I don't, I don't know what to believe. I'm more or less extremely confused. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, try and throw their beleifs on me and I'm extremely confused, I don't know what to follow.

I'm agnostic currently. One thing that confuses me is, if an God or Gods existed, wouldn't he/they make themselves known and show us the true religon?

You?

[This message has been edited by TheKillerMonkey (edited 03-21-2006).]

Me, no.

If i had to choose one to follow though it'd be Buddhism. It's a pretty agreeable way of life in my view.

[This message has been edited by Infrared Beverage (edited 03-22-2006).]

God does make himself known through the Bible. Regaurdless of what some people think, there are no contradictions, and that fact, along with it being written by 40 people shows the supernatural.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Regaurdless of what some people think, there are no contradictions,

Care to elaborate, dimwit?

Some people think the Bible contradicts itself, but all of the contradictions can be refuted. im not sure how much more clear i can make it.

Are you sure they have been refuted? I'm sure they have not all be refuted.

As for being written by 40 people, just further shows how fake it really is. That is why there are contradictions, and why the bible will take steps in one direction then it will go off on different stories. THE BIBLE IS THE BEST FICTION BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

If you wanna pick a religion, I suggest you look at all of them before deciding. Don't let the christians thrown their bullshit in your face.

[This message has been edited by Apoxyus (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

God does make himself known through the Bible. Regaurdless of what some people think, there are no contradictions, and that fact, along with it being written by 40 people shows the supernatural.

If it was written by forty people all at the same time without access to the others' writings, then yes, it could be deemed as supernatural. But written by forty people over a period of thousands of years, most, if not all with access to the writings of those before them... hmmmm, you're right, it is supernatural. God be praised, I've seen the light. Forgive me for having ever doubted the veracity of your existence, My Saviour, this proves that you are real.

hmmmm.... seeing this overwhelming evidence, I think I'll go fucking Pentecostal, then I get to scream and writhe and twitch and display signs of absolute insanity, all through the power of God.

No. I'm an atheist.

I'm a Pagan, among other things. In my beleiƒs, the reason why my gods and goddesses choose not to make their presence known to most people is because people do not live in harmony with nature. Besides, they don't need us, we need them. I don't think a god or godess that needs to be beleived in is doing things right.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

God does make himself known through the Bible. Regaurdless of what some people think, there are no contradictions, and that fact, along with it being written by 40 people shows the supernatural.

Okay, for one, the bible that you read at night is not the same one that was accepted hundreds of years ago. Before Gutenberg invented the printing press, every book had to be handwritten. The people that copied these books were often lazy and abbreviated things or would remove or alter parts or add in their own beliefs. Sometimes, the scribes would put stories they had heard or examples they thought were more clear in the margin. When the copy was passed down, it was put in the text as if it were originally there. Also, there's the language thing. If you ever played telephone as a child, you know that a simple and strightforward message can be completely changed after a few repetitions. Also, go onto a good translation website and translated a simple phrase a few times? The meaning becomes convoluted beyong comprehension. If you ask someone who did not have the context of the original sentence to interpret the sentence, you will probably get something completely different.

Also, read my posts on "Question about Noah's Flood".

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Are you sure they have been refuted? I'm sure they have not all be refuted.

As for being written by 40 people, just further shows how fake it really is. That is why there are contradictions, and why the bible will take steps in one direction then it will go off on different stories. THE BIBLE IS THE BEST FICTION BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

If you wanna pick a religion, I suggest you look at all of them before deciding. Don't let the christians thrown their bullshit in your face.



All the ones I have ever seen have been.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

God does make himself known through the Bible. Regaurdless of what some people think, there are no contradictions, and that fact, along with it being written by 40 people shows the supernatural.

Dragonsthrone, what about the ancient writings of other religions?!

Do you think the Vedas, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, and all the other various ancient texts of world religions are false just because the Bible says so?

You don't think the Muslim, and the Hindu, and the Jew can equally justify and prove their texts as you can your Bible?

Everyone thinks they're right. Everyone says they're right. And at the end of the day noone comes forth with the evidence to set their religion above the rest.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 03-22-2006).]

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm Whoops, finger slipped.

Oh, Dragonsthrone, your reply is still awaited in the "Question about Noah's flood" topic. ^^

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

No. I'm an atheist.

Absolute Atheist

Chaos, God created everything perfect, humans screwed it up. I konw its the steriotypical answer, but its what I believe.

I was thinking of going back to Islam. I miss it sometimes.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Chaos, God created everything perfect, humans screwed it up. I konw its the steriotypical answer, but its what I believe.

That's stupid. If god had made everything perfect, he would of made Humans perfect, so they wouldn't of fucked everything up.

Apoxyus, Dragon didn't say it HAD been refuted. He said it can be refuted, which most of them can be and I'd happily do so for you if you present a contradiction.

Chaosslayer, you are correct that the book he's reading is unoriginal and has been subjected to alterations. However, if you read it in the original Greek then you get the precise picture. An example of how it was changed is found where we say "Virgin" the Greek word we translated actually meant young woman. While this could very well have been a virgin, that is unknown and isn't claimed. To say "During the time of the printing press they were lazy," is a dumb argument though. You have no idea.

Elephantitis, apparently you don't know what the Tao Te Ching is in addition to your ignorance of what the Bible says. Nowhere within the Bible does it argue with the Tao Te Ching. The Vedas provides a bit of argument, though the Bible may be translated metaphorically to coincide well with it. The Bible doesn't say the Koran is wrong, the Koran is an extension of the Bible.

But the Tao Te Ching has issue with religion in general. The bible just isn't man enough to fight back.

Tao: 1

Bible: 0

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Chaos, God created everything perfect, humans screwed it up. I konw its the steriotypical answer, but its what I believe.

But why would the God create humans capable of screwing up?

And yeah, you're right. Damn that Jane Doe in New York for having a mentally retarded child, it's all her fault!

[This message has been edited by ChaosSlayer (edited 03-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

However, if you read it in the original Greek then you get the precise picture.

For one, people lie and exaggerate. Look at any "post your height and weight!" thread and you'd probably see people who are really 5' and 300 pounds saying that they are 6'1" and 160 pounds. The people who wrote those original documents that were combined to create the original Bible did not know that they were going to be used in something that would be read by millions of people in 1800 years, so they could have died before anyone could question their integrity.

Next, Jesus is usually portayed as an Aramaic speaker. Not Greek. Besides, did he constantly have someone follow him around and write down what he said? Otherwise, his advice could have been misquoted. It's not that bad to misquote a few words, of course, but when you translate it multiple times in addition to misquoting, the meaning tends to change drastically.



quote:Originally posted by Iam:

To say "During the time of the printing press they were lazy," is a dumb argument though. You have no idea.

I never said that people were lazy during the time of the printing press. Please read more carefully. It is a well known fact that scribes greatly altered books that they copied, purposefully or not, though human error and laziness. I didn't say, though, that this behavior continued with the invention of the printing press. It would be too difficult for the printers to change the printed text anyways because they would have to alter the text.



[This message has been edited by ChaosSlayer (edited 03-25-2006).]

The bible has many irrefutable contradictions. I am very tired of this 100% accuracty claim. Irrefutable is also not me just throwing out what I believe (cough cough 100% accuracy people) but a fact.

The bible makes statements that cannot both be true; hence, irrefutable contradictions. There are many examples, for example it is impossible to create a timeline of Easter without omitting any facts from the bible. The authors having it happening in different order. Personally, this is not a big deal to me, the general meaning is the same, but regardless you can't claim 100% accuracy without being 100% wrong.

The only way to refute that is to claim that they did say the same thing and that it was mistranslated (entirely possible) but that would dig you into a bigger hole then you are already in.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

I never said that people were lazy during the time of the printing press. Please read more carefully.

quote: ChaosSlayer: Before Gutenberg invented the printing press, every book had to be handwritten. The people that copied these books were often lazy and abbreviated things or would remove or alter parts or add in their own beliefs.

I probably don't need to respond to that hypocrisy with any more than that.



Ian: The point that you are making on the surface does, factually, appear valid. While the chronology of events like Easter in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is quite different from that which is presented in John is a true statement, we also see that most events in John do not match the chronology of the others. One could easily look at this inconsistency and determine that they're contradictory. However, most scholars agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are primarily concerned with presenting the history of Jesus while John is more of a spiritual text. The date found using Matthew, Mark, and Luke is the historical one. John isn't concerned with history, he has recieved further spiritual revelation from the Christ and is concerned only with further revealing this knowledge to us. In fact, John is the only text which equates God, the Word, and Jesus. That's the reason the debate during the formation of the Nicene Creed was so heated (you probably didn't know that though). Many of the Bishops present were against this equation because only one text made such a claim. However, John Christians were rather a majority in this time and Constantine himself was probably one. In the end, the equation survived and thus bore the Nicene Creed. What was the point of that? The point is that you need to understand the history of it to make sense of it. There appear to be contradictions, but in reality there are none. You simply don't understand everything circulating what is being discussed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iam:

[B] I probably don't need to respond to that hypocrisy with any more than that.

Actually, that's not hypocrisy- Read it again. He states that before the printing press lazy hand copiers did it wrong, but not after the printing press was invented. Different times, different..um...'levels of laziness' or something...anyway..

You can spin the contradictions any way you want claiming 'John was not worried about history' and so on, but they are there. I never said 'John was concerned about history and wrote a contradiction.' You can explain the circumstances, but it is a contradiction nonetheless. If I am extremely tired (like now) and I make a mistake, like typos I've made tonight, regardless of the fact that I need to pass out it is still a mistake, and for me to claim 100% accuracy would be wrong. Which I don't, of course.

Now, I happen to agree with you that John was not concerned with history, and like I mentioned before, it's really not a big deal. I don't believe the bible has much historical signifigance anyway. It was more of a guide to living life. You'd think we'd outgrown it, but nope. No gay marriage, no women priests- and I actually used to think the catholic church was always morally right, 100% of the time, no exceptions. Alas, no religion is except from cultural traditions, bigotry included.

Now I get it. ChaosSlayer, I was definitely in err. I apologize to you. My only argument against your claim now is one which you've heard no doubt many times before... The one about "Many authors concurring on the same things." Take it or leave it.

Ian: Why is it a contradiction then? You admit he is not concerned with history, yet you say that his chronology of events makes a contradiction to the others'. I don't understand how this can be percieved. If he is not attempting to place events in chronological order, then why is there contradiction in the fact that an event of his is not in the same order as the event from another? If he is not trying to show us history (as the others are and do agree upon) then why does it matter that his telling is different than theirs. It's not a historical contradiction, it's not a chronological contradiction. It's not a contradiction.

Edit- BTW, I'm not a Christian... For the record.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 03-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Now I get it. ChaosSlayer, I was definitely in err. I apologize to you.

S'okay, I should've been more clear.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

My only argument against your claim now is one which you've heard no doubt many times before... The one about "Many authors concurring on the same things." Take it or leave it.

Well, I guess it depends on the situation. The writings could have been made by the same person, yet mistakenly been accredited to someone else, someone stole them, etc.

Also the Roman Catholic Church had a council agree on the first Christian Canon (A canon is an "accepted" set of books or other documents that represent a faith). Sounds a lot like a conspiracy, I know, but they could have changed it to have the authors agree with each other to give it an overall sense of unity in the document or to makle people think that they really were prophets because they shared the same knowledge without ever meeting. Who knows, maybe the things that they all seem to agree on are really true?

It is a contradiction.

John states an order of events different then the others. They didn't both happen, and they couldn't. If you read both stories, they contradict each other. John never says 'this is roughly what happened' or simply avoid the historical aspect. He says what happened, and it is not compatible with the other stories. Contradiction, plain as day. Not the most significant one, but it proves irrefutably that not every word and statement and story written is accurate.

I am glad Iam isn't a christian. Heh. Anyway, there are more contradictions that regardless of spin are still contradictions. For the bible to be 100%, two statements cannot disagree with each other, and they do, many times unreconciably.

It further discredits creation as well. They claim they are right because their book is 100% right. Then, not only is the information in the book not proveable, disproven by outside sources, and has no basis outside of itself, but it downright contradicts itself, saving all of us the trouble. Yet some still believe.

I am a bright.

More of a movement than a religion, but when asked these types of questions, that is generally my response.

Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights Movement.

http://www.the-brights.net/

Notable brights:

Richard Dawkins

Daniel Dennett

Steve Pinker

"They didn't both happen," "the order of events is different." If that's your basis for a contradiction even though you know that he is not a chronicler of events, then so what? Why does it matter that the 'contradiction' exists? There is no historical contradiction in the texts that are regarded as being chronologies, that is what matters. Whether John is being historically true isn't what is of importance, it's whether he is being spiritually true that is important. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I've heard of the Bright movement, the simply seem like a group of scientifically minded people who are moral objectivists. At times they can appear solely to be of the Humanist perspective. It's a good group and all, IMO, but I disagree with the statement that there are no supernatural or mystical elements of life.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

"They didn't both happen," "the order of events is different." If that's your basis for a contradiction even though you know that he is not a chronicler of events, then so what? Why does it matter that the 'contradiction' exists? There is no historical contradiction in the texts that are regarded as being chronologies, that is what matters. Whether John is being historically true isn't what is of importance, it's whether he is being spiritually true that is important. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Why does it matter that the contradiction exists? Because creationists claim the bible is 100% accuracy, and not only is this disproved by evolution, but disproved by the bible itself. I don't care about the spiritual message. I don't care if John doesn't care about the historical message.

You have only excused the contradiction, but it is still a contradiction. Either somehow prove both stories are compatible, or admit the bible is not 100% accurate.

By the way there are better contradictions then this I just remembered that one off the top of my head. If it becomes a real issue I'll research some for you.

We are at an impass my friend. I believe there is no contradiction there.

quote:Originally posted by TheKillerMonkey:

I don't, I don't know what to believe. I'm more or less extremely confused. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, try and throw their beleifs on me and I'm extremely confused, I don't know what to follow.

I'm agnostic currently. One thing that confuses me is, if an God or Gods existed, wouldn't he/they make themselves known and show us the true religon?

You?



Words can be very powerful and the truth has little to do with the power of them. With wordcraft comes a skill based on manipulation to weave a picture in your mind with the hopes of eventually getting your heart attached to it. Therein, lies the danger of ideas and logic.

In a world of conterfit truths we have the destiny to sort through it all to find the one thing that is true as there really are absolutes in life. Such as death. If we agree there is life and death then we have already reached the core of this discussion. If there was no death then all the philosophies of the world would not be necessary. However, since there is death there is one thing man can not answer for certain. What happens after the death of the body?

Many people will deny the "truth" that we are spiritual beings. We just take it for granted mostly but we never stop to consider what all of our senses are feeding. If you study robotics at all, the elementary "truth" is a robot has sensors to feed a central "brain" which is programmed to respond to certain stimuli. It's ironic to consider that the model robotics are created from is man and animal.

In essence we are only creating servants to do the tasks we believe are below us. We are building our own congregations of worshippers crafted in the image and likeness of ourselves.

What does this have to do with religion? To get back on point. Truth is only proven with time and one day it will be revealed. That is certain.

We are spiritual beings and there is something much deeper inside all of us. The core of our being seeps out through the same sensors that feeds it and it defines to all who we are.

I am fully convinced that God exists and the true path to Him is through Jesus Christ. Many have argued against it and many have died for keeping it. To tie all of this together. It is in the core of our person that God speaks to. That place where all the sensors lead to is also the place were God dwells in us. This is the place in us where our being is shaped and where our love comes out from.

Truth be told, no other thing has been challenged so passionatly on this earth then the belief that Jesus is the son of God. It is allagorical of the continual battle between spritual light and darkness. This battle is waged every second of every day on our hearts and minds and is designed to lead us to or away from "Truth"

Information is a weapon. The strongest weapon is the truth which will in time always overcome. Rest assured, despite your place in the spiritual universe, you will one day see the "truth" My God says find it now and be redeemed before it is too late.

Death is the mark of the end of our race.

Whatever philosophy you followed in life will be your testimony. I can only hope that deep contemplation of the "natural laws" and what philosophy matches with them is eventually seen. There lies the truth.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 03-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Are you sure they have been refuted? I'm sure they have not all be refuted.

As for being written by 40 people, just further shows how fake it really is. That is why there are contradictions, and why the bible will take steps in one direction then it will go off on different stories.



Fuck you're stupid. Both of you. The Gospel was written by Matthew, Paul, Luke and John...They each wrote their Gospel from their different points of view. This makes it more credible. They didn't even collaborate on it, they just wrote what they experienced about Jesus...

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Chaos, God created everything perfect, humans screwed it up. I konw its the steriotypical answer, but its what I believe.

I dare you to tell someone that has been born without all their limbs or their sight that all things are created perfect.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

[b]mentally retarded, born deaf and blind, or born in secluded areas where access to christianity is impossible

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

the answer is that all those negative things you mentioned aren't negative in the long run

Oh great, you can be the first to test them, then. Rip out your eyeballs, blow out your eardums, go get a lobotomy, and then go to a very secluded area and see how well you fare.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Chaos, God created everything perfect, humans screwed it up. I konw its the steriotypical answer, but its what I believe.



I think this is what I would consider "grasping at straws". How can a being born with logic defy all of it for a mere belief? Seriously, saying that everything is perfect, yet God created humans (perfect as well) that destroyed everything's perfection is defying all reason.

[This message has been edited by ChaosSlayer (edited 03-28-2006).]

I'm Jewish.

The G-d doesnt show himself to us, because he doesnt need to. He's already left us with the Torah, and thats all we need. In my opinion all religions are good, Judaism does not preach the hell and brimstone of the protestants.

Follow whatever feels natural, whatever you are attracted to. The most important thing is that it helps you become a better person. If you do that, the G-d will surely smile apon you.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Some people think the Bible contradicts itself, but all of the contradictions can be refuted. im not sure how much more clear i can make it.

Care to refute any of these? (http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm)

Or what about these? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html)

Or these? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html)

Or does any of this make sense to you? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html)

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Care to refute any of these? (http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm)

Or what about these? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html)

Or these? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html)

Or does any of this make sense to you? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html)



I honestly am confident enough in my ability to declare to you after looking through those, that I can solve somewhere around 80% of them at this time. Upon further analysis 100% may be possible.... Answering all of those for you in one reply would be fucking ridiculous, so if yuou really are interested in the answers to them, if you could ask a couple at a time I'd do my best to give you the answers. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

It amazes me how the best responses almost always get completely ignored... In case you didn't catch Interests last post I recommend reading it... If you skimmed it and didn't really think much about it I recommend reading it again...

I don't know how to make a fancy quote box, but here it is anyway:

Quoting interest:



"Words can be very powerful and the truth has little to do with the power of them. With wordcraft comes a skill based on manipulation to weave a picture in your mind with the hopes of eventually getting your heart attached to it. Therein, lies the danger of ideas and logic.

In a world of conterfit truths we have the destiny to sort through it all to find the one thing that is true as there really are absolutes in life. Such as death. If we agree there is life and death then we have already reached the core of this discussion. If there was no death then all the philosophies of the world would not be necessary. However, since there is death there is one thing man can not answer for certain. What happens after the death of the body?

Many people will deny the "truth" that we are spiritual beings. We just take it for granted mostly but we never stop to consider what all of our senses are feeding. If you study robotics at all, the elementary "truth" is a robot has sensors to feed a central "brain" which is programmed to respond to certain stimuli. It's ironic to consider that the model robotics are created from is man and animal.

In essence we are only creating servants to do the tasks we believe are below us. We are building our own congregations of worshippers crafted in the image and likeness of ourselves.

What does this have to do with religion? To get back on point. Truth is only proven with time and one day it will be revealed. That is certain.

We are spiritual beings and there is something much deeper inside all of us. The core of our being seeps out through the same sensors that feeds it and it defines to all who we are.

I am fully convinced that God exists and the true path to Him is through Jesus Christ. Many have argued against it and many have died for keeping it. To tie all of this together. It is in the core of our person that God speaks to. That place where all the sensors lead to is also the place were God dwells in us. This is the place in us where our being is shaped and where our love comes out from.

Truth be told, no other thing has been challenged so passionatly on this earth then the belief that Jesus is the son of God. It is allagorical of the continual battle between spritual light and darkness. This battle is waged every second of every day on our hearts and minds and is designed to lead us to or away from "Truth"

Information is a weapon. The strongest weapon is the truth which will in time always overcome. Rest assured, despite your place in the spiritual universe, you will one day see the "truth" My God says find it now and be redeemed before it is too late.

Death is the mark of the end of our race.

Whatever philosophy you followed in life will be your testimony. I can only hope that deep contemplation of the "natural laws" and what philosophy matches with them is eventually seen. There lies the truth."

I don't want a long-ass paragraph, you should be able to explain the answer to the perfection question (see my previous post) in a few sentences without the pseduo-intellectual babble or definitions of "truth" and "God".

[This message has been edited by ChaosSlayer (edited 03-29-2006).]

I suppose this is what you want a simple reply to

"saying that everything is perfect, yet God created humans (perfect as well) that destroyed everything's perfection is defying all reason."

I will try to answer as briefly as possible. the reason for this break in logic is that it is illogical... and I'm sorry if this was the impression you got about the christian God. But if you read the Bible you will find an entirely different scenario.

Genesis 1:3

"And God said "let there be light" and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness.

John 1:1-5

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Both of these verses make it very clear that in the begining there was light and darkness and that the light was good and the darkness was not.

the Bible never says that "everything is perfect" it says there was darkness also and the darkness was never called good, infact it was seperated from the good light and often in the Bible darkness is a synonym for things that are bad (not perfect)

so first of all everything is/was not perfect.

you go on to say

"God created humans (perfect as well) that destroyed everything's perfection"

The first part of that is correct, God did indeed create man perfect, but the second part is wrong. Man did not destroy everything's perfection. In the Bible it is Satan and the power of darkness which destroyed what was perfect. The power of darkness merely used the unsuspecting man as a pawn for it's dark and imperfect purpose.

Does that make a little more sense? In the begining was light and darkness. when the light (God) expanded or projected it's image (Man) into the darkness the darkness mixed with the light and corrupted it making it imperfect. This doesn't make the source of light (God) any less perfect, and it doesn't mean God created anything imperfect, rather darkness, which was not created by God, Corrupted that perfect thing which God had made. Something doesn't have to be incorruptable to be perfect either, it only has to uncorrupted.

If you watch a lightbulb turn on in a dark room you will see this same effect, it's a law of nature. So while there may be many christians with an illogical understanding matters you'll find that the Bible itself explains these matters in quite a reasonable way.

hmm... I'm sorry I know you only wanted a few sentence reply, but unfortunately it would leave you asking many more questions... Hopefully those questions can be partly answered by the longer explanation above... But nevertheless to satisfy you desire for a short answer here it goes:

saying that everything is perfect, yet God created humans (perfect as well) that destroyed everything's perfection does indeed defy all reason. Fortunately the Bible never says that everything is perfect, or that humans destroyed everythings perfection.

Well, I guess the question then would be why God did not create everything perfect for us. Why would a benevolent and perfect being create something able to feel pain and suffering as we obviously are? And about Satan destroying the perfection of humans, why would God 1) Create Satan and 2) Make us susceptible to his trickery, or 3) Make angels that are susceptible to "the dark side"? The Crucible says "Until an hour before the Devil fell, God thought him beautiful in Heaven.” How could a perfect being (God, supposedly) create something and not know what it's going to do? I know that he would want to impose free will on them, but if you created a robot and gave it free will, would you still allow it to ruin its own "species" or feel pain, etc? Also, if God is this omnipotent, all-knowing being, would he not know that Satan would fall to the dark side before he even created him?

To answer your first question God did create everything which he created perfect. I was trying to illustrate earlier that there was darkness from the begining and that God did not create the darkness. Rather when God created man it was for the purpose of eliminating darkness. Man is the projected image of God and went forth to shine in the darkness and cast it out.

Yes God created things to be susceptible to corruption, he created us to be soft, tender and corruptable because that is how he is. If we were hard, imovable and inncorruptable we would not be like God. So is God not perfect because he is corruptable? No, it is not being unable to be corrupted which makes something perfect, it is only that fact that it is not presently corrupted. That being said, Why is God himself not inncorruptable. It is because he is all powerfull and if something is all powerfull that means it must have the power and ability to do both what is perfect and what is corrupt. So the only way for God to be incorruptable would be for him to not be all powerfull. look at the two words Incorruptable and corruptable. One implies ability while the other implies a non-ability. If God is all-able he must be those things which are able and not unable. So likewise he has created us with a perfect and corruptable nature.

Why did God create Satan if he knew he would turn against him? because Satan was a power in the order in which God had created. God created things with a pyramid like structure where there were many powers which fit into different places. Without the creation of Satan the structure would have been incomplete and therefore imperfect.

So God had to create him, why didn't he just create him to be incorruptable. here applies the same situation described about man. God projected all things as his image. men being the base of the pyramid, satan being a much higher and very powerful creature. If Satan was much closer on the hierarchy, wouldn't it make sense for him to be all the more like God, corruptable, yet perfect. Satan merely chose as many humans have to join the darkness and fight against God. It was satan who then deceived man, but the darkness existed before Satan.

does this make sense? If any of this sounds like circular reasoning please point it out... I don't understand fully the things which I'm speaking of so please bear with me.

One other thing to mention is that we are a base material like clay. in the end all things once all things have been molded into place, the product will be refined in the fire and proceed forth incurroptable, for at this point darkness will have been eliminated. Then there no longer being a source of corruption all things will be incorruptable. this has already happened, is happening and will happen. That is the hope of the promise. I wrote more on this in another post if you want me to paste it here or send a link.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

so first of all everything is/was not perfect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joshua19:

Fortunately the Bible never says that everything is perfect

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

To answer your first question God did create everything which he created perfect.



quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

No, it is not being unable to be corrupted which makes something perfect, it is only that fact that it is not presently corrupted.

So is Satan perfect because he was once not corrupted?







[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joshua19:

It is because he is all powerfull and if something is all powerfull that means it must have the power and ability to do both what is perfect and what is corrupt. So the only way for God to be incorruptable would be for him to not be all powerfull. look at the two words Incorruptable and corruptable. One implies ability while the other implies a non-ability. If God is all-able he must be those things which are able and not unable.



I guess I didn't mean perfect in a literal sense in describing the ability to do everything without error, but rather perfect from our point of view. From our point of view, corruption is almost always a bad thing, and its existence makes things imperfect. From the literal meaning, I can see how someone could say that it made things perfect because it balances it out and have it omnipotence, but our happiness in this existence isn't dependent on whether your god, whether he exists or not, is truly perfect and able to do anything, but rather how his supposed creation affects us.

quote:Originally posted by Joshua19:

Why did God create Satan if he knew he would turn against him? because Satan was a power in the order in which God had created. God created things with a pyramid like structure where there were many powers which fit into different places. Without the creation of Satan the structure would have been incomplete and therefore imperfect.

Basically the same as above, with how it might allow perfection in a literal sense but doing so would only cause us pain.

you wrote:

"So is Satan perfect because he was once not corrupted?"

Satan was perfect before he became corrupted, presently he is not perfect at the end of time he is still not perfect.

you wrote:

"I guess I didn't mean perfect in a literal sense in describing the ability to do everything without error, but rather perfect from our point of view."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "perfect from our point of view" please elaborate.

you wrote:

"our happiness in this existence isn't dependent on whether your god, whether he exists or not, is truly perfect and able to do anything, but rather how his supposed creation affects us."

hmmm, so our happiness is dependent on how creation (or should I say existence) effects us. Isn't our happiness also dependent on how we interpret existence? or is that also dependent on existence itself (for we cannot be anything other than that which we are). Is this coming down to whether or not we have free will?

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what your getting at. It's my fault, please help explain, If you could, a little further what you're trying to get accross. thanks



[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 03-30-2006).]

well, religiously, i have no belief. i'm athiest. however, philisophically i am buddhist/taoist. i don't believe in the religious shit, just the philisophical stuff.

quote:Originally posted by Ghettolicious:

well, religiously, i have no belief. i'm athiest. however, philisophically i am buddhist/taoist. i don't believe in the religious shit, just the philisophical stuff.

The difference between religion and philosophy is only a technicality of terms. In the big picture both religion and philosophy are systems created by man to rationalize why and deal with the fact that we exist. Philosophy is just a religion that doesn't as often stress the belief in an existent God. Religion is a philosophy that leans more toward belief in an existent God. But neither are requirments for either, they are pretty much the same thing... Religion is just more associated with organized rituals where as the rituals of philosophy are more often associated with spontanaity (not that these associations are even correct.)

being an atheist doesn't mean you're not religious, you may reject organized religion and not believe in an existent god, but the fact remains that you do have faith in a nonexistent god, and you have a lifestyle with rituals and practices that are according to your faith.

Long story short... We've all got a religion of some sort... I'm sure there's been a thread dedicated to this idea somewhere.



[This message has been edited by Joshua19 (edited 04-03-2006).]

Go with whatever you believe. do you believe in jesus or do you not ? simple.

erm i didnt read any post after the first one as there are far to many to read in one go

well im SIKH (pronounced "seek")

donno if thats a change from what everyone else is on this forum because havent come across a Sikh and nor is the religion discussed

[This message has been edited by Frost (edited 04-08-2006).]

Ive read all I can about all major religions and theories.

Im primarily Buddist/Shaman/Wiccan with some tibetan mystisism and hindu concepts thrown in for good measure.

I try to "follow" everything.



[This message has been edited by Ophidian Sumerian Dildo (edited 04-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

Go with whatever you believe. do you believe in jesus or do you not ? simple.

HOLY SHIT. I think my eardrums started bleeding when I read this aloud to myself, which I had to do to make sure I read it right.

Are you impyling that the only religious choice there is is believing in Jesus or not? Like it's that "simple"? All of your moral decisions, values, and every belief in your life can be wrapped up into one question?

Fuck, why does every Christian I meet piss me off more than the last one?

[/RANT].

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

HOLY SHIT. I think my eardrums started bleeding when I read this aloud to myself, which I had to do to make sure I read it right.

Are you impyling that the only religious choice there is is believing in Jesus or not? Like it's that "simple"? All of your moral decisions, values, and every belief in your life can be wrapped up into one question?

Fuck, why does every Christian I meet piss me off more than the last one?

[/RANT].

Because we never understand the question. It's more then just believing that a man existed. It is about believing in what He taught. We are not asking you to believe in Jesus alone. We are asking that you believe in the love he taught and commanded we follow.

We are asking that you believe in being born again through baptism and repentence. That there is a way out from under the curse of death. This is through faith and not by temporal logic which is often the enemy to faith.

How can we ask you to see if it is only your eyes that you use? Or how can we ask you to hear when it is only your ears that you use?

This is the deepest mystery to me - to understand the parables takes more then logical thinking. In fact it takes none. To understand it takes spiritual eyes and ears and it will not be revealed until the spiritual awakening of being born - again.

This is why you are angry with Christians - it makes no logical sense to you and that is the purpose of logic. It is a stumbling block to the spiritually blind.

No offence I hope was taken but if you care to see - then ask me what the parables mean and I will show you how to understand them.

By the will of God that is...

quote:Originally posted by Infrared Beverage:

Me, no.

If i had to choose one to follow though it'd be Buddhism. It's a pretty agreeable way of life in my view.



i agree with you

that is not what I ment. if you dont believe in jesus then that is not the choice for you. no thats not the only choice but if you dont believe in jesus then christanity is not the religon for you.

I'm an atheist

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Because we never understand the question. It's more then just believing that a man existed. It is about believing in what He taught. We are not asking you to believe in Jesus alone. We are asking that you believe in the love he taught and commanded we follow.



So uh basically christian or nothing then?

Words are a weapon ... remebr that

*&plays int he sand*

Oh yeah ,well I guess if Philosophy is a religion Im a philosopher ... Hell, I like the sound of that ... has a nice ring to it .... Kinda relaxing ....

I Am A Philosopher.... Fuck yeah!

quote:Originally posted by ChaosSlayer:

HOLY SHIT. I think my eardrums started bleeding when I read this aloud to myself, which I had to do to make sure I read it right.

Are you impyling that the only religious choice there is is believing in Jesus or not? Like it's that "simple"? All of your moral decisions, values, and every belief in your life can be wrapped up into one question?

Fuck, why does every Christian I meet piss me off more than the last one?

[/RANT].



Nah, she's just retarded like that.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

So uh basically christian or nothing then?

Words are a weapon ... remebr that

*&plays int he sand*

Oh yeah ,well I guess if Philosophy is a religion Im a philosopher ... Hell, I like the sound of that ... has a nice ring to it .... Kinda relaxing ....

I Am A Philosopher.... Fuck yeah!



No for obvious reasons - I wouldn't want to stand in your way of discovery and growth. I grew up an athiest I guess - though I didn't even claim that I didn't believe in any God - I barely understood how my shoes stayed tied until I figured out how to do a double knot...

but that's not important...if you want to know a way to reconcile with God then yes, it's Christianity or nothing.

If it's just a philosophy you seek then nothing is stopping you from creating your own. This isn't about a philosophy though mind you.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Because we never understand the question. It's more then just believing that a man existed. It is about believing in what He taught. We are not asking you to believe in Jesus alone. We are asking that you believe in the love he taught and commanded we follow.

We are asking that you believe in being born again through baptism and repentence. That there is a way out from under the curse of death. This is through faith and not by temporal logic which is often the enemy to faith.

How can we ask you to see if it is only your eyes that you use? Or how can we ask you to hear when it is only your ears that you use?

This is the deepest mystery to me - to understand the parables takes more then logical thinking. In fact it takes none. To understand it takes spiritual eyes and ears and it will not be revealed until the spiritual awakening of being born - again.

This is why you are angry with Christians - it makes no logical sense to you and that is the purpose of logic. It is a stumbling block to the spiritually blind.

No offence I hope was taken but if you care to see - then ask me what the parables mean and I will show you how to understand them.

By the will of God that is...

This comes back to something I have said all along. Christians think all love is defined by Jesus. They fail to realize that everyone loves, many better then christians do (with gay tolerance and what not), without believing in Jesus. They can claim that they really are believing in Jesus everytime they love, but that is just grasping for straws.

I think Jesus/God is just how christians define and explain love. Everyone feels the same thing, except we don't call it God.

I have no problem referring to the overall concept of good, love and compassion as God, the danger is when this belief that love means there is a God leads you to commit to a certain religion.

At that point you have already determined there is a God, and use that as a axiom to prove to yourself that your religion is right. You just know it is because you just know there is a God, which you just know because although it is subconscious, you have decided that the feeling of spiritual conscious love is God.

From this point on, everyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't 'get it' or are 'uneducated' about your religion, or too 'immature' or have just decided to be against religion, you, and God for some reason.

This is how I thought when I was a christian.

I'm sure digi will immediately say that I was just not a good christian or not truly christian or that I didn't understand it, but that is her automated response anytime anyone disagrees with her.

I thought like this when I was christian without ever realizing it. I thought that people who weren't religious were missing out on this overriding feeling of God I had.

I am no longer christian, but I have lost nothing 'spiritually.' I feel the same overriding feelings of love and goodness, I just no longer call them God.

This made things even more beautiful because I now see nature and things for what they are and how they formed, and it is truly amazing.

I can now actually follow my conscience, instead of attempting to tailor it to follow immoral religious constraints. I am free to love everybody. I'm not missing anything.

I also have a very strong will and am hard on myself. It is very difficult for me, and very unhealthy, for me to deceive myself and force myself to do and believe things that aren't right.

I am free from religion, and I have never been spiritually healthier.

Nope, I am an Atheist. But, if I had to choose, I would totally worship the Norse gods. Fuck yeah, they are bad ass.

There is only one true religion: agnosticsm.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

No for obvious reasons - I wouldn't want to stand in your way of discovery and growth. I grew up an athiest I guess - though I didn't even claim that I didn't believe in any God - I barely understood how my shoes stayed tied until I figured out how to do a double knot...

but that's not important...if you want to know a way to reconcile with God then yes, it's Christianity or nothing.

If it's just a philosophy you seek then nothing is stopping you from creating your own. This isn't about a philosophy though mind you.

So no other religion allows me to reconcile with god? No other religion at all? I can believe in god ,but if I'm not christian I can't be reconciled?

How bout you kiss my ass you fucked up muthafucker! You went looking for God and found religion! God has nothing to do with religion ,it has nothing to do with a pope or a priest ,it has nothing to do with some hierachial bullshit organisation who want to rule people. God is Love . Simple ,god is your own love ,your own forgiveness ,your own repentance.

It is not God who forgives us ,but We who forgive ourselves. How could we live If god loved us but we did not love ourselves? Religion formalises and orders that which is free! God doesn' care that you worship him that you fall on your knees that you suck your priests dick so as not to anger him. He LOVES you and everyone and everything ,and all he wants from you is LOVE ,and self-forgiveness and self-repentance.

Religion is for the weak ,those who cannot direct their own love ,but others ,like myself , do not Need religion to function . I can love indepentdantly .... I love without the threat of punsishment . My love is more pure than the penitent thief who fears the eternal judge....



Why waste this chance god has given us through restrictions? We have a gift ,use it!

[This message has been edited by JesuitArtiste (edited 04-15-2006).]

I'm agnostic. I'm not gullible/arrogant enough to proport that i and a group of my friends know the meaning to life, i learn new stuff everyday and as such my beliefs are constantly changing and evolving.

I don't believe the main monotheistic religions of the world have any "Truth" in them whatsoever, they are mearly human attempts to mathmatically understand something which cannot be understood.

I do not believe there is an "answer" to life, in the way Douglas Adams wrote the meaning of life is "42" as a joke, i believe reality is a concept which i can consider personally, but not a concept which i can "know" or a concept which is simple in the least bit.

I think some of Buddhism is good philosophy, life may well be continuous or mearly a concept that is "beyond" human thought. I don't rule out the existence of God, i think that is illogical however i rule out 100% that any group of people on this earth have "the Truth" and are destined for heaven, whilst others are not and are ignorant.

Anyone can "find God", all human beings "understand" the concept somewhat, but it just doesn't make any sense to me really, the petty existence portrayed by religion is not enough for me.

free thinking 4tw.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

So no other religion allows me to reconcile with god? No other religion at all? I can believe in god ,but if I'm not christian I can't be reconciled?

Listen, if Christians made it all up..then we can say whatever we want. OK?

Seriously though -

However, the technical reason is; there is no other way to God because of the need for redemption of sin. This is the caveat God made..not Chrsitians or Jews BTW.

This is because it takes blood to wash away sin. Back in the old days. they used to sacrifice certain types of animals. Now, we don't do that anymore because of what Jesus did....

I'm not sure who is going to enter into Heaven or who isn't. I don't even know if I'm going to make it.

This is why we say there is no other way to the Father except by the Son. You know the story..I don't need to get on the soap box.

quote:

How bout you kiss my ass you fucked up muthafucker!

I'm assuming that this is how you want me to talk to you as well? Sorry, I'll show you my love by my actions and words and those kinds of words are not loving.

quote:

You went looking for God and found religion! God has nothing to do with religion ,it has nothing to do with a pope or a priest ,it has nothing to do with some hierachial bullshit organisation who want to rule people. God is Love . Simple ,god is your own love ,your own forgiveness ,your own repentance.



If that is how you understand it then how can it be wrong. I can't argue against what you see. However, this is the definition of "idolatry" if you were wondering. What you are saying is that you are your own god.

quote:

It is not God who forgives us ,but We who forgive ourselves. How could we live If god loved us but we did not love ourselves? Religion formalises and orders that which is free! God doesn' care that you worship him that you fall on your knees that you suck your priests dick so as not to anger him. He LOVES you and everyone and everything ,and all he wants from you is LOVE ,and self-forgiveness and self-repentance.

I know I'm being a pain in the neck and possible legalistic when I ask this but, what is your source of information that I can study in case I should follow this doctrine?

quote:

Religion is for the weak ,those who cannot direct their own love ,but others ,like myself , do not Need religion to function . I can love indepentdantly .... I love without the threat of punsishment . My love is more pure than the penitent thief who fears the eternal judge....

Love is only a measure of internal change caused by faith. It is not necessarily 'the' condition of salvation but evidence of the condition of salvation. I think we need to define love to begin with.

A person who loves themselves and loves God will not commit a loveless act on themselves or to their neighbors. After you have calmed down a bit maybe you can re-read your post and mark where you have been void of love in dealing with this topic.

quote:

Why waste this chance god has given us through restrictions? We have a gift ,use it!



Humanism and self correction tends to lead someone down a harsh path. I mean when you set your own standards of conduct what will you use to gauge your adherence? If you fail to live by the standards you set, what stops you from lowering them to a point where you feel better about yourself of what you have done?

Your theory has many flaws and by far doesn't measure up to what God desires in us. What I see you teaching is actions void of conscience of consequence. Try to apply your doctrine to the topic of murder and project outward to it's outcome. I see you are saying it is ok to murder as long as we can forgive our selves and not feel bad about it.





[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-16-2006).]