributor to evolution is mutation. Just sayin. It's been ages since I've had a biology class, but I do remember that little gem.


 
Show me this common ancestor, because as I stated before scientists can't prove where homo erectus came from.
I am not twisting the laws of thermodynamics, Nice to see you just assume I am.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life Might want to read this.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> That's nice and all, but I'm not making an argument _against _evolution.


 
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. Stupid spell checker.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I didn't go to the main page at all, so that would be my bad. I was linked straight to the presentation page.



Then you should have checked the rest of the site before making the claim that it wasn't "a Christian" site.

As for the content - there's nothing in that shot-gun list of so-called "problems" with evolution that I haven't seen before and hasn't been debunked several times over.

As our fellow poster Roose might say, "educate yourself" by having a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/ which presents the _scientific_ viewpoint on evolution. For a start, here's why your argument "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is bollocks, as well as why your previous argument of "Evolution has never been observed, therefore it cannot be proved" is rubbish as well.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not twisting the laws of thermodynamics, Nice to see you just assume I am.



Actually, you were.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Show me this common ancestor, because as I stated before scientists can't prove where homo erectus came from.
> I am not twisting the laws of thermodynamics, Nice to see you just assume I am.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life Might want to read this.


 
Here's a better one: show us proof that Adam and Eve existed as described in the Bible, WITHOUT quoting the Bible.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, whats with the caps lock crap, really. And what you stated is not an explanation at all. Just a veiled insult.


 
Caps Lock is because you don't seem to notice how you are hamstringing yourself and therefore the problem must be that you simply cannot hear the warnings for whatever reason, so I should SHOUT

And it's not a veiled insult, it's a statement saying you are not well-qualified as a diplomatic representative of the Christian faith, and that you cause more problems than you solve.  You opened up opportunities to assault your religion, that had not yet been brought to our attention before you chose to open your mouth.  You are calling targets for ENEMY artillery.  You are INVITING hate and vitriol.  You are DARING an entire forum to engage you in a pissing match.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Show me this common ancestor, because as I stated before scientists can't prove where homo erectus came from.
> I am not twisting the laws of thermodynamics, Nice to see you just assume I am.


You twist enough stuff, so yeah, I'm assuming you've done the same here.

But the thing is Rukh, even if we don't have all the missing links, we don't need them. Plenty of other evidence exists. Not to mention were not just talking about the evolution of humans but of all life on the planet. Some species have more gaps than others. But you have to look at the big picture. If were missing something in humans but not, say barnacles, why should we rule out that humans didn't evolve?

Did you know that every creature with an eye shares a common gene related to the eye?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Then you should have checked the rest of the site before making the claim that it wasn't "a Christian" site.
> 
> As for the content - there's nothing in that shot-gun list of so-called "problems" with evolution that I haven't seen before and hasn't been debunked several times over.
> 
> As our fellow poster Roose might say, "educate yourself" by having a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/ which presents the _scientific_ viewpoint on evolution. For a start, here's why your argument "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is bollocks, as well as why your previous argument of "Evolution has never been observed, therefore it cannot be proved" is rubbish as well.


 
Then please answer this then since no one else has:


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> _Homo habilis_ - there is a growing  consensus amongst most  paleoanthropologists that this category actually  includes bits and  pieces of various other types - such as  _Australopithecus_ and _Homo erectus_. It is therefore an  'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
> 
> _Ramapithecus_  - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it  has now been  realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We as Christians don't make people believe. Our job is to go and tell others about Jesus Christ. And then live by example following the teachings of Jesus.
> You bring up a good point about kids, and truthfully I do not know. But then again I am not God so I cannot fully understand why He does what he does.
> The Old Leviticus Law has been fulfilled. Jesus Christ was the final  sacrifice in the sacrificial system. The Old Law was never meant to be  permanent. In fact it all points to that we cannot live up to God"s  standards, and it points to the fact that we need Jesus.
> The Law had three aspects and 613 commands. The _moral_ law was the commandments and Decalogue. The _ceremonial_ law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ. The _civil law_  was about such things as sanitation, crops, quarantine, diet, lawsuits,  and crime.  The Law was a rule of life, not a way of salvation.
> ...


 
So you don't make people believe they are going to hell if they don't believe, but inform them of such. That's pretty prickish. 

A quick Wiki search reveals the Decalogue & the Commandments are interchangeable terms, so not much ground covered there :v And if those are the ONLY things we take from OT (which this is turning out to be quite complex), I agree with everything but like, the first five-ish. 

Albeit I'm curious on how we determine what fits into what category, and even more curious that say, the homosexual thing isn't included, but still upheld :v


And is Rukh really getting into Evolution? Seriously Rukh, stay outta there - For the sake of your own head. You, of all people, are not about to disprove or even scratch the surface of evolution. And I mean that in a serious sense~


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well one would think that if evolution is true, then we should find evidence of it everywhere.


 
One must also recognize it as evidence upon finding it.  It's not enough just to see it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Alright, I think if we are going to continue a debate on evolution it should be in a new thread. Considering this one is the religion megathread.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Alright, I think if we are going to continue a debate on evolution it should be in a new thread. Considering this one is the religion megathread.


 But they coincide. Philosophers have been debating for centuries on the relation between faith and reason (reason being science). You can't have a religious debate without invoking science.

The thing is, science always wins :3


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So you don't make people believe they are going to hell if they don't believe, but inform them of such. That's pretty prickish.
> 
> A quick Wiki search reveals the Decalogue & the Commandments are interchangeable terms, so not much ground covered there :v And if those are the ONLY things we take from OT (which this is turning out to be quite complex), I agree with everything but like, the first five-ish.
> 
> Albeit I'm curious on how we determine what fits into what category, and even more curious that say, the homosexual thing isn't included, but still upheld :v


 First of all, I stated that the Decalogue & the Commandments are both moral code. So I not sure what you mean by not much ground covered there. The The _ceremonial_ law has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And the Israelites  The _civil law_ was their form of government (theocracy) So why would we follow a theocracy government?

Secondly homosexuality is stated as a sin in the NT as well. Plus sex is defined by God only between a man and a woman, who are married. And the definition of marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 14, 2010)

Whoa whoa whoa

Are people casting pearls before swine in here?


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Whoa whoa whoa
> 
> Are people casting pearls before swine in here?


 I feel bad that I had to look that up


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, I stated that the Decalogue & the Commandments are both moral code. So I not sure what you mean by not much ground covered there. The The _ceremonial_ law has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And the Israelites  The _civil law_ was their form of government (theocracy) So why would we follow a theocracy government?
> 
> Secondly homosexuality is stated as a sin in the NT as well. Plus sex is defined by God only between a man and a woman, who are married. And the definition of marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman.


 
And I stated that Wikipedia stated that the "Decalogue" and "The Commandments" are the same thing :v Though I personally couldn't care less either way.

Now you're repeating the stuff about the two other laws, my question wasn't "what are they, and are we applying them, or dismissing them" it was "How was it decided what became, for example, ceremonial law." As in, is it literally drawn out, or described at some point which laws fall under Ceremonial - Or is that merely an interpretation?

I can understand not following the laws of a theocracy, I'm merely trying to find out how it's determined <.<

About the NT part, I used your own post like 5 pages ago about it, and looked it up KJV-style. There's reasonable debate on the actual translation of what is stated in the NT:



Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm going to combine a few thoughts, with the KJV I got running here  (albeit it's weird to read and think this is simply a letter passed on  to the Romans :v) :
> 
> 26_For this  cause God gave them over unto vile affections: for even  their women did  change the natural use into that which is against  nature: _
> _ 27And  likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,  burned in  their lust one toward another; men with men working that  which is  unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their  error  which was meet. _
> ...


 
religioustolerance.org, bible.org, and Biblegate.com? Or something, for comparison of the KJV of the bible, and my "Campus Bible" text I have IRL.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> religioustolerance.org, bible.org, and Biblegate.com? Or something, for comparison of the KJV of the bible, and my "Campus Bible" text I have IRL.


 
http://www.BibleGateway.com/ ?  I like the fact that they have a nice selection of versions to research and compare, even though that selection isn't complete.

And ReligiousTolerance.org is indeed a good site.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> http://www.BibleGateway.com/ ?  I like the fact that they have a nice selection of versions to research and compare, even though that selection isn't complete.
> 
> And ReligiousTolerance.org is indeed a good site.


 
Yeah that's the one. I don't particularly care to y'know, 'read' the Bible, but I think it's the one I usually go to to look up various passages for debates.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And I stated that Wikipedia stated that the "Decalogue" and "The Commandments" are the same thing :v Though I personally couldn't care less either way.
> 
> Now you're repeating the stuff about the two other laws, my question wasn't "what are they, and are we applying them, or dismissing them" it was "How was it decided what became, for example, ceremonial law." As in, is it literally drawn out, or described at some point which laws fall under Ceremonial - Or is that merely an interpretation?
> 
> ...



The _ceremonial_ law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ.
_burned in  their lust one toward another- _Its pretty hard to say thats not talking about sex.
Again I will state. The Bible clearly states that Sex is to be in marriage only, and marriage is between a man and a women only. So following those lines homosexuality does not fit. Further more, the Verses in Leviticus on homosexuality fall under the Moral Code I was speaking about earlier. The moral laws, are not abolished, because the moral  laws are based upon the character of God.  Since God's holy character  does not change, the moral laws do not change either.  Therefore, the  moral laws are still in effect. In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or  priestly laws.  But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.  This  is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but  not with the associated death penalty.  

The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes  the morality of the Christian.  The Bible has much to say about  homosexuality:Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."Lev. 20:13, "If  there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both  of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to  death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or  do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of  God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor  adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."Rom. 1:26-28, "For  this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women  exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and  in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the  woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men  committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due  penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to  acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to  do those things which are not proper." With  such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how  different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality.  But they  try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to  accomplish their goal.  But the truth is that God created man and woman,  not man and man, or woman and woman.  Nevertheless, the Bible is a  powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the  Bible agree with its agenda.  But it doesn't work.  The Bible does not  support homosexuality, as we have seen from the scriptures above.
 Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28).   This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.   As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing.   Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance.   Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness.  Without forgiveness,  there is no salvation.
But let me make something very clear.

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love  him (or her) or pray for him (her).  Homosexuality is a sin and like  any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible.  It  needs to be laid at the cross and repented of. Christians should  pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other  person in sin.  They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as  they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image  of God.  However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of  their sin.  Not at all.  Christians should not compromise their witness  for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
 In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals."Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.  Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt,  so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6)."But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5). 
  You  do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them  names.  This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Then please answer this then since no one else has:
> 
> Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.



You are misinformed - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_habilis.html


> What creationists do not understand is that when scientists say that habilis may consist of two or more species, they are not saying that habilis is an invalid species. The reason is that one of those species is Homo habilis. Habilis would be an invalid species if, and only if, its type specimen, OH 7, was determined to belong to a previously defined species. That has not happened and almost certainly will not happen, for the reason that OH 7 differs from all previously named species. (Note that some scientists, for example Wood and Collard (1999), have argued that habiline fossils should be reassigned to the australopithecines, but they are not saying habilis is an invalid species, merely that it should be Australopithecus habilis, not Homo habilis.)





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan.



And your point is? That science can recognise errors and correct itself? Well, DUH - that's what science is all about, adjusting the theory to fit the evidence. Unlike say, religion - which fiddled the evidence to fit their foregone conclusion.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
> Nice to know the science community resorts to a hoax to try and prove something.



Of course, you conveniently gloss over the fact that science was also what revealed the hoax - not creationists.
But then, creationists aren't above spreading lies - like Darwin's so-called death-bed confession.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
> The major problem is, Scientists cannot show the origin of homo erectus. Somehow it just appeared in the fossil record. As stated above those fossils sated above have all been proven wrong. So where did homo erectus come from? Secondly there is fossil records of homo erectus living along side homo sapiens. Homo erectus was supposed to have evolved into homo sapiens.



You are misinformed - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html


> In 2002, Vekua et al. announced the discovery of D2700, a new hominid skull from Georgia (in the ex-USSR), following the discovery of two earlier skulls (Gabunia et al. 2000). These three skulls are most similar to those of early African H. erectus specimens, but are quite primitive and also share a number of characteristics with H. habilis skulls. Their brain sizes range from 780 cc (previously the lower end of the erectus range) down to 600 cc, which is in the middle of the H. habilis range. Taken as a group, these three skulls extend the anatomical range of erectus beyond anything that could conceivably be attributed to Homo sapiens. Both in anatomy and brain size, they bridge the gap between H. erectus and H. habilis.



But even IF by some miracle evolution was disproved - _*it doesn't automatically prove that "God done it" or that the Bible - or any other "holy book" on the planet - is true.*_ All it would prove is that our understanding of the science was was incomplete.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I disagre, I take the Bible as 100% truth, whether it be in literal form, a parable or metaphore. I don't "throw out" any part of the Scriptures. Christianity does not say we get to pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures are relevant. Its all relevant.  Its when you inject your own will into what you think it should be, thats where the problem is. Its when people try and act like God. I like to use the phrase, there is a God. I am not him.


 
If you believe that you do not pick and choose than you are badly misinformed. I suppose trying to get you to understand why would be a bit like trying to convince a brick wall to be flexible.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> If you believe that you do not pick and choose than you are badly misinformed.


 
Well then by all means explain away. I am all ears.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Unlike other sins, *this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28).   This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.   As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing.*   Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance.   Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness.  Without forgiveness,  there is no salvation.



So, here you claim that homosexuals cannot be "saved".



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Homosexuality is a sin and like  any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible.  It  needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.



But in your very next passage you say that they _can._ But hang on, you've just claimed that they can't take the steps because your so-called "loving" God has _deliberately made them unable to ask for it_.
This is the equivalent of God saying to stop a car racing out of control down a steep hill all you need to do is put your foot on the brake - right after he's drained the brake fluid so that the brakes can't work. 

And THIS is supposed to be a "loving" - or even a "just" - being?

Yeah, riiiiight.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> _burned in  their lust one toward another- _Its pretty hard to say thats not talking about sex.
> 
> Further more, the Verses in Leviticus on homosexuality fall under the  Moral Code I was speaking about earlier. The moral laws, are not  abolished, because the moral  laws are based upon the character of God.   Since God's holy character  does not change, the moral laws do not  change either.  Therefore, the  moral laws are still in effect. In the  New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or  priestly  laws.  But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.  This  is why  we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but  not  with the associated death penalty.


 
   Le sigh, my post got fubarred.

   At the time, I was excluding ALL of the OT. I'm still not willing to  make that exception in actual practice, but for the sake of the debate,  I'll open it up to allow the Moral Law, as your preacher/pastor/whatever  has put it. Now you're encompassing homosexuality into the moral code,  despite stating that the moral code is the Commandments. Those don't  cover homosexuality, as far as I'm aware, and as far as a google search  of "Decalogue" and "commandments" go. I can see why you/your church head  would include it (for the sake of uniformity), but I'm not actually  seeing it laid out, except by interpretations. 

   Also note from my big quote of myself, that  "God gave them over unto  vile affections", which according to Bible.org, means God  ordered/instructed them to do so. That sounds sorta like a problem there  - God is instructing men to have gay sex. Leaves me kinda scratching my  head, and wanting to ignore the OT again. This point was made by  Bible.org, not me, I'm simply pointing it out. 

 I also went over Cor. and Rom. I think. The KJV does not explicitly  state homosexuality, and the actual translation people are trying to use  to mean "homosexual" varies widely (as described in my quoted post of  myself), and far from gays too, to the point it's rather ridiculous.  Obviously there have been more 'strict' translations, but as far as  religioustolerance.org and one or two other websites I can't think of at  the moment were concerned, the term translators used for "homosexual"  when writing their versions of the Bible probably does not actually mean  homosexual (nor anything similar). 

Now I don't think the Bible supports homosexuality, but it barely touches on it in the NT, and there are a few problems in that which make it iffy if it's condemning it or not, and it's hard to determine what fits into the specific law category for the OT. It feels like we're just kinda throwing it in there, because there is some obligation to do so, despite it (as far as I know) not fitting in with the rest of the Commandments. 

Marriage, however, was loosely defined for centuries (to the point that two people living in the same house, regardless of gender, were considered married). Following the bible days, it was re-defined so that some countries fit in with what the bible described as marriage. Your "truth" however, is silly to me. God created nothing, and doesn't exist :v

...and thanks for not preaching :v I think you're the only Christian regularly following this thread (in furfag heaven), so using the terms like "we" is kinda silly. You're prettttty much only talking for yourself, so no real need to say "we should treat homosexuals...".


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I disagre, I take the Bible as 100% truth, whether it be in literal form, a parable or metaphore. I don't "throw out" any part of the Scriptures. Christianity does not say we get to pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures are relevant. Its all relevant.


 
You are of course assuming that the Bible is ALWAYS the "truth of God" - but how do you *know*? (And forget about using "It's true because the Bible says it's true" - that doesn't prove anything.) Especially when simple _printing errors_ have crept into some editions of the Scriptures that alter the complete meaning of certain passages due to nothing more sinister than typsetting mistakes...



> *"Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" or "Sinner's Bible" 1631:* Barker and Lucas: Omits an important "not" from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read *"Thou shalt commit adultery." *The printers were fined Â£300 and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today.





> *"Unrighteous Bible" or "Wicked Bible" 1653: *Cambridge Press: Another edition carrying this title omits a "not" before the word "inherit", making I Corinthians 6:9 read *"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?..."* In addition, Romans 6:13 reads "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin..." where it should read "unrighteousness".





> *"Sin On Bible": 1716: *John 8:11 reads *"Go and sin on more"* rather than "Go and sin no more".





> *"Lions Bible" 1804:* 1 Kings 8:19 reads *"thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions"*, rather than "loins". This edition had another error in Numbers 25:18 which read: "The murderer shall surely be put together" rather than "...put to death".



Now how do you know that _your _favourite passages haven't been corrupted from the original, and no-one's found them yet?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> You are of course assuming that the Bible is ALWAYS the "truth of God" - but how do you *know*? (And forget about using "It's true because the Bible says it's true" - that doesn't prove anything.) Especially when simple _printing errors_ have crept into some editions of the Scriptures that alter the complete meaning of certain passages due to nothing more sinister than typsetting mistakes...
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that _your _favourite passages haven't been corrupted from the original, and no-one's found them yet?


 
This is why I'm using the KJV directly, instead of just running with my own interpretations, or using my shitty bible. It's one of the most referenced Bibles, I can only hope it's properly translated <.<


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well then by all means explain away. I am all ears.



In response to the question of whether there was a denomination of Christianity which does not condemn homosexuals, I answered:



ArielMT said:


> If not, then they all fail to uphold Luke 6:37, which would make what follows amusingly karmic.


 
It would be amusingly karmic because what follows is Luke 6:41-42:



			
				Holy Bible (King James Version) said:
			
		

> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, *but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?* Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? *Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.*





			
				Holy Bible (New King James Version) said:
			
		

> And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, *but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?* Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? *Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.*



Your failure to recognize the doublethink that's been highlighted earlier, especially with regard to why the sin of homosexuality is and isn't treated the same as the sin of other forms of sexuality and why forgiveness is and isn't withheld from homosexuals separate from those with other sexual orientations, is exactly that allegorical plank.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

_I'M BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK..._
What did I miss?



PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I believe that god is all the animals in the world and the devil is a human....


Animals are god? Have you_ ever_ seen a tunicate? Or do you not realize that the majority of animal life on this planet is single cellular or in the phylum arthropoda (predominantly hexapoda- insects)? I bet when you think "animal" you think _Chordata, or more specifically Craniates_. And Craniates make up a icredibly tiny percentage of life on earth. Tiny. But then again I bet you'd rather look at a tiger and say "wow that is god" than to look at a roach and think it's god.Personally if god exists I don't like picturing him/her as a sponge or a maggot.



pakthewosky said:


> Of course! Christianity! Nobody goes to hell because of being gay. There is only one ultimate sin, sadly. That, is not believing.


 
So raping and murdering is ok, and not believing is worse? The moraity falls through here. By not believing I am causing no one else any harm. My life can still be dedicated to gving back to my community and being a beneficial member of society. However by murdering, raping, robbing, etc that would be direct intentional harm on another person. Which morally would be worse. And yet you say that the "one ultimate sin" is unbelief and not anything that would be harmful to others or society. THINK before you post goddamnit.



Lastdirewolf said:


> This is why I'm using the KJV directly, instead of just running with my own interpretations, or using my shitty bible. It's one of the most referenced Bibles, I can only hope it's properly translated <.<



The King James is shoddily translated. HOWEVER, it is the most common, most read, and most available world wide. Does the original meaning matter after being translationally diluted when it is the new meaning that is heard, taught, and remembered in today's soiety? Arguably since the old context and translations will never reach the majority of the world/Chrstians this whole theory that if we could just look at the translations that makes the atrocities ok. The horrors of the KJV (OT and NT) are the ones that are taught and used as modern day methods of law, punishment, and death.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 14, 2010)

If anything has a right to rule over everything else on Earth, it's the prokaryotes. And they already *do*!


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Animals are god? Have you_ ever_ seen a tunicate? Or do you not realize that the majority of animal life on this planet is single cellular or in the phylum arthropoda (predominantly hexapoda- insects)? I bet when you think "animal" you think _Chordata, or more specifically Craniates_. And Craniates make up a icredibly tiny percentage of life on earth. Tiny. But then again I bet you'd rather look at a tiger and say "wow that is god" than to look at a roach and think it's god.Personally if god exists I don't like picturing him/her as a sponge or a maggot.


 
You forgot to mention that chimps wage war, ducks rape female ducks (so much so that female ducks are evolving anti-rape genitalia), and that animals sure as hell don't have charity drives.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I disagre, I take the Bible as 100% truth, whether it be in literal form, a parable or metaphore. I don't "throw out" any part of the Scriptures. Christianity does not say we get to pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures are relevant. Its all relevant.  Its when you inject your own will into what you think it should be, thats where the problem is. Its when people try and act like God. I like to use the phrase, there is a God. I am not him.


 
It's impossible to take the Bible as "100% truth". Because over the past 2000 years there have been so many translations, printings of the bible. The name of the exact event eludes me, but I do believe that around the 7'th century, the Vatican held a conference on what was going to be included and excluded from the Bible. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well then by all means explain away. I am all ears.


 
If you didn't pick and choose, you should support OT law. Killing unruly children, blasphemers, homosexuals, people who wear clothing made of two different kinds of fabric, plowing the corners of a field, eating shellfish, speaking Gods name (This is why some more conservative jews refer to god as g-d"). 

You would also believe that Evolution is false, that the earth is a mere 6000 years old, that god created the earth in 6 days, and that there was a global flood.


*Edit*

Oh wait, you do. Let me laugh some more.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

Here's a question, Rukh:  Why must we prove evolution before you'll prove either Adam and Eve or the presence of God?  Burden of proof does not fall on us to prove such before you prove God.  Technically, we don't need to prove anything right now.  Why?  Since the start of several threads ago, you've stated the Bible to be 100% true, all the facts therein correct, and professed how God _must_ be the solution.

Guess what?  This means you made the claim "God exists" before we made the claim "Evolution is true". So, technically, we don't need to carry the evolution "debate" (more like:  Rukh sees evolution, sees evidence, takes predominantly creationist websites as fact and tries to shoot down evolution acting witty) until _*you*_ prove first that God exists.  And, guess what?  You can't use the Bible for such, unless you want to also admit that any other religions' Holy Book God / god(s) is true because by the same token _their_ Holy Text(s) say the same thing.  Unless then you want to argue that the Bible is more legitimate, in which case - again - the Burden of Proof is on you to prove how.  And I'll give you a hint:  "God exists because the Bible says he exists and the Bible is true because the Bible says it so" will not be sufficient evidence for us.  In fact, it will be seen as grasping at straws and begging the question to a point that you'll be assumed as avoiding the question.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm not going to get involved attacking Rukh like usual, as I don't have the time. Instead I'll just shout at people who say things that are scientifically retarded.

Lets start with Kit:


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If anything has a right to rule over everything else on Earth, it's the prokaryotes. And they already *do*!


>:/ 

Prokaryotes may be prolific, but they don't have the long term potential of eukaryotes. Eukaryotes benefit enormously from membrane bound organelles like mitochondria which give them an enormous advantage over the considerably more primitive prokaryotes. Of course it's difficult to draw the line as to what defines separate organisms, considering - for example - that mitochondria resemble prokaryotes and contain plasmids, despite being so deeply in a mutualistic relationship with their host eukaryote that many consider the pair to be a single organism.

When has a prokaryote ever formed a successful multicellular organism?

If you think prokaryotes are more survivable then eukaryotes, what about the tardigrades which can survive without water for 120 years, temperatures up to 151 degrees centigrade or as low as -272, vacuums, pressure six times that of the Mariana trench and doses of radiation very lethal to other life forms?

Prokaryotes just can't do that!


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

This Looks Fun!

So! Religion. Yeah. It's great for arguing about, tearing each other to shreds and creating divides in groups of otherwise civil people!!! So I'll give this my best shot, and I'll keep it simple. 

1. What I believe about faith: I am a Christian who believes in a true relationship with God that comes from studying the Bible, learning from teachers/pastors, worship, service and prayer. I believe that there is only one way to heaven (I'm friendly, but I am dogmatic about this point), and that way is through Jesus. 

Why is there only one way? From what the Bible tells us, it's this: God made us perfect in the beginning. He wanted us set apart from everything else in his creation, so he made us unique. He gave us free will, which is why the tree was in the garden. Without this option to do wrong, we would never be able to freely love God, and what is love if you don't choose to do it on your own volition? So, as you know, we ate of the fruit and we got in this mess called sin. This caused a divide between man and God. We were no longer pure in his sight, and we had to obtain his favor through sacrifices and "always doing the right thing" by following laws which God showed us how to follow. It became apparent from these laws that the only that person could enter heaven was someone who was without sin or sacrificed an innocent animal in place of that sin. 

Fast forward (insert your own number of years here, I'm no scientist, and I'm not looking for an argument on this point) to Jesus. Born of a Virgin. 100% man, 100% God. He was perfect in his actions, but he felt everything that we as humans feel. He went around trying to set things straight, and got the people he was trying to help mad at him. He was falsely accused of a crime he didn't commit, and he was nailed to a cross where he died. 3 days later He rose again. When he died he paid the price for our sins. By rising again after 3 days, He proved that we have victory over death. 40 days later, He ascended into Heaven... and everyone on earth has been arguing about what he said and why he did it ever since. 

Just like the tree in the garden though, we must choose to believe this. If we didn't get a choice, God wouldn't be who He claims to be, and we wouldn't be able to love and be loved fully. Since this is a choice I don't force it on people. I want people to know it's a free gift that's there for the taking. 

2. What I believe about the Bible's validity: It's all 100% true. Some of it is metaphor, some of it is literal, but it's all God-inspired. I like to think of the Canonization of the Bible like this: Take the Harry Potter series. It's 7 books of well-woven storyline by one author. Now think of all the HP fan-fiction out there. There's a lot of it. It's pretty easy to tell the two apart though. One is the fan's version, and one is JK Rowling's. It's pretty clear to us which is which. 

This is what happened back when they decided on the Canonization. There was pretty clearly gospels and letters that were written by disciples of Jesus, and then there was a bunch of crap that just didn't belong. Other religions that sprung up right around the time of Christianity and took hold of some of the major truths and then distorted the stories of Jesus and the disciples into some really weird crap... not like that ever happens today or anything either... but that's gist of it. So this wasn't a matter of someone saying, "Well, you're almost good enough for the book, but not quite." it was more a matter of someone saying, "Well, that's clearly fan-fiction." 

Translations? Well, nobody goes back to the original KJV and bases their new bibles on what it said (THANK GOD). It all goes back to the original Greek and Hebrew. In today's day and age, archeology also plays an important factor in confirming texts. Every time a new manuscript is found, it is checked against current translations. The worst differences they find are gramatical differences between generations. This is much akin to the way we talk and write now versus the way we did back in the 18th Century and it's nothing that changes the meaning of what is being said. 

3. Creation Vs. Evolution: You saw this one coming, didn't you? I'm not going to say much. If the Bible says God created the earth and all that's in it in 6 days, I say, "Why not? He's GOD. He can do things that blow our minds!" I know, it's child-like and ignorant, but I've debated the science behind it until I'm blue in the face, and, let's be honest here, the theory of evolution has brought about many scientific advances and has increased our knowledge of the world. I don't agree with every bit of evolution, but I know that as it relates to inter-species mutations, it's very true. 

In the big scheme of things there are more important things to worry about than whether some distant relative of mine was an ape or a man. I'll let scientists figure it out, and I hope that they find something that helps advance our civilization. Oh, I'll still stay informed. I'm a nerd, and I love hearing both sides of this debate, but it's just another thing people get hung up arguing over.

4. Homosexuality: This is a hot topic among furs. All I have to say is the Bible tells us to hate the sin and love the sinner. While I may disagree with what you do, I can't hate you as a person, and I don't. 

So all that said, I hope this helps... and yes, feel free to rip me apart (if anything, for the length of this post). I probably made someone mad.


----------



## Jude (Nov 14, 2010)

Every religious debate I've seen is always some giant argument over evolution vs. creationism. I'd like to see some other creationist religion do a debate with Christianity. Then, at least the arguments and logic wouldn't be as redundant. Disproving evolution does not prove Christianity, and vice versa.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> So all that said, I hope this helps... and yes, feel free to rip me apart (if anything, for the length of this post). I probably made someone mad.


 
Nah, you just came off like a Rukh 2.0 but without the "Old Testament does (not(, actually does (not, (just kidding it does(n't))))) matter" and a few changes (Ex:  If Rukh went by your "Man was perfect, ate fruit of Sin, brought sin into the world", his "God can do no wrong because it's perfect" would be invalidated as a perfect being was seen to do an imperfect act then).  Most complaints towards this post can be summed up in earlier posts in the threat towards Rukh.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

So, I'm reading this C.S. Lewis book for my philosophy class and he looks at the fall of man story. Lewis wrote after Darwin did his awesome stuff and realized that the Adam and Eve story couldn't be true. 

So he came up with his own explanation for it, one that while I don't really like, at least is plausible. 

Lewis's hypothesis is that the fall of man come from the sudden realization that God existed, and the subsequent realization that man is just as important. Sort of a "There is a God. But there is also a me!" "It is the result of pride...such a sin requires no complex social conditions, no extended experience, no great intellectual development. from the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it" (_Problem of Pain_, pages 69-70). 

At least it's more logical than "LOL TWO NAKED PEOPLE IN A GARDEN ATE AN APPLE AND GOD WAS LIKE 'OI, FUCK YOU'"

Lewis is a pretty religious fellow, and he's written around 30 books. Some fiction, some nonfiction about religion. He has an authority about him, and I do like that he tried to take this biblical story and explain it in a more modern way.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

My views as an LDS member
1) I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God and in the Holy Ghost(Spirt, whatever)
2) I believe man is punished for their own sins not for Adam's sin
3) I believe that Repentance is essential for eternal salvation
4) The Bible is correct as far as it is Translated correctly and the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.
5) Joseph Smith was a Prophet that sealed the Truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ and His church in blood
6) Joseph Smith was given revelation in Modern times by Christ

And as I posted before We as a church do not worship Joseph Smith but Worship Christ as the Church is named as His.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> My views as an LDS member
> 1) I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God and in the Holy Ghost(Spirt, whatever)
> *2) I believe man is punished for their own sins not for Adam's sin*
> 3) I believe that Repentance is essential for eternal salvation
> ...


You ever see that South Park episode on Mormons? If so, thoughts? 

@2

I can agree with that. I think it's some serious bullshit that I'm born with some crap sin because some long distant person that I've never met nor do I know anything about other than what the Bible says ate a piece of fruit (metaphorically of course :V)


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> My views as an LDS member
> 1) I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God and in the Holy Ghost(Spirt, whatever)
> 2) I believe man is punished for their own sins not for Adam's sin
> 3) I believe that Repentance is essential for eternal salvation
> ...


 
1. This is true. But Mormonism preaches that they are 3 separate gods_(Mormon Doctrine _by Bruce McConkie, p. 319). , which flies in the face of the Trinity and what the Bible says
2. Mankind sinned against God.
3. This is true.
4. Show me where there are supposed to be 2 words of God. The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. Nothing can be added to the Bible. 
5. Why would there be a need of a prophet after Jesus Christ?
6. I am sorry but joseph smith was not a prophet of God, he taught things that directly contradict the Bible.
The Jesus that is taught in Mormonism is not the Jesus that is taught from the Bible. Mormonism also preaches that Jesus is the brother of the Devil.
_(Mormon Doctrine_ by Bruce McConkie, p. 192, 589). This also flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

*Mormon Beliefs:
*

*Baptism*
Baptism for the dead, (_Doctrines of Salvation_,  vol. II, p. 141). This is a practice of baptizing each other in place  of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife,  the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of  Mormon heaven.(*Show me where in the Bible it talks about being baptized brings you into a higher level of Heaven, I would love to see this)*
 



*Book of Mormon*
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (_History of the Church_, 4:461). (*Again, the Bible says it is God breathed. So how can the Bible which is God breathed be less correct than the book of mormans. This again flies in the face of what the Bible teaches.)*
 



*Devil, the*
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 192).
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 163).
A  plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a  plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus'  plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all  Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 193; _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 8). (*all of these things directly contradict what the Bible says. Lucifer (Satan) was a Chereb. He was an angel that rebelled against God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is the brother of Satan. The Bible clearly states in John 3:16 that God sent his one and only son.)*
 



*God*
God used to be a man on another planet, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 321; Joseph Smith, _Times and Seasons_, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 7, p. 333).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ€™s..." (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God  himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits  enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God  from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so  that you may see," (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345).
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, _First Council of the Seventy_, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
God resides near a star called Kolob, (_Pearl of Great Price_, p. 34-35; _Mormon Doctrine_, p. 428).
God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_,  vol. 4, 1857, p. 218; vol. 8, p. 115). - This one is disputed among  many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed.   Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
"Therefore  we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature  perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and  bones." (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 38).( *again all of this flies in the face of what the Bible teaches. So How can the book of morman be a companion book to the Bible when it so directly contradicts it. Mormanism also states that God used to be a man (from another planet). Again this directly contradicts what the Bible teaches.*
 



*God, becoming a god*
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345-347, 354.)
"Then  shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be  from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they  be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they  be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto  them," (D&C 132:20). (*This again flies in the face of what the Bible teaches. Man cannot become God, funny enough that is what Lucifer tried to do, and he was thrown out of heaven. Man is not God, and never will be. We are separate entities.)*
 

All pulled from these websites. And the man who wrote these things has studied Mormonism for 14 years. Plus the fact that everything that has been stated comes from mormon doctrine. I would really like an explanation of the things I have listed.
http://carm.org/teachings-of-mormonism
http://carm.org/logical-proof-that-mormonism-is-false
http://carm.org/mormon-objections-answered


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

DrumFur said:


> Every religious debate I've seen is always some giant argument over evolution vs. creationism. I'd like to see some other creationist religion do a debate with Christianity. Then, at least the arguments and logic wouldn't be as redundant. Disproving evolution does not prove Christianity, and vice versa.



haha. Indeed.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Most complaints towards this post can be summed up in earlier posts in the threat towards Rukh.



Thanks? Not sure I like being tied in with any sorts of threats though...


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> Thanks? Not sure I like being tied in with any sorts of threats though...


 
I hope he meant "thread."


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> Thanks? Not sure I like being tied in with any sorts of threats though...


 
More towards his "I don't see anything wrong with damning 2/3 the world population over personal beliefs" and the like than the more hostile responses towards Rukh.

Furthermore, Rukh, you do realize you keep giving more fodder towards God being a dick, yes?  All of mankind - some 6 billion-plus people for what's there _right now_, let alone what has already come and who will come - is being punished for the actions of _two people_.  You don't see anything wrong with such, however, at least as far as it seems.  In fact, you seem to think it merciful that he saves anyone at all from since then.

EDIT:  Yes, Ariel.  I did indeed mean threads.  That t's either the worst case of a fruedian slip, or just me typing shitty after the dogs looted my bed and covers.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Yes, Ariel.  I did indeed mean threads.  That t's either the worst case of a fruedian slip, or just me typing shitty after the dogs looted my bed and covers.


 
Happens to the best of us, fingers not quite as engaged as the brain.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> More towards his "I don't see anything wrong with damning 2/3 the world population over personal beliefs" and the like than the more hostile responses towards Rukh.
> 
> Furthermore, Rukh, you do realize you keep giving more fodder towards God being a dick, yes?  All of mankind - some 6 billion-plus people for what's there _right now_, let alone what has already come and who will come - is being punished for the actions of _two people_.  You don't see anything wrong with such, however, at least as far as it seems.  In fact, you seem to think it merciful that he saves anyone at all from since then.


 
I am not condemning the world. Thats where you are wrong. And everyone has the opportunity to be saved. _fact, you seem to think it merciful that he saves anyone at all from since then.
_To that I say Duh, He doesn't have to save anyone. I find it astounding that he does.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not condemning the world.


I didn't say you do.  I said you see nothing wrong with 2/3rd the world being damned over personal beliefs.  Which you don't.  Below, again, you corroborated what I said by stating it's _merciful_.

God is not a kind, benevolent being.  It's that kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill on a sunny day without a cloud in the sky.

EDIT:  Changed "he" to "it".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I didn't say you do.  I said you see nothing wrong with 2/3rd the world being damned over personal beliefs.  Which you don't.  Below, again, you corroborated what I said by stating it's _merciful_.


Yes you have said I am damning the world. You and a bunch of other people in here have said this. And it is merciful that God would send His Son to die for Us. Why should he do this?



Attaman said:


> God is not a kind, benevolent being.  It's that kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill on a sunny day without a cloud in the sky.


 
That doesn't sound like a God who would send his Only Son to die for us, instead it sounds like a God who should just burn everyone up with a magnifying glass.
He did send his Son to die for us. Jesus came to save us. If God is not a kind benevolent being then why did he send his Son? Why didn't he just start all over?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes you have said I am damning the world.


 "I don't see anything wrong with damning 2/3 the world" =/= "I damn you all."  Wait, you can interpret things as you wish and others' interpretations are wrong.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And it is merciful that God would send His Son to die for Us.


  Not really, considering:
1)  It's not "his son".  For so insistently claiming that God = Jesus, you seem to make them separate people often when you want.
2)  We're damned because of it (God).  Again, I've stated that it's a bit of crock to say that the divine creator who created everything, has a track record for creations made by itself doing sins, is seen doing immoral acts frequently, and so on, had _absolutely no part_ in damning 4,000,000,000+ people due to the acts of two people (which, I might add, would have known such would be their act before it even worked on the Divine / other Holy Beings).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why should he do this?


  I could give several reasons that you would probably deny about as vehemently as you deny the she-bears killing 42 children:  Satan proving God to be a dick and thus God trying to have something to rub back in Satan's face, God not being able to keep people in Heaven once it was found that even his own Holy Beings have a pretty good track record of going "To hell with you" and thus needing to phase out the old candidates with new ones, etcetera?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That doesn't sound like a God who would send his Only Son to die for us,


Actually, it does.  You recall, told followers to wage war against heathens, killed a shit-ton of firstborn sons, turned a guy's wife to salt, flooded and drowned many people, sicked two she-bears on forty-two "blaspheming" youths, etcetera.  God's prone to mood swings.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> his Son


Stop. _Saying. *That.*_  You have said, repeatably, that God is Jesus and Jesus is God.  Jesus is not a separate being, by your own words.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If God is not a kind benevolent being then why did he send his Son? Why didn't he just start all over?


  Because it'd never hear the end of it from Satan?  To do such would be to admit it faulted, and like hell God's going to do that.  Especially to us inferior mortals.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Not really, considering:
> 1)  It's not "his son".  For so insistently claiming that God = Jesus, you seem to make them separate people often when you want.
> 2)  We're damned because of it (God).  Again, I've stated that it's a bit of crock to say that the divine creator who created everything, has a track record for creations made by itself doing sins, is seen doing immoral acts frequently, and so on, had _absolutely no part_ in damning 4,000,000,000+ people due to the acts of two people (which, I might add, would have known such would be their act before it even worked on the Divine / other Holy Beings).


Have you ever read about the Trinity? God the Father, Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy spirit. They are separate yet the same. 
And we sin. we are held accountable to our sin. Adam only brought sin into the world. What your trying to say is Adam is responsible for all the sins you have committed. You still have sinned regardless. God will hold you to his Law. But no one can hold God's standards. This is why we need Jesus.


Attaman said:


> I could give several reasons that you would probably deny about as vehemently as you deny the she-bears killing 42 children:  Satan proving God to be a dick and thus God trying to have something to rub back in Satan's face, God not being able to keep people in Heaven once it was found that even his own Holy Beings have a pretty good track record of going "To hell with you" and thus needing to phase out the old candidates with new ones, etcetera?


You don't believe in God, so how can Satan exist if God doesn't exist. If Satan exists then so does God. Because Satan by definition is the opposite of God. Secondly I have posted up why its not little children that were killed. You have conveniently ignored that post, which I will quote yet again for I believe the 3rd time. 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]
> 
> 2  Kings 2:23, na'arim "youths"; "children" would be yeladim in Hebrew, so  why not just use yeladim to say  children instead of na'arim?. Ketanaim is the word little.
> [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]The  word ketanarim (plural of  qatan) Used frequently in the scripture to denote a  younger son.
> ...


 


Attaman said:


> Actually, it does.  You recall, told followers to wage war against heathens, killed a shit-ton of firstborn sons, turned a guy's wife to salt, flooded and drowned many people, sicked two she-bears on forty-two "blaspheming" youths, etcetera.  God's prone to mood swings.


God has very few times directly* commanded* the death of people. Secondly as I have stated many times. Blasphemy in the OT was punishable by death. It was strictly forbidden to blaspheme against God. God is not prone to mood swings. Everything he has done was for a specific reason. The flood was done because almost everyone turned away from God. The expection being Noah and his family.


Attaman said:


> Stop. _Saying. *That.*_  You have said, repeatably, that God is Jesus and Jesus is God.  Jesus is not a separate being, by your own words.


Again, look up what the Trinity is. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Godhead 3 in 1. Remember when Jesus was being baptized God called down from Heaven and said, this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.


Attaman said:


> Because it'd never hear the end of it from Satan?  To do such would be to admit it faulted, and like hell God's going to do that.  Especially to us inferior mortals.


 I meant why didn't God start all over. As in wipe all of creation out and begin again.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 1. This is true. But Mormonism preaches that they are 3 separate gods_(Mormon Doctrine _by Bruce McConkie, p. 319). , which flies in the face of the Trinity and what the Bible says
> 2. Mankind sinned against God.
> 3. This is true.
> 4. Show me where there are supposed to be 2 words of God. The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. Nothing can be added to the Bible.
> ...


 
to Babtism for the dead look in 1st Corinthians
for us all being spiritual siblings it says that God sent his only BEGOTTEN son not his ONLY SON
and for the three being seperate look in the End of ACTS 
and for Nothing being able to be added to the Bible that is not what it meant in revelation it meant that nothing could be added to the BIBLE itself and the Book of Mormon was actually written for the greater part much earlier then the New Testament, but contains much of the same information.
Also the Godhead is one in purpose not one person. Three people and 1 goal.
also the world is not being punished for 2 peoples mistake

for More information I invite you to visit this website.
http://www.mormon.org/
it provides answers to a lot of questions about confusing doctrine


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> My views as an LDS member


I don't like mormons. I really don't like mormons. I've met a bunch, I've been cornered in bus stops by a few. But I REALLY don't like mormons. I'm sorry to show my bias, I know it's overly generalized, I understand it's illogical to hate them based on group affilitions, but I can't tolerate mormons. I'll take Rukh's woman and gay hating fundementalism any day of the year over people who promote polygamist child rape.
For those who have no idea what I'm talking about I suggest you read "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith" written by Jon Krakauer.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I don't like mormons. I really don't like mormons. I've met a bunch, I've been cornered in bus stops by a few. But I REALLY don't like mormons. I'm sorry to show my bias, I know it's overly generalized, I understand it's illogical to hate them based on group affilitions, but I can't tolerate mormons. I'll take Rukh's woman and gay hating fundementalism any day of the year over people who promote polygamist child rape.
> For those who have no idea what I'm talking about I suggest you read "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith" written by Jon Krakauer.



okay, this is totally stereotypical view on the LDS church. We did support PLURAL MARRIAGE for some time as it was to HELP SUPPORT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN during a time when women could not get jobs. In this current time the LDS church does NOT support Polygamy in anyway shape or form. As for Child rape The LDS church does not support the Breaking of any law set forth by the government.

here is the 13 main points of the LDS Faith
1.
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adamâ€™s transgression.
3.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> to Babtism for the dead look in 1st Corinthians
> for us all being spiritual siblings it says that God sent his only BEGOTTEN son not his ONLY SON
> and for the three being seperate look in the End of ACTS
> and for Nothing being able to be added to the Bible that is not what it meant in revelation it meant that nothing could be added to the BIBLE itself and the Book of Mormon was actually written for the greater part much earlier then the New Testament, but contains much of the same information.
> ...


 

Mainstream Christianity does not condone Mormonism first of all. Secondly you conveniently skipped over my bolded text. Please explain all of what I had posted. Your own doctrine contradicts with the Bible and you have not addressed that. Address everything I have posted because I have sourced it all within morman doctrine. You have skated over my post.
Also, please research the Trinity, which is preached in the Bible. Also please explain why the book of mormon contradicts with what the Bible says. Also I am 100% certain that joseph smith was after the New Testament. So mormonism did not exist before it.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

I hate to agree with CrazedPorcupine, Deo, but he's right. All of that book you mentioned are usually about small Mormon sects, rather than Mormonism as a whole. It's kind of like nutter fundamentalist OT Christians. As in, the rest of that religion tends to think they're weird. 

I lived near a Mormon town and visited the temple in Salt Lake City. They're p cool, although the doorbell-ringing while I'm eating dinner can get irritating. But I usually ask them to stay and talk anyway. I can't really join because I'm not exactly the picture of purity, but I still enjoy discussing religion with them.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> EDIT:  Yes, Ariel.  I did indeed mean threads.  That t's either the worst case of a fruedian slip, or just me typing shitty after the dogs looted my bed and covers.


 
Okay. Good. I was starting to worry for a minute.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> okay, this is totally stereotypical view on the LDS church. We did support PLURAL MARRIAGE for some time as it was to HELP SUPPORT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN during a time when women could not get jobs. In this current time the LDS church does NOT support Polygamy in anyway shape or form. As for Child rape The LDS church does not support the Breaking of any law set forth by the government.
> 
> here is the 13 main points of the LDS Faith
> 1.
> ...


The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this  is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this  subject that the word â€œTrinityâ€ is not found in Scripture. This is a  term that is used to attempt to describe the triune Godâ€”three  coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is  that the concept represented by the word â€œTrinityâ€ does exist in  Scripture. The following is what Godâ€™s Word says about the Trinity:

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5). explain those verses because it clearly states that there is *only one God.*
The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8,  the plural pronoun for â€œusâ€ is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun  â€œusâ€ are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to  more than two. The Godhead is 3 in one. The Bible is very clear on this.

Edit: The Bible is called the word of God, So how can the book of mormon also be the Word of God? There can't be two of them. Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. You don't believe in the Jesus that is taught in the Bible. Read my other post.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> okay, this is totally stereotypical view on the LDS church. We did support PLURAL MARRIAGE for some time as it was to HELP SUPPORT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN during a time when women could not get jobs. In this current time the LDS church does NOT support Polygamy in anyway shape or form. As for Child rape The LDS church does not support the Breaking of any law set forth by the government.


 
You can baww, but that book (and I can list others) detail the heinous actions of the LDS and FLDS churches. I wish I could burn Uncle Rulon and Warren Jeffs faces off with acid. But Rulon is dead and his son Jeffs is in prison for his crimes. I can only hope that in prison he is feelig he full force of the justice system and paying for his attrocities. That being said I realize that my hatred of LDS and FLDS is over generalized and I will stop replying to anything related to mormonism in this thread as otherwise I may explode from rage irl.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> You can baww, but that book (and I can list others) detail the heinous actions of the LDS and FDS churches. I wish I could burn Uncle Rulon and Warren Jeffs faces off with acid. But Rulon is dead and his son Jeffs is in prison for his crimes. I can only hope that in prison he is feelig he full force of the justice system and paying for his attrocities.


 
Er, yeah. I just said that those were sects, not the whole LDS faith. Religious themed cults, that's what those are. Most of the Mormons people know of are not like that.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

we don't believe that anybody is perfect. and I tried to Adress many of the bolded sections as I could and I also reffered you to a better source of information. and many points of our religion are the same as when christ was on the earth. Yes the Trinity is talked about in the bible but as 2000 years of mistranslations and confusion have caused the meaning of the Trinity to become strangely mangled and confusing. The LDS church Clarifies what the Bible says about the "Trinity" it explains that the Godhead is composed of 3 SEPERATE beings with 1 purpose which is the salvation of Mankind. Jesus Christ is often referred to as Father because he created the Planet while being Directed by God the Eternal father. And also You have been picking and choosing quotes that are the hardest to explain and i simply directed you to Bible Doctrine that answers your Questions.
In 1st Corinthians it talks about babtism for the dead, and multiple heavens
in Acts it talks about Paul seeing Christ seperate from God.
In John it talks about how Christ says "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold" which refers to the American continent.
and Finally the Mysteries of God will be revealed when he chooses to Reveal them. His origins and geneology are unknown even to the Current Prophet as God as not chosen to reveal those mysteries unto us.
also on that Note: nowhere in the book of mormon does it say anything contrary to the bible about the Origins of Christ.

and FINALLY the Christ taught by The LDS doctrine is the same Christ taught in the bible.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

Oh. My. Sweet. Fucking. Spaghetti Monster.
Rukh just 'this'ed my post.
I thought this day would never come.
à²¥*ãƒ®*à²¥


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> You can baww, but that book (and I can list others) detail the heinous actions of the LDS and FLDS churches. I wish I could burn Uncle Rulon and Warren Jeffs faces off with acid. But Rulon is dead and his son Jeffs is in prison for his crimes. I can only hope that in prison he is feelig he full force of the justice system and paying for his attrocities. That being said I realize that my hatred of LDS and FLDS is over generalized and I will stop replying to anything related to mormonism in this thread as otherwise I may explode from rage irl.


 
the LDS church and the FLDS church have no affiliation with each other and are completely seperate churches. The FLDS church teaches completely different Doctrine than the LDS church.

and As I said
http://www.mormon.org/
is a better place to have questions answered because it is much clearer and uses Biblical references whenever possible.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Okay, I'mma leave now.

This thread is getting dumb. >.>


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

its only dumb if you make it dumb


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> its only dumb if you make it dumb


 
...I think I was defending you a few posts not too long ago, dood.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> we don't believe that anybody is perfect. and I tried to Adress many of the bolded sections as I could and I also reffered you to a better source of information. and many points of our religion are the same as when christ was on the earth. Yes the Trinity is talked about in the bible but as 2000 years of mistranslations and confusion have caused the meaning of the Trinity to become strangely mangled and confusing. The LDS church Clarifies what the Bible says about the "Trinity" it explains that the Godhead is composed of 3 SEPERATE beings with 1 purpose which is the salvation of Mankind. Jesus Christ is often referred to as Father because he created the Planet while being Directed by God the Eternal father. And also You have been picking and choosing quotes that are the hardest to explain and i simply directed you to Bible Doctrine that answers your Questions.
> In 1st Corinthians it talks about babtism for the dead, and multiple heavens
> in Acts it talks about Paul seeing Christ seperate from God.
> In John it talks about how Christ says "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold" which refers to the American continent.
> ...


 

First of all, a better source of information? I have direct sources from Moron Doctrine. I have sourced *exact verses from your doctrine.* Are you suggesting that your own doctrine is not correct?
You still have not answered the question of how Satan is the brother to Jesus. Because it clearly states in the Bible that Lucifer was a Chereb Angel. Again, Mormonism contradicts the Bible so many times.

God used to be a man on another planet, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 321; Joseph Smith, _Times and Seasons_, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 7, p. 333). *explain this

*"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ€™s..." (D&C 130:22).* So Moses who was allowed to see the back of God is wrong?

*"God  himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits   enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God   from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so   that you may see," (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345).* Again explain this.*

God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, _First Council of the Seventy_, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).* God had a Father? Thats news to me. God is eternal. The Bible clearly states this.*



Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 163).
A  plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus  offered a  plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but  Jesus'  plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior  of all  Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 193; _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p) *Really? Jesus and Satan are brothers. Then why does the Bible state that Lucifer was a Chereb Angel? And secondly Satan put forth a plan to save mankind? The definition of Satan is the opposite of God. He doesn't want anyone to go to Heaven. The Bible is very clear in this.
*


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And we sin. we are held accountable to our sin.


You've stated yourself that we're imperfect / sinners due to Adam & Eve's actions.  Only a dick would go "Hey buddy, your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather messed up.  You owe me big."  Only an equally dickish person would go "He's got merrit."  Only an even more dickish person would go "Damn son, take his offer - this is merciful!"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Adam only brought sin into the world.


You really don't seem to get certain concepts.  Let me make it clearer for you, using your template of the universe its maker and everything:
God.  Always there, always has been, always will be.  Immediately foresees everything from that point _up through every single individual consequence that would lead up to this post, and every consequence that will spring therefrom._  God, at that time, is already well aware of what will be accomplished, the number of people being damned to eternal suffering (in a realm that doesn't even exist yet), and so on.

Heavens are made.  Turns out, God fucks up and makes servant-beings that are capable of fucking up big against it's orders.  Making them that way, knowing ahead of time how things would end up, and so on, it is merciful and fixes them.  No, wait, it practically breaks those it mucked up on over its knee and disowns them, casting them away from its presence, and labels their very acts that made them not brown their nose gargantuan sins.

'Our' universe is made, again going by your "they are separate" (and I'm still waiting to hear why, if there can be two distinct universes for the divine and non-divine, the multiversal theory that proposes two distinct universes but sans the divine are utter shit). Don't ask how the Universe, an object within time, was made by an object outside of time:  You'll get vague "Have faith" responses at best. God makes people, designed in its image.  People, designed in its image, can still muck up - noticeable in that just like the faithful Holy Beings made for the Heavens, they also do actions that God does not approve.  Again, having foreseen this - occurring the second time - long before the building blocks of our universe were put in place, as well as long after, God forgives the slight.  No, wait, it damns them and all future humans to eternity of suffering unless they pledge their life to brown-nosing to make up for the mistake that was put into them.

Modern Day:  "Isn't God a merciful being?"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What your trying to say is Adam is responsible for all the sins you have committed. You still have sinned regardless.


You have stated repeatably that we are born sinners.  You will, kindly, explain to me how I sinned when I was a fucking sperm in my dad's left (or, possibly, right) nut.  If you can't, then we're born sinners from our ancestors.  And guess who that boils back to...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But no one can hold God's standards. This is why we need Jesus.


  Which is God, meaning fat lot of good there.  Also, and I'll bring this up again:  Jesus' fit in the Temple?  Yeah, God can get angry and throw fits, big ones.  Imagine what Jesus-God would have done were it not Jesus at the time but just plain ol' God:  That whole city'd probably be a glassed crater.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You don't believe in God, so how can Satan exist if God doesn't exist.


I'm an Agnostic, leaning towards Atheism, Misotheist.  Furthermore, you asked for why God would do such in a context in which God did exist:  Those are reasons wherein the context of God existing.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If Satan exists then so does God.


Yes, I'm glad to see you'll admit something that you have already said repeatably.  Bear in mind, if you try derailing this debate again with a non-sequitur, I will report you for shoddy debating tactics.  Repeatably so far, with myself and others, you have responded to questions that were neither asked nor implicated demanding answers, as well as brought up claims that have no relevance to the subject at hand (Ex:  "Tell me why God might do this?" "Because [x] [y] or [z]?" "Ah but that requires you to admit God exists!" "Which was a given in the scenario you asked").



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because Satan by definition is the opposite of God.


 So, Satan is Omnipotent?  A non-infinite could not rival an infinite, so to be an opposite / rival of God, Satan would need to be Omnipotent in its own right.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Secondly I have posted up why its not little children that were killed. You have conveniently ignored that post, which I will quote yet again for I believe the 3rd time.


  Just like you've conveniently ignored, hm:
Deovacus' (sp?) translations in turn
Multiple different Bible versions which translate differently on the matter
Others interpretations using the exact same words

Oh wait, I'm sorry.  You didn't ignore them.  You just up and said "I'm right those are wrong."  My apologies.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God has very few times directly* commanded* the death of people.


If you're going to go back into the bullshit semantics of "Well God said "Drive the people from this Valley," God had no idea that the people would fight them out of the valley and kill some", I swear I'm going to hit a shit-ton of history books to vindicate people like Hitler or the like because of use of words like "Cleanse" instead of kill.  Furthermore, going back to "Omniscience", God would know their reaction to specific words given to them _long before their ancestors would exist_.  If you know an infinite time prior (and after) that "Drive [x] people from the valleys" will lead to your followers killing [x] people, and also know outcomes that will lead to them not being killed, still giving the same words _again knowing the exact outcome_ is direct responsibility.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Secondly as I have stated many times. Blasphemy in the OT was punishable by death.


So again, I return to the hypothetical "If God releases a New New Testament saying all first-borns must be murdered by their parents, lest their parents be damned to hell and the child therein murder their parents [lest they too be damned to hell]" scenario.  In such a case, should God say such, you would find absolutely nothing wrong with all Christian parents world-wide slaying their firstborn children?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is not prone to mood swings.


Oh, then Jesus never got angry in the Temple?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everything he has done was for a specific reason.


 Like damning 2/3 the world's population. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The flood was done because almost everyone turned away from God.


  How very merciful.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I meant why didn't God start all over. As in wipe all of creation out and begin again.


 In such a case, it very well could have?  Such a scenario would by its very nature leave no sign of the old creation?  Furthermore, because God would still know in itself it fucked up, and had to do a clean slate?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Oh. My. Sweet. Fucking. Spaghetti Monster.
> Rukh just 'this'ed my post.
> I thought this day would never come.
> à²¥*ãƒ®*à²¥


 
I know right. I was shocked that I did it to.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm going to post here, interuppting the flow of a thread I have never been involved in, preaching my own religion, one of which is still growing and has several hundred worshippers at this time. The undying belief and undying faith in the Greatest tank of WW2, our machine god, the Russian IS-2.

The truth was first unveiled when our fellow forum member and prophet, 7thGuardsTankDiv created a thread to make us all aware of the greatness of the IS-2. He was betrayed and then permabanned by the evil heretics, the followers of the German heavy tractor; the infamous King Tiger. Before this young prophet, whom of which had only 40 posts was banned, the IS-2 fandom was merely a joke and a fad. After the betrayal which took place 4 years afterwards, the IS-2 comrades saw the real truth in his words and thus started the religion. 

I come to all of you now, to take a moment and seek the real truth, and store your faith in the Iosif Stalin tank.

Click here to experience the story yourself, from the first page of the book of IS-2.

Click here for the facts only, where you will see just a few great artworks that were made in those four years.

May the armor, the gun and the holy rear-mounted machine gun be with you all.

Halleurrah!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Attaman said:


> You've stated yourself that we're imperfect / sinners due to Adam & Eve's actions.  Only a dick would go "Hey buddy, your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather messed up.  You owe me big."  Only an equally dickish person would go "He's got merrit."  Only an even more dickish person would go "Damn son, take his offer - this is merciful!"
> 
> You really don't seem to get certain concepts.  Let me make it clearer for you, using your template of the universe its maker and everything:
> God.  Always there, always has been, always will be.  Immediately foresees everything from that point _up through every single individual consequence that would lead up to this post, and every consequence that will spring therefrom._  God, at that time, is already well aware of what will be accomplished, the number of people being damned to eternal suffering (in a realm that doesn't even exist yet), and so on.
> ...


 
First of all. Jesus cleared the Temple because they turned the House of God into a market. Its the House of God. Jesus destroyed property only. What Jesus did is righteous anger. Jesus had every right to do this, they had defiled His Temple. And again, you need to do some reading on the Trinity. You didn't quote this: _Again, look up what the Trinity is. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The  Godhead 3 in 1. Remember when Jesus was being baptized God called down  from Heaven and said, this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.
_
God has not released anything else to the Bible. Its complete.So I have no idea why your saying well if God added to the New Testament. He won't. The Bible is complete.

And what part of Satan is the opposite of God don't you get? If God is omnipotent, then the opposite would be Satan is not...Derp

We still have the choice to believe. Your acting like God has damned you already. We are born into bondage. we are born into sin. But we have the choice to turn to God, or not.
 His law states that Sinners must be punished, we are bound to his law. Belief in Jesus makes you clean to His Law. Not believing means you are under the Law.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

I am trying to say that _*I*_ am not a great source of information and again as i explained the mysteries of God will be revealed when he chooses to reveal them. So with that in mind I cannot answer that because There are many mysteries that Have yet to be revealed. AND AGAIN I SAY THAT MY CHURCH'S WEBSITE HAS ANSWERS TO MANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS SO LOOK THERE BEFORE CONDEMMING ME FOR NOT KNOWING MY OWN RELIGION LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND BECAUSE I DOUBT ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND EVERY STINK'N LITTLE DETAIL THAT COMES ALONG WITH IT. I am taking church study classes and most people wouldn't be able to answer you anyways even other older members of the LDS church. You take this to the Prophet Thomas S. Monson and he would be able to answer every question you have or seaming contradiction that you could possibly state or ask.

and to Attaman. God is Male. We are not born sinners.
children are exalted in the eyes of God. And Satan has no actual power other than to make those things that are wrong seem right and good. He is not omnipotent and knows nothing about God's plans for mankind.

also Durkh you just proved my point about the Book of Mormon Not being an extension to the Bible by saying that God won't add anything to the New testament, yet here we are with another set of scriptures that Talk about Christ the same way the Bible does.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> its only dumb if you make it dumb



No. There is the distinct possibility that we are furries, aned this thread was predestined to be dumb because we are furries and furries are dumb.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

Okay. @Rukh and @Attaman... Seriously. God is NOT a merciful being when it comes to Sin. There. I said it. He is 100% pure and holy, and as such can have nothing to do with sin or anything other than what is pure and holy like himself. The Bible even says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). If that's not a condemning statement, I don't know what is. God is only able to be merciful because of Jesus and his death on the Cross. While he may not always be merciful. He does love us, or he would have wiped us off the face of the earth 5,999 years ago ;-). If the creation story tells us anything it's that God desires a relationship with his creation. Regardless of what you think about who bit the fruit and who's responsible for what, we can all agree that humans are, at their very core, sinful. If you don't believe me, look at all the frustration and hate on this thread... As such we should then agree (given that God can't have anything to do with sin) that God has a reason from distancing himself from us while still desiring us to come back to him... 

... I dunno. Just my Two Cents...


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> No. There is the distinct possibility that we are furries, aned this thread was predestined to be dumb because we are furries and furries are dumb.



LOL. Agreed.

And a note for the future: ...Amidst a Fundamentalist Christian argument NEVER bring up the word "Predestined"! It only starts another 30 pages of... John Calvin this... and John Calvin that... Seriously. I've been in bible studies where that word was banned.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

I would like to address that joseph smith himself wrote that polygamy was revealed to him by God. So by how is that small sects of Mormonism. Joseph Smith wrote it. Sounds like to me the mormons are re writing their own faith as they go...

Secondly
*1890* President Wilford Woodruff asks Mormons to stop practicing polygamy. The President asked you to stop practicing polygomy, is this why it was dropped from mormonism? 
*1967* The  Original papyri Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham are  rediscovered -- it was found to be the Book of Breathings, a funeral  text. So Smith based an entire faith on a funeral text?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> LOL. Agreed.
> 
> And a note for the future: ...Amidst a Fundamentalist Christian argument NEVER bring up the word "Predestined"! It only starts another 30 pages of... John Calvin this... and John Calvin that... Seriously. I've been in bible studies where that word was banned.


 
there is no such thing as predestination, but God does know the choices we make as he is OMINIPOTENT but still tries to guide our life and show that He loves us.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I would like to address that joseph smith himself wrote that polygamy was revealed to him by God. So by how is that small sects of Mormonism. Joseph Smith wrote it. Sounds like to me the mormons are re writing their own faith as they go...
> 
> Secondly
> *1890* President Wilford Woodruff asks Mormons to stop practicing polygamy. The President asked you to stop practicing polygomy, is this why it was dropped from mormonism?
> *1967* The  Original papyri Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham are  rediscovered -- it was found to be the Book of Breathings, a funeral  text. So Smith based an entire faith on a funeral text?


 
no he did not base an entire religion on funeral text. He did not even truely create this religion. This religion is a RESTORATION of the gospel taught by Jesus Christ while he was on the earth.

also AS I EXPLAINED IT was PLURAL MARRAGE not polygamy. It was given to help the women of the church that could not get a job because in the 1800's to the early 1900's WOMEN could NOT get jobs to earn a living.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> BEFORE CONDEMMING ME FOR NOT KNOWING MY OWN RELIGION LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND


We're not "condemming" you, we're just pointing out how incredibly strange it is to preach about a religion online tat you are not fully informed on. The rest of us do our research, vrify our facts, and debate. We will hold you to the same standards. If you preach the preach you better know what you are preaching about or we will hred through your mistakes.




CrazedPorcupine said:


> God is Male.


I cannot tell you people how damn tired I am of this mysoginistic, male-biased world view catered to the paternal judeo-christian oligarchy. 
*We have not proven the existance or god, therefore we have not proven the existance of god's penis.* Shut up.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> also AS I EXPLAINED IT was PLURAL MARRAGE not polygamy. It was given to help the women of the church that could not get a job because in the 1800's to the early 1900's WOMEN could NOT get jobs to earn a living.


Ok. Seriously. Shut up. If one more person blames women for shit i am going to enact the actions of my sigpic to your face. Do not mitigate the horrible effects of polygamy. It treated women as objects, like breeding cattle. There is no justifying it. Shut up.




PhantomChicken said:


> LOL. Agreed.
> 
> And a note for the future: ...Amidst a Fundamentalist Christian argument NEVER bring up the word "Predestined"! It only starts another 30 pages of... John Calvin this... and John Calvin that... Seriously. I've been in bible studies where that word was banned.


Did you even read this thread? The first 25 pages were on this.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> there is no such thing as predestination, but God does know the choices we make as he is OMINIPOTENT but still tries to guide our life and show that He loves us.


You do know that omiscient and omnipotent are different words right? And "ominiptent" is not a word right?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

to Rukh
go down to the section titled the Book of Mormon and the Bible Compliment each other.
http://www.mormon.org/book-of-mormon/

and also no matter how much research I do it won't be enough to answer every single question that could be thought of.
And God being male has nothing to do with Male superiority, it has been revealed that God is the ETERNAL FATHER of our souls. therefore FATHER = MALE.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> no he did not base an entire religion on funeral text. He did not even truely create this religion. This religion is a RESTORATION of the gospel taught by Jesus Christ while he was on the earth.
> 
> also AS I EXPLAINED IT was PLURAL MARRAGE not polygamy. It was given to help the women of the church that could not get a job because in the 1800's to the early 1900's WOMEN could NOT get jobs to earn a living.


 
So your calling the Bible wrong... Can you explain this then?  2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. The Bible is God Breathed, You say God is perfect, how can the Bible be wrong if God is perfect? Doesn't make any sense, because if the Bible is not perfect, then God isn't perfect, which means Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice which leads to we are all screwed. Mormonism is not Christianity. Sorry but thats the blunt truth. It was made by a man who lived in the 1800s. 

*1862* Polygamy is outlawed in the U.S. Add to the fact that mormonism just keeps changing itself and its doctrine. *1876* First proclamation of polygamy is published in D & C 132.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> And God being male has nothing to do with Male superiority, it has been revealed that God is the ETERNAL FATHER of our souls. therefore FATHER = MALE.



And you realize God being seen as male and Adam being first lead to the horrible treatment of women for thousands of years right? They were regarded as the property of their fathers to be sold or bartered with, and then seen as the property of their husbands. Only as property. Never as people. Why? Because God was male, and gave the earth to his male delegates and women were seen as daughters of Eve or Jezebels. And the Bible is specifc in how a fathers should_ sell_ his daughter.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> to Rukh
> the Book of Mormon and the Bible Compliment each other.


 
The Bible and the book of mormon do not compliment each other. I posted actual moron doctrine that directly contradicts with the Bible.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mainstream Christianity does not condone Mormonism first of all.


 
OK, see, I've tried like hell to stay out of this argument as much as possible, but this one got me. This is my biggest issue with the Abrahamic religions. You all worship the same God, often by the same name, and follow what is basically the same beliefs, yet all I ever hear is "My particular brand of Christianity is right, but this other church which believes exactly the same thing as me but word things a little differently, is wrong and they're all going to hell." Seriously, you're all worshiping the same holy-man-in-the-sky, but you're arguing and condemning each other over a couple of words. Here's something you all share in common: "Judge not, lest you, too, be judged." 

Seriously, people, is it that fucking hard to co-exist? Or, to put it another way...

 WHY IS A RELIGION BASED ON LOVE AND PEACE BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE TO JUDGE AND HATE?

BTW, I'm surprised that no one mentioned the old poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant". I won't put the whole poem on here, as it's kind of long, but I will quote the last verse, as it's pretty similar to my whole view on religion, especially the argument currently going on. 

Here's the whole poem.



> So oft in theologic wars,
> The disputants, I ween,
> Rail on in utter ignorance
> Of what each other mean,
> ...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> OK, see, I've tried like hell to stay out of this argument as much as possible, but this one got me. This is my biggest issue with the Abrahamic religions. You all worship the same God, often by the same name, and follow what is basically the same beliefs, yet all I ever hear is "My particular brand of Christianity is right, but this other church which believes exactly the same thing as me but word things a little differently, is wrong and they're all going to hell." Seriously, you're all worshiping the same holy-man-in-the-sky, but you're arguing and condemning each other over a couple of words. Here's something you all share in common: "Judge not, lest you, too, be judged."
> 
> Seriously, people, is it that fucking hard to co-exist? Or, to put it another way...
> 
> ...





Matthew 7:15 
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

1st John 4:1

                                                       Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see  whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into  the world. 



Romans 16:17-18
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions  and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;  avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their  own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts  of the naive.

2nd John 1:10 
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.

The Bible is very clear on false teachings. Mormonism is not Christianity.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> OK, see, I've tried like hell to stay out of this argument as much as possible, but this one got me. This is my biggest issue with the Abrahamic religions. You all worship the same God, often by the same name, and follow what is basically the same beliefs, yet all I ever hear is "My particular brand of Christianity is right, but this other church which believes exactly the same thing as me but word things a little differently, is wrong and they're all going to hell." Seriously, you're all worshiping the same holy-man-in-the-sky, but you're arguing and condemning each other over a couple of words. Here's something you all share in common: "Judge not, lest you, too, be judged."
> 
> Seriously, people, is it that fucking hard to co-exist? Or, to put it another way...
> 
> ...


 
The LDS Church actually preaches that members of other churches are not condemned. Just that the churches are Incomplete and lack teh authority of God.

And Rukh did you even look at the link
I'm guessing not since you didn't even bother to quote it.
WHAT doctrine have you posted contradicts what is said in the bible. If anything it CLARIFIES it. Most questions asked about the Bible are answered by those doctrinal facts.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 7:15
> Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
> 
> 1st John 4:1
> ...


 
I have to ask you What edition of the Bible are you using, and also How is belief in Christ not being Christian?
Because i'm pretty sure that Mormonism is Christianity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> WHAT doctrine have you posted contradicts what is said in the bible. If anything it CLARIFIES it. Most questions asked about the Bible are answered by those doctrinal facts.


 
I am quoting mormon doctrine here. I have even what doctrine its from and page number.


*Bible*
"We  believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated  correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church).
"Wherefore,  thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the  great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious  things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God,"  (1 Nephi 13:28).
 
*Book of Mormon*
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (_History of the Church_, 4:461).
 
*Devil, the*
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 192).
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 163).
A  plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a  plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus'  plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all  Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 193; _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 8).
 
*God*
God used to be a man on another planet, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 321; Joseph Smith, _Times and Seasons_, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 7, p. 333).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ€™s..." (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God  himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits  enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God  from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so  that you may see," (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345).
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, _First Council of the Seventy_, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
God resides near a star called Kolob, (_Pearl of Great Price_, p. 34-35; _Mormon Doctrine_, p. 428).
God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_,  vol. 4, 1857, p. 218; vol. 8, p. 115). - This one is disputed among  many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed.   Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
"Therefore  we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature  perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and  bones." (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 38).
 
*God, becoming a god*
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345-347, 354.)
"Then  shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be  from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they  be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they  be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto  them," (D&C 132:20).
 
*God, many gods *
There are many gods, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 163).
"And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light," (_Book of Abraham_ 4:3).
 
*God, mother goddess *
There is a mother god, (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 516).
 
*God, Trinity *
The  trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy  Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct  from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine  dealings with man," (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 35).
 
*Gospel, the*
The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.)
Consists  of laws and ordinances: "As these sins are the result of individual  acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on  individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the  laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'" (_Articles of Faith_, p.
 
*Jesus*
The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 129).
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 163; _Gospel Through the Ages_, p. 15).
Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).
"Therefore  we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature  perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and  bones," (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 38).
"The  birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children;  it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was  begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 8, p. 115).
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (_Mormon Doctrine_, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).
"Christ  Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not  born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (_Doctrines of Salvation_, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).
"Elohim  is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the  body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh..." (_First Presidency and Council of the Twelve_, 1916, "God the Father," compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).
 
*Joseph Smith*
*If  it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no  salvation.  There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel  including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).* Really so your doctrine states that only because of Joseph Smith people can be saved. I am pretty sure the reason we can be saved is because of Jesus, not Joseph Smith.
 

All of what is posted contradicts with the Bibles teaching.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I have to ask you What edition of the Bible are you using, and also How is belief in Christ not being Christian?
> Because i'm pretty sure that Mormonism is Christianity.


 
KJV, ESV, NIV, NLV all say the same exact thing.
Mormons Jesus is not the Christian Jesus.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 14, 2010)

Ahem...

"Judge not, lest you, too, be judged."

Seriously, what the fuck is so hard to understand about this?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> Ahem...
> 
> "Judge not, lest you, too, be judged."
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is so hard to understand about this?


 
Matthew 18:15-17  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that  â€˜every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three  witnesses.  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a  tax collector.


And again

Matthew 7:15 
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

1st John 4:1

                                                       Beloved, do not  believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see  whether they are from  God, for many false prophets have gone out into  the world. 



Romans 16:17-18
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions   and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;   avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their   own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts   of the naive.

2nd John 1:10 
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.

Christians are not to listen false teachers, We are to keep our brothers and sister of faith from being led astray and away from God. This is what I am doing. I cannot allow a false teaching to lead fellow Christians astray


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> Ahem...
> 
> "Judge not, lest you, too, be judged."
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is so hard to understand about this?


 
Apparently, worlds.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Okay, first off yes It is through Jesus Christ that we are save but we cannot be babtised without proper authority and until the Restoration that Authority had been lost and thus no one could be saved.
also how is any of that contradictive it adds to the teachings of the Bible and clarifies it.
1. Bible

1. *AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY*
 2. THE GREAT AND ABOMINABLE CHURCH IS THE WORLD WHICH MADE MISSTRANSLATIONS
OVER THE 1500 YEARS OF EXISTANCE
2. BOOK OF MORMON

1. IT IS MORE CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY
3. THE DEVIL

1. the name Lucifer means Child of the morning sun meaning that he was very much loved and was as respected as Christ during the pre-existance
2. We are all Spiritual children to our Heavenly Mother and Father (yes we do believe that there is a heavenly Mother)
3. Satan wanted all glory for himself while Christ said all Glory to the father.
4. God

1. The mysteries and origins of God will be revealed fully when _*HE*_ chooses to reveal them.
5. Becoming a God

1. We all have the ability to be exalted and to become like God, perfect beings with limitless power. God's Name even proves there is not ONE god. (Elohim, which is _plural_)
6. Multiple gods

1. Christ is a God as well as teh Father being God.
7. Mother God

1. What you think that all spirits just came from nothing? Family is important.
8. Trinity

1. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy ghost are one in purpose and seperate in body.
9. The restoration,

1. The apostles during the time of Christ were all killed making it impossible for them to explain and clarify doctrine in the 300's when the Bible was compiled and majority vote was used to determine what was and what wasn't truth.
10. Jesus

1. Your begotten son is Usually Your firstborn or most loved child.
11. Joseph smith

1. look at the beginning of this post.

also you didn't answer my question of what Bible you're using for scripture. and how is Mormanism Jesus different from Christian Jesus?


----------



## GingerM (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 1. This is true. But Mormonism preaches that they are 3 separate gods_(Mormon Doctrine _by Bruce McConkie, p. 319). , which flies in the face of the Trinity and what the Bible says
> 2. Mankind sinned against God.
> 3. This is true.
> 4. Show me where there are supposed to be 2 words of God. The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. Nothing can be added to the Bible.
> ...



I'm glad this came up, actually. Rukh, you're claiming you're correct, and you hold up your holy writings as your authority. CrazedPorcupine likewise believes he is correct and in a similar manner holds up his holy writings as authority. So here's the question, and despite my addressing Rukh directly, it applies to both. How am I, a member of neither faith, supposed to accept either one as authoritative? Whose holy works trump whose? You see the problem, I'm sure - from where I (among many others) sit, there is no external reason to accept one over the other, or indeed, to accept either.

So. Is it possible for the adherents of any faith to provide some kind of support for the claim that their God(s)/Goddess(s) are the Alpha and Omega without appealing to authority _ex cathedra_?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

GingerM said:


> I'm glad this came up, actually. Rukh, you're claiming you're correct, and you hold up your holy writings as your authority. CrazedPorcupine likewise believes he is correct and in a similar manner holds up his holy writings as authority. So here's the question, and despite my addressing Rukh directly, it applies to both. How am I, a member of neither faith, supposed to accept either one as authoritative? Whose holy works trump whose? You see the problem, I'm sure - from where I (among many others) sit, there is no external reason to accept one over the other, or indeed, to accept either.
> 
> So. Is it possible for the adherents of any faith to provide some kind of support for the claim that their God(s)/Goddess(s) are the Alpha and Omega without appealing to authority _ex cathedra_?


 
You do have a valid point on several things. The only thing I can say is do what the Bible says and Ask God with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and ask Him what is true.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Okay, first off yes It is through Jesus Christ that we are save but we cannot be babtised without proper authority and until the Restoration that Authority had been lost and thus no one could be saved.
> also how is any of that contradictive it adds to the teachings of the Bible and clarifies it.
> 1. Bible
> 
> ...


 2 Timothy 3:16-18
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 

All your responses fly in the face of the Bible. You also state there is a mother god. That is not Christianity.

God used to be a man on another planet, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 321; Joseph Smith, _Times and Seasons_, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 7, p. 333). Again show me where in the Bible it says God is a man from another planet.

God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, _First Council of the Seventy_, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105). God is eternal, he has always been. The Bible clearly states this.

God resides near a star called Kolob, (_Pearl of Great Price_, p. 34-35; _Mormon Doctrine_, p. 42. Really so you know where heaven is located then? Thats news to me. 

The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (_Articles of Faith_, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.) The true Gospel has not been lost.
Go here and it will show you that we have complied over 15,000 ancient NT manuscripts. There is nothing lost. http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (_Mormon Doctrine_, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547). John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word is Jesus. He was never born. He always existed.

God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 516). Contradicts what the Bible teaches. The mormon book does not compliment the Bible at all. The Bible said God created everything. There is no mother goddess.

Also we are not beings like Angels are. They are separate entities. The Bible clearly states this. Angels and man are not "Spirit brothers"

I can use any translation of the Bible, all say the same thing. Its just worded differently. Mormonism is not Christianity, sorry.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

GingerM said:


> I'm glad this came up, actually. Rukh, you're claiming you're correct, and you hold up your holy writings as your authority. CrazedPorcupine likewise believes he is correct and in a similar manner holds up his holy writings as authority. So here's the question, and despite my addressing Rukh directly, it applies to both. How am I, a member of neither faith, supposed to accept either one as authoritative? Whose holy works trump whose? You see the problem, I'm sure - from where I (among many others) sit, there is no external reason to accept one over the other, or indeed, to accept either.
> 
> So. Is it possible for the adherents of any faith to provide some kind of support for the claim that their God(s)/Goddess(s) are the Alpha and Omega without appealing to authority _ex cathedra_?


 
Mormoms claim that their book is a companion to the Bible, it is not. It contradicts the Bible everywhere. The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. To contradict that is a false teaching.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 14, 2010)

GingerM said:


> I'm glad this came up, actually. Rukh, you're claiming you're correct, and you hold up your holy writings as your authority. CrazedPorcupine likewise believes he is correct and in a similar manner holds up his holy writings as authority. So here's the question, and despite my addressing Rukh directly, it applies to both. How am I, a member of neither faith, supposed to accept either one as authoritative? Whose holy works trump whose? You see the problem, I'm sure - from where I (among many others) sit, there is no external reason to accept one over the other, or indeed, to accept either.
> 
> So. Is it possible for the adherents of any faith to provide some kind of support for the claim that their God(s)/Goddess(s) are the Alpha and Omega without appealing to authority _ex cathedra_?



This is especially ironic given that Mormons are to Christianity, as Christianity is to Judaism. Both followed a guy who claimed to be sent by god and following said person is vital to your salvation, (Jesus/Joseph) both made up completely new stuff about the afterlife (Christians added Heaven/Hell, Mormons added things like Spirit Prison/the governing star Kolob.), both added a new  book (Book of Mormon/New Testament), both had religious reasons from the previous group to not be followed, ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me." and then Jesus said he had to come before God. And Christians go nuts over people adding to the bible, despite it having happened a lot in the past.) and neither make any sense.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mormoms claim that their book is a companion to the Bible, it is not. It contradicts the Bible everywhere. The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. To contradict that is a false teaching.


 
Dude, Rukh, the bible contradicts the bible. It can't even agree when Jesus was crucified.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2 Timothy 3:16-1*7*
> *All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of god may be perfect, throughly funished unto all good works. *


 
as I said Misstranslations cause missinterpretations therefore all compliations will end up ruined, mistranslated, and worthless until correct translation happens.

the scripture i used is the one in the King James Bible which is the Primary source for Bible doctrine for teh LDS church. so I corrected your quote to have it a bit clearer.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, a better source of information? I have direct sources from *Moron* Doctrine. I have sourced *exact verses from your doctrine.* Are you suggesting that your own doctrine is not correct?



and



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible and the book of mormon do not compliment each other. I posted actual *moron* doctrine that directly contradicts with the Bible.



I really hope those are typos, Rukh. Maybe you could offer CrazedPorcupine an apology for inadvertently insulting his faith? And while you're at it, would it kill you to put caps on "Book of Mormon" to at least respect the holy book of another faith? I'm assuming you wouldn't think of talking about "the koran" or calling the followers of Islam "muslins", right?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God has not released anything else to the Bible. Its complete.So I have no idea why your saying well if God added to the New Testament. He won't. The Bible is complete.



This I find interesting. According to Christian belief, God became flesh in the form of Jesus Christ, yes? Becoming flesh, he - or a portion of him - thus became part of the flow of temporal existance on earth. Thus, the events of the New Testament happen after the events of the Old Testament. I'm quite certain the Hewbrews believed what we call the Old Testament to be complete and sufficient; in fact, they still do, because one element of the Jewish faith is that they are still waiting for the Messiah, yes? You, however, disagree, holding up the New Testament as proof that God had more to say, so to speak.

All well and good, and now here's the kicker. How do you know God didn't have more to say again in the 1800s? How do you know he did or didn't say it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al.? They say the Book of Mormon is also the word of God, adding onto the New Testament; you say it isn't. How do you know?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> KJV, ESV, NIV, NLV all say the same exact thing.
> Mormons Jesus is not the Christian Jesus.



Again, I'd like to know how you expect any of the versions of the Bible to address the Mormon faith since the Bible predates Mormon?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mormoms claim that their book is a  companion to the Bible, it is not. It contradicts the Bible everywhere.  The Bible clearly states that it alone is the Word of God. To contradict  that is a false teaching.


 
So in other words, there's no external reason to accept the Bible over  the Book of Mormon. The only source of authority, from your POV, is the  Bible and (presumably) the Book of Mormon is CrazedPorcupine's source of  authority.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> 2. BOOK OF MORMON 1. IT IS MORE CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY


 
No. The book of moron's translation has never been verified and was written under sketchy circumstances.
Also, stop the copypasta. It is stealing the intellectual property of others. NO STEALING, STEALING IS A SIN. 

That being said, this is the first time I think where we have had one religion debate another rather than the non-religious vs. one specific religion. I love it.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

actually the only reason why teh Book of Mormon never got a certificate of Official translation is when text was taken to an official linguist the linguist asked where the translation came from then ripped up the certificate he had written when he heard that God had revealed it to Joseph Smith and procedded to rant that God never revealed anything anymore.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> actually the only reason why teh Book of Mormon never got a certificate of Official translation is when text was taken to an official linguist the linguist asked where the translation came from then ripped up the certificate he had written when he heard that God had revealed it to Joseph Smith and procedded to rant that God never revealed anything anymore.


 
Bullshit. 
Why? Where is the name of the linguist? In what year? I smell ultimate bullshit.
The book was "written" by one man who never showed it to anyone. Later it was rewritten and passed around as a prophet's (Joseph Smith) revelation of God's word. This has not been verified either. Add to it the newpaper articles of the time, written journals by other locals, and it lays out the picture of Joseph Smith as the predescessor of Jim Jones. It can't be verfied as it was a hoax orchestrated by Smith to garter control and power. And like some cults, after his death he became a legend and the cult snowballed.

Read the Smithsonian Institution's statement regarding the Book of Mormon:
http://irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html

The National Geographic Society, in a 1998 letter to the Institute for Religious Research, stated "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." http://irr.org/mit/national-geographic.html

Also, wikipedia is shit, but it's a good way to find better sources that are cited throughout their articles. As such it is a decent start point to a much deeper research investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

64 I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him. 65 He then said to me, 'Let me see that certificate.' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.(Joseph Smith History 1:64â€“65).

here you go.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> God has very few times directly* commanded* the death of people.  Secondly as I have stated many times. Blasphemy in the OT was punishable  by death. It was strictly forbidden to blaspheme against God. God is  not prone to mood swings. Everything he has done was for a specific  reason. The flood was done because almost everyone turned away from God.  The expection being Noah and his family.


Doesn't that go against free will? The whole world turned against God (something they have every right to do seeing free will and all) so God got all bitchy and offed them. That's cool. Well, not really. It kinda makes God an asshole.

Lulz @ the Mormon vs Christian shitflinging contest. It's so awesome!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

*Joseph Smith said that God was not always God.*
â€œWe  have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will  refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are  incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. _It is the  first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of  God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with  another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father  of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I  will show it from the Bibleâ€_ (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, pp.345-346. Italics in original).
*
Joseph Smith said there are many gods. *
 "Hence, the  doctrine of a  plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any  other doctrine. It is all  over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says  there are Gods many and Lords many .  . . but to us there is but one  God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all  and through all," (_History of the Church_,  vol. 6, p. 474). "In the  beginning, the head of the Gods called a  council of the Gods; and they came  together and concocted a plan to  create the world and people it," (_Journal of  Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 5).


*Joseph Smith said God was once a man. *
 "God himself  was once as we  are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in  yonder heavens...I say, if  you were to see him to-day, you would see  him like a man in form -- like  yourselves, in all the person, image,  and very form as a man....it is necessary  that we should understand the  character and being of God, and how he came to be  so; for I am going  to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and  supposed that  God was God from all eternity,  I will refute that idea, and will  take  away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a   man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an  earth the  same as Jesus Christ himself did." (_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p.  3).

*Joseph Smith said our greatest responsibility is to seek after our dead. *
 "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us  is to seek after our dead," (_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 7).

The Christians greatest commandment is love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul. And our main responsibility is the Great Commission.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Jesus Christ is often refered to as God. shoving 2 of those down the drain and our greatest responsibility is not the same as the greatest commandment.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Dear Diary,
> Some day I hope to widely publish and promote my world views. Today I went to a man to ask him to give my cult validation. He refused. Dear Diary i am diassapoint and most butthurt over the ordeal. (Joseph Smith History 1:64â€“65)


 
I still call bullshit. Read the statements from the Smithsonian and from National Geographic.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Jesus Christ is often refered to as God. shoving 2 of those down the drain and our greatest responsibility is not the same as the greatest commandment.


 
WTF does this mean? I can't read this broken sentence structure.


----------



## Jude (Nov 14, 2010)

I called this! Three pages ago, I believe.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Jesus Christ is often refered to as God. shoving 2 of those down the drain and our greatest responsibility is not the same as the greatest commandment.


 
You forgot this. 





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And our main responsibility is the Great Commission.


Christ is referred to as God because He is a Trinity. 

Mormonism goes against every Christian denomination. It is a cult. 

God takes false prophets very seriously. Deuteronomy 13:1-3  says, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he  preached rebellion against the LORD your God...; he has tried to turn  you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must  purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 18:19-21  says, "If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in  my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes  to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a  prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death..."  And Galatians 1:8-9  says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel  other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!  As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to  you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally  condemned!"


Funny thing is, Is Joseph Smith and his Brother *were* killed.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 14, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> This Looks Fun!
> 
> So! Religion. Yeah. It's great for arguing about, tearing each other to shreds and creating divides in groups of otherwise civil people!!! So I'll give this my best shot, and I'll keep it simple.
> 
> ...


 

Oh boy, another Christian with a fairly different perspective on things!

Why is there only one way? One way to what? To heaven? You can go your own way, I like my way very much, because my way actually exists at the end of the rainbow :v

From...what the Bible tells us...and no other text, ever, in the history of mankind does. Except for the parts that the Bible stole from things like the Book of the Dead. 

God made us perfect, in what way? Looking upon the human body, it is far from perfect, and not only that, but highly susceptable to an extremely wide variety of problems. Sure, we're relatively unique, but that's not perfection, just difference.

He gave us free will, to make (in Gods' eyes) some very piss poor decisions WHICH WE DO RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO, according to the bible. He willed us to do wrong, under his watchful eyes, and WE take all the slack for it. It's hard to love a dude that created us, and allowed us to do him wrong, because every other human to come into existence will be considered impure - That's a dick move.

I like those laws, because they teach you how to be a hairy, murderous prick (despite saying you shouldn't kill others); that can't eat certain things, can't work on certain days (and should be put to death if you do), and should dress in certain ways. Although I do like the part about sacrificing an innocent animal in place of sins. 

Still not 100% sure on the whole Jesus thing, let alone the whole Nazi-Jesus thing (why 3 days anyhow?). Though not sure how him (if he ever existed) dying showed our victory over death. 

It's a "free gift" that's there for the taking, but if you don't take it, you'll be burned eternally. There is an inherent threat of not just violence, but an extreme amount of unnecessary violence towards those who are never offered this "free gift", or those who refuse to take it. 

Oh my, you believe the Bible is 100% true, there's a shocker. Though your example that there were "fan-fiction"-style writers that should be ignored (yet you can't prove what bible you hold to be truthful today is NOT one of these books) makes a very piss-poor argument, that wouldn't even convince the believers. Although I am glad to see the bible is 100% true, but not the original KJV? We should ignore that version, because it wasn't 100% true? So, again, what makes your bible 100% true :v?

There may not be differences in translating the original Hebrew & Greek scripts, but the actual translator putting it into mass-proudced text has been shown more than once to flub a few vital details (see Mayfurr's post a few pages back). Who's to say some of the details aren't flubbed :v? I'm not pointing these out to be obtuse, these are rather important potential problems. 

Your take on Creation vs. Evolution is cute though :3 God hasn't ever proven himself, but he can do things that blow our mind! Except prove he exists. 

I guess I can't really take you on NT vs. OT, since you seem to believe the whole thing - So yeah, have at it with the homosexicals :v


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Funny thing is, Is Joseph Smith and his Brother *were* killed.



Ok, Rukh too far. The death of another human being is never "funny". This seems to be a continual universal problem in religious texts is that death (due to war, genocide, infanticide, wife beating, slave beating, etc) is ignored or mitigated by modern believers. The death of a person is sad, and the murder of a person (by god, commanded by god, in the name of god) is never under any cirumstances justifiable.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

but here's the thing 
Joseph and Hyrum Smith *were* killed but all he preached was to come unto God and nothing against the Bible. and I would like to know what edition of the Bible you are using because I use the KJV of the Bible. so your scriptures will be slightly different if not using the KJV Bible.


> Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God...; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 18:19-21 says, "If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death..." And Galatians 1:8-9 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"



KJV:


> Deuteronomy 13: 1-3: If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou has not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: For the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether y love the LORD your God with all your hear and with all your soul.
> Deuteronomy 18: 19-22: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die, And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
> Galations 1: 8-9: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.



the false prophets are ones that teach doctrine that has not been taught before shall be cursed. if by your standards of false prophets are the ones we go by then that means that every apostle during the time of Christ that led the church were False Prophets because they were killed.

Joseph Smith taught doctrine in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon with modern day revelation that did come to pass.

Joseph Smith sealed the Truthfulness of the gospel with his own blood.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Ok, Rukh too far. The death of another human being is never "funny". This seems to be a continual universal problem in religious texts is that death (due to war, genocide, infanticide, wife beating, slave beating, etc) is ignored or mitigated by modern believers. The death of a person is sad, and the murder of a person (by god, commanded by god, in the name of god) is never under any cirumstances justifiable.


 
Not what I meant. What I was talking about is God says "But a prophet who presumes  to speak in my name anything I have not  commanded him to say, or a  prophet who speaks in the name of other  gods, must be put to death."

And Joseph Smith did die.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I still call bullshit. Read the statements from the Smithsonian and from National Geographic.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does this mean? I can't read this broken sentence structure.


 
so text from an AUTOBIOGRAPHY is not valid truthful information? while second party source is? how does that work?

also did you even read my scriptural reference that helps define what a false prophet is?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons,  teaches that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he  became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that  planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and  that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.  These spirit offspring,  which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me,  are all brothers and  sisters born in the preexistence.  The preexistence spirits come down  and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the  preexistence are lost at the time.  Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who  pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon  temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and  are then able to start the procedure over again.

If you were to go to any Christian bookstore and look in the  non-Christian cult section you will see numerous books on Mormonism that  document Mormon beliefs as aberrant and un-Biblical. The Mormon Church  is not considered a Christian church.
 This is not simply an  opinion that they are false; it is a fact that they teach abberant and  unchristian theology.  In fact, Jesus warned us about such groups when  he said in Matthew 24:24  that in the last days many false Christs and false prophets will arise  and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false  prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things.
 The Bible  does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a  goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and  definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds  by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith  was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called  "true" Christian faith:  god from another world, becoming gods, goddess  mother, etc. Of course, the Mormon Church's claim is not true.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> so text from an AUTOBIOGRAPHY is not valid truthful information? while second party source is? how does that work?
> 
> also did you even read my scriptural reference that helps define what a false prophet is?


 
It works because people lie (especially about themselves) and the "second party sources" the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society are unbiased.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons,  teaches that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he  became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that  planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and  that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.  These spirit offspring,  which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me,  are all brothers and  sisters born in the preexistence.  The preexistence spirits come down  and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the  preexistence are lost at the time.  Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who  pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon *churches*, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and  are then able to start the procedure over again.
> 
> If you were to go to any Christian bookstore and look in the  non-Christian cult section you will see numerous books on Mormonism that  document Mormon beliefs as aberrant and un-Biblical. The Mormon Church  is not considered a Christian church.
> This is not simply an  opinion that they are false; it is a fact that they teach abberant and  unchristian theology.  In fact, Jesus warned us about such groups when  he said in Matthew 24:24  that in the last days many false Christs and false prophets will arise  and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false  prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things.
> The Bible  does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a  goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and  definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds  by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith  was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called  "true" Christian faith:  god from another world, becoming gods, goddess  mother, etc. Of course, the Mormon Church's claim is not true.


 
but yes you summed up a very convincing argument that is full of contradictions in the second part. You also left out a lot of important details about church history.
and here is KJV of Matthew 24:24


> Matt 24:24; For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if _it were_ possible, they shall decieve the very elect.


Joseph smith even retranslated all of Matthew chapter 24 Go read it because I don't have time to type out all 54 verses.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 14, 2010)

Yeah, Rukh, we get it. Mormon theology rivals Scientology in its weirdness. But come on, is a virgin birth or a talking snake or fitting tens of thousands of animals on a boat more sinkable than the Titanic more plausible?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Everything has a Bias. Bias is an opinion of something that is created as soon as you look at any information. Joseph Smith wrote that short amount of His autobiography to clear up confusion about the history of the church. I would like to challenge anyone to read the Book of Mormon that has read or believes the Bible to go and Pray to God with sincere intent if the Book of Mormon is true after reading it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

To further Deos point.

it was on July 3, 1835 when Michael Chandler "came to Kirtland (OH)  to exhibit some Egyptian mummies." According to the record, "There were  four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus  covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices." Chandler's display so  intrigued the Mormons living in Kirtland that they told the traveling  showman how their prophet, Joseph Smith, had the ability to translate  the papyri. When Smith was shown the ancient writing, he claimed that he could  translate them and proceeded to give Chandler a brief interpretation.  Page 235 states that, for this service, Chandler gave Smith a  "certificate" which said in part:This is to make known to all who may 	be desirous,  concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in 	deciphering the  ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my 	possession, which I  have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most 	learned; and, from the  information that I could ever learn, or meet 	with, I find that of Mr.  Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most 	minute matters.
  How Chandler could make such a statement is a mystery since he was  not an expert in this field. The fact is, there was nobody in the United  States who at this time could claim to have expertise in the  translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Rosetta Stone, which was  instrumental in allowing scholars to decipher the hieroglyphics, had  only been recently found (1799) and whatever few "experts" there were in  the Egyptian language resided in Europe.

In time more and more men would become familiar with the Egyptian  language. In 1912 Smith's translation would be called into serious  question by an Episcopalian Bishop named F.S. Spaulding. Spaulding  published a 31-page booklet entitled "Joseph Smith, Jun., As a  Translator." In it he included the findings of 8 scholars   who had examined the "facsimiles" or drawings which are found in the  Book of Abraham. All concluded that Smith's translation was erroneous.  The Mormons responded by soliciting the services of a man named J.C.  Homans who wrote under the assumed name of "Dr. Robert C. Webb, Ph.D."  Homans was neither an Egyptologist nor did he hold a doctorate degree.  Although his arguments failed to convince the learned, they were enough  to appease the faithful Latter-day Saint, so "testimony" once again  reigned over fact.

n 1967 interest in the Book of Abraham again surfaced when the papyri  Smith used in 1835 were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New  York. They were eventually given back to the LDS Church. One would think  that, if Joseph Smith were indeed a prophet who was inspired by God to  translate the Book of Abraham, this would have been the perfect  opportunity to have proved it. However, this was not to be the case.  Experts once again proved Smith's translation was incorrect. Not only  was Smith's translation bogus, but he completely missed the time period  in which the papyri were written. Smith claimed his papyri were written  by Abraham around 4,000 years ago; however, *experts agree that the  papyri go back only as far as the time of Christ.* *Whereas Smith claimed his papyri told the story of Abraham's  adventures in Egypt, the experts concur that what Smith had in his  possession was nothing more than a portion of a funerary text known as  the Book of Breathings, a condensed version of the Book of Dead.*


----------



## Lobar (Nov 14, 2010)

At this point I'm kind of curious again about Rukh's feelings on apocryphal books.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Conker said:


> Doesn't that go against free will? The whole world turned against God (something they have every right to do seeing free will and all) so God got all bitchy and offed them. That's cool. Well, not really. It kinda makes God an asshole.


 I kinda wish this would get addressed. I thought it was a pretty valid point about the free will thing :\


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Everything has a Bias. Bias is an opinion of something that is created as soon as you look at any information. Joseph Smith wrote that short amount of His autobiography to clear up confusion about the history of the church.


In which he was stolidly invested. Yeah he had a lot of reasons to promote it as true. He was very biased. However I doubt you reas the statements  posted in those links. Otherwise you may have addressed their points. The sources I mentioned were not as biased as Smith, and since you didn't bother to read them, not as biased as yourself.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I would like to challenge anyone to read the Book of Mormon that has read or believes the Bible to go and Pray to God with sincere intent if the Book of Mormon is true after reading it.


Ok. I did read the bible, but I've only read portions of the book of moron and I couldn't stomach anymore. Now, why after readiong those would I have to go pray to god? Or are you insinuating that atheists never read holy books? Have you read your whole bible and book of mormon? If not, then why tell us to read something that you have not?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

if you did a bit of research you would find that Joseph Smith possibly created a code. He did not translate the Papyri directly. he didn't even try to Translate the Egyptian. Joseph Smith actually created a Code from the paper. The transcribing of the Papyri is actually different than the actual Papyri.

I have read the entire Book of Mormon twice and have studied the Book of Mormon and New Testament in gospel studies class. I have a personal testimony that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. I know that if you ask God with sincere intent he will answer it. I know, not believe, that Christ is indeed the Savior of mankind. I know that I am human and prone to mistakes but with His help I can overcome them and receive forgiveness of my sins. I know that Joseph Smith sealed the truthfulness of this church with the blood that was shed in Carthage Jail while falsely imprisoned. Nothing will shake me from my faith with Christ as its foundation. I know these things to be true both from personal prayer and being touched by the Holy Spirit while in both Carthage Jail and while doing sacred Temple Odinances. I say these things in the name of Christ, whose name all things are done in. Amen.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Lobar said:


> At this point I'm kind of curious again about Rukh's feelings on apocryphal books.


 1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the  Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various  allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no  authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written,"  or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to  the pseudepigrapha (literally â€œfalse writingsâ€) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34),  but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman  Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old  Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35)  and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or  "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as  inspired by God. 

2.  Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as  Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture,  â€œFrom the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).â€
 Abel  was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis,  while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.  In the  Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was  Chronicles.  They contained all of the same books as the standard 39  books accepted by Christians today, but they were just arranged  differently.  For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through  Malachi) were contained in one book.  This is why there are only 24  books in the Hebrew Bible today.  By Jesus referring to Abel and  Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures  which included the same 39 books as Christians accept today.   Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> if you did a bit of research you would find that Joseph Smith possibly created a code. He did not translate the Papyri directly. he didn't even try to Translate the Egyptian. Joseph Smith actually created a Code from the paper. The transcribing of the Papyri is actually different than the actual Papyri.


 
Please explain how he somehow translated the papyri. What does mormonism say?


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Everything I know about the Mormons I learned from South Park. I think that's an unbiased enough source where I won't feel guilty calling them all batshit crazy :V

Also, I totally know how life on Earth started and it allows for God and Science! 

See, God got really drunk one day and went over to his secretary with his dick out. He's like "touch it for it wants your holy" and she was like "EW PUT THAT THING AWAY" and in his stupor he splooged all over the Earth. This massive amount of celestial jizz mixed in with the chemicals floating around primordial earth and single celled organisms were born! Evolution begins. Then God had to take a sexual harassment class and is now forced to watch over his drunken accident. It's his way of paying child support.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I have read the entire Book of Mormon twice and have studied the Book of Mormon and New Testament in gospel studies class. I have a personal testimony that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. I know that if you ask God with sincere intent he will answer it. I know, not believe, that Christ is indeed the Savior of mankind. I know that I am human and prone to mistakes but with His help I can overcome them and receive forgiveness of my sins. I know that Joseph Smith sealed the truthfulness of this church with the blood that was shed in Carthage Jail while falsely imprisoned. Nothing will shake me from my faith with Christ as its foundation. I know these things to be true both from personal prayer and being touched by the Holy Spirit while in both Carthage Jail and while doing sacred Temple Odinances. I say these things in the name of Christ, whose name all things are done in. Amen.


 
Romans 1:16
*For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto the salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek*

I will not tolerate my Faith being completely thrashed about by those whose heart has been taken by Satan, who doth confound the wise and the learned.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I will not tolerate my Faith being completely thrashed about by those whose heart has been taken by Satan, who doth confound the wise and the learned.


 I laughed out loud at the irony :V


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

I claim not to be wise nor fully learned in the knowledge of my faith, as that knowledge comes from a lifetime of study and research.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

I don't think we've ever had a Christian vs. Christian argument that ever deadlocked in each saying the one was a follower of Christ and the other was not.  That's got to be a first for FAF.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Romans 1:16
> *For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto the salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek*
> 
> I will not tolerate my Faith being completely thrashed about by those whose heart has been taken by Satan, who doth confound the wise and the learned.


 
The Bible alone clearly indicates that it is the only source for God's Word. There is no companion books to the Bible. It stand alone. You will not find the book of mormons in a Christian book store next to the Bible. You find it in the cult section in the store.

*Wait, you said the Bible was mistranlated and the book of mormon is more accurate. So why do you quote Bible verses then?*
I follow Jesus Christ. And only Jesus Christ. You follow the teachings of a man who "translated" a Papyri using a stone and a hat...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I don't think we've ever had a Christian vs. Christian argument that ever deadlocked in each saying the one was a follower of Christ and the other was not.  That's got to be a first for FAF.


 
mormonism is not Christianity. You can do the research and clearly see that the Christian Church condemns mormonism.


----------



## Willow (Nov 14, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I don't think we've ever had a Christian vs. Christian argument that ever deadlocked in each saying the one was a follower of Christ and the other was not.  That's got to be a first for FAF.


This day shall go down in history. Also, today Rukh and Deo found a common enemy of sorts. yey.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> mormonism is not Christianity. You can do the research and clearly see that the Christian Church condemns mormonism.


 
You missed the message.  You're saying that their way is false, and they're saying that your way is false.  The message is the depressingly amusing fact that each of you believe the *exact* same thing: that the other is wrong.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> mormonism is not Christianity. You can do the research and clearly see that the Christian Church condemns mormonism.


 
Really
so the Fact that OUR NAME IS THE CHURCH OF *JESUS CHRIST* LATTER DAY SAINTS means nothing? The fact that we worship Christ means nothing? And the United States condemned Mormonism for about 70 years during the Growth of the Church. The fact that we Have over 13 Million members scattered through EVERY FREAKIN' COUNTRY on Earth means nothing? the Fact that we are the only church that never varies from place to place Country to country means nothing? yeah good luck finding any other religion that is just like that.

AND HE DIDN'T TRANSLATE THAT PAPYRI USING STONES AND A HAT.
THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS TRANSLATED FROM MEANS YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TROLL DETERMINED TO GET ME ANGRY.
also I quote Bible verses that have been shown to be translated correctly.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible alone clearly indicates that it is the only source for God's Word. There is no companion books to the Bible. It stand alone. You will not find the book of mormons in a Christian book store next to the Bible. You find it in the cult section in the store.


 If you look up the definition of "cult," it applies to Christianity :V Just sayin. 

"a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Really
> so the Fact that OUR NAME IS THE CHURCH OF *JESUS CHRIST* LATTER DAY SAINTS means nothing? The fact that we worship Christ means nothing? And the United States condemned Mormonism for about 70 years during the Growth of the Church. The fact that we Have over 13 Million members scattered through EVERY FREAKIN' COUNTRY on Earth means nothing? the Fact that we are the only church that never varies from place to place Country to country means nothing? yeah good luck finding any other religion that is just like that.



Yes it means nothing because you don't believe the Bible is 100% correct. You believe another book is somehow more accurate. And it was translated by a guy using a small stone and a hat...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible alone clearly indicates that it  is the only source for God's Word. There is no companion books to the  Bible. It stand alone. You will not find the book of mormons in a  Christian book store next to the Bible. You find it in the cult section  in the store.
> 
> *Wait, you said the Bible was mistranslated and the book of mormon is more accurate. So why do you quote Bible verses then?*
> I  follow Jesus Christ. And only Jesus Christ. You follow the teachings of  a man who "translated" a Papyri using a stone and a hat...


 
Please answer my question.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

I did answer your question. I use verses that have been shown to translated correctly.

so just because we KNOW that the Bible is slightly erronous means that we aren't Christians?


----------



## GingerM (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible alone clearly indicates that it is the only source for God's Word. There is no companion books to the Bible. It stand alone. You will not find the book of mormons in a Christian book store next to the Bible. You find it in the cult section in the store.



And similarly in a Hebrew bookstore, you will not find the Bible; you will find the Tanakh. Jews do not believe the New Testament is the Word of God, and will just as fervently tell you you're wrong. So from the outside, why should I believe you - that the New Testament is basically "more from God", while you refuse to accept that the Book of Mormon may be "even more from God"?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Wait, you said the Bible was mistranlated and the book or mormon is more accurate. So why do you quote Bible verses then?*
> I follow Jesus Christ. And only Jesus Christ. You follow the teachings of a man who "translated" a Papyri using a stone and a hat...



Again, from the outside - a stone and a hat is inherently more ridiculous than a burning bush?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Willow said:


> Also, today Rukh and Deo found a common enemy of sorts.


 
And the Earth trembled at this.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

GingerM said:


> And similarly in a Hebrew bookstore, you will not find the Bible; you will find the Tanakh. Jews do not believe the New Testament is the Word of God, and will just as fervently tell you you're wrong. So from the outside, why should I believe you - that the New Testament is basically "more from God", while you refuse to accept that the Book of Mormon may be "even more from God"?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, from the outside - a stone and a hat is inherently more ridiculous than a burning bush?


 


All good points


----------



## Willow (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Really
> so the Fact that OUR NAME IS THE CHURCH OF *JESUS CHRIST* LATTER DAY SAINTS means nothing? The fact that we worship Christ means nothing? And the United States condemned Mormonism for about 70 years during the Growth of the Church. The fact that we Have over 13 Million members scattered through EVERY FREAKIN' COUNTRY on Earth means nothing? the Fact that we are the only church that never varies from place to place Country to country means nothing? yeah good luck finding any other religion that is just like that.


If I'm not mistaken, Judaism and Christianity are two totally different religions that share basic principles. Or something like that, but they both worship Jesus. Or God rather. Rukh, clarify this, I'm not a religious buff for a reason. 



> THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS TRANSLATED FROM MEANS YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TROLL DETERMINED TO GET ME ANGRY.


Hahaha, funny.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I will not tolerate my Faith being completely thrashed about by those whose heart has been taken by Satan, who doth confound the wise and the learned.


One, people are not "thrashing" your faith. We are only pointing out some of it's more obvious flaws. Also, claiming that your opponent's heart has been taken by Satan is a bad debate style. It's just fucking ridiculous. 'You don't agree with me therefore your heart has been taken by Satan.' That's a non sequitur ad hominem. And calling us confounders of the wise and lesarned not only is another ad hominem, but it also infers that you are representing yourself as wise and learned. 

So you read the book of moron twice and since you didn't mention reading the bible, I'm going to assume you have not. I read the bible twice and parts of your book of moron. Are e tied as far as being "wise and learned" or is there an inconsistant double standard on wise here?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

GingerM said:


> And similarly in a Hebrew bookstore, you will not find the Bible; you will find the Tanakh. Jews do not believe the New Testament is the Word of God, and will just as fervently tell you you're wrong. So from the outside, why should I believe you - that the New Testament is basically "more from God", while you refuse to accept that the Book of Mormon may be "even more from God"?



Because it is stated in the Bible, that it is the measuring tool to use against anyone who proclaims God. And the mormon doctrine does not line up with the Bible.It is stated that we are not to belief anything that doesn't line up with the Scriptures. And mormon doctrine does not line up with the Bible. It says the Bible is wrong and its book is more accurate.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Must I say
LDS ARTICLE OF FAITH NUMBER 8
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Willow said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Judaism and Christianity are two totally different religions that share basic principles. Or something like that, but they both worship Jesus. Or God rather. Rukh, clarify this, I'm not a religious buff for a reason.



Judiasm does not believe that the Messiah has come yet. Christianity states that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. This is the difference.


Willow said:


> Hahaha, funny.


 Funny part is, I do know what the book of mormon was translated from.
The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, claimed an angel named  Moroni visited him in September of 1823. This heavenly messenger is  reported to have told him about gold plates that contained a record of  "former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they  sprang." The plates were said to contain "the fullness of the everlasting  Gospel" as it was "delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants."  In order to translate the language contained on the plates (a language  called "Reformed Egyptian"), two stones in silver bows, called the Urim  and Thummim, were included with the plates (Joseph Smith History  1:34,35). According to Smith's testimony, four more years went by before  the angel allowed him to retrieve the gold plates.

Those plates were dug up in New York...


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Must I say
> LDS ARTICLE OF FAITH NUMBER 8
> We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


 And Rukh (and Christianity) believe differently. You aren't going to convince him otherwise though. 

But do keep debating. It's more fun than looking for scholarly articles on poetry.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

From now on I will just star pointing out and uderlining the fallacies you present to try and make your argument. However fallacies do not prove an argument only flaw it.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> The fact that we Have over 13 Million members scattered through EVERY FREAKIN' COUNTRY on Earth means nothing?


Ad populum. 




CrazedPorcupine said:


> the Fact that we are the only church that never varies from place to place Country to country means nothing?


Wait so the FLDS and the LDS never vary? Special pleading, ad hoc reasoning.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TROLL DETERMINED TO GET ME ANGRY.


LOL. U DUN AGREE WIFF ME UR A TROLL! Ad hominem.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

Willow said:


> Also, today Rukh and Deo found a common enemy of sorts.


Dear Diary FAF,
Today something strange happened...


----------



## Willow (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Judiasm does not believe that the Messiah has come yet. Christianity states that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. This is the difference.


There we go. The only time I ever really studied religion was last year in school, but it was Islam and Hinduism. And well, Catholicism but this was because I was taking a medieval class. So yea.  



> Funny part is, I do know what the book of mormon was translated from.
> The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, claimed an angel named  Moroni visited him in September of 1823. This heavenly messenger is  reported to have told him about gold plates that contained a record of  "former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they  sprang." The plates were said to contain "the fullness of the everlasting  Gospel" as it was "delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants."  In order to translate the language contained on the plates (a language  called "Reformed Egyptian"), two stones in silver bows, called the Urim  and Thummim, were included with the plates (Joseph Smith History  1:34,35). According to Smith's testimony, four more years went by before  the angel allowed him to retrieve the gold plates.
> 
> Those plates were dug up in New York...


Oh dear. What?



Conker said:


> But do keep debating. It's more fun than looking for scholarly articles on poetry.


This. Only I'm supposed to be reading _To Kill a Mockingbird_. >.>


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Willow said:


> There we go. The only time I ever really studied religion was last year in school, but it was Islam and Hinduism. And well, Catholicism but this was because I was taking a medieval class. So yea.


 
If you ever need to ask someone about Buddhism, talk to me.

Or Catholicism. I was forced to be Catholic for a few years.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

how many times do I have to say this be for you get it through your thick skulls


THE LDS AND THE FLDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER OTHER THAN ORIGINS. THE LDS CHURCH OPPOSES ALL POLYGAMY

Rukh what version of the Bible are you using? Please answer the question.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Must I say
> LDS ARTICLE OF FAITH NUMBER 8
> We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


 
The Bible has been translated correctly, It clearly states that it is the measuring tool to use against anyone who prophesies about God. your mormon doctrine contradicts the Bibles teachings (Yes this includes the King James Version) 
Case in point,
Galatians 1:9
*As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other  gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.*
You state that the book of mormon is the Word of God, this Bible verse clearly states otherwise.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

OH SHIT, SIZE 7, HE SHOWED US


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Willow said:


> Oh dear. What?


 
Yes that, that is correct in what you read.


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible has been translated correctly, It clearly states that it is the measuring tool to use against anyone who prophesies about God. your mormon doctrine contradicts the Bibles teachings (Yes this includes the King James Version)
> Case in point,
> Galatians 1:9
> *As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other  gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.*
> You state that the book of mormon is the Word of God, this Bible verse clearly states otherwise.


And that's what's wrong with Christianity. It cannot evolve alongside society. It has to stay stuck in it's medievalistic roots OR YEE  BE FUCKED!


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

The Book of Mormon was written well before the New Testament. therefore your point is invalid.
and Wait when I quoted your scripture and the KJV scripture equivilant the KJV was much clearer and better defined the scriptures you are using.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

Watching religious crazies fight with each OTHER for once = nice change.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> how many times do I have to say this be for you get it through your thick skulls.
> THE LDS AND THE FLDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER OTHER THAN ORIGINS. THE LDS CHURCH OPPOSES ALL POLYGAMY


Did I hit a nerve there? And Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.
But back to what I said before you threw your size seven tantrum, if the church never changes as you said around the word that would mean that the FLDS and the LDS never changed and are the same.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Watching religious crazies fight with each OTHER for once = nice change.


 
I'm glad your happy.
to Rukh please answer my question about What Bible you are using.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The Book of Mormon was written well before the New Testament.


 
Where the heck are you getting that info? 

I mean, I went to the _Mormon Temple in Salt Lake_ and they said the book was written during their pilgrimage out west, you know, _the guy who lead them?_ That dude who _started Mormonism?_


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The Book of Mormon was written well before the New Testament.


I want to see these carbon dating results. Supply your proof or recieve my laughter at your silly cult with it's illogical archeology.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Liar said:


> Where the heck are you getting that info?
> 
> I mean, I went to the _Mormon Temple in Salt Lake_ and they said the book was written during their pilgrimage out west, you know, _the guy who lead them?_ That dude who _started Mormonism?_


 the original Plates were written during the time between 600B.C. and 400A.D most well before the New Testament was put together. and the Book of Mormon's teachings take place in the AMERICAS so they would have no way to get any doctrinal information from Jerusalem or the Old World. and Joseph Smith died In Carthage Jail Months before the trek west started.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I want to see these carbon dating results. Supply your proof or recieve my laughter at your silly cult with it's illogical archeology.


 
It wasn't even in the middle east. It was right here in America when it was made. By settlers out west. 

This is taking an odd turn.




CrazedPorcupine said:


> the original Plates were written during the time between 600B.C. and 400A.D most well before the New Testament was put together. and the Book of Mormon's teachings take place in the AMERICAS so they would have no way to get any doctrinal information from Jerusalem or the Old World. and Joseph Smith died In Carthage Jail Months before the trek west started.


 
Source?


----------



## Sauvignon (Nov 14, 2010)

In my religion, we believe it is a sin to spend any amount of time practicing a religion. We believe time should be spent on more productive activities, such as curing cancer or lurking on furry forums.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Modern revelation from God and references from the Text in 1st Nephi. Lehi was a prophet during the same time as Jeremiah in the _OLD TESTAMENT_.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Modern revelation from God and references from the Text in 1st Nephi. Lehi was a prophet during the same time as Jeremiah in the _OLD TESTAMENT_.


 
Source, as in a website to back up your claims.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> *the original Plates were written during the time between 600B.C. and 400A.D most well before the New Testament was put together.* and the Book of Mormon's teachings take place in the AMERICAS so they would have no way to get any doctrinal information from Jerusalem or the Old World. and Joseph Smith died In Carthage Jail Months before the trek west started.


 
I nearly spilled my tea.

These people are as loony as Scientologists.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> to Rukh please answer my question about What Bible you are using.


 
Rukh is probably using the NLT from what I've read of his posts. 

NOW THOUGH. You never answered my question. Please answer my queston



Deovacuus said:


> Did you even read these?
> Read the Smithsonian Institution's statement regarding the Book of Mormon:
> http://irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html
> 
> http://irr.org/mit/national-geographic.html


 



____________________________________________________________



CrazedPorcupine said:


> the original Plates were written during the time between 600B.C. and 400A.D most well before the New Testament was put together.





Deovacuus said:


> I want to see these carbon dating results. Supply your proof or recieve my laughter at your silly cult with it's illogical archeology.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The Book of Mormon was written well before the New Testament. therefore your point is invalid.
> and Wait when I quoted your scripture and the KJV scripture equivilant the KJV was much clearer and better defined the scriptures you are using.


 
Galatians 1:9
*As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other   gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. This is the KJV...

*The book of mormon existed before the New Testament?* It was written in the 1800s.* Last time I checked 1800 was later that 70 AD.


----------



## Willow (Nov 14, 2010)

Liar said:


> Source, as in a website to back up your claims.


 He obviously doesn't need to cite a source to be taken seriously on his claims.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> the original Plates were written during the time between 600B.C. and 400A.D most well before the New Testament was put together. and the Book of Mormon's teachings take place in the AMERICAS so they would have no way to get any doctrinal information from Jerusalem or the Old World. and Joseph Smith died In Carthage Jail Months before the trek west started.


 
Oh really?, then explain why the plates were dug up on a hill in New York...


Edit: Smith said he found the plates on September 22, 1823 on a hill near his home in Manchester, New York (how convenient they were near his house...)
After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian. Therefore, if the plates existed, they can not now be examined.
(How convenient that no one can validate there existence or validity. At Least the Bible has ancient manuscripts and proof of its history.)


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

The LDS Church never said that the first people in america were Nephi and his Family just that they traveled there. And recent Archeological finds have uncovered writings that they can't explain that were dated to the early 400's AD.

Moroni was being hunted down and was constantly on the move. He traveled for years after the last battle between the Nephites and the Lamenites.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> And recent Archeological finds have uncovered writings that they can't explain that were dated to the early 400's AD.


Cite it or it's bullshit. So far there has been NO scientific validation of any of the archeology that the book of mormonputs forth as fact.


Since you probably won't read it, and you didn't answer my question, I'll post the Smithsonian's statement on the Book of Moron for everyone to read. It has plenty of valid archeological points in where mormonism dun goof'd.


			
				Smithsonian smackdown said:
			
		

> 1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
> 2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
> 3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
> 4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
> ...


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

I did read it and simply pointed out several points where it is flawed.
and the Journy was Not accidental and The Plates were GOLD. and most weapons mentioned are CIMETERS.
also the KJV Bible uses steel instead of Brass/Bronze
after the manner of could mean looks not necessarily Matierials. Many swords could have been made of Wood.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

please read this.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Smith said he found the plates on  September 22, 1823 on a hill near his home in Manchester, New York (how  convenient they were near his house...)
> After the translation was  complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian.  Therefore, if the plates existed, they can not now be examined.
> (How  convenient that no one can validate there existence or validity. At  Least the Bible has ancient manuscripts and proof of its  history.)



So those plates can't be proven to have existed, A man has 2 stones and a hat and somehow translates a language he knows nothing about. This is how mormonism started.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I did read it and simply pointed out several points where it is flawed.


 
Pray tell, where exactly did the Smithsonian make it's flaws?


----------



## Conker (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> please read this.
> 
> 
> So those plates can't be proven to have existed, A man has 2 stones and a hat and somehow translates a language he knows nothing about. This is how mormonism started.


 Well, God helped him translate it. Duh. 

I mean, that's no more farfetched than some of the crap in the Bible. You really aren't one to talk about the logical inadequacies behind Mormonism considering what you've said in this thread.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Pray tell, where exactly did the Smithsonian make it's flaws?


 
look at the revision of my post.
or actually here just have this


CrazedPorcupine said:


> and the Journy was Not accidental and The Plates were GOLD. and most weapons mentioned are CIMETERS.
> also the KJV Bible uses steel instead of Brass/Bronze
> after the manner of could mean looks not necessarily Matierials. Many swords could have been made of Wood.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 14, 2010)

Just out of curiousity, does the Bible ever quote God himself claiming that the book is to be his word in it's entirety? I mean, are there any parts that read _"And God said: "For reference, the following books totally say everything I'd tell you myself, as if I totally said them myself - (Lists off all of the Bible)""_

When people call the Bible _God's word_, and _100% Truth_, I would find it important whether God stated that himself. And how thoroughly he said it. If he didn't (or barely did), then it would make more sense to regard it as a big fanfiction about God.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> look at the revision of my post.
> or actually here just have this


 
This says nothing on how the Smithsonian is wrong in blasting the archeological stand point of the Book of Mormon. Though I am curious as to why all the spelling errors are there and why you Feel it Is Necessary to keep Capitalizing random Words.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

it talks frequently about Iron being used
The Book of Mormon Says nothing about the matierials used for weapons. due to the fact that no weapons have been found in their entirety means decomposable matierials such as wood are extremely likely

All the weapons cited in the Book of Mormon text have parallels among Mesoamerican armaments. By making this kind of comparisonâ€”of the scriptural text with external sources about the ancient American settingâ€”we clarify the scriptural text and arrive at a more realistic understanding of what its people were actually doing in the stories we read in Mormon's account.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Just out of curiousity, does the Bible ever quote God himself claiming that the book is to be his word in it's entirety? I mean, are there any parts that read _"And God said: "For reference, the following books totally say everything I'd tell you myself, as if I totally said them myself - (Lists off all of the Bible)""_
> 
> When people call the Bible _God's word_, and _100% Truth_, I would find it important whether God stated that himself. And how thoroughly he said it. If he didn't (or barely did), then it would make more sense to regard it as a big fanfiction about God.





The Word came to Abram SAYING. .  Gen 15:1, 4
The Word came to Samuel SAYING.. . 1Sam.15:10
The Word came to Nathan SAYING. 2Sam.7:4; 1Chron.17:3
The Word came to Gad SAYING. . . . 2Sam.24:11
The Word came to Solomon SAYING. .  1Kgs.6:11
The Word came to Shemaiah SAYING. 1Kgs.12:22; 12:7
The Word came to the unnamed prophet SAYING. 1Kgs.13:9,17
The Word came to Jehu, the prophet, SAYING. 1Kgs.16:1
The Word came to Elijah SAYING. 1Kgs.17:2; 18:1; 19:9;
The Word came to Jacob SAYING. . . 1Kgs.18:31
The Word came to Isaiah SAYING.. .  2Kgs.20:4
The Word came to David SAYING. .  1Chron.22:8
The Word came to Jeremiah SAYING. Jer.1:2-4,11,13, etc.
The Word came to Ezekiel SAYING. .  Ezek.3:16
The word came to Haggai SAYING.. . .  Hag.1:1
The Word came to Zechariah SAYING. . Zech.1:1
 Now remember the Word is also Jesus. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
So the Word came to [insert name here], means that the pre incarnate Jesus came to [insert name here]
The pre incarnate Jesus spoke to these men. Therefore the Word of God came from God.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Word came to Abram SAYING. .  Gen 15:1, 4
> The Word came to Samuel SAYING.. . 1Sam.15:10
> The Word came to Nathan SAYING. 2Sam.7:4; 1Chron.17:3
> The Word came to Gad SAYING. . . . 2Sam.24:11
> ...


 
Yes yes he did. He talked to all of his prophets.

this is docrinal truth in the LDS church.

and yes I actually Agreed with Rukh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Yes yes he did. He talked to all of his prophets.
> 
> this is docrinal truth in the LDS church.


 
And yet you say the book of mormon is the Word of God. And yet the verses I put down clearly state the Bible is the Word of God. You are contradicting yourself here.

Also, Smith said an angel appeared to him. Not Jesus. Just sayin...


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Actually both the Angel Moroni appeared and Christ appeared

and I said both the Bible _and_ the Book of Mormon are believed to be the word of God in the LDS church.


----------



## Deo (Nov 14, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> This says nothing on how the Smithsonian is wrong in blasting the archeological stand point of the Book of Mormon. Though I am curious as to why all the spelling errors are there and why you Feel it Is Necessary to keep Capitalizing random Words.



.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Actually both the Angel Moroni appeared and Christ appeared
> 
> and I said both the Bible _and_ the Book of Mormon are believed to be the word of God in the LDS church.


 
Smith said that the angel moroni appeared to him telling him about the golden plates. No where did smith say that Jesus Christ appeared to him telling him about the golden plates. He only said the angel appeared to him. And last time I checked moroni isn't Jesus Christ.

The *Angel Moroni* (pronounced /mÉ’ËˆroÊŠnaÉª/) is an angel that Joseph Smith, Jr. said visited him on numerous occasions, beginning on September 21, 1823. The angel was the guardian of the golden plates, which Smith said were buried in a hill near his home in western New York, and which he said were the source material for the Book of Mormon. Moroni is an important figure in the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement, and is featured prominently in Mormon architecture and art. Three Witnesses  besides Joseph Smith said they saw Moroni in 1829 visions, as did  several other witnesses who each said they had their own vision.
 Moroni is said to be the same person as a Book of Mormon prophet-warrior named Moroni, who was the last to write in the golden plates. The book says that Moroni buried them before he died after a great battle between two pre-Columbian civilizations. After he died, he was resurrected, became an angel,  and was tasked with guarding the golden plates, and with eventually  directing Joseph Smith to their location in the 1820s. According to  Latter Day Saint movement theology, Moroni still has the plates and  several other Book of Mormon artifacts in his possession.


Show me where in the Bible it states that when people die they become Angels. Angels are not humans, they are entirely separate beings. The Bible is very clear on this.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 14, 2010)

Joseph Smith saw Christ and God the Father _as seperate beings_ before he saw moroni
and Angels are either 1) spirits that have yet to recieve a body or 2) beings that have died and await their resurrected bodies. Often they are used as messengers.

please get a copy of the KJV Bible and go to the Bible Dictionary entry on Angels cause it is way to long to type.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 14, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Word came to Abram SAYING. .  Gen 15:1, 4
> The Word came to Samuel SAYING.. . 1Sam.15:10
> The Word came to Nathan SAYING. 2Sam.7:4; 1Chron.17:3
> The Word came to Gad SAYING. . . . 2Sam.24:11
> ...


 
It sounds like John is projecting. I guess it's the answer I was looking for, though.

Is this said regarding every book? Did God ever state all of it as 100% Truth himself? I mean.. considering his murder of people(/support of) is divinely justified, maybe he has divine reasons to lie to us as well? A test, perhaps?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 14, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Joseph Smith saw Christ and God the Father _as seperate beings_ before he saw moroni
> and Angels are either 1) spirits that have yet to recieve a body or 2) beings that have died and await their resurrected bodies. Often they are used as messengers.
> 
> please get a copy of the KJV Bible and go to the Bible Dictionary entry on Angels cause it is way to long to type.


 Show me proof of this, show me where it says that an angel is a human who has not been born yet. No where in the Bible is that written. Second show me where it states that angels are people awaiting their resurrected bodies.

Also Revelation Chapter 4-7 states


Twenty-four elders (chapter 4, verse 4).
Four living creatures (chapter 4, verse 6), whose descriptions are  similar to the cherubim by Godâ€™s throne in Ezekiel chapter 10.
A â€œstrong angelâ€ (chapter 5, verse 2).
Jesus Christ (chapter 5, verses 5-10 obviously refers to Jesus).
Tens of thousands of angels (chapter 5, verse 11).
â€œThe souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for  the testimony which they heldâ€ (chapter 6, verses 9-11). It is clear  that these are human martyrs who died for the cause of Christianity (and  also clear that more will be joining them).
â€œ*A great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues*â€ (chapter 7, verses 9 and 10).
So if people become angels why does revelations say that there are angels and people in heaven. Wouldn't they all be angels?


Angels are mentioned 273 times in the Bible.  And no where does it state that people become angels.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Show me proof of this, show me where it says that an angel is a human who has not been born yet. No where in the Bible is that written. Second show me where it states that angels are people awaiting their resurrected bodies.
> 
> Also Revelation Chapter 4-7 states
> 
> ...


 
Maybe "angel" is like a job promotion

like being made an officer of the God Police instead of an "honorary deputy"


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Joseph Smith saw Christ and God the Father _as seperate beings_ before he saw moroni
> and Angels are either 1) spirits that have yet to recieve a body or 2) beings that have died and await their resurrected bodies. Often they are used as messengers.
> 
> please get a copy of the KJV Bible and go to the Bible Dictionary entry on Angels cause it is way to long to type.


 
The KJV is shoddily translated from Hebrew and Greek. It was a rush job. I mean most of the world reads it, but the translation has issues, and since you were harping on Biblical translation flaws not going into the book of moron... well the version of the Bible you just recommended is one of the worst translations FYI.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Maybe "angel" is like a job promotion
> 
> like being made an officer of the God Police instead of an "honorary deputy"


 
Unfortunately this is not the case. Angels are separate entities. No where in the Bible does it state that people become angels.


----------



## Conker (Nov 15, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> The KJV is shoddily translated from Hebrew and Greek. It was a rush job. I mean most of the world reads it, but the translation has issues, and since you were hrping on Biblical translation flaws not going into the book of moron... well the version of the Bible you just recommended is one of the worst translations FYI.


 I wish I had my notes on this movie we watched in my History of the English Language class. It covered the Bible's translation from Hebrew to English. I believe the dude that did it was named Wycliff, and it was basically him and a few dictionaries. He was imprisoned for it, and when he died, the church dug up his body and burned it to make sure he knew what he did was wrong (even though the common man didn't speak Latin and most of the priests at the time couldn't either) 

Eventually, the monarchy wanted the Bible in English and used his copy for about 85% of the new version. 

They also went through pains to use language that sounded old, to make the text look old and awe inspiring.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Unfortunately this is not the case. Angels are separate entities. No where in the Bible does it state that people become angels.


 
And nowhere in the old testament is there a hell. That only started showing up in the new testament. God apparently forgets to mention things sometimes. :V


----------



## Tycho (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Unfortunately this is not the case. Angels are separate entities. No where in the Bible does it state that people become angels.


 
Well that's not fair.  People bust their asses working in the wheat fields and herding the sheep and they read their crazy bedtime story books and eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood and kill bad brown people and go to Heaven and all they get is a decoder ring and a pat on the head? BOOOOOOOO

I'll bet Xenu gives his followers cool shit to do when they die.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> And nowhere in the old testament is there a hell. That only started showing up in the new testament. God apparently forgets to mention things sometimes. :V


 
The word Hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word _Sheol,_ which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.

So yes, the OT does talk about Hell.


Edit: This has been an interesting night. Somehow me and Deo actually agreed on something.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 15, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I'll bet Xenu gives his followers cool shit to do when they die.



Yeah.  Fighting a righteous war against all the lawyers and tax collectors in the Marcab Confederacy.  :V


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: This has been an interesting night. Somehow me and Deo actually agreed on something.


Don't get your hopes up. I still loathe you. I just can't get over that I hate mormons more. For now there may be some sort of lull in our incessant bitching at each other, but eventually the new guy will grow tired of defending his FLDS/LDS, child raping, polygamous, false archeology cult. And then we can be at each other's throats just like Xenu intended.

EDIT: Wait. If Roose has a special spot for Mojotech as his arch-FAF-enemy... this doesn't mean... FSM help me if Rukh has me. Rukh, pick LastDireWolf, he's the better poster.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The word Hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word _Sheol,_ which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.
> 
> So yes, the OT does talk about Hell.
> 
> ...


 
Or rather, it originally meant grave in the first place in each of those instances, and the word was repurpoused later. Gehenna is the name of the garbage dump outside jerusalem, where unclean corpses were disposed of, among other things.



Deovacuus said:


> EDIT: Wait. If Roose has a special spot for Mojotech as his arch-FAF-enemy... this doesn't mean... FSM help me if Rukh has me. Rukh, pick LastDireWolf, he's the better poster.


 
Roose isn't anywhere near being good enough to be called my nemesis. :V He is not the firs fundie on this forum, and he's not even good at it, he's just particularly stubborn and has avoided some of the pitfalls which have caused previous other fundies, such as CutterFL, which would get him banned.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *The Bible has been translated correctly*, It clearly states that it is the measuring tool to use against anyone who prophesies about God.


 
Anybody else find this hilarious?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Anybody else find this hilarious?


 
Because bats are totally birds and showing a striped stick to a cow will make it give birth to striped babies, amirite?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Because bats are totally birds and showing a striped stick to a cow will make it give birth to striped babies, amirite?


 
It was different times man, different times.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Oh boy, another Christian with a fairly different perspective on things!
> 
> Why is there only one way? One way to what? To heaven? You can go your own way, I like my way very much, because my way actually exists at the end of the rainbow :v



Oh boy, another cynic out to ruin someone's beliefs...  What is your way by the way? And why does it exist when mine does not? Why is your perception of life and the existence of the afterlife (assuming you believe one exists) so much better than mine?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> Oh boy, another cynic out to ruin someone's beliefs...  What is your way by the way? And why does it exist when mine does not? Why is your perception of life and the existence of the afterlife (assuming you believe one exists) so much better than mine?


 
A cynic? No. Anti-theist, myes~ Not out to ruin beliefs, but hope upon hope that people would stop deluding themselves.

My way, hmm...Well, for the sake of easy understanding - Kinda like the general moral theme of Christianity, without the religion aspect. 

Don't hurt, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal, don't bullshit, obey the governing law, don't get jealous, don't get angry, don't boast, etc. etc. Basically, try to be a good person, for the sake of being a good person, and have fun doing it, no stress :v Try to improve the lives of others around you. 

Why does my way exist, where yours does not? Because you're under the imaginary threat that if you don't do those things, you'll burn eternally for it, and then some.  While the aspects you follow do actually exist, the supposed backing force behind them, does not. I also do not believe in any afterlife, nor any rebirth, but I think it would be pretty awesome to come back as a zombie...which, as far as I know, no cult or religion exists around that.


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I claim not to be wise nor fully learned in the knowledge of my faith, as that knowledge comes from a lifetime of study and research.



Yeah and one day, after a lifetime of faith, you will come to realize you've been had. Mormonism has got to be the only religion where the founder actually encoded his opinion of his followers right into the very name of the "faith". What is more bizarre is that the followers of the Mormon religion seem incapable of getting Joseph Smith's joke.


----------



## Conker (Nov 15, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> Oh boy, another cynic out to ruin someone's beliefs...  What is your way by the way? And why does it exist when mine does not? Why is your perception of life and the existence of the afterlife (assuming you believe one exists) so much better than mine?


 If ruining beliefs means pointing out the lack of logic in what people believe, then I guess that's what most of us have been doing. 

Is it so wrong to ask questions instead of ignoring what doesn't make sense or what contradicts?


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 15, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> That being said, this is the first time I think where we have had one religion debate another rather than the non-religious vs. one specific religion. I love it.





Tycho said:


> *Watching religious crazies fight with each OTHER for once = nice change.*



Oh, yeah! 
Man, I'm just enjoying the floor-show of Rukh and Crazedporcupine going hammer-and-tongs with "YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!" "YES I AM!" "NO YOU'RE NOT!" - and the irony of Rukh condemning Crazedporcupine's holy book using the same sort of criteria that he's defending his _own_ holy book against is just too delicious for words. Now all we need is any Jews in the audience to wade in with the Talmud and condemning the New Testament...

_"When you understand why you reject <X>'s god, you'll understand why I reject yours."_


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> A cynic? No. Anti-theist, myes~ Not out to ruin beliefs, but hope upon hope that people would stop deluding themselves.
> 
> My way, hmm...Well, for the sake of easy understanding - Kinda like the general moral theme of Christianity, without the religion aspect.
> 
> ...


 

You and I share similar views, but not entirely the same.


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 15, 2010)

Sorry, I'm still trying to get past the verse Ruhk quoted a few pages back about condemning people the way you should condemn "pagans and tax collectors." I'm not sure which is worse, that pagans were called out by names, or that we've been compared to tax collectors. :V

But since my point earlier about tolerance was completely ignored, I thought I'd throw a few bible verses out myself: 



* Acts 10:28 *

                                      And he said to them, â€œYou yourselves know how unlawful it is for a  Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has  shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. 



* Ephesians 4:2 *

                                      With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,                                     

* John 8:7 *

                                      And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,  â€œLet him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at  her.â€ 





LUKE 6:24


How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of  your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You  hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see  clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Aaaannnd the big one: 

*Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)*

*The Parable of the Good Samaritan*

 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. â€œTeacher,â€ he asked, â€œwhat must I do to inherit eternal life?â€    26 â€œWhat is written in the Law?â€ he replied. â€œHow do you read it?â€ 
 27  He answered, â€œâ€˜Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all  your soul and with all your strength and with all your mindâ€™[a]; and, â€˜Love your neighbor as yourself.â€™[b]â€ 
   28 â€œYou have answered correctly,â€ Jesus replied. â€œDo this and you will live.â€ 
 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, â€œAnd who is my neighbor?â€ 
 30 In reply Jesus said: â€œA  man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by  robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away,  leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34  He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then  he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of  him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c]  and gave them to the innkeeper. â€˜Look after him,â€™ he said, â€˜and when I  return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.â€™ 
   36 â€œWhich of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?â€ 
 37 The expert in the law replied, â€œThe one who had mercy on him.â€ 
   Jesus told him, â€œGo and do likewise.â€ 

TL;DR on that last one: Just because you're good and holy by the standards of your church doesn't mean that you are a good person. FYI, the Samaritan was a pagan, too. 

And, at the risk of repeating myself: 

Mathew 7:1

Judge not, lest you, too, be judged.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 15, 2010)

after living so long under the mighty hand of religion, and being brainwashed so long and just being treated like shit...

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT.

no-one can be free in religion, it's just a ploy derived by mankind to keep people in line and to fulfill that empty void of wanting to feel useful whilst being useless.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Nov 15, 2010)

I want to post a huge essay about what I know is the truth but I just don't feel like it's worth the effort because the chances of it actually opening anybody's eyes are slim to none, and the chance of people actually reading the entire thing are probably even worse.

Perhaps if I get bored enough tomorrow I will.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I want to post a huge essay about what I know is the truth but I just don't feel like it's worth the effort because the chances of it actually opening anybody's eyes are slim to none, and the chance of people actually reading the entire thing are probably even worse.
> 
> Perhaps if I get bored enough tomorrow I will.


 
Mmh, I don't think any one's say is "the truth". So, judging upon the religious views cast down by the likes of Rukh, as "the truth", may suggest avoiding it all together :v

Albeit interesting you haven't already written it o_o


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Mmh, I don't think any one's say is "the truth". So, judging upon the religious views cast down by the likes of Rukh, as "the truth", may suggest avoiding it all together :v
> 
> Albeit interesting you haven't already written it o_o


 
Honestly, I think you'd agree with what I would say, if I were to say it all. It's mostly based around facts and knowledge and things that should be obvious. It's like 5 am, I don't feel like sitting here for an hour typing it all. I may give it a go tomorrow. I'd love to see what Rukh would have to say about it, probably just be proof that I was sent from the devil to trick and confuse people into straying from the path of righteousness :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, yeah!
> Man, I'm just enjoying the floor-show of Rukh and PhantomChicken going hammer-and-tongs with "YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!" "YES I AM!" "NO YOU'RE NOT!" - and the irony of Rukh condemning PhantomChicken's holy book using the same sort of criteria that he's defending his _own_ holy book against is just too delicious for words. Now all we need is any Jews in the audience to wade in with the Talmud and condemning the New Testament...
> 
> _"When you understand why you reject <X>'s god, you'll understand why I reject yours."_



I never said anything to PhantomChicken. Just an FYI. I am assuming you mean the dude crazedporcupine.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 15, 2010)

As I said before the LDS church CONDEMNS polygamy and child rape. that is All FLDS bull crap.
Also Rukh you are indeed a hypocrite for saying your translation that uses IDEA FOR IDEA rather than WORD FOR WORD translation is correct. Nothing done by human hands is perfect. And yes as stated earlier being faithful in your faith does not make you a good person. Look at the Muslim extremists. In their eyes they are the best followers of their faith, to the rest of the world they are a bunch of nut jobs that need to die(not my opinion, I think they just need to change their tactics.) If all we do is bicker and challenge each other who is actually following God then we lose sight of what is important. Belief in that same God we are arguing about. We cannot claim to know what God knows because we are human and not God. God has mysteries that aren't explained in the Bible.

FAQ
Q:Where did God come from?
A: (most Churches) He came from nothing because He always exhisted.
A: (Mormon Faith) He was a man who became exalted and created this world.

Both are slightly confusing yes but which provides an answer that is clearest. BOTH TOGETHER. The LDS church does teach new doctrine but it also EXPOUNDS upon already existing doctrine to try and make it as clear as possible. This is what most people don't understand. The Book of Mormon clears up several important doctrinal points.

FAQ
Q: where do we go when we die?
A: (most churches) If your good you go to heaven if your bad you go to hell.
A: (LDS church) after you die you await judgement in either Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison. After you are Judged you receive one of 3 degrees of Glory in the Kingdom of God.

which provides more clarity upon what happens after we die
The LDS church does because it has been revealed and is also talked about in the Bible about the 3 degrees of glory (see 1 Corinthians 15: 40-42)
the First answer is incomplete it lacks full knowledge of where we go and what happens after death.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I never said anything to PhantomChicken. Just an FYI. I am assuming you mean the dude crazedporcupine.


 
This is true. I don't think Rukh ever said anything against me...


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> FAQ
> Q: where do we go when we die?
> A: (LDS church)Spirit Paradise or *Spirit Prison*.


*SUPERJAIL.*


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> A cynic? No. Anti-theist, myes~ Not out to ruin beliefs, but hope upon hope that people would stop deluding themselves.
> 
> My way, hmm...Well, for the sake of easy understanding - Kinda like the general moral theme of Christianity, without the religion aspect.
> 
> ...


 
I can respect that you're trying to live a good life, and I'm not going to sit here and condemn you for something you don't believe. 

As far as why yours exists and mine does not goes though. I think you have it wrong. I'm not walking on egg shells in fear of burning in Hell. If you're really interested in understanding why, read Romans 1-3. 

Also, I feel as though I may have oversimplified what I believed in my first post. I was trying to keep things as easy to explain as possible... so if it came across as "foolish" or "cute" or whatever to other Christians (or anyone) out there, sorry.


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Modern revelation from God and references from the Text in 1st Nephi. Lehi was a prophet during the same time as Jeremiah in the _OLD TESTAMENT_.


 Do ho ho ho, u dumb?


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> FAQ
> Q: where do we go when we die?
> A: (most churches) If your good you go to heaven if your bad you go to hell.
> A: (LDS church) after you die you await judgement in either Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison. After you are Judged you receive one of 3 degrees of Glory in the Kingdom of God.
> ...


 
"await judgement"?? As in 'not immediately'? What, does God have staffing problems?

Mormon clarity seems to bring up even more questions. "Clarity" may not be the right word.


----------



## Conker (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> As I said before the LDS church CONDEMNS polygamy and child rape. that is All FLDS bull crap.
> Also  Rukh you are indeed a hypocrite for saying your translation that uses  IDEA FOR IDEA rather than WORD FOR WORD translation is correct.


I disagree. Both allow for errors and the insertion of manmade agendas.  Hebrew is a complex language, like English, it has multiple meanings for  words. Picking a word over another already inserts a manmade meaning  over the original text. Not to mention there are words in Hebrew that  don't have English equivalents. Plus, didn't Ol Smithy write translate  the book with a damn rock from a language he knew nothing about? At  least Wycliff had a Hebrew dictionary and scholarly knowledge about  grammar.


> FAQ
> Q:Where did God come from?
> A: (most Churches) He came from nothing because He always exhisted.
> A: (Mormon Faith) He was a man who became exalted and created this world.
> ...


How can those two work together? He couldn't have always existed if at  one point he WAS a man. Not to mention, if he was a man then he had to  originate from somewhere and now we get into an infinite regress. If  there is a hierarchy of gods that promoted this one to make our  universe, why don't we worship the top God and not this lesser deity?  I'm an American, I want the STRONGEST AND THE BEST not some bitchtits  who started off as mortal and got promoted by someone better than him.


> FAQ
> Q: where do we go when we die?
> A: (most churches) If your good you go to heaven if your bad you go to hell.
> A:  (LDS church) after you die you await judgement in either Spirit  Paradise or Spirit Prison. After you are Judged you receive one of 3  degrees of Glory in the Kingdom of God.
> ...


Both sound equally ridiculous. And your Spirit Paradise/Prison sounds  like Purgatory. The second answer is equally as incomplete and has an  equal chance of being completely false. The whole idea of being promoted  to a God and having your own planet is also horribly silly and sounds  like bad science fiction. 

All in all, the ideas of both religions are loony, but I have to give  more respect for the Christians because they don't go to my door and ask  me if I've found Jesus >:[


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 15, 2010)

PhantomChicken said:


> This is true. I don't think Rukh ever said anything against me...


 
My apologies for the confusion.


----------



## PhantomChicken (Nov 15, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> My apologies for the confusion.



No problem. It was kinda funny to be like, "Whoa, wait, what?" I scoured this thread to see where I had become a grandstander... oh well. There goes my 15 posts of fame...


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 15, 2010)

Conker said:


> I feel bad that I had to look that up


 
It's all cooo. At least my comment should make sense to ya now.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

*snickers*  Oh man...If there's anything that evangelicals like to 'debate' with more anyone else (atheists, etc.), it's Mormons.

CrazedPorcupine + Rukh = _*THUNDERDOME*_*!*


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> CrazedPorcupine vs.  Rukh = _*THUNDERDOME*_*!*


*announcer voice over*
THURSDAY!
THURSDAY! 
THURSDAY!
AT THE *THUNDERDOME!* 
*engines roar*
BE THERE!


----------



## Trichloromethane (Nov 15, 2010)

IN ONE CORNER
http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h324/CH3CL/RukhThunder.jpg?t=1289860878


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> IN ONE CORNER
> http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h324/CH3CL/RukhThunder.jpg?t=1289860878


 
IN THE OTHER CORNER


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 15, 2010)

What the hell, lol you two. Get back on topic.


----------



## Enwon (Nov 15, 2010)

I'll get this back on topic.  Don't worry.

Excessively religious people and militant atheists are both dumbshits who only promote hatred.  Discuss.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

Enwon said:


> I'll get this back on topic.  Don't worry.
> 
> Excessively religious people and militant atheists are both dumbshits who only promote hatred.  Discuss.


 
If you had to choose between the two on who you'd have to spend 48 hours with handcuffed together, who would it be?


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> If you had to choose between the two on who you'd have to spend 48 hours with handcuffed together, who would it be?



Yeesh. Is stuffing a sock in their mouth allowable during this handcuffed period of time?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Yeesh. Is stuffing a sock in their mouth allowable during this handcuffed period of time?


 
Well, there is essentially no limits - You two are handcuffed together. So...You'd have to stop'em from taking it out :B


----------



## Enwon (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> If you had to choose between the two on who you'd have to spend 48 hours with handcuffed together, who would it be?


 
Militant atheist, honestly.  Mainly because I'm agnostic atheist and therefore the militant won't try to convert me.  Still, I'd avoid the topic of religion like the devil.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 15, 2010)

Enwon said:


> Militant atheist, honestly.  Mainly because I'm agnostic atheist and therefore the militant won't try to convert me.  Still, I'd avoid the topic of religion like the devil.


 Kinda this. I'm agnostic theist but I still hate religion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 15, 2010)

And who says religion makes good people :v


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And who says religion makes good people :v


 
Most of the time, one of two kinds of people.  Those who want political power and control, and those who serve them either willingly or naively.


----------



## Jude (Nov 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> If you had to choose between the two on who you'd have to spend 48 hours with handcuffed together, who would it be?


 
Militant Atheist. My group of friends include both extremes and although I hate the fact that they both constantly bring up religion, I at least wouldn't get in an argument with them. I'd still be annoyed though.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 15, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> "await judgement"?? As in 'not immediately'? What, does God have staffing problems?
> 
> Mormon clarity seems to bring up even more questions. "Clarity" may not be the right word.



No as is stated several times in the Bible, Judgement comes at the second coming of Christ. You go to Sirit paradise through belief in His gospel. You go to Spirit Prison and are taught His gospel by Him. You then have the choice to accept or reject His gospel. If you accept it you go to the Spirit Paradise and can recieve a higher degree of glory in the Kingdom of God. All will be given a place in the Kingdom of God just where you go is determined by your actions on earth.

And during our Sunday School Classes (yes we have sunday school) Each year is a different part of the Scriptures which include both the OT and the NT.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> You go to Spirit Prison and are taught His gospel by Him.



Yeeeah..


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Spirit Prison.


SUPERJAIL


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> As I said before the LDS church CONDEMNS polygamy and child rape. that is All FLDS bull crap.
> Also Rukh you are indeed a hypocrite for saying your translation that uses IDEA FOR IDEA rather than WORD FOR WORD translation is correct. Nothing done by human hands is perfect. And yes as stated earlier being faithful in your faith does not make you a good person. Look at the Muslim extremists. In their eyes they are the best followers of their faith, to the rest of the world they are a bunch of nut jobs that need to die(not my opinion, I think they just need to change their tactics.) If all we do is bicker and challenge each other who is actually following God then we lose sight of what is important. Belief in that same God we are arguing about. We cannot claim to know what God knows because we are human and not God. God has mysteries that aren't explained in the Bible.
> FAQ
> Q:Where did God come from?
> ...


 

Show me where in the Bible it says God was a man before he was God? You won't find it. (in any translation of the Bible)
And churches preach God is eternal because that is what the Bible says. (Also this is stated in every translation of the Bible)
Secondly show me where in the Bible it states that there is a mother goddess.
Show me where the Bible says God lives on a star?
Mormon doctrine contradicts what the Bible says. It cannot be a companion of the Bible if it contradicts its core belief. 
*
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).** God had a Father? Thats news to me. God is eternal. He always existed. The Bible clearly states this.*

*God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333). **Explain this*.* This contradicts with the Bible.*

You speak with a forked tongue, in one hand you say we are both Christians, and yet you say the all other churches (who preach from the Bible) are an abomination. You say the book of mormon (and mormon doctrine) is the word of God, and yet the Bible says it alone is the guide Christians are to follow.

And as for polygamy, here yah go.
"*And            if Joseph Smith have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot            commit adultery*, for they belong to him, and they are given            unto him; therefore he is justified * for they are given unto            him to multiply and replenish the earth*, according to my commandment,            and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation            of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, *that            they may bear the souls of men*; for herein is the work of my            Father continued, that he may be glorified."
_- Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63

_"*It                        is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations                        of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was                        a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that                        system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually                        overtook her.*"
_- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol.                        13, p. 202

_"*...the                        one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both                        physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible                        with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure                        to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.*"
                      - _Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227_

"*This                        law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation                        for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most                        revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom                        groans,...*"
                      - _Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13,                        page 195_


These are are pulled from mormon doctrine.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Some incredibly ironic stuff.


 
rofl, oh your god, seriously rukh you are slamming porcupine for the exact same crap we've been (more justifiedly) saying about you all this time. It's *hilarious.*


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> rofl, oh your god, seriously rukh you are slamming porcupine for the exact same crap we've been (more justifiedly) saying about you all this time. It's *hilarious.*


 
There is nothing justifying in what you have been saying. You don't believe in God, thats all. This guy is preaching a false Christian Doctrine. (This argument between me and him does not pertain to you)


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is nothing justifying in what you have been saying. You don't believe in God, thats all. This guy is preaching a false Christian Doctrine. (This argument between me and him does not pertain to you)


 
I agree Rukh. He is insulting the sacredness of Christ and blasphemying God with his twisted perversion of Christianity. He has merely been lead astray. Surely Rukh, with the power of Jesus, you can show him the truth of God's promise? Seeing how he has not read the Bible, you Rukh, are the perfect person to help him through this. Rukh, God speed, sacred Christian warrior.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is nothing justifying in what you have been saying. You don't believe in God, thats all. This guy is preaching a false Christian Doctrine. (This argument between me and him does not pertain to you)


 
Great, just like that Rukh. Keep yelling about that mote in your neighbor's eye without looking at the beam in your own. It's totally not making our point for us or anything.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Great, just like that Rukh. Keep yelling about that mote in your neighbor's eye without looking at the beam in your own. It's totally not making our point for us or anything.


 
And the verse your talking about is directed to Christians only. Its not talking about Christians talking to non believers. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your *brotherâ€™s* (as in brother of Christ, it does not say neighbor.) eye 
Furthermore:
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other   gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2nd John 1:10 
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.

Romans 16:17-18
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions    and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;    avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their    own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts    of the naive.

Matthew 7:15 
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

Rukh, sweetie, ask yourself; are you defending Christianity for your god's honour, or for yours?  If you are starting to get angry, and are doing this to _win,_ then you are speaking about your faith for the wrong reason.  

I have watched you fling scripture at the masses, and when they're questioned, you pick and choose what you answer.  And now, as Mojo has said, you are doing the exact same thing to Crazed Porcupine that you have accused the Atheists of doing.  To read that you say Jesus's teachings (the plank in the eye) is for Christians alone is full of such irony coming from you it's not even funny.  It's actually quite sad, and I pity you for being so blind by that 2x4 stuck in your eye.   The teachings of Christ are for everyone's ears, or no one would decide to accept him as their Savior.  

I think you're angry.  I think you're trying to win, and this is not a race or American Idol where we vote to see who was the best.  The last 36 pages you have done as much to turn people off Christianity in your preaching as Jerry Falwell, and if I were still a Christian I would be ashamed to acknowledge you as a brother in Christ.  Your kind are one of the reasons why I left the faith; that veneer of holy judgementalism that sheens like oil.

I implore you to pause, step back, and take a break from this thread to regroup.  If you cannot see that you've become a joke in what you're doing, then there's no hope.

Crazed Porcupine, that goes for you too.


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> reason.



CAThulu stop that immediately. Cease and desist.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

^  *LOL*   Sorry... I had a moment of clarity there. 

Pot calling kettle regarding my post, huh?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Rukh, sweetie, ask yourself; are you defending Christianity for your god's honour, or for yours?  If you are starting to get angry, and are doing this to _win,_ then you are speaking about your faith for the wrong reason.
> 
> I have watched you fling scripture at the masses, and when they're questioned, you pick and choose what you answer.  And now, as Mojo has said, you are doing the exact same thing to Crazed Porcupine that you have accused the Atheists of doing.  To read that you say Jesus's teachings (the plank in the eye) is for Christians alone is full of such irony coming from you it's not even funny.  It's actually quite sad, and I pity you for being so blind by that 2x4 stuck in your eye.   The teachings of Christ are for everyone's ears, or no one would decide to accept him as their Savior.
> 
> ...


 
I am not trying to win, I started out that way. And I was humbled. I am not angry, (again I was, and I was humbled again, I have let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, And I believe I apologized for that in this thread) I merely am trying to explain my belief. If people take it as I am flinging Scripture in there face, I am sorry. That is not my intention. As for the mormon dude. I am not angry at him. I am extremely concerned about him. I am greatly concerned that he is following, what the Bible says if a false teaching of Christianity.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

It was pretty obvious that you were trying to win in the beginning, but unfortunately even though you're not trying to now (and thank you for saying that, honestly *G*.) it's put you in a position of defense and I don't blame you for that at all, since is a natural outcome *S*.

That doesn't make anyone else innocent of needed humility, myself included.  I have to admit feeling anger, and I am sorry about that.  It's why I try not to comment too much here.

However, what Crazed believes may be false teaching in your eyes, but it's not in his.  It is not your responsibility to make him 'see the light' about your version of Christianity, or vice versa.  I bet you wouldn't feel too good about Crazed stating that he is 'greatly concerned that you is following, what the Bible says if a false teaching of Christianity.'  (of which I believe you are referring to Matthew 7:15 - Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.)

In his eyes, you would be the wolf.  

If you say you've indeed learned humility, then how come you don't see how much of the opposite you have just displayed with that last sentence in your post?


----------



## GingerM (Nov 15, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Now all we need is any Jews in the audience to wade in with the Talmud and condemning the New Testament...



Not Hebrew myself, but just to set one thing straight - the Hebrew equivalent to the Christian Bible is the Tanakh, which is basically the same books as the Christian Old Testament. The Talmud is essentially discussion by rabbis of Jewish law, custom, ethics, etc.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 15, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Not Hebrew myself, but just to set one thing straight - the Hebrew equivalent to the Christian Bible is the Tanakh, which is basically the same books as the Christian Old Testament. The Talmud is essentially discussion by rabbis of Jewish law, custom, ethics, etc.


 
What about the Torah?


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

Tycho said:


> What about the Torah?



I lernd somthin'! 



> The term Torah (Hebrew: ×ªÖ¼×•Ö¹×¨Ö¸×”, "Law"), also known as the Pentateuch (Greek: Î ÎµÎ½Ï„Î¬Ï„ÎµÏ…Ï‡Î¿Ï‚ from Ï€ÎµÎ½Ï„Î±- penta- [five] and Ï„Îµá¿¦Ï‡Î¿Ï‚ teuchos [tool, vessel, book]),[1] refers to the Five Books of Mosesâ€”the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts.[2][3] A "Sefer Torah" (×¡Öµ×¤Ö¶×¨ ×ªÖ¼×•Ö¹×¨Ö¸×”, "book of Torah") or Torah scroll is a copy of the Torah written on parchment in a formal, traditional manner by a specially trained scribe under strict requirements.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 15, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Not Hebrew myself, but just to set one thing straight - the Hebrew equivalent to the Christian Bible is the Tanakh, which is basically the same books as the Christian Old Testament. The Talmud is essentially discussion by rabbis of Jewish law, custom, ethics, etc.



Huh...It looks like the Talmud is included as part of the 24 books that of the Tanakh (the Tanakh is expanded into the 39 books of the Christian OT
Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Books_of_the_Tanakh


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> It was pretty obvious that you were trying to win in the beginning, but unfortunately even though you're not trying to now (and thank you for saying that, honestly *G*.) it's put you in a position of defense and I don't blame you for that at all, since is a natural outcome *S*.
> 
> That doesn't make anyone else innocent of needed humility, myself included.  I have to admit feeling anger, and I am sorry about that.  It's why I try not to comment too much here.
> 
> ...


 

The problem I have is, he says that the Bible and book of mormon and mormon doctrine compliment each other. The problem is, is they don't. I have asked him, and maybe not in the best way, to explain the doctrine texts that I have posted. I then asked how they compliment the Bible, when the Bible in any translation states the exact opposite. Look, perhaps I haven't done this in the best way possible. But whats done, is done. I am asking him to explain how, he can say we are both Christians and then say all other churches are an abomination. That doesn't make any sense.

I can't not be silent. I can't not profess my faith the best way I can. ( I fully admit I have not come across the best way, but again everyone does make mistakes.) I knew doing this I would be hated, that I would be flamed.( I tried not to get angry or prideful and I failed in that.) I can't fully explain why I am here on faf professing my faith. What I do know is, is this is where I am supposed to be. This is where I have been called to. I see posts and journals on fa and faf of people hurting, people crying out in pain. I see people who have been abused, People who say they have little or no hope. How can I not at least try and tell them about the joy and peace one has when knowing Christ. How can I not tell them that I know someone who knows exactly what they are going through and loves them unconditionally. It is a truly amazing feeling to know Christ.(everything has clicked all of a sudden in the last couple of months for me) Words cannot fully describe it.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 15, 2010)

Unfortunately Rukh I also have to agree with your entire second Paragraph as they apply to me just as much as they do to you.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 15, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Unfortunately Rukh I also have to agree with your entire second Paragraph as they apply to me just as much as they do to you.



And what about the first part?
Another question to you, is why almost all theologians say that mormonism is not Christianity?
Can you please show me where in the KJV Bible it sates that God is not eternal, or that he was once a man like us before he was God. (Came from another planet)
Can you please show me where in the Bible it says God resides by a star (Kolob I believe)
Also please answer my post on the texts from mormon doctrine that preach polygamy. (Joseph Smith preached it)


Edit: Please also explain how mormonism preaches about civilizations that don't exist. No archeological evidence has been found.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBDFe3mDtk And now for how Rukh and Porcupine look right now to everyone else.


----------



## Deo (Nov 15, 2010)

I love this thread so much. I think I came. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I love this thread so much. I think I came. :V


 
I feel sorry for your computer chair.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The problem I have is, he says that the  Bible and book of mormon and mormon doctrine compliment each other. The  problem is, is they don't. I have asked him, and maybe not in the best  way, to explain the doctrine texts that I have posted. I then asked how  they compliment the Bible, when the Bible in any translation states the  exact opposite. Look, perhaps I haven't done this in the best way  possible. But whats done, is done. I am asking him to explain how he can  say we are both Christians and then say all other churches are an  abomination. That doesn't make any sense.



Yeah, it did come off aggro, but that's for you to fix.  Just say that  this was started on the wrong foot and start again if you really, really  want come together and try to figure that out.  And it's going to not  make sense to you, anymore then your POV will to Crazed, since you  haven't studied the other's teachings in depth or from an early age.   You're not the first to do this; I've seen other evangelicals biting at  the bit to argue with Mormons (and again, vice versa), and talk about  their 'debates' like their war stories.   Like you, I ask the same  question about two different denominations can claim they're right and  the other churches are wrong.  It _doesn't  _make sense, that's the  point! *L*   But again, to him, they compliment each other, while to  you it's false teaching.  It goes back to that question though; who's  right?  I don't think that's yours or Crazed's call to make at this  time, because neither of you are scholastically trained enough to deal  with the enormity of the paradox.   Trust me, I know learned pastors  with 50 years of experience that would have trouble doing what you're  doing.  

The point is, if both parties have dug their heels in, there will be no progress.  The conversation is over before it starts.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I  can't not be silent. I can't not profess my faith the best way I can. (  I fully admit I have not come across the best way, but again everyone  does make mistakes.) I knew doing this I would be hated, that I would be  flamed.( I tried not to get angry or prideful and I failed in that.) I  can't fully explain why I am here on faf professing my faith. What I do  know is, is this is where I am supposed to be. This is where I have been  called to. I see posts and journals on fa and faf of people hurting,  people crying out in pain. I see people who have been abused, People who  say they have little or no hope. How can I not at least try and tell  them about the joy and peace one has when knowing Christ. How can I not  tell them that I know someone who knows exactly what they are going  through and loves them unconditionally. It is a truly amazing feeling to  know Christ.(everything has clicked all of a sudden in the last couple  of months for me) Words cannot fully describe it.



I always say you can catch more flies with honey then you can with a sledgehammer.

It's admirable that you can't be silent.  But sometimes it's best to be  silent and be thoughtful.  It saves you from coming off the wrong way.   That's the best thing about writing your responses; you can take time to  research, then come back and write a well thought out, hopefully  non-agressive response.  

These verses came to mind while I was reading, and writing this response from Matthew:


> 1 â€œDo not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.   3 â€œWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherâ€™s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, â€˜Let me take the speck out of your eye,â€™ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ...


 
And why work so hard to prove that another's teachings are wrong or that they refuse to believe when Matthew says:


> 6  â€œDo not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If  you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to  pieces.


 
This will keep you from being 'flamed'.  Sometimes it is best not  to speak with scripture (I know this is irony, but this best explained  what i was trying to say ^_^ )

Also, if you come into this assuming you're going to be hated and  flamed, then you've already set yourself up for a self-fufilling  prophecy.  

You know how they say actions speak louder then words?  In Paganism we  don't believe going out and 'spreading the word' of our faith.  We wait  until people ask us what we believe.  We let our actions speak.  Quite a  few of us were raised in all different denominations of Christianity  but we were all hammered over the head with the bible who repeated  instead of taught the bible.  

I know you want to do good and that the Lord makes you feel fufilled,  but what you don't understand that for a lot of us on this board  Christianity brought nothing but pain.  It did for me.  I have been  hurt, and have seen so many people hurt and ripped to shreds by their  church, their Christian bretheren, and their religious family.  

I know you want to tell them how to find peace, but sometimes they don't  want the peace you offer.  You will not convince them; it will only  work in the opposite if you insist that you know the way to peace.  It  is ultimately the choice of the person you 'witness' to.  You can tell  them of how it brought you peace, but unless they're interested, then  don't bother.  It is better to demonstrate your peace and joy, then to  speak of it, because again, actions speak louder then words.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I feel sorry for your computer chair.



OH MURRYPURRY YIFFBLASTERS. THAT'S MY FETISH HURRHURR HERPADERP. :V


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

(cont.)

You're also a new christian, and that is an exciting thing!   I am truly happy that you have found your path, and have found peace inside you.  It is something that everyone needs and I wish you the best of luck in your walk with God.

But you are very young in your faith, and have only started your walk.  Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE of all faiths goes through the 'new car smell' phase of a new religion that they did not originally grow up with.  Things start to click, you see God _everywhere _and you want to tell everyone about what you feel. That's awesome!  But on the other hand it's so easy to get wrapped up in it and trip over your own feet because there's information that you haven't found yet.  Sometimes I made a right jackass of myself when I first became Pagan, but in the 8 years since I have learned when to speak and when to let it pass.   Sometimes others are open and honest about wanting to know about it, and we can strike up a dialogue and compare differences (and sometimes there is arguement, but that's part of debate and maturity is needed to know when to stand down).  Other times it's best to know that you're willingly walking into a lions den wearing Lady Gaga's Meat Dress and rethink the idea.  

Rukh, share your belief and be open to comparing notes on the beliefs and ethics of other peoples, but don't take it upon yourself to 'fix' the pain of another with your faith.  It'll save you a lot heartache.  Christ died on the cross for the sins, and the pain, of others so no one else has to.  Let Him heal. *S*


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> (cont.)
> 
> You're also a new christian, and that is an exciting thing!   I am truly happy that you have found your path, and have found peace inside you.  It is something that everyone needs and I wish you the best of luck in your walk with God.



Uhm, I am not a new Christian. I accepted Christ when I was 9. I have grown up in the church. But by the time I was 13 I had pretty much turned away from my walk with God. I was angry at him, I thought Christianity was a bunch of rules and regulations that I had to follow, and that it didn't let me have fun. Don't get me wrong. I believed in God, but I didn't really ever live it out. I wanted to live life my way. And if I did anything wrong I would just ask God for forgiveness. Fast forward 10 years. ( In this time God did get my attention but I continued to do things my way. But my turn around started in 2007, when God broke me, and again this in the past year) So for the last 3 years I have been slowly getting back to God. In these last 3 or 4 months, my entire life has changed. I am completely devoted to God now. He has laid a lot of of things on my heart. I now know what people talk about when they speak of this unending joy and peace with God. It is truly amazing.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh you are born again.
Well, at least I was born right the first time.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm, I am not a new Christian. I accepted Christ when I was 9. I have grown up in the church. But by the time I was 13 I had pretty much turned away from my walk with God. I was angry at him, I thought Christianity was a bunch of rules and regulations that I had to follow, and that it didn't let me have fun. Don't get me wrong. I believed in God, but I didn't really ever live it out. I wanted to live life my way. And if I did anything wrong I would just ask God for forgiveness. Fast forward 10 years. ( In this time God did get my attention but I continued to do things my way. But my turn around started in 2007, when God broke me, and again this in the past year) So for the last 3 years I have been slowly getting back to God. In these last 3 or 4 months, my entire life has changed. I am completely devoted to God now. He has laid a lot of of things on my heart. I now know what people talk about when they speak of this unending joy and peace with God. It is truly amazing.



My mistake.  You said everything clicked in the last few months, and from the context it looked like you were a new christian.  This is why I try not to break my rule of assuming anything 

ah well.  I'd ask the mods to remove that post, but then it would confuse people and that would be bad *L*.  Regardless, I stick to what I've said about being a new christian, but I think it can also apply since you've experienced this feeling of everything falling into place for a quarter of a year.  What will happen when that feeling wears off?   I'm not trying to place doubt in your heart, it does happen.  you will be tested, or else you'd never grow.   What god has laid on your heart is between you and him regardless of who you share it with.  And again, it's fine if you want to _share_ that joy.  Just don't force people to accept it, then wonder why they don't and then flame you for it.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

kumbaaaayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The problem I have is, he says that the Bible and book of mormon and mormon doctrine compliment each other. The problem is, is they don't. I have asked him, and maybe not in the best way, to explain the doctrine texts that I have posted. I then asked how they compliment the Bible, when the Bible in any translation states the exact opposite. Look, perhaps I haven't done this in the best way possible. But whats done, is done. I am asking him to explain how, he can say we are both Christians and then say all other churches are an abomination. That doesn't make any sense.


 According to his book, which was written after the Bible, they do. He quotes from his, you quote from yours, but in the end, nothing will be resolved. If you say "Tell me in the KJB where it says X" and it's not there, but it IS in his Book of Mormon, then he'll choose his book, because that's his primary source. 

If someone of Muslim faith showed up and started using the Quran as his primary source, the same shit would happen (though I doubt he'd say his was a compliment to the Bible)


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Conker said:


> According to his book, which was written after the Bible, they do. He quotes from his, you quote from yours, but in the end, nothing will be resolved. If you say "Tell me in the KJB where it says X" and it's not there, but it IS in his Book of Mormon, then he'll choose his book, because that's his primary source.
> 
> If someone of Muslim faith showed up and started using the Quran as his primary source, the same shit would happen (though I doubt he'd say his was a compliment to the Bible)



*sighs*  Everytime I read the initialism KJB I see 'KGB' and my brain automatically switches to the Cold War era. O_0

I've seen the book of Mormon come out with newer versions every so often.  Is that for correlation purposes with the KJV?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> My mistake.  You said everything clicked in the last few months, and from the context it looked like you were a new christian.  This is why I try not to break my rule of assuming anything
> 
> ah well.  I'd ask the mods to remove that post, but then it would confuse people and that would be bad *L*.  Regardless, I stick to what I've said about being a new christian, but I think it can also apply since you've experienced this feeling of everything falling into place for a quarter of a year.  What will happen when that feeling wears off?   I'm not trying to place doubt in your heart, it does happen.  you will be tested, or else you'd never grow.   What god has laid on your heart is between you and him regardless of who you share it with.  And again, it's fine if you want to _share_ that joy.  Just don't force people to accept it, then wonder why they don't and then flame you for it.


 
What I meant is that I can hear God (figuratively speaking) I can feel Him. (Much more than I used to) I used to be what one would call a Lukewarm Christian. I am not new in the Faith. (  I have a good understanding of the Bible. But book knowledge and actually applying it to ones life are two different things)  I have always believed. The feeling you speak of has lasted for almost 4 months continually now. It won't wear off. (I am finally at peace, true peace) I may not understand why God does what He does. (I don't question Him anymore) But I know he has a better plan for me than I could ever possibly come up with. There is a fire burning very strong in me now. To quote my pastor "I have the burning passion for Christ" I have let go of what I want. And I now try and tune myself to what God wants of me. I was bought and paid for by Him. I am no loner my own. I belong to God. I am have killed my old self (caste off my old life).


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

Conker said:


> If someone of Muslim faith showed up and started using the Quran as his primary source, the same shit would happen (though I doubt he'd say his was a compliment to the Bible)


 
That reminds me.  I haven't read it yet even though I have a copy on my shelf next to the Bible and a collection of Buddhist scriptures.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What I meant is that I can hear God (figuratively speaking) I can feel Him. (Much more than I used to) I used to be what one would call a Lukewarm Christian. I am not new in the Faith. (  I have a good understanding of the Bible. But book knowledge and actually applying it to ones life are two different things)  I have always believed. The feeling you speak of has lasted for almost 4 months continually now. It won't wear off. (I am finally at peace, true peace) I may not understand why God does what He does. (I don't question Him anymore) But I know he has a better plan for me than I could ever possibly come up with. There is a fire burning very strong in me now. To quote my pastor "I have the burning passion for Christ" I have let go of what I want. And I now try and tune myself to what God wants of me. I was bought and paid for by Him. I am no loner my own. I belong to God. I am have killed my old self (caste off my old life).



And that is excellent for you.  You have achieved enlightenment in your faith. But joy does fade.  It's not a bad thing; the dark times only make us appreciate the good times all the more.  You just have to be prepared for this feeling to wax and wane like moon phases.   Passion will do the same.  If you claim that you have cast off your old self and truly belong to your God, then be prepared for him to test you on that.


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That reminds me.  I haven't read it yet even though I have a copy on my shelf next to the Bible and a collection of Buddhist scriptures.


 I haven't read any of the religious texts cover to cover :V Seems like a lot of work when I can eat my way through low brow science fiction (funny enough, reading the Da Vinci Code for the first time right now)


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That reminds me.  I haven't read it yet even though I have a copy on my shelf next to the Bible and a collection of Buddhist scriptures.


 
I should borrow my brother's.  He's not Muslim (he's Baptist), but he's read it cover to cover. *S*  He found it really insightful, and was able to talk with a local Imam and compare notes about the differences christianity and islam.

Which sutras do you have, btw?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

There is no "old life".

You've got one life.  No take-backs, no do-overs, no excuses.

I'm going to start a church.  The Church of Me.  All followers of the Church of Me (me) must not do anything I would not do.

(I bet some comedian has already taken that joke.  Fucker.)


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

^ it's metaphorical, man ^_^


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> ^ it's metaphorical, man ^_^


 
People acting like they get a free pass to wipe their slate clean when they convert to any given religion annoys me.  I have had the misfortune of meeting a NUMBER of self-professed Born-Again Christians who thought that being friends with the Spirit-in-the-sky meant that they don't still owe me more than a flimsy apology prefaced and followed up with a "you should find Jesus" spiel.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That reminds me. I haven't read it yet even though I have a copy on my shelf next to the Bible and a collection of Buddhist scriptures.



I read the Qur'an. Same thing as the Bible really.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> And that is excellent for you.  You have achieved enlightenment in your faith. But joy does fade.  It's not a bad thing; the dark times only make us appreciate the good times all the more.  You just have to be prepared for this feeling to wax and wane like moon phases.   Passion will do the same.  If you claim that you have cast off your old self and truly belong to your God, then be prepared for him to test you on that.


 
Trust me, I know of dark times, I have been tested by God. (many of the times I have failed spectacularly). When times have gotten tough, I now just now depend on God, instead of myself.
I am a sinner.  I don't want to be a sinner. But I am.  I have sins  that  still get the best of me.   In fact, there are sins that I have  confessed to God  so many times that I feel like I should just make a  recording of a prayer of  confession, carry it around in a small tape  player, aim it heavenward, and just  play the tape several times a day. I need to let you in on a secret.   Don't pass it around too much,  but... I'm  weak and susceptible to the lust of the flesh, the lust of  the eyes, and the  boastful pride of life. 
Nevertheless, when I compare myself to Jesus, I find myself falling  short.   To be honest, I don't like bearing the cross daily.  It is  heavy.  I am not  particularly fond of disciplining myself to read His  Word, not to mention  actually applying it to my life.  Being humble is  something I struggle with and  considering the welfare of others means  that I have to be less selfish.  All of  these things are difficult --  and all of these things are unChristlike.   Therefore, I cling to the  cross, confess my sins, and yet again ask for  forgiveness and the  strength to continue to walk in a manner worthy of my  calling.  I will  choose to follow Him regardless of the difficulties, the  humiliation,  and the suffering.  Why?  Because that is what it means to be a   disciple of Jesus.  That is what it means if I claim the name of  Christian for  myself.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I read the Qur'an. Same thing as the Bible really.


 
Eh.



The Quran preaches that good works will get you to Heaven. Christianity states  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.(Ephesians 2:8-9)


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Oh more of this self immolation thing? It garners no respect and it doesn't make us forgive you. It also doesn't help your argument. Don't whimper about how you fall short just apologize and get the fuck over it.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Eh.


*BANNED.*


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What I meant is that I can hear God (figuratively speaking) I can feel Him. (Much more than I used to) I used to be what one would call a Lukewarm Christian. I am not new in the Faith. (  I have a good understanding of the Bible. But book knowledge and actually applying it to ones life are two different things)  I have always believed. The feeling you speak of has lasted for almost 4 months continually now. It won't wear off. (I am finally at peace, true peace) I may not understand why God does what He does. (I don't question Him anymore) But I know he has a better plan for me than I could ever possibly come up with. There is a fire burning very strong in me now. To quote my pastor "I have the burning passion for Christ" I have let go of what I want. And I now try and tune myself to what God wants of me. I was bought and paid for by Him. I am no loner my own. I belong to God. I am have killed my old self (caste off my old life).


 
It sounds like, in a spiritual sense, you're "just waiting to die."

Why wouldn't you doubt and question God? You ought to. It does not require you to not believe in him, but merely seek out critical understanding.

Your cup is full, and your misplaced euphoria is prematurely ending what should be a life-long journey.



> I'm  weak and susceptible to the lust of the flesh, the lust of  the eyes, and the  boastful pride of life.



Here's a little secret... all of humanity "suffers" from this. It's weird that God not only made us require sex to reproduce, but made us interested in sex as well. Okay, maybe it's not weird at all. It's weird that God disapproves.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> People acting like they get a free pass to wipe their slate clean when they convert to any given religion annoys me.  I have had the misfortune of meeting a NUMBER of self-professed Born-Again Christians who thought that being friends with the Spirit-in-the-sky meant that they don't still owe me more than a flimsy apology prefaced and followed up with a "you should find Jesus" spiel.


 
I've gotten one apology for something that I can't remember, from someone and she is one of the few people I would call a real Christian; one who walks the walk and talks the talk.  From everyone else I don't even get acknowledgement.  And honestly I'm working on letting it go.  I'm almost there; I'm pretty sure if I see most of those people from my youth group I wouldn't haul out and clock them dead in the face.  I can't make any promises though *L*.

There are some really decent christians out there though.  They're hard to find with your ears because they're the ones not ramming the bible down' your throat.  I'd say that chances are those that are decent to humanity are the real 'born agains', but that's just as true as a Buddhist, Muslim, or Wiccan as of a Christian.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Eh.
> 
> 
> 
> The Quran preaches that good works will get you to Heaven. Christianity states  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.(Ephesians 2:8-9)


At least good works benefits the community in a visible way. Faith alone won't make your life or the life of people around you better.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> At least good works benefits the community in a visible way. Faith alone won't make your life or the life of people around you better.



THIS. And for this very reason I prefer muslims to christians.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> At least good works benefits the community in a visible way. Faith alone won't make your life or the life of people around you better.


 
But Christianity also says faith without works is dead. True faith means you will be doing good works. But its a by product of believing in Christ.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Which sutras do you have, btw?


 
You made me pull it down and take another look at it.  I haven't studied Buddhism enough to understand how the texts are or ought to be divided yet, only that (if I understand right) the list of sutras out there is huge, but what I have so far is just a single book not even 1,000 pages.  It's just a start.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But Christianity also says faith without works is dead. True faith means you will be doing good works. But its a by product of believing in Christ.


 
Funny, I've done good works and I'm no Christian.  Call me crazy here but I'd say that doing good works is only a byproduct of believing in Christ if you were too bereft of moral fiber to do good works without believing in Christ.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That reminds me.  I haven't read it yet even though I have a copy on my shelf next to the Bible and a collection of Buddhist scriptures.


 Buddhist...scripture? Aside from the little cautionary tales they tell the kids, the precepts, and sutras, I'm not sure I've seen any "scripture" x3


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> You made me pull it down and take another look at it.  I haven't studied Buddhism enough to understand how the texts are or ought to be divided yet, only that (if I understand right) the list of sutras out there is huge, but what I have so far is just a single book not even 1,000 pages.  It's just a start.


 
Ahh.  Gotcha.

Reading one of the sutras is on my list of things to do.  I have other books I'm going through at the moment, and I haven't decided on which text to read.  I'm also an agnostic when it comes to Buddhist mentality, and there are at least 3 main schools of Buddhism so it's definitely a list I have to research and narrow down when I have a free moment.  

Sorry for making you pull that tome down, btw *S*.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

well. I think my response to Rukh got lost somehow.  Has anyone seen it?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

Liar said:


> Buddhist...scripture? Aside from the little cautionary tales they tell the kids, the precepts, and sutras, I'm not sure I've seen any "scripture" x3


 
Yeah, well...  I don't get to browse libraries or bookstores with any significantly sized non-Christian religion/philosophy sections more than a few times a year because of how long a drive it is, and I don't order online much.

I'd certainly welcome help trying to understand it all when I get back into it, if it wouldn't be too great an imposition.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> People acting like they get a free pass to wipe their slate clean when they convert to any given religion annoys me.  I have had the misfortune of meeting a NUMBER of self-professed Born-Again Christians who thought that being friends with the Spirit-in-the-sky meant that they don't still owe me more than a flimsy apology prefaced and followed up with a "you should find Jesus" spiel.



"The problem with some born-again Christians is that they're an even bigger pain in the arse the second time around...."


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Yeah, well...  I don't get to browse libraries or bookstores with any significantly sized non-Christian religion/philosophy sections more than a few times a year because of how long a drive it is, and I don't order online much.
> 
> I'd certainly welcome help trying to understand it all when I get back into it, if it wouldn't be too great an imposition.


 
Feel free to PM me if ya like. I used to go to a Buddhist temple every Saturday and Sunday for about 2 years. It's Korean Buddhism, so I'm not sure how different from the norm it is.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> well. I think my response to Rukh got lost somehow.  Has anyone seen it?


 
The forum eats posts every now and then.  Lag or something.

Also, Rukh's obsession with turning away from the "sin of lust" and porn and such makes me laugh a bit.  It's normal to like a little sexual titillation.  Unless you're a serious porn hound, I can't imagine why any deity should care if you enjoy a little entertainment and release every now and again.  "God" gave you a sex drive, you know :V


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The forum eats posts every now and then.  Lag or something.
> 
> Also, Rukh's obsession with turning away from the "sin of lust" and porn and such makes me laugh a bit.  It's normal to like a little sexual titillation.  Unless you're a serious porn hound, I can't imagine why any deity should care if you enjoy a little entertainment and release every now and again.  "God" gave you a sex drive, you know :V


But he also killed one guy for masturbating! You know, that one dude. Who uh, got drunk and had sex with his daughters. Was that the same dude? I don't know, the bible is pretty nonsensical in that aspect.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Yeah, well...  I don't get to browse libraries or bookstores with any significantly sized non-Christian religion/philosophy sections more than a few times a year because of how long a drive it is, and I don't order online much.
> 
> I'd certainly welcome help trying to understand it all when I get back into it, if it wouldn't be too great an imposition.



Did you ever try the Internet Sacred Text Archive?   Here's there section of Buddhist writings *S*:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

(Thanks tycho!  Trying post to Rukh one more time)



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Nevertheless, when I compare myself to Jesus, I find myself falling short. To be honest, I don't like bearing the cross daily. It is heavy. I am not particularly fond of disciplining myself to read His Word, not to mention actually applying it to my life. Being humble is something I struggle with and considering the welfare of others means that I have to be less selfish. All of these things are difficult -- and all of these things are unChristlike. Therefore, I cling to the cross, confess my sins, and yet again ask for forgiveness and the strength to continue to walk in a manner worthy of my calling. I will choose to follow Him regardless of the difficulties, the humiliation, and the suffering. Why? Because that is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. That is what it means if I claim the name of Christian for myself.



When you compare yourself to Jesus, it's to be like Christ, not a Clone of him.   You are human, not deity; you are going to fall short.  Accept that.    Christ already carried the cross for you so you don't have to.  You are going to burn out if you continue on this schedule.  Being humble and putting others first shouldn't be a chore, but it's something that should be developed into a habit, like brushing your teeth.  Practice it instead of doing it like a duty and don't flog yourself if you forget.  That's what apologies are for. *S*

But I hope you truly do see your walk as a joy like you say, and not a burden to carry so you can claim a title.  The latter is not what makes us followers of our faiths.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

Liar said:


> Feel free to PM me if ya like. I used to go to a Buddhist temple every Saturday and Sunday for about 2 years. It's Korean Buddhism, so I'm not sure how different from the norm it is.


 
Thank you.



CAThulu said:


> Did you ever try the Internet Sacred Text Archive?   Here's there section of Buddhist writings *S*:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm


 
I feel thoroughly stupid now.  I completely forgot that site existed.  >.<

Thank you.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The forum eats posts every now and then.  Lag or something.
> 
> Also, Rukh's obsession with turning away from the "sin of lust" and porn and such makes me laugh a bit.  It's normal to like a little sexual titillation.  Unless you're a serious porn hound, I can't imagine why any deity should care if you enjoy a little entertainment and release every now and again.  "God" gave you a sex drive, you know :V



It's hard for some people (freudian slip, I know) when it comes to their drives; some have more then others.  It really comes down to self control and moderation.  Obsessing over being on guard for the sin of lust just keeps lust permenantly stuck in your head.  If you're looking to avoid it, you're gonna see it everywhere.



Liar said:


> But he also killed one guy for masturbating! You know, that one dude. Who uh, got drunk and had sex with his daughters. Was that the same dude? I don't know, the bible is pretty nonsensical in that aspect.



I think your mixing up two stories here.  Onan was killed for masturbating (hence Onanism being the original term for self pleasure), and Lot slept with his daughters after the burning of Sodom and Gommorah.  Though in that one, Lots daughters got him drunk so he would sleep with them and give them children, and he wasn't killed for that.  

from Genesis 19


> 30 Lot  went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters  with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he  and his two daughters. 31 Then  the firstborn said to the younger, â€œOur father is old, and there is not  a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 â€œCome, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.â€ 33 So  they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in  and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when  she arose. 34 On  the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, â€œBehold, I lay  last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then  you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our  father.â€ 35 So  they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger  arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when  she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I feel thoroughly stupid now.  I completely forgot that site existed.  >.<
> 
> Thank you.



No worries...so did I *L*


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The forum eats posts every now and then.  Lag or something.
> 
> Also, Rukh's obsession with turning away from the "sin of lust" and porn and such makes me laugh a bit.  It's normal to like a little sexual titillation.  Unless you're a serious porn hound, I can't imagine why any deity should care if you enjoy a little entertainment and release every now and again.  "God" gave you a sex drive, you know :V


 
Yes, God did give us a sex drive, And its meant for marriage only. Porn brings sex outside of marriage, not to mention it shows women as a sex object.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> (Thanks tycho!  Trying post to Rukh one more time)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Jesus also said to take up our cross and follow him:

Luke 9:23-26
Then he said to them all: *Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.*  For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.  What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?  Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed  of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of  the holy angels.

Another way of putting it, is we are to die to Christ.

Our death in Christ is a death to the old self, the old ways, the sinful  life.  It is a reality and a hope.  It is truth as well as life.  Jesus  so completely represented us on the cross that, when He died, it is  said that we died.  This is why Paul says in Col. 3:5 "Therefore  consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality,  impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry." You are to mentally reckon, intellectually acknowledge, meditate on, think in such a way as to consider yourselves dead to sin.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> *sighs*  Everytime I read the initialism KJB I see 'KGB' and my brain automatically switches to the Cold War era. O_0
> 
> I've seen the book of Mormon come out with newer versions every so often.  Is that for correlation purposes with the KJV?


 
no It is to add New church doctrine revealed by modern day prophets to our church

also here is a nice little link for all of you to look at.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+mormonism+Christianity
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+christianity
the second link is a definition and oh whats that http://www.mormon.org/ IS AT THE TOP.

Many quote actual Church quotes but twist it and don't understand most of what it means
and most of the Time the FIRST link is the best and oh wait whats that at the top
*http://www.mormon.org/*


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, God did give us a sex drive, And its meant for marriage only. Porn brings sex outside of marriage, not to mention it shows women as a sex object.


As opposed to breeding stock :V


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Porn brings sex outside of marriage, not to mention it shows women as a sex object.


 
That's funny, a Bible adherent being such an ardent advocate of women's rights and such.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, God did give us a sex drive, And its meant for marriage only. Porn brings sex outside of marriage, not to mention it shows women as a sex object.


 
...And men as sex objects, and children as sex objects, and animals as sex objects, and sex toys as sex objects. ..

Also - do you only copulate, or can you masturbate without inseminating someone? Masturbation =/= Sex.

EDIT: Oh, lets not forget how God gave Deer and Iguanas sex-drives, which they both use to masturbate excessively while watching females. And God of course gave bees and ducks sex-drive, which they use to rape females to death and then gang-bang their corpses. Or what about the dolphins God gave sex-drive to, who steal females and take turns to have 2 males hold the female in place while the third rapes her. And lets not forget the female chimps, who have sex with every male in the group several times so as to ensure they don't know who the father is. Lions are great too, how the females are so used to males committing infancide that they get horny watching it. 

But nah, God's cool. He only wants marriage.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 16, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Also - do you only copulate, or can you masturbate without inseminating someone? Masturbation =/= Sex.


 
[yt]RzHcqcXo_NA[/yt]

All you need to know.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> I think your mixing up two stories here.  Onan was killed for masturbating (hence Onanism being the original term for self pleasure)



The passage describing Onan's actions (Genesis 38:9) merely states that Onan "spilled his seed" after sleeping with his brother's wife - so it could be a case of "pulling out before cumming" as much as wanking.



CAThulu said:


> and Lot slept with his daughters after the burning of Sodom and Gommorah.  Though in that one, Lots daughters got him drunk so he would sleep with them and give them children, and he wasn't killed for that.



'Course, Lot was also the guy *who was willing to give up his own daughters to be pack-raped by the men of Sodom* in place of his guests (as opposed to simply saying "No!" to the demand to hand his guests over)... and not only was Lot *not *killed for that, God made sure he and his family were rescued from Sodom's destruction.



			
				Genesis 19: 4-8 said:
			
		

> Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâ€”both young and oldâ€”surrounded the house. They called to Lot, â€œWhere are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.â€
> 
> Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, â€œNo, my friends. Donâ€™t do this wicked thing. *Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But donâ€™t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.*â€ (emphasis added)



Gotta love that God fellow, eh? Kills a fellow for wanking/pulling out before climax, but spares a fellow that was willing to have his daughters raped to placate a mob. Obviously a case of Lot having connections (with God's favourite Abraham) that Onan never had.
I eagerly await Rukh pulling out some obscure translation that claims that Lot's daughters were actually "prostitutes" or "watermelons" or something...

Trivia: Apparently at one point "Onan" was the brand of an electric generator - one presumes it was the hand-cranked type...


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> not to mention it shows women as a sex object.



 So does the Bible :V


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> BEHOLD I CAN HAS TEH GOOGLE


Did you really just post "let me google that for you" links as a means to defend your argument? REALLY? I mean,_* REALLY*_? Do your own research and present your own case. Don't expect us to go digging to find information supporting your side of the debate: that's your job. And well, I euss since you resorted to the "google it urself hurr" we can wrap this up that you are an insufferable _moron_. I mean mormon.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> no It is to add New church doctrine revealed by modern day prophets to our church
> 
> also here is a nice little link for all of you to look at.
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+mormonism+Christianity
> ...


 

Thanks for putting those up there *S*.  I was raised to believe that they put out new ones, which always confused the hell out of me because that makes no sense at all.   *bookmarks links* ^_^

If you don't mind, I know some people who need to know this to have their perceptions changed around a bit that I'll be sending these links to as well *S*


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Did you really just post "let me google that for you" links as a means to defend your argument? REALLY? I mean,_* REALLY*_? Do your own research and present your own case. Don't expect us to go digging to find information supporting your side of the debate: that's your job. And well, I euss since you resorted to the "google it urself hurr" we can wrap this up that you are an insufferable _moron_. I mean mormon.



Woah...what's wrong with that?  It's not a bad idea to google links then checking through said links to see if they provide the right info.  That's like dissing me for putting up the Internet Sacred Text Archive for Ariel so she can check through the sutras posted there.  I'm glad I have those links *S*.  He answered my question with a simple answer (It is to add New church doctrine revealed by modern day prophets to our church) then gave me the resources to read into it instead of posting the epic wall of text that usually comes with answering religious questions.

Ease down on the raeg there, Deo *S*.  What he did was fine.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

(continuing with post catch ups *L*)



Mayfurr said:


> The passage describing Onan's actions (Genesis  38:9) merely states that Onan "spilled his seed" after sleeping with his  brother's wife - so it could be a case of "pulling out before cumming"  as much as wanking.



For a long time I was under the impression from Church that Onan's sin was masterbation, not just spilling his seed.  The story was often combined with how a man was unclean after 'spilling his seed' to further hammer home that self pleasure is a sin.   Onan's sin is that he didn't provide his brother with an heir by pulling out as he was commanded to.  It's more about disobedience then masterbation, but the Church has always been tittular and pastors tend to miss the point when they focus on sex acts then on the situation. *rolls eyes*

If I had a dime for the amount of times I wanted to stand up in a sermon and say "hey...are you sure about that?" I'd be a celebutant with my own tv series right now.



Mayfurr said:


> 'Course, Lot was also the guy *who  was willing to give up his own daughters to be pack-raped by the men of  Sodom* in place of his guests (as opposed to simply saying "No!" to  the demand to hand his guests over)... and not only was Lot *not  *killed for that, God made sure he and his family were rescued from  Sodom's destruction.



Yeeeah.  I know.  I'm not a big fan of this family's ethics.   His solution to keeping his guests (who were angels) from being gangbanged was to let the angry mob have his daughters.  And depite the incest his daughters committed, and they were labeled as being disgusting for doing so, an entire tribe of isreal came from Lot sleeping with his girls. *facepalm*   

And people wonder why I don't believe the bible as trufax.   The OT God is pretty unpredictable in punishments and rewards at a time when the ground rules were being put down.  IF a parent was this inconsistant with discipline, the children would end up with a lot of problems.

oh wait... :V



Mayfurr said:


> Gotta love that God fellow, eh?  Kills a fellow for wanking/pulling out before climax, but spares a  fellow that was willing to have his daughters raped to placate a mob.  Obviously a case of Lot having connections (with God's favourite  Abraham) that Onan never had.
> I eagerly await Rukh pulling out some  obscure translation that claims that Lot's daughters were actually  "prostitutes" or "watermelons" or something...



See above. *L*



Mayfurr said:


> Trivia: Apparently  at one point "Onan" was the brand of an electric generator - one  presumes it was the hand-cranked type...



*LOL*  This was also at a time when what were clearly vibrators were labelled as 'back massagers' I assume.


----------



## Yrr (Nov 16, 2010)

A major thing most religions miss out.

Where is the definitive proof that _your_ religion is the real one?

What makes your religion any more true than another?

And how come I go to hell if I accidentally pick the wrong one?


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Woah...what's wrong with that?


It's wrong because lmgtfy is a flippant way of not doing your own valid research or gathering your thoughts and presenting them clearly. It places the burden of research onto the opponent. 



CAThulu said:


> It's not a bad idea to google links then checking through said links to see if they provide the right info. That's like dissing me for putting up the Internet Sacred Text Archive for Ariel so she can check through the sutras posted there.


The difference here is that you presented specific links to a few specific websites that you had already read. You had done your reasearch and presented websites that you found enlightening. Lmgtfy is not specific. It asks the oponent to dredge through the millions of websites out there that pop up under a google search. It also has a huge lack of effort in reading through websites to find specific ones that concisely aid your case. He basically pointed to the whole internet and said "there you go".



CAThulu said:


> Ease down on the raeg there, Deo *S*. What he did was fine.


This is not so much raeg, as it is irritation. This irritates me when people do not do their own research and then expect us to listen to them while we read through and spend our time in ways they would not. It's the same way as a fundie telling me to read the bible when they have not. It irritates me.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2010)

I see no reason at all to be polite or understanding with people who believe as blindly as some do in this thread. Waste of effort, IMO.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Yrr said:


> A major thing most religions miss out.
> 
> Where is the definitive proof that _your_ religion is the real one?
> 
> ...



1) My belief system understands that there are many paths, and that no one faith system holds the truth or is the one way to live your life.  It's why I'm known as an ecclectic pagan; I don't follow one system, and I get flack for that actually.  I've been accused of picking and choosing when it comes to religion when what I'm actually doing is searching for truth shared across humanity's collective unconscious (see Jung), then sticking to one faith system and demonizing all of the others.

2) My Belief system holds no more truth than any other, and that every one holds seeds of truth.  It's the seekers responsibility to search for the truth and discard the misinformation in the faiths that they come across

3) I don't believe in hell.  There is the probability of reincarnation, but as for hell...there's no more proof of it's existence then there is of heaven, or an afterlife in general.  Anyone who tells you that they know _for sure_ that there is a heaven and hell like they know that fire is hot is confusing strong faith with stone cold fact.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> It's wrong because lmgtfy is a flippant way of not doing your own valid research or gathering your thoughts and presenting them clearly. It places the burden of research onto the opponent.


 
And what's wrong with the opponent doing their own research and reading rather then being spoonfed information and being told to take it at face value?  I prefer the former *S*.



Deovacuus said:


> The difference here is that you presented specific links to a few specific websites that you had already read. You had done your reasearch and presented websites that you found enlightening. Lmgtfy is not specific. It asks the oponent to dredge through the millions of websites out there that pop up under a google search. It also has a huge lack of effort in reading through websites to find specific ones that concisely aid your case. He basically pointed to the whole internet and said "there you go".



Okay...still, he gave me an answer to start off with.  As fo lmgtfy, I've never seen it before, and never used it.  I'm not about to yell at him for his search methods, which admittedly could be a bit more refined *S*.  My bookmark folder on religion contains sites that are legion and rediculous in it's subfolder directories *L*.  Google's a good jumping point to find that link that you want that you've lost, but honestly it's over, just let it go.



Deovacuus said:


> This is not so much raeg, as it is irritation. This irritates me when people do not do their own research and then expect us to listen to them while we read through and spend our time in ways they would not. It's the same way as a fundie telling me to read the bible when they have not. It irritates me.



Yeah, but outright calling Crazed Porcupine a moron for something that was between him and I goes a bit beyond irritation, dont'cha think?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> And what's wrong with the opponent doing their own research and reading rather then being spoonfed information and being told to take it at face value?  I prefer the former *S*.


 
There's a difference between your opponent doing the research before debating with you, and demanding that your opponent do your research for you.  Not you personally, of course, but the latter is what our new friend did.

And using LMGTFY instead of actual Google search links was a clear insult added to that injury.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> And using LMGTFY instead of actual Google search links was a clear insult added to that injury.



THIS. lmgtfy is a way of being a passive aggressive twat.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> THIS. lmgtfy is a way of being a passive aggressive twat.


 
You use lmgtfy to tell a lazy person who is asking a dumb question "You're a lazy person, that was a dumb question, and here is your answer."

e.g.

FORUM USER 1: "Hey guys what year did the Dodgers win the world series"

REST OF FORUM: "Fuck, we don't know, we don't follow baseball."

FORUM USER 2: *uses lmgtfy* "there, user 1, happy?"


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> 1) My belief system understands that there are many paths, and that no one faith system holds the truth or is the one way to live your life.  It's why I'm known as an ecclectic pagan; I don't follow one system, and I get flack for that actually.  I've been accused of picking and choosing when it comes to religion when w*hat I'm actually doing is searching for truth shared across humanity's collective unconscious (see Jung),* then sticking to one faith system and demonizing all of the others.


 That...is an amazingly awesome idea and I really like it. Assuming Jung's idea of a collective unconscious is true, then shouldn't God (or whatever the end result is that takes the place of a deity) have placed his core religious ideas in all of us, inside this unconscious so that everyone has an equal chance of finding him and his ideas? 

Man, what a fucking sweet idea. Go through various religions, find what they have similar, then BAM. Good to go.

The problem is, you have to believe in a collective unconscious. I kinda like Locke's whole "blank slate" thing, and Jung's idea goes against that.

I really respect how you are trying to tackle religion though. It's a great idea, and it allows you to educate yourself on the various religions of the world. Many are quite interesting, if nothing else.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You use lmgtfy to tell a lazy person who is asking a dumb question "You're a lazy person, that was a dumb question, and here is your answer."
> 
> e.g.
> 
> ...


 
Or

User 1: Asks stupid question with an obvious answer, like "I herd Rusia invaded Georgia and I live in Alabama, am i goin 2b ok?"
User 2: Reads this and slmas a lmgtfy as a way of rubbing it in how stupid Usr 1 is and qith a simple google search the information would have been found.

However, this format doesn't hold in a deabate where one person tries to use lmgtfy as a means of supporting an arguement. It all just falls flat.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 16, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> 1) My belief system understands that there are many paths, and that no one faith system holds the truth or is the one way to live your life.  It's why I'm known as an ecclectic pagan; I don't follow one system, and I get flack for that actually.  I've been accused of picking and choosing when it comes to religion when what I'm actually doing is searching for truth shared across humanity's collective unconscious (see Jung), then sticking to one faith system and demonizing all of the others.
> 
> 2) My Belief system holds no more truth than any other, and that every one holds seeds of truth.  It's the seekers responsibility to search for the truth and discard the misinformation in the faiths that they come across
> 
> 3) I don't believe in hell.  There is the probability of reincarnation, but as for hell...there's no more proof of it's existence then there is of heaven, or an afterlife in general.  Anyone who tells you that they know _for sure_ that there is a heaven and hell like they know that fire is hot is confusing strong faith with stone cold fact.



It is a good belief system.

I've always felt a requirement to be flexible in one's beliefs. Say some Christian lucked out and all their beliefs were correct... except that God doesn't have a beard, but they had always personally thought he had one! It could be argued that they never worshiped the correct God. Even such a case is being lucky. There's literally an infinite-to-one chance that your beliefs are 100% correct. Maybe it will matter in the end, maybe it won't? I consider any belief as possible; even if I tear an idea apart, I still consider it possible. In this way I will never be wrong. I will never be right either, but this stuff is unprovable anyways, so is that actually important?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 16, 2010)

Because as said earlier lmgtfy is used when someone *is too lazy* to google their own questions. and I posted several links from those searches but you *FLAT OUT REFUSED* to look at those sights and then when I post other links and explain what happens when you click them you rage because I'm doing what you were too lazy to do.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> and I posted several links from those searches but you *FLAT OUT REFUSED* to look at those sights and then


 
For all the posts you made in this thread, and I went through the entire history, only four contain any links or reference any Web sites, and of those four posts, two cite the LDS official home page so generically that only Google's home page could be more generic, one cites only a single page on the LDS official Web site, and the fourth, much later, cites the same home page and LMGTFY.  The truth is that you did not post "several links" -- and you didn't post any links from searches -- before slapping us with a Google-for-idiots link; you merely posted the same generic link a couple of times.

A home page link is great for suggesting exploration by those who ask to explore, don't get me wrong, but a home page link is terrible for supporting specific points in a debate.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Because as said earlier lmgtfy is used when someone *is too lazy* to google their own questions. and I posted several links from those searches but you *FLAT OUT REFUSED* to look at those sights and then when I post other links and explain what happens when you click them you rage because I'm doing what you were too lazy to do.


 
Assuming much? I did read everything you posted and your links. And your links were the generic home page of mormon whatever. I would still have had o dig around to find anything relevant to your points. So yeah, I read your posts you hiny little arrogant fool and I read your links. I just don't like to be insulted with lmgtfy.
And if this is a debate why is it wrong to pose questions to you rather than googling every single one of them? Or are you that inept at answering questions about your beliefs or otherwise unable to defend your statements factually?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 16, 2010)

Shit, if I was allowed to post Google links as my debate platform, I'd win every time.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> also here is a nice little link for all of you to look at.
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+mormonism+Christianity
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+christianity
> the second link is a definition and oh whats that http://www.mormon.org/ IS AT THE TOP.
> ...



Curious.  When I search using http://www.google.com/search?q=Is+mormonism+Christianity and http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+christianity, I can't find mormon.org listed in the top ten results of either link except occasionally as a sponsored result on the first link.  Am I alone in seeing this?  The only things different about my Google search settings are that "Safe Search" and "Google Instant" are turned off.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> no It is to add New church doctrine revealed by modern day prophets to our church



I missed this.  It's a nice thing to know.



CAThulu said:


> Woah...what's wrong with that?  It's not a bad idea to google links then checking through said links to see if they provide the right info.  That's like dissing me for putting up the Internet Sacred Text Archive for Ariel so she can check through the sutras posted there.  I'm glad I have those links *S*.  He answered my question with a simple answer (It is to add New church doctrine revealed by modern day prophets to our church) then gave me the resources to read into it instead of posting the epic wall of text that usually comes with answering religious questions.
> 
> Ease down on the raeg there, Deo *S*.  What he did was fine.



The thing is, though, the Internet Sacred Text Archive link was both specific to the discussion and a relevant exploration link.  Also, again, I thank you for it.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 16, 2010)

It might possible be that you have safesearch on


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> It might possible be that you have safesearch on


 
I somehow did (moderate, the default), but when I turned it off again, that didn't change my search results.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 16, 2010)

well i have safe search off like most people on these forums do and that may be it


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> It might possible be that you have safesearch on


No way in hell am I turning off my safesearch nd typing in mormon. I don't want CP plastered to my browser.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> No way in hell am I turning off my safesearch nd typing in mormon. I don't want CP plastered to my browser.


CP?


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> CP?


 
Child Pornography.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 16, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Child Pornography.


Ugh... why did I ask that...


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2010)

Shhh little mormons Chris Hansen is watching...


----------



## Attaman (Nov 17, 2010)

Just gonna leave this here...


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

Attaman's Article said:
			
		

> Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ"



Funniest part of the article. First I laughed because the logic is insane, then I laughed because it's not even racially accurate.


----------



## Deo (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Funniest part of the article. First I laughed because the logic is insane, then I laughed because it's not even racially accurate.


 
I never understood that. Jesus was not white. He did not have blue eyes. He was of middle eastern descent and was either black or arab skinned.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html <RELEVANT


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 17, 2010)

I can understand why people would think Jesus is white - Most people that believe in Jesus are probably white skinned, thus the image they'd project in their head is someone just like themselves (which includes black people, some of which think Jesus was black). 

Apparently if he is all that powerful, I suppose he could've appeared the various colour of choice by those who saw him (black people see black Jesus, white people see white Jesus, etc.)

But I doubt he'd gain a bunch of dark tanned followers if he was pasty white :V


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Just gonna leave this here...


 
*ROTFLMAO*




Deovacuus said:


> Shhh little mormons Chris Hansen is watching...



O_O

He's...ceiling cat?!


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> *Because as said earlier lmgtfy is used when someone is too lazy to google their own questions.* and I posted several links from those searches but you *FLAT OUT REFUSED* to look at those sights and then when I post other links and explain what happens when you click them you rage because I'm doing what you were too lazy to do.



Excuse me... are you saying that when I asked you a question about your faith, you thought I was too lazy to look for the answer myself instead of understanding that I would rather get my info from someone who lives it rather then a sterile website?

Because i've defended you on using lmgtfy when you answered my question, and if you did that to make me look like an idiot...


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 17, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> and if you did that to make me look like an idiot...


 
You're not an idiot.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

Heh...thanks for that *S*.  And your welcome about the Sacret Text Archive *G*.  I ended up reading the Book of Adam and Eve from the section of Christian Apocrypha last night.  Why they decided to leave that book out of the bible is beyond me; it answered a LOT of questions.  Like how Cain ended up with a wife, and even about the extended lifespan of Adam up to Noah.  It was pretty cool *G*


----------



## Deo (Nov 17, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Because i've defended you on using lmgtfy when you answered my question, and if you did that to make me look like an idiot...


You're not an idiot, he's just an asshat.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> There's a difference between your opponent doing the research before debating with you, and demanding that your opponent do your research for you.  Not you personally, of course, but the latter is what our new friend did.
> 
> And using LMGTFY instead of actual Google search links was a clear insult added to that injury.



I understand that now, and Deo I owe you a HUGE apology.  I get what you both were trying to say, since that's the first time I've run across lmgtfy.   It would never cross my mind to use that site, now that i'm aware of it, and for someone to tell me to use it as though I'm a child instead of a college graduate is demeaning.   

I think Porcupine owes me an explanation.



Conker said:


> That...is an amazingly awesome idea and I really like it. Assuming Jung's idea of a collective unconscious is true, then shouldn't God (or whatever the end result is that takes the place of a deity) have placed his core religious ideas in all of us, inside this unconscious so that everyone has an equal chance of finding him and his ideas?


 
Well, that is true if God came first.  It's like the chicken or the egg; did God create us, or did we create God to explain the preternatural (inexplicable by ordinary means) which would look like magic to early peoples.  Gods, ghosts, demons, spirits, etc, are present in all cultures.  And many basic ideas regarding murder, theft, rape, etc are seen as bad in many cultures across the world, with a few rare exceptions.  The difference being that each culture uses common ideas from the collective unconsious and uses it as a foundation to build their civilization upon it.



Conker said:


> Man, what a fucking sweet idea. Go through various religions, find what they have similar, then BAM. Good to go.



Don't kid yourself, it's a lot of reading and a lot of work, but it's so worth it!    Just start with a book and go from there.  I've always been the type of person that believed that I didn't need a classroom to learn something; that I could do it on my own.   I suck at math too much to take physics, but that didn't stop me from reading A Brief History of Time when I was 16 because I have a keen interest in what makes our universe tick ^_^.




Conker said:


> The problem is, you have to believe in a collective unconscious. I kinda like Locke's whole "blank slate" thing, and Jung's idea goes against that.



Oooo...I'll have to check that theory out.  thanks!



Conker said:


> I really respect how you are trying to tackle religion though. It's a great idea, and it allows you to educate yourself on the various religions of the world. Many are quite interesting, if nothing else.



Thank you *S*.  And the more I understand about another's belief, the more I can understand a culture.  It's easier to hold a conversation with someone if you know where they're coming from *S*.   It also tends to shed light on how I see my own faith and hopefully find another truth to add to the tapestry *G*.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> You're not an idiot, he's just an asshat.



Thanks.  And I'm sorry if I was bitchy to you earlier today.   I didn't realize his intentions when he listed lmgtfy for me to use to answer my question.  I understand why you were irritated, and I don't blame you one bit for being angry at his response now.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 17, 2010)

The one thing that the "Mormons are Christians! / Not they're not!" slagfestdebate between Rukh and CrazedPorcupine has illustrated so far is that religious types are FAR more motivated to battle heretics within their _own _faith than infidels outside it... <grin>


----------



## Telnac (Nov 17, 2010)

Necro'ing from pages 16 & 17, simply because these are the two responses I found to my last post and I don't have the time to read pages 18-40!


Deovacuus said:


> I will have to get a book on the topic of existentialism. And it does raise a good point. Also, could thoughts of God be such an input? If all we can be sure of is ourselves in the present plane of time, then is not God questionable?
> 
> Also, have fun in CA. i look forward to the rest of the debate.


 


Heimdal said:


> Good point, but I do think it cherry-picks philosophy in a way that doesn't work with religion.
> 
> If you conclude that all you can truly know is that yourself exists, then you are doubting everything beyond yourself. Even the concept of God would be doubted (in which case, you're an Atheist. Note,becausemanychristiansdontrealizethis: Atheist don't deny God, they just doubt him.)



A lot of Christians argue that God exists, that it's not something they believe but is a hard fact.  I disagree with them.  Yes, I believe God exists.  But I say that as a statement of faith, not as a statement of fact.  If I made the claim that God exists, how can I prove that claim to you or anyone else?  I can't.  I can, however, make the claim that I believe God exists.  

Does that leave room for doubt?  Certainly!  However, I've seen & done many things that have led me to the belief that God exists.  This wasn't something drilled into my head by my religious parents.  My father was an Athiest most of my life, so I initially didn't believe in God either.  My spiritual journey took many years and several wrong turns before I ended up at the cross.  As a result, the basis for my own faith is quite strong.  I doubt anyone could present me with evidence that would make be give up that faith.  However, I do acknowledge that I could be wrong, and if I am wrong, I would welcome evidence that would lead me to a better understanding of what the Truth really is.

Does that make me an Athiest?  No.  Atheist is a term that means simply "without God."  The word itself doesn't say how strongly or weakly someone believes that God doesn't exist, only that's what they believe.  Gnostic vs Agnostic are the appropriate terms for that.  The root word for Gnostic means "to have knowledge", or in this context "absolute knowledge", so Agnostic means "lacking absolute knowledge."

The correct term for what I believe is Agnostic Theist.  I believe in God, and also believe I have many good reasons for doing so including many personal experiences, so my belief is a very strong one indeed, but there is always room for doubt.  Gnostic Theists are those who claim that God exists, that it's a fact, and that they know that beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever.  

In popular nomenclature, "Agnostic" usually means Agnostic Atheist, and I found that's usually the case with people who simply call themselves Agnostic.  I've found about 50% of people who call themselves Atheists are also Agnostic Atheists (and it sounds like you fit in that category too, Heimdal), and the rest are Gnostic Atheists.  The latter typically believe that the existence of God is a logical contradiction, therefore there is no chance whatsoever that God could possibly exist.  Even if I prayed to God and a pillar of flame came down from Heaven, chances are pretty good they still wouldn't believe.

I can usually have interesting & meaningful discussions and debates with Agnostic Theists and Agnostic Atheists alike.  Gnostic Theists and Gnostic Atheists, however, are a bit harder to argue with because they tend to believe there simply is nothing to discuss.  They're right and anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% is wrong.  Period, end of discussion.




Heimdal said:


> No matter how the Universe is interpreted, the concept of an omniscient God will always conflict with Free will. The only way to accomplish both is to limit God's omniscience, either by believing he has boundaries, or that he sets his own boundaries. It doesn't make much sense, though.


I'm sorry, but this is simply a conclusion I cannot agree with.  Say I know someone so well that I know with 100% certainty that he'll turn left when confronted with a fork in the road.  My knowledge of his action doesn't mean he doesn't have the freedom to choose however he likes.  Likewise, the fact that God knows what I'll choose to do tomorrow doesn't in any way diminish my freedom to do whatever I like.  The holds true no matter if the Universe is deterministic (since I have no knowledge of the future, the future cannot impinge on my ability to make a decision) or non-deterministic (since God, being omniscient, would know every possible choice I make in all possible future timelines.)


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 17, 2010)

Was raised Catholic and had to go to CCD or whatever for almost twelve years. (My older sister only had to go six. SIX. And she claims she had it worse?) So I'm sure you can bet where I stand on religion.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus also said to take up our cross and follow him:
> 
> Luke 9:23-26
> Then he said to them all: *Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.*
> ...


 
Dude, stop taking the bible out of context.

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


This verse is clearly part of an explicit message that you're very explicitly supposed to forsake your material posessions and family, sell all you have and give it to the poor, and then follow Jesus. You can't just twist the scripture to fit whatever you want to say, you heathen.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 17, 2010)

Telnac said:


> In popular nomenclature, "Agnostic" usually means Agnostic Atheist, and I found that's usually the case with people who simply call themselves Agnostic.  I've found about 50% of people who call themselves Atheists are also Agnostic Atheists (and it sounds like you fit in that category too, Heimdal), and the rest are Gnostic Atheists.  The latter typically believe that the existence of God is a logical contradiction, therefore there is no chance whatsoever that God could possibly exist.  Even if I prayed to God and a pillar of flame came down from Heaven, chances are pretty good they still wouldn't believe.



My own experience is different: about half of self-described agnostics are Agnostic Athiests, with the rest covering a wide range of positions.  The most common of these would be the position that God's existence is a roughly 50/50 proposition, the position that God exists, but it is uncertain which if any religion describes him accurately, and the position of simple apathy towards the entire matter.  Meanwhile, nearly all self-described atheists are Agnostic Atheists, with the number of Gnostic Atheists so few as to be completely insignificant.



Telnac said:


> I'm sorry, but this is simply a conclusion I cannot agree with.  Say I know someone so well that I know with 100% certainty that he'll turn left when confronted with a fork in the road.  My knowledge of his action doesn't mean he doesn't have the freedom to choose however he likes.  Likewise, the fact that God knows what I'll choose to do tomorrow doesn't in any way diminish my freedom to do whatever I like.  The holds true no matter if the Universe is deterministic (since I have no knowledge of the future, the future cannot impinge on my ability to make a decision) or non-deterministic (since God, being omniscient, would know every possible choice I make in all possible future timelines.)



But true _absolute_ certainty is an extraordinary thing, something that can't be gotten from mere familiarity with your friend.  I would argue that you have already precluded free will just by assuming 100% certainty of your friend's actions is possible.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 17, 2010)

well, it can help people a lot because it gives them something they can believe in... but personally i dont like that way of thinking because in my opinion you should believe in yourself and not some sort of immortal wizzard 

this sort of thing makes me laugh though: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/15/3


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 17, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Dude, stop taking the bible out of context.
> 
> Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
> 
> ...




Your the one taking them completely out of context. You didn't read the entire passages. Nice try though. Furthermore the verses you put up are saying that we are to put God first. Nothing on this world including family is more important than God. You forgot the last line of luke 14:26, hate your own life also, we are to die to Christ. Our old ways, old life needs to die. You cannot serve two masters. Christians are called to live in this world but not become of this world.

Luke 14:25-27
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:   â€œIf anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and  children, brothers and sistersâ€”yes,* even their own life*â€”such a person  cannot be my disciple. *And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.*

This is what its costs to be a disciple of Christ. You cannot put anyone above God.

Luke 18:18-24
A certain ruler asked him, â€œGood teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â€    â€œWhy do you call me good?â€ Jesus answered. â€œNo one is goodâ€”except God alone.   You know the commandments: â€˜You shall not commit adultery, you shall  not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,  honor your father and mother.â€™â€ 
  â€œAll these I have kept since I was a boy,â€ he said. 
  When Jesus heard this, he said to him, â€œYou  still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor,  and you will have treasure in heaven. *Then come, follow me.*â€ 
  When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy.  Jesus looked at him and said, â€œHow hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!


Again, you conveniently forgot the rest of the story. What Jesus is saying is that it is hard for people to give up their riches here on Earth for the riches in Heaven. Jesus is not saying to live poor. Just don't hold your Earthly possessions higher than God. Everything here will fade away.  Jesus tells us to give up everything here (our wants, our wishes) And to *completely* follow Him. Nothing can be above God in our lives. He is the center of everything.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

.


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your the one taking them completely out of context. You didn't read the entire passages. Nice try though. Furthermore the verses you put up are saying that we are to put God first. *Nothing on this world including family is more important than God*. You forgot the last line of luke 14:26, *hate your own life also*, we are to die to Christ. Our old ways, old life needs to die. You cannot serve two masters. Christians are called to live in this world but not become of this world.
> 
> Luke 14:25-27
> Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:   â€œIf anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and  children, brothers and sistersâ€”yes,* even their own life*â€”such a person  cannot be my disciple. *And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.*


 
Am I the only one who has problems with the bolded? Doesn't this strike anyone as unethical?


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2010)

Nope.  You're definitely not the ony one.


----------



## Enwon (Nov 17, 2010)

Jesus is just jealous that some people find things more important than him.


----------



## Conker (Nov 17, 2010)

Enwon said:


> Jesus is just jealous that some people find things more important than him.


 In the end, they're (Jesus and God) are all a bunch of angry narcissists.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Luke 18:18-24
> A certain ruler asked him, â€œGood teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â€    â€œWhy do you call me good?â€ Jesus answered. â€œNo one is goodâ€”except God alone.   You know the commandments: â€˜You shall not commit adultery, you shall  not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,  honor your father and mother.â€™â€
> â€œAll these I have kept since I was a boy,â€ he said.
> When Jesus heard this, he said to him, â€œYou  still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor,  and you will have treasure in heaven. *Then come, follow me.*â€
> ...


 
I don't think you know what Jesus is saying at all. If he was saying that earthly possessions mean nothing, then he wouldn't have stated to "give to the poor." He was saying to live your life in charity, and to be poor out of giving to others. He was not just telling you to 'view God as higher than other things,' he was telling you to take action and abandon those things! How much more explicitly does it have to be that that is what he literally said?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Am I the only one who has problems with the bolded? Doesn't this strike anyone as unethical?


 
Par for the course for Yahweh.  The implications are a huge problem though.  This is basically the starting point for those that decide that murdering abortion doctors and bullying gays and protesting funerals and causing all sorts of suffering in this world is OK, because it's all inconsequential to God's will and his reward in the afterlife.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Am I the only one who has problems with the bolded? Doesn't this strike anyone as unethical?



Not _unethical_ as such, but... it reminds me of the mentality of cultists and suicide bombers. 

Given that a stereotype of Islam by various Christian types these days is that "Muslims worship death", it's rather ironic (and somewhat hypocritical) that the verses Rukh holds up can be interpreted in _exactly the same way_ about Christians.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 17, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> I don't think you know what Jesus is saying at all. If he was saying that earthly possessions mean nothing, then he wouldn't have stated to "give to the poor." He was saying to live your life in charity, and to be poor out of giving to others. He was not just telling you to 'view God as higher than other things,' he was telling you to take action and abandon those things! How much more explicitly does it have to be that that is what he literally said?


 
Well, that's par for the course for a good chunk of Christianity - finding creative and above all _*convenient*_ excuses for passages in their holy book to mean what they _want _it to mean rather than what it _actually _says, so they can say with a straight face that they follow the exact teachings of Jesus while doing the exact opposite.

I expect Rukh will now claim that the word "sell" in Luke 18:18-24 has been mistranslated, and should actually be "consider" or "wheelbarrow" or something.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 17, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Not _unethical_ as such, but... it reminds me of the mentality of cultists and suicide bombers.
> 
> Given that a stereotype of Islam by various Christian types these days is that "Muslims worship death", it's rather ironic (and somewhat hypocritical) that the verses Rukh holds up can be interpreted in _exactly the same way_ about Christians.


 
Anyone who would forsake this life for the concept of an afterlife worships death.  Period.  To devalue life by treating it as little more than preparation for what MIGHT lay beyond the grave, by treating it as nothing but a means to a "heavenly" end... that is death worship.  The Abrahamic religions are all guilty of this, and they're hardly alone.

Convincing other people to trade their bird in the hand for the two in the bush has been organized religion's MO for centuries.  Of course, who REALLY ends up with ALL the birds?


----------



## Deo (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bible twisting of verses out of context for personal gain derp



Stop that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You didn't read the entire passages.
> 
> When Jesus heard this, he said to him, â€œYou  still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor,  and you will have treasure in heaven. *Then come, follow me.*â€
> 
> Again, you conveniently forgot the rest of the story. Jesus tells us to give up everything here (our wants, our wishes) And to *completely* follow Him.


 
Yes I did. Seriously, Jesus was all about giving up your material possessions to benefit people who could deal with them more. Stop twisting the bible to your own ends and spreading false doctrines. It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. You have to at LEAST be under the poverty level. However you're clearly not completely following him because you value your own material goods over the benefit of your fellow man.


----------



## ADF (Nov 17, 2010)

As much as I give Christianity a hard time for their beliefs and the stuff they get up to that gets on my nerves. The more I learn about Islam, the better I think of Christianity.

I learned about a upcoming festival of theirs and decided to read up on what it's about. Needless to say, the "moral" of the story which the festival is based on; is something only a highly dedicated religious person would appreciate.

Eid al-Adha, or Festival of Sacrifice



> One of the main trials of Abraham's life was to face *the command of God to devote his dearest possession, his only son*. Upon hearing this command, he prepared to submit to God's will. During this preparation, *Satan (Shaitan) tempted Abraham and his family by trying to dissuade them from carrying out God's commandment*, and Ibrahim and Ishmael drove Satan away by throwing pebbles at him. In commemoration of their rejection of Satan, stones are thrown at symbolic pillars signifying Satan during the Hajj rites.
> 
> When Ishmael was about 13 (Ibrahim being 99), Allah (God) decided to test their faith in and submission to Allah in public. Both father and son were put through the most difficult test of their love for Allah. Abraham had a recurring dream, in which *God was commanding him to offer his son as a sacrifice* â€“ an unimaginable act â€“ sacrificing his son, which God had granted him after many years of deep prayer, the one who had been the centre of his affection and love for all these years. Abraham knew that the dreams of the prophets were inspired by Allah, and one of the ways in which God communicated with his prophets. This must be what Allah had wanted him to do. When the intent of the dreams became clear to him, A*braham decided to fulfil God's command and offer his beloved son in sacrifice.*
> 
> ...



Now I do realize Christians have a similar story, where God commanded someone to kill their own son; and stopped them at the last moment. But as far as I know, Christian's do not hold a festival in celebration of being willing to kill your own family because a God told you to. This guy was willing to kill his own son because he had dreams, which is being held in high regard by the religion. 

But the act of not killing his son, to not listen to the dreams, is deemed so evil; that it was represented by Satan trying to trick them.


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

ADF said:


> As much as I give Christianity a hard time for their beliefs and the stuff they get up to that gets on my nerves. The more I learn about Islam, the better I think of Christianity.
> 
> I learned about a upcoming festival of theirs and decided to read up on what it's about. Needless to say, the "moral" of the story which the festival is based on; is something only a highly dedicated religious person would appreciate.
> 
> ...


 
Christianity and Judaism as the exact same story. Just replace Ishmael with Isaac. No festivals on it, but remember this is still old testament. Christians don't celebrate Old Testament things. Islam isn't worse.


----------



## ADF (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> *Christianity and Judaism as the exact same story*. Just replace Ishmael with Isaac. No festivals on it, but remember this is still old testament. Christians don't celebrate Old Testament things. Islam isn't worse.



I realize that, I made reference to it at the end of my post.

There is a difference between something being written in a religions holy book; and the religion actually acting on it. Islam is celebrating the story; were as Christianity is not, that's the difference. To celebrate something is to portray it as being a good thing.


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

ADF said:


> I realize that, I made reference to it at the end of my post.
> 
> There is a difference between something being written in a religions holy book; and the religion actually acting on it. Islam is celebrating the story; were as Christianity is not, that's the difference. To celebrate something is to portray it as being a good thing.


 Yeah, but I think that the only reason Christianity doesn't celebrate it is because it's not in the New Testament. Besides there are more then one ways to celebrate something. Do you know how many artworks have/are being commissioned of The Binding of Isaac?

Answer: A shit-ton


----------



## ADF (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Yeah, but I think that the only reason Christianity doesn't celebrate it is because it's not in the New Testament. Besides there are more then one ways to celebrate something. Do you know how many artworks have/are being commissioned of The Binding of Isaac?
> 
> Answer: A shit-ton



I dunno. I wonder how many animals are going to be sacrificed during the Eid al-Adha festival.


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

ADF said:


> I dunno. I wonder how many animals are going to be sacrificed during the Eid al-Adha festival.


 
Lots. Friend of mine is celebrating Eid this year. It's a Meatfest.


----------



## ADF (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Lots. Friend of mine is celebrating Eid this year. It's a Meatfest.


 
Well it's not like it's supposed to be a barbecue. They are killing an animal and dedicating its death to their God, which in the 21st century in a 1st world country is rather...

Live sacrifices is not the sort of thing you would expect in the age of mobile phones.


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

ADF said:


> Live sacrifices is not the sort of thing you would expect in the age of mobile phones.


 
Why not? Got another Earth to compare it too? Honestly I don't see much wrong with Eid.


----------



## ADF (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Why not? Got another Earth to compare it too? Honestly I don't see much wrong with Eid.


 
Other than the whole "love God enough to kill your own family on command" and "kill animals as offerings to God" thing...

Excuse me if that's a little too bronze age for my tastes.


----------



## Deo (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Lots. Friend of mine is celebrating Eid this year. It's a Meatfest.



I know how I'm celebrating.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 17, 2010)

Browder said:


> Lots. Friend of mine is celebrating Eid this year. It's a Meatfest.


;__;

I miss home...


----------



## Browder (Nov 17, 2010)

ADF said:


> Other than the whole "love God enough to kill your own family on command" and "kill animals as offerings to God" thing...
> 
> Excuse me if that's a little too bronze age for my tastes.


I don't agree with the values, but whatever. Creative difference concerning the nature of the universe. And don't most christian families offer their soul every time they go to sleep? Seems a bit more serious to me. 



Deovacuus said:


> I know how I'm celebrating.


 
Oh lord...do I want to know?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 17, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> I don't think you know what Jesus is saying at all. If he was saying that earthly possessions mean nothing, then he wouldn't have stated to "give to the poor." He was saying to live your life in charity, and to be poor out of giving to others. He was not just telling you to 'view God as higher than other things,' he was telling you to take action and abandon those things! How much more explicitly does it have to be that that is what he literally said?


 
Jesus is talking about greed. (Talking about the man in the story, don't live in excess.) He is talking about people who still serve the world. A Christian or anyone else for that matter cannot serve 2 things at once. Either you serve the world, or God. He also then asks the man to come and follow Him. Remember when Jesus asked his disciples to follow Him. They dropped everything they were doing. You must be ready to follow whatever God wants you to do.
Jesus is saying to the rich young ruler that one should value God more than riches.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is talking about greed. (Talking about the man in the story, don't live in excess.) He is talking about people who still serve the world. A Christian or anyone else for that matter cannot serve 2 things at once. Either you serve the world, or God. He also then asks the man to come and follow Him. Remember when Jesus asked his disciples to follow Him. They dropped everything they were doing. You must be ready to follow whatever God wants you to do.
> Jesus is saying to the rich young ruler that one should value God more than riches.


 
He's talking about charity. You infer that he is talking about greed through his talking about charity. Sure, the whole bit of serving God instead of the world still fits into what Jesus was saying, but it's not all he was saying, and it was not even primary. He said to give all you have to the poor. How do you disregard what he literally says in favour of what you think he says? He couldn't state it more clearly than that.

This is why Christianity is such a hypocritical mess.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 18, 2010)

ADF said:


> I learned about a upcoming festival of theirs [Muslim] and decided to read up on what it's about. Needless to say, the "moral" of the story which the festival is based on; is something only a highly dedicated religious person would appreciate.
> Eid al-Adha, or Festival of Sacrifice
> 
> Now I do realize Christians have a similar story, where God commanded someone to kill their own son; and stopped them at the last moment. [...] But the act of not killing his son, to not listen to the dreams, is deemed so evil; that it was represented by Satan trying to trick them.



I once picked up a Muslim sermon addressing this very story on one of the local access TV channels while channel-surfing, and I was _*horrified*_ at how being prepared to follow-through in _killing your own child for "God"_ was not only seen as wondrously special, *but that the natural resistance to such a deed was portrayed as the voice of the Devil.*

_"That's not the Devil talking, Abraham, that's your *friggin' conscience!*"_

The Christian version of the tale substitutes Isaac for Ishmael, and omits the whole "Devil temptation" bit, but still - in return for putting his only son through what must have been massive psychological torture, Abraham gets rewarded by God for his "loyalty". If Abraham had tried that these days, he'd get done for child abuse and attempted murder... and the jury certainly wouldn't accept "God told me to do it" as a legitimate excuse.

Twisted, much?


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 18, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> How do you disregard what he [Jesus] literally says in favour of what you think he says? He couldn't state it more clearly than that.



Because it doesn't fit with his pet views, that's why. He'd rather play the "context / translation / interpretation" game to justify changing what his holy books says to what he wants it so say so that _he_ doesn't have to change.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 18, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Because it doesn't fit with his pet views, that's why. He'd rather play the "context / translation / interpretation" game to justify changing what his holy books says to what he wants it so say so that _he_ doesn't have to change.


 
Yeah, but that's common. He could 'justify' his position saying that's what the most learned theologians understand it as too. Of course, they are doing the exact same thing. How convenient.



Browder said:


> Yeah, but I think that the only reason  Christianity doesn't celebrate it is because it's not in the New  Testament. Besides there are more then one ways to celebrate something.  Do you know how many artworks have/are being commissioned of The Binding  of Isaac?


 
Aren't a good number of Christian religious holidays actually pagan religious holidays assimilated into Christianity?
Conversion 101: Allow their holiday, change it's meaning into your own.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 18, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Aren't a good number of Christian religious holidays actually pagan religious holidays assimilated into Christianity?
> Conversion 101: Allow their holiday, change it's meaning into your own.



Want me to give you a list?  Christianity was (and sometimes still is) like the Borg; resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated.  Most christian holidays are so intertwined with the pagan ones they adopted to 'help' convert the ignorant masses that it's hard to tell where one ends and another begins.

In fact most western holidays are still full of pagan symbolism to the point where it's ludicrous to say otherwise.  Whenever I see or read 'Keep Christ In Christmas'  a part of me recoils at the sheer stupidity of the overly simplistic saying.  That's not to say I don't mind telling people to have a merry christmas if they're christian.  There are several holidays that overlap that time of year, Kwanzaa, Yule, Christmas, etc.; but to anyone who insists that it's Christmas or nothing, and that saying Happy Holidays means its the apocalypse, they're going to earn a smack on the back of the head from me for being an idiot.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 18, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is talking about greed. (Talking  about the man in the story, don't live in excess.) He is talking about  people who still serve the world. A Christian or anyone else for that  matter cannot serve 2 things at once. Either you serve the world, or  God. He also then asks the man to come and follow Him. Remember when  Jesus asked his disciples to follow Him. They dropped everything they  were doing. You must be ready to follow whatever God wants you to do.
> Jesus is saying to the rich young ruler that one should value God more than riches.


 
Remember when I said I'd rather a man of the world?

Shall we each try and make the world a better place, or shall we each  try and pray harder than the next to see who can get to heaven first :v


----------



## moonchylde (Nov 18, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> Want me to give you a list?  Christianity was (and sometimes still is) like the Borg; resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated.  Most christian holidays are so intertwined with the pagan ones they adopted to 'help' convert the ignorant masses that it's hard to tell where one ends and another begins.
> 
> In fact most western holidays are still full of pagan symbolism to the point where it's ludicrous to say otherwise.  Whenever I see or read 'Keep Christ In Christmas'  a part of me recoils at the sheer stupidity of the overly simplistic saying.  That's not to say I don't mind telling people to have a merry christmas if they're christian.  There are several holidays that overlap that time of year, Kwanzaa, Yule, Christmas, etc.; but to anyone who insists that it's Christmas or nothing, and that saying Happy Holidays means its the apocalypse, they're going to earn a smack on the back of the head from me for being an idiot.



The church I grew up in is a perfect example of this. I still fondly remember how vehemently they would speak out against Halloween, accusing it of being everything from a pagan celebration to "the devil's birthday", and instead celebrated "Harvest," the irony, of course, being that early pagans were almost entirely rural, and thus Halloween was originally A FUCKING HARVEST FESTIVAL. Then again, I also remember my Sunday School class making Yule logs for Christmas one year... 

Then again, this is the same church that taught us kids that a peace sigh was really "an inverted cross with the arms broken, in a satanic circle" and that the druids used Jack-O'-Lanterns on Halloween so they knew where to rape and kill little kids. So... if anyone wonders why I have lingering issues with organized religion, it's probably because I went through six years of this crap before bolting.


----------



## Deo (Nov 18, 2010)

Religions, religion, 
god is a pigeon.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 18, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Religions, religion,
> god is a pigeon.


 
Constantly crapping on things?


----------



## Deo (Nov 18, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Constantly crapping on things?



I'm so glad you understood.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 19, 2010)

Lobar said:


> My own experience is different: about half of self-described agnostics are Agnostic Athiests, with the rest covering a wide range of positions.  The most common of these would be the position that God's existence is a roughly 50/50 proposition, the position that God exists, but it is uncertain which if any religion describes him accurately, and the position of simple apathy towards the entire matter.  Meanwhile, nearly all self-described atheists are Agnostic Atheists, with the number of Gnostic Atheists so few as to be completely insignificant.


Interesting.  I keep running into plenty of Gnostic Athiests.  But that may be because I tend to find people who love debate, and nearly every Gnostic Athiest I've ever known loves to tell me why everything I believe is wrong.  



Lobar said:


> But true _absolute_ certainty is an extraordinary thing, something that can't be gotten from mere familiarity with your friend.  I would argue that you have already precluded free will just by assuming 100% certainty of your friend's actions is possible.


 Well, I suppose I must concede the point that short of being God myself, absolute certainty is impossible.  But if it was possible to know someone so well that you could be absolutely certain you know what they'd choose, how does your knowledge in any way constrain their ability to make that choice?


----------



## Conker (Nov 19, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Well, I suppose I must concede the point that short of being God myself, absolute certainty is impossible.  But if it was possible to know someone so well that you could be absolutely certain you know what they'd choose, how does your knowledge in any way constrain their ability to make that choice?


 I don't think his example, or was it your example? was the best. Remember, we still have the APPEARANCE of free will. I've already given quite a few examples of my own, but let's just start to throw the word destiny and fate around. Both of those imply a fixed path of some sort. You have two buttons that you'll have to push a month in the future. A or B. To God, it is your destiny to pick button B. You'll feel like you have the choice when you get to that state, but it's predetermined that you'll push button B. Feelings or no. IT WAS YOUR FATE TO DO SO! 

The thought of a creature that knows more about me than I do is downright horrifying to be honest. I don't want to believe in an all knowing God. I don't want some celestial mind reader and if my future is going to be uncertain for me, it better be uncertain for that celestial being (who can't read my mind. I want SOME personal space, ya know?)


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 19, 2010)

I have absolutely no idea how valid this question could be, or how stupid it is, so with that risk I'll ask it anyway.

Would it be possible for both free will and absolute determinism to exist simultaneously if, at every point where a choice can be made, every single option has been made?  For example, when coming to a fork in the road, one simultaneously decides to go left, go right, go back, go nowhere, and go offroading, such as would be allowed by the existence of multiple dimensions of time?  Or would free will be akin to the collapse of a wave into discrete particles?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 19, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I have absolutely no idea how valid this question could be, or how stupid it is, so with that risk I'll ask it anyway.
> 
> Would it be possible for both free will and absolute determinism to exist simultaneously if, at every point where a choice can be made, every single option has been made?  For example, when coming to a fork in the road, one simultaneously decides to go left, go right, go back, go nowhere, and go offroading, such as would be allowed by the existence of multiple dimensions of time?  Or would free will be akin to the collapse of a wave into discrete particles?


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw This is something I remember seeing a while back.  Someone told me that it was wrong, but it's still interesting.

10th dimension = everything that could possibly happen everywhere at any time under any possible starting condition? Could be that everything has already happened, just in a different dimension.  Which would make free will irrelevant.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 19, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Well, I suppose I must concede the point that short of being God myself, absolute certainty is impossible.  But if it was possible to know someone so well that you could be absolutely certain you know what they'd choose, how does your knowledge in any way constrain their ability to make that choice?


 
Because it would not be a choice, it would be a linear action. What are the chances of them doing something when you know they are going to do it? 100%.


----------



## Browder (Nov 19, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I have absolutely no idea how valid this question could be, or how stupid it is, so with that risk I'll ask it anyway.
> 
> Would it be possible for both free will and absolute determinism to exist simultaneously if, at every point where a choice can be made, every single option has been made?  For example, when coming to a fork in the road, one simultaneously decides to go left, go right, go back, go nowhere, and go offroading, such as would be allowed by the existence of multiple dimensions of time?  Or would free will be akin to the collapse of a wave into discrete particles?


 
I'm approaching this from a purely non-scientific perspective.

What if you split the difference? Maybe instead of every single option being made, only the options that one would have a reason for choosing would be. For example a man decides to look for his office building. He can go either left, right or straight because none of those choices are favored more than another. However he wouldn't stand still because that would get him nowhere, and he wouldn't go backward because that would just get him further from his goal.He still does more than one thing but because of choice you have three universes instead of five.


----------



## Azure (Nov 19, 2010)

Who the fuck banned Deo again?


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 19, 2010)

Just a heads up: This thread alone accounts for 1/8 of the entire Off Topic forum. You guys and your religious bickering. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 20, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Who the fuck banned Deo again?


 
Taken from Deo's FA page.
"Telling a person with a Wolf-Fox avatar who wanted to be called "Tiger"  that those species were highly unoriginal and overused."

Thats apparently why she was banned. Another infraction. Which makes 3 again. So, temp banned again.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 20, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Who the fuck banned Deo again?


 
Cerbrus, of course.  She went off on someone in Introductions, but not in any way worth a ban.  Curiously, the thread was locked and Deo banned immediately after Our Mormon Friend posted in it to take a shot at her.


----------



## Alstor (Nov 20, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Who the fuck banned Deo again?


 Who? Cerbrus. Why? Se Rukh's post and this.

EDIT: Reading Lobar's post is fine, too. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 20, 2010)

Lobar said:


> She went off on someone in Introductions, but not in any way worth a ban.  Curiously, the thread was locked and Deo banned immediately after Our Mormon Friend posted in it to take a shot at her.


 
Thats interesting...maybe something was going on there?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 20, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Cerbrus, of course.  She went off on someone in Introductions, but not in any way worth a ban.  Curiously, the thread was locked and Deo banned immediately after Our Mormon Friend posted in it to take a shot at her.


 
Christians, not knowing how to turn the other cheek since forever ago.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

If Jesus had wine for blood, do you think he ever carried around a straw and tapped himself?


----------



## Grendel (Nov 20, 2010)

There are many facets to religion. The supplication to a higher power can ease the burdens of personal choice and the repercussions of choice. The feeling of protection would be calming to the stresses of daily life. The powerful sense of righteousness and the assurance of being willed forth by a divine creator... 
However all of these things can be warped to make men do carnage on each other.


			
				 Blaise Pascal said:
			
		

> Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions


----------



## Slyck (Nov 20, 2010)

Disclaimer: This post contains a healthy dose of Slyck's good old-fashioned anti-religious bigotry. If it offends you, don't read it!

Even though I would like a well-composed intellectual response...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I find it funny that you tell me God doesn't or can't exist but when I  ask you to explain how things happen you just tell me that its a miracle  ( a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent.  This is the actual definition of the word miracle)
> or that you just don't know. If you don't know, why throw out an entire possibility just because you don't like it.


 Not liking something is different than finding it ludicrous.

1'000 years ago we did not know how the travel of sound waves worked, we did not know what caused lightning, etc. but that doesn't mean it's divine; we now know how these things happen. It is foolish to think that anything not known is divine.


Let's look at intelligence vs. religion.

To understand evolution as a concept, you need to know about many aspects of biology, have to know about geology and climate, etc, etc. whereas to understand creationism as a concept you do not need to know jack. Perhaps this helps explain the below graph:








As well as the fact that as out knowledge of science progresses, the amount of percentage of ..517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences.. that believe in such poppycock has decreased steadily. source



I consider active Christians to be the ones to preach their beliefs, to attend church, etc. and passive Christians to those that would put the checkbox next to 'religious' on a demographics survey but don't actively peruse their faith. I also find active Christians to be a very stupid and hypocritical bunch. I've pointed out 1 Timothy 2:9 to a girl at my school with braided hair, a devout Christian. She stuttered for a bit and said that it was a recommendation not a command. What kind of bullshit is this? Since when do you get to choose what is and isn't a command in the bible?

Also when one points out the myriad of forbidden things in the old testament (Leviticus specificity.) it will be dismissed as Jewish law -- yet it is in the bible, not the torah. And also Genesis, with all that basic Christian creationism is in the old testament. Is that now Jewish and not Christian?

Enlighten this dumb ol' atheist.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 20, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Also when one points out the myriad of forbidden things in the old testament (Leviticus specificity.) it will be dismissed as Jewish law -- yet it is in the bible, not the torah.


These would be in the Jewish Tanakh.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 20, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Disclaimer: This post contains a healthy dose of Slyck's good old-fashioned anti-religious bigotry. If it offends you, don't read it!
> 
> Even though I would like a well-composed intellectual response...
> 
> ...


 
Rukh has actually covered this before, and it still sounds as silly as it does now. Portions of the OT can be dismissed as "not applicable", and much of it can be dismissed as "Aimed at the Israelites" sorta thing, but we're to be subject ot the various interpretations the likes of Rukh on what is for Christians, and not.

It'll make your head hurt.

Also I found this video interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UVQ9KRxew&feature=sub

God, according to verses in the NT, appointed Hitler :v


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 20, 2010)

1 timothy 2:9 does sound quite contradictory for most Christian women but it is actually saying don't make your appearance distract others from what they should be doing. In other words don't dress like a slut covered in gold and ribbons.

And actually While most of the OT is not aplicable today we can still learn important lessons from it, such as the story of Job and his patience.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> And actually While most of the OT is not aplicable today we can still learn important lessons from it, such as the story of Job and his patience.


 What about the stories where women get offered up to rape mobs as a form of compromise? Or when Moses has his army go and slaughter a bunch of people using God as his reason. Or the whole "God got angry and murdered everyone with a flood" story. Where's the fucking lesson in those?

The story of Lot is pretty fucked up, and I can't for the life of me find a moral in it other than "shit's crazy yo."


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 20, 2010)

Conker said:


> What about the stories where women get offered up to rape mobs as a form of compromise? Or when Moses has his army go and slaughter a bunch of people using God as his reason. Or the whole "God got angry and murdered everyone with a flood" story. Where's the fucking lesson in those?
> 
> The story of Lot is pretty fucked up, and I can't for the life of me find a moral in it other than "shit's crazy yo."



I said most of the OT is applicable and I guess you didn't interpret that as not all of the OT has lessons to be learned from it's stories


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I said most of the OT is applicable and I guess you didn't interpret that as not all of the OT has lessons to be learned from it's stories


 If the story doesn't have a lesson, why is it in the OT in the first place? There are stories in the OT that do nothing but show that religion is a worthy cause to murder people or lower them in social status. These are not moral stories and they do not show God or his followers in a positive light. Why are they there? The Bible is supposed to be a holy book, yet most of the OT is far from holy. 

All it really does is show that social norms change and that the Bible is surprisingly and horrifically static in its word.

Edit: Isn't the Book of Job the story where God tortures one of his followers to prove to Satan that his followers are the best because they don't waver in their faith and consider God an awesome deity? Because I don't get "patience" out of that story, I get "God is a massive asshole and got one upped by Satan." It's a fucking terrible story and can be placed in with the others I mentioned. The OT is awful.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Religious satire from one of my subscriptions.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> 1 timothy 2:9 does sound quite contradictory for most Christian women but it is actually saying don't make your appearance distract others from what they should be doing. In other words don't dress like a slut covered in gold and ribbons.
> 
> And actually While most of the OT is not aplicable today we can still learn important lessons from it, such as the story of Job and his patience.



So women should have dress codes? Because the clothes they wear mean they are just asking to be "distracting" just as if they are asking to be raped?
And Job was shat upon by God. The one thing we can learn from Job is that God is a giant fucking douchebag.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 20, 2010)

So we've determined we can _learn_ from the OT, but it's not _applicable_, and the stories about rape, origins, Noah and such are not something we can _learn_ from. 

Excellent.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 20, 2010)

Grendel said:


> So women should have dress codes? Because the clothes they wear mean they are just asking to be "distracting" just as if they are asking to be raped?
> And Job was shat upon by God. The one thing we can learn from Job is that God is a giant fucking douchebag.


 
We also learn that God directly orders Satan around still, and between that, the garden of eden and his murdering his son/suicide, we've learned that if anything God hates people who are actually innocent.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 20, 2010)

Grendel said:


> So women should have dress codes? Because the clothes they wear mean they are just asking to be "distracting" just as if they are asking to be raped?
> And Job was shat upon by God. The one thing we can learn from Job is that God is a giant fucking douchebag.


 
Job was not condemned by God. Satan challenged God and said that if Job lost EVERYTHING Job wouldn't be faithful. God said that Satan could do anything to Jobs things and family but not to Job and Job continued to be Faithful. Satan then said that If Job didn't have his health then Job would lose his faith. God said that Satan could strike Job with Leprosy and Job was still Faithful. God then gave Job back everything he lost save his family in twofold.

And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Job was not condemned by God. Satan challenged God and said that if Job lost EVERYTHING Job wouldn't be faithful. God said that Satan could do anything to Jobs things and family but not to Job and Job continued to be Faithful. Satan then said that If Job didn't have his health then Job would lose his faith. God said that Satan could strike Job with Leprosy and Job was still Faithful. God then gave Job back everything he lost save his family in twofold.
> 
> And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


 
Because being willing to trade your family to double your possessions indicates a clear importance for human life. *Eyeroll* Both Yahweh *AND* Job were being jackasses in that situation, although Yahweh moreso.

Implying that a more religious society is a better one is... counterproductive. Fundamentalism is not an answer to any of the world's problems, and is in fact a source of quite a few of them. Let's just look at FLDS communities with all the child rape and such going on and leave it at that.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Job was not condemned by God. Satan challenged God and said that if Job lost EVERYTHING Job wouldn't be faithful. God said that Satan could do anything to Jobs things and family but not to Job and Job continued to be Faithful. Satan then said that If Job didn't have his health then Job would lose his faith. God said that Satan could strike Job with Leprosy and Job was still Faithful. *God then gave Job back everything he lost save his family in twofold.*
> 
> And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


 So wait, his family remained dead? Because getting your money back makes up for having your family murdered just to prove a point to Satan, whom had God play right into his hands. "TORTURE THIS FUCKER LOL! I BET HE WILL CAVE!...Oh, he didn't? Oh well. Joke is still on everyone but me"

Fuck dress codes. Free speech. Morality can fuck off as well :V 

You know that the old monarchy in England was a highly religious place. You know that everytime the monarchy switched up, those that didn't follow the proper religious denomination were murdered or driven out? Religion =/= morals.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Job was not condemned by God. Satan challenged God and said that if Job lost EVERYTHING Job wouldn't be faithful. God said that Satan could do anything to Jobs things and family but not to Job and Job continued to be Faithful. Satan then said that If Job didn't have his health then Job would lose his faith. God said that Satan could strike Job with Leprosy and Job was still Faithful. God then gave Job back everything he lost save his family in twofold.



And what exactly is the moral/lesson of this story supposed to be?


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


 
The mullahs in Saudi Arabia would definitely agree with you that a woman wearing anything more daring than a head-to-foot sack is "asking for it".


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 20, 2010)

well going so far as to not expose any skin is a little extreme. Moderative dress is what is best. Many people don't realize that you can have fashionable *and* modest at the same time.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> well going so far as to not expose any skin is a little extreme. Moderative dress is what is best. Many people don't realize that you can have fashionable *and* modest at the same time.


 So, just gonna glaze over our interpretations of the Book of Job then? 

I'm getting used to religious people expertly closing their ears when they don't want to hear a dissenting opinion that they can't argue with.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


 
Pfft.  What's going down the drain is CIVILITY.  Stuff your subjective morality.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 20, 2010)

Neither religion itself nor any specific religious faith is required for good moral behavior.  The absence of religion does not bring good moral behavior, either.  Religion and morality exist separately; it's just that different religious sects tend to dictate conflicting moral codes.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> well going so far as to not expose any skin is a little extreme. Moderative dress is what is best. Many people don't realize that you can have fashionable *and* modest at the same time.


 
Where's the line? And who defines it?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 20, 2010)

The line should be drawn where you see fit but people's views have become skewed with everything the world glamorizes. I mean most US rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores that have no life other than to be a sex object. Yes where the line is has become largely blurred and no single person or organization can define where that line is because they will all differ.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The line should be drawn where you see fit but people's views have become skewed with everything the world glamorizes. I mean most US rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores that have no life other than to be a sex object. *Yes where the line is has become largely blurred and no single person or organization can define where that line is because they will all differ.*


 you say that, yet earlier you said there should be a form of dress code. And I hate to break it to ya, but there wasn't a time in history where music didn't have some element of tabooness to it.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The line should be drawn where you see fit but people's views have become skewed with everything the world glamorizes. I mean most US rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores that have no life other than to be a sex object. Yes where the line is has become largely blurred and no single person or organization can define where that line is because they will all differ.


 
And my issue is with the idea any woman is considered a "slutty whore" based on no other information than how she's dressed. I'm also not at all wild about the idea that a woman who enjoys an active sex life is automatically considered a "whore". Men with active sex lives aren't automatically dubbed "gigolos", are they? I didn't think so.

I will add in that I have a large problem with much of how the Bible considers women; that whole "Wives, be subject to your husbands" is so much claptrap. Why should I be "subject" to the man in my life? Why can we not be a partnership of equals?

ETA: Found the verses I was thinking of. Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22. I'm coming to like Paul less and less; he was a misogynistic git, no lie.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 21, 2010)

GingerM said:


> And my issue is with the idea any woman is considered a "slutty whore" based on no other information than how she's dressed. I'm also not at all wild about the idea that a woman who enjoys an active sex life is automatically considered a "whore".* Men with active sex lives aren't automatically dubbed "gigolos", are they?* I didn't think so.
> 
> I will add in that I have a large problem with much of how the Bible considers women; that whole "Wives, be subject to your husbands" is so much claptrap. Why should I be "subject" to the man in my life? Why can we not be a partnership of equals?


 I don't normally use gigolo but rather man-whore.
I believe that verse talks about men and women being equal. It's a vague memory though so take my memory with a grain of salt.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> The line should be drawn where you see fit but people's views have become skewed with everything the world glamorizes. I mean most US rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores that have no life other than to be a sex object.


 
While I'm certainly no fan of hip-hop and rap music, the idea that "rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores" makes about as much sense as the song "_Climb Ev'ry Mountain_" from "The Sound of Music" is telling people to be mountaineers...

Oh, and nice use of the word "chicks" to describe women in the same breath as you're supposedly standing up for their virtues. Lose 50 credibility points.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 21, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, and nice use of the word "chicks" to describe women in the same breath as you're supposedly standing up for their virtues. Lose 50 credibility points.


 
Thanks, Mayfurr; I missed that one.



AleutheWolf said:


> I don't normally use gigolo but rather man-whore.
> I believe that verse talks about men and women being equal. It's a vague memory though so take my memory with a grain of salt.



I'm inclined to think not, particularly given other verses that seem pretty unequivocal to me. Just a sampling:



			
				Genesis 3:16 said:
			
		

> "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy  conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire  shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."



Translation: "Bitch, you're his property."



			
				I Corinthians 11:3 said:
			
		

> "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."





			
				I Corinthians 11:8-9 said:
			
		

> "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."



Translation: "Women were made for men. Deal with it."



			
				I Corinthians 14:34-35 said:
			
		

> "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted  unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as  also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their  husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."





			
				I Timothy 2:11-14 said:
			
		

> "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a  woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in  silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,  but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."



Translation: "Keep your trap shut, bitch."



			
				Judges 19:22-29 said:
			
		

> "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
> And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
> *Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you*: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
> But the men would not hearken to him: *so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning*: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
> ...



So this guy is traveling and stays with someone overnight. Some rowdies want to have a go at him, but his host says "Whoa, here's my daughter, and here's my guest's concubine; enjoy!", which they do. Next day, when the traveler gets home, he kills his concubine - for what reason? Because she was gang-raped? You notice we don't hear anything about his host's daughter, either? Anyway, that brings us pretty much to the end of that chapter of the Bible; the next chapter, Judges 20, deals with the guy whining about how he had to kill his concubine because OMGWTFBBQ the rowdies went and had a rip-roaring good old time with her, so presumably she was now worthless to him. Nobody seems to think of holding him to account for, oh, I don't know, actually being the guy who gave her up to be raped, then killed her. Somehow all of that's not his fault.

Yeah. The Bible is all about treating women with respect and equality. NOT.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 21, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Neither religion itself nor any specific  religious faith is required for good moral behavior.  The absence of  religion does not bring good moral behavior, either.  Religion and  morality exist separately; it's just that different religious sects tend  to dictate conflicting moral codes.


 

IJ know this isn't entirely related, but in a world of chaos, everything tends to balance out over time. If the police suddenly disappeared, there would be anarchy for say, ten years, but during that time, various gangs/bands of people would grow closer, grow in numbers, and be it by money or force, would 'take over' virtually the same duties in a much lesser respect. There wouldn't be member from band X patrolling the streets per se, but if a member from band X saw a punk from band Y doing business in his area, then there would be some street justice. 

It's not gunna replace police, but society begins policing itself.


----------



## Isen (Nov 21, 2010)

GingerM said:


> So this guy is traveling and stays with someone overnight. Some rowdies want to have a go at him, but his host says "Whoa, here's my daughter, and here's my guest's concubine; enjoy!", which they do. Next day, when the traveler gets home, he kills his concubine - for what reason? Because she was gang-raped? You notice we don't hear anything about his host's daughter, either? Anyway, that brings us pretty much to the end of that chapter of the Bible; the next chapter, Judges 20, deals with the guy whining about how he had to kill his concubine because OMGWTFBBQ the rowdies went and had a rip-roaring good old time with her, so presumably she was now worthless to him. Nobody seems to think of holding him to account for, oh, I don't know, actually being the guy who gave her up to be raped, then killed her. Somehow all of that's not his fault.
> 
> Yeah. The Bible is all about treating women with respect and equality. NOT.



In case you weren't sure about what happened in chapter 19, chapter 20 it makes pretty clear that the rapist killed the concubine.  Just fyi.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 21, 2010)

Isen said:


> In case you weren't sure about what happened in chapter 19, chapter 20 it makes pretty clear that the rapist killed the concubine.  Just fyi.



Assuming that is the case, that means that the man was not only willing to offer up his own daughter to be raped and killed before some random concubine, (And that it was better for a woman to be raped and killed than a man) but instead of giving her a proper burial he dismembered her corpse. BUT given that the woman managed to crawl back to the abode and was merely only irresponsive, and we they don't refer to her as slain until after the fact...


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 21, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> While I'm certainly no fan of hip-hop and rap music, the idea that "rap and hip hop are basically telling chicks to go out and be slutty whores" makes about as much sense as the song "_Climb Ev'ry Mountain_" from "The Sound of Music" is telling people to be mountaineers...
> 
> Oh, and nice use of the word "chicks" to describe women in the same breath as you're supposedly standing up for their virtues. Lose 50 credibility points.


 
I was saying rap and hiphop songs are calling women "chicks" that need to be slutty whores. I mean have you listened to the _*actual*_ words? almost every song is about having sex with about 5 different women.

And "The Sound of Music" great musical, I loved it, and "Climb Ev'ry Mountain" really is just telling us to try to overcome every challenge we face.

Yes I realize I lost credibility by using the word "chicks" to describe women but apparently most modern day teenage girls (who honestly are the ones taking rap songs at their value) would much rather be called chicks than women. Most women above the age of 40 grew up when womens rights were still new and respect what they have, while most women under the age of 25 grew up where they could do whatever they wanted, so now they take it for granted.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 21, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Thanks, Mayfurr; I missed that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said that the Bible was all about treating women with respect and/or equality. Anyone that believes that is a huge moron because, DUH, different time period.
 And I was mainly talking about the Ephesians verses.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the churchâ€” 30 for we are members of his body. 31 â€œFor this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.â€ 32 This is a profound mysteryâ€”but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. 

In other words, men, love your wives as much as you love yourself. Wives, respect your husbands wishes.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I was saying rap and hiphop songs are calling women "chicks" that need to be slutty whores. I mean have you listened to the _*actual*_ words? almost every song is about having sex with about 5 different women.



Just because a song is "about" something does NOT mean it's automatically _instructing_ someone to actually go out and DO that something. Given your logic, Bobby Goldsboro's song "Summer (The First Time)" is telling young men that they _should _be losing their virginity to an older woman...

... or that "Onward Christian Soldiers" is instructing all good Christians to join the military.


----------



## Conker (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I was saying rap and hiphop songs are calling women "chicks" that need to be slutty whores. I mean have you listened to the _*actual*_ words? almost every song is about having sex with about 5 different women.
> 
> And "The Sound of Music" great musical, I loved it, and "Climb Ev'ry Mountain" really is just telling us to try to overcome every challenge we face.
> 
> Yes I realize I lost credibility by using the word "chicks" to describe women but apparently most modern day teenage girls (who honestly are the ones taking rap songs at their value) would much rather be called chicks than women. Most women above the age of 40 grew up when womens rights were still new and respect what they have, while most women under the age of 25 grew up where they could do whatever they wanted, so now they take it for granted.


 Why the hell are we changing the subject of this thread to rap music when we have a bunch of fresh new Bible quotes about how God is a misogynistic asshole to deal with?


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 21, 2010)

Conker said:


> Why the hell are we changing the subject of this thread to rap music when we have a bunch of fresh new Bible quotes about how God is a misogynistic asshole to deal with?


 
Because the sort of people who hold up such a misogynistic asshole as a "God" are the types that tend to take _everything_ literally when it suits their purpose, including music?


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 21, 2010)

God allows bad things to happen to us to try our faith and to let us have trials. If God did everything for us then that would mean we would have no purpose in life. God does all things for a reason and he chooses when to and when not to reveal those choices to us.


----------



## Conker (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> God allows bad things to happen to us to try our faith and to let us have trials. If God did everything for us then that would mean we would have no purpose in life. God does all things for a reason and he chooses when to and when not to reveal those choices to us.


 Cute, but that has nothing to deal with all the Bible stories that treat women like property. "Sure, rape my daughter. That's a good compromise."


----------



## JadeFire (Nov 21, 2010)

Jesus was an extraterrestrial.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Job was not condemned by God. Satan challenged God and said that if Job lost EVERYTHING Job wouldn't be faithful. God said that Satan could do anything to Jobs things and family but not to Job and Job continued to be Faithful. Satan then said that If Job didn't have his health then Job would lose his faith. God said that Satan could strike Job with Leprosy and Job was still Faithful. God then gave Job back everything he lost save his family in twofold.


Killing a family of innocents, torturing a man, and decimating innocent animals is immoral. Even if god "gave back" he still killed off a family, and that can never be replaced. So there is no mitigating God's horrendous murder with a "well he made up for it yo". Fuck off, God is a douche.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> And yes women should have dress codes as should all people. Morality is what is going down the drain in this modern world.


 And you are a douche. No one should be forced to wear or do anything. We are all autonomous individuals with free choice living as free people in democratic nations. FUCK OFF.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, and nice use of the word "chicks" to describe women in the same breath as you're supposedly standing up for their virtues. Lose 50 credibility points.


 
...Are women even really bothered by that term anymore?


----------



## Grendel (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I was saying rap and hiphop songs are calling women "chicks" that need to be slutty whores. I mean have you listened to the _*actual*_ words? almost every song is about having sex with about 5 different women.


Doesn't that place the blame for irresponsibility on men? Since they are the ones sleeping with "5 different women"? Maybe it is men who should have the dress code, my dear mysoginistic friend.
Should all men be forced to wear those _*magical *_mormon underwear? Do tell, does that keep the sin off your lice infested crotch? Those magical underpants?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Yes I realize I lost credibility by using the word "chicks" to describe women but apparently most modern day teenage girls (who honestly are the ones taking rap songs at their value) would much rather be called chicks than women.


You know nothing of women. I laugh at the prospect of you dying alone. Or becoming a faggot, since no woman will have you. Have fun taking it in the pooper.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Most women above the age of 40 grew up when womens rights were still new and respect what they have, while most women under the age of 25 grew up where they could do whatever they wanted, so now they take it for granted.


Take for granted? Oh, because being equal to men is _GIFT_ _from men_ that the bitches should be damn grateful for every fucking day, amirite? Fuck off and die you swine.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> God allows bad things to happen to us to try our faith and to let us have trials. If God did everything for us then that would mean we would have no purpose in life. God does all things for a reason and he chooses when to and when not to reveal those choices to us.


 
And the reason we need to suffer overcome bad things on Earth is...?  You haven't answered the problem of evil until you end up with what it actually accomplishes.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 21, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Killing a family of innocents, torturing a man, and decimating innocent animals is immoral. Even if god "gave back" he still killed off a family, and that can never be replaced. So there is no mitigating God's horrendous murder with a "well he made up for it yo". Fuck off, God is a douche.
> 
> 
> And you are a douche. No one should be forced to wear or do anything. We are all autonomous individuals with free choice living as free people in democratic nations. FUCK OFF.



To the first part, SATAN DID EVERYTHING TO JOB, God just let him.

And to the second part rules are to keep us safe, whether it be from ourselves or the world. We have more freedom by following rules than by breaking them. Dress codes are the same way.

We are free to chose, but not to chose our consequences.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 21, 2010)

Tycho said:


> ...Are women even really bothered by that term anymore?


 Oversensitive women are...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> God allows bad things to happen to us to try our faith and to let us have trials. If God did everything for us then that would mean we would have no purpose in life. God does all things for a reason and he chooses when to and when not to reveal those choices to us.


 
If your god allows bad things to happen to people (or outright orders them), then he is not ultimately (or completely) good, and not completely loving.

You can bullshit all you want about trials, 'god doing everything for us', and all that, but the end result is - God does not stop bad things from happening, therefore he is either malicious, or not all powerful :v


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Oversensitive women are...


 
I like to call oversensitive women much, MUCH worse things than "chick".


----------



## Isen (Nov 21, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> To the first part, SATAN DID EVERYTHING TO JOB, God just let him.



I am not sure why that would make things any better for God.  What kind of father would give a bully the okay to beat up his son?  (Spoiler for Jews/Christians: a perfectly wise father with a damn good reason.)

Anyway, I like the book of Job.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Israelites didn't take it as real events.  The story of Job is them trying the best attack on the character of God they could try to make.  The author comes to the conclusion that the only justification for that is that God must not need justification.  In other words, the sovereignty of God justifies whatever plan he has. 

Do I think the "defense" works?  No, not really.  But at the very least, it's an interesting insight into the theology of the ancient Israelites and a glimpse at ancient apologetics.


----------



## Slyck (Nov 21, 2010)

Alright, alright, alright.

You say parts of the old testament can be dismissed as not applicable.

Who are you to decide this? It's like you're taking the position of god. If it's not applicable, shouldn't you try to make it applicable?

Also you say in that passage in timothy that it's directing not to show off. How do you have the authority to say this?


If the bible is the word of god, old testament and new, than just because some of it is in Jewish books as well does that mean it shan't be followed? The bible is the bible weather it bares resemblance to other texts or not.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 21, 2010)

If we experience no misery or sorrow how can we feel happiness and joy? That is why God allows trials, so that we can feel joy and happiness by experiencing the opposite end of it. If there is no opposition then how are we supposed to make a choice? There needs be opposition in all things so that a choice is available. For example: No wars ever happened, then what is peace? No misery exists, what is Happiness? No sorrow exists, what is Joy? If something doesn't exist then how can we choose between it. If God made us perfect or our world perfect we would have no reason for being here. We are all here to experience life and its choices, so how could we do that if we had nothing to chose between?


----------



## Conker (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> To the first part, SATAN DID EVERYTHING TO JOB, God just let him.


 That may make your argument worse. God is too good to harm people, but he's not above ordering it done! Or in this case, allowing it to happen.

"Sorry Job, I had Satan murder your family to test your faith. I didn't do it though. So don't blame me. Good job passing and proving him wrong though! Um, I can't bring your family back, but here's some money. Go buy a hooker or something and pretend she's your loving wife whom I gave Satan the 'aye-okay' to murder"


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> If we experience no misery or sorrow how can we feel happiness and joy? That is why God allows trials, so that we can feel joy and happiness by experiencing the opposite end of it. If there is no opposition then how are we supposed to make a choice? There needs be opposition in all things so that a choice is available. For example: No wars ever happened, then what is peace? No misery exists, what is Happiness? No sorrow exists, what is Joy? If something doesn't exist then how can we choose between it. If God made us perfect or our world perfect we would have no reason for being here. We are all here to experience life and its choices, so how could we do that if we had nothing to chose between?


 
Not-so-epic strawman right there. The issue isn't why or how we experience misery, but the fact that your god lets, or orders it to happen. If god was so powerful, then he could make us eternally feel happiness and joy - But he does not. You'll use the "free will" excuse, but even that's shaky at best (since god is all knowing, then we cannot have free will, because he already knows where we came from, and where we're going), and doesn't hold water at worst. 

You're also forming your conclusion before your premises - If there is no war, then we are at peace. If no misery exists, then we are neutral. If no sorrow exists, then we are neutral. People don't automatically become the opposite feeling if one or the other doesn't exist, and remain neutral, until one or the opposite 'force' acts upon us. If no force acts upon us, then we are neutral. 

Again with the weird-ass logic: We don't have a perfect world, and no-one is perfect - So our optimal purpose is to make the world a better place for the next generation. If we are perfect, then we make perfect (theoretically), and a perfect world (heaven) wouldn't be meaningless - It would be neutral. We would simply exist in a perfect world - Why is that such a problem for you? Your bible (or what have you) is promising a perfect world, so by your own logic - Once you get to have, *then you have no reason for being there.*


----------



## GingerM (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> God allows bad things to happen to us to try our faith and to let us have trials. If God did everything for us then that would mean we would have no purpose in life. God does all things for a reason and he chooses when to and when not to reveal those choices to us.


 
That assumes (a) that God actually exists and (b) that I'm going to follow him. Granting (a) for the sake of discussion and his track record in the Bible, I don't feel particularly inclined to do so.



Tycho said:


> ...Are women even really bothered by that term anymore?


 
Some, but from the evidence we're in the minority these days.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> We are free to chose, but not to chose our consequences.



And if I chose to wear an off-the-shoulder-sundress that came to mid-thigh and a man raped me, there are those - all too many of them - who would claim that rape was a 'consequence' of my dressing in revealing clothes You say we're not free to choose our consequences, but why should rape be a consequence of my dressing to show myself to best advantage? Note that I ask why should it, not why is it.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:
			
		

> *Why are you such an anti-religious nutcase that has nothing better to do than to insult me* when other people are the ones who started the topic and I was just simply stating my opinions. *And for the "magical" underwear maybe you should do a little bit of research before you poke fun at other peoples beliefs*. Honestly why do you think that that thread was started for. For people to express their opinions and views on religion not so that people could be insulted for their beliefs. You are just as bad as Deo. *Why are you even here? Why don't you just drop dead? Why don't you go and screw yourself cause no PERSON would want to be with a guy that insults any person for their beliefs.*


 
I see "magical mormon underwear" and "dying alone taking it in the pooper" really got to you. Truth hurts doesn't it? 

And why should I "just drop dead" for disagreeing with you? As you said this thread was for people to "express their opinions and views on religion", and I have merely used my freedom of speech to make my opinion clear. I see no reason why my opinion should be silenced and yours should not. I see no reason why your opinion is any more or less valid than mine. I have not been inflammatory towards you, and your angry PMs are uncalled for. _This is a civility check. Don't PM me, I *will *post it publicly. If you feel that you cannot say something publicly, then don't say it._

You wish for me to respect your opinions on religion. This is an understandable desire. However, if you want me to respect your beliefs stop crowing about Jesus and then_ immediately_ turning around and telling me to die and screw myself. Personal attacks do nothing but smear your own cause. This is my first run in with moronism, and using you as a stellar example, I can say truthfully that I hope to never in my life meet another.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 22, 2010)

Grendel said:


> I see "magical mormon underwear" and "dying alone taking it in the pooper" really got to you. Truth hurts doesn't it?
> 
> And why should I "just drop dead" for disagreeing with you? As you said this thread was for people to "express their opinions and views on religion", and I have merely used my freedom of speech to make my opinion clear. I see no reason why my opinion should be silenced and yours should not. I see no reason why your opinion is any more or less valid than mine. I have not been inflammatory towards you, and your angry PMs are uncalled for. _This is a civility check. Don't PM me, I *will *post it publicly. If you feel that you cannot say something publicly, then don't say it._
> 
> You wish for me to respect your opinions on religion. This is an understandable desire. However, if you want me to respect your beliefs stop crowing about Jesus and then_ immediately_ turning around and telling me to die and screw myself. Personal attacks do nothing but smear your own cause. This is my first run in with moronism, and using you as a stellar example, I can say truthfully that I hope to never in my life meet another.


 
You want me to say it publicly? I said it in PM because I wanted to be considerate to the others here by not posting insulting rants to other users and actually contributing to the TOPIC of this thread. DROP DEAD YOU MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING. You disgust me in the most deepest way imaginable. You have no use to this forums other than to insult others and make others angry. Yes I am choosing to react this way and I know I'm gonna get flamed so flame away. I DON'T CARE. You don't deserve to have been given life but I can't do anything about it. Yes I know my current conduct is COMPLETELY unacceptable as a Christian and a Mormon. I DON'T CARE AT THIS MOMENT. You grendel have done NOTHING to contribute to this thread other than insult me. I believe in Jesus and I know I make mistakes. It's not up to anyone but ME to find those mistakes and work on correcting them. You Grendel, I hope you get killed in a horrific accident. Yes I know very unchristian of me but guess what It's people like you that are going to be completely and utterly speachless when it turns out that the LDS church was right. Good luck in the after-life.

On a side note to actually contribute to this thread My opinions may not matter to you but that is no reason to actually DIRECTLY INSULT other peoples points of view. Honestly what is happening is the same thing that happened between the early Christian church and the Jewish church. Insults and slander being tossed around and the act of being Un-Christlike. Yes I know I am a slight hypocrite for saying this but I am also saying that my above conduct is completely unreasonable and I could have handled it better.

P.S. If I PM you feel free to post it. I will gladly support my views and anything I say in that PM, and if you change anything I will post what I sent from my sent inbox.

(proceed with the griefing and flaming for my extremely negative behavior)


----------



## Isen (Nov 22, 2010)

We're not mad.  Just disappointed.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Nov 22, 2010)

Where's Rukh? He ought to be complaining about something but instead it's eerily silent. Did he slit his wrists?


----------



## Conker (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> You want me to say it publicly? I said it in PM because I wanted to be considerate to the others here by not posting insulting rants to other users and actually contributing to the TOPIC of this thread.


Wouldn't want the whole forum to know you were an angry religifag! Gotta keep up the appearance of being nice and such. Turning the other cheek in public and not in private. Bravo.


> DROP DEAD YOU MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING. You disgust me in the most deepest way imaginable. You have no use to this forums other than to insult others and make others angry. Yes I am choosing to react this way and I know I'm gonna get flamed so flame away. I DON'T CARE. You don't deserve to have been given life but I can't do anything about it. Yes I know my current conduct is COMPLETELY unacceptable as a Christian and a Mormon. I DON'T CARE AT THIS MOMENT.


I sure hope your God isn't as angry as you. Oh wait, if he's the one in the Bible he is. That's a bitch. You know, just because you know you are doing something wrong doesn't make doing that wrong any more valid or hypocritical.   


> You grendel have done NOTHING to contribute to this thread other than insult me.


He's done more than that, but even if he hasn't, I'm okay with the above form of contribution. Lulz abounds.


> I believe in Jesus and I know I make mistakes. It's not up to anyone but ME to find those mistakes and work on correcting them. You Grendel, I hope you get killed in a horrific accident. Yes I know very unchristian of me but guess what It's people like you that are going to be completely and utterly speachless when it turns out that the LDS church was right. Good luck in the after-life.


Two gems in here. One, a religifag wants another person to die in a horrific accident which is just awesome. "You called me out on my bullshit so now I want you to die!" I'm pretty sure that was the thought process many years ago when the church was having anyone that disagreed with them offed! Or when the church was conquering lands and you either converted or died. Glad to know that spirit is still alive and well. Religion would be really boring if it weren't. 

Also, lolirony and lolhipocracy.

The second gem is the last sentence. The odds of your crazy ass religion coming true are just as shitty as any of the others I suppose, but damn. SPIRIT JAIL sounds pretty fucking stupid. Holy underwear is pretty stupid to, actually. I put Mormonism beside Scientology. My odds of going to spirit jail are the same as seeing Xenu after I take a dirt nap. 


> On a side note to actually contribute to this thread My opinions may not matter to you but that is no reason to actually DIRECTLY INSULT other peoples points of view. Honestly what is happening is the same thing that happened between the early Christian church and the Jewish church. Insults and slander being tossed around and the act of being Un-Christlike. Yes I know I am a slight hypocrite for saying this but I am also saying that my above conduct is completely unreasonable and I could have handled it better.


I guffawed. Only slightly hypocritical? Slightly? Pretty sure you don't need that adjective there. And what's the point of pointing out that your conduct is shitty and unbecoming? There isn't one. Were not gonna all go "Well, he knows he did wrong so it's okay." No, it's just poor rhetoric to try and save some form of face for your angry angsty outburst. Knowing your doing something wrong, and then doing it anyways, makes it WORSE than doing it and not realizing you fucked up until after the fact. You went into this post going "I'm going to fuck up and look like a moron, but it'll be okay because I"ll warn them ahead of time." No. Doesn't work like that. You just look like a bigger moron.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 22, 2010)

Oh sweet merciful Cthulu, u mad. And I mean that in a psychotic "HERE'S JOHNNY" sort of way.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> You want me to say it publicly? I said it in PM because I wanted to be considerate to the others here by not posting insulting rants to other users and actually contributing to the TOPIC of this thread.


You want to be considerate in being not considerate? Or you want to be considerate, just not with people who disagree with you? And why would you feel the need to post insulting rants about other users anyway?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> DROP DEAD YOU MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING. You disgust me in the most deepest way imaginable. You have no use to this forums other than to insult others and make others angry.


Well this sure is "Christian= Christ like" behavior. There is so much loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and forgiving not seven times but seventy seven times in this statement... Oh wait, no there isn't. You're mad because someone on the internet holds a different opinion than yourself, and you find that unacceptable enough to bitch at me about it. Way to go.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Yes I am choosing to react this way and I know I'm gonna get flamed so flame away.


Why would you choose to act in a way that is inflammatory towards others? And no, you don't get to use this as an excuse of "I was just defending myself and boohoo they flamed me it wasn't my fault!" No, no one here has "flamed" you for your beliefs and you act like a petulant child. I still hope no one flames you and you are left with your bitter vindictive words to fester alone on this thread.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I DON'T CARE.


You obviously do. Otherwise you would not have taken the time to write a novel about how you hate everyone, you are so down trodden, and abused you are here.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> You don't deserve to have been given life but I can't do anything about it.


Because I disagree with you on the internet I don't deserve to live? You sir are fucking classy, ya know that? Jesus watches you, even on the internet, and you are telling his followers that they don't deserve life? Who are you to pass judgement as such? Who are you to threaten and brow beat me when I have done nothing against you?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Yes I know my current conduct is COMPLETELY unacceptable as a Christian and a Mormon. I DON'T CARE AT THIS MOMENT.


So your morality allows you to pick and choose moments to be good and to be stark raving horrible? 
At one moment it is ok to be polite and civilized but if you feel like it you are personally allowed outside of the rules of civility in order to attack whomever you see fit? Just you are excluded from God's rules about "cuttent conduct"?
I hope murderers get to use this excuse "Oh, at that moment I didn't care that I wasn't acting Christian, it's ok though. Really." And caps lock is not cruise control for cool.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> You grendel have done NOTHING to contribute to this thread other than insult me.


Uh, well gee thanks. I thought I did contribute back there, but you have made it very clear that if I am not agreeing with you my opinion has no value and I need to die.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I believe in Jesus and I know I make mistakes.


You chose to make this mistake and verbally stab your brother with full intention of causing harm. You chose to attack me conciously. This was not a mistake, this was a decision to attack.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> It's not up to anyone but *ME *to find those mistakes and work on correcting them.


I had the weird assumption that judging sins and mistakes was God's duty. My bad...



CrazedPorcupine said:


> You Grendel, I hope you get killed in a horrific accident. Yes I know very unchristian of me but guess what It's people like you that are going to be completely and utterly speachless when it turns out that the LDS church was right. Good luck in the after-life.


Oh another instance where you threaten me with hell and hope I am dead. You are so pleasant to talk to. Your mother must be proud.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> On a side note to actually contribute to this thread My opinions may not matter to you but that is no reason to actually DIRECTLY INSULT other peoples points of view. Honestly what is happening is the same thing that happened between the early Christian church and the Jewish church. Insults and slander being tossed around and the act of being Un-Christlike. Yes I know I am a slight hypocrite for saying this but I am also saying that my above conduct is completely unreasonable and I could have handled it better.


You are being a hypocrite two-fold. This is not contributing and yet you lash out and slander me as not contributing. Bravo, to dead birds with one ugly stone.
And if you recognize that your conduct is "completely unreasonable" why continue acting unreasonably and aggressively? If you know you "could have handled it better" why don't you stop saying it, and do it?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> P.S. If I PM you feel free to post it. I will gladly support my views and anything I say in that PM, and if you change anything I will post what I sent from my sent inbox.


Then why send it privately at all? Why hide your hatred and malice from public other than to create a facade, a lie, that you are the innocent victim?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> (proceed with the griefing and flaming for my extremely negative behavior)


Your behavior is extreme, and negative. I hope no one "flames" you though. You were never under attack. And yet you lashed out at me. Your post is a testament to your inner character (and not the furry kind).


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 22, 2010)

And CrazedPorcupine now shows his _true_ colours...



CrazedPorcupine said:


> You Grendel, I hope you get killed in a horrific accident. Yes I know very unchristian of me but guess what It's people like you that are going to be completely and utterly speachless when it turns out that the LDS church was right. Good luck in the after-life.



Frankly, if there ever was an inkling that the LDS church was right, based on your attitude I'd be considering converting... to Satanism.  Yes, I know it's going to be a confounded nuisance going to witch's sabbaths, reciting the Lord's Payer backwards half the night and scouring the neighbourhood for virgins to sacrifice - *but if it keeps me away from your part of any afterlife it'll be well worth it.*

(with apologies to P. J. O'Rourke)


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 22, 2010)

Oy vey....hey people. I've got a wonderful idea...it's a great reminder especially for certain people here.

*Keep it civil.*


----------



## Grendel (Nov 22, 2010)

Conker said:


> I guffawed. Only slightly hypocritical? Slightly? Pretty sure you don't need that adjective there. And what's the point of pointing out that your conduct is shitty and unbecoming? There isn't one. Were not gonna all go "Well, he knows he did wrong so it's okay." No, it's just poor rhetoric to try and save some form of face for your angry angsty outburst. Knowing your doing something wrong, and then doing it anyways, makes it WORSE than doing it and not realizing you fucked up until after the fact. You went into this post going "I'm going to fuck up and look like a moron, but it'll be okay because I"ll warn them ahead of time." No. Doesn't work like that. You just look like a bigger moron.


Actually, this sums it up fairly accurately.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 22, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Where's Rukh? He ought to be complaining about something but instead it's eerily silent. Did he slit his wrists?


 
I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 
Well I'll be damned.  He DOES learn.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 
Don't forget the hypocrisy!

You were fun though. I'd like to see this as a respectful withdraw, but I fink you've gone past that point already :v


----------



## Aleu (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 That's actually quite respectable.

However, I'll still be stupid and debate here :V


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 
Honestly Rukh is right. I should probably do the same. I didn't learn my lesson. If anything I just made things worse for me. I won't take back what I said. It won't do anything. Since no one is willing to listen with a cool head and actually discuss this topic without insulting anybody else (myself included) I am just done. To those that end up meeting LDS missionaries, Please don't turn them away because of me. I did a horrible job trying to defend my position and I need to grow up just a bit more. But listen to the missionaries if just for 5 minutes instead of saying I had a bad experience with one of your members and slamming the door in their face. I won't say anything else because it will just turn into more insults directed at me and I will just lose my head again. I'm sorry please forgive if possible but if you don't I understand. I bid you all a good year and say farewell. If you see me on the forums again it will be very rarely. I have better things to do than be insulted by those unwilling to listen.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> To the first part, SATAN DID EVERYTHING TO JOB, God just let him.


 
So then, you're saying there are things in this universe that happen without yahweh's direct divine will causing it? That there are things that happen outside Yahweh's so-called "divine plan"?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Honestly Rukh is right. I should probably do the same. I didn't learn my lesson. If anything I just made things worse for me. I won't take back what I said. It won't do anything. Since no one is willing to listen with a cool head and actually discuss this topic without insulting anybody else (myself included) I am just done. To those that end up meeting LDS missionaries, Please don't turn them away because of me. I did a horrible job trying to defend my position and I need to grow up just a bit more. But listen to the missionaries if just for 5 minutes instead of saying I had a bad experience with one of your members and slamming the door in their face. I won't say anything else because it will just turn into more insults directed at me and I will just lose my head again. I'm sorry please forgive if possible but if you don't I understand. I bid you all a good year and say farewell. If you see me on the forums again it will be very rarely. I have better things to do than be insulted by those unwilling to listen.


 
Oh, OK, bye-bye.  Door, ass, etc.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 22, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Honestly Rukh is right. I should probably do the same. I didn't learn my lesson. If anything I just made things worse for me. I won't take back what I said. It won't do anything. Since no one is willing to listen with a cool head and actually discuss this topic without insulting anybody else (myself included) I am just done. To those that end up meeting LDS missionaries, Please don't turn them away because of me. I did a horrible job trying to defend my position and I need to grow up just a bit more. But listen to the missionaries if just for 5 minutes instead of saying I had a bad experience with one of your members and slamming the door in their face. I won't say anything else because it will just turn into more insults directed at me and I will just lose my head again. I'm sorry please forgive if possible but if you don't I understand. I bid you all a good year and say farewell. If you see me on the forums again it will be very rarely. I have better things to do than be insulted by those unwilling to listen.


 Completely relevant.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 
I respect your beliefs and your humility/maturity in understanding your error and actively seeking to not commit it again. You never attacked me personally, and I hold nothing against you.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> Honestly Rukh is right. I should probably do the same.


You should. But then again I don't believe Rukh ever told anyone to die because they disagreed with him. So, no. This option is not open for the likes of you.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I didn't learn my lesson. If anything I just made things worse for me.


You made things worse for you? What about me, the person you attacked? Is this going to be another "boo hoo poor me I am the victim" tripe? You don't get to verbally assault people and then go "woops this sucks, it's worse for me, poor me". Not allowable. You made this worse for everyone who had contact with you and all the people you verbally attacked.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I won't take back what I said.


Of course. Realizing one's error and apologizing is so _reasonable_. And I am so glad to hear that you have no remorse for wishing me dead multiple times. It's not mutual, I hope you live a long life in interesting times.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> It won't do anything. Since no one is willing to listen with a cool head and actually discuss this topic without insulting anybody else (myself included) I am just done.


This mainly applies to you. Nobody insulted you or threatened you. And yet you attacked us. You insulted us. We were cool headed and calm in the discussion of religion. I said myself the good that religion brings. Of course you ignored it and read only what you wanted, didn't you? And then you flew off the handle. I'm new, I walk in here after reading the rules and I expect civility. Everyone is enjoying light banter, I say that religion is good but it can be bad, and then WHAM out of nowhere you attack me. For a new person in FAF this is a shitty shitty greeting. Everyone else seems nice and considerate of opposin view points and multiple perspectives, do not dellude yourself into thinking that we all lack "a cool head" to discuss the topic maturely. In that you are alone in your immature and hostile reactions.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> To those that end up meeting LDS missionaries, Please don't turn them away because of me. But listen to the missionaries if just for 5 minutes instead of saying I had a bad experience with one of your members and slamming the door in their face.


No I will. And I will tell them why. I will tell them of you and how you told me to kill myself. I await their facial reactions with relish. 



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I won't say anything else because it will just turn into more insults directed at me and I will just lose my head again.


HOW many times must I reiterate this? No one has insulted you. You have paper skin. There are no "more insults" or "flames" directed at you. You are trying to feed your persecution complex and it's false. Even I whom you told to die have not retaliated in kind. Notice how that works? That turning the other cheek?



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I'm sorry please forgive if possible but if you don't I understand.


No, I don't understand why you told me to die and that I didn't deserve to share my opinions. Care to clarify that? Is there a reason I deserve to be silenced and then die? And I don't forgive you. You said before that you "won't take back what you said". If you have no remorse over wishing that another human being would die then I have no forgiveness for you. None.



CrazedPorcupine said:


> I have better things to do than be insulted by those unwilling to listen.


And again with the persecution complex. O___O Really? I'm new here, has he always done this? Like three times in every posting made himself to be this figure of Jesus-love and then complain about how cruel we are when no one has insulted him? (All the while personally attacking the people he claims are attackign him but are not?) This behavior confuses me.


----------



## Slyck (Nov 22, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> And CrazedPorcupine now shows his _true_ colours...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's called Christian Love. Get over it. :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 22, 2010)

Grendel said:


> And again with the persecution complex. O___O Really? I'm new here, has he always done this? Like three times in every posting made himself to be this figure of Jesus-love and then complain about how cruel we are when no one has insulted him? (All the while personally attacking the people he claims are attackign him but are not?) This behavior confuses me.



Yes. :V There are two other fundie posters here you need to watch out for too, but they'll become apparently in time.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 22, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Yes. :V There are two other fundie posters here you need to watch out for too, but they'll become apparently in time.


 I don't think I've seen Roose in here...though I could be wrong.


----------



## Willow (Nov 22, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am still here. But I am done debating and arguing. There is no point. I let my pride and arrogance get the better of me, therefore no one will listen to anything I have to say. I screwed up in the way I came across to people. So because I am doing more harm than good because of the way I addressed people, I am walking away.


 Didn't see this coming. It's cool when people actually realize they need to change something about themselves.


----------



## Conker (Nov 23, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Honestly Rukh is right. I should probably do the same. I didn't learn my lesson. If anything I just made things worse for me. I won't take back what I said. It won't do anything. Since no one is willing to listen with a cool head and actually discuss this topic without insulting anybody else (myself included) I am just done. To those that end up meeting LDS missionaries, Please don't turn them away because of me. I did a horrible job trying to defend my position and I need to grow up just a bit more. But listen to the missionaries if just for 5 minutes instead of saying I had a bad experience with one of your members and slamming the door in their face. I won't say anything else because it will just turn into more insults directed at me and I will just lose my head again. I'm sorry please forgive if possible but if you don't I understand. I bid you all a good year and say farewell. If you see me on the forums again it will be very rarely. I have better things to do than be insulted by those unwilling to listen.


I won't utter a rude remark and slam the door in their face because of you, I"ll do it because I hate the fact that they go door to door to try and get me to join their cult. 

It's also way more fun than being polite.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 23, 2010)

One of the more interesting facts I learned is that God has fore-ordained some members of humanity to heaven, known as the "elect". The rest of mankind is the "reprobate", the pre-mortally unlucky ones who will die and go to Hell for all eternity for their lack, not of holiness, but of good fortune. This has completely changed my outlook on evangelizing or preaching to others, knowing full well that 1.) If they are elect, God will save them without any input from my evangelism and 2.) If they are reprobate, then there's no reason to invest in them anything. 

Also, come to think of it, there is one question that I have concerning this- how can anyone know for certain whether they are elect or reprobate?


----------



## Conker (Nov 23, 2010)

DarrylWolf said:


> One of the more interesting facts I learned is that God has fore-ordained some members of humanity to heaven, known as the "elect". The rest of mankind is the "reprobate", the pre-mortally unlucky ones who will die and go to Hell for all eternity for their lack, not of holiness, but of good fortune. This has completely changed my outlook on evangelizing or preaching to others, knowing full well that 1.) If they are elect, God will save them without any input from my evangelism and 2.) If they are reprobate, then there's no reason to invest in them anything.
> 
> Also, come to think of it, there is one question that I have concerning this- how can anyone know for certain whether they are elect or reprobate?


What crazy sect of...Christianity? is that? Sounds kind of like the Jehova's Witnesses, but not quite.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 23, 2010)

It's Calvinism. It's based around five key points summed up in the acronym "TULIP"
Total Depravity- Human beings are devoid of ANY will to do anything good. We're really no better than the devil so given the choice, we'd all reject the Gospel, which means God must use...
Unconditional Election- ...to make certain that a group of men from the whole doomed lot of humanity get the faith necessary to believe in the Gospel. (Faith comes before regeneration in Calvinism- its followers think the rest of Christianity has it backwards) This means that there must have been a random and completely arbitrary selection of individuals before they were born. And no, you have no reliable way of knowing whether you won this cosmic lottery. You also have no way of knowing whether or not you benefit from the...
Limited Atonement- ... of Christ on the cross, not shed out for the whole of mankind as John 3:16 would have us believe, but for that select group of humans who God selected pre-mortally. Once these lucky people are exposed to the Gospel, they receive...
Irresistible Grace- ... a gift that basically cannot be refused, in which God supercedes and overrides your inhibitions and forces you to accept the Gospel. And after that, if you are one of the elect, you experience...
Perseverance of the Saints-... the best perk of the Calvinist model is being able to sin with impunity and realizing that God will absolutely overlook all of your infractions, no matter how large they are. This same does not apply to the reprobates who can't do anything BUT rack up injustices that God will punish them for at the Final Judgment. If elect, all of your sins are not just washed away but complete non-issues, making God out to be the most unjust judge in the universe for allowing repeat offenders to commit the same deeds over and over without paying recompense but punishing those who want to get their act together.

There, that's Calvinism and don't let anyone like Sproul, or MacArthur, or Grudem tell you the above portrayal's a straw-man argument. This has massive philosophical implications because these points, if true, mean that we have no freewill at all, God is the author of sin, and any kind of moral code, including the Bible is completely worthless as it can benefit the reprobate, nor could not following the law harm the elect.


----------



## Isen (Nov 23, 2010)

Hoooo  boy...



Conker said:


> What crazy sect of...Christianity? is that? Sounds kind of like the Jehova's Witnesses, but not quite.


Plenty of mainstream evangelical churches are Calvinist.  Not the majority, but it's not some tiny sect or anything.  Presbyterian churches and anything with "Reformed" in the title, typically.  It started in Scotland, and the Church of Scotland is Calvinist as well.  Calvinists basically believe that God is supremely sovereign and emphasize this sovereignty above all.  If Christ died to save all, and yet all are not saved then God is not sovereign.  Therefore, Christ did not die for all, but for his elect.

Calvinists like these passages particularly.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Calvinists would say that "choosing" is a work, so salvation cannot be achieved through choice.

Romans 8:29-30
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Ahhh, predestination.  They love this word.  The last sentence is key.  God predestined them before everything, called them to salvation during their lifetime, saved them, and finally is sanctifying them until sanctification is completed in the glorification at the resurrection.



DarrylWolf said:


> Perseverance of the Saints-... the best perk of the Calvinist model is being able to sin with impunity and realizing that God will absolutely overlook all of your infractions, no matter how large they are.



This is actually the exact opposite of what perseverance of the saints means.  It means that once one has been justified, one is sanctified throughout the rest of one's life, and God will enable them to do good and grow in grace.  That is, "true Christians" (those who are truly of the elect) sin because they have a sinful nature still, but as time goes on they are getting more and more Christlike.  As such, they act more and more righteously and less and less sinfully.  Anyone sinning consistently and deliberately is NOT persevering.  If one who professes faith does not show signs of sanctification going on in their life, you have to question whether or not they were ever saved to being with.  In other words, Calvinists don't believe in "backsliding".  If you are saved, you are saved forever and will necessarily show signs of God making you more Christlike.  If you aren't showing these signs throughout your life, it's a problem and calls into question whether or not your are saved or were ever saved. 

That said, Calvinism is screwy as fuck.  Just...principle of charity and all.  It sounds really weird, and it is, but you can see how it makes more sense if you study the scripture they try to use to justify it.  Does it still come to morally problematic conclusions?  Of course.

Atheist son of a Presbyterian preacher and I'm _still_ a huge religious studies nerd.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 23, 2010)

I dislike the idea of stratification and tiers among people ordained by God. I prefer that "all people are created equal".


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 24, 2010)

Theists: I do not accept your claims. Get better evidence. :V


----------



## Lobar (Nov 24, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Theists: I do not accept your claims. Get better evidence. :V


 
Yes.  Less Scripture banter and more evidence, logic and reasoning ITT please.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 24, 2010)

Shall I post choice Dawkin's and Hitchen's quotes?


----------



## Conker (Nov 24, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Shall I post choice Dawkin's and Hitchen's quotes?


 You can if you want, though our two big debaters have left it seems. Which is a shame 

If you want, I could jump sides. I'm religious to a point, but I don't call myself Christian anymore. Unless it's to troll atheists :V


----------



## Grendel (Nov 24, 2010)

Discussion time guys. If you don't mind of course. I have been pondering this topic for a bit and listening to both sides when I am not being threatened to die. So as I have been thinking I've turned a few ideas over in my head. Nothing new or original really, but perhaps worthy of thought. So I ask you:

Is religion just a mental crutch in dealing with how powerless we are against the inevitable (death) and a coping mechanism? 
Since most human societies have a relgious belief of some form does that imply god exists or that humans are evolutionarily geared towards believing in a higher power?
Did those who believed gain something evolutionarily (like power over their social group and the ability to mate more and live longer)?
Is there a psychological root in humanity's desire to seek a god/goddess/gods?
If there is a psychological/brain chemical root does that imply that religion is a mental disease that can be cured?


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 24, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Discussion time guys. If you don't mind of course. I have been pondering this topic for a bit and listening to both sides when I am not being threatened to die. So as I have been thinking I've turned a few ideas over in my head. Nothing new or original really, but perhaps worthy of thought. So I ask you:


I'll answer as a past Christian. I used to be Methodist, then Baptist, then Catholic. So I got some experience there (grandfather's a preacher, too).



> Is religion just a mental crutch in dealing with how powerless we are against the inevitable (death) and a coping mechanism?


That's basically what it was for me, a mixture of a fear of death and not being viewed as an outcast by my family. Social/family reasons play a big part, too.


> Since most human societies have a relgious belief of some form does that imply god exists or that humans are evolutionarily geared towards believing in a higher power?


Imo, humans first came up with these things because humans inherently hate the idea of not knowing, so they created reasons for things happening. Before science was really something people took seriously, they explained things as being beyond something explainable, and therefore it must have been divine/more than human. And beyond human is _obviously_ beyond the realm of of anything on earth, if that makes sense. So they invented reasons (aka, supernatural things) that were causing this.
And because humans have a VERY hard time of letting go of a tradition (aka CHANGE IS BAD), when science started making sense of the world WITHOUT chalking it up to superstition, the church/religions in general got pissed, and that continues to this day.


> Did those who believed gain something evolutionarily (like power over their social group and the ability to mate more and live longer)?


They gained social acceptance. Human society is based pretty much on our own little circles of friends. And if we're too different from them, we become outcasts. Therefore, it's safer to simply go along with the crowds. I'm sure this has evolved into the concept of "tradition". The people around us are the ones who influence us the most.


> Is there a psychological root in humanity's desire to seek a god/goddess/gods?


There is a psychological _need_, I think, for humans to somehow work out the concept of death, and the idea of what happens after. Humans are terrified of the idea of nothingness, so the invention of what happens after is mostly for comfort of mind, imo.


> If there is a psychological/brain chemical root does that imply that religion is a mental disease that can be cured?


 It's not a disease, per say, it's just a coping mechanism.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 24, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Is religion just a mental crutch in dealing with how powerless we are against the inevitable (death) and a coping mechanism?
> Since most human societies have a relgious belief of some form does that imply god exists or that humans are evolutionarily geared towards believing in a higher power?



We're geared towards discovering answers to things. It seems to me that religion was science before we knew what the hell we were doing. Pretty much any religion that began after Globalization has been criticized relentlessly, if not considered a psychological burden by everyone except the handful who are in it. Even the old religions merely stand up based on the things we still can't know. Our belief in a higher power might just be a way to blame something other than ourselves for our problems ("It's God's will,") or maybe it's Santa Claus all over again?



> Did those who believed gain something evolutionarily (like power over their social group and the ability to mate more and live longer)?


If you can set yourself up as a religious leader or prophet, you can con the hell out of everyone around you. Is that considered evolutionarily?



> Is there a psychological root in humanity's desire to seek a god/goddess/gods?
> If there is a psychological/brain chemical root does that imply that religion is a mental disease that can be cured?


I've read a description of a research, where you have a bunch of monkeys that get shocked whenever they touch a certain banana. They learn not to touch it because it will result in a shock. Then you remove the monkeys one at a time and replace them with a new one. The old ones would get agitated when the new one would go for the banana, and stop him from touching it. Eventually all the old monkeys are replaced by new monkeys, and they will all have learned not to touch the banana.. and even teach any additional monkeys not to, even though none of them have any idea that touching the banana would shock them.

It's a cultural immersion thing. People will believe in religion because other people believe in it. I guess it might be a psychological issue to any degree beyond this, but I wouldn't blame the religious idea itself (it's not the concept of 'dragon's fault when someone says FYIAD, they're just deluded.)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 24, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Discussion time guys. If you don't mind of course. I have been pondering this topic for a bit and listening to both sides when I am not being threatened to die. So as I have been thinking I've turned a few ideas over in my head. Nothing new or original really, but perhaps worthy of thought. So I ask you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Conker (Nov 25, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Discussion time guys. If you don't mind of course. I have been pondering this topic for a bit and listening to both sides when I am not being threatened to die. So as I have been thinking I've turned a few ideas over in my head. Nothing new or original really, but perhaps worthy of thought. So I ask you:
> 
> Is religion just a mental crutch in dealing with how powerless we are against the inevitable (death) and a coping mechanism?
> Since most human societies have a relgious belief of some form does that imply god exists or that humans are evolutionarily geared towards believing in a higher power?
> ...


According to Dawkins, there might be a psychological root to religion. Back in ye olden days, listening to a higher power meant living longer. Grandpa told you to not swim with alligators and you didn't because he said so. Doing so would mean death. So God is like that Grandpa. "DONT DO THAT" says God and you listen to him, not because you should, but because it is common sense. Don't motherfucking swim with alligators.

Maybe that's why I"m religious. I'm afraid of big reptiles with lots of motherfucking teeth. Or maybe because Pascal says to. I dunno. I am though. Not sure why.


----------



## CrimsonMagpie (Nov 25, 2010)

I detest religion in all it's forms, simple as. :B


----------



## Grendel (Nov 25, 2010)

Thank you everyone for your opinions and ideas to my questions. I was pleased to see not just the non-religious side, but Conker's point as well. Are there more religious people in FAF or is it just Conker and CrazedPorcupine?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Thank you everyone for your opinions and ideas to my questions. I was pleased to see not just the non-religious side, but Conker's point as well. Are there more religious people in FAF or is it just Conker and CrazedPorcupine?


 
Darkwing considers himself somewhat religious.  Shame you weren't around for CrusaderCat.  Oh boy was he special.  I wasn't aware Conker was particularly religious... you sure you don't mean Rukh?

EDIT: I stand corrected in advance.  I had never noticed that about you, Conker.  At least I don't think I ever did.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Darkwing considers himself somewhat religious. Shame you weren't around for CrusaderCat. Oh boy was he special. I wasn't aware Conker was particularly religious... you sure you don't mean Rukh?


 


Conker said:


> Maybe that's why I"m religious.


*?*


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm religious as well, but I tend not to let my views be known without context, and even then only if I feel like it.


----------



## Conker (Nov 25, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Thank you everyone for your opinions and ideas to my questions. I was pleased to see not just the non-religious side, but Conker's point as well. Are there more religious people in FAF or is it just Conker and CrazedPorcupine?


 Rukh is one of the main ones. There were a few others in here, but they didn't post much. 


Tycho said:


> Darkwing considers himself somewhat religious.  Shame you weren't around for CrusaderCat.  Oh boy was he special.  I wasn't aware Conker was particularly religious... you sure you don't mean Rukh?
> 
> EDIT: I stand corrected in advance.  I had never noticed that about you, Conker.  At least I don't think I ever did.


 When I argue religion online I tend to take the side of the atheist for a few reasons. One, most of my religious opponents are...well stupid and make the "sane" religious folk look bad. Case in point, go back about twenty pages to all the crap Deo dug up on Rukh. CrazedPorcupine also said some stupid things. Secondly, it's way easier to argue the atheist side than it is the other side because to me, the religious side violates all forms of logic. Religious debates usually are logic heavy (unless your opponent puts his hands over his ears and screams Bible verses...*cough*) Thirdly, I really don't know what exactly I believe and so it's kind of hard to argue that. I guess maybe I'm spiritual and not religious. I'm don't call myself a Christian really, though that might be due to the fanbase of Christianity :V I've never read the Bible cover to cover though.

It could boil down to arguing with myself over actually believing or holding onto this "want" to believe because what happens after death is scary if you aren't 100% sure on where you'll go.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 25, 2010)

Conker said:


> CrazedPorcupine also said some stupid things.


He never did apologize for that. He asked me to forgive him when he told me he wasn't remorseful for what he said. How does that work? Ha ha.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Darkwing considers himself somewhat religious.  Shame you weren't around for CrusaderCat.  Oh boy was he special.  I wasn't aware Conker was particularly religious... you sure you don't mean Rukh?
> 
> EDIT: I stand corrected in advance.  I had never noticed that about you, Conker.  At least I don't think I ever did.


 
There was also CutterFL but he got banned as well. Now there's just Rukh, Roose and HyenaWorks I think to represent the fundie population.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 25, 2010)

That last one, not a fundie.  Or if he is, he fooled me.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 26, 2010)

Is this thread dying? I can take on the religious side and debate that ways if people would like. I cannot say I would do a very good job of it, but I would do my best in defending it with logic a apologetics. If anyone would want to?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Is this thread dying?


 
Yes. It never was going to last. Nobody (myself included) cannot keep a cool head when discussing religion. I guess one can say, faith is not debatable. Nobody will be able to debate (as in telling them they are wrong and are stupid for believing) with someone who stands by 100% in their faith.
If you have questions about a particular religion, go ask a person who is a part of that religion the questions. But don't barge in screaming "you are all stupid for believing in this"
Because then the damage has already been done and nobody will listen to a word that you speak.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you have questions about a particular religion, go ask a person who is a part of that religion the questions. But don't barge in screaming "you are all stupid for believing in this"
> Because then the damage has already been done and nobody will listen to a word that you speak.


I did not barge in screaming. :/ And I offered to defend views that I generally oppose for the sake of debate. I think I can be civil. I will try my best. :3


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes. It never was going to last. Nobody (myself included) cannot keep a cool head when discussing religion. I guess one can say, faith is not debatable. Nobody will be able to debate (as in telling them they are wrong and are stupid for believing) with someone who stands by 100% in their faith.
> If you have questions about a particular religion, go ask a person who is a part of that religion the questions. But don't barge in screaming "you are all stupid for believing in this"
> Because then the damage has already been done and nobody will listen to a word that you speak.


 
You're the only one who refused to keep a cool head. Just because you can't doesn't mean other people are not capable of the same. :V



ArielMT said:


> That last one, not a fundie.  Or if he is, he fooled me.


 
I don't think I've ever read a comment of theirs that wasn't needlessly vitriolic. If not a fundie then I certainly think they're at least mean-spirited.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Grendel said:


> I did not barge in screaming. :/ And I offered to defend views that I generally oppose for the sake of debate. I think I can be civil. I will try my best. :3


 No, I didn't mean you personally. Sorry about that. I was talking about how this thread has/had been going.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> You're the only one who refused to keep a cool head. Just because you can't doesn't mean other people are not capable of the same. :V


 
And you telling me I am stupid because of my faith is a logical debate/keeping a cool head?  What do you expect when you tell someone who believes in their faith 100% that they are an idiot because they believe? You expect those people to listen to you? or to hold a civil "debate" with you? Your right I did loose my cool sometimes. I lashed out. And I have apologized for that. I tried to keep a cool head and failed. Which is why I won't discuss my faith in here anymore. Because I failed in acting like Christ. And when that happened I did more damage than actual professing of my faith.

Edit: I am sorry, but you telling me I didn't at least try and keep a civil tone is a flat out lie. (You never were civil from the beginning with me, ever.) I fully admit that I screwed up. But your argument was always this "your an idiot", "you don't understand your own faith" (even though you don't follow it or believe it...) Or "God doesn't exist and anything you say is just stupid"

You labeled me as a "fundie" why? Because I believe in my faith 100%? Because you don't like the fact that you can't "sway" me in what I believe?
The fact that you call me a fundie just because I believe in my faith 100% says a lot about you. To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who believes 100% of their faith (specifically Christianity, only because I haven't seen you speak out on any other religion)

The word fundie usually also means to fear that person, Do you label people fundies when you don't understand them/understand why they believe 100% in their faith?
I will say this, something I realized when I was posting in this thread. Faith is not debatable.


----------



## misch (Nov 26, 2010)

hello! what seems to be going on in this here thread? is it atheism vs Christianity? any Scientology in here?!


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 26, 2010)

misch said:


> hello! what seems to be going on in this here thread? is it atheism vs Christianity? any Scientology in here?!


 
You just missed the Christian vs. Mormon bunfight


----------



## Grendel (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You labeled me as a "fundie" why? Because I believe in my faith 100%? Because you don't like the fact that you can't "sway" me in what I believe?
> The fact that you call me a fundie just because I believe in my faith 100% says a lot about you. To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who believes 100% of their faith (specifically Christianity, only because I haven't seen you speak out on any other religion)
> 
> The word fundie usually also means to fear that person, Do you label people fundies when you don't understand them/understand why they believe 100% in their faith?



Isn't "fundie" just a shortening of "fundementalist" or someone who believes 100%? I don't think anyone here has used the term out of disrespect and I feel you are taking it a bit too far. It is a word that applies to you, right? Being a strong believer makes you a fundementalist? Is it not accurate? I am sorry if your feelings were hurt over the word, but I do not think it was used maliciously to "label" you. I also don't think the usage of such a term automatically means that person "doesn't like" you or is "afraid" of you. I think it just means that you are a fundementalist and nothing more. If you are not well then okay, but such a simple word shouldn't be taken as a direct insult when it is not meant to be. Again though, your feelings were hurt over the use of the word and I am sorry about your feelings, but not about the use of the word which I think is merited in this discussion. I think you may be overeacting a bit. And what is this of you "lashing out"? You did not lash out at me. Did you attack someone else on here like that Porcupine guy attacked me?


----------



## misch (Nov 26, 2010)

did you guys know religions exist to help people feel comfortable about the unknown? things such as death, meaning of life, etc? 

and when you press religious zealotry onto another person you're a complete tool?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Raaaaage.



 Holy crap Rukh, calm down. All I said was not to project your shortcomings (in this case an inability to talk about the topic calmly, as evidenced here.) on other people. You don't need to go on the defensive like that immediately.

Also,



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you telling me I am stupid because of my faith is a logical debate/keeping a cool head?  What do you expect when you tell someone who believes in their faith 100% that they are an idiot because they believe? You expect those people to listen to you? or to hold a civil "debate" with you? Your right I did loose my cool sometimes. I lashed out. And I have apologized for that. I tried to keep a cool head and failed. Which is why I won't discuss my faith in here anymore. Because I failed in acting like Christ. And when that happened I did more damage than actual professing of my faith.



I didn't call you stupid, I called you wrong- Stop trying to make everything personal. And believing unwaveringly despite conflicting evidence is not a positive trait. And yes I do because I don't say the things you're attributing to me. Apologizing about losing your cool means nothing if you don't stop losing your cool. And you're here discussing faith, or rather not discussing it and just trying to throw personal attacks at me, stop it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: I am sorry, but you telling me I didn't at least try and keep a civil tone is a flat out lie. (You never were civil from the beginning with me, ever.) I fully admit that I screwed up. But your argument was always this "your an idiot", "you don't understand your own faith" (even though you don't follow it or believe it...) Or "God doesn't exist and anything you say is just stupid"



I never said that. I said that you didn't succeed at being civil, whereas I have been and currently am. My argument has never been "You're an idiot", and you *don't* understand your own faith, and your god doesn't exist and the things you say being stupid are the result of you saying stupid things, and much like your claimed "You're an idiot" argument not used (at least by me) as a presupposition to declaring such things as stupid.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You labeled me as a "fundie" why? Because I believe in my faith 100%? Because you don't like the fact that you can't "sway" me in what I believe?
> The fact that you call me a fundie just because I believe in my faith 100% says a lot about you. To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who believes 100% of their faith (specifically Christianity, only because I haven't seen you speak out on any other religion)



Yes. No.
Believing in something without being able question it is no way to live. And I don't rag on muslims because there are far fewer muslims in america and they just come up less. When muslims do stupid things I dissaprove of them as well, but either way it has nothing to do with your and other christian's misconduct.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The word fundie usually also means to fear that person, Do you label people fundies when you don't understand them/understand why they believe 100% in their faith?
> I will say this, something I realized when I was posting in this thread. Faith is not debatable.



No, I label people fundies when they are fundies.
Faith is totally debatable.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 26, 2010)

Faith itself is totally debatable, watch:

Faith is complete belief in that which cannot be justified through reason.  To not apply reason is to simply ignore evidence and the logical process entirely.  Thus, faith = willful ignorance.


----------



## Azure (Nov 26, 2010)

This thread is way more satisfying than the Cub Porn one. These idiots actually stick around.


----------



## Conker (Nov 26, 2010)

The Faith v Reason thing has come up before and it appears, to me, to be a paradox of sorts. One way to look at it is "faith and reason should be separate for the definition of faith is to believe in something that counters reason." I like this idea because I find it to be true. Look at Jesus. He turned water into wine and came back to life after being murdered. Those two things violate every aspect of reason. You cannot change something into something else like that and you certainly cannot come back to life after you have been dead for three days.

But, if we separate the two, then the church can tell us whatever the hell it wants to. There has to be some mediation between faith and reason or you believe for the sake of believing. That's when we get things like "This part of the Bible is a metaphor (though it's written as fact) and this part is fact" and we have since we have separated faith and reason, we have to believe what we are told by our clergymen. That's not good. 

Yet, if we bring the two together then how can we believe a character like Jesus existed? Someone who could walk on water, turn water into wine, and come back to life after rotting in a grave for three days.


----------



## Browder (Nov 26, 2010)

Conker said:


> The Faith v Reason thing has come up before and it appears, to me, to be a paradox of sorts. One way to look at it is "faith and reason should be separate for the definition of faith is to believe in something that counters reason." I like this idea because I find it to be true. Look at Jesus. He turned water into wine and came back to life after being murdered. Those two things violate every aspect of reason. You cannot change something into something else like that and you certainly cannot come back to life after you have been dead for three days.
> 
> But, if we separate the two, then the church can tell us whatever the hell it wants to. There has to be some mediation between faith and reason or you believe for the sake of believing. That's when we get things like "This part of the Bible is a metaphor (though it's written as fact) and this part is fact" and we have since we have separated faith and reason, we have to believe what we are told by our clergymen. That's not good.
> 
> Yet, if we bring the two together then how can we believe a character like Jesus existed? Someone who could walk on water, turn water into wine, and come back to life after rotting in a grave for three days.


 
I donj't think faith has to counter reason, I just think that it can't be supported by it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 27, 2010)

Browder said:


> I donj't think faith has to counter reason, I just think that it can't be supported by it.


 
But then you have the people who are more than happy to say "Science proves my god" in one minute and then saying "Science and faith are completely different epistomologies and you cannot use science to study god" in the next when it turns out that, hey, science does not in fact support their god.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 27, 2010)

My grandfather's brother died last night. It was the first time I have ever watched a person die. He was a kind man.
CrazedPorcupine are you finally happy? Is my suffering enough to cheer you? Is this what you wanted when you wished me harm?

I find myself unable to believe in an afterlife, no matter how comforting the notion is. Ugh.  I want that solace. But logically I cannot believe it. I am so_* twisted*_ up inside. Like all my organs tangled each other. What is the nature of a human soul? What does that last rattling beathe include, a spark of life or neural-synaptic firings? FAF I am sickened at the thought of death. I am sickened that so many people here throw such threats of death around without care. I am in pain. What is the nature of a human soul?


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Nov 27, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> This thread is way more satisfying than the Cub Porn one. These idiots actually stick around.


 

That's an argument for and against religion in and of itself.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 27, 2010)

Grendel said:


> My grandfather's brother died last night. It was the first time I have ever watched a person die. He was a kind man.
> CrazedPorcupine are you finally happy? Is my suffering enough to cheer you? Is this what you wanted when you wished me harm?
> 
> I find myself unable to believe in an afterlife, no matter how comforting the notion is. Ugh.  I want that solace. But logically I cannot believe it. I am so_* twisted*_ up inside. Like all my organs tangled each other. What is the nature of a human soul? What does that last rattling beathe include, a spark of life or neural-synaptic firings? FAF I am sickened at the thought of death. I am sickened that so many people here throw such threats of death around without care. I am in pain. What is the nature of a human soul?


 
I'm sorry for your loss, but Religious people will never be satisfied with the temporary suffering of people who disagree with them, which is why they invented hell. They take sadistic pleasure in the suffering of people, including their own because it feeds their persecution complexes.

Human souls are, unfortunately, also logically impossible because of their wierd relation with the brain.  Where does it connect with the brain? Why does the soul need such a thing in the first place? Why can't we detect it when a person dies, or is living for that matter? Souls are apparently unchangeable, and yet people learn things... Those sorts of questions.


----------



## Conker (Nov 28, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Human souls are, unfortunately, also logically impossible because of their wierd relation with the brain.  Where does it connect with the brain? Why does the soul need such a thing in the first place? Why can't we detect it when a person dies, or is living for that matter? Souls are apparently unchangeable, and yet people learn things... Those sorts of questions.


 I know this will be a scary, and probably amazingly ignorant and niave statement, but why can't souls (and God) reside outside of human logic?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 28, 2010)

Conker said:


> I know this will be a scary, and probably amazingly ignorant and niave statement, but why can't souls (and God) reside outside of human logic?


 
Because Anything that interects with the universe, (In this case souls as a sort of information transfer,) can be detected. The only way these things would be able to completely reside outside of human logic is if they didn't actually interact with the world, but religious people still love to claim god for all kinds of things (found my carkeys, hurricane katrina, curing my cancer, refraining from sending me to hell, etc).

In other words, because people claim these things do reside in the domain of "human logic".


----------



## Conker (Nov 28, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Because Anything that interects with the universe, (In this case souls as a sort of information transfer,) can be detected. The only way these things would be able to completely reside outside of human logic is if they didn't actually interact with the world, but religious people still love to claim god for all kinds of things (found my carkeys, hurricane katrina, curing my cancer, refraining from sending me to hell, etc).
> 
> In other words, because people claim these things do reside in the domain of "human logic".


Good point, though I think that might be a fault in religious people and not with the concept of souls or God. I'm pretty sure God doesn't give a flying fuck about things like car keys, disasters, or cancer. I think the last thing could be argued to reside outside of the universe and therefore outside of human logic though. 

I guess I'm a bit of a deist.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 28, 2010)

Conker said:


> Good point, though I think that might be a fault in religious people and not with the concept of souls or God. I'm pretty sure God doesn't give a flying fuck about things like car keys, disasters, or cancer. I think the last thing could be argued to reside outside of the universe and therefore outside of human logic though.
> 
> I guess I'm a bit of a deist.


 
That's part of the problem though, a lot of these people claim their deity has a direct vested interest in every tiny event and every person's personal health and wellness... And yet, it just doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## Conker (Nov 28, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> That's part of the problem though, a lot of these people claim their deity has a direct vested interest in every tiny event and every person's personal health and wellness... And yet, it just doesn't seem to be the case.


 Yeah. Hell, I would hope it wouldn't be the case because it then boils down to "why is God playing favorites?" 

Here's an example. My grandpa was in the military for 20 years. He was in Vietnam and Korea. Over this period of time he had many close calls where he could have (and probably should have...) died. While in Vietnam, he was supposed to get onto this plane to go to some other base, but because of something stupid, he missed his flight. The plane went down and all 21 people died. I'm not sure if that was the entirety of the plane or not. He chalks up his surviving to a divine presence, which is interesting because he's really not that religious. But that's what he believes. God, or an angel maybe, helped him out and kept him safe.

But, if God was going to save people, why would he single out my grandpa and let the other 21 passengers on that plane go down? 

Why should God play favorites?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 28, 2010)

Conker said:


> Yeah. Hell, I would hope it wouldn't be the case because it then boils down to "why is God playing favorites?"
> 
> Here's an example. My grandpa was in the military for 20 years. He was in Vietnam and Korea. Over this period of time he had many close calls where he could have (and probably should have...) died. While in Vietnam, he was supposed to get onto this plane to go to some other base, but because of something stupid, he missed his flight. The plane went down and all 21 people died. I'm not sure if that was the entirety of the plane or not. He chalks up his surviving to a divine presence, which is interesting because he's really not that religious. But that's what he believes. God, or an angel maybe, helped him out and kept him safe.
> 
> ...


 
Hint: He doesn't. Natural disasters strike countries equally at random. Epidemics strike based only on basically per-capita income. Religious people don't recover from open heart surgery any faster than people from another religion, and god has yet to heal an amputee.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Nov 28, 2010)

Conker said:


> Yeah. Hell, I would hope it wouldn't be the case because it then boils down to "why is God playing favorites?"
> 
> Here's an example. My grandpa was in the military for 20 years. He was in Vietnam and Korea. Over this period of time he had many close calls where he could have (and probably should have...) died. While in Vietnam, he was supposed to get onto this plane to go to some other base, but because of something stupid, he missed his flight. The plane went down and all 21 people died. I'm not sure if that was the entirety of the plane or not. He chalks up his surviving to a divine presence, which is interesting because he's really not that religious. But that's what he believes. God, or an angel maybe, helped him out and kept him safe.
> 
> ...


 
I've heard so many similar situations where people believe god saved them from some tragic accident.
But in reality it's all chance, any one of us could get hit by a car and die at any given moment when we're outside.
Taking time to do something extra in the morning before I go out could lead to me either meeting my death or avoiding it.


----------



## Conker (Nov 28, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Hint: He doesn't. Natural disasters strike countries equally at random. Epidemics strike based only on basically per-capita income. Religious people don't recover from open heart surgery any faster than people from another religion, and god has yet to heal an amputee.


 Exactly, which is why I'm a deist. 

Though if luck is a human attribute, my grandpa is loaded with it. The man can walk into a casino, play a slot machine for six minutes, and walk out with a hundred plus bucks...every time. I've seen him do it. It's crazy.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 29, 2010)

Conker said:


> Exactly, which is why I'm a deist.
> 
> Though if luck is a human attribute, my grandpa is loaded with it. The man can walk into a casino, play a slot machine for six minutes, and walk out with a hundred plus bucks...every time. I've seen him do it. It's crazy.


 
As an Atheist, I do not believe any gods exist as described. And also such things that most people associate with religion- miracles, souls, afterlives, supernatural beings, prayer healing, etc- simply are either impossible to test and are thus pointless, or are logically inconsistent.


----------



## Conker (Nov 29, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> As an Atheist, I do not believe any gods exist as described. And also such things that most people associate with religion- miracles, souls, afterlives, supernatural beings, prayer healing, etc- simply are either impossible to test and are thus pointless, or are logically inconsistent.


 Yes, I've gathered that. We have both heavily contributed to this thread, and others pertaining religion, afterall. 

I started my college career off as a biology major. Now I'm about to graduate with a degree in English. I'm a man of science without the ability. I like it when things are explained and not left open on pure faith. Should science trump any of the few beliefs I do have, I'll side with science simply because it's testable and more accurate than a book or blind faith. So I know where your coming from. Prayer healing has been tested and proven useless, and even detrimental. I believe it was in Dawkins _God Delusion_ where he brings up a study where one set of patience received prayer and knew about it, one received no prayer, and the third received prayer but were kept unawares. The first group recovered slower than the latter groups, presumably because they thought God was on their side and used that as an excuse to forgo putting their full effort into getting better. Everything else is pretty well impossible to test or, as you said, pointless. 

I do enjoy watching those shows on afterlives though. People die and then get brought back to life with a story of heaven or hell. But the stories are unreliable due to the nature of the brain. Still, what people claim to see is interesting. 

Yet, with all this being said, I still can't help but believe in _Something._ Logic screams against it, science does to, but I still think there is some form of celestial being. Sometimes it's a comforting thought, sometimes it's a horrific idea, but most of the time, I'm not dwelling on it and don't particularly care.


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 29, 2010)

Holy tits, this thread is a roller coaster.


----------



## ADF (Dec 2, 2010)

So I've got a video giving my response to the atheist adverts. Where I essentially just say if Christians want to advertise; they got to put up with Atheist adverts, it's only fair.

The other day a Christian threw a Bible quote at me. I got the impression that it was done maliciously, but I asked for a translation just to be sure. Sure enough it was meant as a insult, the typical arrogant Bible quote that glorifies ignorance and mocks actually wanting to know things. 

They were in the wrong for a unprovoked insult, so I decided to treat them politely and put them in a bad light. They were unapologetic. But what got me is someone who just set out to insult someone for not adhering to their faith, then wished me well in their own religious way at the end of their post with "God Bless".

There is a exquisite arrogance to that which can only come from theists. To be insulting towards you for not blindly following their dogma without question, while trying to put on a holier than thou air; like being religious has exempt their actions and words from ever being bad.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 2, 2010)

ADF said:


> There is a exquisite arrogance to that which can only come from theists. To be insulting towards you for not blindly following their dogma without question, while trying to put on a holier than thou air; like being religious has exempt their actions and words from ever being bad.


 
This is true.



ADF said:


> There is a exquisite arrogance to that which can only  come from atheists. To be insulting towards you for not blindly  following their dogma without question, while trying to put on a holier  than thou air; like being irreligious has exempt their actions and words  from ever being bad.



This is also true.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 2, 2010)

secretfur said:


> This is true.
> 
> 
> 
> This is also true.



false equivalency part eleventy-billion


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 3, 2010)

ADF said:


> So I've got a video giving my response to the atheist adverts. Where I essentially just say if Christians want to advertise; they got to put up with Atheist adverts, it's only fair.
> 
> The other day a Christian threw a Bible quote at me. I got the impression that it was done maliciously, but I asked for a translation just to be sure. Sure enough it was meant as a insult, the typical arrogant Bible quote that glorifies ignorance and mocks actually wanting to know things.
> 
> ...


 
There was a texas school that got permission for religions to hand out pamphlets at their school under the excuse of "freedom of religion" because local christian groups wanted to hand out their material to the students. Then the christian groups flew into a rage when other religions started handing out their material too, and tried to get the other religions barred from handing out their material because other religions handing out their material was, as the christians put it, "oppressing our right to free speech.". In other words the christians didn't really understand what "Free speech" and "freedom of religion" actually entailed so they ended up banning religious material again.


----------



## CrazedPorcupine (Dec 3, 2010)

Wait this thread isn't dead? HOLY CRAP!
Otherwise I am quite accepting of other's religions I just try to clear misconceptions about my own religion. And here I failed miserably. >.< Oh well. In other news I have decided to attempt to _Lucid Dream_.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 3, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> I am quite accepting of other's religions I just try to clear misconceptions about my own religion.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 3, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Are you sure about that?


 
To a point Christians are to respect others beliefs, We are not called to accept them though.

 In our age of â€œtolerance,â€ moral relativism is touted as the supreme  virtue. Every philosophy, idea, and faith system has equal merit, says  the relativist, and is worthy of equal respect. Those who favor one  faith system over another orâ€”even worseâ€”claim a knowledge of absolute  truth are considered narrow-minded, unenlightened, or even bigoted.

Of course, different religions make mutually exclusive claims, and the relativist is unable to logically reconcile outright contradictions. For example, the Bible makes the claim that â€œman is destined to die once, and after that to face judgmentâ€ (Hebrews 9:27), while some Eastern religions teach reincarnation. So, do we die once or many times? Both teachings cannot be true. The relativist essentially redefines truth in order to create a paradoxical world where multiple, contradictory â€œtruthsâ€ can co-exist.

Jesus said, â€œI am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through meâ€ (John 14:6). A Christian has accepted Truth, not just as a concept, but as a Person. This acknowledgment of Truth distances the Christian from the so-called â€œopen-mindednessâ€ of the day. The Christian has publicly acknowledged that Jesus rose from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). If he truly believes in the resurrection, how can he be â€œopen-mindedâ€ concerning an unbelieverâ€™s assertion that Jesus never rose again? For a Christian to deny the clear teaching of Godâ€™s Word would indeed be a betrayal of God.

Just to reiterate my point, Christians are to respect others beliefs, but that does not mean we accept them as correct.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 3, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To a point Christians are to respect others beliefs, We are not called to accept them though.
> 
> In our age of â€œtolerance,â€ moral relativism is touted as the supreme  virtue. Every philosophy, idea, and faith system has equal merit, says  the relativist, and is worthy of equal respect. Those who favor one  faith system over another orâ€”even worseâ€”claim a knowledge of absolute  truth are considered narrow-minded, unenlightened, or even bigoted.
> 
> ...


All religions are concepts of humans. Each share a similar story or view in one way or another. So one could argue that all religions are either correct and incorrect.


----------



## Grendel (Dec 3, 2010)

CrazedPorcupine said:


> Wait this thread isn't dead? HOLY CRAP!
> Otherwise I am quite accepting of other's religions I just try to clear misconceptions about my own religion. And here I failed miserably. >.< Oh well. In other news I have decided to attempt to _Lucid Dream_.



Are you going to apologize to me?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 3, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> All religions are concepts of humans. Each share a similar story or view in one way or another. So one could argue that all religions are either correct and incorrect.


 
Again, how does it explain this 





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> For example, the Bible makes the claim that â€œman is destined to die  once, and after that to face judgmentâ€ (Hebrews 9:27), while some  Eastern religions teach reincarnation. So, do we die once or many times?  Both teachings cannot be true.



How can both be correct as they contradict each other?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 3, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, how does it explain this
> 
> How can both be correct as they contradict each other?


 because they do not apply to each other. Their own concepts are correct to the individual.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> because they do not apply to each other. Their own concepts are correct to the individual.


 
Truth cannot be correct for one person and not someone else. Either there is absolute truth or there isn't. The problem with saying there isn't an absolute truth, is that statement in itself becomes an absolute, which contradicts what was just said...

Your saying everyone is correct in their thinking of what is right and wrong. This cannot be true, for instance is it okay to rape and molest a child? Just because someone thinks its okay doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Truth cannot be correct for one person and not someone else. Either there is absolute truth or there isn't. The problem with saying there isn't an absolute truth, is that statement in itself becomes an absolute, which contradicts what was just said...
> 
> Your saying everyone is correct in their thinking of what is right and wrong. This cannot be true, for instance is it okay to rape and molest a child? Just because someone thinks its okay doesn't mean it is.


 I never said it applied to everything. I was talking about religion.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I never said it applied to everything. I was talking about religion.


 
Truth cannot still be correct for one person and not the other. You are talking about relativism. Where "its right for you but not for me"


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Truth cannot still be correct for one person and not the other. You are talking about relativism. Where "its right for you but not for me"


 In regards to a concept such as religion.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> In regards to a concept such as religion.


 
 Which still does not work. Relativism is a cop out. Sorry. It refutes itself in what it says.




All truth is relative.
If all truth is relative, then  the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true.  If it  is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement  that "All truth is relative" is false.

There are no absolute truths.
The  statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which  is supposed to be true.  Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There  are no absolute truths" is false.
If there are no absolute  truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including  that there are no absolute truths.  Therefore, nothing could be really  true for you - including relativism.

What is true for you is not true for me.
If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
If you say yes, then relativism is false.


If you say that it is true *only* for me that relativism is false, then
I  am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism  is false.  If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
If  it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me)  holds the position that relativism is false.  This is  self-contradictory.
If it is false for me that relativism is  false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not  said to be true for me.
If you say it is neither true or  false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are  equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be  wrong.


If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true *only* for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
If  you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is  false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something  absolutely true.

If I am believing in something  other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than  relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.


No one can know anything for sure.
If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which is self-defeating.

That is your reality, not mine.
Is my reality really real?
If  my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your  reality?  If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite  realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?

We all perceive what we want.
How do you know that statement is true?
If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?
Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.


You may not use logic to refute relativism.
Why not?
Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
If  you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism  (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based  upon truth.
If you use relativism to refute logic, then  relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely  refute the truth of something else.

We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.
If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
Is truth self-contradictory?
If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self-refuting.  If something is self-refuting, then it isn't true.

If  it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same  reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe  that your reality is not true?  How then could they be the same reality?
If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.
If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.

If  my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true.  If  both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.


Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.
On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?
Is this an arbitrary act?  If so, does it justify your position?
If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?

To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]  [FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

I like how you put so many words in my mouth that I didn't even come close to saying. Typical "christian".

Truth is not always fact. Religion is a man-made concept. No one really knows if it's "fact" or not. To say one way or the other is incredibly moronic at best. 
Besides, you pointed out an obscure detail from another religion and basically said "My bible doesn't say that so the other MUST be false." How do you know other teachings of theirs are still false? How do you know yours is supposedly true? Just because someone said "I am the way" in a book? What if I said I was? I'd be considered a lunatic, right? Do you even challenge your faith at all? Or do you just shut your eyes and ears to everything and say "LALALAALALALA NOT TRUE NOT TRUE GO AWAY NOT TRUE"


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I like how you put so many words in my mouth that I didn't even come close to saying. Typical "christian".
> 
> Truth is not always fact. Religion is a man-made concept. No one really knows if it's "fact" or not. To say one way or the other is incredibly moronic at best.
> Besides, you pointed out an obscure detail from another religion and basically said "My bible doesn't say that so the other MUST be false." How do you know other teachings of theirs are still false? How do you know yours is supposedly true? Just because someone said "I am the way" in a book? What if I said I was? I'd be considered a lunatic, right? Do you even challenge your faith at all? Or do you just shut your eyes and ears to everything and say "LALALAALALALA NOT TRUE NOT TRUE GO AWAY NOT TRUE"


 
Man made up the word religion. Christianity is not a religion because that says that there is more than one way to heaven. In Which Jesus said no one can get to the Father except through Him. He is the Truth.

I didn't pick out one small fact about another religion. I asked how can reincarnation be true and one death and final judgment also be true. Both cannot be because the contradict each other...

"The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science  Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the  science of probability.  Stoner says that by using the modern science of  probability in reference to eight prophecies, â€˜we find that the chance  that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all  eight prophecies is 1 in 10to the 17th power."  That would be 1 in  100,000,000,000,000,000.  In order to help us comprehend this staggering  probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10 to the 17th power  silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.  They will cover all  of the state two feet deep.  Now mark one of these silver dollars and  stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state.  Blindfold a man and  tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up  one silver dollar and say that this is the right one.  What chance would  he have of getting the right one?  Just the same chance that the  prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having  them all come true in any one man."
 Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power,  or 1 in 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000,000,000."
 The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power.  It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident. He was who He said He was: the only way.


Edit: In responce to part of your question do I challenge my faith? Not a simple answer. I don't question God's existence, I do ask why he does things the way he does, I don't understand why he put me through certain things. It takes time to understand why. My faith in God is not questionable. Its absolute. My life has shown me very clearly that God exists. But I do not question what he is doing in the way that I believe its wrong. I trust Him. I know he knows better than I do. How can I question someone who is infallible? My Faith is challenged though, Hell my faith was challenged on faf. And now my convictions are stronger than they have ever been. God used faf to bring me back to Him. So I guess I should say thank you faf.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 4, 2010)

Your semantics games impress no one.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Your semantics games impress no one.


 
Not here to impress anyone. I am not here to please people. I am not here to mold to what society thinks I should be. I follow God, and God alone.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Wait, are you giving numbers on prophecies that have absolutely no historical evidence :v? Sounds pretty silly.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Wait, are you given numbers on prophecies that have no historical evidence :v? Sounds pretty silly.


 
Surely not more silly than narrowly defining your opponents' position for them to some twisted and nearly self-contradicting copypasta from who-knows where.  Or pulling an entirely arbitrary and self-serving definition of "religion" out of your ass.  Somehow I bet Rukh still feels Christianity is still religion-y enough for 1st Amendment free enterprise clause protections though. :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> Copypasta about Moral Relativism.



Well, that'd  be great and all, except that's a huge misrepresentation. A moral relativist can all agree on things like water is composed of H20, And that there is an object called the sun, and that George Washington was the first president of the USA in a pretty decidedly objective fashion. However, what they DO actually say is that different situations have to be analyzed and considered on their own individual merits, and that blanket strictures like "Do not work on sunday. EVER." are morally stifling and unneccesary. A moral objectivist would say "Thou shalt not kill.", but a moral relativist would say "Killing is almost always a bad idea, but excuses can be made for self defense and euthanasia and the plants and animals we eat and the bacteria we kill on a constant basis just by existing and fighting off diseases."



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In our age of â€œtolerance,â€ moral relativism is touted as the supreme  virtue.
> 
> Just to reiterate my point, Christians are to respect others beliefs, but that does not mean we accept them as correct.


 
Well, Your god *IS* a moral relativist. Christians are more than happy enough to not only say that "his wars are not our ways", but some christians even go so far as to say that the old testament does not apply any more.  God changing the requirements for different people in different time periods, including having different morals for himself and his followers, is definitely moral relativism. Nevermind all the countless different sects of christianity.

And given how you treated CrazedPorcupine earlier I don't believe you. Your actions speak louder than your words and it is clear that you don't actually respect other sects of christianity.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> For example, the Bible makes the claim that â€œman is destined to die once, and after that to face judgmentâ€ (Hebrews 9:27), while some Eastern religions teach reincarnation. So, do we die once or many times? Both teachings cannot be true.



You should go play "The You Testament". I'm sure you'll find its interpretation of the bible enlightening on this subject.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 4, 2010)

Also since Rukh mentioned open-mindedness I'm going to take the chance to snipe the new page with QualiaSoup's awesome video:

[Yt]T69TOuqaqXI[/yt]

How do I reconcile final judgement with reincarnation?  By discarding them both.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

can I have the link to where that was originally? Please?


----------



## Lobar (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> can I have the link to where that was originally? Please?



http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup

His youtube channel is the original source.  He makes these videos himself, uploads them to youtube and has no other website that I am aware of.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Also since Rukh mentioned open-mindedness I'm going to take the chance to snipe the new page with QualiaSoup's awesome video:


 
Fiver says Rukh was outraged by this.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Also since Rukh mentioned open-mindedness


 Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. 

Humanism, Relativism, or Atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are  big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But  watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger,  bigger, or smarter...


----------



## Conker (Dec 4, 2010)

Do you think that when Jesus wanked, whatever his semen touched sprouted flowers? 

Perhaps the first seeds of marijuana were Jesus fapping onto the ground. 

GOD BLESS YOU JESUS <3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
> 
> Humanism, Relativism, or Atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are  big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But  watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger,  bigger, or smarter...


 
So what you're trying to say is that religion is applicable only in life threatening situations?  That people going along their daily lives don't have any need of religion?

You're arguing that religion is useful for old, weak (possibly dieing), dumb people.

Please, speaking as a Catholic, stop arguing for faith.  You're fucking it up so bad.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
> 
> Humanism, Relativism, or Atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are  big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But  watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger,  bigger, or smarter...


 
Oh man, it's the old "No atheists in a foxhole" argument. Like that one totally hasn't been tried or thoroughly debunked already. *Eyeroll*


----------



## Conker (Dec 4, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Oh man, it's the old "No atheists in a foxhole" argument. Like that one totally hasn't been tried or thoroughly debunked already. *Eyeroll*


 Dawkins scoffed at that argument and then said something like "There are no atheists in foxholes and very few in prisons."


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 4, 2010)

I was about to make this long argument about true open-mindedness and accepting multiple possibilities as possible, but I think the video does a pretty damn good job of it without resorting to tl;dr. The question is, did Rukh watch it? I've noticed a lot of religious people refusing to watch or look at anything that may question their faith. My question is, why not? If your faith is so strong than giving an ear to an opposing viewpoint shouldn't risk your faith at all.

My idea about open-mindedness is being able to believe in multiple possibilites, to believe that anything is possible, and to be able to say "this is what I believe" about something that's currently unprovable, but be able to change your mind easily if contrary evidence is presented.

In the case of God, there is no evidence that he does or does not exist. There is nothing wrong with saying "there's no evidence that God exists but I choose to believe in him." As long as you can say "well, if evidence came along that conclusively proves that God does not exist, I will admit that he doesn't." The problem is, many religious people choose to believe in God based on supposed "evidence", like the Bible, and claiming that the Bible is concrete evidence that God exists, which it isn't. Faith is beileving in something that cannot be proven or disproven, not believing in something that can.

Atheists can be just as bad. Saying "God cannot and does not exist because there's no evidence of him, and anyone who believes in him is stupid" is as bad as those who say he exists on shoddy evidence. You could say "Well, I choose not to believe in God because I see no evidence, but maybe he does exist, and if I found concrete evidence of his existance I'd reconsider" is more open minded, and is the way I personally feel as an agnostic. Atheist can be just as big of assholes as theists.

I just choose to believe there may be multiple explinations for any event and since I don't have enough evidence either way I'll either say I just don't know, or I'll say I believe it's this, but it may be that if I find out more. For example, in an episode of Ghost Hunters, they had "evidence" of a ghost in the form of a silhouette of a human figure, flat against the wall, in a thermal image. Most people would say "Ha, it's a ghost!". That is possibility one. But then there's also dozens of other possibilities. First off, why would a ghost leave a thermal trail if they're dead and incomporal? Perhaps it's a heat source behind the wall. Perhaps it's light shinging against the wall and warming it in that pattern. Perhaps some producer edited the video to keep the show on the air. Who knows. Being open minded means being open to other possibilities despite what you believe at the moment.

Anyway, I just tl;dr'd despite myself. And pardon my bad spelling.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Conker said:


> Dawkins scoffed at that argument and then said something like "There are no atheists in foxholes and very few in prisons."



You got a link to that? Sounds interesting.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 4, 2010)

I also want to say I hate christian's use of the word Truth, in capitals, as if there is concrete, solid evidence that God exists. It's too black and white. It's too 'certain' and leaves no room for other possibilities or ideas. And no, the Bible is not solid proof that God exists.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I also want to say I hate christian's use of the word Truth, in capitals, as if there is concrete, solid evidence that God exists. It's too black and white. It's too 'certain' and leaves no room for other possibilities or ideas. And no, the Bible is not solid proof that God exists.


 
It's probably the greatest definition of irony if there ever is one. The #1 book touted as Truth, in fact has very little....if any.

I actually kinda think it takes on its own definition at that, it's not "truth", but it's own new meaning :v

I mean, the a portion of the _actual_ definition of 'truth' both explicitly and implicitly implies a proven/qualified/verified statement or fact (fact also implying that whatever it may be, is proven).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I also want to say I hate christian's use of the word Truth, in capitals, as if there is concrete, solid evidence that God exists. It's too black and white. It's too 'certain' and leaves no room for other possibilities or ideas. And no, the Bible is not solid proof that God exists.


 
According to the Bible the world is black and white, there is no grey area. This is is one of the reasons why Truth has a capital letter.


----------



## Conker (Dec 4, 2010)

secretfur said:


> You got a link to that? Sounds interesting.


 Afraid not, don't see the book on Archive.org and I don't remember what chapter that appeared in. I do know he addresses the argument in a sarcastic fashion though, as his his style. 



> According to the Bible the world is black and white, there is no grey  area. This is is one of the reasons why Truth has a capital letter


Explain. Claiming the world is black and white is a metaphor in itself, but I want more information. From that general statement, the Bible is very naive...


----------



## Tycho (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> According to the Bible the world is black and white, there is no grey area.


 
And this is why they have had inquisitions and holy wars.  This mentality, right here.  "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY".  (Or instead of highway perhaps stake and pyre, or gallows, or nasty pointy object).  This is why you fail.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Tycho said:


> And this is why they have had inquisitions and holy wars.  This mentality, right here.  "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY".  (Or instead of highway perhaps stake and pyre, or gallows, or nasty pointy object).  This is why you fail.


 

No you just don't like the fact that I stand 100% by my faith.

You or anyone else are not going to get me to renounce my faith. Ever.


----------



## Conker (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No you just don't like the fact that I stand 100% by my faith.
> 
> You or anyone else are not going to get me to renounce my faith. Ever.


Better explain your "black and white" metaphor >:[ Or I'll just assume Tcycho's interpretation is correct.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No you just don't like the fact that I stand 100% by my faith.
> 
> You or anyone else are not going to get me to renounce my faith. Ever.


 
You're perfectly welcome to blind yourself thoroughly with your faith, I certainly can't force you to take off that blindfold.  It's foolish, but then again I was always told "God looks after drunks and fools".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You're perfectly welcome to blind yourself thoroughly with your faith, I certainly can't force you to take off that blindfold.  It's foolish, but then again I was always told "God looks after drunks and fools".


 
Again with the insults...
My faith is not a blindfold, its pure freedom. You just don't like it.
John 15:19:
If you belonged to the world, it would love  you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have  chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again with the insults...
> My faith is not a blindfold, its pure freedom. You just don't like it.
> John 15:19:
> If you belonged to the world, it would love  you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have  chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.


 
You say a belief system that tells you to think and do a certain way "because it says so" is freedom? Freedom from having to think for yourself, perhaps.  The depiction of the "good Christian" as a *sheep* in God's flock is ever so appropriate.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again with the insults...
> My faith is not a blindfold, its *pure freedom*. You just don't like it.



Oh, yeah, because you're perfectly free to hear rock music or plow another dude without the threat of getting your ass burned, right?


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My faith is not a blindfold, its pure freedom. You just don't like it.
> John 15:19:
> If you belonged to the world, it would love  you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have  chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.


 
Well THAT'S convenient. Anyone saying you are wrong is actually a sign that you are right... so if someone says you are right you are actually wrong then?


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The depiction of the "good Christian" as a *sheep* in God's flock is ever so appropriate.



Especially when you consider the whole point of shepherding is to eventually sell park of your flock off to the highest bidder, shear the sheep of their excess coat, or slaughter some of them for food...


----------



## Tycho (Dec 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Well THAT'S convenient. Anyone saying you are wrong is actually a sign that you are right... so if someone says you are right you are actually wrong then?


 
Opposite day! Opposite day!

I am taking you very seriously right now, Rukh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Oh, yeah, because you're perfectly free to hear rock music or plow another dude without the threat of getting your ass burned, right?


 
Rock music? Rock is not evil music. Anyways there are plenty of rock and heavy metal Christian bands out there. Secondly I am still accountable for all my actions. It does not say in the Bible that those who believe are not accountable for what they do here on this world. Just as a Follower of Christ, I now am not. condemned to death.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

And Rukh brightens my day with his healthy glow of absolute positivism. Not the usual bullshit sold by every other God-fearing religion, including Rukh's hypocritical own interpretation of whatever version of the bible he's reading. I'm sure his version is an absolute direct (and correct) translation after all these thousands of years, and with all it's positivity - I am simply beaming right now with hap_piness.

_I do wish I could be happy as Rukh. :v I haven't felt like that since before I hit puberty


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Rock music? Rock is not evil music. Anyways there are plenty of rock and heavy metal Christian bands out there. Secondly I am still accountable for all my actions. It does not say in the Bible that those who believe are not accountable for what they do here on this world. Just as a Follower of Christ, I now am not. condemned to death.


 
Christian metal makes no sense. Metal is the devil's own brand of awesome, given to humanity as an apology for all the eternal torment he has to do.

I hear he is an okay guy when he is not torturing souls :/


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Christian metal makes no sense.


 
Really? Look up the Bands Skillet, Pillar, Project 86, Demon Hunter, War of Ages. 
Want a full list? Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_metal_bands

Its a huge list.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

[yt]fSxLJ16UTd0[/yt]


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Really? Look up the Bands Skillet, Pillar, Project 86, Demon Hunter, War of Ages.
> Want a full list? Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_metal_bands
> 
> Its a huge list.


 
I never said it doesn't exist, I said it made no sense. But I will youtube those bands to see what they're like.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

secretfur said:


> I never said it doesn't exist, I said it made no sense. But I will youtube those bands to see what they're like.


 
I'll save you the time.

They suck. It's not metal, and the lyrics are horrible :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And Rukh brightens my day with his healthy glow of absolute positivism. Not the usual bullshit sold by every other God-fearing religion, including Rukh's hypocritical own interpretation of whatever version of the bible he's reading. I'm sure his version is an absolute direct (and correct) translation after all these thousands of years, and with all it's positivity - I am simply beaming right now with hap_piness.
> 
> _I do wish I could be happy as Rukh. :v I haven't felt like that since before I hit puberty


 

Here is my problem. How pray tell do you think that a person who doesn't believe or want to/refuses to in the Bible claim that they understand it better than a Christian? For if a person actually understood the Bible they would become a Christian.

Secondly, you want to know what its like? (to know God) Read the lyrics of a song called Better than Drugs by the Christian band Skillet:
Best way to describe it in my opinion.


Feel your every heartbeat
Feel you on these empty nights
Calm the ache, stop the shakes
You clear my mind

You're my escape
From this messed up place
'Cause you let me forget
You numb my pain

How can I tell you just all that you are
What you do to me

You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' to get me high

You're better than drugs
Addicted for life
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' on to get me high

Feel you when I'm restless
Feel you when I cannot cope
You're my addiction, my prescription
My antidote

You kill the poison
Ease the suffering
Calm the rage when I'm afraid
To feel again

How can I tell you just all that you are
What you do to me

You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' to get me high

You're better than drugs
Addicted for life
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' on to get me high

How can I tell you just all that you are
What you do to me

Feel your every heartbeat
Feel you on these empty nights
You're the strength of my life

You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' to get me high

You're better than drugs
Addicted for life
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' on to get me high

Feel your every heartbeat
Feel you on these empty nights
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' to get me high

Feel your every heartbeat
So you come to get me high
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' on to get me high
To get me high




Lastdirewolf said:


> I'll save you the time.
> 
> They suck. It's not metal, and the lyrics are horrible :v


 
Have you actually heard a Christian metal band? My guess is probably not (Not from the list I gave out)


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Here is my problem. How pray tell do you think that a person who doesn't believe or want to/refuses to in the Bible claim that they understand it better than a Christian?* For if a person actually understood the Bible they would become a Christian.*


 Uh, not necessarily. They need to actually believe and/or accept. Not just understand. I can understand Egyptian mythology but that doesn't mean I follow it.

Also, those lyrics made me want to kill myself. If that's how it's like to "know God" I don't wanna know Him at all.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> For if a person actually understood the Bible they would become a Christian.


 
What about the theologians and philosophers who have made it their life's work to understand religious texts? Pretty sure most of them aren't Christian. Also pretty sure they know a lot more about the Bible than ordinary Christians. Stuff like the origins of the stories, use of mythic truth, who wrote it, & the errors and mistranslations that have accumulated over the centuries.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Uh, not necessarily. They need to actually believe and/or accept. Not just understand. I can understand Egyptian mythology but that doesn't mean I follow it.
> 
> Also, those lyrics made me want to kill myself. If that's how it's like to "know God" I don't wanna know Him at all.


 
One can read the Bible and not really read it. If you get what I am saying. If people truly understood the Bible they would believe. This is what I am saying. People that claim they understand the Bible but don't believe kind of lose there cred right there. Because I can tell you exactly the argument format they will use. They will grab parts of Scripture, taking them out of context, not reading what was written before or after it and then flinging it in a Christians face and demanding they explain it. Add to the fact they already made up their mind, so its not really a discussion they are after. More of an argument. More of a chance to vent on a Christian for what that Christian believes in.


----------



## ThisisGabe (Dec 4, 2010)

Atheists opinion: Religion is a placeholder for the current knowledge vacuum which plagues us all. To fill that vacuum would mean we must either acknowledge there is a vacuum and leave it be or some how find all answers to all questions, which is impossible.

Thus religion is undying, as is ignorance and the lack of acknowledgement of a vacuum.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> One can read the Bible and not really read it. If you get what I am saying. If people truly understood the Bible they would believe. This is what I am saying. People that claim they understand the Bible but don't believe kind of lose there cred right there. Because I can tell you exactly the argument format they will use. They will grab parts of Scripture, taking them out of context, not reading what was written before or after it and then flinging it in a Christians face and demanding they explain it. Add to the fact they already made up their mind, so its not really a discussion they are after. More of an argument. More of a chance to vent on a Christian for what that Christian believes in.


Most "christians" don't really understand much of the bible either. :/

I think that those who are not biased with brainwashing would understand something more than someone that just smiles and nods at whatever is written before them.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Here is my problem. How pray tell do you think that a person who doesn't believe or want to/refuses to in the Bible claim that they understand it better than a Christian? For if a person actually understood the Bible they would become a Christian.
> 
> Secondly, you want to know what its like? (to know God) Read the lyrics of a song called Better than Drugs by the Christian band Skillet:
> Best way to describe it in my opinion.
> ...


 
Again, your lack of logic is not really surprising anymore. You're starting to lean towards the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, a logical fallacy, and those lyrics were terrible - Plus, the straight-edge-ness of the song would kill me. Might as well just start singing about how they're virgins, alcohol is bad, sex = AIDS, and how they'll burn in hell if they stop. 

I listened to Demon Hunter before I knew what Wikipedia was, and after a few songs I was like, "Wait a minute...". Come to find out they aren't metal, despite touting that they are, and are also Christian. :v Bad times.

Also, this is when I was just a angsty teenager. I've grown up now and seen the real light :v

Oh yeah, and people using Bible quotes out of context? The context usually isn't needed. 

For the most recent example:
Oh so God sent bears to slaughter dozens of children?

Let me go get some context on that, surely he would have a good reason to slaughter a classroom worth of children...Right?

And don't forget all the cherry picking out of the old testament.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

secretfur said:


> What about the theologians and philosophers who have made it their life's work to understand religious texts?* Pretty sure most of them aren't Christian.* Also pretty sure they know a lot more about the Bible than ordinary Christians. Stuff like the origins of the stories, use of mythic truth, who wrote it, & the errors and mistranslations that have accumulated over the centuries.



Do you have proof of this? Because I have heard many of stories about Atheist Theologians  who study all the religions and then end up converting to Christianity.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do you have proof of this? Because I have heard many of stories about Atheist Theologians  who study all the religions and then end up converting to Christianity.


 I've heard the reverse actually. Christians that study the Bible that end up going atheist.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Again, your lack of logic is not really surprising anymore. You're starting to lean towards the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, a logical fallacy, and those lyrics were terrible - Plus, the straight-edge-ness of the song would kill me. Might as well just start singing about how they're virgins, alcohol is bad, sex = AIDS, and how they'll burn in hell if they stop.
> 
> I listened to Demon Hunter before I knew what Wikipedia was, and after a few songs I was like, "Wait a minute...". Come to find out they aren't metal, despite touting that they are, and are also Christian. :v Bad times.


 
Since when is metalcore not metal? Demon Hunter screams/growls their lyrics, have huge guitar riffs and play with a heavy atmosphere.
Have you heard their new cd?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TUJDwliM6M
Fairly certain that falls within the lines of metalcore.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I've heard the reverse actually. Christians that study the Bible that end up going atheist.


 
This pretty much. It's more often you hear of people like physicists converting to Christianity.

People who study the texts are more likely to reject their beliefs, I'm one of them. After I studied the history of the Bible it just lost all meaning to me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I've heard the reverse actually. Christians that study the Bible that end up going atheist.


 
Both have happened. Not denying some people walk away from their faith in God and denounce Him. To me that makes me question whether they truly were believers or not.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Both have happened. Not denying some people walk away from their faith in God and denounce Him. To me that makes me question whether they truly were believers or not.


 Of course they were or they wouldn't believe it in the first place. Duh :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when is metalcore not metal? Demon Hunter screams/growls their lyrics, have huge guitar riffs and play with a heavy atmosphere.
> 
> Fairly certain that falls within the lines of metalcore.



You're going head to head with an anti-theist metalhead :v about religion, and metal (or lack there of). 

Metalcore has never been metal. It takes some elements from metal, but that doesn't suddenly lump it in with metal. 

And I agree with the last statement you made.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Both have happened. Not denying some  people walk away from their faith in God and denounce Him. To me that  makes me question whether they truly were believers or not.


 

You are really just hammering away with the No True Scotsman argument aren't you? It was funny the first time, now it's getting kinda sad.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Of course they were or they wouldn't believe it in the first place. Duh :V


 
No, True belief means you would never renounce your faith in God. But, I truly don't know about those people who said they once were Christians. I don't know whats in their hearts. So I am just speculating. Only God knows if you truly believe in Him or not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You're going head to head with an anti-theist metalhead :v about religion, and metal (or lack there of).
> 
> Metalcore has never been metal. It takes some elements from metal, but that doesn't suddenly lump it in with metal.
> 
> And I agree with the last statement you made.


 

And I could say your going head to head with a theist metalhead about  religion and metal. All joking asside, metalcore is a mix of extreme  metal and hardcore punk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalcore)
Metalcore has a lot in common with extreme metal and heavy metal.
As an example-show me the difference between the sound of Demon Hunter  and War of Ages. Demon hunter is metalcore but War of Ages is heavy  metal. They both sound similar. The only difference is War of Ages  doesn't have a normal singing voice chorus.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, *True belief means you would never renounce your faith in God.* But, I truly don't know about those people who said they once were Christians. I don't know whats in their hearts. So I am just speculating. Only God knows if you truly believe in Him or not.


 Says who?


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I could say your going head to head with a theist metalhead about  religion and metal. All joking asside, metalcore is a mix of extreme  metal and hardcore punk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalcore)
> Metalcore has a lot in common with extreme metal and heavy metal.
> As an example-show me the difference between the sound of Demon Hunter  and War of Ages. Demon hunter is metalcore but War of Ages is heavy  metal. They both sound similar. The only difference is War of Ages  doesn't have a normal singing voice chorus.


 
Judas Priest shit up a bit. That's proper metal.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Judas Priest shit up a bit. That's proper metal.


 How 'bout some good ol' Motley Crue? :3c


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> How 'bout some good ol' Motley Crue? :3c


 
Oh why dont mind if I do~

Saxon? Megadeth? Iron Maiden? :3


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Says who?


 
Says the Bible, therefore says God, because the Bible is God's Word.

Romans 8:29-32
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image  of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and  sisters.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 

This verse tells us that from the moment God chooses us, it is as if we  are glorified in His presence in heaven. There is nothing that can  prevent a believer from one day being glorified because God has already  purposed it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is  guaranteed - he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.



secretfur said:


> Oh why dont mind if I do~
> 
> Saxon? Megadeth? Iron Maiden? :3


 
Irom Maiden is fantastic. I also love the original pantera.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I could say your going head to head with a theist metalhead about  religion and metal. All joking asside, metalcore is a mix of extreme  metal and hardcore punk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalcore)
> Metalcore has a lot in common with extreme metal and heavy metal.
> As an example-show me the difference between the sound of Demon Hunter  and War of Ages. Demon hunter is metalcore but War of Ages is heavy  metal. They both sound similar. The only difference is War of Ages  doesn't have a normal singing voice chorus.


 
Yes, yes you can say that, but the 'metalhad' part I'm seriously questioning if you're honestly thinking metalcore is metal. By definition, a metalhead is literally a fan of heavy metal music, and overtime, it has expanded to encompass heavy metal's sub-genres. One of which, is not metalcore. 

I know what metalcore is, and I know what it is not; linking to the wiki just makes me think you're bullshitting on the spot. 

Like I said before, metalcore does take elements from metal, but this does not inherently make it metal. Same on the opposite side, just because it takes elements from punk, doesn't make it punk. 

You ask me to explain to you the difference, and while I'm sure there is more than what you list, you already named one (clean singing vs. vocals) - Which is a pretty huge one at that, and certainly not the only difference. Vocals are extremely vital to classification, and you pass it off as nothing; overall, a major difference between, say, black and death metal is the vocal style. You can break down even further, but at this point, I don't think it'd get us anywhere.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is nothing that can  prevent a  believer from one day being glorified because God has already  purposed  it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is  guaranteed -  he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.


 
Also: AHAHA, DETERMINISM.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Says the Bible, therefore says God, because the Bible is God's Word.


 
Circular reason is circular.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Of course, different religions make mutually exclusive claims, and the relativist is unable to logically reconcile outright contradictions. For example, the Bible makes the claim that â€œman is destined to die once, and after that to face judgmentâ€ (Hebrews 9:27), while some Eastern religions teach reincarnation. So, do we die once or many times? Both teachings cannot be true.



I could argue that assertion, but instead I'll say this: I believe we reincarnate (it's not only "some Eastern religions"), that we are given a new life in order to apply the lessons we learned in our previous life. The Bible, as you say, claims that people live once, then face judgment [Sidebar: If the Bible truly is an infallible source as you claim, then why do you say "the Bible makes the claim"? Claim implies it may be unsubstantiated]. So who is right? Obviously you believe the Bible is right and therefore I am wrong. I am just as convinced that you are in error and I am right. But how do we know?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Just to reiterate my point, Christians are to respect others beliefs, but that does not mean we accept them as correct.



I have to say, Rukh, that sometimes it seems more as though you grudgingly tolerate others' beliefs rather than respect them. Respect does not mean insisting that other people who do not believe must accept that the Bible is an authoritative source. Certainly it is, to you. To non-Christians, however, it's another book of holy writings - to be treated respectfully, yes, but not an unquestioned source of knowledge.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> According to the Bible the world is black and white, there is no grey area. This is is one of the reasons why Truth has a capital letter.



Then I put it to you that God, via the medium of the Bible, is doing His followers a huge disservice. Not only does the Bible contain several internal inconsistencies and errors, as discussed previousy in this thread, but in reducing moral dilemmas to simplistic "black and white", it teaches - erroneously - that there are no shades of grey, no times where the the moral, ethical choice is not at all clear.

A case in point, and one which has all too often occured: the necessity for a late-term abortion because the mother's life is at risk. Which life shall be spared, and which taken? What guidelines does the Bible provide for such a choice? Who gets to make the choice? There are any number of other "grey" areas, of greater or lesser import, and believing that they can be reduced to simple black-and-white, yes-or-no answers is to abandon the use of reason and intellect.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> secretfur said:
> 
> 
> > What about the theologians and philosophers who have made it their life's work to understand religious texts? Pretty sure most of them aren't Christian. Also pretty sure they know a lot more about the Bible than ordinary Christians. Stuff like the origins of the stories, use of mythic truth, who wrote it, & the errors and mistranslations that have accumulated over the centuries.
> ...



Many is not the same as all.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yes, yes you can say that, but the 'metalhad' part I'm seriously questioning if you're honestly thinking metalcore is metal. By definition, a metalhead is literally a fan of heavy metal music, and overtime, it has expanded to encompass heavy metal's sub-genres. One of which, is not metalcore.
> 
> I know what metalcore is, and I know what it is not; linking to the wiki just makes me think you're bullshitting on the spot.
> 
> ...



So what your saying is, Bands can't mix and match different styles of metal? If every metal band played the same type of metal I think it would be boring.

What about Nu Metal, Progressive Metal, Thrash Metal (Original Metalica music), Trash Metal(Splayer I believe is Trash Metal), Glam Metal (Death Stars), or Gothic Metal (Paradise Lost). The list goes on and on for different forms of metal. Metal describes all the types. Then you get into the sub genres of what form of metal their is.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So what your saying is, Bands can't mix and match different styles of metal? If every metal band played the same type of metal I think it would be boring.
> 
> What about Nu Metal, Progressive Metal, Thrash Metal (Original Metalica music), Trash Metal(Splayer I believe is Trash Metal), Glam Metal (Death Stars), or Gothic Metal (Paradise Lost). The list goes on and on for different forms of metal. Metal describes all the types. Then you get into the sub genres of what form of metal their is.


 
Gaelic Metal! Mael MÃ³rdha are good.

[video=youtube;C5WNK4EG55A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5WNK4EG55A[/video]

True story bro, Good Friday 1014.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Says the Bible, therefore says God, because the Bible is God's Word.
> 
> Romans 8:29-32
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image  of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and  sisters.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
> ...


 The Bible was written by man, you know. Man is flawed, therefore the Bible is flawed as well. I take it with a grain of salt...or a mountain.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bands can't mix and match different styles of metal? If every metal band played the same type of metal I think it would be boring.
> 
> What about Nu Metal, Progressive Metal, Thrash Metal (Original Metalica music), Trash Metal(Splayer I believe is Trash Metal), Glam Metal (Death Stars), or Gothic Metal (Paradise Lost). The list goes on and on for different forms of metal. Metal describes all the types. Then you get into the sub genres of what form of metal their is.


 
Band's can't mix styles of metal? What are you talking about?

Metalcore is not mixing multiple styles of metal, it's mixing elements of punk, and metal - Which does not make the listeners punk-rocker metalheads. 

You also do realize that basically every 'metal' genre is technically a sub-genre to heavy metal, which is a sub-genre of rock. Rock, which is a sub-genre of rock and roll (or an evolution of the genre, depending on how you look at it), which is a splinter-genre of rhythm and blues...and it goes on.


However, this is all missing the point - you just admitted to following a determinism(?)-style of Christianity.

(Not sure if determinism is the right word, in fact, but it's the best I could think of.)


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

Man suddenly we're debating metal...

I knew I shouldn't have read that Chick tract dissection...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> The Bible was written by man, you know. Man is flawed, therefore the Bible is flawed as well. I take it with a grain of salt...or a mountain.


 
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul  who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the  Old Testament as being inspired.  The word "inspired" is literally  "God-breathed."  This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that  the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:21: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."  Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human  will.  Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.

In the Old Testament, you see that a lot of verses start with "And the Angel of the Lord said" This is actually talking about the pre incarnate form of Jesus appearing or speaking to those who were writing the Bible. So Using this, one can say the Bible was written down by man, but came from God.




Lastdirewolf said:


> However, this is all missing the point - you just admitted to following a determinism(?)-style of Christianity.
> 
> (Not sure if determinism is the right word, in fact, but it's the best I could think of.)


 
Its actually called Pre Destination. This is what the Bible teaches. That God has the foreknowledge of every thought of anyone. As in He can see any future of any thought that comes into our head. But he still allows us to make the choice of what we are thinking. He just knows of both futures of that one thought. Time is not linear for God. Its not a straight line.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is  inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for  correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be  adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul  who wrote this epistle  was obviously referring to the entirety of the  Old Testament as being  inspired.  The word "inspired" is literally  "God-breathed."  This is an  interesting phrase, since it implies that  the Scriptures are from the  mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:21: "for no prophecy was  ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit  spoke from God."  Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the  product of human  will.  Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the  Holy Spirit.
> 
> In the Old Testament, you see that a lot of verses  start with "And the Angel of the Lord said" This is actually talking  about the pre incarnate form of Jesus appearing or speaking to those who  were writing the Bible. So Using this, one can say the Bible was  written down by man, but came from God.
> 
> Its actually  called Pre Destination. This is what the Bible teaches. That God has  the foreknowledge of every thought of anyone. As in He can see any  future of any thought that comes into our head. But he still allows us  to make the choice of what we are thinking. He just knows of both  futures of that one thought. Time is not linear for God. Its not a  straight line.


 

The word "inspired" does not mean "God-breathed", and never...has, I'm fairly certain. 

And I really, really don't think that we should be listening to people who hear voices that aren't coming from a person. You'd consider that person insane today, but not a few thousand years ago, as long as they wrote it down :v?

Also, pre destination would ultimately deny free will. Since God will determine if we burn forever, or sin in his paradise.

It's basically pointing a gun at someone from life until death, any 'badness' is followed by a quick jab in the head by the muzzle of the gun.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The word "inspired" does not mean "God-breathed", and never...has, I'm fairly certain.


 
Actually it does. Depends on what translation you read but they either say God Breathed or God Inspired. which is the same thing. See my edited post above, I added to it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually it does. Depends on what translation you read but they either say God Breathed or God Inspired. which is the same thing. See my edited post above, I added to it.


 
So..."Breathed" means "inspired" by your definition of a translation?

Either way, I'd still consider a person insane for trying to tell me that they are hearing and inspired by God himself.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul  who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the  Old Testament as being inspired.  The word "inspired" is literally  "God-breathed."  This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that  the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:21: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."  Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human  will.  Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> In the Old Testament, you see that a lot of verses start with "And the Angel of the Lord said" This is actually talking about the pre incarnate form of Jesus appearing or speaking to those who were writing the Bible. So Using this, one can say the Bible was written down by man, but came from God.


 Who's to say they weren't lying, drunk, or crazy or a variation of the three?


----------



## Carenath (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> For if a person actually understood the Bible they would become a Christian.


This is actually, a fallacy. What you should have said is:
If a person understood the Bible as a Christian does, they would become a Christian.

Don't forget that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament, which also makes up the Jewish Torah.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Carenath said:


> This is actually, a fallacy. What you should have said is:
> If a person understood the Bible as a Christian does, they would become a Christian.
> 
> Don't forget that the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament, which also makes up the Jewish Torah.


 
Yes I know this, I was speaking of the Bible as a whole. New and Old Testament. Maybe I should have clarified that better though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Who's to say they weren't lying, drunk, or crazy or a variation of the three?



The Bible doesn't seem like something an insane/drunk/lying man would write, considering there is historical evidence in the Bible (events, wars, people)
Secondly the teachings don't sound like something a lunatic would right.

But I guess the best answer for most people on here would be, I guess you will have to wait and see what happens when you die.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible doesn't seem like something an insane/drunk/lying man would write, considering there is historical evidence in the Bible (events, wars, people)
> Secondly the teachings don't sound like something a lunatic would right.
> 
> But I guess the best answer for most people on here would be, *I guess you will have to wait and see what happens when you die.*


 
I just LOVE this quote christians make.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 4, 2010)

Salaam, my brothers.

Islam is truth.

When Yawm ad-Din comes around, Isa (Jesus) and the Mahdi shall return and dispose of the kuffar, and shall return the people to the light of Allah.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I just LOVE this quote christians make.


 
Well, if you truly want to know what happens. The only way is to die. Then you will know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether there is God or not.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, if you truly want to know what happens. The only way is to die. Then you will know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether there is God or not.


 Fine, I should kill myself.

OH WAIT, THAT'S A SIN.


----------



## Carenath (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I just LOVE this quote christians make.


 It isn't just Christians that make that quote, I've heard it from scientists and athiests alike.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Carenath said:


> It isn't just Christians that make that quote, I've heard it from scientists and athiests alike.


 I haven't heard from either one.
Just christians saying "WELL WE'RE GONNA SEE WHO'S RIGHT WHEN WE DIE, HUH?"


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do you have proof of this? Because I have heard many of stories about Atheist Theologians  who study all the religions and then end up converting to Christianity.


 


AleutheWolf said:


> I've heard the reverse actually. Christians that study the Bible that end up going atheist.



A case in point of a Christian *preacher* turned atheist _through learning and understanding the Bible:_ 

Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker



> My commitment lasted nineteen years. It gave my life a feeling of purpose, destiny and fulfillment. I spent years trekking across Mexico in missionary work--small villages, jungles, deserts, large arenas, radio, television, parks, prisons and street meetings. I spent more years in traveling evangelism across the United States preaching and singing in churches, on street corners, house-to-house witnessing, college campuses and wherever an audience could be found.
> 
> I was a "doer of the word and not a hearer only." I went to a Christian college, majored in Religion/Philosophy, became ordained and served in a pastoral capacity in three California churches. I personally led many people to Jesus Christ, and encouraged many young people to consider full-time Christian service.
> [...]
> ...



So much for "if you truly read the Bible, you'll believe"... in fact, I'd wager the opposite is true and that it's only people who _haven't_ truly understood the Bible are still believers.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible doesn't seem like something an insane/drunk/lying man would write, considering there is historical evidence in the Bible (events, wars, people)



Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, though.

Not to mention that it's a logical fallacy to claim that since a book got several relatively non-controversial historical facts right, _everything_ in it, no matter how whacked-out it sounds, is automatically the truth.

A Muslim could make _exactly the same claim_ about the Koran - so why aren't you a Muslim?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> A Muslim could make _exactly the same claim_ about the Koran - so why aren't you a Muslim?



He isn't a Muslim because he has not yet opened his heart to Allah. Allah is within you, but it is up to you to find him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> A Muslim could make _exactly the same claim_ about the Koran - so why aren't you a Muslim?



Well firstly because it preaches that the same God (even though Allah is not the Christian God) came to Mohamed. (Well it says an Angel of the Lord) So Islam claims the same God gave a revelation to Mohamed. And yet the Koran conflicts with what the Bible says. So how can it be from the same God if the two books contradict each other? Secondly Allah is not a God of grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Again this contradicts with what the Bible says.

 Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us. In Islam, faith in God is not enough. In Islam, the Muslim's works will  be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is  saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim,  whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they  performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones.

Christianity says salvation has been given to us by grace, for free. Islam says you must work for salvation. Its a works based faith. 
That directly contradicts the Bible. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Edit: Islam does not believe Jesus Christ is God. Thats why I don't believe in Islam.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well firstly because it preaches that the same God (even though Allah is not the Christian God) came to Mohamed. (Well it says an Angel of the Lord) So Islam claims the same God gave a revelation to Mohamed. And yet the Koran conflicts with what the Bible says. So how can it be from the same God if the two books contradict each other? Secondly Allah is not a God of grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Again this contradicts with what the Bible says.
> 
> Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us. In Islam, faith in God is not enough. In Islam, the Muslim's works will  be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is  saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim,  whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they  performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones.
> 
> ...


 So basically, you're believing what you want to believe is right. :/


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, how can Allah give Mohammed the Koran, which contradicts the Bible? We all know the Old and the New Testament don't conflict with each other..


----------



## Willow (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> So basically, you're believing what you want to believe is right. :/


 Isn't that what a lot of Christians do anyway?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well firstly because it preaches that the same God (even though Allah is not the Christian God) came to Mohamed. (Well it says an Angel of the Lord) So Islam claims the same God gave a revelation to Mohamed. And yet the Koran conflicts with what the Bible says. So how can it be from the same God if the two books contradict each other? Secondly Allah is not a God of grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Again this contradicts with what the Bible says.
> 
> Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us. In Islam, faith in God is not enough. In Islam, the Muslim's works will be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim, whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones.
> 
> ...



Are you using the Fox News interpretation of Islam?
The faithful and the virtuous shall both go to Jannah. It understands that one must contribute their money for the betterment of the community, so that no moslem may face the hardships of true poverty.

Islam is more active in bringing Allah's will to the Earth, whereas Christianity is stagnant. All the people care about is getting into heaven, whereas in Islam, it is both for the spiritual benefit of moslems, and the benefit of the International Moslem community as a whole.

Isa was a messenger of Allah, but Simon Kefa, the man you refer to as Saint Peter, turned him into a different figure who had gone astray from Allah. 

Isa was the first of the prophets to fully devout himself to the ways of Allah, and didn't teach that he was the son of Allah, but taught that all men and women are descendent of Allah.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> So basically, you're believing what you want to believe is right. :/


 
No, not at all. You missed the point where I said Mohamed claims that an Angel of the Lord (claims that its the same God of the Christian faith) Came to him and gave him new teachings. First off its written in the Bible that nothing can be added to the Bible in Revelations. Second I stated that Islam although claims that we (Christians and Muslims) believe in the same God, and yet the Koran's teachings directly contradict with the Bible. First and foremost, why would an Angel of the Lord tell someone that Jesus is not God? (Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, even though Jesus said he was the Son of God) Why would an Angel of the Lord directly contradict what the Bible says? My point is, either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is not. One cannot take parts of His teachings and call those parts correct and other parts wrong. Jesus said Himself "I am the Way the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me." So how can Islam say Jesus was just a prophet of God when he said that? It would be blasphemy if He was just a prophet. And this begs the question, why believe anything Jesus said when he claimed to be God, if he was just a prophet. Islam  (claims that they believe in the same God as Christians) directly contradicts what the Bible says.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, not at all. You missed the point where I said Mohamed claims that an Angel of the Lord (claims that its the same God of the Christian faith) Came to him and gave him new teachings. First off its written in the Bible that nothing can be added to the Bible in Revelations. Second I stated that Islam although claims that we (Christians and Muslims) believe in the same God, and yet the Koran's teachings directly contradict with the Bible. First and foremost, why would an Angel of the Lord tell someone that Jesus is not God? (Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, even though Jesus said he was the Son of God) Why would an Angel of the Lord directly contradict what the Bible says? My point is, either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is not. One cannot take parts of His teachings and call those parts correct and other parts wrong. Jesus said Himself "I am the Way the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me." So how can Islam say Jesus was just a prophet of God when he said that? It would be blasphemy is He was just a prophet. And this begs the question, why believe anything Jesus said when he claimed to be God, if he was just a prophet. Islam (claims that they believe in the same God as Christians) directly contradicts what the Bible says.



 I don't care about blasphemy in your little sect of Judaism. The New Testament directly contradicts the Original Testament (The Torah), and the Koran, because it says that Isa was the son of Allah.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Islam  (claims that they believe in the same God as Christians) directly contradicts what the Bible says.



You know what also directly contradicts what the Bible says? The Bible.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, not at all. You missed the point where I said Mohamed claims that an Angel of the Lord (claims that its the same God of the Christian faith) Came to him and gave him new teachings. First off its written in the Bible that nothing can be added to the Bible in Revelations. Second I stated that Islam although claims that we (Christians and Muslims) believe in the same God, and yet the Koran's teachings directly contradict with the Bible. First and foremost, why would an Angel of the Lord tell someone that Jesus is not God? (Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, even though Jesus said he was the Son of God) Why would an Angel of the Lord directly contradict what the Bible says? My point is, either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is not. One cannot take parts of His teachings and call those parts correct and other parts wrong. Jesus said Himself "I am the Way the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me." So how can Islam say Jesus was just a prophet of God when he said that? It would be blasphemy if He was just a prophet. And this begs the question, why believe anything Jesus said when he claimed to be God, if he was just a prophet. Islam  (claims that they believe in the same God as Christians) directly contradicts what the Bible says.


You're completely missing the point. You're basically saying "This doesn't say that so how can that be right?"
How do you know YOUR version is right?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I don't care about blasphemy in your little sect of Judaism. The New Testament directly contradicts the Original Testament (The Torah), and the Koran, because it says that Isa was the son of Allah.


 
Have you read the prophecies about the Messiah? The Prophecies in the Old Testoment (The Torah) Say that the Son of God would save mankind.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 4, 2010)

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

The truth, in the end, is Islam.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have you read the prophecies about the Messiah? The Prophecies in the Old Testoment (The Torah) Say that the Son of God would save mankind.



Isa was not the Mahdi. The Mahdi has yet to come, and when he does, he shall bring the enlightened and the virtuous to paradise. But when the Mahdi comes, Isa shall come with him, as shall all the prophets.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well firstly because it preaches that the same God (even though Allah is not the Christian God) came to Mohamed. (Well it says an Angel of the Lord) So Islam claims the same God gave a revelation to Mohamed. And yet the Koran conflicts with what the Bible says. So how can it be from the same God if the two books contradict each other?



Therefore, the Bible is wrong as it contradicts the Koran 

(And they're both wrong because they contradict the philosophy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.)



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: Islam does not believe Jesus Christ is God. Thats why I don't believe in Islam.



So why do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, as opposed to being the second-to-last prophet as he is under Islam, or some messianic rabble-rouser cultist as he is under Judaism? Because the Bible says so? The Bible that conflicts with chunks of the Talmud and the Koran? Why do you hold the Bible as the "gold standard" for truth, as opposed to the Koran? 

Many of the arguments you make against Islam and the Koran can be equally made by a Muslim against the Bible - except at least Muslims hold Christians and Jews in _some_ higher respect as "People of the Book" as compared to the regular run-of-the-mill infidel. Why do you accept the New Testament as an extension of the Talmud, but refuse to accept the Book of Moroni as an extension of the Bible?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> You're completely missing the point. You're basically saying "This doesn't say that so how can that be right?"
> How do you know YOUR version is right?


 
Christianity is the one true religion. That may sound awfully dogmatic  and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only  true religion. Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John  14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).  Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because  they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and judgmental. They do so  because they believe what Jesus said. They believe in Jesus, who claimed  to be God (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14), who forgave sins (Mark 2:5; Luke  5:20; 7:4, and who rose from the dead (Luke 24:24-29; John 2:19f).  Jesus said that He was the only way. Jesus is unique. He was either  telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar. But since everyone  agrees that Jesus was a good man, how then could He be both good and  crazy, or good and a liar? He had to be telling the truth. He is the  only way.
      Christianity is not just a religion; it is a relationship with  God. It is a trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross (1 Cor.  15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9).
     Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster.  Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't  raise the dead or heal the sick. And though there is far less reliable  information written about them, they are believed in. 
      The scripture is right when it says in 1 Pet. 2:7-8, "This  precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who  disbelieve, 'The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very  corner stone,' and, 'A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense'; for  they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom  they were also appointed."

You can either believe it or not. I personally hope you do, but its not up to me. Christianity is the only religion where you have a personal relationship with God. No other religion states that. I believe it 100%, and nothing will change my mind. And I cannot change yours, I can only pray that God will work in your life.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is the one true religion. That may sound awfully dogmatic  and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only  true religion. Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John  14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).  Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because  they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and judgmental. They do so  because they believe what Jesus said. They believe in Jesus, who claimed  to be God (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14), who forgave sins (Mark 2:5; Luke  5:20; 7:4, and who rose from the dead (Luke 24:24-29; John 2:19f).  Jesus said that He was the only way. Jesus is unique. He was either  telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar. But since everyone  agrees that Jesus was a good man, how then could He be both good and  crazy, or good and a liar? He had to be telling the truth. He is the  only way.
> Christianity is not just a religion; it is a relationship with  God. It is a trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross (1 Cor.  15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9).
> Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster.  Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't  raise the dead or heal the sick. And though there is far less reliable  information written about them, they are believed in.
> The scripture is right when it says in 1 Pet. 2:7-8, "This  precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who  disbelieve, 'The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very  corner stone,' and, 'A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense'; for  they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom  they were also appointed."
> ...


 You said it wasn't a religion though. Which is it?
Also, saying the Bible is right because the Bible is right is circular logic. Stop. It. God. Dammit.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> So why do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, as opposed to being the second-to-last prophet as he is under Islam, or some messianic rabble-rouser cultist as he is under Judaism?


 
Because Jesus himself said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the father except through me." If he was just a prophet that would be blasphemy. So why does Islam believe he is a good teacher even though He claimed He was God? Doesn't make any sense. One cannot pick and choose which parts of Christ's teachings to follow. He claimed he was God, so how can his teachings be good, if he was just a prophet?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because Jesus himself said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the father except through me." If he was just a prophet that would be blasphemy. So why does Islam believe he is a good teacher even though He claimed He was God? Doesn't make any sense. One cannot pick and choose which parts of Christ's teachings to follow. He claimed he was God, so how can his teachings be good, if he was just a prophet?


 A lot of nutcases say that. It doesn't make it true.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> You said it wasn't a religion though. Which is it?


 

I say Christianity is a religion is a loose sense. Because its not just a religion. First, I believe its the Truth, Its also about having an actual personal relationship with God.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> A lot of nutcases say that. It doesn't make it true.


 
So how can a nutcases teachings be sound and good?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster.  Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't  raise the dead or heal the sick. And though there is far less reliable  information written about them, they are believed in.


Do they really have to perform miracles for their words to be true? 

What is this detailed prophecy?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I say Christianity is a religion is a loose sense. Because its not just a religion. First, I believe its the Truth, Its also about having an actual personal relationship with God.


 But why do you believe? What makes it more valid than all the other religions?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So how can a nutcases teachings be sound and good?


 So, you're saying that only the true prophet of God can do good things?


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> But why do you believe? What makes it more valid than all the other religions?


 
Because Bible says so. Back to circular logic again, clearly.

Note: Apparently this circular logic is only a fallacy when applied to other religion's holy books. Christianity is safe because Jesus is a swell guy.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh, what about other religions that have prophets that have performed miracles, say hinduism. 
I suspect you'll say that there isn't proof outside the holy book, but is there solid proof of Jesus' miracles outside of what was written in the bible or by the apostles? 
Or even anything was was written before his death that was specifically about him?


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 4, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Rukh, what about other religions that have prophets that have performed miracles, say hinduism.
> I suspect you'll say that there isn't proof outside the holy book, but is there solid proof of Jesus' miracles outside of what was written in the bible or by the apostles?
> Or even anything was was written before his death that was specifically about him?


 
So, wait, is Rukh a troll, or is this for real-real?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Exunod said:


> So, wait, is Rukh a troll, or is this for real-real?


 Real-real


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Real-real


 
Not for play-play?

Golly.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 4, 2010)

Exunod said:


> So, wait, is Rukh a troll, or is this for real-real?


 I dunno. I still think it's a good point. So many people go "jesus was holy he did miracles" but when asked to prove it they can only offer stories from the bible, things written by a church, after jesus was dead. 
By that logic, obviously Chuck Norris is a god.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus said that He was the only way. Jesus is unique. He was either  telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar. But since everyone  agrees that Jesus was a good man, how then could He be both good and  crazy, or good and a liar? He had to be telling the truth. He is the  only way.



Ah, the old "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument. Which is somewhat bollocks because:

a) Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day - in the same way, there have been people throughout history that have been amazingly brilliant and insightful in some areas and completely and utterly bat-shit insane in others (Sir Isaac Newton, for example, formulated the theory of gravity - but believed in alchemy as well.)

b) You assume that there are _only_ the three options. 

There is the possibility of Jesus being "*Libelled*" in that while there may have been a real Jesus, the stories about him in the Bible were "sexed-up" and may not be entirely true. There's been dozens of "Gospels" rejected by church authorities from the approved Bible, including the "Gospel of Judas" and one which purports to describe Jesus's childhood. 

Not only that, there is also the "Legend" explanation where the personality of Jesus recorded in the Bible was an amalgam of one or more "real" people, and that Jesus never existed at all. The only "proof" of Jesus's existence comes from sources with an axe to grind: namely, the Gospels. 

As one person put it, "_The Gospels are not history; they are religious propaganda, contradictory, exaggerated, and mythical. The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: *Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus (except for the ritualistic Last Supper formula), and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said.* To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood. There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. I*t is impossible to prove he was a historical figure.* It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented. (emphasis added)_"

And as for the "Jesus is good" argument, the so-called "Son of God" cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14), he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21), and doesn't appear to take dissent very well when he said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30). I mean, come _on_ - surely the Son of God can recognise and out-of-season fig tree, never mind not lose his rag and curse the poor thing to death because of a condition it can't help... 

Not to mention Jesus can't seem to make up his mind about some things - saying that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet calling people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17), as well as first saying "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31), then changing his mind to say "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John 8:14). Is THIS a "Son of God" worthy of even giving the time of day to, let alone worship?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention that it's a logical fallacy to claim that since a book got several relatively non-controversial historical facts right, _everything_ in it, no matter how whacked-out it sounds, is automatically the truth.


 
The thing about the bible is it doesn't have anything in it that people wouldn't have known at the time it was either originally written or added later... Or the prophecies are as vague as any nostradamus interpretation.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But I guess the best answer for most people on here would be, I guess you will have to wait and see what happens when you die.


 
Oh lawd is dat sum Pascal's wager?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This verse tells us that from the moment God chooses us, it is as if we  are glorified in His presence in heaven. There is nothing that can  prevent a believer from one day being glorified because God has already  purposed it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is  guaranteed - he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.


 
I didn't know you were a calvinist, but clearly your god doesn't care about the free will of his "children" in this case. It also makes life fairly pointless since, by necessity, if god already knows ahead of time he could have just skipped these shenanigans, as well as ahead of time knowing that the vast majority of people would be sent directly to the hell he created. Your god is absolutely incorrigible.

and by that I mean a horrific monster who is not deserving of either praise or worship.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> So, you're saying that only the true prophet of God can do good things?


 
Only the Son of God can do what He did. Which was give salvation to mankind.



AleutheWolf said:


> But why do you believe? What makes it more valid than all the other religions?




If Christianity is true, then there is only one God and salvation comes only through Him, and religions that deny this are not merely alternate forms of spiritual expression, but systems of belief that prevent their adherents from obtaining salvation. If Christ is in fact the only way to God, then to claim that he's not is both false and dangerous.  If someone has a fatal disease, telling them that they don't need to seek medical treatment is wrong. If someone can only have salvation by accepting Christ as their Savior, telling them they don't need to accept Christ is even more wrong, no matter how tolerant or well-meaning it may seem to be. 
Furthermore, Christianity is unique among religions because it addresses the fact that we can never be good enough to be in the presence of a perfect, holy God.  In order to be perfectly good, we would have to be doing good all the time.  If we do something wrong, we can't undo it, and we can no longer be considered perfect. Nor can we do more good to make up for our wrongs, for perfection requires doing the most good possible at all times - we can't be more than perfect to make up for when we're less than perfect.  Other religions teach that we can somehow do enough good to earn heaven or nirvana, but they don't address the fact that we continually make mistakes.  Christianity teaches that our sins were paid for by Jesus' death on the cross, and that by accepting his payment and believing in him we can be forgiven; we don't have to earn our way into heaven, which is a good thing, because we can't do it.  Christ is the only way to God, because without the forgiveness that comes through his death and resurrection, there's no way for us to be able to stand before a holy God. 

Logically, it's not possible for all the major world religions to be  valid ways to God. Christianity states that the God of the Bible is the only true God and  salvation is only possible by accepting Christ as Savior and Lord.  Judaism states that the God of the Torah/Old  Testament is the only true God, but that Jesus is not the Messiah, putting it directly at odds with Christianity.  Jesus  either is the Messiah, or he is not.  If he is, Judiasm is not a valid way to God; if he is not, Christianity is not a valid way to  God.  The mutual exclusion only grows when other religions are added: Islam says that Allah is the only true God, and that anyone  who says Christ is the Son of God will be condemned. Furthermore, if religions other than Christianity are valid ways to God,  then one of Christianity's basic principles is false; in that case, can it still be said to be a valid, trustworthy religion?

No matter what belief system you adopt, you will be saying that your system is right and that the billions of people who don't accept it are wrong.  If Islam is correct, the billions of non-Muslims are wrong; if Orthodox Judiasm is correct, the billions of Gentiles are wrong.  If it is correct to approve of multiple belief systems because they're all valid ways of acheiving spiritual enlightenment, the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who belive in exclusive religions are intolerant and therefore wrong. 

And Finally, how can Christians be sure their religion is the right one?  Being born into a Christian family or growing up in a Christian community doesn't make one a Christian; culture and ethnicity don't determine one's relationship with God. Instead, people become Christians because they are convinced of the truth of Christianity and/or have had experiences with God - in short, they have good reasons for believing Christianity to be true.   Also, Christians are not saying that their personal ideas are true, but that the Christian God exists, and _his_ words are true.

I am not believing for the sake of believing. I am not believing because of how I was brought up.  I am believing because I have had experiences with God. I have felt his presence. Hell, I have had him literally speak through me once. So my belief is based on my own personal life, and my owm personal experiences with God.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not believing for the sake of believing. I am not believing because of how I was brought up.  I am believing because I have had experiences with God. I have felt his presence. Hell, I have had him literally speak through me once. So my belief is based on my own personal life, and my owm personal experiences with God.


 
_Literally _speak through you?

Do tell.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 4, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Rukh, what about other religions that have prophets that have performed miracles, say hinduism.


 
Matthew 24:24
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

You are forgetting that their are demonic forces out there that have abilities to do "miracles" It is said in the Bible that Lucifer himself often appears as an Angel of the Lord to deceive many. (For he once was a Chereb in heaven)


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not believing for the sake of believing. I am not believing because of how I was brought up.  I am believing because I have had experiences with God. I have felt his presence. Hell, I have had him literally speak through me once. So my belief is based on my own personal life, and my owm personal experiences with God.


 I have too but I'm not out preaching "THIS IS THE TRUE WAY" because that's just going to turn people away. I absolutely hate preachers. Not the preachers that just, you know, work at the church, but just random folks that come up and try to convert me.
I'm always going to be skeptical of a God because of these people that blindly follow. Especially of those that twist Scripture to fit their personal agenda.
I'm certain that other people of different religions will say the exact same thing. "My god spoke to me". Who are we to say "no" because of our "religion"? Christianity has shown no proof of validity other than stories. So how is it more true than others?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Logically, it's not possible for all the major world religions to be  valid ways to God.


We are thought that all tribes on earth get at least one messenger from God.

So I go with this: Everyone have a fragment of the truth. Those who are intolerant and refuse to learn things from others hold less...


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 24:24
> For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
> 
> You are forgetting that their are demonic forces out there that have abilities to do "miracles" It is said in the Bible that Lucifer himself often appears as an Angel of the Lord to deceive many. (For he once was a Chereb in heaven)


 No. Seraphim. Not Cherubim.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 4, 2010)

I was going to take the post part by part but that would take too long. 
I'm just going to take out of this rant that 
1. your belief stems purely from those religious moments you had any the enviornment they happened in (otherwise why wasn't it Allah YHWH or SPM speaking through you.
2. you're not catholic and don't believe in purgatory at all. 

Personally I'd be wary of any religion where you don't have to work to get to heaven. It's then a faith of shallowness. Anyone can say they believe in jesus, heck even those that really do can be mean hearted and the only diffrence between them and another theist is they wear a cross necklace. 
What is the point in salvation when your follows make the earth a hell to live in?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 24:24
> For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
> 
> You are forgetting that their are demonic forces out there that have abilities to do "miracles" It is said in the Bible that Lucifer himself often appears as an Angel of the Lord to deceive many. (For he once was a Chereb in heaven)


 
but Jesus isn't that deception at all?
So Jesus is the son of god because he performed miracles, and anyone else that performs miracles is lying?
Except that from the point of view of another religion, jesus is the liar...and you can't really prove that his miracles are more legit than other miracles...


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 4, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Other religions teach that we can somehow do enough good to earn heaven or nirvana, but they don't address the fact that we continually make mistakes.



Correction: They all do.
Almost all spiritual belief systems consider perfection unreachable, but many acknowledge and reward the effort regardless. Christianity is pretty lazy in that regard.. God does everything.



> No matter what belief system you adopt, you will be saying that your system is right and that the billions of people who don't accept it are wrong.  If Islam is correct, the billions of non-Muslims are wrong; if Orthodox Judiasm is correct, the billions of Gentiles are wrong.  If it is correct to approve of multiple belief systems because they're all valid ways of acheiving spiritual enlightenment, the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who belive in exclusive religions are intolerant and therefore wrong.



No, there are tolerant belief systems. I believe Buddhism fits that.



> I am not believing for the sake of believing. I am not believing because of how I was brought up.  I am believing because I have had experiences with God. I have felt his presence. Hell, I have had him literally speak through me once. So my belief is based on my own personal life, and my owm personal experiences with God.


 
I don't believe you. You were culturally influenced towards Christianity. If that was not the case, then Christianity would have sprung up all around the world when it began, without a need to be spread. As it stands, Christianity has to be taught first in order for a person to follow it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> but Jesus isn't that deception at all?
> So Jesus is the son of god because he performed miracles, and anyone else that performs miracles is lying?
> Except that from the point of view of another religion, jesus is the liar...and you can't really prove that his miracles are more legit than other miracles...


 
Jesus is the Son of God because he fulfilled every prophesy that was written about Him in the Old Testament. Just fulfilling 48 prophesies statistically comes out to 1 in 10 the the power of 178 . Those are really, really long odds.
Also, the Disciples did miracles, and miracles still happen today. But none of them claimed it was their own doing. They all said it came from God. They were not serving themselves.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I have too but I'm not out preaching


 
Three words: The Great Commission.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is the Son of God because he fulfilled every prophesy that was written about Him in the Old Testament. Just fulfilling 48 prophesies statistically comes out to 1 in 10 the the power of 178 . Those are really, really long odds.
> Also, the Disciples did miracles, and miracles still happen today. But none of them claimed it was their own doing. They all said it came from God. They were not serving themselves.


 
1 in 2: It either happens or it doesn't. Plus, the whole 'writing about it after the fact' helps fudge things to fit (or make them up outright.)
Odds in a fairytale aren't that interesting.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is the Son of God because he fulfilled every prophesy that was written about Him in the Old Testament. Just fulfilling 48 prophesies statistically comes out to 1 in 10 the the power of 178 . Those are really, really long odds.


 
How can you be sure that a) the "prophesies" weren't so vague that fulfilment could be easily read into it after the fact, or b) the "fulfillment" by Jesus wasn't *fudged* by people with a vested interest in making Jesus out to be a "saviour"?


----------



## Carenath (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I have too but I'm not out preaching "THIS IS THE TRUE WAY" because that's just going to turn people away. I absolutely hate preachers. Not the preachers that just, you know, work at the church, but just random folks that come up and try to convert me.


 You know, I really don't say this about many people, least of all people of any strong religious persuasion, but I *do* have respect for Rukh (at least in so far as his spiritual beliefs go). While I don't stalk all his posts here and there, and he and I do butt horns on the political scape, I've not observed him, going around, trying to turn everyone into good Christians. I've not observed him trying to convert anyone.

What I have observed, is a guy that, for whatever reason personal to him, has a genuine faith in Christ. I couldn't place him on the same level, as your typical homophobic, legalistic, hypocritical,  immoral, blasphemous, abusive, dictatorial,  selfish, vindictive,  uncommitted, disbelieving, judgmental,  introspective, mean-spirited,  proud and manipulative 'fundies'. Rather, I'd say he's one of the rare few people, that actually reads what's written and for himself and, rarely enough, actually /tries/ to practise what he preaches. This isn't something I say lightly, because as much as anyone, I have my vehement dislike for what the 'Christian Right' in the US and other countries does on a regular basis.. the intolerance and bigotry in the name of "god".

While he's far from perfect, and far from someone I'd place on some kind of pedestal, at least he's one person that isn't like all the rotten apples we all love to hate.



Heimdal said:


> I don't believe you. You were culturally influenced towards Christianity. If that was not the case, then Christianity would have sprung up all around the world when it began, without a need to be spread. As it stands, Christianity has to be taught first in order for a person to follow it.


 I believe what he's actually trying to say, is that irrespective of cultural influence from family and external parties, he beliefs in the literal book, but doesn't subscribe to any particular Church or denomination, most of which he's told me he dislikes for the reasons most of the rest of us do, ironically.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'll save you the time.
> 
> They suck. It's not metal, and the lyrics are horrible :v


 Actually, Skillet has some good songs. Monster is pretty badass, but I <3 me some generic rock.



> Says the Bible, therefore says God, because the Bible is God's Word.


One of these days you'll realize that's not a logically sound argument. But it probably will be long into the future


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I couldn't place Rukh on the same level, as your typical homophobic, legalistic, hypocritical,  immoral, blasphemous, abusive, dictatorial,  selfish, vindictive,  uncommitted, disbelieving, judgmental,  introspective, mean-spirited,  proud and manipulative 'fundies'.


 
Strange, I totally can. Given his bigotedness against gay people despite having had gay porn in his favorites and all that, among other things, I have no issue calling him out on it (within the forum rules).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> *Paul, who never met Jesus,* fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus (except for the ritualistic Last Supper formula), and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said.[/B] To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood. There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed.


 
Uhm dude... Acts Chapter 9...
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lordâ€™s disciples. He went to the high priest   and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he  found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might  take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. *As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, â€œSaul, Saul, why do you persecute me?â€* * â€œWho are you, Lord?â€ Saul asked. *
*   â€œI am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,â€ he replied.*


This is the conversion of Saul as he was formally known as, to Paul the apostle. Paul did meet Jesus. In a very spectacular way I might add.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have felt his presence. Hell, I have had him literally speak through me once. So my belief is based on my own personal life, and my owm personal experiences with God.


 
Why is it that fundies always think themsleves so important that they can have personal dealings with a transcendental being? If god exists he has better things to do than to communicate with infinitessimally unimportant specks occupying brief flickers of time. But you grant yourself importance and thus are arrogant enough to assume communication with a 'god'. Hil-fucking-larious.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Deo is back


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Deo is back


 
I noticed, it's like the second coming.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

I AM YOUR GOD. 


READ: POINTLESS, MALICIOUS, AND SHORT LIVING.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Why is it that fundies always think themsleves that they can have personal dealings with a transcendental being?


 
Because that is the whole point of Christianity Deo, to have a personal relationship with God.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Why is it that fundies always think themsleves so important that they can have personal dealings with a transcendental being? If god exists he has better things to do than to communicate with infinitessimally unimportant specks occupying brief flickers of time. But you grant yourself importance and thus are arrogant enough to assume communication with a 'god'. Hil-fucking-larious.


Oh yes. You're back.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

So Deo, how long're you planning on stickin' around?


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

So, I've come to an awesome conclusion that allows me to stay lazy and practice my faith. I believe that God is everywhere, including the toilet, and I also believe that in order to praise God, you have to give up something. Therefore, every time I take a shit, I'm praising God. Sure, it's a smelly lump of ecoli, BUT IT IS STILL A PART OF ME AND PRAISE JESUS! And when it comes out really hard and painful, then I'm suffering for God, and when it's red then OH HOLY SHIT IT IS SATAN MAKE HIM GO AWAY JESUS! And then I flush! 

Every time I shit, I'm having a religious experience <3


----------



## Carenath (Dec 5, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Strange, I totally can. Given his bigotedness against gay people despite having had gay porn in his favorites and all that, among other things, I have no issue calling him out on it (within the forum rules).


 There's 'sex outside of marriage is immoral, marriage is man + woman only, therefore all gay sex is sinful'.. and there's campaigns against gay rights and Sarah Palin. This is all I'm trying to say on the matter.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm dude... Acts Chapter 9...
> Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lordâ€™s disciples. He went to the high priest   and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he  found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might  take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. *As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, â€œSaul, Saul, why do you persecute me?â€* * â€œWho are you, Lord?â€ Saul asked. *
> *   â€œI am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,â€ he replied.*
> 
> ...



"Bright light in the sky" does not equal "meeting" someone. Especially when in one passage Paul's companions hear the voice (Acts 9:7), yet _in a description of the same event later_ they didn't (Acts 22:9).


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because that is the whole point of Christianity Deo, to have a personal relationship with God.


 
Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
You essentially are one of six billion same creatures living on this planet at this small moment in time. Over the history of the Earth, the lives of _all_ humans are a tiny flciker flash of time, your own individual existence being even more unimportant. Hell, the whole Earth is unimportant in the scheme of the stars, galaxies, and space time. To think that a being that resides over that would give half a damn about you is arrogant at best and insane at worst.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because that is the whole point of Christianity Deo, to have a personal relationship with God.


 
Why, is God lonely or something?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> "Bright light in the sky" does not equal "meeting" someone. Especially when in one passage Paul's companions hear the voice (Acts 9:7), yet _in a description of the same event later_ they didn't (Acts 22:9).


 
Acts 22:9 states: My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

No where does it say that they didn't see the light or hear the voice...The verse says they did see the flash of light and hear the voice of Jesus. But they didn't understand who was speaking to Saul (Now Paul)


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Xenke said:


> So Deo, how long're you planning on stickin' around?



HERP DERP I DUNNO. HOW LONG CAN FAF TOLERATE ME IS THE REAL QUESTION.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> HERP DERP I DUNNO. HOW LONG CAN FAF TOLERATE ME IS THE REAL QUESTION.


 
I'VE HAD IT WITH YOU!

BANNED AGAIN.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
> You essentially are one of six billion same creatures living on this planet at this small moment in time. Over the history of the Earth, the lives of _all_ humans are a tiny flciker flash of time, your own individual existence being even more unimportant. Hell, the whole Earth is unimportant in the scheme of the stars, galaxies, and space time. To think that a being that resides over that would give half a damn about you is arrogant at best and insane at worst.


 
Don't forget the thousands of angels that do nothing but sing his praises and all the souls in heaven and hell.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> HERP DERP I DUNNO. HOW LONG CAN FAF TOLERATE ME IS THE REAL QUESTION.


 
HEY DEO YOU BITCH. I MISSED YOU. HOW DARE YOU GET YOURSELF BANNED! DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
Oh...welcome back by the way. Play nice. The S & S isn't the same without you.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> HEY DEO YOU BITCH. I MISSED YOU. HOW DARE YOU GET YOURSELF BANNED! DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
> Oh...welcome back by the way. Play nice. The S & S isn't the same without you.



I LOVE YOU TOO TRP. LET'S FUCK. YOU'RE MY FAVORITEEEEEEEEEEE MODDDDDD 
So, uh,  what all did I miss?


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
> You essentially are one of six billion same creatures living on this planet at this small moment in time. Over the history of the Earth, the lives of _all_ humans are a tiny flciker flash of time, your own individual existence being even more unimportant. Hell, the whole Earth is unimportant in the scheme of the stars, galaxies, and space time. To think that a being that resides over that would give half a damn about you is arrogant at best and insane at worst.


 _
but in the eeeeend, it doesn't even matter_

So dark, brah.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

We have seen the second coming of our tazzy queen. She is a vengeful god, but as it is written she will lead us to golden times where idiots stop posting.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Yeah, ignoring the rest of the posts after this, sue me.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is the one true religion.


God has just spoken to me in a vision.  She appeared before me, riding upon a gilded Utahraptor, holding aloft a can of Spaghetti-Os and a frying pan, dressed in bearskins and wearing a crown of shark teeth.  She spoke to me, Rukh.  She told me that I will lead my people to greatness, through the trying times of the 32nd century, for my future life would become a figure of hope in the coming trials.  She said that even though I would not remember my current body, I must open my soul to her, and she gifted me with a great power that will only manifest itself once that dark time comes, over a thousand years from now.  

Will you follow me, Rukh?  Will you allow me to lead whatever form you will take in that future?  I will be your saviour; do you believe in me?  You have to, because your God said it would be so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
> You essentially are one of six billion same creatures living on this planet at this small moment in time. Over the history of the Earth, the lives of _all_ humans are a tiny flciker flash of time, your own individual existence being even more unimportant. Hell, the whole Earth is unimportant in the scheme of the stars, galaxies, and space time. To think that a being that resides over that would give half a damn about you is arrogant at best and insane at worst.


 
And yet God still cares about me and every other person.

Isaiah 43:2-3
When you go through deep waters, I will be with you. When you go  through rivers of difficulty, you will not drown. When you walk through  the fire of oppression, you will not be burned up; the flames will not  consume you. For I am the Lord, your God.â€

Isaiah 40:31
â€œBut those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They  will soar on wings as eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they  will walk and not be faint.â€

John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and  appointed you so that you might go and bear fruitâ€”fruit that will  lastâ€”and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

1 Peter 5:6-7
Humble yourselves, therefore, under Godâ€™s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him *because he cares for you.*


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Deo is the Australian Aries.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet God still cares about me and every other person.


 If God knows if we go to heaven or hell right as we are born, why would he care about every person knowing they are a lost cause and that he can't do anything to change the future (cept with a miracle of course)? 

What's the point in caring about something you can't alter or change? It's just wasted and false hope.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> If God knows if we go to heaven or hell right as we are born, why would he care about every person knowing they are a lost cause and that he can't do anything to change the future (cept with a miracle of course)?
> 
> What's the point in caring about something you can't alter or change? It's just wasted and false hope.


 
God knows every future. There is more than one. Every thought in our head, every choice has a future. And God sees all of them. We still get to pick which one. And who is to say what he will and won't do? God is God. He can do whatever he sees fit, because he is perfect.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

There is no such thing as perfection.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God knows every future. There is more than one. Every thought in our head, every choice has a future. And God sees all of them. We still get to pick which one. And who is to say what he will and won't do? God is God. He can do whatever he sees fit, because he is perfect.


 
Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> We have seen the second coming of our tazzy queen. She is a vengeful god, but as it is written she will lead us to golden times where idiots stop posting.


 
You see this Rukh? Someone wrote that I am God. Do you believe it? No? Well someone wrote that your god is god, what is the difference there? People make up their own gods. And later people follow those gods and warp them into images of themselves for their own purposes.



Ratte said:


> Deo is the Australian Aries.


 
What does this _meeeeeean_?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Ratte said:


> There is no such thing as perfection.


 
No, not on this world. But God is not of this world. I stand by what the Bible says. God is perfect, infallible, and omnipotent. You can argue against that till your blue in the face. I still will not change my faith.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> What does this _meeeeeean_?



You are the tasmanian god of war?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?


 
Considering that God can do anything, I would say no.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Considering that God can do anything, I would say no.



Then he cannot make that rock. Huh. 
Can not. Make. The. Rock.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, not on this world. But God is not of this world. I stand by what the Bible says. God is perfect, infallible, and omnipotent. You can argue against that till your blue in the face. I still will not change my faith.


 
WHO is God perfect to? Perfection is one of those things who's definition changes based on who references it.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, not on this world. But God is not of this world. I stand by what the Bible says. God is perfect, infallible, and omnipotent. You can argue against that till your blue in the face. I still will not change my faith.


 What about how god admits that it was a mistake to flood the world and promises not to do it again? 
Or how god chooses not to destroy Nineveh even though he was totally sure that place sucked.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God knows every future. There is more than one. Every thought in our head, every choice has a future. And God sees all of them. We still get to pick which one. And who is to say what he will and won't do? God is God. He can do whatever he sees fit, because he is perfect.


 That's bullshit. We have multiple choices we can make, but God knows them beforehand. Think of it as some giant maze with multiple directions. We hit point A and can go B or F. We pick F and God knows beforehand that we would pick F even though we had option B. He knows long before if we'll go to heaven or hell. There might be multiple futures, but he knows which one is the one we pick before we reach it. Ergo, he knows if we'll go to heaven or hell before we die. Why should he waste his time on those that are already destined to go there?


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Answer my question Rukh; do you accept me as your god-appointed saviour?  I've explained it all in my last post.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Then he cannot make that rock. Huh.
> Can not. Make. The. Rock.


 
Not what I said, you know what I meant too.

God merely spoke and the world came into being. His strength is endless. Just as He is. He existed. He always was, is, and will be to come.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> Answer my question Rukh; do you accept me as your god-appointed saviour? I've explained it all in my last post.


 
Or me, seeing as I am speaking on behalf of your God? What makes us any less legit than the words of past prophets? Where is your faith (in us)?





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not what I said, you know what I meant too.


No, see that is what you said.
He CAN NOT make that rock.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> Answer my question Rukh; do you accept me as your god-appointed saviour?  I've explained it all in my last post.


 
You are not Jesus, plain and simple. Really, you knew the answer before you even asked the question.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You are not Jesus, plain and simple. Really, you knew the answer before you even asked the question.


 I never said I was Jesus, only that your god appointed me as a new saviour.  Do you doubt God?


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> What does this _meeeeeean_?


 
Twitchy war-mongering tazziespazz.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

So do you believe the bible in infallible?


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Twitchy war-mongering tazziespazz.


 
I love you too. I am a lovey war-mongering tassiespazzsparklepants.



Riley said:


> I never said I was Jesus, only that your god appointed me as a new saviour. Do you doubt God?


He is not full in his faith and conviction, and doubts you and God. DUN WORRY I *BELIEVE.*


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Where is your faith (in us)?


 
Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Psalm 146:3-4
Do not put your trust in mortal men, 
   in human beings, who cannot save. 
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; 
   on that very day their plans come to nothing. 


My faith, is in God alone.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Romans 3:4
> Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.
> 
> Psalm 146:3-4
> ...


 
Goodbye Jesus, you are a liar and thus I cannot listen to you any longer. You may be the son of God, but you are mortal.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> I never said I was Jesus, only that your god appointed me as a new saviour.  Do you doubt God?


 
Again you know that answer too, why ask?

Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."

Clear enough for you?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Goodbye Jesus, you are a liar and thus I cannot listen to you any longer.


 
Ever heard of the Trinity? The Godhead 3 in 1. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again you know that answer too, why ask?
> 
> Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."
> 
> Clear enough for you?


 Your vision is just clouded, Rukh; God spoke to me personally, and told me.  If you do not accept my future guidance, you will forever be condemned to suffer in Hell at the hands of the terrible, terrible fate that will befall the world in the 32nd century.  Do not doubt God, Rukh, She wishes to do much for you.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Romans 3:4
> Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.


 How do we really know Jesus was the son of God? All he did was say he was. What if he was mistaken?


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ever heard of the Trinity? The Godhead 3 in 1. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.


 
Not really, it is surprising to learn the Christianity is polytheistic though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> So do you believe the bible is infallible?


 
2 timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Romans 3:4
> Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.



I always knew you were a liar.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Not really, it is surprising to learn the Christianity is polytheistic though.


 
Its not.

The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence.  In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity.  Each has a will, loves, and says "I" and "You" when speaking.  The Father is not the same person as the Son, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, who is not the same person as the Father.  Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons.  The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence.  The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness.  The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6).  Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim.  Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh, do you believe that the bible in infallible. You must because if it isn't your quotes are all irrelevant without outside proof, however there are factual issues. 
for instance Genesis 6:3 "3 Then the Lord said, â€œMy Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.â€
Oldest living person alive made it over 120 years, oldest ever over 120.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2 timothy 3:16-17
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


 
So all of the edits over thousands of years by different systems of the same shit pulling out parts they didn't like and adding bullshit were God-breathed.

Okay.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

I like how every quote Rukh posts as evidence can also be seen as "writers of the Bible covering their own asses in case someone smart questions their writings"


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Rukh, do you believe that the bible in infallible. You must because if it isn't your quotes are all irrelevant without outside proof, however there are factual issues.
> for instance Genesis 6:3 "3 Then the Lord said, â€œMy Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.â€
> Oldest living person alive made it over 120 years, oldest ever over 120.


 
Many people understand Genesis 6:3  to be a 120-year age limit on humanity, â€œThen the LORD said, â€˜My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.â€™â€ However, Genesis chapter 11 records several people living past the age of 120. As a result, some interpret Genesis 6:3  to mean that, as a general rule, people will no longer live past 120 years of age. After the flood, the life spans began to shrink dramatically (compare Genesis 5 with Genesis 11) and eventually shrank to below 120 (Genesis 11:24). Since that time, very few people have lived past 120 years old.

However, another interpretation, which seems to be more in keeping with the context, is that Genesis 6:3 is Godâ€™s declaration that the flood would occur 120 years from His pronouncement. Humanity's days being ended is a reference to humanity itself being destroyed in the flood. Some dispute this interpretation due to the fact that God commanded Noah to build the ark when Noah was 500 years old in Genesis 5:32 and Noah was 600 years old when the flood came (Genesis 7:6); only giving 100 years of time, not 120 years. However, the timing of Godâ€™s pronouncement of Genesis 6:3 is not given. Further, Genesis 5:32 is not the time that God commanded Noah to build the Ark, but rather the age Noah was when he became the father of his three sons. It is perfectly plausible that God determined the flood to occur in 120 years and then waited several years before He commanded Noah to build the ark. Whatever the case, the 100 years between Genesis 5:32 and 7:6 in no way contradicts the 120 years mentioned in Genesis 6:3.

Several hundred years after the flood, Moses declared, â€œThe length of our days is seventy yearsâ€”or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly awayâ€ (Psalm 90:10). Neither Genesis 6:3 nor Psalm 90:10 are God-ordained age limits for humanity. Genesis 6:3 is a prediction of the timetable for the flood. Psalm 90:10 is simply stating that as a general rule, people live 70-80 years (which is still true today).


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is god-breathed. Why don't you believe in it's truth and salvation?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is god-breathed. Why don't you believe in it's truth and salvation?


 
Because that isn't _real_. Duh.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> OT BULLSHIT


 And here we get into the "is the OT true or not?" argument, because here we are, discussing it again. You even bring up the flood, which I might add, counters free will. World turns against God, as is their choice to do, adn God gets pissed and KILLS ALL OF THEM CEPT LIKE ONE FUCKING FAMILY YO

That's bullshit is what that is.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

You know, I can make a book about whatever subject I want, but just because I repeat "Everything in here is 100% fact" doesn't automatically make it fact.  This goes with the Bible like anything else.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Ratte said:


> So all of the edits over thousands of years by different systems of the same shit pulling out parts they didn't like and adding bullshit were God-breathed.
> 
> Okay.


 
There has been nothing removed from the Bible, it hasn't been edited the way you are talking. The entire Bible was finished being written about 70 years after the Crucifixion of Christ Jesus. It has not changed.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There has been nothing removed from the Bible, it hasn't been edited the way you are talking. The entire Bible was finished being written about 70 years after the Crucifixion of Christ Jesus. It has not changed.


 
Loooooool.

Oh man, you're serious.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh still hasn't accepted my offer of future-salvation...  You make God sad with your refusal to believe, Rukh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Loooooool.
> 
> Oh man, you're serious.


 
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other  ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far  outweigh the others in quantity.  there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other  ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament  documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.   In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic,  and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript  base is over 24,000.

And when our Bible is compared to those ancient manuscripts, they match.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There has been nothing removed from the Bible, it hasn't been edited the way you are talking. The entire Bible was finished being written about 70 years after the Crucifixion of Christ Jesus. It has not changed.


 
Oh man, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry over the amount of pity that rises like bile within me.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

So then what is the explanation for two origin stories? 
in gen 1 God makes night/day, Heaven/earth, land/sea, vegetation, sun/moon, sea/air creatures, land creatures, man man and woman together in his image. 
in that order
Gen 2 
Adam comes before god has made any vegetation on the land, yet vegetation and animals come before Eve.
Either one of those are wrong or there's a loooot of metaphor going on, in which case how do you determine what is factual and what is metaphor?


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 5, 2010)

I don't think any argument against religion or faith will succeed merely by pointing out the internal inconsistencies of the bible.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Ok, I have a serious question for the Religifag thread.

What would you call someone who doesn't believe in anything?

Not someone who chooses to not believe, but someone who simply doesn't have a belief.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other  ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far  outweigh the others in quantity.  there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other  ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament  documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.   In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic,  and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript  base is over 24,000.
> 
> And when our Bible is compared to those ancient manuscripts, they match.


 
And imagine how garbled the millions of translations could have become.  Plus, people would add shit just to add shit.

Gay people?  GROSS.  I'm making that against x religion.  That'll show those faggots!


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Exunod said:


> I don't think any argument against religion or faith will succeed merely by pointing out the internal inconsistencies of the bible.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Well I'm fine with those that take it as a metaphoric guide, but those that say the word is infallible, point out sins of OT in arguments and so on, that is a legit argument. 

As for never being changed...yeah there's record that the "let he who is without sin" story wasn't in the bible until monks added it in the medieval era.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> So then what is the explanation for two origin stories?
> in gen 1 God makes night/day, Heaven/earth, land/sea, vegetation, sun/moon, sea/air creatures, land creatures, man man and woman together in his image.
> in that order
> Gen 2
> ...


 
Really, I am reading Genesis chapter 2 right now. It lines up with Genesis chapter 1.

I can post it if you like. Adam does not come before the vegetation. And in Genesis chapter 2 it goes into more detail about why God made Eve. It doesn't contradict with Genesis chapter 1 at all.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Ok, I have a serious question for the Religifag thread.
> 
> What would you call someone who doesn't believe in anything?
> 
> Not someone who chooses to not believe, but someone who simply doesn't have a belief.


 
That not having a belief is a belief, because you believe in nothing.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

ANSWER MY FREE WILL DILEMMA: Everyone turned against God as was their choice to do, God got pissed and flooded the world killing everyone because BITCHES NEED TO WORSHIP HIM! How is that allowing free will when those that exert their free will get punished? 

If the answer is "Well, that doesn't count" then were back to the "pick and choose" Old Testament bullshit. OH I LIKE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS REAL! OH I HATE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS A PARABLE! which is funny because there's no moral in that story at all. It's just an awful story about an awful angsty egotistical deity.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That not having a belief is a belief, because you believe in nothing.


 
No, I don't believe in nothing.

I personally don't think believing in nothing and not having a belief are equivalent.

One implies that I choose nothing, and the other implies that I haven't found something yet.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Xenke said:


> No, I don't believe in nothing.
> 
> I personally don't think believing in nothing and not having a belief are equivalent.
> 
> One implies that I choose nothing, and the other implies that I haven't found something yet.


 Not enough evidence and therefore haven't picked a belief: Agnostic
Don't believe in God: Atheist

There are middle grounds between the two, but take your pick.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> ANSWER MY FREE WILL DILEMMA: Everyone turned against God as was their choice to do, God got pissed and flooded the world killing everyone because BITCHES NEED TO WORSHIP HIM! How is that allowing free will when those that exert their free will get punished?
> 
> If the answer is "Well, that doesn't count" then were back to the "pick and choose" Old Testament bullshit. OH I LIKE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS REAL! OH I HATE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS A PARABLE! which is funny because there's no moral in that story at all. It's just an awful story about an awful angsty egotistical deity.



God works in mysterious ways ololololololo


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> ANSWER MY FREE WILL DILEMMA: Everyone turned against God as was their choice to do, God got pissed and flooded the world killing everyone because BITCHES NEED TO WORSHIP HIM! How is that allowing free will when those that exert their free will get punished?
> 
> If the answer is "Well, that doesn't count" then were back to the "pick and choose" Old Testament bullshit. OH I LIKE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS REAL! OH I HATE THAT STORY! THAT ONE IS A PARABLE! which is funny because there's no moral in that story at all. It's just an awful story about an awful angsty egotistical deity.



OMG the amount of sheer PWNAGE in this post made my eyes black out for a second.
I think I came.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> ANSWER MY FREE WILL DILEMMA: Everyone turned against God as was their choice to do, God got pissed and flooded the world killing everyone because BITCHES NEED TO WORSHIP HIM! How is that allowing free will when those that exert their free will get punished?


 
God punishes those who do wrong. The Bible is pretty clear on that.
Those people knew God existed and they still turned away from Him. That is blasphemy, and is punishable by death. So God took the only group of people who still worshiped Him (Because he needed a pure line so he could send his Son to save Mankind) And he wiped out the rest of the world. The Flood was needed to get rid of the wicked so the people who were after God could flourish. And this was so the Line could stay pure for Jesus when he came. Jesus is a direct decedent of Noah.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

*theist:* belief in the existence of a god or gods; _specifically_ *:*  belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the  human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world 

Atheist (not theist):  one who believes that there is no deity 

I think the closest word I could think of to "belief in nothing" would be Nihilist.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God punishes those who do wrong. The Bible is pretty clear on that.
> Those people knew God existed and they still turned away from Him. That is blasphemy, and is punishable by death. So God took the only group of people who still worshiped Him (Because he needed a pure line so he could send his Son to save Mankind) And he wiped out the rest of the world. The Flood was needed to get rid of the wicked so the people who were after God could flourish. And this was so the Line could stay pure for Jesus when he came. Jesus is a direct decedent of Noah.



What about those that are good but are punished, which we know he does, because the whole Job story. Where did their free will get them when God basically says "fuck you I do what I want"


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God punishes those who do wrong. The Bible is pretty clear on that.
> Those people knew God existed and they still turned away from Him. That is blasphemy, and is punishable by death. So God took the only group of people who still worshiped Him (Because he needed a pure line so he could send his Son to save Mankind) And he wiped out the rest of the world. The Flood was needed to get rid of the wicked so the people who were after God could flourish. And this was so the Line could stay pure for Jesus when he came. Jesus is a direct decedent of Noah.



That's still using power to punish those that used their free will to choose not to believe in god.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> What about those that are good but are punished, which we know he does, because the whole Job story. Where did their free will get them when God basically says "fuck you I do what I want"


 
Bad things happen to good and bad people. That is part of the Fall. Furthermore, define bad? A Child thinks his parents are bad because they are disciplining him. This is what God does. But he disciplines us out of love, the same way a parent does.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> That's still using power to punish those that used their free will to choose not to believe in god.


 
Mankindâ€™s depravity had reached a level that evil entirely permeated every part of his being. His _wickedness_ was great- that is, his actions were wicked. Every_ imagination_ was evil -  his mind was wholly corrupted. Every thought of his _heart_ â€“ his will, his desires, his emotions, his passions, had all become so sin stained that there remained _nothing_ within them that was  _not_ evil. These people upon whom God poured out the Flood were not merely dabbling in sin here and there, *everything* that they were doing was an horrific abomination.

In considering why God sent the Flood, you must first realize that those  living upon the Earth were completely and utterly wicked beyond the hope  of changing. There were no innocent bystanders caught up in the Flood;  everyone was guilty of the most deplorable sinfulness. The rebellion  against God actually takes root in Cain and his descendants had now  reached a fruition that God could not overlook.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bad things happen to good and bad people. That is part of the Fall. Furthermore, define bad? A Child thinks his parents are bad because they are disciplining him. This is what God does. But he disciplines us out of love, the same way a parent does.



So God killed Job's innocent family out of love and not a bet?


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 5, 2010)

Religion was created because people are afraid to die--and then used as a means of control.  Of all of our biological instincts, survival is the most central and most dominant.  Death is the ultimate betrayal to our brain.


----------



## ThisisGabe (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> So God killed Job's innocent family out of love and not a bet?


No, some writers wrote about God to control the confused masses and gain power. They succeed. Congrats to them.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bad things happen to good and bad people. That is part of the Fall. Furthermore, define bad? A Child thinks his parents are bad because they are disciplining him. This is what God does. But he disciplines us out of love, the same way a parent does.


 The thing about discipline is it is meant to teach people what not to do. A parent doesn't just beat the shit out of a kid because they can. A parent smacks a kid's hand before he tries to stick it in fire. 
However look at the story of Job. I'm not sure what definition what happened to him wouldn't be bad. He loses everything short of his life. But it is clearly stated he has done nothing wrong. What is he being disciplined for? 
Hell what was his family, livestock, slaves being disciplined for? What lesson did they learn by being crushed to death? 
When asked why he is torturing and killing supposedly good people God replies that he works in mysterious ways. Hell Job's friends that were saying "god only punishes the bad" were told to STFU. 
Job is not a story of discipline, it's a story of abuse. It shows how much God can do to a person, be they good or bad, because he can.

Edit: wait wait, no innocent bystanders? not even newborns?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> So God killed Job's innocent family out of love and not a bet?


 
First of all, The Bible says nobody is innocent. Satan went to God and asked God if he could make Job's life a living hell pretty much. And the reason for this, was to try and get Job to renounce God. God told Satan that Job will not renounce Him. Satan killed Jobs family, and Job still did not renounce God. Furthermore, you see that by the end of Job, he has everything restored to him for being faithful to God.

And lastly, Job's family believed in God, therefore when they died, they went to heaven.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 5, 2010)

Christian Bale smacks his mom around to show her he loves her.

It's truly touching.  Usually forcefully and with open hands.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 5, 2010)

I swear we've been through this before, and it ended up Rukh looking sillier than ever.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> has everything restored to him for being faithful to God.



That's a lie. They were still dead as door nails. And last time I checked murder and master minding a murder were immoral.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

It's cool guys, if you run over someone's puppy, just give them another one. It's the same thing, then you're not evil.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mankindâ€™s depravity had reached a level that evil entirely permeated every part of his being. His _wickedness_ was great- that is, his actions were wicked. Every_ imagination_ was evil -  his mind was wholly corrupted. Every thought of his _heart_ â€“ his will, his desires, his emotions, his passions, had all become so sin stained that there remained _nothing_ within them that was  _not_ evil. These people upon whom God poured out the Flood were not merely dabbling in sin here and there, *everything* that they were doing was an horrific abomination.
> 
> In considering why God sent the Flood, you must first realize that those  living upon the Earth were completely and utterly wicked beyond the hope  of changing. There were no innocent bystanders caught up in the Flood;  everyone was guilty of the most deplorable sinfulness. The rebellion  against God actually takes root in Cain and his descendants had now  reached a fruition that God could not overlook.



So uh, why hasn't there been another one?  Like during the Crusades or something?  Or now; we're being pretty terrible as a species now, seems like it might be about time for another holy purging.  I mean, we pesky humans just can't be trusted with our free will, so if god ever gets even the slightest bit pissed off at us for not following HER RULES, DAMMIT AND I WILL NOT HESITATE TO TURN THIS PLANET AROUND, why not just start over?  Loving and all that bullshit, sure, but surely an all-powerful being could do a bit better, yeah?


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 5, 2010)

2012 right..?  Grin.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> That's a lie. They were still dead as door nails. And last time I checked murder and master minding a murder were immoral.


 
Job 42:10-15
 When Job prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes. In fact, the Lord gave him twice as much as before!  Then all his brothers, sisters, and former friends came and feasted  with him in his home. And they consoled him and comforted him because of  all the trials the Lord had brought against him. And each of them brought him a gift of money and a gold ring. So the Lord  blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the  beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of  oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters. He named his first daughter Jemimah, the second Keziah, and the third Keren-happuch.  In all the land no women were as lovely as the daughters of Job. And  their father put them into his will along with their brothers.

Edit: Nothing is said about Job's wife being killed just an fyi. She lived.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

dang, double post.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Penumbra Noct said:


> 2012 right..?  Grin.


But the bible didn't say that would happen, so we're okay.  Just like how the bible never talked about cars, or radio, or TV, or the Internet...


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Job 42:10-15
> When Job prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes. In fact, the Lord gave him twice as much as before!  Then all his brothers, sisters, and former friends came and feasted  with him in his home. And they consoled him and comforted him because of  all the trials the Lord had brought against him. And each of them brought him a gift of money and a gold ring. So the Lord  blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the  beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of  oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters. He named his first daughter Jemimah, the second Keziah, and the third Keren-happuch.  In all the land no women were as lovely as the daughters of Job. And  their father put them into his will along with their brothers.


Yeah the point of the argument being that the original family is dead a door nails. It's all okay though, because he got twice the material worth of his family...


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 5, 2010)

Oh, but those crazy Mayans and their calendar!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Yeah the point of the argument being that the original family is dead a door nails. It's all okay though, because he got twice the material worth of his family...


 
His wife was not killed.

 Job's children were not serving God they never even came to where Job  was dong sacrifices for them. He said he was doing the sacrifices  because he knew that his kids were bad and they were cursing God  in their hearts! Job knew his kids were not serving God! That's why  they died.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Yeah the point of the argument being that the original family is dead a door nails. It's all okay though, because he got twice the material worth of his family...


 And that's where insurance agencies come from!


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> His wife was not killed.


 but his children were. children are family last I checked.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Fay V said:


> but his children were. children are family last I checked.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Job's children were not serving God  they never even came to where Job  was dong sacrifices for them. He said  he was doing the sacrifices  because he knew that his kids were bad and  they were cursing God  in their hearts! Job knew his kids were not  serving God! That's why  they died.


 
This is why.


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> And that's where insurance agencies come from!



The second richest people on earth own Geico among many other corporations.  Biggest scam on earth next to interest.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is why.


 So again:  Because they didn't believe in god, it's okay that they died.

You're really bad at this.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is why.


 And his servants?


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> His wife was not killed.
> 
> Job's children were not serving God they never even came to where Job was dong sacrifices for them. He said he was doing the sacrifices because he knew that his kids were bad and they were cursing God in their hearts! Job knew his kids were not serving God! That's why they died.



Mureder is justifiable u guis! Morals are looser and more floppy than a 50 year old whore!


----------



## Icky (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> His wife was not killed.
> 
> Job's children were not serving God they never even came to where Job  was dong sacrifices for them. He said he was doing the sacrifices  because he knew that his kids were bad and they were cursing God  in their hearts! Job knew his kids were not serving God! That's why  they died.


 
rukh, it's good to see that you're still as retarded as ever


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> His wife was not killed.
> 
> Job's children were not serving God they never even came to where Job  was dong sacrifices for them. He said he was doing the sacrifices  because he knew that his kids were bad and they were cursing God  in their hearts! Job knew his kids were not serving God! That's why  they died.


 
His wife totally died. His first wife was named Uzit. His second, given to him by the lord after his family was killed, was Dinah.

Again with the killing children. First Jeptha, then bears, then floods, then plagues, now this. Oi.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

And Rukh still has not sworn himself to be my loyal follower in eleven-hundred years time, as his god told me would be true.  You have thus denounced your god in favour of a false one, Rukh.  For by doubting God's appearance to me, you are doubting God.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Mureder is justifiable u guis! Morals are looser and more floppy than a 50 year old whore!



Yay! Deo is back. 

Peace be to all 'Ahl al-Kitab, and all this forum. Rukh is not a dhimmi, though, for he is following a fallacy-filled, paganistic, tahrif continuation of the old testament. Only with time will he be brought to accept Allah.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

I've blasphemed God, why am I not dead yet Rukh?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I've blasphemed God, why am I not dead yet Rukh?


 
I think a more pressing question is-

Rukh, earlier you said you were doing more harm than good trying to debate your faith. Sure you said it in the most passive aggressive self-martyring way possible, but seriously,

What makes you think you're doing better at proving your point *NOW*?


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God punishes those who do wrong. The Bible is pretty clear on that.
> Those people knew God existed and they still turned away from Him. That is blasphemy, and is punishable by death. So God took the only group of people who still worshiped Him (Because he needed a pure line so he could send his Son to save Mankind) And he wiped out the rest of the world. The Flood was needed to get rid of the wicked so the people who were after God could flourish. And this was so the Line could stay pure for Jesus when he came. Jesus is a direct decedent of Noah.


 You should have taken the high road and just said that story was clearly fictional to show the power of God or something equally as stupid. 

Humans have the choice to be wicked. We were given free will by God to do whatever the hell we wanted. Our own laws and social norms prevent and sometimes stop the wicked humans of our time period. Kill a dude? Go to jail. Kill two dudes? Go to kill and maybe even get the death penalty depending on country/state. 

God doesn't like wicked people, but he gave wicked people the free will to be wicked. To say "Well, blasphemy is a sin and God had a right to kill EVERYONE ON THE PLANET CEPT ONE FAMILY AND SOME FUCKING ANIMALS" is bullshit. Not only is he punishing people for using the free will he gave them, but he's also stooping down to their level by committing MASS MOTHERFUCKING GENOCIDE.

Noah's bloodline could have stayed around had God not murdered the world. Not to mention this "pure bloodline" consists of multiple generations of incest WHICH IS PRETTY FUCKING COOL YO


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Acts 22:9 states: My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
> 
> No where does it say that they didn't see the light or hear the voice...The verse says they did see the flash of light and hear the voice of Jesus. But they didn't understand who was speaking to Saul (Now Paul)


 
Bullshit. Here it is in black and white.

Acts 9:7 (King James Version) "_And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, *hearing a voice, *but seeing no man._"

Acts 22:9 (King James Version) "_And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; *but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me*._"

What part of "heard not the voice" don't you understand?

Oh, that's right, I expect you've got a Rukh-style translation that oh-so-*conveniently* fixes that for you by rewriting the translation. The marvellously handy get-out clause.


----------



## Azure (Dec 5, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> Yay! Deo is back.
> 
> Peace be to all 'Ahl al-Kitab, and all this forum. Rukh is not a dhimmi, though, for he is following a fallacy-filled, paganistic, tahrif continuation of the old testament. Only with time will he be brought to accept Allah.


This "God" fellow must be rather compelling for the 3 most powerful Monotheistic faiths to claim him as their own. Or could it be that Jesus and Ol' Mandress saw a great opportunity to mind control some dumb cunts and create mini empires for themselves.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> I think a more pressing question is-
> 
> Rukh, earlier you said you were doing more harm than good trying to debate your faith. Sure you said it in the most passive aggressive self-martyring way possible, but seriously,
> 
> What makes you think you're doing better at proving your point *NOW*?


Where did he say that? Was that when he said he was quitting this thread?


----------



## GingerM (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well firstly because it preaches that the same God (even though Allah is not the Christian God) came to Mohamed. (Well it says an Angel of the Lord) So Islam claims the same God gave a revelation to Mohamed. And yet the Koran conflicts with what the Bible says. So how can it be from the same God if the two books contradict each other? Secondly Allah is not a God of grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Again this contradicts with what the Bible says.
> 
> Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us. In Islam, faith in God is not enough. In Islam, the Muslim's works will  be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is  saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim,  whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they  performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones.
> 
> ...


 
So why is the Bible right and the Koran wrong? Without referring to either, please.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> OMG the amount of sheer PWNAGE in this post made my eyes black out for a second.
> I think I came.


 
My favorite spicy barbecue sauce is back! :0


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Oh hey, look at what today's SMBC is about.

And be sure to look at the extra votey image.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> Oh hey, look at what today's SMBC is about.
> 
> And be sure to look at the extra votey image.


I can't access the first link.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> I can't access the first link.


Well, that's embarrassing.  I fixed it.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is the one true religion. That may sound awfully dogmatic and narrow-minded, but...



It certainly does.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> YChristianity is the only religion where you have a personal relationship with God. No other religion states that.



Really? You've looked into every religion extant today and determined that only Christianity provides a direct, personal relationship with Deity? I call bull, because that is false to fact. Look into the precepts of the Craft of the Wise, otherwise known as Wicca.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus is the Son of God because he fulfilled every prophesy that was written about Him in the Old Testament. Just fulfilling 48 prophesies statistically comes out to 1 in 10 the the power of 178 . Those are really, really long odds.



Where does that stat come from? Source, please, or you made it up.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mankindâ€™s depravity had reached a level that evil entirely permeated every part of his being. His _wickedness_ was great- that is, his actions were wicked. Every_ imagination_ was evil - his mind was wholly corrupted. Every thought of his _heart_ â€“ his will, his desires, his emotions, his passions, had all become so sin stained that there remained _nothing_ within them that was _not_ evil. These people upon whom God poured out the Flood were not merely dabbling in sin here and there, *everything* that they were doing was an horrific abomination.
> 
> In considering why God sent the Flood, you must first realize that those living upon the Earth were completely and utterly wicked beyond the hope of changing. There were no innocent bystanders caught up in the Flood; everyone was guilty of the most deplorable sinfulness. The rebellion against God actually takes root in Cain and his descendants had now reached a fruition that God could not overlook.



Every last human being alive except for Noah and his family was utterly, irredeemably steeped in the foulest sort of sin, from the oldest senior citizen to newborn babes only minutes old? Without exception? How in the name of Dana do you expect anywhere here to believe that a newborn child can be "utterly wicked" and "guilty of the most deplorable sinfulness" - I use your exact words above. All that says to me is that your god gets off on infanticide among other things. That's *not *a god I feel comfortable worshiping.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Where does that stat come from? Source, please, or you made it up.


 

I was a little off on the exact powers to 10, but here is the source. 

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science  Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the  science of probability.  Stoner says that by using the modern science of  probability in reference to eight prophecies, "we find that the chance  that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all  eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power."  That would be 1 in  100,000,000,000,000,000.  In order to help us comprehend this staggering  probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.  They will cover all of the state two feet deep.
"Now  mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly,  all over the state.  Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as  far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that  this is the right one.  What chance would he have of getting the right  one?  Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing  these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power, or 1 in
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.​The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power.  It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 5, 2010)

I found out about this a while ago, still, it is too hilarious to pass up the link if you haven't seen it yet.  The most simple way to prove if there is a God:  The Yo-God! Meter... http://www.yo-god.com/


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 5, 2010)

Penumbra Noct said:


> I found out about this a while ago, still, it is too hilarious to pass up the link if you haven't seen it yet.  The most simple way to prove if there is a God:  The Yo-God! Meter... http://www.yo-god.com/


 
Haha I was gonna buy a carbon monoxide detector, but this is worth the risk of never waking up again.


----------



## Wolf Fairy (Dec 5, 2010)

Religion is boring and too full of restrictions. TV is way better


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Where did he say that? Was that when he said he was quitting this thread?


 
It was a while ago, it was after he'd "quit these boards" though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> And Rukh still has not sworn himself to be my loyal follower in eleven-hundred years time, as his god told me would be true.  You have thus denounced your god in favour of a false one, Rukh.  For by doubting God's appearance to me, you are doubting God.


 
You know what, I won't, your just saying crap just to say crap. I follow my faith 100%, and not one person will ever change that. So you and everyone else can stop trying to get me to renounce my faith. By now you and everyone else should have realized that I won't, ever. This debate will never end. I will speak using the Bible to talk about my faith, because to be a Christian is to obey the Truth. And the Bible is the Truth. Nothing can change that.

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be  able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our  Lord.


----------



## Barak (Dec 5, 2010)

Look Rukh, i hink no one here care that you are christian, but stop quoting the bible in every thread you participate, except that one, cause, you know, that thread is for weirdo like you :V


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You know what, I won't, your just saying crap just to say crap. I follow my faith 100%, and not one person will ever change that. So you and everyone else can stop trying to get me to renounce my faith. By now you and everyone else should have realized that I won't, ever. This debate will never end. I will speak using the Bible to talk about my faith, because to be a Christian is to obey the Truth. And the Bible is the Truth. *Nothing can change that.*


 Cept science, logic, common sense, etc :V

Riley's posts seem to be wooshing over your head to.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Barak said:


> Look Rukh, i hink no one here care that you are christian, but stop quoting the bible in every thread you participate, except that one, cause, you know, that thread is for weirdo like you :V


 
My life revolves around the Bible, around Christ's teachings, I quote the Bible to explain why I believe, and to answer peoples questions either about my faith or because the Bible is my guide to life. Therefore I cannot not say why I do what I do and not give an explanation of why. I am not forcing people to believe. Merely, I am explaining why I believe. No one is going to be able to tell me the Bible is not the Truth. It goes against my faith.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My life revolves around the Bible, around Christ's teachings


You only get one life, if you want to waste it that's your prerogative.


> No one is going to be able to tell me the Bible is not the Truth. It goes against my faith.


Thinking about that awful logic makes my head hurt and my wrists bleed.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My life revolves around the Bible, around Christ's teachings, I quote the Bible to explain why I believe, and to answer peoples questions either about my faith or because the Bible is my guide to life.


 
Out of interest, do you go to church and ask your local pastor/whoever for advice or only look through the actual book?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Out of interest, do you go to church and ask your local pastor/whoever for advice or only look through the actual book?


 
I go to church on Sunday and Thursday, I am also a part of a Bible study and sometimes small groups. Anytime I have questions or I don't understand something I go to my pastor, but I always check what is said with the Scriptures. Paul teaches us that, we as Christians are supposed to check what is being spoken by reading the Scriptures. Its our guidebook, its the Standard to follow. And if someones speak doesn't line up with Scripture then its not true. In other words I do both, its a check and balance system. I only follow what the Scriptures say, if anyone preaches otherwise, I do not listen to them.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I go to church on Sunday and Thursday, I am also a part of a Bible study and sometimes small groups. Anytime I have questions or I don't understand something I go to my pastor, but I always check what is said with the Scriptures. Paul teaches us that, we as Christians are supposed to check what is being spoken by reading the Scriptures. Its our guidebook, its the Standard to follow. And if someones speak doesn't line up with Scripture then its not true. In other words I do both, its a check and balance system. I only follow what the Scriptures say, if anyone preaches otherwise, I do not listen to them.


 
Okay, fair enough.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You know what, I won't, your just saying crap just to say crap. I follow my faith 100%, and not one person will ever change that. So you and everyone else can stop trying to get me to renounce my faith. By now you and everyone else should have realized that I won't, ever. This debate will never end. I will speak using the Bible to talk about my faith, because to be a Christian is to obey the Truth. And the Bible is the Truth. Nothing can change that.
> 
> Romans 8:38-39
> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be  able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our  Lord.


 
Rukh, you just aren't believing in things that will come to pass, as God has shown them in Her vision to me.  Your god has sent me a message, and I am trying to save you.  Only by following your god can She deliver us both from the future-evils.  If you continue to doubt God, She will become very saddened, for She will have lost another follower to the depths of Hell and the wickedness of Temptation.

Why don't you believe me, Rukh?  God came to me in a vision, and what She said to me was undeniably the truth.  You yourself have said so; do not turn your back on your faith now.  If you don't believe me, you are doubting the Truth Of God as it was given to, through my personal connection to Her.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

I'll repeat my question-

Rukh, what makes you think you're doing a better job this time than last time? Your tactics haven't really changed...


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You know what, I won't, your just saying crap just to say crap. I follow my faith 100%, and not one person will ever change that. So you and everyone else can stop trying to get me to renounce my faith. By now you and everyone else should have realized that I won't, ever. This debate will never end. I will speak using the Bible to talk about my faith, because to be a Christian is to obey the Truth. And the Bible is the Truth. Nothing can change that.
> 
> Romans 8:38-39
> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be  able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our  Lord.


Believing the Bible without question is the problem though. It's absurd that you believe one thing without question and ignoring any other evidence otherwise that may disprove something. Not challenging your faith makes you one of the hateful idiotic sheeple that plague this god-forsaken rock.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> Rukh, you just aren't believing in things that will come to pass, as God has shown them in Her vision to me.  Your god has sent me a message, and I am trying to save you.  Only by following your god can She deliver us both from the future-evils.  If you continue to doubt God, She will become very saddened, for She will have lost another follower to the depths of Hell and the wickedness of Temptation.
> 
> Why don't you believe me, Rukh?  God came to me in a vision, and what She said to me was undeniably the truth.  You yourself have said so; do not turn your back on your faith now.  If you don't believe me, you are doubting the Truth Of God as it was given to, through my personal connection to Her.


 
This is the last time I will be responding to you. First off, Only through Jesus can we get to Heaven. "For I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." You contradict that. So no, I will not listen to you. Secondly you refer to God as she. This also is not true. God is referred to as the Father. Hence a male. All the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form.

So you are just posting to annoy me. 

1 Timothy 6:3-4
*If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,   they are conceited and understand nothing.* They have an unhealthy  interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy,  strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions

2 John 7-11
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ  as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is  the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.   Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ  does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father  and the Son.  *If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. * Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 

I will not listen to false teachings. Ever, Period, The End.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is the last time I will be responding to you. First off, Only through Jesus can we get to Heaven. "For I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." You contradict that. So no, I will not listen to you. Secondly you refer to God as she. This also is not true. God is referred to as the Father. Hence a male. All the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form.
> 
> So you are just posting to annoy me.
> 
> ...


 God is not a gender. He can be referred to as one but a gender He has no definitive one.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Believing the Bible without question is the problem though. It's absurd that you believe one thing without question and ignoring any other evidence otherwise that may disprove something. Not challenging your faith makes you one of the hateful idiotic sheeple that plague this god-forsaken rock.


 
Challenging my faith does not involve challenging God's existence. A Christian is challenged in their faith all the time. But it does not mean we challenge the existence of God. That is something you need to understand about true Christianity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> God is not a gender. He can be referred to as one but a gender He has no definitive one.


 
God is referred to as the Father. Hence a male figure. All the evidence  contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a  male form.

Show me where God is not referred to as a male in the Bible.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Challenging my faith does not involve challenging God's existence. A Christian is challenged in their faith all the time. But it does not mean we challenge the existence of God. That is something you need to understand about true Christianity.


 Oh, hey, NTS Fallacy again.
Challenging the existence is part of challenging faith. DUH.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is referred to as the Father. Hence a male figure. All the evidence  contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a  male form.
> 
> Show me where God is not referred to as a male in the Bible.


 Uh, no, it doesn't work that way, Rukh. It's not possible to show a non-existence. YOU'RE the one that has the burden of proof. And God never revealed himself. Only angels have.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I will not listen to *different and equally valid opinions.* Ever, Period, The End.


 
Fix'd.

I mean come on, Rukh.  I've been lurking and reading this thread, and all I'm seeing is you being an incredibly closed-minded individual.  You're a fanatic.  You have the same mentality as the radical Islamists who fly planes into major city skyscrapers.  There is a reason so many people are turning away from religion.  And it's people like you.  You may believe that you're on some noble quest to defend the truth from those who question it.  In reality, all I see is a closed-minded fundamentalist who only alienates me from his opinion instead of convincing me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> And God never revealed himself. Only angels have.


 
Oh really? Read Acts Chapter 9 where Jesus called out to Paul on the road to Damascus. And if you do your research. In the Old Testament, when it it said "and an Angel of the Lord appeared", Most of the time this is referring to a pre incarnate Jesus Christ.

Secondly, It is stated in the Bible that God allowed Moses to see His back. Therefore Moses Saw God.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This is the last time I will be responding to you. First off, Only through Jesus can we get to Heaven. "For I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." You contradict that. So no, I will not listen to you. Secondly you refer to God as she. This also is not true. God is referred to as the Father. Hence a male. All the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form.


The male body is impure, Rukh; you've said so yourself.  Do you covet the male body more than a female's?  I thought homosexuality was against your beliefs.



> So you are just posting to annoy me.


I am posting to bring my true, personal experience with god into your life.  By refusing my help in the future, you are refusing God.



> I will not listen to false teachings. Ever, Period, The End.


 God's teachings through me will the truth in eleven-hundred years, Rukh.  Please believe me, and let me help you.  Otherwise you will burn in Hell along with all the other nonbelievers.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Enwon said:


> Fix'd.
> 
> I mean come on, Rukh.  I've been lurking and reading this thread, and all I'm seeing is you being an incredibly closed-minded individual.


 
Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I will not listen to false teachings. Ever, Period, The End.


 I love how you're completely missing the point of his posts.

Though I do side with Rukh, I'm quite positive God is a male. How else would Marry have gotten pregnant if not from his giant penis in the sky? Clearly he stuck is long dick down and emaculated all over her face, ass, and vagina. After that rocking night, her whole body glowed when placed under a dark light.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh really? Read Acts Chapter 9 where Jesus called out to Paul on the road to Damascus. And if you do your research. In the Old Testament, when it it said "and an Angel of the Lord appeared", Most of the time this is referring to a pre incarnate Jesus Christ.
> 
> Secondly, It is stated in the Bible that God allowed Moses to see His back. Therefore Moses Saw God.


 Angel of the Lord is not Jesus. It's either Metatron or Gabriel. Also, back =/= God Himself. It's not possible for any mortal to actually "see" God.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.


 Hemlock is a solid.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Angel of the Lord is not Jesus. It's either Megatron or Optimus Prime


 Fixed that for you. :V


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> I love how you're completely missing the point of his posts.
> 
> Though I do side with Rukh, I'm quite positive God is a male. How else would Marry have gotten pregnant if not from his giant penis in the sky? Clearly he stuck is long dick down and emaculated all over her face, ass, and vagina. After that rocking night, her whole body glowed when placed under a dark light.


 Gabriel was the one that informed Mary. So how could have Gabe possibly have known unless...



Conker said:


> Fixed that for you. :V


 >=[


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Gabriel was the one that informed Mary. So how could have Gabe possibly have known unless...


 Gabriel's super power is that of the black light. He can make any semen encrusted bed shine with shame or any colorful poster light up in a glow so brilliant that even the most tripped out hippie on acid would go "FUCKING SWEET LET US STARE AT THAT"

He came down, saw Marry, and was like "Oh shit. Someone got raped by God last night."


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as  of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.


 
Except what if it's not solid?  I don't pretend that I know exactly everything about religion.  The fact that you think you know only shows that you're a fool.  Sure, I bet you're probably going to pull out some obscure scripture that says "he who denies the badly presented opinion of the ridiculously stubborn, closed minded, unreasonable fundamentalist Christian furry is in fact the fool" and that will only show how much you're missing the point.  Have you ever tried questioning your beliefs?  Does your 2,000 year old book hold up against science?  What evidence do you have to state that your beliefs are true and all of others are false?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> Gabriel's super power is that of the black light. He can make any semen encrusted bed shine with shame or any colorful poster light up in a glow so brilliant that even the most tripped out hippie on acid would go "FUCKING SWEET LET US STARE AT THAT"
> 
> He came down, saw Marry, and was like "Oh shit. Someone got raped by God last night."


 Where in the FUCK do you come up with this?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Angel of the Lord is not Jesus. It's either Metatron or Gabriel. Also, back =/= God Himself. It's not possible for any mortal to actually "see" God.


 
Read Exodus 3:2. It states that the, not a, not plural meaning more than one.

And *the angel of the LORD* appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of  the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with  fire, and the bush was not consumed.  And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 
 And  when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out  of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am  I.


Not how it says the Lord called out to Moses out of the mist of the bush. This is referring to the pre incarnate Christ. Because Jesus is God


Do your research, Angel of the Lord sometimes is referring to a pre incarnate Christ Jesus.


----------



## Mehitabel (Dec 5, 2010)

I am a Unitarian Universalist with a very deistic and human divinity approaches to my general religious philosophy.'

I was actually raised a wiccan (and I'm not gonna lie, it was a really cool childhood in a lot of ways) but I was taught a lot of Hindu, Buddhist, and eastern Philosophy. 

I don't care about Christians because the bible can be p. cool and as long as they don't force their beliefs on me they are pretty good folks. I also don't dislike Muslims because I know the extremists don't actually follow the religious texts at all, because it is the most disrespectful thing to do a lot of what those assholes do.

So in short, I just don't care as long as you aren't extremist. That goes for atheists as well, because I don't think it's nice to be forced to suck Richard Dawkins' cock when that's not my belief. I basically don't believe in religious authority.

There is a church I've thought about participating in, but unitarians are p. cool about whatever you want to do as long as you respect everyone else.

EDIT: Also my favorite philosophy dude is probably R. Buckminster Fuller, he was a Unitarian as well and he was really cool. :]


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read Exodus 3:2. It states that the, not a, not plural meaning more than one.
> 
> And *the angel of the LORD* appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of  the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with  fire, and the bush was not consumed.  And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
> And  when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out  of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am  I.
> ...


 I like how you make things up.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Mary was like any terrified unmarried girl who finds herself pregnant, she wanted out of the problem and to get rid of responsibility. What better way than to blame it on God?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I like how you make things up.


 
I am not making things up, What I say is in accordance with the Scriptures.

Godâ€™s proper name is composed of the four letters _YHVH_.  The Jewish people do not pronounce this name out of reverence for the sacredness  of the divine name. For many years it has been transliterated as _Yahweh_  or Jehovah using the vowels of the name _Adonai._ It is consistently  translated in the majority of our English translations of the Old Testament as  â€œLORDâ€ with all four letters in capital letters. The name _Adonai_ is  distinguished â€œLordâ€ in our English translations. 

The "messenger of Yahweh" or "Angel of the LORDâ€ (_malâ€™akh_ _Yahweh_) is seen in the Old Testament as an important figure, mysterious  as well as intriguing, reverenced and obeyed. It is interesting how often the  appearance of "the Angel of the LORD" marked a turning point in history or  brought about some event that produced long-lasting consequences. He is seen as  the guardian over the chosen people of God who appears over and over again.

    [FONT=&quot]The angel of the LORD" is distinct from _Yahweh_, yet identical with _Yahweh_ (Gen. 16:10, 13; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Ex. 3:2, 4; Josh. 5:13-15; 6:2; Zech. 1:10-13; 3:1, 2). In several of these passages the term "the angel of Yahweh" is completely interchangeable with "Yahweh," "Yahweh's "name," which is equivalent to the saying Yahweh's being, is in His special angel (Ex. 23:20, 21). The conclusion is the presence of the angel of the LORD is the same as the presence of the LORD (Ex. 32:24-30, 34; 33:11, 14, 20; Isa. 63:9). He accepts worship due only to God. If He were only an ordinary angel, regardless of His stature, he would have refused the act of worship and corrected the behavior.

[/FONT]    Moreover, in some of the texts it seems impossible to distinguish between the angel of the LORD and the LORD Himself (Gen. 16:7-13; 21:17; 22:17-18; 24:7, 40; 31:11-13; 48:16; Ex. 3:2-10; Judges 6:12-14; 13:21-22). This unique Angel seems to possess full authority and character of God.

 "The angel of the LORD" speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims the prerogatives of God (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-21; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Ex. 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8).
  [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
When it says *The* angel of the LORD, it is speaking about the pre incarnate Christ Jesus. When the Bible says an angel of the Lord, it is speaking about a regular angel.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

And you're still copy pasting a ton of bullshit drawing more bullshit conclusions


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I like how you make things up.



He likes to warp the Bible and use it for his own agenda. But if we do that it's out of context yo. _~Fun with double standards!~_


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Future Incarnate 3:44:  And thus Rukh of the White Fang turned a deaf ear to the teachings of God through a common mortal, and became blinded by arrogance.  For 'tis known by all that upon that day he was forever labeled a dissenter of the Truth and a traitor to the LORD.  

Future Incarnate 3:45:  God wept when she saw a former soldier of Her name fall into Wickedness, but cast him out of the Second Paradise as was necessary.  "Why, O LORD," did Rukh lament, "Why hast thou condemned me to eternal pain in Hell?"  And God was not pleased by his ignorance, and spoke through the winds in the trees and the swaying of the leaves, "Thou are no longer welcome in my Kingdom, for you are one who did not see Truth when twas presented to you.  And for this you shall burn."

This part of the bible (the Very New Testament) hasn't been written yet, but believe me; it'll hold up perfectly in a thousand years' time.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> He likes to warp the Bible and use it for his own agenda. But if we do that it's out of context yo. _~Fun with double standards!~_


 That's how the majority of christians are. And they wonder why they're hated.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not making things up, What I say is in accordance with the Scriptures.


 
Do you have any proof other than the Scriptures?  As fun as it is to see you keep vomiting up Bible quotes, is there anything you have to back up the Bible as fact?  And no, you can't use a Bible quote for this one.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> And you're still copy pasting a ton of bullshit drawing more bullshit conclusions


 
You just don't like the fact that it gives a full explanation of the huge difference between The Angel of the LORD and an angel of the Lord. As I said, if what someone speaks lines up with Scripture, then its true. What my previous post said lines up completely with Scripture.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> He likes to warp the Bible and use it for his own agenda. But if we do that it's out of context yo. _~Fun with double standards!~_


 
My own Agenda? Really now. Since when I am promoting my own agenda? I have stated many, many times that I surrender my will to God's will. The Bible is not my words, they are God's. I am not warping the Bible, you think that believing in the Bible 100% is somehow warping it. I stand by it completely. It is not my will that be done, but the Lord's as it is in Heaven.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My own Agenda? Really now. Since when I am promoting my own agenda? I have stated many, many times that I surrender my will to God's will. The Bible is not my words, they are God's. I am not warping the Bible, you think that believing in the Bible 100% is somehow warping it. I stand by it completely. It is not my will that be done, but the Lord's as it is in Heaven.


 I like how you ignore everyone that asks for proof.


----------



## Barak (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh is the proof that Huge post =/= Good post :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

Barak said:


> Rukh is the proof that Huge post =/= Good post :V


 
We've had like five previous fundies on this board that already proved that...


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> We've had like five previous fundies on this board that already proved that...


 Wait, 5? I know Rukh, Roose, and Porcupine...who are the other two?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I like how you ignore everyone that asks for proof.


 
They do not want proof, for it they really were interested they would seek God out. As it is, all they and most people on here want to do is argue. To say that all life, that everything is an accident can't be true, because then that makes truth an accident. Therefore truth, right and wrong are not absolute. Then nothing is absolute. And that statement defies logic, because by saying there is no absolute truth, it becomes and absolute which you say does not exist.

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my  opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a  movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but  of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They do not want want proof, for it they really were interested they would seek God out. As it is, all they and most people on here want to do is argue. To say that all life, that everything is an accident can't be true, because then that makes truth an accident. Therefore truth, right and wrong are not absolute. Then nothing is absolute. And that statement defies logic, because by saying there is no absolute truth, it becomes and absolute which you say does not exist.
> 
> The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my  opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a  movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but  of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.


 This is why I consider it an insult to be referred to as a christian. I mean, seriously, has it ever occurred to you that maybe God wants you to help them? Oh, no, because you're some self-righteous asshole that doesn't want to deal with anything that might hinder your faith.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They do not want want proof, for it they really were interested they would seek God out. As it is, all they and most people on here want to do is argue. To say that all life, that everything is an accident can't be true, because then that makes truth an accident. Therefore truth, right and wrong are not absolute. Then nothing is absolute. And that statement defies logic, because by saying there is no absolute truth, it becomes and absolute which you say does not exist.
> 
> The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my  opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a  movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but  of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.


 
We're asking you to back up your argument with facts.  We're not going to take scripture as being true unless you have proof that scripture is true.  Which you do not have.  We all know that you were giving a cop-out answer.

From now on, I advise everyone to ignore anything stated in the scripture Rukh posts until he actually posts non-Bible based proof to back up his beliefs.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> This is why I consider it an insult to be referred to as a christian. I mean, seriously, has it ever occurred to you that maybe God wants you to help them? Oh, no, because you're some self-righteous asshole that doesn't want to deal with anything that might hinder your faith.


 
If people were truly interested in what I have to say, they can ask a genuine question, they can find me on FA and ask the question to me, or the ministry I am apart of, or like some people who already have, they can send me a private message.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If people were truly interested in what I have to say, they can ask a genuine question, they can find me on FA and ask the question to me, or the ministry I am apart of, or like some people who already have, they can send me a private message.


 Asking for back up IS A GENUINE QUESTION


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Enwon said:


> We're asking you to back up your argument with facts.  We're not going to take scripture as being true unless you have proof that scripture is true.  Which you do not have.  We all know that you were giving a cop-out answer.
> 
> From now on, I advise everyone to ignore anything stated in the scripture Rukh posts until he actually posts non-Bible based proof to back up his beliefs.


 
My question to you specifically Ewon is this, have you already made up your mind? As in do you think there is a possibility that the Bible is right? Or do you, like most people here already think that the Bible is dead wrong and God can't/doesn't exist. My point is, why discuss my faith with someone who is not genuinely interested and has already made up their mind that God doesn't exist?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Wait, 5? I know Rukh, Roose, and Porcupine...who are the other two?


 
Cutter and Cyberfox if we're just talking religion.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My question to you specifically Ewon is this, have you already made up your mind? As in do you think there is a possibility that the Bible is right? Or do you, like most people here already think that the Bible is dead wrong and God can't/doesn't exist. My point is, why discuss my faith with someone who is not genuinely interested and has already made up their mind that God doesn't exist?


 
I'm an open-minded person, Rukh.  I have not made up my mind... I'm an agnostic.  God might exist, might not.  One thing I do believe is this- if a person makes an argument, they should always have facts to justify it.  If you have cited facts from outside of the Bible, then I will be more than willing to listen.  And I extend this rule to everyone, Rukh.  If an atheist came to me on the street and started talking about how all religion is evil and that kind of stuff, I'd ask him to back it up.  I am holding you to the same standard I hold everyone else.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Asking for back up IS A GENUINE QUESTION


 
Not when you have already made up your mind that God doesn't/can't exist.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not when you have already made up your mind that God doesn't/can't exist.


 I like how you assume for other people.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh, I don't know why you're refusing to talk to me.  I'm presenting information with the exact same logic as you, and yet you turn your back on my truth.  God came to me in a vision and said those things.  And God's word is infallible, right?  If you don't believe me, that's just a fault on your part, and you are refusing to believe in the absolute truth of God's words as they were spoken to me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Enwon said:


> I'm an open-minded person, Rukh.  I have not made up my mind... I'm an agnostic.  God might exist, might not.  One thing I do believe is this- if a person makes an argument, they should always have facts to justify it.  If you have cited facts from outside of the Bible, then I will be more than willing to listen.  And I extend this rule to everyone, Rukh.  If an atheist came to me on the street and started talking about how all religion is evil and that kind of stuff, I'd ask him to back it up.  I am holding you to the same standard I hold everyone else.


 
The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe  and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the  fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological  constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to  add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup. The odds of the Universe beginning from an accident are non calculable. In fact, saying the universe was an accident defies the Laws of Science.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe. The Universe just existing defies the Laws of Science. Something cannot be created out of nothing.


Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that The Universe could not be smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10  to the 59th power larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10 to the 80th power  baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10 to the 21st power baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.


Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a  number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this  assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal  radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain  matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of  those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by  fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist  cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the  universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we  vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is  converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond  to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value  were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have  survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even  more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in  100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only  as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If  this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large  black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more  than 1 part in 10 to the 37th power or else electromagnetic interactions would  prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant  to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of  stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10 to the 55th power less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The  most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark  energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a  change of only 1 part in 10 to the 120th power would completely negate the  effect.

Science cannot explain the why or even the How the universe came into being without defying the Laws of Science.


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

I like how Rukh accuses others of being close minded and obtuse regarding other viewpoints.

EDIT:
I also like how he STEALS other people's words in PLAGIARISM. I mean the Bible totally says stealing is a-ok. So Rukh steals and steals and steals without remorse.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

i like how no evidence is somehow evidence personally


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

I like how personal bias trumps all as absoshittingfact.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

I like how everything about science is wrong because we haven't learned everything yet, but everything about religion is right because a flimsy little storybook says so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I like how Rukh accuses others of being close minded and obtuse regarding other viewpoints.
> 
> EDIT:
> I also like how he STEALS other people's words in PLAGIARISM. I mean the Bible totally says stealing is a-ok. So Rukh steals and steals and steals without remorse.


 
How am I stealing, I am providing information to Enwon who said he/she was actually interested in proof of God's existance. You just won't like the name of the website I got that from because you would be like BAAWWWW IT CAME FROM A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE, ITS BIASED BLAH BLAH BLAH. Here is the problem with that argument. If one proves God exists, then they believe in Him. So an atheist cannot prove God exists and stay an atheist.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I stealing, I am providing information to Enwon who said he/she was actually interested in proof of God's existance. You just won't like the name of the website I got that from because you would be like BAAWWWW IT CAME FROM A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE, ITS BIASED BLAH BLAH BLAH. Here is the problem with that argument. If one proves God exists, then they believe in Him. So an atheist cannot prove God exists and stay an atheist.


 
How convenient that you are the only one that can prove the existence of your imaginary friend.  

Rukh, disprove my previous statements.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I stealing, I am providing information to Enwon who said he/she was actually interested in proof of God's existance. You just won't like the name of the website I got that from because you would be like BAAWWWW IT CAME FROM A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE, ITS BIASED BLAH BLAH BLAH. Here is the problem with that argument. If one proves God exists, then they believe in Him. So an atheist cannot prove God exists and stay an atheist.


 You don't cite the source site though. You just post which is the same as plagiarism.
Also, it's not always christian sites that have this information.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> You don't cite the source site though. You just post which is the same as plagiarism.
> Also, it's not always christian sites that have this information.


 
You want the name of the site? Where I got it from? Here you go : http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

As I said, now I am going to get people complaining about the fact that its a Christian website.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *science*


 
Thank you for providing a scientific argument.  I do have one thing to say:

This argument is focused on contradicting atheism.  Of course, it doesn't make any proof for Christianity, because this argument also leaves room for other theories.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You want the name of the site? Where I got it from? Here you go : http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
> 
> As I said, now I am going to get people complaining about the fact that its a Christian website.


 Would you rather be accused of stealing or biased? We already know you're closed-minded but don't prove further that you're a hypocrite :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Enwon said:


> Thank you for providing a scientific argument.  I do have one thing to say:
> 
> This argument is focused on contradicting atheism.  Of course, it doesn't make any proof for Christianity, because this argument also leaves room for other theories.



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


----------



## Deo (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I stealing, I am providing information to Enwon who said he/she was actually interested in proof of God's existance. You just won't like the name of the website I got that from because you would be like BAAWWWW IT CAME FROM A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE, ITS BIASED BLAH BLAH BLAH. Here is the problem with that argument. If one proves God exists, then they believe in Him. So an atheist cannot prove God exists and stay an atheist.



Well still stealing. And citing sources does matter. If your sources are skewed we will tell you, that is what keeps debate honest so that nobody makes shit up.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

I like how no evidence is somehow evidence especially if you add "*scoff* atheists"


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html
> http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


 
Thank you.  These were interesting reads.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

so maybe i missed it what was the evidence that god created the universe again (sorry if i did! yikes !!)


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> so maybe i missed it what was the evidence that god created the universe again (sorry if i did! yikes !!)


 
The main fact is the universe just existing defies the Laws of Science. But I believe I posted the info on the previous page.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The main fact is the universe just existing defies the Laws of Science. But I believe I posted the info on the previous page.


 
How is that evidence that God created the universe


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The main fact is the universe just existing defies the Laws of Science. But I believe I posted the info on the previous page.


 
I was raised Christian by my father, a baptist minister, a very tolerant and accepting man. And I cannot comprehend how wrong you are in every single post you make, your's is a simple case of "I refuse your views and force mine upon you".

People like you are the reason organized religion has such a bad rep.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> How is that evidence that God created the universe


 
Are you saying that the universe defying the laws of science isn't proof that the universe wasn't intelligent design?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I was raised Christian by my father, a baptist minister, a very tolerant and accepting man. And I cannot comprehend how wrong you are in every single post you make, your's is a simple case of "I refuse your views and force mine upon you".
> 
> People like you are the reason organized religion has such a bad rep.


 
How am I forcing my belief onto people? I am explaining my belief. I am answering questions directed at me. You don't see me going around starting threads saying I am right and you are wrong. I am giving my explanation of why God exists and why the Bible is the Truth. You don't have to believe or listen to what I say.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I forcing my belief onto people? I am explaining my belief. I am answering questions directed at me. You don't see me going around starting threads saying I am right and you are wrong. I am giving my explanation of why God exists and why the Bible is the Truth. You don't have to believe or listen to what I say.


 
If you can't see how you are browbeating then there's no hope in me showing you in what way you are wrong.

Ignorance is bliss, Ã©h?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I forcing my belief onto people? I am explaining my belief. I am answering questions directed at me. You don't see me going around starting threads saying I am right and you are wrong. *I am giving my explanation of why God exists and why the Bible is the Truth.* You don't have to believe or listen to what I say.


 That's pretty much saying "I am right and this is why" which is horridly closed-minded.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you saying that the universe defying the laws of science isn't proof that the universe wasn't intelligent design?
> 
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
> http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


 
I'm saying that questions about another viewpoint does not imply that your viewpoint is right. In this case, all you've said is that you question the ways in which the "Laws of Science" as you understand them are applied or perhaps the observations themselves, and you've given no evidence that God has created the Earth.  I mean, all I see is that if what you say is true, then there are some reconsiderations and paradigm shifts that have to work out. But ultimately, science does seem to work out, doesn't it? I mean, observation and conclusion as it were gave us cellular theory, and gave us some good old penicillin. Not to mention numerous, well, let's face it everythings. So, at root the concept of observational science must work to some degree right? Then wouldn't it just be a question of whether or not those Laws can be easily applied in that manner, or maybe there's more observation to do to determine a better application or mechanistic connection of laws.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> That's pretty much saying "I am right and this is why" which is horridly closed-minded.


 
Aparently not everyone here thinks that. I have quite a few private messages stating otherwise, then there is this:


Carenath said:


> You know, I really don't say this about many  people, least of all people of any strong religious persuasion, but I  *do* have respect for Rukh (at least in so far as his spiritual  beliefs go). While I don't stalk all his posts here and there, and he  and I do butt horns on the political scape, I've not observed him, going  around, trying to turn everyone into good Christians. I've not observed  him trying to convert anyone.
> 
> What I have observed, is a guy  that, for whatever reason personal to him, has a genuine faith in  Christ. I couldn't place him on the same level, as your typical  homophobic, legalistic, hypocritical,  immoral, blasphemous, abusive,  dictatorial,  selfish, vindictive,  uncommitted, disbelieving,  judgmental,  introspective, mean-spirited,  proud and manipulative  'fundies'. Rather, I'd say he's one of the rare few people, that  actually reads what's written and for himself and, rarely enough,  actually /tries/ to practise what he preaches. This isn't something I  say lightly, because as much as anyone, I have my vehement dislike for  what the 'Christian Right' in the US and other countries does on a  regular basis.. the intolerance and bigotry in the name of "god".
> 
> While  he's far from perfect, and far from someone I'd place on some kind of  pedestal, at least he's one person that isn't like all the rotten apples  we all love to hate.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> That's pretty much saying "I am right and this is why" which is horridly closed-minded.


 
All of the holy books are specifically meant to be open to interpretation, if one forces their interpretation upon others, what else are they but equal to the worst religion haters and die-hard AtheÃ¯sts? They sure are working hard to destroy the thing they claim to defend.

The world isn't becoming more sinful, vile, and dispicable. People are just opening their eyes to the massive threat that organized religion has become to our society, a majority convinced by one interpretation and ready to die to convince every person they can find to the same narrow-minded vision of a much bigger picture.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Aparently not everyone here thinks that. I have quite a few private messages stating otherwise, then there is this:


 Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't mean you're right.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> All of the holy books are specifically meant to be open to interpretation, if one forces their interpretation upon others, what else are they but equal to the worst religion haters and die-hard AtheÃ¯sts? They sure are working hard to destroy the thing they claim to defend.


 
Again, how am I forcing you? People asked my belief. I answered. I have given the reasons why I believe God is real and the Bible is the Truth. People don't like the fact that I don't waiver in my beliefs. I actually try to practice what I preach.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, how am I forcing you? People asked my belief. I answered. I have given the reasons why I believe God is real and the Bible is the Truth. People don't like the fact that I don't waiver in my beliefs. I actually try to practice what I preach.


 
I'm not replying to you, I'm replying to the general purpose of the thread. I already said that I cannot possibly get through to you, I'm not putting effort into something to waste it.

Actually, have you ever judged someone for something? Only God can lay judgement upon another, and if you judge, you are playing God. Hence you are idolizing yourself, and thus you have broken one of the ten commandments and better ask for forgiveness lest you want to be bound to hell.

Most religionuts don't realize this, do you?

I'm just naming a single, very simple example to show how "your kind" is wrong.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I actually try to practice what I preach.


 
There's a scary thought.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't mean you're right.


 
You can believe that. I believe that I am right. I believe in God and the Bible. I stand by my faith and try to follow what it preaches. I don't listen blindly to what others preach about the Bible. I check what they have to say and compare it to the Scriptures. If what they preach doesn't line up, then I do not listen to them. People here seem to equate my unwavering faith in Christ as narow minded or close minded just because I don't hold merit to anything that contradicts the Bible. One of the main points of a True Christian is to believe God's Word is absolute. What you and many others ask or try and tell me I should do, is not be a Christian. And that will not happen.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Aparently not everyone here thinks that. I have quite a few private messages stating otherwise, then there is this:


 
Nowhere does it say you aren't acting holier-than-thou, or not acting closed-minded. Just you aren't overtly hating of others like the WBC.


----------



## Willow (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can believe that. I believe that I am right. I believe in God and the Bible. I stand by my faith and try to follow what it preaches. I don't listen blindly to what others preach about the Bible. I check what they have to say and compare it to the Scriptures. If what they preach doesn't line up, then I do not listen to them. People here seem to equate my unwavering faith in Christ as narow minded or close minded just because I don't hold merit to anything that contradicts the Bible. One of the main points of a True Christian is to believe God's Word is absolute. What you and many others ask or try and tell me I should do, is not be a Christian. And that will not happen.


 So wait a second. If someone else comes up to you with a different interpretation of the Bible it's wrong?

That _is_ kinda narrow minded.


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh, by refusing to argue with my statements, you are indirectly saying I'm right.  Just letting you know.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

As a religious person, the best thing you can do is take a step back and review the teachings you are following. Blindly following what your preacher tells you is one of the biggest problems organized religion faces nowadays.

I used to be a Christian when I was alot younger, I took a step back into agnosticism and I am slowly crawling through many a different holy book, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, I'm dabbling in all of it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Willow said:


> So wait a second. If someone else comes up to you with a different interpretation of the Bible it's wrong?
> 
> That _is_ kinda narrow minded.


 
Not what I said. If what someone says contradicts with Scripture then I don't listen to them. Paul actually told us to do this. Paul says for us to compare what is preached to the Scriptures and see if it lines up. And if what is being preached doesn't line up, then I am not to obey anything that is being spoken.

Christians are to use Scripture to back up other Scripture, if someone says something that brings up contradictions, then most likely their interpretation isn't correct. Then you are to go back and re-read the passage that you just interpreted and see what when wrong, and why all of a sudden you contradict other passages.



Werevixen said:


> As a religious person, the best thing you can  do is take a step back and review the teachings you are following.  Blindly following what your preacher tells you is one of the biggest  problems organized religion faces nowadays.
> 
> I used to be a  Christian when I was alot younger, I took a step back into agnosticism  and I am slowly crawling through many a different holy book, the Bible,  the Torah, the Koran, I'm dabbling in all of it.



Again, I don't blindly follow what anyone preaches about the Bible. I compare what is spoken to the Scripture. If what is spoken doesn't line up, then I do not follow what is being preached.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 5, 2010)

Everyone should turn the other cheek to what Rukh says. 

Let him go out, tortured by the knowledge of his own sins; Sins that only Allah can absolve his soul of.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Willow said:


> So wait a second. If someone else comes up to you with a different interpretation of the Bible it's wrong?
> 
> That _is_ kinda narrow minded.


 
We already went over that bit. The whole "angel of the lord" is jesus thing, because it's totally not the metatron, at all, ever. 

I just wanted to point out, the universe does not hold up to science bit so god must exist argument, you can still be atheist after that. you could believe in the Tao. Which isn't a deity, won't answer your prayers, and fuck you if you want anything out of it. 
the Tao te ching is totally a better read anyway.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can believe that. I believe that I am right. I believe in God and the Bible. I stand by my faith and try to follow what it preaches. I don't listen blindly to what others preach about the Bible. I check what they have to say and compare it to the Scriptures. If what they preach doesn't line up, then I do not listen to them. People here seem to equate my unwavering faith in Christ as narow minded or close minded just because I don't hold merit to anything that contradicts the Bible. One of the main points of a True Christian is to believe God's Word is absolute. What you and many others ask or try and tell me I should do, is not be a Christian. And that will not happen.


 oh hey, MORE NTS Fallacy.
Seriously, you're basically saying that you'll agree with anyone that shares the exact same view and everyone else is wrong. Not even bothering to consider the other side. So, why are you here again?


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not what I said. If what someone says contradicts with Scripture then I don't listen to them. Paul actually told us to do this. Paul says for us to compare what is preached to the Scriptures and see if it lines up. And if what is being preached doesn't line up, then I am not to obey anything that is being spoken.


 The one thing I can give the Bible credit for is being able to cover its own ass. 

"What if people question what we are writing?"

"Well fuck, let's just tell them they aren't allowed to and anything that contradicts with what we've written is against God"

"Brilliant. But what if the questions they ask are logical and worth listening to?"

"So? We'll just tell them they aren't allowed to question what we write."

"That seems immoral."

"So?"

"Okay, well. Now that we've finished this, let's go order some hookers and cheap coke."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> oh hey, MORE NTS Fallacy.
> Seriously, you're basically saying that you'll agree with anyone that shares the exact same view and everyone else is wrong. Not even bothering to consider the other side. So, why are you here again?


 
Where did I say that? And sorry, what is the NTS? Not familiar with that acronym. Anyways, I said I compare what I hear to the Scriptures, the Scriptures are the standard for Christianity. So if someone preaches and it doesn't line up with the Bible, as a Christian why should I bother to consider something that contradicts with the Scriptures?
That goes against my faith.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where did I say that? And sorry, what is the NTS? Not familiar with that acronym. Anyways, I said I compare what I hear to the Scriptures, the Scriptures are the standard for Christianity. So if someone preaches and it doesn't line up with the Bible, as a Christian why should I bother to consider something that contradicts with the Scriptures?
> That goes against my faith.


 NTS is No True Scotsman.
Do you by chance look at historical context when regarding said Scripture?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> The one thing I can give the Bible credit for is being able to cover its own ass.
> 
> "What if people question what we are writing?"
> 
> ...


 

Have people forgotten one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God. That the Bible is the Truth?
A Christian must not merely believe in the Truth, but live it. 
So again, how can I listen to someone who preaches something that is not in the Scriptures?


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have people forgotten one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God. That the Bible is the Truth?
> A Christian must not merely believe in the Truth, but live it.
> So again, how can I listen to someone who preaches something that is not in the Scriptures?


 
The copy of the bible you probably own wasn't written by God. It is a generation-by-generation watered down transscript of the book that was (possibly) written by God.

If you truly follow Paul's writings, then you should question every bible that isn't the absolute original.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 5, 2010)

Assuming god exists, how do we know the bible is his word?

Just because someone says they are were inspired by god to write it, doesn't  mean they were.


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> NTS is No True Scotsman.
> Do you by chance look at historical context when regarding said Scripture?


 
this part can be a serious mess
i mean, some protestants have the book of daniel for whatever reason
why are certain parts of the torah missing
when the church schismed numerous times during its early period somewhere on the verge of 50 books (the most famous being Thomas) were thrown out for various political reasons, not to mention the writings of Origen

then if you dont accept the apotheosis of the church, what about mormonism or gnosticism or the churches of various regional divides and any of those books from early christian writers


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> NTS is No True Scotsman.
> Do you by chance look at historical context when regarding said Scripture?


 
Yes, I do.

No archaeological discovery has ever    proven wrong a Biblical reference.
Here are some examples:
*Joshuaâ€™s conquest of the Promised    Land*

*Historicity of numerous kings    mentioned in the Bible*

*Historicity of other Biblical    Personalities*


----------



## Wreth (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have people forgotten one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God. That the Bible is the Truth?
> A Christian must not merely believe in the Truth, but live it.
> So again, how can I listen to someone who preaches something that is not in the Scriptures?


 
If what you preach was right, then allowing people to question it wouldn't matter, because people would eventually come to the conlusion that it is right even after questioning it and research


----------



## Fay V (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> No archaeological discovery has ever    proven wrong a Biblical reference.
> Here are some examples:
> ...



Harry Potter mentions when the Playstation 2 came out.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have people forgotten one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God. That the Bible is the Truth?
> A Christian must not merely believe in the Truth, but live it.
> So again, how can I listen to someone who preaches something that is not in the Scriptures?


 
''The bible tells me to be closed minded so I am''


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> No archaeological discovery has ever    proven wrong a Biblical reference.
> Here are some examples:
> ...


I also mean society.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> this part can be a serious mess
> i mean, some protestants have the book of daniel for whatever reason
> why are certain parts of the torah missing
> when the church schismed numerous times during its early period somewhere on the verge of 50 books (the most famous being Thomas) were thrown out for various political reasons, not to mention the writings of Origen
> ...


 
Are you talking about the Apocrypha? Those are not Scripture
http://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-in-bible

There are no lost books of the Bible.
http://carm.org/apologetics/lost-books/are-these-lost-books-bible

Myths about the "lost books"
http://carm.org/myths-about-lost-books-of-new-testament


----------



## Riley (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh, the problem with the bible being right because it totally says it is ends up being the same problem that comes up when the used car salesman says the Ford Pinto is the greatest car because he knows you can trust him.

You are being conned, and are blissfully unaware of it, even when all the evidence in the world is shouting in your face.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 5, 2010)

The Apocrypha is part of the Christian canon, you know? It has been endorsed by the Holy See and nearly every biblical scholar outside of the bible-belt (a.k.a. Actual Biblical Scholars).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Assuming god exists, how do we know the bible is his word?
> 
> Just because someone says they are were inspired by god to write it, doesn't  mean they were.


 
Its historical fact that Jesus Christ existed. It is also fact that his teachings were recorded. In those teachings He claimed he was God. I am basing the fact that the Bible is God's word.

I base my claim that the Bible is God's Word because Jesus said it is, Because he fulfilled the all prophesies of the coming of the Messiah.

The Following taken from here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

*Question: "Is the Bible truly God's Word?"

Answer: * Our answer to this question will not only determine how we view the  Bible and its importance to our lives, but also it will ultimately have  an eternal impact on us. If the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word, then we  should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible  is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.

The fact that God gave us the Bible is an evidence and illustration of  His love for us. The term â€œrevelationâ€ simply means that God  communicated to mankind what He is like and how we can have a right  relationship with Him. These are things that we could not have known had  God not divinely revealed them to us in the Bible. Although Godâ€™s  revelation of Himself in the Bible was given progressively over  approximately 1500 years, it has always contained everything man needs  to know about God in order to have a right relationship with Him. If the  Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all  matters of faith, religious practice, and morals.

The question we must ask ourselves is how can we know that the Bible is  the Word of God and not just a good book? What is unique about the Bible  that sets it apart from all other religious books ever written? Is  there any evidence that the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word? These types of  questions must be seriously examined if we are to determine the validity  of the Bibleâ€™s claim to be the very Word of God, divinely inspired, and  totally sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. There can be  no doubt that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is  clearly seen in Paulâ€™s commendation to Timothy: â€œâ€¦ from infancy you have  known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for  salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed  and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in  righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for  every good workâ€ (2 Timothy 3:15-17). 

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly  Godâ€™s Word. The internal evidences are those things within the Bible  that testify of its divine origin. One of the first internal evidences  that the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it  is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in  three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by  more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible  remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction.  This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine  origin of the words which God moved men to record.

Another of the internal evidences that indicates the Bible is truly  Godâ€™s Word is the prophecies contained within its pages. The Bible  contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of  individual nations including Israel, certain cities, and mankind. Other  prophecies concern the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the  Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in  other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical  prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred  prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it  foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would  die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to  explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine  origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of  predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is its  unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than  the first two, it is no less a powerful testimony of the divine origin  of the Bible. The Bibleâ€™s authority is unlike any other book ever  written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless  lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of Godâ€™s Word.  Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it,  derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed  by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible  does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible  because it is truly Godâ€™s Word.

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the  Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible  details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to  verification like any other historical document. Through both  archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of  the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true.  In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the  Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. The fact  that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically  verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing  with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim  to be the very Word of God.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word is the  integrity of its human authors. As mentioned earlier, God used men from  many walks of life to record His words. In studying the lives of these  men, we find them to be honest and sincere. The fact that they were  willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed  testifies that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed God had  spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of  other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6)  knew the truth of their message because they had seen and spent time  with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. Seeing the risen  Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to  being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their  lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is Godâ€™s Word.

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word is the  indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim  to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks  and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early  Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to  modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted  all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book  in the world.

Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but  archeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its  teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and  teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures  throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science,  psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and  relevant today as it was when it was first written. It is a book that  has transformed countless lives and cultures throughout the last 2000  years. No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit  it, the Bible remains; its veracity and impact on lives is unmistakable.  The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt,  attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is  truly Godâ€™s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him. It should not  surprise us that, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes  out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, â€œHeaven and earth  will pass away, but my words will never pass awayâ€ (Mark 13:31). After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that, yes, the Bible is truly Godâ€™s Word.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> The Apocrypha is part of the Christian canon, you know? It has been endorsed by the Holy See and nearly every biblical scholar outside of the bible-belt (a.k.a. Actual Biblical Scholars).


 
The Apocrypha is part of the Christian canon, *not the Bible*. That right there is a huge statement.

http://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture Read this, it clearly shows why the Apocrypha is not Scripture.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 5, 2010)

''The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt,   attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is   truly Godâ€™s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him''

And every other religious book that has survived millenia


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

How can it be canon but not part of the Bible?


----------



## jeff (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you talking about the Apocrypha? Those are not Scripture
> http://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-in-bible
> 
> There are no lost books of the Bible.
> ...


 
so do you accept the apotheosis of the church or (and which one)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Apocrypha is part of the Christian canon, *not the Bible*. That right there is a huge statement.
> 
> http://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture Read this, it clearly shows why the Apocrypha is not Scripture.



But the Christian canon includes the Bible. The entire religion of Christianity is based upon the works of the canon... not just the Bible.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Yes, Jesus existed, but just to counter religionuts with their slippery slope fallacy for a second.

(Note that this is just an example)

Jesus helps pulls a blind man from a well.
Someone says Jesus single-handedly pulled a blind man from a well.
Again someone says Jesus used divine intervention to retrieve a blind man from a well.
Then someone spreads the word about how Jesus made God heal a blind man
Furtermore someone claims they heard Jesus healed a blind man.
Then someone writes down how Jesus dedicated his life to healing all blind men, a thousand lepers and paraplegics.

There is alot of evidence that history is often overexaggerated in many ways.

My point being, you can prove Jesus existed, but you can't prove he was who he was written to be.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have people forgotten one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that the Bible is the Word of God. That the Bible is the Truth?


According to the Bible of course.


> So again, how can I listen to someone who preaches something that is not in the Scriptures?


 Because knowledge and society evolve. Because the world isn't static. Because what applied over a thousand years ago might not apply now.

Because the idea of living your life in such a narrow fashion is just frightening. Because we are living in an intellectual age where no one should be afraid to ask questions.



> No archaeological discovery has ever    proven wrong a Biblical reference.


But modern geology has proven the world is much older than what the Bible says, and other forms of science have proven Biblical stories wrong. Noah and the flood for example, could not have happened. There isn't enough water on the Earth for the world to rain for so long, and even if it DID rain for 40 days straight, the saturation of the atmosphere would be so great that Noah and his animals would have drowned by simply breathing.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 5, 2010)

Conker said:


> According to the Bible of course.
> Because knowledge and society evolve. Because the world isn't static. Because what applied over a thousand years ago might not apply now.
> 
> Because the idea of living your life in such a narrow fashion is just frightening. Because we are living in an intellectual age where no one should be afraid to ask questions.


 
Christianity is not to conform to society, if you think its supposed to you are mistaken.

Christianity does not change, why? Because God is unchanging.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is not to conform to society, if you think its supposed to you are mistaken.
> 
> Christianity does not change, why? Because God is unchanging.


 
WHAT!?

The bible says to go with society!

I really want to swear here but I don't need more infractions.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Christianity does not change*



The hell it doesn't, Christianity's gone through a lot of changes.  As has your Bible.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is not to conform to society, if you think its supposed to you are mistaken.
> 
> Christianity does not change, why? Because God is unchanging.



If God is unchanging, and everything is God, then the battle between God and Satan either doesn't exist, or has evened out to the point that fighting doesn't change anything. 

Thus, our freewill which "God has given us" means nothing, because our choice of either God or Satan will not influence anything whatsoever.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> WHAT!?
> 
> The bible says to go with society!
> 
> I really want to swear here but I don't need more infractions.


 I don't believe swearing causes infractions. I swear like a mother fucking sailor sometimes.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 5, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I don't believe swearing causes infractions. I swear like a mother fucking sailor sometimes.


 
Insulting another person, then.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity is not to conform to society, if you think its supposed to you are mistaken.
> 
> Christianity does not change, why? Because God is unchanging.


 God changes in the fucking  Bible. Holy shit, he goes from a self absorbed bastard in the OT to a fairly nice dude in the NT. 

The progression is "KILL EVERYONE WITH FIRE" to "turn the other cheek." How is that not changing? Hell, his methods change. He goes from killing everyone with fire to sending himself/his son down to teach people in a more passive way than, you know, killing everyone with fire. 

Unchanging my ass.


----------



## Barak (Dec 5, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> Insulting another person, then.


 
I think i insult Rukh in all my post and zero infraction ;3

I think Rukh close mind is related to his childhood :V


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science cannot explain the why or even the How the universe came into being without defying the Laws of Science.



"Cannot" and "Hasn't yet" are very different concepts. Everything about that sentence tells me that you don't even know how science is done.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 5, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I was a little off on the exact powers to 10, but here is the source.
> 
> The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, "we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power."



I'd equivocate as to whether probability theory is 'modern', as it goes back to the early 17th century and derives originally from efforts to predict games of chance. It bears a close relationship with statistics as well. However, the key thing to bear in mind with probability theory is that while one can use it to predict just how unlikely something is to happen by chance, it just as much says that chance happens; sometimes you hit the jackpot. Just because something is highly improbable does NOT mean it must have had God's hand in it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My life revolves around the Bible, around Christ's teachings, I quote the Bible to explain why I believe, and to answer peoples questions either about my faith or because the Bible is my guide to life. Therefore I cannot not say why I do what I do and not give an explanation of why. I am not forcing people to believe. Merely, I am explaining why I believe. No one is going to be able to tell me the Bible is not the Truth. It goes against my faith.



That is a statement of faith, and I have no quarrel with it. My problem is your assertion that your faith is fact. The two are not necessarily synonymous.



Deovacuus said:


> Mary was like any terrified unmarried girl who finds herself pregnant, she wanted out of the problem and to get rid of responsibility. What better way than to blame it on God?



Either that or if you agree with Rukh, she had - or rather, permitted God to have carnal knowledge of her. Either way, Jesus was born out of wedlock. And I'm pretty sure the OT and the NT frown on premarital and extramarital sex.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The best evidence for design can be seen...
> 
> (snip of huge copy-paste)
> 
> Science cannot explain the why or even the How the universe came into being without defying the Laws of Science.



Which law(s), Rukh? Be specific.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> No archaeological discovery has ever proven wrong a Biblical reference.
> Here are some examples:
> ...



No-one disputes that the Bible mentions verifiable historical figures. However, the Bible is notorious for internal inconsistencies. Since you mention historicity, how do you account for the different genealogies provided for significant persons in various books of the Bible? In the case of Jesus,  Luke and Matthew agree only from Abraham to David; almost every name after David up to Jesus is different, to say nothing of the fact that Luke's geneology is significantly shorter. This strikes me as a fairly serious inconsistency, particularly for something that is the work of God through Man. Or are these inconsistencies attributable to Man?


----------



## Mehitabel (Dec 5, 2010)

uhm

where did Rukh ever say that he wanted everyone to convert to Christianity or that he is absolutely right?

Okay look, it's a personal belief, it's a rationalist belief. That means there's pretty much no physical evidence. Yes, that is what faith means. As stupid as it might be to you, it might not be stupid to someone else, and as long as they are just answering questions and not forcing beliefs on others it's fine. He never said, "If you don't do this then you are x" in fact it seems like it's everyone else in the thread that is.

"You are a hypocrite, would make an excellent evil dictator, and you're close minded." Uhhhm. What? Because he's Christian? Because out of personal choice and belief (not data, they are separate compartments of knowledge here) he chooses to believe the scripture? 

That's a real load guys. He never said he hated someone for their beliefs, he never said he was absolutely correct, only that it was correct to him and what he believes, and he never once said anything I would consider evil on a maniacally taking over the world level.

Perhaps you should remove the log from your eye before you tell someone else they have a speck in theirs.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2010)

Mehitabel said:


> uhm
> 
> where did Rukh ever say that he wanted everyone to convert to Christianity or that he is absolutely right?
> 
> ...


You obviously don't read his posts then. He states time and time again that every other religion is false and that Christianity is the "Truth" and even brings out No True Scotsman Fallacies.
He believes what he wants to believe and not what it actually means.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The main fact is the universe just existing defies the Laws of Science. But I believe I posted the info on the previous page.


 
What is it with Deists always assuming that the matter and energy in our universe didn't always exist in some form? I'll believe it when you show me a universe that doesn't exist. Oh wait. :V




Conker said:


> God changes in the fucking  Bible. Holy shit, he goes from a self absorbed bastard in the OT to a fairly nice dude in the NT.
> 
> Unchanging my ass.


 
It's an old christian fallback. God apparently respects the cultures of different time periods to a certain extent, (Such as having to toss out the oroginal ten commandments and make new ones), and yet claim the scripture never changes.



Mehitabel said:


> He never said he hated someone for their beliefs, he never said he was absolutely correct, only that it was correct to him and what he believes, and he never once said anything I would consider evil on a maniacally taking over the world level.


 
Rukh has frequently said those kinds of things, including things like "Christians who do not hate gays, or even accept gays, disgust me and are an affront to the lord." and things like that.


----------



## yoka_neko (Dec 6, 2010)

Another thread started for drama?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 6, 2010)

yoka_neko said:


> Another thread started for drama?


This thread was made so that people stop making multiple religion thread.


----------



## yoka_neko (Dec 6, 2010)

Ah, i see - thats a good idea, however on here it will always end in drama sadly.
This is because many (not all) furries dont have respect for what others believe in, and/or will force their own beliefs on others.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 6, 2010)

Yes, that is unfortunate. There's some interesting discussion going on here though... If you're willing to rummage through the whole thread.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> You obviously don't read his posts then. He states time and time again that every other religion is false and that Christianity is the "Truth" and even brings out No True Scotsman Fallacies.
> He believes what he wants to believe and not what it actually means.


 

First off, Its not NTS. Why? Because the definition of that, is that its a fallacy. Your suggesting that Christianity, and God isn't True. You cannot prove that. Period. A fallacy is falsehood. 

NTS definition from Wikipedia: *No true Scotsman* _*is an intentional logical fallacy*_, an _ad hoc_  attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a  counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the  counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy  modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific  case or others like it. The truth or falsehood of the new claim does not follow from the presence or absence of this fallacy.

In other words, your saying that the Existence of God is false (look at bolded italic text). You can't prove that. The argument that you saying God doesn't exist is NTS argument because you can't prove God doesn't exist. It says _rather than denying or rejecting the universal claim_, *I am rejecting and denying your claim that God and Christianity isn't true. That does not fit into the NTS statement.
*
*You say I believe what I want to believe. This is not true at all. I believe in the Bible, thats not my thoughts, or my wants. I believe in God and God's will.* What I have been saying is not my own words. Its straight from the Bible. *I do not pick and choose part to believe in. Its all or nothing*.* Thats True Christianity.* You say I don't know the Bible, well its impossible to understand it 100%. But as a follower of Christ, I do have a understanding in the Bible. But You don't believe in God, or the Bible. So you don't understand the Bible at all. If you did you would be a follower of Christ Jesus. The Bible is written the way it is, and Jesus spoke the way he did, so those who refused Him would not listen. Its written so those who want to hear will hear and those who want to see will see. And those who don't, will only see what *they want* to hear and see.  You already came into this argument believing that Christianity and God isn't true, You don't want it to be true. That is what *you* want. And doing what you want is not Christianity. Christianity is surrendering yourself completely to Christ Jesus. This is why it says as Christians, we have died to Christ. Our old ways, old lives, old selves are dead. Being a Christian is not about doing whatever you please because your forgiven and saved. Its about giving yourself 100% over to God. Its following God's will and His way. I have been bought and paid for by the Blood of Christ. That is my complete identity now, its not being a gearhead, or a furry or anything else in this world. Thats not my identity. My identity is with Christ.
To everyone else. I am going to say this politely as I can. *I will never renounce my faith in God and Christ Jesus, ever.* So you can stop trying to get me too. I believe the Bible is 100% Truth, because not to, is to not believe in God. There is nothing you can say or do to me that will ever get me to renounce God. You all ask questions about my faith, and then bitch when I explain it to you. Then you tell me, that I am wrong in what the Bible says, even though you don't believe in it at all. How can you say "Thats not what the Bible is saying" You don't believe in any of it anyway. So how can you, one who doesn't believe in any of it possible have a better explanation of what it is saying. Its not possible., for if you truly understood the Bible, you wouldn't be denying God. *You try and do everything in your power to explain the Bible away so it fits to what you want it to be and not what it actually says.* Your not looking for an explanation. Your looking for an argument and someone you can vent your anger on. Thats all. (Note not all people here have done this, some have actually posted questions because they are genuinely interested, but its very few people)


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, Its not NTS. Why? Because the definition of that, is that its a fallacy. Your suggesting that Christianity, and God isn't True. You cannot prove that. Period. A fallacy is falsehood.
> 
> NTS definition from Wikipedia: *No true Scotsman* _*is an intentional logical fallacy*_, an _ad hoc_  attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a  counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the  counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy  modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific  case or others like it. The truth or falsehood of the new claim does not follow from the presence or absence of this fallacy.
> 
> ...


 
Going into a debate with a closed mind is like going into a McDonalds for high cuisine.

You don't belong here.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh, you've just read way too deep into NTS.

It goes like this:

"Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You  counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his  porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no _true_ Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

(Taken from infidels.org).

You've repeated this several times - Stating that no _true_ Christian is/will/does/did/etc., blah blah blah. 

You don't make the rules for what does or doesn't make a Christian :v

However you do believe what you want to believe, and people have pointed out your contradictions many pages back before. You choosing to ignore them doesn't make them go away - And claiming that others "don't know the Bible" because they aren't Christian falls RIGHT into the "No True Scotsman" style of fallacious argument...ing.
_
"This fallacy is a form of circular argument,  with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss  any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes  unfalsifiable."
_
(Taken from Logicalfallacies.info)_
_


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> What is it with Deists always assuming that the matter and energy in our universe didn't always exist in some form? I'll believe it when you show me a universe that doesn't exist. Oh wait. :V



Hmm, according the the absolute Law of Thermodynamics, something cannot be created out of nothing.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is  stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor  destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter  or energy in this way. This means that there is no _new_ matter or energy coming into existence and there is no _new_ matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from _nothing_  violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the  very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary,  this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and  energy within it, must have had a divine originâ€”a specific moment in  which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.
 With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of  radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive  elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic  weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three  times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0,  uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms  until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called _lead_.  This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium  turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590  years.
 What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could  not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic,  controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks  down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all  radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of themâ€”uranium,  radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and  othersâ€”have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that _matter came into existence_ or, in other words, _matter has not always existed!_
 This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thoughtâ€”that  everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. * You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing!*  Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person  could believe that the entire universeâ€”including all of the radioactive  elements that prove there was a specific time of beginningâ€”gradually  came into existence _BY ITSELF!_
 Through your own efforts, try to build somethingâ€”anythingâ€”from _nothing_.  Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be  able to do it. You will not be ableâ€”in a hundred lifetimes of tryingâ€”to  produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that _everything in the entirety of the universe_,  in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by  itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural  realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!

 To say the universe came of itself flys in the face of Science. Matter and energy cannot just have existed, it has to be created.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Rukh, you've just read way too deep into NTS.


 
No I did not, NTS specifically states that its an intentional logical fallacy (falsehood) Problem is, you can't prove God doesn't exist. The definition is up there in my previous post. It reads quite clear. I have never stated an NTS staement, What I have said does not follow its clearly written definition.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> Going into a debate with a closed mind is like going into a McDonalds for high cuisine.


 
The whole damn point of opening your mind is to close it on something solid. Its not to just leave it open. If that was the case, then you have to be open to the idea that the absolute laws of physics could be wrong, or the laws of math are wrong. You don't get to pick and choose what you want to be open about. Either its right or wrong. Can't ever be both.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The whole damn point of opening your mind is to close it on something solid. Its not to just leave it open. If that was the case, then you have to be open to the idea that the absolute laws of physics could be wrong, or the laws of math are wrong. You don't get to pick and choose what you want to be open about. Either its right or wrong. Can't ever be both.


 
But half of the things you quote are wrong, wouldn't be surprised if you freely edit your sources to come out in your favour.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> something cannot be created out of nothing.
> 
> This means that there is no _new_ matter or energy coming into existence
> 
> ...



You see the consistent problem here? 

Let me spell it out for you:

Nobody is claiming that the universe came from nothing. It came from something - A singularity. How did the singularity get there? No honest person will certify a fact of how it got there. They will stop at the point that the universe came from a singularity.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No I did not, NTS specifically states that  its an intentional logical fallacy (falsehood) Problem is, you can't  prove God doesn't exist. The definition is up there in my previous post.  It reads quite clear. I have never stated an NTS staement, What I have  said does not follow its clearly written definition.


 
No, Wikipedia specifically states all that. The actual fallacy is the example I listed - It doesn't necessarily have to be intentional (though in this, your case, it is). It has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, it's with what you are literally stating. Your words, not your god's existence. 

I can see you've never dealt with logical fallacies before, it seems, but they have to do with your _train of thought_. The words or phrases you are using to argument with, not the actual thing you are arguing about. 

You have constantly made NTS statements - It's better to look at _examples_, and not just definitions, being you don't appear to understand the concept in the first place - Thus why I gave you an _example_.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> But half of the things you quote are wrong, wouldn't be surprised if you freely edit your sources to come out in your favour.


 

My source is the Bible. And I do not edit Scripture, ever.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My source is the Bible. And I do not edit Scripture, ever.


 
Odd, considering that the bible itself has been repeatedly edited over the years... Rukh, which translation do you use?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You see the consistent problem here?
> 
> Let me spell it out for you:
> 
> Nobody is claiming that the universe came from nothing. It came from something - A singularity. How did the singularity get there? No honest person will certify a fact of how it got there. They will stop at the point that the universe came from a singularity.


 

The singularity had to come from somewhere. Scientists have no explanation of where it came from. This isn't because 'we don't just know yet" Its because it flies in the c=face of the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot be created from nothing. What part of the first law of thermodynamics did you not get?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The singularity had to come from somewhere. Scientists have no explanation of where it came from. This isn't because 'we don't just know yet" Its because it flies in the c=face of the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot be created from nothing. What part of the first law of thermodynamics did you not get?


 
Hint- The matter doesn't have to be "created". It could have always existed. Now answer my question, which translation of the bible do you use?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The singularity had to come from somewhere. Scientists have no explanation of where it came from. This isn't because 'we don't just know yet" Its because it flies in the c=face of the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot be created from nothing. What part of the first law of thermodynamics did you not get?


 
It may have had to come from somewhere, but you are right, scientists haven't really affirmed any explanations of how it got there.

But there is absolutely no reason to fill your god into this gap of lacking scientific information. I know you will, I know you do, but it's more honest to say "We don't know", than it is to say, "God dun it" like you do.

You keep mantra-chanting "something cannot come from nothing", but *nobody is claiming that. *It's not that I don't understand thermodynamics, it's that *I'm not, and nobody is claiming the universe, nor anything came from nothing*. You keep harping on about something *nobody* is claiming.

Like I said before, scientists may _theorize_ on how it got there, but they never claim that it is 100% fact. In fact, they don't claim it as fact at all. They typically claim it as a hypothesis.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Odd, considering that the bible itself has been repeatedly edited over the years... Rukh, which translation do you use?


 
Transtaled does not mean edited. Secondly I use all the translations. Doesn't matter which one. ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, The Message, NLT, CEV, NCV, GOD'S WORD Translation, 21st Century KJV, ASB, YLT, or any other translation. They all say the same thing.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The singularity had to come from somewhere. Scientists have no explanation of where it came from. This isn't because 'we don't just know yet" Its because it flies in the c=face of the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot be created from nothing. What part of the first law of thermodynamics did you not get?


 
Actually, if you believe Hawking, something CAN come from nothing.  That singularity could have winked into existence from nothing (or what we perceive as "nothingness", anyway).  Our universe could really be one big happy accident.  And it might not be the only happy accident out there.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Hint- The matter doesn't have to be "created". It could have always existed. Now answer my question, which translation of the bible do you use?


 
First Law of Thermodynamics, Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Actually, if you believe Hawking, something CAN come from nothing.  That singularity could have winked into existence from nothing (or what we perceive as "nothingness", anyway).  Our universe could really be one big happy accident.  And it might not be the only happy accident out there.


 
And Hawking keeps coming out with *theories* every couple of years that disprove his last theory, even though he said the last one was correct...


----------



## GingerM (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The singularity had to come from somewhere. Scientists have no explanation of where it came from. This isn't because 'we don't just know yet" Its because it flies in the c=face of the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot be created from nothing. What part of the first law of thermodynamics did you not get?



If "something cannot be created from nothing", where did God come from? If you argue that God has always been, then why can the primordial singularity also not have always been? If it has always been, then it was not created and the First Law of Thermodynamics  remains intact.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The whole damn point of opening your mind is to close it on something solid. Its not to just leave it open. If that was the case, then you have to be open to the idea that the absolute laws of physics could be wrong, or the laws of math are wrong. You don't get to pick and choose what you want to be open about. Either its right or wrong. Can't ever be both.


 
Wow, you sure are being even more of a hypocrite than usual with this post.  Let me try.

The whole damn point of opening your mind is to close it on something solid.  It's not to just leave it open.  If that was the case, then you have to be open to the idea that the Bible is incorrect and religion was created by man and is flawed accordingly.  You don't get to pick and choose what you want the bible to be right and wrong about.  Nothing is ever purely right or wrong; there are countless other options in between, but nothing is ever absolute.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And Hawking keeps coming out with  *theories* every couple of years that disprove his last theory,  even though he said the last one was correct...


 
Gravity is a theory.  Are you floating right now?  Pythagoras made a theory about triangles.  Does A and B never equal C?

You religion is by far more of a theory than science ever will be.  Science is based on speculative research hoping to turn up facts; religion is based on wild claims of impossible things being truth with no research or effort put into either proving or disproving it.  You can't argue in favour of religion because religion has not and will never do anything to actively prove its correctness.  It just sits around with its fingers stuffed in its ears going LALALA I AM RIGHT NO SHUT UP I DON'T CARE ABOUT CONFLICTING EVIDENCE I'M BETTER THAN YOU LALALALALALALALALA.  Science is willing to take risks and make mistakes, because that means we as humans are LEARNING.  You learn nothing by following a stagnated scripture, only how to be a blind, ignorant, waste of space.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

I'm honestly starting to think that after 1.6k posts, that Rukh is out of steam, and is now fucking with us :v


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Transtaled does not mean edited. Secondly I use all the translations. Doesn't matter which one. ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, The Message, NLT, CEV, NCV, GOD'S WORD Translation, 21st Century KJV, ASB, YLT, or any other translation. They all say the same thing.


 
Cute answer, but we both know that neither of those claims- that you accept all bible translations and that they all say the same thing- is true. So again, which translation do you use?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> nothing is ever absolute.


 Your saying that Absolute truth does not exist. That statement in itself because an absolute, which according to you can't be true. So I ask you, Does truth absolutely exist or not?
Either absolute truth does not exist absolutely (which goes against what you are saying, that absolutes can't exist) Or your statement is false about absolute truth absolutely being false.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

GingerM said:


> If "something cannot be created from nothing", where did God come from? If you argue that God has always been, then why can the primordial singularity also not have always been? If it has always been, then it was not created and the First Law of Thermodynamics  remains intact.


 
I say God has always existed because he exists outside of our universe, He exists outside of time (time is not linear for God) A Singularity exists within our universe and therefore is bound by the Laws of Science.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your saying that Absolute truth does not exist. That statement in itself because an absolute, which according to you can't be true. So I ask you, Does truth absolutely exist or not?
> Either absolute truth does not exist absolutely (which goes against what you are saying, that absolutes can't exist) Or your statement is false about absolute truth absolutely being false.


 
I'm saying, truthfully, that you are an impressionable moron who has lived his whole life in complete ignorance, and when presented with actual arguments that dare challenge your narrowminded viewpoints, you have nothing to go on except for petty rewordings and childish mind games while you wait for your tiny brain to hopefully come up with a response that bothers to answer a single question someone asked you.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> You religion is by far more of a theory than science ever will be.  Science is based on speculative research hoping to turn up facts; religion is based on wild claims of impossible things being truth with no research or effort put into either proving or disproving it.  You can't argue in favour of religion because religion has not and will never do anything to actively prove its correctness.  It just sits around with its fingers stuffed in its ears going LALALA I AM RIGHT NO SHUT UP I DON'T CARE ABOUT CONFLICTING EVIDENCE I'M BETTER THAN YOU LALALALALALALALALA.  Science is willing to take risks and make mistakes, because that means we as humans are LEARNING.  You learn nothing by following a stagnated scripture, only how to be a blind, ignorant, waste of space.


 
"God" is not a theory.  It is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.

"God" is unchanging because you can't change something that doesn't exist in the first place.  Why don't you go paint that nonexistent carved-wood dog sculpture in your living room, Rukh? Or adjust it so that it faces the front door? It's not really there, of course, so you can't do either with it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm honestly starting to think that after 1.6k posts, that Rukh is out of steam, and is now fucking with us :v


 
More like getting tired of going around a circular argument. But no, I am not "running out of steam" as you put it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> I'm saying, truthfully, that you are an impressionable moron who has lived his whole life in complete ignorance, and when presented with actual arguments that dare challenge your narrowminded viewpoints, you have nothing to go on except for petty rewordings and childish mind games while you wait for your tiny brain to hopefully come up with a response that bothers to answer a single question someone asked you.


 
*Answer my question, do not dodge it or change the subject. *You said nothing is absolute.

Your saying that Absolute truth does not exist. That statement in itself  because an absolute, which according to you can't be true. So I ask you,  Does truth absolutely exist or not?
Either absolute truth does not exist absolutely (which goes against what  you are saying, that absolutes can't exist) Or your statement is false  about absolute truth absolutely being false.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh, to test your claim that all translations of the bible are essentially the same, you may now only use one of these four bible editions-

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm The New World Edition
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ The contemporary Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Message-MSG-Bible/ "The Message"
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page "The Lolcat Bible"

Also Rukh, stop doubleposting.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> "God" is not a theory.  It is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> 
> "God" is unchanging because you can't change something that doesn't exist in the first place.  Why don't you go paint that nonexistent carved-wood dog sculpture in your living room, Rukh? Or adjust it so that it faces the front door? It's not really there, of course, so you can't do either with it.


 
Gravity is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
The Law of thermodynamics is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
Evolution is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.

Do you see why that argument doesn't work. Science demands that it is fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.


I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim  that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car.  I  say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there.  Prove he  isn't there.  You can't.






Mojotech said:


> Rukh, to test your claim that all translations  of the bible are essentially the same, you may now only use one of these  four bible editions-
> 
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm The New World Edition
> http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ The contemporary Bible
> ...




2nd Timothy 3:16-17 States this : *All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work. *

The Message:
But don't let it faze you.  Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your  teachersâ€”why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother's  milk! There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the  way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. *Every part of Scripture  is God-breathed and useful one way or anotherâ€”showing us truth, exposing  our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way.  Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has  for us. *

The New World Bible is endorsed by Jehovah Witnesses, Sorry thats not a form of Christianity. Nice try though.
http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol  introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches  that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version reflects a Unitarian  bias in several places. That goes against every ancient manuscript of the New Testament.

Contemporary English Bible:
*Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word.* All of it is useful for  teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how  to live. The Scriptures train God's servants to do all kinds of good deeds. 

And the lolcat Bible is not a Bible Translation. And you know that. The lolcat bible is a Wiki project that aims to translate the entire _Bible_ into Kitty Pidgin English. In other words, its not real. And you knew that.

Anything that does not line up with the ancient manuscripts is not true. Jehovah Witnesses claim Jesus was just an angel. The 21,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts say otherwise.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Prove he  isn't there.  You can't.


 
No we can't.

We can't prove he is there either. We have to take it on faith.  The only difference between this and gravity is that gravity seems more reasonable and the only reason gravity seems more reasonable is because it's measurable and we can observe it in action. 

Everything is a matter of what you choose to put your faith into in the end. So tell me, why should I put my faith in your god?


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Answer my question, do not dodge it or change the subject. *



Well herp-a-fuckin'-DERP.  You do this hourly, you puny little twit; don't you dare pretend you've answered all of *my* questions, let alone all of the questions everyone else has asked.  If you really want an answer, because of all my posts directed at you, THIS is the one that gets you interested, then so be it.  I just expect you to go back and answer all of mine afterwords.  

Truth is never absolute because there will always be something that we don't quite understand.  The fact that science is willing to actually bother looking for those answers makes it infinitely more credible than any two thousand year old bedtime story that unintelligent nimrods like you unabashedly drool over and use as a masturbation aid.  You want answers to something?  Tentatively accept a structured response, but never for a second think it's the right one.  Doubt is the cornerstone of progress, not something that should be squashed.  No matter what you do or however successful you might become, you will never be intelligent, for you have closed your tiny little mind to the possibilities of progress.  

You're scared to imagine things could be different.  You're downright fucking terrified of the unknown, so you're all too willing to accept some old geezer's mindless, Alzheimer's-riddled ramblings of divine intervention and other bullshit because it's *safe.*  Religion to the degree you have taken it is for the cowardly and small, Rukh, and that's all you'll ever be if you keep going down this road.  Think what you want about people who don't follow your idealistic mutterings, but you know they're better than you, and that scares you.  But go ahead, keep huddling under your metaphorical safety blanket, more than willing to sit in a single spot as the rest of the world whizzes past you in a flurry of progress and triumph.  Just don't get in our way.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Gravity is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> The Law of thermodynamics is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> Evolution is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> 
> ...


 
You're comparing things that exist, that we can test...with something that does not exist, and cannot be tested.

Not to mention the differences between _hypothesis_ and _theory_ in the scientific realm, by trying to parody - You look like a buffoon.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Gravity is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> The Law of thermodynamics is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> Evolution is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.


 
Wrong.  They are hypotheses that became theories, and theories that are fact to the best of our knowledge.

http://www.jamesrb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png

This is so damn accurate it shouldn't be funny, and yet it is.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You're comparing things that exist, that we can test...with something that does not exist, and cannot be tested.


 
To be fair, we can't disprove existence. We still can't test it though.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> To be fair, we can't disprove existence. We still can't test it though.


 
You are right, but I'm not trying to disprove existence - I'm stating simply, that it does not exist (ipso facto, hasn't been proven to exist).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> Truth is never absolute


 
That statement you made becomes an absolute. You claiming there is no absolute truth, becomes and absolute statement. Which you claim can't exist. How does that work?


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You are right, but I'm not trying to disprove existence - I'm stating simply, that it does not exist (ipso facto, hasn't been proven to exist).


 
And I'm saying that you can't do that. Hasn't been proven to exist=/=nonexistent. Due to the nature of the subject (God) we could never prove it, and since you can't disprove existence ever it becomes a question of faith. Are you willing to put your faith in something very unlikely or not? Rukh says yes. Everyone else says no because to them it violates common sense. I say give me a good reason.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That statement you made becomes an absolute. You claiming there is no absolute truth, becomes and absolute statement. Which you claim can't exist. How does that work?


It works because he chooses to put faith in that statement, and though it defies it's own logic it's more sensible then your God that also defies it's own logic.

I'm serious Rukh, give me a good reason to put my faith in Christ.


----------



## Willow (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That statement you made becomes an absolute. You claiming there is no absolute truth, becomes and absolute statement. Which you claim can't exist. How does that work?


 That's a paradox I believe.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 6, 2010)

I love how rukh always dodges this one question

if something cannot be created from nothing
where does that leave god?


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Yrr said:


> I love how rukh always dodges this one question
> 
> if something cannot be created from nothing
> where does that leave god?


 
Omnipotent. Outside of physics. Greater. Etc. etc. 

The question is: are you willing to put your faith in that?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Yrr said:


> I love how rukh always dodges this one question
> 
> if something cannot be created from nothing
> where does that leave god?


 
I didn't dodge it. I have answered that question many times in this thread, I did about 30 min ago too. God exists outside of our realm, outside our existence, outside our universe. Therefore He is not bound by the laws in this universe, because He exists outside of it. Anything within our universe has to have been created.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh, tell me why I should put my faith in the Christ-God as opposed to something else.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> And I'm saying that you can't do that. Hasn't been proven to exist=/=nonexistent. Due to the nature of the subject (God) we could never prove it, and since you can't disprove existence ever it becomes a question of faith. Are you willing to put your faith in something very unlikely or not? Rukh says yes. Everyone else says no because to them it violates common sense. I say give me a good reason.


 
I can see what you're saying, but it's not quite what I'm getting at. If it can't be proven to exist, then wouldn't by default, it not exist? Thus, I state, it does not exist. What Rukh's thing is, is based on faith - Mine is technically based upon fact, or at least, a firm conclusion. 

Nobody can prove X exists...Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that X doesn't exist?

It seems overindulging to say:

Nobody can prove x exists, therefore on faith, I believe that X doesn't exist.


----------



## Eligos (Dec 6, 2010)

This thread seriously makes me desire the ability to block people on forums. What may have started as a reasonable and civil debate has been hijacked by the same zealot's logic that inevitably clouds every exchange of this sort I've ever seen.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> It works because he chooses to put faith in that statement, and though it defies it's own logic it's more sensible then your God that also defies it's own logic.



Everyone believes and has faith in something. Either they believe and  have faith that God doesn't exist (because he can't be disproven) Or  they believe in God and have faith in Him.


Browder said:


> I'm serious Rukh, give me a good reason to put my faith in Christ.


 
Give me a good reason why not too.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Give me a good reason why not too.


 
And here we are again.

This isn't going to go anywhere, he just runs and hides behind this, over and over.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Eligos said:


> This thread seriously makes me desire the ability to block people on forums. What may have started as a reasonable and civil debate has been hijacked by the same zealot's logic that inevitably clouds every exchange of this sort I've ever seen.


We have that ability actually. Go to their page and clic, "Ignore this User".



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone believes and has faith in something. Either they believe and  have faith that God doesn't exist (because he can't be disproven) Or  they believe in God and have faith in Him.


...Yes. That was my point.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Give me a good reason why not too.


 Because your the Christian and I'm without a purpose. It's against your religion to not indulge me.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Give me a good reason why not too.



http://mindserased.files.wordpress....251231799_30173284_7341306_n1.jpg?w=480&h=479


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I didn't dodge it. I have answered that question many times in this thread, I did about 30 min ago too. God exists outside of our realm, outside our existence, outside our universe. Therefore He is not bound by the laws in this universe, because He exists outside of it. Anything within our universe has to have been created.



How convenient, Rukh.

I gave you an answer, Rukh, and you responded with the same exact question.  And I'm the one dodging questions?  Want to see something neat, buddy?  Let me show you what you posted last page:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can no easier prove God doesn't exist  than you can disprove my claim  that I have an invisible, ethereal  unicorn in the trunk of my car.  I  say I do. It's not my fault he  disappears when you look there.  Prove he  isn't there.  You  can't.


 And now let me show you something from a little before that:



Riley said:


> God has just spoken to me in a vision.  She  appeared before me, riding upon a gilded Utahraptor, holding aloft a can  of Spaghetti-Os and a frying pan, dressed in bearskins and wearing a  crown of shark teeth.  She spoke to me, Rukh.  She told me that I will  lead my people to greatness, through the trying times of the 32nd  century, for my future life would become a figure of hope in the coming  trials.  She said that even though I would not remember my current body,  I must open my soul to her, and she gifted me with a great power that  will only manifest itself once that dark time comes, over a thousand  years from now.
> 
> Will you follow me, Rukh?  Will you allow me to  lead whatever form you will take in that future?  I will be your  saviour; do you believe in me?  You have to, because your God said it  would be so.


 
To this, you said I was lying.  How do you know, Rukh?  How can you say I'm lying when you cannot see into my mind and know what has happened to me?  Oh, what's that?  You say I'm lying because it doesn't agree with what you believe?  Because god didn't actually do that?  But She did, Rukh, you just weren't there when it happened.  It was all very majestic, I assure you.  Now take my word as truth, because there's no way you can prove me wrong.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone believes and has faith in something. Either they believe and  have faith that God doesn't exist (because he can't be disproven) Or  they believe in God and have faith in Him.


 
Not everyone has beliefs or faith in this particular something.

They're either similar to you, and believe in a higher power.

Unsure whether or not there is one.

Or lacks the belief in a higher power (the exact opposite of what _you_ do). 

Your cutesy lil wording to try and make it seem like everybody has a faith is silly at best, and some sort of logical fallacy at worse.


----------



## Eligos (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> We have that ability actually. Go to their page and clic, "Ignore this User".


 
Hot damn! Thanks Browder, you made my day brighter.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That statement you made becomes an absolute. You claiming there is no absolute truth, becomes and absolute statement. Which you claim can't exist. How does that work?


 It's the relativist's paradox. There's a lot of answers to this. 
One of them is that meaning behind words is a subjective creation. There is no Objective truth, and so there is nothing that says something cannot be A and ~A. It is only a paradox because meaning is narrowed for human communication.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Hey, you know what would be really funny? If we all continued to have a conversation on things like whether God exists or not but completely ignored Rukh's presence in the thread.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Hey, you know what would be really funny? If we all continued to have a conversation on things like whether God exists or not but completely ignored Rukh's presence in the thread.


 I'm okay with that. 
Personally I can not believe in a god figure. I don't find there is sufficient evidence of some sort of mind or higher action. However I do believe in an overall power in the universe. The Tao is the closest I could come to describing it. Something that simply is and got things going, but it doesn't really have an identity and it's not something to pray to. 
Opinions on the Tao/power/not identity thing?


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Hey, you know what would be really funny? If we all continued to have a conversation on things like whether God exists or not but completely ignored Rukh's presence in the thread.


 
Tempting, but I actually value his opinion.


The reason I'm in this thread at all is that is I am currently undergoing a crisis of faith. If any of you want to weigh in I'd be more then grateful. I was serious when I asked Rukh to give me reasons because I need them.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> ...Yes. That was my point.


 What takes more faith, you believe in nothing, and that there are no absolutes, or to place your faith in God?



Browder said:


> Because your the Christian and I'm without a purpose. It's against your religion to not indulge me.


 http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
Its a known fact that Jesus existed, its a known fact that the Bible has recorded what He has said. Its known fact His teachings are sound. Therefore if His teachings are sound, and then he Claimed He was God, can't that also be true? Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or God. And neither of the first two line up with what He preached. 
As for more personally. I cannot even begin to tell you the amount of peace and joy I have in my life knowing Christ Jesus. I can't even describe the feeling of knowing God. To know that the God who created everyhting cares enough about you to save you, that He unconditionally loves you, wants to be in a personal relationship with you, Does that not appeal to you?


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What takes more faith, you believe in nothing, and that there are no absolutes, or to place your faith in God?


It's not a contest. How much faith you have isn't the point only that you have it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
> http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
> http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
> Its a known fact that Jesus existed, its a known fact that the Bible has recorded what He has said. Its known fact His teachings are sound. Therefore if His teachings are sound, and then he Claimed He was God, can't that also be true? Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or God. And neither of the first to line up with what He preached.
> As for more personally. I cannot even begin to tell you the amount of peace and joy I have in my life knowing Christ Jesus. I can't even describe the feeling of knowing God. To know that the God who created everyhting cares enough about you to save you, that He unconditionally loves you, wants to be in a personal relationship with you, Does that not appeal to you?


 I'll look over the links later. As for the last sentence though, no, not really.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He unconditionally loves you, wants to be in a personal relationship with you, Does that not appeal to you?



I thought you hated gay people.  I mean, I guess Jesus _would_ be into BDSM...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> Tempting, but I actually value his opinion.
> 
> 
> The reason I'm in this thread at all is that is I am currently undergoing a crisis of faith. If any of you want to weigh in I'd be more then grateful. I was serious when I asked Rukh to give me reasons because I need them.


 
Rukh is the last person you want to get information on, especially as it relates to religion. I think a more relevant question you need to ask yourself is- Is it so bad to not have religious faith?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> It's not a contest. How much faith you have isn't the point only that you have it.
> 
> 
> I'll look over the links later. As for the last sentence though, no, not really.


 

Just to add to my previous post.

The existence of God cannot be proved (to the point that faith is not required here on earth) or disproved. The Bible says that  we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: â€œAnd without faith it  is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must  believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Himâ€  (Hebrews 11:6).  If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world  that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.  â€œThen Jesus told him, â€˜Because you have seen me, you have believed;  blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believedâ€™â€ (John 20:29).


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I'm okay with that.
> Personally I can not believe in a god figure. I don't find there is sufficient evidence of some sort of mind or higher action. However I do believe in an overall power in the universe. The Tao is the closest I could come to describing it. Something that simply is and got things going, but it doesn't really have an identity and it's not something to pray to.
> Opinions on the Tao/power/not identity thing?


 
That's about the furthest I've ever really been able to go into the realm of "faith".  Sorta like "the Force", but without the retarded Midichlorian thing and telekinetic superpowers and stuff.  Maybe even something that constitutes a "soul", something our consciousnesses retreat into after the body has died, and possibly emerge from again in the form of reincarnation.  An energy, that cannot be created nor destroyed, a universal constant.  A "background" to paint the Universe upon.  Something that makes things GO.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Just to add to my previous post.
> 
> The existence of God cannot be proved (to the point that faith is not required here on earth) or disproved. The Bible says that  we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: â€œAnd without faith it  is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must  believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Himâ€  (Hebrews 11:6).  If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world  that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.  â€œThen Jesus told him, â€˜Because you have seen me, you have believed;  blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believedâ€™â€ (John 20:29).


 
Thems some epic cop-outs.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> Tempting, but I actually value his opinion.
> 
> 
> The reason I'm in this thread at all is that is I am currently undergoing a crisis of faith. If any of you want to weigh in I'd be more then grateful. I was serious when I asked Rukh to give me reasons because I need them.


 I couldn't tell you to be honest. I think it depends on the person. I do know plenty of people that tell the same story of feeling a hole inside and turning to God then feeling complete. For all the nasty things I say about religion I do think it can be helpful to people as a guide. Not a Rulebook!. 
The general message being be a good person and try not to make the world such a shitty place to be in. 

Personally I dealt with my crisis of faith differently. I went through a depression and when I turned to god I felt nothing. I felt more alone than I had ever felt in my life. I just assumed I was doing it wrong and read more of the bible, the more I read the less I could take it. I actually turned to existentialism and felt better. 
To me it is incredibly comforting to know that there is no grand meaning, there is no terrible judgment, things simply are. I am free to enjoy myself and be a good person on this earth without fear that I somehow do it wrong. Many people view existentialism as being a philosophy of depressed gothic children that listen to music in their rooms while applying black make up. However it's something that's gotten me through the death of loved ones, lost jobs, and stressful times. I no longer have to ask "what did I do? Why is this happening to me? What can I do so you make it better?" and can say "this is happening, but I can make it better"



Tycho said:


> That's about the furthest I've ever really been  able to go into the realm of "faith".  Sorta like "the Force", but  without the retarded Midichlorian thing and telekinetic superpowers and  stuff.  Maybe even something that constitutes a "soul", something our  consciousnesses retreat into after the body has died, and possibly  emerge from again in the form of reincarnation.  An energy, that cannot  be created nor destroyed, a universal constant.  A "background" to paint  the Universe upon.  Something that makes things GO.



Yeah. At this point I can't even be sure that there's a soul, but at this point I know that things go, so there probably is some sort of force behind it. Perhaps in the future science will better define it, and that's okay. It doesn't really change much. It isn't a good or evil thing, it isn't going to favor me or disfavor me, it simply is and life is easier when you just relax and go along with things instead of trying to stand steadfast and obstinate. Take your holy book as a shifting guide, not a steadfast rulebook.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> I thought you hated gay people.  I mean, I guess Jesus _would_ be into BDSM...


 
Where did I ever state that I hate gay people? You will never find that. You can look through my other 860 posts. You will not find it. what I have continually said is this. God states the *act* of homosexuality is a sin. Either lusting or having out right sex. Never does the Bible state, nor have I, that God or I Hate gays.

As for BSDM, I guess as long as its in a marriage between a godly man and women, then it would be okay. God doesn't tell us how we can have sex. Only that its for people who are married, and between a man and a woman only.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where did I ever state that I hate gay people? You will never find that. You can look through my other 860 posts. You will not find it. what I have continually said is this. God states the *act* of homosexuality is a sin. Either lusting or having out right sex. Never does the Bible state, nor have I, that God or I Hate gays.
> 
> As for BSDM, I guess as long as its in a marriage between a godly man and women, then it would be okay. God doesn't tell us how we can have sex. Only that its for people who are married, and between a man and a woman only.



Really?  You really expect _anyone_ to buy that, even for a second?  You've stated numerous times that you don't consider anyone who accepts gays, is gay, or even doesn't mind gay people as not being TWUE CHWISTENS.  You've said before how you have "struggled with homosexual thoughts in the past," but were able to, BY THE POWER OF GOD-SKULL, overcome those "filthy" thoughts.  You struggle for a defense as to why you are 100% totally straight (because that's what god says is okay) but have gay furry porn in your favourites.

You really are one of the worse debaters I've ever met.  And after having to sit through a year of having Chris Veno for a mock debate partner in history class?  Yeah, didn't think that was possible.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> To me it is incredibly comforting to know that there is no grand meaning, there is no terrible judgment, things simply are. I am free to enjoy myself and be a good person on this earth without fear that I somehow do it wrong.


 
To me that is a vary shallow way to live life, If life has no deeper meaning then you don't care about your actions, you never spend time contemplating your own life, why you are here, your impact on the universe or other people, Its an unexamined life. Its a life solely lived for self gratification.

To me you don't want to believe in God because belief in God forces that you to face the fact that you are accountable to such a God. And that is a frightening thing. I to am accountable for all of my actions and thoughts. We all are afraid. But once you understand God's character, the fear still exists but not in a damning or condemning type of way. Its more that I will be a disappointment, not accepted. But even if I am a disappointment, Jesus Christs blood covers me, and that goes away.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God states the *act* of homosexuality is a sin. Either lusting or having out right sex.
> 
> as long as its in a marriage between a *godly man* and *women*, then it would be okay.



Few problems here:

Outside of the OT, he doesn't :v Depends on the version of the bible that you have. The KJV does not explicitly state it, lemme go find my post...

Also, not sure if that was a mistake, or intentional, but a godly man (and not a godly woman)...and women, not just one woman :v? You really do know your bible.

Polygamy for everyone! 8D



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me that is a vary shallow way to live  life, If life has no deeper meaning then you don't care about your  actions, you never spend time contemplating your own life, why you are  here, your impact on the universe or other people, Its an unexamined  life. Its a life solely lived for self gratification.
> 
> To me you  don't want to believe in God because belief in God forces that you to  face the fact that you are accountable to such a God. And that is a  frightening thing. I to am accountable for all of my actions and  thoughts. We all are afraid. But once you understand God's character,  the fear still exists but not in a damning or condemning type of way.  Its more that I will be a disappointment, not accepted. But even if I am  a disappointment, Jesus Christs blood covers me, and that goes  away.


 
From the way you look at it (faith based), it is shallow, but you aren't a true non-believer, so you cannot possibly know how our non-believing lives hold meaning. Don't even try to pretend, because we know you're a believer. 

Seriously though. We do care about our actions (because we have to hold ourselves accountable, and cannot let the blood of others wash our wrong-doings away). We cannot be deemed "clean", when in fact, we're dirty - Just because someone says so. Ever think about the majority of the prison systems being filled with the religious? Specifically, the God-fearing type? They've been (for the most part) proven to have done wrong, and society is holding them responsible for it - Whilst their God has forgiven them.

 We do spend time to think about our lives, not everyone thinks about why we are here, but many think about their impact on the universe and other people. You think it's an unexamined life, because you're closed-minded, and think it's all about self-gratification.

Your reasons for thinking Atheists don't believe in your god are silly and again, closed minded. 

You seem to miss the part about Atheists trying to _better_ the world, while the religious try to _destroy_ it. 

The part where scientists are trying to _discover_ the universe, whilst the religious _preach_ that the Bible is fact - In where the bible states the Earth is flat, and the universe (or our system at least) rotates around us. 

You seem to be solely confused with reality.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 6, 2010)

People care about their actions well enough without living in fear of how a possibly nonexistent deity wants to fuck them over for it.  I know I do.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me that is a vary shallow way to live life, If life has no deeper meaning then you don't care about your actions, you never spend time contemplating your own life, why you are here, your impact on the universe or other people, Its an unexamined life. Its a life solely lived for self gratification.
> 
> To me you don't want to believe in God because belief in God forces that you to face the fact that you are accountable to such a God.



I've said it before, and I'm saying it again:  Being accountable to one's self is far more humbling that being able to literally apologize all your wrongs away to some faceless entity.  YOU have to live with decisions YOU make, you can't brush them off and say "Oh hey god, sorry I ran over that kid on my way home from the supermarket.  Would you mind forgiving me for that?  Yeah?  Great then!"


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> Really?  You really expect _anyone_ to buy that, even for a second?  You've stated numerous times that you don't consider anyone who accepts gays, is gay, or even doesn't mind gay people as not being TWUE CHWISTENS.  You've said before how you have "struggled with homosexual thoughts in the past," but were able to, BY THE POWER OF GOD-SKULL, overcome those "filthy" thoughts.  You struggle for a defense as to why you are 100% totally straight (because that's what god says is okay) but have gay furry porn in your favourites.


 
I never said those thoughts don't enter my head. How can I stop temptation from entering my head? The Bible says Satan tempted Jesus in all things, everything. There is nothing he wasn't tempted in. I don't give into those tempations because God gives me the strength to do so. A saying I like to use is this: You can't stop the birds from flying overhead (temptation) But you can stop them from nesting in your hair (acting on temptation and giving into your flesh) I Understand why I have those tempations and I learned that its not really because I lust after a man) Its a much deeper reason than that. I learned what it was, and because of that knowledge I am able to keep those thoughts from doing anything else than tempting me. I learned that I wasn't really attracted to men. Simple as that. With that knowledge the temptation has lost all of its power.

I didn't say Gays are not Christians, I said they are not living the True Christian Life. Just as I wasn't 3-4 months ago. For years I walked away from God. It hasn't been until this year that God really hounded me, and opened my eyes to what I was doing/living my life. I believed in Him, I have knowledge of Him. But I wasn't living for Him. God broke me this year. Literally. I have let go of myself and surrounded completely to Him. The peace and joy from doing this is simply astounding and cannot be fully described.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me that is a vary shallow way to live life, If life has no deeper meaning then you don't care about your actions, you never spend time contemplating your own life, why you are here, your impact on the universe or other people, Its an unexamined life. Its a life solely lived for self gratification.
> 
> To me you don't want to believe in God because belief in God forces that you to face the fact that you are accountable to such a God. And that is a frightening thing. I to am accountable for all of my actions and thoughts. We all are afraid. But once you understand God's character, the fear still exists but not in a damning or condemning type of way. Its more that I will be a disappointment, not accepted. But even if I am a disappointment, Jesus Christs blood covers me, and that goes away.


 
Don't put words in my mouth or tell me why I believe something. I realize it's the opposite of how you feel and hard to understand, for you especially, but don't you dare say I have an unexamined life or live solely for self gratification. Frankly that's a shallow piece of unthinking bullshit. 

I can be a good person without fear of God. I can be a great person without being tied to ritualistic ideals set thousands of years ago. I can examine a situation as I see it now and determine what the ethical choice is. In fact, that's what I do. At the end of the day you have to face god, and at the end of the day as long as you say "I'm sorry" hard enough you are forgiven. 

When I am alone at night I have to be able to face myself, and that's a hell of a lot harder to me. I don't get a pretty little rule book that tells me exactly how to say I'm sorry. I can't hide behind the idea that I'm just not made well enough and that's okay. At the end of the day I have to stand up to myself knowing exactly what I did wrong, exactly the values I betrayed, exactly how terribly I fucked up, and I know that "I'm sorry" will never be good enough. I will never have anything to wash away my personal sins. I will never have a cop out. If I ever want to make it through the night then I better be brave enough to fix what I've done wrong. 
When it all is said and done you have your heaven to go to. This is all I have. This is all I will ever have so I had better grow some balls and make this a life worth living. 

You can sit back and go "hurr durr you're just doing this for self gratification, you may as well be a druggy" but that's not a life worth living. I put value in making this world a better place, and not running away to a new one. I'm not a coward. 

Now I was just expressing an alternate view. it wasn't an attack on religion, it was just a point that one needs to search for themselves in a crisis of faith because when another person has found something, it might not always work for others.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> I've said it before, and I'm saying it again:  Being accountable to one's self is far more humbling that being able to literally apologize all your wrongs away to some faceless entity.  YOU have to live with decisions YOU make, you can't brush them off and say "Oh hey god, sorry I ran over that kid on my way home from the supermarket.  Would you mind forgiving me for that?  Yeah?  Great then!"


 
How can apologizing to only yourself be humbling? You can do that in the dark in a room where no one else is. Making you not accountable for your thoughts and actions. Having to humble yourself and apologize to a God who could crush you like a bug, but chooses not to is far, far more humbling.


----------



## Ikrit (Dec 6, 2010)

Buddhism is the coolest religion ever.
unlike everyone else, they pretty much keep their religion to themselves, never ran into one saying "you should be Buddhist"


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How can apologizing to only yourself be humbling? You can do that in the dark in a room where no one else is. Making you not accountable for your thoughts and actions. Having to humble yourself and apologize to a God who could crush you like a bug, but chooses not to is far, far more humbling.


 You can't lie to yourself. You know when you don't mean it. 
I suspect this is simply something you do not understand because you don't have the power to understand. You see god as the ultimate being and you are powerless. 

Personally I know what I have the power to do, and when I don't live up to it I can't make myself feel better by saying "it's god's plan." "I'm not ready" "this isn't how things are meant to be" "I can ask forgiveness"


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Don't put words in my mouth or tell me why I believe something. I realize it's the opposite of how you feel and hard to understand, for you especially, but don't you dare say I have an unexamined life or live solely for self gratification. Frankly that's a shallow piece of unthinking bullshit.
> 
> I can be a good person without fear of God. I can be a great person without being tied to ritualistic ideals set thousands of years ago. I can examine a situation as I see it now and determine what the ethical choice is. In fact, that's what I do. At the end of the day you have to face god, and at the end of the day as long as you say "I'm sorry" hard enough you are forgiven.
> 
> ...


 

Define a good person. define and ethical choice, define morality. By whose standards are you baseing those definitions on? Man? because man is far from perfect.  By God's standard not one person is good. "for we all have fallen short of the glory of God"
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast."

Just because I am forgiven by God, does not mean I am not accountable for my actions. Everyone will be judged for what they have done here on earth, Christians and non-Christians alike.

The fact is, Not one person is good enough. Not even me. This is why it is so amazing that God still chooses to love me, (and you) no matter how bad I screw up. He loves us even though we are complete failures. And he loves us so much that He sent His Son to die for us so we could be reunited with Him. The only thing required is to believe and accept the grace that he has freely left for us.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> Buddhism is the coolest religion ever.
> unlike everyone else, they pretty much keep their religion to themselves, never ran into one saying "you should be Buddhist"


 
A Buddhist once told me, Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You can't lie to yourself. You know when you don't mean it.
> I suspect this is simply something you do not understand because you don't have the power to understand. You see god as the ultimate being and you are powerless.
> 
> Personally I know what I have the power to do, and when I don't live up to it I can't make myself feel better by saying "it's god's plan." "I'm not ready" "this isn't how things are meant to be" "I can ask forgiveness"


 
Do you have the power to be perfectly good? To have perfect ethics and morals?
God is God, and we are powerless. (God made everything and gave you everything you have, every ability and gift you posses was given to you.) Look how big this universe is. You will see just how small you are and insignificant you are compared to the universe. This is why it is so amazing that God still loves us and cares deeply about us.

But as for being powerless and insignificant, it sucks doesn't it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> By God's standard not one person is good.



You do not know your god's standard. You only know what standard god "inspired" men to write in your specific version of the Bible.

Just take one of those "fluke" bibles Mojotech or Mayfurr posted pages upon pages ago. Where they 'accidentally' said the 'reverse' of what was 'meant' to be written?

Now imagen for a second, that was your bible. It may be, in fact, and you don't know - Not only do you not know, but you refuse to know otherwise. Those 'fluke' bible's may actually be_the "truth", _and you're dismissing it out of hand, because it's not whatever is in your bible.


----------



## Ikrit (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A Buddhist once told me, Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy.


 it depends on who you ask really


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define a good person. define and ethical choice, define morality. By whose standards are you baseing those definitions on? Man? because man is far from perfect.  By God's standard not one person is good. "for we all have fallen short of the glory of God"
> "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast."
> 
> Just because I am forgiven by God, does not mean I am not accountable for my actions. Everyone will be judged for what they have done here on earth, Christians and non-Christians alike.
> ...


 
Are you serious? You sound like my grandparents. How can I possibly go into ethics without being catholic? obviously I'm just going to try to help doctors kill patients for no reason. You know the kicker? Depending on God for morality is pretty much viewed as the lowest developed, most selfish answer by anyone trying to categorize morality. It requires no thought, it requires zero self reflection. 
I don't have time to go over the basic premise of ethics with you, especially when you'll just vomit up more scripture without thinking. 
My values are to make a the world a better place, as I said. That means that somehow I am raising the general welfare of those I interact with in this life. That means that when I see a problem I can't simply sit back and change my facebook image and say "i'm done" In order to be a good person I need to explore my potential fully and be active in my talents. In the end it has something of a universal, possibly even utilitarian effect. Now there are problems with utilitarianism yes. If I wanted to go in depth I would carefully explain each facet and where I use utilitarian, and where I use a deontology to determine what is ethical, but this is just basic and I don't want to force what I believe onto a forum.
Oddly enough my values line up quite well with the sage of the Tao te ching, but that's neither here nor there. I doubt you, Rukh, have the balls to really go explore another philosophy outside Christianity with any seriousness. 

To be honest Ruhk. I don't respect your god at all. I would much rather have to stand up to myself than to the characterization of the judeo-christian god. There is a monologue in Dostoevsky's _Brothers Karamazov _that illustrates this well. this is the end part
" "Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive  and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't  want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would  rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation,  even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony;  it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to  give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to  give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that  I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the  ticket."
I have no respect for your god. I will never respect such a god. If the day comes that I am wrong I will stand before Peter and I will proudly blaspheme. I will burn in the fires of hell, but at least I will have stood for something.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do you have the power to be perfectly good? To have perfect ethics and morals?
> God  is God, and we are powerless. (God made everything and gave you  everything you have, every ability and gift you posses was given to  you.) Look how big this universe is. You will see just how small you are  and insignificant you are compared to the universe. This is why it is  so amazing that God still loves us and cares deeply about us.
> 
> But as for being powerless and insignificant, it sucks doesn't it.


 
No. It's not. It's incredible. That was my point before. I know you can't understand it. I doubt you could, it takes a specific mindset, but this is what works for me. 
There is only me, a speck of dust in existence, and so everything will be okay in the end because I can make it that way. :3

Of course I can't be a perfect person, that isn't required. The point is that I try my best, and I have to try my best because I will know if I don't. What does the being perfectly good have to do with anything? God is perfectly good because he says so? fine believe in that if you will. 

I stated before I believe in a force in the universe but it is neither good nor evil. I believe nothing can be good or evil. They are two sides of a coin and anything all good is incomplete.

Edit: lookit me multiquoting like a champ.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You can't lie to yourself.


 Yes, people can believe a lie that they told themselves. Happens all the time. Look at the people who thinks its okay to have sex with children (molest or rape) Or have sex with their own children/family. They believe what they are doing is okay. Same  with zoophiles. They think that having sex with an animal is okay, and they believe it. So don't tell me that people don't lie to themselves and believe the lie.



Fay V said:


> Are you serious? You sound like my grandparents.  How can I possibly go into ethics without being catholic? obviously I'm  just going to try to help doctors kill patients for no reason. You know  the kicker? Depending on God for morality is pretty much viewed as the  lowest developed, most selfish answer by anyone trying to categorize  morality. *It requires no thought, it requires zero self reflection. *
> I  don't have time to go over the basic premise of ethics with you,  especially when you'll just vomit up more scripture without thinking.
> My  values are to make a the world a better place, as I said. That means  that somehow I am raising the general welfare of those I interact with  in this life. That means that when I see a problem I can't simply sit  back and change my facebook image and say "i'm done" In order to be a  good person I need to explore my potential fully and be active in my  talents. In the end it has something of a universal, possibly even  utilitarian effect. Now there are problems with utilitarianism yes. If I  wanted to go in depth I would carefully explain each facet and where I  use utilitarian, and where I use a deontology to determine what is  ethical, but this is just basic and I don't want to force what I believe  onto a forum.
> Oddly enough my values line up quite well with the  sage of the Tao te ching, but that's neither here nor there. I doubt  you, Rukh, have the balls to really go explore another philosophy  outside Christianity with any seriousness.
> ...


 

Being a Christian "requires no thought, it requires zero self reflection?" Are you serious? I am always having to look in at myself ans see if what I am doing is what God wants me to do. I am always having to check myself to make sure I am following Christ. I reflect on what I do/think/ say all the time.
If you think being a Christian means you don't reflect on what you are doing you are highly mistaken. I am constantly being convicted of things that I have done wrong. The Holy Spirit convicts me on a daily basis. Ever remember those bracelts that had WWJD on them. What would Jesus Do? The whole point of those bracelets was so you constantly were reminded what would Jesus do in your situation, It was so you reflected on your actions.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, people can believe a lie that they told themselves. Happens all the time. Look at the people who thinks its okay to have sex with children (molest or rape) Or have sex with their own children/family. They believe what they are doing is okay. Same  with zoophiles. They think that having sex with an animal is okay, and they believe it. So don't tell me that people don't lie to themselves and believe the lie.



Way to nitpick, but it's true, you're a fine example of it anyway. 
It is not a philosophy that works for everyone. Some people do need the structure, some people do need to be shown how to live. Some do not. 
Some people have introspective and know when they have failed.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh is the last person you want to get information on, especially as it relates to religion. I think a more relevant question you need to ask yourself is- *Is it so bad to not have religious faith*?


 I value all opinions equally because from where I'm standing everyone is crazy.

As for the bolded: *Yes*. I tried not having it for years and now I find that I need it. Or at least I need some kind of purpose.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> I value all opinions equally because from where I'm standing everyone is crazy.
> 
> As for the bolded: *Yes*. I tried not having it for years and now I find that I need it. Or at least I need some kind of purpose.


 
Just don't end up like Ruhk who has to browbeat jesus into anyone with an opposing opinion


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> I value all opinions equally because from where I'm standing everyone is crazy.
> 
> As for the bolded: *Yes*. I tried not having it for years and now I find that I need it. Or at least I need some kind of purpose.


 
You don't need religion to have a purpouse. There's enough purpouse to be found in simply trying to improve the lives of your fellow man.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Way to nitpick, but it's true, you're a fine example of it anyway.


 
Yup, I have lied to myself before, and believed it. Everyone has. Can't deny that. The sad truth is people are legalistic, hypocritical,  immoral, blasphemous, abusive, dictatorial, selfish, vindictive,  uncommitted, disbelieving, judgmental, introspective, mean-spirited,  proud, and manipulative. You cannot tell me people are good. Good doesn't mean any of those things I listed.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

*Grabs one of those Speak N' Spin toys*

The Fundie Says:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> People are blasphemous, disbelieving, judgmental, introspective.


 
What they really mean is:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> People are not gullible enough to accept my claims uncritically and then not ask problematic questions later, so I'm going to pretend those are bad and their fault entirely and not problems with how my worldview is constructed.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yup, I have lied to myself before, and believed it. Everyone has. Can't deny that. The sad truth is people are legalistic, hypocritical,  immoral, blasphemous, abusive, dictatorial, selfish, vindictive,  uncommitted, disbelieving, judgmental, introspective, mean-spirited,  proud, and manipulative. You cannot tell me people are good. Good doesn't mean any of those things I listed.


 
Then how the hell do you have faith that they can follow the word of god? how do they not twist the words to suit their meaning. Why should I ever trust anything you say about jesus again, because you are not good, you lie to yourself and you believe it. If you only have your interpretation of a book as a foundation for morality then you will never be good not even a little.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> You don't need religion to have a purpouse. There's enough purpouse to be found in simply trying to improve the lives of your fellow man.


 
Why help your fellow man? If their is no purpose to existence, other than existing (which isn't a purpose, your living but your not truly alive), then why waste it helping other people? 
Your going to all die. Makes no difference after you died whether you helped people or not. There is no purpose to life, so why care about anything at all. There is no point, expect to make yourself feel better about yourself. But why even do that?

I really hope you read this. This was said by King Solomon.
Ecclesiastes 1:1-11:
*The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: **  â€œMeaningless! Meaningless!â€ 
   says the Teacher. 
â€œUtterly meaningless! 
   Everything is meaningless.â€ *
*  What do people gain from all their labors 
   at which they toil under the sun? 
 Generations come and generations go, 
   but the earth remains forever. 
 The sun rises and the sun sets, 
   and hurries back to where it rises. 
The wind blows to the south 
   and turns to the north; 
round and round it goes, 
   ever returning on its course. 
 All streams flow into the sea, 
   yet the sea is never full. 
To the place the streams come from, 
   there they return again. 
 All things are wearisome, 
   more than one can say. 
The eye never has enough of seeing, 
   nor the ear its fill of hearing. 
 What has been will be again, 
   what has been done will be done again; 
   there is nothing new under the sun. 
 Is there anything of which one can say, 
   â€œLook! This is something newâ€? 
It was here already, long ago; 
   it was here before our time. 
 No one remembers the former generations, 
   and even those yet to come 
will not be remembered 
   by those who follow them. *

To Brower, I suggest you read Ecclesiastes. All of it. It is a huge lament from King Solomon about how meaningless life is without God. This man had everything, I mean literally everything. He had everything the world says will make you happy and have a purpose.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define a good person. define and ethical choice, define morality. By whose standards are you baseing those definitions on? Man? because man is far from perfect.  By God's standard not one person is good. "for we all have fallen short of the glory of God"
> "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast."
> 
> Just because I am forgiven by God, does not mean I am not accountable for my actions. Everyone will be judged for what they have done here on earth, Christians and non-Christians alike.
> ...


 
That God actually sounds pretty horrible. He can't create something and be proud of it? It's all flawed? ..when he teaches people, he has no desire to see them surpass him? (That's what a good teacher would do.)
He can't build something that can live up to his own standards. That's his own damn fault. He built a rock so big that even he can't lift it, but it's the rock's fault? He sounds obnoxious and incompetent.

I prefer my agnosticism. I live for the world around me, and the people in it. It's shallow to answer to an imaginary being when you have real people around you to answer to instead.

Frankly, though, if we're already saved by God and we only need accept him for salvation, why do it in this lifetime? I'm fully prepared to accept whatever deity there may be once I've died and see it for myself.



> Why help your fellow man? If their is no purpose to existence, other  than existing (which isn't a purpose, your living but your not truly  alive), then why waste it helping other people?
> Your going to all die. Makes no difference after you died whether you  helped people or not. There is no purpose to life, so why care about  anything at all. There is no point, expect to make yourself feel better  about yourself. But why even do that?



People make their own purpose. If you are unable to find one without some prophets telling you, that's your own problem. Other people don't have that problem.

Talk about an unexamined life...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why help your fellow man? If their is no purpose to existence, other than existing (which isn't a purpose, your living but your not truly alive), then why waste it helping other people?
> Your going to all die. Makes no difference after you died whether you helped people or not. There is no purpose to life, so why care about anything at all. There is no point, expect to make yourself feel better about yourself. But why even do that?
> 
> Also, huge copypasta.



Because it's the right thing to do. :V You don't need superstition to do the right thing, and if that's all that's keeping you from being a self-centered prick than you are not a good person.

Also, which version of the bible did you get that from? :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Then how the hell do you have faith that they can follow the word of god? how do they not twist the words to suit their meaning. Why should I ever trust anything you say about jesus again, because you are not good, you lie to yourself and you believe it. If you only have your interpretation of a book as a foundation for morality then you will never be good not even a little.


 
Because the Bible is not my own thoughts nor my own words. The Bible is God's Word. I claim nothing of myself. Everything I am comes from God. I am nothing without Him. The Bible and God is not a lie. It is not my own thoughts. The Bible reveals the Character of God. It reveals God's plan. And the reason why we are here.

John 3:30
He must become greater; I must become less.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why help your fellow man? If their is no purpose to existence, other than existing (which isn't a purpose, your living but your not truly alive), then why waste it helping other people?
> Your going to all die. Makes no difference after you died whether you helped people or not. There is no purpose to life, so why care about anything at all. There is no point, expect to make yourself feel better about yourself. But why even do that?



Because it is better helping a person because you want to without any divine reward. There's nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Because it's the right thing to do. :V You don't need superstition to do the right thing, and if that's all that's keeping you from being a self-centered prick than you are not a good person.


 
You cannot do the right thing. What is right and wrong apart from God? By whose standards are you basing right and wrong from, you are imperfect, so how can your standards be right?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You cannot do the right thing. What is right and wrong apart from God? By whose standards are you basing right and wrong from, you are imperfect, so how can your standards be right?


 
There are plenty of ways to know how to do the right thing without invoking a supernatural cause. Not the least of which is simple pragmatism- Organisms that know how to work with their own species tend to do better than ones that do not. However, religion does not make someone more moral either. In fact, fundamentalist and born-again christians have the highest rate of societal ills in the country, such as divorces, abortions, preteen sex, spousal abuse, drunkenness...

Plus you're kinda assuming your deity exists in the first place trying to make the argument you're making. :V


----------



## Penumbra Noct (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> Omnipotent. Outside of physics. Greater. Etc. etc.



I can't believe Rukh hasn't brought up the god particle that--too few to  name--scientists are searching for.  Smirk.  How about, the Omega Point  in space?  Hahaha.  Heaven, yeah?  A little, trying to co-mingle  religion with science, yeah?  A little, these two are not mutually  exclusive, yeah?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> That God actually sounds pretty horrible. He can't create something and be proud of it? It's all flawed? ..when he teaches people, he has no desire to see them surpass him? (That's what a good teacher would do.)
> He can't build something that can live up to his own standards. That's his own damn fault. He built a rock so big that even he can't lift it, but it's the rock's fault? He sounds obnoxious and incompetent.
> 
> I prefer my agnosticism. I live for the world around me, and the people in it. It's shallow to answer to an imaginary being when you have real people around you to answer to instead.
> ...


 

God created the heavens and the earth, and He said it was good. This was before the fall of creation, before we screwed it all up because we thought we were better than God. No one can surpass God, this is what Lucifer tried to do, and he was thrown out from heaven and damned to hell.

You live for the world around you, God will give you the world, God will give you what He plans to give the world (Go read Revelations)

And when you die, it will be to late to change your mind about God. Thats what this life is for. You have this one life, this one chance. Thats all you get.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2010)

Sure is evangelizing in here.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 6, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sure is evangelizing in here.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And when you die, it will be to late to change your mind about God. Thats what this life is for. You have this one life, this one chance. Thats all you get.


 
It sure is pascal's wager in here. :V


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sure is evangelizing in here.


 it's just tiresome at this point. One can't even discuss possible religions with somebody without ruhk butting in with "no you're wrong *scripture vomit*" 
It was one thing when people were poking at him to defend his faith, but simply offering an opinion? pathetic.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Gravity is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> The Law of thermodynamics is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> Evolution is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> 
> Do you see why that argument doesn't work. Science demands that it is fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.


 
Incorrect. The scientific method functions on constant attempts to disprove something, until *everything* has been tried. If it survives this process, it becomes a theory.



> And Hawking keeps coming out with *theories* every couple of years that disprove his last theory, even though he said the last one was correct..



You mean *hypothesis*', and as I had just stated, that's how science works. Hawkings is just doing science how it's supposed to be done.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Because it is better helping a person because you want to without any divine reward. There's nothing wrong with that at all.


 
Thisthisthisthisthis

People who don't need to be compelled to behave in a manner befitting a decent human being by an almighty force that will send them to a bad place for eternity if they're naughty are better people than those who DO need the looming threat of hellfire and brimstone to be decent people.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because the Bible is not my own thoughts nor my own words. The Bible is God's Word. I claim nothing of myself. The more I degrease Everything I am comes from God. I am nothing without Him. The Bible and God is not a lie. It is not my own thoughts. The Bible reveals the Character of God. It reveals God's plan. And the reason why we are here.
> 
> John 3:30
> He must become greater; I must become less.


 
but it is your interpretation of the words, you who can lie to yourself, you who is manipulative, you that must determine how to follow god's path. God is not speaking directly to you. there is no voice going "warmer, warmer, ooh colder" for your moral decisions. 
You have your own bar of morality and you fail to reach it because you are flawed and because you are flawed we shouldn't pay any mind to your interpretation of the text. 

Browder should read the bible if he wants to learn of Christianity, He should also read all other possible texts just as seriously.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> it's just tiresome at this point. One can't even discuss possible religions with somebody without ruhk butting in with "no you're wrong *scripture vomit*"
> It was one thing when people were poking at him to defend his faith, but simply offering an opinion? pathetic.


 
Well consider the fact, when I left this thread for 2 weeks, it hardly moved. People hardly discussed religions in here while I was gone. So that assumption is kinda voided right there. You already said what you believe in. You said your agnostic, which to me is weak atheism. Its someone who says I can't disprove God's existence and I won't make up my mind, so I will just cop out and say there is a deity.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God created the heavens and the earth, and He said it was good. This was before the fall of creation, before we screwed it all up because we thought we were better than God. No one can surpass God, this is what Lucifer tried to do, and he was thrown out from heaven and damned to hell.
> 
> You live for the world around you, God will give you the world, God will give you what He plans to give the world (Go read Revelations)
> 
> And when you die, it will be to late to change your mind about God. Thats what this life is for. You have this one life, this one chance. Thats all you get.


 
Did he say that? That's an incredibly irrational time restriction. No, God wouldn't say that.

Anyways, if God made us then original sin is his fault (back to this again...) As immature as blaming a firework for exploding on you is, it's only your fault in the end.

Your God sounds like a 5-year old. That doesn't work for me.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well consider the fact, when I left this thread for 2 weeks, it hardly moved. People hardly discussed religions in here while I was gone. So that assumption is kinda voided right there. You already said what you believe in. You said your agnostic, which to me is weak atheism. Its someone who says I can't disprove God's existence and I won't make up my mind, so I will just cop out and say there is a deity.


 you have zero reading comprehension skills
I called myself an existentialist. I said that I do not believe in any deity or higher mind. By definition I am an atheist. A belief in a cosmic battery does not make me agnostic because I stated very clearly that it has absolutely no identity. 
Making shit up does not help you at all. 
Moving a thread is not a defense for scripture vomit either.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Did he say that? That's an incredibly irrational time restriction. No, God wouldn't say that.
> 
> Anyways, if God made us then original sin is his fault (back to this again...) As immature as blaming a firework for exploding on you is, it's only your fault in the end.
> 
> Your God sounds like a 5-year old. That doesn't work for me.


 

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, *and it was very good*. And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the sixth day. 

Again this was before the fall of Creation. Second how is the original sin His fault? Disobediance is sin. God didn't make disobedience.It was free will He gave to us. What would be the point of forcing us to believe in Him? Thats forced love, which isn't love at all. It would be a lie. Sin didn't exist before Adam messed up. Its all our fault.

Your suggesting that because you have free will, its somehow God's fault? He gave you the choice., so that if you turned to Him, it would be true faith and love for God.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Genesis 1:31
> God saw all that he had made, *and it was very good*. And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the sixth day.
> 
> Again this was before the fall of Creation. Second how is the original sin His fault? Disobediance is sin. God didn't make disobedience.It was free will He gave to us. What would be the point of forcing us to believe in Him? Thats forced love, which isn't love at all. It would be a lie. Sin didn't exist before Adam messed up. Its all our fault.
> ...



Except you don't get a choice with original sin. your forefathers fucked up and you live with the punishment.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Except you don't get a choice with original sin. your forefathers fucked up and you live with the punishment.


 
"Original sin" is *blackmail*, pure and simple.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

If God is all-knowing then he would have realized that Adam and Eve would eat of the forbidden tree's fruits, hence he would never have made humanity in the first place in his perfect world.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> you have zero reading comprehension skills
> I called myself an existentialist. I said that I do not believe in any deity or higher mind. By definition I am an atheist. A belief in a cosmic battery does not make me agnostic because I stated very clearly that it has absolutely no identity.
> Making shit up does not help you at all.
> Moving a thread is not a defense for scripture vomit either.


 

Hmm I want to post a quote from Vox Day.

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral  parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when  pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction  in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or  argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only  post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Except you don't get a choice with original sin. your forefathers fucked up and you live with the punishment.


 
As humans, we are all the same to an extent. That's why God could put us  all together on this (pertaining to the original sin). If you and your wife were on that garden you  would have eaten of that fruit. God knows this. People need to stop  judging Adam and Eve and realize that we all would have done the same.  God knows this and that's why we are all born in sin.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As humans, we are all the same to an extent. That's why God could put us  all together on this (pertaining to the original sin). If you and your wife were on that garden you  would have eaten of that fruit. God knows this. People need to stop  judging Adam and Eve and realize that we all would have done the same.  God knows this and that's why we are all born in sin.


 
I don't judge Adam and Eve, because God knew they would sin before he created them, as he is supposed to be omnipotent. It's God who I blame.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you and your wife were on that garden you  would have eaten of that fruit. God knows this. People need to stop  judging Adam and Eve and realize that we all would have done the same.  God knows this and that's why we are all born in sin.


 
That's pretty fucking presumptuous.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hmm I want to post a quote from Vox Day.
> 
> Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral  parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when  pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction  in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or  argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only  post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.


 
Ah so you accept I am an atheist now? Lovely. 
The quote is fine and dandy, I don't particularly care if you think I live an immoral life on borrowed ethics. The opinions and quotes of others are meaningless, you praise a book that lays down the idea that it's fine to beat the shit out of your slaves as long as they live for three days, and you can rationalize that any way you like. The simple truth is, in terms of ethics you and I are not that different. You have your goal. I have mine. I simply come to mine in a different way.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I don't judge Adam and Eve, because God knew they would sin before he created them, as he is supposed to be omnipotent. It's God who I blame.


 
There is a reason why God allowed it to happen. And the simple fact is, it because if it hadn't, we wouldn't have truly known about God's unconditional love, for how can we understand unconditional love if we never experienced Jesus sacrifice on our behalf. In this way, because of the fall, we can be closer to God because we now understand how much he loves and cares about us. Its like a parant, who even though their child does something completely horrible says, "I still love you" How could you understand that if you never messed up.




Fay V said:


> Ah so you accept I am an atheist now? Lovely.
> The simple truth is, in terms of ethics you and I are not that different.


 No, we are very different. You think that morals and ethics come from imperfect people. I believe morals and ethics come only from God. We are very different in that sense.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral  parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when  pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction  in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or  argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only  post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.


 
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



Xipoid said:


> That's pretty fucking presumptuous.



Okay, just checking.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is a reason why God allowed it to happen. And the simple fact is, it because if it hadn't, we wouldn't have truly known about God's unconditional love, for how can we understand unconditional love if we never experienced Jesus sacrifice on our behalf. In this way, because of the fall, we can be closer to God because we now understand how much he loves and cares about us. Its like a parant, who even though their child does something completely horrible says, "I still love you" How could you understand that if you never messed up.


you know, except we didn't yet. Not all of us. 
You assume everyone would do the same, except that's not really free will is it? that's god saying "well you're fucked up so I'll just punish you now" All those infants that die before they could even be baptized, sucks for them because god made them evil little shits that would fuck up eventually, may as well burn in hell.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral  parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when  pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction  in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or  argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only  post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.


 
You smarmy little bastard.  Atheists are not the moral parasites, people like you are.  People who go swaggering around as if they're better than people who are actually intelligent just because they're delusional enough to believe some mystical sky beast is applauding even the shit they drop in a toilet.  You are no better than me just because you think you hear voices at night, Rukh.  See my other post to you:



Riley said:


> The fact that science is willing to actually bother  looking for those answers makes it infinitely more credible than any  two thousand year old bedtime story that unintelligent nimrods like you  unabashedly drool over and use as a masturbation aid.  You want answers  to something?  Tentatively accept a structured response, but never for a  second think it's the right one.  Doubt is the cornerstone of progress,  not something that should be squashed.  No matter what you do or  however successful you might become, you will never be intelligent, for  you have closed your tiny little mind to the possibilities of progress.
> 
> You're scared to imagine things could be different.  You're  downright fucking terrified of the unknown, so you're all too willing to  accept some old geezer's mindless, Alzheimer's-riddled ramblings of  divine intervention and other bullshit because it's *safe.*   Religion to the degree you have taken it is for the cowardly and small,  Rukh, and that's all you'll ever be if you keep going down this road.   Think what you want about people who don't follow your idealistic  mutterings, but you know they're better than you, and that scares you.   But go ahead, keep huddling under your metaphorical safety blanket, more  than willing to sit in a single spot as the rest of the world whizzes  past you in a flurry of progress and triumph.  Just don't get in our  way.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> you know, except we didn't yet. Not all of us.
> You assume everyone would do the same, except that's not really free will is it? that's god saying "well you're fucked up so I'll just punish you now" All those infants that die before they could even be baptized, sucks for them because god made them evil little shits that would fuck up eventually, may as well burn in hell.


 
The Bible is not clear on what happens to infants that die. At what age are we not innocent? For the Bible says a baby is innocent. I don't know the answer to that. But I have faith in God, and I know he is fair and just and won't unfairly condemn someone.


By the way, its called predestination. Thats what the Bible teaches about free will.
http://www.gotquestions.org/predestination.html


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

So we've learned that Rukh is only good, like most fundie Christians, because of the fear of his human-defined hell.

Whilst the Atheists are browbeaten, snubbed, and looked down upon for being good, for the sake of being good - For the sake of humanity.

Who's supposed to be the righteous, and honestly good people here?

We could go back to page 3 and reflect upon the what, dozens of religious wars?

Can't say we've had a war based on anyone's lack of beliefs - So I think that puts the "better overall morality" award in the hands of those who are actually *good people*. Regardless of what they believe.

And Atheists/agnostics/etc. Get the runner-up award, "Thanks for not starting stupid shit". 

While the major god-fear religions are put into the corner.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible is not clear on what happens to infants that die. At what age are we not innocent? For the Bible says a baby is innocent. I don't know the answer to that. But I have faith in God, and I know he is fair and just and won't unfairly condemn someone.


 But we're not innocent so you said. We can't be good. We have original sin. We are born with sin and those that don't follow god cannot be freed from that sin. Except an infant can't follow go. Therefore that evil little infant will burn.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your suggesting that because you have free will, its somehow God's fault?



Yup, because it is. He's responsible for the actions of his own creations.

It's not a gift if it has such harsh punishments attached to it. If he wanted us to believe in him, he shouldn't have given us free will at all. Sure, that's forced love, but so is threatening us. He gave us the choice but expected us not to use it.. that's incredibly stupid of him (adding on that he knows the future, it makes no sense at all.)


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> You smarmy little bastard.  Atheists are not the moral parasites.



Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.


 This is different from the christians that rationalize away slave ownership. the 300 something laws in OT that they conveniently don't follow unless it happens to suit them?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.


 
Care to give an example from the news that isn't paralleled by a major Christian or Catholic figure?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Yup, because it is. He's responsible for the actions of his own creations.
> 
> It's not a gift if it has such harsh punishments attached to it. If he wanted us to believe in him, he shouldn't have given us free will at all. Sure, that's forced love,



Forced love, Love that is not willingly given is not real. Its a lie. God made us to worship Him. So if we were forced to believe in Him. It would be forced worship. It wouldn't be real. It would be a lie.

Its like your saying a child's love for their parent is forced love. Parents discipline their children out of love. This is what God does.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Forced love, Love that is not willingly given is not real. Its a lie. God made us to worship Him. So if we were forced to believe in Him. It would be forced worship. It wouldn't be real. It would be a lie.
> 
> Its like your saying a child's love for their parent is forced love. Parents discipline their children out of love. This is what God does.



You're indirectly forced to love your god. You have a perpetual, metaphorical dagger at your throat at all times to keep you loving god.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> This is different from the christians that rationalize away slave ownership. the 300 something laws in OT that they conveniently don't follow unless it happens to suit them?


 
There are 613 laws in the OT. They can be split into three different categories. Gods Moral Law-This has never changed because God's Moral Law shows us God's character. The Ceremonial Law-Which Jesus fulfilled as the last sacrifice, therefore those laws are no longer needed, and the civil laws-Those laws were in place because ancient Israel was a Theocracy, the Civil laws were there form of government. Its not our form of government. Add to the fact the civil laws and ceremonial laws all point to the fact that God is supposed to be the center of Everything.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else.*


 
Like some fanatical religious zealots. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.


 
That's what you believe, not what Atheists think.

They "pick and choose" based on what achieves the best outcome, what other people agree with, and they use logic and rationale to arrive at these things. They don't think they are perfect (where does that even come from?)

Following a book that has, and is, interpreted in many many different ways... that certainly sounds much worse. And you're right because you think God says you are, which makes it infinitely harder to learn. That's pride, but you can shift it to being God's pride easily enough.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.



You're no better.  If you would actually read my posts you'd see that I've said this.  But I guess it's just more convenient to pick and choose what logical fallacies you remember making.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Oh look :v it's Rukh and his preacher/pastor/whatever interpreting the Bible on what things they can and can't ignore :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You're indirectly forced to love your god. You have a perpetual, metaphorical dagger at your throat at all times to keep you loving god.


 
I love God, not out of fear, but because what he has done for me. He didn't have to save me, He didn't have to choose me. But he did. And for that, I am eternally grateful. That is why I love God with all my heart mind and soul.




Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Like some fanatical religious zealots. :V


 Yes its does, you are correct. This is why I constantly state a Christian cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe in/follow. Its all or nothing. There is no middle ground.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> You're no better.  If you would actually read my posts you'd see that I've said this.  But I guess it's just more convenient to pick and choose what logical fallacies you remember making.


 He's already shown he picks and chooses what to read about people. I'm a cop out agnostic until he can find the quote where I'm an immoral atheist


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> He's already shown he picks and chooses what to read about people. I'm a cop out agnostic until he can find the quote where I'm an immoral atheist


 
I thought you said you were agnostic, my bad, I apologize. The thread is moving quite fast, so it is a little hard to keep track of what everyone is saying. But I stand by that quote from Vox Day.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I love God, not out of fear, but because what he has done for me. He didn't have to save me, He didn't have to choose me. But he did. And for that, I am eternally grateful. That is why I love God with all my heart mind and soul.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they  pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and  choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they  know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick  what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to  say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as  anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride  to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is  why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should  boast.


 
Care to give an example from the news that isn't paralleled by a major Christian or Catholic figure?



Lastdirewolf said:


> Care to give an example from the news that  isn't paralleled by a major Christian or Catholic figure?


 

Mmh?!


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought you said you were agnostic, my bad, I apologize. The thread is moving quite fast, so it is a little hard to keep track of what everyone is saying. But I stand by that quote from Vox Day.


 
It's Vox _Dei_, you twit.  Voice of God.  Learn a little motherfucking LATIN.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's Vox _Dei_, you twit.  Voice of God.  Learn a little motherfucking LATIN.


 
No, it's Vox Day. The lord told him so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Care to give an example from the news that isn't paralleled by a major Christian or Catholic figure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An example of what? That we are all humans and all fall short of God's glory? There are plenty of examples of that, Christians and non-Christians alike.

Jer 2:22
Although you wash yourself with soap 
   and use an abundance of cleansing powder, 
   the stain of your guilt is still before me,â€ 
            declares the Sovereign LORD. 

Romans 3:10
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one


Pretty clear right there that no one in themselves is perfect, righteous, or good. Only when we are covered in Christ's blood are we forgiven. For Christ's blood washes us clean in God's eyes. And example of this would be the passover. In the fact he passed over and stayed his full judgement when he saw the lambs blood on the doors.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's Vox _Dei_, you twit.  Voice of God.  Learn a little motherfucking LATIN.


 that's just your atheist pride thinking you can spell


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought you said you were agnostic, my bad, I apologize. The thread is moving quite fast, so it is a little hard to keep track of what everyone is saying. But I stand by that quote from Vox Day.


 That doesn't really change that you chose to attack me personally either way. Something you did when I also simply stated I was an existentialist with absolutely no reference to Christianity besides that I thought religions make a good guide.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's Vox _Dei_, you twit.  Voice of God.  Learn a little motherfucking LATIN.


 Vox Day
Also known as Theodore Beale. He picked that name as a play on for Vox Dei...

Google Vox Day smart one...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> An example of what? That we are all humans and all fall short of God's glory? There are plenty of examples of that, Christians and non-Christians alike.



An example of what you just claimed moments ago:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they   pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and   choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they   know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick   what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to   say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as   anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is  pride  to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else.  This is  why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should   boast.



Can you come up with an example of an Atheist that picks and chooses what ethics and morals they follow, pick and choose where they get their right and wrong from, and that thinks they know better than the next person. Who has no set standard, that thinks they are perfect, with pride to the nth degree.

An example of all that, that is not paralleled by a major Christian, Catholic, etc. figure.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Better yet, prove, using YOUR OWN WORDS, why your religion is the right one in a way that one cannot swap out the words "God," "Bible," and "Jesus" for any other religion's holy figures and scripture.

The Torah says it's right.  The Qu'ran says it's right.  Dianetics says Mel Gibson's right.  And I say I'm right.  So uh, how are any of these wrong, by some other way than "The bible says it's not lying and I believe it."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> That doesn't really change that you chose to attack me personally either way. Something you did when I also simply stated I was an existentialist with absolutely no reference to Christianity besides that I thought religions make a good guide.


 
I used a quote from Vox Day to get a point across. The point is, the atheist cannot cling to anything because he believes in nothing.
Now there is a difference between weak and strong atheism. I think your a weak atheist.
Definition of a weak atheist: It refers to any non-theism,   wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.


The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Vox Day
> Also known as Theodore Beale. He picked that name as a play on for Vox Dei...
> 
> Google Vox Day smart one...


 
Well, that's just fucking retarded.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I used a quote from Vox Day to get a point across. The point is, the atheist cannot cling to anything because he believes in nothing.


 
I believe in ME, Christfag.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I used a quote from Vox Day to get a point across. The point is, the atheist cannot cling to anything because he believes in nothing.
> Now there is a difference between weak and strong atheism. I think your a weak atheist.
> Definition of a weak atheist: It refers to any non-theism,   wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
> 
> ...


 
An atheÃ¯st has no ties, but he has beliefs just like you. Just a belief that goes against your's that's all.

Agnostics however have no ties, period. They are the truly objective, you on the other hand can't objectively debate about religion.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I used a quote from Vox Day to get a point across. The point is, the atheist cannot cling to anything because he believes in nothing.
> Now there is a difference between weak and strong atheism. I think your a weak atheist.
> Definition of a weak atheist: It refers to any non-theism,   wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
> 
> ...



And as I have said I am an existentialist. I must provide my own meaning and values regardless of if there is a god or not. There is no absolute besides the fact that we are infinitely small in the scheme of things. So you must be assuming that the atheist is either a nihilist, or that god is the only absolute. neither are true. 
As for the weak atheist statement. again, you don't read. I do think that the state "at least one deity exists" is false. I have expressed this point before. There is no higher deity at all. I am definitively atheist. 
I am sorry if you can not understand that atheism, and existentialism and two very separate things.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> Better yet, prove, using YOUR OWN WORDS, why your religion is the right one in a way that one cannot swap out the words "God," "Bible," and "Jesus" for any other religion's holy figures and scripture.
> 
> The Torah says it's right.  The Qu'ran says it's right.  Dianetics says Mel Gibson's right.  And I say I'm right.  So uh, how are any of these wrong, by some other way than "The bible says it's not lying and I believe it."


 
The Torah teaches that the Messiah hasn't come yet. They believe Jesus was a prophet, and yet Jesus claimed He was God, such a thing is blasphemy for a prophet. (This also applies to Islam as Well)The Quaran teaches that Christians, and Islam believe in the same God, yet the Quaran directly contradicts the Bible. So how can they be talking about the same God when the 2 books contradict each other. And add to the fact that a muslim will tell you the only true translation of the Quaran is in Arabic. They suggest that it can't be translated correctly... Sounds counter productive of God's part if that was true. Furthermore the Bible was finished being written about 70 AD. As in complete.

How do I know God exists? As a Christian, I know God exists because I  speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire  His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no possible  explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence.  None of my arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge  what is already obvious. In the end, Godâ€™s existence must be accepted by  faith. I cannot prove God's existence, because that would negate faith. The Bible says we must accept by faith that God exists.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who  comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who  earnestly seek Him.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> An atheÃ¯st has no ties, but he has beliefs just like you. Just a belief that goes against your's that's all.


 
I don't think that's quite accurate. Atheists don't deny God, they just doubt him/it. If empirical evidence appeared, that proved God's existence entirely, they wouldn't be betraying Atheism following it. Atheism is like putting religion under the rationale of the scientific method. It is a lack of belief system, by putting truth as primary.

It's actually really hard to separate Agnostics from Atheists... they are just about the same thing.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I believe in ME.



And you are in imperfect being... That means your standards, because they are your own, and come from no higher standard, are flawed from the get go because you are flawed.



Heimdal said:


> I don't think that's quite accurate. Atheists don't deny God.
> 
> It's actually really hard to separate Agnostics from Atheists... they are just about the same thing.



The basic definition of Atheism is the rejection of the existence in a deity. Thats kinda is denying the existence of God.

As for agnostics, I personally believe that its a form of weak atheism.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Torah teaches that the Messiah hasn't come yet. They believe Jesus was a prophet, and yet Jesus claimed He was God, such a thing is blasphemy for a prophet. (This also applies to Islam as Well)The Quaran teaches that Christians, and Islam believe in the same God, yet the Quaran directly contradicts the Bible. So how an they be talking about the same God when the 2 books contradict each other. And add to the fact that a musclim will tell you the only true transaltion of the Quaran is in aribic. They suggest that it can't be translated corectlly... Sounds counter productive of God's part if that was true. Furthermore the Bible was finished being written about 70 AD. As in complete.
> 
> How do I know God exists? As a Christian, I know God exists because I  speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire  His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no possible  explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence.  None of my arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge  what is already obvious. In the end, Godâ€™s existence must be accepted by  faith. I cannot prove God's existence, because that would negate faith. The Bible says we must accept by faith that God exists.
> 
> ...



So without all that fluff about you believing in the heart of the cards and whatnot, you have said:  "I am right because I want to be."

Congratulations, you're a bigot.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you are in imperfect being... That means your standards, because they are your own, and come from no higher standard, are flawed from the get go because you are flawed.


 
You can't really prove that. Any proofs you try to give are entirely subjective, obviously. That's the problem.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And add to the fact that a musclim will tell you the only true transaltion of the Quaran is in aribic. They suggest that it can't be translated corectlly... Sounds counter productive of God's part if that was true.


 
I forgot Jesus was born in America and spoke English.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> So without all that fluff about you believing in the heart of the cards and whatnot, you have said:  "I am right because I want to be."
> 
> Congratulations, you're a bigot.


 
No not at all, I am right only as Jesus is True. I am right because I was chosen by God. He chose me. He saved me. It is nothing about me because I want to be right. Its not me that is right. Its God. My identity is in Christ Jesus. There is no I.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No not at all, I am right only as Jesus is True. I am right because I was chosen by God. He chose me. He saved me. It is nothing about me because I want to be right. Its not me that is right. Its God. My identity is in Christ Jesus. There is no I.


 
Stop me anyone if I'm wrong, but he sounds terribly like a cultist.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> You can't really prove that. Any proofs you try to give are entirely subjective, obviously. That's the problem.


 
I can't prove people are flawed? I can't prove people are imperfect? Have you ever lied? Stole something? Broken a law? (Say like speeding), been abusive?, selfish?, mean spirited?, hypocritical?, immoral? Those are just some examples. Not one person on this planet has not done something wrong. We all are flawed. Not just part of us. Every part of us is flawed. This means if we hold standards from ourselves, those are flawed as well. Because we all are imperfect, who can say what is right and wrong? Only someone who is perfect can say that.



Werevixen said:


> Stop me anyone if I'm wrong, but he sounds terribly like a cultist.


 You probably believe all religions are a cult. And since to you Christianity is a religion, you say its a cult.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can't prove people are flawed? I can't prove people are imperfect? Have you ever lied? Stole something? Broken a law? (Say like speeding), been abusive?, selfish?, mean spirited?, hypocritical?, immoral? Those are just some examples. Not one person on this planet has not done something wrong. We all are flawed. Not just part of us. Every part of us is flawed. This means if we hold standards from ourselves, those are flawed as well. Because we all are imperfect, who can say what is right and wrong? Only someone who is perfect can say that.


 
It's human nature working perfectly.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No not at all, I am right only as Jesus is True. I am right because I was chosen by God. He chose me. He saved me. It is nothing about me because I want to be right. Its not me that is right. Its God. My identity is in Christ Jesus. There is no I.


 
The actual, real person Jesus Christ was obviously a far better speaker and debater than you are.  Therefore, you are not him.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Not all religions are cults, but you still sound like a cultist.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> It's human nature working perfectly.


 
Human nature is flawed. we are selfish cruel people by nature. Nothing on this world is perfect.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> The actual, real person Jesus Christ was obviously a far better speaker and debater than you are.  Therefore, you are not him.


 
Jesus debated using God's word... just so you know.
I am not Christ, this is very true. But I belong to Him. I am His. Bought and paid for by His Blood.




Fay V said:


> Not all religions are cults, but you still sound like a cultist.



So, now I am a cultist because I have complete, unwavering Faith in Christ Jesus?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

ignoring the scripture stuff again. This is an interesting dualism I see in religion. 
where the western religions say we are born evil and only through god or whatever can we be good, the eastern tend to think that people are inherently good, but are lead astray. 
I find that sort of thing fascinating.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Human nature is flawed. we are selfish cruel people by nature. Nothing on this world is perfect.


 
Clearly God messed up when he looked upon the world and saw that it was good :/



Fay V said:


> ignoring the scripture stuff again. This is an interesting dualism I see in religion.
> where the western religions say we are born evil and only through god or  whatever can we be good, the eastern tend to think that people are  inherently good, but are lead astray.
> *I find that sort of thing fascinating*.


 
You are awesome. Check out Zoroastrianism if you haven't already. They believe all matter is inherently evil and a manifestation of evil itself. It's damned fascinating if I may say so.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Human nature is flawed. we are selfish cruel people by nature. Nothing on this world is perfect.


 
But God made us in his image, and God is perfect, thusly our human nature is perfectly working by being flawed, and God is perfect so we are all perfect, we are shaped in God's eye, and God himself is perfect, which makes him incapable of making a mistake.



secretfur said:


> Clearly God messed up when he looked upon the world and saw that it was good :/


 
He's like every cultist in debate, no foot to stand on and desperately grasping at strings hoping it's attached to the ceiling.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Clearly God messed up when he looked upon the world and saw that it was good :/


 
He said that before Sin entered the World.



Werevixen said:


> But God made us in his image, and God is  perfect, thusly our human nature is perfectly working by being flawed,  and God is perfect so we are all perfect, we are shaped in God's eye,  and God himself is perfect, which makes him incapable of making a  mistake.


 
We are made in his image, not just like Him.  We were perfect before Sin entered the world. Now because of sin, we are imperfect.God didn't make a mistake, again I have stated this and the reasons why many times. He gave us free will. We chose to be disobedient to Him.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can't prove people are flawed? I can't prove people are imperfect? Have you ever lied? Stole something? Broken a law? (Say like speeding), been abusive?, selfish?, mean spirited?, hypocritical?, immoral? Those are just some examples. Not one person on this planet has not done something wrong. We all are flawed. Not just part of us. Every part of us is flawed. This means if we hold standards from ourselves, those are flawed as well. Because we all are imperfect, who can say what is right and wrong? Only someone who is perfect can say that.



No you can't. Who are you to say what is flawed? _Only someone who is perfect can say that._ How do you know Tycho isn't perfect? You don't. It's your guess vs. his. (However, you've already proven your guess wrong.)


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He said that before Sin entered the World. Nice try though.


 
But he made us in His image, from the start, thus He was flawed and if we were perfect, we were infact flawed by not functioning like Him. Seems like He corrected that though and lured us into His image of perfection.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> But he made us in His image, from the start, thus He was flawed and if we were perfect, we were infact flawed by not functioning like Him. Seems like He corrected that though and lured us into His image of perfection.


 
Read Genesis chapter 1 and 2 please, we were perfect. But when we disobeyed God we fell from grace, thus making us imperfect. Adam and Eve were not flawed when they were made. we were not a mistake. We became flawed when we decided we were as smart as God.


----------



## Kangamutt (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you are in imperfect being... That means your standards, because they are your own, and come from no higher standard, are flawed from the get go because you are flawed.


 
CIRCULAR LOGIC DETECTED!!! 

God isn't all that infallible as you make him out to be. Remember how he flooded the Earth? Then after it all dried up, he made a promise to never flood it again, and created the rainbow as a symbol of said promise?

Sure sounds like he was apologising  and admitting to a MISTAKE.

Or how about sending down Jesus, hm? The whole out with the old, in with the new? Were he so infallible, he would've just stuck with his old draconian ways of raining sulfur from the skies, and sending out horrid plagues. Gee wiz, it sure sounds like he figured the Old Testament was a bid idea! But wait-- I thought he was incapable of making a bad decisions!

I would absolutely LOVE to see what you say in response. I yearn to learn, O _Wise One_.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read Genesis chapter 1 and 2 please, we  were perfect. But when we disobeyed God we fell from grace, thus making  us imperfect. Adam and Eve were not flawed when they were made. we were  not a mistake. We became flawed when we decided we were as smart as  God.



If they weren't so flawed as you say, how did they fall into the serpent's temptation? I though giving into temptation was a flaw. :V


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you are in imperfect being... That means your standards, because they are your own, and come from no higher standard, are flawed from the get go because you are flawed.


 
I don't need sky-daddy telling me "killing people is usually wrong" to know that killing people is wrong.  Your god doesn't own my conscience.  I own my conscience.  I am a whole man.  Unlike you, I do not have need of a god to fill in the space in my mind where a conscience and moral identity of one's own would normally be found.  I possess my own conscience and moral identity.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read Genesis chapter 1 and 2 please, we were perfect. But when we disobeyed God we fell from grace, thus making us imperfect. Adam and Eve were not flawed when they were made. we were not a mistake. We became flawed when we decided we were as smart as God.


 
I did, but the Bible is very much open to interpretation, and you're being a bigot by forcing your views upon me.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The basic definition of Atheism is the rejection of the existence in a deity. Thats kinda is denying the existence of God.



No, it's just doubt not full rejection. You don't seem to know the definition of Atheism.

There are different forms of Atheism, but it is empirical evidence based. If they believe anything, it's a personal thing not an Atheism thing.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> No you can't. Who are you to say what is flawed? _Only someone who is perfect can say that._ How do you know Tycho isn't perfect? You don't. It's your guess vs. his. (However, you've already proven your guess wrong.)


 
Who are you to say who isn't flawed? By what standards to you base that assumption on?


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 6, 2010)

Oh man, there is so much here I want to argue over 10 pages of posts....



Fay V said:


> Harry Potter mentions when the Playstation 2 came out.



Playstation 1, dear. HP was set in the 90s. The PS2 hadn't come out yet, if I remember.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> No archaeological discovery has ever    proven wrong a Biblical reference.
> Here are some examples:
> ...



Over half the bible is historical accounts and stories. It's basically the Jewish history. So you can say "Well the bible says the jews fought these people" and there's archeological evidence to prove it. Just because one part of the Bible is factual doesn't make the entire bible factual.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I did, but the Bible is very much open to interpretation, and you're being a bigot by forcing your views upon me.


 
How am I forcing you? I am merely explaining my faith to you. Thats not force. You don't have to believe. You don't have to listen to anything I say. I am not forcing anyone to believe in what I do. As I said, The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists. Thats not forcing you.




Heimdal said:


> No, it's just doubt not full rejection. You don't seem to know the definition of Atheism.
> 
> There  are different forms of Atheism, but it is empirical evidence based. If  they believe anything, it's a personal thing not an Atheism  thing.



Well, technically unbelief in God is rejecting God. According to the Bible, every sin has its root in unbelief.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Jesus debated using God's word... just so you know.



No, Jesus used his own words to promote the idea of his version of god.  When the bible was written *years after Jesus died*, the _human_ author decided to attribute a god's voice to Jesus, probably because it made it sound more dramatic.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How am I forcing you? I am merely  explaining my faith to you. Thats not force. You don't have to believe.  You don't have to listen to anything I say. I am not forcing anyone to  believe in what I do. As I said, The Bible says that we must accept by  faith the fact that God exists. Thats not forcing you.


 
No, you're just asserting that you're right, everyone else will burn in hell, and you'll get to suck god's dick for all eternity.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> Oh man, there is so much here I want to argue over 10 pages of posts....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You're right. it was playstation 1. Still the sarcastic point remains. Fiction easily incorporates historical things.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who are you to say who isn't flawed? By what standards to you base that assumption on?


 
That's what I was wondering. You were the one who said only someone who's perfect can judge.

Frankly, that's bullshit anyways. You don't need to be perfect to see the errors in others. Art critics aren't always the best artists in the world themselves, but it's a mistake to just ignore their advice.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Riley said:


> No, Jesus used his own words to promote the idea of his version of god.  When the bible was written *years after Jesus died*, the _human_ author decided to attribute a god's voice to Jesus, probably because it made it sound more dramatic.


 
The Gospels were written while there were still thousands of people who had seen and heard Jesus...Therefore How could someone write down a complete fallacy about what Jesus said while there were many people who were still alive and saw Him?
Secondly Jesus said He was God, He wasn't talking about His version of a god. He said He was God.

Jesus words are correct in terms of historical accuracy.


And I am not condemning you. The Bible is, and therefore God is, because the Bible is God's Word. I am merely reiterating what God has spoken. If you have a problem with the whole condemnation thing. Take that up with God.

*God doesn't condemn us, he gives us a way to salvation. we condemn ourselves.*


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> That's what I was wondering. You were the one who said only someone who's perfect can judge.
> 
> Frankly, that's bullshit anyways. You don't need to be perfect to see the errors in others. Art critics aren't always the best artists in the world themselves, but it's a mistake to just ignore their advice.


 
But one would need to be perfect to be a perfect judge. How can one judge another when he too is flawed?


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He said that before Sin entered the World.


 
If we were so perfect, why did we gain knowledge of sin in the first place? A 'perfect' person would've easily resisted the temptation to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

The ability to be tempted in the first place is an imperfection itself.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, technically unbelief in God is rejecting God. According to the Bible, every sin has its root in unbelief.



"Technically" according to the Bible, maybe. 'Doubt' and 'rejection' are totally different in any rational understanding. That's a horribly wrong angle to attack Atheism from.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But one would need to be perfect to be a perfect judge. How can one judge another when he too is flawed?


 
Easily.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> If we were so perfect, why did we gain knowledge of sin in the first place? A 'perfect' person would've easily resisted the temptation to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
> 
> The ability to be tempted in the first place is an imperfection itself.


 
Free will. God gave us free will to choose to follow Him or not. We gained knowledge of sin because Satan deceived Adam and Eve.
Further more, Jesus was tempted and He was perfect, remember that part in the Bible. Satan tempted Jesus in all things. Being tempted isn't a sin. Its what we do with that temptation that makes it a sin or not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Easily.


 
No not really. Because their reasoning is flawed. They cannot be an impartial Judge.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No not really. Because their reasoning is flawed. They cannot be an impartial Judge.


 
What?
Does being human make us bad at everything we do? Why even have schools then?

No, that's stupid. You listen to the people who know more about something than you do, if not then it is to your own peril.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Being tempted isn't a sin. Its what we do with that temptation that makes it a sin or not.


 
I'm not saying it's a sin I'm saying it's an imperfection. But God made humans perfect. There is a contradiction here.


----------



## Deo (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No not really. Because their reasoning is flawed. They cannot be an impartial Judge.


 
You're biased. Your reasoning is flawed.

Also if the Bible is perfect then why is it messed up? (list).


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Free will. God gave us free will to choose to follow Him or not. We gained knowledge of sin because Satan deceived Adam and Eve.
> Further more, Jesus was tempted and He was perfect, remember that part in the Bible. Satan tempted Jesus in all things. Being tempted isn't a sin. Its what we do with that temptation that makes it a sin or not.


 
Again, this makes it more of a half-free will.  "I won't tell you guys to believe in me, but if you don't, I'll just make your afterlife really horrible.  No pressure!"


----------



## GingerM (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I say God has always existed because he exists outside of our universe, He exists outside of time (time is not linear for God) A Singularity exists within our universe and therefore is bound by the Laws of Science.


 
The primordial singularity was the universe, whole and complete. However, one of the defining characteristics of singularities is that the normal laws of physics cannot describe what goes on inside them. Another example would be a classic black hole; that is, a point of gravitational attraction so intense that the 'escape speed' required to leave it would be faster than the speed of light. What is inside such a thing? We don't know because the laws of physics that describe the bulk of the universe cannot describe the interior of a black hole. This is not to say that science will never be able to describe it, merely that we do not know yet.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> I'm not saying it's a sin I'm saying it's an imperfection. But God made humans perfect. There is a contradiction here.


 
Imperfection is sin. Temptation is not a Sin. As I stated before, Jesus Christ was tempted in all things and He was perfect.



GingerM said:


> The primordial singularity was the  universe, whole and complete. However, one of the defining  characteristics of singularities is that the normal laws of physics  cannot describe what goes on inside them. Another example would be a  classic black hole; that is, a point of gravitational attraction so  intense that the 'escape speed' required to leave it would be faster  than the speed of light. What is inside such a thing? We don't know  because the laws of physics that describe the bulk of the universe  cannot describe the interior of a black hole. This is not to say that  science will never be able to describe it, merely that we do not know  yet.


 
You your implying that one can throw out the Laws of Physics?
"The primordial singularity was the  universe" and where did this come from? The Law of Thermodynamics state that something cannot be created from nothing, and matter and energy cannot just exist.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Imperfection is sin.* Temptation is not a Sin. As I stated before, Jesus Christ was tempted in all things and He was perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> You your implying that one can throw out the Laws of Physics?


 
So imperfection is a sin, and no one will ever be perfect, so God is just saving you from himself if you say pretty please nice enough. 
Unless you're a baby and can't
Or have never heard the gospel ever in your life and don't know the name jesus at all...pray to god you don't have a mental disorder. or don't since he obviously doesn't give a shit and you're going to burn.


----------



## Riley (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Imperfection is sin. Temptation is not a Sin. As I stated before, Jesus Christ was tempted in all things and He was perfect.



So Jesus never whined a bit when he was a kid?  He never smartmouthed his carpentry mentor?  Never hit a nail at the wrong angle and had to pull it out?  Had perfect skin, nails, teeth, and hair?  All of his fingers were even?  Perfection means *perfection*, not "perfect in these few convenient ways."  If you want to argue that, then I'm a perfect me.  No other person is as good a me as me.  I'm the perfect representation of me, which makes me perfect.  Nevermind that I have a short torso, and my right middle finger is a bit longer than my left, because I'm perfect at being me, it implies that I'm perfect in every other way imaginable.  

And if you don't agree then you're just not interpreting my words correctly.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

What I have learned from this thread:

There is no point in believing or disbelieving in anything since both sides of the god/no god debate are just as bad as one another. I'mma start my own religion, just for me. It'll make more sense then most of this shit.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Law of Thermodynamics state that *something cannot be created from nothing*, and matter and energy cannot just exist.


 
In the beginning there was nothing. Bible 101 :/


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> In the beginning there was nothing. Bible 101 :/


 
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> What I have learned from this thread:
> 
> There is no point in believing or disbelieving in anything since both sides of the god/no god debate are just as bad as one another. I'mma start my own religion, just for me. It'll make more sense then most of this shit.



I think that is by far the best answer.


----------



## Deo (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Imperfection is sin.


 
DIAMONDS CONTAIN SIN? I WILL NEVER HETEROSEXUALLY MARRY THEN SO I DON'T HAVE TO CARRY AROUND A SINSTONE ON MY FINGER. THANK YOU RUKH FOR MAKING ME A LESBIAN.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I think that is by far the best answer.


 
I have a disciple already it seems.

WORSHIP ME FOR I AM THE TRUTH.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> I have a disciple already it seems.
> 
> WORSHIP ME FOR I AM THE TRUTH.


 but you said it was just for you :<


----------



## Deo (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> I have a disciple already it seems.
> 
> WORSHIP ME FOR I AM THE TRUTH.



I CAN'T WORSHIP YOU I'M NOW A LESBIAN! WOOHOO, PREMARITAL POLYAMOROUS SEX HERE I COME!


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Fay V said:


> but you said it was just for you :<


 
But then I realized how lucrative this way is. Besides it will be just for me in the same way that Christianity is just for Christ. 

My first commandment  is to bring sexy back.



Deovacuus said:


> I CAN'T WORSHIP YOU I'M NOW A LESBIAN! WOOHOO, PREMARITAL POLYAMOROUS SEX HERE I COME!


 Fear not my child. I smile on such things and by bringing more lesbians to my sight you will further curry my favor. 

And it will be good.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


 
God made something from nothing. You cannot create something from nothing.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> God made something from nothing. You cannot create something from nothing.


 
God according to Rukh is outside of childish things like physics. He's not offering proof he just forgot to mention the caveat "unless you're God."

Or me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

So i take it Rukh couldnt come up with an exaple of even one of the" manâ€y atheists he claims are inferior. Let alone one that doesn't parallel a fellow christian of his


----------



## Deo (Dec 6, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So i take it Rukh couldnt come up with an exaple of even one of the" manâ€y atheists he claims are inferior. Let alone one that doesn't parallel a fellow christian of his



Wait. He claimed that one section of people is inferior to another?
What the fuck, motherfucker.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> God according to Rukh is outside of childish things like physics. He's not offering proof he just forgot to mention the caveat "unless you're God."
> 
> Or me.


 
At least if people prayed to you you could say 'HAHA NO' when they ask for something.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

secretfur said:


> At least if people prayed to you you could say 'HAHA NO' when they ask for something.


 
I'll probably just stick with the tried and true ChristGod's method and say that they didn't pray hard enough. Or that their prayers are sinful. I'm very new at being a God so forgive me if I copy some things.

so much blasphemy


----------



## GingerM (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Gravity is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> The Law of thermodynamics is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.
> Evolution is a hypothesis that demands to be accepted as fact, which is anathema to scientific process and consequently science itself.



Not at all. Look at the scientific method; it never claims theories and hypotheses are fact and immutable. As you yourself pointed out a few posts ago, cosmologists - Dr. Hawking among them - regularly revise and change theories as new data comes to light or it turns out that their working theory has holes in it. Now if the popular media treat theories as fact, that's hardly the fault of the scientific method and scientists generally. Also note that scientists are human and do become wedded to their theories, to the point that some have rejected verifiable data because it would undo their work. That isn't a failure of the method; it's a failure of the scientist to be intellectually honest.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And the lolcat Bible is not a Bible Translation. And you know that. The lolcat bible is a Wiki project that aims to translate the entire _Bible_ into Kitty Pidgin English. In other words, its not real. And you knew that.



Given that the original writings weren't in any form of modern western language, nor Latin, why is lolcat-ese not a valid translation? For that matter, what makes you the arbiter of what is and is not a valid translation?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone believes and has faith in something.



Agree with you so far.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Either they believe and have faith that God doesn't exist (because he can't be disproven) Or they believe in God and have faith in Him.



...and this is where you and I part company. You seem to think this is a binary set. What about people who believe in other deity/ies? As an example, there are in Iceland, Norway, Denmark & so on, people who believe in and worship the Norse mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ásatrú_holidays). They neither believe nor disbelieve in a single God or even a trinity; they believe in a pantheon of gods. Similarly, in Greece, there are people who are discovering - or re-discovering, depending on how you view it - the Greek pantheon. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/01/religion.uk)

Note that these are people whose faith is deep and sincere; I'm not going to get into whether they're right or not. I think it fairly safe to say that you believe they are wrong, and that God and the Bible are the source of your belief. However, you need to recognize - which is not to say convert - that their faith in what they believe is equally valid. They may be wrong, they may be right, but they can be just as sincere in there belief as you are in yours.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Rukh_Whitefang said:
> 
> 
> > The existence of God cannot be proved (to the point that faith is not required here on earth) or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: â€œAnd without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Himâ€ (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. â€œThen Jesus told him, â€˜Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believedâ€™â€ (John 20:29).
> ...



No, Dire, that's not fair. That is a profession of faith and exactly what faith is: acceptance without evidence. My issue is with Ruhk insisting that the Bible is evidence in the same way that data gathered in a lab or field observations is evidence. That I cannot and will not agree with. But I have no problem at all with Ruhk professing his faith.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I can't prove people are flawed? I can't prove people are imperfect? Have you ever lied? Stole something? Broken a law? (Say like speeding), been abusive?, selfish?, mean spirited?, hypocritical?, immoral? Those are just some examples. Not one person on this planet has not done something wrong. We all are flawed. Not just part of us. Every part of us is flawed. This means if we hold standards from ourselves, those are flawed as well. Because we all are imperfect, who can say what is right and wrong? Only someone who is perfect can say that.



Your arguement suggests that we, with all our flaws, are somehow unable to recognize those flaws and that they need to be overcome. Or (given human nature), we more probably recognize flaws in others and strive to correct them because humans are generally nosey parkers.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang;2286087You your implying that one can throw out the Laws of Physics? "The primordial singularity [U said:
			
		

> was [/U]the  universe" and where did this come from? The Law of Thermodynamics state that something cannot be created from nothing, and matter and energy cannot just exist.



Not a bit. All I'm saying is that the laws of physics are (fairly obviously) not complete yet, because there are natural phenomena in the universe that they cannot describe. As for the second, one of the variants on creation theory posits that the universe itself is expanding. That is to say, it was smaller in the past than it is now. Strictly as a layman and by no means versed in the esoterica of cosmology, this seems to fit the available observational data best. The other galaxies in the universe are receding from the Milky way and from each other; the only way that could happen is if space itself, the volume of the universe, is increasing. But if it is indeed increasing, then that implies that at some point in the past, the universe was much, much smaller - a singularity. Thermodynamics indeed asserts that something cannot be created from nothing, but that implies that there was a nothingness before the singularity. However, time and space are interrelated; if the universe was *not*, then there is no workable definition of time to describe what if anything preceded the universe. English is not well-suited to discuss this, unfortunately.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> I'll probably just stick with the tried and true ChristGod's method and COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM.


 
Fixed for you, o mighty Browder-deity.


----------



## Browder (Dec 6, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Fixed for you, o mighty Browder-deity.


Thank you, my son. 

Interestingly enough, I choose my avatar as a way to reaffirm myself as my own personal god. Confidence booster. 

IT IS MY SYMBOL AND IT IS HOLY. USE IT IN VAIN. THIS DO I DECREE.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 6, 2010)

Browder said:


> Thank you, my son.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I choose my avatar as a way to reaffirm myself as my own personal god. Confidence booster.
> 
> IT IS MY SYMBOL AND IT IS HOLY. USE IT IN VAIN. THIS DO I DECREE.


 
PRAISE BE


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 6, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yes many of them are, why? Because they pick and choose what ethics and morals to believe in, they pick and choose where they get right and wrong from, and then they think they know better than everyone else. They have no set standard. They pick what they think is right and wrong. Who are they, an imperfect being to say what is right and wrong. They make mistakes and sin just as much as anyone else does. They think they are perfect to a degree. That is pride to the nth degree. Not one person is better than anyone else. This is why we are saved by grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.


 

Still waiting on the example there Rukh.

Ill even expand it to include ANY non-satirical/comedy page you can come up with. Ill take damn near any thing at this point:if you cant provide, than admit you are wrong.

(remember it cant be parallel to any god-worshipping theist ;v)


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

I wonder why the old Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs fell out of order. I like those Gods more. Hinduism is the only theology where I can get me some multiple Gods, but they still aren't as interesting, characteristically, as the deities in the Greek and Roman belief system.

Hell, with that Hadron Collidor saying the universe started out as a liquid/plasma thing, I think we should all go back to worshiping Poseidon. He was one cool motherfucker for he had a trident!

He is my new God, a much better God than the Christian one. He has character, he DOES THINGS, he has a trident, and he controls the ocean. Basically, he isn't a marry fucking sue of a character. The Christian God is boring when he isn't being an asshole.\

Edit: It took me almost an hour to get caught up in this thread. Ten pages of shitty logic by Rukh. Was pretty headache inducing.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 7, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Transtaled does not mean edited. *Secondly I use all the translations. Doesn't matter which one.* ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, The Message, NLT, CEV, NCV, GOD'S WORD Translation, 21st Century KJV, ASB, YLT, or any other translation. *They all say the same thing*.



Oh, _really?_ 
I don't think so - and just to refresh your memory:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Acts 22:9 states: My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
> 
> No where does it say that they didn't see the light or hear the voice...The verse says they did see the flash of light and hear the voice of Jesus. But they didn't understand who was speaking to Saul (Now Paul)


 


Mayfurr said:


> Acts 9:7 (King James Version) "_And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, *hearing a voice, *but seeing no man._"
> 
> Acts 22:9 (King James Version) "_And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; *but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me*._"


 
So here's an example of where the Bible text *you're* quoting _doesn't say the same thing_ as the verses I've posted (courtesy of www.biblegateway.com). 

Care to try again?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> I wonder why the old Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs fell out of order. I like those Gods more. Hinduism is the only theology where I can get me some multiple Gods, but they still aren't as interesting, characteristically, as the deities in the Greek and Roman belief system.
> 
> Hell, with that Hadron Collidor saying the universe started out as a liquid/plasma thing, I think we should all go back to worshiping Poseidon. He was one cool motherfucker for he had a trident!
> 
> ...


 
Not to bash Christianity, but I think it's because the world superpower converted. the polytheistic greco/roman stuff was still pretty strong but the roman emperor converted and the polytheistic traditions were absorbed. Notice Saturnalia is awfully close to christmas? Granted it's similar to a lot of holidays.  Anyway that's pretty much what happened. the Polytheistic stuff was all incorporated. you can see come of it in the Bible well...OT anyway. there's certainly references to Teraphim which are not destroyed every time they are mentioned.
I can't really blame Christianity for this one, considering that romans did the same thing, and egypt, and aztecs to a certain extent I believe. Any large religion absorbed others.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 7, 2010)

Rukh hasn't posted in a while. I can only hope he's off having an existential crisis and re-evaluating his beliefs.

I can also hope for a unicorn to crap money into my hands :/


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Rukh hasn't posted in a while. I can only hope he's off having an existential crisis and re-evaluating his beliefs.
> 
> I can also hope for a unicorn to crap money into my hands :/


 
I think he went to bed. Let us use this time to discuss religions without his "no ur wrong" attitude. 

You know what I find neat? Aztec mythology. I really find it incredible how their "good" god was tricked into leaving them and they only had tezcatlipolca (sp?). I think it's probably a really cool story behind the way one cult rose above the other. 
Also polytheistic religions had some of the best explanations for things. Why are there deformed people in the world? Well the creating god got drunk. great oral stories those...


----------



## Riley (Dec 7, 2010)

If I ever invent a time machine, my first trip will be into the future, to bring myself back a fancy spaceship.  Then I'll go back and kill baby Charlemagne.  Then I'll be able to compare my future spaceship with the current-day spaceships since Christianity wouldn't have had a chance to be directly responsible for 600 years of lost scientific and technological progress.

This is my logic from 1:30 AM, and it's still more sound than Rukh's.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 7, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I think he went to bed. Let us use this time to discuss religions without his "no ur wrong" attitude.
> 
> You know what I find neat? Aztec mythology. I really find it incredible how their "good" god was tricked into leaving them and they only had tezcatlipolca (sp?). I think it's probably a really cool story behind the way one cult rose above the other.
> Also polytheistic religions had some of the best explanations for things. Why are there deformed people in the world? Well the creating god got drunk. great oral stories those...



I think that's how Yahweh came to be the dominant semitic god. If I remember right, each family or tribe had their own god they claimed to be descended from. As one group became more powerful the more worship their god received. See if I can find an article about it.



Riley said:


> Then I'll go back and kill baby Charlemagne.



But then there'd be no Christopher Lee. Could you live with yourself?


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Not to bash Christianity, but I think it's because the world superpower converted. the polytheistic greco/roman stuff was still pretty strong but the roman emperor converted and the polytheistic traditions were absorbed. Notice Saturnalia is awfully close to christmas? Granted it's similar to a lot of holidays.  Anyway that's pretty much what happened. the Polytheistic stuff was all incorporated. you can see come of it in the Bible well...OT anyway. there's certainly references to Teraphim which are not destroyed every time they are mentioned.
> I can't really blame Christianity for this one, considering that romans did the same thing, and egypt, and aztecs to a certain extent I believe. Any large religion absorbed others.


 Oh, I don't blame Christianity for it, though that was the growing religion that seemed to swell up and absorb the others. It's just a shame that the polytheistic religions were absorbed. The Greek and Roman Gods were such fun characters, riddled with faults and problems that people could relate to. This "all perfect" entity is hard to grasp because the world isn't perfect. 

I like a good story, and part of a good story is having good characters. Hades and Zeus and all the others are interesting and they have interesting relationships with each other. The Christian God is just God. Not as fun. He's supposed to be perfect and all loving, where's the fun in that? Where's the action! It's all the fuckups of people, but of course people are going to fuck up. That's not new. And hell, the people fuckups in the Bible aren't as fun as the  people fuckups in other fictional novels. I might as well read those.

Oddly enough, I don't know much about the religious side of the Greek and Roman Gods, just the goofy shit they got themselves into :V Perhaps that's the problem.



> Also polytheistic religions had some of the best explanations for  things. Why are there deformed people in the world? Well the creating  god got drunk. great oral stories those...


I can worship that. Easily.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Oh, I don't blame Christianity for it, though that was the growing religion that seemed to swell up and absorb the others. It's just a shame that the polytheistic religions were absorbed. The Greek and Roman Gods were such fun characters, riddled with faults and problems that people could relate to. This "all perfect" entity is hard to grasp because the world isn't perfect.
> 
> I like a good story, and part of a good story is having good characters. Hades and Zeus and all the others are interesting and they have interesting relationships with each other. The Christian God is just God. Not as fun. He's supposed to be perfect and all loving, where's the fun in that? Where's the action! It's all the fuckups of people, but of course people are going to fuck up. That's not new. And hell, the people fuckups in the Bible aren't as fun as the  people fuckups in other fictional novels. I might as well read those.
> 
> ...


 
i dont know that much either to be honest, just some of the stories, which is like trying to figure out how catholics practice based on the bible. it's hard. 
I do know about the festival of dionysus. which was pretty much furry orgy time. 
The stories are fantastic though. Even the mesopotamian stories are awesome, and way more interesting that their monotheistic cousins. 
I think part of it is the polytheistic stuff is absorbed so it all gets a whitewash and blurred so that the multiple gods become one, and are edited in order to give the message the people want. things that have to appeal to everyone are dull.


----------



## Goobladon (Dec 7, 2010)

I believe in what is practical to me...

And taking a couple hours out of my Sunday busy gaming schedule is not practical. :V

*Just my opinions*

I say we just put faith in technology, reach a point of knowledge that is unfathomable to us in our time period. Establish civilization across the solar system, then galaxy, then universe. Ensure survival of the species until the end of the universe....

Because sooner or later some asteroid the size of Alaska is gonna come by and wipe out this planet, or some disaster like that, and I hope humanity advances enough to do something about it... rather than just sit down and pray the rock goes away. I'd rather have a plan B...

Sounds too Sci-Fi? Well... I personally don't have any doubts in humanities ability to live on. We will probably find a way to do anything if we survive..

But whatever... To each their own right?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 7, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Rukh hasn't posted in a while. I can only hope he's off having an existential crisis and re-evaluating his beliefs.
> 
> I can also hope for a unicorn to crap money into my hands :/


Its nice when we can discuss other things.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 7, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Its nice when we can discuss other things other things.


 
I sense an Insecticon, Insecticon.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I sense an Insecticon, Insecticon.


Insecticon?

Edit: Oh, my mistake.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 7, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Insecticon?
> 
> Edit: Oh, my mistake.


 
Fuck the nerd in me, I thought you were making a Shrapnel reference (Transformers Insecticon Shrapnel) :v

(He always repeats the last word of every sentence, sentence.)


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 7, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Fuck the nerd in me, I thought you were making a Shrapnel reference (Transformers Insecticon Shrapnel) :v
> 
> (He always repeats the last word of every sentence, sentence.)


I see. Lol. I tend to make that mistake sometimes, when I get distracted while posting.

I didn't get to watch much cartoons when I was a kid... I have to go to normal school in the morning and religious school in the afternoon.  ):

Edit: Ooh! Rank Not Found


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 7, 2010)

I will take this opportunity once more to remind you all that arguing from Rukh's standpoint isn't helpful. Remember the issue here is wether or not his deity exists, and while he's claiming a clearly terrible being (his god) is perfect, remember that he has to prove Yahweh's existance first before he gets to talk about his god Yahweh's morality.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

I feel like derailing this without derailing it. 

Churches. I actually quite like being in them, or old churches anyway. New churches just bore me, but old style churches with high arches and the specific  architecture to inspire feeling of awe and reverence. I like those ones. It's especially nice if they still have gargoyles, though that's pretty much only in Europe. 

Do other holy temple or holy building type places use the same kind of tricks for other religions?


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 7, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Do other holy temple or holy building type places use the same kind of tricks for other religions?


 
Think the high-arch epic art/statue thing is pretty much the standard. It works too. The one time I went to Canterbury Cathedral it struck me stupid with its grandeur, I was so impressed I stayed for mass.

Been to a few Mosques, but it doesnt have the same effect. Lack of imagery maybe?


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

secretfur said:


> Think the high-arch epic art/statue thing is pretty much the standard. It works too. The one time I went to Canterbury Cathedral it struck me stupid with its grandeur, I was so impressed I stayed for mass.



There was a Cathedral I went to in New York that had the same effect...I can't remember the name to save my life



> Been to a few Mosques, but it doesnt have the same effect. Lack of imagery maybe?


 
It could be assumed. Churches and cathedrals use beautiful iconogrpahy to bring in followers.
Muslims do not like to use religious iconography like most Christian establishments, but instead stick to geometric designs an arabic writing such as Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim either on bronze or painted on.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

I live within 100 miles from some of the most impressive cathedrals around;

The Romboutstoren and the Antwerpse kathedraal to name a few.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I live within 100 miles from some of the most impressive cathedrals around;
> 
> The Romboutstoren and the Antwerpse kathedraal to name a few.


 
I came.


----------



## Riley (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Oh, I don't blame Christianity for it, though that was the growing religion that seemed to swell up and absorb the others. It's just a shame that the polytheistic religions were absorbed. The Greek and Roman Gods were such fun characters, riddled with faults and problems that people could relate to. This "all perfect" entity is hard to grasp because the world isn't perfect.
> 
> I like a good story, and part of a good story is having good characters. Hades and Zeus and all the others are interesting and they have interesting relationships with each other. The Christian God is just God. Not as fun. He's supposed to be perfect and all loving, where's the fun in that? Where's the action! It's all the fuckups of people, but of course people are going to fuck up. That's not new. And hell, the people fuckups in the Bible aren't as fun as the  people fuckups in other fictional novels. I might as well read those.
> 
> ...



I can certainly agree with this; polytheistic religions are just more interesting, especially since they most often changed and progressed with the culture, as was evident through the addition of new gods and goddesses.  That kind of religion and belief system was obviously the kind used to explain things the culture did not understand, until they did understand it.  Modern, monotheistic religions are just so adamant about not making any more progress because it would mean changing something.

I personally see religion, especially to the level of Rukh's fanaticism, as a stagnation of intelligence and progress.  They are more than happy to look around and say "Yeah, I guess this is as good as it'll ever get," then just flat out refuse any more new information about the way anything works.  Ancient Roman style of dealing with a meteor sighting?  "Wow, what is that?  I'm going to build a telescope and check it out!"  Modern day Christian zealot's?  "I don't dare challenge god's will, and he doesn't want me to be interested in that."


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 7, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Not to bash Christianity, but I think it's because the world superpower converted. the polytheistic greco/roman stuff was still pretty strong but the roman emperor converted and the polytheistic traditions were absorbed. Notice Saturnalia is awfully close to christmas? Granted it's similar to a lot of holidays.  Anyway that's pretty much what happened. the Polytheistic stuff was all incorporated. you can see come of it in the Bible well...OT anyway. there's certainly references to Teraphim which are not destroyed every time they are mentioned.
> I can't really blame Christianity for this one, considering that romans did the same thing, and egypt, and aztecs to a certain extent I believe. Any large religion absorbed others.


 
That happens, of course, but I do blame Christianity itself in this case. Before Christianity became big, the Romans allowed people to worship/believe anything they wanted to, so long as it didn't directly interfere with the leading Roman religion. Unfortunately, Christianity is completely intolerant of other religions. Christians got persecuted because they couldn't not tell the Romans how wrong they thought they were (not too bright, really)... although, I guess their solidarity caught on to a Roman leader and converted them. Then it went the other way and they persecuted all the other religions, because not believing in the one true God is evil.

Man, the early Romans had a good thing going in terms of religion... we're still not as free-thinking now.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> That happens, of course, but I do blame Christianity itself in this case. Before Christianity became big, the Romans allowed people to worship/believe anything they wanted to, so long as it didn't directly interfere with the leading Roman religion. Unfortunately, Christianity is completely intolerant of other religions. Christians got persecuted because they couldn't not tell the Romans how wrong they thought they were (not too bright, really)... although, I guess their solidarity caught on to a Roman leader and converted them. Then it went the other way and they persecuted all the other religions, because not believing in the one true God is evil.
> 
> Man, the early Romans had a good thing going in terms of religion... we're still not as free-thinking now.



I think it started when a Byzantine emperor had dreams about the cross, after which he had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields and won against an overwhelming force, causing him to instate Christianity as the main religion of the (I think) eastern Byzantine empire.


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 7, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> That happens, of course, but I do blame Christianity itself in this case. Before Christianity became big, the Romans allowed people to worship/believe anything they wanted to, so long as it didn't directly interfere with the leading Roman religion. Unfortunately, Christianity is completely intolerant of other religions. Christians got persecuted because they couldn't not tell the Romans how wrong they thought they were (not too bright, really)... although, I guess their solidarity caught on to a Roman leader and converted them. Then it went the other way and they persecuted all the other religions, because not believing in the one true God is evil.
> 
> Man, the early Romans had a good thing going in terms of religion... we're still not as free-thinking now.



Right! Because what is more free thinking than a state church. *rolleyes*


----------



## Deo (Dec 7, 2010)

Hy Rukh, before you say that the morals of atheists are pliable why don't you solidify your own morality rather than molding it to how you feel at that precise moment.

A good example was earlier you were asked if killing was immoral (and it is).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought what I said was clear. *To me, murder is murder. I just can't justify killing*


You say that you can't justify killing because killing is immoral. But then you forgo your solid morality (killing other people is always wrong) in order to justify killing. You see how hypocritical it is to point fingers at us for having lenient morals when your own morals are as pliable as a rubber band?




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor,*


Where before you said "I could never justify killing" you just justified it. and you even went beyond that and said that killing people does them a favor. This is skewed morals if I have ever seen them.



So before you tell us that our morals are paltry because of a lack of God you must first arrange it so that your morals have some sort of standard of decency. Otherwise you make a fool out of yourself. And as the Bible says we should not listen to fools.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I think it started when a Byzantine emperor had dreams about the cross, after which he had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields and won against an overwhelming force, causing him to instate Christianity as the main religion of the (I think) eastern Byzantine empire.


 
Sounds about right. I couldn't remember those details.



> Right! Because what is more free thinking than a state church. *rolleyes*



Next time I will try to clarify when I am only talking about a particular aspect, rather than all of the society.



> ... in terms of religion ...



Nvm, I did.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> That happens, of course, but I do blame Christianity itself in this case. Before Christianity became big, the Romans allowed people to worship/believe anything they wanted to, so long as it didn't directly interfere with the leading Roman religion. Unfortunately, Christianity is completely intolerant of other religions. Christians got persecuted because they couldn't not tell the Romans how wrong they thought they were (not too bright, really)... although, I guess their solidarity caught on to a Roman leader and converted them. Then it went the other way and they persecuted all the other religions, because not believing in the one true God is evil.
> 
> Man, the early Romans had a good thing going in terms of religion... we're still not as free-thinking now.


 
Funny thing is, after Christ's crucifixion, there was still a lot of bad blood between Christians and the Romans because of what Christ had done to instill a rebellion against the empire. The Christians were persecuted by the Romans for a good while and were forced to pray in secret. 

The Romans hated the Chrisitians for some political reasons.



Werevixen said:


> I think it started when a Byzantine emperor had dreams about the cross, after which he had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields and won against an overwhelming force, causing him to instate Christianity as the main religion of the (I think) eastern Byzantine empire.


 
Constantine was considered to be the "First" roman emporer to bring Chrisitianity into the Roman state because of his "Vision".
He had a dream that God came to him and told him to have his soldiers put crosses on their shields, and he did.
The opposing army had been wiped due to marching over a bridge that couldn't hold their wieght...and they fell into the river and drowned. :V

Constantine took this as a sign from god and instated Chrisitianity.


----------



## Deo (Dec 7, 2010)

That would be Charlemagne who made Christianity legitimate and not an outlawed cult. 
He's  also a very distant ancestor of mine. /wrists


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> That would be Charlemagne who made Christianity legitimate and not an outlawed cult.
> He's  also a very distant ancestor of mine. /wrists


 
Charlemagne made it stronger within Europe itself and the First Holy Roman Emperor, but Constantine made it legitamate.

EDIT: HA!


----------



## Deo (Dec 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Charlemagne made it stronger, but Constantine made it legitamate.
> 
> EDIT: HA!


 
Dammit. Historyyyyy whyyyyy.
Also this makes me feel better. I can blame Constantine who is not of my bloodline for the plague that is Christendom. Lovely news, lovely news...


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Charlemagne made it stronger within Europe itself and the First Holy Roman Emperor, but Constantine made it legitamate.
> 
> EDIT: HA!


 
Age of Empires II taught me alot of things.

Yay for games coming with huge glossaries.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Dammit. Historyyyyy whyyyyy.
> Also this makes me feel better. I can blame Constantine who is not of my bloodline for the plague that is Christendom. Lovely news, lovely news...


 
Too bad he didn't cross that bridge. :V



Werevixen said:


> Age of Empires II taught me alot of things.
> 
> Yay for games coming with huge glossaries.


 
I am a libraradin. :V
My History professor likes the game, which makes him cool.


----------



## GingerM (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> I think it started when a Byzantine emperor had dreams about the cross, after which he had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields and won against an overwhelming force, causing him to instate Christianity as the main religion of the (I think) eastern Byzantine empire.


 
Constantine is the one you're thinking of, and yes, that's pretty much what happened. Though it's worth noting that even though Christianity became the state religion (which is today the Eastern Orthodox Church), other sects were present and flourished. Also (at the risk of picking nits), the Byzantine Empire is what we call it from the perspective of history; to them, it was the Roman Empire (after the Roman Empire in the west fell to the Visigoths) and they thought of themselves as Romans. But that is very much by the way. Wikipedia's article on the Byzantine Empire is a pretty good overview and includes discussion of the Church and how it fit into that society, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> Age of Empires II taught me alot of things.
> 
> Yay for games coming with huge glossaries.


 
The last good Age of Empires game.  Alas.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Dec 7, 2010)

Hummus! Suntae! Stomar! Hchalos!

What fine words from the villagers of AoE1.

Empire Earth is far far better anyway.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Hummus! Suntae! Stomar! Hchalos!
> 
> What fine words from the villagers of AoE1.
> 
> Empire Earth is far far better anyway.


 
You forgot "Rogen" and "Wololo".


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There was a Cathedral I went to in New York that had the same effect...I can't remember the name to save my life.


 
Christians aren't above using psychological tricks when it suits them. Churches and cathedrals are built to make the people visiting them feel as small and insignificant as possible, which is the main point of them having the main sermon in a room designed to make people look up at the high vaulted ceilings.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Christians aren't above using psychological tricks when it suits them. Churches and cathedrals are built to make the people visiting them feel as small and insignificant as possible, which is the main point of them having the main sermon in a room designed to make people look up at the high vaulted ceilings.



The Architecture can do that. 

And Churches packed in as much iconograpic art because it made the decour more "divine" to those who looked at it.
From intricate stained glass windows to Ornate typtic altar pieces..


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Hy Rukh, before you say that the morals of atheists are pliable why don't you solidify your own morality rather than molding it to how you feel at that precise moment.
> 
> A good example was earlier you were asked if killing was immoral (and it is).
> 
> ...


 You do know that he'll just respond with "Well God lies outside morals" or something silly like that to brush your claim off, right? 



> The Architecture can do that.
> 
> And Churches packed in as much iconograpic art because it made the decour more "divine" to those who looked at it.
> From intricate stained glass windows to Ornate typtic altar pieces..


Which is funny seeing as churchgoers and priests are supposed to live a life of humbleness and basically poverty. How much money was spent to make those giant cathedrals? How many lives were lost in building them? The hell is wrong with a small standard church :V

Not to say I'm not glad they don't exist. Those old cathedrals are amazing feats of architecture and all around, very pretty. But the idea goes against what is supposed to be practiced.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Which is funny seeing as churchgoers and priests are supposed to live a life of humbleness and basically poverty. How much money was spent to make those giant cathedrals? How many lives were lost in building them? The hell is wrong with a small standard church :V
> 
> Not to say I'm not glad they don't exist. Those old cathedrals are amazing feats of architecture and all around, very pretty. But the idea goes against what is supposed to be practiced.


 
Yeah. Churches like the Sistine Chapel, Florence Cathedral, and the ones that Werevixen had posted are wonderful feats of archietecture, but it is sad that they did not follow the phillosophy of living as humble men for their churches.

But hey, Churches can't be old run-down 7-11's with shitty seating and atwork. You have to make it Big. So big that it dwarfs everything else.


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Yeah. Churches like the Sistine Chapel, Florence Cathedral, and the ones that Werevixen had posted are wonderful feats of archietecture, but it is sad that they did not follow the phillosophy of living as humble men for their churches.
> 
> But hey, Churches can't be old run-down 7-11's with shitty seating and atwork. You have to make it Big. So big that it dwarfs everything else.


 The higher it is, the closer to God it is!

Our local church is actually pretty nice. It's nothing super fancy, but it does have an appealing aesthetic quality to it. Manages to make itself look quite big from the inside, with high ceilings and such. Many years ago, when I was still in elementary school and going to church, a nasty snowstorm canceled class on the same day the roof of the church decided to give in. The teachers and nuns called the snowstorm a miracle from God, as the crash would have killed most of us had we been in there (which was a daily requirement for that school). Looking back, the snowstorm is what probably caused the roof collapse.

So church was continued in the cafeteria of the elementary school, and ya know what, that worked just fine. A giant fancy building isn't needed to have a spiritual church service. 

Eh. Like I said, I'm glad the cathedrals we do have exist. I've been in them and they are amazing. I dunno if those were mostly the churches idea or of they were just a more creative way to give builders something to do. But if that were the case, why choose a cathedral over something else?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> The higher it is, the closer to God it is!


 
Wasn't that supposedly the rationale behind the Tower of Babel?


----------



## Deo (Dec 7, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Wasn't that supposedly the rationale behind the Tower of Babel?



Por que? :V


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

I think the cathedrals were picked over something else because the church has money. It's always had money because of tithes and way back when they buying of favors or whatever it was called. The church could afford the skilled builders that could make these really gorgeous buildings. They also could afford all the artists. 

I dunno about romanticizing the roman religious state. They were as bad as any other group, using the gods to take care of anyone that is a problem. Socrates was taken to court for corrupting children and blasphemy. He was accused of worshipping false gods. Now we don't know a lot of Socrates, he himself is pretty much a character based on a man, but it's described that he listened conscience or something. Even if he did talk about it like a god, that still screams political in the name of the gods. 
I just think that any major religion had it's problems. its own way for people to control others. I think any religion that got that powerful had already been...corrupted is not the right word, but it certainly shouldn't be romanticized.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Por que? :V


 
According to the legend (IIRC) the crazy Babylonians built the Tower of Babel so they could reach up wayyyyy high into the sky and give God a shoulder-tap with an arrow, which apparently God got really cheesed off about.  More of God overreacting.  Was in OT IIRC, so it figures, what with nasty mean OT God :V


----------



## Grendel (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> You do know that he'll just respond with "Well God lies outside morals" or something silly like that to brush your claim off, right?



Forgive me, I left and I now have no idea what is happening in this thread. But I do wish to add that if God is the basis of morality or morality itself or morality is derived throgh divinity, how can God be outside of morals? If B is A then how can A exist outside of B?

And I love old architecture.


----------



## Deo (Dec 7, 2010)

Tycho said:


> According to the legend (IIRC) the crazy Babylonians built the Tower of Babel so they could reach up wayyyyy high into the sky and give God a shoulder-tap with an arrow, which apparently God got really cheesed off about. More of God overreacting. Was in OT IIRC, so it figures, what with nasty mean OT God :V



It was a joke. Everyone was able to work together to build the Tower of Babelbecause they shared the same language. In understanding each other and being a united fron man could chalenge to aspire to the heights of God. Therefore god said "fuck you bitches" and made everyone speak different languages. So I spoke in a different language than I normally do. Hardy har ha ha.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

Tycho said:


> According to the legend (IIRC) the crazy Babylonians built the Tower of Babel so they could reach up wayyyyy high into the sky and give God a shoulder-tap with an arrow, which apparently God got really cheesed off about.  More of God overreacting.  Was in OT IIRC, so it figures, what with nasty mean OT God :V



Yes, before that people regardless of their location all spoke the same language. Those sinnin' Mayans all spoke the same language as the Babylonians until God cursed the earth with different languages to confound the tower builders.


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> It was a joke. Everyone was able to work together to build the Tower of Babelbecause they shared the same language. In understanding each other and being a united fron man could chalenge to aspire to the heights of God. Therefore god said "fuck you bitches" and made everyone speak different languages. So I spoke in a different language than I normally do. Hardy har ha ha.


 Which is how an ancient people ignorant of the way societies and cultures evolve explained how multiple languages came to be. It's an easy explanation that answers the question of "if we all came from Adam and Eve, how come people speak different languages?" 

I wonder if any crazy Christfags actually believe the Tower of Babel story to be 100% factual. 

If they don't, I still don't see any morals or teachings in that story. A society built a tower because they (wrongfully) thought it would make them closer to God; God got upset and knocked it the fuck over. Nevermind that their goal was impossible! Why would a deity destroy that work, which would have been a wonderful example of architecture for that time period?

It's just another story that shows God being an asshole when his authority is threatened, and in this case, his authority was never really threatened because a tower can't reach God.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> It was a joke. Everyone was able to work together to build the Tower of Babelbecause they shared the same language. In understanding each other and being a united fron man could chalenge to aspire to the heights of God. Therefore god said "fuck you bitches" and made everyone speak different languages. So I spoke in a different language than I normally do. Hardy har ha ha.


 
God is a spiteful prick.  /oldnews


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Which is how an ancient people ignorant of the way societies and cultures evolve explained how multiple languages came to be. It's an easy explanation that answers the question of "if we all came from Adam and Eve, how come people speak different languages?"
> 
> I wonder if any crazy Christfags actually believe the Tower of Babel story to be 100% factual.
> 
> ...


 
Because it's really fun to push over block towers. Admit it, you jump on sand castles.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 7, 2010)

What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.

None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?

Someone religious answer this pls


----------



## Xenke (Dec 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.
> 
> None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?
> 
> Someone religious answer this pls


 
Which ever one fits best with your own personal truths?


----------



## Willow (Dec 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.
> 
> None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?
> 
> Someone religious answer this pls


 Well, the way I've heard it was different places have different ways of explaining the same events. And then they become religion, or something like that. 

It also depends on the region I guess and the people who lived in that region when these religions were created. I don't think that really counts for Scientology though.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Because it's really fun to push over block towers. Admit it, you jump on sand castles.


 
GOD: "JENGA!!!"


----------



## Yrr (Dec 7, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Which ever one fits best with your own personal truths?


 
but obviously only one of them will be the "one true religion"

and most likely I'll go to hell for not having followed it word-for-word my entire life

this is why I am agnostic


----------



## Fay V (Dec 7, 2010)

Tycho said:


> GOD: "JENGA!!!"


 I actually snorted milk out of my nose...


----------



## Lobar (Dec 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.
> 
> None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?
> 
> Someone religious answer this pls



This.  Imagine yourself to be someone with zero knowledge of religion suddenly discovering a cache of every book and treatise on every religion in the world, past and present.  You start reading a little of everything, accepting it all, until it becomes apparent that most of them contradict.  Some even say outright that none of the others are true.  Soon comes the realization that no matter how much you study, you will never have an objective way of determining which books are true over their competitors, and soon thereafter comes the realization that you have no reason to believe that _any_ of it is true.

If this was the religious exposure everyone got, an unbiased exposure to everything at once, there'd be a lot more nonbelievers in the world.  Instead, most people follow either the religion they were raised with or the predominate religion where they grew up.  If you're religious and either of those are true of you, think hard on the above for a bit.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.
> 
> None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?
> 
> Someone religious answer this pls


 
Observe in your own way, attend masses when and where it's convenient, and keep an open mind towards other religious faiths in their messages.

S'what I do as a practicing Catholic.  Works for me.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 7, 2010)

One term I've heard quite a bit is that people should "explore a relationship with God".  I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't get in a relationship with God for a few reasons:

1) You can't have sex with God.  Or even know if he looks sexy at all.

2) You can't really have conversations with God.

3) He has various personality flaws- he is stubborn, angry, spiteful, jealous, and suffers from both paranoia and narcissism.

4) There are way better people to have a relationship with out there who you can talk to, have sex with, who aren't paranoid, stubborn, and narcissistic.

Just a thought.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 7, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ldI2FJQ_oE

Here's a video explaining the tower of babel story more in depth.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2010)

So is Rukh still being an idiot again?


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> So is Rukh still being an idiot again?


 
Hasn't been in this thread for over 24 hours.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> Hasn't been in this thread for over 24 hours.


 i tried to pick up where i left off but couldn't remember. Let's talk about better religions, like the Panarii. Hail mighty Nasrudin. :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 7, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> Hasn't been in this thread for over 24 hours.


 
He's visited it a few times- Seen his name in the "Now viewing this thread" bar occasionally, but he hasn't posted.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 7, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> He's visited it a few times- Seen his name in the "Now viewing this thread" bar occasionally, but he hasn't posted.


 
He's probably busy trying to memorize some more pithy Bible quotes to assail us with.  It's like he's bringing a pool noodle to a swordfight.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> He's visited it a few times- Seen his name in the "Now viewing this thread" bar occasionally, but he hasn't posted.



I kind of hope he got burned and isn't actually posting again, he was the worst kind of religious person to engage in a debate about religion.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2010)

Tycho said:


> He's probably busy trying to memorize some more pithy Bible quotes to assail us with.  It's like he's bringing a pool noodle to a swordfight.


 You mean copy-paste quotes?


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

So, I've been working with _Holy Blood Holy Grail_ and _The Da Vinci Code _for the past few hours finalizing a paper. Both books assert that Jesus was married to Marry Magdalene and of course Christians threw a shitfit when both of these books were published.

I really don't see the problem in Jesus having a wife. Do you guys? Jesus was the son of God in human form, and sure marriage and sex are earthly pleasures, but so are eating, sleeping, and drinking, all of which Jesus did. He wasn't on the Earth very long, he might as well have enjoyed his stay.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 7, 2010)

He's prolly busy trying to come up with an example of an Atheist from what I've quoted above :v


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> So, I've been working with _Holy Blood Holy Grail_ and _The Da Vinci Code _for the past few hours finalizing a paper. Both books assert that Jesus was married to Marry Magdalene and of course Christians threw a shitfit when both of these books were published.
> 
> I really don't see the problem in Jesus having a wife. Do you guys? Jesus was the son of God in human form, and sure marriage and sex are earthly pleasures, but so are eating, sleeping, and drinking, all of which Jesus did. He wasn't on the Earth very long, he might as well have enjoyed his stay.


 
If marriage is a blessing from god upon two people who love eachother (sorry, man and woman who love eachother), then why are his closest and most loyal servants not allowed to receive such blessing?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> So, I've been working with _Holy Blood Holy Grail_ and _The Da Vinci Code _for the past few hours finalizing a paper. Both books assert that Jesus was married to Marry Magdalene and of course Christians threw a shitfit when both of these books were published.
> 
> I really don't see the problem in Jesus having a wife. Do you guys? Jesus was the son of God in human form, and sure marriage and sex are earthly pleasures, but so are eating, sleeping, and drinking, all of which Jesus did. He wasn't on the Earth very long, he might as well have enjoyed his stay.


 BUT SECKS IZ A SINNN


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 7, 2010)

Yrr said:


> What I never got is how there's about a million religions, and all of them state themselves as fact and expect you to follow them over the others.
> 
> None of them have any more proof than any others, so how am I supposed to pick the right one?
> 
> Someone religious answer this pls



Follow the religion of Browder, for he is holy and just.


After seeing this thread reach over 75 pages I realize why arguing religion is pointless. On one side you have some atheists who can be stubborn, saying "There is no god! All christians are stupid! Religion is evil and should be destroyed." Even worse, you have the Christians who are so set in their belief that they see everyone else as being completely wrong, and in their heads will interpret everything to show that they are right and winning any argument they are in. They take some bible verse and use an interpretation of it to say "Hey, I must be right and these people are wrong, it says so here!"

There is no way to convince these people otherwise, no matter what kind of logic you use. In fact, trying to convince them of the validity of other religions or beliefs as being possibly right and not just completely wrong, or trying to convince them of your atheist viewpoint, is pretty much pointless. And if you argue with them they resist more and more to what they see as threats to their deeply-set worldview and beliefs, beliefs that make easy answers of such things as why the world sucks or where you go after you die.


I think Rukh left. Decided it was not worth trying to convince the rest of us that we were wrong and should consider turning to god. I'd wonder if he's really read the entire bible, or just looked up certain verses to fit his beliefs. I have actually read the Bible, quite a few times. I have also read books and research by Biblical Scholars. I don't think he could say he has gone that far.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 7, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I think Rukh left. Decided it was not worth trying to convince the rest of us that we were wrong and should consider turning to god. I'd wonder if he's really read the entire bible, or just looked up certain verses to fit his beliefs. I have actually read the Bible, quite a few times. I have also read books and research by Biblical Scholars. I don't think he could say he has gone that far.


 
I can say with certainty that he hasn't read the bible. He just uses some bible quotes site from what I've seen.


----------



## foxxyboy (Dec 7, 2010)

i am a christain
i acutally dont know many things about the Holy Bible, but this seem wrong
perhaps he is just making them up!


----------



## Xenke (Dec 7, 2010)

foxxyboy said:


> i am a christain
> i acutally dont know many things about the Holy Bible, but this seem wrong
> perhaps he is just making them up!


 
The cancer, IT SPREADS!


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

If half the Christians actually read and comprehended the bible ... well ...
They might wonder why so many people still have a full body with all the body parts still attached.
They might also wonder why they aren't allowed slaves, since it is completely okay in the bible.
They might also why a HUGE amount of people aren't punished for working on The Sabbath.

It is funny, though, how people choose to magnify some things in the bible and ignore the rest.

tl;dr = At least half of the Christians don't even comprehend what the bible actually has in it besides "Jesus loves you".


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> BUT SECKS IZ A SINNN


 Only when done prior to marriage!


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Only when done prior to marriage!


 Don't forget that any sinful _*THOUGHT*_ is just as bad as the act.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2010)

Grandpriest said:


> If half the Christians actually read and comprehended the bible ... well ...
> They might wonder why so many people still have a full body with all the body parts still attached.
> They might also wonder why they aren't allowed slaves, since it is completely okay in the bible.
> They might also why a HUGE amount of people aren't punished for working on The Sabbath.
> ...


 It isn't a command to have slaves. It was just society back then.


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> It isn't a command to have slaves. It was just society back then.


 If Jesus didn't have a problem with it, then why should anyone else?  Seeing that Jesus is also God and whatever God thinks is righteous and holy, slaves aren't a problem (to him/her/it).  Society shouldn't be higher than God.  People who believe in God follow God, not society.
(Please now I was laughing the whole time I typed this.)


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Grandpriest said:


> If Jesus didn't have a problem with it, then why should anyone else?  Seeing that Jesus is also God and whatever God thinks is righteous and holy, slaves aren't a problem (to him/her/it).  Society shouldn't be higher than God.  People who believe in God follow God, not society.
> (Please now I was laughing the whole time I typed this.)


 Uh, didn't the whole "slaves are okay" thing come from the Old Testament anyways? I'm pretty sure Jesus was never cool with the idea of slavery. 

Some of the "slavery is fine" passages from the Bible can be explained and aren't really endorsing slavery but more the idea that someone can pay off a debt through work. I know I've brought up some of them with a different religious person similar to Rukh, though perhaps not as crazy. Hard to say. But, he addressed the passages I tossed at him and explained them in a more positive light. But, his word might not be worth taking. Meh :V


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Uh, didn't the whole "slaves are okay" thing come from the Old Testament anyways? I'm pretty sure Jesus was never cool with the idea of slavery.
> 
> Some of the "slavery is fine" passages from the Bible can be explained and aren't really endorsing slavery but more the idea that someone can pay off a debt through work. I know I've brought up some of them with a different religious person similar to Rukh, though perhaps not as crazy. Hard to say. But, he addressed the passages I tossed at him and explained them in a more positive light. But, his word might not be worth taking. Meh :V


 The old testament covers well over half of the bible's length.  Seeing as the whole religion of Christianity rides on that book (or assortment of books, call it what you will), wouldn't following its example be the goal of all *true* Christians?


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Grandpriest said:


> The old testament covers well over half of the bible's length.  Seeing as the whole religion of Christianity rides on that book (or assortment of books, call it what you will), wouldn't following its example be the goal of all *true* Christians?


 Well, as has been argued, the Old Testament is the old coven and theoretically shouldn't apply to Christians. When Jesus showed up, he issued a new coven and God went through a miraculous personality shift. The Old Testament is for the Jews, the New Testament is for Christians. Or, that's what I gather. 

With that being said, the problem that has arisen is that Christians will take stories from the Old Testament and apply them to their arguments that should only reside using the New Testament text. When someone finds something that contradicts in the Old Testament, the arguer in question claims that the contradiction doesn't count because it is A in the Old Testament and B a parable or metaphor.


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Well, as has been argued, the Old Testament is the old coven and theoretically shouldn't apply to Christians. When Jesus showed up, he issued a new coven and God went through a miraculous personality shift. The Old Testament is for the Jews, the New Testament is for Christians. Or, that's what I gather.
> 
> With that being said, the problem that has arisen is that Christians will take stories from the Old Testament and apply them to their arguments that should only reside using the New Testament text. When someone finds something that contradicts in the Old Testament, the arguer in question claims that the contradiction doesn't count because it is A in the Old Testament and B a parable or metaphor.


 Then that's basically saying half the book isn't needed, 2 opposites that create a negative.
I used to be Christian until I actually started to think ... and I just can't follow a book that speaks against itself.  There's no telling which one is right.  All of them are stories past down from generation to generation.  More than half is probably false because of the effects similar to the telephone game.


----------



## Conker (Dec 7, 2010)

Grandpriest said:


> Then that's basically saying half the book isn't needed, 2 opposites that create a negative.
> I used to be Christian until I actually started to think ... and I just can't follow a book that speaks against itself.  There's no telling which one is right.  All of them are stories past down from generation to generation.  More than half is probably false because of the effects similar to the telephone game.


 Yeah. I won't pretend to understand everything about the Bible or the conflicting views between the NT and the OT, but I do know that it's hard for me to really call myself a Christian now that I've done some thinking.


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 7, 2010)

Conker said:


> Yeah. I won't pretend to understand everything about the Bible or the conflicting views between the NT and the OT, but I do know that it's hard for me to really call myself a Christian now that I've done some thinking.


 I call myself Agnostic, because realistically, I do *not* know what is out there.  There might be something out there, but I just don't know (which is what Agnostic is lol).


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2010)

Grandpriest said:


> I call myself Agnostic, because realistically, I do *not* know what is out there.  There might be something out there, but I just don't know (which is what Agnostic is lol).


 
Atheists don't necessarily claim to know with certainty what is out there either (very few do actually).  Atheism is just the rejection of all theistic claims due to a lack of evidence.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Christian here. in before the lock.


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Christian here. in before the lock.



Hey n00b, it's been going strong for 76 pages. A lock is so not happening.
Also, what a wonderful signature for a Christian fellow. So Christlike. I love it.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Hey n00b, it's been going strong for 76 pages. A lock is so not happening.
> Also, what a wonderful signature for a Christian fellow. So Christlike. I love it.


 
the sig is old, poking fun at something else.
Implying much? projecting stereotype much?

BTW
>>>Location: I hate you.

I FORGIVE YOU.:3


----------



## Conker (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Christian here. in before the lock.


 76 pages bro. You really think it'll get locked now?

Dumbass


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

-


----------



## Conker (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> sarcasm,facetiousness,joking is so difficult to project in text. but thanks for the insult.


 More likely you were serious and are now backpeddling. 

Either way, your first post in here was shitty.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Conker said:


> More likely you were serious and are now backpeddling.
> 
> Either way, your first post in here was shitty.


 
No, this isn't /furi/. But i assume site wide, the furry community is emulating the mannerisms there.

Fuck it. No use having an intelligent conversation with you.

I'm done with you. Fuck off.


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> BTW
> >>>Location: I hate you.
> 
> I FORGIVE YOU.:3


I like the sig. Even more now. Except I'm a woman not a man. >:\


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I like the sig. Even more now. Except I'm a woman not a man. >:\


 
WOOPS. one sec.

KAY. changed. cuz i lu 4 evrr.


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> KAY. changed. cuz i lu 4 evrr.



This is as it should be. 

honestly though why do you people love me? >:I


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> This is as it should be.
> 
> honestly though why do you people love me? >:I


 
us* PEOPLE*?

wai you gotta be raciest like dat?

have no idea. arn't you and Koze homegirls to?


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> us* PEOPLE*?
> 
> wai you gotta be raciest like dat?
> 
> have no idea. arn't you and Koze homegirls to?



I have no idea who the fuck you are talking about. 
And that was a question pointed towards the entirety of FAF, not specifically you dumbass. Seeing as I verbally abuse most FAF'ers regularly and most still seem to like me (to some degree). This is not understandable furries. Why?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I have no idea who the fuck you are talking about.
> And that was a question pointed towards the entirety of FAF, not specifically you dumbass. Seeing as I verbally abuse most FAF'ers regularly and most still seem to like me (to some degree). This is not understandable furries. Why?


 
stop abusing me! you're hurting my feelings, calling me names and such.  

and i know it was'nt specifically to me. lol. to answer your last question. Because furries are masochists and most likely enjoy abusive females. From what i'm assuming is the perception of rarity.

But thats a topic for some physche buffs. <- i believe i mispelled that.


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Because furries are masochists and most likely enjoy abusive females. From what i'm assuming is the perception of rarity.


I am going to kill myself. >:C


Also, back to religion. God blah blah God blah raeg blah blah existence.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 8, 2010)

oh maverick...
anyway yeah back on topic before it does get locked. 

Norse mythology, kinda badass. discuss.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> I am going to kill myself. >:C


 

NO DEO! NO!

what would GOD say?

on that note. what WOULD you tell GOD, or for the PC crowd "God" . if you met, Him,It, Her. Herm? omai.

personally. I'd call him a DICK.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Fay V said:


> oh maverick...



i did'nt do nussing. scouts honor.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2010)

shitposting newbie detected

administer lurking and book-readin'


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> This.  Imagine yourself to be someone with zero knowledge of religion suddenly discovering a cache of every book and treatise on every religion in the world, past and present.  You start reading a little of everything, accepting it all, until it becomes apparent that most of them contradict.  Some even say outright that none of the others are true.  Soon comes the realization that no matter how much you study, you will never have an objective way of determining which books are true over their competitors, and soon thereafter comes the realization that you have no reason to believe that _any_ of it is true.
> 
> If this was the religious exposure everyone got, an unbiased exposure to everything at once, there'd be a lot more nonbelievers in the world.  Instead, most people follow either the religion they were raised with or the predominate religion where they grew up.  If you're religious and either of those are true of you, think hard on the above for a bit.


 
Or, if you're not a shallow-minded materialist and actually do some *real* research, you can see that many of the religions all have the same underlying message of loving, learning, and being happy. No, not going to different churches and listening to the dogmas that are far removed from the original message, but learning from the sources. :/


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 8, 2010)

Felt pretty weird with my ex, going to a Christian church whilst I still thought I was a Catholic :v I actually thought it mattered.

This was like 6 years ago.


----------



## Yrr (Dec 8, 2010)

everyone is going to about 200 religions' hells so we might as well make the most of it


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Or, if you're not a shallow-minded materialist and actually do some *real* research, you can see that many of the religions all have the same underlying message of loving, learning, and being happy. No, not going to different churches and listening to the dogmas that are far removed from the original message, but learning from the sources. :/


 
Which has fuck all to do with the numerous, mutually exclusive claims about the world made by these various religions, Captain Change-The-Subject.  I am glad though that I'm not so shallow-minded as to need a message of love, learning and happiness buried within a bunch of ancient superstition to get it through.  As a materialist, it is obvious to me that such things should simply be universal.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Dec 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> shitposting newbie detected
> 
> administer lurking and book-readin'


 
You are NOT talking about me. To me. You're not even thinking about me. Don't even look at me.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You are NOT talking about me. To me. You're not even thinking about me. Don't even look at me.


 
watch me

no but really either contribute or go back to sunday school


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 8, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Felt pretty weird with my ex, going to a Christian church whilst I still thought I was a Catholic :v I actually thought it mattered.
> 
> This was like 6 years ago.


 
Catholism is the fuzzy felt of all Christianity. Yes, it's a part of it.


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

MaverickCowboy said:


> NO DEO! NO!
> 
> what would GOD say?
> 
> on that note. what WOULD you tell GOD, if you met, Him,It, Her. Herm?


I don't really plan on meeting God. I'm more prepared to meet Santa (I'll tell him I want world peace and some nice winter boots). I suppose I'd say the same thing to God. "Hey man world peace would be good and my feet are freezing in the snow, fix this shit."


----------



## Fay V (Dec 8, 2010)

"why?" 

Omg I am so deep. 

It would quickly be followed by "Alan Rickman makes an awesome Metatron"


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 8, 2010)

So then, religious people, please prove there is such a thing as souls. :V


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Which has fuck all to do with the numerous, mutually exclusive claims about the world made by these various religions, Captain Change-The-Subject.  I am glad though that I'm not so shallow-minded as to need a message of love, learning and happiness buried within a bunch of ancient superstition to get it through.  As a materialist, it is obvious to me that such things should simply be universal.


 
As a materialist you are limited in only thinking about materialistic love. It's like claiming to know the beauty of music by studying the molecules in the sheet music.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> As a materialist you are limited in only thinking about materialistic love. It's like claiming to know the beauty of music by studying the molecules in the sheet music.


 
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty... There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."

â€•Richard Feynman​


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 8, 2010)

Lobar said:


> "I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty... There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."
> 
> â€•Richard Feynman​



 Isn't it obvious, Lobar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
RO is a Juggalo.


----------



## Conker (Dec 8, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> So then, religious people, please prove there is such a thing as souls. :V


 Pretty sure you're asking religious people to prove something impossible to prove. 

It's not possible to prove the existence of God or souls, it IS possible to debate the teachings and the sources of the Bible. Asking religious people to prove God is sort of unfair since they only thing they can do is go to their holy book or their own life examples; the former won't work because the book is a book, and the latter won't work because though an individual might experience a "miracle," he can't force anyone to believe he experienced such a miracle. 

Faith, whether ungrounded or not, is what is needed to poke through the holes in both argument and logic. Then it comes down to "I believe in god because..." but people have different reasons and rationale for believing in God.

Which is why these threads are always lopsided towards the agnostics, atheists, and scientists. Their reasoning for not believing is grounded on natural evidence. Religious believers don't have that. (and no, I don't think the Bible counts as natural evidence :V)


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 8, 2010)

This board is so hostile towards noobs. It's like we're weeding out the  bad ones, and the ones that can tolerate the hate and hostility pass our  hazings and are let into our coven.


Deovacuus said:


> Seeing as I verbally abuse most FAF'ers regularly and most still seem to like me (to some degree).


*puts self into leather bondage and ball gag* ABUSE ME OH QUEEN!!!!
Nah, I just think most furries are suckers for strong women. They like to be the one on the bottom.

back to the discussion on religion, I think I have found a newfound dislike... no hatred, of the catholic church.

I'm reading this article by a catholic that says that the only good sex is sex for procreation or can lead to procreation. According to him, homosexuals aren't bad, but the sex is because it doesn't lead to making babies. So is sex outside of marriage, and sex with any form of birth control. So as long as you're making babies then you're not sinning. According to him, the church isn't homophobic, gays deserve to be treated with love, but can't fuck because they're not making babies.

He argues that God wanted us to be fruitful and multiply, which makes sense back when the Jewish/Christian populations were tiny. And he makes references to western countries with declining populations, failing to even mention the third world countries where populations are exploding but where condoms are against the church. Just as long as they're pumping out future Christian Soldiers, right?

The guy uses the word "ontologically" way too fucking much in the article. If I had a dollar for every time he used that word, I'd buy myself a new PS3. I don't even think he understands the meaning of the word. But he uses it to say that there are "ontological" differences between men and women, that men and women compliment each other, thus they were designed for each other.

I'd link the article but it's on Gale database and you need an academic login.

Fucking catholic church.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> This is as it should be.
> 
> honestly though why do you people love me? >:I


 
We know you enjoy our company, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Hugz?


----------



## Deo (Dec 8, 2010)

Werevixen said:


> We know you enjoy our company, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
> 
> Hugz?



Dammit you're on to me. Nooooooooo... 
Yes hugz. Plz.


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 8, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Dammit you're on to me. Nooooooooo...
> Yes hugz. Plz.


 
I don't really think it's a secret. :v


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 9, 2010)

So yeah. Religion.

Rukh, don't just run off in the middle of everything. At least tell us where you went. :V


----------



## Lobar (Dec 9, 2010)

How about a news item?

http://m.edmontonsun.com/16478111.1

The Salvation Army has done some shitty things in the past, most notably an incident where they threatened to pull their charity work out of New York if their lawmakers passed a new gay rights bill that was on the table, but this time it's more petty than political.  A Sally Ann branch is going through all their donated toys collected, picking out all Harry Potter, Twilight, and presumably any other similarly "unChristian"-themed items and dumping them in the trash.  Toy guns are A-OK though.

So yeah, never donate to the Salvation Army.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> How about a news item?
> 
> http://m.edmontonsun.com/16478111.1
> 
> ...


 
Holy crap. that's just plain terrible! I feel like...I feel like I need to counterbalance that somehow. 
*hunts for a nice article about normal helpful Christians*


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 9, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> So then, religious people, please prove there is such a thing as souls. :V


It's pointless to prove. 

Better focus on things we can prove, like morality.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> It's pointless to prove.
> 
> Better focus on things we can prove, like morality.


 
wait, what are you proving about morality?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 9, 2010)

Fay V said:


> wait, what are you proving about morality?


That uhh... Nothing.

I usually avoid talking about things like it.

Edit: By "we" I mean as humans. Yeah, morality is a bad example for things that we can prove exist.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> That uhh... Nothing.
> 
> I usually avoid talking about things like it.
> 
> Edit: By "we" I mean as humans. Yeah, morality is a bad example for things that we can prove exist.


 Yes and no. I mean there's a lot of people looking into if morality exists or not. That's what I'm looking into with my neuroethics research. The thing is...it's complicated. I mean it's there. We have ethical theories and regulations based on ethics, but on a personal level they don't seem to exist...or at least they only exist at a disturbingly shallow level. 
but that's neither here nor there. 
I think the more valuable thing to look at is if a religion does any objective good. or at least has a net gain of good.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> So yeah, never donate to the Salvation Army.


 
Never have, never will 8)

I know who pulls their strings.


----------



## Shaui (Dec 9, 2010)

Oy, this thread....


I will say I'm Christian and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Conker (Dec 9, 2010)

Shaui said:


> Oy, this thread....
> 
> 
> I will say I'm Christian and I'll leave it at that.


 The hell was the point of this post? 



> I think the more valuable thing to look at is if a religion does any objective good. or at least has a net gain of good.


Debatable. Some say that we need religion to have morals, but I personally think that's bullshit. A society without "morals" wouldn't survive as a society. We need to know that rape, murder, and theft are wrong, because if we didn't, that's all that we'd do and nothing would get done. Humans NEED some type of "morals" to survive, or we wouldn't (or at least, we wouldn't have gotten to the level we are today).


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> It's not possible to prove the existence of God or souls, it IS possible to debate the teachings and the sources of the Bible. Asking religious people to prove God is sort of unfair since they only thing they can do is go to their holy book or their own life examples; the former won't work because the book is a book, and the latter won't work because though an individual might experience a "miracle," he can't force anyone to believe he experienced such a miracle.
> 
> Faith, whether ungrounded or not, is what is needed to poke through the holes in both argument and logic. Then it comes down to "I believe in god because..." but people have different reasons and rationale for believing in God.
> 
> Which is why these threads are always lopsided towards the agnostics, atheists, and scientists. Their reasoning for not believing is grounded on natural evidence. Religious believers don't have that. (and no, I don't think the Bible counts as natural evidence :V)


 
It is indeed unfair to ask people to prove God because in most cases, people's experiences with God is a projection. Even the God of the old testament is a projection brought on by the collective conciousness and understanding of what "God should be" by the people of the time. Only when you reach the highest level of conciousness (IE, the level of enlightenment shown through Jesus or Buddha) Can you begin to have true experiences of God. :/

God is an inner spiritual experience, not some outside phenomenon like miracles or a white-robed bearded man in the clouds (both of which are projections).

Religion and theology are corruptions of true spirituality, the only thing worse than them are materialistic athiests who arrogantly take the stance of "Science" and that reality is only what we can touch and see. The only thing science combats is theology, superstition, and the perversion of today that is Christianity. Real spirituality, the kind that Jesus was trying to actually teach, can co-exist with science, and can even be aided by it.



> "I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty... There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."
> 
> â€•Richard Feynman



True spirituality, and even true science, understands that a flower is only molecules and photons and sunshine and emotions and the history of the universe temporarily _pretending_ to be a flower. Studying a flower through a microscope is *just* as blinding as believing that "God made the flower" when the truth is that the flower doesn't even exist in the first place. :/


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> The hell was the point of this post?
> 
> 
> Debatable. Some say that we need religion to have morals, but I personally think that's bullshit. A society without "morals" wouldn't survive as a society. We need to know that rape, murder, and theft are wrong, because if we didn't, that's all that we'd do and nothing would get done. Humans NEED some type of "morals" to survive, or we wouldn't (or at least, we wouldn't have gotten to the level we are today).


 I certainly agree, societies do not need a religion for morals. 
I do think that religion makes an excellent central point for a community however. I mean small churches and things mostly, where the community does meet and learns what issues there are and how they can help. religion has also brought us some very nice stories and art. Our literary history was founded in religion of some sort or another. Our art began in reverence to some gods. I think when you get people together and have them think beyond themselves they come up with some great works. 
However the nature of man is corrupt and when a religion gets too big...there are too many problems. So I have my issues with religion, but I think it's a nice enough thing to have around so long as it isn't the extremist sort. (they're usually prudish and hate literature and art anyway)


----------



## Deo (Dec 9, 2010)

Religion gets abused though.
Take for instance my uncle and aunt who were Puertorican missionaries. For thirty-five years they spiritually black mailed the natives into building their house, doing their farming, cleaning, getting water, etc. Basically treated them as slaves. 

Then I went to my friend's Christian youth meeting. They were sending fifteen teens down to a poor area of Mexico to preach. Except none of them spoke Spanish. And they had a plan to bring chocolate bars to "coax out the natives" so that they could preach. 
I brought up that the price of airfare round trip + visas + room board + food for fifteen people would be better spent on helping these impoverished people buy food, clothing and building decent housing. They told me that's not how God works. So sending fifteen fucktards down to be useless is more Christ-like than building good housing or keeping poor families properly nourished.

That's why I hate missionaries.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Religion gets abused though.
> Take for instance my uncle and aunt who were Puertorican missionaries. For thirty-five years they spiritually black mailed the natives into building their house, doing their farming, cleaning, getting water, etc. Basically treated them as slaves.
> 
> Then I went to my friend's Christian youth meeting. They were sending fifteen teens down to a poor area of Mexico to preach. Except none of them spoke Spanish. And they had a plan to bring chocolate bars to "coax out the natives" so that they could preach.
> ...


 
They'd rather further shit on an impoverished area than helping it in order to spread the word of God to people.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Religion gets abused though.
> Take for instance my uncle and aunt who were Puertorican missionaries. For thirty-five years they spiritually black mailed the natives into building their house, doing their farming, cleaning, getting water, etc. Basically treated them as slaves.
> 
> Then I went to my friend's Christian youth meeting. They were sending fifteen teens down to a poor area of Mexico to preach. Except none of them spoke Spanish. And they had a plan to bring chocolate bars to "coax out the natives" so that they could preach.
> ...


 
Yes. that's true. Like I said people suck and they fuck up a good thing. I won't deny that there are stupid people of every faith and philosophy. So good and bad have been done in the name of God. I know a local church did a really nice money drive and donated a shit ton of cash to "eagle mount" a local center for the handicapped so they get swim lessons, go skiing, have equine therapy. It's nice and they got some nice renovations to the barn because there was a focal point in the community that thought "you know what's awesome? helping handicapped kids"  
Sometimes it just comes down to looking at a religion and seeing how much good the little groups do versus the harm. for many the little groups do enough that I don't mind. A lot of denominations actually go with the "yay jesus, hey don't be a dick and make life shitty for everyone, cause that would make jesus sad" approach. I like these people, you don't hear about them often because decent people being decent isn't interesting. 
I think some other denominations are a bit too broken to continue well. I think Catholicism as it is is too dogmatic and broken and needs a reformation if it is to survive as a good religion. 
ect ect...I'm verbose when I haven't slept


----------



## Lobar (Dec 9, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> True spirituality, and even true science, understands that a flower is only molecules and photons and sunshine and emotions and the history of the universe temporarily _pretending_ to be a flower. Studying a flower through a microscope is *just* as blinding as believing that "God made the flower" when the truth is that the flower doesn't even exist in the first place. :/


 
By studying science, I know that the arrangement of molecules that make up a flower and the arrangement of molecules that make up my body are the product of the same chemical reaction that happened billions of years ago, triggered by the bombardment of the Earth's oceans with photons that came an unfathomable distance from the Sun.

And I know that it took more photons that came from that same Sun to come here again and do a little complex bouncing dance between the arrangement of molecules that make up a flower to the arrangement of molecules that make up my optic nerve, all just to trigger in my consciousness (itself emergent from the most complex arrangement of molecules yet discovered) a brief image of my vibrant and colorful cousin, countless generations removed.

For the life of me I cannot fathom how someone could think this knowledge makes a flower _less_ special, and not _more_ so.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Dec 9, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Yes. that's true. Like I said people suck and they fuck up a good thing. I won't deny that there are stupid people of every faith and philosophy. So good and bad have been done in the name of God. I know a local church did a really nice money drive and donated a shit ton of cash to "eagle mount" a local center for the handicapped so they get swim lessons, go skiing, have equine therapy. It's nice and they got some nice renovations to the barn because there was a focal point in the community that thought "you know what's awesome? helping handicapped kids"
> Sometimes it just comes down to looking at a religion and seeing how much good the little groups do versus the harm. for many the little groups do enough that I don't mind. A lot of denominations actually go with the "yay jesus, hey don't be a dick and make life shitty for everyone, cause that would make jesus sad" approach. I like these people, you don't hear about them often because decent people being decent isn't interesting.
> I think some other denominations are a bit too broken to continue well. I think Catholicism as it is is too dogmatic and broken and needs a reformation if it is to survive as a good religion.
> ect ect...I'm verbose when I haven't slept



Religion was the driving force behind structured and stable society. It put us where we are now (don't take that badly - I mean it in a good sense) in that it put down strong foundations for stable groups. 

Does it seem like coincidence that despite having little constructive interaction, most religions preach the same things?

If you imagine each small group or tribe of humans during the evolution of modern man to be driven by their own religion, then as the religion is the driving force behind the group's decision making and structure, natural selection can act on those belief systems to eliminate the unstable ones. Like life forms, the better religions survived and started gaining followers and slowly the smaller and more inefficient beliefs were eliminated. Therefore after the very large period of time that people have survived over, what you see is more or less the optimal religion. It has been independently arrived at. 

Unfortunately like any group whatsoever, there are ALWAYS minorities who define the group in the public eye. The VAST majority of religious people are wonderful individuals, who are an absolute pleasure to meet. Muslims are so generous and hospitable. Buddhists are extremely polite and pleasant folk. Christians epitomize community spirit... and so on. 

But yes, I agree - the minority who twist the religious teachings until they no-longer fit are the bad ones.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> words. I just didn't want an epically long quote


I agree. I mostly just pointed out catholicism because I think some religions are corrupted in their structure. A lot of the problems we see with the catholic church are known by the administration and even helped in an effort to hide it. that is not okay. that needs to break. 
that is different from a rogue group that decide to be annoying on their own. When you are the voice for a religion and you're covering up pedophilia, there is a problem.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 9, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> If you imagine each small group or tribe of humans during the evolution of modern man to be driven by their own religion, then as the religion is the driving force behind the group's decision making and structure, natural selection can act on those belief systems to eliminate the unstable ones. Like life forms, the better religions survived and started gaining followers and slowly the smaller and more inefficient beliefs were eliminated. Therefore after the very large period of time that people have survived over, what you see is more or less the optimal religion. It has been independently arrived at.


 
Congratulations, you just came up with meme theory.

Of course, it should be noted that it is only "optimal" in its ability to self-replicate.  It is not the most likely to be true, merely the best at manipulating our base instincts to propagate itself, like a virus.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> So yeah. Religion.
> 
> Rukh, don't just run off in the middle of everything. At least tell us where you went. :V


 
Its called life dude, you know, that thing outside of the computer?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its called life dude, you know, that thing outside of the computer?



U mad bro? :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> U mad bro? :V


 
No, not at all.


----------



## Riley (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its called life dude, you know, that thing outside of the computer?


 I thought god says you aren't allowed to have those, since that would mean having fun, which is sinful.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Religion gets abused though.
> Take for instance my uncle and aunt who were Puertorican missionaries. For thirty-five years they spiritually black mailed the natives into building their house, doing their farming, cleaning, getting water, etc. Basically treated them as slaves.
> 
> Then I went to my friend's Christian youth meeting. They were sending fifteen teens down to a poor area of Mexico to preach. Except none of them spoke Spanish. And they had a plan to bring chocolate bars to "coax out the natives" so that they could preach.
> ...


 

So in other words, you stereotype all missionaries and Christians, because you had a bad experience with some people. Seems like you lump all one huge group into being bad people just because of a bad apple per say.

You had a bad experience, I get that. But how can you justify an all out hatred of of them because of one persons bad attitude or actions?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So in other words, you stereotype all missionaries and Christians, because you had a bad experience with some people. Seems like you lump all one huge group into being bad people just because of a bad apple per say.
> 
> You had a bad experience, I get that. But how can you justify an all out hatred of of them because of one persons bad attitude or actions?


 



Riley said:


> I thought god says you aren't allowed to have  those, since that would mean having fun, which is sinful.



Show me where it says this in the Bible.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, not at all.


 
Are you sure? Because that sounded pretty mad to me. I mean really now, It was just a simple question and you responded with that...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Are you sure? Because that sounded pretty mad to me. I mean really now, It was just a simple question and you responded with that...


 
Wasn't meant to be an angry post. Its hard to type sarcasm on the internet.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wasn't meant to be an angry post. Its hard to type sarcasm on the internet.


 
Well, it wouldn't be surprising given your history of rageposting on this forum. Or the fact that the post in question was typical internet tough guy posturing. :V But okay, if you say so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Well, it wouldn't be surprising given your history of rageposting on this forum. Or the fact that the post in question was typical internet tough guy posturing. :V But okay, if you say so.


 
My history of rage posting? Yeah I have gotten upset, and frustrated. And I have apologized for that when I lashed out at people. But if your suggesting that all I do is "ragepost" your quite incorrect.


----------



## Riley (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Show me where it says this in the Bible.


 You seem to have enough of a problem with people doing what they find fun on their own accord, without waiting for the big macguffin in the sky to tell them it's okay.  Moral parasites, I believe is what you said.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 9, 2010)

This thread is hilarious.
Religion would be hilarious too if the majority of it's followers weren't harmful to the progression of our race.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Riley said:


> You seem to have enough of a problem with people doing what they find fun on their own accord, without waiting for the big macguffin in the sky to tell them it's okay.  Moral parasites, I believe is what you said.


 
I have a problem with sin. This includes my sin as well. I hate sin, not the sinner. Huge difference.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

meh, we were having so much fun when it wasn't a rukh thread


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> This thread is hilarious.
> Religion would be hilarious too if the majority of it's followers weren't harmful to the progression of our race.


 
So all the universities and the schools of thought (Which were Christian) from way back when were harming the progretion of our race?
Secondly are you suggesting that mankind is progressing? I say the opposite. Morality, ethics, right and wrong are being thrown out the window. Thats not progression.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Fay V said:


> meh, we were having so much fun when it wasn't a rukh thread


 
Hmm, when I left the thread for 2 weeks, it progressed a mere 10 pages. When I came back, it progressed 20 pages in 2 days. Seems like people only come here because I am posting.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Sin is basically another word for fun.
And we all have different ideas of what fun is. 

There's no such thing as sin but there are bad actions and we have the law to punish people for that.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Yes they are halting our progress that's exactly right.


----------



## Riley (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So all the universities and the schools of thought (Which were Christian) from way back when were harming the progretion of our race?
> Secondly are you suggesting that mankind is progressing? I say the opposite. Morality, ethics, right and wrong are being thrown out the window. Thats not progression.


 I'm sure we can sacrifice brownie points for new medical technologies.

Honest question here, did you (or anyone else) ever read A Canticle For Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller?  Classic sci-fi novel, good read, great insight on religion vs technological progress.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> Sin is basically another word for fun.
> And we all have different ideas of what fun is.
> 
> There's no such thing as sin but there are bad actions and we have the law to punish people for that.


 
So would you say, robbing a bank, shooting a random person is fun then?

Instant gratification, thats what a lot of sin promises. And then it leaves you feeling worse than before.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So all the universities and the schools of thought (Which were Christian) from way back when were harming the progretion of our race?
> Secondly are you suggesting that mankind is progressing? I say the opposite. Morality, ethics, right and wrong are being thrown out the window. Thats not progression.


 Not all universities and schools of thought were christian. The basis of all logic and science in the western world was founded in Philosophy in a polytheistic tradition. Math was developed outside the christian school or thought. The Arabic countries had a flourishing art and scientific community which is why the "dark ages" is a complete myth as both arabic and asian countries continued to progress and develop. The development of art happened outside of the church, along with writing, and pretty much every cultural foundation ever. While the church was responsible for funding a large portion of the sciences and art during the Renaissance this occurred after the church also shut out any outside thought. In fact, the failure of the foundation of science around Descartes time can be attributed to the church outlawing any argument against the Aristotelian foundations. 

You sir are full of shit.

*In a note of fairness, a lot of the scientific development in the middle east was halted due to religious reasons as well.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hmm, when I left the thread for 2 weeks,  it progressed a mere 10 pages. When I came back, it progressed 20 pages  in 2 days. Seems like people only come here because I am  posting.


I'm not sure how to explain this to you. Quality of quantity boyo. Notice that 1. you can't multiquote for your life, making a lot of half posts. 2. people just love to shut down your dumbass statments and 3. all in depth conversation stops. 
Notic how yesterday we had some very nice discussion on architecture, art, the value of morality and the good of community groups around churches. 
Of course you didn't. 
You are a short sighted little know it all that sees the word "christ" and has to vomit his own interpretation over everything without taking into consideration that one might be having an abstract conversation on the structure and value of an institution. not the belief. 

So in case this is hard for you to understand. Length means nothing. It is not a good conversation when you are in it. People mock you, they post in circles and with fallacies to watch you dance your merry jig. You are the organ monkey not the scholar.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> Yes they are halting our progress that's exactly right.


 
And yet, those schools I told you about that help advance science and medicine were Christian schools. So explain that then.


----------



## Conker (Dec 9, 2010)

Stop doubleposting guys, Jesus Christ. Rukh, you've been here long enough to know where the edit button is, and the other newfags shouldn't have a problem locating it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So all the universities and the schools of thought (Which were Christian) from way back when were harming the progretion of our race?
> Secondly are you suggesting that mankind is progressing? I say the opposite. Morality, ethics, right and wrong are being thrown out the window. Thats not progression.


 I disagree. Morality isn't degrading, society and social norms are just evolving. See, that's what cultures do. They change over time, good or bad is debatable, but change happens and will always happen. The values of the 1960's are different than the values of the 2010's, just lie the values of the 300's were different than the values of the 1000's. What doesn't change to go along with an evolving society is the Bible, and to me, that's a problem. The more society changes, the more archaic Christianity is going to look.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Conker said:


> Stop doubleposting guys, Jesus Christ. Rukh, you've been here long enough to know where the edit button is, and the other newfags shouldn't have a problem locating it.
> 
> 
> I disagree. Morality isn't degrading, society and social norms are just evolving. See, that's what cultures do. They change over time, good or bad is debatable, but change happens and will always happen. The values of the 1960's are different than the values of the 2010's, just lie the values of the 300's were different than the values of the 1000's. What doesn't change to go along with an evolving society is the Bible, and to me, that's a problem. The more society changes, the more archaic Christianity is going to look.


 

Christianity doesn't change, because God doesn't change. The argument that Christianity should conform to society goes against what being a Christian is. A Christian is called of live in this world, but not be of the world.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity doesn't change, because God doesn't change. The argument that Christianity should conform to society goes against what being a Christian is. A Christian is called of live in this world, but not be of the world.


 
then go create your own society, you'll be free to condemn evolution and hate on gays abortion condoms and anything else against your god.

Meanwhile we'll live in reality and start making things work.

You're claiming you wont bend your religion to suit society but you want to bend society to your religion.


----------



## Riley (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity doesn't change, because God doesn't change. The argument that Christianity should conform to society goes against what being a Christian is. A Christian is called of live in this world, but not be of the world.


 
Well that's painfully obvious.


----------



## Kangamutt (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its called life dude, you know, that thing outside of the computer?


 
Says the guy who keeps coming back to argue on the internet. :V


----------



## Conker (Dec 9, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity doesn't change, because God doesn't change. The argument that Christianity should conform to society goes against what being a Christian is. A Christian is called of live in this world, but not be of the world.


 It's one of the problems I have with it. I dunno if the number of churchgoers is rising it all, but I'd bet that as the years continue onward, church attendance will start to fall as the way the church teaches becomes too old fashioned and foreign for modern society. 

And when that time comes, the church will either have to adapt or die. 



> Instant gratification, thats what a lot of sin promises. And then it leaves you feeling worse than before.


Not in all cases. The most obvious thing I can think of is masturbation. Feels pretty good to have a nice wank, and I don't think I ever feel worse than before engaging in a one handed tango.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 9, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> then go create your own society, you'll be free to condemn evolution and hate on gays abortion condoms and anything else against your god.
> 
> Meanwhile we'll live in reality and start making things work.
> 
> You're claiming you wont bend your religion to suit society but you want to bend society to your religion.


 
Where did I say I hate those people. I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. I don't condone their actions, but I don't hate them.

And I have never tried to bend society to Christianity, don't put words in my mouth. I cannot force my belief and God's standards on someone who doesn't want them.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> It's one of the problems I have with it. I dunno if the number of churchgoers is rising it all, but I'd bet that as the years continue onward, church attendance will start to fall as the way the church teaches becomes too old fashioned and foreign for modern society.
> 
> And when that time comes, the church will either have to adapt or die.
> 
> ...


 
I think that's true, for the older churches anyway. the younger denominations are a bit more adapted in their interpretations for modern society, but I think catholicism and...was it Lutheran? anyway they are showing signs of decrease due to the more archaic practices.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I think that's true, for the older churches anyway. the younger denominations are a bit more adapted in their interpretations for modern society, but I think catholicism and...was it Lutheran? anyway they are showing signs of decrease due to the more archaic practices.


 
The extra rules and regulations certain denominations have added in, I don't agree with. If its not stated in the Bible, then its not Christianity. Thats my stance.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where did I say I hate those people. I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. I don't condone their actions, but I don't hate them.
> 
> And I have never tried to bend society to Christianity, don't put words in my mouth. I cannot force my belief and God's standards on someone who doesn't want them.


 
Oh come on you can't deny the majority of christians are nutcases who absolutely do believe the law should be advised by the bible.

By the way, since God doesn't change does that mean he's still in favor of slavery?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The extra rules and regulations certain denominations have added in, I don't agree with. If its not stated in the Bible, then its not Christianity. Thats my stance.


 I didn't ask your stance and I don't care. It was an objective observation that the older denominations have fewer numbers.


----------



## Goshujinsama (Dec 10, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> You're claiming you wont bend your religion to suit society but you want to bend society to your religion.



Sounds like good ol' merican douchebaggery to me.

the phrase "god works in mysterious ways" has always irked me. so when children get fucked and murdered on a daily bases it's an act of god?

Religion is little more than a security blanket for the weak minded who NEED something to cling to because they can't accept that they have complete control over their actions and lives.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The extra rules and regulations certain denominations have added in, I don't agree with. If its not stated in the Bible, then its not Christianity. Thats my stance.


 And that might be a dying stance.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> Oh come on you can't deny the majority of christians are nutcases who absolutely do believe the law should be advised by the bible.


 

And your statement is based on what? That you had a bad experience with a person who claimed to be a Christian? How do you know those who claim to be a Christian are a Christian? For if they don't live like one, I and the Bible (written in James) Has serious doubt of their faith.

The Bible does not teach to "force" God onto people who don't want to believe. I cannot force God's standards onto people who don't want it. This is why I abstain from votes like the defense of marriage act, or banning gay marriage. I don't like it, but I can't force non Christians to follow Christianity.




Conker said:


> And that might be a dying stance.



Could you elaborate?
The Bible is the guide for the Christian. No other book is. I equate the adding of extra rules and regulations to what the Pharisees were doing during the time of Jesus. They were adding rules on top of the original rules, so you wouldn't break those rules... Its called legalism. And its man trying to make salvation a works based system.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So in other words, you stereotype all missionaries and Christians, because you had a bad experience with some people. Seems like you lump all one huge group into being bad people just because of a bad apple per say.
> 
> You had a bad experience, I get that. But how can you justify an all out hatred of of them because of one persons bad attitude or actions?


 
"And ye shall know them by their fruits..."


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And your statement is based on what? That you had a bad experience with a person who claimed to be a Christian? How do you know those who claim to be a Christian are a Christian? For if they don't live like one, I and the Bible (written in James) Has serious doubt of their faith.
> 
> The Bible does not teach to "force" God onto people who don't want to believe. I cannot force God's standards onto people who don't want it. This is why I abstain from votes like the defense of marriage act, or banning gay marriage. I don't like it, but I can't force non Christians to follow Christianity.



Sorry if I'm mistaken but I'm pretty sure the bible does tell it's believers to go forth and preach.

Isn't that why missionaries are converting third world tribes?


----------



## Riley (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The extra rules and regulations certain denominations have added in, I don't agree with. If its not stated in the Bible, then its not Christianity. Thats my stance.


 
The bible doesn't tell you to get into internet-arguments with random furries.  By this exact logic, you are not a true Christian.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> Sorry if I'm mistaken but I'm pretty sure the bible does tell it's believers to go forth and preach.
> 
> Isn't that why missionaries are converting third world tribes?


 
So you equate to preaching to forcing people to believe?

Your are probably talking about the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations."

But how does that equate to forcing someone to believe. All the Great Commission is, is spreading the Gospel. Telling people about Christ Jesus. I cannot save people(Christians cannot save people). Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus saves. My job is to tell people about Him.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Could you elaborate?
> The Bible is the guide for the Christian. No other book is. I equate the adding of extra rules and regulations to what the Pharisees were doing during the time of Jesus. They were adding rules on top of the original rules, so you wouldn't break those rules... Its called legalism. And its man trying to make salvation a works based system.


 Denominations have added extra rules and regulations to appeal to a more modern era. This 21st century of ours is being totted as a more liberal and open minded era, and so more people are apt to look at the Bible and disagree. You, and others I'm sure, believe that the Bible should stay exactly the way it is and be left alone for that's the word of God. What I'm saying is, that your stance on the Bible is a dying stance. Sooner or later, church attendance will drop as society looks at that institution and finds it too archaic and stifling. The stance that the Bible must be kept exactly the way it is, that it must be interpreted in such a way, and all that will-sooner or later-not appeal to a growing population of youths who will turn away from the church. 

Like, I dunno, is the catholic church still up and against birth control? It would be pretty bitchin if they came out and said "yeah, condoms are okay" because let's face it, kids are going to fuck. There might as well be an influential institution to say "you shouldn't fuck at your age, but if you do, at least take some precautions" Abstinence only doens't work. That was an example from the top of my head.


----------



## Goshujinsama (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible does not teach to "force" God onto people who don't want to believe.



and yet every single bible beater i've met feels it in their best interest to force their views and opinions upon everyone else. even you posting your flat opinions is forcing your god upon us. but of course you feel yourself justified by your holy book that is ironically written by the hands of man, so much so you can't see your own hypocrisy.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So you equate to preaching to forcing people to believe?
> 
> Your are probably talking about the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations."
> 
> But how does that equate to forcing someone to believe. All the Great Commission is, is spreading the Gospel. Telling people about Christ Jesus. I cannot save people(Christians cannot save people). Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus saves. My job is to tell people about Him.


 




Riley said:


> The bible doesn't tell you to get into  internet-arguments with random furries.  By this exact logic, you are  not a true Christian.



I am trying to explain my faith. I have gotten into arguments, and I have apologized for insulting people. I have never claimed to be perfect. I am not staring arguments. (at least I try not too) 

What the Bible does say, is go and tell the world about Jesus. Each Christian is called to somewhere where they have the unique set of gifts and experiences that let them minister to a certain group of people. I now know where God has called me too.




Goshujinsama said:


> and yet every single bible beater i've met  feels it in their best interest to force their views and opinions upon  everyone else. even you posting your flat opinions is forcing your god  upon us. but of course you feel yourself justified by your holy book  that is ironically written by the hands of man, so much so you can't see  your own hypocrisy.



So anyone who has an opinion according to you is "forcing them upon you."

I am sorry that Christians have beaten you with the Bible (hopefully not physically) That is not what the Bible preaches. I cannot force my beliefs onto people who don't want to believe. I can't make people Christians. (No Christian can for that matter) Only God can save. Not me, or any other Christian.

But, this doesn't mean I can't try and explain my faith to people, this doesn't mean I can't tell people about Jesus. If they don't want to believe, there is nothing I can do about it. Its all in God's hands.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So you equate to preaching to forcing people to believe?
> 
> Your are probably talking about the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations."
> 
> But how does that equate to forcing someone to believe. All the Great Commission is, is spreading the Gospel. Telling people about Christ Jesus. I cannot save people(Christians cannot save people). Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus saves. My job is to tell people about Him.



It also informs if you don't accept him as your lord and savior you'll go to hell.

Now it might just be me but God sounds like a spiritual terrorist.
Why does a perfect being have this flaw of needing to be worshiped?
And why is he using a horrifying threat to make us love him?

If my child didn't love me I think I'd lock him in the closet for the rest of his life.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> It also informs if you don't accept him as your lord and savior you'll go to hell.
> 
> Now it might just be me but God sounds like a spiritual terrorist.
> Why does a perfect being have this flaw of needing to be worshiped?



According to Christianity and the Bible, God made us to worship Him. This is why we were made.

I am not telling you if you don't believe you will go to Hell. Those are not my words, nor my thoughts. That is from the Bible, and therefore from God. If you have a problem with that, complain to God.


----------



## Goshujinsama (Dec 10, 2010)

Don't you love how christians manipulate the "word of the lord" to fit their own means? and if ever someone points it out it's dismissed as if it never happened.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> According to Christianity and the Bible, God made us to worship Him. This is why we were made.


 That...That I have a huge problem with. I'd hate to walk around every day thinking my true purpose in life was to worship the giant skydick because he has self esteem issues. 

If that's the case, it would seem to me that he loves us, not as equals, but like a child loves a Lego set. I built Lego sets to amuse me! They were my favorite toy when I was younger. I made the cars and the planes and the submarines to entertain me, but I was never equal to those little yellow plastic figures. I was leagues ahead of them and could do to them what I wanted. If I was pissed I could toss a plane into a wall and watch it shatter all over. 

God is a child; human civilization are his Lego's.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> According to Christianity and the Bible, God made us to worship Him. This is why we were made.
> 
> I am not telling you if you don't believe you will go to Hell. Those are not my words, nor my thoughts. That is from the Bible, and therefore from God. If you have a problem with that, complain to God.


 
That is unbelievably petty of him.

Anyway you pretty much believe everything in the bible so you probably do believe I'll be going to Hell.
I mean I am currently committing the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the holy spirit/rejecting God and Jesus.

lmao Conker fuckin A to that XD


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Goshujinsama said:


> Don't you love how christians manipulate the "word of the lord" to fit their own means? and if ever someone points it out it's dismissed as if it never happened.


 
A lot of people who claim to be Christians do this (Try and put God into this little tiny box, so He can be explained). I only go by what the Bible says, and therefore what God says. If what someone preachers doesn't line up with Scripture, then I do not believe whatever they have spoken.





Nail_bunny said:


> That is unbelievably petty of him.
> 
> Anyway you pretty much believe everything in the bible so you probably do believe I'll be going to Hell.
> I mean I am currently committing the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the holy spirit/rejecting God and Jesus.


 

Well first off, I am impressed. Not many people know what the unforgivable sin is. And you defined it exactly.

Secondly what's petty? All I said in what you quoted by me, is that I go by what the Bible says, and if what someone preaches doesn't line up with Scripture, then I don't follow what is being spoken.


You are correct though, unbelief is unforgivable. Because you reject the free gift of salvation. Do I like the fact that you don't believe? No, I do not. But if you don't want to, thats your choice. I can't do anything about that. Only God can.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A lot of people who claim to be Christians do this (Try and put God into this little tiny box, so He can be explained). I only go by what the Bible says, and therefore what God says. If what someone preachers doesn't line up with Scripture, then I do not believe whatever they have spoken.


 Isn't the Bible doing just that though? Putting God into a tiny box (in this case, a hefty book, but no thicker than the final Harry Potter novel or half the works by Tolstoy) so that he can be explained?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> Isn't the Bible doing just that though? Putting God into a tiny box (in this case, a hefty book, but no thicker than the final Harry Potter novel or half the works by Tolstoy) so that he can be explained?


 

Just an fyi, the Bible is a little over 1400 pages.


If God was small enough to be understood, He wouldn't be big enough to be worshiped. The Bible reveals God's character. But he is not fully understandable. God is beyond our comprehension. The Bible gives us glimpses about God, explains some things. But is does not preach that we can fully understand God.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> That...That I have a huge problem with. I'd hate to walk around every day thinking my true purpose in life was to worship the giant skydick because he has self esteem issues.
> 
> If that's the case, it would seem to me that he loves us, not as equals, but like a child loves a Lego set. I built Lego sets to amuse me! They were my favorite toy when I was younger. I made the cars and the planes and the submarines to entertain me, but I was never equal to those little yellow plastic figures. I was leagues ahead of them and could do to them what I wanted. If I was pissed I could toss a plane into a wall and watch it shatter all over.
> 
> God is a child; human civilization are his Lego's.


 
I'm more fond of the "boy frying ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass" metaphor, but this works just as well.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Just an fyi, the Bible is a little over 1400 pages.
> 
> 
> If God was small enough to be understood, He wouldn't be big enough to be worshiped. The Bible reveals God's character. But he is not fully understandable. God is beyond our comprehension. The Bible gives us glimpses about God, explains some things. But is does not preach that we can fully understand God.


So why should we worship something we can't fully understand? For all we know, God is a liar and a deceiver and the Bible is just that, him fucking with us. And let's face it, the character revealed in the Old Testament isn't someone worth worshipping. 

Shouldn't such profound devotion go to something we DO understand, something we can trust? If the Bible is just glimpses, how can we really trust it? How can we really trust God when he totes the message "You can't understand me, but take my word for all the shit I say."


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm more fond of the "boy frying ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass" metaphor, but this works just as well.


 out of curiosity where does it actually say this is the purpose we were made for. 
I was always taught that the angels were made to worship god, humans were not.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 10, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Religion and theology are corruptions of true spirituality, the only thing worse than them are materialistic athiests who arrogantly take the stance of "Science" and that reality is only what we can touch and see. The only thing science combats is theology, superstition, and the perversion of today that is Christianity. Real spirituality, the kind that Jesus was trying to actually teach, can co-exist with science, and can even be aided by it.
> 
> True spirituality, and even true science, understands that a flower is only molecules and photons and sunshine and emotions and the history of the universe temporarily _pretending_ to be a flower. Studying a flower through a microscope is *just* as blinding as believing that "God made the flower" when the truth is that the flower doesn't even exist in the first place. :/


 
You're waxing philosophy, and nihilism in particular. On top of that, you appear to be placing worth on these concepts. I mean, you can like these ideas, but to argue them as "better" than other people's ideas... such short-sightedness is it's own counterargument against it. Frankly, I love philosophy but it's a bunch of hot air and bullshit compared to what we can see and touch. That flower exists. Believing that it doesn't is very literally an exercise in futility.

"True spirituality" is funny. I don't buy it, cuz it just sounds like a self-deception. The sort of thing where you come up with the answer to an impossible question and decide you're right so you can stop thinking about it. Nah, there's no reason to stop thinking.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> out of curiosity where does it actually say this is the purpose we were made for.
> I was always taught that the angels were made to worship god, humans were not.


 
The whole point of mankind, was we were made to be in a relationship with God. We are unique because we are made in the image of God. Angels are not. One could say, we are more special/unique than Angels. Thats huge. God made us so we could know Him.




Conker said:


> So why should we worship something we can't fully  understand? For all we know, God is a liar and a deceiver and the Bible  is just that, him fucking with us. And let's face it, the character  revealed in the Old Testament isn't someone worth worshipping.
> 
> Shouldn't  such profound devotion go to something we DO understand, something we  can trust? If the Bible is just glimpses, how can we really trust it?  How can we really trust God when he totes the message "You can't  understand me, but take my word for all the shit I say."


 

I did say the Bible reveals God's character, it reveals His unconditional Love for us. But we cannot fully know God. Because we don't understand why he does everything. Think about it, if we fully knew God, was able to explain everything about Him, why would faith be needed?

One can read the Bible continuous for the rest of their life, and get a new insight about God and themselves until the day they die. And they still will not fully understand God. Because to fully understand God, would mean you are God. For even Angels don't know what God knows.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The whole point of mankind, was we were made to be in a relationship with God. We are unique because we are made in the image of God. Angels are not. One could say, we are more special/unique than Angels. Thats huge. God made us so we could know Him.


 To be honest, "knowing" and "worshiping" are two different words with two different meanings. I can know a person and not like him, or I can know a person and be indifferent. Shouldn't I be able to know God yet not worship him? I can be all "yo God, sup? Want to go grab some beers and watch cartoons?" And he could be all "sure dude, you're one wicked motherfucker." At no point in that conversation do I worship him. Why can't we just hang out and have a good ol time?


----------



## Werevixen (Dec 10, 2010)

Every time Rukh posts, I lose just a little more faith in mankind.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> To be honest, "knowing" and "worshiping" are two different words with two different meanings. I can know a person and not like him, or I can know a person and be indifferent. Shouldn't I be able to know God yet not worship him? I can be all "yo God, sup? Want to go grab some beers and watch cartoons?" And he could be all "sure dude, you're one wicked motherfucker." At no point in that conversation do I worship him. Why can't we just hang out and have a good ol time?


 

No they are not different. Those 2 words, when talking about God are not mutually exclusive. To know who God is, truly knowing who He is, is to believe in Him. And if you believe in Him, you will worship Him. Everything I do, is supposed to be for God. Worship is not just music. Its every thought, action or word I speak. Thats worship.

You cannot believe in God and not worship Him. Just by acknowledging that He is the Lord God is a form of worship, because you acknowledge that He is the supreme being in the universe, that He created you.




Werevixen said:


> Every time Rukh posts, I lose just a little more faith in mankind.


I lost faith in mankind a long time ago, I only have faith in God.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The whole point of mankind, was we were made to be in a relationship with God. We are unique because we are made in the image of God. Angels are not. One could say, we are more special/unique than Angels. Thats huge. God made us so we could know Him.


 How is this the one time you don't have a handy quote. Prove to me with textual evidence exactly what the bible says man's purpose on life is. You can't just assume shit based on what things look like or how they were made. just because we look different from the angels does not mean that we were made to worship god, in fact I would argue against that. The angels were made to worship and get no choice.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> How is this the one time you don't have a handy quote. Prove to me with textual evidence exactly what the bible says man's purpose on life is. You can't just assume shit based on what things look like or how they were made. just because we look different from the angels does not mean that we were made to worship god, in fact I would argue against that. The angels were made to worship and get no choice.


 
The Angels get a choice as well. Satan was once an arc angel in a sense. He was known as Lucifer. When Lucifer revolted against God, he took 1/3 of the angels with him to Hell. Satan was once an angel, you have forgotten that. Angels have a choice.

And again, only does it say about man, we were made in the image of God. The angels were not made in the image of God. 

You want exact verses? Here you go

Isaiah 43:7
everyone who is called by my name, 
*whom I created for my glory, *
   whom I formed and made.

Psalm 102:18 
This shall be written for the generation to come: and *the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD. 
* 
Ecc 12:13
Now all has been heard; 
   here is the conclusion of the matter: *
Fear God and keep his commandments, 
   for this is the duty of all mankind. *


And a quote from a very good book.
God did not need to create you, but He chose to create you for His own  enjoyment.  You exist for His benefit, His glory, His purpose, and His  delight."  
             --- The Purpose Driven Life


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 10, 2010)

So being forced to worship god = free will, right :v


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No they are not different. Those 2 words, when talking about God are not mutually exclusive. To know who God is, truly knowing who He is, is to believe in Him. And if you believe in Him, you will worship Him. Everything I do, is supposed to be for God. Worship is not just music. Its every thought, action or word I speak. Thats worship.
> 
> You cannot believe in God and not worship Him. Just by acknowledging that He is the Lord God is a form of worship, because you acknowledge that He is the supreme being in the universe, that He created you.


 I think you have a simplistic view of this then, because those words are different and they have two different definitions. I think you are assuming much about people and about God to say that if anyone knows God then worship will follow to such a point where the words are synonymous with each other in regards to God. People have different definitions of "love;" I don't see why it's not possible to fathom a person who knows God but doesn't love or worship him. 



> I did say the Bible reveals God's character, it reveals His  unconditional Love for us. But we cannot fully know God. Because we  don't understand why he does everything. Think about it, if we fully  knew God, was able to explain everything about Him, why would faith be  needed?


And the fact that he establishes such a doubt where we can't fully know him or understand him makes him unreliable. How do we know what the character he reveals in the Bible is truth and what is fiction? We have to take his word for it, and if he's not fully understandable, then his word isn't either.



> So being forced to worship god = free will, right :v


Being punished for free will is balls.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

the Lucifer story is apocrypha unless you can prove otherwise. 

thank you for giving the quotes anyway. 
I'm not sure why you keep talking about the angels not being in the image of god. I never said they were. I said they worship god, and they do.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So being forced to worship god = free will, right :v


 
Again, you are not being forced. You have a choice to believe.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, you are not being forced. You have a choice to believe.


 except you don't. You have "believe or burn" and what's worse, the point I brought up before. anyone that might die before even having the chance to hear god's word, they will burn as well.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, you are not being forced. *You have a choice to believe.*.


 
...Or else...?

My point exactly. Your thoughts are not controlled, but you've got a metaphorical gun against your head. It's coercion - Not direct force, but the use of intimidation or fear to get the same results.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, you are not being forced. You have a choice to believe.


 You are forced to believe out of fear, and that's not a cool story bro.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't get the whole value of "religious faith". Why is faith so much more valuable than actual knowledge? Why would God value our faith so much? Faith is what you're left with when you don't know, and you give up searching. Faith is prudent in a flawed world, where we don't always have time and opportunity to gain particular knowledge, but why would God ever promote it? *By definition, God knows all so God cannot know faith. *(And yes, that is a contradiction.)

I don't know whether God exists or not, but faith is a human construction. God doesn't need or require our faith and worship. God wouldn't produce such faulty logic.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> the Lucifer story is apocrypha unless you can prove otherwise.
> 
> thank you for giving the quotes anyway.
> I'm not sure why you keep talking about the angels not being in the image of god. I never said they were. I said they worship god, and they do.


 
You said Angels don't get a choice, I pointed out that they do. Satan was once an angel. He was one of the head angels. The name Lucifer means morning star I believe. 

As for a specific verse that says Satan was thrown from heaven. Here you go

Rev.12:7-9
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled downâ€”that ancient serpent called the devil,  or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth,  and his angels with him. 

In Revelations, Satan is referred to as a dragon.

In Revelations 12:4 is speaks of the dragon swiping his tail and knocking a third of the stars toward earth. This is referencing that 1/3 of heaven (the angels) followed Satan and were thrown from heaven.



Fay V said:


> except you don't. You have "believe or burn" and what's worse, the point I brought up before. *anyone that might die before even having the chance to hear god's word, they will burn as well.*


 
Show me in the Bible where it states that. It states something  completely different. That those who seek after God will find Him,  regardless if they are told about Him by someone else. God chooses us.  He reveals himself to us. Therefore, one can find God without actually  having someone physically telling them about God.


But, only God knows, who truly know Him.



Heimdal said:


> I don't get the whole value of "religious faith".  Why is faith so much more valuable than actual knowledge? Why would God  value our faith so much?


 
"Blessed are those who believe and have not seen me." I believe that is from Matthew.

If everyone had knowledge of God, what choice would that be?  There would be no "belief" 

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 



What is the question that you are asking? 

Why faith?  Or what is the faith that saves?

You make the very simple and fatal mistake in thinking God must be proved  to you. If that were so then you would be forced and your sovereignty  compromised. Then you would have no choice, your heart would not be  changed and therefore your sin retained.


The other thing is, its by faith that the knowledge of God's existence is given to you. Faith is required for the knowledge of God being real. Because to have knowledge of God, means you believe in Him, and Have faith in Him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

dang, double post.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Show me in the Bible where it states that. It states something  completely different. That those who seek after God will find Him,  regardless if they are told about Him by someone else. God chooses us.  He reveals himself to us. Therefore, one can find God without actually  having someone physically telling them about God.
> 
> 
> But, only God knows, who truly know Him.



You stated before that we all have original sin. 
Babies can't seek or know anything but babies also have original sin
therefore babies dying would mean they haven't had a chance. 

You also stated that if we don't have religion we can't be moral people. 
so if someone hasn't heard of religion they have to make their best guess
but you've stated people are flawed and can't be moral on their own

If a person on a desert island could know god without the bible. Why would I need the bible now?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You stated before that we all have original sin.
> Babies can't seek or know anything but babies also have original sin
> therefore babies dying would mean they haven't had a chance.
> 
> ...


 
See my edited post.

Second, the Bible says that babies are innocent, at what age they are not is unknown. The Bible is not clear on that. But what is known, is that those who had no chance (Ie a baby who dies during child birth) Would go to heaven. The question about babies and their innocence would be better asked to a pastor than me.

And about the man on an island. 
This is what I am talking about

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world Godâ€™s invisible qualitiesâ€”his  eternal power and divine natureâ€”have been clearly seen, being understood  from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 

No one is without excuse for not knowing God. God can bring people to Him, any way he wants. The Bible though is where His Word is written. And its where a Christian learns to live a Christian life.

Where do morals and ethics come from I wonder, since man is flawed, who are we to say what is right and wrong. Considering the fact that right and wrong is different to many people. Some people say its wrong to have sex with a child, and them other people say its okay. Who is right? By most people's standard on here, right and wrong is subjective to the person. That doesn't work with my example. Something can't be right to one person, and be wrong to someone else. There is an absolute right and wrong. Thats how be base our actions. Mankind could not have come up with an absolute right and wrong because not all people believe in someone elses morals.


Anyways, I am going to bed. I have to get up early for work.


----------



## Riley (Dec 10, 2010)

Philip K. Dick said:
			
		

> "Mountains, Bruce, mountains," the manager said. "Mountains, Bruce, mountains," Bruce said and gazed.
> "Echolalia, Bruce, echolalia," the manager said. "Echolalia, Bruce-"
> "Okay, Bruce," the manager said, and shut the cabin door behind him,  thinking, I believe I'll put him among the carrots. Or beets. Something  simple. Something that won't puzzle him.


With Rukh playing the part of Bruce.

I really just don't see any enjoyment in becoming a slave to someone else's overblown ideaology.  Having something to believe in?  That's nice, I suppose.  Something to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling every now and then.  I've got my own personal set of beliefs that I've come up with as I've lived my life, sure.  But letting someone else, and even better, some author that died thousands of years ago, tell me how exactly to live my life, and then only to be told by hundreds of other people I've just read their words wrong?  That's just too much work, and I've got enough work as it is.  Is some faceless deity going to give me good grades?  Give me a job?  Pay for a car, food, and clothes?  Further my skills?  No?  So why should I devote all the time I need to get my own life sorted out before slaving it to some other guy's agenda?  Modern society just has no place for all that malarkey anymore, and I'll gladly welcome the day it all comes crumbling apart and people start being able to think for themselves.

Religion gains followers based on promises of endless hugs and other nice things, then keeps them roped in through fear and threats of suffering at the very things they had put their trust into.  As soon as enough people realize that's not the way to live, we'll all be better off.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Riley said:


> With Rukh playing the part of Bruce.
> 
> I really just don't see any enjoyment in becoming a slave to someone else's overblown ideaology.  Having something to believe in?  That's nice, I suppose.  Something to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling every now and then.  I've got my own personal set of beliefs that I've come up with as I've lived my life, sure.  But letting someone else, and even better, some author that died thousands of years ago, tell me how exactly to live my life, and then only to be told by hundreds of other people I've just read their words wrong?  That's just too much work, and I've got enough work as it is.  Is some faceless deity going to give me good grades?  Give me a job?  Pay for a car, food, and clothes?  Further my skills?  No?  So why should I devote all the time I need to get my own life sorted out before slaving it to some other guy's agenda?  Modern society just has no place for all that malarkey anymore, and I'll gladly welcome the day it all comes crumbling apart and people start being able to think for themselves.
> 
> Religion gains followers based on promises of endless hugs and other nice things, then keeps them roped in through fear and threats of suffering at the very things they had put their trust into.  As soon as enough people realize that's not the way to live, we'll all be better off.



Everyone is a slave, either to sin, or to God. You already serve someone. You either serve yourself, or God. And God is not going to give you something just because you want it. You have to do work. God does not let us sit on our butts all day and Him do all the work. what your saying to God is, if you do this, I will do this for you. It doesn't work like that. He doesn't work like that.


----------



## Riley (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone is a slave, either to sin, or to God. You already serve someone. You either serve yourself, or God. And God is not going to give you something just because you want it. You have to do work. God does not let us sit on our butts all day and Him do all the work. what your saying to God is, if you do this, I will do this for you. It doesn't work like that. He doesn't work like that.


 
So Cloudman isn't going to solve all my problems without considerably more work put into getting him to than would be involved with me just doing it myself.  



> Everyone is a slave, either to sin, or to God.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave


> a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.



So what was that part about free will again?  You can't both be wholly subject to someone and _also_ able to do whatever you want.  Make up your mind, now.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "Blessed are those who believe and have not seen me." I believe that is from Matthew.
> 
> If everyone had knowledge of God, what choice would that be?  There would be no "belief"
> 
> ...


 
I don't care what a stupid book says. Someone wrote it to say that, not God. The promotion of faith is propaganda for the religion itself. It is a _catch-22_, plain and simple.

It is a _fatal mistake_ to eat shit thinking it's chocolate pudding. It is exactly the opposite to want proof. If God doesn't need to be proven, he would welcome doubt as the obvious result; he chose not to give us that information. God is incapable of faith, so why would he expect from us what he could never do himself? It literally makes no sense at all.

God is either toying with us, or your Bible is wrong about this faith business. These are blatant logical fallacies that a perfect being could not commit.

On top of that, you spouted a bunch of fuddy-duddy garbage that literally has no meaning. Choice is meaningless if there is only 1 correct choice, God would know that and not be such an idiot about it. Faith = knowledge = belief = faith, is entirely irrational.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh. If we've always had God as a moral compass. How do you explain things like cannibalism, which was much, much more prominent in our early history. Wouldn't god say "hey, stop that" immediately, considering how wrong it was. Yet there is some decent historical evidence that cannibalism was not ethically terrible until the creation of farming and ranching when prisoners would be needed as slaves over food. 

You say a lot of things about morality, but really there's no basis that there is any objective standard at all beyond what is written down, and there are a lot of ethical codes written down. Every psychological test I have ever seen shows that you are influenced by the situation you are in, tiny things like if the area is dirty. A faithful person is no more likely to act in a morally good way than an atheist. Look at the Good Samaritan experiment. If morals truly were objective and through God, wouldn't some sort of standard be met despite factors like mess or time? 

You could say we are all corrupt and we have to work at being forgiven, no one is perfect. However gazzaniga has shown that we often act before recognizing that we do. Our right brain makes a choice and we later make that choice logical with our left brain. There are many fMRI studies that also show this and how people will make decisions and later try to create a reason for it. This is all important to note, because a person is just as likely to justify their actions with the bible when really scripture had nothing to do with it. When you have an objective standard, there is no way to win. Your brain does not work that way. If God loved us and wanted us to have a good life and follow this standard why would he give us the left brain interpreter. Why would he give us a mind designed to be so easily turned astray by things that we notice on a subconscious level?


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where do morals and ethics come from I wonder, since man is flawed, who are we to say what is right and wrong. Considering the fact that right and wrong is different to many people. Some people say its wrong to have sex with a child, and them other people say its okay. Who is right? By most people's standard on here, right and wrong is subjective to the person. That doesn't work with my example. Something can't be right to one person, and be wrong to someone else. There is an absolute right and wrong. Thats how be base our actions. Mankind could not have come up with an absolute right and wrong because not all people believe in someone elses morals.


 They are built up over the course of years via society and tradition (both of which are arbitrary constructs, but we depend on them nonetheless).

Using the social norms of the United States, it is wrong to sexually molest a child. In a pretend country somewhere in, I dunno, let's say Latin America, it might not be wrong there. Morality is a product of society. Going against what a society has in place is immoral then. 

I find it funny that you used sexually assaulting children as your example, seeing as there were the priests that did that :V


----------



## Riley (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> They are built up over the course of years via society and tradition (both of which are arbitrary constructs, but we depend on them nonetheless).
> 
> Using the social norms of the United States, it is wrong to sexually molest a child. In a pretend country somewhere in, I dunno, let's say Latin America, it might not be wrong there. Morality is a product of society. Going against what a society has in place is immoral then.
> 
> I find it funny that you used sexually assaulting children as your example, seeing as there were the priests that did that :V


 
The current pope, even.  Oh, but he got a pardon from the State of Texas, and I'm sure he told god he was really, really sorry, and that he would take out the trash every night this week to make up for it.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> I find it funny that you used sexually assaulting children as your example, seeing as there were the priests that did that :V



But those aren't true Christians.

Without religion we wouldn't have morals at all. Religious people _in action_, being just as 'morally fragile' as everyone else, doesn't disprove that. It's about faith, not real physical realities. Blind faith is more real than real things.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Rukh. If we've always had God as a moral compass. How do you explain things like cannibalism, which was much, much more prominent in our early history. Wouldn't god say "hey, stop that" immediately, considering how wrong it was. Yet there is some decent historical evidence that cannibalism was not ethically terrible until the creation of farming and ranching when prisoners would be needed as slaves over food.
> 
> You say a lot of things about morality, but really there's no basis that there is any objective standard at all beyond what is written down, and there are a lot of ethical codes written down. Every psychological test I have ever seen shows that you are influenced by the situation you are in, tiny things like if the area is dirty. A faithful person is no more likely to act in a morally good way than an atheist. Look at the Good Samaritan experiment. If morals truly were objective and through God, wouldn't some sort of standard be met despite factors like mess or time?
> 
> You could say we are all corrupt and we have to work at being forgiven, no one is perfect. However gazzaniga has shown that we often act before recognizing that we do. Our right brain makes a choice and we later make that choice logical with our left brain. There are many fMRI studies that also show this and how people will make decisions and later try to create a reason for it. This is all important to note, because a person is just as likely to justify their actions with the bible when really scripture had nothing to do with it. When you have an objective standard, there is no way to win. Your brain does not work that way. If God loved us and wanted us to have a good life and follow this standard why would he give us the left brain interpreter. Why would he give us a mind designed to be so easily turned astray by things that we notice on a subconscious level?



Rukh's admitted to only being like this for a few months. Before, god knows what the hell kind of confused person he was, but now he's the Rukh we know and love.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Rukh's admitted to only being like this for a few months. Before, god knows what the hell kind of confused person he was, but now he's the Rukh we know and love.


 I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 10, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.


 
It doesn't. I misread the post I quoted, and just now realized it says "we've" not "you've".


----------



## Fay V (Dec 10, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> It doesn't. I misread the post I quoted, and just now realized it says "we've" not "you've".


 :3c


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> They are built up over the course of years via society and tradition (both of which are arbitrary constructs, but we depend on them nonetheless).
> 
> Using the social norms of the United States, it is wrong to sexually molest a child. In a pretend country somewhere in, I dunno, let's say Latin America, it might not be wrong there. Morality is a product of society. Going against what a society has in place is immoral then.
> 
> I find it funny that you used sexually assaulting children as your example, seeing as there were the priests that did that :V


Again though, does this mean that both groups are right?  Does this mean that its okay, no matter where you are, that its okay to have sex with a child? This is what I am getting at. Is it wrong. Plain and simple. It seems most peoples arguments on here say that each person has their own moral compass. I say otherwise. There has to be an absolute right and wrong. If not, then there is no true right and wrong. Each person has their own standard and no one is really right.

I ask you another question, In Pakistan, its legal to abuse your wife (Look up stories about how men have poured boiling oil on their wives because of something they did) Is that right? In Pakistan it is. I could go on with any human rights issues. Who is right and who is wrong?

And as for the Catholic church, The sex scandal seems only to be a part of the Catholic church. Why is this? To me it shows proof that the Catholic church has walked away from true faith. The Bible is clear that if a church starts walking away from real faith, then problems will start blowing up all over the place.

It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of  Christian doctrine that is not revealed in Scripture. This is an issue  that needs to be addressed. It is vital.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who is right? By most people's standard on here, right and wrong is subjective to the person. That doesn't work with my example.



Not your bible- The bible contains more instances of god-ordained child rape than it mentions child rape is bad. In fact it mentions child rape is bad 0 times directly.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Something can't be right to one person, and be wrong to someone else. There is an absolute right and wrong.



That is an argument against most religions, yours included.

God: Murders everyoone and anyone he wants, tortures them forever too, commits suicide, patricide, regicide, deicide, and a million other crimes such as having a child outside of wedlock. Worst I'd say, aside from the genocides, is the fact he has accepted human sacrifice in multiple places in the bible, but christians think that's Absolutely okay.
Everyone else: Just being born is a sin bad enough to be damned.

In other words there's an immediate and huge moral discrepancy just with God alone according to your holy books.  You god is an omnicidal hypocritical monster.


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 10, 2010)

Nail_bunny said:


> It also informs if you don't accept him as your lord and savior you'll go to hell.
> 
> Now it might just be me but God sounds like a spiritual terrorist.
> Why does a perfect being have this flaw of needing to be worshiped?
> ...


 
Your posts have to be the most ignorant I have come across so far in this thread, Even more than Ruhk's. Every single one of them has so far shown a complete lack of knowledge of Christianity, the bible, and theology. Your posts have been arrogant, unreserched, and grossly stereotyping. I believe Christianity today is a corruption of what the bible was trying to teach, but your posts piss even me off. How old are you, seriously.



> You are correct though, unbelief is unforgivable. Because you reject the free gift of salvation. Do I like the fact that you don't believe? No, I do not. But if you don't want to, thats your choice. I can't do anything about that. Only God can.



Jesus never intended for us to merely "accept that he is our savior and let him do everything for us spiritually" That is not what he taught at all, what you are going on about comes from modern day doctrines. Jesus did not come to earth do merely die for our sins, he attempted to reshape the collective consciousness of humanity through his teachings, something I think modern day Christianity has lost sight of.



> God: Murders everyoone and anyone he wants, tortures them forever too, commits suicide, patricide, regicide, deicide, and a million other crimes such as having a child outside of wedlock. Worst I'd say, aside from the genocides, is the fact he has accepted human sacrifice in multiple places in the bible, but christians think that's Absolutely okay.
> Everyone else: Just being born is a sin bad enough to be damned.



Most all people's experiences of God are a projection. As insightful as the old testament is, it only succeeds in showing what *humanity thought God was supposed to be at the time.* That is why God changes from a wrathful control freak to an overprotective parent to a patient and understanding observer throughout the course of the bible. We are only seeing what humans were capable of understanding depending on the given point in history.


----------



## Conker (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again though, does this mean that both groups are right?  Does this mean that its okay, no matter where you are, that its okay to have sex with a child? This is what I am getting at. Is it wrong. Plain and simple. It seems most peoples arguments on here say that each person has their own moral compass. I say otherwise. There has to be an absolute right and wrong. If not, then there is no true right and wrong. Each person has their own standard and no one is really right.


Why does there have to be an absolute right and wrong? People do have their own moral compasses, some people are egoists, some are altruistic, and some are the third word. People operate differently and people think differently, with or without religion. 


> I ask you another question, In Pakistan, its legal to abuse your wife (Look up stories about how men have poured boiling oil on their wives because of something they did) Is that right? In Pakistan it is. I could go on with any human rights issues. Who is right and who is wrong?


Our social norms say Pakistan is wrong; I believe the Pakistanis to be wrong in this case. But I've also spent 21 years living in America where, in what, the 60's-80's? feminism exploded and helped reshape and rethink cultural values and norms. Women, in the US, were at one time not treated very well. Hell, there are still some problems with equality, but things are better, and hopefully they'll continue to improve. But the Pakistani's think were crazy and then they go off and beat their wives because their society says that is okay. It's like when American's had slaves. Many whites thought it was perfectly fine to buy people and beat them when they didn't do enough work. Times have changed, a war was fought, and now we look back and go "shit, that was really stupid" but at the time, it wasn't. Societies change and evolve.

And like Mojo pointed out, there are many examples of rape and murder in the Bible, and these examples are treated as perfectly fine. The New Testament is infinitely better than the Old Testament, but when you say "the Bible" you refer to the whole book. Not a whole lot of morals to be had in the first half of the book.


> And as for the Catholic church, The sex scandal seems only to be a part of the Catholic church. Why is this? To me it shows proof that the Catholic church has walked away from true faith. The Bible is clear that if a church starts walking away from real faith, then problems will start blowing up all over the place.
> 
> It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of  Christian doctrine that is not revealed in Scripture. This is an issue  that needs to be addressed. It is vital.


 So, if I can't go to the Roman Catholic Church for religious experiences since they have "walked away from true faith" where do I go? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the higher ups that run that denomination have gone off the fucking deep end, but is there a different sect of Christianity that you would recommend? 


Random_Observer said:


> Most all people's experiences of God are a projection. As insightful as the old testament is, it only succeeds in showing what *humanity thought God was supposed to be at the time.* That is why God changes from a wrathful control freak to an overprotective parent to a patient and understanding observer throughout the course of the bible. We are only seeing what humans were capable of understanding depending on the given point in history.


 1700 or so years ago the Bible was written based on what humans were capable of understanding at that given point in history. Well, it's now the year 2010 and humans are capable of understanding a lot more. Shouldn't our projection of God logically change as it did in going from the Old Testament to the New Testament?


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> So, if I can't go to the Roman Catholic Church for religious experiences since they have "walked away from true faith" where do I go? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the higher ups that run that denomination have gone off the fucking deep end, but is there a different sect of Christianity that you would recommend?



The whole "they're doing it wrong" thing just makes me think of Communism; it's a great idea, but in action.. it just doesn't work.

I find no reason to believe a religion to be better than it's actions actually presents itself. That's not a rational stance. Rukh, have you ever considered that you're the one doing it wrong? That could just as easily be the case.

I guess that's what referencing the Bible is for. I'm pretty sure it's just a horrible piece of fiction though. I was just thinking.. wouldn't the Bible be a false idol? The words written in it are clearly treated with worship, and if anyone ever had a vision with God, people would compare it to the Bible (favouring the Bible above it). Yeah, that's a false idol.


----------



## Random_Observer (Dec 10, 2010)

Conker said:


> 1700 or so years ago the Bible was written based on what humans were capable of understanding at that given point in history. Well, it's now the year 2010 and humans are capable of understanding a lot more. Shouldn't our projection of God logically change as it did in going from the Old Testament to the New Testament?


 
It has, in some smaller circles. But it's greatly repressed thanks to the church hijacking the concept of God and forcing it into stagnation with dogmas and doctrines.


----------



## Deo (Dec 10, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You had a bad experience, I get that. But how can you *justify an all out hatred of of them* because of one persons bad attitude or actions?


I never said once that I hated anyone. Way to stereotype me Rukh while you attempt to label me as stereotyping.

Also, those were just some examples. I have many many more. The christians are crazy where I live and it is rare that I have good encounters with them. I've tried reaching out, but when I attend youth groups they notice me and go a sermon angainst atheists. I attend different churches and for the most part get dirty looks. I am vocal in our community about my unbelief and so far the only christians who treat me as equals are the Korean Methodist Church, and the only reason I think that is because I don't understand what they are saying in Korean so I can pretend it's good. Do remember that I have been attacked, punched, screamed at on the street, threatened, and pushed in front of a minivan that broke my leg by christians specifically because I was an atheist who stood up for my rights in city hall. So when you whine about your persecution complex try to remember there are some of us who are actually persecuted. 
And yet I do not hate them. I worry for their anger, I worry for their malice, and I worry about how their children will gorw up and who the next generation of Iowans will be. I wish that they would treat me as a person, but I try to understand why tey feel that it is impossible to treat me as a human being. But I don't understand. Do you Rukh?


Also Rukh before you say that the morals of atheists are pliable why don't you solidify your own morality rather than molding it to how you feel at that precise moment?

A good example was earlier you were asked if killing was immoral (and it is).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I thought what I said was clear. *To me, murder is murder. I just can't justify killing*


You say that you can't justify killing because killing is immoral. But then you forgo your solid morality (killing other people is always wrong) in order to justify killing. You see how hypocritical it is to point fingers at us for having lenient morals when your own morals are as pliable as a rubber band?




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor,*


Where before you said "I could never justify killing" you just justified it. and you even went beyond that and said that killing people does them a favor. This is skewed morals if I have ever seen them.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again though, does this mean that both groups are right? Does this mean that its okay, no matter where you are, that *its okay to have sex with a child*? This is what I am getting at. Is it wrong. Plain and simple. It seems most peoples arguments on here say that each person has their own moral compass. I say otherwise. There has to be an absolute right and wrong. If not, then there is no true right and wrong.


*Then why the HELL are you friends with a child rapist?* WHY do we have pictures of you guys buddy-buddy drinking together while he's wearing his child-raping fursuit? Why are you friends with a man who rapes children, films it, and spreads it online? Where the FUCK are your morals you hypocritical cur?
*http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3708430/*

So before you tell us that our morals are paltry because of a lack of God you must first arrange it so that your morals have some sort of standard of decency. Otherwise you make a fool out of yourself. And as the Bible says we should not listen to fools.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Pardon me Random observer but the Bible does clearly state that those who don't accept Christ will not be saved.

I fail to see where I took anything out of context there.

Seriously, if you can't understand why someone would see that as a terrorist strategy there might be something  wrong with your logic.
Believe or burn, right everyone should be perfectly okay with that.
Anyway my posts are only ignorant because I made them to apply to Rukhs idea of christianity

 On another note, you really don't need to throw around insults,that's a clear indication of butthurt


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 10, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Never have, never will 8)
> 
> I know who pulls their strings.



color me curious. who?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 10, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> color me curious. who?


 
The Catholic Church


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 10, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The Catholic Church


Always thought the Sal was a non-denominational organization. Would you have any links or anything to show this connection?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I say the opposite. Morality, ethics, right and wrong are  being thrown out the window. Thats not progression.


Can you elaborate on this? What is it exactly you believe are being thrown out the window? What is it about modern society that you think is unethical, immoral, or wrong?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity doesn't change, because God  doesn't change. The argument that Christianity should conform to society  goes against what being a Christian is. A Christian is called of live  in this world, but not be of the world.


God doesn't change?
Jewish God: Murder this population of people because they don't worship me, then you can claim this land as your own, for I'm giving it to you. Kill them all, including the women and children (Entire book of Joshua). Stone to death those who don't follow my hundreds of rules, including eating unhealthy meat. Ect ect.
New Testament God: God loves you even when you're a sinner and wants you to be happy and love others and never hurt another soul.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The extra rules and regulations certain  denominations have added in, I don't agree with. If its not stated in  the Bible, then its not Christianity. Thats my stance.


 Sounds like Catholicism, with all the added rules and regulations. And in that case, I agree. I think the catholic church has strayed from christianity.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Isaiah 43:7
> Psalm 102:18
> Ecc 12:13
> And a quote from a very good book.
> ...


Hmm, two quotes from prophets who sounded more like stoned nutjobs than rational people, who would see wild visions that are open to interpretation. And a quote from a book full of praise and worship songs.

I especially love when people quote Psalms as the word of God. As a random example: "Hey look it says in Psalms that gays must be stoned!" Completely forgetting that the entire book is a collection of songs written by man to praise God.

As for the last one, it says nothing about needing to worship god. It just says that God created us for his own amusement, much as a child creates something out of clay for fun. It's like saying that God was bored one day, and decided to create mankind, because he enjoyed creating living things, or because he wanted to watch living things slaughter each other for his amusement. That makes me slightly uneasy.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 10, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> Always thought the Sal was a non-denominational organization. Would you have any links or anything to show this connection?



Went looking and didn't find any Salvation Army = Catholic evidence :/ I must have heard wrong.  Wikipedia says it's its own denomination, which I thought was kinda strange.  An evangelical Christian church, to be precise.

edit: seeing some articles that imply the Salvation Army is actually ANTI-Catholic.  wonder if I got it mixed up because of that.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 10, 2010)

Salvation Army is by an evangelical group. I doubt it's Catholic.

About the "morals" of "christians". May I point out Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper who said that God told him to take a young girl and make her his wife and practice polygamy? The poor girl was raped on a near daily basis for 9 months.

How about the "christians" that bomb abortion clinics and/or murder doctors because they felt it was right?

Or how about the "christians" like you, Rukh? The ones that look down on atheists as immoral?

What about the "christians" that harass gays?

How in the FUCK do these people have any better morals than atheists? You do realize that there are more "christians" in jails* than there are atheists?
Explain that to me please. If atheists are supposedly "immoral" then shouldn't there be SUBSTANTIALLY MORE?

*report from 1997. Still a valid point, though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 11, 2010)

Conker said:


> Why does there have to be an absolute right and wrong? People do have their own moral compasses, some people are egoists, some are altruistic, and some are the third word. People operate differently and people think differently, with or without religion.
> Our social norms say Pakistan is wrong; I believe the Pakistanis to be wrong in this case. But I've also spent 21 years living in America where, in what, the 60's-80's? feminism exploded and helped reshape and rethink cultural values and norms. Women, in the US, were at one time not treated very well. Hell, there are still some problems with equality, but things are better, and hopefully they'll continue to improve. But the Pakistani's think were crazy and then they go off and beat their wives because their society says that is okay. It's like when American's had slaves. Many whites thought it was perfectly fine to buy people and beat them when they didn't do enough work. Times have changed, a war was fought, and now we look back and go "shit, that was really stupid" but at the time, it wasn't. Societies change and evolve.
> 
> And like Mojo pointed out, there are many examples of rape and murder in the Bible, and these examples are treated as perfectly fine. The New Testament is infinitely better than the Old Testament, but when you say "the Bible" you refer to the whole book. Not a whole lot of morals to be had in the first half of the book.
> So, if I can't go to the Roman Catholic Church for religious experiences since they have "walked away from true faith" where do I go? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the higher ups that run that denomination have gone off the fucking deep end, but is there a different sect of Christianity that you would recommend?


 

If right and wrong is only relative to the person, then there is not true right and wrong. Since this is the case, anyone could justify what they are doing and say it is right. As for my example about women being abused in Pakistan, Why is it wrong? How can it be if each persons sense of right and wrong is correct? You see, it doesn't make sense. Your right and wrong is not better than anyone elses right and wrong, because it is only relative to each person.

As for rape in the Bible, show me where that is okay in the Bible. You will find the opposite. As for murder, As I have stated before. We are all under the Law of God. And punishment of the law is death. We all deserve to die for what we have done.

And lastly, about going to a church. Don't look for a denomination. Look for a church that preaches only from God's Word. I understand the use of denominations, we are not going to agree on everything in the Bible. But the fundemintals, the absolute Christine doctrine in the Bible all Christians can agree on. Those fundamentals are not debatable. Its when a church or a denomination starts preaching aginst the fundamentals of Christianity that I become troubled. A lot of churches seem to focus on what makes their denomination different. They focus on non doctrinal arguments. I am not saying its wrong to debate the non fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but its when a person focuses on only that, that they lose sight of the fundamentals of our faith. And that is when it becomes a problem. Don't focus on denominations, instead, look to see if what is being preached is from God's Word.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If right and wrong is only relative to the person, then there is not true right and wrong. Since this is the case, anyone could justify what they are doing and say it is right. As for my example about women being abused in Pakistan, Why is it wrong? How can it be if each persons sense of right and wrong is correct? You see, it doesn't make sense. Your right and wrong is not better than anyone elses right and wrong, because it is only relative to each person.



Just because people aren't perfect doesn't mean we can't tell what's good or what's not, you're arguing from the nirvana fallacy. People can still tell what's right and wrong, and 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for rape in the Bible, show me where that is okay in the Bible. You will find the opposite. As for murder, As I have stated before. We are all under the Law of God. And punishment of the law is death. We all deserve to die for what we have done.



Numbers 31: 17-18. God commanded they Kill the men and women, and take the little girls for rape.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And lastly, about going to a church. Don't look for a denomination. Look for a church that preaches only from God's Word. I understand the use of denominations, we are not going to agree on everything in the Bible. But the fundemintals, the absolute Christine doctrine in the Bible all Christians can agree on. Those fundamentals are not debatable. Its when a church or a denomination starts preaching aginst the fundamentals of Christianity that I become troubled. A lot of churches seem to focus on what makes their denomination different. They focus on non doctrinal arguments. I am not saying its wrong to debate the non fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but its when a person focuses on only that, that they lose sight of the fundamentals of our faith. And that is when it becomes a problem. Don't focus on denominations, instead, look to see if what is being preached is from God's Word.


 
That's just it Rukh, denominations aren't prescriptive, they are descriptive. Given your beliefs we can put you in a given sect. Now then, a series of simple questions if you would, All simple yes/no answers.

1 Do Unbaptized babies go to hell?
2 Speaking in tongues is a sign of god.
3 Faith healers work.
4 Holding poisonous snakes is an acceptable form of worship.
5 Revivals are an acceptable form of worship.
6 God exists as a "Trinity". He also knows all events in advance. Nothing happens without god's will.
7 It is by god's mercy alone people can be saved. Not works or thoughts.
8 All men are born into sin.
9 the Holy Spirit graciously causes men to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ
10 God's will cannot be worked against by man alone. Those who turn away never had true faith to begin with.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Dec 11, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I agree. I mostly just pointed out catholicism because I think some religions are corrupted in their structure. A lot of the problems we see with the catholic church are known by the administration and even helped in an effort to hide it. that is not okay. that needs to break.
> that is different from a rogue group that decide to be annoying on their own. When you are the voice for a religion and you're covering up pedophilia, there is a problem.


It's always the individuals who are weak - the ones who don't have the strength of their faith, but instead opt for what is easiest or just survivable for them and so put a blot on the whole shebang. 



Lobar said:


> Congratulations, you just came up with meme theory.
> 
> Of course, it should be noted that it is only "optimal" in its ability to self-replicate.  It is not the most likely to be true, merely the best at manipulating our base instincts to propagate itself, like a virus.


Woah - I remember drawing a parallel between religions and viruses a few years ago too! Great minds think alike I suppose. 
Life is defined as being that which has a Metabolism, It reproduces, it is the product of inheritance and there is some variation in the population. 
Viruses have all the above except the metabolism - and the same is true for religions. 
Religions are self-propagating through the medium of a host (like a virus), they inherit properties from previous strains (like viruses) and they undergo some variation due to information being accidentally mutated during reproduction (like a virus).

But don't tell the Pope. (He's got has influence, as he's a pope-ular guy...)

EDIT: Oh crap - I didn't see how much the thread had advanced since I last looked - so this post is a tad late. Soz.


----------



## Conker (Dec 11, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If right and wrong is only relative to the person, then there is not true right and wrong. Since this is the case, anyone could justify what they are doing and say it is right. As for my example about women being abused in Pakistan, Why is it wrong? How can it be if each persons sense of right and wrong is correct? You see, it doesn't make sense. Your right and wrong is not better than anyone elses right and wrong, because it is only relative to each person.


I know my right and wrong aren't better than another society's version of right and wrong. It's what makes the societies different. Right and wrong are arbitrary as are traditions and social norms. But we still have to live under our societies' rules. In Pakistan, it's socially acceptable to treat women poorly, I don't agree with that socially acceptable fact, but why should they give a shit about my opinion on the matter? Thankfully, I live in a country where it is socially unacceptable to treat women poorly, but I only think that's a good thing because I live in such a country where it is a good thing. If I lived in Pakistan and moved to America, I might think that this countries values are out of whack. 


> As for rape in the Bible, show me where that is okay in the Bible. You will find the opposite. As for murder, As I have stated before. We are all under the Law of God. And punishment of the law is death. We all deserve to die for what we have done.


I know I've quoted passages before regarding this. Story of Lot, two angels come down and he lets them into his house. Town comes out to see the hubub. Lot wont' let the town see the angels but Lot refuses; however, he bargains with the angry town by giving them his two virgin daughters. I dunno what version of the Bible Dawkins is quoting, but the passage is "behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (Genesis 19: 7-8). Sounds like rape to me.

Apparently the same story is echoed in the book of Judges. Some priest is traveling and they spend the night in a house. Some people want to go check it out and see this one dude. Priest refuses but says"Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you;" (Judges 19:23-24). Sounds like moar rape to me! Dawkins asserts that the men of the town-in both of these stories-want to molest the angels and guest respectively. I'm not sure I completely agree with his argument, but what is offered still sounds like rape no matter how you swing it.

Dawkins has more examples, but I think those two should suffice.


> And lastly, about going to a church. Don't look for a denomination. Look for a church that preaches only from God's Word. I understand the use of denominations, we are not going to agree on everything in the Bible. But the fundemintals, the absolute Christine doctrine in the Bible all Christians can agree on.


 Words are inherently unstable and there is no fundamental truth to any text. Every text can be interpreted differently; the Bible is a prime example of that. To say that there is only one single truth in the Bible goes against everything I've learned when examining texts, because there is never just one way to interpret something. I don't agree with that statement.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 11, 2010)

Did Mary EVER give God permission to knock her up?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 11, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Did Mary EVER give God permission to knock her up?


Mary belongs to go so god doesn't have to ask for permission.  :V


----------



## Conker (Dec 11, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Did Mary EVER give God permission to knock her up?


 Hmm. I know an angel came down and told her about it, but I can't really remember if it was "you're going to give birth to the son of God" or if he asked her. I want to say it was the latter, but I honestly do not remember


----------



## Bambi (Dec 11, 2010)

Why's everyone in this thread so interested in Mary's cooch?

I imagine the thinking is, "hurhurwebesocontroversialtothembiblepeoepelandsoavantegardeandracey."


----------



## Lobar (Dec 11, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Woah - I remember drawing a parallel between religions and viruses a few years ago too! Great minds think alike I suppose.
> Life is defined as being that which has a Metabolism, It reproduces, it is the product of inheritance and there is some variation in the population.
> Viruses have all the above except the metabolism - and the same is true for religions.
> Religions are self-propagating through the medium of a host (like a virus), they inherit properties from previous strains (like viruses) and they undergo some variation due to information being accidentally mutated during reproduction (like a virus).
> ...


 
Heh, it's alright.  I remember thinking among similar lines in the shower once a few years ago, but that bastard Dawkins beat us both by about thirty years.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 12, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Just because people aren't perfect doesn't mean we can't tell what's good or what's not, you're arguing from the nirvana fallacy. People can still tell what's right and wrong, and
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

If truth and morality is all relative to the person thinking it, what makes your morality better than say that of Iranian Law, where if a homosexual is found, they are stoned to death. Thats their law and they think its right. By saying truth and morality is all relative to the person thinking it you can't argue that someone is wrong. Because in their mind they are right. what makes your morality better than someone elses. I mean you believe that we are just an accident, so that means your thoughts that you have are accidents. So how can you say your accidental thoughts are better than someone elses accidental thoughts?

People who say everything is relative, that there is no true morality, right or wrong, don't live by what they say. Because they themselves think their morals are correct and someone elses is not. Its double talk. They say that everything is relative, and yet they go up to people and tell them what that person is thinking (morality wise) is wrong. How can that person be wrong? Truth and morality isn't absolute to relativists. And yet they just said their truth and morals are absolute.

They can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, and yet they think they know the absolute truth ( pertaining to truth and morality). which goes against what they are saying.

You need to actually read numbers 31 Mojo, God never commanded Moses to capture and pillage the Midianites. All God said was this: Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.â€

No where in there does it say to pillage, rape, and capture the Midianites. Moses said to do those things, Not God

Now for your questions:
1.) Unknown, the Bible is not clear on that.
2.) I have seen people speak in tongues. Its a spritual gift, just like there is a spiritual gift of preaching, exhortation, giving, leadership, service...You get the idea.
3.) I have personally never seen a faith healing, But I know it has happened at my church.
4.) What are you talking about?
5.) Define Worship. Everything a Christian does is supposed to worship God. Worship is not just music.
6.) God is a trinity, thats a fundamental essential Christian belief.
7.) Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”not by works, so that no one can boast. 
8.) Romans 5:12:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned.
9.) The Holy Spirit is God, And God is the only one who can save us.
10.) We as humans can do things against God's will, But not one person can change His will nor His plan. Only God knows who has true faith or not. I don't know what is in people hearts. When I hear/see someone who claims to be a Christian, go out and not live out their faith, I have serious doubts of their faith. Read the Book of James. Those who claim to be a follower of Christ, had better be trying to live out their faith in Him.


I am non-denominational. I don't believe in them. I understand why they are here. I understand that people won't agree on the non-essensial beliefs of Christianity, But when someone starts disagreeing with the essential beliefs of Christianity, thats when I start to get worried about them. The church I go to is a non-denominational church.






Deovacuus said:


> I never said once that I hated anyone. Way to  stereotype me Rukh while you attempt to label me as stereotyping.
> 
> Also,  those were just some examples. I have many many more. The christians  are crazy where I live and it is rare that I have good encounters with  them. I've tried reaching out, but when I attend youth groups they  notice me and go a sermon angainst atheists. I attend different churches  and for the most part get dirty looks. I am vocal in our community  about my unbelief and so far the only christians who treat me as equals  are the Korean Methodist Church, and the only reason I think that is  because I don't understand what they are saying in Korean so I can  pretend it's good. Do remember that I have been attacked, punched,  screamed at on the street, threatened, and pushed in front of a minivan  that broke my leg by christians specifically because I was an atheist  who stood up for my rights in city hall. So when you whine about your  persecution complex try to remember there are some of us who are  actually persecuted.
> And yet I do not hate them. I worry for their  anger, I worry for their malice, and I worry about how their children  will gorw up and who the next generation of Iowans will be. I wish that  they would treat me as a person, but I try to understand why tey feel  that it is impossible to treat me as a human being. But I don't  understand. Do you Rukh?
> ...


 

Ahh, the light bulb finally went off. You judge me because of someones elses actions against you...How kind. Because you had a bad experience with people who *claim* to be Christians, you stereotype all of them. This explains your hatred of Christians. I am sorry for what has happened to you. What was done to you is not what Christianity is. Far from it. What was done to you was wrong. But, yes there is a but. I am not condoning what was done to you, but maybe you should look at how you approached those people. On your FA page, you even say you can be "a bitch", Perhaps people mistreat you because of the way you come off to people. Again I am not saying what was done to you was excusable, but I don't know the whole story either. I only know your side of it. As for those people who again *claimed* to be Christians, I would straight up ask them to prove it to me. Because if they are not actively living out their faith, I have some serious doubts of their claim.
And example I like to use is of my old brief roommate in college. He claimed he was a Christian. He said his uncle was a priest, and then showed me an 18th century Bible that he owned. (First thing I said to him was, I don't care how old of a Bible you have, Its useless if you never open it and read it.) Then this guy goes out, gets drunk, does drugs and has wild sex. This is what I said to him. Whats the point of owning a Bible or claiming to be a Christian when you aren't living out your faith.

Now I have actually been told by people here on FAF, that I am different than most people who say they are Christians. Many times I have been messaged by people who say to me "you are the first True Christian I have ever met" I also have gotten messages from people saying they have respect for me because I am actually trying to live what I preach.

Supposedly there are 80 million Christians in the U.S. I highly doubt that number. Why? Because as you know, the majority of Christians that you see don't practice what they preach, they are not living out their faith. This is what I speak out on. This is what drives me nuts. If someone is going to make the claim of being a Christian, then they had better damn well be trying to live it out. The Book of James sumes it up nicely. The book of James is one of my favorite books of the Bible because it pretty much says to thoise who claim to believe to  Put your money where your mouth is. Walk your talk. Show me, don't tell me.

I don't know anything about "secret" believers or "halfway" Christians. I know only if someone says they belong to Jesus, they had better act  like it.

James 2:14: Dear brothers and sisters, what's the use of saying you have faith if  you don't prove it by your actions? That kind of faith can't save  anyone.

James 4:4: You adulterers! Don't you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God?

Now as for that picture you keep alluding to and shaking in my face. I still stand by what I have said, I don't know the guy. I didn't know any fursuiters going to FCN. Hell, I hadn't even been actively involved in the fandom that long. The picture isn't even mine. Me and Marcello (Its his, I got it from his FA page), the other guy in the photo were walking down to the dance floor when he wanted to get pictures with some fursuiters. And he asked me to do it as well. I didn't even know the guys name (In the photo you are talking about) Its a random photo at an fur con. I found out his name like a couple weeks after FCN. So please explain how I am supposed to know who is good and bad in the fandom. Is there a  pedophiles furs list, or furs that people need to stay away from at cons list or thread? I didn't think so.

Secondly, why can't I talk to the guy, why can't I try and tell him about God. Look at who Jesus regularly hung out with in the Bible. He hung out with the beggars, the handicapped, and tax collectors (the most hated of people in that time...Wait that still hasn't changed, *cough cough* The IRS)
Who are you Deo, to tell me who I can and can't talk to?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 12, 2010)

And Rukh ends with another NTS argument :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 12, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And Rukh ends with another NTS argument :v


 
What? Please explain how what I said falls under the supposed NTS? Again you probably didn't even read what I posted, because its too long for you to read. Or, you did read it and you can't argue/or can't come up with an argument to what I am saying so you just resort to the "He is posting more NTS"

You can't address what I posted, therefore you resort to posting crap. Plain and simple.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What? Please explain how what I said falls under the supposed NTS? Again you probably didn't even read what I posted, because its too long for you to read. Or, you did read it and you can't argue/or can't come up with an argument to what I am saying so you just resort to the "He is posting more NTS"
> 
> You can't address what I posted, therefore you resort to posting crap. Plain and simple.


 
I can understand your being short with me, but I'm not the kind of person you should be jumping the gun or assuming things about. I did read what you posted, but your silly comment how it being too long for me to read - I know I'm not very well known off the forums (or even on the forums for that matter), but I am a short story writer. 

I typically wind down my stories from 10-1k words to 4-7k (because the average porno reader doesn't care about depth, they just want action, typically). So your comparatively short post is like 15 seconds of reading. 

Anyways. Why was it NTS? You stated the number of Christians, but question it, and proceed to claim that they are not _true_ Christians (i.e. like you). That is the almost *entirely* the point of the NTS fallacy in a nutshell. Not just that part, but you've done it probably a dozen times in this whole thread - Please don't attempt to insult my intelligence, when you have none to fill in the proposed gap. (Also, please don't fill God into said gap.)


----------



## Conker (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh, what if our first bad experience with a Christian is talking to you? :V

Also, do you get anything out of these debates, spiritually or otherwise? This one forum I frequent has a religious person similar to you, though a bit different in his approach, but more or less the same. He logs on about once a month, posts something religious regarding doings in his life, dreams, or what have you, and then we debate about it for a week and he leaves to repeat the process in another month. I call him the forum's period. Anyhow, about 20% of the time, he'll come away saying something like "I've learned something new about the Scriptures" or "I've learned something new about my faith" and everyone ends happy. Well, more or less happy. 

So, do you gain anything out of these debates (or arguments as they might as well be called)


----------



## Riley (Dec 12, 2010)

Right now I'm re-reading Snow Crash, and I'm really excited for the part when The Librarian and Hiro Protagonist liken religion to every STD in existence.

Sorry; it's late and I figured this related enough.  Can't be as useless of a post as half of Rukh's, at least.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 12, 2010)

I'm an ordained minister of the Church of Bro.


That is too stupid to make up.


----------



## Deo (Dec 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Why's everyone in this thread so interested in Mary's cooch?
> 
> I imagine the thinking is, "hurhurwebesocontroversialtothembiblepeoepelandsoavantegardeandracey."


 Why do all of your posts suck so much? Every time you post you accuse everyone who is not you of attempting to impress you by acting "avante garde". Or you're telling us detailed stories of how you masturbate and always "shoot for" your own mouth and get it in the eye.
No. Shut up. go back the Video portion of FAF.


----------



## Deo (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ahh, the light bulb finally went off. You judge me because of someones elses actions against you...How kind.


WTF. I don't judge you. Why do you assume these things? Especially when you're trying to claim that I'm assuming?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because you had a bad experience with people who *claim* to be Christians, you stereotype all of them.


They were Christians. Not 'claim' they were. And for the love of God, or Yahweh, stop telling me what I do. I am not "stereotyping all of them". Your assumptions about me are annoying. I am only responding here on FAF to what you say. And you say quite a lot, more than enough for me to form an opinion of you (not a judgement).



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This explains your hatred of Christians.


Why do you not listen to anything I say except for what you want to hear? I've said it before, I'll probably have to remind you again. I DO NOT HATE CHRISTIANS. <Maybe you should sig that shit so you don't keep forgetting it. I don't hate people for their beliefs. I do hate stupidity. Do remember that I hate stupidity. And unless you are trying to tell me that stupidity = christians then I don't see how I can hate christians. Actually, if you include mormons in there I do. sorry I forgot about them. I do seriously hate mormons.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am sorry for what has happened to you. What was done to you is not what Christianity is. Far from it. What was done to you was wrong.


Thanks. I geuss. I got over it. I reason it's their fault, but the mental processes behind what they do is flawed and overall they are decent people. I can forgive. BUT, and yes there is a but, I do not forget.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But, yes there is a but. I am not condoning what was done to you, but maybe you should look at how you approached those people. On your FA page, you even say you can be "a bitch", Perhaps people mistreat you because of the way you come off to people. Again I am not saying what was done to you was excusable, but I don't know the whole story either. I only know your side of it. As for those people who again *claimed* to be Christians, I would straight up ask them to prove it to me. Because if they are not actively living out their faith, I have some serious doubts of their claim.


You would ask them for proof? Hell, I never even talked to them. I spoke up in one town hall meeting about christmas decorations in our public schools and people blacklisted me. You would confront them personally, I would not. This is the difference between us. I let others do what they do so long as it does not impose or harm me or others.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Supposedly there are 80 million Christians in the U.S. I highly doubt that number. Why? Because as you know, the majority of Christians that you see don't practice what they preach, they are not living out their faith. This is what I speak out on. This is what drives me nuts. If someone is going to make the claim of being a Christian, then they had better damn well be trying to live it out.


Ooh, I dislike them too. Especially when they have gay porn in their favorites and bash gays, and when they have porn addictions and tell everyone else that their sexual habits are a sin, and when they are friends with child rapists, or when they say they can't justify murder and then justify it to fit their agendas. That sort of hypocrasy just burns me up.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 12, 2010)

Most Christians suck.
Not all of them, but most of them.
It's a true fact, and that's really all I can say on the matter.
I do know that there are Christians out there who are really good people and don't suck, though.
My best friend, a girl whom I consider to be as close as a sister to me, is Christian, and I'd do anything for her.
But then again, a large majority of Christians are assholes and douchebags who take what they want from some stupid book less relevant to real life than Harry Potter and apply it to whatever they want.



*Forrest Gump* And that's all I have to say about that~


----------



## Bambi (Dec 12, 2010)

You know, as someone who sees himself as somewhat of an atheist, it doesn't make sense to me that fellow atheists would choose to represent our choice in lacking a need for spiritual identity with bashing others incessantly all because they like to worship a "sky-daddy."

I don't know, maybe I missed the card-carrying atheist boat, but when I last checked on my lack of spirituality and religion, there was no instruction manual that tutored me in the art of reducing someone elses humanity because they have a different outlook than myself. I can't claim a moral high-ground on that, but since this is a religion thread, I thought I'd mention it given some of the responses we have here.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Dec 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> You know, as someone who sees himself as somewhat of an atheist, it doesn't make sense to me that fellow atheists would choose to represent our choice in lacking a need for spiritual identity with bashing others incessantly all because they like to worship a "sky-daddy."
> 
> I don't know, maybe I missed the card-carrying atheist boat, but when I last checked on my lack of spirituality and religion, there was no instruction manual that tutored me in the art of reducing someone elses humanity because they have a different outlook than myself. I can't claim a moral high-ground on that, but since this is a religion thread, I thought I'd mention it given some of the responses we have here.


 
We have to call them out on their bullshit when said bullshit drives government policies.

If you were gay and lived in a country where you could legally be put to death wouldn't you be pissed if their only reason for having said law was because some "sky daddy" told them to.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am non-denominational. I don't believe in them.


 
Actually, from your responses, your beliefs align pretty much exactly with Calvinism.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If truth and morality is all relative to the person thinking it, what makes your morality better than someone elses.



Well, first off Truth is not relative. Things like the tectonic plates and evolution happen whether people acknowledge then or not. As for morals, that's a really complicated subject.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I mean you believe that we are just an accident, so that means your thoughts that you have are accidents.



No, I don't. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, Rukh. And stop with the silly semantics games, "Accident" has both connotations of being a negative event and a higher power. Anyway, what I believe is people were, for lack of a better term, procedurally generated. Their thoughts also follow from their surroundings in a similiar way.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> People who say everything is relative, that there is no true morality, right or wrong, don't live by what they say. Because they themselves think their morals are correct and someone elses is not. Its double talk. They say that everything is relative, and yet they go up to people and tell them what that person is thinking (morality wise) is wrong. How can that person be wrong? Truth and morality isn't absolute to relativists. And yet they just said their truth and morals are absolute.



I don't think you understand what moral relativity is. Each situation has to be considered differently, it's the tools that people use to consider each situation that can be deeply flawed or not. In this case, the bible is clearly deeply flawed.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, and yet they think they know the absolute truth ( pertaining to truth and morality). which goes against what they are saying.



You don't have to appeal to anything "absolute" in the way you're thinking for a working set of morals, you know. The absolutes people deal with are things like "I need to eat, breathe and have shelter." and "There are other people around me and I have to work with them to survive." and "I and other people have feelings." and "If I don't brush my teeth I will get a large dentist bill.". These are things that, while not permanent, are definitely the frontmost things in peoples lives. Angry desert war gods, being entirely fictional, are relatively low in normal people's lives.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You need to actually read numbers 31 Mojo, God never commanded Moses to capture and pillage the Midianites. All God said was this: Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.â€



I did, and he did order just that. Kill all the men and women, cut open pregnant women so their babies spill out, then take the little girls home and rape them silly. Your god is quite disgusting.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No where in there does it say to pillage, rape, and capture the Midianites. Moses said to do those things, Not God



Yahweh ordered it through Moses, making them both quite disgusting.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> WTF. I don't judge you. Why do you assume these things? Especially when you're trying to claim that I'm assuming?
> 
> 
> They were Christians. Not 'claim' they were. And for the love of God, or Yahweh, stop telling me what I do. I am not "stereotyping all of them". Your assumptions about me are annoying. I am only responding here on FAF to what you say. And you say quite a lot, more than enough for me to form an opinion of you (not a judgement).
> ...


 

Wait, You base your experiences on a town hall meeting where people spoke out against what you said? Thats it? You never even spoke to them? How do you know they are Christians then?

As for what on my FA page. There is nothing anymore. As I have said before, 4 months ago I wasn't really walking with God. I recently have turned completely around. What your saying is, that a Christian has to be perfect. I can speak out aginst those things because I know how destructive it can be. I have personal experience there. Furthermore you seem to be confusing disobedience to God and struggling with sin. Those are two separate things. And as I have stated many times before, I have finally broken from my struggles. I am free for the first time in a long, long time. Yes I struggled, But I didn't want to continue in it. Ever heard of an addiction? Thats what it is. And its finally broken. And you missed my entire section on that photo you keep shoving in my face. So here it is again:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now as for that picture you keep  alluding to and shaking in my face. I still stand by what I have said, I  don't know the guy. I didn't know any fursuiters going to FCN. Hell, I  hadn't even been actively involved in the fandom that long. The picture  isn't even mine. Me and Marcello (Its his, I got it from his FA page),  the other guy in the photo were walking down to the dance floor when he  wanted to get pictures with some fursuiters. And he asked me to do it as  well. I didn't even know the guys name (In the photo you are talking  about) Its a random photo at an fur con. I found out his name like a  couple weeks after FCN. So please explain how I am supposed to know who  is good and bad in the fandom. Is there a  pedophiles furs list, or furs  that people need to stay away from at cons list or thread? I didn't  think so.
> 
> Secondly, why can't I talk to the guy, why can't I try  and tell him about God. Look at who Jesus regularly hung out with in the  Bible. He hung out with the beggars, the handicapped, and tax  collectors (the most hated of people in that time...Wait that still  hasn't changed, *cough cough* The IRS)
> Who are you Deo, to tell me who I can and can't talk to?


 

I make mistakes, I struggle with sin, But I don't want to keep sinning. That is a big difference. I am trying to live out my faith. Furthermore I don't bash gays. I don't condone the behavior, but that does not equal bashing. So stop putting words in my mouth.






Mojotech said:


> Actually, from your responses, your beliefs align pretty much exactly with Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I believe what the Bible says, if thats Calvinism then so be it. I don't align myself with Calvinism because I think its correct. I only align myself with the Bible. My faith is not based off of a denomination.

As for what I have been saying about truth and morality, I am only speaking about morals, right and wrong. Not one person who says morality is relative to whom is thinking it, casn say who is right and wrong. Because in their eyes. Its all relative.


As for numbers 31, are you suggesting that moses was perfect? If this is so, then why did God ban him from entering the promised land? Moses made mistakes, and he didn't always follow God. Again Moses said to do those terrible things. God never commanded it. The Bible is very clear on what God commanded. God never said to pillage, rape and take captive the Midianites. All God said was, take vengeance upon them. Thats it.





Conker said:


> Rukh, what if our first bad experience with a Christian is talking to you? :V
> 
> Also,  do you get anything out of these debates, spiritually or otherwise?  This one forum I frequent has a religious person similar to you, though a  bit different in his approach, but more or less the same. He logs on  about once a month, posts something religious regarding doings in his  life, dreams, or what have you, and then we debate about it for a week  and he leaves to repeat the process in another month. I call him the  forum's period. Anyhow, about 20% of the time, he'll come away saying  something like "I've learned something new about the Scriptures" or  "I've learned something new about my faith" and everyone ends happy.  Well, more or less happy.
> 
> So, do you gain anything out of these debates (or arguments as they might as well be called)


 
I speak only what the Scripture says. I am not perfect, I have said some nasty things to people. And I have apologized for that.
Actually I have gotten a lot out of these debates. I have been actually challenged in my faith. And I realized that I cannot be a halfway Christian. Its all or nothing. These debates actually helped me turn back to God completely. It re affirmed my faith. So, thanks faf for helping me turn back to God and surrendering myself completely to Him.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> You know, as someone who sees himself as somewhat of an atheist, it doesn't make sense to me that fellow atheists would choose to represent our choice in lacking a need for spiritual identity with bashing others incessantly all because they like to worship a "sky-daddy."
> 
> I don't know, maybe I missed the card-carrying atheist boat, but when I last checked on my lack of spirituality and religion, there was no instruction manual that tutored me in the art of reducing someone elses humanity because they have a different outlook than myself. I can't claim a moral high-ground on that, but since this is a religion thread, I thought I'd mention it given some of the responses we have here.


 
We oppose religion because it causes harm.  If god-belief had no impact on the world we share with the believers, the debate would be purely academic, but it isn't so.

Also since when does pointing out someone's ideas don't hold water reduce their humanity somehow?  The scientific pursuit of knowledge must be the greatest atrocity in human history, then.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I believe what the Bible says, if thats Calvinism then so be it. I don't align myself with Calvinism because I think its correct. I only align myself with the Bible. My faith is not based off of a denomination.



Well, if you follow calvinist beliefs then you are a calvinist. All the other denominations disagree with calvinism.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for what I have been saying about truth and morality, I am only speaking about morals, right and wrong. Not one person who says morality is relative to whom is thinking it, casn say who is right and wrong. Because in their eyes. Its all relative.



I'm speaking about morals too. Everyone who says morality is relative is thinking it, because there are ways to tell wether or not various morals systems are good or not.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for numbers 31, are you suggesting that moses was perfect? If this is so, then why did God ban him from entering the promised land? Moses made mistakes, and he didn't always follow God. Again Moses said to do those terrible things. God never commanded it. The Bible is very clear on what God commanded. God never said to pillage, rape and take captive the Midianites. All God said was, take vengeance upon them. Thats it.


n't
 No, but I do say he was God's right hand man and followed them unquestionably. And in the end, your god had him commit atrocities in his name and then threw moses out of heaven for it. Your deity isn't just a dick, he's a _traitorous_ dick.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I speak only what the Scripture says. I am not perfect, I have said some nasty things to people. And I have apologized for that.



Except you haven't bothered trying to change your actions, or apologized to the people you should be rather than your invisible skydaddy.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually I have gotten a lot out of these debates. I have been actually challenged in my faith. And I realized that I cannot be a halfway Christian. Its all or nothing



Rukh, would you define christians that interpret the bible differently than you (Babies going to hell, people needing good works too to get into heaven, etc) as "Half Christian", and if so would you say they got into heaven?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

I always thought that the Golden Rule was treat everyone as you yourself would be treated. If it causes harm then it's probably bad.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Dec 12, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I always thought that the Golden Rule was treat everyone as you yourself would be treated. If it causes harm then it's probably bad.


 
That's the rule for everyone else except God funnily enough.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> That's the rule for everyone else except God funnily enough.


 'Cept God isn't a person.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 12, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> That's the rule for everyone else except God funnily enough.


 
God really should show some more respect.  So far, from what I've heard, God sounds like a delusional narcissistic sadist with a mentality similar to many 13 or 14 year olds with aspergers.


----------



## Riley (Dec 12, 2010)

Neal Stephenson said:
			
		

> "I know.  That's exactly the problem.  Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion.  Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later, and they conclude that the entire one hundred percent is bullshit, which is why atheism is connected with being intelligent in people's minds."


Atheism does not automatically equal intelligence; just as a person can blindly follow a religion, they can also blindly follow the lack of one.  But if they actually do some thinking for themselves, in either case of them being religious or not, then they're actually showing intelligence.

Rukh, you are not intelligent.  You have just latched on to something in order to belong to a group, whether it was because you were insecure or just dumb, but you've not looked at anything about it critically.  That's what makes your stance on the whole matter completely dismissible; you have no backing for it.  You've claimed to have done research, sure, but as I've said many times (and you have ignored, of course) is that what you are doing is akin to trusting every single thing a used car salesman is telling you.  The bible claims to be right because _why wouldn't it?_  Of course it's going to vouch for itself.  Whether the storybook was "inspired by the voice of a god" doesn't matter, because a large group of humans wrote it.  Humans, who are prone to error.  Humans, who can't be perfect.  Humans who are cursed by your "original sin" or whatever.  Did you know there was a point in time where all bibles said it was totally okay to commit adultery?  Yeah, that's because the human who was copying that part of it into a new edition forgot the word "not" in a little passage, and it read "Thou shalt commit adultery."  Did some god just change his mind for a second; was he cheating behind Mary's back and got caught, so he quickly changed his rulebook to say it was cool?  I don't think so, that was just human error.

And you of course do not believe in human error touching anything you like, because then it would mean it's wrong, even in the slightest way.  Oh, you've done mean things, but it's okay because you apologized into your bedsheet.  Good for you.  You're obviously not secure enough in your actions to bother taking account for them yourself, and immediately sweep it off into some complaint box in the sky.  Really, that's just lazy.  But what do I know, I'm just some filthy atheist, right?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 12, 2010)

Enwon said:


> God really should show some more respect.  So far, from what I've heard, God sounds like a delusional narcissistic sadist with a mentality similar to many 13 or 14 year olds with aspergers.


 
To be fair, I'd be pissed off too if I was imaginary.

Oh wait, no I wouldn't.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 12, 2010)

to be fair, a looot of the gods I have ever heard of have their issues. it's just no other group goes "no their perfect!" Hell I'm pretty sure the "OMG GOD IS PERFECT" thing didn't pop up until New testement. before it was just more powerful than you bastards god.


----------



## Conker (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for numbers 31, are you suggesting that moses was perfect? If this is so, then why did God ban him from entering the promised land? Moses made mistakes, and he didn't always follow God. Again Moses said to do those terrible things. God never commanded it. The Bible is very clear on what God commanded. God never said to pillage, rape and take captive the Midianites. All God said was, take vengeance upon them. Thats it.


You know how fucking vague that is? "Take vengeance upon them?" Technically, Moses and company DID just that, they just went to an extreme route to do it. They took vengeance upon the Midianites by raping, murdering, and enslaving them. It's not Moses's fault God wasn't clear with his instructions. 

Besides, there's enough rape and murder in the Bible that even if God isn't condoning it, the fact that it's there is condoning it. Got enough characters treating women like property and people are gonna think that's okay to do. 




> Actually I have gotten a lot out of these debates. I have been actually challenged in my faith. And I realized that I cannot be a halfway Christian. Its all or nothing. These debates actually helped me turn back to God completely. It re affirmed my faith. So, thanks faf for helping me turn back to God and surrendering myself completely to Him.


 Well, at least you're getting something out of it then.


----------



## Deo (Dec 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> Besides, there's enough rape and murder in the Bible that even if God isn't condoning it, the fact that it's there is condoning it. Got enough characters treating women like property and people are gonna think that's okay to do.


THIIIIIISSSSSSSSS
SO
MUCH
THIS


----------



## Deo (Dec 12, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wait, You base your experiences on a town hall meeting where people spoke out against what you said? Thats it? You never even spoke to them? How do you know they are Christians then?


Because they told me as they pounded my teeth in you asshole. We didn't have a conversation before that or after.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore you seem to be confusing disobedience to God and struggling with sin. Those are two separate things.


Oh I'm sorry. If sinning gets you to hell that would mean you yourself would go, which is an unacceptable fundation to brag about God. So you draw a small line and partition yourself and your lying, stealing, and sexual sins away from THOSE people who *blurryline* disobey. You attempt to seperate sins into your sins and their sins, but you seem to only focus on other peoples' sins while saying that yours are forgivable or nonexistant. Because they for sure are going to hell but oh no, you can't. Herpaderpa double standard urpa!



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So stop putting words in my mouth.


Only if you stop jamming words down my throat first. You continuously do this, over and over and over again. I realize making a strawman is easier than supporting a claim, but your bullshit has to stop. It's not cool to lie about what other people are saying and bearing false witness, and as you do it so often on these forums I am apt not to believe you when you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You want to be a good christian? Start here. Don't lie about what others say or misrepresent them by forcing words into their mouths. Don't steal the intellectual property of others through plagiarism, as it is still steaing and stealing is Biblically and morally wrong. Do these consistently and we may come to respect you. Unless ofcouse you post more about how abominable the gays are and how the women bitches had it coming.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have been actually challenged in my faith. And I realized that I cannot be a halfway Christian. Its all or nothing.


As much as you lie, steal, and denounce your brothers speaks otherwise. Just FYI.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 12, 2010)

Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaa.
Christians~
*Popcorn get*


----------



## Fay V (Dec 12, 2010)

Now that all the rape has been brought up. God sounds like a creeper. "give yourself up completely!" it sounds like the opposite of what a loving parent would want to be honest. I mean I understand the things my parents taught me, and the morals they instilled in me, but I'm pretty sure they'll be proud when I do awesome shit like graduate and move out. more so than if I stuck around constantly and just did whatever they wanted. 
It bothers me that god chose mankind to have this complex fantastic mind, then doesn't really want them to use it but instead give themselves up and worship.


----------



## Conker (Dec 12, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> As much as you lie, steal, and denounce your brothers speaks otherwise. Just FYI.


 I just want to thank you for using the Oxford Comma. Too many people don't use it these days and it causes minor amounts of rage within my heart

<3


----------



## Fay V (Dec 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> I just want to thank you for using the Oxford Comma. Too many people don't use it these days and it causes minor amounts of rage within my heart
> 
> <3



I had a minor aneurysm when I found I couldn't dock points on papers for that.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 12, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I had a minor aneurysm when I found I couldn't dock points on papers for that.


 
...You can't? What the fuck! It's so... correct.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 12, 2010)

Xenke said:


> ...You can't? What the fuck! It's so... correct.


 There is no actual grammar rule against writing a list like "this, this and this" I looked it up. I got two others to verify it. That's a valid way to go about things, but it is so asymmetric and stupid.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 12, 2010)

Fay V said:


> There is no actual grammar rule against writing a list like "this, this and this" I looked it up. I got two others to verify it. That's a valid way to go about things, but it is so asymmetric and stupid.


 
Why would you word something in a way that can lead to misinterpretation? If you tell me to get 'bread, peanut butter and jelly', you better want that crappy peanut butter and jelly spread that's swirled together in the same jar.

Also, the reason I think it's incorrect is the instance where you're listing couples. 'Bob and Jill, Frank and Sally, James and Jenna and Hank and Laura' looks and sounds completely wrong.

EDIT: Rules is rules, I guess.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> We oppose religion because it causes harm.  If god-belief had no impact on the world we share with the believers, the debate would be purely academic, but it isn't so.


Well, and that's the thing, we have to share this planet with a lot of people. I just think that if we're going to see ourselves as rationalists, than we have to give people their due respect. IMHO, we should be fighting the crazies, and not everyone else who isn't out to pick a fight.

And you know, that's where I think this stigma against atheism comes from, that people just see us a bunch of loud-mouthed, chip-on-shoulders, anti-religious buffs that won't give anyone else room in the free market of ideas. So, I'm of the opinion that if we intend to represent ourselves as a rational option, than it makes sense not to be batshit crazy. 

Although, even I don't have a weak back when it comes down to confronting stupid ideas.


Lobar said:


> Also since when does pointing out someone's ideas don't hold water reduce their humanity somehow?


Well, I'll put it you like this. Imagine that you're on a bus ride home. You sit next to a guy, think he's interesting enough to warrant a conversation, start up said conversation with him, and come to find out that he's just got back from church and is on his way home. 

How do you respond to that?


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 12, 2010)

Ahkmill said:


> I'm an ordained minister of the Church of Bro.
> 
> 
> That is too stupid to make up.


 
I want to join that. :3

I notice my last posts wasn't answered. fun fun.

Thought I'd list bible quotes with rape and murder here for shits and giggles:

_2 samuel 6:6-7 (NIV) - When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORDâ€™s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God. _

So the ark was about to fall over into the mud, Uzzah decided to stop it from falling, and God decided to just KILL him for such a kind act?

_2 Kings 2:23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. â€œGet out of here, baldy!â€ they said. â€œGet out of here, baldy!â€ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys._

Strange that, just for a simple insult, he killed 42 boys. Several questions about this passage. A) How does "some boys" equate to 42 boys? Some implies a handful. B) How can 2 bears maul 42 boys? If there was that many boys, did they just stand there and get mauled? Wouldn't they run away? C) What about turning the other cheek?

_1 Samuel 15:2-3 This is what the LORD Almighty says: â€˜I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and *women, children and infants*, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.â€™ _

_Joshua 8:24-26 - When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men *and women* fell that dayâ€”all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed *all* who lived in Ai. _

_Joshua 6:20-21 - When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city [Jericho]. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in itâ€”men *and women, young and old*, cattle, sheep and donkeys._ 

_Joshua 7:24-25 -Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, *his sons and daughters*, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, â€œWhy have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today.â€ _
_Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them._

Explain to me WHY, if only Achan was the one who was greedy and took some of the plunder set aside for God, why was his entire family punished, although they were innocent? Must the innocent die with the guilty?



> Judges 19:22 - While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, â€œBring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.â€ The owner of the house went outside and said to them, â€œNo, my friends, donâ€™t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, donâ€™t do this outrageous thing. *Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish.* But as for this man, donâ€™t do such an outrageous thing.â€
> 
> But the men would not listen to him. *So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night,* and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
> When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.He said to her, â€œGet up; letâ€™s go.â€ *But there was no answer.* Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.


This is a story similar to the Sodom story in Genesis. In this one, a bunch of men want to rape some holy men staying at a kind man's house. Instead, he offers his daughter and concubine (sex slave) and offers them up. They refuse so he sends out his concubine. They then rape and torture her, and she dies on her master's doorstep. While God said nothing in this story, the idea is that it is perfectly acceptable to A) own a sex slave, B) Offer up said slave for rape and death. Even his own daughter, *HIS OWN DAUGHTER*, was offered up for rape. I would never let anyone rape my daughter if I had one. Women are treated as nothing more than cattle to be raped and abused, and it's discusting. And this kind of thing was shrugged off in the Old Testament times.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 12, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I want to join that. :3


 You totally can if you want.
I can marry you in the name of Brosef Stalin and we can do confessionals and shit.
It's fun stuff.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

Lee, in the first quote you made, about the ark. Is that the Ark of the Covenant? The one that NO ONE is supposed to touch?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 12, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I want to join that. :3
> 
> I notice my last posts wasn't answered. fun fun.
> 
> ...



It's a metaphor for how religions will persecute- and in some cases outright kill- their followers when the religion goes astray and followers try to go "wait a minute, this isn't right.",that there will be punishment they push the issue too hard and that the other followers should be a-ok with that. Please note that this is obviously a terrible moral to teach people.





CrazyLee said:


> _2 Kings 2:23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. â€œGet out of here, baldy!â€ they said. â€œGet out of here, baldy!â€ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys._
> 
> Strange that, just for a simple insult, he killed 42 boys. Several questions about this passage. A) How does "some boys" equate to 42 boys? Some implies a handful. B) How can 2 bears maul 42 boys? If there was that many boys, did they just stand there and get mauled? Wouldn't they run away? C) What about turning the other cheek?


 
We already went over it. Long story short, Rukh thinks it's perfectly fine to attack people en masse with bears when someone calls you bald wether they die or not.



CrazyLee said:


> This is a story similar to the Sodom story in Genesis. In this one, a bunch of men want to rape some holy men staying at a kind man's house. Instead, he offers his daughter and concubine (sex slave) and offers them up. They refuse so he sends out his concubine. They then rape and torture her, and she dies on her master's doorstep. While God said nothing in this story, the idea is that it is perfectly acceptable to A) own a sex slave, B) Offer up said slave for rape and death. Even his own daughter, *HIS OWN DAUGHTER*, was offered up for rape. I would never let anyone rape my daughter if I had one. Women are treated as nothing more than cattle to be raped and abused, and it's discusting. And this kind of thing was shrugged off in the Old Testament times.


 
The story is actually worse than you think- Please note that the story doesn't say the woman died, simply that she didn't answer. You see, she didn't die until her master cut her into pieces because she had become useless to him since she'd been with another man.


----------



## Conker (Dec 12, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I had a minor aneurysm when I found I couldn't dock points on papers for that.


 Yeah, I went through a similar thing when one of my teachers told me it was grammatically correct now. It's also the "correct" way in newspaper writing according to the Associated Press. 

It fills me with such sorrow and anger. At one point I even emailed Coke because the nutrient listing on their can doesn't have the comma, they sent back an automated response. Assholes they are.

So yeah. Religion. I bet the Bible uses hte Oxford Comma. Hope so. I refuse to believe in a God that thinks that comma is meaningless.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

You know what I didn't get? That God created man out of sand. In the Egyptian mythology, people were created from the mud from the Nile. At least that made a bit more sense seeing that people are made up mostly of water.


----------



## Conker (Dec 12, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> You know what I didn't get? That God created man out of sand. In the Egyptian mythology, people were created from the mud from the Nile. At least that made a bit more sense seeing that people are made up mostly of water.


 At the time, did the ancient Egyptian people know that the human body was mostly composed of water? Yeah, there's a lot of blood in there, but organs appear to be solid. Somehow I think their rational was more along the lines of "We need the Nile to survive for it gives us most of our water; humans must have come from it"


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

Conker said:


> At the time, did the ancient Egyptian people know that the human body was mostly composed of water? Yeah, there's a lot of blood in there, but organs appear to be solid. Somehow I think their rational was more along the lines of "We need the Nile to survive for it gives us most of our water; humans must have come from it"


 At least they used rational thinking. I miss studying Egyptology. It was so interesting.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 12, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> *At least they used rational thinking.* I miss studying Egyptology. It was so interesting.


 
Whuh?

You lost me there.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Whuh?
> 
> You lost me there.


 Dirt and water vs just plain dirt or dust.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 12, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Dirt and water vs just plain dirt or dust.


 
But... how does "mud people" make any more sense than "dirt people"?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> But... how does "mud people" make any more sense than "dirt people"?


 because the human body is made up of roughly 60% of water?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 12, 2010)

I like the clay stories myself. That makes the most sense to me. you can really get some detail out of clay. It's all the same thing however. I mean, imagine the number of translations. clay/mud/dirt is not that different.


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 12, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I like the clay stories myself. That makes the most sense to me. you can really get some detail out of clay. It's all the same thing however. I mean, imagine the number of translations. clay/mud/dirt is not that different.


 
Interesting but maybe not entirely relevant


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> Because they told me as they pounded my teeth in you asshole. We didn't have a conversation before that or after.
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sorry. If sinning gets you to hell that would mean you yourself would go, which is an unacceptable fundation to brag about God. So you draw a small line and partition yourself and your lying, stealing, and sexual sins away from THOSE people who *blurryline* disobey. You attempt to seperate sins into your sins and their sins, but you seem to only focus on other peoples' sins while saying that yours are forgivable or nonexistant. Because they for sure are going to hell but oh no, you can't. Herpaderpa double standard urpa!
> ...




Again you base your experiences with other Christians  and use that experience to label me. How is it my fault that someone else treated you poorly? I am not responsible for others actions toward you.

Actually I can boast about God. In fact, thats all I can boast in. All I do boast in, is in God. My abilities, my gifts, what I have done, it all means nothing without God. I am nothing without God. As King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, Life is meaningless without God.

1 Corinthians 1:31
Therefore, as it is written: â€œLet the one who boasts boast in the Lord.

As for stealing, I don't, In fact I am surprised you haven't accused me of stealing from the Bible. Because I quote from there all the time. Just because I use Christian websites as sources doesn't mean I am stealing. The whole point of those sites is to Share the news about God. You want the websites, ask for them. I have no problem providing you with what sources I use. But because they are a Christian site, you write them off.

And as for jamming words down your throat. Let me remind you that is was you that tried to shove your words of "your God isn't real" down my throat. You call me a hypocrite? .Look in the mirror Deo. I don't call people hypocrites because we all are. As for my sin, I am forgiven, my sins have been washed clean. That doesn't mean I go and keep sinning. It doesn't excuse it when I do. But I am washed clean before God. I am no longer under the judgment of the Law. So its not double standard in what I speak, because what I speak out of is the Bible. If you have a problem with whats written in the Bible, take that up with God. Oh thats right you don't believe in Him. You have taken what I have said many times completely out of context. You take what the Bible says completely out of context and then try and tell me thats what it says. Thats a lie. So don't come in here with your super inflated ego acting like your better than me or anyone else. Because thats the way you come across. You act like you know better, you act like you understand the Bible better (Even though you have stated you only read it completely through twice...) If you understood its words you would believe.

Trust me, not one person here including myself is better than anyone else. I just have God's grace covering me.

You say I don't walk the walk. Well not one person can walk the walk of Christianity perfectly. But in the last 3-4 months, God has radically changed my life. I have been brought to my knees. I now only depend on Him. I have messages from people on here that say otherwise about me. That people have noticed that I am a different Christian because I stand by my faith 100%, I don't back down in my faith, I am not a "lukewarm" Christian, like so many people are. I used to be, and I am no longer. I have come to realize that if you believe in God that it has to be 100%. There is no middle ground or halfway Christian. Its all or nothing. You cannot both serve the world and God. You can't have 2 masters. How many Christians on here or in real life do you know that actually stand by their faith 100%? How many Christians do you know that actually try and live out their faith? I have been told by people on here that I am one of those Christians. This is not bragging. I am merely telling you what has been said about me by other people on here.

You don't like what I say, but what I speak from is right out of the Bible. I am not going to mince words, I am not going to dance around issues. I will state exactly what my faith does and what the Bible says. Sorry if that offends you, But thats not my problem. I rub people the wrong way, I know this. I rub people the wrong way because I preach what the Bible says. I rub people the wrong way because I stand firm in my faith. I rub people the wrong way because I refuse to renounce God or Christ Jesus. And that bothers people.

But let me explain something to you, something you seemed to fail to understand. You say I am interpreting the Bible incorrectly, How would you know? You don't believe in any of it. So how can you, who doesn't believe possibly interpret what the Bible is saying? For if you understood what it was saying, you would believe. Since you don't believe, you don't understand it. Furthermore, I have the Holy Spirit within me. The Holy Spirit guides me. The Holy Spirit is a direct link to God. So yes, I would understand the Bible more than a non-believer, because I have that direct link to God.

As for denouncing others who claim to be Christians, Uh, read the book of James. The whole book is James calling out those who claim to follow Jesus and asks them to prove it. I do the same. I ask the questions that they hate to hear. I ask what their stance is on certain subjects that are clearly written in the Bible. I want to show those who claim to be Christians. You can't pick and choose what parts you want to accept and what parts you don't. Christianity doesn't work like that. Its all or nothing. I am clear on what I stand on. You quoted me saying its wrong to murder, its one of the 10 commandments. And then you say God murders. No he does not. He judges. Your forget Deo, that according to Scriptures, everyone deserves death and be eternally separated from God. God is acting out fair and just judgment. Not one person is good, nor innocent.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have been brought to my knees.



On your knees in front of godjesus, but you're totally not gay.

Oh, and I made a post that you should probably ignore since it would require you to do some work, but it's the last post on page 83, if you're interested in pretending you never saw it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Riley said:


> On your knees in front of godjesus, but you're totally not gay.


 
You know what I meant. I have been humbled greatly by God. In that I can do nothing apart from Him. I am nothing without Him. God broke me.Thats what being brought down to your knees means. That I cried out to God and surrendered completely to Him.
I like the fact, that, thats all you quote me in. You forget whats written before and after it.


----------



## Conker (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again you base your experiences with other Christians  and use that experience to label me. How is it my fault that someone else treated you poorly? I am not responsible for others actions toward you.
> 
> Actually I can boast about God. In fact, thats all I can boast in. All I do boast in, is in God. My abilities, my gifts, what I have done, it all means nothing without God. I am nothing without God. As King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, Life is meaningless without God.


I would hate to live my life with that attitude.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> I would hate to live my life with that attitude.


 
According to Scriptures God gave you everything you have, Your house, your car, your job, all of your talents. They come from God. So you really are nothing without God.

And its once a Christian fully realizes this, or a non-Christian as well. That life becomes so much more peaceful.

Here, read what Solomon wrote, you will see what I mean about life apart from God.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11
The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:   â€œMeaningless! Meaningless!â€ 
   says the Teacher. 
â€œUtterly meaningless! 
   Everything is meaningless.â€ 
  What do people gain from all their labors 
   at which they toil under the sun? 
 Generations come and generations go, 
   but the earth remains forever. 
 The sun rises and the sun sets, 
   and hurries back to where it rises. 
 The wind blows to the south 
   and turns to the north; 
round and round it goes, 
   ever returning on its course. 
 All streams flow into the sea, 
   yet the sea is never full. 
To the place the streams come from, 
   there they return again. 
 All things are wearisome, 
   more than one can say. 
The eye never has enough of seeing, 
   nor the ear its fill of hearing. 
 What has been will be again, 
   what has been done will be done again; 
   there is nothing new under the sun. 
 Is there anything of which one can say, 
   â€œLook! This is something newâ€? 
It was here already, long ago; 
   it was here before our time. 
 No one remembers the former generations, 
   and even those yet to come 
will not be remembered 
   by those who follow them.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God broke me.


Tee hee.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That I cried out to God and surrendered completely to Him.


 Oh man, it's too easy.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I like the fact, that, thats all you quote  me in. You forget whats written before and after it.


 
Treat others the way you want to be treated, man.  You want me to stop taking everything you say as a sexual innuendo?  Go back and reply to my full post; not parts of it, not the things that you think you can handle, but all of it.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So its not double standard in what I speak, because what I speak out of is the Bible. If you have a problem with whats written in the Bible, take that up with God. Oh thats right you don't believe in Him. You have taken what I have said many times completely out of context. You take what the Bible says completely out of context and then try and tell me thats what it says. Thats a lie. So don't come in here with your super inflated ego acting like your better than me or anyone else. Because thats the way you come across. You act like you know better, you act like you understand the Bible better (Even though you have stated you only read it completely through twice...) If you understood its words you would believe.



_"How do you know Alchemy isn't true? If you read the Alchemy texts more you'd agree with them!"

_That's pretty much the same as what you're saying.


> You don't like what I say, but what I speak from is right out of the Bible. I am not going to mince words, I am not going to dance around issues. I will state exactly what my faith does and what the Bible says. Sorry if that offends you, But thats not my problem. I rub people the wrong way, I know this. I rub people the wrong way because I preach what the Bible says. I rub people the wrong way because I stand firm in my faith. I rub people the wrong way because I refuse to renounce God or Christ Jesus. And that bothers people.
> 
> But let me explain something to you, something you seemed to fail to  understand. You say I am interpreting the Bible incorrectly, How would  you know? You don't believe in any of it. So how can you, who doesn't  believe possibly interpret what the Bible is saying? For if you  understood what it was saying, you would believe. Since you don't  believe, you don't understand it. Furthermore, I have the Holy Spirit  within me. The Holy Spirit guides me. The Holy Spirit is a direct link  to God. So yes, I would understand the Bible more than a non-believer,  because I have that direct link to God.



It is entirely your problem. You justify yourself with the Bible, but it's just a stupid book to us. It doesn't deflect criticism and responsibility like you seem to think it does. That attitude can lead to self-justified delusions and corruption.

_But let me explain something to you, something you seemed to fail to  understand. You say I am interpreting the Bible incorrectly, How would  you know? You *think God wrote it.* So how can you, who *is riding on pure faith,* possibly interpret what the Bible is saying? For if you  understood what it was *actually *saying, you *might question your* belie*f*. Since you  believe, you don't understand it. Furthermore, I *have criticism*. *Logic and rationale* guide me. *Nothing is beyond criticism.* So yes, I would understand the Bible more than a believer,  because I*'m willing to question things*._
That really, really easily goes both ways. Although my angle makes a lot more sense than yours, because I don't have to prove God exists first in order for it to be valid.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Riley said:


> Tee hee.
> 
> 
> Oh man, it's too easy.
> ...



Treat others the way you want to be treated. Yes this is true. The second greatest command from Jesus is, love your neighbor as yourself. This does not mean you are to love falsehood and sin. I care about people on here enough that I continue to speak, that I continue to talk about my faith. For what good is it if I don't care about someones soul?
I answered your post, pretty clearly too. If your speaking about earlier posts where you were shit posting about God speaking to you and telling me I was to follow you, then no. I will not address those posts because you were just shit posting and its not worth responding to. I wanted to, but I decided not too. As it would be a waste of time and add the fact in that it wasn't a discussion at all.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> _"How do you know Alchemy isn't true? If you read the Alchemy texts more you'd agree with them!"
> 
> _That's pretty much the same as what you're saying.
> 
> ...


 
See though, Rukh will question the bible.  It's just that he then turns to...the bible...for answers.

"Hello Mister Used Car Salesman from Shady Vinny's Totally Not Junkers Used Car Emporium!  I am willing to pay ten thousand dollars for this Ford Pinto, would you say this is a wise choice?"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Treat others the way you want to be  treated. Yes this is true. The second greatest command from Jesus is,  love your neighbor as yourself. This does not mean you are to love  falsehood and sin. I care about people on here enough that I continue to  speak, that I continue to talk about my faith. For what good is it if I  don't care about someones soul?
> I answered your post, pretty clearly  too. If your speaking about earlier posts where you were shit posting  about God speaking to you and telling me I was to follow you, then no. I  will not address those posts because you were just shit posting and its  not worth responding to. I wanted to, but I decided not too. As it  would be a waste of time and add the fact in that it wasn't a discussion  at all.



Nope, although those posts did fly over your head by about a thousand  miles.  I meant this:   http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/86040-Religion-megathread?p=2295504&viewfull=1#post2295504


----------



## Conker (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> According to Scriptures God gave you everything you have, Your house, your car, your job, all of your talents. They come from God. So you really are nothing without God.


Na, I have some pride in my abilities and life. Besides, if I get to credit God with all of my joys then I also get to credit him for all of my sorrows and problems. God, why did I get into a minor car accident a week ago? What the fuck was the point in that? Why are you such a twat? Now I gotta drop near a thousand bucks to get my headlights fixed; I guess that's money you gave me, but seeing as you don't need it and can't use it...Well, you're kind of a prick. WHY GOD WHY?



> And its once a Christian fully realizes this, or a non-Christian as well. That life becomes so much more peaceful.


 Yeah. I'm sure it's peaceful living a life that requires no thinking.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> _"How do you know Alchemy isn't true? If you read the Alchemy texts more you'd agree with them!"
> 
> _That's pretty much the same as what you're saying.
> 
> ...


 

I can interpret what the Bible is saying (I am not saying I fully understand what the Bible says 100%, for that would mean that I was finished in my walk with God, which is not possible in this life.) because I have the Holy Spirit within me. I have that direct link to God. I know what it is actually saying, because I believe in God. Because you don't believe, you will fail to understand what it says. Jesus stated, let those who want to hear, hear. And those who don't, will not. You can read the Bible many, many times and still not understand what it says because you don't believe. A non-Christian cannot interpret the Bible correctly at all. You fail to believe, therefore you will fail to understand what the Bible says. I don't think I know the Truth. I know I do. Its not a matter of trying Christianity out to see if its true or not. Because if you do that, its not real belief. Its not real faith, therefore you wouldn't be a Christian.




Riley said:


> See though, Rukh will question the bible.  It's just that he then turns to...the bible...for answers.


 Uh, hello. Thats one of the main points of Christianity. You use other parts of Scripture to back up what you are reading. Interpreting the Bible means, that when you interpret a passage, you need to look to other parts of Scripture to back up your interpretation. And if you get more questions than answers, there is a good chance you misinterpreted that passage you were reading.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uh, hello. Thats one of the main points of Christianity. You use other parts of Scripture to back up what you are reading. Intereting the Bible means, that when you interpret a passage, you need to look to other parts of Scripture to back up your interpretation. And if you get more questions than answers, there is a good chance you misinterpreted that passage you were reading.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I like the fact, that, thats all you quote  me in. You forget whats written before and after it.


 
Yeah...  Try again, buckoe?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Riley said:


> Yeah...  Try again, buckoe?


 
No there is no try again. I stated a core doctrine of Christianity. You don't believe. Got that. But you are never going to convince me to renounce my faith in God. So I say again, stop trying to get me to. It will never happen Riley. I know God is real because I have seen Him work in my life, and in the lives of others. I have seen things that have no other explanation. Like having direct prayers answered. I have had the Lord speak through me. Put me on a polygraph machine. You will see that I am not lying. I have the Holy Spirit living in me. I have felt it. I have felt God's presence, I have felt Him convict me of things. You cannot tell me God isn't real. My life experience and of others says otherwise. Explain the radical life changes people make when they become Christians. I have a friend who used to be a meth addict. Once you become addicted to meth, you always will be. And yet here this guy stands, completely free of that addiction. You can look me straight in they eyes, I am not lying.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No there is no try again. I stated a core doctrine of Christianity. You don't believe. Got that. But you are never going to convince me to renounce my faith in God. So I say again, stop trying to get me to. It will never happen Riley. I know God is real because I have seen Him work in my life, and in the lives of others. I have seen things that have no other explanation. Like having direct prayers answered. I have had the Lord speak through me. Put me on a polygraph machine. You will see that I am not lying. I have the Holy Spirit living in me. I have felt it. I have felt God's presence, I have felt Him convict me of things. You cannot tell me God isn't real. My life experience and of others says otherwise. Explain the radical life changes people make when they become Christians. I have a friend who used to be a meth addict. Once you become addicted to meth, you always will be. And yet here this guy stands, completely free of that addiction. You can look me straight in they eyes, I am not lying.



So then, why aren't I allowed to use that exact same logic?  You seemed pretty pissed off when I said that god came to me, so why do you get to be special?  Are you and him a thing, now?  Sneaking out of church on Sundays to go see R rated movies with a fake ID?  Why do you get to have personal visions of a god, but I don't?

Oh, and that last bit is just willpower.  Hard to come by in this day and age, but hardly divine.  Good on him, though.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Riley said:


> So then, why aren't I allowed to use that exact same logic?  You seemed pretty pissed off when I said that god came to me, so why do you get to be special?  Are you and him a thing, now?  Sneaking out of church on Sundays to go see R rated movies with a fake ID?  Why do you get to have personal visions of a god, but I don't?


 
*You don't believe in God. You said you are an atheist.* Furthermore what you were saying goes against what Christ Jesus said. Therefore what you were saying was not true. You cannot contradict what Christ taught and said and claim that it came from God. Because Jesus is God. Contradicting what Christ taught is contradicting God.


----------



## Conker (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh, if you are a non denominational Christian, what made you seek Christianity and not one of the other Abraham religions? On a timeline, the Qur'an was written after the Bible, so why choose the Bible over the Qur'an? Why become a Christian and not a Jew or a Muslim?


> *You don't believe in God. You said you are an atheist.*  Furthermore what you were saying goes against what Christ Jesus said.  Therefore what you were saying was not true. You cannot contradict what  Christ taught and said and claim that it came from God. Because Jesus is  God. Contradicting what Christ taught is contradicting God.


But what if Jesus was wrong? What if he was mistaken and only thought he was the son of God? Why is he such a dependable character? Because the Bible says he is?


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *You don't believe in God. You said you are an atheist.* Furthermore what you were saying goes against what Christ Jesus said. Therefore what you were saying was not true. You cannot contradict what Christ taught and said and claim that it came from God. Because Jesus is God. Contradicting what Christ taught is contradicting God.


 
Grasping, grasping, grasping.  You've talked about people converting.  You've said straight up that you "don't understand god's ways" (shortly after saying you do, of course).  So why does anything I say about some god make it automatically false?  How can I FIND ZE TRÃœTH if I'm not allowed to see your god?  Really, Rukh, this is all quite poorly thought out.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Conker said:


> Rukh, if you are a non denominational Christian, what made you seek Christianity and not one of the other Abraham religions? On a timeline, the Qur'an was written after the Bible, so why choose the Bible over the Qur'an? Why become a Christian and not a Jew or a Muslim?


 

The Quran directly contradicts the Bible, and yet Muslims say its the same God. When its clearly not. Islam teaches that its a works based salvation and the Bible teaches its by grace that we have been saved. Direct contradiction right there. Islam claims that its the same God. Can't be.  Second, Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies written in the Old Testament about the coming Messiah. Judaism is waiting for the Messiah. Who has already come. But He is coming back, but the second time...Well read Revelations.




Riley said:


> Grasping, grasping, grasping.  You've talked about  people converting.  You've said straight up that you "don't understand  god's ways" (shortly after saying you do, of course).  So why does  anything I say about some god make it automatically false?  How can I  FIND ZE TRÃœTH if I'm not allowed to see your god?  Really, Rukh, this is  all quite poorly thought out.


 
Its is by faith that we are saved. Faith in God is a requirement. You want God to appear in front of you (which would kill you by the way, just an fyi) And force you to believe. Thats not faith.


The Bible shows us God's character. We don't fully understand why He does everything the way He does. But He is God, and I am not. I don't have His wisdom nor His knowledge. And I never will. Again, this is where faith comes in. You have to have faith to believe.


----------



## Conker (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Quran directly contradicts the Bible, and yet Muslims say its the same God. When its clearly not. Islam teaches that its a works based salvation and the Bible teaches its by grace that we have been saved. Direct contradiction right there. Islam claims that its the same God. Can't be.  Second, Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies written in the Old Testament about the coming Messiah. Judaism is waiting for the Messiah. Who has already come. But He is coming back, but the second time...Well read Revelations.


 Your missing my point. I'm not asking why you wouldn't choose Islam or Judaism now, I'm asking you why you didn't choose them when you decided you needed religion in your life. I believe you said, at one point, you weren't a religious person, what made you chose Christianity as your religion instead of one of the other major religions? Did you research all three? Did you even give Judaism or Islam a thought, or did you just jump into Christianity? I wish to know your motives.



> You want God to appear in front of you (which would kill you by the way, just an fyi)


An omnipotent God should be able to control his power and prevent that from happening.




And for the record, I like to side with Islam. If there is a God, he's the same God in all the religions, people just worship him differently. I don't see why there needs to be a wrong way to worship God as long as worship happens. Yes, your Bible contradicts that, but I don't particularly care. I'm fine with living this niave belief just as you're fine with living your own beliefs.


----------



## Riley (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its is by faith that we are saved. Faith in God is a requirement. You want God to appear in front of you (which would kill you by the way, just an fyi) And force you to believe. Thats not faith.
> 
> 
> The Bible shows us God's character. We don't fully understand why He does everything the way He does. But He is God, and I am not. I don't have His wisdom nor His knowledge. And I never will. Again, this is where faith comes in. You have to have faith to believe.


 
So it's impossible for anyone to convert, then.  Got it.  Which means that because you didn't have faith in a god before, you haven't actually been saved, and are just fooling yourself right now.  

I like how your own logic does nothing but work against you.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 13, 2010)

Riley said:


> So it's impossible for anyone to convert, then.  Got it.  Which means that because you didn't have faith in a god before, you haven't actually been saved, and are just fooling yourself right now.
> 
> I like how your own logic does nothing but work against you.


 It's because he wants it to work against everyone else, but he's special and can't possibly be wrong about anything.


----------



## Deo (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again you base your experiences with other Christians and use that experience to label me.


What? Now I'm labeling you? No Rukh, my past is not what makes me dislike you. It's what you say that counts there. I am only honest with you, that's all.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is it my fault that someone else treated you poorly? I am not responsible for others actions toward you.


How the hell did you miscombobulate what I said into me blaming you? I even said that I'm not angry at the people who did this to me. Why do you never listen to what I say? Really now. Can you not read? Are you dyslexic? Is there some sort of filter in your mind that turns words produced by atheists into indecipherable languages? Because otherwise this putting words into my mouth has got to stop.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for stealing, I don't, In fact I am surprised you haven't accused me of stealing from the Bible. Because I quote from there all the time.


But in quoting the Bible you cite your source. Other times you do not. And in not citing you are committing plagiarism which is theft. I'm not asking for an MLA works cited page, just a "hey this info is from here and it's not my original words!"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Just because I use Christian websites as sources doesn't mean I am stealing. The whole point of those sites is to Share the news about God. You want the websites, ask for them. I have no problem providing you with what sources I use. But because they are a Christian site, you write them off.


It's still stealing. Go to the bottom of those pages, I bet 9 times out of 10 there is a copy right statement. It's still stealing. Please stop trying to get away with it. Suck it up and stop doing it. It's not that damn hard to do, all right?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And as for jamming words down your throat. Let me remind you that is was you that tried to shove your words of "your God isn't real" down my throat.


What? I'm talking about how you misquote me constantly in order to set up a strawman. You put words in my mouth directly. I don't count you voicing your opinion as putting words into my mouth. And I'm not shoving anything on you. I know I'll never change how you feel. I don't want to. I just want to state my views. And you're taking this way to seriously. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You call me a hypocrite? .Look in the mirror Deo. I don't call people hypocrites because we all are. As for my sin, I am forgiven, my sins have been washed clean.


I don't forgive you for lying about what I say. Or stealing the thoughts of others and presenting them as your own. I'm betting you never went to college as that shit would get you thrown out on your ass before you could blink.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That doesn't mean I go and keep sinning. It doesn't excuse it when I do.


Then why do you adamantly refuse to stop putting words in my mouth? Then why do you continue, without remorse, to steal and plagiarize?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If you have a problem with whats written in the Bible, take that up with God. Oh thats right you don't believe in Him. You have taken what I have said many times completely out of context. You take what the Bible says completely out of context and then try and tell me thats what it says. Thats a lie. So don't come in here with your super inflated ego acting like your better than me or anyone else. Because thats the way you come across. You act like you know better, you act like you understand the Bible better (Even though you have stated you only read it completely through twice...) If you understood its words you would believe.


I've said this before too, I DO NOT KNOW. I can say that it is highly unlikely that god exists. And I can make arguments against it based on evidence and logic. However I have NEVER claimed to EVER be "better than" you. NOT ONCE. LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY RUKH, AND NOT JUST INSERT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR. YOU MAY ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT MY CHARACTER OF BEING. And right now you're the one who sounds like they are trying to say they are 'better than' the other. YOU even feel it's necessary to write "even though you've only read it twice" as if my reading it doesn't matter at all, and because you've read it more you're better. I already told you that I have more respect for you because you've read it rather than preaching about it without reading it like most 'christians' do. I've told you that three times. Do you remember those times Rukh? Well this is the fourth. Probably you don't because you also seem to think I hate christians, and that I put words in your mouth despite the fact that I go to great lengths to quote what you post accurately. I read over 120 pages of your posts to make sure I never lied about what you said or misquoted you or put words in your mouth. And the fact that you never offer me the same respect pisses me off. 




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But let me explain something to you, something you seemed to fail to understand. You say I am interpreting the Bible incorrectly, How would you know? You don't believe in any of it. So how can you, who doesn't believe possibly interpret what the Bible is saying?


Did you miss the part where I was a devout Christian for years? I read the Bible to become stronger in my faith. I read it wanting desperately to believe. I longed for God. I still do sometimes. But I refuse to believe in a malicious God.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> For if you understood what it was saying, you would believe. Since you don't believe, you don't understand it.


Why do you feel it is necessary to make my opinions worthless Rukh? So I don't believe, it doesn't mean that I can't read and I don't understand. It just means that we disagree.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore, I have the Holy Spirit within me. The Holy Spirit guides me. The Holy Spirit is a direct link to God. So yes, I would understand the Bible more than a non-believer, because I have that direct link to God.


Didn't you just accuse me of thinking myself better than you? Well here you are telling me you're better than me. This is, again, hypocrasy Rukh.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And then you say God murders. No he does not. He judges.


Semantics. People were killed. Their lives were taken. This is never moral.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 13, 2010)

Deo, you are amazing and express complex non black/white points very well. 
I want your atheist babies.


----------



## Barak (Dec 13, 2010)

Imma go Start a Deo fan club, anyone wanna join ? :V

On topic :

Ever had a relative that before a big event always say "I'll be praying for you" and if you suceed it's because of God and not because of your skills or your efforts ?


----------



## ~secret~ (Dec 13, 2010)

Barak said:


> Ever had a relative that before a big event always say "I'll be praying for you" and if you suceed it's because of God and not because of your skills or your efforts ?


 
Yep. My grandmother's forever lighting candles for me. I be nice about it though, it's a thoughtful gesture after all.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Dec 13, 2010)

Deovacuus said:


> What? Now I'm labeling you? No Rukh, my past is not what makes me dislike you. It's what you say that counts there. I am only honest with you, that's all.
> 
> 
> How the hell did you miscombobulate what I said into me blaming you? I even said that I'm not angry at the people who did this to me. Why do you never listen to what I say? Really now. Can you not read? Are you dyslexic? Is there some sort of filter in your mind that turns words produced by atheists into indecipherable languages? Because otherwise this putting words into my mouth has got to stop.
> ...


 

First off, Yes, I did go to college. I have an associates degree in applied science. Just an fyi since you say I never went to college.
As for taking things seriously, Life is serious. I can't joke around with my faith. Its not something to joke about. If you don't want to change how I feel, then why do you keep telling me that I am interpreting the Bible wrong? why do you keep telling God isn't a loving God? Why do you keep telling me he doesn't exist? Seems like you want me to stop believing. And I don't think you ever said you once claimed to be a Christian. First time I ever heard that from you.

As for continuing to say God is malicious. You forget that  not one person is innocent according to God. We all deserve death and separation from Him. And yet he choose to save us anyways. Goid is not this hippy dude. God is love and mercy, but he is also a God who wants all of you, not part of you. God is a judge, a just judge. To me, its seems like you have tried to make God into what you wanted Him to be, and not who He actually is. 

Since no one is innocent, and we all deserve death, how is God not moral when he is exacting out the judgment we so rightly deserve?


----------



## Nail_bunny (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, Yes, I did go to college. I have an associates degree in applied science. Just an fyi since you say I never went to college.
> As for taking things seriously, Life is serious. I can't joke around with my faith. Its not something to joke about. If you don't want to change how I feel, then why do you keep telling me that I am interpreting the Bible wrong? why do you keep telling God isn't a loving God? Why do you keep telling me he doesn't exist? Seems like you want me to stop believing. And I don't think you ever said you once claimed to be a Christian. First time I ever heard that from you.
> 
> As for continuing to say God is malicious. You forget that  not one person is innocent according to God. We all deserve death and separation from Him. And yet he choose to save us anyways. Goid is not this hippy dude. God is love and mercy, but he is also a God who wants all of you, not part of you. God is a judge, a just judge. To me, its seems like you have tried to make God into what you wanted Him to be, and not who He actually is.
> ...



Still sounds like an asshole to me.

Honestly if I knew god was going to be a judgmental douche at the end of my sinful life I would have chosen not to be born.
Just like If I could I would choose not to be born under a ruthless dictatorship.

It's just not a very nice or fair concept to me.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 13, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for continuing to say God is malicious. You forget that  not one person is innocent according to God. We all deserve death and separation from Him. And yet he choose to save us anyways. Goid is not this hippy dude. God is love and mercy, but he is also a God who wants all of you, not part of you. God is a judge, a just judge. To me, its seems like you have tried to make God into what you wanted Him to be, and not who He actually is.
> 
> Since no one is innocent, and we all deserve death, how is God not moral when he is exacting out the judgment we so rightly deserve?


 
Well, first and foremost, your god doesn't exist.

Second, you never answered my question. Rukh, would you define christians that interpret the bible differently than you (Babies going to hell, people needing good works too to get into heaven, etc) as "Half Christian", and if so would you say they got into heaven? 

Third, these underlined bits are clearly not true.

Fourth, But assuming he did exist for the sake of argument, hypothetically it's a problem of creating beings he knew in advance wouldn't be able to live up to his standard. Now, while an over 2-3rds (not taking into account the different sects claiming the other sects are all going to hell or the fact christianity was a tiny minority until the end of the roman era and didn't even exist until like 200 ad) failure rate on souls might be fine for you, it is certainly not acceptable to people with any sense of decent design, let alone morals due to what happens to the rejected souls. I could not only vastly improve the ethical ramifications but also the soul retrieval rate of that project by installing an "Oh, well, I guess we're not being tortured forever but we're not being rewarded either." for borderline cases, and a "Well it's not HEAVEN but it's still pretty nice." for noble heathens.

But your god clearly doesn't do that. He made everyone imperfect by nature and then blames them for it, casting them all into hell unless they brownnose him enough. This is not what a kind, just, or loving god would do. This isn't even what a _sane_ god would do. Nobody deserves eternal torture for anything, it's not only the worst atrocity concievable, but it's also entirely and utterly pointless. Your god isn't just a dick,

Your god is *evil* Rukh. And non-existant.


Also, since I forgot to mention this earlier, the trinity isn't a basic concept of christianity. The only requirement to being a christian is believing christ atoned for you. That's it. It doesn't matter whether you also like Mary or think he was black or that god had multiple personality disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm not flicking through this TL;DR thread but here's my two cents on the topic:

At one point in the Bible, god killed about 6 million people on a whim, whilst satan killed like, 8, with god's assistance. People only bow to god because he rules with an iron fist and they fear him, and he indoctrinates others to beleive that every other deity is false and evil. You should consider looking up satanism and the "lie of christianity" and you will see that god's number one enemy is the good guy.

I really don't think that the bible should be treated as a historical document because that only causes problems. A good way to treat that and all other religious documents is as a "guide to life." What kind of things does Jesus tell people to do? Love thy neighbor and all that? Do those things and call yourself a christian because that's how you choose to go about life. Don't go saying that we should all fear god's wrath that we get for doing evil things, just go on a sense of what's right and wrong to you. If you're gonna preach to others don't say that we got some crazy mofo looking down upon us from the skies, waiting to get us to heaven, apparently. Just say what's a good way to live and what's not. Screw spirits and ghosts and shit, like the angel and the demon.

Anyway, if you consider that there's anything worth worshipping, it's the planet we're on.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 5, 2011)

Here's my two cents people are idiots in general, it's just that religion is organized therefore more successful at it.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Here's my two cents people are idiots in general, it's just that religion is organized therefore more successful at it.


 
God is going to smite you for reviving your own thread almost immediately.


----------



## Pliio8 (Jan 5, 2011)

Enwon said:


> God is going to smite you for reviving your own thread almost immediately.


 
But... how can one smite if one does not exist?


----------



## Enwon (Jan 5, 2011)

Pliio8 said:


> But... how can one smite if one does not exist?


 
Have faith.  I don't care how much evidence you can find, have absolute blind faith that God exists because believing something enough will make it true.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 5, 2011)

Enwon said:


> God is going to smite you for reviving your own thread almost immediately.


 I never disappointalways disappoint


----------



## Noise (Jan 5, 2011)

Religion is huge.. i wish i wasn't raised as a christian so i could choose for myself without disappointing some people.

alltough i have nothing against the different religions they're all just different ways of keeping people busy, good, selfish and once in a while things go bad and stuff explodes. 
wich has been happening a lot lately..


----------



## Conker (Jan 5, 2011)

Looks like we lost about five or so pages of this thread in the restore


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 5, 2011)

(yay board is up! *clings like a crack addict*)

Do we really want to restart this trainwreck?

Hmm, posts on the previous page look very familiar. I too wonder if some pages are missing.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 5, 2011)

Religion and Lack of religion are both for idiots!

No need to discuss. I know I'm right.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 5, 2011)

Conker said:


> Looks like we lost about five or so pages of this thread in the restore


 
It can mostly be summed up as people presenting reasonable positions, and Rukh going "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU." :V

I propose that we have him sign this document before we allow him to continue-
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg


----------



## Willow (Jan 5, 2011)

It's no fun without Deo or Rukh, or that one Mormon Porcupine guy though.


----------



## Conker (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm taking a scripture class for two reasons. One, I got to a religious affiliated school and need to take six credits of religion, and two, well the first one. But I know the teacher, and he's a cool guy. So the class should be fun.

But the Bible isn't a regular Bible, it's some college one  So I couldn't illegally download my textbook for that class. Irony lost this round.


----------



## Deo (Jan 5, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg


I must print these out to give to the mormons who lurk in the bus stops at ISU.



Willow said:


> It's no fun without Deo or Rukh, or that one Mormon Porcupine guy though.


 
I AM HERE, THIS IS FUN NAO, RITE GUIS? RIGHT? anyone?


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 5, 2011)

Advancement through knowledge, cooperation, and science is how the world works. When people still believe the Earth is flat, or that in the sky lives an invisible old white man wearing a bathrobe I am dumbfounded. I am a determinist. I believe in science. Religion is supposed to aid people, but the greedy use it to further their own agendas. Why can't we all get along and stop burning people at the stake, oppressing people who we don't like, and starting wars? Oh and Scientology is Mormonism 2.0. If You are offended then, well be offended. That means you believe in what you believe and won't change your mind. Whatever.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 6, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> Advancement through knowledge, cooperation, and science is how the world works. When people still believe the Earth is flat, or that in the sky lives an invisible old white man wearing a bathrobe I am dumbfounded. I am a determinist. I believe in science. Religion is supposed to aid people, but the greedy use it to further their own agendas. Why can't we all get along and stop burning people at the stake, oppressing people who we don't like, and starting wars? Oh and Scientology is Mormonism 2.0. If You are offended then, well be offended. That means you believe in what you believe and won't change your mind. Whatever.


This is why I made this thread to keep copypasta like this from the rest of faf.  95% of the posts on this thread are copypasta.


----------



## Thou Dog (Jan 6, 2011)

Faith is a tricky thing. You can't really make yourself believe in what you don't already believe in.

As for holy scriptures, the fun thing about holy scriptures is that they were written down by human beings. Whether or not you believe they were divinely inspired, the scribes were human and nothing more. So you can read the scripture and go "This is really neat poetry", or in the case of Song of Songs, "This is incredibly licentious poetry", and just appreciate it for what it is: the handiwork of humankind.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 6, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> This is why I made this thread to keep copypasta like this from the rest of faf.  95% of the posts on this thread are copypasta.


 
That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  The only actual copypasta has been from Rukh.


----------



## Azure (Jan 6, 2011)

Can this thread end? Can it? Please? Its outlived its usefulness 2000 posts ago. Petitioning to get it closed nao.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 6, 2011)

Thou Dog said:


> Faith is a tricky thing. You can't really make yourself believe in what you don't already believe in.
> 
> As for holy scriptures, the fun thing about holy scriptures is that they were written down by human beings. Whether or not you believe they were divinely inspired, the scribes were human and nothing more. So you can read the scripture and go "This is really neat poetry", or in the case of Song of Songs, "This is incredibly licentious poetry", and just appreciate it for what it is: the handiwork of humankind.


 

I think the word we are looking for when you think of the Bible is "allegory".

People forget that the scripture was printed on earthy materials and written by man to teach people how to be a better person (Rape, incest, and other things aside). When people take it literally as if it was handed down on divine golden plates written by angels and given to the nearest shmoe drunk off of beer, wine, high off of Opium, or infected with syphillus, there is a problem.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 6, 2011)

This thread can still work if we move on from the kibitzing over Scripture to the big guns of logic and reasoning.  Catching a fundie in a Biblical contradiction may be fun, but it doesn't resolve much.

I think my running argument was lost in the crash, so I'll rehash it here:


1. I asked Rukh, "If God did in fact not exist, how could you tell?"

2. If the question, "If God did not exist, how could you tell?" is unanswerable, then nothing in the universe requires a God to explain it.

3.  If nothing in the universe requires a God to explain it, then the universe in its current state could exist without God.

4. If the universe could exist in its current state without God, then God is an unnecessary entity in any explanation for the universe.

5. If God is an unnecessary entity, all models of the Universe containing a God should be eliminated from consideration, per Ockham's Razor.  Ergo, God should be considered to not exist, beyond any reasonable doubt, until any of the above changes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 6, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  The only actual copypasta has been from Rukh.


 Bull, just because someone retypes something directly quoted doesn't make it a legitimate argument.
tl;dr retyping something doesn't make it less of a copypasta.


Azure said:


> Can this thread end? Can it? Please? Its outlived its usefulness 2000 posts ago. Petitioning to get it closed nao.


 FaF has been far more enjoyable now that all the religious flamewars are contained in a single thread.


----------



## Azure (Jan 6, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Bull, just because someone retypes something directly quoted doesn't make it a legitimate argument.
> tl;dr retyping something doesn't make it less of a copypasta.
> 
> FaF has been far more enjoyable now that all the religious flamewars are containmed in a single thread.


 Not really. I for one think that this thread is too generalized, and it runs off topic far too often, if there even is a topic anymore after 2000 posts. Compartmentalizaion of god bashing is far more efficient and coherent, unlike this giberiing mostroaity you herald has fixd the" problem".


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 6, 2011)

Azure said:


> Not really. I for one think that this thread is too generalized, and it runs off topic far too often, if there even is a topic anymore after 2000 posts. Compartmentalizaion of god bashing is far more efficient and coherent, unlike this giberiing mostroaity you herald has fixd the" problem".


 It didn't fix it, just quarantined it.


----------



## Azure (Jan 6, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It didn't fix it, just quarantined it.


 
Ergo my point, your thread accomplished nothing, thus, it should end. ITT logic that cannot be denied.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 6, 2011)

Oh no, we lost that "hurrrr wtf atheists" thread.

For shame.

Unless it got merged into this one. Eh.


----------



## Hir (Jan 6, 2011)

i'm pretty sure it did


----------



## Conker (Jan 7, 2011)

Lobar said:


> This thread can still work if we move on from the kibitzing over Scripture to the big guns of logic and reasoning.  Catching a fundie in a Biblical contradiction may be fun, but it doesn't resolve much.
> 
> I think my running argument was lost in the crash, so I'll rehash it here:
> 
> ...


 Honestly, the nature of religion kind of makes those questions unfair when the underlying system of belief is faith. 

Your second question relies on the premise that a God had nothing to do with the universes creation at all. "How could you tell?" The answer might be "we wouldn't exist." But it's a moot argument because neither side can be proven.

Your last three points rely on the above questions, which are hypothetical to a religious believer who believes God does exist and had a hand in the creation of the universe. 

And a religious person could ask the same questions. "DISPROVE GOD!" they shout! The only difference is a scientist can say "I can't YET, but who knows what the future will bring?" whereas the religious person has to rely on faith. 

Unless Jesus comes back, which he is supposed to I believe. But even if he did, the skeptics won't believe any of his miracles. He'll just be the next David Blane only delusional. They'll claim "FAKED" and probably even call him a dirty hipster. 

I think the bigger debate is "does religion have a negative effect on society?" and that can be answered with a firm "yes" even though it does have some positives.


----------



## Love! (Jan 7, 2011)

you know what religion i am?
i'm an idontgiveafuckian
if god exists, great
if god doesn't exist, great
i still don't give a fuck
/thread


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 7, 2011)

Conker said:


> Honestly, the nature of religion kind of makes those questions unfair when the underlying system of belief is faith.
> 
> Your second question relies on the premise that a God had nothing to do with the universes creation at all. "How could you tell?" The answer might be "we wouldn't exist." But it's a moot argument because neither side can be proven.
> 
> ...


 
That entire atheist line of thought highlights how belief in God is a matter of choice rather than fact. It also points out that something which can't be proven is an invalid explanation for anything, obviously.

Atheists aren't responsible for proving that God doesn't exist. The believers have to provide the proof that he does. It would be that way with leprechauns and unicorns, wouldn't it? So why would God be different.. other than that people just want him to be?


----------



## Browder (Jan 7, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> That entire atheist line of thought highlights how belief in God is a matter of choice rather than fact. It also points out that something which can't be proven is an invalid explanation for anything, obviously.
> 
> Atheists aren't responsible for proving that God doesn't exist. The believers have to provide the proof that he does. It would be that way with leprechauns and unicorns, wouldn't it? So why would God be different.. other than that people just want him to be?



No. Religion isn't about proof. Nor is it about desire. Religion doesn't strive to prove anything. Religion is about faith which cannot be proven or disproven only believed or not believed.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 7, 2011)

Browder said:


> No. Religion isn't about proof. Nor is it about desire. Religion doesn't strive to prove anything. Religion is about faith which cannot be proven or disproven only believed or not believed.


 
Nope. It's not "about faith." I'm not even sure that has any meaning at all (beyond being a vague excuse.) Religion is spouted as fact, and used as explanations for many things. Faith is used a it's form of "proof".

Religion requires proof lest any metaphysical concept whatsoever be equally as accurate. Faith is kind of.. lacking as proof, unfortunately.


----------



## Deo (Jan 7, 2011)

I went to another churches' youth group and stirred up discussion. But, DAMN it was hard to get those kids to think for themsleves. >:C


----------



## Browder (Jan 7, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Nope. It's not "about faith." I'm not even sure that has any meaning at all (beyond being a vague excuse.) Religion is spouted as fact, and used as explanations for many things. Faith is used a it's form of "proof".
> 
> Religion requires proof lest any metaphysical concept whatsoever be equally as accurate. Faith is kind of.. lacking as proof, unfortunately.


 
Faith means you believe in something in the absence of proof. Faith isn't 'used as a form of proof' but it's touted as a virtue of the the system. 

And as for the spouting as fact bit, yeah that needs to stop in my opinion. You can just as easily say, "here are the facts that have been proven and disproven by scientists" and then say "but this is what I believe."


----------



## Aremay (Jan 7, 2011)

All I know is - I spend many hours in the buildings built by people of a faith so enormous that it still holds the skylines of cities in thrall across the country. Faith is that powerful, for better or worse and we need to understand it, if not sympathise with it, if we are to properly grasp history and current affairs at least. Never mind music, art, philosophy and law.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 7, 2011)

Conker said:


> Honestly, the nature of religion kind of makes those questions unfair when the underlying system of belief is faith.





Browder said:


> Faith means you believe in something in the absence of proof. Faith isn't 'used as a form of proof' but it's touted as a virtue of the the system.


 
That sounds a lot like "That's not a bug, it's a feature."  It still runs afoul of basic logical reasoning, and calling it a virtue does not make it a valid substitute for such.



Conker said:


> Your second question relies on the premise that a God had nothing to do with the universes creation at all. "How could you tell?" The answer might be "we wouldn't exist." But it's a moot argument because neither side can be proven.


 
Either you're misreading it or I did a poor job in recapping, but this entire line of thought is operating on parsimony, not proof.  That's actually kinda the point, that the idea of proof that everyone's so hung up upon doesn't even factor into atheist reasoning.  So the response of "We wouldn't exist" is invalidated just by conceiving a more parsimonious model of the universe that leads to human existence without God, which obviously would be the Big Bang followed by evolution by natural selection.


----------



## Browder (Jan 7, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That sounds a lot like "That's not a bug, it's a feature."  It still runs afoul of basic logical reasoning, and calling it a virtue does not make it a valid substitute for such.
> 
> 
> .


 
Of course it runs afoul of basic logical reasoning. It's faith. It's just a matter of how one prioritizes virtues.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 8, 2011)

Now here is something I can get into.
I'm very opinionated about abominations.
If all sin is equal, then where does an abomination fit. Why go out of the way to call something an abomination if all sin is equal?
My answer, a sin is a sin, an abomination is worse.
Regardless, repentance can save you from both.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 8, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Now here is something I can get into.
> I'm very opinionated about abominations.
> If all sin is equal, then where does an abomination fit. Why go out of the way to call something an abomination if all sin is equal?
> My answer, a sin is a sin, an abomination is worse.
> Regardless, repentance can save you from both.


 
Other Abominations-
Shaving
Being on your period
Eating shellfish
Wearing Polyblends


----------



## Azure (Jan 8, 2011)

Fuck this phone, reply coming later


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 8, 2011)

Which abominations do we count and which ones do we not. Ultimately its between you and God if you believe in him.
For me though I believe most of the stuff in Leviticus should be followed literally. 
I'll get shit for this I know.
But basically the ones that stand out for me are, 
don't drink blood for it is an abomination to do so. 
Man shall not lay with another man as man lays with woman for it is an abomination.
Don't seek out devils or evil spirit or practice witch craft for it is an abomination.

Those I believe are to be held, but like I said its in between you and God if you believe him.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 8, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Which abominations do we count and which ones do we not. Ultimately its between you and God if you believe in him.
> For me though I believe most of the stuff in Leviticus should be followed literally.
> I'll get shit for this I know.
> But basically the ones that stand out for me are,
> ...


 
Just because they stand out to you doesn't neccissarily make them more valid than the other "abominations" listed. :V As someone who does not believe in your god I don't think any of leviticus is a valid moral source.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 8, 2011)

Browder said:


> Of course it runs afoul of basic logical reasoning. It's faith. It's just a matter of how one prioritizes virtues.


 
I don't see that different ways of prioritizing "virtues" are equally valid either.  The fruits of applied logic are obvious, the fruits of applied faith are, what exactly?  Faith healing?  Terrorism?




NobleThorne said:


> Which abominations do we count and which ones do we not. Ultimately its between you and God if you believe in him.
> For me though I believe most of the stuff in Leviticus should be followed literally.
> I'll get shit for this I know.
> But basically the ones that stand out for me are,
> ...


 
Just out of curiosity, are you also aware that the first nine chapters of Leviticus deal pretty much exclusively with how to sacrifice an animal to make a "sweet savour unto the Lord"?


----------



## Browder (Jan 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I don't see that different ways of prioritizing "virtues" are equally valid either.  The fruits of applied logic are obvious, the fruits of applied faith are, what exactly?  Faith healing?  Terrorism?


Those with faith would argue that faith gives them a better understanding, or standing in general with the divine. I don't necessarily believe in any of this mind,  it just bugs me when people try to disprove things that can only be taken on belief. It may be nonsensical but an article of faith is not a hypothesis.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 8, 2011)

Browder said:


> Those with faith would argue that faith gives them a better understanding, or standing in general with the divine. I don't necessarily believe in any of this mind,  it just bugs me when people try to *disprove* things that can only be taken on belief. It may be nonsensical but an article of faith is not a hypothesis.


 
This might have just been a thoughtless choice of words, but you were aware that I was not attempting to disprove the existence of God, but only to show that logic calls for disbelief?


----------



## Browder (Jan 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> This might have just been a thoughtless choice of words, but you were aware that I was not attempting to disprove the existence of God, but only to show that logic calls for disbelief?


 
...

No I was not. I am a stupid Browder. Carry on.


----------



## 2112 (Jan 8, 2011)

I generally don't give this topic much thought at all, because as men, we cannot prove the existence of God.  With the resources we have, science is the best we can do.  Faith works for some, but I'm an anal bitch.  I need proof!  Science pieces together existence of matter and more complex creations made thereof, and in this, I find it terrific and comforting.  The closer we get to space, the closer we get to ourselves.  To know that we are made of atoms is wonderful, but it isn't the root of creation.  The atoms must have come from somewhere.  A conclusion many will jump to in the God defense is the following: "Something couldn't have exploded out of nothing!"  Meanwhile, they believe that God was the first being to appear, and that he furthermore created all of the earth and its suspensions.  I haven't completely cancelled out the possibility of religion from my mind, but I have from all common religions.  There are many aspects of Christianity that I find quite troubling.  Of course, I'm sure much has been lost over years and languages in translation, but this above all is curious to me:  

*And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”*the third day*.* 
 And God said, â€œLet there be lights in the vault of the sky *to separate the day from the night*, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.â€ And it was so.  God made two great lightsâ€”the greater light *to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night*. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the fourth day. 

How did God differenciate between evening and morning on the first few days when he didn't make light to separate day from night until the fourth day?  Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with you, because I found it to be a bit strange.  

I've studied evolution in-depth for a little while now, and I've seen and heard nothing more plausible.  If you're new to it and looking to begin, Darwin's _The Origin of Species_ is a terrific place to start.  If it interests you, you then may further consider more subjective materials, such as _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Richard Dawkins.  On the subject of _Watchmaker, _I had mentioned that I have not entirely abandoned the God concept.  I believe that whatever created us is not concerned in the least for our actions and well-being; a loving and passionate God would not allow the massacre of his own people in such events as natural disasters, circumstance such as poverty, abortion, etc.  My last two ideas, perhaps, but natural disasters typically are not manmade.  This could 180, however, and become a debate on how people indirectly influence all things, but that's something for another time.  This leads me to believe that this God is not of human mind, as we so often have mentioned.  Indeed, I believe it is of no mind; it is simply matter, in and of itself.  If spontaneous combustion can occur, and matter can essentially destroy itself via black holes, it must also be able to generate somewhere, or be transformed to compromise for what has been "destroyed".  In a way, you could say that we are made in God's image: "We are all made of starstuff", as Carl Sagan would say.

But that's just me; no hard feelings.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Just because they stand out to you doesn't neccissarily make them more valid than the other "abominations" listed. :V As someone who does not believe in your god I don't think any of leviticus is a valid moral source.


 
 funny, you haven't read Leviticus, Other things that come from Leviticus,
"Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion" (Leviticus 18:23).

It also mentions not to lay with your mother or your sister for it is incest. Don't lay with your brothers wife, for she is your brother's wife.

Now to say those don't have any moral value is show of ignorance.
Hey I'm guilty of being ignorant so don't feel bad.



Ya I know what you was saying about picking and choosing what to follow and what not to; I was just expressing what I follow and what I've been taught to follow, and I'll see no other way. I also said its between you and God, I'm human and my believes could be off; Its in between the individual and God.


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Don't lay with your brothers wife, for she is your brother's wife.



I'm glad there's such an in-depth explanation.  "Don't do this, cause...then you would have done it."


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Riley said:


> I'm glad there's such an in-depth explanation.  "Don't do this, cause...then you would have done it."


 
Well It gets that way sometimes, God gave us reason for a reason.

Why should I not lay with my sister in law, hmmm perhaps it would piss off my brother and it would cause unnecessary family strains. 


Lets do another one.

Why shouldn't we drink blood... hmmm lot of diseases transmitted through the blood, aids doesn't sound like fun.

The main purpose of some of these scriptures is to serve as a set of guide lines for a healthy physical life and a healthy spiritual life.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> funny, you haven't read Leviticus, Other things that come from Leviticus,
> 
> Now to say those don't have any moral value is show of ignorance.
> Hey I'm guilty of being ignorant so don't feel bad.



Dude, I've read leviticus, and I know that leviticus calls for a disproportionate response to all of these acts- death, usually by stoning and/or hell-  Yes. It is immoral. Someone who'd call for the stoning of lobster eaters next to children who were raped by their parents would be called a madman and for good reason.




NobleThorne said:


> I was just expressing what I follow and what I've been taught to follow, and I'll see no other way.


 
So you only follow christianity because you were born into it? Don't you think it's important to analyze these kinds of beliefs?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> was just expressing what I follow and what I've been taught to follow, and I'll see no other way.


 
I'll give this guy props. He admits his close-mindedness (which is worthy of props, but really should be reconsidered wholly as one's life cannot be 100% determinate)...

..whereas the disappointing likes of Rukh combat others and try to justify their close-mindedness into the point that they're practically arguing about the characters of the text in the original manuscripts and how the slight tilt of them could mean something totally different.

Kudos...I think.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So you only follow christianity because you were born into it? Don't you think it's important to analyze these kinds of beliefs?



Now that don't seem fair to say. I was raised in it yes, but I'm out on my own now and I chose to keep following my ways. I wouldn't say I was forced into it, but raising me with the values of the bible; its kept me out of trouble mostly. 
Right now I've withdrawn myself a bit, I've been discouraged by my loneliness . I don't pray any more, do what ever the hell I want and you know what, I'm more miserable than I use to be. What I need is to get back into it and surround myself with Christian fellowship; Its a stuggle, its meant to be.


----------



## Love! (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> funny, you haven't read Leviticus, Other things that come from Leviticus,
> "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion" (Leviticus 18:23).
> 
> It also mentions not to lay with your mother or your sister for it is incest. Don't lay with your brothers wife, for she is your brother's wife.


 do not allow a horse to have anal intercourse with you, for you will die of a perforated colon
am i doing it right?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Love! said:


> do not allow a horse to have anal intercourse with you, for you will die of a perforated colon
> am i doing it right?


  Sounds right to me!


----------



## Deo (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> funny, you haven't read Leviticus, Other things that come from Leviticus,
> "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion" (Leviticus 18:23).


Eagles are an abomination too. If you are an American, the Bald Eagle, by God's decree must be stoned to death. Bald eagles are abominations.


----------



## Deo (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Right now I've withdrawn myself a bit, I've been discouraged by my loneliness . I don't pray any more, do what ever the hell I want and you know what, I'm more miserable than I use to be. What I need is to get back into it and surround myself with Christian fellowship; Its a stuggle, its meant to be.


Or you know, you could go out and make friends without having a definite "you must be christian" and hey, it could expand your horizons. But you follow Leviticus, so that may not be best as you are commanded to kill all non-believers wherever you may find them, even if they are your own father or brother or dearest friend.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'll give this guy props. He admits his close-mindedness (which is worthy of props, but really should be reconsidered wholly as one's life cannot be 100% determinate)...
> 
> ..whereas the disappointing likes of Rukh combat others and try to justify their close-mindedness into the point that they're practically arguing about the characters of the text in the original manuscripts and how the slight tilt of them could mean something totally different.
> 
> Kudos...I think.


 
Well thanks for the props man, your being mature about things.

Here's another example of my raising, "If your too open mined your brains will fall out"

We got to filter what we take to heart and what we give the time of day. This filtering kind of shows who you are to a point, not fully.
Some one that accepts everything, in my opinion is an overstuffed brown noser, don't think I've ever met one.

As humans we are going to disagree with somebody, can't agree with everything said or done; thats natural.
And when we are dead set on a belief we fail to see the perspective of other people; issues we are not so dead set on we give a little more leeway on. We filter out the views we think are dead wrong, and we argue with or accept views we aren't sure of.

I'll use myself as an example, I fail to see how a man can be attracted to another man. I also fail to see how a person could be so unhappy with their God given sex, that they go through body mutilation to imitate the opposite sex.  I lack the neurons to walk in their shoes. but a thief or a killer, I can attempt to see their side(a poor attempt at that).
Oh I killed the guy because he was a racist dick. or I stole from my grandma to support my addiction. Everyone has their reasons, but from others perspective those reasons may be wrong.

Its a mess, and I'm part of it.


----------



## Deo (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'll use myself as an example, I fail to see how a man can be attracted to another man. I also fail to see how a person could be so unhappy with their God given sex, that they go through body mutilation to imitate the opposite sex. I lack the neurons to walk in their shoes. but a thief or a killer, I can attempt to see their side(a poor attempt at that).


Why is it that the religious always seem to better sympathize with murderers, theives, and rapists but not law abiding homosexuals, lesbians, and transgenders? Maybe this is way the prison population is almost completely religious. Too many of you sympathizing with murderers and becoming murderers.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Or you know, you could go out and make friends without having a definite "you must be christian" and hey, it could expand your horizons. But you follow Leviticus, so that may not be best as you are commanded to kill all non-believers wherever you may find them, even if they are your own father or brother or dearest friend.


If I followed everything to the letter then why would I be on a furry site?
I exploring a bit; My roomate that's my only friend in college is nearly the exact opposite of me. He isn't sold on the gospel and I understand, I'm not trying to shove it down his throat either. I'm closed minded and he's very accepting of every one. I've consulted him with my furry fetish and he tells me that I'm not too weird for liking that stuff. Real cool guy, real level headed; we've debated all of this stuff you find here, but its always been cool between us. Something I hadn't done but should is go out drinking with him, I don't drink but thats a social opportunity I hadn't given much thought to.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Now that don't seem fair to say. I was raised in it yes, but I'm out on my own now and I chose to keep following my ways. I wouldn't say I was forced into it, but raising me with the values of the bible; its kept me out of trouble mostly.
> Right now I've withdrawn myself a bit, I've been discouraged by my loneliness . I don't pray any more, do what ever the hell I want and you know what, I'm more miserable than I use to be. What I need is to get back into it and surround myself with Christian fellowship; Its a stuggle, its meant to be.


 
Okay, but that still doesn't change that you claimed following leviticus- which I assume is in its entirety- literally is a good idea. In fact it's a dangerously immoral piece of literature.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Why is it that the religious always seem to better sympathize with murderers, theives, and rapists but not law abiding homosexuals, lesbians, and transgenders? Maybe this is way the prison population is almost completely religious. Too many of you sympathizing with murderers and becoming murderers.


 
Well its probably genetic or something. I can't side with a queer because I lack the genetic disposition he has. Now I'm not saying people are born gay, but they are born with factors making them more liable to be gay, say a lack of testosterone or different wiring. Ultimately the individual has the free will to act that way or resist and act the other way.
Its probably a challenge God allowed the person to experience. Say a person is born blind or deaf; thats a challenge they have to overcome.
And it is possible for them to over come that challenge if they want to, sure there'll be slip ups, were human, and we will slip up, but if they want to not be that way bad enough they can overcome it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Here's another example of my raising, "If your too open mined your brains will fall out"
> 
> We got to filter what we take to heart and what we give the time of day. This filtering kind of shows who you are to a point, not fully.
> Some one that accepts everything, in my opinion is an overstuffed brown noser, don't think I've ever met one.
> ...



Alright...starting to lose your props there. 

If you're too opened minded, blah blah blah...But you've openly and wholly admitted you are committed to being close-minded...So you really have no place to throw that proverb around, because you have no intention of being open-minded at all. And again, with the whole "filtering" thing, you're pretty much filtering yourself into a corner with your narrow and closed look on life. 

You are either missing the point, or don't understand that there are levels of maturity and mental prowess to be open minded. You're acting as if it's completely black or white; you are either 100% open to any and all ideals, or 100% closed to any and all ideals. 

This small glimpse into your mind is rather scary and intriguing, and I don't mean that to be as offensive as it sounds, but you...must be really interesting in the head.

(I also think there's an addition to the proverb, something along the lines of: "But if you're too close-minded, you miss the world around you" or something.")


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

The stoning of the people was a punishment, meant to condition the society to avoid those choices.  Furthermore Leviticus is an old testament book, its rules apply but punishment has been over ridden by Jesus's sacrifice. That doesn't mean go do whatever the hell you want because its covered. 
I you accept Jesus into your heart, you admit your faults and realize that nothing you could ever do would allow you to escape the punishment of hell except his love for your soul.
Being Christian means to stride to be Christ like. Not a single person is close to that, but the difference is the desire to try to be.
You can't work your way into heaven or buy your way, no amount of good deeds earns your place there, just your acceptance of his love.

But its in between you and God, only you can choose for this to apply to ya. I can't say I'm trying my best right now, but I want to.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Alright...starting to lose your props there.
> 
> If you're too opened minded, blah blah blah...But you've openly and wholly admitted you are committed to being close-minded...So you really have no place to throw that proverb around, because you have no intention of being open-minded at all. And again, with the whole "filtering" thing, you're pretty much filtering yourself into a corner with your narrow and closed look on life.
> 
> ...



XD ya I'm a nut I know, I like my simple little corner. Further into my psychotic-ness:  http://noblethorne.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24#/d34aolh
Theres more where that came from. I'm not offended, its good to talk about this stuff helps spread ideas and what not, practice for future debates.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm not offended, its good to talk about this stuff helps spread ideas and what not, practice for future debates.


 
You're actually the last person that anyone would want to debate with. You started with "I'm not changing my mind", that means the debate is over; unless you're simply arguing as Jesus's advocate or some shit, which wouldn't make much sense.

However your ideas and beliefs are extremely narrow, to the point that you actually ostracize yourself from ones you would hope would agree with you. Even some of the zaniest Christians would probably side more with Atheists than you, it seems like.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

XD ain't that the truth, well it use to be. I haven't talked with many people in college just me and my roomates. Most of my self ostracize-ation went on in highshool.
Well my roomates can stand me.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The stoning of the people was a punishment, meant to condition the society to avoid those choices.  Furthermore Leviticus is an old testament book, its rules apply but punishment has been over ridden by Jesus's sacrifice. That doesn't mean go do whatever the hell you want because its covered.



But you just said you follow Leviticus literally. 9_6 Trying to wiggle out of it with the whole redemption thing doesn't mean that the punishments prescribed in it weren't totally irationally out of proportion both then and now.

Regardless, I'm going to chalk this up to you not knowing what "literal" means.



NobleThorne said:


> I you accept Jesus into your heart, you admit your faults and realize that nothing you could ever do would allow you to escape the punishment of hell except his love for your soul.


 
The entire concept of the whole "Died on the cross" thing is entirely, and completely, morally bankrupt. Human sacrifice is not a grounds for an entire religion.


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Well It gets that way sometimes, God gave us reason for a reason.
> 
> Why should I not lay with my sister in law, hmmm perhaps it would piss off my brother and it would cause unnecessary family strains.
> 
> ...



The wife thing is then on a personal level, not spiritual.

And don't you 'drink blood' every time you go to church?  Decrying then advocating cannibalism in the same breath; never sat well with me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Alrighty, I am back. Been busy while faf was down. Been really busy on FA. Lets clear some things up. I have said it before though. There are 3 types of laws in Leviticus. God's Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law, and Social Law. Let me give clear examples of how this works. God's Moral Law-God says He doesn't like something, He finds in detestable or an abomination. He says these things with no punishment attached to it. An example would be Thou Shall not Murder. Thats part of God's Moral law because it reveals His Character to us. His character does not change. The Social side of the law is when God puts a punishment on it. If a man murders another man he is to be stoned to death. Or if 2 people commit adultery they are to be stoned to death. Thats the social law. God says these things are wrong (His moral law) Here is what society (Ancient Israel) is supposed to do when people break God's Moral law. Now the ceremonial laws, an example of that is when God talks about food. All those laws, saying what animal is clean and unclean, all thats trying to say is, you must approach God a certain way.

To further my point on the ceremonial laws here you go:
Colossians 2:16-23

*Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with  regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.* *These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.*   Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of  angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about  what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their  unspiritual mind. They  have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported  and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to  grow.   Since you  died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why,  as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:  â€œDo not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!â€?   These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to  perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their  self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of  the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 


The social laws were how Israel was supposed to regulate itself. The same way we today have laws like, don't murder. Thats part of morality. Its wrong. The social side of it though, is the punishment. Whether that be prison or the death sentence. So when God says he finds something detestable or an abomination, that reveals His character to us. He doesn't like these things. It shows us kind of how He feels about things. When there is punishment attached to it, thats the social part of the law. For now you went against God's moral law, which is going against God Himself. This is how Ancient Israel was supposed to deal with it.

But now that Christ has come. He fulfilled the law (Social and Ceremonial) Through Christ's blood we can be forgiven of all things. And when God looks down at us, He sees us through the blood of Christ. He was the final sacrifice needed to atone for our sins. So the ceremonial laws were also fulfilled. Neither the social laws nor the ceremonial laws were carried through the New Testament. And that is because Christ Jesus came. He fulfilled those laws. Thats not saying we can just throw them out though. Because we can look to why these laws were written. What was God telling these people. The reason behind those laws. And the reason, that still applies to Christians today.


----------



## LindsayPL (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm atheist definitely. I lost my faith some years ago seeing, how are priests in Polish church. If they believe in God, they should do what they do for God's love, not for money. Priests in every Sunday are talking how God love us, then they want to give them as much money, as people can give. In many churchs, mainly in the villages this is very stupid - people, who haven't got money for buying bread themself are giving the last money for priest. What is more annoying is that priest on the end of mass say, who gave money and how much. Sorry, but believing in God shouldn't be paying huge amounts for priests.

One day I noticed that everything what is told in church is a great lie. Church was created for make people fool, for controle them and earn money in easy way. Come on, until IV or V age, Church hadn't believed that Jesus was son of God, only prophet. Now nobody will believe in what I say, because this religion have too many years for being lost. But this is the truth. In other case, please answer me for example for that: if God flooded world being wrong for some people and destroyed one city, because they didn't believed in him, why he didn't do anything during II World War? Or now in Korea? Or why Africans, who believe in God veeery strong (Like Europeans in middle ages) are still hungry? This have no sense. 

For not to being misunderstanded - I am a very tolerant person and I haven't got nothing to that you're believing in God, Mahomet or what do you believe in. I understand that humans need to believe that is somebody, who created and control world and is something after die. Only I can't understand, why people can't see that they're used by priests to earn money in easy way.

By the way about dead - I think that after die is next life or we are repeated our life again (Some buddhist monks believe in that), so after die I can be the same person I'm now and I can write that post here again and again. But I hope that after die is next life.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> But you just said you follow Leviticus literally. 9_6 Trying to wiggle out of it with the whole redemption thing doesn't mean that the punishments prescribed in it weren't totally irationally out of proportion both then and now.
> 
> Regardless, I'm going to chalk this up to you not knowing what "literal" means.
> 
> ...



What I mean by literal, I don't try to twist the words around to destroy the original message to suit my needs.

Example: Leviticus 18:22 Man shall not lay with another man like man lays with woman for it is an abomination. 
People could twist this around and say it only applies to men and not women. Others could twist this around and say it has nothing to do with sex.
I take it literal, no same sex intercourse.


----------



## SANDMAN78308 (Jan 9, 2011)

I was brought up on religion, I had a mostly Christian family, with the exception of my mother. As I was growing up my grandmother always (and still does unfortunately) try to coax me into religion, when I was young and naive (at like, 12) I was apparently "saved" by Benny Hinn (or however you spell the fuckers name) and ever since then...Nothings changed.
I have been "saved" several times after, by popular Christian elitist cocksuckers like Pastor Chris and such, but again, nothing changes, and believing that some sort of powerful force rules over and judges us in death is rather admittedly, stupid.
I mean yeah sure I DO believe in some other life than ours but not something like a "God" or a "Jesus"
Of course I could be wrong, there could be a Jesus after all and science may be wrong, no one fucking knows, but in my own words and eyes, God, or any other sort of old cunt in the sky for that matter, does not exists.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

SANDMAN78308 said:


> I was brought up on religion, I had a mostly Christian family, with the exception of my mother. As I was growing up my grandmother always (and still does unfortunately) try to coax me into religion, when I was young and naive (at like, 12) I was apparently "saved" by Benny Hinn (or however you spell the fuckers name) and ever since then...Nothings changed.
> I have been "saved" several times after, by popular Christian elitist cocksuckers like Pastor Chris and such, but again, nothing changes, and believing that some sort of powerful force rules over and judges us in death is rather admittedly, stupid.
> I mean yeah sure I DO believe in some other life than ours but not something like a "God" or a "Jesus"
> Of course I could be wrong, there could be a Jesus after all and science may be wrong, no one fucking knows, but in my own words and eyes, God, or any other sort of old cunt in the sky for that matter, does not exists.


 
Well those preachers of your past are just men, they can't save you. They can lead you to water but they can't make you drink. They can't save you, only Jesus can, and you just need to accept his offer of salvation.

But you've receded from the idea of God and salvation and that's your right to do so. Its all about free will.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

And Rukh is back to interpret the Bible for us :v hurrrr


----------



## SANDMAN78308 (Jan 9, 2011)

Bible is easy to interpret.

Follow us or spend eternity in damnation and sadness.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh, care to address how logic demands a disbelief in deities?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Example: Leviticus 18:22 Man shall not lay with another man like man lays with woman for it is an abomination.
> People could twist this around and say it only applies to men and not women. Others could twist this around and say it has nothing to do with sex.
> I take it literal, no same sex intercourse.


 
Well technically, the KJV doesn't need any twisting. I dunno which version you're using, but KJV says:

" 22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

One could assume _man_, but it doesn't actually state that. If a man lies with another man, then it's gay, and an abomination.

But if a woman lies with a man, like she would with a woman, than straightness is an abomination. 83 The Bible actually promotes lesbianism, or else.

Either way, it doesn't actually explicitly state sex. My commentary is simply joking at the ever-conflicting Bible :B

Even later in the Bible in Cor. I think, people again try to rail it against Homosexuals, but the KJV never states homosexuality/gay/etc. in whatever that Cor passage is.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And Rukh is back to interpret the Bible for us :v hurrrr


 
And I love how you completely ignored what I said in my other post. If you have a different opinion, then state it. Thats what this thread is for. Instead the only thing you come up with its "Rukh is back." How about responding to what I said instead. Because otherwise it looks like you can't find a fault in what I said about the laws in Leviticus.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Rukh, care to address how logic demands a disbelief in deities?


 
Logically I say it demand a belief in God. Read C.S Lewis's works. (not talking about his narnia books) Former profest aithiest who uses logic to come to the conclusion that God exists. He puts up a much better argument than I ever could.

Here is a couple quotes from C.S Lewis. I really suggest you read his books if you want a full logical debate.

_My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and  unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not  call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was  I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole  show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was  supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction  against it?...  Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by  saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that,  then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on  saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen  to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God  did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -  I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my  idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no  meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning:  just  as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures  with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without  meaning. 

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents.  It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the  splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of  how the jug was made and why it was upset. _

_I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a  whirl of contradictions.  I maintained that God did not exist.  I was  also very angry with God for not existing.  I was equally angry with Him  for creating a world. _

_A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation  means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation  know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five  minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.  That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness.  They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. _

_If you ask why we should obey God, in the last resort the answer is, 'I am.'
To know God is to know that our obedience is due to Him. _


But seriously go read some of his books. Here is a list to start with.
Miracles
The Problem of Pain
The Weight of Glory
The Great Divorce


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I love how you completely ignored what I said in my other post.



You act as if you haven't done this a dozen times in this thread.

Also: C.S.Lewis is referring to major events in the universe as "accidents". He screams fundie Christian, regardless of his background.


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But seriously go read some of his books. Here is a list to start with.
> Miracles
> The Problem of Pain
> The Weight of Glory
> The Great Divorce



Oh boy, a reading list!  Alright, I have a few for you.

Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson
On The Origin of the Species, by your worst enemy
Any high school science book


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> What I mean by literal, I don't try to twist the words around to destroy the original message to suit my needs.
> 
> Example: Leviticus 18:22 Man shall not lay with another man like man lays with woman for it is an abomination.
> People could twist this around and say it only applies to men and not women. Others could twist this around and say it has nothing to do with sex.
> I take it literal, no same sex intercourse.


 Uh, the literal WORD FOR WORD reading of that doesn't really say anything about sex. It just says "man lay with another man." Lay can mean a few things, and I think it was a more recent phenomenon that it means "to have sex with." OED says the 1900's is when that came about. I read that and think "a man cannot sleep (next to, not with) another man" but a man can sleep (next to, not with) with a woman"

And it all really boils down to one thing: The Bible says a lot of things, just not clearly.

@Rukh

I've read _The Problem of Pain_ and while some of his logic works, most of it is spotty at best. I like what he tries to do, but in the end, I couldn't agree with most of it. I do like and respect C.S. Lewis though; I'm even taking a literature class devoted to him this next semester. Lots of reading there!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

[FONT=&quot]





Lastdirewolf said:


> You act as if you haven't done this a dozen times in this thread.
> 
> Also: C.S.Lewis is referring to major events in the universe as "accidents". He screams fundie Christian, regardless of his background.




C.S Lewis states that because atheism states that everything was an accident. Go read his works. He does a much better job than I could of arguing using logic.


Here is an expert from the book Miracles.
Chapter 2: The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist.

I used to word miracle to mean an interface with Nature by supernatural power. Unless there exists, in addition to Nature, something else which we may call the supernatural, there can be no miracles. Some people believe that nothing exists except Nature; I call these people Nauralists. Others think that, besides Nature, there exists something else: I call them Supernaturalists. Our first question, therefore is, is whether Naturalists or Supernaturalists are right. And here comes our first difficulty. Before the Naturalist and Supernaturalist can begin to discus their difference of opinion, they must surely have an agreed definition of Nature and of Supernature. But unfortunately this is almost impossible to get such a definition. Just because the Naturalist thinks that nothing but Nature exists, the word Nature means merely everything or the whole show or whatever there is. And if that is what we mean by Nature, then of course nothing else exists. The real question between him and the Supernaturalist has evaded us. Some philosophers have defined Nature as what we perceive with out five senses. But this is also unsatisfactory; for we do not perceive our own emotions in that way, and yet they are presumably "Natural" events. In order to avoid this deadlock and to discover what the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist are really differing about, we must approach our problem in a more roundabout way. [/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]I begin by considering the following sentences (1) Are those his natural teeth or a set? (2) The dog in his natural state is covered with fleas. (3) I love to get away from  tilled lands and metalled roads and be alone with Nature.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot](4) Do be natural. Why are you so affected? (5) It may have been wrong to kiss her but it was very natural.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]A common thread of meaning in all these usages can easily be discovered. The natural teeth are those which grow in the mouth; we do not have to design them, make them, or fit them. The dog's natural state is the one he will be in if no one takes soap and water and prevents it. The countryside where Nature reigns supreme is the one where soil, weather and vegetation produce their results unhelped and unimpeded by man. Natural behaviour is the behaviour which people would exhibit if they were not at pains to alter it. The natural kiss is the kiss which will be given if moral or prudential considerations do not intervene. In all the examples Nature means what happens 'of itself or 'of its own accord': what you do not need to labour for; what you will get if you take no measures to stop it. The Greek word for Nature (Physis) is connected with the Greek verb for 'to grow'; Latin _Natura_, with the verb 'to be born'. The Natural is what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord: the given, what is there already: the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]What the Naturalist believes is that the ultimate Fact, the thing you canâ€™t go behind, is a vast process in space [8] and time which is _going on of its own accord._  Inside that total system every particular event (such as your sitting reading this book) happens because some other event has happened; in the long run, because the Total Event is happening.  Each particular thing (such as this page) is what it is because other things are what they are; and so, eventually, because the whole system is what it is.  All the things and events are so completely interlocked that no one of them can claim the slightest independence from the â€˜the whole showâ€™.  None of them exists â€˜on its ownâ€™ or â€˜goes on its ownâ€™ or â€˜behavior of its own accordâ€™ which belongs â€˜Natureâ€™ (the great total interlocked event) as a whole.  Thus no thoroughgoing Naturalist believes in free will: for free will would mean that human beings have the power of independent action, the power of doing something more or other than what was involved by the total series of events.  And any such separate power of originating events is what the Naturalist denies. Spontaneity, originality, action â€˜on its ownâ€™, is a privilege reserved for the â€˜whole showâ€™, which he calls _Nature_.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]The Supernaturalist agrees with the Naturalist that there must be something which exists in its own right; some basic Fact whose existence it would be nonsensical  to try to explain because this Fact is itself the ground or starting-point of all explanations. But he does not identify this Fact with 'the whole show'. He thinks that things fall into two classes. In the first class we find either things or (more probably) One Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In the second we find things which are merely derivative from that One Thing.  The one basic Thing has caused all the other things to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists. They will cease to exist if it ever ceases to maintain them in existence; they will be altered if it ever alters them.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]The difference between the two views might be expressed by saying that Naturalism gives us a democratic, Supernaturalism a monarchical, picture of reality. The Naturalist thinks that the privilege of 'being on its own' resides in the total mass of things, just as in a democracy sovereignty resides in the whole mass of the people. The Supernaturalist thinks that this privilege belongs to some things or (more probably) One Thing and not to others--just as, in a real monarchy, the king has sovereignty and the people have not. And just as, in a democracy, all citizens are equal, so for the Naturalist one thing or event is as good as another, in the sense that they are all equally dependent on the total system of things. Indeed each of them is only the way in which the [10] character of that total system exhibits itself at a particular point in space and time. The Supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes that the one original or self-existent thing is on a different level from, and more important than, all other things.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]At this point a suspicion may occur that Supernaturalism first arose from reading into the universe the structure of monarchical societies. But then of course it may with equal reason be suspected that Naturalism has arisen from reading into it the structure of modern democracies. The two suspicions thus cancel out and give us no help in deciding which theory is more likely to be true. They do indeed remind us that Supernaturalism is the characteristic philosophy of a monarchical age and Naturalism of a democratic, in the sense that Supernaturalism, even if false, would have been believed by the great mass of unthinking people four hundred years ago, just as Naturalism, even it false, will be believed by the great mass of unthinking people today.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]Everyone will have seen that the One Self-existent Thing--or the small class of self-existent things--in which Supernaturalists believe, is what we call God or the gods.  I propose for the rest of this book to treat only that form of Supernaturalism which believes in one God; [11] partly because polytheism is not likely to be a live issue for most of my readers, and partly because those who believed in many gods very seldom, in fact, regarded their gods as creators of the universe and as self-existent.  The gods of Greece were not really supernatural in the strict sense which I am giving to the word. They were products of the total system of things and included within it. This introduces an important distinction.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in a God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling 'God' arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms. A Naturalist would[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]not object to that sort of God. The reason is this. Such a God would not stand outside Nature or the total system, would not be existing 'on his own'. It would still be 'the whole show' which was the basic Fact, and such a God would merely be one of the things (even if he were the most interesting) which the basic Fact contained.  What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]We are now in a position to state the difference between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist despite the fact that they do not mean the same by the word Nature. The Naturalist believes that a great process, of 'becoming', exists 'on its own' in space and time, and that nothing else exists-what we call particular things and events being only the parts into which we analyse the great process or the shapes which that process takes at given moments and given points in space. This single, total reality he calls Nature. The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature. It may, or may not, be the only reality which the one Primary Thing has produced. There might be other systems in addition to the one we call Nature.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]In that sense there might be several 'Natures'. This conception must be kept quite distinct from what is commonly called 'plurality of worlds'--i.e. different solar systems or different galaxies, 'island universes' existing in widely separated parts of a single space and time.  These, however remote, would be parts of the same Nature as our own sun: it and they would be interlocked by being in relations to one another, spatial and temporal relations  and casual relations as well. And it is just this reciprocal interlocking within a system which makes it what we call a Nature. Other Natures might not be spatio-temporal at all: or, if any of them were, their space and time would have no spatial or temporal relation to ours. It is just this discontinuity, this failure of interlocking, which would justify us in calling them different Natures. This does not mean that there would be absolutely no relation between[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]them; they would be related by their common derivation from a single Supernatural source. They would, in this respect, be like different novels by a single author; the events in one story have no relation to the events in[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]another except that they are invented by the same author. To find the relation between them you must go right back to the author's mind: there is no cutting across from anything Mr Pickwick says in _Pickwick Papers_ to anything Mrs Gamp hears in _Martin Chuzzlewit_. Similarly there would be no normal cutting across from an event in one Nature to an event in any other. By a 'normal' relation I mean one which occurs in virtue of the character of the two systems.  We have to put in the qualification â€˜normalâ€™ because we do not know in advance that God might not bring two Natures into partial contact at some particular point: that is, He might allow _selected_ events in the one to produce results in the other.  There would thus be, at certain points, a partial interlocking; but this would not turn the two Natures into one, for the total reciprocity which makes a Nature would still be lacking, and the anomalous interlockings would arise not from what either system was in itself but from the Divine act which was bringing them together. If this occurred each of the two Natures would be 'supernatural' in relation to the other: but the fact of their contact would be supernatural in a more absolute sense--not as being beyond this or that Nature but beyond any and every Nature. It would be one kind of miracle. The other kind would be Divine 'interference' not by the bringing together of two Natures, but simply.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]All this is, at present purely speculative. It by no means follows from Supernaturalism that Miracles of any sort do in fact occur. God (the primary thing) may never in fact interfere with the natural system He has created. If He has created more natural systems than one. He may never cause them to impinge on one another.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]But that is a question for further consideration. If we decide that Nature is not the only thing there is, then we cannot say in advance whether she is safe from miracles or not.  There are things outside her: we do not yet know whether they can get in.  The gates may be barred, or they may not.  But if Naturalism is true, then we do know in advance that miracles are impossible: nothing can come into Nature from the outside because there is nothing outside to come in. Nature being everything. No doubt, events which we in our ignorance should mistake for miracles might occur: but they would in reality be (just like the commonest events) an inevitable result of the character of the whole system.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]Our first choice, therefore, must be between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
  I really suggest you read this book.

I made the text smaller because I posted an entire chapter of the book. So it wouldn't take up as much room.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> C.S Lewis states that because atheism states that everything was an accident. Go read his works. He does a much better job than I could of arguing using logic.


 
If this is true, then C.S. Lewis is wrong, and if you follow them, I can see where you get some of your opinions on.

Atheism doesn't state anything. The fact that they're trying to argue with logic, and then gloss over the most important detail of the topic at hand; makes the whole thing silly, or someone isn't telling everything that needs to be said :v


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Conker said:


> Uh, the literal WORD FOR WORD reading of that doesn't really say anything about sex. It just says "man lay with another man." Lay can mean a few things, and I think it was a more recent phenomenon that it means "to have sex with." OED says the 1900's is when that came about. I read that and think "a man cannot sleep (next to, not with) another man" but a man can sleep (next to, not with) with a woman"
> 
> And it all really boils down to one thing: The Bible says a lot of things, just not clearly.
> 
> ...


 
Got to think though which interpenetration seems the most likely, an atheist friend of mine said that law was probably meant to keep people making babies and increasing the population. I can see his side. To take a more scientific look, what purpose does homosexuality serve; it doesn't add members to the population.
Lets do an experiment, we have three islands that are self sustaining and we populate those islands with people of different demographics. The people placed on these islands aren't allowed to leave and no new people are allowed to come to the islands.
the first island has gay men, the second island has gay women, and the third island has a 50/50 population of hetero men and women.
In three hundred years, which island will still have people on it?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Got to think though which interpenetration seems the most likely, an atheist friend of mine said that law was probably meant to keep people making babies and increasing the population. I can see his side. To take a more scientific look, what purpose does homosexuality serve; it doesn't add members to the population.


 
So we go back to that age-old argument, that if they can't reproduce, then they shouldn't ...(or shan't exist? Or what)? I know you're a literal-ist, but you've got to think about what you're saying before you say it. 

Most children cannot reproduce, many old people can't reproduce, many regular'ol joes and janes can't reproduce - What shall we do with them all, mmh?

Take them to your island example.

The island thing is also so subjective it's not even funny. What if 5% of the population of women and men only capable of reproducing, so then the other 95% of the island dies out without ever reproducing :v or some other radical story where the population ends up dwindling into nothingness. You'd end up with some Garden of Eden shit. Especially if they're a lot of children!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So we go back to that age-old argument, that if they can't reproduce, then they shouldn't ...(or shan't exist? Or what)? I know you're a literal-ist, but you've got to think about what you're saying before you say it.
> 
> Most children cannot reproduce, many old people can't reproduce, many regular'ol joes and janes can't reproduce - What shall we do with them all, mmh?
> 
> ...


 
Dude, he is posting a legitimate Scientific experiment. Take out all the other variables like he said, and answer the question. A true scientific experiment on something removes all the variables to answer the question. Just like he did. Your evading the question by posting up a bunch of what ifs.


----------



## Browder (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Dude, he is posting a legitimate Scientific experiment. Take out all the other variables like he said, and answer the question. A true scientific experiment on something removes all the variables to answer the question. Just like he did. Your evading the question by posting up a bunch of what ifs.


 
From a strictly biological perspective he's correct. In order to have kids you need to a populace of both men and women. Nobody is disputing that. That does not however make homosexuality morally wrong.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Browder said:


> From a strictly biological perspective he's correct. In order to have kids you need to a populace of both men and women. Nobody is disputing that. That does not however make homosexuality morally wrong.


 
But Scientifically speaking, what purpose does homosexuality serve? Thats the question he is asking I believe.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Dude, he is posting a legitimate Scientific experiment. Take out all the other variables like he said, and answer the question. A true scientific experiment on something removes all the variables to answer the question. Just like he did. Your evading the question by posting up a bunch of what ifs.


 
He's not posting a legit Scientific experiment, and he never said to remove the variables. He said: " Lets do an experiment, we have three islands that are self sustaining  and we populate those islands with people of different demographics. The  people placed on these islands aren't allowed to leave and no new  people are allowed to come to the islands.
the first island has gay men, the second island has gay women, and the  third island has a 50/50 population of hetero men and women.
In three hundred years, which island will still have people on it?                         ". 

Nowhere in there does it say "remove all variables". 
Just because they're hetero, doesn't mean they can reproduce. Doesn't mean they aren't too young or too old, too crippled, infertile, or simply incompatible with one another. And overall, the experiment doesn't prove anything other than if a man and woman bang unprotected - That there are high chances of them repopulating.

Even if everything went right, the "legitimate scientific experiment" he proposed doesn't offer us any information we can use, and above all else, doesn't give any reason why men shouldn't bang other men. What scientific purpose do homosexuality serve? I didn't think a sexual orientation could serve a purpose beyond deciding what gender turns a person on, but if we're talking about gay sex - It doesn't _need_ to serve a scientific purpose. 

Although it does serve as pleasure, amirite?

Either way, if he's trying to get at that homosexuality is inherently useless or an abomination, there's still nothing scientific backing it.


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> [FONT=&quot]
> 
> 
> C.S Lewis states that because atheism states that everything was an accident. Go read his works. He does a much better job than I could of arguing using logic.


 The only thing that could remotely be argued is that the Universes' creation was an accident. Everything else is the product of evolution which DOES NOT RELY ON ACCIDENTS! It is no accident that those who are better and stronger reproduce more and pass their genes on. 

But I want to know why it's so wrong if the world is the product of an accident. So what? Why does that diminish life at all? 



> Got to think though which interpenetration seems the most likely, an  atheist friend of mine said that law was probably meant to keep people  making babies and increasing the population.


You said literal, I went with literal word for word. The words "sex" "fucking" and "intercourse" are not used. The author uses "lay" which has multiple definitions, but the definition associated with having sex didn't become popular until the 1900s. 

The fact that were having this argument, it seems to me, shows why the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, word for word. Because it's unclear.


----------



## Deo (Jan 9, 2011)

Ahaha ha. Rukh, furry drama finall took notice of your assinine flailing. You are now listed among other greats like EbonLupus and Abailaigh.


----------



## Browder (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But Scientifically speaking, what purpose does homosexuality serve? Thats the question he is asking I believe.


 
People have postulated that it might be used to build social bonds between members of a community by studying bonobos but I'm not a biologist or a socialogist so I couldn't tell you.

But it's fun. And it helps you get in touch with the person you love so I don't see what value a scientific perspective has.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Conker said:


> The only thing that could remotely be argued is that the Universes' creation was an accident. Everything else is the product of evolution which DOES NOT RELY ON ACCIDENTS! It is no accident that those who are better and stronger reproduce more and pass their genes on.
> 
> But I want to know why it's so wrong if the world is the product of an accident. So what? Why does that diminish life at all?



Okay and what was the product of evolution then? You're saying its a accident, then logically, an accident can't have a purpose. Because it was an accident. If the universe was caused by an accident, that means everything that came after is a accident. So how is one accident (Human thoughts, morality) better than someone else's accidental thoughts. Its not if everything is an accident.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents."

C.S Lewis


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Okay and what was the product of evolution then? You're saying its a accident, then logically, an accident can't have a purpose. Because it was an accident. If the universe was caused by an accident, that means everything that came after is a accident. So how is one accident (Human thoughts, morality) better than someone else's accidental thoughts. Its not if everything is an accident.
> 
> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents."
> 
> C.S Lewis


I wasn't around when the Universe formed or when life started to sprout on the Earth, I don't know how either happened, accident or not. But, evolution is not an accident. Everything after that point are not accidents. Everything after that is adaptation and reproduction. 

But I think it's a slippery slope argument to go "if point A was an accident then everything ever must be accidents to" just because one thing was doesn't mean everything else is. 

And for all we know, the Universes' creation wasn't an accident, but the work of some natural cosmic forces that we know nothing of yet. 

But, even if everything is based off of accidents, so what? Why does that diminish the beauty of the world or the fullness of life? Why can a life only be worth living if there's some skyman in the clouds watching you live it?


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Okay and what was the product of evolution then? You're saying its a accident, then logically, an accident can't have a purpose. Because it was an accident. If the universe was caused by an accident, that means everything that came after is a accident. So how is one accident (Human thoughts, morality) better than someone else's accidental thoughts. Its not if everything is an accident.
> 
> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents."
> 
> C.S Lewis



Paraphrased:  "I read something nifty while the forums were down and now it's my obsession/only argument towards my cause."

What is it about not knowing everything that makes you so damn frightened, Rukh?  Why is it that you have to have a definite answer for every single little thing about this world?  Can't you just take anything in stride, or is having an imagination and wondering what we haven't seen yet a mark of the devil?


----------



## Browder (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Okay and what was the product of evolution then? You're saying its a accident, then logically, an accident can't have a purpose. Because it was an accident. If the universe was caused by an accident, that means everything that came after is a accident. So how is one accident (Human thoughts, morality) better than someone else's accidental thoughts. Its not if everything is an accident.
> 
> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents."
> 
> C.S Lewis


 
Yes. That's the point. One person sense of morality isn't inherently better then another persons sense of morality.  I believe certain things are right or wrong only because other people have convinced me that they are right or wrong.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Conker said:


> I wasn't around when the Universe formed or when life started to sprout on the Earth, I don't know how either happened, accident or not. But, evolution is not an accident. Everything after that point are not accidents. Everything after that is adaptation and reproduction.
> 
> But I think it's a slippery slope argument to go "if point A was an accident then everything ever must be accidents to" just because one thing was doesn't mean everything else is.
> 
> ...



If the universe was an accident, then how is everything after it not an accident?

And how does that dimish life? It means no one is special, not one life is something unique because we are all accidents. There is no meaning to life because everything in the past, present and future are all accidents. An example of this is "That child is not yours, it was just accidentally yours, and that day the baby was born means aboluetely nothing because you getting pregnant is an accident."

_"If there is no God_, then all that exists is time and chance  acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your  thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a  bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz  atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold  to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of  chemical reactionsâ€¦  â€¦ Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally  evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical  reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night  before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical  epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have  no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call  reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call  morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly  water. And nothing else."

Douglas Wilson

In other words, if life is nothing but an accident, then there is no meaning to life. Everything means nothing. No ones thoughts are better than anyone else's. No ones actions are better than anyone else's. There is no moral right and wrong because we can't assign truth to anything because everything is an accident.


----------



## Browder (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In other words, if life is nothing but an accident, then there is no meaning to life. Everything means nothing. No ones thoughts are better than anyone else's. No ones actions are better than anyone else's. There is no moral right and wrong because we can't assign truth to anything because everything is an accident.



*Yes. Exactly*. Why is this so horrifying?


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If the universe was an accident, then how is everything after it not an accident?
> 
> And how does that dimish life? It means no one is special, not one life is something unique because we are all accidents. There is no meaning to life because everything in the past, present and future are all accidents. An example of this is "That child is not yours, it was just accidentally yours, and that day the baby was born means aboluetely nothing because you getting pregnant is an accident."
> 
> ...


 
Yeah.  That's why there's the whole "life is what we make of it, not what someone else tells us to" thing going on.  It's called being a human.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So we go back to that age-old argument, that if they can't reproduce, then they shouldn't ...(or shan't exist? Or what)? I know you're a literal-ist, but you've got to think about what you're saying before you say it.
> 
> Most children cannot reproduce, many old people can't reproduce, many regular'ol joes and janes can't reproduce - What shall we do with them all, mmh?
> 
> ...


 
Or maybe every one would be killed by polar bears and the smoke monster! XD 

I came up with the island analogy after read Mark Twain's The Dammed Human Race.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Or maybe every one would be killed by polar bears and the smoke monster! XD
> 
> I came up with the island analogy after read Mark Twain's The Dammed Human Race.


 
Oi, this is painful.

But I do like you more than Rukh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 9, 2011)

Browder said:


> *Yes. Exactly*. Why is this so horrifying?


 


Riley said:


> Yeah.  That's why there's the whole "life is what we make of it, not what someone else tells us to" thing going on.  It's called being a human.


 

How is that a reason to live? You mean absolutely nothing. And life is meaningless. If this is true, than you mean nothing. You are not special, or unique or anything for that matter. And what you do in life means nothing. You have no hope is what is sounds like. Why live?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Oi, this is painful.
> 
> But I do like you more than Rukh.



Damn I miss LOST,

Maybe someone will come around and do a similar series involving the midwest, get some ancient Anasazi mystery going on, some government experiments, maybe aliens, It could be good if done by the right people.


----------



## Riley (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is that a reason to live? You mean absolutely nothing. And life is meaningless. If this is true, than you mean nothing. You are not special, or unique or anything for that matter. And what you do in life means nothing. You have no hope is what is sounds like. Why live?


 
Because I'm not scared of what might happen if I don't have some snuggly security blanket to fall back on when I do something wrong.

Life is right now; I have things that I want to do.  I give myself purpose because that's why we're sapient creatures.  We can think for ourselves, and make our own lives, but your religion wants to get rid of that.  It wants us to live as scared, weak animals, deferring to some invisible entity you made up to rule over us.  Your life has less meaning than mine, following your rules - all you can do is wait around 80 or so years to see if you made it into some magical club.  I get to live a life my way and enjoy myself, 'cause I don't have a mystical McGuffin glaring at me every time I'm not grovelling at the feet of some old guy in white robes.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Riley said:


> Because I'm not scared of what might happen if I don't have some snuggly security blanket to fall back on when I do something wrong.
> 
> Life is right now; I have things that I want to do.  I give myself purpose because that's why we're sapient creatures.  We can think for ourselves, and make our own lives, but your religion wants to get rid of that.  It wants us to live as scared, weak animals, deferring to some invisible entity you made up to rule over us.  Your life has less meaning than mine, following your rules - all you can do is wait around 80 or so years to see if you made it into some magical club.  I get to live a life my way and enjoy myself, 'cause I don't have a mystical McGuffin glaring at me every time I'm not grovelling at the feet of some old guy in white robes.



Religion isn't meant to be a security blanket, its meant to be a lifestyle, and I fail myself everyday, part of being human.
Christianity differs abit, In my opinion, those that claim Christianity should not be ritualistic and mindless worshipers. It isn't meant to be a religion, its meant to be a personal relationship between God and the individual.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 9, 2011)

I thought about the personal relationship with God, and I'm just going to have to tell him "no".  It just doesn't sound at all like a healthy, satisfying, fulfilling relationship.

1. God is omnipresent.  That means he can watch my every activity.  And honestly, that's just a little bit creepy...
2. He has some serious jealousy issues.  I mean just look at the First Commandment.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
3. He thinks he's all knowing and is unwilling to accept that he makes mistakes.
4. He is so narcassistic that he wrote a book about himself, why and how everyone should worship him.
5. He had his son killed.
6. He is incredibly restrictive, telling people how to live their lives.  I don't want someone like that in mine.
7. He claims to be loving but destroys cities in fires, floods the world when people don't act like he wants them to, and severely punishes the couple Adam and Eve for a minor offense.
8. I'm not attracted to him and also can't have sex with him.

God has some serious issues to work out before I can love him.


----------



## Browder (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is that a reason to live? You mean absolutely nothing. And life is meaningless. If this is true, than you mean nothing. You are not special, or unique or anything for that matter. And what you do in life means nothing. You have no hope is what is sounds like. Why live?


 
My life has meaning to me. That's all that matters.


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If the universe was an accident, then how is everything after it not an accident?


I don't see why everything after it has to be an accident. Even if creation is an accident, living doesn't have to be. People live with their own purposes and for their own desires and reasons. Isn't it the law of entropy that says something like chaos tries to become ordered? Or is that the other way around? Or is that something completely different? I don't particularly give a fuck. The point is that just because this thing starts in chaos doesn't mean it wants to find some semblance of order. 

Better idea. The universe is made up of laws. The formation of these laws might have been an accident (for the sake of discussion), but now that they are in place, everything has to operate under them. The operations aren't necessarily accidental because they are operating by universal laws. 

Uh. Point is, I don't agree with that assertion :V How's that? 


> In other words, if life is nothing but an accident, then there is no meaning to life. Everything means nothing. No ones thoughts are better than anyone else's. No ones actions are better than anyone else's. There is no moral right and wrong because we can't assign truth to anything because everything is an accident.


 I fail to see why that's a bad thing. Honestly, I find it freeing and invigorating. Life is what you make it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Ahaha ha. Rukh, furry drama finall took notice of your assinine flailing. You are now listed among other greats like EbonLupus and Abailaigh.


 
Link please?


Also Rukh, don't forget you have to read and sign this document before you're allowed further discussion time.
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg

Otherwise it's pointless. Same goes for you, NobleThorne


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Link please?
> 
> 
> Also Rukh, don't forget you have to read and sign this document before you're allowed further discussion time.
> ...


 
What you talking about Willis?  You lost me.


----------



## 2112 (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The stoning of the people was a punishment, meant to condition the society to avoid those choices. Furthermore Leviticus is an old testament book, its rules apply but punishment has been over ridden by Jesus's sacrifice. That doesn't mean go do whatever the hell you want because its covered.
> I you accept Jesus into your heart, you admit your faults and realize that nothing you could ever do would allow you to escape the punishment of hell except his love for your soul.
> Being Christian means to stride to be Christ like. Not a single person is close to that, but the difference is the desire to try to be.
> You can't work your way into heaven or buy your way, no amount of good deeds earns your place there, just your acceptance of his love.
> ...



Now, I'm not a religious person, but I think that this was both well-needed and well-stated.  Of course, I would expect punishment to be far more brutal before we ourselves invented laws; as a new species, we would have to "test the waters" somehow, so to speak.  I like that you noted that in your religion, while faults are covered, they are not condoned.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

2112 said:


> Now, I'm not a religious person, but I think that this was both well-needed and well-stated.  Of course, I would expect punishment to be far more brutal before we ourselves invented laws; as a new species, we would have to "test the waters" somehow, so to speak.  I like that you noted that in your religion, while faults are covered, they are not condoned.


 
 Thanks for being understanding.


----------



## 2112 (Jan 9, 2011)

Enwon said:


> I thought about the personal relationship with God, and I'm just going to have to tell him "no". It just doesn't sound at all like a healthy, satisfying, fulfilling relationship.
> 
> 1. God is omnipresent. That means he can watch my every activity. And honestly, that's just a little bit creepy...
> 2. He has some serious jealousy issues. I mean just look at the First Commandment. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
> ...



Sorry to possibly double-post, but this was great.  It reminded me of my other religious point I posted last night.  Supposedly, envy and coveting are two frowned-upon practices, yet God states that "[He] is a jealous God".  To me, it seemed a bit hypocriticial.  Too many discrepancies.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> What you talking about Willis?  You lost me.



 It's a really easy flowchart. I'm sure you can get through it somehow.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's a really easy flowchart. I'm sure you can get through it somehow.




Hmmm, still lost, I think your getting at that you feel I'm ill-rational; Well have you seen what comes out of my head? 
http://noblethorne.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=48#/d32y23r

Well for improving myself, please give me an example and I'll either justify it or admit my irrationality.....maybe.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 9, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Alrighty, I am back. Been busy while faf was down. Been really busy on FA. Lets clear some things up. I have said it before though. There are 3 types of laws in Leviticus. God's Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law, and Social Law. Let me give clear examples of how this works. God's Moral Law-God says He doesn't like something, He finds in detestable or an abomination. He says these things with no punishment attached to it. An example would be Thou Shall not Murder. Thats part of God's Moral law because it reveals His Character to us. His character does not change. The Social side of the law is when God puts a punishment on it. If a man murders another man he is to be stoned to death. Or if 2 people commit adultery they are to be stoned to death. Thats the social law. God says these things are wrong (His moral law) Here is what society (Ancient Israel) is supposed to do when people break God's Moral law. Now the ceremonial laws, an example of that is when God talks about food. All those laws, saying what animal is clean and unclean, all thats trying to say is, you must approach God a certain way.
> 
> To further my point on the ceremonial laws here you go:
> Colossians 2:16-23
> ...


 So how is it all if it's only partial? PRETTY SURE that Leviticus is not applicable to Christians.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> So how is it all if it's only partial? PRETTY SURE that Leviticus is not applicable to Christians.


 
Maybe your right, since an abomination is something God hates, they wouldn't be christians even if they claimed to be.

But God loves everyone, the drunks, the Pope, the gays, the killers, the politicians, the lawyers, the devil worshipers, and the every day person.
His love saves you, but you have to accept it, its a two way ordeal, it can't all be onesided.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hmmm, still lost, I think your getting at that you feel I'm ill-rational; Well have you seen what comes out of my head?
> http://noblethorne.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=48#/d32y23r
> 
> Well for improving myself, please give me an example and I'll either justify it or admit my irrationality.....maybe.


 
Hmm. You remind me a lot of Roose. Are you autistic? Or underage? Either way admitting that you're not mentally well isn't exactly beneficial to these sorts of debates.



NobleThorne said:


> Maybe your right, since an abomination is something God hates, they wouldn't be christians even if they claimed to be.
> 
> But God loves everyone, the drunks, the Pope, the gays, the killers, the politicians, the lawyers, the devil worshipers, and the every day person.
> His love saves you, but you have to accept it, its a two way ordeal, it can't all be onesided.


 
So much so that he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself for rules he himself set up. 9_6

If you're going to worship a mythical being, you should at least follow one that makes some lick of sense.


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hmmm, still lost, I think your getting at that you feel I'm ill-rational; Well have you seen what comes out of my head?
> http://noblethorne.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=48#/d32y23r
> 
> Well for improving myself, please give me an example and I'll either justify it or admit my irrationality.....maybe.


 Just so ya know, pulling the "I might be insane" card isn't a good counterargument when someone says something against your logic. It's more of a "don't pay attention to me" argument.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Conker said:


> Just so ya know, pulling the "I might be insane" card isn't a good counterargument when someone says something against your logic. It's more of a "don't pay attention to me" argument.


 
Ah I'm kidding around, he posted that he found a eerie but intrigued interest into my mind. I'm not really a mental nut, just a comical one.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Hmm. You remind me a lot of Roose. Are you autistic? Or underage? Either way admitting that you're not mentally well isn't exactly beneficial to these sorts of debates.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Nah, your kind of twisting things around abit; you been reading that Golden Compass shit? More like he's offering a way out from something we deserve: Damnation.
Hell isn't meant for people, its purpose was punishment for those who go against him.


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Nah, your kind of twisting things around abit; you been reading that *Golden Compass shit*? More like he's offering a way out from something we deserve: Damnation.
> Hell isn't meant for people, its purpose was punishment for those who go against him.


 Way to invalidate anything you'll ever say in this thread ever.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 9, 2011)

Conker said:


> Way to invalidate anything you'll ever say in this thread ever.


 
How so? I don't believe I've contradicted myself.


----------



## Riley (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> offering a way out from something we deserve: Damnation.





> Hell isn't meant for people, its purpose was punishment for those who go against him.



???

It's something we deserve, but it's not made for us?  The fuck?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Riley said:


> ???
> 
> It's something we deserve, but it's not made for us?  The fuck?



I know man, its a head trip; its in the good book, Hell was made for Satan and the fallen angels; God doesn't want us to go there, but he'll let us if we choose to.


----------



## Riley (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I know man, its a head trip; its in the good book, Hell was made for Satan and the fallen angels; God doesn't want us to go there, but he'll let us if we choose to.


 
It's hardly a head trip, it's just poor writing.  

Besides, everyone knows that Hel was just the chick that went down to the Underworld to keep Hades company after he got assigned to rule down there.  In essence, anyway.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Riley said:


> It's hardly a head trip, it's just poor writing.
> 
> Besides, everyone knows that Hel was just the chick that went down to the Underworld to keep Hades company after he got assigned to rule down there.  In essence, anyway.


 
Well your entitled to think that, I don't agree with ya but whatever. If there is bad writing in the Bible its due to the many translations it went through, and meaning twisting.
Ya I got a simple but odd example.
At the last supper Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, theres a difference between the King James Version and the the New King James Version.
One says he did so before supper and the other says he did so during supper. Kind of weird, but it doesn't make a difference, the point of that passage was that Jesus was modeling humbleness for his disciples.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Well your entitled to think that, I don't agree with ya but whatever. If there is bad writing in the Bible its due to the many translations it went through, and meaning twisting.
> Ya I got a simple but odd example.
> At the last supper Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, theres a difference between the King James Version and the the New King James Version.
> One says he did so before supper and the other says he did so during supper. Kind of weird, but it doesn't make a difference, the point of that passage was that Jesus was modeling humbleness for his disciples.


 
I think more than one person can attribute that to piss poor writing, and mistranslations, but just your example there shows that a lot of things can be wrong with the Bible, and it's inherently fallible across the board - Which is worrisome.

If something as simple as "before" and "during" can get mixed up (or whatever the ye olde Englishe equiv),  imagen the _major_ things that could get flip-flopped, rotated, or have a completely different meaning. I remember another example being Paul or John or someone was trading silver pieces? Or something, for...something. The exact details I can't recall, but there were similar mistakes, except some Bibles say before X happened, Y paid Z, P amount of money. Some Bibles say after X happened, y paid Z, _H_ amount of money. The actual amount paid, or when it was paid, may not matter per se, but the fact that there are differences throws up several red flags.

It, again, is down to the little problems, but people still claim it's 100% 'Truth" (with a capital T), yet they can't provide a good enough reason to say those little problems can't also be major problems :v


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> But *God loves* everyone, the drunks, the Pope, the gays, the killers, the politicians, the lawyers, the devil worshipers, and the every day person.
> His love saves you, but you have to accept it, its a two way ordeal, it can't all be onesided.


 
Ironically you worship the Pagan god of war.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I think more than one person can attribute that to piss poor writing, and mistranslations, but just your example there shows that a lot of things can be wrong with the Bible, and it's inherently fallible across the board - Which is worrisome.
> 
> If something as simple as "before" and "during" can get mixed up (or whatever the ye olde Englishe equiv),  imagen the _major_ things that could get flip-flopped, rotated, or have a completely different meaning. I remember another example being Paul or John or someone was trading silver pieces? Or something, for...something. The exact details I can't recall, but there were similar mistakes, except some Bibles say before X happened, Y paid Z, P amount of money. Some Bibles say after X happened, y paid Z, _H_ amount of money. The actual amount paid, or when it was paid, may not matter per se, but the fact that there are differences throws up several red flags.
> 
> It, again, is down to the little problems, but people still claim it's 100% 'Truth" (with a capital T), yet they can't provide a good enough reason to say those little problems can't also be major problems :v


 
Not to mention how simple _misprints_ like omitting the word "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" prove that the so-called "inerrant" Bible isn't actually immune to mistakes. As Lastdirewolf points out, what _other_ hereto undiscovered mistakes might exist?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Ironically you worship the Pagan god of war.


 Not so, I have a personal relationship with the creator, I'm meant to live my live as an example of his truths. I fail at this every day, not a single person can do this with success.

As for violence, ya violence was necessary during the times of the old testament, Jesus's sacrifice changed that.

Christians shouldn't be violent people, the world makes people violent, the attraction to sin.
Lets look at the Amish, do you see them killing anyone for not agreeing with them?
In fact they actually embraced a person that gunned down their loved children in one case. Thats the kind of love we should display to our fellow man. That guy that went shooting in a Amish school, he was forgiven by the Amish, even the parents of the slaughtered children. Why? Cause that's the kind of love God has for us all, you can be the most evil satanist or the most Generous Evangelist, he loves them all the same. Sometimes we can compare this love to the love a father has for his wayward son. The father disapproves of the son's actions and choices, and he may be saddened by those choices, but he still loves his son. (and as far as earthly fathers go, this can't be the case for everyone, cause even dad's screw up).


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention how simple _misprints_ like omitting the word "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" prove that the so-called "inerrant" Bible isn't actually immune to mistakes. As Lastdirewolf points out, what _other_ hereto undiscovered mistakes might exist?


 
I was actually going to mention that, but saw you scouting down there, and knew you wouldn't resist the open invitation xD


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Not so, I have a personal relationship with the creator, I'm meant to live my live as an example of his truths. I fail at this every day, not a single person can do this with success.
> 
> As for violence, ya violence was necessary during the times of the old testament, Jesus's sacrifice changed that.
> 
> ...


 
Yahweh, your lord (Isaiah 42:8), is essentially the Pagan god of War, or at least was a few millennium ago.. At least before Deuteronomy was conveniently "found" in whatever BCE, making Yahweh the only God (giving birth the monotheism).


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

oh no, an overpowerd, internet fueled religion thread.... dare i step into the tides of this stream?


*step*

i don't have the time, nor patience to read all 91 pages, but i'll just dive in with a statement and move from there. I'm Pagan, and i quite enjoy my religion. i meditate and practice within circles at my 'church' over here in afghanistan, i celebrate pagan holidays, and i also love pie(idk, i always add it to the end of long lists...).

in my own oppinion though, i don't care what someone else practices or believes most of the time, so long as they are decent people, i think they will be fine in the end... or tasty to worms, whoever turns out right haha.

the only people that i found very upsetting are the hardcore christians in the tent next to mine, they argued with me that if someone doesn't accept jesus, they are going to hell. no matter how good they are they will burn, even the jews who believe in god but not jesus, burning. i found that a very stubborn and sad oppinion, no matter how much i pointed out the evil flaw in that, they still chanted jesus and burning ppl. how merciful is someone like that if even the nicest, most helpful, peaceful, running out of burning buildings with 7 unconscious orphans saving, person in the world... so long as they don't accept jesus, they go to hell.  ........WAT?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Ah I'm kidding around, he posted that he found a eerie but intrigued interest into my mind. I'm not really a mental nut, just a comical one.


 
No, No I did not. I posted a simple flowchart. Also, you're becoming more Rooselike as time goes on. This is not a good thing.



NobleThorne said:


> Nah, your kind of twisting things around abit; you been reading that Golden Compass shit? More like he's offering a way out from something we deserve: Damnation.
> Hell isn't meant for people, its purpose was punishment for those who go against him.


 
What? I'm twisting nothing, that's exactly the situation. Your deity is apparently so developmentally stunted that unconditional love is apparently completely foreign to him. Any deity that requires human sacrifice for anything is one who does not deserve worship.

But we're putting the cart before the horse here, since this deity hasn't even been proved to exist yet.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> But we're putting the cart before the horse here, since this deity hasn't even been proved to exist yet.


 
no it has not, but humans need something to have faith in regardless, it's nature. hell even atheists BELIEVE that there is no god, they have FAITH in that fact. to have undying faith in something allows you to have some strength no matter what the situation. so it's a nice security blanket

and hey, it's warm under here


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> no it has not, but humans need something to have faith in regardless, it's nature. hell even atheists BELIEVE that there is no god, they have FAITH in that fact. to have undying faith in something allows you to have some strength no matter what the situation. so it's a nice security blanket
> 
> and hey, it's warm under here


Do you have faith that leprechauns will not eat you while you sleep? Faith is belief without evidence.

Now, I'm not saying I'm faithless, but to say I need faith not to believe in something is ridiculous: You can not prove something _doesn't_ exist. If there's no proof or evidence something has happened or will happen, there's no faith necessary to claim it won't happen.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Do you have faith that leprechauns will not eat you while you sleep? Faith is belief without evidence.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I'm faithless, but to say I need faith not to believe in something is ridiculous: You can not prove something _doesn't_ exist. If there's no proof or evidence something has happened or will happen, there's no faith necessary to claim it won't happen.


 
your oppinion is double-sided. in terminology, you have placed it wrong. no one can prove that these religions DON'T exist, so to firmly believe they don't exist without evidence, that is the faith you defined.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> your oppinion is double-sided.


It's called a definition for those of us still in North America.



Kitsune_Morric said:


> in terminology, you have placed it wrong. no one can prove that these religions DON'T exist, so to firmly believe they don't exist without evidence, that is the faith you defined.


Not quite, things that happen or exist leave behind evidence of the event or existence. The lack of evidence isn't quite proof that God or Gods don't exist, but it leaves us no reason to believe in the first place. Though, if you want to word play "does not believe in" and "believe this doesn't," or "I don't have faith in" and "I have faith this doesn't," then whatever.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> hell even atheists BELIEVE that there is no god, they have FAITH in that fact.



Err, no. Atheists don't believe god or gods exist.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Err, no. Atheists don't believe god or gods exist.


 
that's exactly what i said, just worded differently



Airborne_Piggy said:


> Not quite, things that happen or exist leave behind evidence of the event or existence. The lack of evidence isn't quite proof that God or Gods don't exist, but it leaves us no reason to believe in the first place. Though, if you want to word play "does not believe in" and "believe this doesn't," or "I don't have faith in" and "I have faith this doesn't," then whatever.



no, you misunderstand me, the original statement is that people need something to firmly belive in, or have 'faith' in their oppinion. much like religious people have 'faith' in their god/gods/diety, atheists have 'faith' in the fact that god/gods don't exist. so in short, people need something to be affirmed of


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Lets do an experiment, we have three islands that are self sustaining and we populate those islands with people of different demographics. The people placed on these islands aren't allowed to leave and no new people are allowed to come to the islands.
> the first island has gay men, the second island has gay women, and the third island has a 50/50 population of hetero men and women.
> In three hundred years, which island will still have people on it?


 
What if the first island has straight men, and the second straight women? Is the result any different?



Kitsune_Morric said:


> atheists have 'faith' in the fact that god/gods don't exist.



I don't have faith that god does not exist.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What if the first island has straight men, and the second straight women? Is the result any different?


 
with that theory, maybe some of them would turn haha

idk, i see nothing wrong with people being whatever sexuality they want


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

I got to share a story with you guys.
I live in New Mexico, and there is a city called Las Cruces. This is really funny, 2 atheist dudes moved into the city and then tried to sue the city. The reason, the city was full of crosses, public buildings, parks, the newspaper, and other things displayed crosses. These 2 atheists claimed that the crosses were offensive, so they were suing for money and to get the crosses removed. To their surprise the city court denied their case; why? Well these 2 atheists allowed their ignorance to  show, they didn't know that Las Cruces means the crosses in Spanish. The cross is a city symbol in Las Cruces, and is only a religious symbol for the many denominations living their.
Its like I'm going to move to Spaghetti Monster town, and I'm going to sue the town because there are depictions of the spaghetti Monster through out the town.
Its human to be ignorant.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I got to share a story with you guys.
> I live in New Mexico, and there is a city called Las Cruces. This is really funny, 2 atheist dudes moved into the city and then tried to sue the city. The reason, the city was full of crosses, public buildings, parks, the newspaper, and other things displayed crosses. These 2 atheists claimed that the crosses were offensive, so they were suing for money and to get the crosses removed. To their surprise the city court denied their case; why? Well these 2 atheists allowed their ignorance to  show, they didn't know that Las Cruces means the crosses in Spanish. The cross is a city symbol in Las Cruces, and is only a religious symbol for the many denominations living their.
> Its like I'm going to move to Spaghetti Monster town, and I'm going to sue the town because there are depictions of the spaghetti Monster through out the town.
> Its human to be ignorant.



I'm an atheist and even I think it's stupid. What's next, are they going to sue Rio de Janeiro for the Cristo Redentor statue?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 10, 2011)

And the moral of the story is..?


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

gotta agree with that one, but the flying spaghetti monster? how DARE you even speak the name without embellishing it's saucy glory!


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

We are all human, and both sides are capable of ignorance or rationality. I admit at times Christians can be really irrational, *raises hand guilty as charged*; atheists and other denominations are also equally so. Yet we all are also capable of being rational too.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> We are all human, and both sides are capable of ignorance or rationality. I admit at times Christians can be really irrational, *raises hand guilty as charged*; atheists and other denominations are also equally so. Yet we all are also capable of being rational too.


 
it's what we do, especially with politics and religion, argue with eachother's oppinion firmly believing we are right when nobody fully is


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What if the first island has straight men, and the second straight women? Is the result any different?
> 
> .


Yup the result would be a population of zero on the islands.
See Male needs Female; In biological thinking, one isn't any good with out the other.

Here's a clever analogy my brother and I came up with when we were in highschool

two keys don't open a door, two key holes don't open a door either.
It takes a key and a key hole to open a door, and even then they need to be made for eachother.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Yup the result would be a population of the islands.
> See Male needs Female; In biological thinking, one isn't any good with out the other.


 
yeah but in the theory weren't the islands not permitted to interact, nor leave their islands?

and we as a species will continue to reproduce, whether or not there are people who have different sexualities. besides, some straight people are unable to anyways


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> no, you misunderstand me, the original  statement is that people need something to firmly belive in, or have  'faith' in their oppinion. much like religious people have 'faith' in  their god/gods/diety, atheists have 'faith' in the fact that god/gods  don't exist. so in short, people need something to be affirmed  of


 
I think you are misunderstanding atheism. Atheism is not the assertion  that God/gods doesn't exist, it's just the doubt of it. They think "I  don't know if God exists or not, so it seems silly to buy into it until  it's proven." Unless you're saying that Atheists BELIEVE in LACK OF FAITH, which is a pretty thick(bad) argument to make.



NobleThorne said:


> Yup the result would be a population of zero on the islands.
> See Male needs Female; In biological thinking, one isn't any good with out the other.



Nah, he was saying that instead of gay women on an island, it's straight women (but still no men.) This points out that the test is entirely pointless as a study regarding sexuality. This might even point out benefits to homosexuality, as an island of only straight women are just going to entirely lack the pleasure of sex.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

Hey NobleThorne, I've got a story too.

Once there was a Church. The Church. And it started a fight with the Muslims who lived in what the Church deemed as it's land (ie the so called Holy Land). So they sent thousands child soldiers their to fight their battle for them and the children died before they were death marched there and forced to fight for a land that wasn't theirs and a belief system they were too young to understand fully. The end.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> your oppinion is double-sided. in terminology, you have placed it wrong. no one can prove that these religions DON'T exist, so to firmly believe they don't exist without evidence, that is the faith you defined.


 
Except atheists do not "firmly believe".  We disbelieve in God because he is unnecessary to explain anything in the universe, and thus exceedingly unlikely to actually exist, per Occam's Razor.  We operate on DOUBT, not faith.



NobleThorne said:


> I got to share a story with you guys.
> I live in New Mexico, and there is a city called Las Cruces. This is really funny, 2 atheist dudes moved into the city and then tried to sue the city. The reason, the city was full of crosses, public buildings, parks, the newspaper, and other things displayed crosses. These 2 atheists claimed that the crosses were offensive, so they were suing for money and to get the crosses removed. To their surprise the city court denied their case; why? Well these 2 atheists allowed their ignorance to  show, they didn't know that Las Cruces means the crosses in Spanish. The cross is a city symbol in Las Cruces, and is only a religious symbol for the many denominations living their.
> Its like I'm going to move to Spaghetti Monster town, and I'm going to sue the town because there are depictions of the spaghetti Monster through out the town.
> Its human to be ignorant.



I googled this, and the plaintiff is actually Jewish.  It's sorta funny how anyone trying to enforce the First Amendment magically becomes an atheist in Christian-land.  His side of the story is here.  A brief summary: The origin of of the town's name is disputed (he contends that it originally "The Crossroads", not "The Crosses") and that the planting of crosses on city property everywhere and their adoption into the city's official logo that appears on all city documents were part of a recent proselytizing effort by local churches.



NobleThorne said:


> We are all human, and both sides are capable of ignorance or rationality. I admit at times Christians can be really irrational, *raises hand guilty as charged*; atheists and other denominations are also equally so. Yet we all are also capable of being rational too.


 
Unjustified equivalency attempt detected.

Technically, yes, anyone supporting any position can do so irrationally, as any conclusion, true or false, can be reached through faulty reasoning.  But rationality is the big draw behind atheism; we're not just a bunch of people really hoping that we get to rot in the ground after we die.  Logic demands a disbelief in gods, thus, we disbelieve.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I googled this, and the plaintiff is actually Jewish. It's sorta funny how anyone trying to enforce the First Amendment magically becomes an atheist in Christian-land. His side of the story is here. A brief summary: The origin of of the town's name is disputed (he contends that it originally "The Crossroads", not "The Crosses") and that the planting of crosses on city property everywhere and their adoption into the city's official logo that appears on all city documents were part of a recent proselytizing effort by local churches.



But Thorne would rather frollic in fallacy than look up those pesky facts.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Hey NobleThorne, I've got a story too.
> 
> Once there was a Church. The Church. And it started a fight with the Muslims who lived in what the Church deemed as it's land (ie the so called Holy Land). So they sent thousands child soldiers their to fight their battle for them and the children died before they were death marched there and forced to fight for a land that wasn't theirs and a belief system they were too young to understand fully. The end.



Thats a good story, I don't know if the child soldier part is legit, but it should be noted that the head of that church was a European man greedy for land and power. The Crusades was a mistake, a Human error.

Similar story: In ancient China, the country was ruled by Buddhist Monasteries. There was a number of monasteries and they took turns ruling, changing leadership about every 7 years. Well in this story, the leadership was about to change; a power hungry monastery desired control of the region, but they would have to wait till the next change in leadership. Well that wasn't okay with them, so the warrior monks of that monastery attacked the monastery that was coming into power. The attacking monks killed their Buddhist brothers, leaving no one of that monastery left. Because of this, the power hungry monastery ended up leading the region.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Thats a good story, I don't know if the child soldier part is legit,


Why the fuck would I say it if it's not correct? So it's ok to send thousands of children to die for rligion, but my goodness a Jew suing a city is not a HORRIBLE ATHIEST ATTACK ON RELIGION!



> Similar story: In ancient China, the country was ruled by Buddhist Monasteries. There was a number of monasteries and they took turns ruling, changing leadership about every 7 years. Well in this story, the leadership was about to change; a power hungry monastery desired control of the region, but they would have to wait till the next change in leadership. Well that wasn't okay with them, so the warrior monks of that monastery attacked the monastery that was coming into power. The attacking monks killed their Buddhist brothers, leaving no one of that monastery left. Because of this, the power hungry monastery ended up leading the region.


That is not similar. It's also vague as fuck and no googling finds it. I CALL BULLSHIT.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Except atheists do not "firmly believe".  We disbelieve in God because he is unnecessary to explain anything in the universe, and thus exceedingly unlikely to actually exist, per Occam's Razor.  We operate on DOUBT, not faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Good job on the research, I was just going off what the newspaper said. Regardless, people shouldn't get butt hurt about things like that, plus they shouldn't sue for money to alleviate their butt hurting. Another origin of the name of Las Cruces, the Spanish Conquistadors crucified a bunch of Indians there, pretty sad.
Yet another origin, Priests of the Las Cruces Mission re-enacted the crucifixion of Jesus. The re-enactments required the person portraying Jesus to actually have nails driven into their feet and hands. They would then hang on a cross for the passover, and it was all voluntary. Things changed, though a good part survived their portrayal, a few didn't, so they stopped the nailing and replaced the nails with ropes. This too was to harsh, because dehydration was a danger. This practice has died out, but its legacy remains. Crazy Catholics.

All this is attributed to human error, not the error of what Christianity is meant to be.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Crazy Catholics.



Firt it's the kooky Suit Happy Atheists now it's Crazy Catholics.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Why the fuck would I say it if it's not correct? So it's ok to send thousands of children to die for rligion, but my goodness a Jew suing a city is not a HORRIBLE ATHIEST ATTACK ON RELIGION!
> 
> 
> That is not similar. It's also vague as fuck and no googling finds it. I CALL BULLSHIT.



Hmmm, You know what, my bad. I ran into an article containing this information about 6 years ago and I used it in a religion study. I tried to google it as well, I can't find the article I saw 6 years ago. Well I can't use that no more.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Firt it's the kooky Suit Happy Atheists now it's Crazy Catholics.


  Well They are Crazy Christians; the during the 17th century a majority of the Spanish priests that came to New Mexico came to New Mexico with the desire to become martyrs. They actually sought to be killed by the native population. This was a factor of the 1680 Pueblo Revolt.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> that's exactly what i said, just worded differently



No, what I said, and what you said are two different things. 

'I believe god doesn't exist' is a positive statement, and would likely require me to prove it.

"I do not believe a god exists" is a negative statement, and both cannot be proven, but also does not require me to do so. 

Flipping that sentence around makes all the difference.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Good job on the research, I was just going off what the newspaper said. Regardless, people shouldn't get butt hurt about things like that, plus they shouldn't sue for money to alleviate their butt hurting. Another origin of the name of Las Cruces.


 
People don't just sue for money, they also sue for results.  Cases like these rarely seek monetary damages beyond legal fees, they just want the First Amendment enforced.


----------



## Azure (Jan 10, 2011)

Dear apologist christians,  we don't want an apology, we want you to stop being so fucking dumb.


----------



## LupineLove (Jan 10, 2011)

Thank you, you posted my exact thought.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hmmm, You know what, my bad. I ran into an article containing this information about 6 years ago and I used it in a religion study. I tried to google it as well, I can't find the article I saw 6 years ago. Well I can't use that no more.



No you can't. No making shit up that "you read six years ago" or that "a friend read" or shit lik ethat.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> No you can't. No making shit up that "you read six years ago" or that "a friend read" or shit lik ethat.


 I wasn't making anything up, it was an article I read. But the point I was making its the human factor that makes a religion violent, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists, have acted violently in the past, and still today display acts of violence.

As for you Children Crusades, these did not involve 2 year olds in diapers or even 8 year olds. These Children Crusade involved boys of adolescents, considered young men. These Marches were meant to peacefully convert muslims to Christianity. However, many boys were sold into slavery. They weren't soldiers.

Yet there have always been adolescent boys present on the battlefield, mostly in support roles, drummer boy, water boy, arrow boy, and this was common practice for most ancient armies, not just christian ones, muslim armies, and tribal armies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 10, 2011)

Azure said:


> Dear apologist christians,  we don't want an apology, we want you to stop being so fucking dumb.



sig'd


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I wasn't making anything up, it was an article I read. But the point I was making its the human factor that makes a religion violent, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists, have acted violently in the past, and still today display acts of violence.


Atheism is not a religion.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade


Oh look a Wikipedia quote. Surely Wiki is the best place for scholarly answers. Surely no one can edit it to make it fit thier ideaologies.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Atheism is not a religion.


 
Furthermore, nobody has ever turned to violence to spread atheism.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Furthermore, nobody has ever turned to violence to spread atheism.


 But atheist have used violence to remove Christianity and Buddhism, Communism advocates atheism. Bibles were banned from the Soviet Union, people caught smuggling Bibles, disappeared. The Chinese army killed thousands of Buddhists, invaded Tibet and forced the dalai Lama  to run for his life to India.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> But atheist have used violence to remove Christianity and Buddhism, Communism advocates atheism. Bibles were banned from the Soviet Union, people caught smuggling Bibles, disappeared. The Chinese army killed thousands of Buddhists, invaded Tibet and forced the dalai Lama  to run for his life to India.


 
...But they didn't do it /for/ Atheism. As Lobar's point indirectly states.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> sig'd


 
The only thing I apologize for, is Christians not acting Christian, I don't apologize for being judgmental, close-minded, and expressing my beliefs. 
I am sorry that some of you are completely turned off from Christianity due to poor examples of what a Christian should be. 
I do feel a personal sadness when I hear someone doesn't believe in God or his salvation. Its the same kind of sadness felt when you see or read of a mass killing.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> ...But they didn't do it /for/ Atheism. As Lobar's point indirectly states.


 I  don't think that is a valid argument; Atheism is essentially the absence of religion right? Those communist governments used violence to remove religion from their society. That is in a sense spreading atheism.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I  don't think that is a valid argument; Atheism is essentially the absence of religion right? Those communist governments used violence to remove religion from their society. That is in a sense spreading atheism.


 
Communist Russia conficted with religion because it was in the way of spreading their economic and statist ideology, not for the sake of making more atheists in the world.  There's other examples where non-religious entities have clashed with religious entities, but always over unrelated ideologies, never _for_ atheism.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> that's exactly what i said, just worded differently
> 
> 
> 
> no, you misunderstand me, the original statement is that people need something to firmly belive in, or have 'faith' in their oppinion. much like religious people have 'faith' in their god/gods/diety, atheists have 'faith' in the fact that god/gods don't exist. so in short, people need something to be affirmed of


My opinions are based on scientific fact. There is a difference between an opinion, and an informed opinion.


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D7iT2MT00o

You laugh, you lose

Or you rage, you lose. Either works :V


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Conker said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D7iT2MT00o
> 
> You laugh, you lose
> 
> Or you rage, you lose. Either works :V


 
Comical, but the one thing that pisses me off more than overly open gays, is rap music.
Its got corruption capabilities, the negative aspects of it, black people calling each other *******, talking about popping a cap in a cop, slapping around ho's, can't stand that stuff. My brother listens to it, there are other factor, but since he started listening to rap he moved out, started smoking pot, and drinking under the age, blew through 3500 dollars in a  month, was allowed back home, does not appreciate my parents generosity. He mouths off often, he even called my dad a cocksucker, my brother is lucky he still has a head.
I'm the exact opposite of him, I've worked as my dad's welders helper and the job is a tough one. There were times where he acted like a complete asshole and I really wanted to tell him off, but my respect for him prevented that. 

Rap probably isn't the reason my brother is screwed up, but it ain't helping.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Comical, but the one thing that pisses me off more than overly open gays, is rap music.
> Its got corruption capabilities, the negative aspects of it, black people calling each other *******, talking about popping a cap in a cop, slapping around ho's, can't stand that stuff. My brother listens to it, there are other factor, but since he started listening to rap he moved out, started smoking pot, and drinking under the age, blew through 3500 dollars in a  month, was allowed back home, does not appreciate my parents generosity. He mouths off often, he even called my dad a cocksucker, my brother is lucky he still has a head.
> I'm the exact opposite of him, I've worked as my dad's welders helper and the job is a tough one. There were times where he acted like a complete asshole and I really wanted to tell him off, but my respect for him prevented that.
> 
> Rap probably isn't the reason my brother is screwed up, but it ain't helping.


 
You're not helping either...


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Perhaps, 

I think he just needs his ass kicked for opening his mouth, but thats just me.


----------



## Azure (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The only thing I apologize for, is Christians not acting Christian, I don't apologize for being judgmental, close-minded, and expressing my beliefs.
> I am sorry that some of you are completely turned off from Christianity due to poor examples of what a Christian should be.
> I do feel a personal sadness when I hear someone doesn't believe in God or his salvation. Its the same kind of sadness felt when you see or read of a mass killing.


why would you feel sad that I choose to not delude myself? Its kind or like saying you aren't an ardent apologizer, but then apologize anyway, and go on to refuse to apologize for the very things than make atheists hate you. Not that it matters, ill hate you anyway because you have the intellectual skills of a 5 year old.


----------



## Azure (Jan 10, 2011)

And rap does have plenty of things right. Fuck the police, the overly white corrupt government, and the cemetary a ***** get buried on.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I do feel a personal sadness when I hear someone doesn't believe in God or his salvation. Its the same kind of sadness felt when you see or read of a mass killing.


 
haha

oh wow


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Azure said:


> why would you feel sad that I choose to not delude myself? Its kind or like saying you aren't an ardent apologizer, but then apologize anyway, and go on to refuse to apologize for the very things than make atheists hate you. Not that it matters, ill hate you anyway because you have the intellectual skills of a 5 year old.


 
Its wrong to hate but whatever man. Intellectual skills of 5 year old... that makes sense :V NOT!
I'll share with you a cool fact I love,
There is glandular tissue in in your walls of your heart that is activated by overstretching of the walls. The overstretching results from high blood pressure. Well this glandular tissue releases Atrial Natriuretic Hormone which acts on your kidneys. This hormone causes your kidneys to make more urine by removing water from the blood, this lowers your blood pressure. 
In Lame-men's terms theres a gland in your heart that makes you pee more when you've got high blood pressure.

I love Medical shit like that!


----------



## Azure (Jan 10, 2011)

Its never been and never will be wrong to hate, ever. So live it up and start hating in earnest, maybe you'll make up for all those years of being a weak bellied coward who's afraid the man in the clouds will send him to faggy buttsex hell.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The only thing I apologize for, is Christians not acting Christian, I don't apologize for being judgmental, close-minded, and expressing my beliefs.
> _*I am sorry that some of you are completely turned off from Christianity due to poor examples of what a Christian should be. *_
> I do feel a personal sadness when I hear someone doesn't believe in God or his salvation. Its the same kind of sadness felt when you see or read of a mass killing.


 
You apologize for Christians not acting Christian, but not the very things you *should* be apologizing for - Which is turning off people to Christianity, due to being a poor example of what a Christian should be. 

No wait, that's a good thing.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You apologize for Christians not acting Christian, but not the very things you *should* be apologizing for - Which is turning off people to Christianity, due to being a poor example of what a Christian should be.
> 
> No wait, that's a good thing.



that actually is what i said, you must have took it another way, but you re-posted what I was apologizing for.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Azure said:


> Its never been and never will be wrong to hate, ever. So live it up and start hating in earnest, maybe you'll make up for all those years of being a weak bellied coward who's afraid the man in the clouds will send him to faggy buttsex hell.


 
I'm not afraid of my lord that's ridiculous! 
Now man, I put stock in my beliefs for my own benefit, eternal fire doesn't sound fun.
As for homos, I may not like them and I completely disagree with their ways; but they shouldn't be banned from church, how else can they become enlightened that their ways are wrong. Church is made for sinners.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> that actually is what i said, you must have took it another way, but you re-posted what I was apologizing for.


 
You're apologizing for being a poor example of what a Christian should be?



NobleThorne said:


> As  for homos, I may not like them and I completely disagree with their  ways; but they shouldn't be banned from church, how else can they become  enlightened that their ways are wrong. Church is made for  sinners.


 
You are defintely in the wrong fandom, mate.

Also - Church is made for sinners, and Hell is not :v?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2011)

I am still trying to figure out why people think that two consenting males having relations with each other is bad?



NobleThorne said:


> Church is made for sinners.


 
Churches and temples were created to teach people how to be better people by following certain tenets of their religious faith, as a place of worship, and succor to those who need it, not as a punishment because so-and-so is a dirty sinful bastard and loves to take it up the ass.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 10, 2011)

I remember church! I remember how badly I didn't want to be there every single time.

The way I saw it, people had to convince me to like church and they failed at it. If God wanted me there it should feel natural. It only felt like a waste of time, and pro-churcher bullshit sounded really silly even when I was 7.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I remember church! I remember how badly I didn't want to be there every single time.
> 
> The way I saw it, people had to convince me to like church and they failed at it. If God wanted me there it should feel natural. It only felt like a waste of time, and pro-churcher bullshit sounded really silly even when I was 7.


 
When I was a kid, my family went to a Church. The People who volunteered and preached weren't evangelical bastards, and the sermons were more based around "love" and doing good shit instead of "BAWWW FIRE AND BRIMSTONE HELL SATAN JESUS-LOVE ANTI-GAY FAGGOT" preachings.

The Sunday school that they had was more liberal and taught other religions from a non-biased point of view.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 10, 2011)

You know if you have a problem with overpopulation homosexuality can actual benefit a species. It's not science backed by any sort of studies but it's a thought. Mean to post this earlier but forgot.

Also if it's okay to be hostile against openly gay people can I be hostile against openly straight? I'd also like to take the time to state that I am against straight marriage. The divorce rate is too high, and it's not sacred anymore.

Actually screw it, lets ban marriage completely. :V
(If you can't tell I'm not being serious you need your head checked)


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> You know if you have a problem with overpopulation homosexuality can actual benefit a species. It's not science backed by any sort of studies but it's a thought. Mean to post this earlier but forgot.


 
But why do people think that two consenting male adults going "Up the Hershey Highway" is bad, aside from "God sez so DERP"?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But why do people think that two consenting male adults going "Up the Hershey Highway" is bad, aside from "God sez so DERP"?


 
Because it's dangerous to go up a one-way road.  :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But why do people think that two consenting male adults going "Up the Hershey Highway" is bad, aside from "God sez so DERP"?



It's based on disgust I think. Some people simply find the idea disgusting. Then again I find people disgusting who run around making what two consenting adults do behind closed doors their business. As much as I'd love to teleport them into  Minecraft and throw them to a mob of creepers, I can't censor them or stop their mouths flapping based just on disgust. perhaps they should learn the same thing. So what if gay sex disgusts them? Is there anything more appealing about putting a man part into something that looks like a bushy face-hugger? Really?

If the idea of two men falling in love is disgusting well sort is the abuse of marriage...it's not like straight couples are innocent you know?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Because it's dangerous to go up a one-way road.  :V


 
 That dangerous?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That dangerous?


 
That's a WMD.

The gAy-BOMB.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I am still trying to figure out why people think that two consenting males having relations with each other is bad?
> 
> 
> 
> Churches and temples were created to teach people how to be better people by following certain tenets of their religious faith, as a place of worship, and succor to those who need it, not as a punishment because so-and-so is a dirty sinful bastard and loves to take it up the ass.


 

That's what it means, very good of you to know. Its made for sinners, we are all sinners and the purpose of church is for sinners to learn what the word says, as well as a place of fellowship and support; kind of like a support group in which every member tries to overcome their own faults, as well help others through teaching and example.


As for the Homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22; traditional interpenetration of this verse  that same sex intercourse is an abomination. Your interpenetration is between you and God.


----------



## Azure (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm not afraid of my lord that's ridiculous!
> Now man, I put stock in my beliefs for my own benefit, eternal fire doesn't sound fun.
> As for homos, I may not like them and I completely disagree with their ways; but they shouldn't be banned from church, how else can they become enlightened that their ways are wrong. Church is made for sinners.


 Church was made to control people in a social environment, and to build up a dogma that contolled them outside of that environment. Don't you think we've grown up a bit since then?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> As for the Homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22; traditional interpenetration of this verse  that same sex intercourse is an abomination. Your interpenetration is between you and God.


 
So.
It can be interpeted as "no Buttsex".
Because taking it up the ass is an abomination, no matter what gender. :V

But the way that you are saying that the church is for sinners implies that going to church is a punishment, than something that you can go to on a sunday or whatever day.

if people want to learn about their religion or help people learn without the hellfire and Bimstone threats, Knowledge shouldn't be a punishment.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't go to church. I must not be much of a sinner.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So.
> It can be interpeted as "no Buttsex".
> Because taking it up the ass is an abomination, no matter what gender. :V
> 
> ...


 
I fail to see this implication. And not every church does the brimstone threats, thats asinine  assumption.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I don't go to church. I must not be much of a sinner.


That is also an asinine assumption, I don't go to church, and I know I'm a sinner, I fail myself everyday.

Personally I'd like to find a church of level head-ness, I guess I'm looking more for a group, no authority but the Almighty's; lessons are study sessions in which scripture is analyzed and everyone's interpretation is expressed and discussed.
Time is an issue too, and my failure to make the time is a problem of mine.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> That is also an asinine assumption, I don't go to church, and I know sin epically everyday.
> 
> Personally I'd like to find a church of level head-ness, I guess I'm looking more for a group, no authority but the Almighty's; lessons are study sessions in which scripture is analyzed and everyone's interpretation is expressed and discussed.
> Time is an issue too, and my failure to make the time is a problem of mine.


 
Not a religious person here but I do think that there is a lot a person can do when following their own religion without having to have a church to go to. I come from a back-ground of being sent to one church after another as my family moved around. Every single one only added to my deeply rooted personally hatred/mistrust of churches. Living where I live now where nearly every church is a basement church run by corrupt pastors looking to use religion to siphon money from the poor doesn't help. Doesn't help that the 700 club is also one city over. ;/

It's nice if you can find a good, well run church that has level headed people. However attending churches is not necessary in order to be a good person. I personally don't think and cannot believe that a god if it existed would punish people for choosing to worship at home instead of building called a "Church. That's my two cents though. Your home can be your own personal church. You don't need to go to some place once a week to prove your religiousness or what ever you might call it. A so called pastor is no better at "Correctly interpreting text" then the individual person.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I know sin epically everyday.





NobleThorne said:


> sin epically everyday.





NobleThorne said:


> sin epically





NobleThorne said:


> epically


 
You want to know what I know? The proper definition and usage of the word "epic".




NobleThorne said:


> asinine





NobleThorne said:


> asinine


I'm glad you liked the word asinine that I used on the other page. I know you're probably not used to new words that aren't curses. But really, you're over using it buddy.


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Its wrong to hate but whatever man. Intellectual skills of 5 year old... that makes sense :V NOT!
> I'll share with you a cool fact I love,
> There is glandular tissue in in your walls of your heart that is activated by overstretching of the walls. The overstretching results from high blood pressure. Well this glandular tissue releases Atrial Natriuretic Hormone which acts on your kidneys. This hormone causes your kidneys to make more urine by removing water from the blood, this lowers your blood pressure.
> In Lame-men's terms theres a gland in your heart that makes you pee more when you've got high blood pressure.
> ...


Translation: Someone called me out on using poor logical skills. I KNOW! I'll dazzle them with a random medical fact that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. That'll show em I'm not stupid like they say I am!



NobleThorne said:


> I'm not afraid of my lord that's ridiculous!
> Now man, I put stock in my beliefs for my own benefit, eternal fire doesn't sound fun.


I've always been put off by the idea of Hell. It really doesn't make sense that Hell is described as some place of eternal fire and torture where bad people go. It doesn't need to be that extreme, yet it is. It's really nothing more than a scare tactic. Heaven is to be with God, Hell should be the absence of God. You can have the absence of God without needing to burn in flames for eternity. The extremeness of it is just pointless. 



> As for homos, I may not like them and I completely disagree with their ways; but they shouldn't be banned from church, how else can they become enlightened that their ways are wrong. Church is made for sinners.


Well, I'm glad you don't think they should be banned from church. You can still take it in the ass and be a completely moral person. I honestly wish the church would drop all topics of sex. It's not their business to discuss. An old fucker who hasn't been laid in ages shouldn't be able to tell me when and how I can have sex. That's no ones business but my own and whoever I'm having sex with. 

And I don't think homosexuals are wrong for being attracted to the same sex. I don't think its them that needs enlightening, it's the church that does. Too many close minded egotistical morons who think they are right because an old ass book says they are.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Not a religious person here but I do think that there is a lot a person can do when following their own religion without having to have a church to go to. I come from a back-ground of being sent to one church after another as my family moved around. Every single one only added to my deeply rooted personally hatred/mistrust of churches. Living where I live now where nearly every church is a basement church run by corrupt pastors looking to use religion to siphon money from the poor doesn't help. Doesn't help that the 700 club is also one city over. ;/
> 
> It's nice if you can find a good, well run church that has level headed people. However attending churches is not necessary in order to be a good person. I personally don't think and cannot believe that a god if it existed would punish people for choosing to worship at home instead of building called a "Church. That's my two cents though. Your home can be your own personal church. You don't need to go to some place once a week to prove your religiousness or what ever you might call it. A so called pastor is no better at "Correctly interpreting text" then the individual person.


 
Its a good two cents, There isn't a place in the bible where it says that you must go to church, it says to keep the sabbath Holy, and that can be done just about anywhere. And there are a lot of corrupt churches, because they are ran by man. Sorry you've had bad experiences with church, I've had mine as well, mentioned earlier. 

A group would facilitate diverse interpretations, allowing for more than one lesson to be revealed by a studied passage.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

I've got a question Thorne, is 2Kings 2:23-24 morally right in the punishment dealt out?


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Sorry you've had bad experiences with church, I've had mine as well, mentioned earlier.
> 
> A group would facilitate diverse interpretations, allowing for more than one lesson to be revealed by a studied passage.


 I'm confused. Those two sentences, do they follow each other? Was that your bad experience? Or is that last sentence something you wish would happen? 

WTB clarification pl0x


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Conker said:


> Translation:
> And I don't think homosexuals are wrong for being attracted to the same sex. I don't think its them that needs enlightening, it's the church that does. Too many close minded egotistical morons who think they are right because an old ass book says they are.



A worldly view on the subject;

and that book, may have translation problems, but at that there is still truth behind it. Not much else can be interpreted from Leviticus 18:22.
Sure some one can say, oh it means two men should lay right next to eachother, or two men should not be buried together, or they shouldn't sleep in the same be. You got to look for the most likely meaning. Lets verse is a " don't do that " verse, what might God not want you to do, lets look at neighboring verses. Hmmm. the verses neighboring this one deal with sexual perversion such as you shouldn't have sex with an animal and you shouldn't have sex with your sister. I going to guess that the verse is probably telling me not to do something that God considers a sexual perversion and an abomination. Hmmm... man shall not lay with man like man lays with woman for it is an abomination. Oh this is probably telling me not to lay on the same couch that my buddy is laying on. :V Nah, its about sex, and the only sex God has okay-ed is sex between a male and a female. Think about it, if he created us (and I recognize not every one believes this) he knew what he was doing when he put are respective parts in between our legs. It was a gift, for the individuals and the species. 

The gays should go on doing what they do if they want to, but if they claim to be Christian, they should be aware of this verse. And their interpretation is in between them and God.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

My questions never get answered. I am unloved. Where is Rukh? HE always has enough hot air to spare on me.


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> A worldly view on the subject;
> 
> snip


Oh no, I'm sure that verse is talking about sex. But earlier you said "literal translation" and just had the one sentence. Literally word for word, it can be interpreted as other things. Literal =/= logical.

But, let's face it, the universe is a big place with lots of shit going on. I'd like to hope God has more important things to worry about than who someone has sex with.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Think about it, if he created us (and I recognize not every one believes this) he knew what he was doing.


 
*SNRK*

If you are unaware of the multiple major design flaws of the human body, you really should read up on them before opening your mouth.

But honest question, how old are you?


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Think about it, if he created us (and I recognize not every one believes this) he knew what he was doing when he put are respective parts in between our legs. It was a gift, for the individuals and the species.


NONVIABLE BIRTH DEFECTS. I DARE YOU TO GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH THAT WITH THE SAFETY OFF.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> My questions never get answered. I am unloved. Where is Rukh? HE always has enough hot air to spare on me.


 Sorry I had to get a Bible, mines a college, your not unloved, you hate machine. 

I'm glad you shared that verse with me, its been awhile since I've opened a Bible up.

Gosh that's a pretty odd verse; I guess the lesson is don't mock your bald elders.
As for it being a just punishment, probably not; but those kids seemed kind of stupid don't you think. There was forty two of them, surely after the first two kids got mauled, they could have been "Oh shit let's get out of here,". I was reading a bit from this too. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
The kids might have got killed or just mauled, its lost in translation.


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> The kids might have got killed or just mauled, its lost in translation.


 Someone grab that photo of the bear mauling again...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 10, 2011)

Conker said:


> Someone grab that photo of the bear mauling again...


 
What is it with christians thinking that mauling people with bears is perfectly okay if they don't die? It's arguably worse.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> *SNRK*
> 
> If you are unaware of the multiple major design flaws of the human body, you really should read up on them before opening your mouth.
> 
> But honest question, how old are you?



I'm 19, and what flaws are there?

As humans we are designed to break down and age; perhaps it even goes further than that. Maybe as a species we are designed to degrade. 
I kind of got a weird thought in my head.
Theory: Genetic degradation.
Are DNA is biological data,
Looking at a simpler form of data, say a vcr tape, if you copy a show onto tape, and then make a copy of the copy, errors occur, little spots start showing up. Keep making copies of copies and eventually you'll end up with static. 
Perhaps our species and its genetic line is meant to come to an end. 
Look at species that go through generations rapidly, mice, flies, bacteria, the individuals of these species don't have long lifetimes.
Now look at species that struggle or go through generations slowly, whales and tortoises go through generations slowly, and these animals if left alone by man, can live longer than three human lifetimes. 
Now we look at our own species, Adam the first man is claimed to have lived 900 years, and Moses was lived about 500 and 600. Is it possible that millions of human generations from now, the average life span of healthy people is less than 30 years. Its just a thought, some translation mistakes on what Hebrews call years might have caused mistakes; then again they might have not been mistranslated. Its just an Idea I contemplate on now and then.


----------



## Riley (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Think about it, if he created us (and I recognize not every one believes this) he knew what he was doing when he put are respective parts in between our legs. It was a gift, for the individuals and the species.



I had to get all 4 of my wisdom teeth taken out, as many people do, because there isn't enough space in the human mouth for them.  My appendix is sitting near a kidney somewhere, giving me another pound or so of dead weight.  

You know airplanes?  Triple-redundancy built into almost every system, just in case.  The human body?  Stays upright because of two little tendons that are extremely exposed.  Great design, of course.



NobleThorne said:


> Now we look at our own species, Adam the  first man is claimed to have lived 900 years, and Moses was lived about  500 and 600. Is it possible that millions of human generations from now,  the average life span of healthy people is less than 30 years. Its just  a thought, some translation mistakes on what Hebrews call years might  have caused mistakes; then again they might have not been mistranslated.  Its just an Idea I contemplate on now and then.


 
You're kidding, right?  The human lifespan has only been going up in the past few centuries - you know why kings and queens in England married so young in the Middle Ages?  Because they only lived to 40.  It's only been going up since, and the current projected human lifespan is around 90 right now.  This is another instance of the bible being a _fictional_ book and embellishing on details to make it more dramatic.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> What is it with christians thinking that mauling people with bears is perfectly okay if they don't die? It's arguably worse.


I don't think Elisha wielded the bears, God did
 Plus its the old testament, punishment wasn't delayed until death, it was a part of life. Little room for error in those days.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm 19, and what flaws are there?



Nonviable birth defects. The Bible states that god personally creates every child in the womb. Then why if his creations are perfect would he do this? 
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI089.jpg
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI209.jpg
http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/anencephaly-back-of-head.jpg?w=483&h=356
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI208.jpg
http://img.medscape.com/pi/emed/ckb/pediatrics_surgery/933425-934680-2746.jpg
http://www.sonoworld.com/images/Fet...ned_twins_Cuillier/FIG-1--13-SA-C-LONG-JC.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vAxB0_PxM...Tcv30p_BBk/s400/thalidomide-birth-defects.jpg

EDIT: Possibly NSFW or people with weak stomachs {------edited by Trpdwarf


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I don't think Elisha wielded the bears, God did.



God is not just then. And this totally backs up the "If God exists he's an asshole" since bears and now birth defects.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

NSFW tags would have been nice, Deo.  =P


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Riley said:


> I had to get all 4 of my wisdom teeth taken out, as many people do, because there isn't enough space in the human mouth for them.  My appendix is sitting near a kidney somewhere, giving me another pound or so of dead weight.
> 
> You know airplanes?  Triple-redundancy built into almost every system, just in case.  The human body?  Stays upright because of two little tendons that are extremely exposed.  Great design, of course.
> 
> ...


 
The lifespan is going up do to  modern  medicine, this was just a genetic theory I'm not saying its right, just trying to explain the decrease in lifespan from Adam's time to our time. You can't prove the Bible's fictional no more than I can prove that its non-fictional. Neither of knew Adam and how long he lived.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Deovacuus said:


> Nonviable birth defects. The Bible states that god personally creates every child in the womb. Then why if his creations are perfect would he do this?
> http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI089.jpg
> http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI209.jpg
> http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/anencephaly-back-of-head.jpg?w=483&h=356
> ...


 
Pretty sad stuff her Deo, I don't have all the answers, but I don't believe God personally makes every baby, every soul yes, but not every body. I believe as a species we are flaw genetically, due to the initial sin. He allows things to happen he doesn't go out of his way to interfere, anymore. Our life is filled with challenges we are meant to overcome, on an individual level and on a societal level. I don't disagree with test tube babies and Genetic screenings. God gave us a brain to use to get around life's challenges, so if we find a way to prevent birth defects, were doing what we should be doing.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm 19, and what flaws are there?



I'm 12 and what is this?

But seriously, multiple problems with the eyes, joints (especially the knees), and how peoples holes are placed. Breathing/eating and peeing/reproducing from the same holes, among other things.



NobleThorne said:


> As humans we are designed to break down and age; perhaps it even goes further than that. Maybe as a species we are designed to degrade.
> I kind of got a weird thought in my head.
> Theory: Genetic degradation.


 
*Facepalm* Old apologetic line. This is most likely something you went and looked up rather than "Just got in your head". It was common for people in the middle east at the time to honor their ancestors (actual or fabricated) by embellishing how long they lived. The bible simply picked up on that when it subsumed the various individual myths of the area to get its material.



NobleThorne said:


> I'm not saying its right, just trying to explain the decrease in lifespan from Adam's time to our time.



I read this as- "I'm going to present something as fact and then try to backpedal by saying I don't actually believe it when pressed."



NobleThorne said:


> You can't prove the Bible's fictional.


 
Actually? We can prove exactly that.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Furthermore, nobody has ever turned to violence to spread atheism.


 I don't see why that is important. Whether or not violence is used to spread an idea is a personal choice. The choice is "Should I use violence to spread my ideology: y/n?" This choice is not related to the relative merits of religion or atheism. The reason most acts of violence have historically been commuted by the religious is probably because until recently atheists were an extreme minority consisting of more affluent or educated people, not the urban poor. 

Furthermore, it is very difficult to spread the non-belief in something. The only real way to fight _for_ non-belief is to fight _against_ belief. I would personally consider the religious purges of the communists to be fighting "for" atheism because to me fighting for non-belief and fighting against belief are one and the same.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'm 12 and what is this?
> 
> But seriously, multiple problems with the eyes, joints (especially the knees), and how peoples holes are placed. Breathing/eating and peeing/reproducing from the same holes, among other things.
> 
> ...



A theory is not a fact, I didn't present my Idea as something set in  stone and un-debatable. No I gave you an explanation of my own , I never  said I believed it,  Its a theory that I came up with, I can't prove it or disprove it.
And you can't prove the that the Bible is fiction.

And I'm afraid you've been sick since birth, keep up the facepalms maybe it'll knock something into place. :V (and this is kidding around, I don't advocate the hitting of yourself)


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'm 12 and what is this?


You cannot be twelve. How is that possible? Your logic and mental functioning is way too high. No fucking way. I call shenanigans. You are actually a 50 year old religions teacher at a college prep high school. Admit it.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 10, 2011)

About the whole age thing. I've been thinking on that. A while and forever ago I heard that the Earth used to have a faster rotation than it does currently. If that's the case then wouldn't people supposedly living older be true? Since the year would go by faster and they didn't have the 12-month calendar yet (that I know of). So, in theory, the people living 300+ years would be true in their time but in our time (because the Earth supposedly slowing down) they would be the same age as the average old person.

Just a thought...


----------



## Conker (Jan 10, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> And you can't prove the that the Bible is fiction.


 You can prove that certain things within it are fiction.

Long ago the History Channel did an hour long special on Noah's Arc and how completely implausible it is. 

Like, if it actually hardcore rained for over a month, there'd be so much water in the air you would simply drown by breathing. Or how there's not enough water ot even flood the Earth, and if there was, we'd be seeing evidence of it now. That much water doesn't just go away.

Shit like that.


----------



## Deo (Jan 10, 2011)

Conker said:


> You can prove that certain things within it are fiction.
> 
> Long ago the History Channel did an hour long special on Noah's Arc and how completely implausible it is.
> 
> ...



Or genetics. A bottleneck of two species would lead to a horrible fuck up of inbreeding and species extinction within only a few generations.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 11, 2011)

Kommodore said:


> I don't see why that is important. Whether or not violence is used to spread an idea is a personal choice. The choice is "Should I use violence to spread my ideology: y/n?" This choice is not related to the relative merits of religion or atheism. The reason most acts of violence have historically been commuted by the religious is probably because until recently atheists were an extreme minority consisting of more affluent or educated people, not the urban poor.



Religious texts are so vague and subject to interpretation that any time someone says their religious belief lead them to violence, I will have to agree. Lack of proof and clarity is pretty damning for religion.



> Furthermore, it is very difficult to spread the non-belief in something. The only real way to fight _for_ non-belief is to fight _against_ belief. I would personally consider the religious purges of the communists to be fighting "for" atheism because to me fighting for non-belief and fighting against belief are one and the same.


It's called the "Scientific method". Atheists spread that, because that's pretty much the big #1 in their system. There's no need to "fight". Attributing "fighting" and violence to Atheism is to vastly over-complicate what they are doing in such a way as to blame them for what's unrelated. Religious propaganda.


----------



## Riley (Jan 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> You can prove that certain things within it are fiction.
> 
> Long ago the History Channel did an hour long special on Noah's Arc and how completely implausible it is.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, didn't you know about God's Divine Drinking Straw?  Totes legit, dudeguy.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> About the whole age thing. I've been thinking on that. A while and forever ago I heard that the Earth used to have a faster rotation than it does currently. If that's the case then wouldn't people supposedly living older be true? Since the year would go by faster and they didn't have the 12-month calendar yet (that I know of). So, in theory, the people living 300+ years would be true in their time but in our time (because the Earth supposedly slowing down) they would be the same age as the average old person.
> 
> Just a thought...


 
The earth would have to be spinning, what, 10 times faster than it does now 6000 years ago? That means nights and days would be less than 3 hours on average...

Now, replace "Years" in the bible with "Months" and that'd be more realistic. 900 months would be 75- which would be a big deal back then.


----------



## Azure (Jan 11, 2011)

This thread makes me want to sin epically. Pretty sure im well on my way though.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> About the whole age thing. I've been thinking on that. A while and forever ago I heard that the Earth used to have a faster rotation than it does currently. If that's the case then wouldn't people supposedly living older be true? Since the year would go by faster and they didn't have the 12-month calendar yet (that I know of). So, in theory, the people living 300+ years would be true in their time but in our time (because the Earth supposedly slowing down) they would be the same age as the average old person.
> 
> Just a thought...



I've heard this before, and Earth's years grows just a little bit longer each year, we're still slowing down.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> You can prove that certain things within it are fiction.
> 
> Long ago the History Channel did an hour long special on Noah's Arc and how completely implausible it is.
> 
> ...



And I'm sure the History channel is incapable of showing a little bias. Just cause it was  on the history channel doesn't make it true, there is truth there, but it isn't hard to torque things out of context. Perhaps there wasn't enough water to flood the entire planet; there was enough kill off a large population of people, and in such a way that it impacted a person to write about it. There are flood signs in the high mountains, and sea shells and shark teeth have even been found in the Rockies. Could have got there before the Rockies formed, but that would mean a good portion of America was submerged. And how about them whale bones in the Sahara. Could be from the same flood or other floods.

One thing that is a pisser, the rainbow. The rainbow is a symbol of God's promise not to flood the Earth, and the Homosexual community has chosen the rainbow to represent them and their ways. This could be taken as an insult to God, a kind of "we're here and queer" kind of statement. Who knows I'm sure someone will say, "No the gays are too loving to come up with an insult at God,". Bull!


----------



## Conker (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I've hear this before, and Earth's years grows just a little bit longer each year, we're still slowing down.


 I've never heard of this. This phenomenon have a name? It honestly sounds batshit, but so do a lot of other scientific things out there.



> And I'm sure the History channel is incapable of showing a little bias.  Just cause it was  on the history channel doesn't make it true, there is  truth there, but it isn't hard to torque things out of context. Perhaps  there wasn't enough water to flood the entire planet; there was enough  kill off a large population of people, and in such a way that it  impacted a person to write about it. There are flood signs in the high  mountains, and sea shells and shark teeth have even been found in the  Rockies. Could have got there before the Rockies formed, but that would  mean a good portion of America was submerged. And how about them whale  bones in the Sahara. Could be from the same flood or other floods.


Bias, sure, but eh. The whole "couldn't breathe because of drowning" seems like a kicker to me. I don't know how that shit got in there, but I'm guessing it has more to do with how mountains and such form than one giant flood. I'm sure there are books out there with explanations.


> One thing that is a pisser, the rainbow. The rainbow is a symbol of  God's promise not to flood the Earth, and the Homosexual community has  chosen the rainbow to represent them and their ways. This could be taken  as an insult to God, a kind of "we're here and queer" kind of  statement. Who knows I'm sure someone will say, "No the gays are too  loving to come up with an insult at God,". Bull!


Yes. Rainbows come from god. Has nothing to do with light refracting off of water. 

And  holy fucking shit, who cares what the gays do with a rainbow. It's a rainbow. Symbols have tons of different meanings anyways. I sure don't think of God or gays when I see a rainbow, I think "shit, there's a rainbow! Light and water are doin their thing. Looks pretty." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology

Also, learn to multiquote. Little + sign down by the reply button.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> I've never heard of this. This phenomenon have a name? It honestly sounds batshit, but so do a lot of other scientific things out there.


The moon is getting farther away also, heard that one?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> I've never heard of this. This phenomenon have a name? It honestly sounds batshit, but so do a lot of other scientific things out there.
> 
> Bias, sure, but eh. The whole "couldn't breathe because of drowning" seems like a kicker to me. I don't know how that shit got in there, but I'm guessing it has more to do with how mountains and such form than one giant flood. I'm sure there are books out there with explanations.
> Yes. Rainbows come from god. Has nothing to do with light refracting off of water.
> ...



I took physics I know that raindrops serve as a prism allowing light to be broken down into its many different frequencies.

I'm not denying science, I like to think that science is the explanation and God takes the credit for all these kind of things.
Like evolution, can't deny that species change over time; can't prove or disprove that this elaborate process occurred on its own, or was created much like a computer program.


----------



## Conker (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm not denying science, I like to think that science is the explanation and God takes the credit for all these kind of things.
> Like evolution, can't deny that species change over time; can't prove or disprove that this elaborate process occurred on its own, or was created much like a computer program.


 With that alone, you win more points than any of the others that have come in here. At least you don't doubt evolution 

I find that the compromises made between science and religion usually fall into the "God of the gaps" bit where people place God into the gaps of knowledge we currently have. But that isn't always the case. Personally, I'm fine with attributing some things to a God, but I'd have to ditch those attributions if science comes up with something more concrete.


----------



## Riley (Jan 11, 2011)

The Noah's Ark "great flood" myth is nothing new - countless cultures and religions had been using it for far longer than Christianity existed for.  Hell, barely any part of Christianity is original - pretty much only names and a few changes they made to existing stories.  This whole great flood could easily have happened long before those areas were formed, as was mentioned.  Funny thing about tectonic plate shifting; it's a near-perfect explanation based on observable scientific fact, not "lol it wuz majik."

Seriously, the thing that pisses me off second most about Christianity (next to it still somehow existing, of course) is how completely unoriginal it is.  Everything it has was done before and in a more exiting way.  Even the figurehead deity has a boring name.  "God."  Oh boy!  That's a title, not a name.  I hereby decree that you call me "Human," or "Male."  Yeah, sure, you think that's the only ruling force so therefore what else you you be referring to, et cetera et cetera, but at least try to make something that's not so painfully boring.  This is why nobody reads the bible - it's written worse than Twilight.

Excuse my ramblings, but the general ignorance that surrounds organized religion annoys me to no end.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'm not denying science, I like to think that science is the explanation and God takes the credit for all these kind of things.
> Like evolution, can't deny that species change over time; can't prove or disprove that this elaborate process occurred on its own, or was created much like a computer program.


 
I like how your explanation for everything is "You can't DISprove it!". It's cute.

But seriously, the thing is there is no evidence at all pointing to evolution being caused by a "designer", and tons of evidence pointing to it just being a natural gradual process.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> With that alone, you win more points than any of the others that have come in here. At least you don't doubt evolution
> 
> I find that the compromises made between science and religion usually fall into the "God of the gaps" bit where people place God into the gaps of knowledge we currently have. But that isn't always the case. Personally, I'm fine with attributing some things to a God, but I'd have to ditch those attributions if science comes up with something more concrete.



Thanks for the mature complement, I try.

I was watching the History channel today, and their was a show about the Appalachian Mountain People, one of the topics was their local home grown religion. These people practiced snake handling, poison drinking, and tongue speaking. 
The founder was George Hensley, and I find this funny on a personal level, I'm a Hensley; 
And they attributed this to a verse said by Jesus. "And they will go forth spreading my word, handling serpents, speaking in new tongues, casting out demons in my name, and no poison that they drink will harm them". I kind of find their taking literal too serious, I can see how being too literal can be dangerous. I read the verse and I got this from it,
"They will handle serpents" - they will endure tribulations.
"They will speak new tongues" -they will learn new languages to help spread his message.
"No poison that they drink will harm them" -they won't be corrupted by their worldly environment.
Thats what I pulled out as the meaning.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I was watching the History channel today, and their was a show about the Appalachian Mountain People, one of the topics was their local home grown religion. These people practiced snake handling, poison drinking, and tongue speaking.
> 
> And they attributed this to a verse said by Jesus. "And they will go forth spreading my word, handling serpents, speaking in new tongues, casting out demons in my name, and no poison that they drink will harm them". I kind of find their taking literal too serious, I can see how being too literal can be dangerous. I read the verse and I got this from it,
> "They will handle serpents" - they will endure tribulations.
> ...



So let me get this straight...

As a Christian you're fine with the story of Noah's Ark being actual fact, even though the actual scientific evidence falls far short of proving it true... yet you're quite happy with dismissing _Jesus's exact words regarding what people can do in his name_ as "too literal".


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> So let me get this straight...
> 
> As a Christian you're fine with the story of Noah's Ark being actual fact, even though the actual scientific evidence falls far short of proving it true... yet you're quite happy with dismissing _Jesus's exact words regarding what people can do in his name_ as "too literal".



Hey Jesus was know to speak in metaphors, you know "this is my body" "this is my blood", that wasn't a literal statement.

and with my last post I was just stating my interpretation, the Appalachians are doing what they should by their interpenetration. 

How would you interpret the passage?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hey Jesus was know to speak in metaphors, you know "this is my body" "this is my blood", that wasn't a literal statement.
> 
> and with my last post I was just stating my interpretation, the Appalachians are doing what they should by their interpenetration.
> 
> How would you interpret the passage?


 
So...Noah's ark was a metaphor :v?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So...Noah's ark was a metaphor :v?


 
Didn't they just say they believed in biblical literalness?

So the bible is now a literal metaphor? 9_6


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Didn't they just say they believed in biblical literalness?
> 
> So the bible is now a literal metaphor? 9_6


 
He takes the OT (as far as I've gathered) literally (and he admits this is far beyond what most Christians do, which confuses people if he's Christian or not), but shuns those who take things in the bible _too_ literally.

Fuckall if I know, none of it makes sense, and I used to be Catholic and Christian :v baptised and everything.


----------



## Azure (Jan 11, 2011)

The moral of the story is that none of it mks fucking sense, no matter how you try to pretty it up. Faith is still faith, and its sill illogical as fuck all.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 11, 2011)

I like how the infallible word of the almighty creator on how to live your life is full of metaphors, instead of being clear on what we should and should not to.
Imagine if more guides/instruction manuals were full of metaphors.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> He takes the OT (as far as I've gathered) literally (and he admits this is far beyond what most Christians do, which confuses people if he's Christian or not), but shuns those who take things in the bible _too_ literally.
> 
> Fuckall if I know, none of it makes sense, and I used to be Catholic and Christian :v baptised and everything.



I shun no one, I had a different interpretation than that mountain church, I never said they were wrong. I just don't agree with their interpretation, my interpretation is just as likely to be wrong or right. You can read the bible multiple times, and still learn something new each time.



Azure said:


> The moral of the story is that none of it mks fucking sense, no matter how you try to pretty it up. Faith is still faith, and its sill illogical as fuck all.



The Bible was written by man, and it has gone through many translations. There is probably distortions, but the majority of its truths probably remains. Besides that, no one is capable of understanding everything in its pages.



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I like how the infallible word of the almighty creator on how to live your life is full of metaphors, instead of being clear on what we should and should not to.
> Imagine if more guides/instruction manuals were full of metaphors.



Not everything is a metaphor and not every thing is literal; its up to the individual's interpretation. There isn't instructions for everything either, like is killing someone on a video game equal to killing a person (God's standards not societal standards), Its in the Bible that if you hate someone, you've killed them in your heart, therefore your mental sin is equal to actually killing the person, (the reason I do not believe in hating). Their is another example of this, adultery; it can be committed in the head by imagining relations with a girl. And commiting this in the mind is equal to actually doing it, (again by God's standards and not societal standards).


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> *The Bible was written by man*, and it has gone through many translations.



Yes, in the sense of "Man made God in his own image".



NobleThorne said:


> There is probably distortions, but the majority of its truths probably remains. Besides that, no one is capable of understanding everything in its pages.



How do you _know_ then that there are any truths in the Bible? What is truth, what is distortion, and what just doesn't make sense? And isn't it rather negligent of God that "his word" is so bloody hard to understand if humanity's "salvation" is critically dependant on it? 



NobleThorne said:


> Not everything is a metaphor and not every thing is literal; its up to the individual's interpretation.



Again, how do you come to the conclusion that the story of Noah's Ark is fact and that Jesus's statement about believers drinking poison with no ill effects is allegory? Isn't this rather convenient "picking and choosing", especially as the "facts" proving Noah's Ark are also up for interpretation but you can prove very quickly whether swigging a jug of household bleach is going to harm you...

The position that the Bible is simply the writings of various men with various agendas over the centuries about a _non-existent deity_ is the only explanation that fits all the facts, omissions and contradictions. Besides, frankly a deity that _sloppy_ in communications isn't worth worshipping anyway.


----------



## Conker (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hey Jesus was know to speak in metaphors, you know "this is my body" "this is my blood", that wasn't a literal statement.


 Pretty sure that depends on which sect you talk to.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I like how the infallible word of the almighty creator on how to live your life is full of metaphors, instead of being clear on what we should and should not to.
> Imagine if more guides/instruction manuals were full of metaphors.


 

i'd have too much fun with that lol

but no, i like the ability to shape your judgement and way of life to your own self and visions, and if you are religious, let that not dominate your life


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 11, 2011)

Riley said:


> The Noah's Ark "great flood" myth is nothing new - countless cultures and religions had been using it for far longer than Christianity existed for.  Hell, barely any part of Christianity is original - pretty much only names and a few changes they made to existing stories.  This whole great flood could easily have happened long before those areas were formed, as was mentioned.  Funny thing about tectonic plate shifting; it's a near-perfect explanation based on observable scientific fact, not "lol it wuz majik."
> 
> Seriously, the thing that pisses me off second most about Christianity (next to it still somehow existing, of course) is how completely unoriginal it is.  Everything it has was done before and in a more exiting way.  Even the figurehead deity has a boring name.  "God."  Oh boy!  That's a title, not a name.  I hereby decree that you call me "Human," or "Male."  Yeah, sure, you think that's the only ruling force so therefore what else you you be referring to, et cetera et cetera, but at least try to make something that's not so painfully boring.  This is why nobody reads the bible - it's written worse than Twilight.
> 
> Excuse my ramblings, but the general ignorance that surrounds organized religion annoys me to no end.


 

God's name is Yahweh, or YHWH. Just an FYI.  Christianity is the only religion to where its not good works that get you to heaven. Christianity is the only religion where Christ died for us so we could go to heaven. Christianity is the only religion to where the gift of salvation is a free gift. 

Christianity has been around for a long time. So go ahead, try and disprove it. We have time. You also forget the fact that the Bible is the most scrutenized book in all of history. And yet its still here. The Bible is the only book that can make the claim that it has never changed. we have tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts to compare it too. And its accuracy is astounding. The Bible today matches 99.5% with all the other ancient manuscripts. No other book can even come close to that claim.

You don't want to believe? Fine. Its a choice up to you. But you can never disprove Christianity. Its withstood the test of time, and man for that matter.

And if nobody reads the Bible as you claim, then why is it the most popular book in the entire world?


----------



## Wreth (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God's name is Yahweh, or YHWH. Just an FYI.  Christianity is the only religion to where its not good works that get you to heaven. Christianity is the only religion where Christ died for us so we could go to heaven. Christianity is the only religion to where the gift of salvation is a free gift.
> 
> Christianity has been around for a long time. So go ahead, try and disprove it. We have time. You also forget the fact that the Bible is the most scrutenized book in all of history. And yet its still here. The Bible is the only book that can make the claim that it has never changed. we have tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts to compare it too. And its accuracy is astounding. The Bible today matches 99.5% with all the other ancient manuscripts. No other book can even come close to that claim.
> 
> ...



What about the books of older religions?

Also, what happened to people before christianity existed?

Before religion existed?


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

Wreth said:


> What about the books of older religions?
> 
> Also, what happened to people before christianity existed?
> 
> Before religion existed?



obviously they are wrong and don't matter....or something like that i guess

but yeah, pagan and heathen religions have been around before christianity, and before those religions people got along somehow, granted at a lower intelligence function and with less clothes, but they did it


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 11, 2011)

Wreth said:


> what happened to people before christianity existed?
> 
> Before religion existed?


 
Read the OT. Before Christ came, people lived on the faith that God was going to send His one and only Son. Their faith in God was justified. Thus they were saved. Hence why Moses was saved.
God has always existed. Therefore religion never started. Christianity is not a religion. Because calling it that means there is more than one way. Christianity is the Truth. As in, the only way.


----------



## Kilter (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And if nobody reads the Bible as you claim, then why is it the most popular book in the entire world?



Well, I wouldn't say nobody reads the Bible...but in my experience (mine alone, not doing world statistics here) it's everyone BUT Christians who read it. I've been audience to many arguments about Christianity and the devoted rarely can answer a question thrown at them about the Bible or even all the names of the apostles aside from Judas.

I guess you could see it as atheists and agnostics and...pretty much every religion that isn't Christian based reads it to defend themselves against said Christians and why they don't follow/believe in God.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity has been around for a long time. So go ahead, try and disprove it. We have time. You also forget the fact that the Bible is the most scrutenized book in all of history. And yet its still here. The Bible is the only book that can make the claim that it has never changed. we have tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts to compare it too. And its accuracy is astounding. The Bible today matches 99.5% with all the other ancient manuscripts. No other book can even come close to that claim.




Chrisitianity is considered to be one of the youngest Monotheistic religions in history, but the most dominant due to the massive influence it has had throught the timeline.

After the rise of the Holy Roman empire, Christianity began to assimilate most of the Pagan rites and rituals first to accept paganism (Christmas being one, Samhain being another). Pagans in turn had aknowleged the Christian faith, but did not fully accept it as their religion.

After awhile Chrisitians began to lessen the infulence of other religious practices in Europe before it spread through the countryside like the Bubonic plauge.  


The Bible itself, with it is neat tales and such, are not 99.9% original. Most of the stories have been taken from other religion's mythologies (Like some sumerian, Egyptian, and Hindu) and re-edited to make it orginal. It makes it the biggest plagarized book since Eragon. :V

The Stories inside is nothing but allegory to teach mankind to be better people. When you take the book literally, therein lies the problem with most with their faith. They take it so literally that they lose touch with themselves and their faith. 

Just like Twilight, Just because the book itself is popular does not make it a good book.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

How can one say that Bible has never changed, but insist that there are mistranslations :v? That's contradictory in and of itself.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 11, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> How can one say that Bible has never changed, but insist that there are mistranslations :v? That's contradictory in and of itself.


 
There was a mistranslation in the bible that said that Moses had horns.
In art Moses had been sculpted with two cancerous things on his head.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Just like Twilight, Just because the book itself is popular does not make it a good book.


 
the winning quote of today's religious posts


----------



## Wreth (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read the OT. Before Christ came, people lived on the faith that God was going to send His one and only Son. Their faith in God was justified. Thus they were saved. Hence why Moses was saved.
> God has always existed. Therefore religion never started. Christianity is not a religion. Because calling it that means there is more than one way. Christianity is the Truth. As in, the only way.


 
Er, before christianity even existed, there were defenitely people following other religons and beliefs.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 11, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Er, before christianity even existed, there were defenitely people following other religons and beliefs.


 
Zoroastrianism for starters.


----------



## Riley (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God's name is Yahweh, or YHWH. Just an FYI.


A name which was already in use by other, smaller groups of religions far before a Christ figure popped up.  And you're also not allowed to say it or else you die. 



> Christianity is the only religion to where its not good works that get you to heaven. Christianity is the only religion where Christ died for us so we could go to heaven. Christianity is the only religion to where the gift of salvation is a free gift.


Except you still totally have to do good deeds, or else there wouldn't be any of the "sin at least once and you're out of heaven."



> Christianity has been around for a long time. So go ahead, try and disprove it.


Uh, disprove that Christianity has been around for a long time?  Okay...it's only roughly 2,011 years old?  Whereas other cultures practiced a different religion 8,000-some years ago?  The Greeks, maybe?  You might have heard of them, we named a lot of planets based on their gods.  The Romans, too.  Or the Egyptians, that created a basis for almost every myth the Greeks and Romans picked up and put in their religion?



> We have time.


Well you might, I have stuff do other than make a fool of myself on the internet.



> You also forget the fact that the Bible is the most scrutenized book in all of history. And yet its still here.


And yet nobody can explain any single line it without somebody else disagreeing with them.



> The Bible is the only book that can make the claim that it has never changed.


I can make the claim that I'm a pretty unicorn.  Doesn't make me right.



> we have tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts to compare it too.  And its accuracy is astounding. The Bible today matches 99.5% with all the other ancient manuscripts. No other book can even come close to that claim.


These 'ancient manuscripts' wouldn't happen to be ancient book reviews, praising the bible for being the hottest new pulp piece on the shores of the Red Sea, would they?



> You don't want to believe? Fine. Its a choice up to you. But you can never disprove Christianity. Its withstood the test of time, and man for that matter.


No it hasn't.  Man created all religion, and man can just as easily destroy it.  By, you know, coming up with a new one.  Christianity isn't that old, and dozens of other religions have already outlived it, or have throughout time.  Right now?  It's just as much a fad as Apple products.



> And if nobody reads the Bible as you claim, then why is it the most popular book in the entire world?


Toilet paper?  It has pages that burn really nicely to keep people warm?  Really, just because it's bought (or stolen, hilariously) more than any other book, doesn't actually mean it's being read.  I have a bible on my bookshelf.  Know how many times I've touched it?  Once, to put it on my bookshelf.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

Riley said:


> Except you still totally have to do good deeds, or else there wouldn't be any of the "sin at least once and you're out of heaven."


 

there are a lot of hardcore christians/catholics that believe if you don't accept christ you just take an instant 'GO TO HELL' ticket, regardless of how good you are


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God has always existed. Therefore religion never started. Christianity is not a religion. Because calling it that means there is more than one way. Christianity is the Truth. As in, the only way.


 
Are people seriously arguing with this guy? 

_Why?_


----------



## Wreth (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Are people seriously arguing with this guy?
> 
> _Why?_


 
It's funny


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There was a mistranslation in the bible that said that Moses had horns.
> In art Moses had been sculpted with two cancerous things on his head.


 TUMORS!
Expanded cranial cavity for greater gray matter?
Real bad acme.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Are people seriously arguing with this guy?
> 
> _Why?_


 
we got nothing better to do >.<


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 11, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> we got nothing better to do >.<


 
You really should find something then.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Yes, in the sense of "Man made God in his own image".


Your entitled to believe so, isolated people tend to create their own religions.





Mayfurr said:


> How do you _know_ then that there are any truths in the Bible? What is truth, what is distortion, and what just doesn't make sense? And isn't it rather negligent of God that "his word" is so bloody hard to understand if humanity's "salvation" is critically dependant on it?



I could be wrong, but for myself I accept that the majority of the scripture is truth. As far a negligence on God's part, He gave us free will, if we choose to destroy his messages, its our choice and probably a wrong one.



Mayfurr said:


> Again, how do you come to the conclusion that the story of Noah's Ark is fact and that Jesus's statement about believers drinking poison with no ill effects is allegory? Isn't this rather convenient "picking and choosing", especially as the "facts" proving Noah's Ark are also up for interpretation but you can prove very quickly whether swigging a jug of household bleach is going to harm you...
> 
> The position that the Bible is simply the writings of various men with various agendas over the centuries about a _non-existent deity_ is the only explanation that fits all the facts, omissions and contradictions. Besides, frankly a deity that _sloppy_ in communications isn't worth worshipping anyway.



The whole process is an interaction between the individual's interpretation and the individual's free will. When one studies the Bible, he picks an chooses, what is a metaphor and what is literal; some of these individuals then go forth a preach there interpretations. There will always be some one to disagree with another's interpretation and there will always be a few that believe and share the same interpretation.

It sure is a mess, I know, I don't agree with all the division Christians put between themselves, But not everyone has the same makeup of neurons; Humans will always put division against other humans, it can't be helped.

Reminds me of this: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e13-go-god-go-xii
Damn otters want to kill us all!


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> You really should find something then.


 
well i'm in afghanistan, and the only other thing to do at the time of day here is to go get midnight chow, and i dont like being fat. other than that, combat, and that's no fun >.<


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 11, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> well i'm in afghanistan, and the only other thing to do at the time of day here is to go get midnight chow, and i dont like being fat. other than that, combat, and that's no fun >.<


 
You are thus forgiven.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> You are thus forgiven.


 
^_^ thanks


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 11, 2011)

Can this religion megathread die now? All I can see is repetition of the same shit over and over again. I get it, alright? Quit punishing me!


----------



## Anon Guy (Jan 11, 2011)

Riley said:


> A name which was already in use by other, smaller groups of religions far before a Christ figure popped up.  And you're also not allowed to say it or else you die.
> 
> 
> Except you still totally have to do good deeds, or else there wouldn't be any of the "sin at least once and you're out of heaven."
> ...



I love you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Are people seriously arguing with this guy?
> 
> _Why?_


 
You're mistaking our tone. We're not seriously arguing with this guy, we're trying to correct his incredibly warped worldview much in the same way a parent telling their kid not to touch the stove would at this point.

The sad thing is he's not the first fundie who tried to play the "Christianity is not a religion." card. Both Cutter AND Crusader Cat tried it. This should tell you the quality of christian Rukh is.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> ..we're trying to correct his incredibly warped worldview much in the same way a parent telling their kid not to touch the stove would at this point...



Except the kid probably hasn't spent years convincing himself that touching the stove is the right thing to do and anyone telling him otherwise is a heathen who clearly doesn't understand him or the magical world he lives in.

It's futile.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 11, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> there are a lot of hardcore christians/catholics that believe if you don't accept christ you just take an instant 'GO TO HELL' ticket, regardless of how good you are


 
Well, The Bible does say
Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast. 

John 14:6
Jesus answered, â€œI am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Nothing we do is good enough. Good works don't save people.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, The Bible does say
> Ephesians 2:8-9
> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€”and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€”  not by works, so that no one can boast.
> 
> ...


 
Multiple issues here,

First- This would mean that even people who have never sinned, could be literally perfect except worshipping the wrong deity, the wrong interpretation of your deity, or no deity at all would be damned. This is not what a loving god would do.

Second- The verse from John immediately contradicts a basic tenet of christianity. "You shall have no other before me." - And yet here is Jesus, standing before God, in between the two of you...

Third- Bible quotes are not exactly proof of anything other than that's what the bible says. Remember, there's no reason for a nonbeliever to accept anything they say over any other text, especially when such ridiculous claims as "The bible is perfect and has never been changed" are being made... This is not "The Good Book". The bible is not even A good book.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Multiple issues here,
> 
> First- This would mean that even people who have never sinned, could be literally perfect except worshipping the wrong deity, the wrong interpretation of your deity, or no deity at all would be damned. This is not what a loving god would do.
> 
> ...


 
First- Not one person has never sinned. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Second- God is Jesus. Remember the whole trinity thing? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Godhead, 3 in one.
Third-The person I quoted says its an extreme view of Christianity. I pointed out that is not. Its basic doctrine, all have sinned, its not by works, and only through Christ can we get to Heaven. That is basic fundamental and essential Christian Doctrine.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First- Not one person has never sinned. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
> Second- God is Jesus. Remember the whole trinity thing? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Godhead, 3 in one.
> Third-The person I quoted says its an extreme view of Christianity. I pointed out that is not. Its basic doctrine, all have sinned, its not by works, and only through Christ can we get to Heaven. That is basic fundamental and essential Christian Doctrine.


 
First- So you agree with my first point? Great. Your god is not one of love, then.
Second- Huge swaths of christianity disagree with you, such as pentacostals and unitarians. You're assuming the fact you want to prove in your argument for it.
Third- That has nothing to do with my third point, please actually address my third point instead of ignoring it.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 11, 2011)

Fuuuuuuutiiiilllllleeeeee


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Fuuuuuuutiiiilllllleeeeee


 
Oh right, that reminds me-

Rukh you still need to review and sign that document I linked a while back.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oh right, that reminds me-
> 
> Rukh you still need to review and sign that document I linked a while back.



REJECTION
Document is null-n-void
neither side is willing to listen with an open mind, and willingness to change opinion!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> REJECTION
> Document is null-n-void
> neither side is willing to listen with an open mind, and willingness to change opinion!


 
Just because people do not accept christian's awful reasoning does not mean they haven't listened. Stop trying to equivocate two sides when they're worlds apart, thanks.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Just because people do not accept christian's awful reasoning does not mean they haven't listened. Stop trying to equivocate two sides when they're worlds apart, thanks.


 

oooh equivocate, very nice choice of wordplay. i havent heard that word... or any word that 'fancy' since i joined the army lol


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Just because people do not accept christian's awful reasoning does not mean they haven't listened. Stop trying to equivocate two sides when they're worlds apart, thanks.


 
Christian's awful reasoning, (good joke, my dear boy, that gave me a bit of a chuckle), If their reasoning is awful, then how is it that its a majority in Western culture. If it is so awful then it should have died out.

I think you have been turned off from the idea due poor examples in your life, or since your 12 perhaps you are going through your rebellious stage (if you have Christian parents). Regardless, the document is null-n-void because you are not willing to see from our perspective, and this tends to be a mutual unwillingness.


Heres an attempt, I playing the part of a semi - neutral atheist.

Hmm, why would I want to be Christian?
What makes Christians any better than me? I see them doing the same things most people do.
I don't see how there could be a God, if science can't prove him he must not exist.
I'm mostly a good person, surely if there is a heaven I'd get into it.
I can express some of their moral values without being one of them.
There's good Christians they've contributed to society, there are other  moral non-christian people than contributed just as much; I can be moral  with out being Christian.
I'm content with where I'm at.
Science doesn't say their is anything beyond death.


There are plenty of reasons a person can be turned off from Christianity, just as many for a person to turn to Christianity.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> *Christian's awful reasoning, (good joke, my dear boy, that gave me a bit of a chuckle) I think you have been turned off from the idea due poor examples in your life, or since your 12 perhaps you are going through your rebellious stage (if you have Christian parents).*



Dude, wtf, seriously? Did you honestly just go down that route?



NobleThorne said:


> Regardless, If their reasoning is awful, then how is it that its a majority in Western culture. If it is so awful then it should have died out.
> 
> And the document is null-n-void because you are not willing to see from our perspective, and this tends to be a mutual unwillingness.



Reason has little to do with why one religion is popular in a  given region. It's more about politics and emotional reaction than anything. Plus keep in mind christianity is only about 1/3rd of the world's total population- It's not a majority at all.

And again, you're simply restating your previous argument of false equivocation- It's entirely possible to understand Christianity and still reject it. In fact a better understanding of it is one of the most common reasons people lose their faith.



NobleThorne said:


> Heres an attempt, I playing the part of a semi - neutral atheist.
> Hmm, why would I want to be Christian?
> What makes Christians any better than me? I see them doing the same things most people do.
> I don't see how there could be a God,* if there is no evidence for his existence he probably doesn't exist much like Zeus or Russel's Teapot.*
> ...



That's a good attempt, but it's not quite right. I've adjusted it to a more accurate version.



NobleThorne said:


> There are plenty of reasons a person can be turned off from Christianity, just as many for a person to turn to Christianity.


 
There are plenty of good reasons to not follow christianity, but there are no good ones to follow it.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yeesh, so much for humility. This section of your post is simply dripping with unwarranted self importance. People notice pointless posturing like this, and anyone not in high school any more will just roll their eyes. And again, you're simply restating your previous argument of false equivocation- It's entirely possible to understand Christianity and still reject it. In fact a better understanding of it is one of the most common reasons people lose their faith.


Your right it is possible to get a good understanding of Christianity and still reject it, as for the second part you lose your stock. There are groups of priests in Vatican City that study the Bible all their lives, reading it over and over again, reading different versions, studying other religions, looking at other scriptures from the time, some even try to find the science behind it. If they lose their faith by increasing their understanding, then they would have left the studying to some one else. But sure there are plenty that lose the faith when they question man's written word of God's teachings.





Mojotech said:


> That's a good attempt, but it's not quite right. I've adjusted it to a more accurate version.
> 
> There are plenty of good reasons to not follow christianity, but there are no good ones to follow it.



Now that's kind of an ignorant statement. 
If your wrong and there is a heaven, accepting Jesus' gift is a smart move.
Plus, this isn't limited to Christians, people of some faith tend to live longer.
If your down trodded and don't know where to go, church is capable of getting you back in the right track.


And you keep bringing this up, neither side can prove whether or not God exists.


We've all got problems, but seriously why are you so against Christianity? I'm asking what personal events and people got you completely shelled against the idea?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> If their reasoning is awful, then how is it that its a majority in Western culture. If it is so awful then it should have died out.
> 
> I think you have been turned off from the idea due poor examples in your life, or since your 12 perhaps you are going through your rebellious stage (if you have Christian parents). Regardless, the document is null-n-void because you are not willing to see from our perspective, and this tends to be a mutual unwillingness.
> 
> ...


 
I'm lazy, lets start calling out the logical fallacies.

1) Appeal to majority

2) Red herring or straw man (lazzzzzzzy)

3) Retarded. Science doesn't prove that which is supernatural.

4) Nothing happens beyond death. The reason why science doesn't say anything, see #3. 

5) There are far more reasons to not like Christianity, than there is to like it.

6) Hurrrrr


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Your right it is possible to get a good understanding of Christianity and still reject it, as for the second part you lose your stock. There are groups of priests in Vatican City that study the Bible all their lives, reading it over and over again, reading different versions, studying other religions, looking at other scriptures from the time, some even try to find the science behind it. If they lose their faith by increasing their understanding, then they would have left the studying to some one else. But sure there are plenty that lose the faith when they question man's written word of God's teachings.



Just because there are people who study the bible and don't lose faith doesn't mean it's still not a leading cause of people becoming atheists. It's also not a matter of questioning it- many people go into it fervently looking for answers and wanting to believe, and when they find none they go elsewhere.



NobleThorne said:


> A)If your wrong and there is a heaven, accepting Jesus' gift is a smart move.
> 
> B)Plus, this isn't limited to Christians, people of some faith tend to live longer.
> 
> C) If your down trodded and don't know where to go, church is capable of getting you back in the right track.



A)Oh no, Pascal's wager, what ever will I-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

B)All the study(ies) you're quoting show is something we already knew- People who are active in a *community* live longer than inactive shut-ins. Religions of the kind studied- the "go to church every sunday or the synagogue on saturday" types include a community. In addition, people who are old and inactive are oddly enough usually that way due to physical infirmity. And those don't live as long for some reason. Hmm. (In other words, it's not the religious aspect, but the community aspect, along with some other overlooked flaws.)

C) So can secular things like, yaknow, halfway homes and job programs, but without some of their budget going to pay a useless minister.



NobleThorne said:


> And you keep bringing this up, neither side can prove whether or not God exists.



That's just the thing, one of the sides doesn't have to. So long as religious people cannot prove their existence of their supernatural thing, we don't have to do anything else to be justified in not beleiving it.



NobleThorne said:


> We've all got problems, but seriously why are you so against Christianity? I'm asking what personal events and people got you completely shelled against the idea?



Nothing, that's just the thing. There doesn't have to be some horrible tragic event that turned me against your god, yahweh, there's just no evidence he exists. It's not just christianity either, I also don't believe in Thord, Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, Krishna, Jehova, Elohim, Allah YHWH, Zenu, or the countless other gods.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Just because there are people who study the bible and don't lose faith doesn't mean it's still not a leading cause of people becoming atheists. It's also not a matter of questioning it- many people go into it fervently looking for answers and wanting to believe, and when they find none they go elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I watched the video, I can see how it might make you view Christianity a delusion. Believing in God is an act of faith, and its rational to the believers, Its a rational choice for me. My faith can do me no important harm, if it causes me to be rejected by those who disagree, tis a good thing, for as a Christian I need to be in the world and not of it. It offers a way to continue past physical death and I avoid a punishment that I surely deserve.

And I'm surprised that you haven't had an event or a specific person turn you off from Christianity, but good for you to not let another person have control over you.


Now I'll ask another question. Do you believe you have a soul? Do you believe in souls?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I watched the video, I can see how it might make you view Christianity a delusion. Believing in God is an act of faith, and _*its rational to the believers, Its a rational choice for me.*_ _My faith can do me no important harm, if it causes me to be rejected by those who disagree, tis a good thing_, for as a Christian I need to be in the world and not of it. It offers a way to continue past physical death and I avoid a punishment that I surely deserve.
> 
> And I'm surprised that you haven't had an event or a specific person turn you off from Christianity, but good for you to not let another person have control over you.
> 
> ...


 
But it's inherently irrational, even if you think it's rational (one of those aspects of insanity, y'know).

Your faith can do you harm, and one of the potential threats you just admitted is 'not a problem'. Your faith apparent gets people to reject you - It may not be physical pain, but it's mental and emotional harm. You're sucking yourself into this vicious cycle of, "Well if they won't accept my delusions, then they aren't good people", which gives you tunnel vision of who or what is good -_ and you actually think this is a good thing._ Such as, if someone really wants to be your friend, but realizes how deep and weird you are into OT-literalist-but-not-that-literalist Christian/not-quite mush, and it pushes them away - This is a good thing to you? I'm not saying one should change their ways to every passing thing, but to hold up this impregnable wall of unchanging against the world and call it a good thing, is sad, and possibly a mental problem  or could lead to one. Like delusions of grandeur and shtuff.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 11, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> But it's inherently irrational, even if you think it's rational (one of those aspects of insanity, y'know).
> 
> Your faith can do you harm, and one of the potential threats you just admitted is 'not a problem'. Your faith apparent gets people to reject you - It may not be physical pain, but it's mental and emotional harm. You're sucking yourself into this vicious cycle of, "Well if they won't accept my delusions, then they aren't good people", which gives you tunnel vision of who or what is good -_ and you actually think this is a good thing._ Such as, if someone really wants to be your friend, but realizes how deep and weird you are into OT-literalist-but-not-that-literalist Christian/not-quite mush, and it pushes them away - This is a good thing to you? I'm not saying one should change their ways to every passing thing, but to hold up this impregnable wall of unchanging against the world and call it a good thing, is sad, and possibly a mental problem  or could lead to one. Like delusions of grandeur and shtuff.



Its irrational from an atheist perspective. Your disbelieve is irrational to mine. We can let eachother continue to be irrational.
Life is too short  to get emotionally but hurt at people that reject me because of my faith, I may feel a personal sadness because from my perspective a person is commiting spiritual suicide, I will get over it and move on to other relationships, no harm to myself. It doesn't deny me more social bonds than it can provide, unless I shut myself in. 

I'm a pretty level headed person, I know others that aren't. The other night, by brother walked into my room and called my name. I woke up and asked him what he wanted and he said "Oh I just wanted to make sure the rapture didn't happen". I laughed at that. Being a Christian ain't a mental disease, Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, and so was Benjamin Franklin. They weren't off their rocker, and I know I'm not.

Its a personal decision, I think you made the wrong one, and you think I made the wrong one. The truth will be revealed one day, and either side may be correct.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 11, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Its irrational from an atheist perspective. Your disbelieve is irrational to mine. We can let eachother continue to be irrational.
> Life is too short  to get emotionally but hurt at people that reject me because of my faith, I may feel a personal sadness because from my perspective a person is commiting spiritual suicide, I will get over it and move on to other relationships, no harm to myself. It doesn't deny me more social bonds than it can provide, unless I shut myself in.
> 
> I'm a pretty level headed person, I know others that aren't. The other night, by brother walked into my room and called my name. I woke up and asked him what he wanted and he said "Oh I just wanted to make sure the rapture didn't happen". I laughed at that. Being a Christian ain't a mental disease, Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, and so was Benjamin Franklin. They weren't off their rocker, and I know I'm not.
> ...



Following and believing in something you cannot show to yourself or anyone else, is inherent irrational. Not to me, not to Atheists, but to reality. 

My lack of belief is inherently rational. I do not believe something without sufficient proof - That is the rational approach.

Imagen me trying to explain to you in a Water World situation, that natural dry Islands exist with horses, birds, elephants and forests and what not. You (probably) wouldn't believe me, until take you to said island. That is rational, as much as I try to convince you it exists without showing you - You have absolutely no reason to believe me, and rationally-speaking, you would be in the right not to.

Moving on though, >_> I don't want to insult your brother, but that's ehh...Kinda sad. 

However I don't think Christianity is a mental disease, but I do think your position is harming you mentally. You've already admitted you don't have a sturdy place to stand on with your beliefs (such as my pointing out, you take some things literally, but others not, for no apparent reason between the two). 

Your appeal to authority is dually noted, and dismissed. Franklin and Lincoln were both deists (at best), and were NO where near your shaky view on what Christianity is or should be. I'm also not saying you _are_ off your rocker, but I think you are heading down a bad road, or at least have been for some time.

I personally don't care if you think I made the right or wrong decision, I'm simply falling back on the default until some religious person can prove their god :v or gods. Which hasn't happened to any one, for any reason, to date. 

I was lucky to only be baptized and actually learn about religion on my own without any external force, but I was a smart young lad, and at around 16ish, all the dots started coming together - I realized that this Christian/Catholic thing I was doing made no sense. 

I had never 'felt' god. I never felt a part of the community (that so many religious tout as a positive), I couldn't get over the multiple Bible mistakes and fuck-up-ed-ness (i.e. bear maulings from God), so on and on (nah-nah, nah-nah). 

(though I still enjoy cartoons~)


----------



## Conker (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, and so was Benjamin Franklin. They weren't off their rocker, and I know I'm not.


 Many people at that time were Christian because they had to be. You couldn't go around claiming to be anything else. In actuality, a lot of our founding fathers were agnostic, simply deistic, or even possibly atheistic. You couldn't admit that in truth, but documents have been found from many of them claiming agnosticism or questioning the possibility of God. Not sure on ol Abe, but I'm pretty sure Ben Franklin falls under the "not actually a Christian" bit. I'd have to look it up though. I know Jefferson wasn't a Christian.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> First- So you agree with my first point? Great. Your god is not one of love, then.
> Second- Huge swaths of christianity disagree with you, such as pentacostals and unitarians. You're assuming the fact you want to prove in your argument for it.
> Third- That has nothing to do with my third point, please actually address my third point instead of ignoring it.


 

Pentecostals and Unitarians don't believe in the Biblical authority, which is an essential fundamental part of Christianity.

Oneness Pentecostals



Denies the doctrine of the Trinity
Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required for salvation.
Jesus is God the Father.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
The name of God is "Jesus."
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father.
Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues.
Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid.
Baptism  must be administered with the phrase, "In the name of Jesus" instead of  the phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," Which is found in Matthew 28:19
Speaking  in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has  been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved.  It is  claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored.
Women may be pastors.
Only Oneness people will go to heaven.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pentecostal/what-does-oneness-pentecostal-teach
http://carm.org/oneness-pentecostal-theology

As for Unitarians:
http://carm.org/what-unitarianism

Both go against what the Bible teaches. Thats not Christianity.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Conker said:


> Many people at that time were Christian because they had to be. You couldn't go around claiming to be anything else. In actuality, a lot of our founding fathers were agnostic, simply deistic, or even possibly atheistic. You couldn't admit that in truth, but documents have been found from many of them claiming agnosticism or questioning the possibility of God. Not sure on ol Abe, but I'm pretty sure Ben Franklin falls under the "not actually a Christian" bit. I'd have to look it up though. I know Jefferson wasn't a Christian.


 
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Pentecostals and Unitarians don't believe in the Biblical authority, which is an essential fundamental part of Christianity.
> 
> Both go against what the Bible teaches. Thats not Christianity.


 
Rukh, we've already been over this already, both with you and with Cutter and with CrusaderCat. Pentecostals and Unitarians (and Catholics) are just as Christian as you are. Stop doing the "no true scotsman" thing already. CARM isn't exactly an unbiased resource, either.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 12, 2011)

I never really got to see Crusader, but I did LOVE Cutterfl.


----------



## Riley (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh, you've conveniently forgotten to reply to me.  Again.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I never really got to see Crusader, but I did LOVE Cutterfl.


 
I think Crusader came after Cutterfl? Either way, the point remains that all three are equally awful. I'd also include Roose in there coe to think of it.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Conker said:


> Many people at that time were Christian because they had to be. You couldn't go around claiming to be anything else. In actuality, a lot of our founding fathers were agnostic, simply deistic, or even possibly atheistic. You couldn't admit that in truth, but documents have been found from many of them claiming agnosticism or questioning the possibility of God. Not sure on ol Abe, but I'm pretty sure Ben Franklin falls under the "not actually a Christian" bit. I'd have to look it up though. I know Jefferson wasn't a Christian.


 
I read Franklin's autobiography and he was a Christian, He believed in God and he tried to live his live in a way that would honor him, He however did not associate himself with any denomination, he attended services in most of them, and decided that he was capable of teaching himself through the word and church became more of a waste of a sunday morning. The one denomination he did feel a little more attached to than the others was the quakers, but he left them to when one of their leaders asked him to use his good name to raise money for their meeting house(church).
Atleast that was what he said in his autobiography. 

Abe didn't claim that the Christianity of the south was his Christianity , the south using Biblical references to support slavery and the mistreatment of slaves.


But I can see your point, they could ie and claim Christianity to make themselves more popular with the christian community a.k.a. most of the people they were around.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Moving on though, >_> I don't want to insult your brother, but that's ehh...Kinda sad.


 He's got problems, he talks alot in his sleep and gets up and moves around.
Had to share a bed with him on a vacation and he woke up in the middle of the night screaming "get it get it get it" clawing my back as he did so; and he didn't wake up, me I jumped out of bed.



Lastdirewolf said:


> However I don't think Christianity is a mental disease, but I do think your position is harming you mentally. You've already admitted you don't have a sturdy place to stand on with your beliefs (such as my pointing out, you take some things literally, but others not, for no apparent reason between the two).
> 
> Your appeal to authority is dually noted, and dismissed. Franklin and Lincoln were both deists (at best), and were NO where near your shaky view on what Christianity is or should be. I'm also not saying you _are_ off your rocker, but I think you are heading down a bad road, or at least have been for some time.



Harming me, nah. If so no more than the stuff I look up on the internet or watch on tv.
My taking somethings literal and other thing as metaphor is dance between my free will and my interpretation; This is necessary, its far better than letting a preacher tell me how I should interpret the bible, if question any passage I'll turn to my religious authority , my dad. Off limits on him, he's raised me well. I watched my mouth, and stayed out of trouble under his teaching; he's been tough but loving.

Right now I am going down a bad path, I haven't had much Christian fellowship in 2 years, self inflicted loneliness; brought about a change in environment and a blow to the heart.
I've been living for myself for the past two years, enjoying things I should not, in a way to pacify myself from doing worse things. I need to get out of this rut, and I will; a good church family would probably help me overcome the things I'd like to overcome, but its ultimately up to me.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I personally don't care if you think I made the right or wrong decision, I'm simply falling back on the default until some religious person can prove their god :v or gods. Which hasn't happened to any one, for any reason, to date.
> 
> I was lucky to only be baptized and actually learn about religion on my own without any external force, but I was a smart young lad, and at around 16ish, all the dots started coming together - I realized that this Christian/Catholic thing I was doing made no sense.
> 
> ...


You said you was 12, strange. I could blame being raised catholic, but that isn't fair. 

And I'd like to ask you again, do yo believe you have a soul?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Harming me, nah. If so no more than the stuff I look up on the internet or watch on tv.
> My taking somethings literal and other thing as metaphor is dance between my free will and my interpretation; This is necessary, its far better than letting a preacher tell me how I should interpret the bible, if question any passage I'll turn to my religious authority , my dad. Off limits on him, he's raised me well. I watched my mouth, and stayed out of trouble under his teaching; he's been tough but loving.
> 
> Right now I am going down a bad path, I haven't had much Christian fellowship in 2 years, self inflicted loneliness; brought about a change in environment and a blow to the heart.
> ...


 
I've...Never said my age, I don't think, but I'm 22. Mehaps you're mixing me up with someone. 

However, your inconsistencies tend to show - Especially on the whole literal/not-literal thing. That sorta throws up a red flag, that you aren't terribly sure of yourself, and you mention your father when you aren't sure, but possibly take his word as law...Even though you really haven't decided for yourself? It's good that you're willing to learn, albeit the wrong text, but just blindly taking the word of an authority figure is never good :v

Though by 'bad road' I meant the road of Christianity you're taking - Or the fact you're taking Christianity at all, is a bad road. You punish yourself for what I'm betting are really just natural urges - Although I would never say do anything even remotely close to in excess. Drunks are fun, but alcoholics are sad :C

And I wasn't raised Catholic, I wasn't raised anything. I followed Catholicism on my own free will, and merged into Christianity, but then dropped it all after how silly I found it all. I am a silly man, but I don't like being made a fool of. 

You never asked me about souls :v However, I do not. I fancied re-incarnation in my head, but I don't believe in it. Just thought it might be cool.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I read Franklin's autobiography and he was a Christian, He believed in God and
> Atleast that was what he said in his autobiography.
> 
> Abe didn't claim that the Christianity of the south was his Christianity , the south using Biblical references to support slavery and the mistreatment of slaves.


 
Both Lincoln and Franklin were Deists. They believed in God, but it was most certainly not the god of Christianity. Do not confuse belief in a creator deity for Christianity.



NobleThorne said:


> if question any passage I'll turn to my religious authority , my dad. Off limits on him, .



Going to your dad for religious advice is arguably worse than going to a preacher for one. Either way, you need to learn to think for yourself. And if there's any indication based on your posts so far in this forum, he entirely failed to teach you critical thinking skills.



NobleThorne said:


> And I'd like to ask you again, do yo believe you have a soul?


 
Can you even define what a soul is, NobleThorne?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Both Lincoln and Franklin were Deists. They believed in God, but it was most certainly not the god of Christianity. Do not confuse belief in a creator deity for Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
He would probably agree with you, his opinion of me isn't always the highest.

A soul, well it is you, your being, not your physical state. Your thoughts, feelings, and uttermost self. (you won't agree) but capable of existing, even after the body has died.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I've...Never said my age, I don't think, but I'm 22. Mehaps you're mixing me up with someone.
> 
> However, your inconsistencies tend to show - Especially on the whole literal/not-literal thing. That sorta throws up a red flag, that you aren't terribly sure of yourself, and you mention your father when you aren't sure, but possibly take his word as law...Even though you really haven't decided for yourself? It's good that you're willing to learn, albeit the wrong text, but just blindly taking the word of an authority figure is never good :v
> 
> ...


 
Sorry about that, mistook one atheist for another.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Sorry about that, mistook one atheist for another.


 
I'm an anti-theist, however. I take a harder stance than most Atheists, but I try my best not to be a douche about it :v though sometimes I can't help myself.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> A soul, well it is you, your being, not your physical state. Your thoughts, feelings, and uttermost self. (you won't agree) but capable of existing, even after the body has died.


 
You're getting a little ahead of yourself, so lets try again with a simple checklist.

1) What is a soul made out of?
2) How can we detect a soul in an object as opposed to an object without a soul?
3) How does a soul interact with a brain? IE if the soul can do all the functions a brain does, why is it important to have one?

Also for pete's sake *STOP DOUBLE POSTING.*


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

1) it has no physical state, so I can't tell you what is made of other than your mental self
2) You feel it, it cognition, awareness of one's own actions and consequences thereof.
3) The brain acts like an earthly ground, keeping the soul bound here, the brain can be damaged but the soul can remain intact.

And this is an attempt to explain something that we just can't fully understand.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Dude, wtf, seriously? Did you honestly just go down that route?


I don't think he understands that through your posts you've proven to be the most mature furry on the forums. And agism as argument is false and he should recognize his erroneous thought process of making not only assumptions, but assumptions based on agist stereotypes.



NobleThorne said:


> Sorry about that, mistook one atheist for another.



We all look alike? Or that you fail to recognize us as autonomous individuals rather than a swarm of athiests with each being exactly alike? Even in your apology you don't list the "athiests" by name. We are seperate people and should be treated as such. We don't refer to you as "one o the fundies" and we make sure to treat you as an individual whos ideas are your own and not say, blended with Rukh. 

Other minorities go through such mishaps as well, such as "mistook one black guy for another" or "mistook one muslim for another", just because this happens to minorities it is not tolerable. We are all human beings here and derserve basic respect as such. Here on the internet all ideas that are presented with factual and logical backing are equal to be heard and understood. Minority or not.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Grendel said:


> I don't think he understands that through your posts you've proven to be the most mature furry on the forums. And agism as argument is false and he should recognize his erroneous thought process of making not only assumptions, but assumptions based on agist stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya, I was doing that to be ornery, I made a mistake.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 12, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Ya, I was doing that to be ornery, I made a mistake.


 No, you were being callous and rude. There is a difference between being factiously "ornery" and not treating someone as an individual.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 12, 2011)

Kay people, try to keep things civil and respectful in here.

Here's a tidbit for discussion. What is the overall opinion of the active people here on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their literal interpretation of the bible? Are they justified in what they do based on that?

Also would love to hear the opinion of Noblethorn and Rukh on this one especially.

Also any thoughts on states beginning to ban protesting near or at funeral sites, making people who wish to do so have to the a distance of something similar to an entire ball field. Does anyone see this move as a violation of constitutional rights?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 12, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Kay people, try to keep things civil and respectful in here.
> 
> Here's a tidbit for discussion. What is the overall opinion of the active people here on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their literal interpretation of the bible? Are they justified in what they do based on that?
> 
> ...


 

I think they are disgraceful, from my perspective they are doing the opposite of what they should. They can't justify being hateful.

Banning protest at a funeral, doesn't hurt my feelings, to me its a good law, people should be respectful at a funeral. I'd personally like flag burning to be outlawed because its disrespectful to patriots; If a politician pisses you off don't burn the flag, hang an effigy of said politician, your disgust will be much clearer.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jan 12, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Kay people, try to keep things civil and respectful in here.
> 
> Here's a tidbit for discussion. What is the overall opinion of the active people here on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their literal interpretation of the bible? Are they justified in what they do based on that?
> 
> ...


 
Can't you guys buy guns in the USA? Why aren't you using them?


----------



## Conker (Jan 12, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Here's a tidbit for discussion. What is the overall opinion of the active people here on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their literal interpretation of the bible? Are they justified in what they do based on that?


Is using the Bible as justification for doing anything really sound in the first place? 

I sure don't think highly of the WBC, they are a pretty terrible group of individuals and are a modern example of "religion being used badly." Honestly, with the bullshit they do, they don't even come off as religious. It seems to just be an excuse for them to get away with crap. I've never seen them as a religious anything, just a hate group filled with ignorant white people. 



> Also any thoughts on states beginning to ban protesting near or at funeral sites, making people who wish to do so have to the a distance of something similar to an entire ball field. Does anyone see this move as a violation of constitutional rights?


 I'm all for constitutional rights, but there is a time and place for things, and funeral protesting is not a good time or place to protest. I kind of find it in a gray area, but we should have hte right to protest anywhere we want, but at a funeral? That's just cold and wrong. I'm personally okay with putting a restriction on protesting funerals, but then you start wondering what restrictions could come next. Yeah, that's a slippery slope fallacy, but eh :V


----------



## Anon Guy (Jan 12, 2011)

This is priceless.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 12, 2011)

Anon Guy said:


> This is priceless.


 
Much like liquid dogshit is priceless.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 12, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Much like liquid dogshit is priceless.


There's no real market for it to my knowledge. Let's keep it that way, eh?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Kay people, try to keep things civil and respectful in here.
> 
> Here's a tidbit for discussion. What is the overall opinion of the active people here on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and their literal interpretation of the bible? Are they justified in what they do based on that?
> 
> ...


 

I would like to ask Phelps where in the Bible it says we Christians can force the Bible down other people's throats. (and how he can sleep at night for that matter) I will be clear and forthright, Phelps is wrong in what he does. What he does is not Christianity at all. He doesn't even follow Scripture. There is nothing justifying his actions. "God hates fags." Really? Where does one get that from the Bible. Last time I checked its the action of homosexuality, not the person God finds detestable. (In fact we are all sinners, and not one person is better than another.)Which is a huge difference.I personally have plenty of verses that goes against what he does. Phelps says we don't need to spread the Word of God because people are already predetermined by God. If that is so, then why did Christ give us the Great Commission, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" Or another verse "Go and be fishers of men." Further Scripture verses to use are John 3:16, because that verse alone points to "whoever believes" Its a choice. Just Because God already knows the choices we make does not mean we are predetermined. Knowledge of a choice does not take away the free will of the erson. God simply knows what we are going to do.

WBC is not spreading Christianity. They spread hatred and lies. Personally I would love to go there to show them Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of Scripture.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I would like to ask Phelps where in the Bible it says we Christians can force the Bible down other people's throats. (and how he can sleep at night for that matter) I will be clear and forthright, Phelps is wrong in what he does. What he does is not Christianity at all. He doesn't even follow Scripture. There is nothing justifying his actions. "God hates fags." Really? Where does one get that from the Bible. Last time I checked its the action of homosexuality, not the person God finds detestable. (In fact we are all sinners, and not one person is better than another.)Which is a huge difference.I personally have plenty of verses that goes against what he does. Phelps says we don't need to spread the Word of God because people are already predetermined bu God. If that is so, then why did Christ give us the Great Commission, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" Or another verse "Go and be fishers of men." Further Scripture verses to use are John 3:16, because that verse alone points to "whoever believes" Its a choice. Just Because God already knows the choices we make does not mean we are predetermined. Knowledge of a choice does not take away the free will of the erson. God simply knows what we are going to do.
> 
> WBC is not spreading Christianity. They spread hatred and lies. Personally I would love to go there to show them Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of Scripture.


 
And this is coming from our resident fundamentalist!

However, I am inclined to agree that what the WBC does should not be considered Christianity.  I've talked to actual Christians IRL- many of which were conservatives, even would be considered fundamentalist by most of this forum.  Not one of them has said that what the WBC is doing should be considered Christianity.  In fact, everyone I have talked to about it hates the WBC.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> WBC is not spreading Christianity. They spread hatred and lies. Personally I would love to go there to show them Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of Scripture.


 
The unadulterated irony of your post is delicious.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Enwon said:


> And this is coming from our resident fundamentalist!
> 
> However, I am inclined to agree that what the WBC does should not be considered Christianity.  I've talked to actual Christians IRL- many of which were conservatives, even would be considered fundamentalist by most of this forum.  Not one of them has said that what the WBC is doing should be considered Christianity.  In fact, everyone I have talked to about it hates the WBC.


 You can ask any Church leader of any denomination of Christianity, and they will all say the same thing. WBC is not preaching Christianity.


Mojotech said:


> The unadulterated irony of your post is delicious.


 
what Irony? I am pointing out the fact that preaching hatred is not Christianity. Considering the fact that not one person is better than another. We are all equal sinners. So I don't get how Phelps can take this holier than though attitude. He is what the Pharisees were back during the Time of Christ. He thinks he is better than everyone else. His pride has blinded him completely. He may or may not truly believe in Christ Jesus. That is something I don't know. I don't know his heart. But what I can tell you is, the way he goes about is not acting like Christ.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can ask any Church leader of any denomination of Christianity, and they will all say the same thing. WBC is not preaching Christianity.
> 
> 
> what Irony? I am pointing out the fact that preaching hatred is not Christianity. Considering the fact that not one person is better than another. We are all equal sinners. So I don't get how Phelps can take this holier than though attitude. He is what the Pharisees were back during the Time of Christ. He thinks he is better than everyone else. His pride has blinded him completely. He may or may not truly believe in Christ Jesus. That is something I don't know. I don't know his heart. But what I can tell you is, the way he goes about is not acting like Christ.


 
(Self-proclaimed Christians) They spread hatred and lies.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Can't you guys buy guns in the USA? Why aren't you using them?


 
It's really inappropriate to use violence in such an occasion.

I wouldn't cry if something happens to WBC protesters though.


----------



## Riley (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> what Irony? I am pointing out the fact that preaching hatred is not Christianity. Considering the fact that not one person is better than another. We are all equal sinners. So I don't get how Phelps can take this holier than though attitude. He is what the Pharisees were back during the Time of Christ. He thinks he is better than everyone else. His pride has blinded him completely. He may or may not truly believe in Christ Jesus. That is something I don't know. I don't know his heart. But what I can tell you is, the way he goes about is not acting like Christ.


 
I think we have someone around here who acts like that...


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> (Self-proclaimed Christians) They spread hatred and lies.


 
I don't know what you mean by 'self-proclaimed christians".

not sure if your taking the "all Chritians are hateful and liars" approach. or the "No true scotmans/Christians" are.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Riley said:


> I think we have someone around here who acts like that...


 
Have I made mistakes on here? Have I acted like a complete jerk sometimes? Yes. I fully admit my mistakes. I admit that I have been rude to people. And I have repeatedly apologized for it. I hold nothing of what people have said to me here against anyone. So I ask you to do the same.
I can only keep trying to emulate Christ. And when I fall down, I get back up and keep going forward. I do not think of myself better than anyone else on here. I sin just as much as the next person. I only try and continue to follow Christ to the best of my ability.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Have I made mistakes on here? Have I acted like a complete jerk sometimes? Yes. I fully admit my mistakes. I admit that I have been rude to people. And I have repeatedly apologized for it. I hold nothing of what people have said to me here against anyone. So I ask you to do the same.
> I can only keep trying to emulate Christ. And when I fall down, I get back up and keep going forward. I do not think of myself better than anyone else on here. I sin just as much as the next person. I only try and continue to follow Christ to the best of my ability.


 
Nothing against you, I'm christian and all. But the way you use your dialog about Christ/Your faith is not at all appealing. And from the perspective of Furries on this board whom want nothing to do with religion or would wish it to be destroyed whole sale, This isn't really the best place for it. Save yourself some grief and trouble, trolling, name calling and take it to another forum, perhaps Christian oriented.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Nothing against you, I'm christian and all. But the way you use your dialog about Christ/Your faith is not at all appealing. And from the perspective of Furries on this board whom want nothing to do with religion or would wish it to be destroyed whole sale, This isn't really the best place for it. Save yourself some grief and trouble, trolling, name calling and take it to another forum, perhaps Christian oriented.


 
What is the point of shining a light in an already lite room? There isn't a point to that. Furthermore, look at the thread title. And people asked me questions. Did I respond to all of them in a kind way. No, I did not. I am only human, and I am far from perfect. I will stand up for my faith, even if that means being trolled against or hated upon. I don't hold what has been said against me against anyone.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What is the point of shining a light in an already lite room? There isn't a point to that. Furthermore, look at the thread title. And people asked me questions. Did I respond to all of them in a kind way. No, I did not. I am only human, and I am far from perfect. I will stand up for my faith, even if that means being trolled against or hated upon. I don't hold what has been said against me against anyone.


 
You are why people make Fun of us religious folks.
You're outspoken and you act like you represent all of us.
You don't. And i dislike you for it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You are why people make Fun of us religious folks.


 
So to actually stand up for my faith, explain my faith, and actually trying  living for God 24/7 is wrong? Last time I checked, being a Christian doesn't stop at the doors of your church. It means you stand by your faith everyday, every minute and every second. Being poticicall correct is not Christianity. We don't get to sit on the sidelines while in our church debating religious topics while the rest of the world goes to hell and a hand basket.

"Society needs not concern itself with the musings of our people because  its conscience cannot be pricked when so many of the bickering failures  of Christianity speak louder than our words.  Society is little affected  by the gospel.  The secularist does not need to be wary of the church  that sits idly by and pampers its members and does not encourage them to  take risks for the gospel.  The secular world is free to mock the  truth, chip away at our freedoms, and claim more and more converts for  itself.  It is safe from Christianity.  But is Christianity safe from  it?

And what does the world see in all this?  Does it see a visible church  full of sacrifice, full of love, or full of people who consider others  more important than themselves?  No.  It sees polished televangelists  with perfect hair and smiles pulling the wool over the eyes of countless  thousands of gullible people as they ask for money.  It sees the  hypocrisy of moral uprightness proclaimed proudly in word and  contradicted in deed.  It sees a denominationally fragmented church that  can't even clean its own house.

And what's more, the church has all but stopped its public proclamation  against sin.  It has begun to believe the lie that the church is weak  and powerless to stop the momentum of social decay.  It flounders when  faced with immorality and stumbles instead of standing strong against  sin.

 Where are the Christians who oppose them?  Where is the church?  Is it  supporting the efforts to stop this spread of lies?  Is it uniting  behind a common cause?  No!  It leaves the work to the weary and small  who have a burden and who spend their efforts in a constant and mostly  frustrating battle for the truth.  The church pats them on the back and  says, "God bless.  Go in peace" but leaves the depleted warriors to fend  for themselves."


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Didn't read.

Go outside.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Didn't read.
> 
> Go outside.


 
Well, its almost 9:30 pm, its only 20 degrees out side, and I am watching tv. So, no thank you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You are why people make Fun of us religious folks.
> You're outspoken and you act like you represent all of us.
> You don't. And i dislike you for it.


 
Can't say I believe christianity. Can't say I think religion is a good thing.

However, since you are apparently one of the few christians I've seen who bothers trying to correct other christians when they're acting like Rukh, you get brownie points.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Can't say I believe christianity. Can't say I think religion is a good thing.
> 
> However, since you are apparently one of the few christianis I've seen who bothers trying to correct other christians when they're acting like Rukh, so far I have nothing but respect for you.


 
And I am telling him, that if you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you had better stand by your faith. Did Jesus ignore sin? Did he just blow stuff off? Did he just say "well thats okay" No, he did not. If you call yourself a Christian, then you had better prove it. Not standing by your faith does nothing.

James 2:4-5
 You adulterous people,  donâ€™t you know that friendship with the world means you can't be a friend of God?  Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an  enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 

Secondly, I am professing my faith. We are commanded to do just that. So by sitting idly by and doing nothing. That is a sin.


----------



## Conker (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I am telling him, that if you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you had better stand by your faith. Did Jesus ignore sin? Did he just blow stuff off? Did he just say "well thats okay" No, he did not. If you call yourself a Christian, then you had better prove it. Not standing by your faith does nothing.


 Well, he could have. We don't really know. It's not like the Bible is a day by day biography of his life, it just shows certain actions Jesus did. It only shows him in one light. 

For all we know, Jesus was a dick and the Bible just fails to mention it because that would be bad for its rhetoric. 

History is a fiction afterall :3


----------



## Grendel (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I am telling him, that if you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you had better stand by your faith.


How is he not standing up in his faith, Rukh? Do you realize that you are different people? You may both be Christians but there is not a singlular way of interpreting the Bible and thus he has every right to "stand by his faith" in whatever way he chooses. Telling him that he is not standing by his faith assumes that he shares all of your ideas on religion, sin, and the Bible and that you have the ability to think for and speak for other Christians on FAF. He is standing by his beliefs, just not in the exact same manner as yourself. And as an individual he has the right to practice his religion as he so chooses and to speak about his religion as he so chooses. You on the other hand do not get to speak for other people on their beliefs. You do not get to abase them for not doing exactly as you do, thinking as you do, and worshiping as you do. You do not have this privelege nor this ability. Rukh, watch yourself in your pride.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 12, 2011)

Grendel said:


> How is he not standing up in his faith, Rukh? Do you realize that you are different people? You may both be Christians but there is not a singlular way of interpreting the Bible and thus he has every right to "stand by his faith" in whatever way he chooses. Telling him that he is not standing by his faith assumes that he shares all of your ideas on religion, sin, and the Bible and that you have the ability to think for and speak for other Christians on FAF. He is standing by his beliefs, just not in the exact same manner as yourself. And as an individual he has the right to practice his religion as he so chooses and to speak about his religion as he so chooses. You on the other hand do not get to speak for other people on their beliefs. You do not get to abase them for not doing exactly as you do, thinking as you do, and worshiping as you do. You do not have this privelege nor this ability. Rukh, watch yourself in your pride.


 
First off, I speak from the Bible.
Second, I am talking about when Christians act "politically correct". That is wrong.

Matthew 10:32-33
Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my  Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown  before my Father in heaven.

It says if you are ashamed of me in front of man I will be ashamed of  you in front of the Father. But if you boldly proclaim me before man then I am pleased with you.


There is no pride. I am not doing this for me. Nothing is about me. Its all about God.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, I speak from the Bible.
> Second, I am talking about when Christians act "politically correct". That is wrong.
> 
> Matthew 10:32-33
> ...


 
Jesus died a long time ago, so acknowledging/disowning him before others is impossible. He's not literally standing there. Oh, was he speaking metaphorically? I'm going to assume he was being completely literal, because it's equally accurate to do so.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, I speak from the Bible.
> Second, I am talking about when Christians act "politically correct". That is wrong.
> 
> Matthew 10:32-33
> ...


 
If every christian was like Rukh I'd swear that earth was populated by a majority of robots and I'd have to kill myself to escape the insanity.

Seriously you are so annoyingly religious it's like you're not even human, it's disturbing.


----------



## Riley (Jan 12, 2011)

Riley said:


> Rukh,  you've conveniently forgotten to reply to me.  Again.


 
Still waiting for a reply.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 12, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First off, I speak from the Bible.
> Second, I am talking about when Christians act "politically correct". That is wrong.
> There is no pride. I am not doing this for me. Nothing is about me. Its all about God.


Rukh, you are speaking once again as if your opinion needs to apply to everyone else. You are not that important. Your opinion on how the Bible is interpreted is different than some Christians. It does not make you "more Christian" or them "less Christian" nor does it make you "less Christian" and them "more Christian". You are just Christians. You are equals. And though your paths to God may differ slightly they are still paths to God.

But your insistance that he is disowning his faith is your opinion. He is not. And being polite to others and treating them as people is right, so being politically correct is right. There is no reason for you to insult others. Feel free to bring up your points and opinions, but remember you can only speak for yourself and your ideas of religion do not apply to others as they get to think for themselves. So please stop dictating what MaverickCowboy should do, it's his business and not yours. Telling him to be exactly like you in his approach to his religion is childish and narcissistic on your part. Your approach to religion is no more valid than his.






Nail_bunny said:


> If every christian was like Rukh I'd swear that earth was populated by a majority of robots and I'd have to kill myself to escape the insanity.
> 
> Seriously you are so annoyingly religious it's like you're not even human, it's disturbing.


 
Is this necessary? Don't encourage being impolite and treating others as if they were "not even human". What's disturbing here is the lack of respect in this argument. We're all capable of it and undermining each other's humanity does not make any side's argument or position more valid. It only makes you look rude and snappish. What I said to Rukh can be applied to you, treat everyone as another equal person with their own opinions. We each have a right to our opinions. True, in argument opinions are useless and points and facts are the key, but we do each have a right to our own opinions that are not dictated by others.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 13, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'self-proclaimed christians".
> 
> not sure if your taking the "all Chritians are hateful and liars" approach. or the "No true scotmans/Christians" are.


 
Well you weren't a part of the conversation, so it would require you to...I dunno...Read the context? Especially before you start throwing out fallacies - Which is a fallacy in-and-of itself, heh heh.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 13, 2011)

Grendel said:


> Is this necessary? Don't encourage being impolite and treating others as if they were "not even human". What's disturbing here is the lack of respect in this argument. We're all capable of it and undermining each other's humanity does not make any side's argument or position more valid. It only makes you look rude and snappish. What I said to Rukh can be applied to you, treat everyone as another equal person with their own opinions. We each have a right to our opinions. True, in argument opinions are useless and points and facts are the key, but we do each have a right to our own opinions that are not dictated by others.




I like you man, despite your anti-theism; you're very level headed and fair.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Jan 13, 2011)

It says something about human stubbornness that this is the 2485th post here.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 13, 2011)

Conker said:


> For all we know, Jesus was a dick and the Bible just fails to mention it because that would be bad for its rhetoric.


 
There is actually a lot of Jesus being a dick in the New Testament Apocrypha. :3



Riley said:


> Still waiting for a reply.


 
Oi, me first.  I've been hounding this point since before the hack:



Lobar said:


> This thread can still work if we move on from the kibitzing over Scripture to the big guns of logic and reasoning.  Catching a fundie in a Biblical contradiction may be fun, but it doesn't resolve much.
> 
> I think my running argument was lost in the crash, so I'll rehash it here:
> 
> ...


 
Despite the lack of proof to neither God's existence nor non-existence, logic demands a disbelief in God beyond any practical consideration, Rukh.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 13, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> WBC is not spreading Christianity. They spread hatred and lies. Personally I would love to go there to show them Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of Scripture.


 
Unfortunately they'll say the same about you. And until the Big Guy Himself speaks up the rest of us will have some trouble with it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So to actually stand up for my faith, explain my faith, and actually trying  living for God 24/7 is wrong?


 
Consider that perhaps it is the fact that you immediately assume that this is why people dislike you that irritates them.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 13, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I like you man, despite your anti-theism; you're very level headed and fair.


 I wish you wouldn't assume things. I have never posted what my religious beliefs are. I'll argue on all sides, but my own beliefs are my business and I don't feel like crowing it out on FAF. However I don't understand how you assumed I was an anti-theist? There was another poster, an entirely seperate individual, LastDireWolf who calls himself such. But never me. Please don't label me on your own whim.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 13, 2011)

Grendel said:


> I wish you wouldn't assume things. I have never posted what my religious beliefs are. I'll argue on all sides, but my own beliefs are my business and I don't feel like crowing it out on FAF. However I don't understand how you assumed I was an anti-theist? There was another poster, an entirely seperate individual, LastDireWolf who calls himself such. But never me. Please don't label me on your own whim.


 
My bad, thought you were an anti-theist due to an earlier post.



Grendel said:


> Originally Posted by *NobleThorne*
> 
> 
> Sorry about that, mistook one atheist for another.
> ...



Forgive my assumption, I made an ass of myself. Nerveless, I complement your desire for everyone to be treated respectfully and fair.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 13, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> My bad, thought you were an anti-theist due to an earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive my assumption, I made an ass of myself. Nerveless, I complement your desire for everyone to be treated respectfully and fair.


 
I see my error. I typed that retardedly (seeing as I'm not an atheist and especially not an "anti-theist"). I usually align myself with the people I'm defending calling us, us, whether I am defending Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Gnostics, Pagans, Wiccans, and... that's really all the religions I have read up on. Any more than that and I will need to be educated more to defend their beliefs properly. 

But moreso the point is that "we" and "us" should refer to people universally, no matter their religious creed. We people. Us. United. And we should all defend each others rights to opinions and to practice our religions freely (without any harm coming to others ofcourse.)


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well you weren't a part of the conversation, so it would require you to...I dunno...Read the context? Especially before you start throwing out fallacies - Which is a fallacy in-and-of itself, heh heh.


 
This is a forum, its open to everyone to read what you post on here.

You don't need to be an asshole. i wasn't throwing out fallacies, i was asking a question.

If my question bothers you, that's your problem. I'm not going to put on gloves just for you.

You either implied what i suggested, or you didn't, and i asked leaving you to explain.

but hey, if you're going to respond to me like an asshole, then i wont care if you cant be civil.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> This is a forum, its open to everyone to read what you post on here.
> 
> You don't need to be an asshole. i wasn't throwing out fallacies, i was asking a question.
> 
> ...


 
Err, in case you forgot to read what I wrote again - I'm not telling you not to respond - In fact I was telling you the exact opposite, telling you to _go and read what I said_, as well as the rest of what was said - To gain a context before replying by insinuating I've committed a logical fallacy.

Here's the relevant post:


MaverickCowboy said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'self-proclaimed christians".
> 
> not sure if your taking the *"all Chritians are hateful and liars" approach*. or the *"No true scotmans/Christians" are.*


 
Note that neither one of those statements are questions. I could assume questions out of them, but that's not how this game works. You told you you don't know what I mean, and then insinuated I was committing one of two logical fallacies.

And _I'm_ meant to be the asshole here, hah xD


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Can't say I believe christianity. Can't say I think religion is a good thing.
> 
> However, since you are apparently one of the few christians I've seen who bothers trying to correct other christians when they're acting like Rukh, you get brownie points.


 
People like Rukh piss me off more than Militant Athiests.

People have their opinion and their respective faiths, i respect that. But telling me "DERP HURP YOUR NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN, YOUR SOPPOSED TO BE LIKE ME."

Is fucking insane and makes me want to beat him with a shovel. Whats fucked up is that i Can sit in an establishment with a Muslim with respective rifles on our backs and have a mutual enlightening itellectual/interesting conversation about our faiths, even have a fucking meal together.

Rukh comes along and makes me want to choke a bitch.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Note that neither one of those statements are questions.* I could assume questions out of them*, but that's not how this game works. You told you you don't know what I mean, and then insinuated I was committing one of two logical fallacies.
> 
> And _I'm_ meant to be the asshole here, hah xD


 
So which approach are you taking?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> So which approach are you taking?


 
Neither. I didn't use the term "all" (nor similar), and I never referred "_true_" or "_real_" Christians.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> *Militant* Athiests


 
Le sigh.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Le sigh.





> Julian Baggini defines _'militant atheism'_ as "_Atheism which is actively hostile to religion_", which "_requires  more than strong disagreement with religion â€” it requires something  verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms  of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two  claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is  demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or  always harmful._



what is the problem? "Militant Athiest" is taboo term now?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Neither. I didn't use the term "all" (nor similar), and I never referred "_true_" or "_real_" Christians.


 
Then what did you mean by your comment?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> what is the problem?


 
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.
Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics.
Militant Atheists...do what now?  Have opinions?  How awful.


----------



## Browder (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> what is the problem?


 
He's implying there's no such thing and I'm inclined to agree. 'Militant' in this context means willing to take up arms for, and atheists don't do that to spread theirs.

Yet.

EDIT
Ninja'd


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.
> Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics.
> Militant Atheists...do what now?  Have opinions?  How awful.


 
You're getting your panties in a twist because i dislike a certain groups garbage?

What makes you think i don't like the Militant religious?
I've shown a dislike for Rukh publically, its only natural to assume that i dislike the other retards. There is absolutely no reason for me to not have a negative view about militant ANYBODY, Proselytizing Atheists included.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

In response to your late edit: I've never heard of Julian Baggini before and don't see why his opinion on this topic matters.  Militant, as Browder pointed out, means to take up arms for, and we don't do that.  I further challenge Baggini's assertion that hatred is a necessary motivating factor.  I would love to wipe out religion entirely (through competition in the marketplace of ideas, not violence), but only to bring about the benefits of a more peaceful and rational world.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Browder said:


> He's implying there's no such thing and I'm inclined to agree. 'Militant' in this context means willing to take up arms for, and atheists don't do that to spread theirs.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> ...



See my post above.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Then what did you mean by your comment?


 
So...Not going to read the context, alright...I'll explain it. 

Mojo said this:


Mojotech said:


> The unadulterated irony of your post is delicious.


 
To this:


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> WBC is not spreading Christianity. They  spread hatred and lies. Personally I would love to go there to show them  Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of  Scripture.


 
Rukh didn't appear to get it, and I cherished the comedy, so I posted this to him:


Lastdirewolf said:


> (Self-proclaimed Christians) They spread hatred and lies.


 
It's kind of like one of those Demotivational posters, where they have some words in a big font, then a smaller font, that is sometimes redundant. Kind of like this:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/demotivational-posters-in-a-demotivational.jpg

So we've learned my post was intentionally redundant, ala Demotivational posters - What does it _mean_, well, it's meant to mean what Mojo insinuated, and I'll point it out here what I presume he was also pointing out:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> WBC is not *spreading Christianity. They  spread hatred and lies*. Personally I would love to go there to show them  Scripture and point out what they are doing flies in the face of  Scripture.



That the irony in Rukh's post is palpable - I do believe Mojo-jojo is not a god-fearer, so it would make sense that we both share the "God doesn't exist" thing, thus "Christianity is a lie" fills in that gap, and if you asked either one of us, you'd probably be told that Christians have (and do) actively spread hatred.

Noble up there has also claimed he is/was a Christan, albeit near the top in narrow-mindedness. So "Self-proclaimed Christian" (both Noble & Rukh), spread hatred and lies. They both insist they're spreading love and truth, and so, that is where the irony comes from.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> In response to your late edit: I've never heard of Julian Baggini before and don't see why his opinion on this topic matters.  Militant, as Browder pointed out, means to take up arms for, and we don't do that.  I further challenge Baggini's assertion that hatred is a motivating factor.  I would love to wipe out religion entirely (through competition in the marketplace of ideas, not violence), but only to bring about the benefits of a more peaceful and rational world.


 
You got frustrated at me over semantics. I've never seen the term 'Militant Athiest' to describe atheists in the framing you propose.

I'll make an example.

Someone has a cross on their neck, a frugal sized one. Nothing special. You show up at work, a coworker notices and begins to berate, harass, instigate verbal abuses akin to "You're a fucking delusional fucktard in need of therapy/ you believe in fairy tales."* unprovoked*.

GENERALLY. That's what's described as a 'Militant Atheist'. or, an asshole in which 'sensitivity' training would fail spectacularly.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So "Self-proclaimed Christian" (both Noble & Rukh), spread hatred and lies. They both insist they're spreading love and truth, and so, that is where the irony comes from.



Agreed.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So...Not going to read the context, alright...I'll explain it.
> 
> That the irony in Rukh's post is palpable - I do believe Mojo-jojo is not a god-fearer, so it would make sense that we both share the "God doesn't exist" thing, thus "Christianity is a lie" fills in that gap, and if you asked either one of us, you'd probably be told that Christians have (and do) actively spread hatred.
> 
> Noble up there has also claimed he is/was a Christan, albeit near the top in narrow-mindedness. So "Self-proclaimed Christian" (both Noble & Rukh), spread hatred and lies. They both insist they're spreading love and truth, and so, that is where the irony comes from.



An ignorant statement there, I ain't spreading any hate. I preach against hating, it isn't right its a sin. If your saying I hate homo-sexuals you've twisted what I believe and what I stated into hate. I don't hate them, and I don't love em, I pity them for their choice, but that's a personal belief, that ain't hate.

Hadn't seen Ruhk spreading any hate?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> An ignorant statement there, I ain't spreading any hate. I preach against hating, it isn't right its a sin. If your saying I hate homo-sexuals you've twisted what I believe and what I stated into hate. I don't hate them, and I don't love em, I pity them for their choice, but that's a personal belief, that ain't hate.
> 
> Hadn't seen Ruhk spreading any hate?


 
Saying you pity them isn't exactly helping your case as if you don't hate them.

You wrote that as if guys choose to be attracted to other guys.

Can you simply look at another guy and choose to be attracted to them? after all. its a Choice. It should be just as easy for you to get a boner for a dude as for a chick.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You got frustrated at me over semantics. I've never seen the term 'Militant Athiest' to describe atheists in the framing you propose.
> 
> I'll make an example.
> 
> ...


 
Even in a case such as this (which I have never seen anything similar happen) the word "militant" is misapplied until he actually becomes violent unprovoked.  Were the roles reversed, and a Christian were berating an atheist, it's unlikely that he would be labeled with anything stronger than "aggressive".


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Saying you pity them isn't exactly helping your case as if you don't hate them.
> 
> You wrote that as if guys choose to be attracted to other guys.
> 
> Can you simply look at another guy and choose to be attracted to them? after all. its a Choice. It should be just as easy for you to get a boner for a dude as for a chick.


 
I'd say its a combo of genetic factors and personal choice. A challenge for them to overcome.


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

doesnt religion make things worse? 

o   -o


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Even in a case such as this (which I have never seen anything similar happen) the word "militant" is misapplied until he actually becomes violent unprovoked.  Were the roles reversed, and a Christian were berating an atheist, it's unlikely that he would be labeled with anything stronger than "aggressive".



Then i guess its been misapplied for a LONG time.

Not my fault so get off my case.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> doesnt religion make things worse?
> 
> o   -o


 
Welcome to the thread. 

Depends who you ask.

Why would you think so?

*popcorn*


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'd say its a combo of genetic factors and personal choice. A challenge for them to overcome.


 
"I'd say" is not a sufficient answer, nor is it something to merely based a passive careless statement such as the one you just made.

I'll tell you what a challenge for you to overcome is. 

Your head shoved a mile up your own ass.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Then i guess its been misapplied for a LONG time.
> 
> Not my fault so get off my case.


 
As long as you stop misusing words. :3

also don't triple post


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> As long as you stop misusing words. :3
> 
> also don't triple post


 
You just wanted to give me grief this whole time. :V the hell with actual discussion.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> "I'd say" is not a sufficient answer, nor is it something to merely based a passive careless statement such as the one you just made.
> 
> I'll tell you what a challenge for you to overcome is.
> 
> Your head shoved a mile up your own ass.



How is that not a fair statement? Biblical support and biological support.

Are we not all given challenges to overcome; even one's from birth, physical and mental.


Head up my ass, ya that's what my dad says when I  can't find a tool he lent out to a co-worker.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I'd say its a combo of genetic factors and personal choice. A challenge for them to overcome.



Excuse me.

I've never considered it a challenge to overcome my bisexuality.  I _did _consider it a challenge to get over the self hatred imposed on me by my Baptist upbringing.  I especially considered it a challenge to have a girlfriend I could never bring to family functions, and listen to fag jokes that one christmas while my girlfriend was back home, because I couldn't invite her to the family dinner.  I still consider it a challenge for people to accept that all we want is to be treated just like everyone else; with the same rights to marry (not just civil unions) with all the lawful privilages therin, and to be able to raise families without our children being looked on as freaks for having two moms or two dads.

I did not choose to be bisexual.  I chose to stop fighting who I fell in love with.  I chose to stop letting the term describe who I am.  And I chose to speak out against this narrow-minded ideology.  Maybe instead of concerning yourself about who people sleep with, you should concern yourself with your relationship with your Deity.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Excuse me.
> 
> I've never considered it a challenge to overcome my bisexuality.  I _did _consider it a challenge to get over the self hatred imposed on me by my Baptist upbringing.  I especially considered it a challenge to have a girlfriend I could never bring to family functions, and listen to fag jokes that one christmas while my girlfriend was back home, because I couldn't invite her to the family dinner.  I still consider it a challenge for people to accept that all we want is to be treated just like everyone else; with the same rights to marry (not just civil unions) with all the lawful privilages therin, and to be able to raise families without our children being looked on as freaks for having two moms or two dads.
> 
> I did not choose to be bisexual.  I chose to stop fighting who I fell in love with.  I chose to stop letting the term describe who I am.  And I chose to speak out against this narrow-minded ideology.  Maybe instead of concerning yourself about who people sleep with, you should concern yourself with your relationship with your Deity.




And how would you interpret Leviticus 18:22, I've stated my interpretation, and girl friends are a challenge no joke in that. But ultimately you have free will of your orientation, the mind is stronger than the flesh; or do you believe God gave you no choice  in the matter.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> And how would you interpret Leviticus 18:22, I've stated my interpretation, and girl friends are a challenge no joke in that. But ultimately you have free will of your orientation, the mind is stronger than the flesh; or do you believe God gave you no choice  in the matter.


 
This isn't Church, go preach somewhere else.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> And how would you interpret Leviticus 18:22, I've stated my interpretation, and girl friends are a challenge no joke in that. But ultimately you have free will of your orientation, the mind is stronger than the flesh; or do you believe God gave you no choice  in the matter.


 
I interpret it as an obscure and immoral passage from a book of ancient superstitions. :3


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> This is a forum, its open to everyone to read what you post on here.
> 
> You don't need to be an asshole. i wasn't throwing out fallacies, i was asking a question.
> 
> ...



Its an open discussion, I ain't here to command, I'm participating in the discussion by expressing my point of view.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Its an open discussion, I ain't here to command, I'm participating in the discussion by expressing my point of view.


 
LOL, you quoted the wrong box.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> LOL, you quoted the wrong box.


 No I chose that one on purpose.




3am got to call it a night.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> And how would you interpret Leviticus 18:22, I've stated my interpretation, and girl friends are a challenge no joke in that. But ultimately you have free will of your orientation, the mind is stronger than the flesh; or do you believe God gave you no choice  in the matter.


 
I believe that man picks and chooses or misinterprets God's words to fit their own agendas (hence why so many versions of christianity?) to oppress people who are different then others.  It is also part of a series of commandments given to the Isrealites to be different from the Egyptians and the Canannites, where they were resettling, as they were God's chosen tribe.   

"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 â€œSpeak to the Israelites and say to them: â€˜I am the LORD your God. 3  You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you  must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.  Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." Leviticus 18:1-5

I am also not a Christian...not anymore.  Why should the rules of Leviticus apply to me any more then the decrees of Allah apply to you?


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

Thanks~

Well i mean there are some people who like to twist the words into the Bible into something they think isnt right

Perfect example: Gays

Alot of people treat gays horribly and whatnot thanks to those Christan maniacs. I'm not saying all of them are but who do you see on the news the most?

=\
I dunno why cant everyone just get along? I know what kinda of response ill get but i mean i'm gay and treat put everyone before me....-sigh- kinda drifting off topic but anyways


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Thanks~
> 
> Well i mean there are some people who like to twist the words into the Bible into something they think isnt right
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, 9/11 and Muslim terrorists we'rent on TV as much as WBC at all.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Thanks~
> 
> Well i mean there are some people who like to twist the words into the Bible into something they think isnt right
> 
> ...



Aww, isn't your life hard.

I'm not even going to tell you how screwed up your view of Christianity is.


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Yeah, 9/11 and Muslim terrorists we'rent on TV as much as WBC at all.


 
=\ didnt say they wernt...


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Aww, isn't your life hard.
> 
> I'm not even going to tell you how screwed up your view of Christianity is.


 
k thanks bai


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

Maybe iiiFoxy's never stepped into a church before, and has never had a good experience with Christians.   That sarcastic comment you made SIX certainly wouldn't change that negative viewpoint, but reinforce it.   Maybe instead of telling iiiFoxy that the viewpoint is screwed up, you can be a little more constructive.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> k thanks bai


 

o.o

are you 14?


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> o.o
> 
> are you 14?


 
=\
k im ignoring you now


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Maybe iiiFoxy's never stepped into a church before, and has never had a good experience with Christians.   That sarcastic comment you made SIX certainly wouldn't change that negative viewpoint, but reinforce it.   Maybe instead of telling iiiFoxy that the viewpoint is screwed up, you can be a little more constructive.


 Glad I can have a decent conversation with someone instead of people trolling
=\


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Glad I can have a decent conversation with someone instead of people trolling
> =\


 
Umad?


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Umad?


 
=\
k im ignoring you now
^


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Glad I can have a decent conversation with someone instead of people trolling
> =\


 
Nah, that wasn't trolling.  I just hate non-constructive criticism


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Nah, that wasn't trolling.  I just hate non-constructive criticism


 
Really?



MaverickCowboy said:


> Umad?


 

>   ->


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Hes so cute you guys, i want to keep him.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Maybe iiiFoxy's never stepped into a church before, and has never had a good experience with Christians. That sarcastic comment you made SIX certainly wouldn't change that negative viewpoint, but reinforce it. Maybe instead of telling iiiFoxy that the viewpoint is screwed up, you can be a little more constructive.


 
Fair point, fairly made.



> Well i mean there are some people who like to twist the words into the Bible into something they think isnt right


'Some' is not a fair quantifier, and it doesn't take into account that, for all the people who utilize Biblical morality in the rationalisation of clearly amoral scenarios, there are a fair few more who quietly live by a decent moral code under the teachings of, or influence of, religious idealogy. 



> Alot of people treat gays horribly and whatnot thanks to those Christan maniacs.


A lot of people treat gays horribly because of an entire matrix of flaws with our society tied in with hundreds of psychological and social reasons spread out over thousands of years of the development of our culture. Yet, frankly, I've never heard of a modern time when gays were so accepted.



> I'm not saying all of them are but who do you see on the news the most?


What I tend to see on the news the most is reporting on the state of global finance. It's very, very rare I hear any stories pertaining to homophobia at all.

Not to mention that Christian values of acceptance and tolerance are far more widespread than ever, and seeded into people's intrinsic morality far more deeply than Leviticus.

Oh, and, just to clarify, I am athiest.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy:
Cant you tell  

Just as a friendly warning, people don't tolerate 'cute' posts here in certain areas.  It annoys the crap out of some furs.  Off topic and Rant and Raves are where people want to have serious discussions, unless otherwise stated as a crap-thread, then go nuts *L*.  The den and Forum Games are a little more lax on that.


----------



## iiiFoxy (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> iiiFoxy:
> Cant you tell
> 
> Just as a friendly warning, people don't tolerate 'cute' posts here in certain areas.  It annoys the crap out of some furs.  Off topic and Rant and Raves are where people want to have serious discussions, unless otherwise stated as a crap-thread, then go nuts *L*.  The den and Forum Games are a little more lax on that.


 Dearly noted


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

iiiFoxy said:


> Dearly noted


 
>:3


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Fair point, fairly made.


 
 I have a lot of experience with bad experiences with christians, I just happened to be raised in a christian family, so there was no escape *L*.  And reading back on my post, I'm sorry that I came across as bitchy.  I'm cranky if I haven't gotten enough sleep. *sheepish*



SIX said:


> 'Some' is not a fair quantifier, and it doesn't take into account that, for all the people who utilize Biblical morality in the rationalization of clearly amoral scenarios, there are a fair few more who quietly live by a decent moral code under the teachings of, or influence of, religious ideology.


 
I've been saying this for years, but I've never been able to prove that moral decency can be achieved outside religion.  It's sort of like the 'chicken or the egg' analogy.  Which came first?  And depending on who you ask you already know what they're going to say 



SIX said:


> A lot of people treat gays horribly because of an entire matrix of flaws with our society tied in with hundreds of psychological and social reasons spread out over thousands of years of the development of our culture. Yet, frankly, I've never heard of a modern time when gays were so accepted.


 
So true! 



SIX said:


> What I tend to see on the news the most is reporting on the state of global finance. It's very, very rare I hear any stories pertaining to homophobia at all.
> 
> Not to mention that Christian values of acceptance and tolerance are far more widespread than ever, and seeded into people's intrinsic morality far more deeply than Leviticus.



It's still an ongoing issue, like the whole don't ask don't tell repeal of recent weeks.  John McCain's 'the sky is falling' reaction to that was adorable 



SIX said:


> Oh, and, just to clarify, I am athiest.


'Born Again' Pagan here


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I have a lot of experience with bad experiences with christians, I just happened to be raised in a christian family, so there was no escape *L*.  And reading back on my post, I'm sorry that I came across as bitchy.  I'm cranky if I haven't gotten enough sleep. *sheepish*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

How are you a 'born' again pagan? lol


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> How are you a 'born' again pagan? lol



It's sort of a running pagan joke, since it's pretty well known that quite a number of Pagans, Wiccans, etc used to be Christians (and I'm talking every kind from your average church goer to former pastors)


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> An ignorant statement there, I ain't spreading any hate. I preach against hating, it isn't right its a sin. If your saying I hate homo-sexuals you've twisted what I believe and what I stated into hate. I don't hate them, and I don't love em, I pity them for their choice, but that's a personal belief, that ain't hate.
> 
> Hadn't seen Ruhk spreading any hate?


 
Actually quite the opposite, it's a well-informed opinion - You just simply forget to read the rest of it, _"and lies". _*Homosexuality*, is one word, no hyphen needed, and at this point in time (_and I'm the ignorant one here_) - Scientists haven't really determined if it's natural, environmental, or a choice (in general). For some it's a mixture of 2 out of the three - For others it's all three, and for even some others only have one - Thus why it's so hard to pin down, some choose to be gay, and some others can't help it. 

Anyways, your pity is not necessarily hate, but it's a shunning, and mocking act none-the-less - And could be argued pity is more insulting than hate (within non-extremist bounds, of course). 

I'm sure I can find somewhere in these 2,700ish posts Rukh spreading hate (like for children who make fun of bald men), but it's also the _lies_. Hatred is one thing, lying is a whole new ballgame...And lying is what Christians and Catholics do best.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> 'Some' is not a fair quantifier, and it doesn't take into account that, for all the people who utilize Biblical morality in the rationalisation of clearly amoral scenarios, there are a fair few more who quietly live by a decent moral code under the teachings of, or influence of, religious idealogy.



I would say "despite" their religious ideology.  If their religion was truly a source of morality, I would expect the fundamentalists to be the best examples of Christianity, not the worst.  Instead, I hold the view that we have our own intrinsic morality, and Christianity (or other religions) act only as a warping force upon it: in the best case scenario, a Christian only takes into consideration those passages that merely affirm what he already believes, and in worse cases, modifies his morality to adopt bizarre or harmful superstitions as moral issues.  Thus, the only real influence has is negative.




SIX said:


> A lot of people treat gays horribly because of an entire matrix of flaws with our society tied in with hundreds of psychological and social reasons spread out over thousands of years of the development of our culture. Yet, frankly, I've never heard of a modern time when gays were so accepted.



"Modern" seems to be an unnecessarily favorable qualifier; how many other modern times are there to compare to?  The Greeks and Romans seemed to have no issues with homosexuality, lending support to homophobia being a wholly Christian development.




SIX said:


> What I tend to see on the news the most is reporting on the state of global finance. It's very, very rare I hear any stories pertaining to homophobia at all.



We only just repealed a stipulation that anyone caught being gay in the military gets kicked out, which has brought about plenty of ugly commentary.  Less reported than it should be are the stories about Christians and Muslims in Africa working to make homosexuality an executable offense...


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

> I would say "despite" their religious ideology. If their religion was truly a source of morality, I would expect the fundamentalists to be the best examples of Christianity, not the worst.


 
Has there ever been an objectively definable 'fundamental' Christian? What sort of values would they hold?
It seems to me that a fundamentalist would be the Christian who holds all passages in the Bible to be true. But that's paradoxial; several of the passages conflict with several others, and they are, in any case, open to so many different interpretations that to consider them all would be impossibly complex. 
Would a fundamental Christian, then, be one who just follows the teachings of Christ, and throws out the Bible? Jesus never once spoke out against homosexuality in his life.



> Instead, I hold the view that we have our own intrinsic morality, and Christianity (or other religions) act only as a warping force upon it: in the best case scenario, a Christian only takes into consideration those passages that merely affirm what he already believes, and in worse cases, modifies his morality to adopt bizarre or harmful superstitions as moral issues. Thus, the only real influence has is negative.


 
Can we define 'intrinsic'? It seems fallacious to assume that there's an innate morality; to be born with knowledge of how to act given a scenario, despite a complete lack of experience, knowledge, or even material concept.
I'd suggest that morality is developed due to one's environment and upbringing; that a child praised for beating others, and who suffered for loss, would grow to see power and victory as a moral imperative seems entirely logical to me. And so, in my opinion, the morality of an individual is based on the beliefs and actions of his parents and community, rather than a member of a religious community or family being deigned as 'religious' and then choosing to follow whichever moral law they saw as justified in their religion.

It's only natural to conclude that a theist would be swayed by a particularly emotive passage or by one that sounds parallel to their own understanding - but I propose that unless they were already held to a morality that would allow them to do whatever it was they were going to do, such as discriminate agaisnt gays, then a religious quotation that could be interpreted as in favour of the action would have that interpretation ignored. Or, simply, although a religious person could most definitely utilize a religious passage as excuse or rationalisation, unless they were already the sort of person who believed in what they were doing, the passage would be ineffectual. Ergo, religion is not the cause, just an excuse.



> "Modern" seems to be an unnecessarily favorable qualifier; how many other modern times are there to compare to? The Greeks and Romans seemed to have no issues with homosexuality, lending support to homophobia being a wholly Christian development.


You're correct; that was a poor use of language. To clarify, I meant some abitrary time with high technological capacity, say, the 1970's onwards, as opposed to pre-1970s.

It's entirely true that Christianity has had a near monopolous grip on the first world for hundreds of years but it's by no means true that Christianity was the cause of rising homophobia; a society is an abstraction of individual people, and individual people can only affect other individual people. Christianity was the system that gave power to the individual priests that taught homophobia; but it was not religion that gave homophobia to the populus - it only gave power to the voice of certain individuals. Or, metaphorically, though Enola Gay carried the bomb, it was Little Boy that did the damage.



> We only just repealed a stipulation that anyone caught being gay in the military gets kicked out, which has brought about plenty of ugly commentary.


Though it's sickening to see that people would be against inclusion, I don't see this as having religious cause.



> Less reported than it should be are the stories about Christians and Muslims in Africa working to make homosexuality an executable offense...


And yet, there are openly gay Muslims, and openly gay Christians. Again, I believe it's the individuals beliefs, and they're using religion as an excuse. 

Homophobia is not a result of religion warping minds; it's that homophobic minds warp religion to suit.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> How are you a 'born' again pagan? lol


 
Same way I'm a non-practicing atheist.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Hadn't seen Ruhk spreading any hate?


 Rukh has made previous threats to attack a female atheist who disagreed with him by "shoving a spear" up her ass and something about a spiked dildo and later telling her she did not deserve to live. _If I am remembering correctly_. And that recollection is just a small piece amongst many other unsavory things.



iiiFoxy said:


> =\
> k im ignoring you now


   Please  try to be mature in your posts. Grammar, spelling, capitalization, etc.  This is a text based forum, and the way you type can verily increase the  credibility of the ideas you propose. By typing with "emoticons" and  "textspeak" you make yourself seem as if you are not mature enough to  hold a serious conversation here.


iiiFoxy said:


> people trolling
> =\


  Never call "trolling" it makes everything infinitely worse.



MaverickCowboy said:


> Umad?


 This is not alleviating the poor situation. As CAThulu said constructive posts would be better.



iiiFoxy said:


> k im ignoring you now


 Don't repeat  yourself when is it completely unnecessary. Especially when you are  repeating something that you said that was not very intelligent or  articulated.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Same way I'm a non-practicing atheist.


 
I cant help but think og the born again christian model. was christian before, kinda maybe, hobby thing on sundays. then. REDISCOVERED JAYSUS.

so i figured it be like, Rediscovering atheism, or Paganism lol,


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I believe that man picks and chooses or misinterprets God's words to fit their own agendas (hence why so many versions of christianity?) to oppress people who are different then others.  It is also part of a series of commandments given to the Isrealites to be different from the Egyptians and the Canannites, where they were resettling, as they were God's chosen tribe.
> 
> "1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 â€œSpeak to the Israelites and say to them: â€˜I am the LORD your God. 3  You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you  must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.  Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." Leviticus 18:1-5
> 
> I am also not a Christian...not anymore.  Why should the rules of Leviticus apply to me any more then the decrees of Allah apply to you?



I was curious of your outlook, your choices are your own, you are exercising your free will and therefore are not malfunctioning as a human. That misinterpreting the Bible to serve one's own interests works both ways, I don't think you can deny that, people can easily twist around a message to justify what they do


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Actually quite the opposite, it's a well-informed opinion - You just simply forget to read the rest of it, _"and lies". _*Homosexuality*, is one word, no hyphen needed, and at this point in time (_and I'm the ignorant one here_) - Scientists haven't really determined if it's natural, environmental, or a choice (in general). For some it's a mixture of 2 out of the three - For others it's all three, and for even some others only have one - Thus why it's so hard to pin down, some choose to be gay, and some others can't help it.
> 
> Anyways, your pity is not necessarily hate, but it's a shunning, and mocking act none-the-less - And could be argued pity is more insulting than hate (within non-extremist bounds, of course).
> 
> I'm sure I can find somewhere in these 2,700ish posts Rukh spreading hate (like for children who make fun of bald men), but it's also the _lies_. Hatred is one thing, lying is a whole new ballgame...And lying is what Christians and Catholics do best.



My pity is not shunning, its the same pity I feel for anyone I can't see going to heaven. Shunning would be "their not allowed in my church because their gay" I don't believe in that. Church is for everyone, no demographic should be banned from it.

As for Ruhk I don't know what to say on that, what's his personal opinion on everyone's claim that he is hating.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> That misinterpreting the Bible to serve one's own interests works both ways, I don't think you can deny that, people can easily twist around a message to justify what they do


 The Bible can be interpreted in any way. As long as there is sufficient textual points many conclusions may be logically deduced. So it's not necessarily always being "misinterpreted" as "differently interpreted". However if lacking in textual quotes the conclusion may be misinterpreting, or if the original Greek/Hebrew flies in the face of the specific interpretation it may be argued that the interpretation is incorrect. Misinterpretation though is not "twisting" for the most part it is done in honest ignorance of the original languages/translational errors or in not understanding the portion correctly. "Twisting" implies intentionally deceit over the meaning whereas "misinterpretation" is intentional and easily corrected if the people discussing it are open to the others opinion when backed sufficiently. But you are correct that at times people directly and with intent impose their own agendas upon religious texts. This has gone on since religions were formed, like the anomaly of "Anglo-Saxxon White Jesus".



NobleThorne said:


> As for Ruhk I don't know what to say on that,  what's his personal opinion on everyone's claim that he is  hating.


Rukh is a strange figure in this debate. Unless you immediately and  completely agree with him on every single one of his many changing views  of religion you are wrong. Forever.
It is not generally a single person's claim, or any claim specifically,  he just jumps in says a few things and gets rebuttals. Then he either  turns nasty (telling us that all little babies and every living human  deserves death) or plays up the martyred victim role (I just came in  here to answer your questions, and help this discussion and you all  viciously and savagely attacked me en horde!). Sometimes he does both in  the very same post. Those posts are the most confusing as he stomps on  you verbally and then woes at his dismal position of being hated and  despised and how he must suffer for Jesus.

Also, please do not double post. It happens to all of us from time to time, but if you could in the future try not to?


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> My pity is not shunning, its the same pity I feel for anyone I can't see going to heaven. Shunning would be "their not allowed in my church because their gay" I don't believe in that. Church is for everyone, no demographic should be banned from it.


 
Pity is incredibly insulting. It's like telling them that God has this sweet Club, and you're getting in because God friended you on his Facebook.. but they aren't, so they're just gonna have to wait outside. It's got 'douche' written all over it.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Pity is incredibly insulting. It's like telling them that God has this sweet Club, and you're getting in because God friended you on his Facebook.. but they aren't, so they're just gonna have to wait outside. It's got 'douche' written all over it.



Um, yes. Pity has a horrible negative connotation. And saying that you pity others also implies that you know _for sure_ you're going to heaven (which would mean you have access into the mind of God). It's a subtle self-aggrandizing statement.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> My pity is not shunning, its the same pity I  feel for anyone I can't see going to heaven. Shunning would be "their  not allowed in my church because their gay" I don't believe in that.  Church is for everyone, no demographic should be banned from it.
> 
> As for Ruhk I don't know what to say on that, what's his personal opinion on everyone's claim that he is hating.


 
I'm not sue whether you just gave a prime example or not, but the type  of pity you're giving is, "I feel sorry for that homeless man, but I'm  not going to help him". The example you gave is hatred, which amuses me.  

As for Rukh, I honest don't care about his opinion at this point about  what he's saying - Obviously he's going to say he's preaching "Truth"  (which a capital T), and love, or his gods love, or some bull like that,  but then he flips around and starts b's'ing again :v


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Grendel said:


> Um, yes. Pity has a horrible negative connotation. And saying that you pity others also implies that you know _for sure_ you're going to heaven (which would mean you have access into the mind of God). It's a subtle self-aggrandizing statement.


 He says whosoever accepts me will inherit the kingdom of God, I'll take his word for it. I don't think any one has access to his mind. And it sure ain't no sweet only these people club. John 3:16 takes apart that "its only for the chosen" ideal.

I'll try to help you understand my pity.

Lets take an example.
We see a huge person who is so incredibly heavy that he or she can't lift themselves from their bed. As we observe this person we watch this person enjoy an entire pizza.

There are multiple feelings that can be felt toward this person.
Pity - because you see this person killing themself.
Disgust - how could they let themself become so huge.
Neutral - I don't care what the person does or atleast he or she is enjoying themself.

I feel pity.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> He says whosoever accepts me will inherit the kingdom of God, I'll take his word for it. I don't think any one has access to his mind.


 Yes, but there are numerous gods, demigods, deities, and sub-deities. One can have faith that theirs is correct (as people tend to usually believe that they are right and others are wrong) but to know for a fact would mean access into God(s) mind(s) and as you've said that is not possible.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Grendel said:


> Yes, but there are numerous gods, demigods, deities, and sub-deities. One can have faith that theirs is correct (as people tend to usually believe that they are right and others are wrong) but to know for a fact would mean access into God(s) mind(s) and as you've said that is not possible.



Can't deny that others can have faith in another deity.
I do, it's something you feel, its a trusting feeling. This trust is due to me believing what is said in that verse.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

As honestly as you feel that there is a God, I feel it as strongly that there is not. If our beliefs are both equal - that is, both absolute - and neither can be proven with evidence, what rationale can you give for your faith?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> As honestly as you feel that there is a God, I feel it as strongly that there is not. If our beliefs are both equal - that is, both absolute - and neither can be proven with evidence, what rationale can you give for your faith?


 Its a rational choice from my point of view, I can't rationalize the decision for some one who chooses not to believe it.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Its a rational choice from my point of view, I can't rationalize the decision for some one who chooses not to believe it.


 
But, *equally*, my decision to eschew religious belief is rational from my point of view. But, doesn't it seem fallacious to have two contradictory viewpoints, and yet to both be equally certain?
Your entire world - from your upbringing onwards - has created you as you are; you're the sum of your experiences, and those experiences define you. They've led you to hold faith in your God, as certainly as my experiences have led me to never hold credence in religious belief. We have different ways of understanding the world, and I'm as happy with my choice as you are with yours; we are equal, and opposite.

You've never had the option of being an atheist. It seems ludicrous to you, I assume, that there may not be a God! Similarly, I've never had the option of being a theist - I see believing in the existence of a metaphysical superbeing to be as ridiculous as you see my faith in nothing to be.

But if you believe in your God, can you describe him? What makes this God worthy of your faith and praise? Or, simply, why is such worship a moral imperative, in your eyes?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Its a rational choice from my point of view, I can't rationalize the decision for some one who chooses not to believe it.



SIX takes the rational point of view; where there is no proof, there is no god.

You take the irrational point of view; where there is no proof, there _must_ be a god.

This isn't Atheist vs. Theist, but a statement of reality and fact, regardless of who says it. 

SIX also seems to be aiming towards the Razor's point:

"This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more  competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown  phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known." (Dictionary.com)


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> But, *equally*, my decision to eschew religious belief is rational from my point of view. But, doesn't it seem fallacious to have two contradictory viewpoints, and yet to both be equally certain?
> Your entire world - from your upbringing onwards - has created you as you are; you're the sum of your experiences, and those experiences define you. They've led you to hold faith in your God, as certainly as my experiences have led me to never hold credence in religious belief. We have different ways of understanding the world, and I'm as happy with my choice as you are with yours; we are equal, and opposite.
> 
> You've never had the option of being an atheist. It seems ludicrous to you, I assume, that there may not be a God! Similarly, I've never had the option of being a theist - I see believing in the existence of a metaphysical superbeing to be as ridiculous as you see my faith in nothing to be.
> ...


 
We both have the opportunity to change our ways now, if we are both out on our own. We are equals, we are all equals. My faith is for moral reasons and self interest. What makes God worthy of my praise, I feel his love; and this can't be explained its just a feeling a sensation. If you believed a being was able to create the beautiful mountains and creatures and able to create a code by which organism replicate and evolve; wouldn't you want to give him praise for his greatness.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Logic might make you look smart, but God makes me look happy.

Athiests are awful and I hope each one of you burns in hell.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Logic might make you look smart, but God makes me look happy.
> 
> Athiests are awful and I hope each one of you burns in hell.


 
Yo, your entitled to your feelings, but this isn't showing God's love, 
Hell isn't meant for people and God doesn't want anyone going to hell, that why Jesus died to pay for the sins of all.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Logic might make you look smart, but God makes me look happy.
> 
> Athiests are awful and I hope each one of you burns in hell.


 
Not sure if troll.

Hilarious, though.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

To be more articulate and intelligent-looking like some of the other fellows here, I'd like to point out that some of us are able to observe that our live has a specific pattern that is obvious to only the one who experiences it.

As such, the obvious solution to a long chain of coincidences in this such pattern would appear to be literately drawn by some sort of omnipotent figure. Most people care not to observe these things, lest they think themselves crazy.

Logic may help try and sort these coincidences out for these people, but it only makes one apathetic and bitter.

Believing in God for most people eases the pain of life, some people cannot deal with their lives in this manner and go crazy. Others live fine with a happy life, going to Church every day and hoping for the best.

Since we have no choice but to relate things that are unable to be explained into things we can explain, there is obviously room for confusion and dissent.

Criticizing the faithful is kind of selfish, if you think about it. Who are you to take away someone's happiness, even if it may be a fabrication of society over the course of time?

Kind of a dick move to do so, if you ask me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Believing in God for most people eases the pain of life,


 
So "god did it" is what you're getting at. For all those "happy" experiences you're talking about, they make pills now that do that, without having to try and fill god into the gaps in your life. I'd much rather see the universe for what it is, with happy pills, then to delude and degrade myself into believing I'm happy because some skydaddy says I should be...or else.

The only thing left for your mindset to explain, is who created god. 

If the pattern exists deep enough to draw to a god, then the pattern must keep going for their to be a god of that god, and so on.

(This is along the same arguments as "the universe is so complex, that a god must exist" which then leads to, "Well if the universe is so complex that a god must exist, then that god must be _more_ complex than the universe, and therefore that god must have a god/creator")


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Is it really that hard to fathom that God has existed forever and is the original point of creation of these patterns?

Jeez, every time I see that card being pulled it's like, _come on._ 

We can only see so much of the sky without a telescope, so much of our earth with a microscope.

It's not dumbing ourselves down so much as we are unable to comprehend these things with the tools available to us.

No one of faith can expect someone with logic to understand, and no one of logic can expect one of faith to understand. That is the unfortunate dualism that most people can't seem to try and interconnect.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> As such, the obvious solution to a long chain of coincidences in this such pattern would appear to be literately drawn by some sort of omnipotent figure.



The "obvious solution" is equally that you yourself are the omnipotent figure, or an infinity of other metaphysical ideas. It isn't obvious at all.



> Logic may help try and sort these coincidences out for these people, but it only makes one apathetic and bitter.



Or it doesn't. You don't seem to understand what logic is. It isn't another religion. This might be shocking, but your argument uses "logic" too (although it is bad logic.)



> Criticizing the faithful is kind of selfish, if you think about it. Who are you to take away someone's happiness, even if it may be a fabrication of society over the course of time?
> 
> Kind of a dick move to do so, if you ask me.


 
Religious-minded people are no strangers to taking away other people's happiness. That argument is really self-centered.

And criticism fuels social evolution. Why should we all agree to make religion immune to criticism when nothing else is? When religion is very often a critic of everything else as well.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Is it really that hard to fathom that God has existed forever and is the original point of creation of these patterns?
> 
> Jeez, every time I see that card being pulled it's like, _come on._
> 
> ...


 
Now I'm fairly certain you're a troll :v But I'll respond anyways, 'cause I'm bored

It's not hard to fathom god (thus the 'skydaddy' comment), but it's silly to think he actually exists. I return to my point above, that if one god exists, than that opens the door to more than one god existing - Being there is no proof for one god, so there is equally as much proof for 34,000 gods. The universe, and logic both dictate that no god is necessary or existent. 

_You_ may be unable to comprehend the things around us, but scientists have done a pretty damn good job of explaining the world without religion or god, and are always improving our information, without religion or god. The fact _you_ can't comprehend that is herpa-derpa good.

When it comes to understanding, the person of logic cannot "understand", because the person of faith sounds mentally unfit.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> When it comes to understanding, the person of logic cannot "understand", because the person of faith sounds mentally unfit.


 
although i agree with your logic and placement, and that he MIGHT be trolling, minus the last portion of his message. you gotta admit he's right on the last part in a sense. just like you said about a person of logic unable to understand due to the faith person sounding mentally unfit, the other spectrum might think that the man of science is 'blind' to the 'wonders' of the universe and how something had to start it all in their oppinion. so it is dualistic in a sense


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> To be more articulate and intelligent-looking like some of the other fellows here, I'd like to point out that some of us are able to observe that our live has a specific pattern that is obvious to only the one who experiences it.
> 
> As such, the obvious solution to a long chain of coincidences in this such pattern would appear to be literately drawn by some sort of omnipotent figure. Most people care not to observe these things, lest they think themselves crazy.
> 
> ...


 


GHDA said:


> Is it really that hard to fathom that God has existed forever and is the original point of creation of these patterns?
> 
> Jeez, every time I see that card being pulled it's like, _come on._
> 
> ...


 
If all mankind were to die, would your god keep existing?

I posit no, because every single religion is a manmade entity, and by extension so is the god-figure.  It was man that first proposed the idea, it was man that organized these religions, and it is man that has to rule over these 'nonbelieving underlings' (or so you would like to believe) in absence of this mystical figurehead.  A god is merely the product of the lack of understanding - a placeholder until that which cannot be explained, can be.  Of course, people like you are a bit too stubborn to let go of that delusion, like a small child unwilling to sleep without a nightlight.  The nightlight does not represent hope and compassion, it represents fear and uncertainty, and the hardcore religious types just aren't brave enough to embrace that.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

You can't deduce that I believe I'm an omnipotent figure from a line of text that I wrote. That would be about as obvious as you are implying that I am using logic to prove an infinite number of metaphysical ideas. xD

Logic is a science, a set of rules created by humans to explain things easier for themselves. Much like Religion? The ruleset is far different, of course, but there are obvious rulesets for both to follow and each lead to paths that contradict one another. The "apathetic and bitter' part, you are right, you are obviously proving me wrong with your emotional display of logic!! xD

There is obviously a reason Religion exists, and it is not because of stupidity or the lack of will to be intelligent but because of emotion.

This argument is not self-centered as you make it out to be. It's difficult simplifying such a complex idea into a short, readable statement for a furry message board post. I do agree that there are awful people of every belief system, thank you for pointing that out too.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> If all mankind were to die, would your god keep existing?



I'll let you know when I get there. 

You should probably rephrase that so it isn't a heavily disguised bitter opinion in worse logic than I could ever conceive.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> although i agree with your logic and placement, and that he MIGHT be trolling, minus the last portion of his message. you gotta admit he's right on the last part in a sense. just like you said about a person of logic unable to understand due to the faith person sounding mentally unfit, the other spectrum might think that the man of science is 'blind' to the 'wonders' of the universe and how something had to start it all in their oppinion. so it is dualistic in a sense


 
They aren't 'blind' to the wonders, they are the ones _discovering_ and _showing_ the wonders of the universe to those who want to see it, and those who misinterpret it. If Science had been fully trampled in the Dark ages by the Christians & other religious types, then we'd so far behind, and unable to relish the universe for what it really is.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> although i agree with your logic and placement, and that he MIGHT be trolling, minus the last portion of his message. you gotta admit he's right on the last part in a sense. just like you said about a person of logic unable to understand due to the faith person sounding mentally unfit, the other spectrum might think that the man of science is 'blind' to the 'wonders' of the universe and how something had to start it all in their oppinion. so it is dualistic in a sense


 
This is exactly my point.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> They aren't 'blind' to the wonders, they are the ones _discovering_ and _showing_ the wonders of the universe to those who want to see it, and those who misinterpret it. If Science had been fully trampled in the Dark ages by the Christians & other religious types, then we'd so far behind, and unable to relish the universe for what it really is.


 
So then you agree they need to co-exist in harmony? Misinterpreting logic has dire consequences as well.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> As such, the obvious solution to a long chain of coincidences in this such pattern would appear to be literately drawn by some sort of omnipotent figure. Most people care not to observe these things, lest they think themselves crazy.



Consider that there are an infinitude of planets in this universe, spread out over both space and time. If I were to flip several billion coins, several billion times, it's likely that, just by probability, one of those coins will land on Heads for a long, long time. That does not mean that I, the flipper, have weighted this coin.



> Logic may help try and sort these coincidences out for these people, but it only makes one apathetic and bitter.



Conversely, one could argue that it is the existence of a God and the subsequent derivation that he Created us that would make us apathetic and bitter. Were God to exist and have forced our existence, life would not be special; if our only purpose is to praise His name until we die and face a judgement, then life seems arbitrary. From my view, the fascinating sequence of events that must have unfolded to bring us to this moment in time and evolution makes us far more special than were we to have been part of an ultimately arbitrary creation for a megalomaniac. 



> Believing in God for most people eases the pain of life, some people cannot deal with their lives in this manner and go crazy. Others live fine with a happy life, going to Church every day and hoping for the best.


This seems entirely close-minded. There are happy atheists, there are depressed theists, and there are the majority with entirely average lifestyles. People are individuals; to try and search for a correlation between the individual, their happiness, and their religious identity, will only result in the average being the average.


> Since we have no choice but to relate things that are unable to be explained into things we can explain, there is obviously room for confusion and dissent.


And so, theists are the lucky few who abstracted the confusing and scary world into the right answer, whereas those who aren't religious did it incorrectly, despite having the same evidence between them? Were the Lord to exist, there would be universal assent. That's my view.



> Criticizing the faithful is kind of selfish, if you think about it. Who are you to take away someone's happiness, even if it may be a fabrication of society over the course of time?



A question extensively covered by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Religion is the opiate of the people, no doubt; it is the illusory happiness that gives purpose to their self. But religion is not equivalent to that happiness; one can be happy without it...
But I do not criticize the faithful. I am no antithiest; I enjoy speaking with the religious. The variation of opinion over so broad a philosophy is, frankly, fascinating to me. And I don't deny I would be happy if through that dialogue one more individual changed their ideas. But I have never attempted to change a religious identity; I accept their beliefs as being a function of their lives, and no more, and no less, and it would be an insult to them to attempt to change them.




> Kind of a dick move to do so, if you ask me.



I won't ask you, then. You don't need to defend, when you're not being attacked, and personal attacks have no place in a discussion like this. The existence of atheism, or members of other religions, doesn't need to be taken as an affront. Consider objective argument.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You can't deduce that I believe I'm an omnipotent figure from a line of text that I wrote. That would be about as obvious as you are implying that I am using logic to prove an infinite number of metaphysical ideas. xD
> 
> Logic is a science, a set of rules created by humans to explain things easier for themselves. Much like Religion? The ruleset is far different, of course, but there are obvious rulesets for both to follow and each lead to paths that contradict one another. The "apathetic and bitter' part, you are right, you are obviously proving me wrong with your emotional display of logic!! xD
> 
> ...


 
You're trying to compare logic with religion :v That's hilarious. The prime difference between the two? Facts.

The main reason I believe religion exists, is to control the majority, and keep them in line. Which sorta falls in line with why most of the words intellect comes from those who are at most, Deist, but mostly Atheists.

Though I do agree that religion exists because of emotion - like Riley said - Fear.



GHDA said:


> So then you agree they need to co-exist in harmony?  Misinterpreting logic has dire consequences as well.


 
No...Not at all. Religion has held science back for centuries, even millenia if I dare say so.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Logic might make you look smart, but God makes me look happy.
> 
> Athiests are awful and I hope each one of you burns in hell.


 
My aren't you a pleasant one? Also, in posting this you are reinforcing that stereotype of the 'holier-than-thou-I-hope-you-suffer-for-eternity-in-hell' Christian. This post does far more damage to your argument for Christianity than support it.

Also, you disregard logic. Why is that? Would not a prefect God be perfectly logical?
And how does a lack of "logic" and "smart" make a person happy?
You also say "makes me _look _happy", does this mean it's a facade and you're actually unhappy but appear to be happy?


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

six said:
			
		

> Consider that there are an infinitude of planets in this universe, spread out over both space and time. If I were to flip several billion coins, several billion times, it's likely that, just by probability, one of those coins will land on Heads for a long, long time. That does not mean that I, the flipper, have weighted this coin.



When I figure out what the hell this means I'll try and respond?? Are the coins the planets? Is "Heads" God? What's going on here.



			
				six said:
			
		

> Conversely, one could argue that it is the existence of a God and the subsequent derivation that he Created us that would make us apathetic and bitter. Were God to exist and have forced our existence, life would not be special; if our only purpose is to praise His name until we die and face a judgement, then life seems arbitrary. From my view, the fascinating sequence of events that must have unfolded to bring us to this moment in time and evolution makes us far more special than were we to have been part of an ultimately arbitrary creation for a megalomaniac.



I suppose you're right, but we were given free will to a degree and honestly being created by some big dude in the sky is kind of a fucking cool idea so how is that even a bad thing? It just adds a big dude to the end of that chain of awesome events.



			
				six said:
			
		

> This seems entirely close-minded. There are happy atheists, there are depressed theists, and there are the majority with entirely average lifestyles. People are individuals; to try and search for a correlation between the individual, their happiness, and their religious identity, will only result in the average being the average.



What I said kind of summed this entire paragraph up? You're disagreeing while agreeing with me.



			
				six said:
			
		

> And so, theists are the lucky few who abstracted the confusing and scary world into the right answer, whereas those who aren't religious did it incorrectly, despite having the same evidence between them? Were the Lord to exist, there would be universal assent. That's my view.



No one can explain everything. Especially not things they haven't seen, and definitely not things they will never be able to see. How is my logic even being criticized with responses like this holy shit.



			
				six said:
			
		

> A question extensively covered by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Religion is the opiate of the people, no doubt; it is the illusory happiness that gives purpose to their self. But religion is not equivalent to that happiness; one can be happy without it...
> But I do not criticize the faithful. I am no antithiest; I enjoy speaking with the religious. The variation of opinion over so broad a philosophy is, frankly, fascinating to me. And I don't deny I would be happy if through that dialogue one more individual changed their ideas. But I have never attempted to change a religious identity; I accept their beliefs as being a function of their lives, and no more, and no less, and it would be an insult to them to attempt to change them.



You kind of uh...did criticize the faithful. You are trying to change one now by just participating in this bullshit.



			
				six said:
			
		

> I won't ask you, then. You don't need to defend, when you're not being attacked, and personal attacks have no place in a discussion like this. The existence of atheism, or members of other religions, doesn't need to be taken as an affront. Consider objective argument.



why did I even respond to this ugh


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> I'll let you know when I get there.
> 
> You should probably rephrase that so it isn't a heavily disguised bitter opinion in worse logic than I could ever conceive.


 
No, it's fine just how it is right now - not exactly my fault if your idea of logic is "I exist -> mystical cloudman controlling the entire universe."


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You're trying to compare logic with religion :v That's hilarious. The prime difference between the two? Facts.
> 
> The main reason I believe religion exists, is to control the majority, and keep them in line. Which sorta falls in line with why most of the words intellect comes from those who are at most, Deist, but mostly Atheists.
> 
> ...


 
You are very one sided without trying to defend logic over religion, so your obvious bias is uh...obvious.

Can you blame religion for the wars of this century? It was logic and politics. And to simply pin religion's sole emotive response as fear and not happiness or love or other positive emotions obviously shows your lack of interest of viewing things from both sides of the debate. A logical debate.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> No, it's fine just how it is right now - not exactly my fault if your idea of logic is "I exist -> mystical cloudman controlling the entire universe."


 
Man, you are quite fiesty, it's really cute!! xD


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Grendel said:


> My aren't you a pleasant one? Also, in posting this you are reinforcing that stereotype of the 'holier-than-thou-I-hope-you-suffer-for-eternity-in-hell' Christian. This post does far more damage to your argument for Christianity than support it.
> 
> Also, you disregard logic. Why is that? Would not a prefect God be perfectly logical?
> And how does a lack of "logic" and "smart" make a person happy?
> You also say "makes me _look _happy", does this mean it's a facade and you're actually unhappy but appear to be happy?



Congratulations on using my opening joke to somehow prove something worthwhile? A lack of logic doesn't make someone happy, faith and hope do. It's called cold logic for a reason.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Man I'm taking all of you on this is intense. I can't wait for that one guy that actually has a shot at proving me wrong to do so.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You are very one sided without trying to defend logic over religion, so your obvious bias is uh...obvious.
> 
> Can you blame religion for the wars of this century? It was logic and politics. And to simply pin religion's sole emotive response as fear and not happiness or love or other positive emotions obviously shows your lack of interest of viewing things from both sides of the debate. A logical debate.


 
Please show me how I've been one-sided, and where my bias lies. 

Myes I can blame wars from this century on religion, it may not be all to blame (Which is where politics come in), but you're glossing over a lot. 

Please do not put words in my mouth; I did not pin religions sole emotive response on fear alone, it's merely the _prime_ reason it exists. Does religion bring happiness? Why yes it does, but it also brings war, fear, hatred, lies, mistrust, and many other things to this world - Especially the intentional release of logic, and brainwashing!

The thing is, it isn't my lack of interest (if I lacked interest, I wouldn't be here), but _your_ delusion :v


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

> When I figure out what the hell this means I'll try and respond?? Are the coins the planets? Is "Heads" God? What's going on here.


I thought it was a rather simple metaphor. The coins are representations of the planets, and flipping them is a translation of the effects of probabilities such as orbital distance from its star, distribution of elements in the planet - essentially its capability for life support.



> I suppose you're right, but we were given free will to a degree and honestly being created by some big dude in the sky is kind of a fucking cool idea so how is that even a bad thing? It just adds a big dude to the end of that chain of awesome events.



Something being a 'fucking cool idea' is no reason to believe in it. It would be 'fucking cool' in my opinion for a respectable physicist to hold a lecture in a nearby hall, or for a local fur to contact me and arrange a meet-up [/plug]. However, the degree to which I'd like these things to happen shouldn't and doesn't affect the degree to which I believe they will happen.



> What I said kind of summed this entire paragraph up? You're disagreeing while agreeing with me.


If you agreed with that paragraph, you either misunderstood it or are arguing against yourself. For logic's sake I hope it's the former, or you're a terrible troll.



> No one can explain everything. Especially not things they haven't seen, and definitely not things they will never be able to see.


I have never seen a dolphin do a backflip. Infact, I have never seen a dolphin. However, this does not mean I am beyond explaining their capability to do backflips. [The vibrations in nerve cells cause sodium ion displacement, inducing an electric current in motor nerve cells, stimulating muscles... yada yada..]



> How is my logic even being criticized with responses like this holy shit.


If you believe I am wrong, as you seem to, please show me why.



> You kind of uh...did criticize the faithful.


When? Everything I have posted is still here. Please quote me.



> You are trying to change one now by just participating in this bullshit.


No, the expression of conflicting opinions is not a conversion attempt. It is what is known as inter-faith dialogue.



> why did I even respond to this ugh


Indeed. You're terribly inexperienced.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Please show me how I've been one-sided, and where my bias lies.
> 
> Myes I can blame wars from this century on religion, it may not be all to blame (Which is where politics come in), but you're glossing over a lot.
> 
> ...



You're glossing over quite a bit too, but I can't complain.

From a logical standpoint, the prime reason Religion exists is for humankind to be content. It may be good or evil but it is content. Not because of fear. Some people have no fear of God because of their devout faith that everything will be okay, so that is debunked simply on that alone.

Your delusion is that everything can be solved with logic. You're probably a really bad cuddle buddy. :/


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> The "apathetic and bitter' part, you are right, you are obviously proving me wrong with your emotional display of logic!! xD


 
The word you're looking for is "objective", not "apathetic and bitter." Those words are pretty common propaganda against scientific thought. I wasn't emotional at all, I'm surprised you believed you could deduce that from a line of text I wrote.



> just like you said about a person of logic unable to understand due to  the faith person sounding mentally unfit, the other spectrum might think  that the man of science is 'blind' to the 'wonders' of the universe and  how something had to start it all in their oppinion. so it is dualistic  in a sense



It's not dualistic at all. That would imply that people of faith don't use logic at all. Nah, they rationalize the value of faith using their own logic. That does not mean all logic is equal, but that their minds aren't just accident and chaos... their conclusions were reached through some form of reasoning.

Logic and faith are the difference between betting on someone because you trust them, and betting on someone because the odds are clearly in their favour. You can go either way with that, but logic is universally superior. Even religious people acknowledge that only fools run into something blindly.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

I believe the key problem here is that GHDA has an atypical definition of the term 'logic'.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:
			
		

> stuff



You didn't explain anything nearly enough to comprehend anything and now it's too late unless people feel like reading our little back and forth through the last few pages. You didn't make any sense and now you're saying I'm not making any sense, okay I'll go along with it.

Also, there are a lot of dolphin videos on Youtube you can pretend they exist until you see them in person. ^^


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> From a logical standpoint, the prime reason Religion exists is for humankind to be content. It may be good or evil but it is content. Not because of fear. Some people have no fear of God because of their devout faith that everything will be okay, so that is debunked simply on that alone.
> 
> Your delusion is that everything can be solved with logic. You're probably a really bad cuddle buddy. :/


 
Religion is inherently illogical, so to say "from a logical standpoint" is laughable. Religion exists for humankind to be held back and controlled by a powerful minority who do not believe what they are preaching (in my opinion). Evil, hatred, war, famine, and the like do not bring around contentedness. 

They may not have a fear of their god themselves, but they have a fear in what he will "do" to them...Kinda like a mob boss. He doesn't _want_ to hurt or kill you, but if you don't do what he says, then he's obligated to do so.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> The word you're looking for is "objective", not "apathetic and bitter." Those words are pretty common propaganda against scientific thought. I wasn't emotional at all, I'm surprised you believed you could deduce that from a line of text I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sorry for the sarcasm. "emotional" was meant to be read with sarcasm. Kind of silly in a debate, I apologize.

You completely missed the point of where I said they have to co-exist in harmony.

 If someone knows you trust them, they tend to perform better. If I told someone they would win in a video game, she will have more faith in herself and perform better than normal. Odds are more inclined on logic but have a probability of failing. That is a bad analogy, I suggest another one.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You didn't explain anything nearly enough to comprehend anything and now it's too late unless people feel like reading our little back and forth through the last few pages. You didn't make any sense and now you're saying I'm not making any sense, okay I'll go along with it.


 
Well, we have lots of time. However, disregarding what I say because you don't agree with it, and then refusing to say why you disagree with it, and following it up with context-less statements and baseless deductions about my persona, does not do any subsequent posts of yours much good, considering the credence you're causing your own persona to lack.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Religion is inherently illogical, so to say "from a logical standpoint" is laughable. Religion exists for humankind to be held back and controlled by a powerful minority who do not believe what they are preaching (in my opinion). Evil, hatred, war, famine, and the like do not bring around contentedness.
> 
> They may not have a fear of their god themselves, but they have a fear in what he will "do" to them...Kinda like a mob boss. He doesn't _want_ to hurt or kill you, but if you don't do what he says, then he's obligated to do so.


 
Okay now you're arguing with the guy on your own team because Heindal totally just said people of faith use logic to a degree.

The rest of that is your opinion. Gosh, I thought opinions were more for religious people?


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Well, we have lots of time. However, disregarding what I say because you don't agree with it, and then refusing to say why you disagree with it, and following it up with context-less statements and baseless deductions about my persona, does not do any subsequent posts of yours much good, considering the credence you're causing your own persona to lack.


 
I'd think about agreeing with it if you made some fucking sense, buddy.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

praise white jesus


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You didn't explain anything nearly enough to comprehend anything and now it's too late unless people feel like reading our little back and forth through the last few pages. You didn't make any sense and now you're saying I'm not making any sense, okay I'll go along with it.



Your arguments just don't make sense. You're arguing against logic using logic. There is literally no reason to qualify your responses with answers. Your best argument would have been to not argue at all, because you're contradicting your base point in the process.



> Okay now you're arguing with the guy on your own team because Heindal totally just said people of faith use logic to a degree.



That religions are illogical, yet reach their conclusions through their own logic, aren't contradictory. It pretty much explains itself actually. Humans always use logic for everything we think, but we don't always use it successfully.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> I'd think about agreeing with it if you made some fucking sense, buddy.


 
Please point out where I did not make sense. My posts are still accessible, and we are in no rush. I would be willing to better explain my perspective, were you to do so.
If you are not able to point out why I do not make sense, I'll live. But I consider it churlish to make a point and then not to be able to back it up.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Your arguments just don't make sense. You're arguing against logic using logic. There is literally no reason to qualify your responses with answers. Your best argument would have been to not argue at all, because you're contradicting your base point in the process.


 
Hey let's focus on your own arguments. If he wants to rephrase everything so his paragraphs have a followable logic train, he can do that without your help, he's a big boy! xD


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Please point out where I did not make sense. My posts are still accessible, and we are in no rush. I would be willing to better explain my perspective, were you to do so.
> If you are not able to point out why I do not make sense, I'll live. But I consider it churlish to make a point and then not to be able to back it up.


 
The relationship between God and flipping planets and the spaces between them and shit. Please explain how that relates to anything at all.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Okay now you're arguing with the guy on your own team because Heindal totally just said people of faith use logic to a degree.
> 
> The rest of that is your opinion. Gosh, I thought opinions were more for religious people?


 
You do know what logic is right? The use of reason, and what not? Logic is a fairly broad term to describe things, but if you can make decisions for yourself, chances are, you're using logic. 

Now if we're saying religious "logic", well, that can be disputed and mocked, but we won't get anywhere with that. It doesn't refute my point, simply enhances it, because if they do use some sort of logic, then they are intentionally throwing it out when it comes to their belief system.

Hurr, I am human, I have opinions. Though only the 2nd sentence was my opinion, the rest of it is fact.

(Do realize I take you as a troll, and this is merely entertaining my otherwise bored-to-tears day. Hurrr~)


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You do know what logic is right? The use of reason, and what not? Logic is a fairly broad term to describe things, but if you can make decisions for yourself, chances are, you're using logic.
> 
> Now if we're saying religious "logic", well, that can be disputed and mocked, but we won't get anywhere with that. It doesn't refute my point, simply enhances it, because if they do use some sort of logic, then they are intentionally throwing it out when it comes to their belief system.
> 
> ...


 
I'm really offended you don't think I know what logic is. I am totally -not- trolling. You have yet to disprove Religion, it's importance, or anything for that matter.

To show that you would even think of mocking "religious logic" shows that you are biast, which is something you were unsure of earlier. Here you go on a silver platter the prime example!!

Where you may seem to say I confuse logic, you seem to confuse what a fact is! It's not an opinion, stop acting like you are intelligent if you aren't please and let the other guys who are take your place.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Also the boredom thing is totally a cop-out and you're a little baby for thinking that's a good excuse for being wrong.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Is it my smug avatar? It's my smug avatar isn't it.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Man, you are quite fiesty, it's really cute!! xD


 
D'aww thanks.  I sure do wish I could return the compliment.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> The relationship between God and flipping planets and the spaces between them and shit. Please explain how that relates to anything at all.



Ok.

The coins represent planets. Planets are balls of matter, essentially; the amount of thermal energy they receive, the distribution of elements in their accessible crust, and whether or not they fall victim to asteroid strike or similar, are all affects on the probability that they are able to harbour life.

Coins, being flipped, represent the test for that probability. 

The number of coins represents the number of planets in the universe.

'Flipping' a coin several times is a test for probability. Getting Heads once has a probability of 1/2. Twice is 1/2^2, and three times is 1/2^3 - and so on, ad infinitum.
In this way, the test 'Flip a coin and get Heads x number of times in a row' can be used as a model for whether or not a planet in a model is capable of supporting life.

Utilizing the logic in probability distribution, considering the sheer number of planets in the universe, it was an almost mathematical certain that at least one would be capable of life support.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> I'm really offended you don't think I know what logic is. I am totally -not- trolling. You have yet to disprove Religion, it's importance, or anything for that matter.
> 
> To show that you would even think of mocking "religious logic" shows that you are biast, which is something you were unsure of earlier. Here you go on a silver platter the prime example!!
> 
> Where you may seem to say I confuse logic, you seem to confuse what a fact is! It's not an opinion, stop acting like you are intelligent if you aren't please and let the other guys who are take your place.



Some epic triple posts ya got thurr

I don't recall you asking me to disprove religion :v or anything about it. The thing is also, I don't have to disprove it, but the religious would have to prove their god or gods above all the others. 

My boredom isn't a cop-out, it's for reals, yo, but I'm not wrong :v


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Ok.
> 
> The coins represent planets. Planets are balls of matter, essentially; the amount of thermal energy they receive, the distribution of elements in their accessible crust, and whether or not they fall victim to asteroid strike or similar, are all affects on the probability that they are able to harbour life.
> 
> ...


 
And now relate that back to how there could NOT be an omnipotent being doing that?


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

Riley said:


> D'aww thanks.  I sure do wish I could return the compliment.


 
lol that's funny



Lastdirewolf said:


> They aren't 'blind' to the wonders, they are  the ones _discovering_ and _showing_ the wonders of the  universe to those who want to see it, and those who misinterpret it. If  Science had been fully trampled in the Dark ages by the Christians &  other religious types, then we'd so far behind, and unable to relish  the universe for what it really is.


 

 oh i believe that too, you misunderstand me. i was only showing where  his oppinion was placed. see, what you are saying is YOUR belief, and  the people of faith believe you are wrong, basically both sides will  never admit the other is right, because they both believe the other is  wrong

 i'm not saying i'm on GHDA's 'side' i was merely showing a little more  light into his oppinion. granted after reading more of his oppinions, i  should've never even LOOKED like i supported him, he's rather oblique in  his views, AND:



GHDA said:


> praise white jesus


 

WHAT? dude you know that's horribly wrong, hell this all happened somewhere where the people were not really 'white'


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Look what an hour does to this thread, GHDA your like NOS man, kudos.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> And now relate that back to how there could NOT be an omnipotent being doing that?


 
Certainly. 
The sheer volume of coins means that it becomes a near mathematical certainty that life would develop in at least one place. The fact that a coin flipped on Heads enough times to make it a viable model for a life-supporting planet does not mean that I had weighted the coin.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Some epic triple posts ya got thurr
> 
> I don't recall you asking me to disprove religion :v or anything about it. The thing is also, I don't have to disprove it, but the religious would have to prove their god or gods above all the others.
> 
> My boredom isn't a cop-out, it's for reals, yo, but I'm not wrong :v


 
Triple posts for emphasis on the key points of this argument.

1. People who rely completely on logic are bored out of their fucking minds and really unhappy with their lives and probably really bad at cuddling.

2. People that denounce faith want to take happiness away from them out of bitterness to fill their own void.

3. My smug ass face looking at you like you are an idiot.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> I'm really offended you don't think I know what logic is. I am totally -not- trolling. You have yet to disprove Religion, it's importance, or anything for that matter.



Why prove a negative? As well, the points have been made through-out the thread. Your lack in desire to read up on it is your own problem.

It stands that it does not make sense to use logic to disregard the value of logic. I've skipped over a few posts of yours because they always disregard this fallacy. Spamming posts =/= winning argument.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Certainly.
> The sheer volume of coins means that it becomes a near mathematical certainty that life would develop in at least one place. The fact that a coin flipped on Heads enough times to make it a viable model for a life-supporting planet does not mean that I had weighted the coin.


 
That's still a really bad analogy even after explaining it in detail but it sounds cool in theory. I'm sure an omnipotent being has a better way of choosing where He wants things in his image to be created. xD


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Why prove a negative? As well, the points have been made through-out the thread. Your lack in desire to read up on it is your own problem.
> 
> It stands that it does not make sense to use logic to disregard the value of logic. I've skipped over a few posts of yours because they always disregard this fallacy. Spamming posts =/= winning argument.


 
How is it a negative besides that you don't believe in it? Your lack of desire to have faith is also a problem in my eyes. And to skip any of my posts shows your lack of intelligence to retort in a reasonable manner.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

"Lack of intelligence" is kind of harsh, maybe uh... lack of willpower to disprove me. Do you even know what you're arguing about?


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> lol that's funny
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
All I'm proving is that you can't have one without the other and this argument is really fucking stupid.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> oh i believe that too, you misunderstand me. i was only showing where   his oppinion was placed. see, what you are saying is YOUR belief, and   the people of faith believe you are wrong, basically both sides will   never admit the other is right, because they both believe the other is   wrong


 
Well as much as you like to think it's my belief, Atheists are technically correct until proven otherwise. I don't know why the opposition would say the other is right though, that'd be silly. 



GHDA said:


> 1. People who rely completely on logic are bored out of their fucking minds and really unhappy with their lives and probably really bad at cuddling.
> 
> 2. People that denounce faith want to take happiness away from them out of bitterness to fill their own void.
> 
> 3. My smug ass face looking at you like you are an idiot.


 
1) Logic is a sturdy foundation, however I am not unhappy with my life :v And I hate cuddling (or touching people, in general).

2) People that denounce faith want to make the world a better place. Like I said before, religion and the religious cause have caused much of the worlds problems. 

3) Your ass face, nuff said. Hurrr~


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> That's still a really bad analogy even after explaining it in detail but it sounds cool in theory.


 
Please explain why it is a bad analogy. You seem incapable of going into further detail, and I must request that you do so; nobody is rushing you here, and an in-depth criticism to support your conclusions would make your posts hold a lot more validity.

-Why is it a bad analogy? Is there a critical flaw in logic? 
-It sounds cool in theory? What theory? It is not a theory, it is an application of mathematics.



> I'm sure an omnipotent being has a better way of choosing where He wants things in his image to be created. xD



-Can you disprove the possibility of chance creation via the method I explained above [the coin analogy-?] 

Furthermore, omnipotence is both a mutually and singularly incoherent concept. Omnipotence implies the power to do anything; including and up to the creation of matter and energy. However, omnipotence is an illogical idea; firstly, omnipotence would allow the creation of paradoxes that would render omnipotence untrue [Read], not to mention the existence of the Problem of Evil. Omnipotence is an idea that renders itself impossible and inapplicable.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> How is it a negative besides that you don't believe in it? Your lack of desire to have faith is also a problem in my eyes. And to skip any of my posts shows your lack of intelligence to retort in a reasonable manner.


 
I didn't say I don't think God/gods is possible, just that proving it doesn't exist isn't anybody's job. It's possible to come up with infinite metaphysical concepts of existence and gods, and I would consider all of them possible. Having a 1/infinite chance of a particular being right is why the burden of proof is on the religious. 

Arguing with opinions is a waste of energy. Disregarding an idiot who talks a lot isn't a lack of intelligence on my part.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well as much as you like to think it's my belief, Atheists are technically correct until proven otherwise. I don't know why the opposition would say the other is right though, that'd be silly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
See I think Athiests are wrong until they prove God doesn't exist. sigh...

more numbers

1) See you are as transparent as I thought you were.
2) Logic causes far more problems in the world. Politics is far worse than any Religion could ever be.
3) Real mature. I'm trying to be serious here. >>


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I didn't say I don't think God/gods is possible, just that proving it doesn't exist isn't anybody's job. It's possible to come up with infinite metaphysical concepts of existence and gods, and I would consider all of them possible. Having a 1/infinite chance of a particular being right is why the burden of proof is on the religious.
> 
> Arguing with opinions is a waste of energy. Disregarding an idiot who talks a lot isn't a lack of intelligence on my part.


 
If it's not a job then why did you spend all that damn time arguing with me. Why did you even start arguing if you had nothing to prove. How can I even be an idiot after you just laying it all out like that.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> See I think Athiests are wrong until they prove God doesn't exist. sigh...
> 
> 1) See you are as transparent as I thought you were.
> 2) Logic causes far more problems in the world. Politics is far worse than any Religion could ever be.
> 3) Real mature. I'm trying to be serious here. >>


 
That's all fine and dandy, but inherently goes against reason. The religious have to prove God exists, if they cannot, or will not, then by default, they are wrong, and Atheists would be in the right. 

1) Why yes, I don't recall trying to hide myself behind opaque...words?
2) I'd argue that religion causes more problems than politics, because politics is not equal to logic, and religion plays an extremely important part of politics, as does race, and gender in many countries. 
3)Oh, my apologies, your smug ass-face makes you look like an idiot?


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> If it's not a job then why did you spend all that damn time arguing with me. Why did you even start arguing if you had nothing to prove. How can I even be an idiot after you just laying it all out like that.


 
..cause God told me to.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA, I'd like to make you aware of my post at the end of page 105.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well as much as you like to think it's my belief, Atheists are technically correct until proven otherwise. I don't know why the opposition would say the other is right though, that'd be silly.


 
it would be silly, but i would like to see the two 'sides' to just shake hands, say "ok man, you do your thing, i'll do mine, you up for COD black ops later?"

and yes, Atheists ARE technically correct until proven otherwise, which in terms of religion would be rather impossible, since religion is faith driven, not logic


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> Please explain why it is a bad analogy. You seem incapable of going into further detail, and I must request that you do so; nobody is rushing you here, and an in-depth criticism to support your conclusions would make your posts hold a lot more validity.
> 
> -Why is it a bad analogy? Is there a critical flaw in logic?
> -It sounds cool in theory? What theory? It is not a theory, it is an application of mathematics.
> ...


 
You are using a mathematical equation to demonstrate that an omnipotent being, who would not have any need to even bother with something as frivolous as "mathematics" let alone "science" would have to flip planets to see if life could be on them. That is a silly concept and the unneeded mathematics can be bypassed using this analogy in relationship with a religious deity. 

You're missing the point of the argument, I feel, that while both paths of Logic and Religion are choices for man, and they are both needed to each other to exist due to "Religion" being our desire to pursue curiousity and "Logic" being the desire to break down things to a comprehendable level for our mind. They cannot prove or disprove each other. Also to base omnipotence on logical ideas such as paradoxes is a paradox upon itself. A controlled omnipotence would do whatever the hell it feels like.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You are using a mathematical equation to demonstrate that an omnipotent being, who would not have any need to even bother with something as frivolous as "mathematics" let alone "science" would have to flip planets to see if life could be on them. That is a silly concept and the unneeded mathematics can be bypassed using this analogy in relationship with a religious deity.


It's hard to imagine any being, God or no, being able to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.
Since you're incapable of understanding a metaphor, and are playing with words, rather than basing an argument on constructive terms, I find this argument silly to continue. However, I hope you one day find that Logic is not the opposite of religion.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but inherently goes against reason. The religious have to prove God exists, if they cannot, or will not, then by default, they are wrong, and Atheists would be in the right.
> 
> 1) Why yes, I don't recall trying to hide myself behind opaque...words?
> 2) I'd argue that religion causes more problems than politics, because politics is not equal to logic, and religion plays an extremely important part of politics, as does race, and gender in many countries.
> 3)Oh, my apologies, your smug ass-face makes you look like an idiot?


 
1) Atheists will never have the ability to be right about Religion, there is no default here unless you honestly have FAITH in it! XD
2) Politics is using logic to gain popularity and power and can be affected by religion through means of logic. Come on now. You're like being as bad as me now.
3) Maybe I just am an idiot but damn this is fun.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> ..cause God told me to.


 
thank u based god


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> It's hard to imagine any being, God or no, being able to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.
> Since you're incapable of understanding a metaphor, and are playing with words, rather than basing an argument on constructive terms, I find this argument silly to continue. However, I hope you one day find that Logic is not the opposite of religion.


 
THIS


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> It's hard to imagine any being, God or no, being able to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.
> Since you're incapable of understanding a metaphor, and are playing with words, rather than basing an argument on constructive terms, I find this argument silly to continue. However, I hope you one day find that Logic is not the opposite of religion.


 
It's not the opposite but an apparent dualism. God can totally say 1+1 isn't 2 he's God :|

I'm not playing with words? The argument was silly to start.

Blame the OP and anyone else that argues this stupid argument for thinking it's even a good idea to argue this.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> it would be silly, but i would like to see the two 'sides' to just shake hands, say "ok man, you do your thing, i'll do mine, you up for COD black ops later?"
> 
> and yes, Atheists ARE technically correct until proven otherwise, which in terms of religion would be rather impossible, since religion is faith driven, not logic


 
The internet's witch-hunt against God rules.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Are you guys done, I'm getting bored of killing this thread.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

It's a good idea to argue anything. The sharing of ideas and concepts in meaningful discussion without a confirmation bias can result in fascinating personal growth for all participants.

The unfortunate thing is that here you have provided no single iota of logic behind any claim, have based your objections to fellow forum-goer's claims in logicless wordplay [such as claiming the Coin analogy is useless because it is about Coins - the coins are redundant; it is an analogy], and are only here in what seems to be an attempt to vindicate your beliefs using entirely tautological and senseless claims.

Or, shortly, you say that "God exists because God exists", whereas I am trying to say "If God exists, he would exist".


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> it would be silly, but i would like to see  the two 'sides' to just shake hands, say "ok man, you do your thing,  i'll do mine, you up for COD black ops later?"
> 
> and yes, Atheists  ARE technically correct until proven otherwise, which in terms of  religion would be rather impossible, since religion is faith driven, not  logic


 
Motherfucking Black Ops, really? Damn religious nuts pick the _worst_ game to play, shiiiiit.

Anyways. It's the religious who don't want to shake hands, for the most  part. I wouldn't mind seeing them come together like that either, but  it's just not going to happen.

If the religious want to delude and degrade themselves, then let them  have at it, but they don't simply keep it to themselves. I'm fine with  them believing bullshit, but it's when they run around smearing it  everywhere, is when I have an issue.



GHDA said:


> 1) Atheists will never have the ability to be right about Religion, there is no default here unless you honestly have FAITH in it! XD
> 2) Politics is using logic to gain popularity and power and can be affected by religion through means of logic. Come on now. You're like being as bad as me now.
> 3) Maybe I just am an idiot but damn this is fun.


 
1) They don't have to be right. I'm not sure what you're getting at by 'default', except that is what Atheism is :v
2) Politics, at this stage, pretty much requires religion - So on that, religion causes more problems in the world. Though I think you're starting to just throw 'logic' in there without any real heed - We pretty much all use logic on a daily basis for whatever reason there might be.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Motherfucking Black Ops, really? Damn religious nuts pick the _worst_ game to play, shiiiiit.
> 
> Anyways. It's the religious who don't want to shake hands, for the most  part. I wouldn't mind seeing them come together like that either, but  it's just not going to happen.
> 
> If the religious want to delude and degrade themselves, then let them  have at it, but they don't simply keep it to themselves. I'm fine with  them believing bullshit, but it's when they run around smearing it  everywhere, is when I have an issue.


 

i hope you aren't calling ME a religious nut, cuz then i'd have to tell you you are seriously mistaken friend.  and i picked black ops because it's the most easily recognizable current game i could think of, besides, you can't play fallout multiplayer ^.^

and i agree with that, most people logic driven(not all, there are stubborn ppl in the atheist field too) would with no problem just agree to dissagree and move on with more important matters, but rather HARDCORE religious people refuse to accept they are wrong.

and yeah, i hate the super religious people who are like "your going to hell because you don't believe in christ!" "jesus jesus jesus, god exists, nothing you say will prove otherwise" and shit like that, i have no problem with you being a man of faith, but don't throw it into other people's faces, ESPECIALLY don't try to convert them, let them do their own thing


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> It's a good idea to argue anything. The sharing of ideas and concepts in meaningful discussion without a confirmation bias can result in fascinating personal growth for all participants.
> 
> The unfortunate thing is that here you have provided no single iota of logic behind any claim, have based your objections to fellow forum-goer's claims in logicless wordplay [such as claiming the Coin analogy is useless because it is about Coins - the coins are redundant; it is an analogy], and are only here in what seems to be an attempt to vindicate your beliefs using entirely tautological and senseless claims.
> 
> Or, shortly, you say that "God exists because God exists", whereas I am trying to say "If God exists, he would exist".


 
Actually what I'm saying is "God wants us to think He doesn't exist to make us argue on ths internet about him."


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> i hope you aren't calling ME a religious nut, cuz then i'd have to tell you you are seriously mistaken friend.  and i picked black ops because it's the most easily recognizable current game i could think of, besides, you can't play fallout multiplayer ^.^
> 
> and i agree with that, most people logic driven(not all, there are stubborn ppl in the atheist field too) would with no problem just agree to dissagree and move on with more important matters, but rather HARDCORE religious people refuse to accept they are wrong.
> 
> and yeah, i hate the super religious people who are like "your going to hell because you don't believe in christ!" "jesus jesus jesus, god exists, nothing you say will prove otherwise" and shit like that, i have no problem with you being a man of faith, but don't throw it into other people's faces, ESPECIALLY don't try to convert them, let them do their own thing


 
I think Halo stands as one as the most easily recognizable games :v

Though the last two lil paragraphs there make me think of Rukh, and it makes me laugh :v


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Actually what I'm saying is "God wants us to think He doesn't exist to make us argue on ths internet about him."



This is the kind of non-constructive wordplay that adds nothing to the debate and does nothing but to show you in an unintelligent light. If you were truly one of the faithful, you would be capable of arguing points of faith without fear.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Motherfucking Black Ops, really? Damn religious nuts pick the _worst_ game to play, shiiiiit.
> 
> Anyways. It's the religious who don't want to shake hands, for the most  part. I wouldn't mind seeing them come together like that either, but  it's just not going to happen.
> 
> ...


 
1) Not having faith is not the default. We don't remember what we believe in at an early age, do you remember?
2) No, Politics doesn't need Religion. That is circular and silly. I think you're just as eager as me to not make any sense.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> This is the kind of non-constructive wordplay that adds nothing to the debate and does nothing but to show you in an unintelligent light. If you were truly one of the faithful, you would be capable of arguing points of faith without fear.


 
What is there to even fear. How is there any fear. I like the whole "show me in an unintelligent light" bit because it's humorous but this is not a very good way to show that.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I think Halo stands as one as the most easily recognizable games :v
> 
> Though the last two lil paragraphs there make me think of Rukh, and it makes me laugh :v


 
it would, but i was going for recently released games, since they gain the biggest flair, eventually dying out unless it's good

and Rukh? i don't know if i recognise who/what you are talking about, but i'm glad i made you laugh ^_^


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> i hope you aren't calling ME a religious nut, cuz then i'd have to tell you you are seriously mistaken friend.  and i picked black ops because it's the most easily recognizable current game i could think of, besides, you can't play fallout multiplayer ^.^
> 
> and i agree with that, most people logic driven(not all, there are stubborn ppl in the atheist field too) would with no problem just agree to dissagree and move on with more important matters, but rather HARDCORE religious people refuse to accept they are wrong.
> 
> and yeah, i hate the super religious people who are like "your going to hell because you don't believe in christ!" "jesus jesus jesus, god exists, nothing you say will prove otherwise" and shit like that, i have no problem with you being a man of faith, but don't throw it into other people's faces, ESPECIALLY don't try to convert them, let them do their own thing


 
Now if everyone could just figure this out, the world wouldn't be an awful place. (That is also subjective and an opinion!!)


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA, as a fellow forum-goer, I would like you to read through this thread from page 102 to its present location. Hopefully, reading through your own posts will at least in some way impart the scale of the incomprehensibility of each one of your claims.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Now if everyone could just figure this out, the world wouldn't be an awful place. (That is also subjective and an opinion!!)


 
there we go, we're making progress, who's next? lol


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> GHDA, as a fellow forum-goer, I would like you to read through this thread from page 102 to its present location. Hopefully, reading through your own posts will at least in some way impart the scale of the incomprehensibility of each one of your claims.


 
They are simpler than you talking about God flipping planets and stuff, I'll tell you that much.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> They are simpler than you talking about God flipping planets and stuff, I'll tell you that much.



You'll find I never once talked about God flipping planets, were you to read through the thread again. It's not an act of failure to do so; as I said earlier, we have all the time in the world, here.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Get it "Simple" because this whole thread sucks.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> They are simpler than you talking about God flipping planets and stuff, I'll tell you that much.


 
umm SIX was using a simple way of explaining to you something using COIN flipping, not flipping planets


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Get it "Simple" because this whole thread sucks.


 
and you only are saying that because you are running out of retorts and are being cornered


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> and you only are saying that because you are running out of retorts and are being cornered


 
I'm not one to backpedal. I'm sure someone is going to "prove me wrong" but in the long run because they have more people on their side but it's all just Team A vs Team B in an endless deathmatch with no winner.


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

Good night and God bless you all.


----------



## BRN (Jan 14, 2011)

No; he's not being cornered. Unfortunately, he's too far into a confirmation bias to ever be cornered, and is so far into his belief that no amount of logic can ever cause him to admit his defeat. It's a mix of narcissistic ego ["I can't be beaten, I'm me!"] and insurmountable defense ["My claim cannot be beaten with any logic!"]. As an individual, he will never admit to being beaten, or defeated, because his individual belief is an abuse of the Falsification Principle.

Simply put, he can adjust his own perception of god to suit any claim we make, and can rationalise away and ignore things which don't fit. Thus, his opinion cannot be changed. It's a simple but irritating fact of life that people like this are commonplace.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> No; he's not being cornered. Unfortunately, he's too far into a confirmation bias to ever be cornered, and is so far into his belief that no amount of logic can ever cause him to admit his defeat. It's a mix of narcissistic ego ["I can't be beaten, I'm me!"] and insurmountable defense ["My claim cannot be beaten with any logic!"]. As an individual, he will never admit to being beaten, or defeated, because his individual belief is an abuse of the Falsification Principle.
> 
> Simply put, he can adjust his own perception of god to suit any claim we make, and can rationalise away and ignore things which don't fit. Thus, his opinion cannot be changed. It's a simple but irritating fact of life that people like this are commonplace.


 
i agree wholly with this response

so once again, THIS


----------



## SuddenlySanity (Jan 14, 2011)

Live and let live is my only principle when it comes to any religion. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't bother me with it. I have a muslim and 3 christians amongst my friends and I can get along perfectly with them.  But yeah, as soon as you start forcing the rules of your own religion on other members of the society (who don't share your beliefs), you reached my limit. For example: people that want euthanasia. If you're a cripple old 85-year-old and living in a world of pain because of the millions of pills you take each day and the many diseases you suffer from, I think euthanasia is perfectly justified. But because of some Christian parties in your government, the law that says 'it's okay to perform euthanasia in dire situations' won't pass because it goes against what they believe... No, just no.

I'm all for the separation of church and state. 

A bunch of Christian fundamentalists also blocked my way into a dance event once... a party I paid for to go to. They did it because 'they refused to let these satanic activities hurt any other souls'. Could they at least have paid me my ticket money back?


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

You make it sound like I'm wrong based on a shallow psyche analysis and a wikipedia link. How can I sleep at night knowing people disagree with me on the internet. About THEISM!! -___-;;


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> You make it sound like I'm wrong based on a shallow psyche analysis and a wikipedia link. How can I sleep at night knowing people disagree with me on the internet. About THEISM!! -___-;;


 
would you rather look the term up yourself? who cares that SIX used a wikipedia link? 

1. SIX was using the link to help explain the term that was being used
2. that's a horrible 'defense' for yourself in that sense to use insult along with bad reasoning
3. i actually liked it, i enjoy learning new things, so i accomplished something today :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> 1) Not having faith is not the default. We don't remember what we believe in at an early age, do you remember?
> 2) No, Politics doesn't need Religion. That is circular and silly. I think you're just as eager as me to not make any sense.


 
1) Not having faith in a god, is the default. 
2) I apologize, I didn't mean requires religion, but rather uses religion heavily.


----------



## SuddenlySanity (Jan 14, 2011)

Lol, someone actually claimed people are 'born' religious? At an early age your mind can't even understand what a religion is, let alone have faith in it. It doesn't teach itself anything about religion either...

You become religious, you aren't born religious...


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

a somewhat intelligent debate died on this page. I'm sad FAF.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> a somewhat intelligent debate died on this page. I'm sad FAF.


 
well this IS FAF, it's kind of what happens after page 10 most of the time


----------



## GHDA (Jan 14, 2011)

jesus christ mission fucking accomplished


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> jesus christ mission fucking accomplished


 
and what, may i say, was the mission?


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

GHDA said:


> To be more articulate and intelligent-looking like some of the other fellows here, I'd like to point out that some of us are able to observe that our live has a specific pattern that is obvious to only the one who experiences it.


This is falsity. There is more than one way to experience life. We have so many cultures, social hierarchies, economic statuses, etc that it is actually impossible to have one consistent specific pattern that is experienced exactly the same for every person.



GHDA said:


> As such, the obvious solution to a long chain of coincidences in this such pattern would appear to be literately drawn by some sort of omnipotent figure. Most people care not to observe these things, lest they think themselves crazy.


Just saying it's "obvious" doesn't make it obvious, universally known, or even remotely close to fact. You seem fond of this term, but I suggest you drop it as it makes you appear not so smart. No, you are connecting something (you have not defined what) but you are connecting something erroneously. People tend to make patterns and see connections where there really are none, that is how the mind is programmed to work. But you must begin to think above and beyond this base mentality. And I can see where you may be projecting onto us this craziness if you really do see a connection in everything. Fear not though, these connections are only in your own head and the rest of us are quite safe and sane. 


GHDA said:


> Logic may help try and sort these coincidences out for these people, but it only makes one apathetic and bitter.


How does logic make one apathetic and bitter? You are making assumptions on a topic it seems you have no knowledge on. So I ask you, what is logic? How does logic make one apathetic and bitter? 



GHDA said:


> Believing in God for most people eases the pain of life, some people cannot deal with their lives in this manner and go crazy. Others live fine with a happy life, going to Church every day and hoping for the best.


You have just delegated an omnipotent being to the usefulness and purpose of a mental crutch. I think you may wish to re-word this statement.



GHDA said:


> Since we have no choice but to relate things that are unable to be explained into things we can explain, there is obviously room for confusion and dissent.


We have many choices. I have no idea why you feel you have no choice, but do stop using "we" as you do not and can not speak for anyone here but yourself. I myself am not confused at life, however your post is making less and less sense as I read through it. Um, I'm sorry to ask, but are you perchance drunkposting?




GHDA said:


> Criticizing the faithful is kind of selfish, if you think about it. Who are you to take away someone's happiness, even if it may be a fabrication of society over the course of time?


Just as you are criticizing the nonfaithful? You are the one who "took away someone's happiness" by screaming at the people here that you hoped that they would burn in hell. That seems to put a big damper on moods such as happiness.



GHDA said:


> Kind of a dick move to do so, if you ask me.


 Which is exactly how you have acted in every post in this thread, every post was a multitude of "dick moves".



GHDA said:


> 1) Atheists will never have the ability to be right  about Religion, there is no default here unless you honestly have FAITH  in it! XD


  If wew are never right about religion how do you explain how atheists  have a better understanding of religion(s) than the religious?  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html
  Also, this is a fallacy. Most atheists were devout followers of a  religion before they became atheists. That's like saying ex-Presidents  have no idea how to be President or any understanding of laws. You  conclusion is completely flawed without a single redeeming quality.



GHDA said:


> 2) Politics is using logic to gain popularity and  power and can be affected by religion through means of logic. Come on  now. You're like being as bad as me now.


  Politics is affected by religion through logic? How is republicans  shooting and killing abortion doctors logical? Or, heck, even moral?



GHDA said:


> 3) Maybe I just am an idiot but damn this is fun.


  I'm glad you're having fun. I wouldn't say you're an idiot, but your posts are so stupid they're toxic.



GHDA said:


> Are you guys done, I'm getting bored of killing this thread.


  You're not killing this thread. Don't give yourself the credit. It's  gone on for over 2,500 posts and will keep on chugging long after you've  run out of syllables of vile to vomit out into semi-coherent sentences.  



GHDA said:


> jesus christ mission fucking accomplished


  Yay, you ooze stupid like a toddler oozes spit. Mission accomplished,  you have definitely proven to all of us that you are obtuse, offensive,  and irrational. To really win you have to hack FA and have the forums shut down for a month.



GHDA said:


> 1) Not having faith is not the default. We don't  remember what we believe in at an early age, do you remember?


If that is true then how can children be raised in different religions  if they are born into being (I assume) Christians? Or how about  everything about religion from the philosophy, to the dogmas, to the  rituals must be taught? If they had faith as the default they would be  born with this knowledge the same way a bird is born with the knowledge  of how to construct a nest. 



*Lastly, I have a question for GHDA, is God moral?*


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 14, 2011)

Grendel said:


> *Lastly, I have a question for GHDA, is God moral?*



Is this a question of whether or not God sins or a question of does his rules stand for moral good?



SuddenlySanity said:


> Live and let live is my only principle when it comes to any religion. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't bother me with it. I have a muslim and 3 christians amongst my friends and I can get along perfectly with them.  But yeah, as soon as you start forcing the rules of your own religion on other members of the society (who don't share your beliefs), you reached my limit. For example: people that want euthanasia. If you're a cripple old 85-year-old and living in a world of pain because of the millions of pills you take each day and the many diseases you suffer from, I think euthanasia is perfectly justified. But because of some Christian parties in your government, the law that says 'it's okay to perform euthanasia in dire situations' won't pass because it goes against what they believe... No, just no.
> 
> I'm all for the separation of church and state.
> 
> A bunch of Christian fundamentalists also blocked my way into a dance event once... a party I paid for to go to. They did it because 'they refused to let these satanic activities hurt any other souls'. Could they at least have paid me my ticket money back?



A good ideal, live and let live. Keeps one neutral; Christians are commanded to witness to people, some are doing this out of the kindness of their own heart and others just like to feel like an authority or something. For the one's that witness that witness to you with a tender heart, if you don't want to take stock in what they say, kindly send them on their way. Do what you want with the others, I don't care.

That live and let live ideology is something I relate to a basic don't ask don't tell rule. Not the military's discriminatory program.
Anyways the societal neutrality perspective I have would like to see this expanded.
Don't tell me your sexual orientation, and I'll do my part to not ask, Don't make it obvious and the highlight of your life, keep yourself reserved and civil.
If you do actively go out of your way to make your orientation known, then you've subjected yourself to hearing my opinion on the matter; and we have equal rights of expression. 
For the atheists.
Don't try to witness me, less you subject yourself to my opinions; if you come to me with a desire to change my opinion, don't be offended when I give you my opinion, unless I'm aggressive or uncivil.

In away this is a judge not lest the be judged matter, If I judge you for being a certain way, my ways become subjected to judgment. And vise-versa 


The Christian and more caring part of me, will witness to someone if felt necessary to do so, theres a time and place and mannerism about it.
If I come to you and I'm aggressively preaching at you are with in your societal rights to aggressively resist, I don't approve of a aggressiveness.
If I come to you and I try to witness to you and I'm being civil and sincere about it, give me the time of day or say your not interested, don't become aggressive and defensive for this is not an attack.


I'm in limbo of the two ways of thinking; I haven't witnessed to anyone for a couple of years, but with the friends I have we have religious discussions often. My semi-atheist roomate and I get along fine and our discussions are always quite civil, an exchange in agreements is commonplace.


----------



## Grendel (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> Is this a question of whether or not God sins or a question of does his rules stand for moral good?


 If God is perfect he would either be perfectly moral, or perfectly immoral. His actions, commandments, and justice would be either moral or immoral. I am asking is God moral, or is he not moral? It's pretty much yes or no and then a small blurb why. That's all I wanted to know.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 14, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> 1) it has no physical state, so I can't tell you what is made of other than your mental self
> 2) You feel it, it cognition, awareness of one's own actions and consequences thereof.
> 3) The brain acts like an earthly ground, keeping the soul bound here, the brain can be damaged but the soul can remain intact.
> 
> 4) And this is an attempt to explain something that we just can't fully understand.


 
1) If you can't tell me what it is, you've pretty much failed at defining it, haven't you?
2) But we already have something that explains all that, the brain.
3) That doesn't really make any sense though. If the soul is immutable by normal means, why can memories be created through experience or permanently be erased by brain damage? Or personalities altered by brain damage? In both cases a person can be completely changed by manipulating the brain, if the soul is immutable don't you think people could still access their original personality or memories through it?

4) If you can't understand it enough to even prove it's existance, you shouldn't be claiming they exist.

In addition, you still need to review and sign that document I linked you to a while back.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 14, 2011)

Grendel said:


> If God is perfect he would either be perfectly moral, or perfectly immoral. His actions, commandments, and justice would be either moral or immoral. I am asking is God moral, or is he not moral? It's pretty much yes or no and then a small blurb why. That's all I wanted to know.


 

Well, you already know the answer to this question, so why ask it? God is perfect and just.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> People like Rukh piss me off more than Militant Athiests.
> 
> People have their opinion and their respective faiths, i respect that. But telling me "DERP HURP YOUR NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN, YOUR SOPPOSED TO BE LIKE ME."
> 
> ...


 

Did I say you were not a Christian/ No, I did not. I don't know your heart. So I can't say if you are or are not. What I was getting at, albeit worded wrong, was Christians being politically correct. Are we Christians supposed to respect falsehood? Where does it say this in the Bible. Are we to say "oh thats okay if you don't believe what I do" No not at all. Because the Bible says its not okay. Does that mean we can't respect people. No, we are to respect people. But not falsehood. Because Jesus didn't respect falsehood. So neither should we. I apologize coming off in the wrong way. I didn't express myself correctly. To me it seemed like you were just trying to appease people.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, you already know the answer to this question, so why ask it? God is perfect and just.


 
And yet God created evil.


----------



## Conker (Jan 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, you already know the answer to this question, so why ask it? God is perfect and just.


 Pretty sure only religious people believe that. Us outsiders that read the Bible find different answers.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> And yet God created evil.


 
Back to that old argument....

No He didn't. Its called free will. HE allowed us to choose to believe in Him or not. We choose to sin. Not Him.

http://carm.org/questions/about-god/did-god-create-sin

"
     No, God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create  that which is  contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of  holiness. It is  lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  God is the  author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy  character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that  which is in  direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself  to  be bigger than the sun. It just isnâ€™t possible.
 But, if God didnâ€™t  create sin, then where did it come from? This is a  question that has been  debated by theologians and philosophers for  many years. I cannot say that I have  any better answers than they.  Nevertheless, let me venture a guess.
 God  created the conditions where free-will creatures would be able  to make a choice  between obedience and disobedience to God. This  condition existed when God  created an angel called Lucifer who was  without sin yet, apparently, had free  will. Lucifer chose to rebel  against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve,  having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin  against God (Gen. 3).
 But God did  not cause them to sin (James 1:13).  In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered  the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply  allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.
 An analogy can be  found in the relationship between a parent and a  child. A parent can create the  condition that makes disobedience  possible yet the parent remains innocent if  the child sins. For  example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room  and the child  does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for  the  childâ€™s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice  to  obey or not to obey.
 Likewise, God has created the condition in the  world where the  ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not  responsible  for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin   originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world  through  Adam who likewise chose disobedience."


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> 1) If you can't tell me what it is, you've pretty much failed at defining it, haven't you?
> 2) But we already have something that explains all that, the brain.
> 3) That doesn't really make any sense though. If the soul is immutable by normal means, why can memories be created through experience or permanently be erased by brain damage? Or personalities altered by brain damage? In both cases a person can be completely changed by manipulating the brain, if the soul is immutable don't you think people could still access their original personality or memories through it?
> 
> ...



1. What's time made of?


----------



## Conker (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> 1. What's time made of?


 Perception.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> 1. What's time made of?


 
Don't dodge the question.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No He didn't. Its called free will. HE allowed us to choose to believe in Him or not. We choose to sin. Not Him.


 
So you're saying there are things in the universe that happen without- or even against- his will? Fascinating! You do realize that's preaching against the biblical tenant of god's sovereignty, thus making you a heretic, right?


----------



## Fay V (Jan 15, 2011)

Conker said:


> Perception.


 Memory and expectations. I can't remember who said that though


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> 1) If you can't tell me what it is, you've pretty much failed at defining it, haven't you?
> 2) But we already have something that explains all that, the brain.
> 3) That doesn't really make any sense though. If the soul is immutable by normal means, why can memories be created through experience or permanently be erased by brain damage? Or personalities altered by brain damage? In both cases a person can be completely changed by manipulating the brain, if the soul is immutable don't you think people could still access their original personality or memories through it?
> 
> ...



I answered your question, Your entire argument is based on the inability to give a physical state or physical proof of something that exists. We can't prove that time exists but we know that it does exist.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> 1. What's time made of?


 
God's giggles.


----------



## Conker (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> I answered your question, Your entire argument is based on the inability to give a physical state or physical proof of something that exists. We can't prove that time exists but we know that it does exist.


 Time is a human creation, and a relative one at that.

Edit:

not to mention we can prove that it exists. We have devices that keep track of it; it's a measurable thing.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 15, 2011)

oh hey what is this



			
				Isaiah 45:7 said:
			
		

> I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and *create evil*; I the LORD do all these things.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 15, 2011)

^ You win One Internet.  Please collect your prize at the front desk


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 15, 2011)

Conker said:


> Time is a human creation, and a relative one at that.


 If its a human creation, then how come time existed before us, and if its our creation how come we can't control it?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> oh hey what is this


 
Jesus cookies,


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> If its a human creation, then how come time existed before us, and if its our creation how come we can't control it?



Again, time is relative.  How we percieve time as a species is much different then how it is said that heaven percieves time.  One day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth.   Whether it existed before us or not, well...technically it did, since evening and morning were created on the first day, and man was created on the sixth day.


----------



## Conker (Jan 15, 2011)

NobleThorne said:


> If its a human creation, then how come time existed before us, and if its our creation how come we can't control it?


 Perhaps creation wasn't the right term, though if humans didn't exist then the idea of time wouldn't either, even if it is still going. If things happened differently, the idea of time might be measured in completely different ways. It's a relative thing. 

But the original question was what is time made out of, the answer is perception. We perceive time on Earth differently than we would if we lived on Mars. 

And it's still a measurable thing. My clock says it's 12:21 right now. You can measure time, you can track time, you can't do that with souls. You can prove that it exists.


----------



## Riley (Jan 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> copypastaaaaa



As I've said before, and as you've ignored before - if evil is the absence of god's presence, then it is god's presence that allows evil to exist.  It's the whole "No shadow without light" thing - come on, Rukh, don't they teach you all these cliches in Jesuscampville?


----------



## SwingandaMiss (Jan 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> oh hey what is this


 I like how you put the actual verse as the original poster...

that's a nice touch...


EDIT:


Riley said:


> As I've said before, and as you've ignored before -  if evil is the absence of god's presence, then it is god's presence  that allows evil to exist.  It's the whole "No shadow without light"  thing - come on, Rukh, don't they teach you all these cliches in  Jesuscampville?


 
They taught me that at my Rights of Confirmation... It's actually a very standard concept.

Then when I was an atheist they taught me "Forsothe thou shalt never part thine way from ye underdwelling save to bitcheth at thine local population... for 'tis bright and treacherous a world outside."

And in Panentheistcampville they taught me that God was within the universe and the universe was within God like some bizarre paradox explaining divinity and the purpose of its energies...

Metaphysical study is underrated... that shit's hard to wrap your head around...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 15, 2011)

Damn! Someone got to the argument from evil - That one is kinda the ace in the hole, nobody has ever successfully refuted the problem of evil, because it's not inherently possible to have an ultimate all-power, all-loving good that either makes evil happen, or lets evil happen.


----------



## SwingandaMiss (Jan 15, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Damn! Someone got to the argument from evil - That one is kinda the ace in the hole, nobody has ever successfully refuted the problem of evil, because it's not inherently possible to have an ultimate all-power, all-loving good that either makes evil happen, or lets evil happen.


 
...mercy?


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> oh hey what is this


*
Isaiah 45:7* 					 				 				I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and *create evil*; I the LORD do all these things.


Its there, thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Vibgyor (Jan 15, 2011)

god doesn't exist, k?


----------



## Fay V (Jan 15, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Damn! Someone got to the argument from evil - That one is kinda the ace in the hole, nobody has ever successfully refuted the problem of evil, because it's not inherently possible to have an ultimate all-power, all-loving good that either makes evil happen, or lets evil happen.


 not without a good dose of eastern philosophy. You get things like the Tao is perfect. The Tao is neither good nor evil, so it's good. 

actually i take that back because the tao isn't actually all loving. sort of...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> not without a good dose of eastern philosophy. You get things like the Tao is perfect. The Tao is neither good nor evil, so it's good.
> actually i take that back because the tao isn't actually all loving. sort of...


 
Very interesting, but not sure why you quoted me on that :v Being Tao isn't a thing (thus not ultimately powerful nor loving), and cannot be all-powerful or loving, and cannot make good or evil happen >.>


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> not without a good dose of eastern philosophy. You get things like the Tao is perfect. The Tao is neither good nor evil, so it's good.
> 
> actually i take that back because the tao isn't actually all loving. sort of...


 
Tao is neither good nor evil, so it CAN'T be good, because by saying it's good, then there has to be the opposite 'evil' to balance it


----------



## Fay V (Jan 15, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> Tao is neither good nor evil, so it CAN'T be good, because by saying it's good, then there has to be the opposite 'evil' to balance it


 It's hard to explain the phrase to others to be honest. It was just a silly point I am not going to argue the goodness of the tao because it's nothing i can prove and hardly something I can explain to someone in a western tradition. 

there doesn't actually have to be an opposite evil. In western tradition when left alone in a neutral state people will be bad and will continue to be more evil until guided by some good being. 
In Eastern tradition when left in a neutral state people are good. people only become evil when influenced by evil. 
So in other words Christians will say that without God you will be lead down the path of sin as opposed to You have been lead astray and must work back to your non influenced state. 
this is overly general though.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> It's hard to explain the phrase to others to be honest. It was just a silly point I am not going to argue the goodness of the tao because it's nothing i can prove and hardly something I can explain to someone in a western tradition.
> 
> there doesn't actually have to be an opposite evil. In western tradition when left alone in a neutral state people will be bad and will continue to be more evil until guided by some good being.
> In Eastern tradition when left in a neutral state people are good. people only become evil when influenced by evil.
> ...


 

true, if you are neutral you are more considered 'good'

but i don't want to argue about Tao because i like it


----------



## Fay V (Jan 15, 2011)

Kitsune_Morric said:


> true, if you are neutral you are more considered 'good'
> 
> but i don't want to argue about Tao because i like it


 
I like it too, and it's really not worth arguing. "the Tao is everything" "nah uh it doesn't fit this!" "It doesn't have definitions" "how do you know what it is?" "just do" "I don't believe you" "kay."


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I like it too, and it's really not worth arguing. "the Tao is everything" "nah uh it doesn't fit this!" "It doesn't have definitions" "how do you know what it is?" "just do" "I don't believe you" "kay."


 
glad we had this talk haha


----------



## GHDA (Jan 15, 2011)

The problem with most Western philosophies and religions is that it is missing alot of the teaching that Eastern philosophies have about dealing with inner strife and turmoil.

Western philosophies like Christianity and Islam essentially tell us that a God is running everything and using a human (a prophet such as Jesus or Muhammed) who is not yourself as a guide to dealing with outside forces.

It isn't stressed like in Asian philosophies how to deal with inner good and evil, which is why many people are on the fence about religion as things like the internet make us more curious about ourselves.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 15, 2011)

yay internet


----------



## Grendel (Jan 15, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, you already know the answer to this question, so why ask it? God is perfect and just.


 Thank you for answering, though you could lack the sarcasm. I asked because I wanted his opinion, and he asked me to clarify so I did. There was no need to be "you already know, why you ask?" Unlike you Rukh I don't assume to know other people's opinions or ideas on religion, I ask them and they tell me. It's part of respect.

The reason I asked as I am in my second Moral Theory and Practice class and I'm loving it and would like to discuss it a bit with the rest if you if any are interested. 

In moral theory you can make a scenario or situation, and then from it render a moral judgment. This allows philosophers to use the scenario to discuss other scenarios that are similar so long as they have no morally relevant differences between the two, in which case the same moral judgement (is it moral or isn't it) can be made on the second scenario.

As a basic moral principle to start with how about a quote from Peter Singer (the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne) in his book "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."


			
				Peter Singer said:
			
		

> If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it.
> ...
> An application of this principle is as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and I see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is morally insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.



So just as Singer puts forth a scenario I would like to as well.


> An Emissary of Julius Caesar is riding through the outskirts of Rome where he is mocked by a group of little children. The Emissary calls on Caesar, and Caesar feeds forty two of the children to his lions.


We can deduce that the feeding of children to lions is morally wrong, and the punishment far exceeds the crime. Especially in this case that these were little children.
The second scenario that has no morally relevant differences comes from the Bible. 


			
				2 Kings 2:23-24 said:
			
		

> And he went up from thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up by the  way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him,  and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And  he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the  LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty  and two children of them.


Elijah in this scenario holds the same position as the emissary and God has the same power to sentence these children to a painful death by animals as Caesar in our first scenario. Once again morally we can deduce that the painful suffering and death of children is a very bad and immoral thing. But if God himself did this, and killed these children, then is not God immoral?
Secondly if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening,  without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought,  morally to do it. And God is omnipotent, then why not prevent all the somethings that are very bad from happening? Surely an omnipotent being would not have to sacrifice anything morally significant in preventing such very bad things? Why not simply remove evil? Why not simply not plant the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden when he could foresee the actions of Adam and Eve? Why not prevent these very bad things?


----------



## GHDA (Jan 16, 2011)

Don't fuck with people that can get God to call bears on you, obviously that's the lesson here.


----------



## BRN (Jan 16, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Don't fuck with people that can get God to call bears on you, obviously that's the lesson here.


 
Can you leave this thread? You add nothing, or less, to the discussion.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 16, 2011)

GHDA said:


> Don't fuck with people that can get God to call bears on you, obviously that's the lesson here.


 
God is a dick.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 16, 2011)

Last night, I got bored and decided to argue with a friend from the viewpoint of a creationist Christian, just to see what arguments I could come up with for the side I disagree with.  And, because I'm still bored, I think I'll try that here.

Thesis: There is a loving God who is just as described in the Bible, and repeated evidence proves his existence.
The Big Bang theory is untrue, as it contradicts many of the laws of science.  Evolution did not happen, as the odds of creatures of such complexity like human beings being created by billions of years of slow progress is about the same as the odds of a perfectly functioning 747 being put together by a hurricane in a junkyard.  Archeological evidence suggests and proves that many of the events in the Bible did, in fact, happen.  The experiences of many cancer survivors and other people from crisis shows that God is there, to some degree, in everybody's minds.  Crime rates and other statistical evidence shows that those who follow the 10 commandments and God's other moral codes are more likely to live healthy, happy, fulfilling lives than those who do not.


----------



## Conker (Jan 16, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Last night, I got bored and decided to argue with a friend from the viewpoint of a creationist Christian, just to see what arguments I could come up with for the side I disagree with.  And, because I'm still bored, I think I'll try that here.
> 
> The Big Bang theory is untrue, as it contradicts many of the laws of science.


Since when? The scientific definition of a theory is a highly tested hypothesis, and the Big Bang Theory has been around for a long time. There are some problems with it, but I don't believe it contradicts many of the laws of science, no more than God does anyways.


> Evolution did not happen, as the odds of creatures of such complexity like human beings being created by billions of years of slow progress is about the same as the odds of a perfectly functioning 747 being put together by a hurricane in a junkyard.


I can't find my copy of _The God Delusion_ but I know Dawkins addresses this argument and the problems with it. I believe it boiled down to the fact that evolution isn't based off of chance whereas the creation of a functioning plane would be. 


> Archeological evidence suggests and proves that many of the events in the Bible did, in fact, happen.


Uh, since when? What do you mean by "events" because the Bible is loaded with them, some more possible than others.


> The experiences of many cancer survivors and other people from crisis shows that God is there, to some degree, in everybody's minds.


There are more religious people than non religious people. The statistics are swayed to have more religious people fall into cancer and crisis situations because there are more of them. They come out fine and then attribute that to God. 


> Crime rates and other statistical evidence shows that those who follow the 10 commandments and God's other moral codes are more likely to live healthy, happy, fulfilling lives than those who do not.


There are more religious people in prison than atheists, last I checked.


----------



## NobleThorne (Jan 16, 2011)

Grendel said:


> Thank you for answering, though you could lack the sarcasm. I asked because I wanted his opinion, and he asked me to clarify so I did. There was no need to be "you already know, why you ask?" Unlike you Rukh I don't assume to know other people's opinions or ideas on religion, I ask them and they tell me. It's part of respect.
> 
> The reason I asked as I am in my second Moral Theory and Practice class and I'm loving it and would like to discuss it a bit with the rest if you if any are interested.
> 
> ...



We don't even know what tare means here, Tare could be terrorized, torn into, or torn apart. Basically, the bears could have scared the kids off, mauled the kids, or killed the kids. It seems more likely that 42 kids were scarred off and not killed by 2 she bears. 42 kids, if they saw one of their buddies being killed they'd probably take off, not stand around waiting for their turn.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 16, 2011)

^^^ are you fucking kidding me
where's deovacuus when you need her




Conker said:


> There are more religious people in prison than atheists, last I checked.


 
This is true.  The "no religion" segment of the prison population is disproportionately smaller than any other.  This data is collected at the time of incarceration, too, so you couldn't even argue they're just converting once they're in the big house.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 16, 2011)

Wait, is that someone up there, that's not Rukh - That's trying to justify God sending 2 bears to maul 42 children?


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> This is true.  The "no religion" segment of the prison population is disproportionately smaller than any other.  This data is collected at the time of incarceration, too, so you couldn't even argue they're just converting once they're in the big house.


 
and that's a fact, been a while since i saw one of those :V


----------



## Enwon (Jan 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> Since when? The scientific definition of a theory is a highly tested hypothesis, and the Big Bang Theory has been around for a long time. There are some problems with it, but I don't believe it contradicts many of the laws of science, no more than God does anyways.
> 
> I can't find my copy of _The God Delusion_ but I know Dawkins addresses this argument and the problems with it. I believe it boiled down to the fact that evolution isn't based off of chance whereas the creation of a functioning plane would be.
> 
> ...


 
(I really must be bored to be doing this.  Well, here goes.  Lets see how many fallacies I can come up with)

I believe Rukh posted a link a few dozen pages ago about the Big Bang Theory's issues.  God cannot contradict the laws of science, as he has made the laws of science.  And evolution may not be based off of chance, but I don't understand how it could've spawned such complex beings.  And by events, I mean many of the civilizations referenced in the Bible, which have long been proven by other records and archeology to exist.  Also, for the religious people argument, the reason there are more religious people in jail is because there are more religious people.  Some Christians aren't really Christans and they... they...

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

OH MY GOD AM I REALLY ARGUING THIS AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

I'M SPOUTING COMPLETE BULLSHIT FOR THE SAKE OF SPOUTING COMPLETE BULLSHIT!  HAHAHAHAHAA OH MY GOD!  I AM REALLY THAT BORED!


----------



## Conker (Jan 16, 2011)

Enwon said:


> And evolution may not be based off of chance, but I don't understand how it could've spawned such complex beings.


Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false :V



> I'M SPOUTING COMPLETE BULLSHIT FOR THE SAKE OF SPOUTING COMPLETE BULLSHIT!  HAHAHAHAHAA OH MY GOD!  I AM REALLY THAT BORED!


Sounds like someone needs to go masturbate or play some video games 



> We don't even know what tare means here, Tare could be terrorized, torn  into, or torn apart. Basically, the bears could have scared the kids  off, mauled the kids, or killed the kids. It seems more likely that 42  kids were scarred off and not killed by 2 she bears. 42 kids, if they  saw one of their buddies being killed they'd probably take off, not  stand around waiting for their turn.


Different translations will use different verbs, but in the case of the Bible, you're supposed to go back and look at the Hebrew word. If you go back and do that, and you still can't figure out the proper meaning of that passage, then the problem is with the Bible. If it's so hard to understand then it shouldn't be believed to such an extreme level, especially considering the shit in it.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false :V


 
Don't worry.  I understand how it works.  I was just saying I didn't for the sake of argument.  Billions of years of small little incidents of natural selection compounded upon each other until complex beings were created.

In hindsight, pretending to be a creationist out of boredom was a bad idea.


----------



## Kitsune_Morric (Jan 16, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Don't worry.  I understand how it works.  I was just saying I didn't for the sake of argument.  Billions of years of small little incidents of natural selection compounded upon each other until complex beings were created.
> 
> In hindsight, pretending to be a creationist out of boredom was a bad idea.


 
eh, you can't take back what you do on the internet, so just roll with it :V


----------



## Conker (Jan 16, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Don't worry.  I understand how it works.  I was just saying I didn't for the sake of argument.  Billions of years of small little incidents of natural selection compounded upon each other until complex beings were created.
> 
> In hindsight, pretending to be a creationist out of boredom was a bad idea.


 Yeah. I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I think my above comment is something most creationists need to think about. Just because they don't get it or refuse to get it doesn't mean it's false.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> Yeah. I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I think my above comment is something most creationists need to think about. Just because they don't get it or refuse to get it doesn't mean it's false.


 
Yeah... I wish they would get that.  I hear that argument a lot in my area- "we don't get evolution because it's not true"  People have a natural inclination to dislike and distrust the things they don't know or understand.  I could've come up with some more complex argument that actually addresses the points of evolution, but I was feeling lazy, as judged by how I ended up giving up trying to argue from a different viewpoint.


----------



## BRN (Jan 17, 2011)

> Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false :V


 
Personally I feel there's no right or wrong way to see the world; it's peoples experiences that have led them to understand religion in their specific way, not an innate predilection. Though I personally am atheist, I'm happy to talk to theists about their beliefs, and it's immensely satisfying to talk about our different views in friendly discussion. They're people who completely understand where you're coming from, and the logic in your argument, but can continue to see the logic in their own points, and so, continue to debate. 

Problems start when I meet an uninformed and/or defensive theist. The kind who are theistic because their momma said so, or take a conflicting opinion to be personal affront. 
With these people, it's not that they 'don't understand', it's that they choose to refuse to understand. As if a different opinion, value, or idea to their own reasoning must be deemed as a foreign, offensive thought, and totally rejected.

So I say, it's not really that "they don't understand, so they think it isn't true". It's more like "they think it isn't true, and so, choose not to understand". I've met pro-creationst theists who also believe in evolution; however, I've also met a geocentric young-earth theist with an entirely irrational hatred of atheists. It's difficult to say he wouldn't be able to understand the points any person who chose to debate with him could make; but nevertheless, he would _choose_ not to.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2011)

We interrupt this discussion for tonight's "WTF Religion?" news segment.

In pedophile news, a letter originating from the Vatican has surfaced in which the church instructed bishops to not take action against priests caught abusing children.  The significance of this letter is that it is hard evidence that the protection of priests that have raped children was not merely sanctioned by the Vatican, but ordered.



> [Archbishop Luciano] Storero wrote that canon law, which required abuse allegations and punishments to be handled within the church, "must be meticulously followed." Any bishops who tried to impose punishments outside the confines of canon law *would face the "highly embarrassing" position of having their actions overturned on appeal in Rome*, he wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> "The letter is of huge international significance, because it shows that the Vatican's intention is to *prevent reporting* of abuse to criminal authorities. And if that instruction applied here, it applied everywhere," said Colm O'Gorman, director of the Irish chapter of human rights watchdog Amnesty International.



As for the other type of child abuse, an ex-FLDS woman has revealed some FLDS families in Canada have been regularly using water torture on babies as some sort of obedience training.



> â€œItâ€™s quite common,â€ Carolyn Blackmore Jessop said. She was a witness for the B.C. government in the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canadaâ€™s polygamy law is valid.
> 
> *â€œThey spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted.â€*
> 
> ...



More fucked-up news when it happens, which you can be sure it will.


----------



## Conker (Jan 18, 2011)

In my 20th century philosophy class, someone said the rise in atheism of the 20th century was a problem. A bitchfest broke out. He stopped talking quickly. 

@Lobar

WTF


----------



## Leoni (Jan 18, 2011)

Oh yay! A religion debate thread. Instead of writing essay after essay of argument and flame, I'll just post an image that portrays religion accurately.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 18, 2011)

Lobar said:


> We interrupt this discussion for tonight's "WTF Religion?" news segment.
> 
> In pedophile news, a letter originating from the Vatican has surfaced in which the church instructed bishops to not take action against priests caught abusing children.  The significance of this letter is that it is hard evidence that the protection of priests that have raped children was not merely sanctioned by the Vatican, but ordered.



Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t covered that in an episode in 2009 when a lawyer found documents regarding this and spoke out about it, but it was quieted.  Thanks to George W Bush the pope has immunity in the US in regards to the courts, so he cannot be approached on the matter.  In the _real _world, however...Yeah.  Shit's gonna hit the fan.  The Irish protestants are going to have fun with this news, that's for sure.

Here's the fun part of this document though: Neither the clergy OR the victim is to mention it until ten years pass the child's age of majority, on point of excommunication.  By that time the evidence is long gone, and it's only hearsay and faint memories, which the courts cannot use as evidence (believe me, I know what i"m talking about here).  

(BTW, the only way to see this episode is to find a torrent of it.  Showtime and the DVD of season 7 has removed the episode due to the controversy it stirred up.   I have a copy and let me tell you, it is worth it!)


----------



## Attaman (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, there's also the woman who was raped by her Deacon when she was fifteen, and was made to apologize in front of the church when she got Pregnant from it (big surprise:  It was left unknown who was the one who knocked her up :V).  The article's a bit odd, though, as if I get it right she didn't come out about such until recently (which is odd mostly because, while a simple DNA test could still prove parenthood / provide decent evidence to substantiate the claims, much of the information about such a time would now be long gone, it happening in 1998 I think and only now her coming out).

EDIT:  Here it is, for those curious.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 19, 2011)

Conker said:


> In my 20th century philosophy class, someone said the rise in atheism of the 20th century was a problem. A bitchfest broke out. He stopped talking quickly.
> 
> @Lobar
> 
> WTF


 
Stories like these keep me a motivated vocal critic of religion.  These are not aberrations, these are Standard Operating Procedure within their respective sects.  They arise from rigid adherence to anachronistic values and models of Biblical patriarchy, and then they are allowed to persist precisely _because_ they are religious in nature.

If this child rapist protection affair was happening in some other organization, something entirely secular in nature, like the Teacher's Union or something, we would not stand for it.  The media would tear them apart, and it would be fucking gone.  But when that organization is the Vatican, everything changes.  You make an exposÃ© about all the shit that goes on, how it's all being orchestrated from the very top, and what little reaction you get pales next to the outcry to get it pulled off the fucking air (see below) and get it swept under the rug.  It's almost easier to be a racist in mainstream media than it is to be anti-religion.



CAThulu said:


> Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t covered that in an episode in 2009 when a lawyer found documents regarding this and spoke out about it, but it was quieted.  Thanks to George W Bush the pope has immunity in the US in regards to the courts, so he cannot be approached on the matter.  In the _real _world, however...Yeah.  Shit's gonna hit the fan.  The Irish protestants are going to have fun with this news, that's for sure.
> 
> Here's the fun part of this document though: Neither the clergy OR the victim is to mention it until ten years pass the child's age of majority, on point of excommunication.  By that time the evidence is long gone, and it's only hearsay and faint memories, which the courts cannot use as evidence (believe me, I know what i"m talking about here).
> 
> (BTW, the only way to see this episode is to find a torrent of it.  Showtime and the DVD of season 7 has removed the episode due to the controversy it stirred up.   I have a copy and let me tell you, it is worth it!)



My friend made sure to TiVo it the one and only time it aired, so I did get to see it.  I remember the 2009 documents that came out, I'm sure we had a thread about it.  This specific letter came out only recently though, I believe (I could be mistaken) as a latecoming but important piece to the whole sordid affair: a decree that only the Vatican can handle child abuse cases, and an order to the lower-level bishops not to take it upon themselves not to report to authorities or punish in any way any child molesters under them, under penalty of being overturned and "embarrassed" (probably code for forced to resign) by the Vatican.

So, while in 2009 we discovered that the Vatican's policy towards child rape was "We're not going to do anything", this letter now further clarifies it to be "We're not going to do anything, and *you're not going to either.*"


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> My friend made sure to TiVo it the one and only time it aired, so I did get to see it.  I remember the 2009 documents that came out, I'm sure we had a thread about it.  This specific letter came out only recently though, I believe (I could be mistaken) as a latecoming but important piece to the whole sordid affair: a decree that only the Vatican can handle child abuse cases, and an order to the lower-level bishops not to take it upon themselves not to report to authorities or punish in any way any child molesters under them, under penalty of being overturned and "embarrassed" (probably code for forced to resign) by the Vatican.
> 
> So, while in 2009 we discovered that the Vatican's policy towards child rape was "We're not going to do anything", this letter now further clarifies it to be "We're not going to do anything, and *you're not going to either.*"


 
Unfortunately for the catholics, the world doesn't work that way.  I really, REALLY hope someone can step in and make a precident on bringing those accountable to justice instead of letting it be handled within the vatican.  I would go so far to say that what the vatican is doing is a human rights violation.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 19, 2011)

Gah, tried to catch up in this thread, only got to about 15 pages back and my brain died.

old quote is old



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In other words, if life is nothing but an accident, then there is no meaning to life. Everything means nothing. No ones thoughts are better than anyone else's. No ones actions are better than anyone else's. There is no moral right and wrong because we can't assign truth to anything because everything is an accident.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How is that a reason to live? You mean absolutely nothing. And life is meaningless. If this is true, than you mean nothing. You are not special, or unique or anything for that matter. And what you do in life means nothing. You have no hope is what is sounds like. Why live?



Why must there be a God in order for there to be purpose in life? Why can't you find purpose in life by enjoying yourself? Spending time with friends, family, the people you love. Devoting yourself to a job or cause you enjoy. Doing something to help others or to better the world. Being a friend, being a hero. Doing things that bring joy and light and happiness to the world. None of these things require a God.

You seem to think and fear that if there is no god there is no purpose in life, that life is absolutely meaningless and everyone might as well just be dead. But you can GIVE yourself a purpose. FIND something to give your life meaning. That could be some not-so-positive thing like chasing after wealth and power or possessions, which is what some people do, or live only for yourself and not care about others. Or you could give your life purpose by trying to better mankind and be a good human and good citizen. In other words, you give your life purpose by helping others now, as well as ensuring a peaceful future for your children and their children, and ensuring the continuation of humanity as a species. That's basically what secular humanism is. And it doesn't require belief in a creator.


----------



## Conker (Jan 19, 2011)

I've got a question for the scientists regarding evolution.

When I was reading _The God Delusion_ Dawkins would always brush away the counterarguments to evolution that called it chance. "It's not based on chance" he would state again and again, "evolution is not accidental." Okay, I like that answer, it makes me feel warm inside. 

But, I'm thinking back to my Freshman year of college while in biology class. We talked about evolution and the main factors behind evolution. I don't recall all of them, only one, and I remember my professor saying this one factor is the biggest out of the rest. That factor is mutation, and to me, mutation seems quite accidental. Mutation is usually bad, afterall, resulting in death or deformation. Missing or broken chromosomes result in some of the fucked-up-fetus pictures shown earlier in this thread. 

So, uh, isn't a working mutation an accident? If that's a big part of evolving organisms, then doesn't chance play quite a roll in it all? 

I'm showing my ignorance on the subject, and I wish I had saved those biology textbooks, but when I changed majors, I no longer needed them. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me here? Or point me to a book where Dawkins does an in depth explanation on evolution. Many times in _The God Delusion_ he'd brush off arguments using evolution while assuming his readers knew everything about evolution. That isn't the case, and it's one part of his style I didn't like.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 19, 2011)

personally if you want a good answer about evolution steer clear of Dawkins and read Darwin's Origin of the Species.  Go straight to the source


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 19, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgj7czB51V

And that is all I have to say on Evolution.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 19, 2011)

Conker said:


> I've got a question for the scientists regarding evolution.
> 
> When I was reading _The God Delusion_ Dawkins would always brush away the counterarguments to evolution that called it chance. "It's not based on chance" he would state again and again, "evolution is not accidental." Okay, I like that answer, it makes me feel warm inside.
> 
> ...


 
 I'm not much more well versed then basics, but the bad mutations die because they are not capable of living. Is not an accident that that good ones show up, its merely amatter of time and space. (like a very large sand filter ast the beach when searching for metals.) It sounds like chance or an accident, but it's more patternistic...kinda..


Also, imma laugh if Rukh is an evolution denier. Start his good'ol rhetoric arguments that have beem debunked for over a century or more. IT'S ONLY A THEORY, NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!! MY DADDY AINT AN APE!


----------



## Lobar (Jan 19, 2011)

@Conker

The short answer is that while mutation is random, _selection_ of mutated traits is not.  The mutations expected to survive and propogate throughout a population are always those that help adapt them to their environment.

Also don't go for The Origin of Species, evolutionary biology has progressed much further since it was published, and it should really only be read in a historical context.  Since you like Dawkins's writing style I'd say go for The Greatest Show On Earth.


I'm posting from my phone at work and can't watch Rukh's video.  Somebody tell me if it's stupid.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgj7czB51V
> 
> And that is all I have to say on Evolution.



That  "The URL contained a malformed video ID"?  That's evolution in a nutshell?   Well hell!  You have me convinced...just as soon as I figure out what point you were trying to make :V


----------



## Conker (Jan 20, 2011)

Thanks for the answers guys :3 Gonna check that book at some point. Probably not soon though. Damn my workload.

Just gonna assume Rukh's video is retarded. It's easier and faster that way.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Also don't go for The Origin of Species, evolutionary biology has progressed much further since it was published, and it should really only be read in a historical context.  Since you like Dawkins's writing style I'd say go for The Greatest Show On Earth.



*writes that down*  Nice *G*.   I'll put that on my list of things I need to read. I'm trying to figure out Evolution vs. Mutation as well.   I chose viral mutation as my biology thesis back when I was still a christian instead of doing a thing on evolution, so I never really learned the fundimentals of the theory.  I'm still playing catch-up here.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 20, 2011)

The video doesn't work, so yeah.  Retarded.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 20, 2011)

Actually, you know what, retract my previous recommendation.  TGSOE focuses primarily on the evidence that exists for evolution, and while explaining the concepts the evidence supports kinda goes hand in hand with that, it still remains a secondary focus and as a result the book is a bit drier and more science-heavy than an introduction to evolution should be.  Instead, start at The Selfish Gene and work forwards.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> That  "The URL contained a malformed video ID"?  That's evolution in a nutshell?   Well hell!  You have me convinced...just as soon as I figure out what point you were trying to make :V


 
The condensed version is, it's the usual creationist claptrap. "It takes faith to believe in evolution." "How dare you tell me my ancestor was a monkey." "Atheists are immoral." and so on.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The condensed version is, it's the usual creationist claptrap. "It takes faith to believe in evolution." "How dare you tell me my ancestor was a monkey." and so on.


 
So...nothing I haven't heard before then


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> So...nothing I haven't heard before then


 
Pretty much. Also does the usual strawmanning, but doesn't present any actual, yaknow, evidence.

It wouldn't be the first time though. I think Rukh may have unironically presented the "peanut butter proves god" or "bananas prove god" anti-evolution things in the past.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> That  "The URL contained a malformed video ID"?  That's evolution in a nutshell?   Well hell!  You have me convinced...just as soon as I figure out what point you were trying to make :V


 
Hmm, it worked when I watched it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgj7czB51Vc

Its a song, called Evolution Redefined, By Geoff Moore and the Distance.

Try that link, its working now.


----------



## Conker (Jan 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Actually, you know what, retract my previous recommendation.  TGSOE focuses primarily on the evidence that exists for evolution, and while explaining the concepts the evidence supports kinda goes hand in hand with that, it still remains a secondary focus and as a result the book is a bit drier and more science-heavy than an introduction to evolution should be.  Instead, start at The Selfish Gene and work forwards.


 Good to know.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The condensed version is, it's the usual creationist claptrap. "It takes faith to believe in evolution." "How dare you tell me my ancestor was a monkey." "Atheists are immoral." and so on.


 
Ugh, even though I can't see the video, these arguments are so dumb and rehashed over and over that I'm going to respond anyways.

First is the fact that _all science_ operates from a perspective of skepticism and _doubt_, never faith.  When science accepts something as true, it is because the evidence exists in such quantity that it would take faith to accept any other explanation for it.

With today's knowledge, it would take faith to _not_ believe that gravity is a real and mathematically defined force in the universe.  It would take faith _not_ to believe that diseases are a product of their associated viruses and bacteria.  And it takes faith _not_ to believe that the diversity of life arose through evolution by natural selection.  (All these, by the way, are scientific theories.)  The evidence was pretty damn solid when The Origin of Species was first published.  It's been 150 years since then, and the evidence has piled up into a vast library of information that dwarfs what Darwin had available to him, is all cross-confirmed by various techniques from other scientific fields of study (geology, chemistry, physics, and others) and all points to a clear history of evolution.

To believe that evolution by natural selection is false, in the face of all that evidence, requires accepting _on faith_ a much less likely alternative, of which only two come to mind as even remotely viable (using the term very loosely): that a) each piece of evidence is one in a vast series of innumerous and extreme outliers, randomly falling in a pattern that consistently paints a picture of a false history purely by chance (and I know how you feel about things happening by chance), or b) as in (a), but as the result of a grand scheme of deliberate deception masterminded by a deity (whose existence itself would be less likely than explanation (a)).

Do you worship a God of deceit, Rukh?

As for monkeys: Evolution does not say that our ancestors were any of today's monkeys.  Instead, we share in common with monkeys an ape-like ancestor that _does not still exist today_.  As to the final point: I'll let the positions of the various posters in this thread on the appropriateness of BEAR MURDER speak for themselves.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hmm, it worked when I watched it on youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgj7czB51Vc
> Try that link, its working now.


 
I'm sad that I was more or less correct. "IT'S ONLY A THEORY, NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!! MY DADDY AINT AN APE!                         "

- "Your uncle was a monkey, he was swinging through the trees,"
- "Maybe my teacher, He's the missing link!"
- "It takes a lot of faith to say we're accidents of nature,"

Albeit the "theory" part wasn't included, but I bet it's in Rukh's pretty little head.

Gotta say overall, that song was pretty retarded. Although it does a good job of summing up retarded/debunked Creationist anti-Evolution rhetoric...And pretty much sums up Rukh's biological/scientific education.


I really want him to get into that "There are no transitional fossils!" then we show him them, then he points between two of them, "But there are none between these two!" and so on, creating this huge gap requiring thousands if not millions of transitional fossils to satiate his need - Only when it is literally impossible to show him more fossils, he goes, "Well God simply allowed Satan to put them there to trick us-" or in the terms Rukh is more likely to use (avoiding the problem of evil like always, because he can't recant it :v) "Satan put them there to trick us".


----------



## Lobar (Jan 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I really want him to get into that "There are no transitional fossils!" then we show him them, then he points between two of them, "But there are none between these two!" and so on, creating this huge gap requiring thousands if not millions of transitional fossils to satiate his need - Only when it is literally impossible to show him more fossils, he goes, "Well God simply allowed Satan to put them there to trick us-" or in the terms Rukh is more likely to use (avoiding the problem of evil like always, because he can't recant it :v) "Satan put them there to trick us".


 
There's an old joke, involving a creationist crowing to a scientist about some gap in the fossil record.  The scientist, upon reaching his breaking point, launches an expedition for the fossil, and finds a beauty of one, that splits the supposed "gap" right down the middle.  He brings it home, presents it to the creationist, and says, "Now what?!"  The dumbstruck creationist thinks a moment, before finally offering, "Well, where there was only one gap before, now there are _two_..."


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 20, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Why must there be a God in order for there to be purpose in life?


 
That aside, it has no bearing on whether there is a god or not. Even if life is meaningless without a god, that doesn't mean that, therefor, there must be a god.



Mojotech said:


> The condensed version is, it's the usual creationist claptrap. "It takes faith to believe in evolution." "How dare you tell me my ancestor was a monkey." "Atheists are immoral." and so on.


 
Or in other words, "I don't actually know what evolution entails and trying to find out might prove me wrong."


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> There's an old joke, involving a creationist crowing to a scientist about some gap in the fossil record.  The scientist, upon reaching his breaking point, launches an expedition for the fossil, and finds a beauty of one, that splits the supposed "gap" right down the middle.  He brings it home, presents it to the creationist, and says, "Now what?!"  The dumbstruck creationist thinks a moment, before finally offering, "Well, where there was only one gap before, now there are _two_..."


 
That's similar to what I was getting at. There is fossil A B C D E, all transitional from A to E. Creationist points out between B & C that there is no fossil there to explain that, so then you'd hav A B Bb C D E, and then he goes "Oh well now there's another gap!" A B Bb Cc C D E, and so on. xD 

HOwever you put it, it's all hilarious.


----------



## Azure (Jan 20, 2011)

This is probably Rukh's favorite video EVER.

This is mine :3


----------



## Conker (Jan 21, 2011)

So, I'm balls deep in Bible stuff right now for a class. I Google a few verses and come across this gem which makes me frown hardcore like.



			
				http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/job118u.htm said:
			
		

> *What Is So Bad About Religious Division?*
> 
> Religious division (denominationalism) is a sin. It is an open rebellion against God's call for unity of believers. It is a curse rather than a blessing. It is a hindrance to everything Christianity stands for. Religious division is wrong and sinful because:
> 
> ...




Point three made me laugh the most. 

Class is gonna be fun today, because I'm apparently the token atheist in it :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 21, 2011)

Azure said:


> This is probably Rukh's favorite video EVER.


One of the most disproved theories in the world? Proven wrong by scientists? And what scientists are those? Ones that are fundies first and scientists second? "Well, I did this experiment here and it gave me these results, but the results go against the Bible so I'm going to change my results to fit my beliefs better!"

"If you believe in macro-evolution then you also believe man evolved from a rock" LOL WHUT? Rocks aren't alive, we can't evolve from something that's not alive. I'm starting to think this video is satire.

I'm actually afraid of this nation collapsing. Not because of TEH GAYS and their "Agenda" but because of the stupidity of people like this who are voting like-minded people into office. Of course, if the US does fall apart, leave it to the religious people to blame the Gays, and gays will be murdered in the streets.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 21, 2011)

Over 2,700 replies, and I bet _not one person_ has changed their opinion over anything.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 21, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Over 2,700 replies, and I bet _not one person_ has changed their opinion over anything.


 I've lost all faith in humanity. Is that good enough?


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I've lost all faith in humanity. Is that good enough?


 
I think reading most threads in this forum can do that.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 21, 2011)

How about liking fundies/born-agains/evangelicals even less?

The problem with this thread is there's two sides. The "God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it, and unless you can come up with proof of God existing you're an idiot for believing in him" atheists, and Rukh's extreme version of Christianity. Neither side is ever going to give in because they're so far on either side. Since I would never prescribe to Rukh's blind belief in the Bible without research and study, I have to side with the Atheists on this one.


Going back to Rukh's assertion that if Evolution is true and everything happened by "chance" that means life and existance is meaningless, his comments are proof of why people cling to religion so hard. He said it loud and clear in what he said. If God does not exist, life is meaningless. Life is nothing. There is no purpose in existance. If you die tomorrow it's just random. You won't go to Heaven.

That's why people cling to religion. It gives them simple answers to life's hardest questions, and gives them purpose in life, and gets rid of the fear of death. "Oh well, I don't have to worry about dying anymore because I'll just go to paradise. That's one less cloud over my head." "Well, I may be one out of 7 billion people but I have purpose in life, God has a special purpose for just me out of all the 7 billion people here." "Why does life suck? Because God is testing us, or has some purpose for us." "Why did my mother die? Because God willed it." "Why do I exist? To worship God." "Why is there evil in the world? Because of Satan."

It wraps all the most difficult problems into one easy package. It easily explains what happens to us after death. It makes the people who practice it feel important and loved. This is why people cling to it so hard.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 21, 2011)

I think Noble is more extreme then rukh. rukh just has this strong headiness about things he doesn't understand, so posts copy pastaa,  so that he can pretend he knows what he it's taking about, and this preach his BS moar. I see it in debates all the time, one side runs por of things to discuss, so either starts writing stuff (whether or not they cite their sources), and basically fill their out-of-gas side with rhetoric and otherwise bullshit to fill time, but not actually advancing their side forward. Simply repeating things until the time is up.

(can't be buggered to gett this keyboard working


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> How about liking fundies/born-agains/evangelicals even less?
> 
> The problem with this thread is there's two sides. The "God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it, and unless you can come up with proof of God existing you're an idiot for believing in him" atheists, and Rukh's extreme version of Christianity. Neither side is ever going to give in because they're so far on either side. Since I would never prescribe to Rukh's blind belief in the Bible without research and study, I have to side with the Atheists on this one.
> 
> ...



Ecclesiastes 1:1-11
The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:   â€œMeaningless! Meaningless!â€ 
   says the Teacher. 
â€œUtterly meaningless! 
   Everything is meaningless.â€ 
  What do people gain from all their labors 
   at which they toil under the sun? 
 Generations come and generations go, 
   but the earth remains forever. 
 The sun rises and the sun sets, 
   and hurries back to where it rises. 
 The wind blows to the south 
   and turns to the north; 
round and round it goes, 
   ever returning on its course. 
 All streams flow into the sea, 
   yet the sea is never full. 
To the place the streams come from, 
   there they return again. 
 All things are wearisome, 
   more than one can say. 
The eye never has enough of seeing, 
   nor the ear its fill of hearing. 
 What has been will be again, 
   what has been done will be done again; 
   there is nothing new under the sun. 
 Is there anything of which one can say, 
   â€œLook! This is something newâ€? 
It was here already, long ago; 
   it was here before our time. 
 No one remembers the former generations, 
   and even those yet to come 
will not be remembered 
   by those who follow them. 

Now remember, King Solomon, was one of the richest men in the ancient world. He had everything. Basically what he is saying is life is meaningless without God. If you read the rest of Ecclesiastes, you will see its a huge lament about how everything is meaningless.

Chapter 1: everything is meaningless and wisdom is meaningless
Chapter 2: Pleasures are meaningless, wisdom and folly is meaningless, toil is meaningless
And so on. I am sure you get the idea.


And just an fyi, Its not blind belief. Because being blind ensues I don't know what I believe. And I do know what I believe. I have a very clear belief. Its not blind. I have faith. Such strong faith that because God is my rock. My faith is unshakable. Will I be tested? Absolutely. But I will never stop believing in God.
What this means, is even in the mist of my life crumbling around me, even when nothing seems like its going right, even when I am not sure about what to do, that I have a peace in me, pure peace. I cannot be broken by anything on this earth. For I know, God doesn't give me anything that I can't handle. And He will never leave me. "For I will never leave you nor forsake you" I completely trust God, in good times and more importantly in bad times. Even in the mist of the most strenuous times, I still praise God.
Its pure peace and joy to be in a relationship with God.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2011)

So, wait, because a pre-historic King-like figure said life is meaningless without God, life is meaningless without God?  So, for example, if someone today said life had a meaning without God, and they were at a greater political power / had more ("everything" then being less than "everything" now, arguably), you'd switch tunes and say that there's a meaning to life without God?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 22, 2011)

Attaman said:


> So, wait, because a pre-historic King-like figure said life is meaningless without God, life is meaningless without God?  So, for example, if someone today said life had a meaning without God, and they were at a greater political power / had more ("everything" then being less than "everything" now, arguably), you'd switch tunes and say that there's a meaning to life without God?


 
Everything is meaningless without God. Everything on this planet is meaningless when compared to God. everything here fades and is finite. God is infinite. There is no meaning without God, because everything else fades away. Money, objects, power, it all fades away. So why cling to any of it?

This is why the Bible says as believers we are not of this world anymore, its not our home. We are sojourners, travelers passing through. Our home, is heaven.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everything is meaningless without God. Everything on this planet is meaningless when compared to God. everything here fades and is finite. God is infinite. There is no meaning without God, because everything else fades away. Money, objects, power, it all fades away. So why cling to any of it?
> 
> This is why the Bible says as believers we are not of this world anymore, its not our home. We are sojourners, travelers passing through. Our home, is heaven.


 
Actually, to an individual, things have the meaning that the individual assigns to it.  The individual can assign meaning and symbolism to objects, people, and ideas with or without the assistance of religion.  Religion is merely one method that people use to create meaning out of their lives.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everything is meaningless without God. Everything on this planet is meaningless when compared to God. everything here fades and is finite. God is infinite. There is no meaning without God, because everything else fades away. Money, objects, power, it all fades away. So why cling to any of it?
> 
> This is why the Bible says as believers we are not of this world anymore, its not our home. We are sojourners, travelers passing through. Our home, is heaven.


 
I find plenty of meaning without God, hell my next trip to the urinal has enough meaning in it to make me want to live.
Feels good man,don't even get me started on fried chicken and beer my life revolves around that and I don't have a God to thank for it.

My home must be Hell because I cannot for the life of me stop spouting blasphemy.
I guess God made me this way though. What a jerk


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 22, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Actually, to an individual, things have the meaning that the individual assigns to it.  The individual can assign meaning and symbolism to objects, people, and ideas with or without the assistance of religion.  Religion is merely one method that people use to create meaning out of their lives.


 
Again though, things of this world are finite. They don't last. Putting stock in something that will fade seems pointless. And furthermore, saying religion means there is more than one way. Makes it sound like their are many ways to heaven. Except religions don't agree on that. Christianity doesn't call itself a religion. Society calls it that. Its more than that. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus said He is the only way to heaven. Therefore there is not more than one way. So Christianity isn't a religion, its the Truth.


Nail_bunny said:


> I find plenty of meaning without God, hell my next trip to the urinal has enough meaning in it to make me want to live.
> Feels good man,don't even get me started on fried chicken and beer my life revolves around that and I don't have a God to thank for it.


Are those feelings permanent? Or do you constantly need to keep getting those things (Not pissing) to keep meaning in your life?


----------



## Goshujinsama (Jan 22, 2011)

I love how religious people feel that stating THEIR beliefs over and over and over and over and over... *30 years later*.... and over and over again, will somehow make it more true than common sense and logic.  hmm, i should start a cult, all you need is a loud voice, repetitive sayings and a group of people too blind and weak to take responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## Nail_bunny (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again though, things of this world are finite. They don't last. Putting stock in something that will fade seems pointless. And furthermore, saying religion means there is more than one way. Makes it sound like their are many ways to heaven. Except religions don't agree on that. Christianity doesn't call itself a religion. Society calls it that. Its more than that. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus said He is the only way to heaven. Therefore there is not more than one way. So Christianity isn't a religion, its the Truth.
> 
> Are those feelings permanent? Or do you constantly need to keep getting those things (Not pissing) to keep meaning in your life?


 
No but every other feeling I feel has enough meaning to keep me alive, even picking my nose.

@ Goshujinsama,I'll help you start a cult lets get rich!


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everything is meaningless without God. Everything on this planet is meaningless when compared to God. everything here fades and is finite.


 I can see what you're getting at (that in terms of infinity, none of this will matter), but there's a few other things to keep in mind.

First off, what you're saying is that nothing matters here, at all, even with a presence of God.  This is important for a few reasons:
1)  It means that it doesn't matter if you're religious or not.  Either way, it has the same value (Eg:  None).
2)  God is judging you, whether you go to Heaven or Hell or the like, on things that do not matter.  Nay, things that have no meaning.
3)  God's work is finite.  He is working with things that he can perceive on a finite scale, even though being timeless that is an impossibility unless either: A)  Things are actually infinite (in which case, part of the argument goes away that you present), or B)  God is not Timeless (since a Timeless being cannot interact with a Time-influenced world)
4)  Faith in God is meaningless.  Somewhat similar to #1, but different insofar as #1 states religious in general, #4 is a direct belief in Christian God (sorry, Abrahamic / the God for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)
5)  The Bible is meaningless, as it is finite.

EDIT:  6)  Jesus is finite, as are his words.  Ergo, they are meaningless.  Still using your logic, Rukh.

Also, note that you are _not_ going to convince anyone of your points, if the only mean to present them is begging the question.  "I am right." "Why?"  "Because I say I am always right." "But why does that make you right?" "Because I said that I am always right, and I am always right.  If I said I was wrong, I would not be right, and thus I could not be right." "But why are you right?"  "*Snip quoting* Right there?  See where I said I was always right?  Therefore, I am always right."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 22, 2011)

Attaman said:


> I can see what you're getting at (that in terms of infinity, none of this will matter), but there's a few other things to keep in mind.
> 
> First off, what you're saying is that nothing matters here, at all, even with a presence of God.  This is important for a few reasons:
> 1)  It means that it doesn't matter if you're religious or not.  Either way, it has the same value (Eg:  None).
> ...


 
1) Define religious, The main defining thing about Christianity is belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. Thats what gets you into heaven. What I am saying is, everything else is meaningless compared to God. Perhaps I should have worded it better. And If you love God, you try and obey His commands.
2) God is perfect and He is Just. We all will be judged for every thought, word, and action we will ever have. So yes, we are judged regardless if we go to heaven or hell. But those who are sancified through the blood of Christ, no longer have the punishment of eternal death. But we still are accountable for our life here on earth.
3) God's work is not finite. He lives outside of our concept of time. He lives in the past, present, and future. Considering He created time itself.
4) Faith in the True God is not meaningless. Not what I was saying. Again, What I was saying is everything compared to God is meaningless.
5) The Bible is the word of God. God is infinite, therefore His word is infinite. Hence why the Bible is called the word of God or the living word, and Jesus is called the Word of God and the living Word. The Bible and God cannot be separated. They go together.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,  correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may  be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Samuel 22:31
As for God, his way is perfect: The LORDâ€™s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. 

In fact, read Psalms 138:2

I will bow down toward Your holy temple
         And give thanks to Your name for Your loving kindness and Your truth;
*For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name. *

God has magnified His own word (The Bible, and Christ Jesus)

Heaven and Earth will fade away, But God's word is forever, and in this respect it has a preeminence over every other from of manifestation. The Lord lays all of His name under tribute to His word: His power, love wisdom, and all His other attributes together to carry out His word. It is His word which creates, comforts, sustains, and enlightens. As a word of command it is supreme. And in the person of the incarante Word (Christ Jesus) it is set above all the works of God's hands.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again though, things of this world are finite. They don't last. Putting stock in something that will fade seems pointless. And furthermore, saying religion means there is more than one way. Makes it sound like their are many ways to heaven. Except religions don't agree on that. Christianity doesn't call itself a religion. Society calls it that. Its more than that. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus said He is the only way to heaven. Therefore there is not more than one way. So Christianity isn't a religion, its the Truth.


 
Of course you return to stating your beliefs that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that the Bible is the only truth.  However, I say religion because I mean religion.  The only reason Christianity manages to stand out to me is only because I am surrounded by far more Christians than members of other faiths.  That is due to geography more than anything.  To me, the finite things on the Earth are the only things in my reality.  I am in control of my own happiness and my own life, and I also am in control of what I assign value to and not.  To me, there aren't many ways to Heaven.  There aren't any ways to Heaven.  I don't believe in Heaven.  And you won't be able to convince me otherwise.  It is not just material things which I feel the need to assign value to, I also do this with ideas, and with other people.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 22, 2011)

Enwon said:


> *I don't believe in Heaven*.  And you won't be able to convince me otherwise.  It is not just material things which I feel the need to assign value to, I also do this with ideas, and with other people.


 
Thats a personal problem. We can open God's word and see what He says about unbelief though.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 22, 2011)

I like how Rukh says we can interpret his deity's supposed word when it's positive, but not when criticizing them. :V


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 22, 2011)

Gonna just go ahead and end this thread on page 111.
Tao


----------



## Enwon (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats a personal problem. We can open God's word and see what He says about unbelief though.


 
Technically, it's only a problem if it causes me stress and misery.  Which it has not.  To be honest, I am satisfied and happy with my lack of belief.  I haven't believed for years, and though it was stressful as I lost faith, when it was gone, I merely shrugged and moved on.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 22, 2011)

Christianity, at its core, really is a death cult.  Death is the most important event in a Christian's life: the transition from a finite life, full of experiences of finite happiness and pain to (supposedly) an infinite afterlife, of either infinite reward or infinite suffering.  No wonder they can say life is meaningless, they've been brought up in a worldview so death-centric, that life is not just taken for granted, but almost as a _nuisance_, one that no doubt many of them would skip altogether if it hadn't been made against the rules.

"Live for today" is an alien concept to them, they live to die.  They'll ask, "What does a life without God matter in the end?"  So ingrained is the idea that things that do not matter _in the end_ are things that do not matter _at all_ (as the end is all that matters, of course), that it simply goes unspoken, as if it should be self-evident.

It's a cosmic tragedy, really.  Life alone is such an amazing thing, that a consciousness such as ours is truly a rare and unlikely gift, even as fleeting as it may be.  And they can't wait to get it over with.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And just an fyi, Its not blind belief. Because being blind ensues I don't know what I believe. And I do know what I believe. I have a very clear belief. Its not blind. I have faith. Such strong faith that because God is my rock. My faith is unshakable. Will I be tested? Absolutely. But I will never stop believing in God.
> What this means, is even in the mist of my life crumbling around me, even when nothing seems like its going right, even when I am not sure about what to do, that I have a peace in me, pure peace. I cannot be broken by anything on this earth. For I know, God doesn't give me anything that I can't handle. And He will never leave me. "For I will never leave you nor forsake you" I completely trust God, in good times and more importantly in bad times. Even in the mist of the most strenuous times, I still praise God.
> Its pure peace and joy to be in a relationship with God.


 
Beliefs are blind by default. Being 'belief' is accepting something without full knowledge of whether or not it's true or false (will try to write that better). So the phrase is actually rather redundant, despite sounding more descriptive. 


I do find it amusing that Rukh completely trusts in something, and I'm talking _balls_ deep in this trust of something, that he has never actually experienced (beyond maybe a delusion).
:v


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 22, 2011)

The entire conflict is that people are always obsessing over the difference of Yes and No.
Be at the center of your compass, not on the North or South ends.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 22, 2011)

Goshujinsama said:


> I love how religious people feel that stating THEIR beliefs over and over and over and over and over... *30 years later*.... and over and over again, will somehow make it more true than common sense and logic.  hmm, i should start a cult, *all you need is a loud voice, repetitive sayings and a group of people too blind and weak to take responsibility for their own lives.*


 
Scientology, anyone?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 22, 2011)

Super_Tron said:


> The entire conflict is that people are always obsessing over the difference of Yes and No.
> Be at the center of your compass, not on the North or South ends.


 
This is just South Park-style "both sides are always equally wrong" apathy repackaged in shallow, handwave-y crap.  Sorry, but sometimes one side is correct.


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 22, 2011)

I disagree.  It is better to watch Yes and No chase each other than to choose between the two.  If you would like to see further reasoning behind my... reasoning, jump back a page. I linked one of the most useful Taoist texts.

EDIT: By supposing that it is better to do one thing than another, I have contradicted myself.  O discordia


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats a personal problem. We can open God's word and see what He says about unbelief though.


 
We can? Which of the million "holy" books shall we use?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 22, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> We can? Which of the million "holy" books shall we use?


 

Dead sea scrolls.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 22, 2011)

Super_Tron said:


> I disagree.  It is better to watch Yes and No chase each other than to choose between the two.  If you would like to see further reasoning behind my... reasoning, jump back a page. I linked one of the most useful Taoist texts.
> 
> EDIT: By supposing that it is better to do one thing than another, I have contradicted myself.  O discordia


 
What value can it have if you can't even keep from contradicting yourself?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 22, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Dead sea scrolls.


 
And why pick those?


----------



## Attaman (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 1) Define religious, The main defining thing about Christianity is belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. Thats what gets you into heaven. What I am saying is, everything else is meaningless compared to God. Perhaps I should have worded it better. And If you love God, you try and obey His commands.


 But it's all meaningless, in the end, by your words.  This is all finite, and by your word in other debates (wherein this universe is not connected to the afterlife) won't even carry over to the realm of the infinite, so religion does not matter in the end because in the end all will be dust.  Your words.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2) God is perfect and He is Just.


 We've held this debate before, you know you're in the minority here when you argue that, and it requires "My interpretations of the Bible are right and yours are wrong" talk (in fact, every time it's come to a debate on God's "Just" nature, it has boiled down to you psalm-dumping on us while stating every single one of our interpretations or quotes are either taken out of context, willful misinterpretation, or no longer apply).  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We all will be judged for every thought, word, and action we will ever have.


 But you just admitted, they're meaningless in a finite world.  We're being judged on a finite value for something that has an infinite solution.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So yes, we are judged regardless if we go to heaven or hell. But those who are sancified through the blood of Christ, no longer have the punishment of eternal death. But we still are accountable for our life here on earth.


 Everyone has the "punishment" of eternal death, unless what you mean is nothingness (and, again, most of the people here don't see that as this big "Terrifying Evil" afterlife that must be avoided at all costs) or Hell (which is a bit false for a variety of reasons, ranging from the fact that a Christian can go to Hell to the whole "Pre-Christianity this means everyone went to Hell" bit).  Oh, and the fact that - once more - this defends the "Christianity is Right" with "Christianity says it's right."



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 3) God's work is not finite.


 Then what you're saying is that this is not a finite universe.  Again, your words.  Now, if all we remove is God, and that's _all we remove_, that leaves us with the infinite universe.  Meaning our actions could have meaning, or at least less "no meaning" from your tirade about why God is important.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He lives outside of our concept of time.


 If he recognizes time and can influence it, he is not outside time.  There is no "past, present, and future" for something outside time. There's just "omnipresence", which has the issue in that it cannot readily influence specific point.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Considering He created time itself.


Time's relative.  :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 4) Faith in the True God is not meaningless. Not what I was saying. Again, What I was saying is *everything compared to God is meaningless*.


  Like this universe, and faith.

Still using your words, not my fault that someone took it to the logical conclusion.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 5) The Bible is the word of God. God is infinite, therefore His word is infinite.


 Now you're just making stuff up, I'm disappointed Rukh.  If this world is Finite, and not Infinite, then his holy text will eventually vanish along with everything else.  Everything will vanish.  The air that carried his word will vanish, the space that his word was stated in will vanish, the material that made his Holy Texts will fade to nothingness.  It will have no meaning, after the fading of the universe.

Or, or, the world is Infinite.  In which case, again, this removes a lot of your "Nothing we do matters without God as all will vanish" as the universe ain't finite no more in duration.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Heaven and Earth will fade away,


 Wait, then this means:

Earth: Finite Time
Heaven:  Finite Reward
Hell:  Infinite Punishment

... And you still don't see why people argue "God is a Dick"?  When the only "Infinite" results are either eternal death / nothingness (which, looking at all the things here, is the best result) or eternal punishment and pain?  And that both of these are determined by a finite amount of action?


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> This is probably Rukh's favorite video EVER.



Ah, yes... I love how thunderf00t rips it apart.
[yt]lmUGJ3Jh7fc[/yt]


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 22, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> One of the most disproved theories in the world?  Proven wrong by scientists? And what scientists are those? Ones that  are fundies first and scientists second? "Well, I did this experiment  here and it gave me these results, but the results go against the Bible  so I'm going to change my results to fit my beliefs better!"



That's Ken Ham's biblical glasses for you. You know, the Answers in Genesis guys accuse real scientists of having an evolutionary bias, but really, it's them who are shoehorning things in.



> "If  you believe in macro-evolution then you also believe man evolved from a  rock" LOL WHUT? Rocks aren't alive, we can't evolve from something  that's not alive. I'm starting to think this video is satire.


Sadly, it could not be more serious. Kent Hovind talks about people evolving from a rock all the time... sometimes he calls it dirt, never find the fact that in his religion, man actually did evolve from dirt...



> I'm  actually afraid of this nation collapsing. Not because of TEH GAYS and  their "Agenda" but because of the stupidity of people like this who are  voting like-minded people into office. Of course, if the US does fall  apart, leave it to the religious people to blame the Gays, and gays will  be murdered in the streets.


I can only hope the Europeans declare war on the US then.


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> What value can it have if you can't even keep from contradicting yourself?


 Zen is in and of itself contradictory.  e.g. You must empty your glass for it to become full, right cannot exist without left, up cannot exist without down, etc.
Tao revolves around an understanding of those simple truths.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 22, 2011)

Taoism...at least it's something *different* to discuss rather than Christianity.
...and more confusing too...


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 22, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Taoism...at least it's something *different* to discuss rather than Christianity.
> ...and more confusing too...


It just takes a couple reads.  If you want to know more about what Tao is all about, this is a good place to start.
 I know this is going to cause immense shitstormery, but it's best to get this out of the way... Many of the teachings of Christ are concurrent with Taoism, i.e. Live a life of virtue, love thy neighbor, love thy enemy.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 22, 2011)

Super_Tron said:


> It just takes a couple reads.  If you want to know more about what Tao is all about, this is a good place to start.
> I know this is going to cause immense shitstormery, but it's best to get this out of the way... Many of the teachings of Christ are concurrent with Taoism, i.e. Live a life of virtue, love thy neighbor, love thy enemy.


 hoo boy. This is going to be a long read. 
I'm also not really surprised. A lot of teachings like that are concurrent with each other.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 22, 2011)

It's fairly well known that the stories within the Bible are rehashes of other stories from other, older books.


----------



## Conker (Jan 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> It's fairly well known that the stories within the Bible are rehashes of other stories from other, older books.


 Got any concrete examples? Or a site that has them?

Also, that religious class I'm in is gonna be painful. I'm the only skeptic there (no one actually knows that yet), but we gotta be polite in our conversing. I'll be holding my tongue quite a bit :V

But, going into a debate where it's one against eight doesn't sound fun :3


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 22, 2011)

Conker said:


> Got any concrete examples? Or a site that has them?
> 
> Also, that religious class I'm in is gonna be painful. I'm the only skeptic there (no one actually knows that yet), but we gotta be polite in our conversing. I'll be holding my tongue quite a bit :V
> 
> But, going into a debate where it's one against eight doesn't sound fun :3


 
You know the Flood in the bible? Was based off of something that you see in the Epic Of Gilgamesh/Story of the flood.

As for the ten commandments? There is strong reason to believe that and many other things in the bible got heavy emphasis on pulling strait from the Code of Hammurabi.

The whole Virgin birth thing is not new, you see it in old Egyptian mythology which btw....predates the Christian story of the birth of a Jesus.  Those a few things to name off the top of my head.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 22, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> As for the ten commandments? There is strong reason to believe that and many other things in the bible got heavy emphasis on pulling strait from the Code of Hammurabi.


 
Or how about the 42 commandments of ancient Egypt?: http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/Maat/


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 22, 2011)

Conker said:


> Got any concrete examples? Or a site that has them?



Examples as concrete as the Bible:

Lets start with the Book of the Dead, first few words translated:
"Homage to you, Osiris, Lord of eternity"

Isis _resurrected_ Osiris, whom was killed by her brother Set. 

Isis was also _impregnated by some sort of fire _:v

http://books.google.com/books?id=ojccFpRU8DwC&pg=PA44&dq=horus&lr=&cd=3#v=onepage&q=horus&f=false

A much more generic example: in that dead people buried properly _would have their spirits rise and taken to Osiris_, (And warriors were taken to Ra I think), and were taken to _something of a paradise_. 

Their hearts were weighed to see how many _sins_ they committed, using one of their gods Ma'at for a counterbalance (who was the embodiment of _purity, good, righteousness_, etc). Though I gotta admit, it's pretty awesome what happens if their heart does _not_ balance with Ma'at. A crazy motherfucker came out and _ate the dead persons spirit_, to absolutely end them AND their damned spirit permanently. 

Also their Egyptian creation myth (not a part of TBOTD)

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm
vs.
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm

Day 1: Creation of light. Both stories hold to this.
Day 2: Ra created the gods of Air, and Moisture. - or 'God' created the sky.
Day 3: The gods of Air & Moisture created the gods of the earth & sky. - Or 'God' created the Earth.
Day 4: Some crazy shit happened amongst the gods (including gambling), and somehow the calender is made. Or 'God' makes day and night.
Day 5 & beyond: Khnum created living creatures, and continually does so (eternally, as far as I'm aware). or 'God' created animals
Day 6: Khnum still working his ass off to make creatures, or 'God' making mankind
Day 7: Khnum busting ass to make more creatures, or 'God' sits on his mystical ass.

Exciting huh :v
 
The Rig-Veda has a similar creation...poem, sorta (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/wisdom-1.shtml, but it's older than TBOTD in written form (Rigveda roughly 2200-1700bc in written form, TBOTD is 1700-1400bc if I recall right, and the OT is what, 1200-200bc?). 

There are some Norse, Greek, and Chinese creation myths...I'm not really sure how much of this you need :v but I can keep going if you like. 

And like I said, there it's fairly common knowledge, and there is a fairly large amount of it. The fact that the Bible is one of the youngest of these types of stories alone makes it suspicious, not to mention how it all suspiciously got put together :v

Although I am afraid that the *unwarranted, atrocious bear-mauling of 42 children might be Christianity-specific.*

It's what makes Christianity fun, because they're basically believing a collective summation of other bullshit from older countries, and protest that it's all unique and the absolute "Truth" (with a capital T for some reason).


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Isis _resurrected_ Osiris, whom was killed by her brother Set.


 
I though it was Osiris who was killed by HIS brother Set- cut into 14 pieces and scattered throughout the land of Egypt.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 22, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I though it was Osiris who was killed by HIS brother Set- cut into 14 pieces and scattered throughout the land of Egypt.


 
Something like that. His penis was never found, sadly.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 22, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I though it was Osiris who was killed by HIS brother Set- cut into 14 pieces and scattered throughout the land of Egypt.


 


Mojotech said:


> Something like that. His penis was never found, sadly.


 
It's obvious what happened. Osiris's penis became Yahweh - because Yahweh's such a dick


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> It's obvious what happened. Osiris's penis became Yahweh - because Yahweh's such a dick


 
Ah hahaha.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 2) God is perfect and He is Just. We all will be judged for every thought, word, and action we will ever have.


It seems rather petty of God to judge EVERY thought. Everyone has a moment of anger or a bad thought. If he were to judge even the tinest, pettiest thing, we'd be sitting there for a couple thousand years. And he wouldn't be Just, either, he'd be petty and anal. I also do not find a god that sends non-believers to a place of eternal infinite torture to be just. This is not justice. Even human judges have more compassion. And I can't imagine they'd be more just than a supposed perfect diety.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ecclesiastes 1:1-11
> The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: â€œMeaningless! Meaningless!â€
> says the Teacher.
> â€œUtterly meaningless!
> ...


I wonder if you understood that when I said that life was meaningless without God in my last post that I was saying that that's what YOU would say, not that I believed it as well. Because no, I do not believe that life is meaningless without God.

I need to read Ecclesiastes again because I'm sure you're misinterpreting it again.

And as for the last sentence in your post, that proves that religion makes you feel good about yourself because it answers all your doubts and makes you feel important and always right. It's a security blanket.



Conker said:


> Also, that religious class I'm in is gonna be painful. I'm the only skeptic there (no one actually knows that yet), but we gotta be polite in our conversing. I'll be holding my tongue quite a bit :V


Where the heck are you going to school? A religious college?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In fact, read Psalms 138:2


You did NOT Just quote Psalms. You do realize that Psalms were songs of praise towards God written BY Men, and shouldn't be taken as the word of God. But I have a feeling I know what you'll say. "But ALL the Bible is God's direct word." Not even most Biblical scholars believe that. :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats a personal problem. We can open God's word and see what He says about unbelief though.


*headdesk*

Of COURSE the Bible is going to say something about disbelief. The people who wrote it believed wholeheartedly that what they were writing was the Truth (with a capital T I'm sure) and of course that if anyone disbelieved they were idiots. It's human nature to believe that someone who completely disagrees with you is at least wrong and at worst a complete retard.

I should write a holy book. I can say that eons ago an evil alien destroyed a bunch of planets and then took the souls of the dead aliens and stuck them into Earth's volcanos. And then in this book I will write several times that the book is THE TRUTH, and that people will mock you for believing in it, but they are fools at best and will all suffer eventually. And then I'll charge people to join the religion. :V


----------



## Lobar (Jan 22, 2011)

That might be a good topic of discussion - the first time you read God doing something unjustifiable in the bible, that made you realize that Yahweh is really a total dick.

My contribution is Exodus 9 and 10, where God sent Moses up to the Pharaoh to beseech him to let the Israelite slaves go, under penalty of plagues.  Now, truth be told, withstanding ten straight plagues takes an iron will, and the Pharaoh wasn't actually up to the task.  After number six, Pharaoh was actually all ready to throw in the towel and say "fuck it".  But plagues come in a ten-pack, and God said damn if he's letting them go to waste.  So he steps in, and "hardens the Pharaoh's heart" against Moses, so that he keeps refusing to let the Israelites go.

Let me say that again, God _interferes with the free will_ of the Pharaoh, so that he can _keep punishing him_.  Nowadays, we'd call something like that "entrapment".  And not punish just him specifically, really, but rather his _entire nation_.  Given the gravity of that final plague, and that it was actually _completely unnecessary_, one can only conclude that God is a complete fucking dick.


----------



## Conker (Jan 22, 2011)

Thanks for the examples guys. Anything more from the New Testament? Someone mentioned the virgin birth (I think Tryp), but what about this Jesus character or the parables he used? It seems to me that there are more...actual stories in the Old Testament so seeing plagiarism there isn't that hard to imagine. But, most Christians really put their focus on the New Testament, so having most of that be plagiarized as well would be funny. 



> Where the heck are you going to school? A religious college?


Yeah. It's a pretty good school, but it has a religious background. Each student has to take six credits of religious studies, which isn't that bad. My first class was a world religions one which was quite fun actually. It was more of a survey class, learn about the different religions. The teacher even had tons of guest speakers come in and talk. I liked the teacher enough, so for my second set I took a scripture class with him focusing on Paul, his letters, and the Revelations. It's a really small class of about nine people, and it turns out everyone but me is a pretty hardcore believer. Hell, I thought someone was going to cry after one speech given by the professor about the love of God. 

It's a good school other than this requirement though. But the professor is a pretty cool guy.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 22, 2011)

Conker said:


> Thanks for the examples guys. Anything more from the New Testament? Someone mentioned the virgin birth (I think Tryp), but what about this Jesus character or the parables he used? It seems to me that there are more...actual stories in the Old Testament so seeing plagiarism there isn't that hard to imagine. But, most Christians really put their focus on the New Testament, so having most of that be plagiarized as well would be funny.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It's a pretty good school, but it has a religious background. Each student has to take six credits of religious studies, which isn't that bad. My first class was a world religions one which was quite fun actually. It was more of a survey class, learn about the different religions. The teacher even had tons of guest speakers come in and talk. I liked the teacher enough, so for my second set I took a scripture class with him focusing on Paul, his letters, and the Revelations. It's a really small class of about nine people, and it turns out everyone but me is a pretty hardcore believer. Hell, I thought someone was going to cry after one speech given by the professor about the love of God.
> ...


 
Jesus's background is pretty heavily cribbed from that of Horus, but you'd have to Google to get the entire list of similarities.


----------



## Fay V (Jan 22, 2011)

Conker said:


> Thanks for the examples guys. Anything more from the New Testament? Someone mentioned the virgin birth (I think Tryp), but what about this Jesus character or the parables he used? It seems to me that there are more...actual stories in the Old Testament so seeing plagiarism there isn't that hard to imagine. But, most Christians really put their focus on the New Testament, so having most of that be plagiarized as well would be funny.



Well there's two things about this. 
1. Jesus' bit isn't special. that's the main thing. There have been a ton of death/rebirth figures and deities. So his whole "died for your sins" thing is old hat. 
Odin comes to mind. He was hanged for 9 days and stabbed with a spear. He brought back wisdom and stories. 
also note the 3s. not even that is special in Christianity. 3s or variants of 3 are hugely popular in mythology, damned if I know why. 
2. Jesus was an actual guy. In the same way that Heracles was probably a guy too. The difference is when the stories were told. The old testament was largely out of oral tradition, if you read it in a literary way you can begin to point out when writing became more wide spread for stories. in the new testament they have more actual notes about jesus so it can be more specific. 

One thing to look at would be the similarities of Dionysus. A roman god that early Christianity was competing with. There are a lot of similar aspects, especially the emphasis on wine, and it's no surprise that wine was the first miracle that Jesus performed.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 22, 2011)

We could also talk about the actual translation of the Bible into English, let alone other languages - You know, where they started adding letters & characters :v?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 24, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> We could also talk about the actual translation of the Bible into English, let alone other languages - You know, where they started adding letters & characters :v?


 
According to some people, things like that and the council of Nycea(SP?) where the apocrypha was determined never happened.



Lobar said:


> That might be a good topic of discussion - the first time you read God doing something unjustifiable in the bible, that made you realize that Yahweh is really a total dick.


 
I never really bought into the whole Christianity thing in the first place, but I'd say the first thing that comes to mind is the "Arc of the Covenant fell over" story. If the thing fell, every Israelite ever would have died and been sent to hell. But since it was going to tip over, the one guy who sacrifices himself to put it upright is immediately killed and sent to hell. It's a lovely parable of how religions treat their followers for getting uppity and criticizing their faith.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Something like that. His penis was never found, sadly.


 I read one version that it was found inside a fish...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 25, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> I read one version that it was found inside a fish...


 
Ancient egyptian and other similiar mythologies made more internal sense than modern monotheistic ones at least...


Also, still waiting for a decent definition of a soul, christian guys. :V


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 26, 2011)

Do you mean decent or conceiving? 'Cause you being a stanch atheist I'm pretty sure no definition would be decent since the very idea of a soul is silly and irrational to you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 26, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Do you mean decent or conceiving? 'Cause you being a stanch atheist I'm pretty sure no definition would be decent since the very idea of a soul is silly and irrational to you.



Edit: Wait. I see what you did there. I don't disbelieve in souls because I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in souls (among other things). It's an important distinction.

But yeah, I'm not really expecting anything brilliantly new at this point. The best I've gotten so far is a "thing which can't be detected by any means, and is not subject to physical events despite being completely dependent on a brain.". The worst was Roose's "It's energy!". If you have one you think is good, you're more than welcome to present it.


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 26, 2011)

> The pivot of Tao passes through the center where all affirmations and denials converge.  He who grasps the pivot is at the still-point from which all movements and oppositions can be seen in their right relationship.  Hence he sees the limitless possibilities of both "Yes" and "No."  Abandoning all thought of imposing a limit or taking sides, he rests in direct intuition.
> Therefore I said: Better to abandon disputation and seek the true light!


Lieh Tzu.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Edit: Wait. I see what you did there. I don't disbelieve in souls because I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in souls (among other things). It's an important distinction.
> 
> But yeah, I'm not really expecting anything brilliantly new at this point. The best I've gotten so far is a "thing which can't be detected by any means, and is not subject to physical events despite being completely dependent on a brain.". The worst was Roose's "It's energy!". If you have one you think is good, you're more than welcome to present it.



How can I define something that is undefinable? Plus, even if I tried, why would I present it to a bunch of snide mockers?


----------



## jeff (Jan 26, 2011)

Super_Tron said:


> Zen is in and of itself contradictory.  e.g. You must empty your glass for it to become full, right cannot exist without left, up cannot exist without down, etc.
> Tao revolves around an understanding of those simple truths.


 
how is that contradictory


----------



## Aleu (Jan 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Ancient egyptian and other similiar mythologies made more internal sense than modern monotheistic ones at least...
> 
> 
> Also, still waiting for a decent definition of a soul, christian guys. :V


 In my opinion, if you look at christianity one way, the angels could be considered a type of god.
That's how I see it anyway, they're just not called 'gods'.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 26, 2011)

Funny that this thread has slowed down so much. Maybe because Rukh isn't in here.



Lobar said:


> That might be a good topic of discussion - the  first time you read God doing something unjustifiable in the bible, that  made you realize that Yahweh is really a total dick.


The part after Moses leads his people to their future home, when Joshua takes over and the Israelite army start slaughtering the natives living in the area of the dead sea. That, and when I realized that non-believers supposedly automatically go to hell.


I'm going to throw this out but I can understand the mindset of people like Rukh who cling to Christianity. My life hasn't been the greatest, and during the worst times I could see myself clinging to religion (and when I was a Christian, I did). Not only that, but I do somewhat fear the idea of the non-existence of an afterlife. The idea of just... ceasing to exist... is a scary thought to me, if I think about it hard enough. Maybe it won't be such a big deal when I'm old and infirm, but now? Maybe it's more of the idea of dying young that scares me.

I also can see why someone would cling to a god to feel like they have purpose in life. I often wish I had more purpose in life, and being one out of over 6 billion can make you feel tiny at times. I'd like to think that my high intellect could make me useful in the world, but I have yet to figure out how I can make myself feel important. I have yet to find that career or purpose in life where I feel I'm doing something good for man, or using my skills to the max to do positive things. So running to the idea that God has a purpose for me, specifically, could be inciting to someone like me. Usually that purpose is to be a Good Christian and spread The Word, however.


----------



## Conker (Jan 26, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I'm going to throw this out but I can understand the mindset of people like Rukh who cling to Christianity. My life hasn't been the greatest, and during the worst times I could see myself clinging to religion (and when I was a Christian, I did). Not only that, but I do somewhat fear the idea of the non-existence of an afterlife. The idea of just... ceasing to exist... is a scary thought to me, if I think about it hard enough. Maybe it won't be such a big deal when I'm old and infirm, but now? Maybe it's more of the idea of dying young that scares me.


 You spent billions of years not existing, I doubt it was all that bad. :3


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 26, 2011)

Conker said:


> You spent billions of years not existing, I doubt it was all that bad. :3


 
I know, right? Wasn't it great?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 26, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I know, right? Wasn't it great?


 I miss not existing :C


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 26, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> How can I define something that is undefinable? Plus, even if I tried, why would I present it to a bunch of snide mockers?


 
If you can't define it, we really can't have much of a discussion about it, is all. Furthermore, There's no shame in saying "I don't think I could do an adequate job of explaining it.", but there is in trying to pass it off as a failing of others to not get it. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 26, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I'm going to throw this out but I can understand the mindset of people like Rukh who cling to Christianity. My life hasn't been the greatest, and during the worst times I could see myself clinging to religion (and when I was a Christian, I did). Not only that, but I do somewhat fear the idea of the non-existence of an afterlife. The idea of just... ceasing to exist... is a scary thought to me, if I think about it hard enough. Maybe it won't be such a big deal when I'm old and infirm, but now? Maybe it's more of the idea of dying young that scares me.
> 
> I also can see why someone would cling to a god to feel like they have purpose in life. I often wish I had more purpose in life, and being one out of over 6 billion can make you feel tiny at times. I'd like to think that my high intellect could make me useful in the world, but I have yet to figure out how I can make myself feel important. I have yet to find that career or purpose in life where I feel I'm doing something good for man, or using my skills to the max to do positive things. So running to the idea that God has a purpose for me, specifically, could be inciting to someone like me. Usually that purpose is to be a Good Christian and spread The Word, however.




Perhaps you could just ask me the question why do I believe? I don't "cling" to God because I fear death. Far from it. As a Christian, death has lost its sting. Why should I fear it? Death means nothing to me, truthfully. I believe in God because I know its true. I know, bad argument for you guys. But its the truth. The Holy Spirit lives within me, I know God is real. I don't believe just as a fireproof insurance policy. I believe because God is real. I believe in God because I hear Him calling. I have seen things and have had things happen to me that only God can do. Like direct prayers answered.

I will admit it, that its impossible to put God in a test tube or something and prove Him just by scientific method. Because science can't prove everything. But that doesn't mean people can say "God is dead". Far from it. In fact, there are many reasons to believe God is very much alive and active in the universe.
My first and foremost question is, why does humanity long for something beyond what we can see? Its this longing that draws people to God. We were designed that way. Why do you think people spend their entire lives looking for meaning to life, or why do scientists spend decades trying to answer the question of why we are here?

Scientists have claimed that given the right conditions, some sort of life form would eventually evolve. I however will point out their greatest weakness. What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junk yard  containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a  plane, and leave it ready for takeoff? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado  were to blow through enough junk yards to fill the whole universe. Thats how negligible chances are for just a random set of conditions somehow randomly aligning together in a perfect moment for life to exist. Statistics speak for themselves.

The best argument that I can give, is actually scientific believe it or not. Its a probability calculator. And those odds are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Thats the chances of life just existing. I cannot even fathom that number. And that just for one cell to exist!! Think how big the odds are for a multi-celled organism. So, given the odds of just random existance, I say God exists.


----------



## Browder (Jan 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Scientists have claimed that given the right conditions, some sort of life form would eventually evolve. I however will point out their greatest weakness. What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junk yard  containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a  plane, and leave it ready for takeoff? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado  were to blow through enough junk yards to fill the whole universe. Thats how negligible chances are for just a random set of conditions somehow randomly aligning together in a perfect moment for life to exist. Statistics speak for themselves.
> 
> The best argument that I can give, is actually scientific believe it or not. Its a probability calculator. And those odds are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Thats the chances of life just existing. I cannot even fathom that number. And that just for one cell to exist!! Think how big the odds are for a multi-celled organism. So, given the odds of just random existance, I say God exists.


 
Yeah but when you have an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter the odds slowly start to approach inevitable. With an infinite amount of dice rolls it's impossible not to get a yahtzee 400thousand times in a row.


----------



## Riley (Jan 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Perhaps you could just ask me the question why do I believe? I don't "cling" to God because I fear death. Far from it. As a Christian, death has lost its sting. Why should I fear it? Death means nothing to me, truthfully. I believe in God because I know its true. I know, bad argument for you guys. But its the truth. The Holy Spirit lives within me, I know God is real. I don't believe just as a fireproof insurance policy. I believe because God is real. I believe in God because I hear Him calling. I have seen things and have had things happen to me that only God can do. Like direct prayers answered.
> 
> I will admit it, that its impossible to put God in a test tube or something and prove Him just by scientific method. Because science can't prove everything. But that doesn't mean people can say "God is dead". Far from it. In fact, there are many reasons to believe God is very much alive and active in the universe.
> My first and foremost question is, why does humanity long for something beyond what we can see? Its this longing that draws people to God. We were designed that way. Why do you think people spend their entire lives looking for meaning to life, or why do scientists spend decades trying to answer the question of why we are here?
> ...


 
And yet, a 1 in 10^40k chance is still more likely an explanation than "magical being sneezed and saw humans in his hankie."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 26, 2011)

Browder said:


> Yeah but when you have an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter the odds slowly start to approach inevitable. With an infinite amount of dice rolls it's impossible not to get a yahtzee 400thousand times in a row.


 
But you assume matter just existed. Which goes against the laws of science. But again, the odds I gave are for a single cell, how much more to the odds increase when you look outside your window. The number increases exponentially. These odds are so remote, that science pretty much says its statistically impossible. If there is an ifinite number of rolls, then why hasn't other sustainable life been found? Why has no other planet in our "infinite" universe had the same conditions as this planet?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 26, 2011)

I've noticed that whenever a creationist spits out a number like 1/10^40000, the math behind it is always specious at best.


----------



## Riley (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But you assume matter just existed. Which goes against the laws of science. But again, the odds I gave are for a single cell, how much more to the odds increase when you look outside your window. The number increases exponentially. These odds are so remote, that science pretty much says its statistically impossible. If there is an ifinite number of rolls, then why hasn't other sustainable life been found? Why has no other planet in our "infinite" universe had the same conditions as this planet?



Because crazy religious people keep holding back legitimate progress, among a whole bunch of other factors and bad decisions that basically stopped our advances in the field of space exploration as soon as it started.


----------



## Browder (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But you assume matter just existed. Which goes against the laws of science. But again, the odds I gave are for a single cell, how much more to the odds increase when you look outside your window. The number increases exponentially. These odds are so remote, that science pretty much says its statistically impossible. If there is an ifinite number of rolls, then why hasn't other sustainable life been found? Why has no other planet in are "infinite" universe had the same conditions as this planet?


 
I am not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that scientifically speaking, matter exists.

And for the second thing, you've pretty much said it. The odds are bad. Really bad. That's why there isn't life on Mars. But again just because the odds are bad doesn't mean there impossible. We're here after all, and there's probably life far far far away. I know it feels like it's not a coincidence because we can _think_ about it but just because we can think about it doesn't mean it isn't.

But what do I know? Brahma could've created the Universe. Science doesn't disapprove it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I've noticed that whenever a creationist spits out a number like 1/10^40000, the math behind it is always specious at best.


 
You doubt the statistic? http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php
Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician was the one who calculated the odds of life.



Browder said:


> I am not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that scientifically speaking, matter exists.
> 
> And  for the second thing, you've pretty much said it. The odds are bad.  Really bad. That's why there isn't life on Mars. But again just because  the odds are bad doesn't mean there impossible. We're here after all,  and there's probably life far far far away. I know it feels like it's  not a coincidence because we can _think_ about it but just because  we can think about it doesn't mean it isn't.


 
Matter can't just exist. It has to be created. The laws of science clearly state this. Second, you agree the odds are realy really bad for just random occurrence. So, isn't people placing their hope in science, that science will be able to answer the question of how life began, even though statistics say its pretty much impossible, a type of faith that for all intent and purpose can't be proven? Is this not the same thing I have been accused of by having faith in God?


----------



## Browder (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Matter can't just exist. It has to be created.* The laws of science clearly state this. Second, you agree the odds are realy really bad for just random occurrence. So, isn't people placing their hope in science, that science will be able to answer the question of how life began, even though statistics say its pretty much impossible, a type of faith that for all intent and purpose can't be proven? Is this not the same thing I have been accused of by having faith in God?


 
Um, no to the bolded. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." I'm not a scientist but this is some basic physics.

And science doesn't claim to answer anything. It just tries to give likely theories. No one EVER knows for sure about anything but we take certain stuff for granted because it's more likely. Science is more likely then Brahma because science has evidence. No one has faith, in theories. People just have acceptance. there's a difference.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Riley said:


> Because crazy religious people keep holding back legitimate progress, among a whole bunch of other factors and bad decisions that basically stopped our advances in the field of space exploration as soon as it started.


 Not really, this just gets said around alot, but it's just rhetoric.
The thing that killed it was the fact the machines they initially sent to mars didn't find life.  Back then the amount of money they spent was mind boggling compared to how much we're spending now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Browder said:


> Um, no to the bolded. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." I'm not a scientist but this is some basic physics.


 Sorry browder they found out in a high enough energy state a vacuum will destabilize and create matter.
It has to do with non-real matter and matter-antimatter pairs.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 27, 2011)

Browder said:


> Um, no to the bolded. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." I'm not a scientist but this is some basic physics.
> 
> And science doesn't claim to answer anything. It just tries to give likely theories. No one EVER knows for sure about anything but we take certain stuff for granted because it's more likely. Science is more likely then Brahma because science has evidence. No one has faith, in theories. People just have acceptance. there's a difference.


 
Something cannot be created from nothing according to science.Thats what I am getting at. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. energy to matter, or matter to energy. So, where did all the energy and matter come from to create the universe? Science answer: We don't know yet. And yet, by saying this people put their faith in that science will be able to prove where matter and energy came from. Again, this is what I am getting at. People here claim to believe only in evidence, and yet we have absolutely no concrete evidence according to science how life began.
So, my whole point is to show that while people are quick to jump on me for having faith in God, they fail to see that they place their faith that science will solve the "mystery" of how life began. what it all boils down to, it what you place your faith in.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Something cannot be created from nothing according to science.Thats what I am getting at. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form


 Again wrong information.
Jeez guys ever hear of non-real matter?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Again wrong information.
> Jeez guys ever hear of non-real matter?


 
So you just throw out the first law of thermodynamics?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So you just throw out the first law of thermodynamics?


Non-real particle: a antimatter-matter pair that comes into existence in a vacuum, but because they are antimatter-matter pairs they cancel each other out.
It'd explain tachyon's spewing out of black holes though.
 Uhm why complain about throwing out the first law of thermodynamics when the LHC a while back just flat devastated string theory?
It's just they aren't admitting it cause that'd mean they'd get fired.

Here's my opinion, _*everybody *_atheist, christian, buddhist, etc or whatever stop spewing physics in a religious debate cause when you use just hearsay you are more full of shit than a large intestine.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You doubt the statistic? http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php
> Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician was the one who calculated the odds of life.



Uh, your OWN LINK points out the flaws of his "calculation".  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matter can't just exist. It has to be created. The laws of science clearly state this. Second, you agree the odds are realy really bad for just random occurrence. So, isn't people placing their hope in science, that science will be able to answer the question of how life began, even though statistics say its pretty much impossible, a type of faith that for all intent and purpose can't be proven? Is this not the same thing I have been accused of by having faith in God?


 
Actually, matter CANNOT be created (or destroyed, barring a matter-energy conversion).  Any matter you have has been around since the beginning of the universe.  And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty.

Furthermore, he has only agreed the odds are bad _for a single trial_.  The odds of winning the lottery with a single ticket are pretty bad too, yet there's still a winner every week or so.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Actually, matter CANNOT be created (or destroyed, barring a matter-energy conversion).  Any matter you have has been around since the beginning of the universe.  And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty.
> 
> Furthermore, he has only agreed the odds are bad _for a single trial_.  The odds of winning the lottery with a single ticket are pretty bad too, yet there's still a winner every week or so.


 A vacuum is actually non-real particles being created and canceling each other out.
It's possible the beginning state of the universe was empty, the big bang may have been a destabilization.  Or it may have been a collision event with another universe.  Or maybe god created the universe.  Or maybe a naked leprechaun riding a unicorn farted and created the universe.
It may have been empty, it may have not been, the universe may be older than we think, the universe may be younger than we think.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Actually, matter CANNOT be created (or destroyed, barring a matter-energy conversion).  Any matter you have has been around since the beginning of the universe.  And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty.


 
First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. But according to science everything has to have had a beginning. Something cannot come from nothing. Thats what I am getting at. Science has no explanation of where matter and energy came from. As for your "_And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty." _Prove it. You were not there so you can't. Nobody can. Hence why they are all *theories*, because like it or not, they can't be proven because those theories can't be re created. This is why I said:

_"So, isn't people placing their hope in science, that science will be  able to answer the question of how life began, even though statistics  say its pretty much impossible, a type of faith that for all intent and  purpose can't be proven? Is this not the same thing I have been accused  of by having faith in God?_"


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. But according to science everything has to have had a beginning. Something cannot come from nothing. Thats what I am getting at. Science has no explanation of where matter and energy came from. As for your "_And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty." _Prove it. You were not there so you can't. Nobody can. Hence why they are all *theories*, because like it or not, they can't be proven because those theories can't be re created. This is why I said:
> 
> _"So, isn't people placing their hope in science, that science will be  able to answer the question of how life began, even though statistics  say its pretty much impossible, a type of faith that for all intent and  purpose can't be proven? Is this not the same thing I have been accused  of by having faith in God?_"


 Hologram theory is testable, but if proven right then it'll put a hell of a lot of people out of a job.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is an infinite number of rolls, then *why hasn't other sustainable life been found?* Why has no other planet in our "infinite" universe had the same conditions as this planet?



Why haven't we found other planets with sustainable life yet? Because a) we've only had the ability to even partially explore some planets and moons in our own solar system in the last 40 years, b) we've only had the ability to detect even the _existence_ of extra-solar planets in the last twenty years, and c) _the universe is friggin' ENORMOUS(1)._ 

In other words, we've barely been able to start seriously looking for extra-terrestrial life. And yet... we're finding more extra-solar planets every year, some of which are getting towards Earth-size, and there's also the possibility of undiscovered life in places like Europa around Jupiter. It's just been a lack of tools and time so far.


(1) Space is big. Very big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's just _peanuts_ to space...


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 27, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Why haven't we found other planets with sustainable life yet? Because a) we've only had the ability to even partially explore some planets and moons in our own solar system in the last 40 years, b) we've only had the ability to detect even the _existence_ of extra-solar planets in the last twenty years, and c) _the universe is friggin' ENORMOUS(1)._
> 
> In other words, we've barely been able to start seriously looking for extra-terrestrial life. And yet... we're finding more extra-solar planets every year, some of which are getting towards Earth-size, and there's also the possibility of undiscovered life in places like Europa around Jupiter. It's just been a lack of tools and time so far.
> 
> ...


 We won't have the technology to visit other solar systems for atleast another 200 years.


----------



## Riley (Jan 27, 2011)

So wait, is Rukh saying science is wrong, because something can't be created from nothing, but religion is right because something WAS created from nothing?  "It's wrong when I don't agree with it, but perfectly watertight when I do."

Why don't people ever bother to listen what they say?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. But according to science everything has to have had a beginning. Something cannot come from nothing. Thats what I am getting at. Science has no explanation of where matter and energy came from. As for your "_And nothing says the starting state of the universe was empty." _Prove it. You were not there so you can't. Nobody can. Hence why they are all *theories*, because like it or not, they can't be proven because those theories can't be re created.


 
A) Something is not "coming from nothing" if it _was always there_.

B) The burden of proof would be on you to show that the universe was necessarily empty, containing no matter or energy.

C) Oh boy, it's the #1 top creationist canard: that theories wouldn't be called "theories" if they were "proven"!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> Matter Didn't always exist!



What? Matter can't be created or destroyed. Trying to cite that as a law of the universe, and then having your answer be "It was created by a magic man in the sky." is retarded at best. You can't just set up a presupposition like that then ignore it when it suits you.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> 1 in 4 jillion chance.


 
I doubt that figure is accurate, and even if it was Improbable =/= Impossible. For example, When your mom and dad did the nasty, there were on average 110+ million sperm in her. The chances of the one sperm having fertilized your egg (30% at most per porpoise parking) and carried it to term (1/3) were over 1000 Million in one, and yet here you are being myopic.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> It's just a theory!


 
Learn what a "Theory" means.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because science can't prove everything.
> 
> Far from it. In fact, there are many reasons to believe God is very much alive and active in the universe.
> 
> ...


 
1) Science doesn't deal in the realm of the super natural. You can apply scientific processes in an attempt to explain, but that's purely for the enjoyment of the user (and often the misinterpretations of the 'believers'.)

2) There are far more reasons to not believe in god - Two major ones: _being honest to oneself_ (as per similar to that whole David Silverman holiday thing - He wants the non-believers to rise out of the pews and stop bullshitting to make their families feel better), _sacrificing knowledge_ (especially modern) _for bronze-age thinking._

3) At this point? Not many do. Scientists have looked up at the sky to wonder how they can capture a star - How they can outline it from birth to death. They can see it, but they can't touch it - That's what keeps the fire of science burning. We crave knowledge, to close the gaps of unknown - And Theists like yourself choose to fill the gap with God, rather than close it with knowledge.

4) The smallest chance doesn't matter. It happened. Make it whatever number you like - Here we are :v

You're...Interesting. You go from saying you know you can feel, hear, and practically see your god, but then admit you only believe he exists, because _you_ can't get a grip on us coming into existence over the course of billions of years. 

I'd almost venture to say you fall into that Carl Sagan shadow, where the _universe_ is your God, but you just haven't come to that conclusion yet. I haven't come to that conclusion per se either, but that's sorta what it's sounding like.

(This is where Carl Sagan comes in):
On a side note: If something cannot come from nothing, than God can't exist. Or if he always existed, than it's safe to say that the universe always existed. This goes along the same line, if God created the universe, then it's safe to say another God created God. There is no escaping either line's of logic, although they do not necessarily cross nor parallel.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 27, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Why haven't we found other planets with sustainable life yet? Because a) we've only had the ability to even partially explore some planets and moons in our own solar system in the last 40 years, b) we've only had the ability to detect even the _existence_ of extra-solar planets in the last twenty years, and c) _the universe is friggin' ENORMOUS(1)._
> 
> In other words, we've barely been able to start seriously looking for extra-terrestrial life. And yet... we're finding more extra-solar planets every year, some of which are getting towards Earth-size, and there's also the possibility of undiscovered life in places like Europa around Jupiter. It's just been a lack of tools and time so far.



Europa is probably the best place to start. Underwater volcanic activity is a hotbed for microbial life! And while Europa is a good start off Earth, the chances of finding life out there was further widened ever since they found out that some bacterium can substitute phosphorous for arsenic in their DNA right on our own home rock. (LINK)



> (1) Space is big. Very big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's just _peanuts_ to space...


 Damn straight. Takes awhile to find life in that big place. Also, sounds like an entry from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Hang on while I hitch us a ride on a Vogon demolisher.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is an infinite number of rolls, then why hasn't other  sustainable life been found? Why has no other planet in our "infinite"  universe had the same conditions as this planet?


 
First off, consider the term "infinite". I don't know about you, but when I used to go to bible study, my pastor had us consider the idea of infinity. Mostly to deal with an infinity in Hell, but that's beside the point. Think about it, and let that sink in. Now, apply that thought to a three-dimensional world. Infinity in terms of space is *REALLY FUCKING HUGE, MAN.* You can travel in positive increments of X, Y, and Z, PLUS their respective negatives. It's gonna take awhile before we find something. THIS is only but one of many reasons why life has yet to be found. Don't forget, until the telescope was invented, the Earth was the centre of the universe. What's to say when advanced space travel comes around and we find extraterrestrial life won't happen?

ADDENDUM:


Lastdirewolf said:


> On a side note: If something cannot come  from nothing, than God can't exist. Or if he always existed, than it's  safe to say that the universe always existed. This goes along the same  line, if God created the universe, then it's safe to say another God  created God. There is no escaping either line's of logic, although they  do not necessarily cross nor parallel.


You know what I wanna know? If God has always existed on his own before he made the universe and nobody else made him, what the fuck was he doing before he made the universe? Goddamn I know that sounds like some stupid stoner shit, but I'm genuinely curious about that.


----------



## SuddenlySanity (Jan 27, 2011)

Conker said:


> Perhaps creation wasn't the right term, though if humans didn't exist then the idea of time wouldn't either, even if it is still going. If things happened differently, the idea of time might be measured in completely different ways. It's a relative thing.


Time exists regardless of us humans witnessing it or the name we give it.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I doubt that figure is accurate, and even if it was Improbable =/= Impossible. For example, When your mom and dad did the nasty, there were on average 110+ million sperm in her. The chances of the one sperm having fertilized your egg (30% at most per porpoise parking) and carried it to term (1/3) were over 1000 Million in one, and yet here you are being myopic.


 
It gets worse. This doesn't just apply to you, but to your parents as well, and their parents, and theirs, etc. And if any of those pairs had done the nasty a little sooner or later, or had never met (or *anything*, say goodbye to existing.


----------



## Conker (Jan 27, 2011)

So, I've been reading some C.S. Lewis and he's put an interesting spin on the whole "all knowing God and free will" debate. 



			
				Lewis said:
			
		

> Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above hte Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doint them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: becuase, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for him...He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way--because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, he does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "now" for Him.



Not sure how to address that :V


----------



## BRN (Jan 27, 2011)

Conker said:


> So, I've been reading some C.S. Lewis and he's put an interesting spin on the whole "all knowing God and free will" debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how to address that :V


 

A simple metaphor would be that 'time' is a long, long, straight path. As we as individuals walk along it, we see a little bit of the way in front of us, forget what's behind us, and are only at one point. 'God' would be at a vantage point high above the path, viewing the entirety of the path at once, and seeing all its travellers and their actions.

To make the metaphor relevant, though, God has taken a photo of every moment in [our understanding of] time, then superimposed all of these infinite photos on top of each other, and views this infinite stack of photos at all of the points in [our understanding of] time.

{And for the 'eternal means not immanent' argument - for God to be eternal, he must already have this infinite stack of photos superimposed on each other. For god to be immanent, he must be able to change any of the photos. However, if eternal, the photos have already been superimposed onto each other, making it impossible for 'a photo' [a moment in time] to be changed.}


----------



## Attaman (Jan 27, 2011)

Attaman said:


> But it's all meaningless, in the end, by your words.  This is all finite, and by your word in other debates (wherein this universe is not connected to the afterlife) won't even carry over to the realm of the infinite, so religion does not matter in the end because in the end all will be dust.  Your words.
> 
> We've held this debate before, you know you're in the minority here when you argue that, and it requires "My interpretations of the Bible are right and yours are wrong" talk (in fact, every time it's come to a debate on God's "Just" nature, it has boiled down to you psalm-dumping on us while stating every single one of our interpretations or quotes are either taken out of context, willful misinterpretation, or no longer apply).
> 
> ...


 
Missed this post, Rukh. :V  Kinda relevant, since you're going off on "Creation of universe" again, and this has some points relevant to your last tirade.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Again wrong information.
> Jeez guys ever hear of non-real matter?


 
Actually, this is the first I've heard of non-real matter, but I know of matter-antimatter pairs.  I'll have to go look that subject up.  thanks


----------



## Conker (Jan 27, 2011)

SIX said:


> A simple metaphor would be that 'time' is a long, long, straight path. As we as individuals walk along it, we see a little bit of the way in front of us, forget what's behind us, and are only at one point. 'God' would be at a vantage point high above the path, viewing the entirety of the path at once, and seeing all its travellers and their actions.
> 
> To make the metaphor relevant, though, God has taken a photo of every moment in [our understanding of] time, then superimposed all of these infinite photos on top of each other, and views this infinite stack of photos at all of the points in [our understanding of] time.
> 
> {And for the 'eternal means not immanent' argument - for God to be eternal, he must already have this infinite stack of photos superimposed on each other. For god to be immanent, he must be able to change any of the photos. However, if eternal, the photos have already been superimposed onto each other, making it impossible for 'a photo' [a moment in time] to be changed.}


I don't understand a thing you just said. 

I understood Lewis's argument, I don't know how to address what he is saying to try and prove it wrong. He looks at the debate in enough of a different way where I can't really argue with him. I think the only thing that could be argued is on what definition of "all knowing" people are using when they talk about God. In Lewis's case, it's more of an all seeing and not really all knowing. Of course, his argument completely relies on belief, but that's not surprising. 


I'm sick of that "Boeing 747 Argument" that has been dredged up a few times now. You guys don't even make it sound original, you always use that same plane. What the hell is so special about a Boeing 747 in comparison to any other plane? Why can't it be a space shuttle! Or a stealth bomber! No, gotta piggyback off that creationist argument word for word.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 27, 2011)

I _hate_ this video, because it is pseudoscience, but it does do a decent job at illustrating how to think of time as a fourth spatial dimension instead of a temporal dimension, which is useful because it makes talking along time a lot easier to relate to.  Just remember that it isn't really a spatial dimension at the end of the day, and feel free to ignore dimension five and above in this video:

[yt]XjsgoXvnStY[/yt]


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jan 27, 2011)

Conker said:


> I don't understand a thing you just said.
> 
> I understood Lewis's argument, I don't know how to address what he is saying to try and prove it wrong. He looks at the debate in enough of a different way where I can't really argue with him. I think the only thing that could be argued is on what definition of "all knowing" people are using when they talk about God. In Lewis's case, it's more of an all seeing and not really all knowing. Of course, his argument completely relies on belief, but that's not surprising.



Well, just keep reading his books. You will find he makes it very difficult to make a counter argument, because he already knows the counter arguments you would come up with. Lewis does a whole lot better job making a good argument for God than I can. Considering Lewis had been an atheist before he accepted God.


----------



## Conker (Jan 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, just keep reading his books. You will find he makes it very difficult to make a counter argument, because he already knows the counter arguments you would come up with. Lewis does a whole lot better job making a good argument for God than I can. Considering Lewis had been an atheist before he accepted God.


 Yeah. He argues pretty well, though there are times when I can find problems with his logic, and there are times when he comes off as being very naive about the whole thing. But on the whole, I like what he tries to do and I think he does a pretty adequate job with it. I much prefer is fictional stuff though, but the class has us reading all sorts of his works. It makes for fun discussion because there's one table of skeptics/atheists, and then everyone else seems to be a pretty hardcore believer. The debates are...interesting. 

But I do like Lewis, and I do appreciate what he tries to do, even if I don't always agree with him. 

Honestly, there are things about religion that I do like. The idea that someone is watching out for you and cares about your well being. This idea that a figure is always there, even when shit is going wrong. It's nice, but it's hard to swallow in a way. I'd sure hope this thing who watches over me and cares about me turns away when I need to take a shit or a piss (or a wank). I don't need any help there! 

Yet, the whole thought is also kind of scary. This thing is always watching, and he's also judging because that's what he does. He loves, but he judges. Not to mention, there are times when I just want to be alone with my own thoughts. I dunno, he sounds very intrusive.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 28, 2011)

Not forgetting the points I raised above:

It further intrigues me that Rukh tries to use CS Lewis all in all - Since CSL's "God" isn'treally like Rukh's God - Despite Rukh admitting that he only believes a god exists at all, because he can't fathom the universe (and possibly argues from the 'appeal to ignorance' platform altogether), and all that :v


----------



## Lobar (Jan 28, 2011)

Lewis is good at making plausible-sounding excuses, but they are still poor arguments.  The more I think on what the scenario Conker posted entails, the more patently absurd it becomes.

A god to which the entirety of the universe's timeline is happening "now", a single point in (meta-)time, is a god in stasis.  From our perspective, this makes God a memoryless entity trapped in perpetual surprise at the universe's timeline, despite his constant observance of it.  This effectively makes God a cosmic retard.

It also contradicts with the Bible, where God frequently takes actions to effect a specific future consequence.  The most notable of these actions would be sending his son Jesus Christ to the world to save humanity from sin.  If God's forced perspective limits him from guiding everyone on Earth to make the "right" choices necessary to enter Heaven, he very well couldn't have planned out his actions in the Bible either.

Lastly, Lewis's hypothesis doesn't even solve the problem of free will to begin with.  As long as there is an entrenched future timeline of the universe, regardless of how God is able to perceive it, free will cannot exist.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> If you can't define it, we really can't have much of a discussion about it, is all. Furthermore, There's no shame in saying "I don't think I could do an adequate job of explaining it.", but there is in trying to pass it off as a failing of others to not get it. :V



I don't think I could do an adequate job of explaining it since there is no way to explain it because it is completely subjective.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 28, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I don't think I could do an adequate job of explaining it since there is no way to explain it because it is completely subjective.


 
A soul is a noun describing a thing which actually exists, and it's not a categorical noun like "Food" or "Music" either. Nouns are not subjective. Well, unless you're talking about Subjective Nouns, but that's not actually really related at all. Rather, if there is this undefined object which all these people claim exists but they cannot define it so it's different for everyone, it simply seems that nobody's actually encountered one or that the thing in question does not exist.


----------



## Conker (Jan 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Lewis is good at making plausible-sounding excuses, but they are still poor arguments.  The more I think on what the scenario Conker posted entails, the more patently absurd it becomes.
> 
> A god to which the entirety of the universe's timeline is happening "now", a single point in (meta-)time, is a god in stasis.  From our perspective, this makes God a memoryless entity trapped in perpetual surprise at the universe's timeline, despite his constant observance of it.  This effectively makes God a cosmic retard.
> 
> ...


Ha. I didn't think of it like that. I shall be sure to bring these points up on Tuesday should we talk about God and his view of time.


----------



## derfurguy (Jan 29, 2011)

When taken directly from religious books ALL religion is stupid. There are so many takes on how the book is interpreted. In Christianity there are 1,000's of different groups ( some more nuttier then others ex: The "people's temple" [ya know, the mass suicide of nearly 1,000] and they all range.

Deism- belief in God, but question bible "Mericles", don't believe in divine intervention, God does not answer your prayers and help you, believers in science (Evolution, ect.) overal the more logical side of religion.
to
Hard core Catholics- God is all, everything in the bible happened, the earth is 6,000 years old, God answers your prayers, and says god hates gays ( WHICH I PROVED THE BIBLE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT GAYS ( http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/90439-Christians-proved-wrong.... ) )
to 
the crazy nut job Christians: the Jim Jones and the Peoples temple.

If people had more reason in their faith, the word would be a MUCH better place


----------



## sek-x... (Jan 29, 2011)

Hire Inner Peace-Helping Other People (hip-hop)
hip-hop has saved my life, dont need to know a god even though jesus is cool. i just think that dudes posted up like a sticky note on his cloud all like "yo u should be doing cool shit for people not kicking it in my church" and im all like, "word."


----------



## Discord Nova (Jan 29, 2011)

Im religious, but i wont shove it down anyone's throats because some extremists dont realize that shoving it down peoples throats only leads people away from the religion, NOT to it.


----------



## Conker (Jan 29, 2011)

So. My teacher went on to try and describe Heaven, or parts of Heaven, based on scriptures and his own personal beliefs. 

It's something like you're with God and that's all you care about and all that matters. Nothing from the material world is there or even thought of. You're just surrounded by God's love! Family members and friends might be there in some spiritual form, but they won't be your focus. Those that you knew that didn't make it will be out of your mind. YOu won't miss them because you love God and he loves you.

That's the gist.  He used better words, and I might have a few things wrong, but that's what I came away with.


I'd prefer eternity in the ground/oblivion than that. That, honestly, sounds awful. Sounds kind of like an eternity of sucking God's cock and being made to enjoy it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 30, 2011)

Conker said:


> So. My teacher went on to try and describe Heaven, or parts of Heaven, based on scriptures and his own personal beliefs.
> 
> It's something like you're with God and that's all you care about and all that matters. Nothing from the material world is there or even thought of. You're just surrounded by God's love! Family members and friends might be there in some spiritual form, but they won't be your focus. Those that you knew that didn't make it will be out of your mind. YOu won't miss them because you love God and he loves you.
> 
> ...



Yeah. The christian concept of the afterlife is pretty insidious in that way. People who go to heaven lose all sense of self, people in hell ostensibly retain it just so they'll suffer more but would probably go irretrievably insane pretty much instantly.

It makes the entire process of living first entirely pointless regardless and highlights God's immorality.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yeah. The christian concept of the afterlife is pretty insidious in that way. People who go to heaven lose all sense of self, people in hell ostensibly retain it just so they'll suffer more but would probably go irretrievably insane pretty much instantly.
> 
> It makes the entire process of living first entirely pointless regardless and highlights God's immorality.


 
Yeah, I kinda said something to this effect on the top of page 112 too.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yeah. The christian concept of the afterlife is pretty insidious in that way. People who go to heaven lose all sense of self, people in hell ostensibly retain it just so they'll suffer more but would probably go irretrievably insane pretty much instantly.
> 
> It makes the entire process of living first entirely pointless regardless and highlights God's immorality.


 to be honest, I'd probably prefer hell.


----------



## Conker (Jan 30, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> to be honest, I'd probably prefer hell.


 Yeah, in a way. I was so shocked by what he was saying I didn't even bother objecting, though getting bitched out by eight other people because I didn't like their concept of "heaven" didn't sound appealing either.


----------



## Super_Tron (Jan 30, 2011)

Let's all just sit down and read Stephen Hawking's _The Universe in a Nutshell_ and take it down a notch.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 30, 2011)

Super_Tron said:


> Let's all just sit down and read Stephen Hawking's _The Universe in a Nutshell_ and take it down a notch.


 
But how do we know that it's true? Oh right, because we _know_ it's true. :V



AleutheWolf said:


> to be honest, I'd probably prefer hell.


 
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=61678


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> A soul is a noun describing a thing which actually exists, and it's not a categorical noun like "Food" or "Music" either. Nouns are not subjective. Well, unless you're talking about Subjective Nouns, but that's not actually really related at all. Rather, if there is this undefined object which all these people claim exists but they cannot define it so it's different for everyone, it simply seems that nobody's actually encountered one or that the thing in question does not exist.


 
Exactly!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 30, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Exactly!


 
How can you even show something like that exists, though? Aside from claiming to be extant in the definition I ran past you, there's nothing else for people to go off of.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> How can you even show something like that exists, though? Aside from claiming to be extant in the definition I ran past you, there's nothing else for people to go off of.


 
Exactly?


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Exactly?


 
The definition of a soul being that it must exist, does not neccessitate that it does exist. I can say that all triangles have three sides by definition, but, even of ideas possessing form, logic, and analytic truths, 'knowledge' before experience can only lead you to a hypothetical. "Souls must exist, if they exist", is as far as you can go.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> The definition of a soul being that it must exist, does not neccessitate that it does exist. I can say that all triangles have three sides by definition, but, even of ideas possessing form, logic, and analytic truths, 'knowledge' before experience can only lead you to a hypothetical. "Souls must exist, if they exist", is as far as you can go.


 
WHAT?!


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2011)

mapdark said:


> WHAT?!


 
An inauspicious entrance to the thread but no more than I expected.

Essentially, any _a priori _statement attempting to produce knowledge about the world can only ever result in a hypothetical.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> An inauspicious entrance to the thread but no more than I expected.
> 
> Essentially, any _a priori _statement attempting to produce knowledge about the world can only ever result in a hypothetical.


 
The problem with you Six is that you can't vulgarise what you're talking about. So it's hard to follow you.
Especially for those of us who don't necessarily have english as our first language!

You also seem to be one of these people who LOVE to use big words to make their statements look more impressive than they need to be.

So yeah , you might mock me and laugh at me , but PLEASE , dumb it down so that us "uneducated" folks can understand you!


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2011)

mapdark said:


> The problem with you Six is that you can't vulgarise what you're talking about. So it's hard to follow you.
> Especially for those of us who don't necessarily have english as our first language!
> 
> You also seem to be one of these people who LOVE to use big words to make their statements look more impressive than they need to be.
> ...


 
'Vulgarize'...?

Ok, to put it simply: If you have never had experience of something, you can never prove it exists. For example, if you have never experienced the sea, you can say that the sea is blue, and wet, and cold, and salty, and you can believe that these things are true. You can describe the sea perfectly from any knowledge you have about what the sea is. But you can't prove that the sea exists by being able to describe it.


----------



## mapdark (Jan 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> 'Vulgarize'...?
> 
> Ok, to put it simply: If you have never had experience of something, you can never prove it exists. For example, if you have never experienced the sea, you can say that the sea is blue, and wet, and cold, and salty, and you can believe that these things are true. You can describe the sea perfectly from any knowledge you have about what the sea is. But you can't prove that the sea exists by being able to describe it.


 

See? that wasn't complicated !

Now i totally follow what you are talking about!

And I even AGREE with you.

And "vulgarizing" something means to make it more accessible to the public at large. 
Taking a complicated concept and trying to make it simple!

Dumbing it down in other words.


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2011)

mapdark said:


> See? that wasn't complicated !
> 
> Now i totally follow what you are talking about!
> 
> ...


 
Why so it does. I've learned something new today! Thankyou. Glad we could share some understanding between us.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 30, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> to be honest, I'd probably prefer hell.


  Especially since, both old and recently, there's a bunch of varieties of Hell that aren't too bad.

It's funny, mind, that Rukh is all for the use of people like C.S. Lewis and the like to describe Religion, but people like Dante don't count.  Mind, God's still a dick in Dante's works, but he's marginally less one (Note I say marginally:  He's a horrendous dick that treats people who don't worship good nor evil with an eternity of BEES and MAGGOT-FEET).  Heck, the First Circle of Hell in his works is essentially a pretty bitchin' place.  Nice green fields, you recognize who you were / are, there's decent structures, you can move around freely, and so on.  How do you get there?  Simple:  By merely not being baptized. 

This, to me, sounds much better than Heaven:  Mental manipulation to suck God's proverbial cock, or eternity to hang with people like Socrates and (S)Aladin.  I'll take the latter.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2011)

Conker said:


> Yeah, in a way. I was so shocked by what he was saying I didn't even bother objecting, though getting bitched out by eight other people because I didn't like their concept of "heaven" didn't sound appealing either.


 MY version of heaven is better. To me, heaven would be eternal happiness not because of God's love but love in general. You're with family and friends you care about most. Though, I still don't quite know what we'd do for eternity. It'd be pretty boring.
Cue song.


Attaman said:


> Especially since, both old and recently, there's a bunch of varieties of Hell that aren't too bad.
> 
> It's funny, mind, that Rukh is all for the use of people like C.S. Lewis and the like to describe Religion, but people like Dante don't count.  Mind, God's still a dick in Dante's works, but he's marginally less one (Note I say marginally:  He's a horrendous dick that treats people who don't worship good nor evil with an eternity of BEES and MAGGOT-FEET).  Heck, the First Circle of Hell in his works is essentially a pretty bitchin' place.  Nice green fields, you recognize who you were / are, there's decent structures, you can move around freely, and so on.  How do you get there?  Simple:  By merely not being baptized.
> 
> This, to me, sounds much better than Heaven:  Mental manipulation to suck God's proverbial cock, or eternity to hang with people like Socrates and (S)Aladin.  I'll take the latter.


I still need to re-read Dante's Inferno. I've played the game and want to compare the two. Good God, Hell is terrifying and absolutely disturbing in every circle.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 30, 2011)

I've only seen the first two Circles and the "Non-Circle" sections so far (well, and part of the Eight Circle), but really the First Circle of Hell is down-right decent.  Green meadows, stone buildings, free will, common discussions, and so on.  Makes sense, I guess, since it avoids the whole issue of writing about where unbaptized babies go being a pure shit-hole, but still interesting.

Before it, though, are the Angels that played no part in the War of the Heavens, and the people who neither God nor Satan want.  They, well, they live a life of pure crap.  There's a constant swarm of wasps buzzing around their head, with maggots growing out of their feet and the like.  One interpretation is that this is what happens to people who refuse to pass on to either Heaven or Hell (that they're there more because they refuse to take the Ferry to the afterlife), but it read more to me like "Yeah, you're not good enough for me to take into Heaven" from God, and "Yeah, come back to me when you've sinned more" from Hell.  

Things get much worst past the first circle, mind.


----------



## Conker (Jan 30, 2011)

Attaman said:


> I've only seen the first two Circles and the "Non-Circle" sections so far (well, and part of the Eight Circle), but really the First Circle of Hell is down-right decent.  Green meadows, stone buildings, free will, common discussions, and so on.  Makes sense, I guess, since it avoids the whole issue of writing about where unbaptized babies go being a pure shit-hole, but still interesting.
> 
> Before it, though, are the Angels that played no part in the War of the Heavens, and the people who neither God nor Satan want.  They, well, they live a life of pure crap.  There's a constant swarm of wasps buzzing around their head, with maggots growing out of their feet and the like.  One interpretation is that this is what happens to people who refuse to pass on to either Heaven or Hell (that they're there more because they refuse to take the Ferry to the afterlife), but it read more to me like "Yeah, you're not good enough for me to take into Heaven" from God, and "Yeah, come back to me when you've sinned more" from Hell.
> 
> Things get much worst past the first circle, mind.


 Keep in mind that Dante wrote his Inferno because he was pissed. He got outed for somethingorother and was banished from Italy, which is why the betrayers are found in the last circle of hell. His whole Inferno is shock value rolled into an amazing poem. 

But, don't the Puritans kinda go with his version of hell? Their whole "FIRE AND BRIMSTONE" thing kinda coincides with it, though it's not as imaginative.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 31, 2011)

I love how Dante wrote Pope Boniface the 8th into the Inferno as a resident of the Circles of Hell.  He was one of several religious figures that made an apperance in Purgatory of the Divine Comedy.  If that isn't a big F.U. to the church I don't know what is *L* 

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf1901.html


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 31, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I love how Dante wrote Pope Boniface the 8th into the Inferno as a resident of the Circles of Hell.  He was one of several religious figures that made an apperance in Purgatory of the Divine Comedy.  If that isn't a big F.U. to the church I don't know what is *L*
> 
> http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf1901.html


 
That's the best thing about it really. It was the medieval equivalent of a "revenge fic". Which is to say, that's exactly what it was. Dante just ran around meting out gruesome punishments to anyone who even slightly annoyed him, and wrote people he liked into heaven.


----------



## CrazyLee (Feb 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> It's something like you're with God and that's all you care about and all that matters.



One of my issues with Christianity is how God/Christ-centered it really is. 

God, despite being perfect, gets jealous. Even though a perfect being wouldn't get jealous because he would understand human nature, as he created us, and would understand that not everyone would blindly follow him.

The entirety of Christianity is worshiping God. You have to put him at the center of EVERYTHING. Or else, once again, he gets jealous.

When you die, you become close to God and love him and worship him for all eternity.

Why is it that this religion (and other religions like Islam, for that matter) so based on people spending most of their time giving worship and praise and devotion to an invisible being that, if he is really perfect, shouldn't really give a damn either way whether you worship him or not. The idea that Christianity is so centered towards God in every single thing makes God sound like a needy, selfish attention whore.

Or maybe God survives and thrives on the love of others, like some kind of energy being that requires attention and love for survival. Ignore it and it will shrivel and die.


----------



## Conker (Feb 4, 2011)

Totally agree with ya CrazyLee. If God is an organism, then he is fueled by human attention. I wonder if human attention is low in fat.

I sparked an evolution/creationism debate the other day. One of the bigger Christians asked the professor why our religious college didn't teach creationism as a possible explanation for the world. I replied "our science department is actually good" and he got really pissed :[ But, our science department IS really good! This school churns out lots of nurses. 

If I needed an I.V. an the nurse told me that the Earth was created in seven 24 hour days (which weren't even established until the third day when the Earth was made and could revolve around the sun in 24 hours), I'd ask for a new nurse. 

I'd then make that one change my bedpan <3


----------



## Heimdal (Feb 4, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> God, despite being perfect, gets jealous. Even though a perfect being wouldn't get jealous because he would understand human nature, as he created us, and would understand that not everyone would blindly follow him.



God is a needy asshole because it's easier to control the masses that way. Control through fear.

I'm starting to see religious fanaticism to be a form of Stockholm syndrome. Isn't it? I can't think of any good reason why it's not... just exceptions.


----------



## CrazyLee (Feb 4, 2011)

I figure Christianity is a more evolved version of more primitive hunter-gatherer religions. The ones where if things were going good, the Gods were happy, and if shit went bad, the Gods were angry. Have a bountiful harvest? You must have pleased the gods in some way. A storm/tornado/earthquake/cancer/leprosy? You must have pissed the gods off in some way.

Thus you have religions where people please the God(s) in order to get favor and keep the bad things from happening. And that's where God-centrism comes from.

Hell, the entire old testament is basically that. God is pleased when you burn the flesh of an animal and forgets your misdeeds and doesn't send storms and death.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 4, 2011)

Revisiting the Big Bang talk for a moment, I just read something cool I didn't know before: you can actually get something from nothing.

How it works: Due to Heisenberg uncertainty, particle-antiparticle pairs wink into existence and annihilate themselves almost immediately all the time.  This can happen because there's no net energy gain or loss, making it largely inconsequential.  One unusual consequence of this that I wasn't aware of, though, is that if this happens right over the event horizon of a black hole, one particle can get sucked in while the other breaks free, before they can annihilate one another, and the free particle becomes real.  So yes, under very specific circumstances, not only can you get something for nothing, it must and does happen all the time!


----------



## Conker (Feb 5, 2011)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...mp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1569757348

semirelavent :V


----------



## garaak (Feb 21, 2011)

As long as you're not an extremist it's fine. However, as an amateur historian and an atheist, everything created after Judaism has just fucked everything up.


----------



## Deo (Feb 21, 2011)

garaak said:


> As long as you're not an extremist it's fine. However, as an amateur historian and an atheist, everything created after Judaism has just fucked everything up.


 You just necro'ed a thread. >:[
Don't post in a thread until you've read all of it. THIS THREAD IS OVER A HUNDRED PAGES. DID YOU READ IT BEFORE VOMITING OUT YOUR OPINION? NO? Well just to fill you in this was 100 pages of that same opinion said in a thousand different ways. Way to piss in the ocean of piss there newbie.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 21, 2011)

garaak said:


> As long as you're not an extremist it's fine. However, as an amateur historian and an atheist, everything created after Judaism has just fucked everything up.


 
NOOOOOOO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE


----------



## Ratte (Feb 21, 2011)

Psst: That's not a necro.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 21, 2011)

Ratte said:


> Psst: That's not a necro.


 
Two weeks and going strong, we were almost there dammit >:[


----------



## Ratte (Feb 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Two weeks and going strong, we were almost there dammit >:[


 
Close, but no cigar, etc.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 21, 2011)

Ratte said:


> Close, but no cigar, etc.


 
Appealing for special dispensation to get this thread killed anyways.  It was created solely to get a broad range of topics sequestered into a single dumping ground, made necessary (if it ever was truly necessary) largely because of a single user.  Since that user has stopped godbotting so damn much, this thread has become a directionless quagmire of conflicting topics that derail each other every page.  Everyone that actually enjoys these discussions has been watching this thread to sink to the forum floor hoping it would remain unnoticed long enough to get necrolocked if it ever resurfaced.

Just kill the damn thing.  Please.


----------



## BRN (Feb 21, 2011)

It'll come back three days after being Locked.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2011)

I always imagine this thread to be like that failed clone of Ripley in Alien Resurrection: painfully flailing helplessly at the air and begging to be killed.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 28, 2011)

So what's up with those Doomsday 'prophet' guys with the sandwich boards and shit? What information do they have, what bible are THEY using that leads them to these conclusions?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I always imagine this thread to be like that failed clone of Ripley in Alien Resurrection: painfully flailing helplessly at the air and begging to be killed.


 
you mean the one that got it's ass sucked into the hole in the hull and literally shit itself out of itself?
yeah, not a bad analogy by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## CAThulu (Feb 28, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So what's up with those Doomsday 'prophet' guys with the sandwich boards and shit? What information do they have, what bible are THEY using that leads them to these conclusions?


 
Do you have the time to ask one?  Seriously.  They'll tell you, but it'll cost you a few hours and some sanity points.

I can tell you right now what your answers are:  sandwich boards have been around for ages prophesying shit and if it isn't that it's a bumper sticker, they don't have any special info that'll save your soul, and the bible they use is the King James because it sounds old and more authentic.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 28, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Do you have the time to ask one?  Seriously.  They'll tell you, but it'll cost you a few hours and some sanity points.
> 
> I can tell you right now what your answers are:  sandwich boards have been around for ages prophesying shit and if it isn't that it's a bumper sticker, they don't have any special info that'll save your soul, and the bible they use is the King James because it sounds old and more authentic.



I've never been able to walk up to one without them screaming at me.

Dunno 'bout you, but I don't like getting screamed at :v


----------



## CAThulu (Feb 28, 2011)

Neither do I.  Can't stand it.  which is why I'm wondering why you would walk up to one in the first place. O_O


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 28, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Neither do I.  Can't stand it.  which is why I'm wondering why you would walk up to one in the first place. O_O


 
I have a very morbid sense of curiosity. I was going to inquire actually what I wrote above - Which bible he was using to determine the date, and he started pestering me about accepting Jesus - I said I didn't, and well...He lost his shit, so I left. The guy followed me for a block, spouting dozens of lines, but it was quite clear he was not up for debate :v


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2011)

I think I came up with a new way to disprove some theistic theories, by using love. If we can prove love is biological - that it's hormones, chemical changes, brain activity [I am not a biologist] - then for God to love he would require a physical body; which means he existed before the universe, and is therefore outside of the universe and unable to affect it at all, or non-existent, though both are the same in effect.


----------



## CAThulu (Feb 28, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I have a very morbid sense of curiosity. I was going to inquire actually what I wrote above - Which bible he was using to determine the date, and he started pestering me about accepting Jesus - I said I didn't, and well...He lost his shit, so I left. The guy followed me for a block, spouting dozens of lines, but it was quite clear he was not up for debate :v


 
If you lived in my city then I'd say we knew the same guy.  Downtown there was a guy that had the same open sore on his forehead for 2 years, and asked everyone he saw if they knew Jesus.  One day he approached me and asked me the same question while I was waiting for the bus.   Now, the best thing to do when you meet any type of crazy is to keep calm, be polite, and play along as much as you can until you can get out of the situation.   So when bleeding head guy asked me if I knew Jesus, I said yes, gave him a false name when he asked for my identity, then agreed with him about why it was good to know Jesus until the bus showed up.

Needless to say, curiosity was indeed sated, whether I wanted it or not.  I"m sorry that he scared you though.  Religion seems to really fill a niche with the mentally ill :/


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 28, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> If you lived in my city then I'd say we knew the same guy.  Downtown there was a guy that had the same open sore on his forehead for 2 years, and asked everyone he saw if they knew Jesus.  One day he approached me and asked me the same question while I was waiting for the bus.   Now, the best thing to do when you meet any type of crazy is to keep calm, be polite, and play along as much as you can until you can get out of the situation.   So when bleeding head guy asked me if I knew Jesus, I said yes, gave him a false name when he asked for my identity, then agreed with him about why it was good to know Jesus until the bus showed up.
> 
> Needless to say, curiosity was indeed sated, whether I wanted it or not.  I"m sorry that he scared you though.  Religion seems to really fill a niche with the mentally ill :/



Well, I'm not much of a liar really. Even to those that clearly wouldn't be able to tell the difference, I just won't bring myself to it. I am also significantly taller than the guy - Being 6'5, and he was 5'6 at best (His face = My chest), I don't think he'd try anything _bad_, except maybe throw a bible at me, or tell me more about his day. (I'm defintely not a fighter either - I rely solely on my height for people not to start shit :< Works well so far.)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Feb 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> I think I came up with a new way to disprove some theistic theories, by using love. If we can prove love is biological - that it's hormones, chemical changes, brain activity [I am not a biologist] - then for God to love he would require a physical body; which means he existed before the universe, and is therefore outside of the universe and unable to affect it at all, or non-existent, though both are the same in effect.


 
We already have- Long story short, Love is a cycle of seratonin reinforcement, a literal chemical addiction to a person and the warm fuzzy feelings they give. The more intense the high, the faster the people involved develop chemical tolerance to the particular memories. Couples usually break it off about the point they need love to feel normal, which leaves to tragic weepy breakups, and then new people are found and the cycle begins anew.


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> We already have- Long story short, Love is a cycle of seratonin reinforcement, a literal chemical addiction to a person and the warm fuzzy feelings they give. The more intense the high, the faster the people involved develop chemical tolerance to the particular memories. Couples usually break it off about the point they need love to feel normal, which leaves to tragic weepy breakups, and then new people are found and the cycle begins anew.



So love is when the 'happy hormones' that someone produces as a reaction to seeing someone become so neccessary to them that it is a literal chemical addiction? I'm sincerely interested; my studies of science are based in the wide world of physics, but still physics alone.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Feb 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> So love is when the 'happy hormones' that someone produces as a reaction to seeing someone become so neccessary to them that it is a literal chemical addiction? I'm sincerely interested; my studies of science are based in the wide world of physics, but still physics alone.


 
It's a highly paraphrased version, but yes. A "broken heart" is basically the withdrawal symptoms. I'm not a neuroscientist either, but Neuroscientists can look at various emotional states and sensations and have a good grasp on what chemicals and parts of the brain cause it, I'm mostly annoyed that it's fine to say we know what causes fear and hunger and sleepyness, but somehow "Love" is this magical thing that can't be studied... Plus there's also factors like social and reproductive pressures to contend with that can make couples act like they lvoe each other to keep the benefits without actually having chemistry between the two.

It's especially sad because a lot of people mistake the loss of that seratonin rush (gradually being replaced by the more low-key long term relationship hormone Ocytocin) as their relationship dying. "The passion is gone." they usually bemoan.


----------



## Blutide (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## ticktock1992 (Feb 28, 2011)

People are often religious because of indoctrination during childhood.

Brainwashed people are scary.

Think Nazis, kool-aid drinkers, Charles Manson's followers, scientologists (as valid a religion as ALL other religions), the movie Videodrome, people who fly planes into buildings, witch hunts, etc.

When the majority is suckered into believing something and cannot, I repeat, CANNOT handle the questioning of their belief system... this is indoctrination as powerful as any horrific historic examples I could think of. Maybe the majority of Christians is not currently causing mass genocide, but the depressing fact that they are told to blindly and unquestioningly form a very strong belief system that permeates every area of their life... and they accept this without question, because they were raised this way... this is upsetting to those who look in on the herd of sheep from a distanced point of view.

I'm mentioning this because it seems that every article I read that asks a legitimate, non-insulting, gentle question of christianity (or any religion; but I mention christianity in specific because i have the most experience with it personally)... the Christians defend not with logic or legitimate counter-examples or equally neutral rhetoric. They clap their hands over their ears and scream "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" in the midst of also throwing out insults and saying things like "Take your christian-hating crap elsewhere" or "You're not a christian! You can't understand!" or "You're an idiot!! You're wrong!!! Go away!!!"

Here is an example -- http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong -- of an article attacking Christianity's stances on many things. Now, disregard the article if you will -- the author doesn't have a very neutral standpoint. But look at the responses. Specifically, look at the exchange between BlaiseP (the first responder, and a defender of christianity) and Belarius (who responds to BlaiseP's assertions a few replies down the page). BlaiseP's INITIAL response is fairly well-thought-out. Belarius proceeds to provide a rebuttal to each of BlaiseP's points, in a systematic, completely verbally neutral, non-insulting manner. BlaiseP's following responses to Belarius' calm argument are all petty, offended, insulting, and childish. That's just one example of what I was talking about.

I immediately see a HUGE red flag go up whenever someone says "NOTHING could ever challenge my beliefs nor make me question my faith". That is an extremely immature and close-minded way of thinking. I will go so far as to say that blind faith - truly just soaking up the pastor's words, taking what mommy and daddy told you, and utterly closing yourself to any discourse which does not affirm your set beliefs - is NEVER, I repeat, NEVER a good thing. Closemindedness is NEVER a good thing.

I am not saying that everyone must agree with everything. There is such a thing as being so openminded that the cold air just blows right on through >.> But being so closeminded as to say "NOTHING could EVER challenge what I have been told" is a horrible thing. It upsets me. And I see it every single day.

I am an atheist. I was raised a christian but I realized at an early age - say 13 or 14 ish - just how ridiculous I find religion in general to be. I see no reason at all to believe in this magic that someone came up with two thousand years ago which has been changed countless times by people with political and selfish agendas. I also do not understand those who would blindly worship a "god" who is so jealous, petty, and downright cruel.

Hmm... wow that turned into an enormous rant! So..

TL;DR:
Religious indoctrination is a scary, terrible, harmful and ALWAYS negative thing. Blind faith is NEVER a good thing. I dare anyone to challenge that statement and give me real examples in which the turning of the beautiful human mind toward automaton behavior is a healthy, good thing.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

ticktock1992 said:


> I dare anyone to challenge that statement and give me real examples in which the turning of the beautiful human mind toward automaton behavior is a healthy, good thing.



*wince*  Ooo...you're gonna invoke Rukh if he sees this.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

ticktock1992 said:


> People are often religious because of indoctrination during childhood.
> 
> Brainwashed people are scary.
> 
> ...


 

Well first off, you didn't ask one legitimate question. Basically your entire post is a giant personal rant about a specific group of people that hold to their faith. Your rant basically shows me that you are angry. Angry at God. Second, by who's standard are you saying He is cruel? Your own? Because I will say it right now, you are not perfect, and therefore your standards and morals and ethics are imperfect and therefore suck.

I follow God. And its not a blind faith. I follow God because I know He is real. You saying He isn't changes nothing. You denying God changes nothing. If you don't believe in Him, thats not my problem. Its your personal problem. I can show you what Scripture does say about unbelief.

And guess what, the very thing you hate "people who follow their faith" You basically hate yourself. Because atheism is a belief...Its a faith. Just the wrong thing to put your faith in.

 You say we should always have an open mind. All the time. I say otherwise. Your saying that everything is up to the person and everything is relative. Which is again wrong. The point of opening ones mind is not to leave it open, but to shut it on something solid.


Christians are not robots as you claim. Neither are you, because you have the freedom to choose to believe or not. You have the freedom of choice. And whether you like it or not. There are only 2 choices. Believe or not.


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *wince*  Ooo...you're gonna invoke Rukh if he sees this.


You totally called it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well first off, you didn't ask one legitimate question. Basically your entire post is a giant personal rant about a specific group of people that hold to their faith. Your rant basically shows me that you are angry. Angry at God. Second, by who's standard are you saying He is cruel? Your own? Because I will say it right now, you are not perfect, and therefore your standards and morals and ethics are imperfect and therefore suck.
> 
> I follow God. And its not a blind faith. I follow God because I know He is real. You saying He isn't changes nothing. You denying God changes nothing. If you don't believe in Him, thats not my problem. Its your personal problem. I can show you what Scripture does say about unbelief.
> 
> ...


The person you responded to cannot possibly claim to be open minded when they have a hatred for religious people.

And I suspect this thread will follow it's usual path from this point:
1. People refute Rukh's points again, with the same arguments because Rukh uses the same arguments.
2. It won't get anywhere at all ever because you guys suck.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> You totally called it.


Well of course they did. Because I am the only one willing to actually challenge said person. I am willing to debate. I am willing to answer questions. whether or not they like my answers in irrelevant. 




Enwon said:


> The person you responded to cannot possibly claim to be open minded when they have a hatred for religious people.


 Yeah, I forgot to add that in too. But its implied.

And furthermore, I live how they assume Christians believe only because they were told too. They obviously needs to read personal testimonies.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 1, 2011)

Actually, Rukh, you follow him because you have no free will. :3c

Also, it's not a "problem" believing in God.  To be fair, it's not a problem believing in God either, but not believing in God / god(s) is in no way, shape, or form a "problem" outside theological contexts.

Furthermore, you are providing the horrendously painful False Dilemma:  Either you believe and you believe in God, or you don't.  Then again, you also follow the Pascal's Wager schtick to a T, insofar as you believing there can only possibly be two outcomes (well, actually, you only acknowledge two of the many outcomes:  You believe there's only one, the first I'm about to present).  Either there's a God, and it's a good idea to believe in him / her / it, or there's no God, in which case it doesn't matter.  The problem is that you can believe in several God / god(s), there's the potential for many of them to be right or wrong (or, in some cases, multiple to be right at once), etcetera.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Second, by who's standard are you saying He is cruel? Your own? Because I will say it right now, you are not perfect, and therefore your standards and morals and ethics are imperfect and therefore suck.
> 
> I follow God. And its not a blind faith. I follow God because I know He is real.
> 
> ...


 
Who says morals and standards have to be perfect :v?

And yes, you do follow your god by blind faith (whether you like to admit it or not), because is not inherently provable - So you have no possibly way of showing he is real, without taking most of it on faith. I have a feeling you severely underestimate the power of the brain. 

Atheism isn't a belief, nor a faith. It's the lack thereof. Do we really need to go through this again?

In short:

a- = without, not, etc.
-theism = the belief in a god, God, or gods.

Put it together:

Atheism: Without the belief in a god, God, or gods.

Atypical:
A- not, without, etc.
-Typical - Conforming to a particular/specific type.

Put it together:
Not conforming to a particular/specific type, not typical. 

It doesn't turn in to, "conforming to a particular/specific type that isn't like the others".

You've closed your mind tight, around something so not solid - it's not even funny.

Nice false dichotomy tacked on at the end there too.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Shut the fuck _up_ Rukh! No one fucking _cares!_ God, you make Roose look both less socially and mentally challenged, and the thing about him is he probably knows "the good word" as well as you if not _better!_ You're entire fucking argument, in any of your arguments, hinges on the bible being irrefutable, both historically and spiritually, which it is *not*. Ergo, you make _yourself_ look bad, not the non-believers, which by the fucking way, I'm actually not one of!

*KILL THIS THREAD!*


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> You totally called it.


 
The situation's as predictable as a Twilight book. :/



Enwon said:


> The person you responded to cannot possibly claim to be open minded when they have a hatred for religious people.



Seems mostly like an attack on Christianity again.  Which frankly,  I'm getting sick of seeing even though I'm not part of that faith system.



Enwon said:


> And I suspect this thread will follow it's usual path from this point:
> 1. People refute Rukh's points again, with the same arguments because Rukh uses the same arguments.
> 2. It won't get anywhere at all ever because you guys suck.



You called that one as well.  We should totally go into business together as psychics


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Who says morals and standards have to be perfect :v?
> 
> And yes, you do follow your god by blind faith (whether you like to admit it or not), because is not inherently provable - So you have no possibly way of showing he is real, without taking most of it on faith. I have a feeling you severely underestimate the power of the brain.
> 
> ...


 
Who says your morals and standards are good? Since you are imperfect so are your morals and standards. God is perfect, and therefore His Law and morals and standards are perfect.


God is provable. In fact Scripture says not one person is without an excuse for not knowing God is there. The Universe attests to the existence of God. And furthermore I don't have to prove anything. You just don't believe. Which is not my problem. Its yours. You severely underestimate the power of God.


Atheism is a belief, they *believe* God is not real. They believe in nothing. And believing in nothing is still believing in something. They believe in non-existence. It is a belief.

Your right I have closed my mind. I have closed it on the Truth.


And you like that on the end do you? You have two choices. And its not my problem is you after being told the Truth choose the wrong thing. Its all on you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> The person you responded to cannot possibly claim to be open minded when they have a hatred for religious people.


 
So, you have someone who considered their religion, realized the flaws inherent in said religion and other religions as well, came away with a negative view... and then you tell *Rukh* of all people that this person is the closed minded one? 9_6

Edit: Rukh,We already went over the athiesm/belief semantics game with you. Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief.
That aside, here's a simple question for you- Is there any evidence that you could be presented with that would disprove your god?


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So, you have someone who considered their religion, realized the flaws inherent in said religion and other religions as well, came away with a negative view... and then you tell *Rukh* of all people that this person is the closed minded one? 9_6



I'm wondering if Enwon meant Ticktock1992 with the 'closed minded' comment.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Shut the fuck _up_ Rukh! No one fucking _cares!_ God, you make Roose look both less socially and mentally challenged, and the thing about him is he probably knows "the good word" as well as you if not _better!_ You're entire fucking argument, in any of your arguments, hinges on the bible being irrefutable, both historically and spiritually, which it is *not*. Ergo, you make _yourself_ look bad, not the non-believers, which by the fucking way, I'm actually not one of!



Since when am I supposed to care whether you listen or not? Since when am I supposed to care if people don't want to here about God. Last time I checked, Scripture says go and speak the Truth. Not go and speak to those who only want to hear. 

Since when is it my problem? If you don't like what I say and don't want to hear it, then ignore it. You don't have to read it. But you choose too. So the only one you can get angry at is yourself, because its your choice to read what I write.


Are you getting angry? Are you getting upset? Am I supposed to care? Does it bug you when I say I don't care?
If you don't like it, don't read it. Plain and simple.





Mojotech said:


> That aside, here's a simple question for  you- Is there any evidence that you could be presented with that would  disprove your god?


 
You can put up any evidence you want. And I am saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can't disprove God. whether or not you believe that, is not my problem.

But you see, you are already saying God doesn't exist. You are already set in your mind. And you don't want to believe. So, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

I just now noticed Rukh's user title, "Addicted to God". Y'know, addictions are unhealthy, to the point of being toxic and destructive. I believe in God, in a sense. I'm not _addicted_ to God any more than I'm addicted to anything else I need to function as a person that sustains my life or gives it meaning. I'm not addicted to pot, or art, or video games, or talking to your stupid ass on these forums. Who the fuck am I kidding anyway. You probably don't even realize God as much as what the Gnostics call the Demiurge. That's the thing about being open to other beliefs or a lack of them, Rukh. It allows you to consider the possible flaws in your own beliefs, question them, and come to have better beliefs. You're stuck, like a child who can't fathom ditching the training wheels and riding the big boys' bikes, let alone a motorcycle you pose with to compensate for a lack of penis on your userpage.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I just now noticed Rukh's user title, "Addicted to God". Y'know, addictions are unhealthy, to the point of being toxic and destructive. I believe in God, in a sense. I'm not _addicted_ to God any more than I'm addicted to anything else I need to function as a person that sustains my life or gives it meaning. I'm not addicted to pot, or art, or video games, or talking to your stupid ass on these forums. Who the fuck am I kidding anyway. You probably don't even realize God as much as what the Gnostics call the Demiurge. That's the thing about being open to other beliefs or a lack of them, Rukh. It allows you to consider the possible flaws in your own beliefs, question them, and come to have better beliefs. You're stuck, like a child who can't fathom ditching the training wheels and riding the big boys' bikes, let alone a motorcycle you pose with to compensate for a lack of penis on your userpage.



1) You really should read Focault's Pendulum sometime   It's pretty much known as 'The thinking person's DaVinci Code' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum

2) When you're not using your brain, can I borrow it?


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So, you have someone who considered their religion, realized the flaws inherent in said religion and other religions as well, came away with a negative view... and then you tell *Rukh* of all people that this person is the closed minded one? 9_6


 


CAThulu said:


> I'm wondering if Enwon meant Ticktock1992 with the 'closed minded' comment.


I meant Ticktock1992 was being closed minded.  Everyone knows Rukh is closed minded- he even claims it.  I just find it a little hypocritical for someone to completely bash organized religion and then say that everyone needs to be open minded.
So yeah.  Both Rukh and Tick Tock are closed minded.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can put up any evidence you want. And I am saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can't disprove God. whether or not you believe that, is not my problem.



There we have it folks, blind faith in action. You may now take a bow Rukh.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But you see, you are already saying God doesn't exist. You are already set in your mind. And you don't want to believe. So, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of?



Not really? There's plenty of things that could get me to believe in a deity, assuming said deity was logically consistent in the first place. Yahweh of the bible is not one of those Deities.



Enwon said:


> I meant Ticktock1992 was being closed minded.  Everyone knows Rukh is closed minded- he even claims it.  I just find it a little hypocritical for someone to completely bash organized religion and then say that everyone needs to be open minded.
> So yeah.  Both Rukh and Tick Tock are closed minded.


 
Ah, alright, fair enough.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I just now noticed Rukh's user title, "Addicted to God". Y'know, addictions are unhealthy, to the point of being toxic and destructive. I believe in God, in a sense. I'm not _addicted_ to God any more than I'm addicted to anything else I need to function as a person that sustains my life or gives it meaning. I'm not addicted to pot, or art, or video games, or talking to your stupid ass on these forums. Who the fuck am I kidding anyway. You probably don't even realize God as much as what the Gnostics call the Demiurge. That's the thing about being open to other beliefs or a lack of them, Rukh. It allows you to consider the possible flaws in your own beliefs, question them, and come to have better beliefs. You're stuck, like a child who can't fathom ditching the training wheels and riding the big boys' bikes, let alone a motorcycle you pose with to compensate for a lack of penis on your userpage.



I like how you don't respond to my last post...

Second. God is the only thing worth getting addicted to. And its a reference to a song by Skillet. Took you long enough to read it.

I question God a lot. I ask Him to explain a lot of things to me. But what I do not question, is His existence. I also do not question His authority. He is God, I am not.
There are no flaws in God. I am not stuck, I am free. Free in Christ Jesus.


Again, your just angry.


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There we have it folks, blind faith in action. You may now take a bow Rukh.
> 
> Not really? There's plenty of things that could get me to believe in a deity, assuming said deity was logically consistent in the first place. Yahweh of the bible is not one of those Deities.
> 
> Ah, alright, fair enough.


I'll be honest, I don't get why people still argue with Rukh.  It's a waste of time and energy that could be better spent doing the things furries do- fapping, trying to figure out what Wolf-Bone is saying, hoarding art.

At the very least, we could try discussing something borderline interesting in this thread.  To say that arguing with Rukh about whether or not God is real is like beating a dead horse equates to comparing World War II to a children's game in the backyard.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who says your morals and standards are good? Since you are imperfect so are your morals and standards. God is perfect, and therefore His Law and morals and standards are perfect.
> 
> God is provable. In fact Scripture says not one person is without an excuse for not knowing God is there. The Universe attests to the existence of God. And furthermore I don't have to prove anything. _You just don't believe_. Which is not my problem. Its yours. You severely underestimate the power of God.
> 
> ...


 
I say my morals are at least _decent_ ("Do no evil".). Which is more than anyone can every say for your god's morals (which people wrote as him having, mind you. He didn't write the bible.)

God is not provable. Just because the bible says he is, doesn't make it so. You've already taken your first step into a vicious-circular argument. 

The universe attests to no such thing. You filling god into the gap of solid human knowledge does not automatically make it correct, and surely doesn't make the universe attest to anything. Also: how can I underestimate the power of something that doesn't exist?

Athiesm is not a belief, and I *just* showed you how wrong you are, and continue to try and be. They don't believe in nothing, they don't believe in non-existence, and they don't believe any of the nonsense you're trying to fill their pretty mouths with. I showed you the definition of Atheism, I broke it down, I gave you an example, and everything. *ANYTHING BEYOND THAT DEFINITION IS NOT ATHEISM. *

_Atheism, is to be without the belief in a god or gods. _*That's it.* Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else you add on, is not Atheism. Anything else -I- add on, is not Atheism. 

_The word describes the people, the people do not describe the word. _

"Truth" - Know why they give it a capital T? Because it's a _title_ (proper noun), not a _description (_adjective). 

Realize that you've admitted to closing your mind tight upon something that is not inherently provable - Thus by default (until otherwise noted), is not true.

Being close-minded is never a good thing, especially when it's closed upon something like that. 

(I know you've retorted with "But an open mind-" blah blah blah before. This isn't about that.)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> I'll be honest, I don't get why people still argue with Rukh.  It's a waste of time and energy that could be better spent doing the things furries do- fapping, trying to figure out what Wolf-Bone is saying, hoarding art.
> 
> At the very least, we could try discussing something borderline interesting in this thread.  To say that arguing with Rukh about whether or not God is real is like beating a dead horse equates to comparing World War II to a children's game in the backyard.


 
Really we need to learn to just ignore Rukh so people who are actually willing to discuss things instead of just wanting to preach while maintaining a close mind. Rukh is the one who has to live with his strange philosophical myopia, I can only assume he came to FAF because there was nowhere else he was welcome. And that there's gay furry porn available freely on the main site.

Honestly we should discuss the demiurge. That's actually a really interesting concept from Gnosticism.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

*finds laughable irony in responding to this while Ozzy's "Mr Crowley" begins on the radio*



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when am I supposed to care whether you listen or not? Since when am I supposed to care if people don't want to here about God. Last time I checked, Scripture says go and speak the Truth. Not go and speak to those who only want to hear.



Looks like you care.  You care enough to respond, to preach, and to get agitated.  You HAVE to care to go speak 'the Truth' to people who you perceive don't want to hear it because of The Great Commission.  ("Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel...")



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since when is it my problem? If you don't like what I say and don't want to hear it, then ignore it. You don't have to read it. But you choose too. So the only one you can get angry at is yourself, because its your choice to read what I write.


 
Because like you, they care about the topic, and like you, when they perceive someone to be incorrect they feel the need to debate that.  



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you getting angry? Are you getting upset? Am I supposed to care? Does it bug you when I say I don't care?
> If you don't like it, don't read it. Plain and simple.



You care.   You care enough to respond to them.   Saying anything otherwise creates a paradox in your argument (I'm holding off on calling anyone a hypocrite here.).   And it is an arguement.  A debate has more structure and less emotion to it...or at least it should. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can put up any evidence you want. And I am saying beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can't disprove God. whether or not you believe that, is not my problem.



You can't prove God either Rukh.  That's why the bible calls on people to have faith in him.  And again, the Great Commission makes it your problem if you choose to follow it, which you're supposed to.   See?  Paradox.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But you see, you are already saying God doesn't exist. You are already set in your mind. And you don't want to believe. So, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of?



Yes.  You guys are accusing each other of the very same thing, just changing "exist" for "non_exist" and creating a religious circle-jerk, which is why I don't consider this a debate.


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Really we need to learn to just ignore Rukh so people who are actually willing to discuss things instead of just wanting to preach while maintaining a close mind.


This should be made into a rule. "Ignore Rukh and all his close-minded bullshit." Wishful thinking, no?



> Honestly we should discuss the demiurge. That's actually a really interesting concept from Gnosticism.


Care to enlighten me as to what that is, exactly? I'd like to learn something other than the usual "Rukh is a fucking idiot" bits.

And just to clarify, since this is a religion thread: I don't have one. I don't believe in God because I'm angry with Him.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Gaz said:


> This should be made into a rule. "Ignore Rukh and all his close-minded bullshit." Wishful thinking, no?
> 
> Care to enlighten me as to what that is, exactly? I'd like to learn something other than the usual "Rukh is a fucking idiot" bits.


 
Well, in Gnosticism, Sophia- the Goddess who created the world and an aspect of the true, unknowable god- more or less created an aborted god-deity who, being seperate from actual divinity, believes he is the one true god and developed a huge ego about it. He goes around generally smiting people, causing plagues, being a jackass and demanding worship while Sophia and the greater fullness of god don't have the flaws he does- first and foremost being they don't require or even desire worship. At least if I understand it correctly.

The main thing is Gnostics generally hold that Yahweh of the bible is the demi-urge.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Care to enlighten me as to what that is, exactly?



A being that artistically fashioned the universe.  Essentially the Gnostic version of 'Creator'.  I always find that if I don't know a word, I just google it because a 1/2 hour ago I relearned the definition 



Gaz said:


> And just to clarify, since this is a religion thread: I don't have one. I don't believe in God because I'm angry with Him.



I think anyone who hasn't been angry at any deity at some point in their lives is disillusioning themselves.


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Really we need to learn to just ignore Rukh so people who are actually willing to discuss things instead of just wanting to preach while maintaining a close mind. Rukh is the one who has to live with his strange philosophical myopia, I can only assume he came to FAF because there was nowhere else he was welcome. And that there's gay furry porn available freely on the main site.
> 
> Honestly we should discuss the demiurge. That's actually a really interesting concept from Gnosticism.


 


Gaz said:


> This should be made into a rule. "Ignore Rukh and all his close-minded bullshit." Wishful thinking, no?
> 
> Care to enlighten me as to what that is, exactly? I'd like to learn something other than the usual "Rukh is a fucking idiot" bits.


I like gnosticism.  The idea that an imperfect God created everything just makes more sense.  Christianity manages to contradict itself- God is perfect, so does that mean that perfection is cruel, jealous, and proud?  Gnosticism just makes more sense, because it rationalizes tragedy, irony, and other things as more than just "god's plan" and also allows for a person to harbor their own beliefs on subjects.

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a gnostic?  I know he was a something-ist that wasn't Christian.


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well, in Gnosticism, Sophia- the Goddess who created the world and an aspect of the true, unknowable god- more or less created an aborted god-deity who, being seperate from actual divinity, believes he is the one true god and developed a huge ego about it. He goes around generally smiting people, causing plagues, being a jackass and demanding worship while Sophia and the greater fullness of god don't have the flaws he does- first and foremost being they don't require or even desire worship. At least if I understand it correctly.
> 
> The main thing is Gnostics generally hold that Yahweh of the bible is the demi-urge.


Interesting. Sounds like a lot of stories I used to read growing up (I was really, really into God and religion as a kid).



CAThulu said:


> A being that artistically fashioned the universe.  Essentially the Gnostic version of 'Creator'.  I always find that if I don't know a word, I just google it because a 1/2 hour ago I relearned the definition


I would have, but sometimes all the stuff I find just confuses me. haha



> I think anyone who hasn't been angry at any deity at some point in their lives is disillusioning themselves.


Thank for you that.  I've been getting too many people that say "You are a fool for being angry at Him" so it's refreshing to find someone to say otherwise.



Enwon said:


> Gnosticism just makes more sense, because it rationalizes tragedy, irony, and other things as more than just "god's plan" and also allows for a person to harbor their own beliefs on subjects.


Sounds like my kind of thing, actually. Why isn't it mentioned as much as Christianity and Catholicism?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I say my morals are at least _decent_ ("Do no evil".). Which is more than anyone can every say for your god's morals (which people wrote as him having, mind you. He didn't write the bible.)
> 
> God is not provable. Just because the bible says he is, doesn't make it so. You've already taken your first step into a vicious-circular argument.
> 
> ...



Yet you are doing evil by saying God doesn't exist. And your definition of evil is not God's definition of evil.

The Bible is the word of God. Its His Word. Read 2 Timothy 3:16 I believe, or 2 Samuel 2 Samuel 22:31
Secondly God even glorifies His own word. Thats how True His word is. And add to that Jesus Christ is also called the word, the Living word. And Scripture is called the word, and living word. Scripture and God are one in the same. You cannot separate the 2.

The universe does point to God. And you are without an excuse.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world Godâ€™s invisible qualitiesâ€”his  eternal power and divine natureâ€”have been clearly seen, being understood  from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 


_Atheism, is to be without the belief in a god or gods. _*This is a belief, the non belief of God.*


I have closed my mind on the Truth.
Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be  able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our  Lord.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff


 
The bible is the word of the demi-urge, as imperfect as humans and the imperfect, capricious being they created.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *finds laughable irony in responding to this while Ozzy's "Mr Crowley" begins on the radio*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

You don't understand the Great Commission do you? It does not say go and make people belief. It says go and preach the Truth. We as Christians don't save people, we don't convince people. God does all that. We are merely to go and speak. God does the rest. So its not my problem is people don't believe or follow God. My Job is to speak the Truth. Not convince people God exists. Because if we as people could do that, then salvation is man made. Scripture says we don't choose God. God chooses us. We do nothing to save ourselves. Its God who does. Why? Because we are totally depraved.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> 1) You really should read Focault's Pendulum sometime   It's pretty much known as 'The thinking person's DaVinci Code' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum
> 
> 2) When you're not using your brain, can I borrow it?



1) I hope I get a chance to check it out some time.
2) Yeah but be careful, it doesn't even cooperate with me half the time.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I like how you don't respond to my last post...
> 
> Second. God is the only thing worth getting addicted to. And its a reference to a song by Skillet. Took you long enough to read it.
> 
> ...


 
I'm going to make this very simple. First, I didn't respond to your first post because I know your tactic. You quote mine, you cherry-pick, you dodge the main points and undercut to other points that are nowhere near as crucial but you think defeat the main points somehow, and of course, try to wear your opponent down with sheer bulk. Similarly, you never even _looked_ at a thread of mine that was practically begging for you to put your two cents in or to break the fucking piggy bank over.

Second, *God* would neither require you to be an addict to anything but air, water, food and sleep if you count those, nor want you to be an addict to him. If you're addicted to God, I think it's a fair bet you're going against his will. Going back to what I understand of the Gnostics' beliefs, however, the Demiurge is downright malevolent, and it/they _would_ probably be apt to have you believe you should/must be addicted to them. I don't think it's their stated _raisin de terre_, as it was created by God for the purpose of creating the physical universe, but if the Christian view of God has any validity whatsoever, it's probably part of (if not the biggest) test out of the many he apparently gives humans to overcome.

Third, I never said you _had_ to question his existence, as in doubt it, but you could stand to better question the _nature_ of omnipotence, and set emotion to the side for that purpose as much as humanly possible. There are no flaws in God, but there are flaws in you, and so your understanding of God will be flawed. But that is the God you preach. So again, you're going against God's will just by trying to preach on his behalf. Let God speak for God and you speak for you. As for free in Christ, I think that discussion is best left to my thread Term did a fine job of fucking up before it even started.

Last but not least, I am not God damned fucking angry for the last fucking time. You fucking got it?


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Since Rukh is too stupid to source and cite his sources, from here on we should all just ignore his incompetence and hypocrisy and have a friendly, open debate and discussion. Seriously.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Since Rukh is too stupid to source and cite his sources, from here on we should all just ignore his incompetence and hypocrisy and have a friendly, open debate and discussion. Seriously.


 
Alright, what would you like to discuss? A particular pantheon or sticky bit of philosophy?


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Alright, what would you like to discuss? A particular pantheon or sticky bit of philosophy?


Anything and everything, as long as everyone can refrain from feeding the attention Rukh so desperately wants. Someone (other than Rukh) just _throw something out there_.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Anything and everything, as long as everyone can refrain from feeding the attention Rukh so desperately wants. Someone (other than Rukh) just _throw something out there_.


 
Let's discuss ancient egypt, since that seems pretty popular with furries these days.


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Let's discuss ancient egypt, since that seems pretty popular with furries these days.


Oh yeah they had furry gods, didn't they?  I also remember learning about their afterlife- how they preserve the body so that the person can make a long, treacherous journey to be judged by the gods.  If the gods are pleased with the person and feels they have done good, they let the person pass into the afterlife.  If not, then I think one of the gods eats the person's heart or something... I don't really know.  I learned about this stuff in social studies class a long time ago.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Gaz said:


> I would have, but sometimes all the stuff I find just confuses me. haha



Me too, and that's okay.  That's why I look it up, or I'd walk around in a fog of confusion all the time XD



Gaz said:


> Thank for you that.  I've been getting too many people that say "You are a fool for being angry at Him" so it's refreshing to find someone to say otherwise.



Pfft.  Doesn't mean they're right, Gaz.  I doubt when Jesus was dying on the cross and crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34) he was doing so because he was happy about the situation.  There were a lot of emotions going on sure, but I bet anger was one of them.  He was Human, after all.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Oh yeah they had furry gods, didn't they?  I also remember learning about their afterlife- how they preserve the body so that the person can make a long, treacherous journey to be judged by the gods.  If the gods are pleased with the person and feels they have done good, they let the person pass into the afterlife.  If not, then I think one of the gods eats the person's heart or something... I don't really know.  I learned about this stuff in social studies class a long time ago.


 
Actually, it was based on how much a person was satisfied with what they did with their life. If they thought they did enough to help others and improve the world, their heart was light enough to let them into heaven. If they were sufficiently useless and lazy or worse malicious, they got fed to Anubis's pet lionhippodile.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You don't understand the Great Commission do you? It does not say go and make people belief. It says go and preach the Truth. We as Christians don't save people, we don't convince people. God does all that. We are merely to go and speak. God does the rest. So its not my problem is people don't believe or follow God. My Job is to speak the Truth. Not convince people God exists. Because if we as people could do that, then salvation is man made. Scripture says we don't choose God. God chooses us. We do nothing to save ourselves. Its God who does. Why? Because we are totally depraved.


 
*reads, and facepalms*


Yeah...let's talk about Egypt!


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Pfft.  Doesn't mean they're right, Gaz.  I doubt when Jesus was dying on the cross and crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34) he was doing so because he was happy about the situation.  There were a lot of emotions going on sure, but I bet anger was one of them.  He was Human, after all.


I know they're not right, silly CAThulu. It irritates me, however, when they tell me to fear God. God is Love, not Fear. That is how I was taught and that is what I will always believe, regardless of how angry I am at him.



Enwon said:


> Oh yeah they had furry gods, didn't they?  I also remember learning about their afterlife- how they preserve the body so that the person can make a long, treacherous journey to be judged by the gods.  If the gods are pleased with the person and feels they have done good, they let the person pass into the afterlife.  If not, then I think one of the gods eats the person's heart or something... I don't really know.  I learned about this stuff in social studies class a long time ago.


You mean like the God Anubis? I think that one was my favorite to learn about in social studies (What was this? Eighth grade? Something like that).

I do believe Anubis was the God that dictated the fate of souls, sort of like a God of the Underworld. Or wait, there was another God for that. He was also the God of mummification and death, if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT: Osiris is who I was thinking of as God of the Underworld. Wasn't she Anubis' mother?


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Actually, it was based on how much a person was satisfied with what they did with their life. If they thought they did enough to help others and improve the world, their heart was light enough to let them into heaven. If they were sufficiently useless and lazy or worse malicious, they got fed to Anubis's pet *lionhippodile*.



*LOL*  I bet his egyptian name actually means that too.

There were spells and answers to questions that they needed to know along with the feather test, if I'm not mistaken.   Or the Book of the dead would be as long as a toilet paper square


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

REFERENCE CHEAT SHEET FOR EGYPTIAN DEITIES!


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Oh, and remember, kids--

Book of the Dead: Gives life.
Book of the Living: Takes life.

Didn't you see _The Mummy_? :V (Actually, that movie was pretty accurate)


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

A non belief isn't a belief, Ruhk. Just like an empty basket isn't thought to be full of 'non-apples'.

If you can prove to a real atheist that God exist, they will say "ok, I believe now." You can't, because you don't have a solid grasp on logic and rationale. And you keep repeating things from sources that are themselves easily contestable.


Anyways, this demiurge thing is a neat idea. I've heard of it, but I've never read into it myself. I've also always just assumed God was imperfect anyways. He would otherwise be much better at communicating with us if he was perfect.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *LOL*  I bet his egyptian name actually means that too.
> 
> There were spells and answers to questions that they needed to know along with the feather test, if I'm not mistaken.   Or the Book of the dead would be as long as a toilet paper square


 
It actually depended a lot on how expensive your funeral was. People still needed money in the afterlife, apparently.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yet you are doing evil by saying God doesn't exist. And your definition of evil is not God's definition of evil.
> 
> The Bible is the word of God.
> 
> ...


 
I am not doing evil by saying your god doesn't exist. That is what it says in your bible, and that is what you believe, but it holds no baring on me. 

God's definition of evil is...I dunno, "funny". In that he _is_ evil by default. Being he created it, and/or allows it to happen.

I don't need your damned bible versus. *You can't prove the bible with the bible*, and ipso-facto, can't really justify your beliefs, because you immediately point back to the bible. And like I said before, circular-arguments. Just because a book says it's true, doesn't mean it is true. If your god said the book is true, that doesn't make it true, and *especially* if the book says, that your god says, that the book is true - Doesn't make it true. I could list many, many things, but the important things are above.

Again, no need for bible quotes (just like above). The universe does not point to the existence of a god. You can start drawing connections, but then you are no more than on the level with conspiracy theorists. Even in that bible quote, it does not explain anything. It basically says: "everything is here, therefore god". That is not how things work.

Also - Are you touched in the head? How does this even make sense to you?:

"Atheism is to be ... without belief" therefore: "This is a belief". You obviously do not realize they are complete opposites. Adding the prefix "A-" onto something inverses it's properties. Atypical, not typical. Amorphous, not morphous. Asocial, not social. Atonal, to be without tone. In no way can you say that any of these similar-phrased words can do the same thing you are trying to say Atheism does. Atypical means 'not typical', but by your definition, it would mean that it is typical? Atonal means 'to be without tone', therefore X is tonal? This is exactly what you're saying. 

And yes, you have closed your mind upon "The Truth" which is a wonderful title, but sadly, is not a descriptive term.

NO need for bible verses. You can't prove what you're saying, or disprove what I'm saying, with the bible. Now stop rehashing the same shit, and you should go be closed-minded elsewhere.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf:

We all agreed to stop answering Rukh and we're talking about Egypt now, because we want to remain sane and anger free.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Let's discuss ancient egypt, since that seems pretty popular with furries these days.



I even did my own Anubis and posted it today but hardly anyone saw it cuz the site's fucked :-(



Enwon said:


> Oh yeah they had furry gods, didn't they?  I also remember learning about their afterlife- how they preserve the body so that the person can make a long, treacherous journey to be judged by the gods.  If the gods are pleased with the person and feels they have done good, they let the person pass into the afterlife.  If not, then I think one of the gods eats the person's heart or something... I don't really know.  I learned about this stuff in social studies class a long time ago.



What I've never understood about the Egyptian belief system is we're told that "they" weren't literalists, as in "they" didn't believe the gods really looked the way they depict them in their art or even had a physical form, etc, but who are "they" and how do they determine this? Like, I could see the priesthood knowing full well the pantheon and the stories about them aren't really real, and the average salt of the earth Egyptian being a fervent believer. If our own social and religious hierarchy is any indication, that is.



CAThulu said:


> I doubt when Jesus was dying on the cross and crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34) he was doing so because he was happy about the situation.  There were a lot of emotions going on sure, but I bet anger was one of them.  He was Human, after all.


 
That's another thing. This belief that because God was perfect, Jesus was perfect. Do they even question what the hell exactly happens when an omnipotent being comes in the form of a mortal? They say he was one and both at the same time, which for an omnipotent being I suppose can be true, but _come on_, I don't think an omnipotent being, if he was going to walk the earth as a normal person, being born and raised as a baby and everything would do any less than to go full human, unaware of his origins/power, or even really having them. Don't ask me why, because I don't really know why I think that.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *reads, and facepalms*


 
So, what part of that didn't you understand? God chooses us. We don't choose Him. Christ says He draws us to Him. God gives us faith. Its not from us. Scripture is clear on this.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It actually depended a lot on how expensive your funeral was. People still needed money in the afterlife, apparently.


 
And food, slaves, clothing, jewelry, guards... Pharoah's servants were sometimes buried with him to serve him in the afterlife.  How's that for a promotion O_O


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> And food, slaves, clothing, jewelry, guards... Pharoah's servants were sometimes buried with him to serve him in the afterlife.  How's that for a promotion O_O


 
Now there's some people who really follow through with their faith, unlike most christians these days. I'm not really sure what they planned to do in the afterlife when the supplies dried up, I think it might have been something like the further you get the nicer things are, but you have to stop when you run out of goods.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Now there's some people who really follow through with their faith, unlike most christians these days.


 
I'm not sure all of them were willing :v


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> And food, slaves, clothing, jewelry, guards... Pharoah's servants were sometimes buried with him to serve him in the afterlife.  How's that for a promotion O_O


Hey, the journey to the afterlife was taken very seriously back then. All those things were, to ancient Egyptians, a huge must in order to ensure that the great leaders of their time received all the riches they could as a reward for their hard work. I think that's cool, though. (Not the part where the servants were buried with them, but you know what I mean) 

Even beloved pets were buried with the Pharaohs. Dogs, cats, birds, even lizards. It's quite interesting. Sick (that people and animals had to die), but interesting.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

They were mummified with mask so their spirits could find their body and collect all their spirit riches to take into the afterlife, apparently. It's something like that anyways.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I even did my own Anubis and posted it today but hardly anyone saw it cuz the site's fucked :-(



I clicked your paw under your avatar, and it works fine.

Nice linework, btw.  I like the abs especially 



Wolf-Bone said:


> That's another thing. This belief that because God was perfect, Jesus was perfect. Do they even question what the hell exactly happens when an omnipotent being comes in the form of a mortal? They say he was one and both at the same time, which for an omnipotent being I suppose can be true, but _come on_, I don't think an omnipotent being, if he was going to walk the earth as a normal person, being born and raised as a baby and everything would do any less than to go full human, unaware of his origins/power, or even really having them. Don't ask me why, because I don't really know why I think that.


 
That's why I don't believe the bible tells the full story.  There's info that was omitted for this or that reason (either being deemed heretical by the church or the ruling king, or the stories didn't add up, etc).   I don't think that it's outside of the realm of possibility that a deity can be born with the full knowledge of who and what he is.  But we're not gods, so we don't know.  That's like an ant trying to understand what humans are motivated by. ^_^


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> 1) I hope I get a chance to check it out some time.
> 2) Yeah but be careful, it doesn't even cooperate with me half the time.
> 
> 
> ...




Oh really, We are not told to be addicted to God? Again you are wrong. Scripture says to be slaves to Christ. To decrease in yourself, your wants, your desires. And Increase in Christ. You die to yourself in order to live in Christ. You are not to question the authority of God. You dare say to question His omnipotence? 
I know there are flaws in me. But I am not saying what I think or want. Its nothing about me. Its what God says. Its what His Word says. Second, don't ever try and say Christians are not to preach for God. Christians are to stand for Christ at all times. Not just when we feel like it. But even at the times when society doesn't like it. Maybe you should go read Timothy, or Idk, the rest of Scripture. Remember the Great Commission? Or how about when Christ says be fishers of men.
Second. I will not speak for me. I don't do for me anymore. I do for God. You have no idea nor understand what I do. Nor do you know what God has called for me to do.



Second, you say you believe in God. Yet didn't you say you don't believe His Word? You cannot  seperate the 2. If you say His word isn't true, then you are calling God a liar. Understand?
And if you say you believe, you sure don't act like it. You act like everyone else in the world. You conform to the world. Why? If you believe then you should know you are not of this world? 
Go and read James (my favorite book in Scripture) James says it best: 
James 4:4
You adulterous people,  donâ€™t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God?  Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an  enemy of God. 

If you claim to follow Christ. Then act like it. Not just when you feel like, but all day every day. Prove it that you follow Christ. Don't just talk the talk (even though you don't) But actually live out your faith. Being a Christian doesn't stop at the doors exiting the Church. Its just the Beginning. Being a Christian is all or nothing. There is no such thing as halfhearted faith, or lukewarm Christianity. Christ calls us to be either hot or cold. For He says those who are lukewarm He will spit out of His mouth.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

God would be a perfect liar.

That's actually a messed up, but entirely interesting concept.


----------



## Monster. (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> God would be a perfect liar.
> 
> That's actually a messed up, but entirely interesting concept.


I have to agree, but, uh, please just ignore the creature vomiting nonsense in that corner over there. He'll eventually tired himself out and fall asleep.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Shit, I'm trying to resist posting to Rukh just avoid having the fallacious bible, and it's quotes, thrown at me.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> God would be a perfect liar.
> 
> That's actually a messed up, but entirely interesting concept.


 
Please refer to the demi-urge story from the previous pages.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Oh yeah they had furry gods, didn't they?


>:[

They are not furries.



Heimdal said:


> God would be a perfect liar.
> 
> That's actually a messed up, but entirely interesting concept.


I don't know about that... Everything god said will be the truth. God is incapable of lying.

. . .

That could be a flaw.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Radio Viewer said:


> I don't know about that... Everything god said will be the truth. God is incapable of lying.
> 
> . . .
> 
> That could be a flaw.



Well, which God are you talking about?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Mar 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well, which God are you talking about?


The Abrahamic one.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

Radio Viewer said:


> I don't know about that... Everything god said will be the truth. God is incapable of lying.
> 
> . . .
> 
> That could be a flaw.


 
He's either incapable of lying, or the perfect trickster. In which case, everything we know would be deceivingly wrong by his design.

This does intersect with demi-urge in a way, but I think the 'divine trickster' idea is a metaphysical concept of it's own. And not in a "I just thought this up now" way; I read it somewhere in a philosophy class.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 1, 2011)

Radio Viewer said:


> The Abrahamic one.


 
In his case, he has definitely lied to people in the bible, both directly and by proxy.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> mouthwords


 
Again, trying to keep it as simple as possible and not overcomplicate shit. You need to understand, _my_ God is a god of freedom. You can not be free and a slave at the same time. You can not be a slave to Christ because he dead, ya dig? When you live in Christ/God, you can't dead because God live. We're supposed to believe Jesus overcome dead? Yeah, okay, I can abide that, but part of why he "died" was so that I might live, and not be a slave. HIM a crucify for his people. It's like, where God is all things and fulfills the purpose of all the so-called "false" gods, it'd be like if Anubis had "died" and he's the god of dead, he'd probably do that to free all those slaves who are still slaves in the afterlife, take away the kings' power, level the playing field. Well to me, Jesus is my Anubis, the exception being that where he is The God, he is not really and has never been dead. Perhaps we don't see it now, but he broke the spell of death on _our_ behalf as well as his own. That's why he became us.

Another thing you need to remember, when Jesus said things like "take up your cross" to follow him, you need to understand, given the environment and the historical period, that was not just a metaphor. It was a very real consequence of being a Christian. It was not an _easy_ thing to be a Christian then, or to even call yourself a Christian. Nowadays, the only people who literally take up a cross do so voluntarily, to experience what Jesus did and better understand him, and the church tells them this is wrong because these people whose beliefs are largely still pagan/animist are closer to the true Jesus than they could ever be, both in their way of life and courage. I question if God would really want me to be put through that, but I also question if that's how strong my faith is, and it's a question I will probably never get to have answered, for better or worse. You should ask yourself the same.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Sorry for the double post but I'm about to have a nice long hot shower and imagine Anubis, my girlfriend and maybe a threesome or something. So if I don't respond for a while, I've probably hurt myself. In the meantime, I'd like to copypasta something from R&R I think is semi-relevant to the topic. *drumroll*

God Hates *The Jews!*​
He must. Why else would they be secretly taking over the world and be so successful in Hollywood, which God also hates? It's a well-known fact that they're basically the original Scientologists, worshipping a false god from a false heaven, which _is_ real insofar as actually being *The Devil* from *Hell*. They don't even really believe in Hell the way we do, and God really hates them for that. Jesus came with his glistening teeth, perfect Aryan complexion and skeletal/cranial structure and glowing mane of blond hair, never showing the slightest hint of anger in his baby blue eyes. He was smiling and laughing when he threw the money changers over the top rope out of the temple, because _they were Jews_ and it was akin to you flicking a pesky vermin that snuck into your house out the front door. That's why they were so mad at him. That and calling them out on their Devil worship. 

You learn things when you read my posts.

What say you, Rukh?


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Another thing you need to remember, when Jesus said things like "take up your cross" to follow him, you need to understand, given the environment and the historical period, that was not just a metaphor. It was a very real consequence of being a Christian. It was not an _easy_ thing to be a Christian then, or to even call yourself a Christian.



Correct me if I'm wrong, I may be missing some more specific data here.

Back in that time, initially, people were allowed to believe anything they wanted. It wasn't an issue unless the beliefs openly contradicted/called into question the primary state belief. Like, if the ruler of the area believed in the '7 Bearded Goddesses', and some Christians came around shouting "It's all lies! There's only 1 God!" You can predict what was going to happen. There's a certain 'victim of their own stupidity' thing going on there.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> He's either incapable of lying, or the perfect  trickster. In which case, everything we know would be deceivingly wrong  by his design.
> 
> This does intersect with demi-urge in a way, but I think the 'divine  trickster' idea is a metaphysical concept of it's own. And not in a "I  just thought this up now" way; I read it somewhere in a philosophy  class.


This demiurge and divine trickster thing is new to me. They're interesting though.



Mojotech said:


> In his case, he has definitely lied to people in  the bible, both directly and by proxy.


Ah well, that's true I suppose.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, I may be missing some more specific data here.
> 
> Back in that time, initially, people were allowed to believe anything they wanted. It wasn't an issue unless the beliefs openly contradicted/called into question the primary state belief. Like, if the ruler of the area believed in the '7 Bearded Goddesses', and some Christians came around shouting "It's all lies! There's only 1 God!" You can predict what was going to happen. There's a certain 'victim of their own stupidity' thing going on there.


 
Well certain Christians were going to preach a little more loudly and harshly than others, and the persecution became more overt afterwards partly because of that and partly for other reasons, which I think Jesus probably saw coming. He was pretty damn perceptive if nothing else.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

How 'bout that Council of Nicaea? Where _they_ decided that Jesus and God were one, and that Jesus was God's son. Then the next Council decided that the Holy Spirit is the same as the other two, making a trinity. The third one (maybe fourth) they decided that if you didn't follow their law/creed/whatever, then you were to be shunned and deemed a heretic. The next one started splintering the Christians into different sects, a later one defined Jesus to be of more than one will, and the one after that decided that this early/pre-Christian system was too Paganistic (woops). :v 

These were all during the time that the Bible started coming into existence (or parts of it at least), and some of the councils didn't always agree with past ones either. A truly fun affair, that mere humans decided what was to be in the Bible, and what/who Jesus was.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> How 'bout that Council of Nicaea? Where _they_ decided that Jesus and God were one, and that Jesus was God's son. Then the next Council decided that the Holy Spirit is the same as the other two, making a trinity. The third one (maybe fourth) they decided that if you didn't follow their law/creed/whatever, then you were to be shunned and deemed a heretic. The next one started splintering the Christians into different sects, a later one defined Jesus to be of more than one will, and the one after that decided that this early/pre-Christian system was too Paganistic (woops). :v
> 
> These were all during the time that the Bible started coming into existence (or parts of it at least), and some of the councils didn't always agree with past ones either. A truly fun affair, that mere humans decided what was to be in the Bible, and what/who Jesus was.


 
Yeah, and ironically, it was around this time that originally pagan concepts were woven into Christianity, most likely directly from their native religions. With I don't think is _necessarily_ a bad thing, but for god's sake _call it what it is_...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Again, trying to keep it as simple as possible and not overcomplicate shit. You need to understand, _my_ God is a god of freedom. You can not be free and a slave at the same time. You can not be a slave to Christ because he dead, ya dig? When you live in Christ/God, you can't dead because God live. We're supposed to believe Jesus overcome dead? Yeah, okay, I can abide that, but part of why he "died" was so that I might live, and not be a slave. HIM a crucify for his people. It's like, where God is all things and fulfills the purpose of all the so-called "false" gods, it'd be like if Anubis had "died" and he's the god of dead, he'd probably do that to free all those slaves who are still slaves in the afterlife, take away the kings' power, level the playing field. Well to me, Jesus is my Anubis, the exception being that where he is The God, he is not really and has never been dead. Perhaps we don't see it now, but he broke the spell of death on _our_ behalf as well as his own. That's why he became us.
> 
> Another thing you need to remember, when Jesus said things like "take up your cross" to follow him, you need to understand, given the environment and the historical period, that was not just a metaphor. It was a very real consequence of being a Christian. It was not an _easy_ thing to be a Christian then, or to even call yourself a Christian. Nowadays, the only people who literally take up a cross do so voluntarily, to experience what Jesus did and better understand him, and the church tells them this is wrong because these people whose beliefs are largely still pagan/animist are closer to the true Jesus than they could ever be, both in their way of life and courage. I question if God would really want me to be put through that, but I also question if that's how strong my faith is, and it's a question I will probably never get to have answered, for better or worse. You should ask yourself the same.





Uhm, dude. Shall I get Scripture that completely throws your whole entire post to crap?

Matthew 6:24 Says you cannot serve 2 masters.

Romans 8:15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in  fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption  to sonship. And by him we cry, _â€œAbba,_Father.

You read that. When you fully, completely surrender your entire life to Christ. You become as Scripture puts it a slave.


1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is  in you, whom you have received from God? *You are not your own; you were bought at a price.* Therefore honor God with your bodies. 

As a Christian you were bought and paid for by Christ. Again, this points to being a slave to Christ.

Romans 6:18
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 
We are slaves to righteousness.


Romans 6:19
I am using an example from everyday life because of your human  limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity  and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to  righteousness leading to holiness. 

1Co 7:22-23
For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the  Lordâ€™s freed person; similarly, *the one who was free when called is  Christâ€™s slave.*  You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 

Now what? Scripture says the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Shall I go on, or is this enough for you to choke on yet?


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

Your scripture is wrong.

_Uh oh! Equally valid point! More scripture will show me!_


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm, dude. Shall I get Scripture that completely throws your whole entire post to crap?
> 
> *words*
> 
> ...


 
Dear gods you're a pompous asshole, aren't you?

_Please_ go away.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

You forget that a master can always set his slaves free. If God already owns us in the sense that he created us, what other reason would he have to "buy" us in the first place? I like how you don't even address the second part. Not the first time this has happened, IIRC...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Next he'll be calling it the Truth :v

Therefore if it says it's true, it is true. Especially if it says, that god says, that it's the "Truth".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You forget that a master can always set his slaves free. If God already owns us in the sense that he created us, what other reason would he have to "buy" us in the first place? I like how you don't even address the second part. Not the first time this has happened, IIRC...


 
And yet you can't even address the Scripture I showed you that points to those who truly follow Christ become slaves to Him.
And I didn't even get to the Scripture verse where Paul himself says he is a slave to Christ.

Rom 1:1-2
This letter is from Paul, *a slave of Christ Jesus*, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.  God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures.

And as for take up your cross and follow Christ. It means live for Christ at all times. It means if that means you will suffer for it, then so be it. As Jesus said, they will hate you because they hated Me.

You are not a follower of Christ, that much is clear. You doubt Scripture, in fact you say its not true. You do not believe in the True Living God, nor in the True Jesus. How much more Scripture needs to be shown to you to put massive holes in what you say?


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

This is making Christianity look really bad.

_You're all slaves? ..Because a book said so?_ _Well I'm sold!_


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> This is making Christianity look really bad.
> 
> _You're all slaves? ..Because a book said so?_ _Well I'm sold!_


 
We are all slaves. We were born into bondage and slaves to sin. So either way you are a slave. Either to sin or Christ Jesus. Its your pick.

Those who follow Christ have been bought and are not our own.  We can then die to â€œself.â€ And, let that part of us go.
Christians need to be always available and ready to serve our Master, who is God.
Christians We need to make sure we donâ€™t get caught up with trying to serve two masters. Its God or the world. One or the other. 
We are an ambassador for Christ.

When one completely surrenders all they are to Christ. This is were true freedom begins. And its in following Christ. At the level of a slave serving his master.


----------



## Icky (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh, I can honestly say that you have given me even more of a negative opinion of Christianity.

Why can't you just realize that _you can't win this_?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet you can't even address the Scripture I showed you that points to those who truly follow Christ become slaves to Him.
> And I didn't even get to the Scripture verse where Paul himself says he is a slave to Christ.
> 
> Rom 1:1-2
> ...


 
I don't follow it blindly like like you do because _it is flawed_. It was flawed the moment it was committed to paper in the language of mortals and became even more flawed as parts were edited, added and omitted piecemeal at the whims of overgrown *children* trying to live out their own subconscious fantasies of godhood. I might as well call a Sonic and Ninja Turtles crossover fanfic my "scripture". At least that would have more honest intentions. I've already walked in the footsteps of Jesus as much as a man in my position can. I've given money to the poor, listened to their troubles, tried to help where I could and in many cases got nothing for it but _grief_. I left my *adopted* family, home and virtually all of my possessions behind to this, and for the most part, my hand was forced in the decision to do that though I more or less "wanted" to. I was separated from my true father, and didn't even have the benefit of knowing my true *mother*. The only thing I haven't done is get nailed to a cross, something if a struggling artist from England could do, I'm pretty sure I could muster up the courage to do after going through a longer and more agonizing surgery and rehab, plus carrying a back injury around for about a year while holding down a full-time job. A relatively safe and short albeit extremely painful ritual doesn't seem all that bad compared to the rest of my life. 

Put it in fucking perspective for fuck's sake.


----------



## Conker (Mar 1, 2011)

Oi Rukh, since you're here and all. I'm working on a take home exam for my RLST class. I need three examples of "[FONT=&quot]New Testament cultural moral structures and their incongruencey on todayâ€™s Christian landscape." I think he wants us to find them in 1 Corinthians, but that shit is long and I don't want to read reread it. Care to help me out? :3 

I got one, about how women can't speak in church but now they do. So I need two more.
[/FONT]


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We are all slaves. We were born into bondage and slaves to sin. So either way you are a slave. Either to sin or Christ Jesus. Its your pick.
> 
> Those who follow Christ have been bought and are not our own.  We can then die to â€œself.â€ And, let that part of us go.
> Christians need to be always available and ready to serve our Master, who is God.
> ...


Slavery is the path to freedom?

Somehow, that fails the common sense test.

And what about the third option?  - the person who refuses to conform to either religion or the world, and instead decides to be an individual with their own set of ideas and beliefs?  You know, the person that owns themselves?


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> This is making Christianity look really bad.
> 
> _You're all slaves? ..Because a book said so?_ _Well I'm sold!_


 

Relevant


----------



## Jashwa (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Relevant


 Nice 3000th  reply to the thread.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't follow it blindly like like you do because _it is flawed_. It was flawed the moment it was committed to paper in the language of mortals and became even more flawed as parts were edited, added and omitted piecemeal at the whims of overgrown *children* trying to live out their own subconscious fantasies of godhood. I might as well call a Sonic and Ninja Turtles crossover fanfic my "scripture". At least that would have more honest intentions. I've already walked in the footsteps of Jesus as much as a man in my position can. I've given money to the poor, listened to their troubles, tried to help where I could and in many cases got nothing for it but _grief_. I left my *adopted* family, home and virtually all of my possessions behind to this, and for the most part, my hand was forced in the decision to do that though I more or less "wanted" to. I was separated from my true father, and didn't even have the benefit of knowing my true *mother*. The only thing I haven't done is get nailed to a cross, something if a struggling artist from England could do, I'm pretty sure I could muster up the courage to do after going through a longer and more agonizing surgery and rehab, plus carrying a back injury around for about a year while holding down a full-time job. A relatively safe and short albeit extremely painful ritual doesn't seem all that bad compared to the rest of my life.
> 
> Put it in fucking perspective for fuck's sake.



And you know what. None of those things matter because you don't believe. It doesn't matter how much of a "good" person you are. Good works don't get you to heaven. You cannot save yourself. In fact, you don't choose. God chooses you.

If you were a true believer you would know your true Father is God.

If Scripture is flawed, then how do you know God is real? I mean, how do you get to choose which parts are true and which are not? If one part isn't true, then other parts must not be true. If you start down that path, where does it end? It ends, when you completely throw out Scripture and walk away from the true God. It ends with apostasy and unbelief. Thats where what you are doing will end.
Don't you get it? If one part of Scripture isn't true, then none of it is. Its all or nothing. either its all true or its all false.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Slavery is the path to freedom?
> 
> Somehow, that fails the common sense test.



Kind of like how the lack of a belief, is somehow, a belief. xD


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Slavery is the path to freedom?
> 
> Somehow, that fails the common sense test.
> 
> And what about the third option?  - the person who refuses to conform to either religion or the world, and instead decides to be an individual with their own set of ideas and beliefs?  You know, the person that owns themselves?



Trust me, it makes sense. Its when you give up yourself that you find yourself in Christ. 

As for your question about that person. To put it bluntly, it leads to death.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We are all slaves. We were born into bondage and slaves to sin. So either way you are a slave. Either to sin or Christ Jesus. Its your pick.



Nope. Our perspectives and internal conflicts are not exactly the same. I am not a slave to any metaphysical ideas. Your subjective thoughts that I am are just that, subjective. They apply only in your own mind, and hold no bearing on me.

What kind of twisted human being would dedicate their belief into _being a slave_ anyway? That's just disturbing.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Nice 3000th  reply to the thread.


 
Coincidence?  Or divine intervention?


----------



## Enwon (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Trust me, it makes sense. Its when you give up yourself that you fins yourself in Christ.
> 
> As for your question about that person. To put it bluntly, it leads to death.


But does not everything eventually lead to death?  Or do you mean it in a different sense?


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> But does not everything eventually lead to death?  Or do you mean it in a different sense?


 
He means a second, Spiritual Death.  The 'gift of God is Eternal Life', while rejecting Christ means 'Death', or eternity in hell.

_sincerely, your english-churchspeak translator _


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> But does not everything eventually lead to death?  Or do you mean it in a different sense?


 
The death I spoke of for that person in your example is the 2nd death. Its the death that awaits those at the day of judgment. And Christ leads to life. Nothing else does. Everything else leads to death.


----------



## Jashwa (Mar 1, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Coincidence?  Or divine intervention?


 Coincidence. There is no such thing as divine intervention.


----------



## Icky (Mar 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Trust me, it makes sense. Its when you give up yourself that you find yourself in Christ.


 
Uh, yeah. Bending over and submitting to an imaginary friend with a book written about him doesn't really sound like a good time, so I'm just gonna leave the thread now. I'd advise you all to do the same.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 1, 2011)

Enwon said:


> Slavery is the path to freedom?
> 
> Somehow, that fails the common sense test.
> 
> And what about the third option?  - the person who refuses to conform to either religion or the world, and instead decides to be an individual with their own set of ideas and beliefs?  You know, the person that owns themselves?


 


CAThulu said:


> Relevant


 
I think these two things go well together. Slavery _can_ be a sort of path to freedom/redemption. The assumption being that at some point, you win, work towards, fight for or otherwise earn your freedom. In the case of God, it's safe to assume that's whenever he's set you free. The way I see it, he's "enslaved" us to our obvious and not so obvious limitations, chief among them the inherent inability to comprehend him. That's just a task to be overcome. It manifests in one group of barely Christians having to oppose another group of barely Christians to earn the man-made concept of a right to be barely Christian without having fucking dogs sicked on you, or thrown to the lions, or whatever. But no, slavery is only freedom in Newspeak. You know, that eldrich abomination of the English language that makes the most banal, obscenity laced neo Nazi skinhead music sound biblical in comparison. Observe...

[yt]1IjZpPToGOg[/yt]


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you know what. None of those things matter because you don't believe. It doesn't matter how much of a "good" person you are. Good works don't get you to heaven. You cannot save yourself. In fact, you don't choose. God chooses you.


 If God is the one who chooses us to go to heaven, then getting there is completely outside of our control. We can only believe in him if he chooses us. If he doesn't choose us, then were fucked, at least by that logic. 

Now, stop being annoying and help me with my homework >:[


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The death I spoke of for that person in your example is the 2nd death. Its the death that awaits those at the day of judgment. And Christ leads to life. Nothing else does. Everything else leads to death.


 
So we should sacrifice our _1st Life_ in order to avoid _2nd Death_.

This is starting to make sense in some mentally deranged way.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Nope. Our perspectives and internal conflicts are not exactly the same. I am not a slave to any metaphysical ideas. Your subjective thoughts that I am are just that, subjective. They apply only in your own mind, and hold no bearing on me.
> 
> What kind of twisted human being would dedicate their belief into _being a slave_ anyway? That's just disturbing.


 
Wrong. Scripture is quite clear we are born into bondage. We are all born slaves to sin. If you don't believe in Christ and follow him, you are a slave to sin. And the Law applies to everyone.

I dedicate myself to Christ, in that I will do whatever He asks of me. I may not like some of it, I may not understand all of it. But I must obey. To know God is to know our obedience is due to Him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Conker said:


> If God is the one who chooses us to go to heaven, then getting there is completely outside of our control. We can only believe in him if he chooses us. If he doesn't choose us, then were fucked, at least by that logic.
> 
> Now, stop being annoying and help me with my homework >:[


The only freedom you have is to choose. And you have 2 choices. God, or the world.
Now, God being God lives in the past present and future. But God is outside of time. He isn't "seeing" into the future. He is already there. He already knows what we are going to do, because He is watching us do it right now. We are a totaly depraved people. We can't save ourselves. Only God can.
Now, what you bring up is basically predestination and the elect. Which is Biblical teachings. The fact of the matter is as God says "I have mercy on those I have mercy on and compassion on those I have compassion on. Remember, not one person including myself deserves to be saved.

Here is an example. A man walks up and gives 5 people out of 20, money. Will the other 15 be upset? Probably. Should they be? No. It was a free gift. They were not owned anything, nor did they deserve anything. God chooses who He chooses following His plan and will. I don't understand why, I just know. I don't know His will/plan.





Heimdal said:


> So we should sacrifice our _1st Life_ in order to avoid _2nd Death_.
> 
> This is starting to make sense in some mentally deranged way.


 
Well, this life is finite and we all will die. Our souls are eternal. So, why wouldn't it be worth it to sacrifice our temporary life to gain eternal life in heaven?


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wrong. Scripture is quite clear we are born into bondage. We are all born slaves to sin. If you don't believe in Christ and follow him, you are a slave to sin. And the Law applies to everyone.
> 
> I dedicate myself to Christ, in that I will do whatever He asks of me. I may not like some of it, I may not understand all of it. But I must obey. To know God is to know our obedience is due to Him.


 
No, you're still wrong. I pointed out that I don't adhere to your metaphysical idea, and yet you went right back to saying I have to. My thoughts are not at the mercy of your thoughts. This is a simple concept.

You can believe whatever you want, but stop making this about yourself. Your thoughts aren't superior simply because you've convinced yourself they are. That you don't allow for different perspectives is a sign of a massive ego.



> Well, this life is finite and we all will die. Our souls are eternal.  So, why wouldn't it be worth it to sacrifice our temporary life to gain  eternal life in heaven?



I'm just going to focus on avoiding 4th and 5th Death. That's when it really starts getting iffy.


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The only freedom you have is to choose. And you have 2 choices. God, or the world.
> Now, God being God lives in the past present and future. But God is outside of time. He isn't "seeing" into the future. He is already there. He already knows what we are going to do, because


 You just said like two fucking posts ago that God chooses you. Nice backpeddling bro. I no longer want you to help me with my homework, you're kind of stupid.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 2, 2011)

Er, Rukh:  Trying to scare people with a Boogie-Man "Death, for real guyz" doesn't work.  We've gone over this in the thread before:  Nothingness isn't something terrifying.  Fuck, I'd take nothingness over an eternity in a Utopia.

Now, because of this:  Time until Rukh changes "Death" to either be a "Nothingness" that can be perceived (in which case, not nothingness) or "I really meant hell," meaning all the times it was said people who don't go to Heaven aren't insta-damned are lies.


Also, glad to see we're back to the good ol' case of implied "Christianity goodness is worth more than non-Christian goodness."


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Conker said:


> You just said like two fucking posts ago that God chooses you. Nice backpeddling bro. I no longer want you to help me with my homework, you're kind of stupid.


 
I used to be a christian...and I come from a large family of believers with 2 current pastors.  Anything I can help with?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> No, you're still wrong. I pointed out that I don't adhere to your metaphysical idea, and yet you went right back to saying I have to. My thoughts are not at the mercy of your thoughts. This is a simple concept.
> 
> You can believe whatever you want, but stop making this about yourself. Your thoughts aren't superior simply because you've convinced yourself they are. That you don't allow for different perspectives is a sign of a massive ego.


 
You can believe whatever you want. But it still doesn't change the fact you are under the Law. Denying the existence of God does not mean He doesn't exist.
This has nothing to do about me, Everything I do, is for God. I serve Him alone. These are not my thoughts nor my words. Its God's word. Not my thoughts, not my will. But His.
I don't allow for falsehood. Same as Christ didn't. If its false, its false, I will not be vague in my answers. I will speak what Scripture says.




Conker said:


> You just said like two fucking posts ago that God chooses you. Nice backpeddling bro. I no longer want you to help me with my homework, you're kind of stupid.


 
I didn't backpeddle. God is in control. He already knows who chooses Him and who won't. Its called Predestination. But just because God already knows your choice, it doesn't take away that you still get to choose. He just already knows which one you will make.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the  image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many  brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom  he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also  glorifiedâ€ (Romans 8:29-30).                                                

You want a full explanation of Predestination and the elect, go here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2133679/


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And you know what. None of those things matter because you don't believe. It doesn't matter how much of a "good" person you are. Good works don't get you to heaven. You cannot save yourself. In fact, you don't choose. God chooses you.



It's not you who decides if they matter, it's God. In his reality, the decision is already made at some point in the future. In mine, I'm still waiting on that decision. I'm a hell of a lot less fearful of the outcome than you are. Probably because despite your illusions, my faith is stronger, thanks to both my understanding of reality is self-reinforcing and my own amazement that some of the things I've experienced haven't completely broken me or my beliefs.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> If you were a true believer you would know your true Father is God.



Oh, that's comforting news. No wonder I'm sort of looking forward to my date with the cross and nails if/when that happens. Well that and the fact I most likely wouldn't actually _die_, just come out stronger/stranger like everything else that happens to me. But y'know, petty details.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> If Scripture is flawed, then how do you know God is real?



The same way I'm not really all that afraid of God's theoretical, impending Final Judgment. I'm not sure I fully understand Socrates' famouse quote "I think, therefor I am", but _I think_ it sorta relates to that as well as your emphasis on God "choosing" or not choosing me. If I am aware, I exist, and if I exist, God has chosen me insofar as I'm here, in his world or on some plane of it, and as far as I can tell, even if everything isn't the way it should be from my perspective, it's the way it should be from God's perspective, at least for now. I think some people call that faith and/or hope. I'm a pretty peaceful "angry" person and a pretty optimistic "non-believer", you've got to give me that.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I mean, how do you get to choose which parts are true and which are not? If one part isn't true, then other parts must not be true.



I don't. My point is that neither do others of my kind, otherwise known as mortals or as Bill & Ted call them, Dead Salad Dressing Dudes, no matter how long ago they lived or knew for their time. God may very well have revealed his "word" to our ancestors, but they tampered with it, and so it can not be trusted fully, if _at all_. I patiently await the day God calls time out and rectifies that though because it's a load of crap.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> If you start down that path, where does it end? It ends, when you completely throw out Scripture and walk away from the true God. It ends with apostasy and unbelief. Thats where what you are doing will end.



No, ends when I become one with God, which started after I went through my "atheist" phase already, and began to realize if I'd abandoned anything, it was that Demiurge we were talking about. Though I'm still wary of it these days, since really all I'd known and subsequently discarded to begin with were my feeble childhood illusions. It's hard to let go of your last, best imaginary friend, but they're always there in your mind, just in a much less threatening capacity. I think it's best for both parties.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Don't you get it? If one part of Scripture isn't true, then none of it is. Its all or nothing. either its all true or its all false.


 
Wrong. Unfortunately, humans are _exceptionally talented_ at weaving elaborate, near-nonsensical fabrications and constructs and leaving just enough an element of truth in there to entice you into willing (or unwilling) suspension of disbelief. It's incredibly insidious, how it works its magic (or sorcery), long after we think we've overcome it. As Inception puts it better than anything in our culture, the hardest thing to destroy is _an idea_. Once it's there, it's there, and can really only be buried. So don't worry, Rukh, I'll probably never truly abandon my old fashioned, child-like, whimsical Sunday school beliefs, no matter how hard I want to.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wrong. Scripture is quite clear we are born into bondage. We are all born slaves to sin. If you don't believe in Christ and follow him, you are a slave to sin. And the Law applies to everyone.



Gee you sure do love to use the word *bondage*. There something you trying to tell us, Rukh? Look, where I'm built like a tank and you're basically a scarecrow with skin stretched over it like some kind of medieval Terminator, let's meet each other half way. I'll carry the cross, you bring the nails, or ropes or cuffs and ballgags, whatever your bag is, I'm down. But please, _please_ can we do this one scene I've always wanted to do? It involves an Anubis costume and a giant ankh.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2011)

You guys all also heard of the 'lost' Gospels that were excluded from the Testaments :v? Thomas, Peter, and such? The Gospel of Peter (orated in Christian churches pre-Bible) is quite graphic, like how fags _and_ lesbians are forced to the edge of a high cliff by angels, *and repeatedly forced off the edge for eternity*. You hit the bottom, and it starts over again. 

And women who have abortions are kept neck-deep in a lake of blood and guts from all the eterneral punishments going on (like blasphemers hung by their tongues and such), while attacked by the spirit of the unborn child by means of throwing fire into their eyes. 

I can see why it was removed from the big B :v


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I used to be a christian...and I come from a large family of believers with 2 current pastors.  Anything I can help with?


 Na. It's mostly just me being super lazy. I'm okay with asking Rukh to do it because he's a slave or some shit, but I've too much respect to ask others to do research for me :3


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Conker said:


> Na. It's mostly just me being super lazy. I'm okay with asking Rukh to do it because he's a slave or some shit, but I've too much respect to ask others to do research for me :3


 
*laughs*  Okay then ^^;.  I'll give you a site anyway which I've found immensely useful in finding verses using keywords, phrases, or by chapter and verse.
http://www.biblegateway.com/


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You guys all also heard of the 'lost' Gospels that were excluded from the Testaments :v? Thomas, Peter, and such? The Gospel of Peter (orated in Christian churches pre-Bible) is quite graphic, like how fags _and_ lesbians are forced to the edge of a high cliff by angels, *and repeatedly forced off the edge for eternity*. You hit the bottom, and it starts over again.
> 
> And women who have abortions are kept neck-deep in a lake of blood and guts from all the eterneral punishments going on (like blasphemers hung by their tongues and such), while attacked by the spirit of the unborn child by means of throwing fire into their eyes.
> 
> I can see why it was removed from the big B :v



It could be that reason.  Or it could be that the book didn't have enough verses that didn't honour God enough (trufax!).  It could also be to up in the air about authenticity, or apocryphal, or many, many other reasons that are too numerous to name.  

The current bible took centuries to pull together because of this.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2011)

And if you ever want to look up by specific issue I find www.skepticsannotatedbible.com handy, even if it's KJV only.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You guys all also heard of the 'lost' Gospels that were excluded from the Testaments :v? Thomas, Peter, and such? The Gospel of Peter (orated in Christian churches pre-Bible) is quite graphic, like how fags _and_ lesbians are forced to the edge of a high cliff by angels, *and repeatedly forced off the edge for eternity*. You hit the bottom, and it starts over again.
> 
> And women who have abortions are kept neck-deep in a lake of blood and guts from all the eterneral punishments going on (like blasphemers hung by their tongues and such), while attacked by the spirit of the unborn child by means of throwing fire into their eyes.
> 
> I can see why it was removed from the big B :v


 
*Why?!* Dude, I _jerk off_ to shit like that! I mean fuck, you got like your epic scene from 300 at least 100 years before it even happened IRL which is pretty amazing, then it repeats for eternity, which is sorta like the myth of Sisyphus (lol spellcheck thought I meant "biophysics"), meets Groundhog Day meets Terminator, and then some epic bondage and sadism there. They probably removed it cuz all the 13 year old scribes got woodies reading it and couldn't concentrate on transcribing it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You guys all also heard of the 'lost' Gospels that were excluded from the Testaments :v? Thomas, Peter, and such? The Gospel of Peter (orated in Christian churches pre-Bible) is quite graphic, like how fags _and_ lesbians are forced to the edge of a high cliff by angels, *and repeatedly forced off the edge for eternity*. You hit the bottom, and it starts over again.
> 
> And women who have abortions are kept neck-deep in a lake of blood and guts from all the eterneral punishments going on (like blasphemers hung by their tongues and such), while attacked by the spirit of the unborn child by means of throwing fire into their eyes.
> 
> ...



It wasn't removed. It was never put into the Bible. And that is because  its not Scripture. There was a 3 part test during the early church for  if books were Scripture or not.
1) centered on Christ, 2) accepted by the Christian church body, and 3)  written by an apostle (or someone near to them). If any of these  criteria were not met, the book was excluded.

Hence why we have these so called "lost books" of the Bible. Those books did not meet the criteria. They are not Scripture.

Here are direct answers to both books and why its not Scripture.

http://carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-peter-belong-in-the-new-testament
http://carm.org/questions-about-the-gospel-of-thomas


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You can believe whatever you want. But it still doesn't change the fact you are under the Law. Denying the existence of God does not mean He doesn't exist.
> This has nothing to do about me, Everything I do, is for God. I serve Him alone. These are not my thoughts nor my words. Its God's word. Not my thoughts, not my will. But His.
> I don't allow for falsehood. Same as Christ didn't. If its false, its false, I will not be vague in my answers. I will speak what Scripture says.



I don't believe you. In fact, you are literally lying. Those are your words because you are saying them. It's your thoughts because you are thinking them. It's your will because you are allowing it.
To think otherwise is to imply that you have seen into God's mind, that you have understood God's thoughts like they are your own. You might as well be worshiping yourself, because your perspective is handled as if you are speaking from God's mouth.

This has everything to do with you and ego. You don't allow different perspectives because you think you are God in mind... and then live in a contradiction of believing you aren't actually God in literal instances.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

That's right, Rukh, don't even reply to anything I said because you can't refute it without going LOLBibble. Anubis frowns on you. Yeah, see the way he's got his nose turned up? You may be turned on now.


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Even if we could prove God to be real, it wouldn't matter. No one would change; moreover, we'd still have to interpret what he says (like we do now with the Bible). IT'S ALL SOME SRSBSNS BULLSHIT GUYS


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It wasn't removed. It was never put into the Bible. And that is because  its not Scripture. There was a 3 part test during the early church for  if books were Scripture or not.
> 1) centered on Christ, 2) accepted by the Christian church body, and 3)  written by an apostle (or someone near to them). If any of these  criteria were not met, the book was excluded.
> 
> Hence why we have these so called "lost books" of the Bible. Those books did not meet the criteria. They are not Scripture.
> ...


 
Anything written by Matthew should still be Scripture, yes? :3


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

prostate prosecute prostrate yourself before the one true jackal god of erotic snuff and bondage, and call ye forth O droplets of virgin spunk! k, Rukh that's your call. pretty sure no one else here is a vergin :-(


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> That's right, Rukh, don't even reply to anything I said because you can't refute it without going LOLBibble. Anubis frowns on you. Yeah, see the way he's got his nose turned up? You may be turned on now.


 
I didn't respond because I was responding to another post. And I already have responded to you. You are not a follower of Christ. Your posts admit it as much. Your basing it on what you want, what you think, and what you like.  You won't become one with God. We are not God and we cannot be Him. Secondly you don't believe. And to put it as blunty as Scripture does itself. If you don't confess your sins, lay them at the feet of Jesus and believe He is Lord and Savior, then the only thing you will become one with is hell and eternal punishment. And the thing that really sucks, is, those who are damned to a 2nd death won't complain, because they will at that point have to full knowledge of what they have done. And they will live with that knowledge for eternity. That is the only thing you have to look forward to as a un believer.

Scripture is perfect. That is a fundamental, essential part of Christianity. To deny God's Word is to deny God. You cannot seperate the 2. Furthermore, by suggeting that Scripture has been tainted, you are suggesting that God is not all powerful. Why would God allow HIS WORD to be tainted? Doesn't make any sense. You want His word to be tainted so you can keep on doing what you do.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Anything written by Matthew should still be Scripture, yes? :3


 
yeah, but if it doesn't meet the other two criteria then it gets panned by The Powers That Be That Decide This Shit (TPTBTDTS)


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Anything written by Matthew should still be Scripture, yes? :3


 
I think it might work like one of those fighting games where you gotta win 2 out of 3 rounds unless you enter the right code when purple Satan pops out the corner and goes _"Toa_-stee!" And even then only if you beat the second to final apostle with nothing but low kicks. They weren't fucking around when they came up with the rules for that system.


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh: doing converting more people to atheism than Christianity since...whenever the fuck he started posting on this shit forum :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Anything written by Matthew should still be Scripture, yes? :3


 
The Gospel of Matthew is Scripture. As I said, it passed all 3 tests. The book of Thomas wasn't even written during the time of Christ. Something many people don't realize, is that the Bible was finished around 70AD right before the fall of Jerusalem.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Conker said:


> Rukh: converting more people to atheism than Christianity since...whenever the fuck he started posting on this shit forum :V


 
I think this sums it up nicely ^_^


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

Conker said:


> Rukh: doing converting more people to atheism than Christianity since...whenever the fuck he started posting on this shit forum :V


 
I don't convert anyone. If anything I force people to either be Hot or Cold. Either you follow Christ, or you don't. Lukewarm isn't an option.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I don't convert anyone. If anything I force people to either be Hot or Cold. Either you follow Christ, or you don't. Lukewarm isn't an option.


 
Well, you've certainly done a damn fine job in turning people cold.


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I don't convert anyone. If anything I force people to either be Hot or Cold. Either you follow Christ, or you don't. Lukewarm isn't an option.


 My splooge is lukewarm therefore it is an option >:[


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Well, you've certainly done a damn fine job in turning people cold.


 
I didn't make people do anything. I can't really force people (bad word choice I guess), nor will I to do anything.  But I show people either they are Hot or Cold. They already were cold.
I don't redeem people. God does. I don't change people, God does. And to further peoples discussions. I don't harden peoples hearts. God does.

And with that I am going to bed, I work tomorrow.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I don't convert anyone. If anything I force people to either be Hot or Cold. Either you follow Christ, or you don't. Lukewarm isn't an option.


 
You're forcing me to be pretty hot right now. I mean with this body? I don't blame you, but dude, don't beat around the bush about it. Also, Lukewarm isn't an option? Tell that to my coffee. I've microwaved it three times today. Also, you never replied to my other stuff about... Wait what was it about? It was pretty hot. Yeah, that's hot.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I didn't make people do anything. I can't really force people (bad word choice I guess), nor will I to do anything.  But I show people either they are Hot or Cold. They already were cold.
> I don't redeem people. God does. I don't change people, God does. And to further peoples discussions. I don't harden peoples hearts. God does.
> 
> And with that I am going to bed, I work tomorrow.


 
No, you cannot force people, but your words can affect how people make decisions.   The only thing you show them is your ego disguised as righteousness, and that's really sad since in the hands of the right person, Christianity is really a beautiful religion.

God does not harden peoples hearts, or no one would call on him.  Only people can do this to each other, and you have done this in spades on this thread.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> God does not harden peoples hearts, or no one would call on him.  Only people can do this to each other, and you have done this in spades on this thread.


 
Don't give him undue credit. He's a fucking neophyte. His kind are a dime a dozen and he wouldn't seem like that big a deal on this forum if he wasn't basically just a big fish in a small pond. Anyway, this thread is now about Anubis. Sexy, fucking magnificent Anubis.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Gospel of Matthew is Scripture. As I said, it passed all 3 tests. The book of Thomas wasn't even written during the time of Christ. Something many people don't realize, is that the Bible was finished around 70AD right before the fall of Jerusalem.


 
There's stuff written by Matthew that _didn't_ make the final cut, though.  My favorite among them: at one point while Mary and Joseph were fleeing King Herod into Egypt, they must spend a night in a cave, only to find it's infested with dragons.  Everything's okay though, because the infant Jesus stands before them and the dragons bow their obeisance to him and let them stay the night.

Surely this was excluded in error? :V


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Don't give him undue credit. He's a fucking neophyte. His kind are a dime a dozen and he wouldn't seem like that big a deal on this forum if he wasn't basically just a big fish in a small pond. Anyway, this thread is now about Anubis. Sexy, fucking magnificent Anubis.



Good point.   

Wait...Why do we indulge his arguements again?

Right. Yes.  ANUBIS!


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> God does not harden peoples hearts


 
Well, the Pharaoh might have a point of contention with you there.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Good point.
> 
> Wait...Why do we indulge his arguements again?
> 
> Right. Yes.  ANUBIS!


 
i'm genuinely interested in what he'd say to some of my questions and ideas, but the thing is, i don't think he's ever really even acknowledged them because they're completely foreign to him. which doesn't exactly put him in the minority, but is disappointing nonetheless. seriously, i'd be totally up for anyone telling me "you're crazy, and this is why", but they never do, or at least do good with the "why" if they even bother.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Well, the Pharaoh might have a point of contention with you there.



*laughs*  Bazinga  



Wolf-Bone said:


> i'm genuinely interested in what he'd say to some of my questions and ideas, but the thing is, i don't think he's ever really even acknowledged them because they're completely foreign to him. which doesn't exactly put him in the minority, but is disappointing nonetheless. seriously, i'd be totally up for anyone telling me "you're crazy, and this is why", but they never do, or at least do good with the "why" if they even bother.


 
I think your questions and ideas scare him.  I know it scares a lot of christians to contemplate that their faith isn't based on history but myth, and that it's _okay_.  But he's full of anger right now, and that's not someone you want telling you about Jesus; no more then you want an angry atheist telling you about Christianity.  Both instances will give you loads of misinformation.   His answer that God chooses who enters heaven was a really good tell that he doesn't know the answers, but likes to pretend that he does.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I think your questions and ideas scare him.  I know it scares a lot of christians to contemplate that their faith isn't based on history but myth, and that it's _okay_.  But he's full of anger right now, and that's not someone you want telling you about Jesus; no more then you want an angry atheist telling you about Christianity.  Both instances will give you loads of misinformation.   His answer that God chooses who enters heaven was a really good tell that he doesn't know the answers, but likes to pretend that he does.


 
sometimes i think he might be sorta coming up with stuff on the spot and then using select quotes from the bible to rationalize it after the fact. but really, i'd prefer jesus tell me about jesus which is why i sometimes go to the edge of insanity trying to induce transcending experiences and shit. or i was until a salvia smoking, stream of conscious speaking crazy baldhead shot up a political rally probably because his own experiences convinced him to.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

Transcending experiences when not guided by someone who's done it successfully before (an elder, shaman, etc) can be pretty dangerous, either for the self or for others.  It's why I don't do it; there are too many risks.   I prefer epiphanies through observation and meditation.  It may not sound as exciting, but the 'A-Ha!' moments that come across can be pretty powerful.  And there's no cotton-mouth afterward  

However, I'm having enough of those experiences while dreaming, since the mind tends to process and make sense of given information while one is asleep.  Which probably explains that one nightmare of being in a church full of people happily singing hymns filled with hate and violence.  

I want more dreams of anubis, dammit.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It wasn't removed. It was never put into the Bible. And that is because  its not Scripture. There was a 3 part test during the early church for  if books were Scripture or not.
> 1) centered on Christ, 2) accepted by the Christian church body, and 3)  written by an apostle (or someone near to them). If any of these  criteria were not met, the book was excluded.
> 
> Hence why we have these so called "lost books" of the Bible. Those books did not meet the criteria. They are not Scripture.
> ...


 
Aye yeah, I actually just reread what I added in at the end there - I was meaning to say it wasn't added to the bible, not removed from X/ My bad. 

Gospel of Thomas has sayings of Jesus, Thomas was an apostle, but I guess it doesn't fit that last category of pleasing ze humans, thus presumably voted out by said fallible humans. That CARM website claims it was written or what have you around 200AD, when it's closer to 50, than 200.

Gospel of Peter (NOT the Gnostic one) written ~60-100AD contains direct conversations with Jesus, and details the crucifixion. Though it varies a bit from the other 'accepted' gospels in some areas. It was also a fairly common/wide-spread piece in its day and age of early Christianity. 

Though I'm finding it more amusing that you're so willing to demonize humans as imperfect, but when they decide something shouldn't be a part of the bible, some wording should be changed in the bible, or what have you - it's perfectly okay xD. 

Also - Tacked that on the end of your quote from a previous statement you made - Claiming your God exists doesn't mean he exists, as well. It works both ways.

I'm not sure 100% if it's known, but _written_ doesn't not necessarily mean _origin_. Something _written_ in 100AD could've very well be practiced and preached since early AD, but copies were never made, or any earlier copies crumbled to dust.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 2, 2011)

*Sees another post to Rukh, even though he's not here*

On that note, I'm off to bed.  Have a good night everyone.   Wolf-Bone, it was a pleasure talking with you, as always  *salutes* ^^;


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Transcending experiences when not guided by someone who's done it successfully before (an elder, shaman, etc) can be pretty dangerous, either for the self or for others.  It's why I don't do it; there are too many risks.   I prefer epiphanies through observation and meditation.  It may not sound as exciting, but the 'A-Ha!' moments that come across can be pretty powerful.  And there's no cotton-mouth afterward
> 
> However, I'm having enough of those experiences while dreaming, since the mind tends to process and make sense of given information while one is asleep.  Which probably explains that one nightmare of being in a church full of people happily singing hymns filled with hate and violence.
> 
> I want more dreams of anubis, dammit.


 
you ever smoke pot, close your eyes and for me it only ever lasts a few seconds at most, but like, literally see something epic? not a dream, way too realistic to be that, often not absurd enough either. like if you were watching on old film reel, it'd be grainy and not anything really based on obvious memories, but otherwise perfectly believable and self-consistent.

my best/worst dream lately is a movie where justin bieber plays a young barack obama, in blackface, including scenes of him smoking pot and/or hallucinating, with that version of "u smile" slowwed down 800% playing during those scenes. also when he's having genuine visions of the future. the being in a church hearing happy hateful songs is common for me too, or at least stuff along the same lines.

any time i dream of anubis, he's usually syncretized with jesus and/or some other equally insanely powerful deity. anubis being crucified on an ankh, yeah, still trying to understand what that "message" was all about.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *Sees another post to Rukh, even though he's not here*
> 
> On that note, I'm off to bed.  Have a good night everyone.   Wolf-Bone, it was a pleasure talking with you, as always  *salutes* ^^;


 
I've been writing that for the past hour, fuck you >/ I am trying to be as accurate as I can.


----------



## BRN (Mar 2, 2011)

> *Denying the existence of God does not mean He doesn't exist.*



Claiming he does does not mean that he must.


----------



## kayby (Mar 2, 2011)

Okayyy... check it
My dad's devout protestant
He found out I'm bisexual (doesn't know I'm furry)
Because it's "against his religion" I'm perverted, unnatural and disgusting.


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

kayby said:


> Okayyy... check it
> My dad's devout protestant
> He found out I'm bisexual (doesn't know I'm furry)
> Because it's "against his religion" I'm perverted, unnatural and disgusting.


Paul uses all three of those words in his letter to the Romans regarding Pagans and their homosexual actions :[

One of the questions for this exam was to write up a sex ed document using Romans as our main source. Yup, that was an essay question. Writing that made me feel bad, because I don't agree with any of it. 

And they call the Bible the "good book" more bad shit happens and comes of that book than anything else ever written >:[


----------



## Cain (Mar 2, 2011)

Well, I'm an atheist, and have no interest in this religion crap. Pretty much alot of terrorisim is due to religion. Damn, the world would be so much better if everyone were just atheist


----------



## kayby (Mar 2, 2011)

I get that. To be fair i just try to explain that, if my dad's god made me in His own image, and that He is perfect then clearly i am too. Also that no matter what dad thinks of me, his God loves me unconditionally anyway according to the bible and stuff, no matter what he says. Hating's wrong in the bible isn't it? that jesus got angry at the people for hating on the prostitute.
So, the conclusion: my dad's opinions suck


----------



## KingdomBlade (Mar 2, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Well, I'm an atheist, and have no interest in this religion crap. Pretty much alot of terrorisim is due to religion. Damn, the world would be so much better if everyone were just atheist


Um, no, people are still going to find excuses to do horrible things weather religion is involved or not.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:


> Um, no, people are still going to find excuses to do horrible things weather religion is involved or not.


 
There is no quota of suffering that humanity will adopt random causes to inflict it for until it is met.  There is also a significant amount of suffering that is a direct result of religious belief, for which there is no secular reason to cause it.  Thus, a widespread abandonment of religion in favor of a new age of rationality would end an appreciable amount of human suffering in the world.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Mar 2, 2011)

If people are going to use religion as their excuse to mindlessly protest against people, kill them, or what the heck ever, they are probably the kind of people who would do that kind of thing regardless. Idiots are still going to find a way to be idiots even when there's nothing really wrong. Not that I'm trying to excuse their actions in the least, of course.


----------



## BRN (Mar 2, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:


> If people are going to use religion as their excuse to mindlessly protest against people, kill them, or what the heck ever, they are probably the kind of people who would do that kind of thing regardless. Idiots are still going to find a way to be idiots even when there's nothing really wrong. Not that I'm trying to excuse their actions in the least, of course.


 
But out of the group you're talking about, the few that are psychopaths still need motive to kill, and the rest that are deluded would have been deluded by that religion.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Mar 2, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Well, I'm an atheist, and have no interest in this religion crap. Pretty much alot of terrorisim is due to religion. Damn, the world would be so much better smug if everyone were just atheist


 
Based upon?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> There is no quota of suffering that humanity will adopt random causes to inflict it for until it is met.  There is also a significant amount of suffering that is a direct result of religious belief, for which there is no secular reason to cause it.  Thus, a widespread abandonment of religion in favor of a new age of rationality would end an appreciable amount of human suffering in the world.


 
I'd just like to point out there's nothing rational about a dictator planning on using the Air Force to attack his own people who are protesting his government.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 2, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *laughs*  Bazinga
> 
> 
> 
> I think your questions and ideas scare him.  I know it scares a lot of christians to contemplate that their faith isn't based on history but myth, and that it's _okay_.  But he's full of anger right now, and that's not someone you want telling you about Jesus; no more then you want an angry atheist telling you about Christianity.  Both instances will give you loads of misinformation.   His answer that God chooses who enters heaven was a really good tell that he doesn't know the answers, but likes to pretend that he does.



Angry? No. I feel pity. For you and others who don't know the Truth. Nowhere in there is anger. And as for wolf-bone. He hasn't asked me any questions that were not laced with some veiled insult. I answer questions. I may miss some because the thread is moving fast, or I choose to ignore some people because they are not really asking questions. They just want to vent and argue. I try and answer all legitimate questions directed to me. Hence why, I have in other threads, extended to people to offer of talking with me via pm. As me any questions you want. And to those that have, they know I respond to every question they ask.

Wold-Bones thoughts don't scare me. Not at all. In fact I can call him out right now. He doesn't hold to anything. He picks and chooses and changes at whim to whatever suits his fancy. He has nothing solid to hold onto.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Well, the Pharaoh might have a point of contention with you there.


 No. Pharaoh was just jelly that there was someone mightier than he that his slaves were listening to.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He picks and chooses and changes at whim to whatever suits his fancy. He has nothing solid to hold onto.


 
Says the guy who's first post on the forum was "I am shaking with rage." and then tries to play the "u mad" card. And also argues that all christians need to do is believe in christ when it suits him but then putting all the ones who don't adhere to your particular interpretation of the bible as not christians. Who ranted against gay people while having gay cub porn in his favorites. Among many other self contradictions.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He doesn't hold to anything. He picks and chooses and changes at whim to whatever suits his fancy. He has nothing solid to hold onto.



Kind of sounds like the people that we were discussing about earlier, who decided what goes into the bible.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 2, 2011)

Wait, did Rukh actually say that atheism is a belief? FUCKING SERIOUSLY? Is bald a hair color now?


----------



## Conker (Mar 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Angry? No. I feel pity.


I PITY THE FOOL THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN MY FAIRY TALES

Your holier-than-thou attitude hurts you more than the drivel you spew. 

Just figured you should know that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 2, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Wait, did Rukh actually say that atheism is a belief? FUCKING SERIOUSLY? Is bald a hair color now?


 
Rukh has said many such things. This is not the first and it won't be his last.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh has said many such things. This is not the first and it won't be his last.


 
Broken record, anyone?


----------



## Tycho (Mar 2, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Wait, did Rukh actually say that atheism is a belief? FUCKING SERIOUSLY? Is bald a hair color now?


 
It's "blank".  :V


----------



## Aleu (Mar 2, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Broken record, anyone?


 it explains his circular logic too.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 2, 2011)

I see you guys are still having fun trying to use logic against blind faith in a similar manner to throwing tomatoes at a tank.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 2, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I see you guys are still having fun trying to use logic against blind faith in a similar manner to throwing tomatoes at a tank.


 
It'll stink pretty bad once the heat hits it! Ha-HA!


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 2, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I see you guys are still having fun trying to use logic against blind faith in a similar manner to throwing tomatoes at a tank.


 
It gives us something to do. Besides, we still need to examine and apply our own logic to break down his lack thereof. It's not a total loss, for us at least. If he shows up again in this thread tonight though I probably won't humor him this time. I've had my fill for the next several months, I think.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 2, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I see you guys are still having fun trying to use logic against blind faith in a similar manner to throwing tomatoes at a tank.


 
A really stupid tank with no guns that only turns right and is stuck in reverse, manned only by a Downie screaming NUH UH at the top of his lungs sitting in the gunner's seat.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 3, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> It gives us something to do. Besides, we still need to examine and apply our own logic to break down his lack thereof. It's not a total loss, for us at least. If he shows up again in this thread tonight though I probably won't humor him this time. I've had my fill for the next several months, I think.


 
Rukh flat out refuses to engage actual logic though, because he's really only here to preach and not engage in a true exchange of ideas.  I've poked at his theology a bit out of curiosity, but I can't say to have really learned a damn thing from him.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Rukh flat out refuses to engage actual logic though, because he's really only here to preach...


 
Which is ironic, since he claims he doesn't care what we do/believe/say.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> I PITY THE FOOL THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN MY FAIRY TALES
> 
> Your holier-than-thou attitude hurts you more than the drivel you spew.
> 
> Just figured you should know that.


 

Yeah, I'm not even answering that.  That's the last person I need pity from, and definitely not his kind.  Like Wolf-Bone, I've had my fill of Rukh to last me for a while.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 3, 2011)

He is very black and white, and I can't help but consider both of those sides. If he's right, then most of the world is totally fucked. If he's wrong, then his brain is one big scary mess. Either way is a horrible perspective.

If his sense of guilt came from humility, he wouldn't be projecting this guilt on everyone else. Just consider, in a scenario where God definitely doesn't exist, where would his conviction be from? His own ego. His ego is so massive and screwed up that he has not only convinced himself of guilt, ideas of slavery, that he is incapable of fixing any imperfections with his own power, but that he 'knows' we all have these same issues. It's a very disturbed mental masochism, and I wouldn't care so much if he wasn't trying to drag other people into it too.

This is similar with a lot of religious fanatics, and it's a scary thought to try to understand.

On another note, while I sit on the fence about a lot of religious ideas, I find it exceedingly likely that a God would make multiple equal paths to the same salvation. If there is a God, of course. I mean, a 'Perfect city planner' would design a grid with many different paths to reach the same destinations. One single winding road, full of road blocks, contradicting signage, and branching dead-end paths, is not the work of anything perfect.


----------



## Conker (Mar 3, 2011)

Someone linked this on another forum I frequent

http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1118



> In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise  newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor  H. Dam proposed the name â€œvitamin Kâ€ for the factor in foods that helped  prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is  responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as  prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin  deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth  through the seventh days of the newborn maleâ€™s life that vitamin K  (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate  quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood  coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and  McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a  newborn infant has â€œpeculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the  second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often  inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious  damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from  shock and exsanguinationâ€ (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if  vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five  through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time  after that. But why did God specify day eight?
> 
> *On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normalâ€”and is the only day in the maleâ€™s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions*.  If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it.  Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below,  patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None  of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.
> 
> ...



Whatcha make of that guys? :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> Someone linked this on another forum I frequent
> 
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1118
> 
> Whatcha make of that guys? :V


 
Either co-incidence, or people finding this out earlier by trial-and-error and subsequently claiming that the "right" time was determined by divine instruction...

... assuming that involuntary genital mutiliationcircumcision for non-medical reasons is a positive thing in the first place, which I really don't agree with - the infant has in no way given their consent to the procedure, and is in no position to understand the significance of the act. 

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned finding the correct time to mutilate infant genitalia so it's safe for them is akin to finding the optimal time to rape a woman so she doesn't get pregnant.


----------



## Conker (Mar 3, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Either co-incidence, or people finding this out earlier by trial-and-error and subsequently claiming that the "right" time was determined by divine instruction...
> 
> ... assuming that involuntary genital mutiliationcircumcision for non-medical reasons is a positive thing in the first place, which I really don't agree with - the infant has in no way given their consent to the procedure, and is in no position to understand the significance of the act.
> 
> Frankly, as far as I'm concerned finding the correct time to mutilate infant genitalia so it's safe for them is akin to finding the optimal time to rape a woman so she doesn't get pregnant.


Agreed, but the person who posted that link is going on and on about how science is accidentally proving the Bible to be correct. It's depressing.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> On another note, while I sit on the fence about a lot of religious ideas, I find it exceedingly likely that a God would make multiple equal paths to the same salvation. If there is a God, of course. I mean, a 'Perfect city planner' would design a grid with many different paths to reach the same destinations. One single winding road, full of road blocks, contradicting signage, and branching dead-end paths, is not the work of anything perfect.


 
This is essentially my point of view.  I consider myself Catholic, but mostly just because if I decide to attend mass, more often than not it's a Catholic church.  Just feel more comfortable seeing a bunch of Italian and Irish people.

In any case, I don't think that God favors one people.  It doesn't make sense to me that one group of people has the answer completely right.  I'd like to believe that if God does indeed exist, he judges you more on the content of your character rather than how you chose to worship.  And if I'm going to believe in a just and loving God that would only make sense, wouldn't it?

Maybe I'm just in the minority here.  I believe in evolution, the Big Bang, and have faith that science will lead us to some pretty great advances in the medical field and our understanding of how the universe functions.  But I also have some degree of spirituality in my life that likes to believe there's something bigger out there.  By no means does this play a huge part in my daily life.  But I have a grandparents in their 70s who I love dearly and I'd like to think there's something waiting for them after they pass on.  Call me ignorant or childish, but it's just the way I feel about the issue.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> Agreed, but the person who posted that link is going on and on about how science is accidentally proving the Bible to be correct. It's depressing.


 
First step with biblical literalists claiming science to be in their corner is to always, always check the science, for it is so regularly in error.  I don't know much about prothrombin (anything, really), but I did look up S.I. McMillan's book.  From it's amazon.com page's top review (it had no synopsis):



> The remedy for many diseases such as *leprosy, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, heart attacks, strokes,* and  mental breakdowns are all in the "Book of books," if man would  only take  the time to read the Word.


(emphasis mine)

Credibility shot to hell, I say.


----------



## Conker (Mar 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> First step with biblical literalists claiming science to be in their corner is to always, always check the science, for it is so regularly in error.  I don't know much about prothrombin (anything, really), but I did look up S.I. McMillan's book.  From it's amazon.com page's top review (it had no synopsis):
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> ...


Good point. I never thought to do that. I think even Dawkins mentions that a bit to, that when religious people claim science, they are doing the science wrong. You'd think people who claim to be morally superior because they are following Jesus Christ wouldn't twist facts around so much :\

I believe in a different argument on a different message board, some religious person was going off on how horribly wrong and inaccurate carbon dating is, mentioning examples of religious scientists getting different results with the method. Someone said they were doing the carbon dating process wrong, and that that's why they were getting such results. I didn't go into any of the examples, but it seemed at least plausible to me.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 3, 2011)

Conker said:


> Agreed, but the person who posted that link is going on and on about how science is accidentally proving the Bible to be correct. It's depressing.


 
One word.

Fossils.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 3, 2011)

I don't really follow any religion, but I'm leaning towards buddhism. I'll still eat meat though. I'm an agnostic/atheist/determinist. COnfucian and buddhist morals seem to make alot of sense to me so I think I'll start to follow some of that.

Oh, and I also see science as a fundamental thing of the universe. Science can be a sort of religion, I guess (string theory anyone--it takes faith to believe in that).


----------



## BRN (Mar 4, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> Science can be a sort of religion, I guess (string theory anyone--it takes faith to believe in that).


 
I take it you're not too educated on string theory, but science is just a set of logical principles that define the universe.
For dogma to be religion requires three things; promised absolution, faith in a power, and tasks its members to convert others. Scientology is a religion, whereas academia is just knowledge.
Also, without String Theory, your universe doesn't work. It was the 'black hole information paradox' that brought about its birth; without it, the laws of thermodynamics are broken, which would be catastrophic for all of our understanding of science. It's silly to call something you've not researched a faith.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 4, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Maybe I'm just in the minority here.  I believe in evolution, the Big Bang, and have faith that science will lead us to some pretty great advances in the medical field and our understanding of how the universe functions.  But I also have some degree of spirituality in my life that likes to believe there's something bigger out there.  By no means does this play a huge part in my daily life.  But I have a grandparents in their 70s who I love dearly and I'd like to think there's something waiting for them after they pass on.  Call me ignorant or childish, but it's just the way I feel about the issue.


That's fair.

IMHO, I think some spirituality can ease the outside troubles of this world. I also find that it has a certain beauty to it, if we would like to possess some greater identity with our struggles and successes in this world. I also hope that my grandparents have something waiting for them. The afterlife might not exist at all, but it's something that works for me.


----------



## Nyxneko (Mar 4, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> One word.
> 
> Fossils.


 
One word.

Flood.

^_^


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 4, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> One word.
> 
> Flood.
> 
> ^_^



*laughs*  Nice *G*.

One problem though; there's more then one flood story.   Pick your favourite!  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html


----------



## Nyxneko (Mar 4, 2011)

It had to be said, you were practically begging for it.

Either way, I'll take the '40 days and nights' special to go, I obviously chose the wrong time to look at this thread ;P


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 4, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> It had to be said, you were practically begging for it.
> 
> Either way, I'll take the '40 days and nights' special to go, I obviously chose the wrong time to look at this thread ;P


 
The creationist explanation of "lol flood" does not really hold water though.


----------



## Conker (Mar 4, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The creationist explanation of "lol flood" does not really hold water though.


 I don't hate the flood story because of lack of evidence or because it's basically an impossibility. No, I hate it because God, who gave us all free will, got pissed that we weren't worshiping him correctly (he gave us the free will to do that) and KILLED EVERYONE but a small family of people. 

Yup, he's a deity I really want to worship -_-


----------



## CrazyLee (Mar 5, 2011)

Oooo goodie, guess what I got from Netflix today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_on_Trial

I would think that Rukh should watch it as well, but it actually requires questioning your own religion and beliefs, which is what the Jews in this movie do. I don't know if he'd be able to truely question his own religion they way they do.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 5, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Oooo goodie, guess what I got from Netflix today.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_on_Trial
> 
> I would think that Rukh should watch it as well, but it actually requires questioning your own religion and beliefs, which is what the Jews in this movie do. I don't know if he'd be able to truely question his own religion they way they do.


 
Just what Rukh needs, more fuel for his inevitable collapse into a singularity of antisemitic hate. "The Jews" are *questioning* God! You know what Rukh thinks of anyone questioning God! And remember, they questioned Jesus too!


----------



## Aleu (Mar 5, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The creationist explanation of "lol flood" does not really hold water though.


 I see what you did there :B


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 7, 2011)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110307/wl_nm/us_china_npc_tibet
News story.

Here's my two cents before this gets started again, "GO FUCK YOURSELF CHINA".


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 26, 2011)

How does anyone feel about that bullshit from extremists "HOMOS R GOIN TO HELL LOLLOLOLL" I hate those assholes...
I may be a christian, but if im going to hell for being Bi thats just fucking retarded


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 26, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> How does anyone feel about that bullshit from extremists "HOMOS R GOIN TO HELL LOLLOLOLL" I hate those assholes...
> I may be a christian, but if im going to hell for being Bi thats just fucking retarded


 
If you would read through the first few post then your answer will beat you in the face as it should.


----------



## Azure (Mar 26, 2011)

Oh god no. Send this shit away to the depths of hell.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Mar 26, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I see you guys are still having fun trying to use logic against blind faith in a similar manner to throwing tomatoes at a tank.


 


Tycho said:


> A really stupid tank with no guns that only turns right and is stuck in reverse, manned only by a Downie screaming NUH UH at the top of his lungs sitting in the gunner's seat.



SIG'D!


----------



## Xipoid (Mar 26, 2011)

Thread is closed unless someone can convince me otherwise.


----------

