Post Election "high"

[TurboS7]

I am leaving for the big sandbox and will be gone for a while.I want to leave you guys with something.
Scripture say in Deut. 6 that You should love the Lord your God with a your heart, mind , and soul, in the Gospels Jesus quoted Deut. and also said and you shall love your neighbor the way that you love yourself.
If a Christain wants Christian values in government it is because in Scripture God has promised to bless those that love his commandments. God has also promised to bless those that bless Israel. Those blessing effect this country and yourself no matter what you believe.Christians have also been commanded to love, that is agape love and only comes from the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Agape love in unconditiional love which is love without any expectation of a response. This love includes everyone even those that do not agree. when you know the truth you know that you know the truth and you want to proclaim it. Yet someone can only come to God if he draws them and it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that revels the truth. Thanks for this discussion, it was great. See you guys later.

 

[burping_boy]

TwinTails,

Yes, I'm just so naive because I don't believe in the fairy tale rubbish that you live your life by, aren't I?

I'm sorry, but if you believe that the only thing getting you through a dangerous situation is your "god", then you are very weak-minded and paranoid at best, and totally incompetent at worst. I wouldn't want to fly with some schmuck that threw up his hands at the first sign of trouble and said, "Well, it's all in God's hands now folks!" Talk about naive!

And yes, all the things in this world "just are", like it or not. Let me ask you something, if all the things in this world are too complex to "just have been", and had to have been created, then where did your god come from? I mean your god must be exponentially more complex then the things in this universe, and therefore HE could not "just have been"! If you say he is infinite, I say the universe is infinite, ever-changing and evolving in form.

Who's selfish?! I think it is selfish to only live your life morally because you expect some da|\/||\| "reward in heaven" for doing so. YOU, sir, are the selfish one. I am a moral person not due to the threat of hell or the promise of heaven, but because I truly do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Stick THAT in your bible!

 

[prodigal]

burping_boy

You claim to be moral but fail to realize that morality is by definition based on religious premise and foundation. Morality didn't just materialize out of the inherent goodwill of man.

 

[burping_boy]

You claim to be moral but fail to realize that morality is by definition based on religious premise and foundation. Morality didn't just materialize out of the inherent goodwill of man.

On the contrary, man injected his already existant form of morality into religion when man was creating his religion.

Morality is derived from one primitive animal instinct -- that which hurts me is bad, that which helps me is good. Apply that to others and BAM! Morality.

[EDIT] Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of morality, to further disprove your erroneous statement:

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct.

And now here is the MW definition of "moral":

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>


I don't see religion or god in there anywhere. Do you? You said "by definition" and you are completely wrong.

Thanks for playing.

 

[enigma]

Random thoughts

I've been out on a trip for five days, and now I come back to this thread. Where to start, Whew.

First. I totally agree with bubba. I too, choose to live from the perspective that God exists and that he wishes me to live a life that honors him. I don't always succeed in honoring Him, especially on this board. I probably should read this thread a couple more times before responding, but I'm short on time; so here goes.

The USA was instituted as a Christian nation, whether modern society wants to acknowledge it or not. A cursory reading of the writings of the founding fathers will confirm this. For anyone who is interested, I suggest www.wallbuilders.com. That is the site for David Barton, a recognized historical scholar. Barton has researched the issue and makes a very good argument for the Christian heritage of the USA. I haven't read his books lately, but one of the qoutes that I remember is from Sam Adams, who wrote, that the system of government that they had instituted was suited only for a Godly, self-governing people, and wholly unsuited for any other man.

Seperation of church and state. The founders never intended to seperate God and state. In fact, the government still recognizes God in its daily activities. "In God We Trust", opening legislative sessions with prayer, etc. What the founders did was include language that precluded the government from mandating a certain religion as the only legal religion. The phrase "seperation of church and state", came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist group that was worried that they were going to be coerced into becoming Methodists. Jefferson was attempting to reasure them that the government was not going to institute an official religion.

Bubba said that the Bible is the most verifiable book from ancient times. (sorry for the paraphrase) I would add that this should be in reference to whether we can trust that todays Bible is an accurate representation of the words that were written two thousand years ago. I have a scholarly volume by Josh McDowell called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. McDowell states that there are over 24 thousand existing ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and only around 900 of Homers Illiad. We trust the the Illiad we read in school is an accurate edition of Homer. According to the existing ancient manuscripts, we can also trust that todays Bible is an accurate copy of the original words. I would add that archeology has consistently proven the Bible to be a accurate document. The physician Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke, is considered a world class historian by true historians.

Someone insinuated that the Bible was not scientific. I would challenge anyone to find any part of the Bible that science can prove wrong.

Like Timebuilder, TurboS7, Bubba and others, I too am a Christian saved by Gods grace. I trust in Jesus and Jesus alone for my salvation. I sometimes wish that God had just made us all angels, but had he done so, our friendship would mean nothing to him. He gave us the free will to choose and I would encourage others to choose wisely.

regards,
8N


PS, I saw a great bumper sticker some time ago that said. "If your living like there is no GOD, you'd better be right.

 

[burping_boy]

Enigma

1) I've already commented on the "Christian nation" thing so I have nothing further to say on that.

2) As far as Luke goes, Luke is one of the most contradictory books of the NT. I can provide links to some of the many websites that show these flaws, as well as a truckload of problems with the entire concept of Jesus. Let me know.

3)

Someone insinuated that the Bible was not scientific. I would challenge anyone to find any part of the Bible that science can prove wrong.

I accept your challenge!

Some examples of scientific problems with the bible --

1) The bat is not a bird.

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

2) Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

3) Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

4) Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.



This is just a sample. Much more is there for all to see.



[EDIT] To quote you:

PS, I saw a great bumper sticker some time ago that said. "If your living like there is no GOD, you'd better be right.

This is a prime example of the whole absurdity of your religion. Any being that would condemn a person to ETERNAL TORMENT, for simply not believing he existed, is a horrible, evil being! The Christian god is a mass-murdering, baby-killing menace. Yes, this is the omnibenevolent god of love and mercy, isn't it?!

I WOULD sooner roast in hell than bow down to a piece of trash like that. At least I would be standing up for TRUE righteousness.

 

[prodigal]

What proof?

What exactly is your proof? So what if the etymology of the word "morality" is listed as 14th. century? Do you seriously mean to suggest that the concept of morality originated in the 14th. century? Ever read the classics?

And as you are an accomplished etymologist so must you also be an expert on ancient man's development of "religion," which began in the murky, misty pre-ancient past, certainly predating any kind of written record of what they were thinking and even predating any oral histories known to man. How can you possibly claim to know that there was "an already existant form of morality" that man "injected" into his developing religion?
Quite a stretch, such a claim, don't you think?

And if you are indeed the scholar you would have us believe, have you really seriously even studied the Book you so cavalierly reject? I seriously doubt it. I would recommend it however; it wouldn't hurt. Even if you never buy what it's selling it's still great literature and such an erudite fellow as yourself would appreciate that.

 

[burping_boy]

What exactly is your proof? So what if the etymology of the word "morality" is listed as 14th. century? Do you seriously mean to suggest that the concept of morality originated in the 14th. century? Ever read the classics?

You said "BY DEFINITION" morality is based on religious premise and foundation. Were you around before the 14th century to see some sort of alternate definition? Ahhh, I SEE! You mean "by definition" as in your own PERSONAL definition that you created yourself based on what you WANT to believe!

In other words, "by definition" means one and ONLY one thing. DEFINITION. You have yet to show me an alternative definition that says what you stated.

And as you are an accomplished etymologist so must you also be an expert on ancient man's development of "religion," which began in the murky, misty pre-ancient past, certainly predating any kind of written record of what they were thinking and even predating any oral histories known to man. How can you possibly claim to know that there was "an already existant form of morality" that man "injected" into his developing religion?
Quite a stretch, such a claim, don't you think?

It's quite simple. When the bible was written, a form of morality was injected into it. Since it contains a form of morality, and was written by men, my statement is correct!

Having trouble with the simple things are we?

And if you are indeed the scholar you would have us believe, have you really seriously even studied the Book you so cavalierly reject? I seriously doubt it. I would recommend it however; it wouldn't hurt. Even if you never buy what it's selling it's still great literature and such an erudite fellow as yourself would appreciate that.

If you actually took the time to read this whole thread, you would have seen me tell Timebuilder precisely the answer to your question. But since you are obviously too lazy to read it, I will repeat myself -- I HAVE read the bible, I OWN a bible, and that is why I can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE would believe the nonsense contained therein. The endless bloodshed, the horrific acts committed by your loving and merciful "god", and the glaring contradictions and absurdities should stick out to anyone who reads it.

It's incredible how many of YOU there are that swear by it, but have never actually read it yourselves!

This is fun! Please, keep the debate going!

 

[prodigal]

Ok, I'm growing weary and I know I won't change your mind but one last rebuttal, just for the sake of argument.
As a small technical point I will cede I could have used different phraseology than "by definition" to express the truth that the concept of morality springs from religion.
Were you around in the 14th. century to witness the birth of morality? Again, ever read the classics? They predate the 14th. century by a heap of years. To continue to argue this absurd point weakens your argument considerably.
When the Bible was written not just some "form of morality" was injected into it. It was and is the inspired Word of God.
And if you had carefully read my last post I asked not whether you had read the Bible but whether you had seriously studied it.

And now you need not respond for I will yield to your obviously superior youthful and secular intellect.
BTW, congratulations on owning a Bible. It's a start. Small seeds sometimes do grow in poor soil but it may take a long time.

 

[H8U]

Next thing, you guys are going to tell us there's no such thing as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[prodigal]

No Santa?!!!

Who told you those lies?!~

 

[H8U]

Jesus did!

 

[prodigal]

It was a joke

 

[burping_boy]

2 things, prodigal:

1) First, you tell me that by merely debating with you, I am weakening my argument. Why tell me this? I think you are looking for a way out, and therefore resorting to an attempt to stop me from replying.

2) At the end, you tell me to not bother responding. Sorry pal, but it is in very bad taste to give your reply and then tell the other person not to. There is no "last word" in a debate, and again, it seems like you are looking for a way out. This will not stop me from addressing your reply!

So now I shall continue...

As a small technical point I will cede I could have used different phraseology than "by definition" to express the truth that the concept of morality springs from religion.
Were you around in the 14th. century to witness the birth of morality? Again, ever read the classics? They predate the 14th. century by a heap of years. To continue to argue this absurd point weakens your argument considerably.

1st of all, you are taking one detail from the definition (being worded in the 14th century) and implying that it is saying that morality was INVENTED in the 14th century!!! That is total nonsense, and you know it. I don't think that MW is trying to say that at all! Maybe the definition hasn't CHANGED since the 14th century, I don't know. I'm not a dictionary specialist. But this idea of yours is totally illogical.

2nd of all, you are saying "the TRUTH that the concept of morality springs from religion", but again you have NO fact to back that up! What truth? Your personal truth? Hardly an absolute. The problem with you fundies is that you are totally unable to think outside the boundaries of your dogmas.

You STILL have yet to show me one single "truth" that morality springs directly from religion. Neither of us were around prior to the mid-to-late-20th century, so that is a moot point and you will have to try better than "you weren't around to see the birth of morality". Please, one definition, one truth, ANY evidence of what you are saying, or YOU are weakening YOUR argument considerably, friend.

When the Bible was written not just some "form of morality" was injected into it. It was and is the inspired Word of God.

Your personal belief and NOTHING more. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, to non-xtians your dogma IS just some "form of morality". One way or another, the bible was written by men, and whether or not they were psychopathic and thought that a god was talking to them doesn't matter. THOSE authors injected THEIR specific blend of morality into their works. My statement stands.

And if you had carefully read my last post I asked not whether you had read the Bible but whether you had seriously studied it.

When I say I read it, I thought I implied study, but I guess not. YES, I have studied it deeply. I have kept an open mind but the mess that it is can not be hidden. It is a roughly thrown together set of atrocious short stories. I'm sure a God could have done much better.

BTW, congratulations on owning a Bible. It's a start. Small seeds sometimes do grow in poor soil but it may take a long time.

Likewise, try looking at the bible from a different point of view sometime. You just might be surprised at what you find.

 

[Timebuilder]

It's been a long day, and I'm finally home from BTR and IAD. I'm impressed that there are so many here with so much to say. Since we have veered into the Bible, and the truth of God, there is an important aspect to consider: there is no proof. That's right, no proof at all. Why? Because scripture tells us that God doesn't require a follower who KNOWS his truth because he has seen it and had it "proved" to him. Instead, he requires one who TRUSTS, one who has FAITH. I can't convince cjh that God is his creator, or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that the gospel lays out the only plan of salvation. So, if this is what we are arguing now, we can say our peace and sit down.

Men cannot change hearts, only God can do that. He can use a man to begin the job, but it is God who always seals the deal.

You you see, fellow aviators, if I could prove to you the truth of the Bible and the deity of Christ to such an irrefutable degree that you could not argue, then we would be looking at an entirely DIFFERENT plan, and not the one that has already been set into motion.

Smarter, more studied and learned men than myself (in my opinion) have debated these things for millenia. Because of that "proof" problem, the best we have is a draw. That is, until Christ returns for his faithful, and evil will rule unimpeded for seven years. But I digress. The point is, there is no way to settle an argument about faith by using the mind of man. Not now.

We can however, debate the constitution and the intention of the founders. Somewhere it was mentioned that the right to freedom of religion and the establishment clause amount to a separation of church and state. I suppose there is some support for that idea. The problem I see is that the establishment clause is currently being interpreted in a way that the founders could never have expected or intended. As I see it, there is a tremendous difference between naming "an official religion of the United States", which was the meaning which was intended by the founders (it is very clear, and unambiguous) versus the idea that a teacher leading her class in prayer constitutes making that an "official" endorsement of a particular religion, which is NOT what was intended. The teacher and the students have as much right as anyone in our country to the free practice of religion. Many may not like that, but that is what was intended. A Christmas tree on a public area is not a sactioning of an official religion. If it were, you could be routed from your homes and forced to stand around it and sing.

Yes, times have changed a great deal from when I was in the fourth grade compared to a fourth grader in the 1990's. I think there is a direct connection between the departure of our nation from the moral moderating force of faith and the negative changes (from a Biblical perspective) in our society. Very shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Madelaine Murry O'Hare, we began to see a breakdown in the family. We felt justified to follow our every desire, and soon, we were completely unashamed of any chosen behavior. Slouching Toward Gommorah, by Robert Bork, will give you a firm foundation in understanding this trend. It explains the breakdown of the moral and cultural restraints that helped to guide our daily behavior for most of our country's history.

So, if we decide to steer this thread back to a more civil, less strident tone, like we had earlier, I may have more to add. At this point, I'm emphatic that no one will be convinced in our current attempts to prove or disprove scripture. There are lots of website where there are attempts to dissemble scripture, saying "ah HA! You SEE? This is obviously wrong, and you are a fool to believe!!" What people fail to realize is that Satan is VERY clever. Although he is not God's "equal" he is much more clever than we are, and he will use that cleverness, that apparently "perfect sense" argument, to mislead as many people as possible. You can beware the dark side, skywalker, but there is no need to beware "Luke".

Is there any more futile an act than to spend more than a minute trying to convince an atheist that God exists? Okay, maybe it's more futile to try and pull a Skyhawk with a hand towbar down the runway, expecting it to fly, but the God argument is a really close second.

 

[310]

The morals issue does not apply when it comes to salvation.....

"For all have sinned" Noone can expect to go to Heaven based on being a good person- it is not humanly possible- but the Blood of Jesus Christ can cover our sins if we 1- believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God and (2) Repent. That is to turn away from our sinful ways and turn towards God and attempt to do as he would have us live.

Salvation is through faith, not by works. The works will come after salvation because we love God and wish to please Him. (The works do not keep us saved.) Salvation by faith in He that was blameless and sinless... yet He died on the Cross for all mankind so that thru him life everlasting can be enjoyed. Jesus Christ was the willing sacrifice of God of Himself so that our sins may be washed away and we may join Him in everlasting life.

How one can say as in one of the posts that God is cruel and evil is so off-base considering that God sacrificed His only Son so that we may live. The death and destruction written about in the Bible should be viewed as the evil brought into the world by man not living as God would have... but rather doing as Satan would have man do.

Those that say they are atheist always have alot to say about God and religion.....So much as to prove they really are not atheist but are squirming in their own dread of want they know is to come for themselves. God is loving and will forgive all if only a person will accept the gift of salvation- the gift being Jesus. All one has to do to recieve this gift is "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

We need no other intercessor betwen us and God other than Jesus Christ. We need no priest, pastor or pope to interceed for us with God. Jesus Christ's blood covers all our sins if we will only accept the gift of salvation. ( This is not to say we should not worship at church services led by a Bible believing pastor)

It is God's will that none should perish- no not one.... but it is up to us to accept the gift of life.

None of this implies that a christian will not die an untimely death- maybe even in an airplane- the laws of physics still apply to these mortal bodies- God may help us stay alive sometimes- maybe even keeping unbelievers alive so they can repent later- but I don't suggest tempting God by doing a base to final uncoordinated stall just to see.

 

[H8U]

"A donation fer yer salvation"- GTA2

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

It's been a long day, and I'm finally home from BTR and IAD. I'm impressed that there are so many here with so much to say. Since we have veered into the Bible, and the truth of God, there is an important aspect to consider: there is no proof. That's right, no proof at all. Why? Because scripture tells us that God doesn't require a follower who KNOWS his truth because he has seen it and had it "proved" to him. Instead, he requires one who TRUSTS, one who has FAITH. I can't convince cjh that God is his creator, or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that the gospel lays out the only plan of salvation. So, if this is what we are arguing now, we can say our peace and sit down.

See, that is very convenient for theists. You refuse to examine your beliefs from a third-person perspective. Under the guise of "no proof needed" and "faith", you will disregard any and all pertinent information that could show flaws in your belief system. All you have to do is tell yourself, "any flaws, contradictions, etc. in my bible or beliefs are just there as a test from god, or a temptation from satan". And PRESTO! End of discussion. You remain in a state of ignorant bliss.

And as a result, you are lost. You create such a cushion in your beliefs that no matter HOW absurd they become, you will not question them. Your mind becomes COMPLETELY CLOSED.

Men cannot change hearts, only God can do that. He can use a man to begin the job, but it is God who always seals the deal.

So you admit, only God can decide who believes in him. Therefore, anyone who does not was created that way, and is screwed from day 1. How lovely of this "Omnibenevolent" creature of yours.

We can however, debate the constitution and the intention of the founders. Somewhere it was mentioned that the right to freedom of religion and the establishment clause amount to a separation of church and state. I suppose there is some support for that idea. The problem I see is that the establishment clause is currently being interpreted in a way that the founders could never have expected or intended. As I see it, there is a tremendous difference between naming "an official religion of the United States", which was the meaning which was intended by the founders (it is very clear, and unambiguous) versus the idea that a teacher leading her class in prayer constitutes making that an "official" endorsement of a particular religion, which is NOT what was intended. The teacher and the students have as much right as anyone in our country to the free practice of religion. Many may not like that, but that is what was intended. A Christmas tree on a public area is not a sactioning of an official religion. If it were, you could be routed from your homes and forced to stand around it and sing.

Again I say to you, not sanctioning a teacher-led prayer in a public school is NOT repressing free practice of religion. Students are 100% free to pray on their own, or in their own organized groups. Why don't you understand this? A class is a captive audience, and when you force them to experience one set of beliefs only then you are crossing the line, and NOT merely practicing the "free excercise" of religion.

As far as the Christmas tree and even Christmas go, if you truly studied then you would know that Xtianity STOLE Xmas from the pagans. The holiday was formerly known as Winter Solstice, and to help "cure" the pagans of their "spiritual ills", the church adopted this holiday and used the 25th of December to celebrate thier "savior". Too bad he was really born in July (if he even existed to begin with)!

The Christmas tree is a very secular and commercial icon of Christmas. To us atheists, Christmas is a time of family. We've taken one flawed and stoled holiday and liberated it for all to enjoy!

Yes, times have changed a great deal from when I was in the fourth grade compared to a fourth grader in the 1990's. I think there is a direct connection between the departure of our nation from the moral moderating force of faith and the negative changes (from a Biblical perspective) in our society. Very shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Madelaine Murry O'Hare, we began to see a breakdown in the family. We felt justified to follow our every desire, and soon, we were completely unashamed of any chosen behavior. Slouching Toward Gommorah, by Robert Bork, will give you a firm foundation in understanding this trend. It explains the breakdown of the moral and cultural restraints that helped to guide our daily behavior for most of our country's history.

What you THINK and what the FACTS are are 2 very different things. Did you totally disregard what I said about pre- and post-prayer school violence? I guess not. As for your book, why can't you theists use a book from someone who DOESN'T base their every thought on the bible? A book like that is meaningless to me, and I think the more people who free themselves of your religion the better! It's nice to see so many people start to think for themselves.

So, if we decide to steer this thread back to a more civil, less strident tone, like we had earlier, I may have more to add. At this point, I'm emphatic that no one will be convinced in our current attempts to prove or disprove scripture. There are lots of website where there are attempts to dissemble scripture, saying "ah HA! You SEE? This is obviously wrong, and you are a fool to believe!!" What people fail to realize is that Satan is VERY clever. Although he is not God's "equal" he is much more clever than we are, and he will use that cleverness, that apparently "perfect sense" argument, to mislead as many people as possible. You can beware the dark side, skywalker, but there is no need to beware "Luke".

Again, hiding in your impenetrable cushion. No matter WHAT, anything that would discredit your beliefs are the spawn of satan. You are totally lost in your dogma. You have a closed mind, and won't for a second examine your system from outside the circle. "All I have to do is have faith, doesn't matter HOW wrong my beliefs might appear to be". Must be nice to live in such a bubble of ignorance, completely oblivious to logic.

Is there any more futile an act than to spend more than a minute trying to convince an atheist that God exists? Okay, maybe it's more futile to try and pull a Skyhawk with a hand towbar down the runway, expecting it to fly, but the God argument is a really close second.

Acutually, I think trying to reach someone as lost as you is much more futile! At least with us atheists, we examine ANY AND ALL theories, facts, flaws, beliefs, before we make our decisions. If you fundies present us with something to consider, we look into it. YOU, however, stay in your bubble and think that any possible flaws with your system are tools of satan meant to lead you astray. You throw logic and reason completely out the window in the name of the *warm fuzzies* you get from blind faith. But, I digress...


Anyway, Timebuilder, you are a very nice and friendly person. I don't mean to insult with anything I've said, but I really think you need to peek outside of your bubble. You are only fooling yourself and causing yourself harm if you disregard everything else in the name of blind faith.

 

[Timebuilder]

My friend, I used to OWN your position.

Now, I already told you that I won't convince you, and I'm fine with that. I even hosted a "New Age" radio show for seven years, 52 weeks a year, so I can say for certain that I have "been there, done that". What seems too "convenient" to you is just the way it is. If you want to argue, take it up with Him. I suspect that you'll get your chance someday.

Thanks for your participation in this discussion. I have, in fact, heard most of this thread before. You can't argue a matter of faith using the mind of Man.

 

[burping_boy]

310,

How one can say as in one of the posts that God is cruel and evil is so off-base considering that God sacrificed His only Son so that we may live. The death and destruction written about in the Bible should be viewed as the evil brought into the world by man not living as God would have... but rather doing as Satan would have man do.

What is way off-base is to say that Jesus (part of the so-called trinity and therefore GOD HIMSELF) even died! Since when does your god die? What a joke. Not to mention the flaws with the whole "virgin birth" myth. Some parts of the bible have Jesus as the NATURAL son of Joseph (not just step-son). Do you disregard these parts?

Your god is by far the most cruel, vengeful, and OUTRIGHT EVIL being that has ever graced the works of man. What were the creators of the bible smoking when they wrote the OT? Lets see --

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.

Beautiful creature, this god of yours. Makes me want to join up and start groveling today! You want to see a whole truckload of these? go here --> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml

Those that say they are atheist always have alot to say about God and religion.....So much as to prove they really are not atheist but are squirming in their own dread of want they know is to come for themselves. God is loving and will forgive all if only a person will accept the gift of salvation- the gift being Jesus. All one has to do to recieve this gift is "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Atheists HAVE TO have alot to say about this stuff. When one of you find out we're atheist, you stop at nothing to force your views on us and then it's work work work all the time!

In other words, we have to defend ourselves from your incessant bantering. Go on, keep telling yourself that we really believe what you believe, and we're merely "denying" god and angry with him. Keep wallowing in your own insecurity and ignorance!

Makes no difference to me.