• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Whining and complaining that the website are scientific is not addressing anything.

I did not say they were scientific

Find me a study made by those authors. You have yet to do so. So you have addressed nothing.

I have already told you that if it were facts I was using then I would, however, as it wasn't I have not.

Heck you linked a newspaper and a blog thinking these were studies.

No I have not. I made it clear that they were examples to show the possibility that God writes upon the hearts of men. You are lying.

How dumb can you get?

And, as usual, your need for ad hominem is made obvious yet again.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
If and only if you can avoid getting a concussion from banging your head on the desk.

Why avoid it. If my only achievement here is to accomplish that, then my presence here has been vindicated. It may knock some of your bitter and twisted hatred for Christians out of your head.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Why avoid it. If my only achievement here is to accomplish that then my presents here has been vindicated. It may knock some of your bitter hatred for Christians out of your head.

You should read more on Heart Math. They claim a person can wind parts of their own DNA from 1/2 mile away. So telepathy?!They cite people "willed" it to happen.... Really...

You Can Change Your DNA
http://www.vitality-living.com/resources/Modulation_of_DNA.pdf

How gullible can one get?

I have no hatred of Christians since my family are Christians. However none make the claims you do. They are intelligent enough to spot a scam.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I did not say they were scientific



I have already told you that if it were facts I was using then I would, however, as it wasn't I have not.



No I have not. I made it clear that they were examples to show the possibility that God writes upon the hearts of men. You are lying.



And, as usual, your need for ad hominem is made obvious yet again.

Actually you complained that I am rejecting science.

The articles, although scientific in nature

I have inserted an asterisk by the word "heart" and another by the scientific article

Psuedo science. Neurologist Dr. Andrew Amour and Dr. Rollin McCraty of the HeartMath Institute are psuedo scientists, are they? OK. That statement on its own exposes more about who you are then maybe you would like.

In reality they are both experts in their relative field who have support from the good majority of other prominent scientists in those field

I was showing that the scriptures that claim that God writes on our hearts are now being confirmed by science

You are obviously not familiar with these recent discoveries, like the following article demonstrates, so all I am doing is educating you on developing scientific findings.

Why are you refusing to accept known scientific research.


You get the point. Hilarious. Either you have memory or reading comprehension issues. You could be lying which I think is more likely. Heck you link Heartmath's faq saying they do scientific research thereby claim their work is scientific. Keep dig that hole you are in by contradicting yourself in the form of damage control.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
So you're admitting to being a troll. Somehow, I don't think anyone is surprised.

If I was admitting to being a troll I would say "I am a troll". I didn't say that so I am not admitting to it. Basic logic. So sad when your intellect does not even reach the basics. No wonder you failed at being a Christian.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
If I was admitting to being a troll I would say "I am a troll". I didn't say that so I am not admitting to it. Basic logic. So sad when your intellect does not even reach the basics.
You should read more on Heart Math. They claim a person can wind parts of their own DNA from 1/2 mile away. So telepathy?!They cite people "willed" it to happen.... Really...

You Can Change Your DNA
http://www.vitality-living.com/resources/Modulation_of_DNA.pdf

How gullible can one get?

I have no hatred of Christians since my family are Christians. However none make the claims you do. They are intelligent enough to spot a scam.


I did not say that you had hatred for Christians, I said Cephus does, and he does, demonstrated by his hate filled bigoted blog site.

What claims do you think I make?

If your family are Christians then they must be pretty disappointed with their wayward son. But there again there are many people who call them self's christians but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Of them God says.

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

That is why your family do not make the same claims as I do. Their teaching are for doctrines the commandments of men mine are the doctrines and commandments of God. But again I recognise the hidden ad hominem in your post. You really are quite unpleasant and disagreeable. You just seem quite incapable of posting anything without being obnoxiously rude and caustic.
 
Last edited:

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I apologize for my absence. I do have a life outside of the internet that required my attention. ;)

Only if they are constrained by time. That is, that there is a set point for when Omega occurs. That is not the case so the end and the beginning are not determined by a predefined set of events. The are points of fluidity. Neither change in their outcomes or beginnings, but what goes on in between cannot be predetermined. Agency does not allow for that. During the Mosiac Law there may have been a degree of predetermination, however, when the Abrahamic Covenant was introduced, during the beatitudes, the doors where swung open on Agency and predetermination bowed out graciously. It was at this point that the law of the land began to separate from religion, which was a kick in the groin for the Sanhedrin.

Within the structure of all of this talk, we are limited in our understanding of time and space - I think we both agree on that. In your first seven words you, you attest to that. Everything that we are talking about here is based on an IF that neither of us know. You have your convictions and educated guesses and I have mine - but the nature of substance of the thing that we are debating starts with the line "Only if they are constrained by time..." What if they are? That makes our explanations completely different, right?

My point was that the allusion to God being the Alpha and Omega could also be little more than an illusion.
If it's constrained by time, then it's something lesser than the creator of the cosmos. If it's not constrained by time, then what is it, exactly, that would cause an entity of that ilk to create 100 octillion stars, but only really bother with the political and social activities of some goat herders from a long long time ago?

They will be assimilated into the collective consciousness, kidding, but the process is not dissimilar. The spectator bench will still seem full though someone has left the stadium.it simple evens out and re adjusts itself. It is so very similar to quantum physics, or what we know about it.

I appreciate your attempt at including some scientific knowledge into your faith system.

Well yes, of course my life has change. Not to any notable degree, true, however, my knowledge base has increased to incorporate your views and opinions, even if I do not agree with them. The chemistry involved to accomplish that is now different.

I did not know that you, in particular, existed, however, I knew that people like you exist.

If you never respond to me again, which is more likely then not, I will be disappointed in not having a worthy opponent to bounce my opinions off and listen to your cordial opinions. But every debate has an ending.this one is getting there.

Will anything have changed? Yes, we are all effected by each others opinions. My thoughts and beliefs will have been effected by the knew knowledge that I have obtained. Will it change my current beliefs, unlikely, because the veracity of my personal epiphany is greater then the reality of your opinions and knowledge. It is rational and logical.

Firstly, thank you. I will admit that this is probably one of my more pleasurable conversations here on RF and I've changed my opinion of you from being a raving lunatic to someone of moderate intelligence. ;)

Regardless of how many words we share back and forth, we still won't ever know the true nature of each other's being, right? That's what I'm saying. We could go on and on in this debate for another 103 pages and still make no radical change to each others lives, such is the way of the internet. I honestly believe that the majority of the conversations that are had in this place serve more for the non-involved parties (the readers) than for the debate participants. That's sort of my prerogative when speaking to someone and it's one of the reasons that I try and make sure that everything that I say is supported, factual, and removed from my personal biases as much as possible. In that way, someone who is "seeking" (as you faithful call it) will have an opportunity to explore multiple facets of a belief system before diving in. As I've expressed before in regards to my opinion of your faith, it's your and yours alone. I don't wish to change you or "convert" you to atheism or anything. I just want to challenge ideas and statements that I believe are inaccurate. I do with you as I would do with anyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof. In the process, if my challenges to your own beliefs have caused you to research, or learn, or expand your knowledge in an area, even if that means strengthening your own faith, then I've sort of done my job. I'm an educator by nature and it would be against the core of my being to sway you in one particular direction just because I like it more...

It is my opinion that God in omniscient, that means, to know everything that can be known. If it cannot be known then he does not know it. I know that sounds like I am putting limits on God's ability, however, it does not restrict his omniscience in anyway.

Fate is essentially predetermination. I do not believe in predetermination or coincidences. Do you? Is are meeting here chance or do I or you need to hear something?

When I studied religion I always found the basic Calvinist argument of an omnipotent god to be the only one that could possibly make any sense if one were to prefer the religious persuasions. If a deity isn't omniscient and omnipotent, then it must be something less than a god. If the deity of choice isn't greater than the universe itself, then that would make it a construct of the universe, and thus part of something lesser.

I don't believe that you are placing limits on the ability of your god - I simply believe that omniscience must include things that we don't know can't be known. Within the confines of knowledge, the things which believers claim that god desires, decrees, etc must be logically infallible, or, again, they come from something lesser than deity.

The reason that I responded to you in the first place is that I believe the concept of a singular religion offering a plan of salvation that is to cover the whole of humanity, is an illogical concept based on exclusivity, that doesn't seem to make sense when read as an overarching parable spread throughout the whole of the Bible. If application of something is not consistent and permanent, then how can it be considered to come from an place that objective, and not subjective?

That is fine, however, there is also a proclaimed hidden code within the original text of the Bible that is pretty accurate in its predictions.

I would be careful when making claims like that because they are so easily debunked. When religion can make a falsifiable claim about the prediction of future events - interpreted before, and not after, the fact... well, then we'll have something to talk about.

For example, I'm specifically thinking about the destruction of the Temple during the sacking of Jerusalem. Many people will point to certain passages from the NT and claim that Jesus predicted this event. Again, those interpretations of those predictions happened after the fact and can be read posthumously and interpreted in any manner - similar to the back reading of Nostradamus using modern knowledge... That's not how it works. Had Jesus said, for example "Jerusalem will be sacked in 70AD and the Temple will be destroyed" and there was a copy of that claim written BEFORE 70AD...Again, then we could talk.

Even a repeated social experiment can be considered a sign of the time, however, when that culminates into a fully blown ascension of Christ, on clouds of glory, followed by a host of angels, we will know that those particular predictions immediately precedes the second coming. Everything else is just cyclical events in time and history. You could be forgiven in disbelieving the scenario of Jesus Christ coming in clouds of Glory where everyone in the world would see him at the same time. It seems far fetched until you consider the media and what it is capable of.

Even using this alternate interpretation, clouds cannot support weight... Maybe it's a metaphor - but still. How people of your faith actually literally believe that Jesus ascended into heaven on near weightless clouds, riding them like a blimp?

No, I am aware that if you have no perception of spiritual phenomenon and then to try and conceive it as a possible reality is difficult.

It's not like I've never tied. I've just never come to a more logical conclusion than people's interpretations being swayed by their preference and bias... I mean, Christians don't experience something that they've deemed supernatural and immediately attribute the phenomena to Allah and his prophet Mohammed, right? And vice versa. Isn't it interesting how someone's preferences seem to always confirm their beliefs....?

Yes, I am fully aware of what has been done in the name of Jesus Christ, however, that only makes those people self proclaimed Christians who act outside of God's authority. Remember that when the last disciple left this earth he took with him the Holy Priesthood after the order of the son of God. There is no authority on earth, at this moment in time, to act in the name of God. The times you refer to are the dark ages, the great apostasy, where evil men performed hideous atrocities in the name of Christianity giving it a name that it has never quite recovered from. So, when you say "religion made it a habit of just accepting things said by people who portray themselves as leaders and never think objectively or discerningly" the answer is yes, they do take what ever they are given, as demonstrated by recent changes in church policy that are contrary to the doctrine.

Unfortunately, the only evidence that non-believers have for the deity of a certain faith is through the actions of it's faithful... Ya know what I mean? If a store clerk walks up to you in full uniform and says something derogatory, or shameful, or idiotic - then everyone around that person is going to assume that those statements are at least somewhat taught in that establishment.

My conviction is based on a personal witness that was so strong that I cannot deny it, even at the point of death. That is the absolute truth to me.

I understand that it is absolute truth to you. What I'm questioning is whether or not it's objective truth.

As arrogant as it may sound, no, the same arguments that validate my faith does not work for those other people and their "other" gods? There is only one true God and that is the God of Christianity. All those who have not heard His word will be given that opportunity, whether in this world or the world to come, regardless of the conviction on earth.

Satan has been here since time began and has been deceiving the children of God ever since. He has set up institutions and organisation to distract us from gaining entry onto that straight and narrow pathway that leads to life eternal, exaltation. Now I realise that Satan is a non - entity to you, however, to me, he is as real as God himself. He is currently the God of this world.

Would you consider Satan to be equal to God, just his opposite? Or do you have another understanding of the nature of Satan?

Quite the opposite really. Men are carnal by their very nature. What does that mean? : sexual, sensual, erotic, lustful, lascivious, libidinous, lecherous, licentious, lewd, prurient, salacious, coarse, gross, lubricious, venereal, physical, bodily, corporeal, fleshly, animal; Does any of that sound indicative of someone who wants to create a fair and just world where we all roast chestnuts by an open fire?

I completely agree with the first part. We are selfish. My goal at a climactic moment is going to be self preservation before anything else. I don't deny that. That does not mean, however, that I do not strive towards all of those things that you consider to be pure and holy and good and moral just because I am an atheist. As I suggested previously, use me as the protagonist for the example that I provided. I could very easily lie my way to a better life - but I refuse to do so because I believe that lying is wrong, and hurtful - not just to others but also to myself. I came to those conclusions not by divine intervention but by self and social awareness. If I portrayed the negative aspects that you've so delicately attributed to all atheists, then I would very quickly find myself alienated and less successful than if I chose the path that I have chosen. I have also observed that if others were to follow a similar negative path, then the same would be true for them. I have observed that if a society as a whole were to follow said path, then the results would be constraining for prosperity and survival. Because of this, I have deemed truthfulness as being moral - not because of a universal mandate that it is so - but out of simple pragmatics.

I am a moral, honest, and just person, like many millions before and after me, without the use or need for religious influence or deities. My convictions to maintain those traits are probably just as sure as yours are for your God. Using the logic above, why does God need to exist in order for man to come up with a general concept of morality?

Well, in the UK we have an institution that does that every day to our entire nation. It is called the Conservative Government. We also have the media that are professionals at that and most of our capitalistic industries do it to. We live in a society that has seen a tremendous decline in moral values where even the Police manipulate figure to create and illusion that crime rates are reducing when they are escalating. I hope I have answered your point adequately. It is a subject that I have a great deal of righteous indignation for. Taking religion out of our schools has incurred a dreadful consequence to our society. Moral Decline. Our government want to now reintroduce it just to stop the rot in our communities. To late, I think.

Disecting governments and social constructs is really another thread entirely... There are certainly going to be increased statistics towards moral decline to go along with an increase of corruption of ideologies in any social structure. As limits are removed, people will experience growing pains as they attempt to discover a new guiding system for their lives, along with enjoying brief (and sometimes prolonged) periods of rebellion... To bring up a weaker point of our species, we have individually grown quite complacent while expecting the regulations of others to guide our actions. We like to let other things do work for us, including influencing our behavior and decisions... But again, that's a much bigger subject that I'd just rather leave out of this one for now - thought I do see your point.

Yes, i believe that every single religious denomination that exists in this world is man-made, in as much as they have interpreted the Scriptures and then used that interpretation to organise a regime of worship, however, man did not come up with those morals. That was God, like when he gave Moses the ten commandments and gave Revelations to all the Prophets up until Jesus. When he then selected allegories and parables for the scriptures to teach and expound correct moral ethics to mankind.

Again, my perspective is that morals have been constructed and passed on for many generations both precluding and excluding Christian influence. I do not believe that they originated nor are exclusive to Christianity.

Yes, it is. I believe that morals are objective. A supernatural law, maybe. All the scriptures do is to reassert them and remind us as to how we should live our lives. That if we incorporate them in our lives we can overcome the precepts that leads to exaltation.

I'll give you the point that, in many cases, the Bible serves as a decent moral lesson book. (Though there are many instances where the morality and actions of certain characters, and even those of Yahweh, are questionable.)

Well, to be perfectly honest, if you are happy being an atheist, having no intentions of changing, then it really is not worth your while. You will only gain the knowledge that the plan of salvation, if true, could succeed in its objectives, but, if you do not believe in the objectives then knowing the narrative of the Plan of Salvation is going to remain a complete nonsense to you, unless it is something that interests you, that satisfies your inquisitiveness and curiosity.

That is what I initially thought that debating on forums like this was all about. That atheists were here to find out what makes christians tick. I had no idea that there were atheists who had an agenda to use so much hostility towards christians just because of their personal beliefs. It is essentially none of their business what I believe in, as much as it is none of my business what they believe in, however, I see no problem in telling people why I am a Christian, if asked. Cephus has made it his mission to besmirch and denegrate christians, and even has his own blog where he incessantly lies about us and selectively stigmatize us. I have never quite witnessed so much hatred and emnity from people who should be unconcerned about our lifestyle. You could call it christianaphobia not unlike homophobia. Why? Disagree with us, by all means, but to actively sully and negate Christianity is reprehensible, to say the least, but he is a bitter failed Christian who left the faith kicking and screaming at God.

As I said when I used the store clerk analogy regarding the actions of believers, that same principle applies to those of any creed - including atheism. Given your righteous indignation towards atheists, it's quite obvious that more than a few of them have rubbed you the wrong way - as with anything - remember that the negative that you and I agree on when it comes to Christianity have scarred some people very personally and very deeply. They have just as strong of a righteous indignation towards religion as you do for it's counterpart.

(And I realize that might sound hypocritical - but those principles have to applied evenly.) The reasons for there being Christians who are terrible people are the same as the reasons for there being atheists who are terrible people. Both are unknowingly representatives for their respective groups - both full of biases - both often full of baggage and hurt - both one in the same.

Yes, that is EXACTLY right. It is only a relevance to Christianity.
You'll get no argument from me here.

Pretty much all of it. As I said, christianity came knocking on my door, literally, I did not go looking for it. I was not even in a frame of mind to consider religion. I may have been an atheist, if I had of thought about it, but I never did. I was pretty much an intellectual convert way before I was converted spiritually. I will give you just 10 stumbling blocks.

1. The entire creation and the fall seemed more allegorical and symbolic to me rather then an actuality.
2. The Flood, because there were no naturalistic evidences for its existence.
3. The Atonement because of the requirements that had to be fulfilled for Jesus to bleed at every pore.
4. The randomness of selecting disciples
5. The crucifixion and the stabbing of the Saviour
6. The process of the feeding of the 5000
7. The resurrection.
8. The miracles
9. The Levītical Laws and their needs
10. The entire Old Testament originally seemed pointless to me.

I'd be interested to know how you rationalized these things given that you agree that they're pretty far-fetched.


Yes, the giant parable is called "The Plan of Redemption"
As long as we agree that the entire thing is a parable and the plan of redemption is only applicable through Christian thought and not objective reality, then we're in agreement.

I do not know for a surety simply because I was not there, however, the explanation of what happen necessitates for it to be literal. If not, then it makes many premises irrelevant

Precisely, which is why I would like to better understand how you rationalize it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I did not say that you had hatred for Christians, I said Cephus does, and he does, demonstrated by his hate filled bigoted blog site.

What claims do you think I make?

your hate filled campaign against Christians

You can not have a hate filled campaign against a topic one does not hate. The hate was implied by your very words. Reading comprehension, son.

If your family are Christians then they must be pretty disappointed with their wayward son. But there again there are many people who call them self's christians but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Of them God says.

Nope. Again talking about something you know nothing about which is typical of you

That is why your family do not make the same claims as I do. Their teaching are for doctrines the commandments of men mine are the doctrines and commandments of God. But again I recognise the hidden ad hominem in your post. You really are quite unpleasant and disagreeable. You just seem quite incapable of posting anything without being obnoxiously rude and caustic.

Nope, they know the difference between faith and empirical evidence. They can differentiate between an article and a study.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
To Anyone Interested

I have said it many times on here. If anyone has left christianity then they were never a Christian in the first place. One you are converted by the influece of the Holy Ghost then there is no going back. It is quite literally impossible.

Of course the forum will confirm ones reason for being an atheist. It reiterates a lifestyle that is impossible for atheists to maintain and opens the eyes to the wonders of the universe for which the atheist neither has the mental capacity or sufficient intellect to comprehend. It is simply easier to be an atheist and this site demonstrates that. As ffor watching car crashes, what kind of person is edified and entertained by watching car crashes? No more needs to be said to those who are too busy digging holes for themselves.
Huge steaming pile of bull ****.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I apologize for my absence. I do have a life outside of the internet that required my attention. ;)

Of course, perfectly understandable.

Within the structure of all of this talk, we are limited in our understanding of time and space - I think we both agree on that. In your first seven words you, you attest to that. Everything that we are talking about here is based on an IF that neither of us know. You have your convictions and educated guesses and I have mine - but the nature of substance of the thing that we are debating starts with the line "Only if they are constrained by time..." What if they are? That makes our explanations completely different, right?

Right

My point was that the allusion to God being the Alpha and Omega could also be little more than an illusion. If it's constrained by time, then it's something lesser than the creator of the cosmos. If it's not constrained by time, then what is it, exactly, that would cause an entity of that ilk to create 100 octillion stars, but only really bother with the political and social activities of some goat herders from a long long time ago?

When I took a look at the standard cosmological model it seemed to positively indicate a singularity must consequently exist, however, there is a dilemma for Christians. If there is no time, no space, no energy and no mass and yet we are created in the image of god then what is the exact nature of God? To be honest, I do not have an answer to that. There is one, and I have pondered and prayed about it but all I have received is "you do not need to know" or "it is not for me to know at this time as the answer will reveal the existence of God". My opinion is that he exists within the only thing that could exist beyond the Big Bang. Quantum Mechanics.

I appreciate your attempt at including some scientific knowledge into your faith system.

I cannot possibly conceive of the two being separate in anyway. I consider God to be the Master Scientist who has drip fed scientists, worldwide, with every discovery ever made. He has done this through the influence of the Holy Ghost who fills the immensity of space. His reward has been to denounce his existence.

Firstly, thank you. I will admit that this is probably one of my more pleasurable conversations here on RF and I've changed my opinion of you from being a raving lunatic to someone of moderate intelligence. ;)

What a very interesting remark. Let me tell you why. I have never, to my knowledge, evaluated or quantified my level of intelligence. I know some thing but there is far more things that I do not know which I attempt to learn a little of it everyday.i do not think I am intelligent really. I read the message and hopefully understand it sufficiently to pass it on. What I am, and the sum total of my post relies on, is very opinionated. I read the message and form an opinion which is presented here. Hopefully my wisdom and experience makes the right opinion, but not always.

Do not dispelled your idea of me being a raving lunatic. I am not your usual congregationalist. I tried that and it did not work for me. Jesus said that whenever two or three are gathered in my name there shall I be also. That is now my church. Anywhere. That means that I will appear a raving lunatic to the every day Christian. Funny thing is that there are at least three other christians, like me, on this forum. There are more then you may think and our numbers are increasing, however, Jesus said that only a handful of his elect will recognise the masters voice, and christianity will fall from within. Both are happening right now.

It is my opinion that you are not typical of many of the aggressive atheists on here, and forums like it. You are a worthy champion and excellent ambassador for your non-belief. Sadly, posters, like you, are far and few between. It is Ok to disagree but it is not Ok to be disagreeable and unpleasant. We all have a right to our own choices, we just do not have a choice to the consequences. Choose to call someone an idiot and be prepared to be called something worse in consequence.

Regardless of how many words we share back and forth, we still won't ever know the true nature of each other's being, right?

Right

That's what I'm saying. We could go on and on in this debate for another 103 pages and still make no radical change to each others lives, such is the way of the internet.

I honestly believe that the majority of the conversations that are had in this place serve more for the non-involved parties (the readers) than for the debate participants. That's sort of my prerogative when speaking to someone and it's one of the reasons that I try and make sure that everything that I say is supported, factual, and removed from my personal biases as much as possible. In that way, someone who is "seeking" (as you faithful call it) will have an opportunity to explore multiple facets of a belief system before diving in.

That is very fair and considerate of you. I have to confess that I am not so considerate of the reader but concentrate mainly on what makes my opponent think and believe what they believe and then attempt to give a true and accurate response, if I consider the opinion to be inaccurate.

As I've expressed before in regards to my opinion of your faith, it's your and yours alone. I don't wish to change you or "convert" you to atheism or anything. I just want to challenge ideas and statements that I believe are inaccurate.

I relish this. It is why I am here and it is what I believe these forums are here for. I really want you to challenge my ideas and statements. I may be totally wrong and their is no better feeling to realise that what you believed to be right is wrong and you will never make that same mistake aagain. Or visa versa.

I do with you as I would do with anyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof. In the process, if my challenges to your own beliefs have caused you to research, or learn, or expand your knowledge in an area, even if that means strengthening your own faith, then I've sort of done my job. I'm an educator by nature and it would be against the core of my being to sway you in one particular direction just because I like it more...

Inevitably that will be the result. It all adds to one's knowledge. You are alright.

When I studied religion I always found the basic Calvinist argument of an omnipotent god to be the only one that could possibly make any sense if one were to prefer the religious persuasions. If a deity isn't omniscient and omnipotent, then it must be something less than a god. If the deity of choice isn't greater than the universe itself, then that would make it a construct of the universe, and thus part of something lesser.

I don't believe that you are placing limits on the ability of your god - I simply believe that omniscience must include things that we don't know can't be known. Within the confines of knowledge, the things which believers claim that god desires, decrees, etc must be logically infallible, or, again, they come from something lesser than deity.

I do not think that there are any scriptures stating that God can only know what can be known. It just seems like a logical conclusion to me. When I checked the definition of the word "omniscient" in wiki it said this. Omniscience/ɒmˈnɪʃəns/,[1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. That, to me, confirmed my suspicions that God can only know that which can be known. For example, if God knew for a certainty what our next choice would be then our existence would be entirely predetermined obliterating the essential ingredient of agency within the Plan of Salvation making the plan ineffectual. Everything within that plan relies on its connective component. There can be no weak link. Take away just one precept and the entire Plan of Salvation fails.

The reason that I responded to you in the first place is that I believe the concept of a singular religion offering a plan of salvation that is to cover the whole of humanity, is an illogical concept based on exclusivity, that doesn't seem to make sense when read as an overarching parable spread throughout the whole of the Bible. If application of something is not consistent and permanent, then how can it be considered to come from an place that objective, and not subjective?

But without a plan what is the reason for our existence? Why are we here and what are we hoping to achieve? Can we just put it down to abiogenesis and freak circumstance. It begs the questions of why we are so advanced when compared to our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom. What is quantum physics all about, why was this planet finely tuned to sustain life? Why are so many people experiencing NDE and OBE, and evidencing there claims without question. Why did all the elephants in the last great tsunami leave the coastline two weeks before it struck, why are so many people witnessing a sixth sense. There needs to be an answer to where we, not our bodies, but our consciousness, came from, what it is doing here, and what is the end goal, that is, where are we going. All to rational lines of enquiry.

I would be careful when making claims like that because they are so easily debunked. When religion can make a falsifiable claim about the prediction of future events - interpreted before, and not after, the fact... well, then we'll have something to talk about.

Well, according to those experts, such as Michael Drosnin, in the code there have been predictions prior to the event that have been realised, like the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Most, I know, are found after the event, however, even that is is worthy of investigation.

For example, I'm specifically thinking about the destruction of the Temple during the sacking of Jerusalem. Many people will point to certain passages from the NT and claim that Jesus predicted this event. Again, those interpretations of those predictions happened after the fact and can be read posthumously and interpreted in any manner - similar to the back reading of Nostradamus using modern knowledge... That's not how it works. Had Jesus said, for example "Jerusalem will be sacked in 70AD and the Temple will be destroyed" and there was a copy of that claim written BEFORE 70AD...Again, then we could talk.

Well as far as I can see that prediction was fulfilled after it was made. I realise that the records are vague and that there could have been a degree of looking for the act that best fits the predictions, however, that was not the intentions of Jesus. He was demonstrating a cause and effect. That the effect was not immediately apparent was irrelevant because it was Jesus who made the prediction it was unquestionable that it would happen.

There is only one significant verse that can be quoted

2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Bible Commentary.

Verse 2. - And Jesus said. The best manuscripts and the Revised Version give, but he answered and said. See ye not all these things? Vulgate, Videtis haec omnia? Our Lord, in turn, calls attention to the glorious structure in order to give added emphasis to his weighty denunciation. Not be left here one stone upon another. This prophecy was most literally fulfilled. Recent explorations have shown that not a stone of Herod's temple remains in situ. The orders of Titus, given with regret, for the total demolition of the walls of temple and city, were carried out with cruel exactness, so that, as Josephus testifies ('Bell. Jud.,' 7:01. 1), passers by would not have supposed that the place had ever been inhabited. When the apostate Julian, in the fourth Christian century, endeavoured to cast a slur upon prophecy by rebuilding the city and temple, his design proved to be an ignominious failure, and the sacred shrine has continued to this day a monument of Divine vengeance.

Matthew 24:2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

I do understand what you are saying though. We are making events fit the predictions, and you are right, that is a very real possibility, but the opposite could be equally as true.

Even using this alternate interpretation, clouds cannot support weight... Maybe it's a metaphor - but still. How people of your faith actually literally believe that Jesus ascended into heaven on near weightless clouds, riding them like a blimp?

Oh please, do not tar me with that particular brush. I really do believe that it was metaphorical. But your assuming that Jesus had a mass greater then water vapour. We do not know that. It is also an irrelevance to the Plan of Salvation. It is just not an important happenstance.

It's not like I've never tied. I've just never come to a more logical conclusion than people's interpretations being swayed by their preference and bias... I mean, Christians don't experience something that they've deemed supernatural and immediately attribute the phenomena to Allah and his prophet Mohammed, right? And vice versa. Isn't it interesting how someone's preferences seem to always confirm their beliefs....?

I cannot really speak for anybody else's conversation to Christianity. I can only speak for myself. I had no preconceived beliefs in anything. I was not looking for anything religious or spiritual. I do not know if I was atheist or what I was, because it never really crossed my mind. Indeed, my first spiritual experience was misinterpreted by me and I ended up a Mormon for 25 years. I did not want the hassled, or what I thought was hassle, in my life. I was quite happy without it. My experience was a communication with and external source. I say communication because it was not conducted via words and voiced. It was conducted via concepts, feelings and emotions that enveloped my entire body and nerve system communicating with my very soul. It was unmistakably an external intelegent energy and what it communicated pertained to a deity, God the father, His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I am not someone who is easily duped or fooled. I am a realist and this epiphany was real. The only negative about it is that I have no evidence to prove it, so, I ask nobody to believe me and I never try to convince anyone that it is true. You simply either believe me, or you don't.

Unfortunately, the only evidence that non-believers have for the deity of a certain faith is through the actions of it's faithful... Ya know what I mean? If a store clerk walks up to you in full uniform and says something derogatory, or shameful, or idiotic - then everyone around that person is going to assume that those statements are at least somewhat taught in that establishment.

Yes, that is no doubt true. I would say that it is extremely prevalent within the Christian faith, especially with children. But it is what is to be expected. God knows about this problem and has said "Many draw near to me with there mouths but in their hearts they are far from me".

I understand that it is absolute truth to you. What I'm questioning is whether or not it's objective truth.

No, it is as I said, true to me. To anyone else it is whatever they believe it to be. I cannot prove it in any other way but to give my word as an honest person.

Would you consider Satan to be equal to God, just his opposite? Or do you have another understanding of the nature of Satan?

A fervent no. He thinks he is and he believes that he will triumph, and is right now, but a time will come, Armageddon, when the final battle will take place and Satan will be bound for a thousand years. Satan is call the son of the morning being hansom and welcoming with a deceiving smile upon his face. A son of God, as Jesus and we are. Our spirit brother who was charismatic and loved by many. God is superior to us all, followed by Jesus/Jehovah, his first born. But Satan was not a devil in the spirit world. That is my understanding taken from the words of many learned men.

I completely agree with the first part. We are selfish. My goal at a climactic moment is going to be self preservation before anything else. I don't deny that. That does not mean, however, that I do not strive towards all of those things that you consider to be pure and holy and good and moral just because I am an atheist. As I suggested previously, use me as the protagonist for the example that I provided. I could very easily lie my way to a better life - but I refuse to do so because I believe that lying is wrong, and hurtful - not just to others but also to myself. I came to those conclusions not by divine intervention but by self and social awareness. If I portrayed the negative aspects that you've so delicately attributed to all atheists, then I would very quickly find myself alienated and less successful than if I chose the path that I have chosen. I have also observed that if others were to follow a similar negative path, then the same would be true for them. I have observed that if a society as a whole were to follow said path, then the results would be constraining for prosperity and survival. Because of this, I have deemed truthfulness as being moral - not because of a universal mandate that it is so - but out of simple pragmatics.

As I have said, I believe that morals are objective. I do not think that they are owned by any religion. What I say is that christians have a deterrent. If they are converted then they know for a surety that every sin committed, without being repented for, will incur a consequence. I do not believe that I said every atheist. If that is what I intimated then that is not my belief. It is a small group of atheist who are he'll bent on confrontation and contention. Not satisfied with questioning the beliefs of others they try and falsify it and discredit it with an agenda to remove it from our world. Antagonists and agitators who are a blight to forums like this and should be monitored for their offensive behaviour to members in order to keep them in line. They will lie, entrap, use logical fallacies, deceive and bully the unsuspecting Christian rather then use good honest debate, as you do. They are despicable individuals who should be given a wide berth and put on ignore lists. This does not include posters such as yourself, however, when i first came accross you i would have judged you wrongly with their brush. That is unfortunate and if i were offensive then i apologise. Rant over.

I am a moral, honest, and just person, like many millions before and after me, without the use or need for religious influence or deities. My convictions to maintain those traits are probably just as sure as yours are for your God. Using the logic above, why does God need to exist in order for man to come up with a general concept of morality?

Yes, i know you are. I can feel that in your post. In fact it may be difficult for me to debate with you because I do not want to offend you.

Again, my perspective is that morals have been constructed and passed on for many generations both precluding and excluding Christian influence. I do not believe that they originated nor are exclusive to Christianity.

Neither do I.

I'll give you the point that, in many cases, the Bible serves as a decent moral lesson book. (Though there are many instances where the morality and actions of certain characters, and even those of Yahweh, are questionable.)

For me, the old testament was fulfilled during the beatitudes. The Mosaic Law was done away with and the new Abrahamic Covenant was introduced with all of its commandments, principles and precepts.

As I said when I used the store clerk analogy regarding the actions of believers, that same principle applies to those of any creed - including atheism. Given your righteous indignation towards atheists, it's quite obvious that more than a few of them have rubbed you the wrong way - as with anything - remember that the negative that you and I agree on when it comes to Christianity have scarred some people very personally and very deeply. They have just as strong of a righteous indignation towards religion as you do for it's counterpart.

No, I must insist that I have righteous indignation for a minority group of atheists.

(And I realize that might sound hypocritical - but those principles have to applied evenly.) The reasons for there being Christians who are terrible people are the same as the reasons for there being atheists who are terrible people. Both are unknowingly representatives for their respective groups - both full of biases - both often full of baggage and hurt - both one in the same.

I agree.

As long as we agree that the entire thing is a parable and the plan of redemption is only applicable through Christian thought and not objective reality, then we're in agreement.

We agree.
 
Last edited:

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.

It might be logical to believe in Christ, but to hold that the Bible is 100% accurate (as you obviously do, as you quote scripture as proof for arguments - see above), surely is.

Divine inspiration does not mean perfection. Imperfect men still wrote every word of the scriptures, so mistakes are a given. To deny that would be illogical IMO.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
It might be logical to believe in Christ, but to hold that the Bible is 100% accurate (as you obviously do, as you quote scripture as proof for arguments - see above), surely is.

Why?

I do not quote the bible as proof. I use it to back up why I believe what I believe. To the unbeliever the bible is no different to any other book in production, only to me and other converted christians does it corroborate their beliefs.

Divine inspiration does not mean perfection. Imperfect men still wrote every word of the scriptures, so mistakes are a given. To deny that would be illogical IMO.

It would make little difference whether man made mistakes or not when it was God who made the selection. God may have well chosen a mistake by man as an accuracy when put into context. To be honest, I cannot think of an example because I see no contradictions or errors in the precepts and principles to demonstrate what I mean. Can you name anything that you consider as man's mistake that misleads the reader.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
When I took a look at the standard cosmological model it seemed to positively indicate a singularity must consequently exist, however, there is a dilemma for Christians. If there is no time, no space, no energy and no mass and yet we are created in the image of god then what is the exact nature of God? To be honest, I do not have an answer to that. There is one, and I have pondered and prayed about it but all I have received is "you do not need to know" or "it is not for me to know at this time as the answer will reveal the existence of God". My opinion is that he exists within the only thing that could exist beyond the Big Bang. Quantum Mechanics.

Space science and Cosmology deeply fascinate me and I spent an inordinate amount of time reading about stuff and consuming knowledge. That being said, I still can't totally wrap my head around some of it because all of my learning in that area is just a hobby. While I don't doubt the event that many point as the singularity, and thus, the "everywhere stretch" model, I don't know if that event is a actually a singularity or one of possibly hundreds of thousands of previous "singularities" as each previous Universe has expanded, contracted, and then expanded again, each time causing a new start point for whatever the present Universe is...


I cannot possibly conceive of the two being separate in anyway. I consider God to be the Master Scientist who has drip fed scientists, worldwide, with every discovery ever made. He has done this through the influence of the Holy Ghost who fills the immensity of space. His reward has been to denounce his existence.

As I said with the Calvinist thing, anything that could be considered a deity would have to be the creator of the laws of everything, which, to the best of our knowledge, is discovered through science. So I completely appreciate this sentiment. And while I see what you're saying about science leading people away from God, I can also point to a very well-written thesis, done by an atheist, which shows how prevalent faith in the supernatural actually is within the scientific community. There are some extremely well educated men who use their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to strengthen their faith - not diminish it. The issue that I believe you are addressing has more to do with the ignorance of the general populace as to knowledge, both religious and scientific, than it does with absolute truth.

Evolution and Religion by Greg Graffin | 9781609844677 | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble
3432_400x400.jpg


It's somewhere around $9 US

What a very interesting remark. Let me tell you why. I have never, to my knowledge, evaluated or quantified my level of intelligence. I know some thing but there is far more things that I do not know which I attempt to learn a little of it everyday.i do not think I am intelligent really. I read the message and hopefully understand it sufficiently to pass it on. What I am, and the sum total of my post relies on, is very opinionated. I read the message and form an opinion which is presented here. Hopefully my wisdom and experience makes the right opinion, but not always.

Do not dispelled your idea of me being a raving lunatic. I am not your usual congregationalist. I tried that and it did not work for me. Jesus said that whenever two or three are gathered in my name there shall I be also. That is now my church. Anywhere. That means that I will appear a raving lunatic to the every day Christian. Funny thing is that there are at least three other christians, like me, on this forum. There are more then you may think and our numbers are increasing, however, Jesus said that only a handful of his elect will recognise the masters voice, and christianity will fall from within. Both are happening right now.

It is my opinion that you are not typical of many of the aggressive atheists on here, and forums like it. You are a worthy champion and excellent ambassador for your non-belief. Sadly, posters, like you, are far and few between. It is Ok to disagree but it is not Ok to be disagreeable and unpleasant. We all have a right to our own choices, we just do not have a choice to the consequences. Choose to call someone an idiot and be prepared to be called something worse in consequence.

Obviously, the comment was quite tongue in cheek, but the point was that at least you put some thought behind your faith, as opposed to taking up faith and then trying to rationalize everything in your life within a a limited worldview.
For what it's worth, as long as you subscribe to an ancient deistic view of the world, I'll always associate you with a dash of "raving luncatic" and just a pinch of "intelligence." :)

In regard to angry atheists - As I mentioned before, there are plenty of angry theists as well. I understand why two philosophies, who are essentially diametrically opposed to each other would be inclined to constantly engage with each other in a negative fashion - but that only leads to more angry responses and doesn't exactly clam the situation so that real conversation can take place, does it?

It's certainly OK to disagree. People, if they were honest with themselves and honest with those around them, actually disagree about a great number of things. There's nothing wrong with that. The difference between adult conversation and childhood rough-housing is our ability to set aside differences and still be able to communicate. If, at the end of the day, two people still cannot find any common ground to speak of, then they probably shouldn't engage each other at all. I think too often we fall into the trap of wanting to be right in a situation, regardless of whether or not we actually are... Everyone is guilty of that to some degree.

That is very fair and considerate of you. I have to confess that I am not so considerate of the reader but concentrate mainly on what makes my opponent think and believe what they believe and then attempt to give a true and accurate response, if I consider the opinion to be inaccurate.

Opponent concentration is necessary in a proper debate. If you don't do that, then you'll be walked all over by whoever your speaking with. But, in a forum setting, there are far more people who read articles than those who participate in the conversation. I mean in this tread alone there are over 2,000 response but there are 14,000 views... See what I mean? If only 20 people are participating, and even checking it every single day, 14,000 is a HUGE number. How many different individuals are reading?

I relish this. It is why I am here and it is what I believe these forums are here for. I really want you to challenge my ideas and statements. I may be totally wrong and their is no better feeling to realise that what you believed to be right is wrong and you will never make that same mistake aagain. Or visa versa.

Exactly. And even after the fact, new knowledge means that what you once "knew" to be right was completely bogus, and you get to start over with something else that's new that will eventually be supported or dispelled... The wisest thing you've written on here happened just a couple of quotes ago, where you harkened to Socrates in saying that, basically, "All I know is that I don't know nothing."

quote-as-for-me-all-i-know-is-that-i-know-nothing-for-when-i-don-t-know-what-justice-is-i-ll-hardly-socrates-267861.jpg


I do not think that there are any scriptures stating that God can only know what can be known. It just seems like a logical conclusion to me. When I checked the definition of the word "omniscient" in wiki it said this. Omniscience/ɒmˈnɪʃəns/,[1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. That, to me, confirmed my suspicions that God can only know that which can be known. For example, if God knew for a certainty what our next choice would be then our existence would be entirely predetermined obliterating the essential ingredient of agency within the Plan of Salvation making the plan ineffectual. Everything within that plan relies on its connective component. There can be no weak link. Take away just one precept and the entire Plan of Salvation fails.

It seems that we are getting back to the root of this thread, eh? Based on what you just said, the Plan of Salvation requires that every link in the chain be dependent upon the preceding links. If one of those is, for example, based on speculation, then doesn't weaken one of the links, thus weakening the Plan?

Since you and I have established the framework of what we accept the Plan to entail, then I'll only address that.

That particular interpretation of the Plan is what makes me question the logical legitimacy of it. It's essentially, "IF God does this, THEN that..." You're ultimately going to be blocked logically, I think, in explaining this Plan because their interpretations can vary. What is, as I've said with the Calvinist interpretation, God does know everything that is going to happen, and everything is entirely predetermined? I believe the Calvinist would agree with your concept of the Plan of Salvation's existence and vessel through which the faithful are redeemed - but they would oppose you on the idea of agency while still agreeing with the ultimate premise.

Do you see what I'm saying?

But without a plan what is the reason for our existence? Why are we here and what are we hoping to achieve? Can we just put it down to abiogenesis and freak circumstance. It begs the questions of why we are so advanced when compared to our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom. What is quantum physics all about, why was this planet finely tuned to sustain life? Why are so many people experiencing NDE and OBE, and evidencing there claims without question. Why did all the elephants in the last great tsunami leave the coastline two weeks before it struck, why are so many people witnessing a sixth sense. There needs to be an answer to where we, not our bodies, but our consciousness, came from, what it is doing here, and what is the end goal, that is, where are we going. All to rational lines of enquiry.

That question is the root of religious history, isn't it?

What is the reason for our existence? What if there is no reason for our existence? What if there is a reason for our existence, and we haven't even discovered it yet? What if we don't even exist?

The only part that I can answer with any certainty is an aside. We weren't always the only higher intelligence on the planet - it just so happens that two of our closest relatives have gone extinct so we live under this illusion that we are the pinnacle of evolution. Also, the vastness of our spacial existence makes it seem like our planet if finely tuned to sustain life, but what we learning even from Mars (not to mention the Earth-like extrasolar planets that we are discovering) shows us that all of the building blocks for like are not even rare, let alone confined to our planet...

For example, the Dawn spacecraft will be entering orbit around Ceres in a little under two months. Ceres is too small to maintain an atmosphere yet it has one. We know from spectro-analysis that it contains more fresh water that we have here at home. One likely reason for the atmosphere being there is because of consistent or continuous release of vapor via geyers - which would mean that there is an active geothermal core to the planet, which means heat. Water plus heat equals...well it equals everything that we know so far...

Granted, that's all speculation at this point. But we're about to rewrite History is half of these speculations are accurate.
We've lived under this premise that we are significant in the Universe for so long that we have developed these ideas about the supernatural that are actually quite egocentric, if you think about it.

I agree that you have asked a lot of questions that beg answers. But I'll also wager that if there were any animal experts among us, then could give insight, for example, into Elephant behavior. Dogs do similar things before storms come, as do birds, for example. It's a natural knowledge that we humans have lost as we've modernized, I'm afraid . Now, I can't tell you what it is specifically, because that's not my area of expertise, but I don't believe it to be supernatural. And consciousness is another interesting topic that I think can be delved into a little more via the study of animal behavior. After doing some light studying of Chimpanzee behavior, specifically their learning on American Sign Language with Dr. Roger Fouts and their independent passing along of that knowledge to their offspring after the study was completed has convinced me that chimps are conscious creatures. Dolphins, likewise, have very similar inclinations towards higher intelligence - as do the aforementioned elephants... When we separate the study of us from the study of where we came from, I think we are doing a great injustice to knowledge.

Well, according to those experts, such as Michael Drosnin, in the code there have been predictions prior to the event that have been realised, like the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Most, I know, are found after the event, however, even that is is worthy of investigation.

Well as far as I can see that prediction was fulfilled after it was made. I realise that the records are vague and that there could have been a degree of looking for the act that best fits the predictions, however, that was not the intentions of Jesus. He was demonstrating a cause and effect. That the effect was not immediately apparent was irrelevant because it was Jesus who made the prediction it was unquestionable that it would happen.

I do understand what you are saying though. We are making events fit the predictions, and you are right, that is a very real possibility, but the opposite could be equally as true.

When something is 1,700-2,000 years old, we don't usually split hairs over 50 years one way or the other. But when talking about specific events that are supposedly predicted, you have to really pull out the scalpel in order to dissect the validity of that kind of claim. As you said thought, we know where each other is coming from so there's no need to keep this one going.


Oh please, do not tar me with that particular brush. I really do believe that it was metaphorical. But your assuming that Jesus had a mass greater then water vapour. We do not know that. It is also an irrelevance to the Plan of Salvation. It is just not an important happenstance.

I didn't mean that I was lumping you into that category. I was trying to show how some people of your faith don't put that kind of metaphoric label on those events as you do.

From what I've gathered, you're somewhere in the UK. I don't know how prominent fundamentalism where you are but I'm from the South Eastern US, where fundamentalism seems to be the norm and not the exception... I'm surrounded daily by people who believe that Jesus actually and physically was lifted on a cloud into the sky surrounded by light and angels and I imagine doves, rainbows, bunnies and little floating hearts.

I cannot really speak for anybody else's conversation to Christianity. I can only speak for myself. I had no preconceived beliefs in anything. I was not looking for anything religious or spiritual. I do not know if I was atheist or what I was, because it never really crossed my mind. Indeed, my first spiritual experience was misinterpreted by me and I ended up a Mormon for 25 years. I did not want the hassled, or what I thought was hassle, in my life. I was quite happy without it. My experience was a communication with and external source. I say communication because it was not conducted via words and voiced. It was conducted via concepts, feelings and emotions that enveloped my entire body and nerve system communicating with my very soul. It was unmistakably an external intelegent energy and what it communicated pertained to a deity, God the father, His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I am not someone who is easily duped or fooled. I am a realist and this epiphany was real. The only negative about it is that I have no evidence to prove it, so, I ask nobody to believe me and I never try to convince anyone that it is true. You simply either believe me, or you don't.

As I've said before, I have no doubt about your personal convictions. You know that I don't believe what you believe - and that's OK.

Yes, that is no doubt true. I would say that it is extremely prevalent within the Christian faith, especially with children. But it is what is to be expected. God knows about this problem and has said "Many draw near to me with there mouths but in their hearts they are far from me".

A fervent no. He thinks he is and he believes that he will triumph, and is right now, but a time will come, Armageddon, when the final battle will take place and Satan will be bound for a thousand years. Satan is call the son of the morning being hansom and welcoming with a deceiving smile upon his face. A son of God, as Jesus and we are. Our spirit brother who was charismatic and loved by many. God is superior to us all, followed by Jesus/Jehovah, his first born. But Satan was not a devil in the spirit world. That is my understanding taken from the words of many learned men.

I don't know much about this, really, other than in some more dualistic aspects of Christianity some people believe that Satan and God are eternal equals, constantly battling for this middle ground that we live on - kind of like a Yin & Yang theory.

As I have said, I believe that morals are objective. I do not think that they are owned by any religion. What I say is that christians have a deterrent. If they are converted then they know for a surety that every sin committed, without being repented for, will incur a consequence. I do not believe that I said every atheist. If that is what I intimated then that is not my belief. It is a small group of atheist who are he'll bent on confrontation and contention. Not satisfied with questioning the beliefs of others they try and falsify it and discredit it with an agenda to remove it from our world. Antagonists and agitators who are a blight to forums like this and should be monitored for their offensive behaviour to members in order to keep them in line. They will lie, entrap, use logical fallacies, deceive and bully the unsuspecting Christian rather then use good honest debate, as you do. They are despicable individuals who should be given a wide berth and put on ignore lists. This does not include posters such as yourself, however, when i first came accross you i would have judged you wrongly with their brush. That is unfortunate and if i were offensive then i apologise. Rant over.

Deep deep down somewhere inside me I don't see a need for religion at all. In that vein, if I were King of the World, there would be no religion. Just none. I don't see it as necessary for life to exist much like is to does today - with the only difference between men being flown under banners other than that of a Cross or a Crescent and Star... So I understand what you're saying about the more contemptible responses that you get from some atheists. Like we've discussed before, I think there are some people who just love antagonism for antagonism's sake.

Our judgement of others based on our previous experiences/hang-ups/baggage usually tend to breed more antagonism - not quell it. I mean, for every antagonistic atheist there is the staunch fundamentalist theist who rejects any and all attempts at adult conversation. This is a cyclic problem that people usually are taught to deal with in Group Dynamics 101, but people usually just don't pay attention because they're too busy trying to be right.

You weren't offensive. I thought you were a loon, remember?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Space science and Cosmology deeply fascinate me and I spent an inordinate amount of time reading about stuff and consuming knowledge. That being said, I still can't totally wrap my head around some of it because all of my learning in that area is just a hobby. While I don't doubt the event that many point as the singularity, and thus, the "everywhere stretch" model, I don't know if that event is a actually a singularity or one of possibly hundreds of thousands of previous "singularities" as each previous Universe has expanded, contractedý, and then expanded again, each time causing a new start point for whatever the present Universe is...

Well, I am pretty much convinced that the theory of a multi verse is more accurate then not, however, like everyone else, it is my opinion, even an educated guess, there is no definitive proof that it exists, but there is no reason why it shouldn't exist either. Yet there are those, within the scientific community, who are self confessed angry atheists, who speak as though it is factual, an absolute, proven. In the UK we have a very popular Professor of Cosmology, call Professor Brian Cox. Our National TV station, who are also self confessed Anti-Christians, have made him an authority on cosmology, paying him big bucks to make cosmological documentaries and at the same time, make God look like yesterday's news, by deceiving the viewer with his pseudo science, science that only the few understand, so most viewers readily believe it, and any chance of them coming to know God, on their own volition, disappears because of lies and deceit. Now, I would not blame you for thinking that I might be a little bias, beings that I am a Christian myself, but he really does tell blatant lies, or, at the very least, stretches the truth. Let me give you an example.

He was discussing the phenomenon of the fine tuning of our universe and was doing exactly what most scientists try to avoid. He was trying to show evidence for the reality of a finely tuned universe. I thought that very unusual, so, I paid greater attention to what was being said, by this deciever of men, who is a outspoken and aggressive atheist, telling us that the universe is finely tuned to allow for organic life to exist. Then he said that there is a multi-verse, or, as he put it, an infinite number of universes. Not that it was a postulation, or hypothesis, but that there was, absolutely, an infinite number of universes, all different to this one, and that by the laws of probability a finely tuned universe is bound to exist somewhere, and that is why our universe is finely tuned, pure chance. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of our universe knows that there is no evidence for an infinite number of universe, or even the concept of infinity, let alone stating it as fact that they are all different when they could, quite as likely, be all the same, yet he used a hypothesis to prove, what he described as, a fact, and then concluding that there is no need of a God as the answer for this supernatural event has now been discovered as being the existence of a multi-universe. That, in my opinion, is not only intentionally deceiving the viewer, but it is also very dishonest. Is it any wonder why christianity is declining in our world when people, like Professor Brian Cox, are aloud, Nay, encouraged, to peddle their duplicitous lies to such a large and impressionable audience. Christianity is declining over the unscrupulous ethics of our media industry and those they gainfully employ to mislead us. It is an unfair battle field where we have pitch forks to fight those with sub-machine guns. Where is the victory? where is the honour?

From a Christians point of view, we do not need a God to explain scientific phenomenon for us, such as fine tuning. We never have. That is not relevant to His existence and our belief in Him. It is his design to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, in this, His marvelous work and wonder, via the sacred Plan of Redemption. It is not for us to seek for signs of his existence in the stars. That is tantamount to seeking for a sign, a grievous sin.

Matthew 16:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Why, do you think, there are people, in authority, willing to put their credibility on the line with the express desire to denounce a belief that they do not have? That baffles me, why there are those who are proactive in sticking their noses into other people's business. What motivates these people?

As I said with the Calvinist thing, anything that could be considered a deity would have to be the creator of the laws of everything, which, to the best of our knowledge, is discovered through science.

Hmm... That is not how I actually see it. Let me try and explain how I have come to my conclusion. According to scripture, God is perfect, both physically and spiritually. A perfect entity. We know that perfection cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection as either perfection would become defiled rendering it imperfect or imperfection would be destroyed by the majesty of perfection, or both. The Catholic Church makes it clear how they see God as being perfect. "Nothing imperfect can be in Gods presence, NOTHING IMPERFECT. Not the slightest smallest tiniest speck of imperfection. God is so Infinitely Holy and such pure perfection; there are no words in any language to describe God. To be in Gods presence with the slightest blemish on our soul would mean instant death. Nothing imperfect can behold the Beatific Vision no matter how small or tiny the imperfection". On this point I agree with the Catholic doctrine.

That means that there is a law, that is irrevocably decreed, that states that perfection cannot dwell with imperfection, a law no different in nature and veracity to that of gravity or thermodynamics. I realise that this may seem like God has contraints, however, you cannot create a law that has no beginning of days, nor end. I do not believe that God had any say in it. It is an eternal law. All Laws are eternal, whether natural or supernatural. They existed within the singularity and continued their functionality directly after the Big Bang occurred. They have existed in other world. According to Mormonism God said "And worlds without number have I created" An infinite number of world's each possessing universal and eternal laws.

So I completely appreciate this sentiment. And while I see what you're saying about science leading people away from God, I can also point to a very well-written thesis, done by an atheist, which shows how prevalent faith in the supernatural actually is within the scientific community. There are some extremely well educated men who use their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to strengthen their faith - not diminish it. The issue that I believe you are addressing has more to do with the ignorance of the general populace as to knowledge, both religious and scientific, than it does with absolute truth.

Oh, I do not think that science can do that as it is a abstract object, no, it is the scientists who are using science to lead people away from God. But if that is true then there must be a motivating influence that causes these aggressive atheist scientists to use the beautiful gift of scientific discovery to fuel their hatred for anything divine. Brian Cox intentionally lead unsuspecting views astray by giving the impression that there is an absolute infinite number of universes, each slightly different from the other. He actually said that this makes the idea of a God unnecessary. Why would he say that in a cosmology documentary? There has to be some kind of reasoning behind his actions. There is, of course, a multiplicity of reasons, however, I am a Christian so there is one cause that I am naturally drawn to, and which has a major role in the Plan of Salvation - Satan.

You are the first atheist that has said that sciences can strengthen faith. I was astounded how much science strengthened my own testimony of divinity whilst I was at university. I studied Environmental Engineering - Earth Science - and could not help but to see God's hand in the natural world we live in. It was whilst I was in university that I received an epiphany and the eyes of my understanding were opened to see what was always there, but which I could not readily see. But all of this is, in my opinion, to be expected, with things getting far worse before it will get better. So, there is no point in fighting against it anymore. Better to give your way to a dog, then be bitten by it. For me it is like a almost completed jig saw puzzle with just a few pieces left to finish the picture. I am just tasting the coffee in front of a roaring fire whilst the storm rages outside.

Evolution and Religion by Greg Graffin | 9781609844677 | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble
It's somewhere around $9 US

Thanks, I will take a look.

Obviously, the comment was quite tongue in cheek, but the point was that at least you put some thought behind your faith, as opposed to taking up faith and then trying to rationalize everything in your life within a a limited worldview.

For what it's worth, as long as you subscribe to an ancient deistic view of the world, I'll always associate you with a dash of "raving luncatic" and just a pinch of "intelligence." :)

That is fine. I am not offended. You cannot make a cake with just flour.

in regard to angry atheists - As I mentioned before, there are plenty of angry theists as well. I understand why two philosophies, who are essentially diametrically opposed to each other would be inclined to constantly engage with each other in a negative fashion - but that only leads to more angry responses and doesn't exactly clam the situation so that real conversation can take place, does it?

Yes there are plenty of angry theists, however, they are not trying to make atheism extinct. Everyone has agency to make their own choices. You do a very good job of proving that. You are putting up as good of an argument as any aggressive atheist, better, in fact, but you are not being offensive. If you can do it then so can the aggressive atheist then we can all learn from each other.

It's certainly OK to disagree. People, if they were honest with themselves and honest with those around them, actually disagree about a great number of things. There's nothing wrong with that. The difference between adult conversation and childhood rough-housing is our ability to set aside differences and still be able to communicate. If, at the end of the day, two people still cannot find any common ground to speak of, then they probably shouldn't engage each other at all. I think too often we fall into the trap of wanting to be right in a situation, regardless of whether or not we actually are... Everyone is guilty of that to some degree.

I like what you are saying here, and it is very true.

Opponent concentration is necessary in a proper debate. If you don't do that, then you'll be walked all over by whoever your speaking with. But, in a forum setting, there are far more people who read articles than those who participate in the conversation. I mean in this tread alone there are over 2,000 response but there are 14,000 views... See what I mean? If only 20 people are participating, and even checking it every single day, 14,000 is a HUGE number. How many different individuals are reading?

I hadn't realised that so many were viewing. How very disconcerting yet awesome

Exactly. And even after the fact, new knowledge means that what you once "knew" to be right was completely bogus, and you get to start over with something else that's new that will eventually be supported or dispelled... The wisest thing you've written on here happened just a couple of quotes ago, where you harkened to Socrates in saying that, basically, "All I know is that I don't know nothing."

Thank you. I thought that I had written more, but one compliment is always better then none.

It seems that we are getting back to the root of this thread, eh? Based on what you just said, the Plan of Salvation requires that every link in the chain be dependent upon the preceding links. If one of those is, for example, based on speculation, then doesn't weaken one of the links, thus weakening the Plan?

The entire Plan of Salvation is speculative. There is no perfect knowledge that it exists. I believe it does, through faith in Christ, but I could not show you it working, in action, as it were. Without it the scriptures are meaningless and, therefore, the entirety of theism fails. But that is a foregone conclusion for you. It is only really of any relevance to people like me. Those who believe in deity. It is of no real concern to anybody else, as long as it doesn't encroach on their space.

Since you and I have established the framework of what we accept the Plan to entail, then I'll only address that.

That particular interpretation of the Plan is what makes me question the logical legitimacy of it. It's essentially, "IF God does this, THEN that..." You're ultimately going to be blocked logically,

No, that is not how it works. God is a non interventionary God. He never intervenes. He cannot intervene. That is not my opinion, it is a universal law. The moment that he does, predestination steps in, free agency ceases to exist, and the entire Plan is obliterated. God has provided for us a sacred book of commandments that tells us how to live a life that will lead us back into His presence. But even that book is not tied to him. We have to exercise faith in its pages as there is no evidence of its origins, and very little of its content, however, after studying it, and pondering, praying and building up a picture of it as the whole as well as the individual parts, with the "whole" being the entire Plan of Redemption and the "parts" being the interconnective principles, you will eventually reach a point where you realise that it must have come from divinity. But God gives no ultimatums. He gives agency to choose for ourselves.

I think, in explaining this Plan because their interpretations can vary. What is, as I've said with the Calvinist interpretation, God does know everything that is going to happen, and everything is entirely predetermined? I believe the Calvinist would agree with your concept of the Plan of Salvation's existence and vessel through which the faithful are redeemed - but they would oppose you on the idea of agency while still agreeing with the ultimate premise.

I am not familiar with the Calvinists. Personally, everything must be plausible for me to even consider it's authenticity. The reason for our existence is to be proven in the flesh and gain a physical body of flesh and blood. If there was no choice then their can be no proving of the person, as whatever he does is predetermined. The entire reason for theism would be in a shambles. It just could not work. It is essential for us to have agency. To make our own choices.

That question is the root of religious history, isn't it?

What is the reason for our existence? What if there is no reason for our existence? What if there is a reason for our existence, and we haven't even discovered it yet? What if we don't even exist?

All potentially weak links in a perfect plan, however, as you would expect in a perfect plan, there is a rational answer to it all.

We exist in mortality to be tried and tested in the flesh to see if we choose righteousness and moral accountability, by using the infinite atonement of Christ to blot out our sins, and his resurrection, to receive salvation. That entails dedicating our lives to living the commandments, principles and precepts of the Saviour. It is a mortal probation in which we either prepare to meet God or we denounce Him. Nobody is being forced either way. That was Satan's plan.

If I died tomorrow, and there is nothing, what have I lost in living a Christ like life? I would not know anything so I would not regret anything. If, on the other hand, all that I believed in was true and that by living it I might get to be with God in His Kingdom. Like the first scenario, I would have no regrets. Therefore, if there is no reason for our existence then "so what". Nobody is going to care.

The Plan facilitates for those that do not get the opportunity to discover the existence of divinity. Everyone will be given that opportunity to hear the gospels of Christ and make a decision to except it or deny it. Nobody is given a second chance but everyone is given a chance. Nobody will be left out, otherwise, the whole plan will fail to work.

"What if we don't even exist?" Has the same answer as if "there is no reason for our existence". It will not matter. We will no longer exist in order to care

The only part that I can answer with any certainty is an aside. We weren't always the only higher intelligence on the planet - it just so happens that two of our closest relatives have gone extinct so we live under this illusion that we are the pinnacle of evolution. Also, the vastness of our spacial existence makes it seem like our planet if finely tuned to sustain life, but what we learning even from Mars (not to mention the Earth-like extrasolar planets that we are discovering) shows us that all of the building blocks for like are not even rare, let alone confined to our planet...

For example, the Dawn spacecraft will be entering orbit around Ceres in a little under two months. Ceres is too small to maintain an atmosphere yet it has one. We know from spectro-analysis that it contains more fresh water that we have here at home. One likely reason for the atmosphere being there is because of consistent or continuous release of vapor via geyers - which would mean that there is an active geothermal core to the planet, which means heat. Water plus heat equals...well it equals everything that we know so far...

In all honesty, I know nothing about this so I cannot comment on it, other then to say that, if I were a god I would not waste all that space on just one life permitting planets. I once heard a general authority of the Mormon church, and a cosmologist, say that he estimates that there is 600 million, or billion, I cannot remember which, planets in our universe that can, and probably do, sustain life. It seems good sense to me to utilise the available space efficiently and with order and structure. Fine tuning does not only pertain to our planet but to the entire universe.

I would be interested in the extinct life forms that were more intelligent than us though. Do you have any links readily available?

Granted, that's all speculation at this point. But we're about to rewrite History is half of these speculations are accurate.

We've lived under this premise that we are significant in the Universe for so long that we have developed these ideas about the supernatural that are actually quite egocentric, if you think about it.

I agree that you have asked a lot of questions that beg answers. But I'll also wager that if there were any animal experts among us, then could give insight, for example, into Elephant behavior. Dogs do similar things before storms come, as do birds, for example. It's a natural knowledge that we humans have lost as we've modernized, I'm afraid . Now, I can't tell you what it is specifically, because that's not my area of expertise, but I don't believe it to be supernatural. And consciousness is another interesting topic that I think can be delved into a little more via the study of animal behavior. After doing some light studying of Chimpanzee behavior, specifically their learning on American Sign Language with Dr. Roger Fouts and their independent passing along of that knowledge to their offspring after the study was completed has convinced me that chimps are conscious creatures. Dolphins, likewise, have very similar inclinations towards higher intelligence - as do the aforementioned elephants... When we separate the study of us from the study of where we came from, I think we are doing a great injustice to knowledge.

This is a very interesting topic to discuss. It was not just elephants that left before it struck but almost all of the wild life left. Now you could say that they had warnings, picked up by vibrations, however, feeling vibrations does not tell them that they are in danger so get the hell out of there. It is just a vibration. Something warned them of impending danger and they quietly and calmly left the area. I think that it could be a sixth sense, one that we disbanded, in favour of technology, many years ago.

The chimpanzee is very much a conscious animal, as is the dolphin, however, they are vastly inferior to that of a human who reasons on a far larger scale. I see it as black and white. Humans are vastly more intelligent then any animal in existence. I do not say that animals are unintelligent but that we are so far apart that there has to be a reason for it, other then just chance.

I didn't mean that I was lumping you into that category. I was trying to show how some people of your faith don't put that kind of metaphoric label on those events as you do.

From what I've gathered, you're somewhere in the UK. I don't know how prominent fundamentalism where you are but I'm from the South Eastern US, where fundamentalism seems to be the norm and not the exception... I'm surrounded daily by people who believe that Jesus actually and physically was lifted on a cloud into the sky surrounded by light and angels and I imagine doves, rainbows, bunnies and little floating hearts.

Now I live in a street of terrace houses in South Wales with about a hundred houses each side of the street, situated in a one time thriving mining community. Nobody in my street has a clue as to whether I am atheist or theist. Nobody has ever asked me. The only people who know I am a Christian is my immediate family, and they do not know exactly what I believe in. Indeed, you know more about my actual beliefs then they do. Nobody in the UK ever talks about religion or politics. The majority of church goers here are older people who are facing death, so need it to go without to much fear of the unknown, or, they are edging their bets, which is Ok if it makes things easier for them. Religion is not advertised here or promoted in anyway. We see no religions poster boards and our television is anti religion and pro-gay. I cannot remember the last time I heard the words "God" or "Jesus Christ" mentioned in public. And this in a country where the head of the church is the Queen. Religion here is the exception and not the rule, so, I sympathise with your situation. When you have too many Christians, with their own interpretations of christianity, and within large congregations, who all believe in the same false teachings of men, then you have to expect fundamentalism and disharmony as well. I have my own beliefs, which I keep to myself, apart from when I am on here, and nobody knows what I believe. I have a personal relationship with God not a congregational one, where people tend to live on other congregationalist testimonies. I know what I know and I blame nobody or ask anybody to believe me, but I would tell them if asked. Christianity was never about mens interpretations and congregations ready to believe them. It is about the individual and his/her relationship with God. This is what Jesus meant when he said "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there shall I be also" . My church is within my heart, the same place as the spirit of God dwells.

If I were to believe such fantasies then I would check myself into a clinic. I do not know how Jesus ascended into heaven, but I do know that it was not magical or that it did not contravene any universal laws. I am guessing that it could have been an illusion, a trick of the mind, similar to the effects of LSD, not that I would know what that is, or special effects on a big screen tv.

As I've said before, I have no doubt about your personal convictions. You know that I don't believe what you believe - and that's OK.

But that really is Ok. I judge no man on his religious convictions because I try not to judge any man. You are what you choose to be. I cannot, will not, interfere with your right to choose.

Deep deep down somewhere inside me I don't see a need for religion at all.

The need is all to noticeable in the UK. Our society has been going through a gradual decline in moral values over several decades now. There have been several surveys and much research has been conducted into why. The overwhelming cause seems to be the decline in religious values being taught in our schools. It inevitably produces a society where nobody seems to feel any moral accountability to anybody else, what with our government being so dishonest and corrupt, displaying very little moral values for us to emulate or use as our role model. So, there really is a need for religion, if not just to create a better environment for us to live in. If you mean that there is no need for us to believe in God, then I would agree, solely on the grounds that believing in divinity should be an individual and personal choice. Nobody should be condemned for their lack of belief, as nobody should be persecuted for their personal beliefs either. It is a basic human right to worship the God of your choice. Nobody has a right to deny that to you. I do not believe in churches being necessary to being a Christian, but I would never consider abolishing them all the time there is just one person who needs them.

In that vein, if I were King of the World, there would be no religion. Just none. I don't see it as necessary for life to exist much like is to does today - with the only difference between men being flown under banners other than that of a Cross or a Crescent and Star... So I understand what you're saying about the more contemptible responses that you get from some atheists. Like we've discussed before, I think there are some people who just love antagonism for antagonism's sake.

I think that if you were a king, you would have to do things that you may not like, to both keep your subjects happy and to keep them under control and avoid mob rule. If I were King I would encourage religion just to help keep my country stabilised. .

Yes, one thing I have learned from these forums is that "trolling" is rife. There are those who relish in being arogantly antagonistic and confrontational.

Our judgement of others based on our previous experiences/hang-ups/baggage usually tend to breed more antagonism - not quell it. I mean, for every antagonistic atheist there is the staunch fundamentalist theist who rejects any and all attempts at adult conversation. This is a cyclic problem that people usually are taught to deal with in Group Dynamics 101, but people usually just don't pay attention because they're too busy trying to be right.

I would be the first to agree. There are some pretty unusual beliefs out there, in the name of Christianity. I tend to fall out with Christians for their strange and bizarre beliefs more than I do with atheists over their disbelief, especially the "Born Again Christians" whose entire belief is based on false doctrines, misinterpretations and outright lies yet their congregation just swallow the illogical tripe. But generally speaking, Christians are not trying to remove atheism from our world but, as you have said, atheists would love to see the back of theism. Living in the UK I can not see why atheists do not just live and let live.
 
Last edited:

rivenrock

Member
The greatest selfless sacrifice ever made by any man ever, you call unreasonable and immoral. Immediately I have to conclude that your perception of that extraordinary event is to say, obscured and confused.
...How would you expect me, a devout Christian, to not say anything in defence of my God when accused of killing his son. Now that is what I would call unreasonably.
...I will ignore the insults to Deity that seems to demonstrate a hidden bitterness.

You see, you say that faith in Christ is logical and claim that you have looked at it from every angle to come to this conclusion, but the truth is that your approach is not in any way logical or rational. Your whole approach to faith in Christ is emotional and defensive, and in that state of mind, there isn't any way that you could have looked at things dispassionately in order to test the logic of it. You just want to believe so much that you cannot take it apart and recognise the obvious flaws. You've also offered no sound responses to my arguments, just a lot of waffle along the lines of, 'isn't it special? Isn't it wondrous? Isn't God just the best?' Just because it sounds nice is not a reason to believe in a fairy tale.

If you were familiar with the character of God you would know whay a Saviour was necessary.

You forgot, 'God works in mysterious ways.' All this kind of answer shows is that you have no answer to the question.

It does not take mega intelligence to recognise what he did. He VOLUNTEERED. He was not forced, coerced, encouraged, manipulated or in any other way made to do it. He volunteered to do it.

What the angel must have undoubtedly said, though we don't have the message, (but I wouldn't be a bit surprised,) if it went something like this:

"Oh, Jehovah, thou Son of God, you do not have to do this unless you wish, but you should know that unless you fulfill this assignment, the Father will lose not only this family, this whole family, but the entire creation associated with them; the planets, the plants, the animals, everything that you laid your hands to create will be lost to the Father and go back to the chaos and outer darkness from which it came."

1. It does not take mega intelligence to recognise that whether or not Jesus volunteered is irrelevant to the point I made. The sacrifice of an innocent (volunteer or not) to pay for the crimes of the guilty is neither possible nor just, and while some would label it merciful, it is certainly not showing any kindness or compassion to the victims of those crimes.
2.Do this or all, and I mean ALL, is lost! That sounds a lot like encouragement/coersion/emotional manipulation to me.

God would never, could never, ask anybody or anything to act in immorality. He is perfect."

Um, sure. When he sent his chosen people into the land of Canaan to slaughter every living thing, that was totally moral, right? God is jealous, vengeful, unfair, plays favourites. You only have to look as far as your Bible to see that.

You have done nothing to show evidence that faith in Christ makes any sense at all. I won't be engaging further in this discussion. There's really no point when you have demonstrated that you cannot see or discuss the subject objectively.
 
Last edited:
Top