# Gunny's Thread on Religion



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.

Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.

Okay, discuss ....


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 18, 2009)

I only have two words to say on the matter:

Whoo hoo!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 18, 2009)

if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....



I mostly agree.  I don't like religious zealots anymore than I do anti-religion zealots.  One believes in believing and one believes in disbelieving.  I've heard a lot of arguments -- mostly dismissals and/or insults that disbelieving is not a belief.

I disagree.  If you ACTIVELY are pushing your belief that there is no God, or whatever anyone worships, then it is a belief.  One has to choose to believe or disbelieve.  If one goes so far as to hate religion and have to say so, one most certainly is as ardent a zealot as a revival tent preacher.  

I really don't care what others believe.  My whole issue with the topic is that no one seems to be able to have a decent conversation about religion on this board without being attacked.  Granted, we're pretty lax here, but as of late, this subforum has gotten completely out of control.  This isn't the Flame Zone II.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted: 







I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 18, 2009)

Moved From: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...bout-religion-no-insults-allowed-threa-3.html



Coloradomtnman said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said earlier, God is a hard item to sell because he is not somebody you can physically see, touch, or openly question.  I have been where you are and I understand your position.  I don't agree with it but your opinion is just as valid as mine.  We just see things differently.  I believe in God.  I don't stand on the street corner and brow beat people with my beliefs.  I do, however, voice my opinion BUT my opinion is no more valid than your opinion.  Your lack of belief is not threatening to me.  Some christians come completely unglued if you look them in the eye and tell them what they believe is a crock of crap.  I don't think those type of christians are as tolerant as they should be.  Christians aren't perfect people.  Just forgiven.
> ...


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 18, 2009)

> if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....



I know what you mean.  I know some of those "holier than thou" kind of folks.  It's a turn off.  I don't stand on street corners and try to convert the world into my way of thinking.  I also don't like the so-called "score keepers" at church.  These are the folks who count heads every Sunday and wonder where you are if you aren't there.  There have always been those that raise a large amount of hell on Saturday night and on Sunday morning suddenly become a full-blown saint.  Those folks are a turn off too.  Religion to me is more of a personal thing.  I go to church when I feel the need to go and I toss money into the pot to support the church.  However, I am not there every time they open the door.


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:

I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.

So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.

It is also a given that God created man in his own image, and loves and takes a special interest in each and every one of the people he created. God's love for man is emphasized throughout Christianity.

Now, the word of God is revealed to us through the Bible. As God no longer makes his presence known the way he did in Biblical days, the Bible is the only direct communication we have from God. It is his word, written by him through man, and contains all the information we need in order to know what it takes to be saved. (Again, please correct me if any of this is wrong)

Here are some facts about the Bible and about the world today, from my understanding: the Bible was written (in installments) about two millenia ago, in a particular language (Hebrew) to a particular group of people. There is a story in the Bible about the Tower of Babel, in which God punishes mankind for trying to build a tower tall enough to reach Heaven by scattering them across the earth and splitting their languages. So, according to the Bible, the reason that we have about 7,000 different languages spoken on the planet today is because God made it so as a punishment. Because the Bible must be translated into so many different languages from its original Hebrew, and since the Hebrew language has changed and evolved so much in the last two thousand years, as all languages do, many things in the Bible are lost, confused, or the meaning changed in translation.

So, these are the questions I have for you:

God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?

Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?

I am not asking these questions as some sort of challenge; these are legitimate questions I have about Christianity and they are some of the main reasons why I do not believe. My mind is open to the existence of a higher power...I just don't believe that the higher power in question is the one I desrcribed above. But my mind isn't even completely closed to THAT possibility, since I acknowledge it's possible that there are things I don't fully understand...which is why I'm posing these questions, in hopes that someone can give me a good explanation for the discrepancies I feel I'm seeing here.

And, again, if I am wrong in any of those above assertions, please correct me. If I'm going to believe or disbelieve in something, I want to know the absolute truth about that something first.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> God is a spirit.



'Prove it


> Can you measure a spirit?


Perhaps, once you demonstrate what it is



Big Black Dog said:


> Belief in God is based solely on faith.



and therefore not on reason or logical deductions. 



> agree that you cannot "prove" that God exists BUT can you prove that God does not exist solely on your word alone


You bear the burden of proof. Prove I am not god.  i might as well say to prove that there's no such thing ads the tooth fairy. Prove that Krishna and FSM do not exist.



> You can neither prove or disprove the existance of God. It's all based on faith.


Then the religious should stop acting like it's based on reason or any kind of intelligent thought process.



RodISHI said:


> [First I think it would be helpful if you understand that Jesus Christ is the Word of God.



Prove it



> Since God is a spirit


You never did demonstrate that



> then one needs to understand that there is a spirit that speaks and teaches about God.


Prove it



> A soul can be in hell


Prove that hell and the soul exist, and that a soul can be in hell



> and the person can be outside the gate.


Prove it



> The flesh is where we live in this world which is God's garden. The soul is created in heaven.


Proof? Demonstrate that your assertions are valid.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 18, 2009)

> I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.



It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.  Seems like everybody thinks their religion is "the only one" and everybody else is a heathen.  That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about religion.  Every major religion professes that if you don't believe their doctrine that you won't make it into heaven.  Ok, if this is true, who has the right rule book?  I find more comfort in what my Grandmother used to say about there will be some of all in God's heaven...  But back to all of the killing in the name of God.  All of the major religions are guilty of it.  Too bad.  It's a shame world history has tossed this at us all.


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2009)

Religion, like most things, is best taken in moderation.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 18, 2009)

> nd I wouldn't mind Christians believing anything they wanted to so long as they didn't harm people. And for the most part that is the case. But the judgement, the self-righteousness that is naturally a part of monotheism (and you even demonstrated it yourself:



Yeah, I have a tendency to be pretty strong on what I believe and don't believe.  It's like the folks that drive Fords and think Chevy drivers are insane and vice versa...  I hope I don't come across as "self-righeous" because Lord knows I have my full share of faults...  Remember when you point your finger at somebody that you have three fingers pointing back at you.


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.  Seems like everybody thinks their religion is "the only one" and everybody else is a heathen.  That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about religion.  Every major religion professes that if you don't believe their doctrine that you won't make it into heaven.  Ok, if this is true, who has the right rule book?  I find more comfort in what my Grandmother used to say about there will be some of all in God's heaven...  But back to all of the killing in the name of God.  All of the major religions are guilty of it.  Too bad.  It's a shame world history has tossed this at us all.



I agree with you, and that's one of the main reasons I argue against religious belief, because it can be harmful when in the wrong hands...and it seems like there are a lot of wrong hands out there, doesn't it?

I like your way of looking at it, that "there will be some of all in God's heaven"...I find a lot more comfort in that too. But at the same time, if that's the case, then since all the major religions put forth that if you don't believe their doctrine you won't get to heaven, can you believe in one of those religions and still believe in that ideal? In other words, if you believe that anyone who believes in God can make it to Heaven, no matter what their religion, can you still profess yourself a Christian, since Christian doctrine explicitly states that those who do not accept Jesus Christ will NOT make it to Heaven? I'm asking because I know a lot of religious moderates accept both these ideas, and they seem contradictory to me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have not read much on this board then, we have several right NOW actively creating threads to ask peoples belief's and then attacking anyone that posts they believe in a God or religion.

Ohh and I notice you have a cartoon against religion but none against the rabid atheists that try to belittle the religious and are very vocal about their attacks.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.


That is a totally false statement.

Tens of millions of people were killed in both WWI and WWII. And it had zero to do with religion.

Also, tens of millions of people were killed and murdered during both the Russian and Chineese communist revolutions and subsequent takeovers.

And again, it had zero to do with religion, because the revolutions were led by secular atheists.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not saying religion is blameless by any means.  If you have not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious beliefs simply because they consider it irrational a baseless, you may want to re-read you comment wherein you compare it to things regarded as superstitions. 

The openly hierarchical institutions you mention are out of context to their times.  The inquisitions are non sequitur to any argument against Christianity today.  Yes they happened.  As did the plagues, and Europeans believing that bathing and fresh air were dangerous; which, ironically enough, only created a better breeding ground for disease.

The argument that religion can intrude where it is not wanted has merit.  What you fail to mention is the opposite side of the coin.  In the name of secularism and the US Constitution, the non-religious have encroached on religion.

You also place emphasis only on the negative aspect of religion.  Religion has had far more profound positive impacts on society than negative.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 18, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



thank you Sunni---bout time that cliché is put to rest.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information, The bible is clear, when you die you do not go to heaven or hell, you are "asleep" as Jesus put it and others. No one is judged until Judgement Day after the final battle. There is only one person that knows for a fact he is accepted, that would be the thief that was crucified with Jesus. There are others that know but the bible is not specific who they are, just that there are 144000 of them.

Only the 144000 will actually ascend to Heaven, the remaining that are found faithful will be given perfect bodies and live on a Paradise Earth with no disease and no sickness. Jesus will rule for God as their King, the 144000 in Heaven will help Jesus.

There is no fire and brimstone Hell. If you are found not to be acceptable on Judgement day and are excluded from Paradise Earth, you will permanently die. If you never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus and chose, you will be given a chance to learn and make a choice.

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.

There are numerous passages in the Bible that clearly explain Hell is not a fire and brimstone place.

Psalms 72:8 And he will have subjects from sea to sea 
     And from the River to the ends of the earth.

Revelation 20:3 and 4

3 With that I heard a loud voice frome the throne say "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
4  And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will be mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information,



Nor the ones who say god loves 'all his children' or who present the biblical god as one of peace and love and mercy


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.  Seems like everybody thinks their religion is "the only one" and everybody else is a heathen.  That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about religion.  Every major religion professes that if you don't believe their doctrine that you won't make it into heaven.  Ok, if this is true, who has the right rule book?  I find more comfort in what my Grandmother used to say about there will be some of all in God's heaven...  But back to all of the killing in the name of God.  All of the major religions are guilty of it.  Too bad.  It's a shame world history has tossed this at us all.



"Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.  If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.

Fred Phelps is a perfect example.  That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was.  He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs.   But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information,
> ...



God so loved us that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

The Old Testament shows a vengeful God. A God willing to empower his people to wage war and destroy his enemies. That is true. However with the coming of Jesus that changed.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > God is a spirit.
> ...



I always love this argument.

Prove what YOU believe is fact.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information, The bible is clear, when you die you do not go to heaven or hell, you are "asleep" as Jesus put it and others. No one is judged until Judgement Day after the final battle. There is only one person that knows for a fact he is accepted, that would be the thief that was crucified with Jesus. There are others that know but the bible is not specific who they are, just that there are 144000 of them.
> 
> Only the 144000 will actually ascend to Heaven, the remaining that are found faithful will be given perfect bodies and live on a Paradise Earth with no disease and no sickness. Jesus will rule for God as their King, the 144000 in Heaven will help Jesus.
> 
> ...



The Hel of fire and brimstone is actually a variant of Norse mythology.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(being)


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> "Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.  If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches,





So the NT directly contradicts the OT? The bible gives plenty of examples where god demand the death of a person or peoples


Furthermore, you're merely strengthening my own point about religion being a tool for controlling the masses while offering no evidence to validate that religion.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Prove what YOU believe is fact.




I made no assertions; those who did so bear the burden of proof. You simply refuse to offer any evidence because you have none. until you do, my point (that there is no evidence to support the aforementioned assertions)  is *FACT*


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> God so loved us that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.



Prove it. Demonstrate that
-your god exists
-it had a son
-that sone was 'sent'
-that son died
-that was done 'for our sins'



> The Old Testament shows a vengeful God. A God willing to empower his people to wage war and destroy his enemies. That is true. However with the coming of Jesus that changed.



Then nature of god and his law changed? Clearly it wasn't perfect then- or it was and the new law is flawed. Or both are flawed Which is it?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information,
> ...



"God" the Creator.  What does "God" actually have to be?  A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image.  Man himself is capable of recreating life through cloning.  Don't think because there is some ban on human cloning that some eggheads aren't already hard at it.

So let's apply some logic here.  Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance.  Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.

That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.  

Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> "God" the Creator.  What does "God" actually have to be?  A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image.



Why must god be as you decribe? because you choose to define it as such?


> Man himself is capable of recreating life through cloning.  Don't think because there is some ban on human cloning that some eggheads aren't already hard at it.
> 
> So let's apply some logic here.  Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance


.
Demonstrate that
-Man was 'created'  (as opposed to coming about)
-It was 'by happenstance'



> Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.
> 
> That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.



How is it illogical, and what formula did you use to determine the probability of it happening at least one time on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one part of this universe since the Big Bang?



> Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.


  When religionattempts to pose as science, not only does it fail, but humanity suffers as a consequence.


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information, The bible is clear, when you die you do not go to heaven or hell, you are "asleep" as Jesus put it and others. No one is judged until Judgement Day after the final battle. There is only one person that knows for a fact he is accepted, that would be the thief that was crucified with Jesus. There are others that know but the bible is not specific who they are, just that there are 144000 of them.
> 
> Only the 144000 will actually ascend to Heaven, the remaining that are found faithful will be given perfect bodies and live on a Paradise Earth with no disease and no sickness. Jesus will rule for God as their King, the 144000 in Heaven will help Jesus.
> 
> ...



I did allow that there are some who believe as you do, that Hell is a place of annihilation and not torment...but they are very much in the minority. Most Christians and most Biblical scholars believe that Hell is a place of torment, mainly because of these three passages:

Matthew 25:41-46
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'...
46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Mark 9:43
43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."

Revelation 14:10-11
10 "he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury...He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image..."

However, I've looked into the subject a bit, and I think I agree more with those who believe in annihilation. The Bible seems to support that more than it supports eternal punishment.

So, since you believe that Hell is a place of annihilation and not eternal torment...can you answer my questions from that perspective?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Prove what YOU believe is fact.
> ...



You have in fact made assertions.  You assert that God does not exist and have derided those who believe God does exist.  Thread after thread.

I'm asking you the same question you attempt to use as the be-all, end-all ... prove what you believe is fact.

If you cannot, then your belief is no better nor worse than mine; which, makes mine undeserving of your condescension.  In case you haven't noticed, I don't hold it against you that you ardently believe in disbelieving.  We have been pretty-much in agreement on most topics other than religion.  

I expect the same courtesy extended to me that I extend.  If judging people for their beliefs is a criteria, there are far worst things that await man in this world than Christianity.

And that's a twist on a quote from Dracula.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > "God" the Creator.  What does "God" actually have to be?  A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image.
> ...



What "Big Bang"?  You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law?   The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.  A scientific impossibility.  Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> You have in fact made assertions.  You assert that God does not exist and have derided those who believe God does exist.  Thread after thread.[/qrong]
> 
> i have said that there is no evidence that deity exists and that the logical conclusion ios therefore a model of the universe that does not include deity- just as it doe not include pixies, dragons, or a teakettle orbing around Jupiter.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> What "Big Bang"?  You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law?   The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.  A scientific impossibility.  Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.



The 'Big Bang' does not say anything was c_reated._ Also, the laws of physics as they are now are not applicable even in the early phases of the BB, when the environment was much different- there is no logical reason to assume they would e applicable to the 'beginning' 9for want of a better term) of the BB. Bear ni mind that 'creation' or cause is impossible in the case of the BB, as cause entails time and spacetime came into being with the Big Bang


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not read much on this board then, we have several right NOW actively creating threads to ask peoples belief's and then attacking anyone that posts they believe in a God or religion.
> 
> Ohh and I notice you have a cartoon against religion but none against the rabid atheists that try to belittle the religious and are very vocal about their attacks.



As I said, the reason for secularist attacks against religion and theism is as a result of the undue influence that those exert over wider society. Have you witnessed comprehensive or detailed secularist attacks against astrology on this board? Both belief in astrology and belief in religion are based on a certain degree of irrationality and faith despite a lack of evidence, but secularists have no interest in attacking the former because it lacks any relevance in mainstream society. 



Gunny said:


> I am not saying religion is blameless by any means.  If you have not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious beliefs simply because they consider it irrational a baseless, you may want to re-read you comment wherein you compare it to things regarded as superstitions.



"Attack" is somewhat more comprehensive than that. I'm referring to complaints about secularists penning detailed and comprehensive critiques of religious belief, such as the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. There exist detailed attacks on religious belief where detailed attacks on belief in astrology do not exist because religious belief exerts an undue influence over mainstream society where belief in astrology do not. Though secularists consider both forms of belief to be based on irrationality, there is little use in attacking astrology where there may be greater use in attacking religion, since belief in its tenets can be reduced, thereby reducing its influence.  



Gunny said:


> The openly hierarchical institutions you mention are out of context to their times.  The inquisitions are non sequitur to any argument against Christianity today.  Yes they happened.  As did the plagues, and Europeans believing that bathing and fresh air were dangerous; which, ironically enough, only created a better breeding ground for disease.



Of course they are. I'm merely explaining why opposition to religion has traditionally appeared; it's always been a matter of objection to its excessive influence or power. That was the basis behind the opposition to excessive entanglement between church and state in both historical and modern terms. 



Gunny said:


> The argument that religion can intrude where it is not wanted has merit.  What you fail to mention is the opposite side of the coin.  In the name of secularism and the US Constitution, the non-religious have encroached on religion.



Secularism is a neutral condition and a happy medium between state theism and state atheism. Although "atheism" is technically merely the lack of theism, strong atheism has manifested itself in the form of direct anti-theism. State theism seeks to impose religious mores or principles on a public citizenry, while state atheism seeks to obstruct and diminish them through the vessel of the government. Secularism does neither; it merely prevents the undue influence of either extreme. The problem with theists is a poor framing wherein secularism is itself depicted as an extreme akin to state atheism and some form of theism as "moderate,"



Gunny said:


> You also place emphasis only on the negative aspect of religion.  Religion has had far more profound positive impacts on society than negative.



I don't believe there are many positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality, whereas there are clearly negative elements of religion that could seemingly only stem from faith in particular religious doctrines but not from that same secular rationality. I can envision an obvious role for secular rationality aiding the formation of detailed ethical codes; I cannot envision any basis in secular rationality for declaring jihad. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> The Christians that teach people go to heaven when they die are not teaching biblical information, The bible is clear, when you die you do not go to heaven or hell, you are "asleep" as Jesus put it and others. No one is judged until Judgement Day after the final battle. There is only one person that knows for a fact he is accepted, that would be the thief that was crucified with Jesus. There are others that know but the bible is not specific who they are, just that there are 144000 of them.
> 
> Only the 144000 will actually ascend to Heaven, the remaining that are found faithful will be given perfect bodies and live on a Paradise Earth with no disease and no sickness. Jesus will rule for God as their King, the 144000 in Heaven will help Jesus.



Then where did Elijah and Enoch go, and where did Paul go during his "third heaven" experience? And what of Jesus's comment in Matthew 5:12 that _"great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you"_? I see no scriptural justification for your interpretation of the role of the 144,000; the book of Revelations indicates that they are a "missionary corps" of messianic Jews who proselytize during the Great Tribulation.



RetiredGySgt said:


> There are numerous passages in the Bible that clearly explain Hell is not a fire and brimstone place.
> 
> Psalms 72:8 And he will have subjects from sea to sea
> And from the River to the ends of the earth.



What conceivable relation has this to hell? This is a description of the Messiah's reign on Earth in general. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Revelation 20:3 and 4
> 
> 3 With that I heard a loud voice frome the throne say "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
> 4  And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will be mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."



That would be Revelations 2*1*:3-4, not chapter 20. And this similarly has no conceivable relation to hell, because it's a description of the "new heaven and a new earth." There also seems to be a rather obvious conflict between your account and verse 8, which notes _"*ut the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."*_*

There is also an implication of different degrees of suffering existing in hell. For example, consider Matthew 10:15, wherein Jesus states of cities that refuse to accept the apostles' gospel, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Similarly, he remarks of Capernaum that "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." This is then repeated in Mark 6:11. Then, it's remarked in Hebrews 10:29, "[o]f how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot..." How then can different degrees of punishment and suffering exist in a state of permanent death, when sensory capacities and self-awareness are nonexistent?*


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > You have in fact made assertions.  You assert that God does not exist and have derided those who believe God does exist.  Thread after thread.[/qrong]
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

I provided no passages for the Hell portion the other two have to do with man residing on Earth without death or disease. as for the rest The bible is clear. Hell is not a place of torment and those condemned to eternal death will not be tortured.

In fact since most Christians agree that Satan rules hell, EARTH right now is Hell. Satan rules earth not God. And he will continue to rule it until the final battle.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....
> ...


I'd love to have a decent conversation about religion or spirituality.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


God the creator is not logical.

Life is dreamlike, illusory.  Being present, showing up for life on its terms, can be a spiritual path in and of itself.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > What "Big Bang"?  You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law?   The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.  A scientific impossibility.  Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.
> ...



Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe.  The laws of physics would not change.  Not by science as we understand it.  If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion.  It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I don't believe there are *m*any positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality






That "M" is looming rather large, I'd say...Do you believe there are ANY positive elements?


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> "Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.



What relation has the comment to a "red herring"? As with the terms "strawman" and "ad hominem attack," that seems a term used in the most inaccurate contexts.



Gunny said:


> If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.



Actually, there's a greater scriptural basis for not only killing, but numerous other acts and behaviors now recognized as immoral than there is against such acts. The scriptural endorsement of slavery in the Old and New Testaments and perceived endorsement of ethnic/racial subjugation in the book of Genesis provided greater ammunition for the anti-abolitionists than the abolitionists, for example. 



Gunny said:


> Fred Phelps is a perfect example.  That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was.  He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs.   But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.



Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so far out of line from the founder of Protestantism's angry ranting against "the Jews and their lies." Phelps's beliefs are also not far out of line from scriptural justification for the killing of homosexuals, except that he hasn't actually killed anyone, as far as I know. 



Gunny said:


> I always love this argument.
> 
> Prove what YOU believe is fact.



No, JB has one of his rare instances of accuracy here; he's correct that *you* bear the moral burden of proof because you're the one attempting to assert that existence of something rather than its nonexistence. For example, consider Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.



> If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.



You're not both equivalently guilty of usage of the _argumentum ad ignorantiam_; it's *you* who has appealed to ignorance by demanding proof of God's nonexistence instead of offering proof of his existence when the burden of proof is on those who would assert the existence of an unseen object or entity.



Gunny said:


> So let's apply some logic here.  Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance.  Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.
> 
> That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.



It's indeed statistically improbable, but if *were* to occur, how would you know that it had? Would there be large signs or banners announcing that the statistical improbability had in fact come to fruition? What element of Earth would be different had this statistically improbable event indeed become reality?   



Gunny said:


> Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.



Actually, there are numerous falsifiable elements of religion, contrary to the typical assertion that they "cannot touch each other." For example, some of the standard fare against theism consists of this:

*The Paradox of Omnipotence*

1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

3. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

*A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist*

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

4. But the universe is not perfect.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

*The Problem of Evil*

1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the attributes of evil.

2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.

3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> And I disagree.  Your model is inferior.



there is no room for disagreement. The logical requirements for choosing the best model are simple.


> Your model relies on so-called scientific guesswork as opposed to logic.



Wrong. The mdel to which I adhere relies on scientific experimentation and observed fact.



> There is nothing actually scientific about your argument.  True science is based on the observable within the limit of man's intellect



My model is that which science and reason support



> When science exceeds its bounds and attempts to explain that which it cannot, it doesn't work.



You have demonstrated no such shortcomings. not being able to observe a madeup skydaddy is not a shortcoming of science/ We cannot observe god for the same reason we cannot observe dragons or pixies- there is zero evidence for their existernce. the only difference is that people stoped worshiping gnomes and the wind a long time ago, and you're still backwards and behind the curve. You hae presented no evidence for your calims or your model, so you cannot expect to be taken seiously.




> Scientific theory on the origin of life is  based on nothing better than "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."



Wrong. The Big Bang model is based on observation and mathematics. the conditions of the BB up to mill;iseconds after the start have been reproduced in particle colliders around the world.



> You choose to believe in something that is no more scientifically proven by actual scientific fact than any other theory


.  

You fail to understand what 'proven' even measn in the scientific world



> Power to you.  Believe as you will.  But don't try and tell me my theory is no better than yours,



I am simply stating the facts



> My point being that I am fine with you believing what you want.  You on the other hand, relentlessly attack those who believe in a Creator.



I do no such thnig. I destroy the fallacious premises of those who seek to force their belifs on the rest of the world and use legislation to enfore their will- and are too dishonest to even admit to it


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And I disagree.  Your model is inferior.
> ...



Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe.  The laws of physics would not change.  Not by science as we understand it.  If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.





I said 'as they are now'; I should have phrased that 'as we know them'. The ultimate 'rulebook'' for the universe currently eludes us,. but the models that work in the current universal environment do not aoply to the early stages of the BB



> The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.



The BB does not 'defy actual science' in any way, and you cannot show that to be the case


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 18, 2009)

Valerie said:


> That "M" is looming rather large, I'd say...Do you believe there are ANY positive elements?



None jump to mind quickly. The only immediately conceivable one would be that religious prescriptions for charity and altruistic aid would seem to offer stronger motivation for such deeds than mere secular empathy, because of the ideologically fervent nature of many religious persons. But secular rationality also provides for the creation of an economic system that largely eliminates poverty simply on efficiency grounds, so that also doesn't go very far.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.




It is not my job to teach you what you should have learned in High school. Elementary and introductory courses in physics and biology are easily found.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > You have in fact made assertions.  You assert that God does not exist and have derided those who believe God does exist.  Thread after thread.[/qrong]
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Who cares about creation theory scientific or otherwise?

What difference does it make?

Be here now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe.  The laws of physics would not change.  Not by science as we understand it.  If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.
> ...



Go ahead please provide the experiment you used or reviewed to prove the Big Bang, the experiment you used to recreate how life began on earth, the experiment you used to prove life evolved from a single cell creature into the myriad of life forms present and past, the experiment you used to prove man evolved from an ape like creature.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You have not read much on this board then, we have several right NOW actively creating threads to ask peoples belief's and then attacking anyone that posts they believe in a God or religion.
> ...


*

I WIll relpy to you when I have time.  Good post, though.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.
> ...



What? Are you claiming that science DOES have an experiment that validates the Big Bang? That validates how life began on earth and proof that man evolved from an ape like creature?

You should publish them, you will be FAMOUS.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Now's your chance.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



A creator is more logical than any other explanation.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Wow.  I get TWO expand-a-post MFers in one thread.  I feel so ... so ... honored.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I have mentioned several non-theistic points of view and they don't appear to interest anyone.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...





Since you can't prove it, it's easy to argue the negative.  

You can't prove it OR disprove it.

Some people take the easy way out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Life is dreamlike, illusory.  Being present, showing up for life on its terms, can be a spiritual path in and of itself.



A creator is more logical than any other explanation.[/quote]
neither of your assertions is logical


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...



None of that is verifiable nor testable. It is man making a guess about what something he can not verify is doing.

Once again provide us with a testable experiment that proves these theories. And if you do, you will be the most famous person on the planet.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.



How about the Miller-Urey experiment?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

By the way? When you look out your window and see the clouds blowing by, does that prove or even indicate that across the entire planet the wind is blowing only in one direction?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

*Large-scale homogeneity*

high proportion of lighter elements

cmbr fluctuations

...

more for rgs to google


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

oh, and something *can* come from nothing

look into quantum field theory


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

.





> *a) "Something can not come out of nothing" - the first law of  thermodynamics*
> 
> The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing.  From quantum field theory, we know that something  _does_ indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations".  In the  simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy.  Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments.  See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the  Casimir effect.
> The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of energy (which is essentially the first law of thermodynamics).
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.



No such thing.  There is nothing that proves any scientific theory beyond the limit of man's intellect and capability.  The Big Bang is nonsense dreamed up by someone out to disprove a Creator.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.
> ...



Interesting but does not validate the theory. It makes several very major assumptions as do all scientific theories. Notice how one of the prerequisites is the absence of Oxygen? It allows for oxygen as part of other gasses but no actually free oxygen.

How does life evolve absent oxygen and then adapt to an oxygen atmosphere?

And no one has ever successfully created life as per any of the theories science has. And there are several major ones.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...



The expanding universe is illogical.  If one cannot pinpoint the center of the universe, and the boundaries, then it cannot be proven.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.
> ...





> it should be pointed out that  Lemaitre, one of the originators of the BBT (the central equations  of the BBT are often called the "Friedman-Lemaitre equations"), was  actually a Jesuit priest!



so yeah, that's a lie, gunny


----------



## Valerie (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> oh, and something *can* come from nothing
> 
> look into quantum field theory





Is there a word for that?  

What if that "something" is intangible?  Would you call it an inspiration?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...
> ...




You simply fail to understand the concept. it is spacetime itself that is expanding. this is not the same as matter moving away from other matter within spacetime Tale the classical example to many dots on a balloon as it is inflated


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Valerie said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > oh, and something *can* come from nothing
> ...





what are you even talking about?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.
> ...



A hypothesis.  Nothing more.  There is not actual fact nor evidence to support such a theory as actual fact.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Life is dreamlike, illusory.  Being present, showing up for life on its terms, can be a spiritual path in and of itself.
> ...


neither of your assertions is logical[/QUOTE]


Sure it is.  You're just being lazy.  Ask some questions.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




There is no such thing as 'fact'; there are only models and theories- oh, and the theists' hypothesis


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> oh, and something *can* come from nothing
> 
> look into quantum field theory



Sorry, but the basic law of physics disagree.  Nothing is nothing. Absolute.  From zero you expect me to believe as logical that an explosion the size that would be required to create the universe could come?

Sorry.  That is illogical. IMO.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




I'm talking about something coming from nothing.  What is the source, do you suppose?


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 18, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't lie.  The Big Bang theory is EXACTLY what it's called -- a theory.  Nothing more.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Sorry, but the basic law of physics disagree. [/qupte]
> 
> Not so. Look into the relevant fields. Heck, you probably think a photon always takes a single pass and everything is always as it is and in a single state
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I fail to understand nothing.  First you create something from nothing, then you expand it.  You cannot create something from noting, nor can you expand the infinite.

If you are saying the universe is infinite, please define its boundaries.  If it is infinite, it cannot expand.

What MAN (again) can perceive is that ther is expansion within the limit of Man's observation.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



You mean I fail to understand something that is illogical?  Guilty as charged.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



It is also not very plausible, and becoming less so each new discovery. JB is reaching at this point, utilizing bargain basement science. Quantum physics does not state something can come from nothing, but that something can come from somewhere into nothing, think wormhole logic or Star Trek teleportation fantasy.

In reality science cannot answer all questions, as you have already pointed out, but then neither has religion.


----------



## del (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



we'll add jesuits to the things about which you are severely underinformed.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off




> Sorry, I don't lie.  The Big Bang theory is EXACTLY what it's called -- a theory.  Nothing more.



and your religion is a mere hypothesis, inferior to either a rightful theory or a model.



> It is also not very plausible, and becoming less so each new discovery



Demonstrate. 
All respected schools of science disagree with your assertion



> . JB is reaching at this point, utilizing bargain basement science. Quantum physics does not state something can come from nothing, but that something can come from somewhere into nothing, think wormhole logic or Star Trek teleportation fantasy.



Look into the relevant fields.

and BTW, teleportation isn't just scifi fantasy. You really should spend some time looking into the matter


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have, and to go into further discussion would also be completely off topic as it would require way more than a single post. However, since you do not care for generalizations of off topic discussion perhaps you could start your own thread, since the formulas are not what is important here, but what is, the big bang theory was replaced by a more plausible theory recently, gas cloud I think was the term used for it. As for most scientists agreeing with the big bang theory, no, they haven't, which is why they have been working so hard to find alternative theories. It simply does not explain enough, and science is all about explanations that are provable. This is why neither religion nor science can exist well without the other, we cannot learn why an atom exists just by figuring out how it got there through any mathematical model, it's not something science can do, because the "why" is not measurable, it's religious.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...







AVG-JOE said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The religious views of your average Joe


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

del said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



What makes you an expert on Jesuits?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The differnce is ... I don't claim my religion is anymore than what it is.  You require faith to  believe.

You on the other hand, are stretching. WAY out there.  my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith.  Your belief and mine.  Yet you attempt to present theory as fact.  The Big Bang and the "expanding universe are no more guesswork than intelligent design.

If I can get through to ONE MFer on this board, my  point is that your shit stinks like everyone else's.  There's no superiority.  I can hang with you on any topic you so desire to bring up.  This one included. I only ask that you THINK next time before you blindly attack anyone who believes in a God.

We don't differ much in that I can't stand people who try to shove their religion on others.  We differ in the fact that  don't conder attacking you whenever and wherever you can be found fr your religious beliefs.

It isn't necessary and only makes YOU look like an extremist for attacking others blindly.

Believe what you want. I'll answer to God, you can answer to whoever you so desire.  

If I don't win, I'll know i.  If you win you win or lose, you WILL know it.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I have, and to go into further discussion would also be completely off topic as it would require way more than a single post. However, since you do not care for generalizations of off topic discussion perhaps you could start your own thread, since the formulas are not what is important here, but what is, the big bang theory was replaced by a more plausible theory recently, gas cloud I think was the term used for it.



Are you referring to nebular cloud theory, which deals with the formation of plants and stars within the universe?



> As for most scientists agreeing with the big bang theory, no, they haven't,



TBT remains the dominant and most widely acceted theory, in no small part because no other theory has yet been put forth that explains so much so well



> we cannot learn why an atom exists just by figuring out how it got there through any mathematical model, it's not something science can do, because the "why" is not measurable, it's religious.


'why' is not a valid question.  There is no 'reason' that the universe is the way it is, other than the interplay of the laws of the universe acting on energy/matter


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2009)

The Jesuit, Illuminati, Knights of Columbus and Masonic Oaths
What is characteristic of the Jesuits from the beginning, we already see, is a certain ruthlessness in the choice of means to attain their ends.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_29.html


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 'why' is not a valid question.  There is no 'reason' that the universe is the way it is, other than the interplay of the laws of the universe acting on energy/matter




It's like asking for a 'meaning of life'. Things only have subjective 'meanings' within one's own life and experience, making the 'meaning of life' an invalid question- like asking what blue tastes like or that the small of past is.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off
> ...



I said that I disagree, but I was wrong.  I actually agree exactly with *what* you said, it is your conclusion we will have to agree to disagree on.

-Joe


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

> If I don't win, I'll know



Actually, we established long ago that you refuse to admit when you're wrong- even when you're caught in a lie. Instead, you got angry, went on a tirade, and then used you powers as a mod to try to silence me and keep anyone elswe from seeing you exposed.

-or perhaps you've forgotten about that


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off
> ...


----------



## Valerie (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> > If I don't win, I'll know
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Who are you quoting there?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Again, the 'why' doesn't exist; it is not a valid question. KK and joe are simply buying into a theist 'out' they use to try to validate a perceived 'need' for their delusions and systems, despite their lack of reason, zero grounding in reality, and religion's hsitory of being detrimental to the wellbeing and peace of Mankind


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> What "Big Bang"?  You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law?   The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.  A scientific impossibility.  Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.



but if someone such as "GOD" actually does exist,and whom we are like Amoebas on the evolutionary scale,one such as he,  just may be able too pull it off....just sayin...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible 

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Again, the 'why' doesn't exist; it is not a valid question. KK and joe are simply buying into a theist 'out' they use to try to validate a perceived 'need' for their delusions and systems, despite their lack of reason, zero grounding in reality, and religion's hsitory of being detrimental to the wellbeing and peace of Mankind



"Why" is a valid question, and thanks to science it is now the most important question we have left, all the others are getting answered almost as fast as we can ask them, except that one simple, single word, question. For the millions (perhaps billions) of years our species has existed, it is the one question, the ultimate question, to which empires have sacrificed millions of lives in pursuit of answering, to which millions of sonnets have been writ, which is the only driving force that has kept us civil to each other at all in this world ... "Why."

This is the one sole and only reason we need religion as a species, for it is this one simple, untestable, unprovable question that has allowed us to remain here. Without it, we would have gone extinct a long time ago because our bodies are not even close to the toughest, most durable bodies, our species has nothing to offer nature, and according to the laws of evolution, humanity was like the platypus, natures joke. So there has to be a reason our species has reigned supreme, some logical explanation beyond "we're just smarter" ... because as you can see from the state of the world, we aren't smarter. We aren't faster, stronger, more powerful than anything else on this planet. Viruses can wipe out entire countries. But we somehow have been able to remain. Somehow, as a species, we beat the odds. There has to be a reason for this, and science cannot give us that reason.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I have, and to go into further discussion would also be completely off topic as it would require way more than a single post. However, since you do not care for generalizations of off topic discussion perhaps you could start your own thread, since the formulas are not what is important here, but what is, the big bang theory was replaced by a more plausible theory recently, gas cloud I think was the term used for it.
> ...



"Why?" is what makes us different from the animals.  "Why?" gave us the scientific method and religion.  "Why?" is the parent of both, making them related.

Both are useful tools for us to use, but both, like any tool, can be used in pursuits that can only be described as "a fucked-up psycho-bitch pain in humanity's ass".

This is why we need law; a study based more in "what" than "why"... if we can come to a consensus on _what_ behaviors are acceptable (preferably based in popular opinion that is dynamic and able to change with the times) we will all be able to pursue our own tangents of _why_ and get each generation that much closer to touching the stars.

Step one is accepting that everyone else has the right to be wrong.  This is where religion has historically fucked up.

-Joe


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible
> 
> How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.
> 
> ...



You know less about christianity than muslims do. Learn about it, not recommending "joining up", but actually read their books. Their religion does not answer how, it does not even attempt to address it. Their key book gives a very vague outline that could fit any theory or eventually discovery of fact, without contradicting it or being contradicted. I have told many this same thing, even christianity (truly no religion) makes an attempt to replace science, only some of those who follow those religions try to, often because they want to justify their desire to avoid learning (nothing wrong with the desire to just live and let live, I love Amish people). They don't need to justify that, just as you don't need to force them to either.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Again, the 'why' doesn't exist; it is not a valid question. KK and joe are simply buying into a theist 'out' they use to try to validate a perceived 'need' for their delusions and systems, despite their lack of reason, zero grounding in reality, and religion's hsitory of being detrimental to the wellbeing and peace of Mankind



Bullshit.  "Why" is art.  Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.  

And since I *believe* in my heart that the short window of time I have right here and right now is all I get, barring any 'spiritual' continuation that *will never be proved or disproved* this side of death, I want art in my life.

Is that too much to ask? 

-Joe


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> "Why" is a valid question,



It is invalid, just like 'what is the meaning of life?'




> and thanks to science it is now the most important question we have left, all the others are getting answered almost as fast as we can ask them,


Really? I would contend that there are still a lot of unanswered questions. If the graviton exists, as our models imply, what is its mass? How does the graviton 'work'? is it effected by other gravitons? How does the graviton fit with the 'curvature' of spacetime around massive objects? Will Moving Dimensions Theory prove true? if so, does that mean it is truly impossible to ever exceed _c_? Are the hypothetical models of 'warp drives' involving bending spacetime really applicable in the real world? If so, what energy requirements would be involved and how would it be achieved? Can spacetime be warped indefinitely or can it 'tear'? If the latter, what would such 'tearing' actually entail, and what would be the repercussions? Will intergalactic travel and communications ever be feasible, or will any people who leave our own be effectively cut-off from the rest of mankind? how long might it take for speciation to result? Will 'brain transplants' or the transfer or our conscious selves to an artificial medium ever do achieved? Can the Em and other 9m,ostyly E-M) forces be overcome to allow matter to pass through matter, taking advantage of the fact that matter is mostly empty space?


There are many questions to be answered, KK



> except that one simple, single word, question. For the millions (perhaps billions) of years our species has existed, it is the one question, the ultimate question, to which empires have sacrificed millions of lives in pursuit of answering, to which millions of sonnets have been writ, which is the only driving force that has kept us civil to each other at all in this world ... "Why."






KittenKoder said:


> You know less about christianity than muslims do.



right 

That's why I oft end up schooling so-called 'christians' on their own books


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Bullshit.  "Why" is art.  Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.
> 
> And since I *believe* in my heart that the short window of time I have right here and right now is all I get, barring any 'spiritual' continuation that *will never be proved or disproved* this side of death, I want art in my life.
> 
> ...




You can believe anything you like

it doesn't make you right


----------



## Kalam (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion.  It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.



What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion.  It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.
> ...




What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science _concurs with that assertion_- they attack it


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible
> ...



I'm with JB on this one... you don't need to understand the theology of Christianity to know that it is founded on a story of origins, an explanation for the unexplainable and a "feeling" that you have met God in its stories and fellowship.

Please do not think that I scoff at the "feeling".  I have felt it, I know it is powerful and I will be the first to admit that I miss its comfort.  

That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.

Let's face it - we all have a set of beliefs and we all have faith in our beliefs, otherwise we would be foolish *and* weak.  The trick is to demand respect for our own beliefs by respecting the right of everyone else to be wrong.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.  "Why" is art.  Sure, you can't eat it, but it makes life more pleasant.
> ...



Was that so hard?

-Joe


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ... it gives a vague time descriptive, the one given is "day", which we all know is completely subjective, not only to which planet you are on, but also what species. So it is not outside the realm of science that a being much bigger or powerful than us would have much longer days, like perhaps millions or billions, or even trillions, or our "years" (again a highly subjective measure of time). Also, no, not all christians "attack" scientific discovery, many have integrated it into their beliefs rather well. But like the few who try to ignore science, you are ignoring the religious aspects of existence. Time is subjective, while still linear no matter who it involves, the measure of it is not constant. Also, according to quantum mechanics, time is reversible, but also that our understanding of the phenomena is extremely limited, so to our perspective it would not exist until we did, period.


----------



## Kalam (Jun 18, 2009)

I'll contend that religions _are_ primarily useful as mechanisms of enforcing social order. In this sense, religions should be judged based on the types of societies that their respective teachings entail. Religions are also useful in providing fellowship with individuals that share similar moral beliefs. Religious beliefs that concern themselves purely with individual spiritual salvation and pleasing some personal creator are useless as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ...



god said let there be or let us make and -poof!- there is was


Silly kitty



> Time is subjective, while still linear no matter who it involves, the measure of it is not constant. Also, according to quantum mechanics, time is reversible, but also that our understanding of the phenomena is extremely limited, so to our perspective it would not exist until we did, period.




Time existed or passed prior to the emergence of man. Man simply started measuring it. Time requires matter and space to exist- Man is not required.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

Kalam said:


> I'll contend that religions _are_ primarily useful as mechanisms of enforcing social order. In this sense, religions should be judged based on the types of societies that their respective teachings entail.



now, Kalam- take what you just said and apply it to the tra, bible (any popular canon) and Canon. 

Can you see why a text that calls for a social order that is oppressive of women, calls for genocide in multiple instances, and supports slavery (among other things) is reprehensible in the modern age, given the morality of our society? Anyone who does not believe in the religion of the Abrahamic god who has a moral characte will find himself (or herself) compelled to not only reject these texts, but also to fight against their influence in society and the law- just as those who did not believe in Malech, who were bound by their own consciences, could not sit idly by and allow the sacrifice of small children in the fire




> Religions are also useful in providing fellowship with individuals that share similar moral beliefs. Religious beliefs that concern themselves purely with individual spiritual salvation and pleasing some personal creator are useless as far as I'm concerned.


I disagree. Even acting on a more limited scale, thepersonal emotional bnenefits and resulting sense of identity can still provide a unifying factor and common groundfor the formation and stability of society. So, in to sociological sense, such a religion can still be 'useful'


----------



## Kalam (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I think this comes primarily from scriptural literalism/inerrancy and the mistaken belief that an entire religion becomes invalidated if a few passages of its holy text are shown to be wrong. Notice how some of the posters here flip a shit when you point out that the Bible is, if taken at face value, historically inaccurate. Read your book of choice analytically and it becomes easy enough to reconcile it with modern science.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > See, here is proof that you don't think about anything that doesn't fit what you want the universe to be like. The christian mythology doesn't say "poof there it is" ...
> ...



No, it states "god said let there be ... and so it was" ... it doesn't say "poof" and it doesn't say how long, nor does it say when really, it gives a vague time reference, "day", and lets the reader define that how they wish. Sorry but right now I feel like I am debating with a first day theologian, not a scientific mind. I have also used this same debate with christians who wanted to say their religion denies .... whatever the catch phrase of the topic is, it works on scientists who do the same, like you. Even if you take the christian creation myth word for word, as fact, it does not answer much of what science tries to answer, and science does not answer anything any of the creation myths focus on, which is the "why". Again, you are ignoring the most important aspect of religion, as well as almost all religions from what I have seen in other posts. Christianity is not the only religion, it isn't even one single religion itself anymore, there now several religions within christianity, and out of that archetype there are thousands more religions, each with a creation myth, and each following the basic outline. The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all? If there is no "why" then there is no reason to care. If you don't care then there is no reason to create laws or protect the innocent. So without religion we do have chaos, and without purpose we become ... well ... monkeys again.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all?



 You're pulling that old atheist = amoral bullshit, which has been refuted countless times. Newsflash! Christianity doesn't teach morality, it teaches obedience based on fear and coercion. It doesn't give a reason to bee ;good' because it is 'good' to do so- it merely says that failure to abide by outdated laws resultys in punishment. That's not morality, it's coercon and trying to CYA 



> If there is no "why" then there is no reason to care. If you don't care then there is no reason to create laws or protect the innocent



Wrong. All laws arise from social contract,. Acknowledging that actually allows to to look objectively at a situation and pursue the 'greatest good'. there are plenty of philosophies that deal with morality in the abscense og god. Humanism is but one example- ad the moral instinct can easily emerge from within the natural world itself, making any 'justification' for its existence unneded.

.





> So without religion we do have chaos, and without purpose we become ... well ... monkeys again.





1) no religoon = chaos? there is no secular law?
2)We were never monkeys, you stupid little cat

Now you're just parroting long-debunked theist talking points



AVG-JOE said:


> Good (insert your favorite Deity here) I just started a sentence with "And" followed by one started with "But"!
> 
> Please do NOT tell my mother
> 
> -Joe


Meh. We'll justy call this exchange dialogue and let it pass on those grounds  *if*, that is, you agree to ignore my typos in return. Deal?


----------



## Barb (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Discuss what? If one posts a thread, does one not also necessarily include a position on the topic? 

Which religion? All? Any? If? What is your position, what do you want to know about others positions?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > The lesson learned from them is that there is a reason for everything, everything has a purpose, and the lesson from all religions is that there is a reason to be a good person. The religion isn't even the key factor in it, it's a jumping off point, but the purpose for existing is religious, period. If there is no purpose to be a good person, then why bother listening to your conscience at all?
> ...



No, they are not theist talking points, they are anthropological talking points, a science you clearly know too little about, but a real and kick in the ass science just like all the others. It is the science that determined the question of "why" is what made us exceed our limitations and learn to form societies more complex. I used "monkeys" as an inside joke, I do know the theories and facts of evolution, the word "troglodyte" though is a bit tiresome to type and not as funny. However there is something far more humorous in your replies now, seeing the pattern just now, you have nothing, no ideas, logic, or even science to counter anything except "talking points" ... thus why you wrongly asserted my scientific statements as such.

A true scientist does not discount anything, absolutely everything is valid and has reason, even the most adherent Amish is of importance to study. You, those like you, are fascinating cases of zealotry, but still no less than religious zealots. The only difference is the side of the coin you reside, but the coin is still the same. Now here's something to ponder, would people have gathered as they did without some form of religious ceremony? The answer is simply, no. Though the primitive religion was worshiping of animals and forces of nature, it was still religion that drove them together. As humanity progressed beyond the caves and grass huts they had to recreate their gods, into those we are more familiar with now. In the first cultures religion was the law, even the Pharaohs, as powerful as they were, could not undermine the priests(esses) of the temples where the first laws were created for all of humanity, well, the first truly moral laws. Even the tribal laws in early North America were formed by the religious elders, not the chiefs. The laws were not enforced just because either, they were enforced because the "gods said so" and people who obeyed them were promised a better afterlife than those who did not, with some room for error tossed in. Ancient Egyptians taught that their laws may not be the right ones, but that if you followed them anyway you would still get into the underworld (heaven essentially). Aztecs used sacrifice to frighten their people into obeying the laws, and look what happened to them. The promise of reward has historically been the one factor that has caused people to obey the laws, not the threat of punishment, though punishment is often required it has never been the strength of law.


----------



## Barb (Jun 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



 Would you agree that where theology tries to encroach on science, it is also out of its depth? At least that the two should be taught as separate disciplines? 
As for happenstance in science, ecology, specifically the study of biota, suggests evolution is evident in many more places than you might think.  The hierarchy of levels, scales, and natural constraints of different criteria, and even landscape corridors match in some way arrangements of human government, civil engineering, competition, family structure (more cohesive within than without), and social activity points to the smallest of organisms.  Humans, no matter how one sees them emerging, got here last. Does it not seem more reasonable that the similarities we see are evolutionary, and that we copy other organisms because we have a (or some) shared beginning (s)? 

As for me, I believe in the great "I am," but I also believe that a supreme being, or deity, has the necessary reach to reach all people in the way they would best understand. Its the "dad likes me best" wars of exclusive use I find disturbing about organized religion, the social controls built into the dogma, and the history of using it as an excuse to demonize others to steal their women, their land, and their water.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> god said let there be or let us make and -poof!- there is was
> 
> 
> Silly kitty
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> No, they are not theist talking points, they are anthropological talking points,



True anthropologists would't have talking points,. They'd actually have points 


> It is the science that determined the question of "why" is what made us exceed our limitations and learn to form societies more complex.



not 'why'- 'HOW'

'Why are we here' has never improved the human condition- it has only brought us religion, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, wars, competition, and 'theology'. HOW the universe works, HOW we came to be as we are- those are the questions that fuel science.



> However there is something far more humorous in your replies now, seeing the pattern just now, you have nothing, no ideas, logic, or even science to counter anything except "talking points" ... thus why you wrongly asserted my scientific statements as such.



I have dismantled all of your assertions, and those of others. All you do is repeat your assertions.



> A true scientist does not discount anything,



Wrong. A true scientist understands that some models are known to be wrong and casts them aside as such.


> absolutely everything is valid



If that were true, we would make no progress



> Now here's something to ponder, would people have gathered as they did without some form of religious ceremony?



Yes, for social interaction and for mutual interest.



> The answer is simply, no



Wrong. Humans are social creatures, and they congregate around more than just religion- everything from shared interest tot he exchange of information to simple curiosity (let alone mating) drives the human species to congregate. If you were correct in your foolish assertion, we would expect to see no family units or 'societies' in nature. My model predicts that other species should also congregate when it is beneficial- and they do. Your foolish assertions and fallacious models fail to  explain the worlds around us. You are wrong, the facts demonstrate that, and there is no room for argument on that subject.


> Though the primitive religion was worshiping of animals and forces of nature, it was still religion that drove them together







> As humanity progressed beyond the caves and grass huts they had to recreate their gods, into those we are more familiar with now.



I'm familiar with the rule of three,though i forget the name of the man to whom it is attributed.



> In the first cultures religion was the law, even the Pharaohs, as powerful as they were, could not undermine the priests(esses) of the temples where the first laws were created for all of humanity, well, the first truly moral laws. Even the tribal laws in early North America were formed by the religious elders, not the chiefs.



The laws arose from social contract. Shared religion was and is but one of the unifying factors by which people organize themselves, and one of the motivations that factor into what laws become codified or otherwise widely recognized.




> The laws were not enforced just because either, they were enforced because the "gods said so" and people who obeyed them were promised a better afterlife than those who did not, with some room for error tossed in




In other words, religion was and remains a means of controlling the ignorant masses- just as I said earlier.



> Aztecs used sacrifice to frighten their people into obeying the laws, and look what happened to them.




They sacrificed people *to the gods*

You have provided evidence of one case where religion directly contributed to the downfall of a civilization, and you're too dense to even realize it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I have dismantled all of your assertions, and those of others.



I am taking only this point you made, because the rest is nothing more than proof of what I am about to say ...

No, you have not.

All you have done is blindly follow a faith that is different from others, blindly due to the simple fact that you are ignoring most of what is said unless it agrees with you or you have some bone to pick about it. The reality, something you are having a hard time grasping, is that humanity needs to have the religious aspects as well, it is in its purest form another science, though primitive compared to some branches this is because of people unwilling to explore religion, from all walks of life, and accept that religion is not only necessary but that all religions are valid and have valid points to offer. The only true reason the science of theology has not progressed is because those who practice it do not collaborate like other branches do. You are just like they are, unwilling to bend or even consider the possibility of being wrong, though the fact remains your way of thinking is wrong even for science. There are no absolutes in the universe, and that is not a new concept in scientific method, it is a law which has allowed us to progress much of our science since it's understanding. However, when people ignore one part of the universe they are limiting themselves, such as ignoring the religious aspect. It was religion that aided in science in Ancient Egypt, without the religious teachings medicine would not have gotten anywhere, and construction would have been centuries behind, the pyramids were not just religious, they are also the most sound construction form possible, thus why they appeared in so many places. The religious use of them allowed the architects to perfect them. But you don't care to acknowledge all these benefits of religion. Nor do you acknowledge the simple fact that without purpose and meaning, there is no reason to live, or at least no reason to listen to your conscience. People did not start off in large cities like we have now, they had very small groups scattered widely. If not for the thought of a reward, what would have stopped them from destroying themselves?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> you are ignoring most of what is said unless it agrees with you or you have some bone to pick about it.



Demonstrate how I 'ignore' so much 




> The reality, something you are having a hard time grasping, is that humanity needs to have the religious aspects as well,



You mean that humanity is comprised primarily of the weak persons whop need blind faith and ignorance in their lives? You really do have a dim view of humanity.



> it is in its purest form another science,



No, it is is not. It does not make real predictions- and when it tires, it fails. It does not set up or perform experiments. It declares itself unfalsifiable and set in stone.  In no way is religion science and no reasonable, thinking human being will buy into viewing religion as following anything remotely resembling the scientific method.

You expect me to respect something so inherently dishonest? Just admit that it's 'faith' and ignorance that provides personal comfort and has historically served a central sociological function, get it out of the secular State and the public school system, keep it in our personal lives where it belongs, and move on.


> though primitive compared to some branches this is because of people unwilling to explore religion, from all walks of life, and accept that religion is not only necessary



needed only by weak hearts and feeble minds.



> but that all religions are valid



You're just being stupid again, in your attempts to remain PC. Many religions are mutually exclusive- therefore they can be all valid as models of the universe.



> and have valid points to offer. The only true reason the science of theology has not progressed is because those who practice it do not collaborate like other branches do.



Theology is not a science. It is bastardized philosophy with no interests in truth or real knowledge or learning.



> You are just like they are, unwilling to bend or even consider the possibility of being wrong,



I have said many times: present the evidence for examination and I will consider any model or theory. Laughing at contradictory hypothesis that accept ignorance as an axiom is called being reasonable.



> However, when people ignore one part of the universe they are limiting themselves, such as ignoring the religious aspect



First off, mythologies and ideologies are not 'part of the universe'

Secondly, somehtyings should be rejected



> . It was religion that aided in science in Ancient Egypt, without the religious teachings medicine would not have gotten anywhere,



religion has oft proved the greatest roadblack to science and medicine



> and construction would have been centuries behind, the pyramids were not just religious, they are also the most sound construction form possible



This was nto a product of religion, it was a product of scientific inquiry, mathematics, and trial-and-error. Regardless of their motivations, which very well have been religious in nature, the processes that brought these innovations were rooted in science and not in religion itself.

\





> Nor do you acknowledge the simple fact that without purpose and meaning, there is no reason to live, or at least no reason to listen to your conscience



That has been debunked repeatedly, yet you still repeat it like a broken record. Actualyl, religion gives more reason to reject morality, should one reject the religion or realize that it is false. Many philosophies  codiffy the moral instince and give rise to law without religious delusion


> People did not start off in large cities like we have now, they had very small groups scattered widely. If not for the thought of a reward, what would have stopped them from destroying themselves?



*Instinct and reason. *


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You mean that humanity is comprised primarily of the weak persons whop need* blind faith and ignorance* in their lives? You really do have a dim view of humanity.



There's why you sound just like the religious zealots, and you both have a point, the problem is that the point is for both of you. Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith, many test themselves, others just watch and learn. Some, like me, explore the world and adapt. Faith is blind only when you ignore the other side. I always use the rainbow to describe the world, and it's a fitting description. Science is one of those colors, and religion is another, along those lines, art is yet another color, technology is yet another color, music, literature, love, friends, etc. are all colors in that rainbow. Your life must be a rainbow and a rainbow cannot exist without all the colors. Even if your god is some unemotional force in the universe, you have one, you just deny it for fear that you may look weak. But it's not weak to admit we are not all powerful, it's strength to do so actually. Recognizing the fact that we are not the most powerful and intelligent beings in existence is what drives us to find out what is. *That* is religion, whether you want to admit it or not, it is. *That* is a god, and even if you don't admit it, it's there. Whether it's a living thing or some force, it's what created everything. What you miss is that people need a reason, that's the flaw of being intelligent, for every strength has a drawback, every power has a weakness, especially in science. Science has proven there is balance, and without that balance nothing can exist. Intelligence's balance is purpose, without purpose we cannot have intelligence, and with intelligence we are forced to seek purpose. You are a perfect example of unbalance, you have given up your seeking of purpose, and have therefore lost you ability to learn. How is it that I can see this? Simple, in your posts, I offered several pieces of information that you completely ignored, then when I said that you ignored them, you actually had to ask what you ignored. That is not learning, that is a lack of learning.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith



Really, now? then why have they *still* yet to produce any real caseon reasonable and logical ground?




> . I always use the rainbow to describe the world, and it's a fitting description. Science is one of those colors, and religion is another, along those lines, art is yet another color, technology is yet another color, music, literature, love, friends, etc. are all colors in that rainbow. Your life must be a rainbow and a rainbow cannot exist without all the colors




I can't believe I just read that... 



> . Even if your god is some unemotional force in the universe, you have one, you just deny it for fear that you may look weak.


\


Oh, so now it's back to the old 'atheism is a religion' bullshit

any last semblance of reason is now totally absent from your words



> But it's not weak to admit we are not all powerful, it's strength to do so actually.



It is inner strength to admit that you don't know and move on. It is weakness to cling to myth and fairy tales and pretend as though you know- which is exactly what religion does.



> . What you miss is that people need a reason, that's the flaw of being intelligent, for every strength has a drawback, every power has a weakness, especially in science.



One finds one's own reasons in what brings true joy in life. To simply join the crowd in singing hymns and delude yourself into believing things that have no supporting evidence and, in some cases, are demonstratively false (I noticed you never addressed Agna's examples regarding the logical impossibility of God; since you attempt no refutation, I'll take that as agreement with his assertion-*and that goes for everyone else ion this thread*)



> Science has proven there is balance, and without that balance nothing can exist. Intelligence's balance is purpose, without purpose we cannot have intelligence, and with intelligence we are forced to seek purpose.



You make less sense the longer to babble on

 Y





> ou are a perfect example of unbalance, you have given up your seeking of purpose, and have therefore lost you ability to learn. How is it that I can see this?









Now you assume to know my purpose and project your own meaningless existence ontop me 


> Simple, in your posts, I offered several pieces of information that you completely ignored, then when I said that you ignored them, you actually had to ask what you ignored




I ignored nothing intelligent,. That is why I *challenged you to present evidence of your assertion and you were able to produce none*


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith
> ...



I am very religious.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



And you have presented no evidence to support your model


or to refute my points

or agna's examples demonstrating deity to be logically impossible

or anything I have said (hippie ramblings excluded)


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Um ... yes I have, you just chose to ignore them, much like when some people ignore evidence that denies their creation myths, same thing, just a different side to the coin. The truly amazing thing is that you have not yet seen that you are looking into a mirror when you argue with those who think that their religion is the only truth, and yet that's exactly what you are doing. Ever notice that most people do not debate me on religion, it's because as religious as I am, I don't normally take sides, however in this instance I have chosen a side, since clearly you are the loudest voice opposing religion another who has actually studied the sciences you are claiming to use must stand up for religion. Yes, I have studied all the sciences, and no, there is no evidence to support any theories of the absence of a higher being than ourselves. Nor is there any proof that nothing bigger than our small understand could have created it all. To the contrary, within the realms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that something created the universe we exist in, and that something also created the universe that our creator exists in, and on and on ...

Physics demonstrates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that the two can change form and even become the other. The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created, only how it all got into the places it's at now, however, due to a better understanding of the "expansion" we see, it's not really expanding but it's more of a spinning which appears as an expansion to our older technology, newer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water. We have also seen a star born, which by calculations happened a few billion years ago, but that makes it very new compared to the rest of the universe. So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born. This could have been going on longer than we had thought, which means our perception of time is wrong as well. But, back to the creator. One science that has shown that a creator is possible is computers. Cyber space to be more precise. We know we can create what we see as illusion realities within the digital world, using our primitive computers we have managed to actually create civilizations mimicking humanity quite accurately, but when allowed to exist without our influence they do not follow the same patterns, almost always resulting in their own destruction unless they form some theological belief system. So even computer science shows that religion is needed and that it is very plausible we were created by something much bigger than we understand.

Now, your next post is vital, because this is the sum of what I had said in one solid cohesive thought, not just countering points but a full on explanation of why I know for a fact that there is more in the universe than what science has or will ever discover. Counter if you must, but I promise, no matter how much you may think you have countered it, you really haven't scratched the surface of scientific exploration.


----------



## Kalam (Jun 19, 2009)

As a subscriber to the Big Bang/expanding universe theory I feel compelled to respond...   



KittenKoder said:


> To the contrary, within the realms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that something created the universe we exist in, and that something also created the universe that our creator exists in, and on and on ...


A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. That _is _what you're implying here, isn't it?



KittenKoder said:


> Physics demonstrates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that the two can change form and even become the other.


The amount of energy, including matter, in an isolated system does not change. This law could not conceivably be applied where no isolated system existed, could it?



KittenKoder said:


> The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created, only how it all got into the places it's at now, however, due to a better understanding of the "expansion" we see, it's not really expanding but it's more of a spinning


"Spinning" with reference to what?



KittenKoder said:


> which appears as an expansion to our older technology, newer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water.


Source...



KittenKoder said:


> We have also seen a star born, which by calculations happened a few billion years ago, but that makes it very new compared to the rest of the universe. So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born. This could have been going on longer than we had thought, which means our perception of time is wrong as well.


How does the birth of a star confound our perceptions of time? I'm confused. It isn't as if that's a recently discovered phenomenon. 



KittenKoder said:


> But, back to the creator. One science that has shown that a creator is possible is computers. Cyber space to be more precise. We know we can create what we see as illusion realities within the digital world, using our primitive computers we have managed to actually create civilizations mimicking humanity quite accurately, but when allowed to exist without our influence they do not follow the same patterns, almost always resulting in their own destruction unless they form some theological belief system. So even computer science shows that religion is needed and that it is very plausible we were created by something much bigger than we understand.


This is genuinely interesting; feel free to go into further detail. Are you suggesting that humanity will destroy itself in the absence of a supernatural creator's influence, or am I misunderstanding you? What led you to believe that humanity necessarily won't destroy itself?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

> The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created,




You're presupposing creation without evidence



> ewer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water.



How so? BBT would lead one to expect just such an 'edge' or limit to the 'size' of the physical universe



> So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born.



Stars are not enclosed systems and noone ever said star formation had ceased



> you really haven't scratched the surface of scientific exploration.     				__________________



You just said that nearly all our questions were being answered. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself


-and still you refuse to refute or state any disagreement with Agna's proofs...


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jun 19, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:
> 
> I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.
> 
> ...



I've now read and re-read this post a number of times, and must say, this is an excellent post about religion, from an outsiders perspective.  Not harsh in judgement, but legitimate questions asked, and I'll attempt my absolute best to answer in a clear and concise manner.  



iagainsti said:


> meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity



You state a belief that hell is where the separation from God is made evident, whereas, what I was taught was that hell is the consequence for an earthly separation of man and God.  When you choose to NOT live in a christ-like manner, you condemn yourself to hell.  Its not God saying "oh, you didn't do enough to enter heaven's gates," it is instead, "oh, you didn't do ANYTHING to justify entering heaven's gates."  

The "sin" committed during the Tower of Babel saga wasn't that they wanted to be closer to God, but that they ignored his great commission, that being, 'go ye into the world and preach the gospel to all nations.'  The people instead decided to stay in one place which in terms of spreading the gospel, was completely ineffective.  I realize that this has, over time, been construed as 'punishment,' but the intended effect was, like I said, to spread God's word throughout the world.  

This is another outstanding question;  



iagainsti said:


> God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?



This is the fundamental difference between God and Man, see Hitler, see Stalin, see Casto, et al; man requires proof of worship, whereas God only requires belief.  In my opinion, this stems moreso from man's inherent confidence issues than God's superiority.  Whereas man needs affirmation for deeds performed, God is above such trivial nonsense.  The bible says that, "whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Nowhere does it say, "whosoever murders an abortion doctor shall not perish...." or whosoever commits the fewest sins..."  etc.  God requires only your faith, not your outward display.  In terms of actual, determinable power, this makes perfect sense.  If you are an all-powerful entity, then its EASY to 'force' someone to bend to your will; the REAL power lies in having people come to you based on their decisions.  If you're a pet owner, think of it this way; its very easy to pick up your dog or cat and pet them, but its much more satisfying to simply sit down on the couch and see if they jump up in your lap.  Not sure if I can explain any better than that.  

Another great question;



iagainsti said:


> Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?



If there was PROOF of God's existence, then belief would not require faith. If God revealed himself to the world tomorrow, then everyone would believe, obviously, and the allure of faith would be destroyed.  Salvation is a reward for faith AND living a christ-like life, meaning that it is YOUR choice to either a) live a christ-like life and be rewarded with eternal life or b) living a sinful life and condemning yourself to hell b/c of YOUR actions.  Either way, it is YOUR choices that determine your fate.  Much like the idea that, you can't sit back and do nothing at work and expect to be rewarded, however, if you work hard and do your job, then you're probably going to get that year-end-review raise/bonus.  

I'm not going to tell you that your assertions are "wrong," as in all honesty, no man knows for sure.  In that same vein, I cannot provide you with the "absolute truth" that you crave, I can only present you with evidence and then let you form your own conclusions.  Bear in mind that I have been a believer for most of my life, but there are many aspects of christianity that I find as appalling as most non-believers; the finger pointers, the 'holier-than-thous,' those who believe in faith without knowing why; I believe that "faith" is the cause of the intellectual laziness surrounding christianity, as in, if you can lump all criticisms against your belief as a 'lack of faith,' then why would you ever need to defend those said beliefs?  Christians nowadays no longer feel the need to justify their beliefs en masse, and in my mind have done a tremendous disservice to the idea of religious justification; 'this is what I believe and why.' (the answer that "the bible says so" isn't much of an answer at all, especially to someone who may not believe in the divine nature of the bible, for example)

Ultimately though, no matter what I say, the choice of belief is yours; if you look at the evidence and decide to believe, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise.  Likewise, if you decide to not believe, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise.  My job as a christian is not to beat you over the head until you submit, but merely to plant the seed and move on.  

I sincerely hope that this helps you in one way or the other, and by all means, feel free to engage me with any other questions regarding faith or christianity in general.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

> his is the fundamental difference between God and Man, see Hitler, see Stalin, see Casto, et al; man requires proof of worship, whereas God only requires belief



and sacrifice as proof or worship


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 19, 2009)

Not all spiritual paths attempt to address the creation of the universe.   How it is viewed in Buddhist philosophy, is that we all co create the world through our consciousness and perception.

The world exists, it appears but it is not as solid as we think it is.  Science backs this up.  Think of the truth of any form of matter, it is mostly empty space and minute particles in continuous motion.

The metaphor of the dream state is used to point to the truth of how things truly are. 


KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I actually come to no conclusion.  That last sentence that would appear to be a conclusion is tongue-in-cheek.  Obviously, the fear of not believing is not a means of gaining Salvation.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> > If I don't win, I'll know
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have forgotten nothing.  You may want to re-read the first post in this thread.

As far as your allegations above are concerned, you have not caught me in a lie and you won't, because I have no need to do so.  Nor did I get angry and go on an tirade nor did I use any power as an administrator to try and silence you.  

You are a nasty piece of work when you want to be.  I merely responded to you in kind in the Flame Zone.  "Tirade" is what you call getting your ass torched by the flame YOU started?

It requires no special powers neg-rep you.  I earned my rep as a member of the board and can give it out as a member of the board.  It has nothing to do with my status as an administrator.  You will note there are other members who have close to the same rep as I do who are in fact not staff members.

I'm not even certain what brought on this little rant of yours.  The sentence you quoted and responded to in this post is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Salvation and nothing else.  If you took it in any other context, then you misread.

If you took it in the context of thinking I was declaring victory, there is no victory in an argument like this.  Unless it comes with understanding.  

Again I don't care what you believe, nor will you find ANY instance of me preaching my religion to anyone.  I offer explanations, nothing more.  My argument on the topic centers around intolerance and/or blind hatred.  

EVEN IF I could get you to see that your intolerance and hate toward religion is no different than the intolerance and hate of some religions, that STILL does not attempt to suck you into any religious beliefs.

Only the belief that others have a right to believe what they want, whether or not you agree with the belief itself.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible
> 
> How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.
> 
> ...



How do come to that conclusion.  Judeo-Christianity holds the belief that God is always.  He was not created.  

The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on creating something from nothing.  

A distinct difference between the two.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion.  It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.
> ...



"Better"?  A subjective word.  I have never alleged there was a "better" explanation, only a more logical one, IMO.  There is no theory that can be proven with factual evidence.  That is why they are all called "theories."  To suggest one is better than the other would require evidence.

If God drops by for a visit and we take a pic with the family, I'll be sure and post it for you.  If you come by some factual evidence that proves any other theory, I would hope you will do the same.

Until then, we are each stuck with our own beliefs.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Incorrect.  That would be the Big Bang theory in a nutshell.  There is nothing Judeo-Christian about that which attempt to project onto it.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



That really is all I have been trying to say throughout the argument.  I have never once insisted someone respect my religion.  Only that they show me the same courtesy and respect to hold my beliefs I show them.  

This isn't about not believing in God.  It's about not believing in God and disrespecting those who do.  IMO, there's a lack of reasoning there.  If one doesn't believe in God, then why should that person spend so much time actively campaigning against God, and insulting those who do?  

I will say the same thing the other way around.  Those who DO follow a religion and insult others for not following that religion are no different.  

IMO the louder one protests, the more fear of being wrong is held by that person doing the protesting.  That's something that needs to be reconciled from within, not by shouting down others.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

Barb said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> ...



My position is stated rather clearly, thanks.  Because you were not privy to the lead-in for this thread does not mean others weren't.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 19, 2009)

Barb said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I mostly agree.  I am not a proponent of organized religion, nor am I a proponent of religion encroaching science.  In this particular argument, religion does not encroach on science.  Science encroaches on religion by stepping outside the laws of science in an effort to provide answers it cannot.  Belief in scientific theories of origin require no less faith than belief in Creationism.

As far as evolution goes, I am not aware that religion questions evolution.  Obviously, life is continually evolving or it is dead.  What religion DOES question is Darwin's theory of evolution; which, is a specific theory that uses the word "evolution", but is not evolution itself.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 19, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:
> 
> I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.





> So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.



*NO, i am a Christian, and believe those who are not Christians, will be Judged by the Law on judgment day and that ONLY GOD, (Jesus on Judgment Day) can determine whether you are worthy to see God, are saved.*


> It is also a given that God created man in his own image, and loves and takes a special interest in each and every one of the people he created. God's love for man is emphasized throughout Christianity.
> 
> Now, the word of God is revealed to us through the Bible. As God no longer makes his presence known the way he did in Biblical days, the Bible is the only direct communication we have from God. It is his word, written by him through man, and contains all the information we need in order to know what it takes to be saved. (Again, please correct me if any of this is wrong)
> 
> ...



*Wow, that's alot to respond to....I found this link that goes over the many different ways that various people have thought brings Salvation.... it should answer many of your questions, it does answer many of my questions regarding this...and I have not even finished reading it all yet...

What does the Bible say about salvation?

here is a part from it:

Love God, love your neighbor
Jesus emphasized the sincere, heart-felt application of His two Great Commandments:

    One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you will live!" (NLT, Luke 10:25-28) 

Jesus then went on to tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) to show that a "neighbor" includes all people everywhere, even those of different nationalities and religions, even enemies. We are all God's children!

The English word "love" can have affectionate, romantic, sexual, or benevolent meanings. The original Greek word agape, used in the Bible, has a benevolent meaning. It means having a sincere concern for the welfare of others and holding them in high regard. That is what Jesus meant when He said, "Love your neighbor."

We are not saved just by following rules
The Pharisees, religious leaders of Jesus' time, believed that salvation could be earned by strict observance of the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments plus the other Old Testament rules). Jesus rejected that belief and stressed that we will be judged on the purity of our motives, not just on the outward observance of rules.

Jesus said we must strive to go beyond the Ten Commandments in our practice of love for all people. What He asks is true concern and caring, not mere compliance with a set of rules. Not only must we not murder (Exodus 20:13), we should avoid even holding a grudge:

    "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." (NLT, Matthew 5:21-22) 

Not only must we not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14), we should avoid entertaining even the thought of it (Matthew 5:27-29). Not only must we not steal (Exodus 20:15) and not envy what others have (Exodus 20:17), we should focus our lives on God, not on earthly possessions (Matthew 6:19-21). Not only must we not give false testimony (Exodus 20:16), we should even avoid evil thoughts and speech (Matthew 12:35-37). Not only must we be considerate to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-8), we should treat them as we would treat Jesus, Himself! (Matthew 25:31-46).*



> Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?


*I believe He has made it painfully obvious...of course this is probably easy for me to say, because I wholeheartedly believe that there is a God....I suppose it is sorta a Catch 22 or what came first, the Chicken or the egg type thing!?  *



> I am not asking these questions as some sort of challenge; these are legitimate questions I have about Christianity and they are some of the main reasons why I do not believe. My mind is open to the existence of a higher power...I just don't believe that the higher power in question is the one I desrcribed above. But my mind isn't even completely closed to THAT possibility, since I acknowledge it's possible that there are things I don't fully understand...which is why I'm posing these questions, in hopes that someone can give me a good explanation for the discrepancies I feel I'm seeing here.
> 
> And, again, if I am wrong in any of those above assertions, please correct me. If I'm going to believe or disbelieve in something, I want to know the absolute truth about that something first.


*
As simply as you can, type these questions of yours in the Google Search, you will get many answers to your questions....

I personally do not believe God is this hateful God that you spoke of above either...in fact, I know with every inch of my body and soul, that He is not....I think your instinct is correct on this....though I am certain others differ with me.*

Care


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 19, 2009)

I am afraid to post to much on this thread since stating something I think is true (my perception) could seriously insult someone possessing a radically different Perception from mine.   Yet the question begs, How does one talk about religion and compare beliefs and understanding.

Should we tip toe around each others emotions?  Like If I were a Christian, I have to not inscribe the concept "All non-believers go to hell!!" when I talk to JB or Agnaposte?  Or if I were Jewish, should I hold my tongue and agree _dishonestly _ when someone exclaims the glories of Christ?

I can understand the sensitivity surrounding religon.  In a sense, you are talking about an intricate part of persons personality and how the individual might view themselves.  But where is the fine line, the no man zone, when we discuss such a topic.  

Is there some set of rules that describes what is acceptable language and what is considered RUDE.  


Since we are about to start attacking each other over the Divine topic(religion), I took up the liberty of drawing upon my STATIST side of my brain and wish to suggests these rules.

The Politically Correct way of discussing Religion

1) When making a statement that is peculiar to your belief, Please Start the following with "I believe that..." or "According to my understanding,....."

For instance  "According to my understanding about Atheism, The practioner does not possess any religious principles.  Therefore, how can I trust an Atheists??"

2) When addressing someone outside your religious belief. Please refrain from using  terms that could be provocative. A suggested term is Non-co-religionists. 

3) If you are not part of a religious belief, do not make arguements as if you have obtained mastery of it.  UNLESS, you do hold all necessary documents that indicate that you have mastery of said religion as indicated and honored by the ranking members of that religious belief.   There are exception such as religions without a central governing body.

 4) If you are fearful, or completely dislike a relgious belief and/or the people that practice it.  Please treat them as human beings and treat them as if they were apart of your belief system or social group.


Are there any other suggestions.  With enough help, we will make this the most Political Correct Religion Discussion board on the planet.  How many of you are with me!!

(SIGNATURE WITHHELD DUE TO THE SENSITIVITY OF MY FELLOW NON-CO-RELIGIONISTS!!)


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 19, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> armchaos, why don't we all just squeeze our buttcheeks and see who can hold it the longest? (I think I just lost, lol)
> 
> "According to my understanding about Atheism, The practioner does not possess any religious principles. Therefore, how can I trust an Atheists??" According to my understanding of your question, you should wait until your brain is fully developed before you attempt to equate religious principles with trust. Ex: Madoff was a practicing jew.




Now I understand what Gunny mean!!! Mr. Gunn--what is amrchaos religion?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Gunny said:


> How do come to that conclusion.  Judeo-Christianity holds the belief that God is always.  He was not created.




Nothing 'just exists'- that's why the proverbial 'cosmic egg' must have been created, right?


Surely god is more 'complex' than the universe- therefore he can't 'just exist'. He must be created by an even greater being, to e so great as to create the universe. Christianity demands regress, yet refuses to follow through with it


> The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on creating something from nothing.



No. It postulates how the universe came to be; it does not directly address whether the proverbial 'cosmic egg' had been there all along- hell, it could even be cyclical, per the bang-crunch model

A distinct difference between the two.[/quote]



Gunny said:


> "Better"?  A subjective word.



Not so much, in science. The better model makes a greater number of more accurate predictions, using as few factors and assumptions as possible



Gunny said:


> What religion DOES question is Darwin's theory of evolution; which, is a specific theory that uses the word "evolution", but is not evolution itself.




That doesn't even make sense. ToE simply states that evolution (which is seen today_ occured in the past, and that is how life came to it's current form.


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 19, 2009)

It bothers me that in discussions of the origin of the universe, there often seems to be an assumption of belief.  Whether religious or scientific, many people seem to think that everyone has a belief about how the universe began.  I'm at a loss to understand why a subject like this requires a belief; as though ignorance about what happened in such a distant past (be that thousands, millions or billions of years ago) and which, at least as far as the scientific theories go, is outside the real comprehension of most individuals, if not humanity as a whole, is a horrible thing.  I have no problem at all accepting my ignorance of the subject.  I have discussed the big bang theory before, Christian creation with various denominations, had other religious beliefs of the origin at least briefly described, and have not found evidence to make me believe I know the answers.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...



Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...

The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory';r the theory of M... in quantum physics...

Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...

This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite demensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another demensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."

Atheists HATE this theory, as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...

But what I love about string is how it proves that what we or 'science', "KNOWS" about the universe is basically nothing... at least beyond the mechanics of that which is observable to us.

As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little; and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existance; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...

So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links' which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.

In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

M-Theory is a misnomer

it is philosophy as much as, if not more than, science


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 19, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...



You're right, however they do support the theory.  Red shift occurs because the Universe IS expanding.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory';r the theory of M... in quantum physics...
> 
> Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...
> 
> This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite demensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another demensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."



Infinite dimensions?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Atheists HATE this theory,



Bzzt. Wrong.  Atheists do NOT hate this theory.  That is a statement without plausibility.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...



Huh?  How can you claim that using any logic?  Honestly, I would like to know how you came up with that conclusion.  I would be interested in your seing you line of reasoning.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> But what I love about string is how it proves that what we or 'science', "KNOWS" about the universe is basically nothing... at least beyond the mechanics of that which is observable to us.



Very valid point.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little;



If science has proved very little, then why do planes fly, microchips work, we use electricity, microwaves, satellites, etc. etc.?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existance; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...



Undoubtedly.  Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist?  Not in the imaginable future.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links'



The implication of Darwin's Theory that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has not been proved.  Have human beings observed one species evolve into another?  No.  Do we use that framework that evolution can occure across species lines in practical way with success?  Yes.  The same kinds of genetic markers used to identify and *convict* criminals have been identified across species boundaries.  And mitochondrial DNA can be traced along ancestral lines in human beings.  And there is no "missing link".  There are many links between humans and our primate ancestor.  Read a physical or biological anthropology text.  Its all right there in the fossil record.  Just like there is no missing link between modern English and Olde English, there just isn't enough evidence to show the language evolving over the course of hundreds of years, yet would you deny the language changed into its current form?  It isn't proved that species evolve into other species, but it isn't logical to think that evolution stops at speciation.  If life evolves, why wouldn't it evolve over millions of years into forms unrecognizable from the original?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.



What makes you think Science is regarded as infallible?  Science is open to revision.  That's the beauty of science: when new discoveries are made, opinions and theories for understanding natural phenomena can be revised.  There is only one provable constant in the Universe and that is change.  Science allows for that and for the imperfection of human observation and reasoning.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.



Science is an amazing human tool.  Maybe the best tool we ever developed because look at what it has done for us and understanding the mechanisms of the world around us.  Can you deny that science has proved itself to be extraordinarily useful for human beings?

And the old argument that science doesn't prove such-n-such - meaning: human beings are at this time ignorant of such-n-such so it must be God, doesn't PROVE there is a God.  It just proves that we don't know what happened YET.  And maybe will never know.  But that doesn't prove anything beyond our current ignorance and is referred to as The God of the Gaps.  It has been shown to be a fallacious argument.  It doesn't mean there's no God, it just means that your argument has already been debunked.  Google God of the Gaps to see exactly how.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

> Undoubtedly.  Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist?  Not in the imaginable future.



Wrong. If it exists, it's possible to know- and such a being could give evidence that would lead science to such a conclusion


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> > Undoubtedly.  Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist?  Not in the imaginable future.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If it exists, it's possible to know- and such a being could give evidence that would lead science to such a conclusion



But do we have the technology or frames of reference NOW to see such evidence for what it is, if it is a Creator?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Undoubtedly.  Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist?  Not in the imaginable future.
> ...



I said before: evidence of the supernatural and miraculous, evidently controlled by an intelligent being, would be a good start


Of course, RGS attacked me for it 

The challenge remains open for them to present their evidence

So long as no such conclusive evidence is forwarded, the only logical conclusion is (agnostic) atheism


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

M-theory posits that which cannot be determined, if it its true

that is where it crosses into the field of philosophy


Also, stop saying 'sring theory' unless you're going to specify  which flawed/debunked string theory


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 19, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...
> ...



Agreed...



PubliusInfinitum said:


> The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory'; the theory of M... in quantum physics...
> 
> Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...
> 
> This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite dimensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another dimensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."





> Infinite dimensions?



Uh huh...



			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> Atheists HATE this theory,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FALSE... It's a highly plausible statement of unsubstantiated supposition...

Put it this way, I've never met an Atheist that didn't reject it or desperately need to discredit it...  the latest example being: 



			
				JBeukema said:
			
		

> M-Theory is a misnomer
> 
> it is philosophy as much as, if not more than, science


  which goes towards establishing it's 'plausibility.'



			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...
> 
> 
> 
> > Huh?  How can you claim that using any logic?  Honestly, I would like to know how you came up with that conclusion.  I would be interested in your seing you line of reasoning.



Fair question...  

The multi-verse provides for an infinite stream of dimensions... all existing simultaneously... Meaning that every moment, of every potential, is occurring in a distinct dimension; thus the Creator would readily see all things and be everywhere at once and all by essentially being in one place&#8230;


Imagine, where such a multi-verse provides for layers of our universe, where all potential futures are taking shape from all potential pasts, simultaneously; where those pasts and futures are observable, the observer, it seems to me would have little problem being everywhere... at the same time.  Thus meeting omnipotence... and the same serves all others facets of the deity as well.



			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well you're speaking purely to perspective, aren't you?  To you, these elementary 'advances' seem enormous, both in terms of technological leaps and in volume...  

On the scope of the universal potential, their infinitesimal on both scales.




			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existence; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...
> 
> 
> 
> > Undoubtedly.  Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist?  Not in the imaginable future.



Agreed... and this despite the certainty of the most ignorant amongst us, who strongly 'feel' otherwise.

READ MY FIRST POST - Gunny... believe that most of what can be known, is already known...   which is the modern equivalent of the &#8216;flat-earthers&#8217; of the 12th century... which presents the hysterical irony that they are coming to the table, advocating for SCIENCE!




			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A common biology amongst the varying species is perfectly understandable, without regard to an ancestral connection between lower sub-species and humanity.

There are common elements found between sky scrapers and mud huts... but there are no skyscrapers which evolved from mud huts.  Surely you can argue that the technology of mud huts grew, through an evolving human understanding of the physical sciences, into what are enormous structures reaching into the sky...  Thus where a creator came to provide life, it would be perfectly logical for such a being to use the elements common biological elements of lower forms of life, in creating a a higher form of life.

But with that said, in my opinion, evolution in and of itself, doesn't preclude Creation...  

What from our infinitesimal perspective, hundreds of thousands of years of 'evolution' would be no discernible flicker to a being who can traverse infinite simultaneous dimensions...  

If the good Lord created Human beings using natural selection... I fail to see the relevance.  That he opted not to explain every scintilla of such in the scriptures seems to me to fall under the standard "need to know'...  Why would such be necessary to individuals who had no means to comprehend it and while I understand that there exist those who require the scriptures to be taken literally... in my experience those individuals take such a position on faith... which is precisely my position.

With that said, my belief that every word of the scriptures is truth, that it's not for me to doubt the word, nor to explain it and; for instance, where the word states the universe was created in seven days... I believe it, completely, utterly and fully... Where it becomes important to the Lord that I understand his scale; he'll inform me.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.
> 
> 
> 
> > What makes you think Science is regarded as infallible?



ROFL... Familiar with Eugenics?  How about AGW?  Both are absolute nonsense and both held up by the ideological left as incontrovertible fact.




PubliusInfinitum said:


> In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> > Science is an amazing human tool.


  Agreed...



> And the old argument that science doesn't prove such-n-such - meaning: human beings are at this time ignorant of such-n-such so it must be God, doesn't PROVE there is a God.



Nor does it disprove it...  Which is your default assumption.

That you can't prove god exists is not evidence that god does not exist.

As I've stated many times; long before man could understand gravity... Long before anyone ever considered asking what was this force which drew them towards the center of the earth...  gravity existed.

The believers in the Creator are the would-be equivalent of people who would have proclaimed the existence of gravity... 7000 years ago.



> It just proves that we don't know what happened YET.  And maybe will never know.



Such is the nature of faith...   "I know..." and I know all I need to know.  



> But that doesn't prove anything beyond our current ignorance and is referred to as The God of the Gaps.




Atheist rationalizations, such a TGOG... are little more than the typical fallacious reasoning common to left-think...



> It has been shown to be a fallacious argument.



No, what is fallacious is the straw man TGOG farce

There isn't a single conclusion in the full scope of the ideological left which is not fallacious.



> It doesn't mean there's no God, it just means that your argument has already been debunked.



But my argument hasn't been debunked, nor anything approaching it.

Although, I _have_ *personally* debunked many, MANY times, the Atheist position that 'there is no GOD,' based upon their position that there subjective rejection of the abundance of evidence of the existence of God; all of which is based upon their sliverous understanding of the mechanics of the observable universe and their irrational demand that they, themselves, MUST BE the supreme intelligence in the Universe; despite the incontrovertible evidence that Atheists are amongst the least intelligent within our own species...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.



That is blatantly untrue. There were more people killed because of various forms of socialism in the 20th century than were ever killed in earlier generations in the name of God.



> Seems like everybody thinks their religion is "the only one" and everybody else is a heathen.



It seems rather stupid to believe a religion you believe/know is incorrect.



> That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about religion.  Every major religion professes that if you don't believe their doctrine that you won't make it into heaven.



Then you really haven't studied every major religion.



> Ok, if this is true, who has the right rule book?



If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all liberally and upbraideth not. And it shall be given unto him.



> I find more comfort in what my Grandmother used to say about there will be some of all in God's heaven...



What's more important, the truth or whats makes you feel comfortable?

The comfort that comes from the Spirit is different than that which comes from the world. It's the truth that sets you free. The Truth that gives you power. Which makes you happy. It's the Truth tnat gives us real hope and peace in this life and the life to come.



> But back to all of the killing in the name of God.
> All of the major religions are guilty of it."
> 
> Again, blatantly false.
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> There are common elements found between sky scrapers and mud huts... but there are no skyscrapers which evolved from mud huts.







> Surely you can argue that the technology of mud huts grew, through an evolving human understanding of the physical sciences, into what are enormous structures reaching into the sky...



So... god had to experiment and learn how to make life? 



> ROFL... Familiar with Eugenics? How about AGW? Both are absolute nonsense and both held up by the ideological left as incontrovertible fact.



The science of eugenics was never falsified, merely rebranded as genetics to avoid the association with the _policies_ known as eugenic and the various pseudosciences that tended to also be practiced by the same people



> Nor does it disprove it...  Which is your default assumption.
> 
> That you can't prove god exists is not evidence that god does not exist.



When there is a distinct lack of evidence for the existence of X, X is concluded to not exist and the operating model of the universe is constructing without X, pending conclusive evidence to the contrary.

gremlins, deity, fairies, a teapot orbiting jupiter, and incubis all belong are concluded to not exist based on the same lack of evidence.



> As I've stated many times; long before man could understand gravity... Long before anyone ever considered asking what was this force which drew them towards the center of the earth... gravity existed.



Gravity is an observable fact. How it operates and what particles or other mechanisms explain how it works are what the various theories address.



> The believers in the Creator are the would-be equivalent of people who would have proclaimed the existence of gravity... 7000 years ago.



actually, you're more like those who believed in the biles, bloodletting, alchemy, and the miasma theory of disease 


> Atheist rationalizations, such a TGOG... are little more than the typical fallacious reasoning common to left-think...



Actually TGoG is an observation.

What causes lightening? The hna do f gog. Wait,... actually not...


What causes disease? The wrath og God. Wait... actually not


'God' is a catch-all term for anything not yet understood, usedby weak hearts and minds to avoid seeking true answers upon reaching the limints of their own understanding.



> what is fallacious is the straw man TGOG farce



TGoG is neither fallacious or a strawman. It is an observation regarding the decreasing amount of the world attributed to deity as scinece answer more and mopre questions.

You don't know what a strawman is, so I advise you to never use the term again until you know hot to do so porperly.

You laugh 'parapgraph' consists  merely of talking out your neck and puffing out your chest


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> As I said, the reason for secularist attacks against religion and theism is as a result of the undue influence that those exert over wider society. Have you witnessed comprehensive or detailed secularist attacks against astrology on this board? Both belief in astrology and belief in religion are based on a certain degree of irrationality and faith despite a lack of evidence, but secularists have no interest in attacking the former because it lacks any relevance in mainstream society.



And who are you to determine what is undue influence? Why do you have the right to influence society with your idealogy and others dont? Why should we be any less free than you?

You don't attack astrology because astrology isnt a threat. There is no power with it. But there is power in Christianity. And that power comes from the Holy Spirit which empowers the individual to change their life and the world around them for the better. You try to change people by changing the environment, but Christ changes people who then change their environmente. You don't have that power, and it scares you.

I can say quite as confidently that your disbelief in religion is based on a certan degree of irrationality. And it would be completely true. What person has ever been rational? I know you think you are. But in my experience, no one is rational. We all do stupid thinks that we know are wrong when we do them. 

So let's put sophistry aside. Let's stop pretending the secular mind is superior to the religious mind and vice versa. Because no ones mind see's reality clearly.



> "Attack" is somewhat more comprehensive than that. I'm referring to complaints about secularists penning detailed and comprehensive critiques of religious belief, such as the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. There exist detailed attacks on religious belief where detailed attacks on belief in astrology do not exist because religious belief exerts an undue influence over mainstream society where belief in astrology do not.



Because you fear individual power.



> Though secularists consider both forms of belief to be based on irrationality, there is little use in attacking astrology where there may be greater use in attacking religion, since belief in its tenets can be reduced, thereby reducing its influence.



Again because of fear.



> Of course they are. I'm merely explaining why opposition to religion has traditionally appeared; it's always been a matter of objection to its excessive influence or power. That was the basis behind the opposition to excessive entanglement between church and state in both historical and modern terms.



But who determines what is excessive? Why is the secular view the valid one? Simply because you say so?

The establishmenet clause and the free exercise clause exist so that Government stays out of religion, not vice versa. The Founders designed this nation with the specific intention to have religious groups involved in the dialogue of this nation. They would be treated like any other interest group. They have the right to influence the minds and hearts of people and get them to support and oppose their causes just like every other group does. 

And that's how Republics work. People band together in groups to support issues. They are checked  by groups that oppose them. Then through the representative process the rules favored by the majority pass.



> Secularism is a neutral condition and a happy medium between state theism and state atheism


.

False. Secularism _is _state athiesm



> Although "atheism" is technically merely the lack of theism, strong atheism has manifested itself in the form of direct anti-theism. State theism seeks to impose religious mores or principles on a public citizenry, while state atheism seeks to obstruct and diminish them through the vessel of the government. Secularism does neither; it merely prevents the undue influence of either extreme. The problem with theists is a poor framing wherein secularism is itself depicted as an extreme akin to state atheism and some form of theism as "moderate,"



Not a very impressive argument. "Im right. You're wrong"

Problem is there is no moderate view.  No one exists who can hold a position that wont effect anything. Their is no compromise in values because there are no neutral values. We live in a world when even choicing nothing is making a choice.

When we refuse to make choices, we create a vaccuum. If we don't choose values, nature will choose our values for us. That is why it's important to choose good. Because by choosing nothing, you are acceptive the bad.



> I don't believe there are many positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality, whereas there are clearly negative elements of religion that could seemingly only stem from faith in particular religious doctrines but not from that same secular rationality. I can envision an obvious role for secular rationality aiding the formation of detailed ethical codes; I cannot envision any basis in secular rationality for declaring jihad.



I am not sure I accept the premise that all secular is good and some religious is bad. And simply because you can or can't see something doesn't mean your view reflects reality. Nor should we accept it merely because you say so.

The major problem with your theory is that people arent rational. People make stupid decisions all the time. They choose things that are irrational all the time. There isnt a person in the world who doesnt.

Example: the rational choice for dinner would be some sort of vegetables and some lean meats. That way our bodies will get the nutrients we need to continue to function. But I bet you a million dollars that most people arent making that rational decision tonight. My guess is most people are eating what they feel will taste good tonight even if they know it will be totally horrible for them in the short and long term.

Your second major flaw in your premise is that rational thought id dependent to the availability of information. Since we all have imperfect knowledge our ability to be rational is severely limited to what we are able to see or deduce correctly. 

Example: Patient comes into the ER with symptom X. Dr. knows from experience and study that Symtom X can be successfully treated with Medicine M. 

Acting as a rational person, Dr. would give Patient M to treat X.

However, in this case there is information Dr. doesn't know. Patient is experiencing Symptom X because of the influence of a rare poison P, that Dr doesnt know exists and which is totally unknown to the medical community. When P and M mix, the result is leathal for Patient. 

The Dr was acting rationally, but because of unknown information the conclusion Dr reached about how to treat Symptom X was incorrect.

In other words, its possible to rationally come to incorrect conclusions. In fact, it happens quite frequently because people don't know everything. They only one who can rationally determine the correct answer in all instances is God.

Yet, according to the "secular rationality" that's the one being we have to completely ignore to reach the proper decision. And that's why it's a flawed system.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Actually, there are numerous falsifiable elements of religion, contrary to the typical assertion that they "cannot touch each other." For example, some of the standard fare against theism consists of this:



Except that each of these so called falsifiable elements you've provided have major flaws in your reasoning.



> *The Paradox of Omnipotence*
> 
> 1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
> 
> ...



This "proof" is flawed because it's misrepresenting what omnipotence entails.

Omnipotence is having all the power in the universe. By it's very definition, the limitation of what omnipotence can do is spelled out. An omnipotent being can do everything that is possible in the universe.

Your "proof" uses an impossibility to disprove omnipotence. Impossibilities can't disprove omnipotence because impossibilities lie outside the very definition of omnipotence. 

If you have power to do everything that is possible, then being unable to do something impossible doesn't at all effect your power to do what is possible.

So logically, your proof doesnt hold up.



> *A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist*
> 
> 1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
> 
> ...



Your flaw here is premise 3. And it again lies with the definition. What does perfect mean?



> 1 a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless <a perfect diamond> b: satisfying all requirements : accurate c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman> d: faithfully reproducing the original ; specifically : letter-perfect e: legally valid
> 
> 2: expert, proficient <practice makes perfect>
> 
> 3 a: pure, total b: lacking in no essential detail : complete cobsolete : sane d: absolute, unequivocal <enjoys perfect happiness> e: of an extreme kind : unmitigated <a perfect brat> <an act of perfect foolishness>



In otherwords, it's flawless or complete. 

What your premise fails to take into account is that the universe is not the finished project. God is still creating worlds. He is still refining us. The fact that we havent reached the end would necessitate that the work is not perfect. He isnt done working. It doesnt have to be perfect till the end. And God has promised that in the end it will be perfect. We will be perfect. That was the point of the Atonment, to help complete us. 




> *The Problem of Evil*
> 
> 1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the attributes of evil.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

This "proof" is flaw from premise one. Mostly because premise one is completely incoherent. What are the attributes of God and why must they be consistant with the attributes of evil. What are these attributes of evil? These is no reason to accept this premise as true or even to accept it makes sense. How can polar opposites be in harmony??? Why must they?

Your premises are conclusions. You havent shown them to be accurate. That's why the proof fails.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 19, 2009)

Eternalism  or nihilism?


Which are you promoting?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Eternalism  or nihilism?
> 
> 
> Which are you promoting?



To whom are you speaking?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible



Incorrect. Some Christian sects believe something was made from nothing.

The scriptures on the other hand indicate that the world was organized using pre existing material. It's lost quite a bit in the English translation, but its much more apparent in the original hebrew and some other languages.

The doctrine of creation out of nothing is actually a greek philosophical concept. It was welded with Christian theology after the Constanstine took over the Church.

In other words its not someone Christianity is based on. It's actually a later development.



> How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.



You've been given the experiment. If you are unwilling to seek for yourself the truth, why should we expect you to accept any other evidence we have presented?



> 'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'



Who is arguing that? That's a straw man.



> it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema



Of course it is. But then no one has been arguing that.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Incorrect. Some Christian sects believe something was made from nothing.
> 
> The scriptures on the other hand indicate that the world was organized using pre existing material. It's lost quite a bit in the English translation, but its much more apparent in the original hebrew and some other languages.



Sources?



> The doctrine of creation out of nothing is actually a greek philosophical concept. It was welded with Christian theology after the Constanstine took over the Church.
> 
> In other words its not someone Christianity is based on. It's actually a later development.



Again, source? You're the first I've heard make such a claim



> You've been given the experiment.



You have offered no scientific experiments to test your hypothesis.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 19, 2009)

Why does an omnipotent being care about us? Are we its play things?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Eternalism  or nihilism?
> ...




Everyone.

Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists.  Buddhists choose the middle way.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists.  Buddhists choose the middle way.



1) atheism does not necessitate nihilism
2) you are presenting a false dichotomy


That being said, I am a moral nihilist of a sort, insomuch as I hold that 'morality' does not exist as an objective reality beyond the moral instinct present in humanity. I am not a true existent because I do no posit that life is meaningless, but that life 'has meaning'* to the individual, according to what brings joy and contentment to the individual. I am a positivist of the breed Hawking describes, in that I hold that one can never know what is true, but only whether a given model accurately and effectively describes the observable universe as one (subjectively) experiences it and which what model is best given the aforementioned criteria plus Occam's razor. 


*setting aside the point that 'what is the meaning of life' is not really a valid question


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science _concurs with that assertion_- they attack it



That's merely because you are unfamiliar with the origins of the creation ex nihilo doctrine that is a late development to both Judaism and Christianity. Islam wasnt founded until after this doctrine was firmly established in the Western world. 

In reality, Judeo-Christian creation myth doesn't support this at all.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists.  Buddhists choose the middle way.
> ...



I am presenting what I consider to be trends.  Tend to be is the phrase.   You argue atheism, what do you think happens after death?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.



Would we really?

If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?

My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.

So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> what do you think happens after death?



The body decays and breaks down into composite elements and molecules, that generally go onto take part in other interactions and become part of other things.



Avatar4321 said:


> If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?
> 
> My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.
> 
> So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.




Barring evidence, I would accuse you of insanity- but I'm sure a few fools would call you a prophet because that _want_ to believe


----------



## "b0xcar*girl* (Jun 19, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



None of it had to do with religion!!!!!!!!!?????? Then what to you call Jewish persecution???? Racism????? Racism can also include underlying reasons, such as religion, or even lack thereof. Most anti-Semitics don't like Jews because of their heritage and ancestory, which is of course _deeply_ rooted in God. God meaning the God of the Bible, and therefore of Messianic Jews and Christians. Therefore, religion.

Maybe they were secular revolutions, but I would say killings involved race, religion, political belief, and Lord only knows what else. 

What's the difference between secular society takeovers in general and atheistic ones?????????


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.
> ...



Why would God not speak to ALL of us?  If God spoke to _you_ through a burning bush, why would you not be impressive enough for me to listen to?  

I'm skeptical.  Why is that wrong?  Have you never been skeptical of something that would make such a huge difference in your life?  Did you sign your mortgage on faith?

All the non-believer asks is that the rules we live by be dictated by current popular consensus instead of by out of touch ancient literature.  Why is that wrong?  Are We, The People _that_ perverted in our thinking?  Christians can still live by more stringent rules if they want to, no skin off our nose...

What is the point if we are not free?

-Joe


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> He's on a roll - Gunny.


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 20, 2009)

Ok, then why?


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't have any problem with people being religious.  I just don't want it shoved down my throat.

One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible.  True - they believe that God wrote the Bible.  But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.

If I was to discuss evolution and I quoted Darwin, creationists would jump on me for quoting a work of fiction and promoting the _Theory of Evolution._

Why not the _Theory of God_?


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Xotoxic,

You are so wrong, so out of touch, so ignorant of the facts. I am extremely religious in fact Im a formed Priest of the Roman Catholic Church (Praise the Pope). I dont shove religion down anyone's throat. I dont believe God wrote the Bible, man wrote the Bible and it is based on God and His Son. 

"Creationist". What is a creationist? Obviously you dont know. One can believe in creation and evolution through creation. But you would not understand that for you are just too narrow minded. How sad.................



xotoxi said:


> I don't have any problem with people being religious.  I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
> 
> One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible.  True - they believe that God wrote the Bible.  But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.
> 
> ...


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 20, 2009)

I've learned to ignore religious threads here.  I've been attacked to the point that I've been in tears and I won't let that happen again.  I've even taken time off this board because of threats to Christians.  Sadly, I've never really gotten back into this board that much.  I wish people would learn to discuss things without hatred but I don't think that can be done by some here.  Well, that's it for me in this thread.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?
> ...



And this is exhibit number 1 why if God appeared to people, not everyone would accept it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 20, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Why would God not speak to ALL of us?  If God spoke to _you_ through a burning bush, why would you not be impressive enough for me to listen to?



I think He does speak to all of us. Most people simply haven't prepared themselves to listen, let alone prepared ourselves to be in His presence.

How many people would see God and think they are hullicinating? Or going insane?

God in His mercy doesnt condemn people with knowledge they aren't prepared to handle.



> I'm skeptical.  Why is that wrong?  Have you never been skeptical of something that would make such a huge difference in your life?  Did you sign your mortgage on faith?



I dont think there is anything wrong with being unsure, as long as you dont let it prevent you from seeking out knowledge and accepting it once your questions and doubts have been answered.

There also comes a time in life where we cant be sure of what will happen. At those times we can either do nothing until we get all assurances, which likely will never happen. Or we can live life believing things will work out even if we cant see it for certain at the moment.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of doing something rather than doing nothing.



> All the non-believer asks is that the rules we live by be dictated by current popular consensus instead of by out of touch ancient literature.  Why is that wrong?  Are We, The People _that_ perverted in our thinking?  Christians can still live by more stringent rules if they want to, no skin off our nose...



And what if the popular consensus accepts the ancient literature? Why is it out of date? Because you say so? Why is it wrong for those who have values to speak out for them just because you dont like them?



> What is the point if we are not free?



How are we free if all we are doing is changing one set of chains for another?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> I don't have any problem with people being religious.  I just don't want it shoved down my throat.



And when has it ever been shoved down your throat? What the heck does that mean anyway? Who around here is saying believe or die?



> One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible.  True - they believe that God wrote the Bible.  But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.



What is wrong with quoting the Bible? There is thousands of years of wisdom in there. People quote the Quran and Confucious too. Why shouldnt they?

Also, i dont know a single informed person who claims that God wrote the Bible. Because its obvious that men wrote it.



> If I was to discuss evolution and I quoted Darwin, creationists would jump on me for quoting a work of fiction and promoting the _Theory of Evolution._



No the wouldnt. Because Darwin would be completely on topic when discussing evolution. And Darwins work is scientific in nature. Simply because people may think he is wrong on some of his theories doesnt mean the work is fiction.



> Why not the _Theory of God_?



call it what you want. But it seems silly not to discuss religious texts when discussing religion.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 20, 2009)

ST34 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion...Okay, discuss ....
> ...



Which Christian dogma do you think is false and nonsense?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Xotoxic,
> ...



that has nothing to do with whatever religion it muight or might not believe in, though


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any problem with people being religious. I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
> ...


 
See below...





Avatar4321 said:


> Also, i dont know a single *informed* person who claims that God wrote the Bible. Because its obvious that men wrote it.


 
I am not referring to *informed* people. It's the uninformed people...







...to which I am referring. 

Thus, see above...


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

God only speaks through the Holy Father Pope Benedict. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> God only speaks through the Holy Father Pope Benedict. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.



What happened during the middle ages?

What happened with the alter boys?

What happened to Matthew 23:9 _And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven._?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches.  How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 20, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Why would God not speak to ALL of us?  If God spoke to _you_ through a burning bush, why would you not be impressive enough for me to listen to?
> ...



I guess I wonder why God doesn't tell everyone the same thing.  Religious conflict is as old as our written word, even among people who supposedly share a basis in faith, for example, Ireland -vs- England: Catholic -vs- Protestant... if their Jesus is the real God, why doesn't He tell them to stop killing each other?  Another example is Iraq and other middle eastern countries, Sunni -vs- Shiite is a long and bloody history of conflict.  Why doesn't their shared God, Allah tell them to stop?

I can almost understand war between people who worship different Gods, but war between people who worship the same God baffles me.  Especially when it is a multi-generational conflict.  Can God be that flippin' difficult to understand?  If he is, how can I trust what He says to me (assuming I recognize His voice), let alone trust what someone else says God told them to do.

Given our history as a planet, oversight by a God - especially a personal God, like you describe, just does not fit the evidence.

-Joe


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

unless that god is malevolent....


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 20, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> I guess I wonder why God doesn't tell everyone the same thing.



Ive pondered that myself. Why do I know things other people don't? Why do they know things I don't?

Ultimately, I think God will tell us all the same things when we are prepared to learn those lessons. But we all learn different things at different rates. I think alot of it has to do with who we were before we were born. What choices we made then and what choices we've made in life. How our parents raised us. Whether our hearts and minds are prepared to learn. And also how much we've learned that simple isnt so.

The problem is we are looking at a work in progress and wondering why everyone isnt the same because we arent all the same finished product.



> Religious conflict is as old as our written word, even among people who supposedly share a basis in faith, for example, Ireland -vs- England: Catholic -vs- Protestant... if their Jesus is the real God, why doesn't He tell them to stop killing each other?



I believe He has. They just havent listened. Experience tells me its very difficult to listen. I know I struggle with it sometimes.



> Another example is Iraq and other middle eastern countries, Sunni -vs- Shiite is a long and bloody history of conflict.  Why doesn't their shared God, Allah tell them to stop?



I think if they were listening to their shared God, they wouldnt have split off to begin with. Again, I have to turn to my experience. In my experience the Word of God unites people. Contention is of the devil. Unfortunately its a common sin and one Im guilty off more often than I should be.



> I can almost understand war between people who worship different Gods, but war between people who worship the same God baffles me.  Especially when it is a multi-generational conflict.  Can God be that flippin' difficult to understand?  If he is, how can I trust what He says to me (assuming I recognize His voice), let alone trust what someone else says God told them to do.



I think we tend to be stubborn. Its part of our nature. How many people simply ignore things that make them uncomfortable?

I also think God only tells people who are prepared to hear Him. There are some people who God could appear with His Heavenly Hosts and they would try to find some reason to not believe it was real. They would think they are hallucinating or that they've gone crazy. 

And I think He withholds knowledge for several purposes. First, because He wants us to treasure it and let's face it, we dont treasure things we are just given. We treasure the things we work our butts off for. Having a child is a perfect example. We treasure our children because of the work it takes to create, carry, and raise them. I am not sure why humans are made to treasure things they work for, but its just part of who we are.

Second, I think we are accountable to what we know. Thte person who knows better is accountable for more than the person who acts ignorantly. Those who rebel against God are in a much worse state than those who live ignorantly of God. 

Third, sometimes when we get knowledge we arent ready for we dont understand it. And when we dont understand it and something happens that we percieve to be contrary to that knowledge we did learn, we are hesitant believe that truth. It isn't any less true. We simply didnt understand it correctly. Instead of trying to understand it correctly, we decide that it can't be true.



> Given our history as a planet, oversight by a God - especially a personal God, like you describe, just does not fit the evidence.



Really? Because Im an avid student of history and I see God's hand everywhere. 

Did you know that if it werent for a small battle between the Tang and the Abbasids at the Battle of Talas, you and I would probably not exist?

In history I see God in all the little details that seem insignificant at the time but which change the world.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

> ALL leftist science is psuedo-science...


There is no such thing as 'leftist science', you twit


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

You have offered no evidence for your assertions; instead you spew only ignorance, stupidity, and the same tired drivel


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I wonder why God doesn't tell everyone the same thing.
> ...




Simplest explanation: Because no such deity is telling any of them anything



> The problem is we are looking at a work in progress and wondering why everyone isnt the same because we arent all the same finished product.



You're evading the issue of contradictory doctrines



> I think we tend to be stubborn. Its part of our nature. How many people simply ignore things that make them uncomfortable?



is that  god's likeness?



> .
> 
> And I think



You think god does these things why>? Based on what evidence? Based on what Gnosticism do you claim to know the mind of God?



fool.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 20, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I wonder why God doesn't tell everyone the same thing.
> ...



I don't know, Bud... If I were God I think I would want to distance myself from the history here.  Best example off the top of my head is the dividing of the 'New' world between Spain and Portugal by the 'Holy' Father.  

If our personal existence, as in "...you and I would probably not exist" really depended on a battle I honestly have never heard of, I'm a little less impressed with the whole concept of God 'knowing us before we were born' that the pro lifers parade periodically.

If the European Christians had been a little nicer when they came to my other ancestors homeland I may have been living very differently now indeed.

I'm still having a real hard time reconciling the reality of our history with anything but brute, godless, survival of the fittest, especially in light of the utter ignoring of the messenger supposedly sent 2000 years ago.

As far as God doling out knowledge on an 'as needed' or even an 'as able to receive it' basis, *Thou Shall Not Kill* seems pretty straightforward to this average Joe.

-Joe


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 21, 2009)

Dirk the Daring said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity
> ...



So, does an earthly separation of man and God consist of not living in a Christ-like manner, or not believing in God? Because one can live according to the moral principles Christ taught without even believing in Christ...but according to my understanding, even though morality is stressed as well, belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential for salvation. So, to put it simply, someone who does not believe in God but is a relatively good person and lives a moral life will not be saved. Am I wrong about that?

And as for the Tower of Babel...

Genesis 11:4-7
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children built. 
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; _and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do._ 
7 Go to, let us go down, _and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech._

It seems like we have a different understanding of the meaning of the story. To me, it seems that God is saying that with one language, the people can do anything they imagine...so he makes it so they can no longer understand each other. It sounds to me as though he's trying to restrain them, since "nothing will be restrained from them" when they are as one, with one language. If the intention was to spread God's word throughout the world, it makes sense to spread the people throughout the world, of course...but then why mix up their languages as well? 



Dirk the Daring said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?
> ...



I understand what you're saying about God wanting us to come to believe in him of our own free will rather than forcing us; that makes perfect sense. What I don't understand is why the punishment for NOT coming to believe in him is so severe. To me, whether God requires worship or simply belief isn't as relevant as the fact that no matter which it is, to fail to do so is to spend an eternity in Hell. You're right, worship demands an outward display while belief doesn't necessarily...but why is it so important to God that his creations believe in his existence at all? 



Dirk the Daring said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?
> ...



You're right, if God made his existence painfully obvious then we would all believe, and then...we would all be saved. Again, this comes back to my not understanding why God is so hungry for our faith in him, and why the punishment for not having faith is so severe. True, you can't be rewarded for not working hard. But does believing in God constitute working hard? In my opinion, living up to the moral standards God puts forth in the Bible is a lot harder than believing in God...but meeting the moral criteria is not enough.

I apologize for being so blunt...but to me, it seems vain and a little sadistic. Not only is belief in God necessary for salvation, but to come to such a belief can be a challenge. The reward for succeeding in that challenge is great, and the punishment for failure is severe. If we are to be put through such a test, why a test of faith in God? Why not a test of who we are as people, what our moral standards are, what kind of lives we live? Instead, it's a test of whether or not we come to believe in God without him making his presence known. 

These are my main questions, and I think you've touched on them but sort of circled around them at the same time: Why should belief, above all else, be the key to salvation, what does that say about God? Is eternal torment a fitting punishment for the "crime" of not believing in God? It's that last question, especially, that pushes me toward nonbelief. I've yet to find a satisfactory answer to it.



Dirk the Daring said:


> I believe that "faith" is the cause of the intellectual laziness surrounding christianity, as in, if you can lump all criticisms against your belief as a 'lack of faith,' then why would you ever need to defend those said beliefs?  Christians nowadays no longer feel the need to justify their beliefs en masse, and in my mind have done a tremendous disservice to the idea of religious justification; 'this is what I believe and why.' (the answer that "the bible says so" isn't much of an answer at all, especially to someone who may not believe in the divine nature of the bible, for example)



I agree. To me, dismissing criticisms as a lack of faith or saying that someone can't understand anything about your faith if they don't believe is the biggest cop-out there is, and a way of getting around having to explain or even think about anything. If you've never questioned your belief, what's the point of calling it a belief? Of course you'll believe something if it's all you know. 



Dirk the Daring said:


> My job as a christian is not to beat you over the head until you submit, but merely to plant the seed and move on.



If only more people saw it that way!


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.
> ...



So those who don't believe in God can still be saved if they are judged worthy based on their morality? I was under the impression that according to the Bible and according to what most Christians believe, only those who believe will be saved.



Care4all said:


> *Wow, that's alot to respond to....I found this link that goes over the many different ways that various people have thought brings Salvation.... it should answer many of your questions, it does answer many of my questions regarding this...and I have not even finished reading it all yet...
> 
> What does the Bible say about salvation?*


*

I read a bit of it, and it sort of addressed my above question...from what I understood, most Christians believe that all non-Christians are condemned, but some believe that only those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it are condemned, while those who have not heard it at all are the ones who will be judged based on their morality.

I also read this:

"In the past, some Christian churches taught that all non-Christians were condemned, and even Christians of other denominations were likely condemned. However, world travel and instant communication have brought people of different religions closer together and have forced a reevaluation of old beliefs that other religions were invalid, obsolete, or even the work of the devil. If we take John 3:16-18 as the sole criterion for salvation, then all non-Christians, children who die young, and the mentally disabled will be automatically condemned to hell. Many people find that inconsistent with the New Testament's portrayal of God as a loving Father."

They're right, it is inconsistent...but it's what is written. To be blunt, this seems to me like an attempt at moderation, to gloss over something that isn't pleasant by changing its meaning. It is definitely unpleasant that all non-Christians, children who die young, and the mentally disabled will have to burn for all of eternity, and it does seem inconsistent with the portrayal of God as a loving father...but should doctrine be modified to make it "nicer"?

"In addition, it seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of God as all-powerful to believe He is somehow unable to save anyone He finds worthy, regardless of religious affiliation."

By my understanding, no one who does not believe is deemed worthy by God, because there is no criteria other than belief. From reading the link, the only possible exception might be those who have not heard the Gospel, according to Jesus' words to the Pharisees. They, it seems, are the only ones who might be judged according to their morality rather than whether or not they believed in something they never heard about.



Care4all said:



			here is a part from it:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you will live!" (NLT, Luke 10:25-28) 

We are not saved just by following rules
The Pharisees, religious leaders of Jesus' time, believed that salvation could be earned by strict observance of the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments plus the other Old Testament rules). Jesus rejected that belief and stressed that we will be judged on the purity of our motives, not just on the outward observance of rules.

Click to expand...



It makes sense that motives matter more than actions...but you can't ignore the part about loving the Lord your God with all your heart. To love God requires a belief in God...so the moral aspect still applies only to believers.



Care4all said:






			Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?
		
Click to expand...

I believe He has made it painfully obvious...of course this is probably easy for me to say, because I wholeheartedly believe that there is a God....I suppose it is sorta a Catch 22 or what came first, the Chicken or the egg type thing!?  

Click to expand...


Sort of. I see what you mean, but by "painfully obvious" I meant something along the lines of God appearing to everyone and saying "Hey, here I am, and here's the rules." Obviously, that would not require faith, but my main question is: what's so good about faith in the first place, and why does God require faith in him?



Care4all said:



			As simply as you can, type these questions of yours in the Google Search, you will get many answers to your questions....
		
Click to expand...


I've read the Bible, and I've read some apologetic material and a lot of other stuff about religion. I'm looking for answers straight from a believer...I'm looking to hear a Christian's take on all this. Which I thank you for taking the time to give me! Although I'm not sure you answered my fundamental questions about the importance of belief and the "fairness" of eternal damnation, you gave me a lot of good information.*


----------



## Care4all (Jun 21, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > iagainsti said:
> ...



My answer to you to all of the still pending questions is, "I don't know".  Some Christians seem to know for certain in their minds that those that don't believe in Christ, will be separated from God in the afterlife based on how they read the Bible....

I see beyond that, in general.... I try to soak in all that I have read in the Bible and get meaning from each passage as it relates to the whole, or the whole of what I have read so far...along with outside readings on symbolism and metaphor of the time the Bible Books were writen....so to also better understand...along with sincere prayer with asking god to please help me understand what he was trying to tell us, before ever picking up the Bible to read it.

I also can humble myself and accept that I may not understand all that has been writen in the Word.  

some religions call these non understandable things Mysteries, or Mysteries of Faith.

Bottom line, I personally do not have the answers to your questions...but taking the Bible on the whole of what I have read, I believe that God loves us all equally, believers and non believers....and your questions are sound questions, many of which I have asked myself....

How can someone who truly does GOOD their entire lives, yet have doubt in their own belief of God, truly end up in hell if GOOD=GOD....which it does....and EVIL = DEVIL? 

I can speculate and say this person that does good and has that love for humankind and the animal kingdom and all that God has made in the heavens and on earth is a person of God, without knowing it at the present time, perhaps?

I walked away from religion for over 10-15 years, anyone who was a Christian probably would have condemned me to hell for my doubt, my lack of faith and my non belief...but God knew something that they didn't know and that I didn't even know....and this was that I would find my way back to Him or that He would bring me to Him once again, through my own earthly life and things that happened within it.

I would also venture to say, that someone with as many good questions as you regarding all of this....someday will get your answers here on Earth, and they won't be from me or any other christian or religious person here, but from God Himself....through your own consciousness.

Care


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

Barb said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...






Isn't dialogue wonderful?  I do NOT believe in the great "I AM", and yet Barb and I have significant agreement regarding _historical_ religion on this planet.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for America!

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Ain't believing something strongly enough to consider it 'faith' a bitch?

I hope for my sake that you are wrong and there is no hell; I also hope you don't have enough contempt for us heathens that you relish the thought of being right, otherwise, we'll see you there.

P.S. - I take it as an extreme compliment that you believe I have influence on this board.  I really do.

-Joe


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 21, 2009)

ST34 said:


> Al Gunn said:
> 
> 
> > Believing in an invisible super daddy in another dimension who let his only son die on a cross in his underwear, is for sure sign of mental illness. What else would you call it?
> ...



That's not what I asked, how are you going to force people to have babies even if you get roe vs wade overturned?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > God only speaks through the *Holy Father Pope Benedict*. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.
> ...



How about it Yukon (or any other Catholic in the congregation)?  I've always been curious about this one... educate me.

-Joe


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> My answer to you to all of the still pending questions is, "I don't know". Some Christians seem to know for certain in their minds that those that don't believe in Christ, will be separated from God in the afterlife based on how they read the Bible....



Yes, I know that they do...and that's part of what prompted my questions. I don't understand how so many people can turn their backs to something that seems to me to be irreconcilable...and I've yet to hear someone reconcile it.



Care4all said:


> I see beyond that, in general.... I try to soak in all that I have read in the Bible and get meaning from each passage as it relates to the whole, or the whole of what I have read so far...along with outside readings on symbolism and metaphor of the time the Bible Books were writen....so to also better understand...along with sincere prayer with asking god to please help me understand what he was trying to tell us, before ever picking up the Bible to read it.
> 
> I also can humble myself and accept that I may not understand all that has been writen in the Word.
> 
> some religions call these non understandable things Mysteries, or Mysteries of Faith.



It's very true that the Bible is difficult to understand. You can't just read a passage and expect to stand alone, you have to take it in context...as far as symbolism and metaphor, it's incredibly difficult to determine what should be read as a metaphor and what was meant to be taken literally...it was written at a different time to people of a completely different language and culture than our own today...and you can't forget that when you read any version of the Bible, you're reading someone else's translation of the original text. Sounds like you understand that and are going into your readings of the Bible trying your best to get the true meaning out of it, and that's all anyone can do, right?

I'm not bothered by the fact that there would be "mysteries of faith." I am, however, bothered when the term "mystery" is applied to things about the faith that CAN be explained, but the most obvious explanation is unpleasant. To me, when questions are answered with things like "we're not able to understand God's justice, it's divine and we are only human," that's what I call a cop-out. I'm glad you've done your best to answer my questions without "copping out" as such.




Care4all said:


> Bottom line, I personally do not have the answers to your questions...but taking the Bible on the whole of what I have read, I believe that God loves us all equally, believers and non believers....and your questions are sound questions, many of which I have asked myself....
> 
> How can someone who truly does GOOD their entire lives, yet have doubt in their own belief of God, truly end up in hell if GOOD=GOD....which it does....and EVIL = DEVIL?



Yes, that is a good summary of my questions...if GOD=GOOD, how the hell do we explain Hell?  One of the biggest reasons I have moved away from faith is that the only answers I've been able to come up with to those questions are as follows: 

Is there any way to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the idea that his punishment for not believing in him is eternal torment? No, there is not, at least not that I've been able to come up with thus far.

Does the punishment of eternal torment fit the crime of not believing in God? No, in my opinion, it does not.

Does belief in God constitute more worth than morality or any other criteria? No, I don't feel that it does, and at the moment I think this is my single biggest problem with the Christian faith - its emphasis on belief over morality.

Should God be morally obligated to make his existence undeniable to us if the punishment for not believing in him is so severe and irrevocable? Yes, I believe he should be.

You've been honest with me and told me that you don't know how to answer these questions, and believe me, I appreciate very much that you didn't "cop out" and try to get me to accept a non-answer like "you just can't understand because you're not a believer" or something like that. I can tell you're putting as much thought into these questions as I have. They are difficult questions to answer, maybe impossible, and my "answers" are obviously simply my opinions and not true answers to those questions at all. I think I'm just looking for a really good challenge to those opinions.



Care4all said:


> I can speculate and say this person that does good and has that love for humankind and the animal kingdom and all that God has made in the heavens and on earth is a person of God, without knowing it at the present time, perhaps?



That's a good speculation! I'd like to think that if God is real, an otherwise good person would not be condemned to suffer in Hell for not believing that. But based on the text, is that speculation plausible? Judging from the way you say you read the Bible, I'd say you probably understand it well, so your guess is as good as (or better than!) mine.



Care4all said:


> I would also venture to say, that someone with as many good questions as you regarding all of this....someday will get your answers here on Earth, and they won't be from me or any other christian or religious person here, but from God Himself....through your own consciousness.



I appreciate you saying that...who knows, right? It could happen! I'm definitely open to the possibility.


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > God only speaks through the *Holy Father Pope Benedict*. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.
> ...



I'd be interested to hear that as well!


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 21, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



There are plenty of quotes in the bible with which to trip up dogma if one so chooses.  Theologians will usually have an answer for it.  If not, they will say something like "Well, of course it's not meant to be taken literally..." (how Pythonesque).

I've so little time for Yukon generally that I have not bothered to read his posts.  I too will look forward to this one though.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Again, don't know the answer but before researching the justification of the Catholic church for using the term Father for their Priests, I would FIRST want to find out what word was used for Father in the original text, and I believe, as with the word love, (there was a word for 'love' of your father, 'love' of your neighbor, 'love' of your sweetheart, there were many different words that cover the word Father as well...

I find it hard to believe for example, that all of us would not be permitted to call our own earthly Fathers, father...or Father in an endearing sense, Daddy or Dad....or that we could not label those that wrote the constitution, "Our founding fathers"....

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation of the word they gave for Father in this passage... to english?  Father in the sense they meant, could have meant simply 'God the Father'....and calling an earthly figure, 'God the Father' would be a lie?

Care


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Interesting point.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation




-and 'God' was unable to protect hos word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation
> ...



freewill....of man.

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

Obviously God was well aware of what we would do or could do, with our own freewill....I still wouldn't give it up for anything in the world....who wants to be without their own free will and a puppet of sorts?  

care


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So, unwilling? Your god was unwilling to protect his word, so that all could know it and be saved...

that means it is not benevolent

and, when it says 'worthy that none should perish, but all should have everlasting life'- it's really just lying, since it won't protect its word and make that possible?

 You have successfully argued the impossibility of your religion and the contradictory and self-refuting nature of your beliefs 

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



YOU my dear, have some serious issues....only YOU can solve them....and maybe being on this board and continually mouthing off on this subject and your own undeniable interest in the topic, will come around to help you someday....this isn't for me to judge or to know...

Every single person on earth can still have an afterlife, but it is up to YOU to discover this via your own freewill, you have to take the gift that is given, it can not be forced upon you....and personally, I would rather have it that way....where we do have the freewill to make this journey of awareness, instead of being forced in to doing such.

Care


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> YOU my dear, have some serious issues....



So, now you resort to personal attacks, because someone points out faulty reasoning- instead of seeking to rectify your thoughts and seek truth?





> Every single person on earth can still have an afterlife



Non-Sequitur. The fact is you have refuted yourself.  Your model is false.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > YOU my dear, have some serious issues....
> ...



hahahahahaha!  YOu call me saying that you have some serious issues on this topic, a personal attack?  then what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB?  Would that be a nuclear personal attack?  

I did not mean it to be an attack, just an observation that is undeniable...YOU DO have issues on this topic that you need to work out for yourself....

Someone that is TRULY an atheist by their own accord, would NOT need to demonize the beliefs or religions of others....they would be at peace with thier own atheism, imo.

so it appears to me that you wish for someone, anyone, even God, to convince you that you are wrong...and it just doesn't work that way....only YOU can be at peace with what YOU via YOUR freewill, choose to do or believe.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

If someone reaches out their hand to help you up a cliff and you refused to take their helping hand and fell to your death, is that the persons fault that offered their hand to help you JB?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB?



pointing out logical fallacies and educating the ignorant.



> Someone that is TRULY an atheist by their own accord, would NOT need to demonize the beliefs or religions of others....



1)No true scottsman fallacy
2)I have 'demonised' noone, I have merely been the voice of reason



> so it appears to me that you wish for someone, anyone, even God, to convince you that you are wrong...





If you think you can build any logical case, then do so. the fact is that your model does not work and you have never forwarded any valid theory or model


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



Problem about WWI--when the Russians were knocked out of the war due to the communist revolution.

WWII--the main killers came about mainly through the nazis.  There is wide spread debate on the issue of whether the Nazis were christians or not, but whatever religion they practiced--it obvious was not of a secular nature(i.e.--the jewish holocaust) nor was it atheistic.  Now the Communists were Atheists(Russian and Red China)  but the Germans were not.


A Secular Atheists is an Atheists that tolerates other religion. Understand, Atheism has no religious laws or tenets, vows rituals  or customs that must be adhered to and therefore Atheism has a secular nature.  Although I make a fundamental distinction between my accepted definition of secularism and Atheistic "practice"(whatever that can be), one thing that must be acknowledge is this.

Secular Societies comes about through religious tolerance.  An Atheists need not practice tolerance for any religion.  The reason I wish to confer this difference is due to the fact that if one wishes to exclude all Religions, then it should referred to as Atheistic. If t is the exclusion of one religion, then call it Anti-(whatever that religion name is).  Finally, if it is tolerance of religions, then reserve Secularism for that practice.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 22, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:
> 
> I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.
> 
> ...



They are legitimate questions, and your take is essentially thoughtful. A couple of things...

Christians do not believe that everyone including Jews will go to hell for not believing. The Jews are God's chosen people, and they have a different fate in store for them. The bible isn't specific about how God will deal with them in the end, but I think they have been set aside for now, to be dealt with later.

And it really isn't that difficult to believe in God. It's man's arrogance that makes it difficult, we do it to ourselves. 

You can find the answer to every single one of the questions you have listed in the bible, btw.


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > YOU my dear, have some serious issues....
> ...



I'm not sure that follows.  

You seem bound and determined to find fault with anyone who believes in the existence of a supreme being, or at very least to quote pieces of scripture (in which you clearly have little or no interest other than that of devil's advocate) for the sole purpose of dismissing faith as ultimately flawed or delusional.

When one person goes out of their way to point out inconsistencies in something that is intensely personal to others for no better reason than to try to prove an ultimately pointless point, it seems to me that they may have an issue.  Having "an issue" isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is an issue nonetheless.  

Unless of course you are genuinely all about seeking "the truth", in which case you might be better off looking somewhere other than a political message board.  As it is, you come across as someone who thinks they already know "the truth" and is seeking to open the eyes of others to what you believe is obvious.

As it is, do you really imagine we will ever really know "the truth"?  The Bible is just a bunch of books, written by man, in many cases _years_ after the death of Christ, and in many cases during the Iron Age.  Surely trying to find "the truth" via scripture is a flawed exercise, at least from a scientific perspective.  The only thing that can be found is "faith" or "a view".

It doesn't bother me one way or the other, but anyone who seeks to change the opinions of others has "an issue".  This is somewhat different than _passively_ stating an opinion but not using it to _actively_ counterpoint the opinions of others.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> You seem bound and determined to find fault with anyone who believes in the existence of a supreme being,



I have faulted numerous persons for illogical reasoning and self-refutation. Those Christians who think they are the only ones worthy of such consideration delude themselves with their own self-importance.



> dismissing faith as ultimately flawed or delusional.



Their religion is based on ignorance, delusion, and anti-intellectualism


> When one person goes out of their way to point out inconsistencies in something that is intensely personal to others for no better reason than to try to prove an ultimately pointless point, it seems to me that they may have an issue.  Having "an issue" isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is an issue nonetheless.



If that thing is a mindset and loyalty that has historically been detrimental to Mankind, it must be challenged.


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 22, 2009)

Some do truly not know what ignorance is. Yet even in that they have been given over and will remain in such a state until a day of God's choosing that He will change their hearts if God so desires. I repeat the definition of hell in the scriptures is separation from God. 

In 1970 I met the head of the Hell's Angels. Even he believed in Jesus Christ as his savior. He and five of his men at my invitation came to a potluck dinner at the local church/community center. His warning to the community was "Don't come into our camp". That warning is still as good today as it was yesterday, "Don't go into the camp of the Hell's Angels. If you do you will be subjected to whatever goes on there".


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB?
> ...



How does one come up with a valid theory or model to suit someone else, for ones own personal Faith?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> How does one come up with a valid theory or model to suit someone else, for ones own personal Faith?


You faith is not a valid model.

that's why you have such troubles


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 22, 2009)

I just had a thought occur to me.

God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right?  And it's all part of God's plan, right?

And God endowed humankind with free will, right?  Meaning that God doesn't control the decisions and actions we take, right?

Here's my point:  If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will?  Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan.  Which is it?

If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions?  For example, was Jesus Christ God's contingency plan when humankind wasn't going the way He planned for?  Or was Jesus Christ planned for from the beginning?  If God always knew that He would send Jesus Christ to Earth as a sacrifice, then He must necessarily have known in advance the decisions that would be made by each human being on Earth so that the necessary situation would arise in which Jesus Christ's sacrifice was needed.

Can anyone address that paradox?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Here's my point:  If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will?



Knowing what will occur (physics aside)  =/= causing it. It;s like watching a recording of people in the real world the second time through- you know what's going to happen, but they do it of their won accord.



> Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan.  Which is it?


That's a false dichotomy. Knowing what you will do is not equal to making you do it.

the correct question is: ig God knows what you will do, nothing happens that he does not will or allow, and he knows that you'll go to sheole when he makes you- how can it be a god of mercy, who is 'willing that none should perish'? Doesn't that mean the xtian god is a liar?


> If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions?


The concept is that god exists outside of time, or in a higher dimension, able to see the entire spime of human activity (although xtians are too stupid and ignorant to forward the concept in remotely intelligent terms)


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> I just had a thought occur to me.
> 
> God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right?  And it's all part of God's plan, right?
> 
> ...



He knows all that we will end up doing, because He is and knows the beginning and the end...so yes, he already knows which ones of us will be naughty or nice  with our own freewill!    He already knows whose names will be writen in the Book of Life and yes He already knew He would be sending Jesus Christ as our sacraficial lamb, that we would kill him on the cross....this was also prohesized in books of the old testament...and all prophesy that was given occurs because He does know everything that we will do with our own freewill.

Gosh, I realize that was a mouthful Colorado, and certainly appears to have some twisting and turning in there, but this is what I believe. 

Care


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> He knows all that we will end up doing, because He is and knows the beginning and the end...so yes, he already knows which ones of us will be naughty or nice  with our own freewill!    He already knows whose names will be writen in the Book of Life and yes He already knew He would be sending Jesus Christ as our sacraficial lamb, that we would kill him on the cross....this was also prohesized in books of the old testament...and all prophesy that was given occurs because He does know everything that we will do with our own freewill.
> 
> Gosh, I realize that was a mouthful Colorado, and certainly appears to have some twisting and turning in there, but this is what I believe.
> 
> Care



Well, despite JBeukema's terribly-typed attempt at the topic (alliteration intended) I think your answer was better put and better understood.  It was also easier to read than the abrasive style in which JBeukema wrote his reply.  So, thanks Care, that pretty much cleared it up for me.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 22, 2009)

These point counterpoint point debates about any complex unknowable topic end up going nowhere. I doubt anyone is convinced or changed by them. Maybe some young person reads them and thinks a bit differently, but by and large these threads are attempts to confirm what you already believe in, to feel secure that you are on the right track. 

I lost all religion as a very small child as it never made sense to me that gawd loved but judged you and based on some judgment of wrongdoing you'd fry forever. A loving gawd that did that made no sense even to my child mind. And then there is the problem that all you know is because you were born in a time and place and culture. Everyone is an atheist minus one gawd. 

I've always agreed with Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov that if knowledge and life requires the suffering of one child then I say the heck with it. But since suffering has and does and probably will occur, I am instead a liberal. lol 

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Abraham Lincoln


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 22, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> I just had a thought occur to me.
> 
> God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right?  And it's all part of God's plan, right?
> 
> ...



This is one example of the duality and complexity of God. There's no way that humans can grasp it. He has complete knowledge of what will happen and what has happened...and everything happens according to his plan...and yet at the same time we in our ignorance are able to experience free will. We are allowed that freedom, but because God is so far ahead of our curve, he still knows exactly what we will choose and how, and has constructed the universe to encompass our decisions.


----------



## Barb (Jun 22, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



 Could it be that he instead rejects your _interpretation_? And hell, how could he do such a thing, as attractive as it is.   "Let ye be fishers of men" does not mean "you stab them, we'll slab them." I'm just sayin.


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a thought occur to me.
> ...





Actually, the concept of Pre-determination and the theory of Free Will are not of the same religious codex.

That is if pre-determination is part of your religious belief, Free will does not exist.  If Free will is part of you religious tenet, pre-determination does not exist. Few religious sect/denomination encourages one concept over the other and thus it is possible to have both believers in Free will and believers of Pre-determination within the same religious sect.

This concept is more of a theological nature and not for common believers to dwell on.


----------



## Barb (Jun 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



 I find much that is admirable in the atheist view that people have only one shot to get it right, and that one shot carries the responsibility to do the good one would do in this world while one is present in it. Just in case, or if there just isn't as much time left, or simply because its the right thing to do regardless, I believe everyone should live as such.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...




I don't think Jesus meant that a child should not call a parent 'Daddy', or even 'Father', but when the leaders of the Catholic Church began using 'Father' as a title for their leadership and then went on to hang the qualifier 'Holy' in front of the title for the organizations head dude in charge, especially in light of Matthew 29:3, the congregation missed the boat on scattering the cockroaches of corruption with the light of the scripture, in my humble opinion.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So how do we know that the current canon of the scriptures is not corrupt and leading everyone away from God?

-Joe


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 22, 2009)

You can cross reference the original text in Hebrew and Greek with modern English.


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 22, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> *These point counterpoint point debates about any complex unknowable topic end up going nowhere. *I doubt anyone is convinced or changed by them. Maybe some young person reads them and thinks a bit differently, but by and large these threads are attempts to confirm what you already believe in, to feel secure that you are on the right track.
> 
> I lost all religion as a very small child as it never made sense to me that gawd loved but judged you and based on some judgment of wrongdoing you'd fry forever. A loving gawd that did that made no sense even to my child mind. And then there is the problem that all you know is because you were born in a time and place and culture. Everyone is an atheist minus one gawd.
> 
> ...



I agree with that.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



because the Scripture that we do have canonized for the most part, is not the problem Joe, at least not to me, but it is the way some people, or some leaders of the churches have manipulated it, or truly have not seen for various reasons, the obvious or hidden meaning, that could be there...  

what could be missing from the Bible, is more of my concern....what scripture could have been left out for the purpose of humans wanting power or control or whatever, if coupled with the Scripture we do have, could give further clarity to certain issues....that they didn't want us to have....

but NONE of this sways my faith and belief in God.... 


belief and faith goes much deeper than pastry, than a deep dish pie....for me it is an awareness of something, of something outside of the body... and a 6th sense of sorts.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 22, 2009)

This is excellent.

Dan Dennett&#039;s response to Rick Warren | Video on TED.com

"Philosopher Dan Dennett calls for religion -- all religion -- to be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon. Then he takes on The Purpose-Driven Life, disputing its claim that, to be moral, one must deny evolution."


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a thought occur to me.
> ...



But, even though humans can't understand it, YOU can, so you go on to explain it to us...



AllieBaba said:


> He has complete knowledge of what will happen and what has happened...and everything happens according to his plan...and yet at the same time we in our ignorance are able to experience free will. We are allowed that freedom, but because God is so far ahead of our curve, he still knows exactly what we will choose and how, and has constructed the universe to encompass our decisions.



Several times in the Bible, God is surprised by what his people do. How can that be so if he has complete future foreknowledge?

The Christian faith says that God is omniscient...but, logically speaking, can the future be known? Maybe God doesn't know the future because knowledge of the future is a logical impossibility, and the future doesn't yet exist to be known.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> This is one example of the duality and complexity of God. There's no way that humans can grasp it.



Actually, it's simple enough for those who think 




iagainsti said:


> Several times in the Bible, God is surprised by what his people do. How can that be so if he has complete future foreknowledge?


Easy solution : 'complete foreknowledge is a lie'

the ability to see the entirety of the spime does not equal or necessitate the decision to view the necessity of the spime


How sad that an atheist must teach religiofools how to make sense of their own beliefs


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I would call it timeless awareness, buddha or rigpa.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 22, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > This is one example of the duality and complexity of God. There's no way that humans can grasp it.
> ...





What do you suppose inspired Moses on the mountain?  How did he make his choices for those ten commandments, do you suppose?

Moses was just a man and yet he somehow found the wisdom to speak for the sake of his community.  Where did his inspiration come from?  

In Moses' wisdom, he knew he wasn't inspired by his own brilliance, as if he was so special, but that this inspiration came from somewhere else, from a source greater than him.  

Moses knew it meant more than the flesh and blood of those who were present, something more fundamental to the community that would become a perpetual and powerful inspiration for generations to come, something greater than any individual man could ever hope to be.  

So what do you call that?  Laws by divine inspiration.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk]YouTube - Moses - Ten Commandments - Mel Brooks[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 22, 2009)

Narcissism. It's a mental illness, not an indication that you're holy.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Narcissism. It's a mental illness, not an indication that you're holy.




hmm... I wonder how that light illuminates the holy men who spoke to god and write of it in the blazing desert 4000 years ago while burning unknown plants...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 22, 2009)

Moses was a reluctant messenger, as were Christ and most of the prophets.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 22, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



can you give me an example of God being surprised by our actions i-a-i?  i can look up the passage and see if i read something in to it, that you may not see?

care


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 23, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> I just had a thought occur to me.
> 
> God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right?  And it's all part of God's plan, right?
> 
> ...



Again, you're trying to apply your limited senses to the Creator...

As a human biologic, you're brain is only able to perceive this single dimension, and within this dimension a sliver of the light spectrum, and a very narrow range of lower frequency waves within our atmosphere....  

Beyond that, the extent to which our cutting edge of scientific technology can expand on that is designed within the limits of that which our observations are able to cull, with regards to what may be out beyond our perception.

As discussed earlier, theoretical physics has determined that the universe which we perceive is but one of an infinite number of universes, which the theory holds are comprised of dimensions wherein every conceivable potential moment exists simultaneously... meaning that everything that can happen, is happening right now in this ( which we perceive as an) instant.

If such is true, then a being or entity which exists within the scope of that reality would have little trouble with onmiscience.

Leading many to conclude, that at the end of the day, when all the math is summed, all the tests are in; science will come to realize that once again, the secular left is or was wrong... and that God does indeed exists and that what those us us who have allowed ourselves to listen, were closer to the truth than those who refused to listen and allowed themselves to be decieved.

It's a certainty that god exists, but the composition and means of God is wholly irrelevant to us, as we've no means to control it; no means to contest it and in the end no means to deny it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 23, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



We know it because it is holy. The book itself cannot be wrong because it has the Holy Spirit within it. God determined we would have the Word, in the form of Christ and the Holy Bible, and those two things are incorruptible. Because God's hand is on it, in it, and the Holy Spirit is within it, it remains the word of God and we can have faith that it is whole, correct, and holy.

Other books are fallible. But because God promised us that he would see to it that the Bible would remain correct and infallible, we can be assured that it is. It's that simple. Whatever has happened with the Bible has happened according to God's plan, and it remains the word of God, and therefore holy and a living entity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 23, 2009)

Barb said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



It doesn't matter, that's what's so sad. You can whine about interpretation till the cows come home, the word of God is straightforward, and we are supposed to take it at it's word. In the end, there will be those who do so, and who are saved...and those who think they can argue with God and still get to heaven..or who doubt the existence of God and deny Christ, and who won't get to heaven.

You can make the best argument in the world for not believing. It won't matter in the end...because then you WILL believe, but because you rejected Christ and essentially said, "He died in vain and not for me because my intellect wants to argue with God"....then you will likewise be rejected by Christ.

Those who rejected him in life will be rejected by him at the end. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's the way it will be. You can laugh all you like, and argue semantics all day long. It won't make you right in the end.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 23, 2009)

No, you were deleted because you did exactly what Gunny asked the anti-Christian assholes not to do in the begining...that is troll the thread, insult believers, and make ridiculous assertations of their own superiority while at the same time demeaning believers as insignificant retards.

You can't argue intelligently or in a civilized manner, so you resort to insults and pompous self-aggrandizing. Which not only is insulting to those of us who are intelligent, but is offensive to all who believe, and bigoted besides.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 23, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I appreciate your passion Allie, but do you *know* it is 'holy', or do you *believe* it is 'holy'?  

There is not much difference in the words per se, but there is in their usage here, especially how it applies to acknowledging the existence of other, contradictory beliefs.  For instance, I *believe* that no book, or man-made thing, including The Bible, is 'holy', but I have enough respect for your beliefs to not proclaim my belief as common knowledge.

Is this not something we can agree to disagree on, while defending each others American right to be wrong?

-Joe


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> I am afraid to post to much on this thread since stating something I think is true (my perception) could seriously insult someone possessing a radically different Perception from mine.   Yet the question begs, How does one talk about religion and compare beliefs and understanding.
> 
> Should we tip toe around each others emotions?  Like If I were a Christian, I have to not inscribe the concept "All non-believers go to hell!!" when I talk to JB or Agnaposte?  Or if I were Jewish, should I hold my tongue and agree _dishonestly _ when someone exclaims the glories of Christ?
> 
> ...



I just don't talk about it usually.  You might find a post here and there in this forum, usually when I'm bored.  I tend to stay out of the same back-and-forth trash-talking I've heard for the past 8 years.  It never changes.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

Barb said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Your comment makes no sense.  How does one "get it right'? if there is no consequence, right or wrong?  There's  nothing TO get right.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

Valerie said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Moses was a reluctant messenger, as were Christ and most of the prophets.
> ...



I got 16 going so far, and not even on the last page.  They aren't all JBs.  Only 1 is as a matter of fact.  He has been better than some at adhering to my OP.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> No, you were deleted because you did exactly what Gunny asked the anti-Christian assholes not to do in the begining...that is troll the thread, insult believers, and make ridiculous assertations of their own superiority while at the same time demeaning believers as insignificant retards.
> 
> You can't argue intelligently or in a civilized manner, so you resort to insults and pompous self-aggrandizing. Which not only is insulting to those of us who are intelligent, but is offensive to all who believe, and bigoted besides.



I have not deleted one of his posts up to this point.  I have one I am going to delete that was a response to someone else's attack.

My OP does NOT say he cannot argue his beliefs.  Only that members will behave and be civil in this thread.  The fact that he does not believe what you or I does is not the issue I addressed.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

Anyone missing a post can re-read my OP to understand why.  Behave.  If all you have are insults, then you have no argument to make here.

I think al gunn and PI lost most of their posts.  Get a clue, huh?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 23, 2009)

Back on topic ...

Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity. I have made my post on the reasoning, and no, not one "science freak" has yet to counter anything I said then. As to which religion is better, I see very little reason one is better than any other. All go through a period of violence and aggressive expansion, and hopefully evolve to a better form finding a balance or failing they fade into history.


----------



## Barb (Jun 23, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



 Everything has consequences, for or from people we share space with here on earth, or future generations who have to deal with or enjoy what we leave in our wake. It isn't necessary for the results of our actions to be judged from on high, as it were, to care about the results. There is plenty to get wrong or right from an ethical standpoint. Ethics and morals might seem similar, but ethics are independent of religious dogma.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 23, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Back on topic ...
> 
> Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity.



How are you defining 'community'? For instance, if a re3ligous ideology promotes discrimination against non-believers, then sure, it betters things for the 'community' of believers. For the larger society and greater community, however, it is detrimental to equality. If 'community' is simply those who believe the right dogma, you are correct. Insomuch as all of humanity is considered a community that must coexist, religious beliefs can and oft have been detrimental.



> I have made my post on the reasoning, and no, not one "science freak" has yet to counter anything I said then



What post are you referencing?


> All go through a period of violence and aggressive expansion, and hopefully evolve to a better form finding a balance or failing they fade into history.


They don't 'go through' any such 'period'. Religion posits that it is unfalsifiable, absolutely true, and therefore unchangable. The teachings and commandments, once made a part of the religion, are there to stay and will always remain. The periods of peace do not reflect the 'evolution' of such religions, byt the progress of a society that rejects those religons (or begins to reject them, starting with the most abhorrant aspects therof).


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic ...
> ...



Aaah ... with all that vast storage of facts on your computer and yet ... nothing about religion huh? Most religions do not actually discriminate against "non-believers" ... only a few organized ones, none of the pagan ones do, on the contrary the pagan ones are so unorganized you cannot determine who the "non-believers" are in most cases. Only a few of the thousands of religions also have "commandments" ... most of us are not arrogant enough to say any of the possible gods spoke to us directly over all other people. What you are doing is ignoring all but one religion, and oddly doing a poor job of interpreting that one (which oddly has many variations now, even a few pagan ones). They have evolved as a whole though, and the progress of society does not reject religion, it rejects zealots from all walks, even yours. There is only one universal "law" to all religions, though rarely followed by some of the organized ones, the "live and let live" law.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2009)

Barb said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Really?  If you don't get it right the first time, how does what happens differ from you getting it wrong if there is no afterlife in which to suffer consequences?

Ethics don't mean a thing to eternally dead.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 23, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Aaah ... with all that vast storage of facts on your computer and yet ... nothing about religion huh? Most religions do not actually discriminate against "non-believers" ... only a few organized ones,



You said that 'Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity'. I have shown that i is oft, in fact, detrimental. 



> none of the pagan ones do,



Define 'pagan', seeing as I've already tried explaining this simple concept to you before. 'Pagan' is a catch-all for non-christian religions; it is not a convenient label for whatever new-age neopaganism KK findsconvenient



> on the contrary the pagan ones are so unorganized you cannot determine who the "non-believers" are in most cases.



Such non-systems of personal spirituality lack the ability to have ann dramatic effect on society as a whole- including progress, making them unfit to support your assertions.



> Only a few of the thousands of religions also have "commandments" ...



All moderately-sized to large organized religions (notice this thread is about 'religion' NOT 'personal belief systems') issue commandments. Even most personal systems are used to justify morality and codes of ethics amongst adherents.

Of course, you refuse to site the 'thousands of religons' that fit your utiopian vision, I've noticed



> most of us are not arrogant enough to say any of the possible gods spoke to us directly over all other people. What you are doing is ignoring all but one religion



What you are doing is projecting and speaking utter falsities. Show that what I said applies only to a single faith, or where I said that all religions are inherently discriminatory,. as you implied at the beginning of your response. You're so blinded by your personal desire to attack me and anything I say that you do not read what is written and what is not, and you fail to actually address the points I have made.



> , and oddly doing a poor job of interpreting that one (which oddly has many variations now, even a few pagan ones).



So, forst you insist that my statements are only appliocable to a single religiion, and now you say that it's really many religions- some of which you'd give your beloved titl;e of 'pagan'? Your're contradicting yourself again.




> They have evolved as a whole though,




You have not addressed my points; you are mearly ignoing the fact that religion declares itself true and infallible (with few exceptions, which are better defined as ideologies and philosophies)nd that, therefore, those teachings can *always be cited as valid*, or the religion must decalre itself invalid.


> There is only one universal "law" to all religions, though rarely followed by some of the organized ones, the "live and let live" law.




What world do you live in? Judaism teaches that the non-believers must be slain and their lands conquered. Islam teaches that the infidels must be purged from the Arab penninsula, sve for other abrahamites, who can seek protected staus as second-class citizens. Chritianity teches that non-believers follow the devil, cannot be trusted, and must be converted. Hindu isn't even so much a religion as an umbrella term for numberous sytems that have had past trouble getting along with one another.Buddhism ismore of a philosophy than a religion, and many local 'pagan' religions involved conquest, sacrifice, or similar beliefs that made  clear sdistinction between 'us' and 'them'


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 23, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It doesn't matter, that's what's so sad. You can whine about interpretation till the cows come home, the word of God is straightforward, and we are supposed to take it at it's word. In the end, there will be those who do so, and who are saved...and those who think they can argue with God and still get to heaven..or who doubt the existence of God and deny Christ, and who won't get to heaven.
> 
> You can make the best argument in the world for not believing. It won't matter in the end...because then you WILL believe, but because you rejected Christ and essentially said, "He died in vain and not for me because my intellect wants to argue with God"....then you will likewise be rejected by Christ.
> 
> Those who rejected him in life will be rejected by him at the end. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's the way it will be. You can laugh all you like, and argue semantics all day long. It won't make you right in the end.



Thanks Allie.  Your position and passion could not be more clear and I for one appreciate that.  I also appreciate your sharing with me and I can tell that you're intention was not to beat me up or belittle my beliefs, but out of a genuine concern for my soul.  

I will tell you that I do understand EXACTLY what you're talking about, and if time and death proves you right I will have regrets.  Deep regrets.  On the other hand, I accept the fact that I made my choice and, unlike many in my position, I made my choice with a complete knowledge of the options.  That being said, I can't in good conscious profess a desire to go to a heaven that I have an intellectual understanding of if I don't have a sold-out personal belief in the creation and redemption stories that are the foundations of the Christian Faith.  

To me, in my humble opinion, the stories are not supported by the physical evidence left over by our planets history.  There are other reasons I have lost faith in the accuracy of the history and stories of The Bible, but both points are moot in the context of this post - we will have to agree to disagree regarding the 'holiness' of The Bible - Though I don't share it, I respect your faith in The Bible.  

In light of that, can we be friends anyway?  All I ask is a mutual respect for each others belief systems.

-Joe


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 24, 2009)

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?
Btw, calling someone an asshole, is that a christian term?


----------



## Barb (Jun 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



 It means something to others who have to live with the results of the life one has lived on earth. Some consider other peoples well being even without the threat of being darned to heck, or the promise of a castle in the clouds. By what authority do you assume what ethics mean to others? If we must assume at all, isn't it better (and in the case of Christians, more Christ like) to assume our fellows best intentions?


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 24, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?
> Btw, calling someone an asshole, is that a christian term?



Depends how seriously you want to take your dogma.  There are, as you are well aware, numerous branches of Christianity, all with varying degrees of adherence to certain sacred texts.  The same can be said of Hindus, Muslims, etc.  

Allie's answer would represent her own faith, but would not be representative of the entire Christian faith.  Christianity does not fit conveniently into the box you might like it to.

BTW, of course asshole isn't a Christian term (I'm sure you're just being argumentative), but nobody ever said Christians were perfect. If someone behaves like an asshole, Christians are likely to call them an asshole.  They are Christians, not Christ.

Some good advice would be if one doesn't want to be called an asshole one shouldn't behave like one.


----------



## LOki (Jun 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.


No it's not.



Gunny said:


> Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.


This seems to assert then that the universe was not created--therefore no creator.


----------



## LOki (Jun 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> A creator is more logical than any other explanation.


I'm interested in this logic that argues for a creator more validly than any other explanation.  Plese present it.  Question-begging logic won't impress me, however.


----------



## LOki (Jun 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Sorry, I don't lie.  The Big Bang theory is EXACTLY what it's called -- a theory.  Nothing more.



_"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."_

_"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."_

You can read up some more here, but as you can see, a scientific theory, ANY scientific theory is far more logical and reasonable than the arguments for a creator.


----------



## LOki (Jun 24, 2009)

Gunny said:


> my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.


This is where you're wong. No one *has *to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.



Gunny said:


> Yet you attempt to present theory as fact.


Scientific theories are derived from facts--facts validated by evidence and valid logic.  It is entirely legitimate to present scientific theories as fact. On the other hand, it is entirely illegitimate to present superstitions as fact; it is illegitimate to demand that a perfectly obtuse denial of contrary evidence is in any way validation of the point being contradicted.



Gunny said:


> The Big Bang and the "expanding universe are no more guesswork than intelligent design.


This is entirely false, considering how "intelligent design" is demonstrably false, and simply superstition dressed up in the vernacular of reason, whereas the Big Bang theory is supported by evidence and valid logic.



Gunny said:


> If I can get through to ONE MFer on this board, my  point is that your shit stinks like everyone else's.


Well, this much is true, but we are not discussing shit, but rather beliefs. Some beliefs are just baseless crap, while others are objectively valid.



Gunny said:


> There's no superiority.


I disagree; there certainly is.  Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality.  In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.



Gunny said:


> I can hang with you on any topic you so desire to bring up.  This one included.


No you can't--not if you're going to insist that beliefs validated by faith are validated by reality. Evidence and valid logic are the validating standard for my arguments, denials of evidence and logic--the arguments from faith--will just fail.  Wishful thinking only works in the imaginations of the faithful--not in the real world.



Gunny said:


> I only ask that you THINK next time before you blindly attack anyone who believes in a God.


This is a fair request. Just bear in mind that when you attack the beliefs of others with faith, you are necessarily attacking their beliefs blindly.  Such is the intrinsic and necessary nature of beliefs validated by faith.



Gunny said:


> We don't differ much in that I can't stand people who try to shove their religion on others.  We differ in the fact that  don't conder attacking you whenever and wherever you can be found fr your religious beliefs.


This may be a fair observation of JBeukema, but you know that if I stalk you it's only because you make sense sometimes--and I heard you have free beer.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 24, 2009)

I see my Negro friend is at it again.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 24, 2009)

Barb said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I don't know why you would assume anything, particularly given the evidence all around you that indicates the worst of intentions by what appears to by the vast majority.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?



That's what jesus said... and I believe him... you may choose not to believe him, but according to the Lord, there is only one way to the Father and that is through him...

Now where you find you disagree, you'll have to take that up with him; which again, according to Christ is a certainty and one which will not go well for the Muslims and the Hindus, the pagans and all the rest.

The simple fact is that this is the one question which I'd like to have posed to the President.

"Mr. President, as a Christian sir, is it your belief that all Muslims are going to hell?"  

This one question would lay to rest any doubts regarding his having adopted a faith distinct from that in which he was born; as to be a Christian is to have only one understanding within the scope of that issue.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

LOki said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.
> ...



Once again the atheist comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands...   As usual, your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, and despite your chronic attempt to establish that your position is superior, due to your demand that such rests or the bed rock of valid reasoning, such is demonstrably false.

To wit:

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed.  And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.

But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.

Nothing logical about that...  its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.

You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism... such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist...  Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such...  yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.

Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL...  We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.

I will note again that throughout MOST of human history, GRAVITY was not even recognized as a force of any kind; it simply was...  The best minds or the collective sum of the brightest minds of humanity could not even fathom that there existed an invisible force which drew their mass to the center of the mass on which they were standing... YET... Gravity existed, long before humanity came along and through to the present; where as a matter of fact, gravity REMAINS largely a mystery...  

Only in the theoretical sciences can gravity be explained; and only there, in the theories which hypothesize a mulitverse, do the mathematical calculations which seek to understand it's origins, hold up.  I do not pretend to understand, beyond an elementary level, the language of mathematics... but as I understand it; where science has sought to understand the origins of gravity and the elements of such, which differentiate the qualities of conceptually similar qualities of gravity from those of electro-magneticism for example, the mathematical reasoning breaks down very quickly, except where the theoretical hypothesis of the multiverse are applied, at which time they reasoning regains it plausibility.  That gravity is a force which originates within a realm of sub-atomic reality, beyond out means of observation.

Now you're reasoning, to remain consistent, would thus be forced to reject gravity... except for the base Newtonian observation that what goes up must come down; as we simply do not understand, nor can we observe much more than the realization of this force, as it plays on our reality; being some form of attraction between bodies of matter.

As to the legitimacy of declaring unproven scientific as fact, you rest your entire argument, with regard to the Creator, on such which is subject to change without notice, and which is not FACT, but stands in every conceivable facet, no more fact than that which you come to declare as FICTION.  

Again, those who hyptothesized that gravity is simply a function of atomic attraction, early in the 20th century, stood such as 'fact' for most of that time and through to the present in many, if not most cases; have found that the mathematical consistency does not hold up, except where outside forces that we neither understand, nor can observe are considered.   Now many in the scientific community vehemently dispute this mathematical reasoning... and despite the reasoning being sustained well beyond any other theories, many in the scientific community simply have too much invested in other theories to consider such to be viable...  

THUS: THE SCIENTIC COMMUNITY IS JUST AS PRONE TO DOGMATIC BELIEF, AS ARE THOSE YOU CONSISTANTLY COME TO LAMENT IN THE "RELIGIOUS" COMMUNITY...  proving the point brought by the Gunny... that faith is inevitably a natural function of all... and frankly, this is a result of a distinct lack of options and while some consider it a pyshosis... others consider it a virtue...   

I fall into the virtue camp; where as long as the faith is open to the possibilities, it does not bend to every potential alternative, until such can be established through reason.  I believe in the Creator... and in the teachings of Christ and the goods news presented through his teachings; as such rests upon immutable reasoning; the principles of which are self sustaining and incontrovertible; representing rare perfection and where such perfection exist... reason requires that it originates from a source far beyond the severely limited means of humanity, who have yet to create a sustained perfection of any kind.


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 25, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



So basically, you can't test for a creator... but he's there anyways because you deem we have to have been created by something? So ignorance of how we came to being points to a creator? 

Christianity not only contests science by claiming floods, parting of seas... when NO scientific proof has ever been found for such events. Christianity also contests common sense for the same reasons.


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 25, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Al Gunn said:
> 
> 
> > So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?
> ...



So basically, christians are heavily racist people. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to hell. That's pretty much what most if not all religions say: we're right and everyone else is wrong. That's why we have so many wars, 9/11...


----------



## Barb (Jun 25, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



 But what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for. The news doesn't feature the good in people, and television plots, for the most part, are based on conflict; the "good guys" are the regulars, and the "vast majority" are struggled against or "managed." Watch enough prime time television and you'd naturally think the world was an awfully scary place.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... now you can surmise, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... as the FACT IS, that you *know* far less than the sum of that which you do *not know*; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'

History is repleat with the demise of such 'rulers,' through the simple, imperceptible swipe of that sea...  Yet here you are wholly ignorant of your foolishness... proudly standing on the turd of your knowledge as it bobs away on a body of ignorance which you can't even muster the intellectual means to recognize, while you boast that you 'command it all...'

It's quite childlike...

There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am...  Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact.

You may choose to reject that fact, you can demand that the absence of any tangible record; the evidence of such having washed and co-mingled with with the multitudes of other craps, flowing indiscernibly into imperceptible history; resulting in the means to test for such, being practically impossible, sets aside the possibility of such; but when its all said and done, your ignorance of such does not stand as evidence and your rejection of same is therefore reduced to a fallacious hypothesis of the rather flaccid variety...

Feel better?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Al Gunn said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO.. WOW!  As non sequiturs go... THAT is a WHOPPER!  

In the final analysis, what we believe is meaningless... as the reality of Nature is what it is...  

But with regard to your argument, Christ in no way relegated his good news to any race... and nothing I said spoke, at any level to race...  and you're concluding that such was the case is simply indisputable evidence that your means to reason is indiscernible; and that your position is one which comes with it's own hard and fast prejudices...  

So where you hoped to claim some moral or intellectual superiority, in reality you've proven yourself to be a highly limited individual who seeks to simply establish your fallacious reasoning as the purest essence of reason itself, superior to all others... 


Sadly, for you, unsound reasoning which rests within an illogical construct rarely enjoys such a status, beyond the confines of the addled mind.





> Everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to hell. That's pretty much what most if not all religions say: we're right and everyone else is wrong. That's why we have so many wars, 9/11...



Again...  I don't set the rules of Nature sis... If you have a problem with those rules, take it up with Nature... just try to let the rest of us know what you two decide...

Wars are fought because PEOPLE disgree... and to the extent that one group determines that it will no longer tolerate the position of the other... now the subject of such may be religion, it may be economic, it may be ideological, sexual... and the list is endless.

9-11 was a function of one group determining that their rights provided them with the justification to usurp the rights of another group... the reasoning behind that is irrelevant; that such was founded in their would-be religion is just, if not more irrelevant.  If the Muslims had decided to execute 9-11 because the US was ruining the environment, it would be just as unjustified as had they done so for any other reason...

Wars are fought for one reason and one reason only... to establish who sets the rules...  the looming American Civil War will be fought over the same basis and the result will be the same; the establishment of what group gets to set the rules.

That the ideological left has come to fester as a rhetorical boil on the ass of the worlds culture, is a function of the TOLERANCE which the predominately Christian culture has advanced... you will no doubt conclude that when the limit of that tolerance is crossed and that culture seeks to remove the source of that infectio, you will no doubt conclude that such is a function of INTOLERANCE... but such is a result of your limited perspective and hardly stands as the arbiter of the truth.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.


 

Let's run with this...

god exists therefore god was created; god did not create himself (something can't come from nothing), thus there is a Uber-Creator which is not god; no one here in heaven created god, therefore the Uber-Creator is not of this heaven...

The Uber-Creator yet a higher god. Now this cycle terminates at His Noodliness, as I explained in brief here 


Now, how can we summarize your assertion? Well, in your own words:


> Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability[/OTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 25, 2009)

"*It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created..*. "

prove it.

"*now you can surmise*, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... "

So you're putting words in my mouth?

"*as the FACT IS, that you know far less than the sum of that which you do not know; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'*"

Sounds like you like to hear yourself talk for no particular reason.

" *while you boast that you 'command it all...'*"

never said I knew anything, prove I said what you think I said or stfu.

"*There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am... Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact.*"

There is also no scientific proof that god doesn't walk around with a large black hard cock up his ass all day either, doesn't mean it's so. Lack of evidence is not proof. Only a complete moronic simpleton would think that.

You can also stay deluded that religions are never reason for war and that all religions are racists, but the real fact remains that religions separate people into groups who are all at odds with each other and that causes war, like in Palestine and with 9/11 (which stems from the US support of Israel).


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 25, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> "*It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created..*. "
> 
> prove it.



Classic!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.
> ...



Isn't it cool, how with every opportunity which comes along, the deep thinkers of the atheist community can't get beyond their own skin...

YOU, human beings, biologics who are limited to the confines of this dimension, this universe... who are saddled with the limitations of such, YOU exist.... and given that biological entities are not known to have been crafted from the ether; and given that you likely have some form of witness which testifies to your birth, you are a result of a process which you had no part in creating...  Now one presumes you will not return to contest that; thus we'll take it as an established fact.

Thus, something other than you, something other than another biologic created the process by which you came into existence...  

Again, the presumption is, that given your consistent position, you will now come to asssert that you know, through your simple understanding of biology, chemistry and other such studies of the physical universe, to which our species is privy, that biological life, came to pass via a series of chemical and biological processes, which resulted from the happenstance of critical circumstances coming to pass... 

Which I believe are fairly well reasoned theories, and neither myself or anyone that I personally know would or have brought an argument to contest those theories...

Where we present a contest is in your assertion that these processes were merely an accident...  you claim they were; you claim that these processes can be observed, predicted and tested and therefore they occur as a function of simple chemistry and time...

My assertion is that such is unlikely, that given the instinctive understanding to the contrary, given the outcome, it quite likely that such was a result of a intelligent design, where such processes were set into motion by a creator...  who very much intended for such processes to occur and for life to form and for life to evolve.

You claim that such can't be proven, therefore the hypothesis is invalid.

And this is where your position becomes a raw appeal to ignorance...  and this is why your argument fails.

The Creator, in what ever form of which it is comprised, clearly exists beyond the dimension to which our minds are tuned... and exists beyond the means of our understanding; so from our perspective, the actual composition of or the nature of God is wholly irrelevant... as we've no means to contest it, no means to compete with it and no means to resist or otherwise reject what ever power it might subject us to.

What IS relevant is that for your thesis to hold, it must stand on the certainty that nothing can exist beyond human understanding; and that sis, is absolutely beyond absurd.

But here's what I would like you to answer J...

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know...  Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> YOU, human beings, biologics who are limited to the confines of this dimension, this universe...


 

Yes, lord Xenu? 




> who are saddled with the limitations of such, YOU exist.... and given that biological entities are not known to have been crafted from the ether;


 
the ether? No wonder you're confused; you haven't read a book in 200 years 


> and given that you likely have some form of witness which testifies to your birth, you are a result of a process which you had no part in creating...


 
Prove it 




> Thus, something other than you, something other than another biologic created the process by which you came into existence...


 
you see, when two people are really drunk and they think they love eachother...


> Where we present a contest


 
Who is 'we'? 




> is in your assertion that these processes were merely an accident...









Feel free to link to where I ever said any such think




> The Creator,


demonstrate a creator.



> , clearly exists beyond the dimension to which our minds are tuned


 
if it's so clear, why have you yet to demonstrate it?


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 25, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Al Gunn said:
> 
> 
> > "*It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created..*. "
> ...



He said "incontrovertible fact". I just would like to know how that is.

As for Plubius, he's an asshole who thinks it's a fact that an invisible superbeing exists = wait of time and space.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> "*It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created..*. "
> 
> prove it.



No problem... You exist... we'll presume you'll adhere to that fact; you did not create yourself, thus something other than you created that which is your life...

Which pretty well establishes that your life was created...  

It's not complicated really... just apparently beyond your intellectual means...



			
				PI said:
			
		

> "*now you can surmise*, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... "





> So you're putting words in my mouth?



Well, no, I'm just anticipating that you'll parrot any number of the tired fallacious rants of the atheist flock... such as those used in the above exchange, where you need some proof that life is a function of creation.  


It's worth noting that while you protest this, you've not submitted much to consider otherwise...



			
				PI said:
			
		

> "*as the FACT IS, that you know far less than the sum of that which you do not know; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'*"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ROFLMNAO... I just adore sweet irony...



> " *while you boast that you 'command it all...'*"
> 
> 
> 
> > never said I knew anything, prove I said what you think I said or stfu.



LOL...  Oh!  So you're a troll... whose simply here to dance on the head of pedantic little points which in no way serve the discussion, on any level.

Color me SHOCKED!



			
				PI said:
			
		

> "*There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am... Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact.*"
> 
> 
> > There is also no scientific proof that god doesn't walk around with a large black hard cock ...



Well that settles it...

Welcome to ignore sis... Life is just too short to subject one's self to your caliber of imbecile...

While the threshold is exceedingly low to particpate in debate with me... Your intellectual limitations wouldn't allow you to do so if you stacked orders of magnitudes greater wisdom than that which you've demonstrated and stood upon it on you tippy toes...  and as such, you are bannished from my cyber-world FOR-EV-ER...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> > The Creator,
> 
> 
> demonstrate a creator.
> ...



Do you exist Sis?

And again...  I'd like you to answer this question, which you've clearly sought to ignore:

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know...  Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 25, 2009)

PlubiusAsswipe, I was created when my parents had sex, and I'll tell you something, my dad ain't no god.     You obviously where created out of nothing by someone invisible. Hope that's working for you, but it doesn't seem to be.

So if you're just anticipating my answer, you should start your own board and argue with yourself. 

OK, I'll explain your crap story another way. The crap happened, you were there. Nobody's seen or been with your god, so your analogy is crap, as per usual.

You wrote that I command it all, where did I say that? You're basically just arguing with yourself, as you attribute things to me that I never said. 

Oh gee, I'm been banished from a morons worlds, Thanks


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

Notice that pubic infant _still_ offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity

you argued that is _x_ exists, then tthere must exist a creator if _x_

Of course, that requires a creator for god... and a creator of the creaot.. ad infinitum

But you're clearly too stupid to realize that


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Notice that pubic infant _still_ offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity



ROFL...  So again, the member comes to reject that segment of the argument which she feels doesn't leave her sufficient wiggle room and advances instead, abject lies...

The record finds no refutation having been advanced by this member to any position of mine... despite the delusional assertion to the contrary.

And for the *4th TIME*....  I'd like Jwhatshername to answer this question, which she's otherwise desperate to ignore:

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know...  Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

It's not even a valid question. You can't fathom how much knowledge there might be- you cannot answer your own question, and all of you 'options' are logically fallacious- as is your implication that there is any knowledge that is inherently unknowable.

In other words, you're an idiot; but we already knoew that.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 25, 2009)

Barb said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Don't need prime time TV, nor do I bother. All I need is to pick up the newspaper, turn on the cable news, log on my computer.... If there was an overwhelming "good in people", there'd be no escaping it because there would be nothing else to report.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Notice that pubic infant _still_ offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity
> 
> you argued that is _x_ exists, then tthere must exist a creator if _x_
> 
> ...




At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained? There's no less logic in having faith in God than there is having faith in another human being. In fact, it may be more logical in some cases.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4] Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used in place of "trust" or "belief."

Faith is often used in a religious context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and/or said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.[5] It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.[6]

The English word faith is dated from 120050, from the Latin fidem, or fid&#275;s, meaning trust, akin to f&#299;dere to trust.[1]
Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained?



He put forth a pretense of reason; that it does not hold up demosntrates his foolishness

If one wants to be taken serious 'just because' and 'i think it cuz i think it cuz i think so cause i believe cuz i think so' is *not* an acceptable answer 





> There's no less logic in having faith in God than there is having faith in another human being. In fact, it may be more logical in some cases.


 
you doubt the existence of man? Good, you're on the way towards positivism 



> Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.


 
to believe without reason is foolishness

to base law and nations upon foolishness is stupidity


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



These verses from Jeremiah chapter 32 are, in my opinion, the best example of God not knowing the future:

_30 "The people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth...
31 "From the day it was built until now, this city has so aroused my anger and wrath that I must remove it from my sight.
32 "The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they have done...
33 "They turned their backs to me and not their faces...
34 "They set up their abominable idols in the house that bears my Name and defiled it.
35 "They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, *nor did it enter my mind*, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."_

God explicitly states that it _never entered his mind_ that the people of Judah would build and worship false idols.

This next one is much more open to interpretation, and you definitely might interpret this passage differently than I do, but I think Genesis chapter 22 is a perfect example of God not knowing what will happen:

_1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
2 "Here I am," he replied.
3 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about"...
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. *Now I know that you fear God*, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."_

I know many people say that this test was for Abraham's benefit, not God's, because God already knew what Abraham would do...but the words in bold indicate, to me at least, that unless God was lying to Abraham in verse 12, he did not know what Abraham would do until he raised the knife to do it.

The account of the flood is another good example from Genesis:

Chapter 6
_5 The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become ...
6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth...for I am grieved that I have made them."_

The fact that God's heart was filled with pain when he saw how evil mankind had become and that he was "grieved" that he had created man, seems to me to indicate regret...which seems to indicate that he had not anticipated this evil, for if he had, why would he have created man in the first place? And if he had created man with the anticipation of them becoming so wicked, why would he have included these verses in the Bible which seem to indicate that he did not?

I would definitely be interested to see if you can read something into these passages that I haven't seen!


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 25, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



But how do we know that the Bible is holy, that it has the Holy Spirit within it, if the evidence for these things comes from the Bible itself?

That would be the same as me saying, "I am holy. If you don't believe me, just ask me." It's getting information about a source from the source itself. There are other books that claim to be holy, yet you say other books are fallible, when the only reason you regard the Bible as holy is because it claims to be.

I'm not saying the Bible _isn't_ holy...I'm just saying the fact that it contains writings which claim it to be holy and therefore true cannot, in my opinion, stand as evidence that it is.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> _12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. *Now I know that you fear God*, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."_
> 
> I know many people say that this test was for Abraham's benefit, not God's, because God already knew what Abraham would do...but the words in bold indicate, to me at least, that unless God was lying to Abraham in verse 12, he did not know what Abraham would do until he raised the knife to do it.


 
You might know in your heart that a dear friend of a family memberor whoever would lay their life down for another- but only after it has been shown (by putting them in or allowing them to get into a situation where they must meet such challange) can they be used as an example to others


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained?
> ...




What I doubt is that I have reason to be confident to believe in or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of most persons. That doubt encompasses those that I am, traditionally, _*supposed*_ to be confident in. Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 26, 2009)

Another interesting read on religion.

God, He's moody | Salon


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 26, 2009)

"a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust"

How do you know this?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?



Then you believe in the wrong god. The god of the bible is evil, wicked, jealous, cruel, and misogynistic. It demands genocides, condones slavery, including sexual slavery of women, and orders that non-believers and disobedient children be slain, ad well as forcing young girls who are raped to marry their rapists (thus being bound to 'her duty' to her husband until he tires of her and tells her he's divorcing her) and commands that a married woman who is raped be slain if she is unable to defend herself or yell loudly enough.


The only trustworthy character in the whole book is the serpent who , _unlike God_, told man the truth about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and allowed man *true* free will: the ability to decide for ourselves what actions we wished to take after being told what effect the fruit would have.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



So a question is potentially invalid?  Interesting... In my experience, this is a position which is trotted out, by those whose position is exposed as invalid by a question...  



> You can't fathom how much knowledge there might be- you cannot answer your own question, and all of you 'options' are logically fallacious- as is your implication that there is any knowledge that is inherently unknowable.



Wow... so the member refuses to answer the question, but she knows that no one else could answer it, and this because the scope of all knowledge is 'infathomable...'

Thus, answering the question, by default... and she chooses the only potential response... 

"E- vastly less than that of D, which is An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'"




> In other words, you're an idiot; but we already knoew that.



ROFLMNAO...  I do so adore sweet irony...

For the 5th TIME this member HOPES to ignore the simple question, for which there were 5 possible responses offered...  and the power of her addled intellect can't even pull that off.

LOL... Atheists...

Now the 4th and 5th responses were, to be perfectly fair, the only two reasonable responses... but this member can't even muster the intellectual veracity to answer such; and why is that?

The member refuses to answer the question, as all atheists who've encountered this question always have and always will, because to answer it is to admit, quite by default, that the default Atheist position is ABSURD!

The simple fact is that where one's own ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE (if only by default)  is an imperceptiable, infinite fraction; then there's a pretty good chance that something which she cannot perceive as possible, exists within that void of ignorance which she has incontrovertibly admitted she suffers...

Again, let there be no mistake; neither I, nor anyone else on this forum or anywhere else, known to me, has advanced that they have tangible evidence of the composition of the Creator...

We have merely expressed our faith that the Creator exists; and in so doing set out our reasoning for that faith in clear and unambiguous terms; and have proven time and time again; that the principles on which that faith rest, represent a rare perfection in human reasoning; that those principles are immutable in their means to sustain human liberty...  that such principles are SELF EVIDENT... meaning that they bear the evidence of their validity by their mere presence...

And that given the immutable nature of those principles, it serves reason that such do not originate from the human species, as no other level of perfection has ever been found or set into practice... by any other culture, anywhere, at any time.

No level of prosperous liberty can be compared to that which those principles have provided; and it is only where those principles are rejected, do we find that such prosperity and liberty begins to wane.

And THAT friends, is EMPERICAL EVIDENCE...  of the incontestable variety... apply the principles and freedom and prosperity abound, withdraw or dimenish the principles and liberty and prosperity recede...  nothing particularly complex about it; and there's surely no reasoning which exists to provide the valid means to contest it.

And it is nothing LESS than the OVERT REJECTION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THIS MEMBER COMES TO ADVOCATE; she simply does so through a thinly vieled deception that she 'respects the mechanics of the US Constitutional Republic and adheres to the construct;' just not the principled bedrock of it's foundation and in so doing advocates for nothing less than the catastrophic demise of the greatest freedom; experienced by the greatest nation, ever known to inhabit this earth.

She's a Atheist and most decidedly, part of the problem.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?
> ...



In my 15 years of internet debate, I've seen some wicked examples of pure evil...  

But this post, is unequaled in it's sophistry... overtly seeking to establish God as Evil and Evil as God...

And in my estimation, this post demonstrates that Evil is the function which Jwhatshername serves; serving openly and unapologetically...

Turn from her or face subjecting yourself to the deception which she professes as the pure essence of all that is good... She's a deceiver, a liar and she serves no other potential than calamity, catastrophe and chaos.

As you consider this plea, believers should pray these simple words: "Get thee behind me Satan" and take measures to ignore this evil, so as to not be tempted by unbridled evil and the idiots which such manipulates.

And as I have advocated so shall I act... and this member is flushed into oblivion... with the rest of the turds.


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 26, 2009)

PlubiusAsswipe, since you admit that our overall knowledge is infinitessimal compared to the sum of all possible knowledge, then how do you know you're right? You know more than an infinitessimal amount?

One more thing, nothing that is "self-evident" is valid proof f anything, it just means that you don't know shit and can't prove shit, so you call it self-evident.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> So a question is potentially invalid?


What does blue taste like? What is the smell of red?



> Thus, answering the question, by default... and she chooses the only potential response...
> 
> "E- vastly less than that of D, which is An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'"


Now you're just being dishonest- again. There could be only two more questions we haven't thought of yet, or there could be many. Once cannot know how much there is to kn ow, so one cannot know how much one knows comparative to. It's one example of why your god is impossible- but you're not smart enough to grassp that.



> The simple fact is that where one's own ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE (if only by default)  is an imperceptiable, infinite fraction; then there's a pretty good chance that something which she cannot perceive as possible, exists



You have just made the ultimate argument from ignorance by claiming that deity must exist because pubic is ignorant and doesn't know jkack shit. You're too stupid to waste any further time with


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 26, 2009)

Oh that's MUCH BETTER... with the idiot in ignore I don't have to subject myself to her non-responses.

Let the record reflect that the atheists have again thoroughly failed to strip the Believers of a means to believe, through their litany of spurious tripe...  

The atheist comes to emphatically demand that the Creator does not exist, because the Creator existence can't be proven... 

A position, which itself which _cannot be proven_ and stands in and of itself, as fallacious absurdity... because there is no means by which one can test for such, as the composition of the creator is unknown...  and well beyond our means TO KNOW.

Yet the Creator provides evidence of his existence for anyone who cares to see them, not the least of which is the perfection in reasoning that are his 10 commandments; the endowment of our human rights and the inherent responsibilities within them; and the unprecedented and unparalled freedom and prosperity which have accompanied those who have implemented them... and of which there is not a single example, of so much as a SINGLE FAILURE, OF ANY HUMAN BEING who was APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES; througout the full scope of human history.

And that the Atheists refuse to see that evidence does not discredit that evidence, nor dimenish it as such.

Again, this posts is to simply note that the Atheists and their tired arguments, have FAILED...


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

Pubic, it sure is a good all theists aren't as ignorant and stupid as you,. or you would have all been killed long ago on the the grounds of feeblemindedness


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 26, 2009)

"and well beyond our means TO KNOW"

I thought it was a self-evident fact?

"The perfection of the 10 commandments"?


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> iagainsti said:
> 
> 
> > _12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. *Now I know that you fear God*, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."_
> ...



That is a very good point...although knowing something in your heart because you trust someone is different than knowing the future. But you're right, it's very possible that the test was meant for our benefit as readers. 

But why God would not only hide from us the fact that he had foreknowledge of what would happen, but also state something to the contrary, is a mystery to me. I don't think it would have taken much away from the story for him say something like "_I_ knew what was in your heart, of course, but now _everyone_ will know that you fear God," or something to that effect...that way people wouldn't be on internet forums thousands of years later questioning his omniscience.


----------



## iagainsti (Jun 26, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Oh that's MUCH BETTER... with the idiot in ignore I don't have to subject myself to her non-responses.
> 
> Let the record reflect that the atheists have again thoroughly failed to strip the Believers of a means to believe, through their litany of spurious tripe...
> 
> ...



So one atheist failed to convince you that God does not exist, and now all atheists have failed as a result? You've failed to convince me that God exists...so should I say that theists as a whole have FAILED? 

No, I shouldn't, because that would be a hasty generalization and also just a little bit arrogant on my part, now wouldn't it? It would be pretty presumptuous of me to make it seem as though I've spoken to every Christian on the face of the planet and found all their arguments to be oh so _spurious_ and _tired_...


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 26, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> The atheist comes to emphatically demand that the Creator does not exist, because the Creator existence can't be proven...



And the agnostic perspective is, that since there is no evidence of God, I _CAN NOT_ and therefore will not live as though God does exist until I am convinced He either does or does not.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> A position, which itself which _cannot be proven_ and stands in and of itself, as fallacious absurdity... because there is no means by which one can test for such, as the composition of the creator is unknown...  and well beyond our means TO KNOW.



Which make agnosticism the best logical position.  One doesn't know, and perhaps one can't know, so why believe one way or the other?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Yet the Creator provides evidence of his existence for anyone who cares to see them, not the least of which is the perfection in reasoning that are his 10 commandments;



How are they perfect?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> the endowment of our human rights and the inherent responsibilities within them;



Can we not endow ourselves with those rights and responsibilities?  Don't those rights and responsibilities vary from nation to nation, and within a nation from time to time?  I thought the Constitution endowed us with rights, not God.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> and the unprecedented and unparalled freedom and prosperity which have accompanied those who have implemented them... and of which there is not a single example, of so much as a SINGLE FAILURE, OF ANY HUMAN BEING who was APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES; througout the full scope of human history.



Can you prove that, PI?  That never has a nation which followed the principles of the Bible ever failed in the History of the World?  Because I can think of a few: The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish Empire, Cuba (before Castro), and I'm sure there are others that I can't think of at the moment or don't know of.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> And that the Atheists refuse to see that evidence does not discredit that evidence, nor dimenish it as such.



I don't refuse to see the evidence, I just DON'T.  Your above examples don't PROVE anything about your God.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Again, this post is to simply note that the Atheists and their tired arguments, have FAILED...



In convincing you, yes, but there is no hope or chance of that happening because you cling to dogma, whereas, I, as an agnostic, can revise my perceptions, opinions, and beliefs upon new discoveries, epiphanies, and realizations.  Another reason why agnosticism is the best logical philosophical stance.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

Al Gunn said:


> "and well beyond our means TO KNOW"
> 
> I thought it was a self-evident fact?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> But why God would not only hide from us the fact that he had foreknowledge of what would happen, but also state something to the contrary, is a mystery to me.



The ability to see the entirety of the spime and the desire to look are two different things. Just because I _can_ see through your window doesn't mean that I choose to. Even if a deity _could _see all things, it might not always desire to.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

What CMM describes is agnostic atheism, the same as JB. For some reason, he seems to deny his position in order to be PC


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> What CMM describes is agnostic atheism, the same as JB. For some reason, he seems to deny his position in order to be PC



Agnostic atheism:
From: Agnostic Atheist



> There are several specific beliefs that are within the defined limits of agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist may be described as a person who does not believe in God or gods and who holds one or more of the following to be true:
> 
> The existence or nonexistence of deities is not known or is unknowable.
> The knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities is unimportant.
> ...



From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:agnostic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary :



> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god



Same difference.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

gnosticism and theism address two different questions

hence agnostic atheism


----------



## Yukon (Jun 26, 2009)

Christianity = *Roman Catholicism* = Eternal Life


----------



## Montrovant (Jun 26, 2009)

PI, with regards to your multiple choice question, wouldn't an infinitely small percentage be, by definition, as small as is possible?  That would make your last option invalid, wouldn't it?  Perhaps I'm misinformed as to what infinitely small means.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

Montrovant said:


> PI, with regards to your multiple choice question, wouldn't an infinitely small percentage be, by definition, as small as is possible?  That would make your last option invalid, wouldn't it?  Perhaps I'm misinformed as to what infinitely small means.




He's an idiot, what do you expect?


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?
> ...




You've deflected from the issue of trust, in the first paragraphs or your post, actually. Nothing there invalidates or violates the trust. Where you have addressed the issue, trust does not require or demand explicit details nor does it question. It is implied. Only when the trust is broken are there questions and demands for details.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Jun 26, 2009)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - 

- Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist. - 

- Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. - 

- But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. - Edmund Burke


----------



## Barb (Jun 26, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...



 Good luck with that, and peace be with you. Keep plenty of antacid on hand.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Christianity = *Roman Catholicism* = Eternal Life



You're not seriously gonna try to stick with that, are you?


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 27, 2009)

Barb said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...







> what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for




You're right. I do need luck and a life-time supply of Pepcid. See.... the thing is, I have a personality flaw.... always lookin' for the good in people, desperately trying to find something that justifies their existence. You, on the other hand, apparently are one of those "followers" being led by the nose. Don't fret over it too much, though. You're absolutely not alone. It's how Presidents are elected....


----------



## Yukon (Jun 27, 2009)

Yes. The truth hurts my child.



ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity = *Roman Catholicism* = Eternal Life
> ...


----------



## Al Gunn (Jun 27, 2009)

Christianity = Roman Catholic = Pedophiles


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Yes. The truth hurts my child.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, please don't insult or patronize me. I'm not your child. What truth would that be, exactly? I'm intrigued.... Really....


----------



## Barb (Jun 27, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...



 Where do you jump from what I've written to your "followers" comment? I think I've kept a civil tone in all that I've posted to this thread. Who spit in your bean curd?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Yes. The truth hurts my child.



The truth only hurts the wicked. That's because they live contrary it. Those who accept truth and live it take joy in truth.

Should I take it that since the truth hurts you that you are indeed wicked?

Since your statement neither hurts me, nor is something I take joy in, I must either conclude that I am not wicked, or that your statement wasnt truth.

Either way, I am confident that my faith in Christ will more than compensate for rejecting your statement as false. Especially when the Lord has whispered other truth's to my soul. After all, who am i to ignore what God reveals to me?


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 27, 2009)

Barb said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...




Hmmm.... Must have been something in the "body language".....


----------



## LOki (Jun 29, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Once again the atheist comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands...


*Once again*, PubliusInfinitum has to resort to unfounded ad-hominem accusations and patent fabrications to distract from the fact that he has failed to bring a validated point.

To wit: "Atheist" - Unfounded ad-hominem.
"project a false premise as truth" - Patent fabrication.​
*[EDIT: BTW, the prediction made HERE 11-17-2008, 09:23 AM remains fully valid on 06-29-09 @1:53PM]*



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . .   As usual, your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, . . .


Right from the very beginning a verifiable falsehood.  I said beliefs in faith are not founded in evidence and/or valid logic.  I also said belief in a creator is not founded in evidence and/or valid logic. But not once did I say that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic.

This is typical of PubliusInfinitum's disinformation campaigns against those who he disagrees with, but cannot legitimately refute.  His other tactic is an obtuse embrace of logical fallacy, which is soon to come below.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . and despite your chronic attempt to establish that your position is superior, due to your demand that such rests or the bed rock of valid reasoning, such is demonstrably false.


But you're just not about actually demostrate my position is false--are you?  You will make up positions that are demonstrably false, then falsely attibute them to me, and then declare that you have demonstrated that my reasoning is demonstrably false.  When all along, it is clearly your own reasoning that is demonstrably false, and has been demonstrated to be false.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> To wit:
> 
> With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; . . .


Logical fallacy = Denying the Antecedent. Creation is contingent upon existence, existence is not contingent upon creation.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.


See, this is irrelevent. It's irrelevent because no part of the fact that I did not create myself makes it necessary that someone else created me. [Being an idiot, you will likely try to frame this as an assertion from me that I was not created--but like I said, you're an idiot.]

Having not created myself certainly says nothing about the location of my creator, if such creator exists. If my creator exists they could very well be here on this earth.

Your argument just complete bullshit. An utter failure.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistently, which is to make some shit up about my position that you're more comfortable refuting than my actual position.


PubliusInfinitum said:


> Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed.  And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.
> 
> But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.


Thus, the lie delivered.  Despite the meager grain of truth regarding why such a force has not been measured or observed, the lie resides in the assertion that I have concluded that such a force is impossible.

This intellectually dishonest Cupcake just can't hope to invalidate any point I have made, so he fabricates points such as the one above to "prove" my point invalid. The logical fallacy is the Strawman. The moral deviation is the lie.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Nothing logical about that...  its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.


No such appeal to ignorance has been made by me, Cupcake. However, you insistently demand that your belief in a creator is valid soley upon the fact that "you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is . . ." As if the possibility for the existence of "the Creator" validly asserts the existence of "the Creator" to be unconditionally true. This is the true appeal to ignorance. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism...


What outside force, exactly? The one that has no relationship with reality what-so-ever? Or the one that is . . . how have you previously put it? "Whatever"?



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist...  Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such...  yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; . . .


Presented as if I ever claimed the name you choose for your "Creator" is at all relevent to the obervation that "the Creator" is arguably imaginary.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.


Entirely and unambiguously irrelevent to my position--yet ironically, perectly and unambiguously relevant to yours. But, lacking any intellectual integrity, you'll continue on as if it is otherwise.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; . . .


Such was in no way demonstrated above.

A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.  Faith, generously defined, is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.  There are those less generous who will insist (and validly so) that faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, of the contrary has been denied; the obtuse strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.

Argumentative charity set aside, the actual fact is that faith is founded upon unvalidated facts.  Which brings us right back to my response to Gunny:_No one *has* to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this._​The premise is true: There no reason what-so-ever that any human being *must* hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established._Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky._​The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created.  However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contigent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; . . .


Yet since every such fact is unvalidated, every extrapolation and hypothesis derived from such unvalidated facts, are in turn, unvalidated.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.


However, the sailient difference is that science is concerned with facts validated by reality, in evidence and valid logic; whereas faith is concerned with denials of facts validated by reality in evidence and valid logic.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL...


Christians certainly have a rich history of contesting science, and currently have a rich and patently obvious pracice of contesting science.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, . . .


Atheism is no science--it's no pseudo-science--it's not related to science.  No one should be surprised that you suggest otherwise--and no longer derserving of the benefit of the doubt--it is yet more evidence of you intellectual dishonesty. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> . . . which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.


I defy you to present one of these "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" that I have made. But I shall insist that you present one that I actually made, rather than one of the "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" you fabricate and then assign to me.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> I will note again . . .
> 
> The purpose of the example Cupcake presents is to suggest--as a valid argument against the validity of human knowledge-- that human beings failing to know everything, are therefore incapable of knowing ANYTHING.  I will stipulate that there is a boatload that humanity fails to understand about gravity and other things, and SNIP this irrelevent crap. But I won't stipulate to the patently ridiculous suggestion or the argument it implies.​
> . . . within a realm of sub-atomic reality, beyond out means of observation.
> ...


This is probablay a clue as to why you think there is any compatiblity between valid reasoning and faith--your intellectual paradigm insistently puts the cart in front of the horse.  The rational believe what they see, and the faithful see what they believe.

You believe in a "Creator," and seeing the effects of gravity, you see the hand and will of this "Creator."  You are seeing what you believe, which is entiely consistent with your superstitious "reasoning."  The fact reamins howeverm that the existence of your "Creator" has not been validated by evidence or valid logic. Your conviction of certainty in the of the reality of your "Creator" nothing but a belief borne out of a superstitious appeal to ignorance, or a willful denial of reality.

To be consistent with my reasoning, I need only observe that masses are attracted to each other, and that the strength of that attraction appears to be a function of the masses in question.  To be consistent with my intellectual integrity, any claims I make as statements of uncontestable and immutable fact will simply not venture into the realm of an invisible uber-pixie being responsible for what I observe.

It is however gratifying to see you fabricating "my reasoning" for the purposes of refutation, rather than attempting to refute my actual reasoning.  You're stoically true to your bullshit form.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> As to the legitimacy of declaring unproven scientific as fact, you rest your entire argument, with regard to the Creator, on such which is subject to change without notice, and which is not FACT, but stands in every conceivable facet, no more fact than that which you come to declare as FICTION.


What are you claiming, regarding my argument about the existence of "the Creator," that is not fact exactly? Describe it precisely. But when you do, make absolutely sure it's my argument you're addressing, rather than one of the "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" you fabricate and then assign to me.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> Again, those who
> 
> Irrelevent crap snipped​
> consider such to be viable...
> ...


Well, well ,well . . . here's what it comes to. Logical fallacy = Moving Goal Posts.  You can't validly refute the actual point, so you change the point to one you feel better suited to refuting.  Typical of you and your intellectually dishonest ilk.  The dogmatic nature of the beliefs was not at issue, it's the validity of the belief that was at issue, and it is entirely possible to be dogmatic about one's beliefs without that dogmatism invalidating those beliefs.  It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT that any of the scientific community is prone to dogmatic belief to any degree--the actual point, the point you are desperately attempting to divert attention from, is that beliefs validated by faith--such as a belief in a "Creator"--are ENTIRELY absent of any validation in evidence or valid logic. This is not to say they can't be correct, it is just to say that they are ENTIRELY absent of any validation in evidence or valid logic.

As far as those who assert the absence of "the Creator" absence of evidence or valid logic for the presence of said "Creator," you can demand all day long that they are wrong, but you cannot fault their reasoning if valid logic does not necessitate the existence of a "Creator" and the evidence of such existence is absent.  You see Cupcake, absence of evidence, while not being proof of absence, is actually evidence of absence.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> AS ARE THOSE YOU CONSISTANTLY COME TO LAMENT IN THE "RELIGIOUS" COMMUNITY...


Like I said, irrelevant.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> proving the point brought by the Gunny... that faith is inevitably a natural function of all...


This point has really not been proven . . . unless you point is really to say that faith is a natural common failing of us all. Then point taken.



PubliusInfinitum said:


> and frankly, this is a result of a distinct lack of options and while some consider it a pyshosis... others consider it a virtue...


I just consider it an error of judgement. It is faulty reasoning. 



PubliusInfinitum said:


> I fall into the virtue camp; where as long as the faith is open to the possibilities, it does not bend to every potential alternative, until such can be established through reason.


Considering your proven intellectual dishonesty, it is no wonder that you should demand that whatever conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing you hold, should remain valid until an alternative is established through a procees you insist "simply is not sufficiently heeled" to validate that alternative.  This is nothing but a restatemnt of the arrogant credo of the faithful: "What I assert is absolute and true fact, is immutably, undenaibly, and incontroverably fact, because (and only because) I believe it is fact."  



PubliusInfinitum said:


> I believe in the Creator... and in the teachings of Christ and the goods news presented through his teachings; *as such rests upon immutable reasoning*; the principles of which are self sustaining and incontrovertible;  representing rare perfection and where such perfection exist... *reason requires that it originates from a source far beyond the severely limited means of humanity*, who have yet to create a sustained perfection of any kind.


"Once again [a superstitious retard] comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands..."


----------



## LOki (Jun 29, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...


ROFLMNAO... The Indoctrination is complete; you've earned your IDIOT Certifications!


----------



## WhiteLion (Jul 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....



Jesus the Christ was the most controversial and extremist of all times, however he wasnt a zealot(Peter was the Zealot, cut off the soldiers ear and Christ put it back on). Fact of the matter much like Christ(the first sacrifice of real freedom) you could give your life for some and they still couldnt see the forest for the trees? the following scriptures explain;

2 Timothy, Chapter 3 (King James Bible) - ChristianAnswersÂ® WebBibleâ¢  i post a link to 2 Timothy chp 3 to long.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness...

2Thesalonians 2 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

2Thesalonians 2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

2Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Thessalonians 1:8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 1, 2009)

The Abrahamic faiths = a shortened rehashing of the Sumerian texts


----------



## Yukon (Jul 2, 2009)

Mr. Loki,

Are you coloured my son ?


----------



## Bootneck (Jul 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Loki,
> 
> Are you coloured my son ?



Fancying a bit of black arse again Yukon?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2009)

LOki said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...
> ...



And still it's more worthwhile and edifying to read PI's posts than it is to wade through your ponderous rantings.

Go figure. You really DO like to hear yourself blather, don't you?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 2, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Loki,
> ...


[youtube]slzVuHIpoDw[/youtube]


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 2, 2009)

LOki said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...
> ...



Was that a post or did you forget to type something?


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 2, 2009)

Gunny said:


> "Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.  If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.
> 
> Fred Phelps is a perfect example.  That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was.  He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs.   *But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.*



I think that I have been guilty of that.  Then I matured (not to say that I am perfect now) and decided that God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge.  Adolph Hitler might have called himself a Christian for all that I know about his statements.  If he said so, then he might have been right or he might have been wrong.  Im in no position to judge.  I think that I know the Bible pretty well but I would not presume to know enough to decide who God would allow into heaven (assuming that Biblical instructions on salvation are true).  Ill be civil and just leave it up to God and/or Jesus to decide.  I have enough to do to just keep my house in order.  Know what I mean?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 2, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> I think that I have been guilty of that.  Then I matured (not to say that I am perfect now) and decided that God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge.  Adolph Hitler might have called himself a Christian for all that I know about his statements.  If he said so, then he might have been right or he might have been wrong.  Im in no position to judge.  I think that I know the Bible pretty well but I would not presume to know enough to decide who God would allow into heaven (assuming that Biblical instructions on salvation are true).  Ill be civil and just leave it up to God and/or Jesus to decide.  I have enough to do to just keep my house in order.  Know what I mean?



I think thats probably a good attitude to have. so how many of us truly have our houses in order?


----------



## Yukon (Jul 3, 2009)

Mr. Loki,

Ill use more political correctness. Are you of the Negroid race my child ?


----------



## JenT (Jul 3, 2009)

mmmmm, religious zealot checking in wondering how long I'll last...


----------



## JenT (Jul 3, 2009)

btw, when I said a certain someone referred me here, I was lying, he had nothing to do with it


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 3, 2009)

JenT said:


> mmmmm, religious zealot checking in wondering how long I'll last...


 
Welcome.  

You will last FOREVER.  No problems.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 3, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Loki,
> 
> Ill use more political correctness. Are you of the Negroid race my child ?



Relevance?


----------



## WhiteLion (Jul 3, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > I think that I have been guilty of that.  Then I matured (not to say that I am perfect now) and decided that God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge.  Adolph Hitler might have called himself a Christian for all that I know about his statements.  If he said so, then he might have been right or he might have been wrong.  Im in no position to judge.  I think that I know the Bible pretty well but I would not presume to know enough to decide who God would allow into heaven (assuming that Biblical instructions on salvation are true).  Ill be civil and just leave it up to God and/or Jesus to decide.  I have enough to do to just keep my house in order.  Know what I mean?
> ...



Civility is great but its not enough just to keep ones house in order, even reprobate heathens keep their houses in order,that attitude is ridin the fence, and does nothing for the kingdom of Jesus the Christ. We are to keep busy about the business of Jesus the Christ in everything we do until HE returns. However on the subject of judgement, the bible says judgement starts at the house of GOD? huh whatcha means there Whitelion? lol what i mean is, there are numerous scriptures that place judgement at the feet of Christians again we must judge ourselves first(Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.). Also GODS WORD says the saints will judge the angels in that great and terrible day.


----------



## BrokenAngel (Jul 4, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The best way I have ever heard this point made was:  You can take every piece to a VCR and place it in a dryer.  No matter how many times you turn on the cycle, no matter how long you let the cycle run, you will never end a cycle with a fully built VCR.

It just seems to logically take a helping hand of some kind to put those complicated pieces in place.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 4, 2009)

The old 'IC' argument? 

I can't keep track of how many times that bullshit's been refuted; it's utter fallaciousness and dishonesty


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 4, 2009)

First, I'll let Don respond to an earlier comment...

[youtube]Izl5BB2AkZE[/youtube]


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 4, 2009)

BrokenAngel said:


> The best way I have ever heard this point made was:  You can take every piece to a VCR and place it in a dryer.  No matter how many times you turn on the cycle, no matter how long you let the cycle run, you will never end a cycle with a fully built VCR.
> 
> It just seems to logically take a helping hand of some kind to put those complicated pieces in place.



Yes.  Yet, if you had 10 to the power of  10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to the power of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 dryers it increases the chances that one of those would assemble a VCR.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 4, 2009)

[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 4, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> [youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]



Wow!!!  Thanks for the insightful and sound criticism of the smashed clock argument.  I loved it.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:
> 
> I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.
> 
> ...


The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
*George Washington


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 4, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:
> 
> I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.
> 
> ...



Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me as if you are struggling with an age old dilemma that goes something like this:

The following four statements cant logically coexist:
God is all good and just.
God is all knowing.
God is all powerful.
There is injustice in the world.

Let us take the fourth premise as given.  I think that it is obvious to almost everyone that good this sometimes happen to bad people and that bad things sometimes happen to innocent people.  All that one needs to do is take a good look at this picture to see that.

http://pulitzerphotos.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/10542831_e52cfff4a0.jpg

If God is good and just, then how can he allow such to happen?  Did this baby have a choice concerning his condition?  God does not know that such is happening, or he knows that it is happening and can do nothing about it, or he does not care. 

There are some alleged answers to that quandary.  None of them seem to satisfy me.  

1.) God is waiting and will serve justice in due time.  Perhaps the suffering of the innocent will be rewarded in the afterlife.  Perhaps God knows more or has higher reasoning skills than does his creation and that he will set things straight for every human being that ever existed in due time.  I would like to know how God would accomplish this.  

2.) Similarly, there are those who explain it by asking how we dare question our creator.  It would be like an injured animal asking a man why the man is hurting the animal when the man is actually trying to heal the animal. This analogy seems to be lacking something for me.  What is the suffering baby to learn by suffering?  

3.)  Without bad we would not have a concept of good.  First of all, this does not excuse the suffering that innocent people endure.  Secondly, the suffering that innocent people endure need not be so harsh in order for us to understand such abstract concepts.     

I hope that this helps.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 7, 2009)

I just read a great argument for atheism by Salman Rushdie: here is a paraphrased version:

All the true believers of the world have excellent reasons why they don't believe in any God or gods other than their own; all those reasons combined are why I don't believe in any god.


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 7, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> I just read a great argument for atheism by Salman Rushdie: here is a paraphrased version:
> 
> All the true believers of the world have excellent reasons why they don't believe in any God or gods other than their own; all those reasons combined are why I don't believe in any god.



I'm not sure exactly what you've paraphrased, so I don't know whether I'm taking issue with your phraseology or Rushdie's, but the flaw in that argument is in the first 4 words.

"All the true believers...".  Who the hell is he (I'll assume it's him, not you) to say what a true believer is, or what they must and must not think?  Just because it neatly fits his rationale doesn't make it so.

I view myself as a Christian.  I have _never_ tried to disprove the existence of any other Gods.  Why?   2 reasons.  Firstly I have not studied other religions and wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about.  Secondly, trying to disprove a _belief_ is an exercise in futility, stupidity and arrogance, not to mention a total waste of time.  Oh, and thirdly what's the bloody point even if it was possible?

Life isn't like the movie 'Dogma', where the Angel of Death shows up, explains to the nun why her beliefs are flawed and convinces her to go out and buy herself a hot dress.

It's not a great argument for atheism.  He is an atheist and he's come up with a glib way of post-rationalizing it.  If religious scholars are the only people he talks to about this then he should stop being so bloody pompous and ask some normal people what they think of other religions.  I bet most of them will say "Beats the shit outta me, Salman", which pretty much blows a hole in his entire argument except, of course, if there are no "true believers" among "normal people". 

Maybe he doesn't know any normal people.  You do though (if USMB could be called normal).  

Do you find that all people of faith on religious threads try to disprove the existence of other Gods, or is it more likely the atheists that try to disprove the existence of all Gods?

I know what I think.  We both know what Rushdie thinks.  What about you?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 8, 2009)

Smope Doker said:


> Debating religion is just a grown up version of the schoolyard debate of: my daddy can pound your daddy.   Ever notice how the intelligent kids never got drawn into that? it was always the dumber obnoxious kids.
> Debating passages from the bible is like trekkies debating what the real language of klingons. Fictitious and futile.



Your dad has sex with other men???

How many intelligent people state that their father is gay in an example to support their theories?

I agree that debating passages from the Bible is often pointless. You have to read them before you can interpret them. And unfortunately the so called "intellectual kids" never bother to read something before forming opinions on why they shouldnt read it.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 11, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...
> ...





> JBeukema Hi, you have received -13 reputation points from JBeukema.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> facts cannot be illogical



What a goober reason to neg someone.  Facts are not facts without evidence to support them.  The expanding universe is a theory.  It is indeed NOT fact.  You rep comment does not refute my original statement.

Science itself dictates that for something to expand, there must be something to measure.  You need boundaries and something beyond the boundaries to expand into.  Neither are proven fact.

If so, I'm all ears.  Present me with factual evidence that locates the boundaries of the universe, and what lies beyond ... and factual evidence that pinpoints the exact location within the universe it is expanding from.

Should be easy if it's "fact."


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

Crickets.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

The universe isn't expanding 'from' a central location, genius. It's spacetime itself that's expanding, not just matter flying out from a  central location through spacetime in a static universe. Your ignorance of the most fundamental principles of the sciences you try to be a smart-ass about is astounding


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

That's your opinion, not evidence.

Provide the evidence, hypocrite.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

I already have 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If you want more ind-depth explanations of the physics and cosmology of the matter, i recommend Google


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 11, 2009)

Gunny said:


> > JBeukema Hi, you have received -13 reputation points from JBeukema.
> > Reputation was given for this post.
> >
> > Comment:
> ...



You're right about the reason you were neg-repped, but, sorry about this Gunny, but JBeukema is right.  It IS fact that the Universe is expanding, not a theory.  The light of almost all stars is slightly to more than slightly red shifted because of the Doppler effect because of the expansion of space/time between all things.  There is no central area from which the expansion is spreading unless you consider our perspective, which makes it appear as though everything is moving away from us because of expansion of space/time all around us (and all around all things).  So no matter where you are in the Universe, it appears as though everything else is expanding away from you in all directions.

There are no boundaries to the _physical_ Universe because there is nothing physical outside of space/time (if you're speaking spiritually, that would be another *matter*!); not even emptiness.  There is no place to go outside of the Universe in a corporeal form.  Anyway, the Universe is expanding to fast to catch up to its boundaries if it had them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I already have
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Likewise I recommend Google if you want more evidence from those who believe there's a God.

We actually have eye witness accounts of the miracles and corroborating evidence which supports the accuracy of the Bible...but that's all been gone over before.

Resume trolling. I don't think you could annoy anyone more than you already have.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I already have
> ...




You' can't say 'more evidence' until you present some evidence in the first place 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> We actually have eye witness accounts of the miracles and corroborating evidence which supports the accuracy of the Bible...but that's all been gone over before.



You have never presented anything other than the bible and no historians ever mentioned all those zombies you claim were walking around


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

"...a local farmer found a clue: the remains of the feet of a giant statue. An inscription on a nearby pedestal confirmed that the statue belonged to Ramses II. Eventually, archeologists unearthed traces of houses, temples, even palaces. Using new technology, the archaeologists were able to detect the foundations and they mapped out the whole city in a few months. The city they had discovered was one of the biggest cities in ancient Egypt, built around 1250BCE. 20,000 Egyptians had lived there."
BBC - Religion & Ethics - Moses: Evidence - Moses' beginnings

There. Evidence of Hebrews in ancient Egypt.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

Point? Any evidence that semites were in egypt does nothing to make any of the supernatural and gnostic claims of your religion valid.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

Apparently you don't know much about the debate of the historical accuracy of the bible, and how for years nitwits like yourself insisted there were no Hebrews in ancient Egypt.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2009)

Thus no Moses, thus no Exodus, thus..oh shit, I give up. You ruin every intelligent discussion you enter. I feel like I've been slimed. You're as bad as Agna.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 11, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You' can't say 'more evidence' until you present some evidence in the first place



You've been presented evidence multiple times. Simply because you dont find it credible does not mean its not evidence.



> You have never presented anything other than the bible and no historians ever mentioned all those zombies you claim were walking around



Zombies? Has anyone mentioned Zombies? I can provide my own witness. I can provide my life as evidence.  Ive experienced the power of the Spirit as anyone can if they seek it. Ive recieved revelation. Ive seen miracles. Ive been healed. 

But because you cant fathom what you tell yourself can't exist, you wont accept those witnesses. Luckily, God has a way of opening our eyes when the time is right.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 11, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Point? Any evidence that semites were in egypt does nothing to make any of the supernatural and gnostic claims of your religion valid.



And what evidence would you possibly except for the supernatural when you deny it's existance? You won't ever see the supernatural till you allow yourself to believe that it's possible.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Zombies? Has anyone mentioned Zombies?





Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.​Matthew 27:50-53 




> I can provide my own witness. I can provide my life as evidence.  Ive experienced the power of the Spirit as anyone can if they seek it. Ive recieved revelation. Ive seen miracles. Ive been healed.




the same anecdotal evidence is forwarded by every believer of every religion,. so it does absolutely nothing to support your claims


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Point? Any evidence that semites were in egypt does nothing to make any of the supernatural and gnostic claims of your religion valid.
> ...




Tell yea what Go chop your arm off on national television. When God causes your limb to grow back in five seconds, first the bone, then the flesh, before the eyes of all to leave all of modern science dumbfounded, you will have evidence to support your claims


----------



## Agnapostate (Jul 11, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Thus no Moses, thus no Exodus, thus..oh shit, I give up. You ruin every intelligent discussion you enter. I feel like I've been slimed. You're as bad as Agna.



Here's some light reading for you, dear. 



> [E]vidence dealt a serious blow to the Hollywood version of pyramid building, with Charlton Heston as Moses intoning, Pharaoh, let my people go! There were slaves in Egypt, says Lehner, but the discovery that pyramid workers were fed like royalty buttresses other evidence that they were not slaves at all, at least in the modern sense of the word. Harvards George Reisner found workers graffiti early in the twentieth century that revealed that the pyramid builders were organized into labor units with names like "Friends of Khufu" or "Drunkards of Menkaure." Within these units were five divisions (their roles still unknown)the same groupings, according to papyrus scrolls of a later period, that served in the pyramid temples. We do know, Lehner says, that service in these temples was rendered by a special class of people on a rotating basis determined by those five divisions. Many Egyptologists therefore subscribe to the hypothesis that the pyramids were also built by a rotating labor force in a modular, team-based kind of organization.



Not that I expect you to be clever enough to understand it after you simply blatantly ignored my illustration of contradictions and unoriginal passages in the New Testament.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Everyone ignores you. You are the poster child for crappy argument and trolling.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
> And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
> And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
> And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.​Matthew 27:50-53



Since when is a living being one of the undead?



> the same anecdotal evidence is forwarded by every believer of every religion,. so it does absolutely nothing to support your claims



You admit it's evidence. Which demonstrates that there _is_ evidence. You just dont find it credible.

That is your problem. Not mine.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Tell yea what Go chop your arm off on national television. When God causes your limb to grow back in five seconds, first the bone, then the flesh, before the eyes of all to leave all of modern science dumbfounded, you will have evidence to support your claims



Ive already got evidence to support my claims. You continue to ignore it. Again, that's not my problem.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

It's not evidence for anything, you idiot. The exact same claims are made by every religion. To claim that it  any way evidences your assertions is to say that you admit that every single religion in the world is correct, which makes yours wrong as you have just refuted yourself, you twit.


This is why we need your kind to die; you drag down the IQ of the human race and hold all of humanity back. You're  like a fucking disease


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Anger issues?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> It's not evidence for anything, you idiot. The exact same claims are made by every religion. To claim that it  any way evidences your assertions is to say that you admit that every single religion in the world is correct, which makes yours wrong as you have just refuted yourself, you twit.
> 
> *
> This is why we need your kind to die*; you drag down the IQ of the human race and hold all of humanity back. You're  like a fucking disease




you got your world population concerns solved in one swipe....4 billion religion believing people holocausted.


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> It's not evidence for anything, you idiot. The exact same claims are made by every religion. To claim that it  any way evidences your assertions is to say that you admit that every single religion in the world is correct, which makes yours wrong as you have just refuted yourself, you twit.
> 
> 
> *This is why we need your kind to die; you drag down the IQ of the human race and hold all of humanity back. You're  like a fucking disease*



Hey JB - remember this?



Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> .



Either.....

1)  You think Gunny's OP guideline is bullshit and you're gonna ignore it.

2)  Gunny committed to remove posts of the kind he describes so you're gonna go ahead and post as you see fit and he can remove them as he sees fit.

3)  You're just determined to insult anyone who has religious beliefs (there could be a number of reasons for this so I'm not even gonna bother listing them).

4)  Some other reason.

Can you clarify which it is?  The "you need to die" comment clearly reveals something more deep rooted or personal than one would expect with a scientific reason.  Is it just trolling perhaps?  Do you simply get a kick out of mocking faith?

It doesn't bother me if that's the case - I'm sure if you do not have faith then it must seem that there are a whole host of things that are mockable.  But I'm just vaguely interested about why you are going out of your way to do so.  People generally have a reason for such persistent behavior, and in my experience it's usually an emotional one.


----------



## Lawman (Jul 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > It's not evidence for anything, you idiot. The exact same claims are made by every religion. To claim that it  any way evidences your assertions is to say that you admit that every single religion in the world is correct, which makes yours wrong as you have just refuted yourself, you twit.
> ...



No, we just need the rapture to be put on the fast track. Please take all the others with you: jews, muslims... don't leave home without 'em.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> you got your world population concerns solved in one swipe....4 billion religion believing people holocausted.








You *DO* realize that the 'holocaust' refers only to the death of _Jews_ and is a neozionist word that speaks to the racism of the Jews who influenced America's spin on the events of the 1920's, right?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

Lawman said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


 was that shown hatred really necessary lawman, is the world all about you and only you, no courtesy at all to those who differ? Death or rapture, be gone with them? That's NOT freedom loving...you know?

Care


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

JB,

I've come to the conclusion, that you just can't be real....

I mean, you just can't be somebody that is able to manage for himself in real life because this obsession of yours overwhelms you in your every day living, so you are just faking us out somehow and PLAYING with us with this persona of yours, I dunno...something doesn't smell right....call it feminine intuition, or something....?

And if you are real, as said, which I doubt....then, could you explain to me how this obsession progressed in your life, from the beginning of when it started...what triggered it, do you know or remember back that far?  Was it a Science class?  Was it the pedophile priests?  Was it an acquaintance, a teacher a parent and friend that triggered it?

Honestly, I feel like I am missing something that I should know in order to continue debating you on this...you say us religious believers are brainwashed in youth by our parents and churches...WHAT is it that has made YOU the way you are is what I am missing and at a disadvantage on...

Care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

More deflection and avoidance from the theists


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> More deflection and avoidance from the theists


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

and good afternoon JB!  meant to say it earlier!


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

.... You must live in the Eastern Time Zone

or you don't practice DST


----------



## Lawman (Jul 12, 2009)

Care, I'm wishing for you to get what you want, the rapture, how is that hatred? I'm even tossing in other religion for free, you can show them all how wrong they were. That's a good thing no?

Imagine, a world with no more religion, peace at last.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Not without God. Without religion and God, you'll be in hell, you realize. 

Filled with people like you, JB, Agna...what a lovely place that will be!


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Not without God. Without religion and God, you'll be in hell, you realize.
> 
> Filled with people like you, JB, Agna...what a lovely place that will be!



Evidence?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Got any evidence it will be a place of peace?


----------



## Agnapostate (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Everyone ignores you. You are the poster child for crappy argument and trolling.



Yeah, you sure devastated me and my "crappy argument" in this thread, didn't you?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

More deflection!


Provide your evidence, Allie or STFU with your stupidity


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Anger issues?



Of course he has anger issues. He feels stupid for stating that its not evidence, but is evidence, but its not. He can't make up his mind. Probably because he has no clue what evidence is.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Of all the posters I find him the most disturbing, and the one who appears the most disturbed.

Of course, we don't often see "die, Christian, DIE" on here.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Any so-called 'evidence' that supports every single claim by every single religion just as much as it 'supports' your claim is not evidence of anything, you twit. It's not surprising that you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, however; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that theists have low IQs as a rule and are generally stupid and uneducated.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

No it hasn't, you loon.

Once again, I refer you to the brothers Chudnovsky.

What has been proven is you're a pathetic, hating loser. Thanks for sharing that with us. We get it. Carry on with your trolling.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> No it hasn't, you loon.






JBeukema said:


> There are plenty of Religion vs IQ by country statistics out there. Unfortunately its easy to poke holes in IQ tests when administered across cultures. To add something new to the evidence:
> 
> Congratulations Mississippi, you're the least intelligent AND most religious state!
> 
> ...


 


JBeukema said:


> > *Conclusion
> >
> > *The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.
> >
> ...


 




JBeukema said:


> * Helmuth Nyborg
> *   aUniversity of Aarhus, Denmark (19682007)
> 
> 
> ...





JBeukema said:


>


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Any so-called 'evidence' that supports every single claim by every single religion just as much as it 'supports' your claim is not evidence of anything, you twit. It's not surprising that you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, however; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that theists have low IQs as a rule and are generally stupid and uneducated.



Hardly. How does my eye witness of miraculous healing support Buddhism or Hinduism which dont beleive that?

How is my witness from the Spirit that God is real contradict any other faith's witness that God is real. God _is _real. It's going to be true for anyone else who believes in God.

Like I said, you may not believe the evidence, but it's evidence none the less. 

Your lack of understanding of what evidence is has more to do with your comphrension than mine.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

His mother needs to limit his time on the computer. It's obviously having a negative effect on him.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

Lawman said:


> Care, I'm wishing for you to get what you want, the rapture, how is that hatred? I'm even tossing in other religion for free, you can show them all how wrong they were. That's a good thing no?
> 
> Imagine, a world with no more religion, peace at last.



I don't believe in the Rapture, or at least not a rapture that would spare us from the tribulation....or at least half of it....at least I don't think this is what is going to happen, if it does, then please, take me Lord!  

Lawman, I don't wish ill upon you, i dont want all that are non religious to die or to be raptured away from this world so I wouldn't have to deal with them...I rather enjoy the variety of humans in life, especially those that are different than me....they are the most interesting to me, moreso than those that agree all the time...I don't want to see them die, or be raptured away by their beliefs...

tolerance is a virtue along with patience, to me....it speaks like freedom to me, it smells like freedom to me....once people start not being tolerant, the world become uglier and uglier imho.

And sorry for the quick snap on the neg rep i gave you....  

Care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Their claims are as much 'evidence' of their religion as yours are of your own

Again you demonstrate the ignorance, stupidity,. illogic, and anti-intellectualism of christians


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

However, we don't tell people to die when they don't agree with the theories we hold dear.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

JB

YOU talkin' to me? 

You talkin' to me?

(in my best Robert Dinero voice)


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> However, we don't tell people to die when they don't agree with the theories we hold dear.



Christianity is a cowardly religion that was founded by outsiders./ They had no claim to the god of Abraham, so they had to find a loophole. They ignore the racist calls for genocide because it demands their death. They invented hell to convince themselves that the Romans would pay.

Kinda like how the Jews abandoned their attempts top conquer the ME for a while after they ended up on the wrong end og things. They've started up again as of late, though


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2009)

Ah, finally it makes sense. You're one of the wild-eyed fanatics.

It all makes sense now.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Yet another deflection and pathetic attempt at an ad hom by an idiot who cannot address the reality that JB has presented


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Of course, the IQ-religiosity trend explains perfectly people like Alli, RGS, and Avatar


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Of course, the IQ-religiosity trend explains perfectly people like Alli, RGS, and Avatar


 

Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds
By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A02 

Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur, according to a poll released yesterday that takes an in-depth look at Americans' religious beliefs

The study detailed Americans' deep and broad religiosity, finding that *92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit* -- including one in five of those who call themselves atheists. 
​Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com


So 92% of the population of the U.S. are stupid.

I'll need you to post a link to support that...thanks in advance.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Missourian said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the IQ-religiosity trend explains perfectly people like Alli, RGS, and Avatar
> ...



Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> So 92% of the population of the U.S. are stupid.
> 
> I'll need you to post a link to support that...thanks in advance.



You could look at the state of the nation- or scroll up the page


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


 

Nice try, but I'm not arguing that because a majority of people believe in God that it proves there is a God.

I am challenging your assertion that everyone who believes in God is stupid.

Good attempt at defection though.



Your stated hypothesis is 92% of the population is stupid and deserves to die.

It's your argument...make the best of it.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jul 12, 2009)

Actually, there's a significant distinction between being "stupid" and being less intelligent than the secular population on average.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Actually, there's a significant distinction between being "stupid" and being less intelligent than the secular population on average.


 


Sorry Agna, that's not JB's position.



JBeukema said:


> It's not surprising that you are unable to grasp such a simple concept, however; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that theists have low IQs as a rule and are generally stupid and uneducated.


 


JBeukema said:


> This is why we need your kind to die; you drag down the IQ of the human race and hold all of humanity back. You're like a fucking disease


----------



## Agnapostate (Jul 12, 2009)

That seems to be some of his standard bloated hyperbole. But the conclusion that can be drawn from the study into the intelligence differences between theists and atheists is that theists are _on average_ less intelligent.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> That seems to be some of his standard bloated *hyperbole*. But the conclusion that can be drawn from the study into the intelligence differences between theists and atheists is that theists are _on average_ less intelligent.


 

If I may take the liberty of translating "standard bloated hyperbole" to my _less intelligent_ vernacular of "completely full of crap" on this IQ tirade, then you and I are in complete agreement.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> But the conclusion that can be drawn from the study into the intelligence differences between theists and atheists is that theists are _on average_ less intelligent.







JBeukema said:


> _ as a rule...__ generally _


 

as I said


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> That seems to be some of his standard bloated hyperbole. But the conclusion that can be drawn from the study into the intelligence differences between theists and atheists is that theists are _on average_ less intelligent.


most atheists, begin their lives as theists...at least all the ones that I have known....

I don't know where that fits in to the picture though...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> most atheists, begin their lives as theists...at least all the ones that I have known....
> 
> .


None is born a theist; it is a learned belief. Everyone is born an atheist.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jul 12, 2009)

Everyone is born a _weak atheist_, to clarify, in the sense of the literal meaning of the word "atheism" being "without theism," because no capacity to understand the nature of theism exists at birth. _Strong atheism_ is the best-known form and involves elements of anti-theism.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Everyone is born an agnostic atheist, yes. I thought would be obvious fro the context


----------



## eagleseven (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Of course, the IQ-religiosity trend explains perfectly people like Alli, RGS, and Avatar


The sources you cited demonstrate a 5-point IQ difference between atheists and traditional Christians...an insignificant difference, at best.

Enough with this tired line of argument based upon insignificant data...


----------



## Gunny (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > most atheists, begin their lives as theists...at least all the ones that I have known....
> ...



Neither is anyone born a God-hater; which, is not atheist.  It's a learned belief.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Noone is born disliking anyone



> which, is not atheist.



All in all, if you have any point, I don't see it

Of course one cannot be a 'god-hater' unless one is a theist


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2009)

gunny said:


> jbeukema said:
> 
> 
> > care4all said:
> ...



touche'


----------



## Gunny (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Of course you don't see it, but it's YOU nonetheless.  You spend more time trying to disprove God and insulting theists than I've ever seen most theists spend trying to promote their religion.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't care about disproving fairy tales. I do, however, care about the future of the human race, not that I'd expect those who worship malevolence and sadomasochism to understand or care about humanity.


----------



## eagleseven (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I don't care about disproving fairy tales. I do, however, care about the future of the human race, not that I'd expect those who worship malevolence and sadomasochism to understand or care about humanity.


I'm happy to inform you that your tireless work against the theists here on this forum has saved the future of the human race.

Congratulations on your achievement.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I don't care about disproving fairy tales. I do, however, care about the future of the human race, not that I'd expect those who worship malevolence and sadomasochism to understand or care about humanity.



Exactly who does the world need saving from?

The people who believe that we should be honest, charitable, kind, lift people to a higher way of life, and learn all there is to learn; who do this through persuasion, long suffering, gentleness. etc.

Or 

The people who thinks tht 92% of the population needs to be killed because they are so "stupid" that they believe in God and disagree with you.

Who is the real threat to humanity here?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> The people who believe that we should be honest, charitable, kind, lift people to a higher way of life, and learn all there is to learn;





That would be the humanists...



> who do this through persuasion







It has been demonstrated repeatedly what your kind is detrimental, immoral, and inherently evil by your own standards. You worship an evil deity and oppose human progress and the wellbeing of the species.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > The people who believe that we should be honest, charitable, kind, lift people to a higher way of life, and learn all there is to learn;
> ...



In YOUR own little head and dreams...sure!

good morning JB


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 13, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care about disproving fairy tales. I do, however, care about the future of the human race, not that I'd expect those who worship malevolence and sadomasochism to understand or care about humanity.
> ...



JB appears not to answer questions he finds inconvenient.


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 13, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I don't care about disproving fairy tales. I do, however, care about the future of the human race, not that I'd expect those who worship malevolence and sadomasochism to understand or care about humanity.



I wonder if that's bullshit, and attempt to deflect or just incredibly pompous.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jul 13, 2009)

Anyone who has witnessed the dramatic genius and growing girth of Marlon Brando knows the Universe must expand, then bet bald, babble and die.

The horror, the horror.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2009)

Online I've found humanists to be the most vile, vituperative posters on the net.

I don't think their inner fortitude is so great they can carry off their hatefulness in real person, or I would have noticed by now.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

i haven't found humanists to be that way allie, they are more like john Lennon peaceniks....or those who know not the end result of what they wish for...  they don't have the vitrol towards all religious, it's more like their approach is joining all religions....which is still offensive to many denominations...

i would NOT put JB there in with them...as said, at least from what i have seen...

he's more like a whirlwind, spinning and spinning and spinning....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2009)

I love how y'all keep talkin' shit, yet you've never been able to refute anything the Reverend has said or demonstrate that anything I have said is false in any way.


----------



## eagleseven (Jul 13, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I love how y'all keep talkin' shit, yet you've never been able to refute anything the Reverend has said or demonstrate that anything I have said is false in any way.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW02XmBGQw&feature=related]YouTube - Yes! I am invincible![/ame]


----------



## Yukon (Jul 13, 2009)

Gunny said:


> "...to disprove God and insulting theists than I've ever seen most theists spend trying to promote their religion."



You are a very sad individual Gunny. Just because someone questions religion doenst mean they are promoting a religion. Also, the use of a word (theist) that most people do not understand is rerally just an example plain old bad manners. I'm not at all impressed.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > "...to disprove God and insulting theists than I've ever seen most theists spend trying to promote their religion."
> ...



Really ... I might agree except I never said any such thing; which, would make your entire statement irrelevant.  

But DO try again, junior.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 17, 2009)

I think Yukon is the only one who fails to understand the meaning of 'theist'


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 17, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yours sounds like an irrational belief to me. SUPPORT your claims. I will provide lots of support to show your belief as stated is so far from the factual truth its hilarious.

Its interesting how science was once thought by so many,  that it would prove religion to be false, yet in fact it has done just the opposite


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 17, 2009)

LuvRPgrl said:


> yet in fact it has done just the opposite


Do demonstrate just which religion science has shown to be true and how.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> You are a very sad individual Gunny. Just because someone questions religion doenst mean they are promoting a religion. Also, the use of a word (theist) that most people do not understand is rerally just an example plain old bad manners. I'm not at all impressed.



What man or woman conversant in religious discussion and the English language doesn't know what "thiest" means?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 17, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I think Yukon is the only one who fails to understand the meaning of 'theist'



For once, I whole heartedly concur.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 17, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Do demonstrate just which religion science has shown to be true and how.



You just cant comprehend there are more ways then science to know things. I know you are an intelligent man, but you really should stop limiting yourself.

Let me ask something. Do you love your mother?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 17, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Do demonstrate just which religion science has shown to be true and how.
> ...


In other words, you can't because your statement was a lie. Now stop weaseling around and either demonstrate or retract


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 17, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > You are a very sad individual Gunny. Just because someone questions religion doenst mean they are promoting a religion. Also, the use of a word (theist) that most people do not understand is rerally just an example plain old bad manners. I'm not at all impressed.
> ...



Please don't use big words like "conversant".  Where are your manners?


----------



## Ralph (Jul 17, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Defending Christianity without pointing out the fact of the self professed exclusive nature  thereof...is somewhat difficult, thus anyone that bends the doctrine presented by the Holy Scriptures to simply be accepted by the majority of society in the accolade thereof are not true Christians.  Indeed it is pointed out very clearly in the Holy Scriptures that ALL SCRIPTURE is a product of DIVINE inspiration....not certain, cherry picked, portions thereof.   It is scripture that establishes PERFECT DOCTRINE for the man of God, and is profitable for correction, re-proof and guiding man into ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Therefore it is very clear that Christianity is the ONLY TRUE religion that leads to fellowship with Father God....and eternal salvation for the spirit of man...which is made in the very image of God Almighty -- Genesis 1:26.  

The words of the Christ Himself point out the Biblical Truth and exclusive nature of Christianity, " I am the way, the truth,  and the life....NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6.   Later the Apostle Peter appeared before the Jewish Council and proclaimed that salvation is offered ONLY THROUGH JESUS. -- Acts 4:12.  Thus, both Jesus and Peter made it very clear and spoke quite unambiguously in declaring the Godly inspired doctrine.....IF SOMEONE WANTS TO KNOW THE 'TRUTH'....THE GOSPEL TRUTH about the way to eternal life, he/she will only learn the truth through the teachings of the Christ, "Who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom." -- 2 Tim. 4:1.   It could not be more clear or transparent....."there is no other name under heaven...by which we MUST be saved." -- Acts 4:12.   This in not an option...one does not choose a religion as if one is shopping at the local grocery store...and picks the one that best suits the individual,  quite to the contrary....one is to mold HIS/HER life around the truth revealed in the Word of God....not attempt to mold any religion they may chose around their chosen way of life. 

You can call simply presenting the TRUTH as recorded in the HOLY SCRIPTURES zealotry if you wish.....but the true Christian is to live by a simple rule when it comes to such...And I very much concur ...when anyone attempts to silence one from simply presenting the truth as is Recorded....via Book, Chapter, and Verse....one must consider the example established by the true messengers of the Christ, "Saying (the Jewish Council), did not we strictly command you that ye should not teach in this name (the NAME OF JESUS)? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intended to bring this man's blood upon us.  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said.....WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MAN."  -- Acts 5:28-29. 

You will find nothing that I present to be of a condescending or derogatory nature to anyone.....but you will see me defend the truth  that is written in the Holy Scriptures.....simply by correcting anyone that attempts to inject personal opinion or traditional dogma into the actual content of record.   If it becomes a rules infraction to present the TRUTH.....then there is no REAL debate to be had.


----------



## eagleseven (Jul 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > "...to disprove God and insulting theists than I've ever seen most theists spend trying to promote their religion."
> ...


Who the hell doesn't know what _theist_ means? Using English isn't rude...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I never claimed science can prove religion. You have.

I am arguing that science isnt the only way to learn things.

And that's why Im saying you cant comprehend. Because you wont accept that.

Now please answer my question. Do you love your mother?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 18, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Particularly if in the same paragraph as "thiest" and "doenst" and


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Particularly if in the same paragraph as "thiest" and "doenst" and


----------



## Yukon (Jul 18, 2009)

Trying to impress me are you? Sorry my children for you have failed.......again !


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Yukon, they let you back?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



science has not proven any "one" religion true, but it certainly has proven that micro evolution on its own, without an intelligent creator, designer, is impossible.

Go study the single cell, universally accepted by scientists as the simplist form of life, the beginning of life on earth, and see how complicated it is, how so many "molecules, chemicals" whatever, within it interact, and the simple truth comes out, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have evolved on its own. SCIENCE has proven that. LOGIC allows us to conclude a CREATOR is the only other alternative.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

LuvRPgrl said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



right.. which is why it's been observed and documented 



> Go study the single cell, universally accepted by scientists as the simplist form of life,




 t





> he beginning of life on earth, and see how complicated it is,



Not very, depending on just what you're referring to



> how so many "molecules, chemicals" whatever,



Clearly, you are well educated and informed regarding this subject 



> it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have evolved on its own.



You really should stop mistaking Kent Hovind for a scientist..


> SCIENCE has proven that.



right.... and the banana was designed by god to fit the human hand 



> LOGIC allows us to conclude a CREATOR is the only other alternative.



wow... if you really belief that, you should be strerilized. Try going to Google Scholar instead of answers in genesis; your moronic assertions have been refuted countless times across this forum alone , and you're too retarded to waste any time reposting it.


----------



## Ralph (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> LuvRPgrl said:
> 
> 
> > yet in fact it has done just the opposite
> ...



Christianity is confirmed by both Science and History wherever such is  addressed by the Scriptures.    The "ONLY" religion on the face of the that does not fall flat on its face when placed to the test.  As there are many OBJECTIVE EVIDENCES found in the Holy Scriptures to support the faith of Christianity.  As the WORD is where the faith of Christianity is BORN and then Built upon (Romans 10:17)....and this FAITH is by all means......is NOT BLIND.   Even the scriptures admonish the faithful to PROVE ALL THINGS....thus, having BLIND FAITH in nothing ( 1 Thess 5:21) and the Christian is informed NOT TO BELIEVE everything they hear...but to place it to the test...with that test being the TRUTH. ( 1 John 4:1).   

Correlation of the Bible and Science


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Ralph said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > LuvRPgrl said:
> ...



Demonstrate how science says there was grass before the sun existed. Demonstrate, scientifically that YHWH exists. Demonstrate how the Earth rests on pillars- oh wait, it doesn't.



> st.  As there are many OBJECTIVE EVIDENCES found in the Holy Scriptures to support the faith of Christianity.



You cannot prove a religion using its own mythologies if your claim is that science has proven it true


> As the WORD is where the faith of Christianity is BORN and then Built upon (Romans 10:17)



absolutely meaningless



> ....and this FAITH is by all means......is NOT BLIND.


Yes it is, or it would not be called 'faith' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






> Even the scriptures admonish the faithful to PROVE ALL THINGS....thus, having BLIND FAITH in nothing ( 1 Thess 5:21) and the Christian is informed NOT TO BELIEVE everything they hear...



Like claims in the bible?

You've wasted a lot of my time for demonstrating aboslutely nothing to support your claims


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



*Genesis 1
The Beginning
 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.*

The heavens and the earth includes the Sun, silly?  It includes the entire universe and some!    includes The Big Bang....even....

that is if this theory does turn out to be true, which i believe it will stand the test of time.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> *Genesis 1
> The Beginning
> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.*
> 
> The heavens and the earth includes the Sun, silly?  It includes the entire universe and some!



Wrong, you incompetent, mentally retarded liar.

 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 
 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 T*he land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit* with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning*the third day*. 
 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 *God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.* 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 
that is if this theory does turn out to be true, which i believe it will stand the test of time. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning*the fourth day.* [/quote]


Learn your own damned holy book before you try to act like you know what you're talking about.


It clearly states that there were plants on Earth before the sun, moon, and other stars (which it fails to realize the sun is among,which was one of the reasons the church defended the heliocentric model) ever existed

Thank you once again for demonstrating that Christians are stupid and know nothing about the bible or cosmetology.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

> 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 *And there was evening, and there was morning*&#8212;the third day.



reading comprehension problems JB.....

It says right there that there was ALREADY, *evening and morning* jb?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Which it says existed before the sun was even made- you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself


----------



## eagleseven (Jul 18, 2009)

You guys do realize that there are _*two creation stories*_ in the Bible? And they contradict eachother?

_Story #1 (Genesis 1:1-3)_

_Day 1:_ heavens, earth, light, day and night.
_Day 2:_ the "dome" (sky) that separates the waters below (on earth) from the waters above the sky.
_Day 3:_ dry land and vegetation.
_Day 4:_ stars, moon, sun.
_Day 5:_ water creatures and birds.
_Day 6:_ land animals; humankind (both male and female). The number of human beings created is not specified. Also, God here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no prohibitions.
_Day 7_: God rested, and blessed this day.


_Story #2 (Genesis 4-25)_

*earth and heavens; no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground
from dust, man was created (not woman yet)
*garden of Eden -- man is put here; garden includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
*God tells man to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (note that Woman has not entered the scene yet! Man is alone).
*God notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a helper and partner, so He first creates animals and birds and Man names them. But still there was no helper as partner.
*God makes Man fall asleep, pulls out a rib, and makes Woman.
*The story of original sin then ensues.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Which it says existed before the sun was even made- you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself



I can only presume that the description under the fourth day, it stabilized the sun and the moons, planets and the stars in to their positions now in relation to the earth, and our close to 24 hour rotation days, but I am uncertain?  

We already know the universe was created, that was the description under day 1, we also know the sun was created the same time as   the earth...at least that is what I have viewed on different science documentaries...  so those 2 coincide.

care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Which it says existed before the sun was even made- you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself
> ...



The only logical conclusion is that the story's not true, but you're too scared to face that reality




> that the description under the fourth day, it stabilized the sun and the moons, planets and the stars in to their positions now in relation to the earth, and our close to 24 hour rotation days, but I am uncertain?




What's not hat it says. Such heresies are teachings of the devil and you will; go to hell



> We already know the universe was created, that was the description under day 1,



... and they wonder why I have no respect for you idiots



> we also know the sun was created the same time as   the earth...



That's not what your bible says



> at least that is what I have viewed on different science documentaries...



So now you admit that science has proven the bible wrong- we're making progress


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Sorry, you LOSE, it specifically states the heavens(and all that's in it) was created at the same time.

there was day and evening ALREADY, which the Bible states several times before the description in day 4, which speaks about attaching us to the ''greater light of the day, and the lesser but still great, light of the night'', (our sun and moon is presumed), along with the stars in a specific manner, a stable manner... in a way which we would be able to use the sky for our recognition of seasons, and harvests, and the likes....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Sorry, you LOSE, it specifically states the heavens(and all that's in it) was created at the same time.


Fail4All

It says no such thing. First it says that god created heavens ans earth- then it gives the details of how it occurs over six days, with the Earth and plants coming before the sun. Reading comprehension was clearly not your strongest subject in school- or perhaps it was, if you're as stupid as you seem.


> there was day and evening ALREADY, which the Bible states several times before the description in day 4,


Which cannot exist without the sun being in existence- yet it says the sun is made later. One chapter in, and your book has refuted and debunked itself. That's why stupid people believe while smart people realize it's a bunch of moronic fairy tales. Your ignorance is astounding,


> which speaks about attaching us to the ''greater light of the day, and the lesser but still great, light of the night'', (our sun and moon is presumed)



Look into some elementary science- without the sun already being in its position in relation to the Earth, and the earth spinning, there would be do morning and evening. Let me guess- it refers to the start and end of the creation period on each day  Of course,l there's no day without the sun  The fact remains that you cannot have plants on Earth before the sun exists- you cannot spin this in any way to save ir.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you LOSE, it specifically states the heavens(and all that's in it) was created at the same time.
> ...



NOOOOOOOOO, YOU are the one trying to make it say, something it CLEARLY did NOT say.

It cleary states the earth and the heavens were created at once...that includes all that is within the universe, (i presume this is all matter and anti matter)

Then it goes on to talk about the evolution of earth and its relation to the other matter, in the simplest of terms....the position and stablization of the sun, moon, stars and the progression of such in relation to the earth.

thus far, you have done nothing but prove those passages to be true...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

right.. if they're all made at once, why does it give the order in which they're created? 

You cannot have grass before the sun


Than you for once again highlighting the fact that Christianity is believed only by the mentally retarded


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> right.. if they're all made at once, why does it give the order in which they're created?
> 
> You cannot have grass before the sun
> 
> ...



The light was there already, it says so....you can't make up your own story just to please yourself...

the part about the sun and moon and stars is in regard to how the Earth finally became associated with them, with the 24 hour days we have today....

during our beginnings, alot happened before we got in to this position we and the other planets are in today....we were continually bombarded and pushed around, all the planets were and there is visible evidence and physical evidence of such...

ARE YOU DENYING this?

Do you think we always spun at the same speed we are today?  Do you think the other planets haven't been bombarded as well which affected their positions and spin? 

 HELLO? Anybody home?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> you can't make up your own story just to please yourself...



oh, the irony..



> The light was there already, it says so....



You said that was TBB; are you recanting that claim, or are yuou just confused? It also says the sun came later- were did the light come from, that it came from a single direction?


> the part about the sun and moon and stars is in regard to how the Earth finally became associated with them, with the 24 hour days we have today....



That is not what it says. It says that they they were *made* on day four. You can't just make up your own storyto please yourself when your fairy tales fall apart 



> during our beginnings, alot happened before we got in to this position we and the other planets are in today....



Your evidence? Let me guess- now you want to cast aside your rehashings and go back to the original version of the story in Sumeria? 



> we were continually bombarded and pushed around, all the planets were and there is visible evidence and physical evidence of such...



Do present this evidence; if you can demonstrate any such thing, you're liable to get a nobel prize for disproving ery model that makes sense or fits the evidence



> Do you think we always spun at the same speed we are today


Irrelevant




> HELLO? Anybody home?


Not in your head, evidently 

I noticed that even your fellow retards have abandoned you and won't try to defend their assertions


----------



## Yukon (Jul 20, 2009)

The earth is flat.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The earth is flat.




Can't they limit your damn account so you can't post outside the Flame zone where you belong?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > you can't make up your own story just to please yourself...
> ...



There obviously was "light" after the big bang, 14 billion years ago...earth was there, our other planets were present after the Big bang....it just took a bit before our galaxy was formed....

...about 5 billion years ago, our milky way galaxy was formed....and after that the planets evolved in to where they are positioned in distance today around the sun...

I don't see anything in Genesis1, that would preclude one from not accepting such science due to conflicting circumstance.

And good morning JB.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 20, 2009)

Now, thoroughly debunked, she no longer tries to even spin her delusion, but merely shuts off her brain


and you wonder why I have no respect for your kind


----------



## Care4all (Jul 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Now, thoroughly debunked, she no longer tries to even spin her delusion, but merely shuts off her brain
> 
> 
> and you wonder why I have no respect for your kind



Is there a sweet person somewhere inside your shell, or are you this miserable in real life too?  Just wondering....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 20, 2009)

Who said I was miserable? Now you're just projecting.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Who said I was miserable? Now you're just projecting.



you're not?  just seemed like anyone as narrow minded as you, with vitriol that would give the best sour puss a run for their money,  would be miserable.....

hmmmm, maybe i was wrong...but i don't think so....?  

care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 20, 2009)

right.. now stop evading matters with your pathetic personal attacks and commentaries on your fantasies about JB and either address the points made ir stfu.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> right.. now stop evading matters with your pathetic personal attacks and commentaries on your fantasies about JB and either address the points made ir stfu.



ahhhhhhhhhhh, but it was THEE JB who threw out the attacks to evade answering anything....on the other hand, i have addressed all of your ridiculous posts, and for what?  for you to sling mud and names?

i suppose your mama never taught you manners and you never took a debate class in school, but as an adult, you can't keep making excuses....you should try to grow up a bit...maybe your opinion would then have some weight?

care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 20, 2009)

You have addressed nothing. Rather, you have evaded the matter and changed your position several times in order to avoid facing the reality that Genesis 1 contradicts itself and established realities regarding the nature and history of the universe.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 21, 2009)

So, you are saying the the evolution of a single cell, from non living matter,  molecules, atoms, chemicals, floating together and "miraculously" coming to life, has been observed and documented???   Please tell me when and where, and that little cuckoo icon you inserted, just might mean something. 

The rest of your post will go ignored until you can prove that the single cell could come to life on its own, and that it has been observed and documented.




JBeukema said:


> LuvRPgrl said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 21, 2009)

You really get awfully worked up over this dont you? Tends to indicate a lack of faith in your own statements, beliefs.

Well, well, well, you have gone back and read the Bible in its original language?

Its quite obvious the interpetations and original writings are lacking in our ability to interpet exactly what was meant.

Uhhhh, DUDE, it says to let the plants grow under the "sky",,,how could there be a sky if there is no light, no sun, no stars, etc. etc.   I mean,  DUHHHHHHHH DUDE, if someone was going to "make this stuff up" originally, dont you think they would do a better job of lieing?

You obviously arent interested in a rational discussion and finding truth on the matter.



JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > *Genesis 1
> ...




Learn your own damned holy book before you try to act like you know what you're talking about.


It clearly states that there were plants on Earth before the sun, moon, and other stars (which it fails to realize the sun is among,which was one of the reasons the church defended the heliocentric model) ever existed

Thank you once again for demonstrating that Christians are stupid and know nothing about the bible or cosmetology.[/QUOTE]


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> right.. if they're all made at once, why does it give the order in which they're created?
> 
> You cannot have grass before the sun
> 
> ...



DOes that list start with Sir Isaac Newton????

You know, if you care to read the test of the Bible in honesty and to TRULY try to understand it, and determine if it true or not, you would have to start with admitting we are not reading it in its original text, language and that it had to be written to people who had very rudementary knowledge of science and therefore it would be difficult to explain no matter what.

Do you think you can explain calculus to kindergardeners?

The point of Genesis is not a SCIENCE lecture to mankind, but rahter a basic description of how God did everything and why.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

LuvRPgrl said:


> So, you are saying the the evolution of a single cell, from non living matter,  molecules, atoms, chemicals, floating together and "miraculously" coming to life...


You're a fucking idiot, which explains why you're a theist. Get a dictionary.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You have addressed nothing. Rather, you have evaded the matter and changed your position several times in order to avoid facing the reality that Genesis 1 contradicts itself and established realities regarding the nature and history of the universe.



Here's my simple position...

Science has not ruled that the progression spoken in Genesis1 is not true.  I am amazed that this kind of information was even known to people over 3-4000 years ago.

It speaks of our galaxy being formed, with evening and morning...(the sun being the center), otherwise there would be no evening and morning...so all the planets were already getting their light from the sun.... churches and religions bastardized this over the millenniums and twisted the meaning, or from pure misunderstanding of gnensis twisted the meaning, or out of arrogance twisted the meaning in to thinking the sun revolved around the earth....THE BIBLE NEVER STATED SUCH.

I can understand your concern on it saying plant life began before we got the sun and the moon...

but I do NOT read it in the same manner...

I read it that we already had the sun, (or there would not have been several mentions in earlier passages that there was evening and morning, day and night), and the passage speaking specifically about the sun and the moon with their light and the stars affixed in a position to give us the power to predict our seasons as the position we finally ended up from distance and axis tilt, to the sun.....giving us the STABLE 24 hour days and nights that are known to us now with the stars in their position to us and the sun, we have now.

Plant life could have had the light needed from the sun to begin, before we ended up with the 24 hour days and nights we have now with our relationship to the sun and with our moon.

all I am saying is that this has NOT been ruled out yet....

Have you ever read and seen drawings of Uranus...it is spinning COMPLETELY on its side....it DID NOT begin it's spinning on its side....it was upright, like the rest of us, but it was hit by an asteroid or something and was PUSHED through the bombardment, from it's upright spin to spinning on its side....all the planets took a beating early on and were NOT in the positions or distance from the sun, as they are today or for the last billion years.

Are you saying this is not the case?

Care


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You have addressed nothing. Rather, you have evaded the matter and changed your position several times in order to avoid facing the reality that Genesis 1 contradicts itself and established realities regarding the nature and history of the universe.
> ...



Yes it has. PLants cannot survive before the Sun existed.


> It speaks of our galaxy being formed, with evening and morning...(the sun being the center), otherwise there would be no evening and morning...



Yet the sun is created later 






> I can understand your concern on it saying plant life began before we got the sun and the moon...
> 
> but I do NOT read it in the same manner...



Because you can't read it honestly


I





> read it that we already had the sun, (or there would not have been several mentions in earlier passages that there was evening and morning, day and night), and the passage speaking specifically about the sun and the moon with their light and the stars affixed in a position to give us the power to predict our seasons as the position we finally ended up from distance and axis tilt, to the sun.....giving us the STABLE 24 hour days and nights that are known to us now with the stars in their position to us and the sun, we have now.



So you hypothesize that the planets all existed, strewn about it no stable orbits, until God fixed them? 

Evidence?




> Have you ever read and seen drawings of Uranus...it is spinning COMPLETELY on its side....it DID NOT begin it's spinning on its side....




You have proof that it didn't?



> it was upright, like the rest of us,




That has not en established



> but it was hit by an asteroid or something and was PUSHED through the bombardment, from it's upright spin to spinning on its side....



that is a hypothesis only, and it has not been demonstrated



> all the planets took a beating early on and were NOT in the positions or distance from the sun, as they are today or for the last billion years.



Proof? Of course, ytou'e unwittingly arguing for Nibiru, the Annunaki, and Man being artificially created by aliens from another planet- but you probably don't even realize that


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 21, 2009)

JB ... there is one serious problem with your "plant before the sun" argument ... this is why religion is based on allegory and philosophy (I suppose you think philosophy isn't real either). Plant life also includes many single celled organisms, many of which can survive even in space.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

Are you always this stupid, or do you just play a retard on the internet?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



must be tough being so, so, so narrow minded!



> Tilt of Uranus
> 
> Written by Fraser Cain
> 
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Are you always this stupid, or do you just play a retard on the internet?



Are you a douchebag in real life to, or just play one online? Stick to the damned topic, I will not engage in your flame attempts and you know it. Point to one flaw in my point about some life being able to survive even in space ... just one ... go on and try it so I can prove how much a fool you are.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

There is no topic anymore. C4A tried to say that there was night and day before the sun existed and that all the plants on Earth survived before the sun existed.

In short, She took it on herself to highlight the mental retardation common among theists in general and christians in particular.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> There is no topic anymore. C4A tried to say that there was night and day before the sun existed and that all the plants on Earth survived before the sun existed.
> 
> In short, She took it on herself to highlight the mental retardation common among theists in general and christians in particular.



no, but go ahead and continue with your intellectual dishonesty!

there was night and day in our galaxy from the beginning, this does not mean we had the 24 hour days and the seasons we have now from our 23 degree tilt that we have now, when the solar system was forming....as with uranus, we could have been hit by a protoplanet that caused our 23 degree tilt and our distance and tilt IS WHAT GIVES US our favorable seasons.

this is how earth progressed and ended up, in that passage....WITH its tilt, with seasons, that could be tracked by affixed positions of the stars, sun, moon in relationship to the earth...

and yes, even before our galaxy was formed, i do believe there was light in the heavens....do you think there wasn't?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> no, but go ahead and continue with your intellectual dishonesty!
> 
> there was night and day in our galaxy from the beginning


... 








there is no night and day in the universe you twit, only on planets, as they rotate in their orbits around stars.


We already know you're a retard; you can stop posting evidence.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

and yes, I did say all the matter and anti matter in our universe evolved from the big bang....that is my understanding of it all and i stick by it until proven otherwise.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > no, but go ahead and continue with your intellectual dishonesty!
> ...



you are an idiot, and a liar....i said night and day in our galaxy and you changed galaxy to ''universe''.....  each planet has their own night and day....ours is 24 hours, uranus is 42 of our years of day and 42 of our years is their night....1 day, for them.

regardless, its not too hard to understand....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

There's no night and day in the _galaxy_, either. Only on each planet or other celestial body.  Trying to correct me only to make another retarded statement only shows how stupid you really are. Where'd the light come from for the first three days, before the sun was made?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

i said such jb, stop being a nimnod


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Where'd the light come from for the first three days, before the sun was made?





Care4all said:


> i said such jb, stop being a nimnod


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

the sun wasn't made the 4th day....it was there already, the earth and all planets etc in the solar system were formed 4.5 billion years ago....as i have said a hundred kazillion times!

The 4th day represents earth's positioning/relationship to the sun, with their tilt, with their moon...giving day and night as we know it and seasons as we know it and the constellations as we know them....

our solar system was ''formed'' ya know....?  this doesn't happen without evolution in that galaxy's formation.

the 4th day, represents what we know today as our 24 hour days/nights, seasons and years...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 21, 2009)

not what the bible says, you heretical spawn of satan


----------



## Care4all (Jul 21, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> not what the bible says, you heretical spawn of satan



hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!



I GIVE UP!  

YOU WIN, MY DEAR JB.

Care


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the sun wasn't made the 4th day....it was there already, the earth and all planets etc in the solar system were formed 4.5 billion years ago....as i have said a hundred kazillion times!
> 
> The 4th day represents earth's positioning/relationship to the sun, with their tilt, with their moon...giving day and night as we know it and seasons as we know it and the constellations as we know them....
> 
> ...



Why didn't god just make everything on the first day? He a little slow in the noggin? Or just lazy?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 24, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the sun wasn't made the 4th day....it was there already, the earth and all planets etc in the solar system were formed 4.5 billion years ago....as i have said a hundred kazillion times!
> ...



i dunno, i'm not God?  why do you care to know the answers to those questions?  They have never seemed important to me...not that the question is illogical....i'm not saying that...it just never seemed to matter in relationship to faith....

care


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So you just blindly believe, even if it's illogical?
What about dinosaur fossil that are older than 6000 years? That does't seem illogical as well?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 24, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...



You obviously have not read this entire lengthy thread or any post where I have spoken on this subject....I have NEVER proclaimed the earth is just 6000 years old.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So if the bible said the earth was made in 666 days, you'd say: sure! Of course it was!


----------



## Care4all (Jul 24, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...



no, not at all that type of person and I have never argued such...


----------



## BrokenAngel (Jul 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



The problem with fighting them Care, is that no matter what proof you offer your opinion is based on faith.  They will never except what you say as truth even in the view that it is truth to you and you aren't saying they have to take that as their own truth.

Gunny was brilliant when he made this thread and I love him for it.  The level of hostility that has spawned under any topic speaking on religion is rediculous.  I would almost give a thumbs up for the Religion and Ethics board to join the Flame Zone.  Lets face it, you place down your opinion on a topic and you get spammed for either being an idiot or trying to force your views on the rest of the world.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 24, 2009)

I just wanted to know why if someone writes a book, that certain people will take that as fact. Like I read somewhere else here: the bible didn't fall out of the sky after god dropped it down to us, it was written by men. I just find that curious why some people can believe it as fact, that's all.

"you get spammed for either being an idiot or trying to force your views on the rest of the world."

or both.


----------



## BrokenAngel (Jul 24, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> I just wanted to know why if someone writes a book, that certain people will take that as fact. Like I read somewhere else here: the bible didn't fall out of the sky after god dropped it down to us, it was written by men. I just find that curious why some people can believe it as fact, that's all.
> 
> "you get spammed for either being an idiot or trying to force your views on the rest of the world."
> 
> or both.



If I remember correctly, the Bible was written by the physical hand of man yes but it was said to be written by God THROUGH man.  Sounds about as hokey as those gold tablets the Book of Mormon is based on I know.. but if you haven't ever looked into it check out the numerical study of the Torah, Kabalah.  There are some fascinating studies on the Bible and Torah that are always worth reading, if for nothing else, just the chance to read something new.  ^_^


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 25, 2009)

Oh Gee! Jews could count back then, how fascinating.

"the Bible was written by the physical hand of man yes but it was said to be written by God THROUGH man"

So god is illiterate?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 25, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Oh Gee! Jews could count back then, how fascinating.
> 
> "the Bible was written by the physical hand of man yes but it was said to be written by God THROUGH man"
> 
> So god is illiterate?



Why don't you tell us WHAT you believe and why you believe it?  ....so we can turn the table and ask you a bunch of questions about it.... 

Care


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 25, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Oh Gee! Jews could count back then, how fascinating.
> 
> "the Bible was written by the physical hand of man yes but it was said to be written by God THROUGH man"
> 
> So god is illiterate?



How on earth can you conclude that? The Bible is pretty clear. Not something someone illiterate could write. If you cant understand it, it makes more sense to question your literacy that those who wrote it.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 25, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Gee! Jews could count back then, how fascinating.
> ...



Av, if god had to write it through men, then maybe he's illiterate because he has to dictate it to someone else. Pretty simple concept actually. Just like if you can't think, then you join a cult where they do it for you. Get it?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 25, 2009)

dictated, not read...


----------



## SW2SILVER (Jul 26, 2009)

Islam, Islam. It's insanity. Ever hear of a Jew or Christian  STRAPPING ON a explosive to kill innocent people in the name of the god of peace, love or all that bullshit? Enough of intellectual debates, Islam is just a thinly veiled mental illness. A mass delusion, at best. For nihilists without a clue. Allah Akbar ,my sweet ass. Allah sucks the cosmic wanger.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 26, 2009)

SW2SILVER said:


> Islam, Islam. It's insanity. Ever hear of a Jew or Christian  STRAPPING ON a explosive to kill innocent people in the name of the god of peace, love or all that bullshit? Enough of intellectual debates, Islam is just a thinly veiled mental illness. A mass delusion, at best. For nihilists without a clue. Allah Akbar ,my sweet ass. Allah sucks the cosmic wanger.


----------



## Yukon (Jul 27, 2009)

Christians in Germany worked to death some 6 million Jew people back in the 1930's and 40's. Americans murdered hundreds of thousands of Negro people in the 19th and 20th century. Is there a difference between them and Islamic extremists? I dont think so.


----------



## mskafka (Jul 27, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



It had something to do with religion, or else millions of Jews wouldn't have been persecuted or killed.  I would say that the Holocausts (one of the cornerstones of WWII) was at least loosely tied to religion....anti-semitism.


----------



## mskafka (Jul 27, 2009)

SW2SILVER said:


> Islam, Islam. It's insanity. Ever hear of a Jew or Christian  STRAPPING ON a explosive to kill innocent people in the name of the god of peace, love or all that bullshit? Enough of intellectual debates, Islam is just a thinly veiled mental illness. A mass delusion, at best. For nihilists without a clue. Allah Akbar ,my sweet ass. Allah sucks the cosmic wanger.



I've heard of people Christian people bombing, and burning abortion clinics.  If I remember correctly, the KKK has had close ties to Christianity.  

The Army of God posts "Homo News", on their webpage, as well as their intent to cause mayhem.  Lambs of Christ.  Westboro Baptist Church never misses a chance to offend.  It's only a matter of time because they cause a big uproar.  

I believe that not all Muslims are terrorists, and I know that not all terrorists are Muslims.  All religions have blood on their hands.  I think that bombing locations, no matter what they are, or what you believe.....or lying in wait for someone to emerge so that you can take them out with your assault rifle.....I don't know.....wouldn't you think that Christians who do these things, can be constituted as terrorists.  Everything that I've read about terrorism leads me to that conclusion.  Thoughts?


----------



## BrokenAngel (Jul 27, 2009)

mskafka said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Islam, Islam. It's insanity. Ever hear of a Jew or Christian  STRAPPING ON a explosive to kill innocent people in the name of the god of peace, love or all that bullshit? Enough of intellectual debates, Islam is just a thinly veiled mental illness. A mass delusion, at best. For nihilists without a clue. Allah Akbar ,my sweet ass. Allah sucks the cosmic wanger.
> ...



Terrorism :

ter&#8901;ror&#8901;ism&#8194;&#8194;/&#712;t&#603;r&#601;&#716;r&#618;z&#601;m/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun 
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. 

You were basically right on the nose.  Islam has hit the papers and web hard with recent occurances but that doesn't mean they are the only religion to deserve the title in some way or another.

That said Islam promotes terrorism where as Christianity doesn't.  Those who take Christianity to that extreme are nut jobs who should be burried next to Hoffa.  Where as the Qur'an is beautiful and sends an enticing message for the majority of its chapters.  The difference is that in Islam you are supposed to take the most recent word of Allah as your orders on how to live and conduct yourself.  The final chapter is the ONLY chapter that does not start out saying "In the name of Allah the gracious and merciful" but instead goes on to talk about slaughtering all those who oppose Islam and that anyone who will not convert should be either killed or will be second class citizens in what would become Islam's time of peace and love.  There are disturbing videos of 11 and 12 year old boys on Arab talk shows, saying they can't wait for their chance to kill the American infidels.

Yes the KKK has its roots in Christianity and yes there are jerks who would rather kill someone who "sins" than allow them the chance of possibly "corrupting" an innocent.  These are extremists who don't even use the teachings of Christ to support their claims but rather stand on the Old Testament, the books that are supposed to show us our past but that we somewhat ignore for the teachings of our Savior Jesus Christ.  The thing that makes Islam stand out a little more here is the fact that it literally does tell people to kill those who would stand in their way.  Slaughter men, women, children, anyone who does not believe or will not conform shall be either treated like dogs or done away with.. honestly.. you can't compare Christian extremists to what we call the Muslim extremists because the Muslims who aren't blowing things up seem to be the rebels within that religion.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 27, 2009)

BrokenAngel said:


> The difference is that in Islam you are supposed to take the most recent word of Allah as your orders on how to live and conduct yourself.


This is a misconception.

USMB - post1196239



BrokenAngel said:


> The final chapter is the ONLY chapter that does not start out saying "In the name of Allah the gracious and merciful" but instead goes on to talk about slaughtering all those who oppose Islam and that anyone who will not convert should be either killed or will be second class citizens in what would become Islam's time of peace and love.





This is supposed to be the last surah chronologically:

an-Nasr (110)

_In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful._

(&#1633 _When there comes the help of Allah and the victory,_

(&#1634 _And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,_

(&#1635 _Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning._​


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam, our favorite fake muslim, likes to copy and paste non-sensical gibberish. 
Dude. Your surah doesn't even make any sense. WAKE UP!!!!
Is that victory after jihad?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam's not really a muslim...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/81617-kalam-questions.html


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Kalam's not really a muslim...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/81617-kalam-questions.html



Having heterodox beliefs does not make me a non-Muslim. A Muslim is someone who accepts the basic creed of Islam:

_There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God._

I accept this, therefore I am a Muslim. The only people who disagree are radicals and tools like skeezer who are disappointed that I don't want to kill them.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Kalam, our favorite fake muslim, likes to copy and paste non-sensical gibberish.
> Dude. Your surah doesn't even make any sense. WAKE UP!!!!
> Is that victory after jihad?



Perhaps if you bothered reading the post I was responding to, you'd appear to be less of a dithering idiot.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 28, 2009)

Ok, so that passage makes no sense until I read another part. Nice logic. Next you're going to ask me to read the whole fucking book for anything to make sense. 
If I'm a dithering idiot, what's the arabic word(s) for "fake muslim", which would make you an expert in idiots.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

You said you do not believe in the personal god of Muhammed. Therefore you do not believe in Allah as defined in the Koran. Hence, you are not Muslim.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You said you do not believe in the personal god of Muhammed. Therefore you do not believe in Allah as defined in the Koran. Hence, you are not Muslim.



I said no such thing. The precise nature of the god of Muhammad is unknowable and the Qur'an was written in metaphors and allegories. I explained that. My religious beliefs are 100% congruous with the words of the Qur'an.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> If I'm a dithering idiot, what's the arabic word(s) for "fake muslim", which would make you an expert in idiots.


If you suspect someone of being a fake Muslim, tell them "_ana ahmaq_."


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm a dithering idiot, what's the arabic word(s) for "fake muslim", which would make you an expert in idiots.
> ...



What does that actually mean?

You have in the past expressed deistic beliefs that contradict the  Qu'ranic (indeed, Abrahamic) description of a personal god that meddles with the universe


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> What does that actually mean?


It's something that skeezer should tell people who he believes are fake Muslims. 



JBeukema said:


> You have in the past expressed deistic beliefs that contradict the  Qu'ranic (indeed, Abrahamic) description of a personal god that meddles with the universe


My conception of God may be at odds with some traditional Abrahamic and Islamic conceptions, but it is not at odds with the Qur'an.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > What does that actually mean?
> ...




Great non-answer 


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You have in the past expressed deistic beliefs that contradict the  Qu'ranic (indeed, Abrahamic) description of a personal god that meddles with the universe
> ...


The Qu
'ran rests on a personal god meddling with the universe to speak to a prophet, then ordering that prophet to spread the word and yadayadayada. Like the Torah, it is founded on racism, murder, warfare, and an evil personal god. If you still adhere to your deistic beliefs, then you must reject the Qu'ran as a 'holy' book. You did this before, when you implied that it is bvaluable only insomuch as one draws widsom from it- no differnt than aesop's fables, basically. Are you recanting your claims from our earlier discussion?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Great non-answer



Text and Web - Google Translate

&#1571;&#1606;&#1575; &#1571;&#1581;&#1605;&#1602;

_Ana ahmaq_



JBeukema said:


> The Qu'ran rests on a personal god meddling with the universe to speak to a prophet, then ordering that prophet to spread the word and yadayadayada. Like the Torah, it is founded on racism, murder, warfare, and an evil personal god.


Do not assume that the Qur'an is ethically similar to the Torah. There is no racism whatsoever in the Qur'an; homicide and warfare are permitted only in response to hostility as they should be.



JBeukema said:


> If you still adhere to your deistic beliefs, then you must reject the Qu'ran as a 'holy' book. You did this before, when you implied that it is bvaluable only insomuch as one draws widsom from it- no differnt than aesop's fables, basically. Are you recanting your claims from our earlier discussion?


The Qur'an is a source of guidance in most areas of public and private life. It is more meaningful and thoughtful than a collection of didactic stories, and is holy in the sense that it was inspired by its author's comprehension of the nature of God.


----------



## Wingit (Jul 28, 2009)

I have to reply to what you had in the cartoons.  I'm a pretty moderate person, but really can't see where abortion, gay rights, some art, debasing christian morals, etc. have improved the country.  By removing our religious roots we have also managed to remove most of the boundries of decency.  There was probably a comfortable compromise but as seems to be man's pattern, now just about anything is ok.  I think that is what happened to many other societies and cultures in history. We have lost touch with what is right and what makes us better people.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You said you do not believe in the personal god of Muhammed. Therefore you do not believe in Allah as defined in the Koran. Hence, you are not Muslim.
> ...



Quran is mubeen i.e. which makes things clear and manifest

"A. L. R. These are the Ayats of Revelation,- of a Qur'an that makes things clear (qur-anin mubeenin). " [15:1]

"We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear: (qur-anun mubeenun)" [36:69]

Quran is noor-e-mubeen i.e. a light which makes things clear and manifest

" O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest (nooran mubeenan)" [4:174]

Quran is kitaab-e-mubeen i.e. a book which makes things clear and manifest

" O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -(kitabun mubeenun) "[5:15]

"A.L.R. These are the symbols (or Verses) of the perspicuous Book. (alkitabi almubeenu)" [12:1]

"These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.(alkitabialmubeeni) " [26:2]

Is the Quran plain, clear, manifest and perspicous?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Great non-answer
> ...


Fool?



> Do not assume that the Qur'an is ethically similar to the Torah


Either it is or it is false. Pure and simple. No book that contradicts the word or law of god can be from god. Therefore, it is of the deceiver.

Wither it is ethically the same as the Torah, or it is of Satan. the only third option is that both are false.




> The Qur'an is a source of guidance in most areas of public and private life. It is more meaningful and thoughtful than a collection of didactic stories, and is holy in the sense that i*t was inspired by its author's comprehension of the nature of God*.


Not the word of god, given to Muhammad by the archangel (was it Michael or Gabriel?) and passed to his disciples?

 You reject the very foundation of the Koran, the very claim it makes to justify itself. Koranically, you are a deceiver- you are Satan, one of his servants, or deceived thereby. You are the very worst breed of Kafir.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Wingit said:


> , debasing christian morals,




christians have no morals


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

God cannot change
his law cannot change

Malachi 3:6
James 1:17
1 Samual 15:29
Numbers 23:19

Ezekiel24:14


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> God cannot change
> his law cannot change
> 
> Malachi 3:6
> ...


Unless God is confused

Exodus 32:10-14


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


That is what _ahmaq_ means. 



JBeukema said:


> > Do not assume that the Qur'an is ethically similar to the Torah
> 
> 
> Either it is or it is false. Pure and simple. No book that contradicts the word or law of god can be from god. Therefore, it is of the deceiver.


I'm not a Jew.



JBeukema said:


> Not the word of god, given to Muhammad by the archangel (was it Michael or Gabriel?) and passed to his disciples?



That was an allegory.



JBeukema said:


> You reject the very foundation of the Koran, the very claim it makes to justify itself. Koranically, you are a deceiver- you are Satan, one of his servants, or deceived thereby. You are the very worst breed of Kafir.





Don't be a fool, JB. I'm not a knee-jerk theist that you can manipulate through your thinly veiled attempts at trolling. Of course, you're already aware of this. Why you're suddenly choosing to act as if I'm a dogma junkie I'm not sure. Pick your battles more wisely.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Great non-answer
> ...



Except, of course, in the case of non-believers. Then it's not considered violence or even a crime to murder and rape them if they choose not to convert and grovel at the feet of the mighty conquerors.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> I'm not a Jew.



The Quran rests on the Torah benig correct. It claims to be from the same deity.




> That was an allegory.


That's not what it says. Given your assumption, then nothing can be assumed to mean in the Qu'ran what it claims to say.




> Don't be a fool, JB. I'm not a knee-jerk theist that you can manipulate through your thinly veiled attempts at trolling



It's not trolling. it's reason, You are not a muslim. In rejecting Muslim delusions, you are4 wise. INn failing to follow the reasoning, you are naive.

You are no muslim, for you reject the Qu'ran's claims regarding its nature.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Except, of course, in the case of non-believers. Then it's not considered violence or even a crime to murder


Verse?



AllieBaba said:


> and rape


Verse? 



AllieBaba said:


> them if they choose not to convert and grovel at the feet of the mighty conquerors.



If that were the case, the Qur'an _would_ be ethically similar to the Torah. Thanks for playing, Babble.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> The Quran rests on the Torah benig correct. It claims to be from the same deity.


It also rests on the Torah being corrupt and unfit. 



JBeukema said:


> That's not what it says. Given your assumption, then nothing can be assumed to mean in the Qu'ran what it claims to say.


It can be assumed that the stories in the Qur'an (those of Noah, Moses, the revelation, etc.) are allegories. Direct commandments can be taken at face value. 



JBeukema said:


> It's not trolling. it's reason, You are not a muslim. In rejecting Muslim delusions, you are4 wise. INn failing to follow the reasoning, you are naive.
> 
> You are no muslim, for you reject the Qu'ran's claims regarding its nature.


I interpret them non-traditionally. I am certainly heterodox. In the opinion of many, I am a heretic. But I am a Muslim regardless of whether or not I am treated as such according to the narrow definitions of foolish literalists. Mu'tazili Islam was endorsed by the early caliphate and it was not until later that foolishness began to take hold and become mainstream. 

Mu'tazili - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It isn't as if what I'm doing is unprecedented. It is common within Islam, because the Qur'an is a text that clearly requires some degree of interpretation. Again, do not make the mistake of assuming that Islam is similar to Judaism and Christianity, especially as far as scriptural literalism is concerned.

Esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Quran rests on the Torah benig correct. It claims to be from the same deity.
> ...


Meaning that Gods is either not all-powerful or not all-loving- or both. Also meaning that the Qu'ran cannot be trusted, as it, too can be corrupted, and it was not written by the prophet himself, nor were there any in the cave to witness the word.



> It can be assumed that the stories in the Qur'an (those of Noah, Moses, the revelation, etc.) are allegories. Direct commandments can be taken at face value.



Merely because it fits your purpose? The word of god does not say that it is anything but truth.


> I interpret them non-traditionally. I am certainly heterodox.



You dop not interpret them at all, so much as you incorporate them into your own non-islamic views




> It isn't as if what I'm doing is unprecedented.



Appeal to tradition, following appeal to a flase (worldly) 'authority'[



> It is common within Islam, because the Qur'an is a text that clearly requires some degree of interpretation



If god is not clear, then he is not willing that all should understand or that his will be preserved.


> . Again, do not make the mistake of assuming that Islam is similar to Judaism and Christianity, especially as far as scriptural literalism is concerned.



It is nothing more than another jewish cult, just like christianity. All grew out of the same thing and share the same poisonous roots.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Meaning that Gods is either not all-powerful or not all-loving- or both.


So?



JBeukema said:


> Also meaning that the Qu'ran cannot be trusted, as it, too can be corrupted, and it was not written by the prophet himself, nor were there any in the cave to witness the word.


We have already discussed the scriptural integrity of the Qur'an and have established that it has not, and in all likelihood cannot, be altered. 



JBeukema said:


> Merely because it fits your purpose? The word of god does not say that it is anything but truth.


And? Shall I refer you to the same passage again?



JBeukema said:


> You dop not interpret them at all, so much as you incorporate them into your own non-islamic views


You have it backwards. I have incorporated philosophy that was not necessarily Islamic into my own Islamic views. 



JBeukema said:


> Appeal to tradition, following appeal to a flase (worldly) 'authority'


Meaningless.



JBeukema said:


> If god is not clear, then he is not willing that all should understand or that his will be preserved.


Yet we do and it has. 



JBeukema said:


> It is nothing more than another jewish cult, just like christianity. All grew out of the same thing and share the same poisonous roots.


That is categorically false.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Except, of course, in the case of non-believers. Then it's not considered violence or even a crime to murder
> ...



Except that's not the argument. I wasn't saying it wasn't ethically similar to the Torah. I said you were being dishonest when you said that murder and violence are spoken against in the Koran, as if that meant the Koran opposes the butchery of innocents.

The butchery, rape and violence against non-believers isn't considered to be murder or violence by the peace-loving followers of Islam. 

Thanks for playing, asshole.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Except that's not the argument. I wasn't saying it wasn't ethically similar to the Torah. I said you were being dishonest when you said that murder and violence are spoken against in the Koran, as if that meant the Koran opposes the butchery of innocents.
> 
> The butchery, rape and violence against non-believers isn't considered to be murder or violence by the peace-loving followers of Islam.
> 
> Thanks for playing, asshole.



From now on, Babble, you can assume that I won't waste my time responding to your posts unless you corroborate your claims with actual evidence. As usual, you have failed to do so. Buh-bye.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 28, 2009)

Kalam said:


> [q
> The Qur'an is a source of guidance in most areas of public and private life. It is more meaningful and thoughtful than a collection of didactic stories, and is holy in the sense that it was inspired by its author's comprehension of the nature of God.


Who wrote the Quran in your opinion?


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Who wrote the Quran in your opinion?



Islamic belief holds that the angel Gabriel spoke the Qur'an to the prophet Muhhamad and was ordered to recite (because he could not read or write). Muhammad later taught the Qur'an to the followers he gained shortly thereafter, who wrote these teachings on anything they could find, such as bark or leaves, or paper if available. After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr compiled these teachings to form the original Qur'an which was copied and spread by the Muslims.


----------



## DV8 (Jul 28, 2009)

Why couldn't Allah give Muhammed the ability to suddenly write?


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 28, 2009)

DV8 said:


> Why couldn't Allah give Muhammed the ability to suddenly write?



Why did God choose Moses?  Why did God have Moses deliver the 10 Commandments down the mountain?  Couldn't God have had the tablets float down?  So many questions.  Why did God create the duck-billed platypus?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



Muhammad via scribes.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

DV8 said:


> Why couldn't Allah give Muhammed the ability to suddenly write?



God does not interfere.


----------



## Samyaza (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DV8 said:
> 
> 
> > Why couldn't Allah give Muhammed the ability to suddenly write?
> ...



You just contradicted yourself. You said God interfered- that he interacted with the universe to give his word to his prophets. You can't have it both ways.Which is it?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Samyaza said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > DV8 said:
> ...



I said that? Where?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 29, 2009)

hahahaha


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam ana ahmaq.

Samy, don't worry about our favorite fake muslim kalam, he doesn't know shit about islam.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Kalam ana ahmaq.



&#1606;&#1593;&#1605;


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> he doesn't know shit about islam.



Yes, it isn't as if I devote a portion of every day to studying the Qur'an and Islamic religious texts.


----------



## tigerbob (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > he doesn't know shit about islam.
> ...



Some people watch a lot of porn yet are still lousy in the sack.  It's a cruel world.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > he doesn't know shit about islam.
> ...



Kinda like tiger says, if you're such a good student of islam, you'd know you not a real muslim. So keep studying I guess.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...


Gosh, skeezer, I guess I've missed the parts of the Qur'an demanding my support for 9/11 or the wanton slaughter of Israeli Jews. Those were your "criteria," weren't they? 

As I've said, tools like you are a dime a dozen. You find yourself unable to refute my contentions in an actual debate, so your recourse becomes claiming that I'm a "fake Muslim" because I'm not the cookie-cutter literalist hack you folks desperately want me to be. You know little about Islam, much less who is or isn't a Muslim.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...



Inaccurate analogy. I study the Qur'an, therefore I am familiar with Islam. That's more comparable to someone watching a lot of porn and being familiar with porn.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 29, 2009)

Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.

Just because you say you study it doesn't mean you understand it. Or even that you actually study it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.
> 
> Just because you say you study it doesn't mean you understand it. Or even that you actually study it.


hes confusing Noah and Lot


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.
> 
> Just because you say you study it doesn't mean you understand it. Or even that you actually study it.



If you have doubts regarding my knowledge of Islam, you're welcome to try and test it. Your attempts to do so generally end with me refuting some lame argument of yours and you quietly slipping away from the discussion; maybe this will turn out differently.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.
> ...




To his eternal embarassment. It happened about a year ago. I'm never going to let him forget it.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jul 29, 2009)

Hey Gunny can you delete flame jobs from my mormon thread?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.
> ...



No, my attempts usually score big, and result with you making some lame doublespeak commentary, which I ignore, as I've already made my point.

But go ahead and claim victory anyway. It's what extremists like to do. Lie about their ideology, and when they're shown up, pretend it's not happening...or what happened was something entirely different, and claim victory regardless.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> No, my attempts usually score big, and result with you making some lame doublespeak commentary, which I ignore, as I've already made my point.



1. I ask you to support your ridiculous claims with evidence from the Qur'an.
2. You run away.

This is because you are never able to. If you could, you would.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Astrikingfailure gives you a run for your money at moments, but you've pretty much got the market cornered as far as being a fool in religious discussions is concerned. At least he's capable of independent thought and following his own unique religious beliefs.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 29, 2009)

Was that another victorious post!

Allah is great indeed.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > he doesn't know shit about islam.
> ...


You devote a lot of time ignoring Islamic scripture. You know a lot about being a Mu&#703;tazilite,  Islam not so much.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yawn. Gaybiker proclaims himself an expert on religion as well, and is continually making idiotic mistakes. Like thinking Noah had sex with his daughters.
> ...


You know about being a Mu&#703;tazilite .Islam escapes you.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...


Mutazilah Islam is Qur'anic Islam, uncorrupted by nonsense from impure ahadith and other non-Qur'anic sources.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Was that another victorious post!
> 
> Allah is great indeed.



Were you hoping to make a point here or something?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...



You'll forgive me if I don't lend much weight to the opinions of a poster whose responses are cut and pasted from Wahhabi propaganda mills. My friend, I don't believe that you're a stupid person (as some of your friends here are,) but you're sadly mistaken if you believe you're in any position to tell me how much I know or do not know about Islam.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


ah, so your not sunni or shi'ia or wasabbi
or sufi

this is a sect i had not heard of

i watched an interesting show on the history channel about Ismal and discovered that the basic difference between sunni and shi'ia is the shi'ia pray to the Imams for intercession and the sunni do not 
kinda like the roman catholic/eastern orthodox vs protestent
i found it quite interesting


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


They are not 'Wahhabi propaganda mills" they are straight up scriptural guidance  that quote the scripture.

Traditions of this genre are innumerable. Reason in itself is enough proof that Allah, Glory be to Him, has made believers love faith and adorned it in their hearts. He has made them hate disbelief, corruption and disobedience. For a man may hate his son or his father or his brother for his opposition to the truth and his swaying back and forth to the path of Satan; and he may love a stranger to whom he has no connection, except the brotherhood of Islam. 

For all of this, it is incumbent that our love, affection and friendship be to those whom Allah has commanded us to love, just as it is necessary that our animosity, hatred and dissociation be from those whom Allah, Glory be to Him, has ordered us to dissociate from. 

As a result of this, our affection is for 'Ali and the Imams from his progeny, even though there was no preceding love for them; [this is] because the Qur'an, sunna, history and reason have left us no doubt regarding them. 
http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/ask_those_who_know/06.htm



Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on loving non-Muslims
"You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with and loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad- Peace and Blessings of Allah be Upon Him), even if they are their fathers or their sons or their kindred"
We are not saying to you curse them or pick up arms against them; however, it is obligatory upon you to abhor them for their disbelief and their denial of the Lord of the worlds and to hate the invalid and untruthful religion that they are practicing
Abhor Definition | Definition of Abhor at Dictionary.com
ab&#8901;hor&#8194; &#8194;/æb&#712;h&#596;r/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-hawr] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb (used with object), -horred, -hor&#8901;ring. to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.


. The Muslim should feel in his heart that he hates the kuffaar and the way they look and behave. This hatred will motivate him to avoid looking like them at all in the way he dresses or in other ways. Do you not see that a person who despises a people or tribe, or people from a certain country, will hate to dress like them, especially if they are poor
Islam Question and Answer - Is wearing jeans imitating the kuffaar?

But visiting kaafirs in order to have a good time with them is not permitted, because it is obligatory to hate them and shun them
Islam Question and Answer - Making friends with a kaafir woman


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> They are not 'Wahhabi propaganda mills" they are straight up scriptural guidance  that quote the scripture.



They are straight up nonsense. "Islam QA," for example, consists entirely of the opinions of one man. Anyone with the nerve to issue a fatwa calling my Ahmadiyya brothers _kafiruun _is a misguided extremist with no credibility whatsoever.

You like these sources and claim that they're accurate because they reinforce your hateful minsconceptions about Islam. They are, as mentioned, nothing but un-Qur'anic propaganda mills. Their accuracy and closeness to true Islam is of no consequence to you.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ah, so your not sunni or shi'ia or wasabbi
> or sufi
> 
> this is a sect i had not heard of
> ...



I haven't seen that yet - I'll look out for it. Islamic history and theological differences between different sects are subjects that interest me.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 29, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > They are not 'Wahhabi propaganda mills" they are straight up scriptural guidance  that quote the scripture.
> ...


They  represent mainstream Islamic thought.
There is nothing you can do to alter that fact.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> They  represent mainstream Islamic thought.


Source?



Mr.Fitnah said:


> There is nothing you can do to alter that fact.


Even if you were correct, something is not necessarily true or accurate simply because it is considered mainstream thought.

How ironic that your source of choice dismisses a group that has put forth a tremendous effort to share true Islam with the world.

The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > They  represent mainstream Islamic thought.
> ...


*The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement
presenting Islam as peaceful, tolerant, rational, inspiring.*
Dont they all try to present Islam as such , it is only when you look beneith the veneer  do you find the "real Islam" .
I believe you are a real muslim like Irshad Manji, one end of the jihad spectrum, trying to promote a false image of Islam to protect jihad.


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267: 
Narrated Abu Huraira: 

The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'. 

----------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268: 
Narrated Abu Huraira: 

Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit". 

----------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269: 
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: 

The Prophet said, "War is deceit."


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Even if you were correct, something is not necessarily true or accurate simply because it is considered mainstream thought.


Ijma


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 30, 2009)

Monotheism at its best!


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 30, 2009)

Question for our favorite fake muslim kalam: Have you ever debated with your muslim friends about how you think that israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace in Palestine? On land that was stolen from other muslims?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > They are not 'Wahhabi propaganda mills" they are straight up scriptural guidance  that quote the scripture.
> ...



14,389
Traffic Rank  4.7 min/dayAvg. Time on Site  1,533 Sites Linking In  
12-Mar-1997
Online Since  
Islam-qa.com traffic rank in other countries:
1,702Algeria
7,426Australia
1,314Bahrain
4,343Bangladesh
18,423Canada
1,241Egypt
13,952France
104,996Germany
29,714India
23,667Indonesia
26,088Iran
1,532Iraq
624Jordan
1,363Kuwait
773Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1,684Morocco
1,119Nigeria
2,121Oman
3,823Pakistan
464Saudi Arabia
5,875Sri Lanka
1,205Sudan
1,670Syrian Arab Republic
2,286Tunisia
2,088United Arab Emirates
14,625United Kingdom
57,871United States
3,267Yemen

islam-qa.com - Traffic Details from Alexa

muslim.org - Traffic Details from Alexa

Muslim.org users come from these countries:
27.3%United States
22.7%Pakistan
13.5%India
5.5%Indonesia
31.1%OTHER More
Muslim.org traffic rank in other countries:
286,272India
133,361Indonesia
46,437Pakistan
411,555United


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Question for our favorite fake muslim kalam: Have you ever debated with your muslim friends about how you think that israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace in Palestine? On land that was stolen from other muslims?



I support the existence of a single state that favors no one religion or ethnicity over the other. Most of my brothers that I've talked to tend to agree.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you were correct, something is not necessarily true or accurate simply because it is considered mainstream thought.
> ...



Consensus has obviously not been attained.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Traffic Rank



http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Monotheism at its best!



And dumbassery at its worst.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Traffic Rank
> ...



 The Islam Q&A is clearly in the mainstream of Islamic thought,  one of the most popular sites in Islamic states,muslim .org?
Ah not so much .


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Question for our favorite fake muslim kalam: Have you ever debated with your muslim friends about how you think that israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace in Palestine? On land that was stolen from other muslims?
> ...



So you band together with other fake muslims. Good. We wouldn't want you to get hurt. 

So if israel is never going to let your dream of one state where judaism wouldn't rule, you'll just say too bad for my palestinian brothers? And you call yourself a muslim? Shit, I'm probably more muslim than you and I think Mohammed was a deluded pedophile who copied jesus.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Certainly far more  consensus  than with  the mutz.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> So if israel is never going to let your dream of one state where judaism wouldn't rule, you'll just say too bad for my palestinian brothers?


No - as long as Israel continues to oppress the Palestinian people, attacks on Israeli military targets are fully justified. 



Ceasaro said:


> And you call yourself a muslim?


I call myself what I am. Why you insist on throwing a bitch-fit over this, I'm not sure.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> So you band together with other fake muslims. Good. We wouldn't want you to get hurt.



I suppose so, since ~90% of the world's Muslim population doesn't satisfy your criteria. 

By the way, I'm still waiting for those Qur'anic verses demanding my support for 9/11 and the wanton slaughter of Jews.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



That doesn't matter. Consensus with the Wahhabi heretics has not been attained, and will not be as long as there are brothers and sisters who hold true to the words of the Qur'an.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 30, 2009)

90% of muslims don't want israel destroyed? Or aren't happy about 9/11? Your fake muslim is showing again. You obviously know nothing about muslims. Why do you pretend?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> 90% of muslims don't want israel destroyed? Or aren't happy about 9/11? Your fake muslim is showing again. You obviously know nothing about muslims. Why do you pretend?



93% of Muslims condemn 9/11:

&#039;Politics, not piety&#039; dictate radicals in Muslim world: poll | TwoCircles.net

Depends on what you mean by Israel being "destroyed." I want to see Israel as it currently exists destroyed and replaced with a single, egalitarian government. 



Ceasaro said:


> Your fake muslim is showing again. You obviously know nothing about muslims.


The difference between us is that my positions are backed up by factual information, while yours are supported only by your preconceived notions. 



Ceasaro said:


> Why do you pretend?


Why do you troll?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Still waiting for your proof of me being a "fake Muslim," skeezer.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Are you calling the wahhabies kaffirs?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



No, I won't call anybody who claims to be a Muslim a kafir, regardless of how incorrect or backward their beliefs seem to be. I implied that Wahhabism is not Qur'anic Islam - that it is a deviant and heretical sect of Islam. Why?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


You would of course be incorrect in your implication .
Wahhabism  is merely fundamental scriptural Islam that follows the sunna of the "prophet' as prescribed in the Quran and the sunna as the Quran suggests. Never the less
I do not go to wahhabi .com for  any information.
I would  suggest this is not the correct place for you to straighten out the path of these billions of misunderstanders who disagree with you.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You would of course be incorrect in your implication .


In the opinion of an uneducated twit, perhaps, but there aren't any of those here, are there? 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Wahhabism  is merely fundamental scriptural Islam that follows the sunna of the "prophet' as prescribed in the Quran and the sunna as the Quran suggests.


Wahhabism is based on the un-Islamic actions and teachings of Ibn al-Wahhab, a heretic of the highest order. 

See my post and the linked articles here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/71167-saudis-order-40-lashes-for-elderly-woman-for-mingling-2.html#post1095192



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Never the less
> I do not go to wahhabi .com for  any information.


"Wahhabi" is derogatory; they do not use that term to describe themselves. Your sources, however, are mostly Wahhabi.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Never the lessI would  suggest this is not the correct place for you to straighten out the path of these billions of misunderstanders who disagree with you.


There are not billions of Wahhabis. There are not even billions of Muslims.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > You would of course be incorrect in your implication .
> ...


I dont speak for wahhabis I just offer an alternative  view of Islam than the one you  and the dozens of followers of your minor cult  posture.

Islam Question and Answer - Who are the Wahhaabis and what is their message?
snip

 Wahhaabism is not a new way or a new school of thought; rather it is a call to Tawheed and the revival of aspects of the religion that had been forgotten. What you have to do is to beware of those who warn you against the Wahhaabis, because they are warning you against following the truth and the early generation of this ummah. Applying the word Wahhaabis to those who adhere to correct belief and warning people against them is the way of the ignorant and biased. We ask Allaah to keep you safe and sound. 

snip
Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) called people to Tawheed and he wrote his famous book on that topic which is called Kitaab al-Tawheed. In this book he limited himself to quoting only the clear evidence from the verses of the Quraan and the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Commentaries on this book were written by his grandson Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Hasan and other scholars. Hence none of his opponents can refute this book or claim that his evidence is false.

Islam Question and Answer - Advice to those who do not recognize the Salafi scholars and call them Wahhaabis


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I dont speak for wahhabis


By linking to their opinions and injunctions, you implicitly support them and their warped message. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> I just offer an alternative  view of Islam than the one you  and the dozens of followers of your minor cult  posture.


We, the People of Unity and Justice, aren't alone in our recognition of Wahhab and his ilk as heretics. The sources I linked to in that post of mine were both non-Mu'tazili. Furthermore, we are not a cult. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Islam Question and Answer - Who are the Wahhaabis and what is their message?
> snip



You should read the information in the post I linked to. The Wahhabi's false beliefs and oppression of their brother Muslims qualify them as heretics of the highest order.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> You should read the information in the post I linked to. The Wahhabi's false beliefs and oppression of their brother Muslims qualify them as heretics of the highest order.


Perhaps your problem is with Islam itself.
We will not enterian the debate between  mainstream Islam and qiyas and the mutz cult.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Perhaps your problem is with Islam itself.


That makes no sense. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> We will not enterian the debate between  mainstream Islam and qiyas and the mutz cult.


You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.


I just  have no interest in  petty squabbles between traditional Islam and a defunct cult.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > You've discovered that it's one you can't win. Good - you're making progress.
> ...



Yet you dwell on the few differences there are ad nauseum. Get a life.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> e. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that.


Traditional scriptural Islam uses the Quran  and sunna which is what I use as a tool to reveal a widely held interpretation of Islam.
It carries intellectual force by using the example of the "prophet" and the Quran  to reveal Islam fully.


----------



## JenT (Jul 30, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I dont speak for wahhabis
> ...



The splintering of Islam is amazing.

"It's me against my brother"
"It's me and my brother against our cousin"
"It's me and my brother and my cousin against the stranger"

The west watches Islam fighting each other and don't feel threatened. But the moment the infidel gets entangled, suddenly all these splinter groups merge into one.

And we need to wake up to the very real danger.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

JenT said:


> The splintering of Islam is amazing.


The tension between Mu'tazili Islam and Wahhabi Islam is more pronounced than most sectarian differences, because the former represents the extreme of rationality and the latter the extremes of irrationality and injustice. I've gotten along fine with the overwhelming majority of Sunnis, Shi'ia, Ahmadis, and Sufis I've met. 



JenT said:


> "It's me against my brother"
> "It's me and my brother against our cousin"
> "It's me and my brother and my cousin against the stranger"
> 
> ...


Non-Muslims have no business interfering in our internal disputes. If you assist one group against another unrightfully, the second will perceive oppression on your part and retaliate accordingly.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > e. My problem is with the Wahhabis for deviating from true Islam while falsely accusing others of doing just that.
> ...



Scriptural Islam uses the Qur'an and traditions that are in complete accordance therewith. Most mainstream forms of Islam simply accept all reports from one scholar or another as legitimate without questioning their accuracy or their consistency with the Qur'anic message.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

The Quran contains no contradictions.

An example of the abrogation: there are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by this one single verse: 

9.5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. 

This doctrine is based on the Quran, where Allah allegedly says in Surah 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?

Also, in Surah 
16101. And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'ân, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allâh knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.
The Noble Quran : Surat 16

The Abrogator and the Abrogated 
In their attempt to polish Islam's image, Muslim activists usually quote the Meccan passages of the Quran that call for love, peace and patience. The deliberately hid the Medenan passages that call for killing, decapitating, and maiming. 

Muslim activists also fail to reveal to people in the West a major doctrine in Islam called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that when a recent verse in the Quran gives a contradictory view to another verse that preceded it (chronologically), the recent verse abrogates (cancels and replaces) the old verse and renders it null and void. 

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 30, 2009)

Thats all for today, Good night.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The Quran contains no contradictions.
> 
> An example of the abrogation:



Already refuted in an argument you have failed to address. 



Kalam said:


> There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, _al-Baqara_ and _al-Anfal_, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. _Al-Baqara_ in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:
> 
> That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (_al-Nahl_) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kalam (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Thats all for today, Good night.



I'm not surprised that you find copying and pasting refuted arguments to be mentally taxing.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Our favorite fake muslim kalam against the copy&paste king. Guys, get a room, you just brought gunny's thread to a complete halt. kalam, you seem pretty good at copy&paste yourself, maybe next time you could at least try to find a few verses that are relevant?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Already refuted in an argument you have failed to address.
> 
> ]


There are alternative opinions.,Yours fails to explain why muslims kill.


[al-Tawbah 9:5] 

He did not say, &#8220;if they pay the jizyah&#8221;. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

&#8220;Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger  (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued&#8221;

[al-Tawbah 9:29] 

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above. 

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): 

&#8220;And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]&#8221;

[al-Anfaal 8:39] 

&#8220;Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful&#8221;

[al-Tawbah 9:5] 

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). 

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. 

And Allaah is the Source of strength. 


Majmoo&#8217; Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li&#8217;l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/219

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/34770


----------



## JenT (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > The splintering of Islam is amazing.
> ...



So after Mohammed took up arms against the infidel and left the "method of Mohammed," after that method was used to almost dominate the whole world (did we learn anything? duh) and Muslims establish totalitarian law called Sharia based on the Quran, after all that blood and threats and sword-induced obedience, the CHRISTIAN nation USofA assists Israel to support democracy and freedom, and you cry foul?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There are alternative opinions.,Yours fails to explain why muslims kill.


The reasons for terrorism seem to be overwhelmingly political. Religion is simply used to invent false justifications for the atrocities committed by so-called Muslims. Abrogation is a false excuse invented by radicals and deviants in their efforts to turn Islam into a tool to further their petty political causes - no right-minded Muslim is foolish enough to believe that the Qur'an is imperfect and contains errors. Even if it did, it seems rather obvious that those errors would have been removed from it before it was compiled and standardized. The message of the Qur'an, then, is consistent throughout the book and must be interpreted in accordance with this fact.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

JenT said:


> So after Mohammed took up arms against the infidel and left the "method of Mohammed," after that method was used to almost dominate the whole world (did we learn anything? duh) and Muslims establish totalitarian law called Sharia based on the Quran, after all that blood and threats and sword-induced obedience, the CHRISTIAN nation USofA assists Israel to support democracy and freedom, and you cry foul?



Yes, Jen, I suppose that's how things play out in whatever fantasy land you live in.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> kalam, you seem pretty good at copy&paste yourself,



The difference being that most of what I copy and paste was written by me...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Islam is political.
It has its own laws,morals and economic theory (which included piracy).
The Quranic message is consistent, submit and surrender to the will of allah.
Allahs will is clear, only muslims are acceptable   all other choices are unacceptable.
According to Islam muslims have the devine right to oppress (transgress ) those who  choose wrongly.

2:193.  
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)  
The Noble Quran : Surat 2


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


 I'm not the one  practicing gheebah.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

kalam, how does it feel to know that every white person you encounter hates muslims? I know some white people will say that they like muslims, but I bet you anything no white person would ever shed a tear if you all blew yourselves up.
If you were a real muslim, you'd wipe your ass with your bare hand and not rely on an infidel's invention.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Me neither. My opinions are out in the open for anybody to read. I will - and have - said the same things to Wahhabis that I say about them here.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> kalam, how does it feel to know that every white person you encounter hates muslims?





You know the thoughts of every White person Kalam encounters?

I certainly hope (s)he knows no White Muslims


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > kalam, how does it feel to know that every white person you encounter hates muslims?
> ...



Sorry, except for grigorio, he's a muslim lover.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


So what would you call it?I guess it would technicality be called" buhtaan".


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > kalam, how does it feel to know that every white person you encounter hates muslims?
> ...


Put that clown on ignore.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Grigorio said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...


1) Is that like the ****** lovers who let blacks sit down on buses?
2) Am I a White male?
3) Do remember to capitalize the name


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> > Grigorio said:
> ...



I don't know, tell us how you feel.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> Grigorio said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...





Ceasaro said:


> Grigorio said:
> 
> 
> > Ceasaro said:
> ...




So, basically, yes, you* are* an ignorant bigot. Glad we could clear that up.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

and for the record... I feel hungry


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

No, but at least I can admit that I don't like muslims, don't like the way they look in their PJs and beards or their women in tents, don't like sharia law, don't like their obsessiveness with trying to convert the whole world to kissing carpets, don't like their smelly oil, don't like falafel or shish taouk, don't like fake muslims like kalam, and especially don't like fake infidels like you who pretend to like muslims.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Ceasaro said:


> No, but at [proceeds to prove him/herself an ignorant bigot]


...


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Why, for what reason do I have to like them or anyone? So if I don't love absolutely everyone in the world I'm an ignorant bigot?


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



That would imply that my criticisms are untrue. They are deeply rooted in fact.


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Deeply rooted in the fact that you're a fake muslim who knows shit about islam.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


I would say  that your criticism are fitnah.

snip
Ibn al-Araabi summed up the meanings of fitnah when he said: Fitnah means testing, fitnah means trial, fitnah means wealth, fitnah means children, fitnah means kufr, fitnah means differences of opinion among people, fitnah means burning with fire. (Lisaan al-Arab by Ibn Manzoor). 

Islam Question and Answer - Meanings of the word fitnah in the Qur&#8217;aan


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I would say  that your criticism are fitnah.



Improper application of the word. My criticisms are responses to the _fitnah_ brought about by Wahhabism.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I would say  that your criticism are fitnah.
> ...



You would still be wrong to do so. Condemnation is not warranted since they have scripture to base their opinions on.
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Making Peace between Disputing Muslims

Allah commands making peace between Muslims that fight each other,

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606; &#1591;&#1614;&#1570;&#1574;&#1616;&#1601;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1616; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1605;&#1615;&#1572;&#1618;&#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1602;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1571;&#1614;&#1589;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;&#1581;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1576;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1614;&#1575;]

(And if two parties among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both.) Therefore, Allah calls both opposing groups among Muslims, believers, although they are fighting each other. Al-Bukhari and other scholars relied on this Hadith as evidence that committing a sin does not nullify faith, no matter how major the sin is. This creed contradicts the creed of the Khawarij sect and those who accepted their idea, such as the Mu`tazilah sect. Al-Bukhari narrated that Al-Hasan said that Abu Bakrah said that the Messenger of Allah gave a speech on the Minbar while Al-Hasan bin `Ali was with him. He was repeatedly looking at Al-Hasan and then at the people; then said,

«&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1617;&#1614; &#1575;&#1576;&#1618;&#1606;&#1616;&#1610; &#1607;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575; &#1587;&#1614;&#1610;&#1617;&#1616;&#1583;&#1612; &#1608;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#1614; &#1578;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1571;&#1614;&#1606;&#1618; &#1610;&#1615;&#1589;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;&#1581;&#1614; &#1576;&#1616;&#1607;&#1616; &#1576;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1574;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1606;&#1616; &#1593;&#1614;&#1592;&#1616;&#1610;&#1605;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1606;&#1616; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1605;&#1615;&#1587;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;&#1605;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;»

(Verily, this son of mine is a Sayyid (chief or master), and may Allah make peace between two great groups of Muslims through him.) What the Prophet said, occurred. Al-Hasan brought peace between the people of Ash-Sham and `Iraq, after they fought tremendous wars and frightening battles. Allah's statement,

[&#1601;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606; &#1576;&#1614;&#1594;&#1614;&#1578;&#1618; &#1573;&#1616;&#1581;&#1618;&#1583;&#1614;&#1575;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1615;&#1582;&#1618;&#1585;&#1614;&#1609; &#1601;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1575;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1578;&#1616;&#1609; &#1578;&#1614;&#1576;&#1618;&#1594;&#1616;&#1609; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1617;&#1614;&#1609; &#1578;&#1614;&#1601;&#1616;&#1609;&#1569;&#1614; &#1573;&#1616;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1571;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1585;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1607;&#1616;]

(But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah.) means, until the rebellious group refers to the commands of Allah and His Messenger for judgement and they listen to and obey the truth. There is a Hadith in the Sahih in which Anas states that the Messenger of Allah said,

«&#1575;&#1606;&#1618;&#1589;&#1615;&#1585;&#1618; &#1571;&#1614;&#1582;&#1614;&#1575;&#1603;&#1614; &#1592;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1616;&#1605;&#1611;&#1575; &#1571;&#1614;&#1608;&#1618; &#1605;&#1614;&#1592;&#1618;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1605;&#1611;&#1575;»

(Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.) "I asked, `O Allah's Messenger! It is right that I help him if he is oppressed, but how should I help him if he is an oppressor' He said,

«&#1578;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1593;&#1615;&#1607;&#1615; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1592;&#1617;&#1615;&#1604;&#1618;&#1605;&#1616; &#1601;&#1614;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575;&#1603;&#1614; &#1606;&#1614;&#1589;&#1618;&#1585;&#1615;&#1603;&#1614; &#1573;&#1616;&#1610;&#1617;&#1614;&#1575;&#1607;»

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




One is not allowed to criticize a criticizer if they disagree with the interpretation and/or application of scripture?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

33:36.  
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Snip

(The worst criminal among the Muslims is he who asks if a matter is unlawful (or not), and it becomes unlawful because of his asking about it.) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said,

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> 33:36.
> It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.




Doesn't that make the very commentaries you cite invalid, since they are opinions on the word of Allah given to his prophet? In fact.. I'm pretty sure that would include you...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > 33:36.
> ...


Not sure Im following you Can I get some clarification?


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Basically, the words you cited can be translated as 'stfu, Mr Fitnah, for it is not your place to question or opine'


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Basically, the words you cited can be translated as 'stfu, Mr Fitnah, for it is not your place to question or opine'


I report, I  dont opine.
The scripture speaks for itself.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Grigorio said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, the words you cited can be translated as 'stfu, Mr Fitnah, for it is not your place to question or opine'
> ...



_In your opinion_ it speaks for itself and your interpretation is but an opinion, regardless of how many agree with you, until you present the words of the original speaker/writer in support of its meaning. Even then, it is your opinion that he is being honest regarding his intent.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Grigorio said:
> ...


Im sorry Im not going to circle the drain with your pointless postulatism,  you go there alone.
.Scholars are recognized  for their ability to contextualize the fundamental documentys that make up islamic fiqh.

The recognized scholars are world renown for they knowledge of  the Quran and sunna. Their collective works are essential reading for understanding  the Quran.


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> .Scholars are recognized  for their ability to contextualize the fundamental documentys that make up islamic fiqh.


Recognized by whom?

 Are you calling yourself a scholar?



> The recognized scholars are world renown for they knowledge of  the Quran and sunna. Their collective works are essential reading for understanding  the Quran.



You're incapable of understanding it with your own limited intelligence, or it's too convoluted and contradictory toi decipher without the proper dogma?


----------



## Ceasaro (Jul 31, 2009)

Did I miss something or is this thread title: Gunny's thread about dog shit eating fake muslims arguing?


----------



## The Illusion (Jul 31, 2009)

Religion is an anti intellectual way of making a reason for living.  Religion involves itself in many ways that it shouldnt.  Take morals for example.  A lot of people base their morality on religion when really, thats just an excuse.  They should be taking their morality from themselves..whether something is right or wrong.  No religion should have to tell someone if something is right or wrong.. it should be that way regardless of religion. 

Religion plays a good part in the lives of some people to keep them on track.  Again, its used as an excuse (not in a bad way) to act properly towards other people and giving to society.

Jamie


----------



## Grigorio (Jul 31, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-UajSDW_E]YouTube - The non morality of theism[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 31, 2009)

The Illusion said:


> Religion is an anti intellectual way of making a reason for living.



Of course, because only idiots believe in God and follow faith. There isnt a single intelligent person who believes. Those guys like Newton and Einstien were morons. Just anti intellectual fools!

Why? Because The Illusion says so! We all must bow before your great insight and Intelligence. Or at least we would if we weren't so stupid.



> Religion involves itself in many ways that it shouldnt.  Take morals for example.  A lot of people base their morality on religion when really, thats just an excuse.



Of course, why on earth consider that there might be some great truth on how to live a good life in the universe and try to live life better than the day before. That has nothing to do with God or beliefs. 



> They should be taking their morality from themselves..whether something is right or wrong.  No religion should have to tell someone if something is right or wrong.. it should be that way regardless of religion.



So should I decide that lying is morally alright, it's somehow alright because I say so?

You have it absolutely backwards. Something is right or wrong regardless of what the individual thinks. Because if there is no moral truth, then there is no right or wrong. The words become meaningless. 

Killing children becomes alright because I decide it? That's ridiculous. But then since when has being ridiculous stopped anyone on this planet?



> Religion plays a good part in the lives of some people to keep them on track.  Again, its used as an excuse (not in a bad way) to act properly towards other people and giving to society.



Or it could be a standard. A map to what is morally good and uplifting. A path to lasting happiness. The Joy of the Saints.

Nah, that cant be that. Cause the "intellectual" said so.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jul 31, 2009)

Grigorio said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > .Scholars are recognized  for their ability to contextualize the fundamental documentys that make up islamic fiqh.
> ...



I do not consider myself a sheik. Im autodidactic  as far as Islam where in intersects with  non muslims and jihad.
I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly  promote  a whitewashed image of Islam.
Recognized within the community of Islamic scholars

Sheikh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whilst even a new Muslim can be called a sheikh if he is diligent in seeking the knowledge of Islam based upon the Quran and authentic Sunnah, he can be referred to as such to those he can teach. And usually a person is known as a sheikh when they have completed their undergraduate university studies in Islamic studies and are trained in giving lectures.[1].

The word sheikh under this meaning is a synonym of Alim, pl. Ulema, (a learned person in Islam, a scholar)[3], Mawlawi, Mawlana, Muhaddith, Faqih, Qadi, Mufti, Hadhrat or Hafiz.

I simply am unable to discern what you seem to be driving at   yet are unable to articulate it in any meaningful way.
Please try again.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly  promote  a whitewashed image of Islam.



There are too many people who dont like to see nuances. The like to see black and white. They dont try to understand things from someones point of view. They presume to tell others what they believe. I dont think you can have actual discussions with these type of people. Good luck with it though.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You would still be wrong to do so. Condemnation is not warranted since they have scripture to base their opinions on.
> Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir



I have already shown that their beliefs and actions are out of accordance with scripture. See the post I linked to earlier.


----------



## Man (Jul 31, 2009)

Fitnah will only continue to ignore any evidence you post, Kalam


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Yo, Beukema, talk to Gunny.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly  promote  a whitewashed image of Islam.
> ...



You were speaking to one of those people.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 31, 2009)

The peaceful parts of the Koran were written by Mohommed when he was still struggling to find acceptance. The later writings completely negate the peaceful writings, and are the ones true followers of Islam adhere to.

If they don't, they aren't true Muslims.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

Remember, Babble, when I refuted that and you failed to respond as usual?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 31, 2009)

I rarely respond to lies.


----------



## Kalam (Jul 31, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I rarely respond to lies.



Yes, well, until you address this, I'm going to have to ask you to head back to the kids' table so the grown-ups can continue with their discussion.




Kalam said:


> There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Qur&#8217;an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, _al-Baqara_ and _al-Anfal_, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. _Al-Baqara_ in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:
> 
> That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (_al-Nahl_) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ceasaro (Aug 1, 2009)

kalam, do you argue here because you're banned from real muslim sites for being a faker?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> abrogation
> 
> ]


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html
Asked and answered.
Unless you  are willing to kill  over a billion muslims who disagree with you  you will have to accept that there is more than one interpretation on the issue of nasikh/naskh.
Are you willing to kill over a billion people  over Islam?


----------



## Kalam (Aug 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > abrogation
> ...



Wrong. There is no part of that post that addresses the arguments I presented directly.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


It is a direct contradiction of your opinion from the Grand sheik of Saudi Arabia .It is know you disagree, I have no interest in convincing you.
You are a tool I use.


[al-Tawbah 9:5] 

He did not say, if they pay the jizyah. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

[al-Tawbah 9:29] 

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above. 

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): 

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]

[al-Anfaal 8:39] 

Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

[al-Tawbah 9:5] 

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). 

*These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. *

And Allaah is the Source of strength. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html


----------



## Kalam (Aug 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It is a direct contradiction of your opinion from the Grand sheik of Saudi Arabia .


Generally one uses factual information to disprove an opinion based on factual information. I suggest you run off and collect some if your expect me to take you seriously. Opinions of Wahhabis mean nothing to me - they are heretical and oppress their brother Muslims. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> It is know you disagree, I have no interest in convincing you.


You can't. I've already heard and dealt with all of the arguments you've attempted to use. You people are not what I'd call innovative.  



Mr.Fitnah said:


> You are a tool I use.


When are you going to start?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> You can't. I've already heard and dealt with all of the arguments you've attempted to use. You people are not what I'd call innovative.
> 
> [


No, you are the innovator.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/96231/Mu’talizah

Islam Question and Answer - If an innovator appears to be righteous, does that mean that his deeds and â&#8364;&#732;aqeedah are sound?

Snip

If an innovator appears to be righteous, does that mean that his deeds and &#8216;aqeedah are sound?
If an innovator appears to be righteous and he regularly does good deeds and offers all the prayers in congregation, does that mean that his good deeds and &#8216;aqeedah are sound? What is his position before Allaah?.

Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly the correct stance is that every invented bid&#8217;ah should be rejected and denounced, and it should be pointed out that this is a departure from the straight path. We should not take this matter lightly.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> No, you are the innovator.



Wrong. 

Please provide passages from the Qur'an demonstrating that I am guilty of departure from its message. Mu'tazili beliefs are over 1,000 years old and are built atop a purely Qur'anic foundation.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 1, 2009)

Kalam,

Is it true that the Prophet Mohhamed was sexually aroused by young girls and that he was married to a 6 year-old? I'm sure you can answer this question what with being an expert on Islam.


----------



## Bootneck (Aug 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kalam,
> 
> Is it true that the Prophet Mohhamed was sexually aroused by young girls and that he was married to a 6 year-old? I'm sure you can answer this question what with being an expert on Islam.



Lol! So says the ex-priest with a liking for young choir boys! Still using that rosary as anal love beads?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 1, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam,
> ...


maybe he's looking to change religions so he can have sex with kids again


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are the innovator.
> ...


You are free to  follow your interpretation.
Other muslims consider your beliefs bidah .
I personally do not care, You just  provide me the foil by which to present  alternative views on Islam.
Was Islam spread by the sword?

Question:
*Some enemies of the religion claim that Islam was spread by the sword. What is your response to that?*

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Islam was spread by proof and evidence, in the case of those who listened to the message and responded to it. And it was spread by strength and the sword in the case of those who stubbornly resisted, until they had no choice and had to submit to the new reality.

And Allaah is the source of strength. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and grant them peace.

Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daaimah, 12/14


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 1, 2009)

Allah came unto me in a dream. He chooseth me, as a prophet. And, he did speak unto me: " Tell all the devout, the chosen ones, that upon the hearing of this testimony, that thoust devout believers shall find the sharpest knife, and upon their throats, they shall cut for the honor and glory of Allah."  Really, no kidding. So, need any help with that? You GOT to do it, no choice. Sorry. It's Allah's will. No man can argue that. Not buying this crap?  OK. Why buy any of the crap in the Quran, then, a bunch of jerks wrote that crap, too. No prophets, there are no prophets. Never were. Just mystical superstitious mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kalam,
> 
> Is it true that the Prophet Mohhamed was sexually aroused by young girls and that he was married to a 6 year-old? I'm sure you can answer this question what with being an expert on Islam.



Not exactly. See:



Kalam said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So Mohammad did not marry a 9 year old? Is that your claim?
> ...


----------



## Kalam (Aug 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You are free to  follow your interpretation.
> Other muslims consider your beliefs bidah .
> I personally do not care, You just  provide me the foil by which to present  alternative views on Islam.


What is it that you hope to accomplish in doing this? People seem to be fully aware of what Islam can become when abused by radicals. One of _my_ intentions in posting here was to offer an alternative viewpoint.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Was Islam spread by the sword?



After the prophet's death? Probably. That is when deviation from the straight path began.

Islam, The Spread Of Islam


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > You are free to  follow your interpretation.
> ...


We already covered this .Mohammad was the aggressor a liar who had to leave makka when exposed as such, He was a thief who brought shame on the jews  who gave him shelter in median .
It was wobbly from the start, you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
Dont blame the radicals.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1362779-post268.html

What really happened to the Banu Qurayza ?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Islam was spread by the sword, invasion, treachery, butchery and slavery.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 2, 2009)

"For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of &#65533;enlightened&#65533; Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut. On the Indian subcontinent, Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Mughal Empire, who is revered as a paragon of Muslim tolerance by modern revisionist historians, recorded the following in his autobiographical &#65533;Baburnama,&#65533; about infidel prisoners of a jihad campaign: 

"Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." [The Baburnama -Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated and edited by Wheeler M. Thacktson, Oxford University Press,1996, p. 188. Emphasis added.]

Mohammed and beheading : Melbourne Indymedia


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 2, 2009)

Here's an interesting comment on "obfuscating" Islam. I.e., whitewashing it, as Kalam so loves to do:

""As long as Islamist advocacy groups continue to obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West, such murder may even accelerate," Chesler wrote. "Unchecked by Western law, their blood will be on society's hands."

M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agreed with Chesler.

"It certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered &#8212; she's decapitated."
FOXNews.com - Beheading in New York Appears to Be Honor Killing, Experts Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> We already covered this .Mohammad was the aggressor a liar who had to leave makka when exposed as such, He was a thief who brought shame on the jews  who gave him shelter in median .
> It was wobbly from the start, you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
> Dont blame the radicals.


Of course, you have no scholarly information or historical evidence to corroborate these slanderous remarks.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> What really happened to the Banu Qurayza ?


They were executed for treason.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > We already covered this .Mohammad was the aggressor a liar who had to leave makka when exposed as such, He was a thief who brought shame on the jews  who gave him shelter in median .
> ...


It  is common knowledge that mohammad abandon monotheism  in favor of riches  and power when he utter the satanic verses , That is why he had to leave mekka.
I  will restate the documentation  shortly, Yes we know you disagree.
Treason?
Mohammad's treaty was made under false pretense,  They would never have agreed to be in league with a criminal .


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It  is common knowledge that mohammad abandon monotheism  in favor of riches  and power when he utter the satanic verses ,


Already disproved. Please address and refute each of the points made herein if you disagree:



Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > He  left because he revealed he was a fraud who had harangued the people of mecca  for a decade, then  reversed himself with the "satanic verses."
> ...






Mr.Fitnah said:


> That is why he had to leave mekka.
> I  will restate the documentation  shortly, Yes we know you disagree.


There is no documentation from any credible source, merely your own prejudiced opinions and the similarly worthless opinions of the fools who agree with you. As I've said, I'm interested in facts. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Treason?
> Mohammad's treaty was made under false pretense,  They would never have agreed to be in league with a criminal .


Muhammad's treaty was upheld by a multitude of other tribes. The Banu Qurayza stabbed their allies - Jews as well as Muslims - in the back when they negotiated with the Quraysh. They were punished accordingly.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Before we explore the satanic verses.Why  did mohammad  leave mekka what was the circumstances base don whose testimony?


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Persecution at the hands of the Quraysh. A group of Muslims had fled to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) seven years earlier to escape similar persecution, but Muhammad did not go with them. Because of the perceived threat Islam posed to the Makkan social order and economy (which was, as it is today, reliant on pilgrimages,) Muhammad was threatened and his followers were persecuted until they set out for a better life in Yathrib. 

Hijrah (Islam) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Persecution at the hands of the Quraysh. A group of Muslims had fled to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) seven years earlier to escape similar persecution, but Muhammad did not go with them. Because of the perceived threat Islam posed to the Makkan social order and economy (which was, as it is today, reliant on pilgrimages,) Muhammad was threatened and his followers were persecuted until they set out for a better life in Yathrib.
> 
> Hijrah (Islam) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


What did  this alleged persecution consist of?
From what source?
  Britanica is not  considered  a reliable Islamic scripture.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> What did  this alleged persecution consist of?
> From what source?




See:
Brief life-sketch of Holy Prophet Muhammad: 2. Preaches at Makka

Thank God that's available online, because I would not type it out or scan it for your sake. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Britanica is not  considered  a reliable Islamic scripture.


I'm aware of that, you fool. 

The only reliable Islamic scripture, the Qur'an, does not discuss the Hijra in detail.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > What did  this alleged persecution consist of?
> ...


That is just hystirical  your sources for  the scripture are incomplete excepts from Sir William Muir ,compiled and weaved into a story?
Here is the complete Muir comments concerning the satanic verses.
It says something vastly different then MM Ali's paraphrasing.

The life of Mahomet and history of ... - Google Books


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> That is just hystirical  your sources for  the scripture are incomplete excepts from Sir William Muir ,compiled and weaved into a story?


References are made to Muir, yes, among a multitude of other sources throughout the book. It is not as if Muir's work forms the backbone of Ali's. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Here is the complete Muir comments concerning the satanic verses. It says something vastly different then MM Ali's paraphrasing.


You have a faulty memory. We were discussing the circumstances surrounding the hijra, not the Satanic verses. An excerpt from one of Muir's works does not imply that he is always to be treated as an incontrovertibly accurate source.

 Now, did you have something to say about the Hijra, or are you done here?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

MMA Ali is also incomplete in his opinion  of Ishaq being silent on the issue of Mohammads polytheism .

(T. Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as &#8206;far as he could. It has been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them, and the method he &#8206;adopted is what Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. b. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of &#8206;Medina from M. b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on &#8206;him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed &#8206;that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. &#8206;Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle &#8206;that made his task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed &#8206;for it and it was dear to him. Then God sent down 'By the star when it sets your comrade errs not &#8206;and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire,' and when he reached His words 'Have &#8206;you thought of al-Lat and al-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other',&#8206; 5 Satan, when he was &#8206;meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it

Satanic Verses &mdash; Muhammadanism.org

In Sura Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22:52-53, Muhammad confessed his mistake, alleging that all prophets were tempted by Satan who inspire them with demonic verses, as if they were actually revealed by God. But later on Allah abrogated those Satanic Verses with new revelations and instructs his prophets with new verses. According to Islam, Allah permits such demonic inspiration to test weak believers and to cut off those with hardened hearts.
   Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:
   That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in a schism far (from the Truth): Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22:52-53. Yusuf 'Ali's translation


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

The uttering of the satanic verse are the reason Mohammad had to leave mekka.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. b. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of &#8206;Medina from M. b. Ka'b al-Qurazi



Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. This is supposed to prove that Ibn Ishaq actually said something?


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The uttering of the satanic verse are the reason Mohammad had to leave mekka.



A false assertion that you have utterly and repeatedly failed to prove.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 339:
Narrated Urwa bin Az-Zubair:

I asked 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As to inform me of the worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle. He said: "While Allah's Apostle was praying in the courtyard of the ka'ba, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and seized Allah's Apostle by the shoulder and twisted his garment round his neck and throttled him severely. Abu Bakr came and seized 'Uqba's shoulder and threw him away from Allah's Apostle and said, "Would you kill a man because he says: 'My Lord is Allah,' and has come to you with clear Signs from your Lord?" (40.28)

SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 60: Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh))


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Terrible persecution indeed.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 2, 2009)

In the vernacular of the popular culture: You guys like jacking each other off? Thank Allah for the ignore option. Wouldn't want to make you face up to the fact that religion is a mass delusion. And mindless irrational pablum. But other than that, it's  well worth wasting your life and murdering non Muslim's. So, ignore away, dickwads, ignore away.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. b. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of &#8206;Medina from M. b. Ka'b al-Qurazi
> ...



The Life of Muhammad: Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah


Professor Guillaume's translation of the Sira of Ibn Iss-Haq is now reissued. The translator used Ibn Hisham's abridgement and also included many additions and variants found in the writings of early authors. The book thus presents in English practically all that is known of the life of the Prophet. In the introduction, the translator discusses the character of the Sira in the light of the opinion of early Arabian scholars, noting especially the difficulties of the poetry. As the earliest monument of Arabian prose literature, the Sira remains a work of the first importance.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Ibn Hisham's abridgement is not the _Sirat Rasul Allah._ Ibn Ishaq's work is not known to exist in its original form, and mere hearsay cannot be used to positively attribute any words or actions to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad, or anyone else.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The uttering of the satanic verse are the reason Mohammad had to leave mekka.
> ...


When his uncle withdrew his umbrella of protection Mohammad departed mekka shortly after  he recanted his utterances .
pages 153 -165

The life of Mahomet and history of ... - Google Books


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


the Sira remains a work of the first importance


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Muir was an Orientalist. His intentions may have been good, and his work has its uses, but it can by no means used as authoritative proof that Muhammad did or said anything. Inaccuracies in his works have been highlighted and corrected by later scholars such as the Maulana M. Ali.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Perhaps in the opinion of Guillaume's publisher. 

Ibn Ishaq's work is no longer in existence, and could not be used to demonstrate anything beyond all doubt even if that was not the case. The final authority on Islam rests with the Qur'an and the Qur'an alone.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Muir was an Orientalist. His intentions may have been good, and his work has its uses, but it can by no means used as authoritative proof that Muhammad did or said anything. Inaccuracies in his works have been highlighted and corrected by later scholars such as the Maulana M. Ali.



By copy editing out the parts they dont like , like you do  with the haddith.
Muir attributes his story in the foot notes Ishaq, Tabari.
Without Al Sira Tabari Buhkari  nothing can be known of Mohammad or Islam.
The isnad for them is stronger than  the Quran itself.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 2, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> By copy editing out the parts they dont like , like you do  with the haddith.


I don't believe it's a coincidence that the "parts they don't like" happen to be known inaccuracies and misconceptions. Similarly, ahadith I reject are those that are out of harmony with the message of the Qur'an. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Muir attributes his story in the foot notes Ishaq, Tabari.
> Without Al Sira Tabari Buhkari  nothing can be known of Mohammad or Islam.


All of the essentials of Islam are contained in the Qur'an. All other works are peripheral and of secondary importance. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> The isnad for them is stronger than  the Quran itself.


The Qur'an has no isnad. It was narrated by Muhammad and recorded directly.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ibn Is&#7717;aq wrote several works, none of which survive. His collection of traditions about the life of Muhammad survives mainly in two sources:
an edited copy, or recension, of his work by his student al-Bakka'i, as further edited by Ibn Hisham. Al-Bakka'i's work has perished and only Ibn Hisham's has survived, in copies. (Donner 1998, p. 132)
an edited copy, or recension, prepared by his student Salamah ibn Fadl al-Ansari. This also has perished, and survives only in the copious extracts to be found in the volumimous historian al-Tabari's. (Donner 1998, p. 132)
fragments of several other recensions. Guillaume lists them on p. xxx of his preface, but regards most of them as so fragmentary as to be of little worth.
According to Donner, the material in Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari is "virtually the same". (Donner 1998, p. 132) However, there is some material to be found in al-Tabari that was not preserved by Ibn Hisham. The notorious tradition of the Satanic Verses, in which Muhammad is said to have added his own words to the text of the Qur'an as dictated by a jinn is found only in al-Tabari but Tabari was a collector of all reports regardless of its validity.
The English-language edition of Ibn Ishaq currently used by non-Arabic speakers is the 1955 version by Alfred Guillaume. Guillaume combined Ibn Hisham and those materials in al-Tabari cited as Ibn Is&#7717;aq's whenever they differed or added to Ibn Hisham, believing that in so doing he was restoring a lost work. The extracts from al-Tabari are clearly marked, although sometimes it is difficult to distinguish them from the main text (only a capital "T" is used).

Things that you call out of harmony with the Quran are do entirely with your own personal failure to understand the Quran.
For those interested in the details of the satanic verse  and the hijra
Prophet of Doom - Islam in Muhammadâs Own Words - 10 - Muddled Message
Prophet of Doom - Islam in Muhammadâs Own Words - 11 - Satanâs Bargain


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 2, 2009)

Kalam said:


> The Qur'an has no isnad. It was narrated by Muhammad and recorded directly.


How and Why the Qur'an was Standardized.
Yeah ,thats why uthman wrote the Quran


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 3, 2009)

Kalam said:


> [http://www.usmessageboard.com/1388843-post692.html.


That is just hystirical  your sources for  the scripture are incomplete excepts from Sir William Muir ,compiled and weaved into a story?
Here is the complete Muir comments concerning the satanic verses.
It says something vastly different then MM Ali's paraphrasing.

The life of Mahomet and history of ... - Google Books[/QUOTE]

I think it bears repeating that "kalam's" proof consists mainly of a commentary whose main thrust  that has been lifted in part, leaving out the entire main part of Muir's argument  and the scriptural evidence.
Paraphrasing  some moot question about Mohammad and Islam as if that were Muir's position,
Simply shameful and should bring into question the intellectual and academic power and honesty of muslims in general and  of the mutz cult in particular.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1388843-post692.html
Handcrafting history for political purposes

*BUSTED*


----------



## Buster Beez (Aug 3, 2009)

Kalam vs Fitnah. That's like a mule and an ass arguing over whose shit stinks the most.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 4, 2009)

*YUKON's FACTOID*

The Muslim Koran is a book of pure unadulterated HATRED. A book that is in the same class as Mein Kampf. Hatred, pure and simple.


----------



## JenT (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



That's exactly what research from Mary Habeck of Yale University has documented. What are your credentials again, Kalam?

Not that credentials matter to me, anyone can research, but some seem to think it makes a difference.


----------



## JenT (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Really? I thought I had a copy on my desk at home. I'll have to recheck.


----------



## JenT (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > By copy editing out the parts they dont like , like you do  with the haddith.
> ...



According to a Yale assistant professor, you're flat wrong. The Sira is as important in the Middle East as the Quran and Hadith, the Quran is just more well known in the west.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

JenT said:


> According to a Yale assistant professor, you're flat wrong.


Fascinating. 

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority



JenT said:


> The Sira is as important in the Middle East as the Quran and Hadith, the Quran is just more well known in the west.


Source? I take it you've conducted or examined research to corroborate this statement, and I would be interested in seeing it. Thank you.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I think it bears repeating that "kalam's" proof consists mainly of a commentary whose main thrust  that has been lifted in part, leaving out the entire main part of Muir's argument  and the scriptural evidence.
> Paraphrasing  some moot question about Mohammad and Islam as if that were Muir's position,
> Simply shameful and should bring into question the intellectual and academic power and honesty of muslims in general and  of the mutz cult in particular.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1388843-post692.html
> ...



Your attempts at criticism are becoming increasingly desperate and far-fetched. This is a good sign.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

By the way, jent, I eagerly anticipate your responses to my points on the other thread.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I think it bears repeating that "kalam's" proof consists mainly of a commentary whose main thrust  that has been lifted in part, leaving out the entire main part of Muir's argument  and the scriptural evidence.
> ...


You have to stay something ,so of course it must be fact free and an insult.
Thanks for staying true to form.
Nothing you can say  changes the fact the author you were quoting to make your argument,  wrote it in a manner met to mislead by  using partial out of context quotes.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1390371-post716.html


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > According to a Yale assistant professor, you're flat wrong.
> ...


Not necessarily .
She may be in a position to know .Quoting a person in a position to know something on a topic is not a logical fallacy .


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You have to stay something ,so of course it must be fact free and an insult.


Your posts don't warrant much more than that in response. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Thanks for staying true to form.
> Nothing you can say  changes the fact the author you were quoting to make your argument,  wrote it in a manner met to mislead by  using partial out of context quotes.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1390371-post716.html



You're acting as if M. Ali's entire argument is based on an opinion of Muir's when, in fact, he merely quotes Muir in partial agreement. This is known as a "strawman argument," my friend, and it doesn't fly with me.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > You have to stay something ,so of course it must be fact free and an insult.
> ...



Im not your friend .You were hoisted on your own petard. 
Muir was never in any kind of agreement , he was perfecting  the other side of the argument to show how ridicules those arguments were.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1390371-post716.html


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Im not your friend .


I'm trying my best to hold back the tears. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> You were hoisted on your own petard.
> Muir was never in any kind of agreement , he was perfecting  the other side of the argument to show how ridicules those arguments were.


I doubt that. I've read enough of Muir's _Life_ to know that while he tended to be very critical of Islam and presented information in a biased manner, even he seems to have believed that Muhammad was well-meaning before he began amassing a great deal of political power. His propagation of the Satanic Verses lie has been duly noted, I am aware that he coined the term in the first place. As I said, that does not by any means make it true.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Im not your friend .
> ...


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



I think Totalitarianism is the number one killer. I'm religious, I believe in God, I learn from the Prophets, whom, were not so well liked by the masses. I believe Salvation to be Individual and Personal. Talking amongst ourselves ain't by itself going to change a thing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 4, 2009)

Why did this thread devolve into arguments on islam? I mean its like its just a two person discussion now...


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> That is not the point,


That was your point, and it's incorrect. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> the point is the writer MM Ali is a dishonest writer   a liar,



This has not been demonstrated. The Maulana's works, especially his Qur'an, are superior to almost all other modern writings on the religion by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are well-sourced as well. You're attempting (and, yet again, failing) to soil his reputation so that you won't have to confront the realities he presents in his works. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> who you use to shore up your positions.


My positions are shored up by the Qur'an. His writings are useful because we happen to be in agreement on a number of issues.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> He is a fraud and that is that.


Wrong. 

The only fraudulent things in this thread are the opinions of the radical Wahhabis you slobber over. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> His tafsir cannot be trusted, His Quran cannot be trusted, and you cannot be trusted.


It's truly pitiful to see a discussant's argument enter the throes of death - nonsensical accusations of dishonesty, among other things, tend to be thrown out. Ironically, _you've _managed to peddle even more dishonesty and idiocy in your short tenure here than some of this forum's most seasoned morons. Thanks for playing, though.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why did this thread devolve into arguments on islam? I mean its like its just a two person discussion now...



Because Fitnah has a pathological need to attack my religion and I feel compelled to defend it. I'm truly sorry that we've all but run this thread into the ground.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why did this thread devolve into arguments on islam? I mean its like its just a two person discussion now...


i'm kinda surprised Gunny has allowed it
should have this moved into its own thread


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 4, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > That is not the point,
> ...


The post stands.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1390371-post716.html
This concludes the topic.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 4, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The post stands.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1390371-post716.html
> This concludes the topic.





It's as flaccid as the rest of your arguments.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Why did this thread devolve into arguments on islam? I mean its like its just a two person discussion now...
> ...



Gunny has alot to do. Its not causing any problems. im just surprised no one else is saying anything.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...




One does not step between two men during a pissing contest...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 4, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> One does not step between two men during a pissing contest...



True, but it doesnt mean people dont sit  on the other side of the room discussing other things.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > One does not step between two men during a pissing contest...
> ...


Are there any subjects left for this thead?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 4, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Are there any subjects left for this thead?



they can be started:

Atheists suck

Discuss


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 4, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any subjects left for this thead?
> ...



I agree that people who make too much sense and can't be refuted suck from the perspective of the intellectually inferior, deluded fools who find themselves without intelligent response.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 4, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I agree that people who make too much sense and can't be refuted suck from the perspective of the intellectually inferior, deluded fools who find themselves without intelligent response.



hahaha..


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The post stands.
> ...



Let's see... As usual Kalam's argument is founded in little more than "NUH UH!  I disagree..."  This coomon leftist tactic usually comes with the fallacious demand that the opposition convince them or it fails; when, in reality, there is no such principle to be found anywhere in the scope of debate.

Islam is an evil, deception; a vehicle by which evil is transported.  It neither serves good now, nor has it ever served such in it's brief cult history.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


Thank you, Pubeless. Your agreement with Mr. F does more to damage his credibility than anything I could do. 

If you'll notice (and I'm sure you won't), I refuted the argument in a post he failed to respond to. He vacuously declared himself the victor and slunk away, as you types tend to do when confronted with factual information.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Islam is an evil, deception; a vehicle by which evil is transported.  It neither serves good now, nor has it ever served such in it's brief cult history.


So, basically, it's the same as Judaism.

Glad to know you see that.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> "...im just surprised no one else is saying anything."



It is most difficult debating with narrow-minded, racially intolerant, bigots.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It is most difficult debating with narrow-minded, racially intolerant, bigots.



Not really, i debate with you all the time. Or atleast try to.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

Let's discuss which of these idiots, if any, knows what he's talking about

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw[/ame]


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

*The thread is about religion, Muslim and Islam are also religions. Please stop worrying about such things and discuss them or another religion. There are hundreds, thousands if you include the ancient ones. *


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

*Stop the flaming in this thread. - KK*


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

I have a question for any muslim members in here.

I've heard a lot of people say that muslims dont believe in jesus or any prophet other than mohammed.   I find that hard to believe myself after reading the quran



			
				Quran 3:42-47 said:
			
		

> "Behold!" the Angel said, "God has chosen you, and purified you, and
> chosen you above the women of all nations.  O Mary, God gives you
> good news of a word from Him whose name shall be the Messiah, Jesus
> son of Mary, honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those
> ...




So its not true right?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

They believe that Muhammad was the last prophet and that his revelation corrects the Word, which was corrupted by Man since being given by God.


If my understanding is correct.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> They believe that Muhammad was the last prophet and that his revelation corrects the Word, which was corrupted by Man since being given by God.
> 
> 
> If my understanding is correct.


that is my understanding as well


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I have a question for any muslim members in here.
> 
> I've heard a lot of people say that muslims dont believe in jesus or any prophet other than mohammed.   I find that hard to believe myself after reading the quran
> 
> ...



You're right, it isn't. Muhammad is the final prophet in Islam - most of the Jewish prophets are accepted as well, though, along with Jesus.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > They believe that Muhammad was the last prophet and that his revelation corrects the Word, which was corrupted by Man since being given by God.
> ...



You're both correct.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


i'm not saying it makes sense, but thats what i have been told

to me either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is a liar
i cant see how his words could make him either


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Islam goes with option 3: the Bible has been corrupted and is, therefore, inaccurate.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you  are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
Islam collapses at the slightest examination.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful.


So?



JBeukema said:


> The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true.


Such as?



JBeukema said:


> By saying it's imperfect, you  are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.


Which claims?



JBeukema said:


> Islam collapses at the slightest examination.


Yeah, _you'd_ know.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

Simple?: The Qu'ran rests on the claims of the Torah/Bible being true: El exists. His prophets are documented in the Jewish texts. Jesus exists. The only sources are deemed untrustworthy. Therefore, the Qu'ran declares its most basic claims untrustworthy.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Simple?: The Qu'ran rests on the claims of the Torah/Bible being true: El exists.


The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?



JBeukema said:


> His prophets are documented in the Jewish texts. Jesus exists.


They're figures in parables used to illustrate Qur'anic teachings. 

_And these parables, We set them forth for men, and none understand them but the learned. _- 29:43​
Their historicity is irrelevant. It should not be surprising that Islam borrowed figures from the stories of older monotheistic faiths. To suggest that the basis of the Qur'an is formed by claims supporting the historical accuracy of Biblical stories, though, is incorrect. 



JBeukema said:


> The only sources are deemed untrustworthy. Therefore, the Qu'ran declares its most basic claims untrustworthy.


The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.



Thats an interesting point. Is He around to tell us? I mean if the scriptures are accurately telling us about Christ, then we must conclude that He is around somewhere alive and able to tell us.

The question is will us include all of society or just individual points of contact? Its interesting to ponder.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.
> ...



That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you  are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
> Islam collapses at the slightest examination.



Of course, your analysis is flawed here. 

First, the Validity of the Qu'ran does not on the Bible being perfectly true.

Second, from a non-islamic view, no where in history has God ever said that that anything written about Him will be flawless/perfect. In Christianity, the Bible does not claim perfection. A point lost on many who exalt the Bible to a place beyond what it's meant to be. The message in the Bible is that God is perfect. It is the goal of living religion for people to learn from God directly, not solely through the revelation of others.

So if people corrupted any book of scripture, God still has the power to speak His word and Teach His people. And it is my viewpoint that God does that He does. To me what would make God not all powerful if He was unable to speak to man for whatever reason. To me it would be much more unmerciful to give people a book and tell them to figure it out for themselves.

Third, I dont think any religion that has hundreds of years collapses at the slightest examination. otherwise, it would have done so long before you were even thought of. There is a reason people believe it, and it isnt because people are stupid.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.



And I think it's wise to not just taking someones word for it. I think that's one of the things I've always liked Mormonism. Joseph wasnt going hey believe me because I said it. He was saying Hey This is what I saw, why dont you come experience the same things so you know for yourself.

And I agree that no religion holds all the answers. But I think if they are good for people they direct people in a way to find out the answers for themselves.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.
> ...



True, the organized religions are not the problem, it's the "organized" part that is. I actually enjoy talking to agnostics and pagans the most about such matters because they are not blindly following, and oddly they are less likely to be zealots.

The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.



Interesting... I have to ask though. If it's an unwritten rule how do you know about it?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

Kalam said:


> The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?



Those specific accounts and claims of the existence and actions of that specific deity are exclusive to the Abrahamic tradition and those accounts within the Torah of the actions and wishes of the Abrahamic god are exclusive to the Torah and the books which build upon it. Therefore, those religions rest upon the validity of the Torah as their basic foundation./ To declare the Torah unreliable begs the question of how one know3s the necessary claims are somehow reliable while the others are not and actually opens the door for Satanic deception 

You knew exactly what I  was saying, Kalam. 



> Their historicity is irrelevant.



Not when it teaches that the places of men (for instance one tribe to be 'beneath' and serve the other stems from actual events involving individual 'fathers of nations.



> The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.



Built upon claims of the existence of the Abrahamic god and acceptance of the Abrahamic prophets, of whom Muhammad is deemed a successor.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.
> ...



I just coined a phrase, what I meant by it is that it wasn't a law, it was just understood.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> [
> 
> Of course, your analysis is flawed here.
> 
> First, the Validity of the Qu'ran does not on the Bible being perfectly true.



I'm assuming the word 'depend' should follow 'not'. I did not say it does, nor does the Qu'ran. It depends on certain aspects of an admittedly fallible text being true.  Do not continue with these strawmen.



> Second, from a non-islamic view, no where in history has God ever said that that anything written about Him will be flawless/perfect



The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Psalm 19:7

There are others. You fail. Why do Christians tend to know lessa bout the Bible than theists?​


> . In Christianity, the Bible does not claim perfection.


Funny. That means it's a fallible test and only a complete retard takes it as truth without supporting evidence. Now, you have argued that scriptures are *no evidence* and must be supported by pther sources or be deemed useless crap like any other single source one finds making wondrous claims withiout confirming evidence. Congratulations, you just debunked your own religion  

Now, given that the bible contradicts itself throughout (even the four gospels can't agree with eachother), the whole thing gets thrown out like any other alleged historical document that can't get its story straight and has no supporting evidence. Nobody argues more strongly against your religion than your own kind.



> There is a reason people believe it, and it isnt because people are stupid.


Yes, it is. Just like those who believed the Earth was flat after it was demonstrated to be 'round' and those who believe an unborn child is neither alive nor human.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 6, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Those specific accounts and claims of the existence and actions of that specific deity are exclusive to the Abrahamic tradition and those accounts within the Torah of the actions and wishes of the Abrahamic god are exclusive to the Torah and the books which build upon it. Therefore, those religions rest upon the validity of the Torah as their basic foundation./ To declare the Torah unreliable begs the question of how one know3s the necessary claims are somehow reliable while the others are not and actually opens the door for Satanic deception
> 
> You knew exactly what I  was saying, Kalam.


The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture, is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers. The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false, as is the claim that the Islamic religion is hinged upon the accuracy of Biblical accounts of this god's emotions and exploits.



JBeukema said:


> Not when it teaches that the places of men (for instance one tribe to be 'beneath' and serve the other stems from actual events involving individual 'fathers of nations.


That isn't taught in Islam. 

_O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware._ - 49:13​


JBeukema said:


> Built upon claims of the existence of the Abrahamic god and acceptance of the Abrahamic prophets, of whom Muhammad is deemed a successor.


A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews. As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents. So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today. The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture...



It claims the same god. it merely claims a different interpretation of perception thereof. It is just like the modern neochristians who hold a perception of God as loving and merciful that is totally unfounded when when looks at scripture. The god and prophets claimed, however, are the same.



> is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers.


The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic. If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism, materialism, and positivism began to gain influence.


> The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false,


Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple. Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.



> That isn't taught in Islam. _O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware._ - 49:13​


Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.



> A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews.


Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus) might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows. Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.



> As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents.


That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law. That is to say that God's law need not conform to any definition of righteousness, but that righteousness is defined as complying with God's will.


> So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today.


Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists. In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.

It is precisely because you do this- because you are better than Islam- that I can even tolerate you, much as i can only tolerate the existence of most modern neochrostians and reformist/ 'mainstream' Jews because they are better than their holy books and the roots of their faith.



> The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.


One could say the same of  Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 6, 2009)

There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 6, 2009)

BrianH said:


> There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...



Good point as I fall under your description.   I have a dislike for organized religion, i dont follow any one religion, but I have a strong belief in a higher power. 

Im a big Karma guy too.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 6, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> It claims the same god. it merely claims a different interpretation of perception thereof.


Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.



JBeukema said:


> It is just like the modern neochristians who hold a perception of God as loving and merciful that is totally unfounded when when looks at scripture.


The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis. 



JBeukema said:


> The god and prophets claimed, however, are the same.


Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.



JBeukema said:


> The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic.


Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard. 



JBeukema said:


> If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism,


Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion. 



JBeukema said:


> materialism,


The merits of which are...?



JBeukema said:


> and positivism began to gain influence.


The rudiments of which had been explained by others long before Comte (who, interestingly enough, considered himself a prophet.)

For example:
_"We do not go beyond experience, and we cannot be content to use pure concepts in investigating natural phenomena."_ - Ibn al-Haytham, Kitab al-Minazir

Alhazen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which is in line with the Qur'an:

_And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Surely, the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked. _- 17:36​



JBeukema said:


> Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple.


Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents. 



JBeukema said:


> Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.


That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah. Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism that canonized the teachings of the Messiah and revered him over other prophets as the son of God. Islam does not built upon Judaism; it's a distinct system that merely saluted the Jews' monotheism by incorporating stories of their prophets into its teachings.  



JBeukema said:


> Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.


Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which _is _rejected in the Qur'an.

_And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: Strike the rock with thy staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, *but they wronged themselves.* And when it was said to them: Dwell in this town and eat from it whence you wish, and make petition for forgiveness, and enter the gate submissively, We shall forgive you your wrongs. *We shall give more to the doers of good. But those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told, so We sent upon them a pestilence from heaven for their wrongdoing.*_ - 7:160-162

_Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful._ - 62:6

_And they say: None shall enter Jannah except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful._ - 2:111​


JBeukema said:


> Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus)


We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture. 



JBeukema said:


> might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows.


The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism. 



JBeukema said:


> Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.


The Qur'an states that it is a retelling of previous revelations which are now unknowable, because they were replaced with the Torah and Bible in their present, corrupted forms. Hence "*ut those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told" in the quoted scripture above. The "Torah" whose authenticity is affirmed by the Qur'an is clearly not the Torah as we now know it. 



JBeukema said:



			That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law.
		
Click to expand...

Not so. Unbelievers are enjoined to reflect and determine  themselves whether Islam is authentic.

Will they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy. - 4:82​


JBeukema said:



			Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein. How can Muslims be expected to abide by the Torah when Islam contends that Biblical teachings no longer exist in a true, uncorrupted form? They can't, and Islam does not expect them to. The unsuitability of all other religious doctrines was the reason for the advent of Islam.



JBeukema said:



			In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't what I'm doing at all. I favor a return of Islamic belief to its Qur'anic roots. 



JBeukema said:



			It is precisely because you do this- because you are better than Islam- that I can even tolerate you, much as i can only tolerate the existence of most modern neochrostians and reformist/ 'mainstream' Jews because they are better than their holy books and the roots of their faith.
		
Click to expand...

The texts revered by Jews and Christians contain, if interpreted literally, indefensible savagery. The Qur'an is unlike the Bible. 



JBeukema said:



			One could say the same of  Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.
		
Click to expand...

Superiority is subjective. I believe that Islam is superior to other systems, you do not.*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 6, 2009)

BrianH said:


> There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...



While I have no doubt that there is a difference between religion and spirituality, I am going to have to humble disagree with you. Checking the definition of religion. I find it impossible that any sort of faithful devotion to God can not be religion when thats the very definition of it.

You may not have _organized_ religion. You may simply follow your own person religion. But it's still a religion because its still your state of faithful devotion to God.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.



Can you do me a favor? If you're going to use Arabic words in your posts, can you provide a translation? You might have called them fools, devils, naive, heretics, blasphemers, or any number of things here.



> The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis.



As do their.s, in the same sense. You both twist and interpret to gt the desired result. We've discussed in the past the fact that your interpretation is not literal, mainstream, the original, or otherwise demonstrably anything other than another case of people picking, choosing, and interpreting to get the desired result- just like modern neochristians, many sekt of Judaism, and both jihadist and 'revisionist' Muslims.




> Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.



How so? That prophet was speaking of a singular deity. To claim that prophet is to claim the god of which that prophet spoke. You can disagree on the nature of that deity or whether another is correct in their understanding, but the dishonest one ios he who claims a  prophet and then claim,s the prophet spoke of a god other than the prophet spoke of. El, YHWH, and Allah are all the same god, for they all claim the same prophets and therefor the one god that prophet spoke of is being claimed.



> Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard.



Islam is ultimately nothing more than a Jewish sekt who claims a prophet the other sekts deny and therefore have a different understanding if the God in which they believe. When they realize this, it will be possible for them to live in peace and understanding., It is the denial of this fact that has (among other factors) led to such bloodshed in the past, as they see eachother not as simply failing to understand or recognize a prophet of God, but of having the wrong god altogether. By distancing themzwelves and refusing to acknowledged that which they have in common, they are fueling the problems that have plagued the region for so long.



> Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion.



It is insomuch as it avoids much (but not all) of the tyranny, oppression, and intolerance inherent to theocracies with an interest in guarding the faith. The FF knew this and founded a secular government to protect their religion from other sekts more than for any other reason. They were trying to avoid another Anglican church and the oppression that came with it- much like what is seen in modern-day Iran.



> The merits of which are...?



I have made on observation. I made no argument in favor of or against materialism.


> Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents


. 

You're confusing yourself. The same god and the same understanding thereof are not equal statements. One could argue than many christian sekts don't believe in the same understanding of God, despite sharing the same texts, prophets, and messiah.




> That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah.



As well as redefining the nature of God, who 'his people' are, and much of his nature. The outgrowth of Islam is not ultimately that different, despite many years of distancing one from the other.



> Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which _is _rejected in the Qur'an.



And my most Christians, who claim that 'God's People' are those who find him through the christ. You're no so different, if you are willing to see it.



> _And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: Strike the rock with thy staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, *but they wronged themselves.* *...**We shall give more to the doers of good. But those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told, so We sent upon them a pestilence from heaven for their wrongdoing.*_ - 7:160-162


​Which is almost exactly the same as the Christian tradition, which claims that the Jews lost God's favor and now the gentiles, as well, may find his favor through his son. Change 'son' to 'prophet' and you pretty much have what you have cited. All three traditions focus too much on their differences. That's  a huge part of the problem.



> We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture.



They make the exact same claims as you do.




> The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism.



They make the same claims about the bible, most especially Revelation and other prophesies. Heck, now they make that claim about Eden and the creation...



> That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein.



-and the other half can be spun to support the opposite claim, and oft is. I'm sure we'll see this play out in my latest thread if we wait.



> Superiority is subjective....


Thereby making your earlier statement meaningless.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 6, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Can you do me a favor? If you're going to use Arabic words in your posts, can you provide a translation? You might have called them fools, devils, naive, heretics, blasphemers, or any number of things here.


Yeah, my bad, I did that non-consciously. A mushrik is a person guilty of shirk, the association of anything physical with God or any belief in multiple gods. You'll probably see it rendered as "polytheist."



JBeukema said:


> As do their.s, in the same sense. You both twist and interpret to gt the desired result. We've discussed in the past the fact that your interpretation is not literal, mainstream, the original, or otherwise demonstrably anything other than another case of people picking, choosing, and interpreting to get the desired result- just like modern neochristians, many sekt of Judaism, and both jihadist and 'revisionist' Muslims.


Ours is arguably one of the original interpretations; it has existed since the 8th century AD.



JBeukema said:


> How so? That prophet was speaking of a singular deity. To claim that prophet is to claim the god of which that prophet spoke. You can disagree on the nature of that deity or whether another is correct in their understanding, but the dishonest one ios he who claims a  prophet and then claim,s the prophet spoke of a god other than the prophet spoke of. El, YHWH, and Allah are all the same god, for they all claim the same prophets and therefor the one god that prophet spoke of is being claimed.


While the god itself may be technically the same, conceptions of God vary widely between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as within each religion. Simply stating that the same God is worshiped without acknowledging the significant theological differences between each religion is not accurate. 



JBeukema said:


> Islam is ultimately nothing more than a Jewish sekt who claims a prophet the other sekts deny and therefore have a different understanding if the God in which they believe. When they realize this, it will be possible for them to live in peace and understanding., It is the denial of this fact that has (among other factors) led to such bloodshed in the past, as they see eachother not as simply failing to understand or recognize a prophet of God, but of having the wrong god altogether. By distancing themzwelves and refusing to acknowledged that which they have in common, they are fueling the problems that have plagued the region for so long.


I harbor no enmity towards Jews or Judaism, nor am I unwilling to acknowledge what the two religions have in common. To claim that Islam is a Jewish sect, though, is wildly inaccurate. 



JBeukema said:


> You're confusing yourself. The same god and the same understanding thereof are not equal statements. One could argue than many christian sekts don't believe in the same understanding of God, despite sharing the same texts, prophets, and messiah.


Conceptions of God vary more distinctly between religions than they do within them, particularly between Judaism/Christianity and Islam. 



JBeukema said:


> As well as redefining the nature of God, who 'his people' are, and much of his nature. The outgrowth of Islam is not ultimately that different, despite many years of distancing one from the other.


The development of Islam was fundamentally different from the development of Christianity. Christianity is built on top of Judaism; Islam was constructed on a foundation of its own.



JBeukema said:


> And my most Christians, who claim that 'God's People' are those who find him through the christ. You're no so different, if you are willing to see it.


Christians do so while ignoring the Bible and the admonition against preaching to Gentiles. Yes, there are some similarities. You may want to share your kumbaya message with Team Jesus here, though, rather than me, seeing as how they're the ones who find it necessary to repeatedly assure everyone that Islam and Christianity are nothing alike (because Islam is evil and Christianity is perfect.) 



JBeukema said:


> Which is almost exactly the same as the Christian tradition, which claims that the Jews lost God's favor and now the gentiles, as well, may find his favor through his son. Change 'son' to 'prophet' and you pretty much have what you have cited. All three traditions focus too much on their differences. That's  a huge part of the problem.


It was Paul who acted against the teachings of the Messiah by preaching to gentiles. True Christianity was intended for the people of Israel and noone else. Islam was intended to be a religion for all types of people from its inception. 



JBeukema said:


> They make the exact same claims as you do.
> 
> They make the same claims about the bible, most especially Revelation and other prophesies. Heck, now they make that claim about Eden and the creation...


Yet are unable to support those claims, because their scripture does not tell them to interpret it non-literally. 



JBeukema said:


> -and the other half can be spun to support the opposite claim, and oft is. I'm sure we'll see this play out in my latest thread if we wait.


Cognitive dissonance at its finest, eh?



JBeukema said:


> Thereby making your earlier statement meaningless.


If you say so.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2009)

Kalam said:


> anything physical with God or any belief in multiple gods[/B]. You'll probably see it rendered as "polytheist."



'Idolatry' sounds more accurate, if I'm understanding correctly. I find it interesting that Christians cite the 10 commandments, yet have crucifixes and crosses (graven images).



> Ours is arguably one of the original interpretations; it has existed since the 8th century AD.



Over 150 years after Muhammad? How is that 'the original' in any sense? What about the interpretations and understandings in the first 150 years- let alone when Muhammad was alive? The 'original interpretation' is that of those who lived with Muhammad. Aisha and (I forget the name of her rival) can claim to b the two 'originals'. Your interpretation, you just said, came later and is therefore heresy if anything, comparable perhaps the the Gnostic Heresy that sprung up in the centuries after Jesus.



> While the god itself may be technically the same, conceptions of God vary widely between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as within each religion.


That's what I said,. To say that Islam has a 'different' god is like saying Baptists and 7th Day Adventists have different gods. They worship the same god. They merely understand that god differently and disagree on who His prophets were. Surely, you would agree that focusing in the differences lends too the intolerance in the region and all would be wiser to focus on their shared beliefs and heritage, yes?



> Simply stating that the same God is worshiped without acknowledging the significant theological differences between each religion is not accurate.



I've been saying this whole time that they have very different understandings of God and His will. It is you who was being inaccurate atr best by denying their shared heritage and faith and instead attempting the distance them form one another as much as possible and define them as wholly distinct faiths without recognizing their relations to eachother.


> I harbor no enmity towards Jews or Judaism, nor am I unwilling to acknowledge what the two religions have in common. To claim that Islam is a Jewish sect, though, is wildly inaccurate.



They are as much a Jewish cult as Christianity is. Both grew out of Judaism and can ultimately trace their births to a disagreement over the nature of one character.

Judaism + no more prophets remains Judaism in all its denominations and sekts

Jews (and later gentiles) who recognized jesus as the Messiah became Christianity in all its forms

Jews who recognize Muhammad as God's prophet became Islam in all its forms

Each then split further as various theological and political disputes took place throughout history.



> Conceptions of God vary more distinctly between religions than they do within them, particularly between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.



I disagree. Islam and Christianity both open the doors to gentiles, while Judaism in its truest form remains a strictly racist religion open only to the Israelites and their decedents. Judaism  still keeps the Moseanic Covenent while both Christianity and Islam hold that living up to the old Law is near impossible and hold that men can still find mercy in the eyes of God despite their failings (though they disagree on how). If Christianity ignores its most insane fundamentalists and we look at Islam without the fanatical jihadist element (uin other words, look  at the sane people on each side), they have much in common. If it weren't for extremists in both camps and the West's support of the Zionist occupation (itself a discriminatory concept that ignores the underlying issue of intolerance and instead set the stage for the ME conflict because Europe still didn't want to accept the Jews and found it easier to cater to the Jewish nationalists than to address the problems that led to the Holocaust in the first place), perhaps the two faiths could have been in harmony instead of engaged in this ideological conflict that had led to so much bloodshed and threatens to lead to more...




> The development of Islam was fundamentally different from the development of Christianity. Christianity is built on top of Judaism; Islam was constructed on a foundation of its own.



I disagree on the second half of that. Christianity was built on top of Judaism whereas Islam sought to fix the foundation before building the house and declare the olld law corrupted so that they could, in a sense, start over. Christianity's approach has led to a number of internal contradictions and theological arguments attempting to reconcile the OT and the NT. Had Jesus merely declared the Moseanic Law corrupted or ended, Christianity might have made more sense.




> Christians do so while ignoring the Bible and the admonition against preaching to Gentiles.



The Jesus character seems quite confused...

Kumba ya? Shit, if I had my way, they'd both disappear and Judaism with them... and pretty much every other religion

Buddhism can stay, though. They don't cause problems..




> Yet are unable to support those claims, because their scripture does not tell them to interpret it non-literally.



the other side of that coin- spinning it in the other direction, it never says it's not allegory  Accept, you know, for Jesus' claims of decent through David through a man not his father and a female whose lineage is traced through four women (one of whom lists no father) all known in the bible for being, well... whores, harlots, and sexual deviants..


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 6, 2009)

"Idolatry" is only idolatry if you worship the thing more than God. I've discussed this with pastors. For example, praying to Mary or graven images (the golden calf) is idolatry. Worshipping money can be idolatry. Being more enamored of intellect than God is idolatry.

But enjoying art in the form of symbolic references, that's not idolatry. Wearing jewelry which identifies you as a member of your faith is not idolatry, unless you're worshipping the crucifix or cross itself.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 6, 2009)

It says you shall not make for yourselves any graven images _nor_ shall you bow down to or worship any graven image

Exodus

 4 "Y*ou shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth nor in the waters below the earth*. 5 Y_ou shall not bow down to them or worship them_; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


From Deuteronomy 4


15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape...


----------



## Kalam (Aug 7, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 'Idolatry' sounds more accurate, if I'm understanding correctly. I find it interesting that Christians cite the 10 commandments, yet have crucifixes and crosses (graven images).


The Biblical God instructs his followers not to take any gods _before _him. Perhaps the worship of other subordinate deities is permissible under Mosaic law. 



JBeukema said:


> Over 150 years after Muhammad?


A bit under 100 years. Muhammad died in 632; Wasil ibn Ata was born in 700 CE. 



JBeukema said:


> How is that 'the original' in any sense? What about the interpretations and understandings in the first 150 years- let alone when Muhammad was alive? The 'original interpretation' is that of those who lived with Muhammad.


As recorded and preserved where? Islamic tradition as recorded in most hadith collections is of highly questionable accuracy. All 6 major Sunni hadith collections were compiled in the 9th century. 



JBeukema said:


> Aisha and (I forget the name of her rival) can claim to b the two 'originals'.


Aishah raised and led an army against Ali at Basra when he was kalifah. The dispute was purely political and had nothing to do with religion; Aishah wanted justice brought to the assassins of the previous kalifah, Uthman. 



JBeukema said:


> Your interpretation, you just said, came later and is therefore heresy if anything,






JBeukema said:


> comparable perhaps the the Gnostic Heresy that sprung up in the centuries after Jesus.


Hardly. Gnosticism was syncretic and had little basis in scripture.



JBeukema said:


> That's what I said,. To say that Islam has a 'different' god is like saying Baptists and 7th Day Adventists have different gods. They worship the same god. They merely understand that god differently and disagree on who His prophets were. Surely, you would agree that focusing in the differences lends too the intolerance in the region and all would be wiser to focus on their shared beliefs and heritage, yes?


Not if that involves inventing connections and "heritage" where there is none. You are exaggerating the extent to which Islam is based on Judaism. I'm willing to acknowledge what the religions actually do share. 



JBeukema said:


> I've been saying this whole time that they have very different understandings of God and His will. It is you who was being inaccurate atr best by denying their shared heritage and faith and instead attempting the distance them form one another as much as possible and define them as wholly distinct faiths without recognizing their relations to eachother.


In spite of what we share, we _are _wholly distinct religions. Islam is unlike any other religion or way of life.  



JBeukema said:


> They are as much a Jewish cult as Christianity is. Both grew out of Judaism and can ultimately trace their births to a disagreement over the nature of one character.


You make this statement out of ignorance. You'd do well to study Islamic scripture and early history if you're going to make claims such as this. 



JBeukema said:


> Judaism + no more prophets remains Judaism in all its denominations and sekts
> 
> Jews (and later gentiles) who recognized jesus as the Messiah became Christianity in all its forms
> 
> Jews who recognize Muhammad as God's prophet became Islam in all its forms


That's horribly inaccurate and oversimplified. The first Muslims were former pagans, not Jews. Their exposure to Judaism would have been limited, unlike the early Christians, who for the most part _were_ Jews. 



JBeukema said:


> I disagree. Islam and Christianity both open the doors to gentiles, while Judaism in its truest form remains a strictly racist religion open only to the Israelites and their decedents.


Christianity in its true form would be the same. Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, was founded with the intention of having its message spread to all people, regardless of ethnicity. 



JBeukema said:


> Judaism  still keeps the Moseanic Covenent while both Christianity and Islam hold that living up to the old Law is near impossible and hold that men can still find mercy in the eyes of God despite their failings (though they disagree on how).


Islam rejects Mosaic law on the basis that its source, the Bible, is fundamentally unreliable. We abide by our own Qur'anic system of laws and regulations.



JBeukema said:


> If Christianity ignores its most insane fundamentalists and we look at Islam without the fanatical jihadist element (uin other words, look  at the sane people on each side), they have much in common. If it weren't for extremists in both camps and the West's support of the Zionist occupation (itself a discriminatory concept that ignores the underlying issue of intolerance and instead set the stage for the ME conflict because Europe still didn't want to accept the Jews and found it easier to cater to the Jewish nationalists than to address the problems that led to the Holocaust in the first place), perhaps the two faiths could have been in harmony instead of engaged in this ideological conflict that had led to so much bloodshed and threatens to lead to more...


The conflict will fade away when the West ceases interfering in Israel as well as in the affairs of Muslim nations. 



JBeukema said:


> I disagree on the second half of that. Christianity was built on top of Judaism whereas Islam sought to fix the foundation before building the house and declare the olld law corrupted so that they could, in a sense, start over.


Which is really close enough to what I said, is it not?

Christianity's approach has led to a number of internal contradictions and theological arguments attempting to reconcile the OT and the NT. Had Jesus merely declared the Moseanic Law corrupted or ended, Christianity might have made more sense.




JBeukema said:


> The Jesus character seems quite confused...
> 
> Kumba ya? Shit, if I had my way, they'd both disappear and Judaism with them... and pretty much every other religion
> 
> *Buddhism can stay, though. They don't cause problems.*.


Burma. 



JBeukema said:


> the other side of that coin- spinning it in the other direction, it never says it's not allegory  Accept, you know, for Jesus' claims of decent through David through a man not his father and a female whose lineage is traced through four women (one of whom lists no father) all known in the bible for being, well... whores, harlots, and sexual deviants..


As I said, the Bible seems indefensible.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 7, 2009)

Kalam said:


> As recorded and preserved where? Islamic tradition as recorded in most hadith collections is of highly questionable accuracy. All 6 major Sunni hadith collections were compiled in the 9th century.





> In spite of what we share, we _are _wholly distinct religions. Islam is unlike any other religion or way of life.



Really? Islamic nations seem to be little different that the state of Isra-El described in the Jewish histories included in the Bible.




> Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, was founded with the intention of having its message spread to all people, regardless of ethnicity.



The Bible states that it is for the gentiles. It claims that jesus let the gentiles in on salvation after the Jews failed repeatedly.



> The conflict will fade away when the West ceases interfering in Israel as well as in the affairs of Muslim nations.



Not unless also the fundamentalists within Islam are silenced and pushed aside in favor of more reasonable persons. So long as the extremists are such a loud and domination minority, there will be no peace no matter what the West does, just as there will be no peace no matter what the Muslims do if the West doesn't stop interfering. 

There is no party who can claim to still be innocent in this debacle.


> Burma.


When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism? 



> As I said, the Bible seems indefensible.


When hae I ever attempted to defend it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 7, 2009)

http://books.google.com/books?id=pj...sult&resnum=2#v=snippet&q= mu tazilah&f=false


----------



## Kalam (Aug 7, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Really? Islamic nations seem to be little different that the state of Isra-El described in the Jewish histories included in the Bible.


I'd contend that a truly Islamic nation hasn't existed since 632. No nation that has honored Islam as its state religion is truly governed by _shura_, consultation, as specified in the Qur'an. 



JBeukema said:


> The Bible states that it is for the gentiles. It claims that jesus let the gentiles in on salvation after the Jews failed repeatedly.


If I recall correctly, Jesus himself said nothing to this effect. Rather, Peter and Paul defied the Messiah's instructions by preaching to the Gentiles and declaring the OT null and void. Their heresies were, hilariously enough, included in the Bible. 



JBeukema said:


> Not unless also the fundamentalists within Islam are silenced and pushed aside in favor of more reasonable persons. So long as the extremists are such a loud and domination minority, there will be no peace no matter what the West does, just as there will be no peace no matter what the Muslims do if the West doesn't stop interfering. There is no party who can claim to still be innocent in this debacle.


That's true, but you have to remember that most support for extremist ideologies is attributable to dissatisfaction with Western hegemony. The differences between so-called moderates and radicals in terms of religiosity and devotion to worship are negligible.

See: http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/File/109477/Mainstream_Extremist_Views.pdf




> When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism?


I guess that was a poor example. That those who consider themselves Buddhists are responsible for religiously-motivated violence, though, is undeniable.

Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> When hae I ever attempted to defend it?


I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Moslem Schisms and Sects - Being the ... - Google Books



Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 8, 2009)

Kalam said:


> I'd contend that a truly Islamic nation hasn't existed since 632. No nation that has honored Islam as its state religion is truly governed by _shura_, consultation, as specified in the Qur'an.



Doesn't sound like Shura is ev required, so much as merely approved. If it's only mentioned twice in the entirety of the Qu'ran, how important could it be? From what bit I've read, it seems to be yet another political split with little or no real basis in theological concerns. Much like Christianity, Islam quickly collapsed and fractured when its founder was gone. In this regard, it is like most entities of influence, from large businesses to political empires, which tend to experience great schisms during the power grab after a strong leader has passed.




> If I recall correctly, Jesus himself said nothing to this effect.


Matthew 28:18-20
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​
Interestingly, this is after the resurrection, rather than during his life when their would have been other people about.



> That's true, but you have to remember that most support for extremist ideologies is attributable to dissatisfaction with Western hegemony.



Fundamentalist hatred for the West and Western hatred for Islam can be traced back at least to the Crusades and the wars over the Holy Land. Regardless of their political implications, they were dressed in religion, just like Constantine's unification of the fractured Roman empire under his neo-christian creation (now known as the 'Universal' Catholic church) and  Muhammads bloody caravan raids (pillaging, thievery, and looting)




> > When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism?
> 
> 
> I guess that was a poor example.



Yes. Yes, it was.


> Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



hmmm.. 


> *political ideology* which combines a *focus upon* Sinhalese culture and *ethnicity*


Like saying the KKK acts out of their Christianity instead of their racism and xenophobia when they lynch a black man  Even your source doesn't contend that they cite the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama as justification for their actions, unlike Jihadists citing the Qu'ran or how Christians easily can cite the bible.

Bad example, Kalam, bad example. The difference is that Abrahamists of all flavors can cite their holy book in support of their actions and claim to emulatte their mythological heroes. Buddhists can claim to emulate and can cite none of Siddhartha's recorded action sand must go against the teachings Buddhism in order to commit atrocities. If a 'Buddhist' is a piece of shit, that's on the individual. If an Abrahamist is a piece of shit, they act in accordance with their faith.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 8, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...
> ...



I don't necessarily dislike religon, I just don't particularly believe that I have to be "accepted" by a religion in order to be close with God.  I believe that going to church is a good thing, I just don't feel like I need to become a member to here the word of God.  IMO, we're all trying to get to the same place, we just do things a little differently.  People get so mixed up in the specifics of it and forget the more important things.  Sure, Catholics, Babtists, Lutherans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Non-Denominations do things differently and have different rules, but ultimately, they're trying to achieve the same objective--Going to Heaven.

Our military uses this logic...We ally with others that we have differing views with simply because they may have the same "objective" that we have.

And to respond to Avatar--I should have clarified "organized religion."


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 8, 2009)

BrianH said:


> I don't necessarily dislike religon, I just don't particularly believe that I have to be "accepted" by a religion in order to be close with God.  I believe that going to church is a good thing, I just don't feel like I need to become a member to here the word of God.  IMO, we're all trying to get to the same place, we just do things a little differently.  People get so mixed up in the specifics of it and forget the more important things.  Sure, Catholics, Babtists, Lutherans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Non-Denominations do things differently and have different rules, but ultimately, they're trying to achieve the same objective--Going to Heaven.
> 
> Our military uses this logic...We ally with others that we have differing views with simply because they may have the same "objective" that we have.
> 
> And to respond to Avatar--I should have clarified "organized religion."



Maybe that's half the problem. They have the wrong goal.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 8, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Doesn't sound like Shura is ev required, so much as merely approved. If it's only mentioned twice in the entirety of the Qu'ran, how important could it be? From what bit I've read, it seems to be yet another political split with little or no real basis in theological concerns.


Nothing else concerning politics and governance is really mentioned in the Qur'an. Thus, any government that is truly rooted in Islam must go with what the Qur'an _does _say and base its rule on mutual consultation.  



JBeukema said:


> Much like Christianity, Islam quickly collapsed and fractured when its founder was gone.


To some extent, yes. In spite of some enmity between political and ideological factions, though, Islam was at the forefront of political power and scientific discovery for centuries. 



JBeukema said:


> In this regard, it is like most entities of influence, from large businesses to political empires, which tend to experience great schisms during the power grab after a strong leader has passed.


Perhaps. 



JBeukema said:


> Interestingly, this is after the resurrection, rather than during his life when their would have been other people about.


Sounds like it could be phony to me. 



JBeukema said:


> and  Muhammads bloody caravan raids (pillaging, thievery, and looting)


Necessary raids carried out by Muslims against the very people who had oppressed them and deprived them of their livelihoods to begin with. In his position, I would have done exactly the same thing. 



JBeukema said:


> Yes. Yes, it was.


Enjoy it. It's a rare occurance. 



JBeukema said:


> hmmm..
> *political ideology* which combines a *focus upon* Sinhalese culture and *ethnicity*



_Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism has a fractious relationship with other religious communities like Christianity and Islam in Sri Lanka, with violent protests often being organized by Buddhist nationalist organizations against the perceived interference of Christians and Muslims in the country._

Sounds religiously motivated to me. Does it matter if their actions can be justified with scripture as long as their religion is a motivator? While Buddhism may not encourage violence, Buddhists are just as prone to it as everyone else. 



JBeukema said:


> Like saying the KKK acts out of their Christianity instead of their racism and xenophobia when they lynch a black man  Even your source doesn't contend that they cite the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama as justification for their actions, unlike Jihadists citing the Qu'ran or how Christians easily can cite the bible.
> 
> Bad example, Kalam, bad example. The difference is that Abrahamists of all flavors can cite their holy book in support of their actions and claim to emulatte their mythological heroes. Buddhists can claim to emulate and can cite none of Siddhartha's recorded action sand must go against the teachings Buddhism in order to commit atrocities. If a 'Buddhist' is a piece of shit, that's on the individual. If an Abrahamist is a piece of shit, they act in accordance with their faith.


The only correct interpretation of "Abrahamist" teachings are those that motivate followers to act like pieces of shit? I'm afraid I disagree.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 8, 2009)

Kalam said:


> , Islam was at the forefront of political power and scientific discovery for centuries.
> 
> 
> .


Stealing other cultures accomplishment and claiming them in the name of allah is not an real accomplishment,
Islam created no real science.
Only in the west did alchemy become chemistry.
only in the west did astrology become astronomy.
only in the west did freedom become free enterprise.
Wherever Islam conquered science died, innovation died.
Muslims claimed accomplishments by cultures they conquered, they never innovated.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 8, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Stealing other cultures accomplishment and claiming them in the name of allah is not an real accomplishment,
> Islam created no real science.
> Only in the west did alchemy become chemistry.
> only in the west did astrology become astronomy.
> ...



Muslims pioneered the scientific method of experimentation and most of the things you listed. 

Muhammad ibn JÄbir al-HarrÄnÄ« al-BattÄnÄ« - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_"One of his best-known achievements in astronomy was the determination of the solar year as being 365 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes and 24 seconds.

...

"His work, the Zij influenced great European astronomers like Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, etc. Nicholas Copernicus repeated what Al-Battani worte nearly 700 years before him as the Zij was translated into Latin thrice."_​
Geber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Jabir is mostly renowned for his contributions to chemistry. He emphasised systematic experimentation, and did much to free alchemy from superstition and turn it into a science. He is credited with the invention of over twenty types of now-basic chemical laboratory equipment, such as the alembic and retort, and with the discovery and description of many now-commonplace chemical substances and processes  such as the hydrochloric and nitric acids, distillation, and crystallisation  that have become the foundation of today's chemistry and chemical engineering._​
Al-Kindi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_
*As an advanced chemist, al-Kindi was the first to oppose the practice of alchemy; he debunked the myth that simple, base metals could be transformed into precious metals such as gold or silver.* He wrote two treatises on the refutation of alchemy: *Warning against the Deceptions of the Alchemists and Refutation of the Claim of Those Who Claim the Artificial Fabrication of Gold and Silver.*​_
Furthermore, please demonstrate that all of this was "stolen":

Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Downplaying the accomplishments of men infinitely more intelligent than you? Bad form. Admitting that you're a moron would be appropriate at this time.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 8, 2009)

Just  list the Islamic periodic chart of the elements.
What muslim discovered gravity?
Fatwa.

*Q*
Does gravity exist or is it made up?
*A*
We do not understand your question as everything existing is made up.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.


----------



## gautama (Aug 9, 2009)

As I stated some time ago:

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto as you would have them do unto you."

And, if y'all are not fucking masochists then everything will be honky-dory.

But no......you religious freaks want the Heaven, Hell, and Divinityy crap.

And then, as History shows from the begining of Mankind, you fucks slaugter each other in the name of your wonderful "religions"


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 9, 2009)

gautama said:


> As I stated some time ago:
> 
> Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:
> 
> ...



We simply want the truth. We arent prepared to just announce that no one can know and declare that everyone should listen to our uninformed opinion.

But then that requires sacrifice. It requires that we go to God in humility and a Spirit of Repentence so that we can learn from Him. Its not something everyone is prepared to do. But anyone who is can do and get answers.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 9, 2009)

gautama said:


> Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:
> 
> "Do unto as you would have them do unto you."



The ethic of reciprocity is already present in nearly every religion.


----------



## Kalam (Aug 9, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Just  list the Islamic periodic chart of the elements.
> What muslim discovered gravity?
> Fatwa.
> 
> ...



When confronted with factual information, do you always respond nonsensically?


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 9, 2009)

Kalam said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> > Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:
> ...


Present in every society, really. It's one of the first rules to emerge from any social contract.


----------



## rdean (Aug 9, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



Nazi's killed Jews.  Jews are religious.

Soviets killed the faithful in a desire to stamp out religion.

Whether it's killing in the name of religion, or killing the faithful, it still involves religion.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 9, 2009)

rdean said:


> Nazi's killed Jews.  Jews are religious.



nazis killed semites. Semittes are an ethnicity.
They also killed polacs and Roma. Both are ethnicities.
They killed based on ethnicity, not on religion.
Hitler was a Catholic,



> Soviets killed the faithful in a desire to stamp out religion.


The Soviets killed anyone and everyone who wouldn't worship Stalin as a demi-god. 

You want religiously-based genocide? Read the bible.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 9, 2009)

gautama said:


> As I stated some time ago:
> 
> Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:
> 
> ...



No different than slaughtering others for other reasons?  Because the neighboring tribe bumped uglies with their women, or stole their goat, or looked at them wrong.  There are plenty reasons that people have been slaughtered...religion is just one of them


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 10, 2009)

Kalam said:


> > Muslims pioneered the scientific method of experimentation and most of the things you listed.
> 
> 
> Not because of Islam  the individual accomplishments have nothing to do with Islam, Islam is a regressive faith. The mu tazilites have  an edge  on traditional Islam  for it more rational( by Islamic standards)  approach, but sadly remain tethered to Islam, so it is with out merit as well.
> ...


----------



## mystic (Aug 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Bravo.

I will say this. I think the reason that religious discussions deteriorate so quickly is that our beliefs (whatever they may be) are the foundation of ourselves and how we see ourselves.
Therefore any attack on the belief is felt as a personal attack.

Regarding religion being the catalyst for war, I've had the opinion for quite sometime that wars, or even terrorism, are not caused by religion but by politics. Men in power (and men who want to be in power) use religion for justification for agressive actions. Probably because it proposes to give a higher moral authority to their actions. Plus it gives weight for their views to their followers. With their mouths they spout that it's for their religion, but in their hearts it's a different story. When you speak with truly religious people, they are against aggression. How could they be? No religion on earth supports aggression.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 10, 2009)

mystic said:


> \How could they be? No religion on earth supports aggression.


Clearly, you've never read the bible


----------



## mystic (Aug 10, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> mystic said:
> 
> 
> > \How could they be? No religion on earth supports aggression.
> ...



Which one?  If you're talking about Old Testament stuff, you're right, there's some really raunchy stuff in there. I guess the New Testament is the kinder, gentler version. Christians usually respond to this by saying that they follow the New Testament. Plus, if you speak with someone very knowledgable about Christianity, I'm sure that they could debate that point much more elequently then I could. I haven't been Christian since I was about 12. 
Wasn't it Jesus who said, "Do unto others..."? and "whatever you do to the least of my brethren.."? and similar sayings? Which shows the basis of the religion has nothing to do with aggression.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 10, 2009)

mystic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > mystic said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ods-law-in-new-testament-moral-judgments.html


----------



## Kalam (Aug 10, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Not because of Islam  the individual accomplishments have nothing to do with Islam, Islam is a regressive faith.


Why were so many individuals able to succeed in spite of this "regressiveness" compared to the rest of the world, including Christian Europe?

Regarding your flawed analysis of Islam and Science:

"We identify seven Islamic teachings as the driving forces behind this development of
modern scientific methods that took place in the Islamic civilization:

(1) Respect for observation. The Qur'an orders man to observe nature and thus spurs
us towards the scientific method of induction.

_Say: "Behold all that is
In the heavens and on earth";
But neither Signs nor Warners
Profit those who believe not._
Qur'an (10:101)

_If there were, in the heavens
And the earth, other gods
Besides God, there would
Have been confusion in both!_
Qur'an (21:22)

The contrast between the Islamic view of a nature packed with the signs of God that we
are commanded to observe with the Platonic distrust of the senses is unmistakable.
Muhammad Iqbal has emphasized that the general empirical attitude of the Qur'an
which engendered in its followers a feeling of reverence for the actual, and ultimately
made them the founders of modern science. It was a great point to awaken the empirical
spirit in an age that renounced the visible as of no value in men's search after God
(quoted by Siddiqi 1986).

The Qur'an does not see empirical observation, rational thought, and gnostic
contemplation as pulling men in different directions. It insists that all lead to God. Thus,
we are repeatedly exhorted to "see,"3 to "think,"4 and to "contemplate."5

(2) Universality. As Islam spread, its universality prevented the Arabs from a
crippling disdain for the scientific knowledge of the Greeks, Persians, Indians, Chinese,
etc. All good comes from God. This open-minded embrace of knowledge from any
source is reflected in the Islamic proverb advising the Muslims to "seek knowledge even
unto China" (Azizullah 1972). One exemplary case of how the Prophet himself applied
this principle was when he ditched his own plans for the defense of Medina in order to
adopt a plan to dig a trench around the city, put forward by Salman-al-Farsi. This was a
technique that the Persian Salman had picked up in his homeland and was hitherto
unknown in Arabia. The Prophet judged the suggestion by its merits, not by the
nationality of the proposer. This objectivity about the sources of knowledge is, of course,
merely an extension of Islam's more general principle of brotherhood:

_O mankind! We created
You from a single (pair)
Of a male and a female,
And made you into
Nations and tribes, that
Ye may know each other
(Not that ye may despise
Each other)._
Qur'an (49:13)

The expanding Muslim civilization was "the first to give science the international
character which we consider one of its fundamental characteristics" (Taton 1963).


(3) Absence of a priesthood. The abolition of the priesthood and prohibitions of
secrecy prevented scientific knowledge from becoming the property of an elite.
Knowledge was available to everyone. In the Christian world, people went to the church
for religious instruction only. Even that instruction was a "lay" instruction, fit for the
layman. Reading of the Bible itself was discouraged for those not initiated into the
priesthood. The subtle doctrines of Christian theology might confuse the layman and
weaken his faith. It was better to provide him with pre-digested teaching.
By contrast every Muslim was expected to read and preferably memorize the Qur'an.
(The very first word of the Qur'an revealed to Muhammad was the commandment
"Read!") All knowledge was considered sacred and people came to the mosque to study
not only the Qur'an and the traditions, but mathematics, history, natural science, etc. As
the numbers of teachers and classes exceeded the space in the mosque, additional
buildings would be added around it. Thus, the world came to know its first modern
universities.

Terms coined in that era are still in use today. The teachers would sit in low chairs with
the students gathered on the carpeted floor around them. A new student interested in
learning, say mathematics, could walk into the mosque and ask, "Where is the chair of
mathematics?" or "Where is the chair of astronomy?"

(4) Material success. A materially successful society can afford to support pure
science. Other previous societies that had enjoyed some degree of prosperity had also supported science. The prosperity under Islam, however, was unprecedented, especially
given the way it was spread throughout almost all layers of society. Before Islamic
civilization had reached its second century, patronage of the arts and sciences had
reached new heights.

(5) Academic freedom. Academic freedom, necessary for science to move forward,
was inherent in the Islamic idea of individual responsibility. The Qur'an advises man that
God is "nearer to him than (his) jugular vein" (50:16), that "no bearer of burdens can bear
the burdens of another" (53:38), and "Whoever works any act of righteousness and has
faith,his endeavor will not be rejected: We shall record it in his favor" (21:94). As
everyone is directly responsible to the Creator, and the priesthood is abolished, disputes
are to be resolved not by human authority but by truthwhatever God may have decreed
it to be.

The Western Churchs interference into scientific matters was based on what was
perceived to be a threat to the religion. In Islam, even matters of religion are not exempt
from frank and honest discussion. Consider this excerpt from a letter of Hashimi, a cousin
of the Caliph Ma'mun, to a religious opponent:

_... bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and
speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you
please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean
only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator
shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and
punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security
and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me.
For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited
you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the
hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!_
(Arnold 1913)

(6) Development of principals of proper citation. The natural sciences in Islam had a
model in the development of the religious sciences as to proper citation and investigation
of the credibility of sources. The early Muslims, like the early Christians, had to contend
with a plethora of "traditions" attributed to the religion's founder. The Christians relied on
the authority of a central Church (backed by the state) to resolve the issue. Having no
priesthood, the Muslim scholars invented new techniques of historical scholarship.
Scholars such as Imams Bukhari and Muslim went on long expeditions to track down
traditions (called hadith) attributed to the Prophet's companions to their sources. They
determined the complete chain of transmission from the Prophet's companion to the
particular reporter whom they were able to find. They made biographies of every
transmitter in the chain to determine their reliability for honesty, soundness of memory,
plausibility of having met adjacent members in the chain of transmission, etc. Thus,
Muslim historians became accustomed to the process of citation, something that is an
indispensable part of modern science. The vagueness of ancient historians about their
sources stands in stark contrast to the insistence that scholars such as Bukhari and
Muslim manifested in knowing every member in a chain of transmission and examining
their reliability. They published their findings, which were then subjected to additional
scrutiny by future scholars for consistency with each other and the Qur'an. By the third
century of Islam this methodology was well developed.

Such open "historical criticism" of the Islamic traditions is a process to which Christian
texts have been subjected only in recent centuries. It is a process of analysis and
preservation in the form of a scientific study. Hadith science was original with Islam. It
was the first uniquely Islamic science and provided a precedent for open and rigorous
scholarly debate in the natural sciences that were being assimilated into the emerging
Islamic culture.

(7) Emphasis on learning and study. From the very first word of the Qur'an revealed
(Iqra!, which means "Read!"), praising the "Lord who taught man by the pen," the Qur'an
(96:1) emphasizes learning and study in all its aspects. Qur'anic teachings on the
importance of knowledge to religion and the pointing out of the signs of God in the
heavens and on earth provided an incentive for the patronage of science.

_It is He Who created
The Night and the Day,
And the sun and the moon:
All (the celestial bodies)
Swim along, each in its
Rounded course._
Qur'an (21:33)"​
- Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, "The Rise and Fall of Islamic Science: The Calendar as a Case Study."



Mr.Fitnah said:


> For such an accomplished man  why did  was he unable to make the observation the heliocentric nature of the solar system?


Ptolemaic geocentrism was the dominant theory of the time. Other Muslims apparently considered the possibility of heliocentrism. 

Al-Sijzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an accomplished physicist, why didn't Newton develop the Theory of Special Relativity? 

My question makes about as much sense as yours.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Why did  his Maragha Observatory only last  for 45 after being founded under   a religious endowment that would suggest that the institution had suitable legal protection and could be expected to enjoy  perpetual existence. Why did it fall into ruins?



What? You're thinking of a completely different person. Namely:

Qotb al-Din Shirazi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Mr.Fitnah said:


> Any accomplishment were do to  his own efforts  and have nothing to do with Islam.


You say this repeatedly as if doing so will make it true. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from you supporting this position. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> AN alchemist whose accomplishments  if he actually existed at all, was in spite of Islam not because of Islam.


See above.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> He died in prison for unislamic practices


Incorrect. He died after being placed under house arrest for his affiliation with a Persian noble family that fell out of favor. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Beaten for unislamic thoughts now retroactively an Islamic hero.


Inaccurate. His beating was most likely connected to "scholarly rivalries" at the translation center where he had worked. His possible persecution at the hands of a single, anti-Mu'tazilite caliph had nothing to do with Islam itself. Previous caliphs had funded his education, appointed him to scholarly positions, and asked him to tutor their children. Read the Wiki article; it won't kill you. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> An example the architecture, borrowed from the Assyrians and Greeks,


Explain how Arabic, Moorish, Malinese, Persian, Ottoman, and other forms of Islamic architecture were nothing but direct plagiarizations of Assyrian and Greek architecture. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Zero ,, The Hindus,


I've never attributed the concept of zero to Islamic science. 

Hey, why'd you stop? What civilizations were these inventions stolen from by filthy, science-hating Muslims?

Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Scientific achievement in newly conquered states stagnates proportionally to the density of muslims .


Source?



Mr.Fitnah said:


> As seen  by the lack of scientific discovery in arabia  , Science  "happened " for what it is worth ,away for central control in mekka ,


Makkah was not the capital. The capital was at Baghdad (and elsewhere at other times), where science flourished. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> in the years shortly after being over run  by Islam  in Persia Syria Turkey other places that have be victimized by Islams bigotry and its supremacy  jihad ,and then its scientific accomplishments  ended.


As with most of your arguments, history does not support this baseless contention.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 10, 2009)

Im not going to get into it on this thread  the last time people  expressed concern of dominating the thread.
You had you say .I had mine.
We may take it up again in the future on a  more appropriate  thread.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 11, 2009)

Mr. Fitnah are you Muslim by chance?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 11, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Fitnah are you Muslim by chance?


No 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




I have this tattooed on my wrist, it is abarbic for kafir/kaafir
Islam Question and Answer - Â*Muslim attitudes towards violence and how to react to kaafir aggression against the Muslim community
I am hostile to Islam.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 11, 2009)

Mr. Fitnah,

Thank you for the information.


----------



## mystic (Aug 11, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Fitnah are you Muslim by chance?
> ...



Wow. 

I'm going to assume that those kind of deep feelings that would lead you to tattoo a permanant reminder were not developed from reading propaganda material but from actual life experience? And if so, how do you know that your experience is of Islam and not culture?
I'm not Muslim but I have many friends who are. I'm sure it's easy for you to find ridiculous sounding fatwas and hadiths, because as I said, culture trumps religion. But really it's like studying Christianity from the KKK. Who, by the way, are perfectly convinced that they are true Christians and living a Christian lifestyle.
You can find more violent passages in the Bible then in the Quran. So why dislike Islam more then Christianity?

Just trying to understand.


----------



## JBeukema (Aug 11, 2009)

I once had the arabic word(s) for 'enemy of allah' on one boot and a collection of Torah verses demanding the death of unbelievers on the other boot...


Both languages are a bitch to write out...


----------



## Yukon (Aug 11, 2009)

I had a roll of toilet paper that had a picture of G. Bush, Junior on every sheet.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 13, 2009)

I found both these pieces interesting and worth a read. 

The global war for souls « Prospect Magazine

Thought Experiments : The Blog: God. Again. Again


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

Bump.


----------



## mystic (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Bump.



Giving rise to the question: Is it possible to bump a sticky???


----------



## Yukon (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr Fitnah,

What are your thought on Jew people ????


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 31, 2009)

mystic said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Bump.
> ...


Indeed!


----------



## JenT (Aug 31, 2009)

mystic said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



In the Bible, God was specific about which nations to wipe out because God can see the outcome from letting those nations live (for instance when King Saul didn't wipe out every Amorite or Amalakite, it was an Amalakite that thrust the spear into him) God has also directed whole nations to be wiped out because their culture had gotten to the point of frying infants to idols.  But in every case, God was specific. And since Christ came proclaiming the age of grace, offering Himself up to wipe out all sin to those who receive Him, well I haven't seen or heard of God ordering nations, I'm guessing it's because all from every land have an opportunity of grace.

But in the Quran and Sunnah, Mohammad said Islam is to dominate all nations and beheaded hundreds as an example. Submit or die. That's not something the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ever ordered, except for when Christ comes back He will rule. And when He does there won't be any question of His authority to do so.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Sep 1, 2009)

It's a good thing we don't all believe in the infallibility of the Bible.  Thank goodness there is a variety of spiritual and religious experience, many paths that lead one to a true realization of the experience we call 'God' or pure being-essence nature.

And concepts of God are not God they are just concepts.   What we label God is ineffable here and now experience.  JMO


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 1, 2009)

The bible was first written so that muslims would have something to wipe their asses wth.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 1, 2009)

Was the Prophet really a pedophile? He married a 6 year old child. Does that count?


----------



## Kalam (Sep 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> He married a 6 year old child.


Not exactly.



Kalam said:


> Her age was lowered in that report so that no questions would be raised about her virginity, and by extension, the legitimacy of Muhammad's offspring through her.
> 
> Source: _"All of these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity. They also suggest the variability of Aisha's age in the historical record."_ - D. A. Spellberg, _Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past._​
> In reality, she had been betrothed to Jubair Ibn al Mut'am, a pagan, before her engagement to Muhammad. Jubair eventually annulled their engagement. In at least two separate sources it is pointed out that Asma bint Abi Bakr, Aisha's half-sister, was 100 years old when she died in 73 AH. That would make Aisha 90 in 73 AH.
> ...


----------



## logical4u (Sep 1, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you name  a Christian church that is responsible for "negative influences" today?  How is wanting the theory of evolution to be taught alongside the theory of intelligent design (creation) wrong?  They are both theories that cannot be proven.
I am at a desk and the instructions for Life in the new milleninium from the Dalai Lama are posted.  No one has a problem with that.  He is a religious leader.  His words are recognized as wisdom.  
I could not do that with the ten Commandments.  The Bible is full of wisdom.    Many self-help books use biblical stories (or parts) to impart valueable life lessons.  Yeshua's teachings are full of wisdom, not violence, not exclusion, but a welcoming to faith, hope and wisdom.  Why is there such a problem with using those lessons to help people grow.  What happens between you and G*d will be between you, no one knows that relationship, but you two.  
A large portion ofthis country's colonists that eventually became citizens, came here to escape religious persecution.  They would not believe today's Christians are being treated as second class citizens for wanting to bow their heads and give thanks to their Lord in public.  It is a matter of FREEDOM.


----------



## John Lemmon (Sep 1, 2009)

Kalam, so they faked aisha's virginity? Nice, god's messenger can't even find himself a virgin.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 1, 2009)

Kalam,

Answer my question. *Was the Prophet a pedophile?*


----------



## Care4all (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> ...



Intelligent design or Creationism is NOT a Science and THIS is why it does not belong side of the Theory of Evolution in a Science class.  Simple as that....

And I happen to believe in God and that He is our Creator, but never in my life have I ever thought that this needs to be taught in school along side of Science...and YOU shouldn't either.  Creationism is based on belief and Faith, NOT Science....  Science may prove this belief some day...but creationism can't prove itself, it is not meant to...

science is NOT the enemy, it is NOT a vs. situation and should NEVER be put on that level imo.



Care


----------



## Kalam (Sep 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kalam,
> 
> Answer my question. *Was the Prophet a pedophile?*



When the evidence regarding Aisha's age is considered, the answer has to be no. He (&#65018 did not seem to be sexually attracted to prepubescent girls.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > I'm of course an apostate and an atheist, but I don't believe most secular individuals have an interest in interfering with the personal beliefs of the religious if they merely remained personal beliefs, just as most secular individuals don't have an interest in interfering with the beliefs of those who embrace astrology or other superstition not based on reason. It's because the beliefs of the religious _exert an undue influence over mainstream society_ (we might still have a World Trade Center if not for religion) that objections are raised. As noted:
> ...



Don't be an airhead.

The Puritans hung Quaker women for doing missionary work.

The Anglicans in Virginia took your kid away on the second complaint of not raising them Christian.

You will find all sorts of documented examples of that if you look.

The Pilgrims were right, along with Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson -- keep Church and State separate.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam,
> ...


 This story is reported by Ibn Ishac, the most authentic biographer of Muhammad.  Most other biographies are based on this monumental work of Ibn Ishak/Ibn Hisham

(Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu&#65533;l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, &#65533;If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.&#65533; But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdu&#65533;l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba&#65533;.(Ref.3, page 311)


----------



## Kalam (Sep 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> (Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummul-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, *If she grows up *and I am still alive I will marry her. But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdul-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba.(Ref.3, page 311)



Forget to read the whole passage, stumpy?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > (Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummul-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, *If she grows up *and I am still alive I will marry her. But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdul-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba.(Ref.3, page 311)
> ...


The crawling baby got him hot.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 1, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Agnapostate said:
> ...



Er..the Pilgrims were Puritans, dumbass. They also hung "witches".

The Pilgrims didn't make this country. They just settled it.


----------



## Kalam (Sep 1, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Which is _clearly _why he said he wanted to marry her when she grew up. 

Take a look at the women Muhammad &#65018; married and you'll find that few, if any, were married because he was sexually attracted to them. More often than not, he married widows and other women that would have been considered part of the dregs of society had it not been for him.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 1, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Sick, you just dont get it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 1, 2009)

Which explains why arranged marriages between 3 y.o.s is acceptable.

I dunno, I'm for it. I'm all for parents deciding who their kids marry.

After they're adults, of course.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 1, 2009)

In the sad event that someone decides to quote that later and use it as evidence that I approve sexual relations between 3 y.o. kids...it's not.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 2, 2009)

Care4all said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Agnapostate said:
> ...


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 3, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Macro evolution is not a science.  There is no proof that species morfed into another species.  It is a belief.



You're right, there is no proof, and there probably never will be. In science, there are only theories. The THEORY of evolution is just that. There is no "proof," but there is strong evidence that supports the theory of evolution. If ever we were to find evidence that DISPROVES the theory of evolution, it would be made invalid. That's how science works. No one has claimed the theory of evolution to be anything other than a theory, which is supported by evidence but not proven to be true.



logical4u said:


> If schools are teaching people where they came from, what right do they have to teach liberal "science" (a belief) over what was taught in the Bible: a Being that has power over the entire universe created all life as we know it (also a belief)?



If you can, please explain why you are under the impression that the theory of evolution is a belief rather than a scientific theory supported by evidence. But until you explain, I'll say this: since evolution IS a scientific theory and NOT a faith-based belief, it belongs in a science curriculum, while the creation story taught in the Bible, being a faith-based belief (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, of others which would have to be inserted into science curriculum as well if Christian creationism were to be) does not.



logical4u said:


> I agree, science is not the enemy, but those of us that believe are frustrated waiting for science to prove what we already believe.



How can the existence or nonexistence of God be proven by science?



logical4u said:


> Why don't Christians have the same rights to have their "beliefs" taught, along side liberal scientists "beliefs" and let the individual decide?



Because we're talking about these "beliefs"  being taught in a science class. Nowhere in your post did you explain why you don't consider the theory of evolution to be science. But anyway, Christian children sitting in science class already know what their parents believe about the creation of the universe and the origin of man. They are simply being provided with an alternate, scientific possibility, and they ARE allowed to decide for themselves what to believe. The reason why people don't want the alternative, "intelligent design," taught in a science class is for the simple fact that it has nothing to do with science, but with religious belief, which children can easily be exposed to outside of the classroom.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 3, 2009)

I think pi and the genetics code is absolute proof of the existence of God myself. I love learning that stuff. I don't believe the THEORIES which exclude the existence of God...but I LOVE the true science because it ALL supports the existence of God.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Sep 3, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I think pi and the genetics code is absolute proof of the existence of God myself. I love learning that stuff. I don't believe the THEORIES which exclude the existence of God...but I LOVE the true science because it ALL supports the existence of God.



How is the number that pi represents or the genetic code absolute proof of God?  Why you're God?  Why not Allah?

Which theories exclude the existence of God?

So if science supports the existence of God, in your opinion, then it is TRUE science?  What science supports the existence of God and how does it do that?


----------



## iagainsti (Sep 3, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I think pi and the genetics code is absolute proof of the existence of God myself. I love learning that stuff. I don't believe the THEORIES which exclude the existence of God...but I LOVE the true science because it ALL supports the existence of God.



So any scientific theory that excludes the existence of God must not be "true science"? What an open-minded way to pursue knowledge.


----------



## froggy (Sep 7, 2009)

most other religions are knock offs of christianity allah,mormon,catholic,sda,all manmade


----------



## goldcatt (Sep 7, 2009)

froggy said:


> most other religions are knock offs of christianity allah,mormon,catholic,sda,all manmade



Judaism?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2009)

A man I know wrote, "Of course scientists have biases. They're human, after all. Recent neuroscience and cognitive psychology research has demonstrated people rarely ever are capable of shedding their preconceptions voluntarily and without a huge struggle -- we all tend to look for confirmatory evidence for our personal beliefs. However, Science has this wonderful anti-bias mechanism called 'peer review'! Scientists might try to hold onto their biases for a long time, but the strain of incoming research and new data will, sooner or later, overwhelm them -- or at the very least, those around them, enough for a paradigm shift."

Religious paradigm shifts occur also, and the social conservatives in the U.S. are becoming smaller a percentage of our population every year.  Their influence will fade inevitably.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 8, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Which explains why arranged marriages between 3 y.o.s is acceptable.
> 
> I dunno, I'm for it. I'm all for parents deciding who their kids marry.
> 
> After they're adults, of course.


Just so long as they're cut so their cocks look good and they can tell them apart from the livestock, right?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 8, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I think pi and the genetics code is absolute proof of the existence of God myself. I love learning that stuff. I don't believe the THEORIES which exclude the existence of God...but I LOVE the true science because it ALL supports the existence of God.


Were you always a fucking retard or were you shaken as a baby?

Pi is proof that there are too many fucking numbers and RNA is proof of self-replicating molecules


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 8, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I think pi and the genetics code is absolute proof of the existence of God myself. I love learning that stuff. I don't believe the THEORIES which exclude the existence of God...but I LOVE the true science because it ALL supports the existence of God.



*GODs DNA RNA You Say??*
Chains and links, links and chains, copy cat, copy cat, copy this copy cat, chains of copy imagine that, time and time Spiral down chains of copy all around, i see a chain a copy how the chains of life run a mile, i see a mirror darkly now of chain an copys, copys wow, from far i seeth my wretched blog of chains and copys mirror GOD, So dont disclaim and lay the blame of tattered hearts lay a flame, of Spiral copy mirror trod a Spiral copy image GOD. Moving out all about, from time and spaces copy race, come and gone at timeless place copy mirror, mirror trace, Spiral this Spiral rods, a carbon source, a shadow GOD..  -whitelion


----------



## logical4u (Sep 8, 2009)

iagainsti said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Macro evolution is not a science.  There is no proof that species morfed into another species.  It is a belief.
> ...



This "Being", in His own words described the ordering of the universe and the creation of life on this world.  If He was the one, that made the physical laws and could also break them (as His son demonstrated), I would say that He, is, the source for your science and should therefore been taught as an alternate theory (belief).

If evolution is a "scientific theory" (a belief), does that mean we should teach anything we generally term as science that has NO evidence to even show a possibility of being fact?

I am simply pointing out that both are theories of how life came to be.  Evolutionists pretend that something magic (but they will not propose any theories as to what this magic is) shifted and scrambled everything and some how, some way, life started, and then some more magic happened (no evidence of the transformation), and one celled animals "evolved" into other forms of life.
Creationists call this "magic": G*d.  We don't pretend to understand why or how he chose the life forms, we just accept that someone out there is a LOT smarter than us, has chosen to show us the way through Biblical writings, and if we ask, and pray, and try to live according to His words, we will be at peace.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 8, 2009)

Why do people assume ~600 fairy tales are 'true' or meaningful because they're old yet ignore the original stories from ~2000 before that?

Because they have no interest in reality or truth and are dishonest at their core.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Sep 9, 2009)

logical4u said:


> If evolution is a "scientific theory" (a belief), does that mean we should teach anything we generally term as science that has NO evidence to even show a possibility of being fact?



Evolution is not a scientific theory.  This is a common misconception.  Evolution is a scientific fact.  We see it everyday, from the mutation of viruses and therefore new innoculations, to the genetically modified vegetables you buy, to cancer, to the infinite variation within a species (i.e. each individual human being is different from every other, even identical twins are not 100% identical) and many other examples.  Evolution Through Natural Selection is one theory to explain evolution, which is a fact.  Like The General Theory of Relativity is a theory to explain gravity, a fact.  And there is MUCH evidence to support the theories of evolution.  In fact, there is so much evidence that were you to force biologists, medical doctors, anthropologists, and many other scientific disciplines to NOT use an evolutionary framework in their studies, research, and investigations, what they have learned about life on planet Earth wouldn't make sense.  It would be nonsense.



logical4u said:


> I am simply pointing out that both are theories of how life came to be.  Evolutionists pretend that something magic (but they will not propose any theories as to what this magic is)



Actually they have proposed many, albiet similar, theories as to how life orginated and have much evidence to support those theories.  The problem is that life didn't just happen to appear one day from the "primordial goo", it took hundreds of thousands, maybe tens of millions of years for self-replicating rna and dna to form, then to mutate shells that better protect themselves (viruses), and then to mutate into whatever it is they mutated into next.  Maybe bacteria.  The thing is, that there is evidence that this is exactly what happened.  There are fossilized strata of bacteria from the precambrian period.  Not very magical at all.



logical4u said:


> shifted and scrambled everything and some how, some way, life started, and then some more magic happened (no evidence of the transformation), and one celled animals "evolved" into other forms of life.



Once again, there is no magic at all.  Random mutation occurs naturally.  What do you think cancer is or why you never become immune to the common cold?  Because random mutations in the genetic code.  Now, how do those random mutations occur?  Many factors, but a really well known one is radiation.  We know radiation causes cancer, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, or soldiers who were part of the tests conducted with atomic bomb before its official use.  Just look at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  The offspring off the survivors of radioactive disasters might have three arms or no arms.  That's the thing, most mutations result in the organism being less fit to survive.  But every once in a very long while, say, ten thousand years, the mutation is beneficial to the organism's survival and voila!  A new subspecies.  Now if mutation can occur intraspecially, why would it stop there.  Why wouldn't those mutations stack up cumulatively over time and result in what we would categorize as a new species?



logical4u said:


> Creationists call this "magic": G*d.  We don't pretend to understand why or how he chose the life forms, we just accept that someone out there is a LOT smarter than us, has chosen to show us the way through Biblical writings, and if we ask, and pray, and try to live according to His words, we will be at peace.



Well, its great that you feel at peace.  Something tells me that isn't entirely true for all Christians considering the vehemence of the sermons of many preachers and pastors and religious ideologues and fringe radical fundamentalists.  And when I look back at history and see the strife caused by religious intolerance.

I think that not attempting to understand why or how God works is caused by an inherent fear of learning or knowledge.  God might exist, there is no proof He doesn't.  On the other hand, there is no proof He does, and from my standpoint, the fact that there is no proof He exists is what stops me from believing in Him, among many other reasons, such as not knowing in which of the many gods: God, Allah, Yahweh, Sri Krsna, Quetzlcoatl, etc., to believe.  "All of'em, any of'em?"

Instead, like the pious little empiricist that I am, I will not make up my mind before having all the information.  And if I never have all of the information, then I will never make up my mind and have to live out my life in this uncomfortable limbo of not knowing.  Scary, isn't it?  Not really.  Exciting is more like it.

I recommend taking some science classes.  And a logic class, too.  If only to better know God's creation.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

Science doesn't know what that ''magic' is?

The Spooky World Of Quantum Biology | h+ Magazine Quantum Biology Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts? | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine Introduction to Quantum Biology arNQ Eprints Subjects - Theory of Brain Function, Quantum Mechanics and Sup The Quantum Basis of Natural Intelligence? How can quantum mechanics of material evolution be...[Biosystems. 1985] - P ScienceDirect - Biosystems : Molecular quantum computer of neuron ScienceDirect - Biosystems : Molecular quantum computer of neuron Pentagon Explores Quantum Biology | Danger Room | Wired.com Quantum Biology: Powerful Computer Models Reveal Key Biological Mechanism The evolution conspiracy - A quantum leap into the New Age - Google Video [0906.4279] Quantum information processing at the cellular level. Euclidean approach

Reality is a lot more interesting than your fairy tales


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 9, 2009)

I wonder how Socrates wouldve applied the "Socratic Method" to some on these forums =)
Is Socrates fiction or fantasy, fact of the matter Socrates was around long before the BIBLE was in its final canonized and translated form 1611(William Tyndale/King James) or about 300 years after the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written 150 BCE to 70 CE, that were discovered later between 1947 and 1956. Also the Bible is a historic archive dating back to the origins of mankind an not just bound by the ideas of religious theism or fairy tales as some would have you to believe?. Would we discount our history archives in Washington DC which are better than 300 years old?? surely not!(however there are some that are trying to change it) Then why discount your spiritual and historical document guide, it would be like tearing down all the landmarks and road signs that lead us from point A to point B?? Or is it that you'd have me flying in the BLIND??? Im sure someone here will flame me and its all good, but your not going to change my mind no more than i could change yours. People post these long strung out observations of quotes from än-t&#275;'-khr&#275;-stos types(like the one below) that carry no more weight than a nasty ole blow fly and amount to the same. Another way of putting it the more you entertain the ideas of fundamental human secularism(humanistic religion of science and Evolution) the more you lose what you believe, if you lose what you beleive, then youv'e lost yourself and you have no guides or archieves to bare on spiritually nor scientifically and basically leaves one in a state.. of, well a mindless jellyfish meandering around in a pool of blob.. Socrates knew more than most on these post would like to give him credit.......even more so than Plato and Aristotle combined and Socrate was their mentor? I left some links of interest below to those with open minds????

Socrates
Dead Sea scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The canonization of the bible
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm


----------



## Care4all (Sep 9, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> I wonder how Socrates wouldve applied the "Socratic Method" to some on these forums =)



He would've been banned. Whenever I apply it, people get pissed as soon as I point out the contradictions


The bible is a racist rehash of the Sumerian records


----------



## Care4all (Sep 9, 2009)

it was not 6-7000 years of our time....the earth and our galaxy IS 4.5 BILLION years old White lion

Time taken does not matter to me, but the sequence of events are the same, so far in both Science and the Bible....and no I have not forgotten about God Breathing life in to Adam once he was formed.

How do you take that....?  That God gave us our spirit once we were formed or soul once we were formed?  He did form us first from the dust of the earth, before he breathed this life in to us....

So, all the other creatures of the earth, where it does not say "he breathed life in to them", does that make them any less alive today or keep them from their life?  

I believe that when God Breathed life in to Adam, it was spiritual....the kind of life that God has....unseen, but there....so I do not let that statement get in the way of evolution...the evolving of all creatures over time....this was the smartest thing God did, creating us so that everything living could evolve and adapt to the environment....or fall. 

Anyway, I am not here to argue what you believe is wrong....though I believe to a degree, it is wrong.

only because I don't believe you guys give God enough Credit when he used the progression on Earth and the evolution of life as his means that accomplished Genesis 1, as was writen.

Genesis 1 was never meant to be a Science book with the hows and whys....

For goodness sakes it is one page of passages that describe the entire progression of our galaxy and life itself...it is the SHORTEST OF SHORT STORIES that ever existed, giving us a very brief view of the succession of creation for us...even less information than a history lesson would give on any given subject....it gave us the "gist" of the things that took place before us....that's it....all the rest is Faith.

but often times in the Bible, it has stated the way we know if the Bible is true, is to see if what it says or prophesies is true, to test it...if it comes true or is true, then this is proof that it is the Word of God....there should be NO FEAR in putting up the Word of God, to Science....we should have no fear to test what is true in the Bible....at least not from my readings of it...it is more like God wants us to test his word, so to weed out the false prophets and false doctrine.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

WL, L4U, and Care really need to educate themselves on the matter they're discussing


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> it was not 6-7000 years of our time....the earth and our galaxy IS 4.5 BILLION years old White lion
> 
> Time taken does not matter to me, but the sequence of events are the same, so far in both Science and the Bible....and no I have not forgotten about God Breathing life in to Adam once he was formed.
> 
> ...



I dont discount that the earth is billions of years old, What i was doing was giving you one type of example of how GOD looks at time, not how we precieve it or that the earth was that old, and i didnt say that was a fact hola cows and flat earths? Also i was saying that according to the scripture i laid beforeth you that the earth couldve been created in 6-7000 years not that the total age of earth was 6-7000 years old sheeze for all we know the earth could be billions of years old, Genesis does say that before GOD started his creation quest that the earth was void and without form(possibly a rock floatin around in space for trillions of years)????

2 Peter 3:8 - But do not let this one {fact} escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. So its a very possible theory that GOD couldve spent 6-7000 year in just the habitational creation phase???


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 9, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> WhiteLion said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how Socrates wouldve applied the "Socratic Method" to some on these forums =)
> ...



lol you wish, Sumerians were in existance long before, Moses parted the Red Sea, Moses and Major prophets were responsible for the first writtings and canonizations of the first 4-5 books of the Torah which are almost identical to the Old Testament that we know of to this day. These books were stories passed down from generation to generation of ancient Hebrew familys, not some kinda barrowed 2 horse society out of Iraq(Sumerians) . Standing back and looking at the over all picture it was really all about(Christ Lineage from Adam to King David to Jesus the Christ)  If the truth be known it takes a racist to know one.. know one???

And there were no real contradictions with Socrates with the exception of his padawans Aristotle and Plato which often times misquoted him, Socrates was no fool he believed in GOD(the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob(or Isreal))

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. 
George Washington    
This's why broadly our nation is going under in every avenue, if we keep on the same path we'll be in a worse state than some the 3rd world nations abroad(oh when we totally collapse CHina will tooooo). From the time of the Revolutionary war until WWII the USA enjoyed unprecedented protection from terrorist and invasion, but when we slapped HIM in the face in the late 1950s and 60's we've been steadly open to all sorts of attacks(numerous times during the Carter/Clintonian era), samething happened to Isreal and they ant been right since...


----------



## Care4all (Sep 9, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > it was not 6-7000 years of our time....the earth and our galaxy IS 4.5 BILLION years old White lion
> ...



yes, thank you...the passage in 2 peter definitely tells us that what we think of as time is not His time!

well, science is figuring some things out, in our human terms...or at least coming up with some pretty darn good guesses that have a lot to back them up.  

I just don't fear sciences hypothesis or theories, or disregard them...because i do not in any way believe that they will ever prove that God doesn't exist, only that He does...and if Science is the ''test'' that the Bible is put under, IT WILL WITHSTAND IT!  I have Faith in such!  

care


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

1) 'moses' never existed. Several distinct authors wrote the 'Moseanic texts'

2) Every story in your ~4000-year-old fairy tale comes from older tales, including Sumeraian myths from ~2000 years before your collection was pieced together

3)Two-Horse society? Sumer was among the first to have cities, has a bicameral 'congress', had the wheel and plow, and one of the two oldest writing systems known to have existed. All while what would become the Jews were wondering around like a bunch of fucking gypsies.



> *The Sumerians based their number system on 10, but they        multiplied 10 by 6 to get the next unit. They multiplied 60 by 10, then        multiplied 600 by 6, and so on. (The number 60 has the advantage of being        divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.) The Sumerians also        divided the circle into 360 degrees. From these early people came the word        dozen (a fifth of 60) and the division of the clock to measure hours,        minutes, and seconds.* *The Sumerians had standard        measures, with units of length, area, and capacity. Their standard weight        was the mina, made up of 60 shekels--about the same weight as a pound.        There was no coined money. Standard weights of silver served as measures        of value and as a means of exchange....*
> 
> 
> *The longest story is the        Gilgamesh epic, one of the outstanding works of ancient literature. The        superhero Gilgamesh originally appeared in Sumerian mythology as a        legendary king of Uruk. A long Babylonian poem includes an account of his        journey to the bottom of the sea to obtain the plant of life. As he        stopped to bathe at a spring on the way home, a hungry snake snatched the        plant. When Gilgamesh saw the creature cast off its old skin to become        young again, it seemed to him a sign that old age was the fate of humans.*
> ...


Sumerian Culture

Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I just don't fear sciences hypothesis or theories, or disregard them...because i do not in any way believe that they will ever prove that God doesn't exist, only that He does...and if Science is the ''test'' that the Bible is put under, IT WILL WITHSTAND IT!  I have Faith in such!
> 
> care


In the case of your god, it's already been proven. Your god rests along with Pluto, Sol, and the gods of Olympus

Your bible can't withstand any test, including its own. No two gospels agree and many of the 'prophesies' yeshua is said to have fulfilled don't exist in the Torah


----------



## logical4u (Sep 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Sep 9, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## Zona (Sep 9, 2009)

As long as this is not about mormons, I am in.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 10, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Evolution is like a science experiment that says, we know there was nothing and then there was something.  We believe an explosion happened because things are moving.  We know that there was no life, and then there was.  Life just happened and then one-celled animals just "became" all the other life forms we see around us.  It just happened.  It is like doing an experiment about falling and not mentioning gravity.  Your teacher would give you an "F".




YOu just showed your true colors, Hovindite


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 10, 2009)

So l4U thinks evolutions is cosmology and Care's as stupid as ever...


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 10, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 1) 'moses' never existed. Several distinct authors wrote the 'Moseanic texts'
> 
> 2) Every story in your ~4000-year-old fairy tale comes from older tales, including Sumeraian myths from ~2000 years before your collection was pieced together
> 
> ...



People post these long strung out observations of quotes from än-t&#275;'-khr&#275;-stos types, that carry no more weight than a nasty ole blow fly and amount to the same.
Of coarse thats your version of it and your entitled to it, sooooo have fun with it?


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 10, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 11, 2009)

The evidence has been cited proving you a dishonest retard nd you clap your hands lie a fool


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 11, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> The evidence has been cited proving you a dishonest retard nd you clap your hands lie a fool


Your a humanist nutjob, why dont you just go take your meds and go to bed? cause all your foul garbage you call proof dont amount to a rats turd in my eyes, nobody here cares nor takes you serious, at least not the sane ones so nighty night . lol im surprised i entertained you this long.. but no more your a post hangout loser and im thru with you...Fool?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 11, 2009)

A Nutjob? You buy into talking snakes, genocides, and incest as the foundation of your religion and you call me a nutjob? lol. That's rich.

If you wish to call me a fool, do learn English first. 

Is it any wonder I refer to you people as retards? Every time your kinds speaks it reveals yet more evidence that your religion is based on mental retardation and fear.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 15, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't fear sciences hypothesis or theories, or disregard them...because i do not in any way believe that they will ever prove that God doesn't exist, only that He does...and if Science is the ''test'' that the Bible is put under, IT WILL WITHSTAND IT!  I have Faith in such!
> ...



NOTHING has been proven except you are as extreme in YOUR beliefs as ANY religious crackpot.

There's just no difference between the two of you.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 15, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So l4U thinks evolutions is cosmology and Care's as stupid as ever...



Calling care stupid is a foul of the FIRST magnitude.  YOU are the one that is stupid, jb.  Get over your hating self, huh?


----------



## DamnYankee (Sep 15, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1284876-post1.html



Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Been a long thread, huh?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...







Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's not true 



If I'm wrong, go refute my claims in the various threads where I've proven your religion an lie time and again


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So l4U thinks evolutions is cosmology and Care's as stupid as ever...
> ...




Calling her stupid is merely an observation


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Gunny said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...







Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's not true 



If I'm wrong, go refute my claims in the various threads where I've proven your religion an lie time and again


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 16, 2009)

JB, all you have "proven" is that portions of a book were inaccurate, nothing can prove a religion is wrong.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JB, all you have "proven" is that portions of a book were inaccurate, nothing can prove a religion is wrong.




That's simply a moronic statement. A religion is proven wrong the moment its claims are proven wrong. There is zero evidence 'jesus' existed, ti's proven that the books are not the infallible word of god, and their deity has been proven to not exist.


Abrahamism has been long debunked, as I have explained numerous times.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 16, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > JB, all you have "proven" is that portions of a book were inaccurate, nothing can prove a religion is wrong.
> ...



Until you understand abstract thought, you will never understand religion. Until you understand religion, you will never understand what it actually is. All the facts and book learning in the world cannot explain to you what religion is. Books are not the religion.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...






We already know what 'abstract thought' means to KK




KittenKoder said:


> Ignore logic, ignore facts, ignore science



'We must be open-minded, but not so openminded that our brains fall out'


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Funny how retarded the mods are here. One doesn't know that the blue button in  quote's box IS the link to the quote and another encourages people to ignore facts, logic, and science in order to 'understand' religion (granted, that's pretty much how religion operates).


Gunny, do you choose these idiots 'cause they make you feel smart or what?


----------



## Smartt33 (Sep 16, 2009)

It is amazing that this kind of debate/argument can continue for ages, knowing that it will never be resolved on a collective basis. Religion is a personal thing. That means one chooses what they want to follow. 

In the case of Christianity, the center of all religious discussions, it becomes something more than just religion. Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Mormonism, etc... are all religions. The bottom line is that none of them have any eternal powers. 

Faith, and the work of Jesus is what it is all about. "No man comes to the Father but by Me."  That is what Jesus said. The evidence of God is proclaimed by God through His creation to everyone. (Romans 1)  Some ignore it, some see it and it seems to cause them to feel guilt or fear, so they walk away. .Some see God in His creation and understand. They get it. God never stops revealing Himself to us, but our responses might change as time goes by. 

It is absolutely personal, one's relationship with God. However, it is not our plan, but God's.   It is all by His design, and we cannot create a religion that He recognizes. We cannot create God in an image we want. 

If anyone truly believes in God, it is not because they figures it out, it is because they watched God in His creation, and believed. God is the Center of all faith, Jesus is the object of true faith.  It is that faith that creates in us the life of the true believer. 

So, forget what I say, or what all the debaters are saying. Look to what God has made, and seek to know God. Then, and only then, will He come alive and give you something to hold on to in faith.  

Just a thought.


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 16, 2009)

*"No man comes to the Father but by Me."*

So anyone from another religion like Islam who don't worship jesus are never going to get into heaven?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




This is from psalms:

22:7 All those who see me mock me. 
They insult me with their lips. They shake their heads, saying, 
22:8 He trusts in Yahweh; 
let him deliver him. 
Let him rescue him, since he delights in him. 
22:9 But you brought me out of the womb. 
You made me trust at my mothers breasts. 
22:10 I was thrown on you from my mothers womb. 
You are my God since my mother bore me. 
22:11 Dont be far from me, for trouble is near. 
For there is none to help. 
22:12 Many bulls have surrounded me. 
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. 
22:13 They open their mouths wide against me, 
lions tearing prey and roaring. 
22:14 I am poured out like water. 
All my bones are out of joint. 
My heart is like wax; 
it is melted within me. 
22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd. 
My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. 
You have brought me into the dust of death. 
22:16 For dogs have surrounded me. 
A company of evildoers have enclosed me. 
They have pierced my hands and feet. 
22:17 I can count all of my bones. 
They look and stare at me. 
22:18 They divide my garments among them. 
They cast lots for my clothing. 
22:19 But dont be far off, Yahweh. 
You are my help: hurry to help me. 
22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword, 
my precious life from the power of the dog. 
22:21 Save me from the lions mouth! 
Yes, from the horns of the wild oxen, you have answered me. 
22:22 I will declare your name to my brothers. 
In the midst of the assembly, I will praise you. 
22:23 You who fear Yahweh, praise him! 
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify him! 
Stand in awe of him, all you descendants of Israel! 
22:24 For he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, 
Neither has he hidden his face from him; 
but when he cried to him, he heard. 
22:25 Of you comes my praise in the great assembly. 
I will pay my vows before those who fear him. 
22:26 The humble shall eat and be satisfied. 
They shall praise Yahweh who seek after him. 
Let your hearts live forever. 
22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to Yahweh. 
All the relatives of the nations shall worship before you. 
22:28 For the kingdom is Yahwehs. 
He is the ruler over the nations. 
22:29 All the rich ones of the earth shall eat and worship. 
All those who go down to the dust shall bow before him, 
even he who cant keep his soul alive. 
22:30 Posterity shall serve him. 
Future generations shall be told about the Lord. 
22:31 They shall come and shall declare his righteousness to a people that shall be born, 
for he has done it. 

I have not read the entire Bible, but that sounds a whole lot like what happened to Yeshua in Jerusalem.
There are other prophesies that were fullfilled and they are referenced in the NT, but you will probably ignore those too.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> *"No man comes to the Father but by Me."*
> 
> So anyone from another religion like Islam who don't worship jesus are never going to get into heaven?



The way I understand it (and I am no religious scholar):
In Revelations it says that every knee will bend before Yeshua (the final judgement).  My understanding at this point: If you have never been taught about Yeshua, you will have the opportunity at that point to make up your mind.  If you are with the entire population of the world, and they are all bowing to Yeshua, it will be your choice to accept Him as your savior at that point.  If you do, your sins will be forgiven.  If you have denied Him, any continue to deny Him at that point, you will feel His wrath.  That being said, the Lord is just, and everyone will be punished according to their sins (it helps me to think of it as a parental punishment), though the Lord loves you, He is just.  If you were tormented because you believed in Yeshua, you will be rewarded.

Yeshua, asked His disciples to spread the "Good News", the Gospels.  If you hear them or read them with an open heart and a small prayer for understanding, you cannot help, but to be amazed by the life of this man/God.  If you refuse the opportunity to learn about Him, you will answer when you stand before Him.

Like in the beginning, man is left with the choice.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

the passage simply means that Jesus Christ is the judge on judgment day....no one goes to the Father, but BY him...all will be judged fair and square....those who 'believe' and those who don't....

it is NOT up to us to determine how Jesus will judge each individual...including ourselves....  I know judgment will be fair...and I know that no one is ''getting away'' with NOTHIN', Christian or not!


----------



## BigBarry (Sep 16, 2009)

So log, if you don't agree with JC he's gonna kick your ass? Gee, what a nice guy? I think the mob has a few guys like that too.


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the passage simply means that Jesus Christ is the judge on judgment day....no one goes to the Father, but BY him...all will be judged fair and square....those who 'believe' and those who don't....
> 
> it is NOT up to us to determine how Jesus will judge each individual...including ourselves....  I know judgment will be fair...and I know that no one is ''getting away'' with NOTHIN', Christian or not!



First off if i told you who invented evil you wouldnt believe me and its Biblical, like all things with GOD(the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob)there is reason in the madness. Second true enough GOD will be the ultimate judge, but not before your own sins find you out and judge you first. And your right Care4all no one will escape their appointed judgement NO ONE, when one stands before GOD, no one will come to their rescue, no army, no police, NO ONE.....

It takes a genius to know a genius, what's your pleasure? -Whitelion

&#8220;I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.&#8221; 
 Albert Camus quote


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

logical4u said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...




lol

iot sounds like what happened to countless people in the world  

That all you can do is quote your falsified documents, fairy tales, and bedtime stories reveals that you are totally void of any real argument.

That wasn't a prophecy, btw. It was a lamentation on the part of David.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/85079-jesus-was-not-the-messiah.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/83103-abrahamists-and-prophecy.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/80867-foundational-falsehoods-of-creationism.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/80198-iq-and-religiosity.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/80122-the-power-of-prayer.html


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the passage simply means that Jesus Christ is the judge on judgment day....no one goes to the Father, but BY him...all will be judged fair and square....those who 'believe' and those who don't....
> 
> it is NOT up to us to determine how Jesus will judge each individual...including ourselves....  I know judgment will be fair...and I know that no one is ''getting away'' with NOTHIN', Christian or not!


Wrong. There are two thrones of judgment and you can get away with anything other than 'blaspheming the holy spirit' if you confess and repent


learn your own damned religion before you spout it like the dumbass you are


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the passage simply means that Jesus Christ is the judge on judgment day....no one goes to the Father, but BY him...all will be judged fair and square....those who 'believe' and those who don't....
> ...


I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things
Isaiah 45:7


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the passage simply means that Jesus Christ is the judge on judgment day....no one goes to the Father, but BY him...all will be judged fair and square....those who 'believe' and those who don't....
> ...



silly silly jb....  if you repent, you are NOT getting away with something, you are a penitent man.

and what is blaspheming the holy spirit in your opinion jb?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

'For he has said "he has an unclean spirit"'. there is no room for opinion. The sentence that states it is unforgivable defines it.

Penitent = getting away with everything you've ever done. Christianity ios a religion based on 'sinning' all you want and avoiding personal responsibility.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


really, who are these countless people?

darn! you are dumb!  but i guess i can't complain, you were given what you got, from God!


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Actually, there are two unforgivable sins, but yeah


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


Who were they?

Here are a few

A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth"


Damn, you're fucklin' retarded


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 'For he has said "he has an unclean spirit"'. there is no room for opinion. The sentence that states it is unforgivable defines it.
> 
> Penitent = getting away with everything you've ever done. Christianity ios a religion based on 'sinning' all you want and avoiding personal responsibility.



what a crock of baby poop on your idea of penitent!  

FAIL on your interpretation or attempt to answer what sinning against the holy spirit is...!!!

care


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

So you admit the bible is fail? 

That's right, folks, Care has now said that Jesus is fail


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

it was attributing things that came from God, to the Devil...Beelzebub.

Attributing something that is from God=good, to
attributing something that is from the Devil=evil. 

The pharisees said that Jesus healing the sick through his miracles came from Satan...Beelzebub!


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> it was attributing things that came from God, to the Devil...



Not in all cases. It is specifically calling the Holy Spirit an evil or  unclean spirit, or its works the works of such a spirit. Blaspheming the father of the sopn will be forgiven, according to 'matthew'


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 16, 2009)

Why do I know more about the bible than most of you retards who love it so much?


----------



## logical4u (Sep 16, 2009)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Do you have original documents?  Can you prove the Bible was falsified?  Can you prove they are fairy tales?  Why do people fear the stories of the Bible (to the point of killing those that tell the stories), when they do not fear fairy tales and do not prohibit fairy tales?  Scrolls have been found that are thousands and thousands of years old that match the OT books.  People were killed for centuries after Yeshua was crucified for not worshipping the gov declared god (usually a gov figure).   Can you demonstrate any other movement/religion in history that has lived like that?
The Catholic church has documented miracles for centuries of people doing amazing things in the name of Yeshua.  Do you have any proof that those are falsified?

Yes the passage from psalms was a lament of David, but it also described Yeshua on the cross (and we know of no event where David had his hands and feet pierced), a prophesy.
You claim to know the Bible, but I think you do not understand it.  Your loss.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I certainly hope you meant this post of yours to go to JB instead of me???

Care


----------



## Smartt33 (Sep 16, 2009)

BigBarry said:


> *"No man comes to the Father but by Me."*
> 
> So anyone from another religion like Islam who don't worship jesus are never going to get into heaven?



    It doesn't matter what religion they are in. If they reject Jesus, they will not make it into Heaven.


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> it was attributing things that came from God, to the Devil...Beelzebub.
> 
> Attributing something that is from God=good, to
> attributing something that is from the Devil=evil.
> ...



Jesus said how can Satan cast out Satan?? its impossible, or what doth light have to do with darkness??

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Matthew 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

What i meant earlier when i was refering to who created evil, I was refering to, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things........ Now youve got to understand that this was written after Satan and a 1\3rd of the angels were cast down out of the heavens. And also after the fall of mankind in the garden and original sin, these are another story. However according to theology scholars the reason GOD allowed evil to be created was to seperate the wheat from the chaff, or the goats from the sheep at their own free will. See you wouldnt apply a broad herbicide to your entire garden just to kill a few weeds absolutely not! you'd burn up everything and have no produce to yield? Because of mans sin nature GOD sent his only begotten son Jesus the Christ(the weedout master) for all to except freely and escape the 
harsh herbicidel deception to come or so to speak, once the harvest is ripe its all over but the crying for the weeds, which are you going to be, withering weeds or fruitful produce???


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 17, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Do you?



> Why do people fear the stories of the Bible (to the point of killing those that tell the stories),





You mean like the Jews committing genocide becuse god told them to?



> Scrolls have been found that are thousands and thousands of years old that match the OT books.



Wrong, dumbass. 

Does Mark 16: 9-20 Belong in the Bible? Mark 16:9-20 - Its Legitimacy in the Text  Textual Criticism Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) Nazareth  The Town that Theology Built 
Codex Sinaiticus: The earliest Bible manuscript to appear on the Internet soon - Pravda.Ru 


Even the current form doesn't agree with itself

101 Contradictions in the Bible - Think Atheist 194 Contradictions New Testament A List Of Biblical Contradictions Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Biblical Contradictions Contradictions in The Old Testament Errors and Contradictions in the Bible? Bible Contradictions New Testament Contradictions 


 P





> eople were killed for centuries after Yeshua was crucified for not worshipping the gov declared god (usually a gov figure).



Kinda like all those killed for not worshiping YHWH?




> The Catholic church has documented miracles for centuries of people doing amazing things in the name of Yeshua.  Do you have any proof that those are falsified?





You have any proof that any miracles have occurred and are caused by god? You n





> ear the burden of proof, dumbass
> 
> 
> Yes the passage from psalms was a lament of David, but it also described Yeshua on the cross (and we know of no event where David had his hands and feet pierced), a prophesy.



Speaking of prophecy and lies...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/85079-jesus-was-not-the-messiah.html


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Sorry, Yes I did


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Sep 17, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Do you have original documents?  Can you prove the Bible was falsified?



Can you prove that its true?  And I don't mean some of the historical aspects, but the whole thing?



logical4u said:


> Can you prove they are fairy tales?



Can anyone prove that fairy tales are just that, fairy tales?



logical4u said:


> Why do people fear the stories of the Bible (to the point of killing those that tell the stories), when they do not fear fairy tales and do not prohibit fairy tales?



Because many people have at least enough since to not take traditional fairy tales seriously, unlike those told in the Bible.  When someone takes something seriously which doesn't align well with reality, they are dangerous and are commonly referred to as "insane" or "delusional".



logical4u said:


> Scrolls have been found that are thousands and thousands of years old that match the OT books.



Which just means that the Bible is old.  And those scrolls are only a little less than a 2 thousand years old, b the way.



logical4u said:


> People were killed for centuries after Yeshua was crucified for not worshipping the gov declared god (usually a gov figure).   Can you demonstrate any other movement/religion in history that has lived like that?



Yes, many:
Protestants vs. Catholics
Muslims vs. Jews
Nazis vs. Jews
China vs. Tibetan Buddhists
Muslims vs. Christians
Stalin vs. religion
Christians vs. Muslims
Sunni vs. Shi'ite
Muslims vs. Hindus
Anglicans vs. Puritans
Any monotheistic religion vs. any other religion



logical4u said:


> The Catholic church has documented miracles for centuries of people doing amazing things in the name of Yeshua.  Do you have any proof that those are falsified?



So have many other religions, including the Mormons.  They don't have any proof of their miracles, but do you?



logical4u said:


> Yes the passage from psalms was a lament of David, but it also described Yeshua on the cross (and we know of no event where David had his hands and feet pierced), a prophesy.  You claim to know the Bible, but I think you do not understand it.  Your loss.



I've read the Bible.  And I didn't really understand it, either.  It really didn't make a lot of sense.  There were genocides instigated by God, wars, strange happenings (like Lot's wife - what's up with that?), vagueness (as in Genesis), lots of rules (like Leviticus), not very well written poetry (Psalms - I mean, only Christians read Psalms, its fairly meaningless and not very literate for the rest of us), and then there's Revelations.  And it really doesn't matter a whole lot since the Bible has been translated how many times?  And wasn't there some sort of council a millenium or so ago that decided what would and would not be included in the Bible?  Wouldn't you think that has some bearing on its accuracy and its integrity?  The Bible proves nothing except that the Prophets didn't collaborate well as writers and people desire to have control over others.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 17, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You are the one that is claiming the Bible is false, yet you offer nothing that proves it to be false.  You have discovered some person's opinions that there are contradictions in one book in the NT.  One instance (that is an opinion) out of all those books, could be a translation error.

Present the documents that show the Bible is false.

[/quote]



You mean like the Jews committing genocide becuse god told them to?

[/quote]

If you read the whole section, you will see that G*d told them why those were to be destroyed.  It seems they despised the Lord; an insignificant population of Hebrews was given the power to destroy them to prove His point.  There are a lot of people today that are making the same mistake, trying the patience of the Lord (including me).

[/quote]
Wrong, dumbass. 

Does Mark 16: 9-20 Belong in the Bible? Mark 16:9-20 - Its Legitimacy in the Text  Textual Criticism Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) Nazareth  The Town that Theology Built 
Codex Sinaiticus: The earliest Bible manuscript to appear on the Internet soon - Pravda.Ru 


Even the current form doesn't agree with itself

101 Contradictions in the Bible - Think Atheist 194 Contradictions New Testament A List Of Biblical Contradictions Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Biblical Contradictions Contradictions in The Old Testament Errors and Contradictions in the Bible? Bible Contradictions New Testament Contradictions 

[/quote]

Like I said, you can read it, but with the above in mind, you will not understand it.

 P
[/quote]
Kinda like all those killed for not worshiping YHWH?
[/quote]

Who has been killed for not worshiping G*d?  How many?  When?
Were they killed for not worshiping G*d or was it an excuse for not supporting someone politically?  Anti-Christians are great at throwing up the inquisitition, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands that have been killed by muslims trying to force their political beliefs (via religion) onto others, while ignoring the millions killed by communists and dictators (that basically outlawed G*d in their countries).
If you want to put up some numbers, put up the comparisons.  More people have died from diseases than have been killed for not worshiping G*d.



> The Catholic church has documented miracles for centuries of people doing amazing things in the name of Yeshua.  Do you have any proof that those are falsified?





You have any proof that any miracles have occurred and are caused by god? You n





> ear the burden of proof, dumbass
> ?


Great arguement.  You make a claim and can't back it up, and then tell me that I must prove to you.  I am not trying to prove anything to you.  I am trying to point out that you are intent on misleading people with no proof of your own.  
If the people that performed the miracles called on the Lord, and thru Him, did things that were otherwise impossible, can you tell me who/what else was responsible?

Other religions have documented amazing things, why do you not attack them?  Hebrews have documented amazing victories.  They have been noted in other civilizations as being a great power in ancient times.  Christians have been performing miracles since before Yeshua died.  Why will you deny Him?

.[/quote]
Yes the passage from psalms was a lament of David, but it also described Yeshua on the cross (and we know of no event where David had his hands and feet pierced), a prophesy.[/quote]

Speaking of prophecy and lies...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/85079-jesus-was-not-the-messiah.html[/QUOTE]

Again, you make a statement and use opinion as fact.  The NT has several people that are witnesses to Yeshua and His sacrifice for us.  They were there.  The people that documented their words and works knew them or results of their miracles first hand.  Now people that do not want to believe claim to know and you are going to take their word?  Have you asked why would someone want to stop people from believing in Yeshua?  

He only taught that salvation was with the individual, that if they worked to live according to G*d's Laws and believe in Him, Yeshua, they would have everlasting life.  He said to spread the Good News, that salvation was possible for all mankind.  How is that harmful to anyone?

The ones that despise Him teach "groups", "legion"...you must be a part.  Maybe because it is a lot easier to control people that do not rely on their own actions to produce the outcome that they want (eternal salvation).  They need people that will go against the will of G*d and their own principles to accomplish the goal of the "leader".


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Present the documents that show the Bible is false.



The documents themselves prove that

Perhaps you're blind, so I'll repost the links from earlier

Jesus was not the Messiah

abrahamists and prophecy

A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

Does Mark 16: 9-20 Belong in the Bible? Mark 16:9-20 - Its Legitimacy in the Text &#8226; Textual Criticism Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) Nazareth &#8211; The Town that Theology Built 
Codex Sinaiticus: The earliest Bible manuscript to appear on the Internet soon - Pravda.Ru 


101 Contradictions in the Bible - Think Atheist 194 Contradictions New Testament A List Of Biblical Contradictions Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Biblical Contradictions Contradictions in The Old Testament Errors and Contradictions in the Bible? Bible Contradictions New Testament Contradictions 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/85079-jesus-was-not-the-messiah.html

Since you've shown that you can't read, here's a collection of materials that spell it all out without requiring any literacy on your part

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.





You mean like the Jews committing genocide becuse god told them to?




> If you read the whole section, you will see that G*d told them why those were to be destroyed.  It seems they despised the Lord; an insignificant population of Hebrews was given the power to destroy them to prove His point.  There are a lot of people today that are making the same mistake, trying the patience of the Lord (including me).


So they were killed for refusing to worship YHWH? Were't you just complainming about people being killed for refusing to worship someone else's deity?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6xzgocVH6c"]YouTube - â&#8211;ºDeath Noteâ&#8212;&#8222; Hypocrite â&#8211;ºAMVâ&#8212;&#8222;[/ame]​


> Like I said, you can read it, but with the above in mind, you will not understand it.


I understand it perfectly and for what it is. You, on the other handm understand nothing



> Who has been killed for not worshiping G*d?  How many?


The Amorites, the Caananites, the Aakadians, the Jebusites, the Hittitwes, the Perizzites, the Hivties, the Native Americans, the natives in America, anyone with the misfortune to line in the Middle or Dark Ages, the women at Salem, the Muslims in the ME...



> Anti-Christians are great at throwing up the inquisitition, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands that have been killed by muslims trying to force their political beliefs (via religion) onto others,


Sop your defense amounts to 'they did it, to'? Then we agree, you are no different than they are.



> If you want to put up some numbers.


Here, they did the counting for us

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABptlAhyJw"]YouTube - Atheist Experience - Tallying God's kill count in the Bible (Part 1)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWHzB6H718w&feature=related"]YouTube - Atheist Experience - Tallying God's kill count in the Bible (Part 2)[/ame]




> Great arguement.  You make a claim and can't back it up, and then tell me that I must prove to you.




you claimed miracles happen. You must prove it.




> Hebrews have documented amazing victories


Because they practiced Guerrilla warfare when their enemies marched in columns

it's the same way we won our independence and the VietCong defeated America



> .  They have been noted in other civilizations as being a great power in ancient times.


So were the Akkadians. Isreal was destroyed, remember. Just because you name the Wests pet project after Isreal doesn't mean the nation con continued to exist

 Christians have been performing miracles since before Yeshua died.  Why will you deny Him?



> > Speaking of prophecy and lies...
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/85079-jesus-was-not-the-messiah.html
> 
> 
> Again, you make a statement and use opinion as fact.





Comparing what the book says to what happened is 'opinon'? 

Do you people ever not lie?



> The NT has several people that are witnesses to Yeshua and His sacrifice for us.




1)So they claim

2)to have written it decades later

3)With no evidence to their authenticity

4)When eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable evidence one can ever put forward



> They were there.  The people that documented their words and works


No, they didn't. The allegedly wrote memoirs decades later. Do you even know your own religion's official story? 


> He only taught that salvation was with the individual, that if they worked to live according to G*d's Laws and believe in Him, Yeshua, they would have everlasting life.  He said to spread the Good News, that salvation was possible for all mankind.  How is that harmful to anyone?


Do you know what those laws are?

Do you have any virgin daughters, by chance?

Oh wait, you're not a Semite, are you? That means you have to die


----------



## Care4all (Sep 18, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



i never denied psalms 22 was not prophesy of Jesus so i have no idea WHY you would even ask such a thing from me?

i have never denied miracles either?

so you must be confused...?


----------



## froggy (Sep 18, 2009)

if you athies say its not hereidtsry or hand me down why does it bother you if someone says a prayer aloud wheter it be in school, in court, in church, why?


----------



## froggy (Sep 18, 2009)

with america being rapidly taken over by the atheist and such (the ungodly)america must be the hidden country of bozrah.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2009)

froggy said:


> with america being rapidly taken over by the atheist and such (the ungodly)america must be the hidden country of bozrah.


whose puppet are you?


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 1, 2009)

By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?

How could you be so sure that God does not exist?

What was the number one tell-tell sign to convince you that there might not be a God?

Just like any argument, one must completely understand what the author is stating before agreeing, disagreeing, and or challenging.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 1, 2009)

The people of bozrah eat frogs.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 1, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?



Lack of physical evidence, empirical data, and logic.



Joe_Penalty said:


> How could you be so sure that God does not exist?



I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure.



Joe_Penalty said:


> What was the number one tell-tell sign to convince you that there might not be a God?



There are a number of number 1's:

All the believers of religion in the world have great reasons why they _don't_ believe in any other god(s).  All their reasons combined are why I don't believe in _any_ god(s).

The unrealistic, supernatural stories that most religions are founded upon.

The deeds done in religion's name.

...and more!



Joe_Penalty said:


> Just like any argument, one must completely understand what the author is stating before agreeing, disagreeing, and or challenging.



For any valid argument that might convince, agreed.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 1, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?
> ...



For the record, I do believe in other gods; I do not worship other gods.  I believe Mollech is alive and well and has been renamed (look that one up and tell me if you know the new name).


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 1, 2009)

logical4u said:


> For the record, I do believe in other gods; I do not worship other gods.  I believe Mollech is alive and well and has been renamed (look that one up and tell me if you know the new name).



Are you being sarcastic, logical4u?

I sure hope so.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 1, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, I do believe in other gods; I do not worship other gods.  I believe Mollech is alive and well and has been renamed (look that one up and tell me if you know the new name).
> ...



No, I am not being sacrastic.  If you read Jerimiah, it talks about the New Covenant, and states the the "gods" will be banished.  I am not sure if they are loose, but it appears they are still influencing man.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?




impossible by definition, if "God"= the Abrahamic god



> How could you be so sure that God does not exist?



demonstrably non-existent


> What was the number one tell-tell sign to convince you that there might not be a God?



Is it God or a god? Make up your mind.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 1, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?
> ...



Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 1, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > By reading some of the posts, it seems that some lack understanding, with regards to the existence of God.  For those who doubt the existence of God, what makes you doubt such?
> ...



What do you mean by impossible by definition?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Joe_Penalty said:
> ...


The Abraham god is a round triangular square with parallel sides intersection at 17 degrees.

Defined as all-knowing: demonstrably false through basic epistemological exercises. How can God he was not created by an ultra-god? Not to mention being described as asking questions he didn't know the answer to.

Described as possessing limitless power: Can he make a rock he can't lift?

Described as "perfect" and also "jealous" where jealousy is a "sin" and sin means one is imperfect.

Not to mention the fact that none of the texts of the Abrahamic collection agree with eachother.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 1, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



Is it possible for you to list some specifications for that rock of which you speak?

The text is allegorical.  Through wisdom and understanding will the meanings be revealed.

Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

What does it matter, what kind of rock it is? can he make a rock so large and massive that he cannot move it?

Face it, the Abrahamic deity is self-contradictory and impossible definition. Therefore it cannot and does not exist.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 1, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> What does it matter, what kind of rock it is? can he make a rock so large and massive that he cannot move it?
> 
> Face it, the Abrahamic deity is self-contradictory and impossible definition. Therefore it cannot and does not exist.



It matters very much as you can see, That question has no real result.

The premise you provide is not a good reason to draw your conclusion.  Something is wrong with your inferential claim. 

Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 1, 2009)

You are unable to demonstrate anything wrong with my reasoning.

Your concession is noted.

Let the record show that, one gain, judaism/christianity/islam/etc has been disproven


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> You are unable to demonstrate anything wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> Your concession is noted.
> 
> Let the record show that, one gain, judaism/christianity/islam/etc has been disproven



You cannot be serious.  It will never be disproved.  "Disproven" is not a word.  But that is irrelevant.  

Your reasoning is very flawed.  You define something, and say it does not and cannot exist by your definition.  That is fallacious.  That is why it is impossible for you to apply your so called logic to this subject.  That is why your reasoning is flawed.

If I write a poem, using metaphors and symbolisms, I know what they mean.  Someone with enough wisdom and understanding can figure it out.  That appears to be the problem here.

Some people seem to be very logical and rational until you hear them speak about God, then you see they can be very illogical and irrational.

Now, have you ever believed in God?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos follows the fallacious premise and definition.  Work with it, gang, and you will unhinge his arguemnts in short time.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> What does it matter, what kind of rock it is? can he make a rock so large and massive that he cannot move it?
> 
> Face it, the Abrahamic deity is self-contradictory and impossible definition. Therefore it cannot and does not exist.



Bullshit. The Abrahamic deity is beyond the comprehension of man. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If man took that attitude, we wouldn't have fire, let alone the ability to manipulate atoms.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 2, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Have you ever believed in God?



Sorry for the delay.

No, I have never believed in God.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever believed in God?
> ...



Thank you for a response.

Okay, so on which principles, if any, that you base your morality?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 2, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Thank you for a response.
> 
> Okay, so on which principles, if any, that you base your morality?



My morality is one of logic and rational reasoning.  First, there's Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs: so, human beings need love, so we should love eachother.  Killing one another is not loving one another, so don't do it.  Hate is bad.  And, to a certain extent, karma really does exist.  For example, if I treat people poorly and without respect they're probably not going to treat me respectfully or with compassion, and if I feel negatively things will seem darker or less cheerful and bright.  Or if I act negatively, there's a chance that my actions will have negative effects which could come back to me in some way.  There's the Golden Rule, Kant's Moral Imperative, and, if you've never read anything about it you might get the wrong idea but, Secular Humanism.  One can extrapolate morality from the following:

3 Basic Tenets of Human Secularism:
1. Humans have value and can solve human problems.
2. Science, free speech, democracy, rational thought, and freedom in the arts go together.
3. There is nothing supernatural.

And don't forget the Social Contract.  As an atheist and an agnostic, life is given no universal meaning and so I must make meaning for it myself: which means that if I act in ways which do not conform to my morality I diminish or even nullify the meaning of my own existence - instead of fearing eternal damnation (which to me is not nearly as much incentive to act morally as immediate meaninglessness and this is not an external motivator but an internal one which is inherently more powerful).

That's a REALLY simplified and brief answer for such a broad subject.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> You cannot be serious.  It will never be disproved.  "Disproven" is not a word.  But that is irrelevant.





> Verb: disprove (disproved,disproven)  dis'proov
> 
> 1. Prove to be false
> "The physicist disproved his colleagues' theories"
> ...


disprove, disproved, disproven, disproves, disproving- WordWeb dictionary definition



> Your reasoning is very flawed.  You define something, and say it does not and cannot exist by your definition.  That is fallacious.  That is why it is impossible for you to apply your so called logic to this subject.  That is why your reasoning is flawed.



That is the definition used by followed of the religion. Notice that not one came forth to claim otherwise.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > What does it matter, what kind of rock it is? can he make a rock so large and massive that he cannot move it?
> ...



If it's beyond the comprehension of man, how did anyone comprehend it in order to write about it?

If man took that attitude, we wouldn't have fire, let alone the ability to manipulate atoms


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> My morality is one of logic and rational reasoning.  First, there's Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs: so, human beings need love, so we should love eachother.



_Should_? Tio jump form shared desire for love to a prescription t love is logically fallacious.



> Killing one another is not loving one another



Nor is it mutually exclusive with love. Your sentence means nothing



> so don't do it.



Buy what authority do you give such moral commandments? What makes them valid at all?



> Hate is bad.



Bad? By what standard?


> One can extrapolate morality from the following:
> 
> 3 Basic Tenets of Human Secularism:
> 1. Humans have value and can solve human problems.


Have value to whom

Does this philosophy apply only to those competent and able to"solve human problems"?


> 3. There is nothing supernatural.



You can prove this?


> And don't forget the Social Contract.



Ethics are not equal to morals.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



God helped them.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

And you have evidence to support this claim?


Is god beyond his own comprehension? Is that why, even with his help, they contradict themselves and eachother constantly?


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot be serious.  It will never be disproved.  "Disproven" is not a word.  But that is irrelevant.
> ...



The first part is irrelevant, like I said.  But the use of the term disproven makes no sense, because it is the negation of a completed task (lexical semantics).  Something can be proven, but can something be disproven?   It should be "not proven."  (IRRELEVANT)

Not one came forth to claim otherwise makes no difference, you know that.

Wisdom and understanding is very important.  Unfortunately everyone does not possess such.  The overwhelming majority of people are surface dwellers.

What do you think about my poem analogy?

Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Are you ever going to attempt to refute or rebut anything I've said, or are you simply going to keep playing childish games?

Your religion was disproven and you have not even attempted to refute the arguments made.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for a response.
> ...



Thank you.

That sounds divine to me.

From my understanding of the revealed word of God, God is in all his creations.  Also, from my understanding, God is love.  This is the basis of the ten commandments.  It is up to the person (free will) to acknowledge this or not.

You are right, Karma does exist.  If you plant an apple seed, then that seed will bring forth an apple tree.  If a person is righteous, then their life is peaceful.  If a person is wicked, then their life is destructive.  A negative action yields a negative return.  A positive action yields a positive return.  Even thoughts!  But I am sure you are already aware of this.

The use of terms like "eternal damnation" are only metaphoric and or allegoric.  That is why I say through wisdom and understanding can the truth be revealed.

I take issue with number three on the basic tenets, because I know prophets.  That is part of the reason I took issue with many of my colleagues in philosophy.

If you fully understand AND believe number three to be true, then I would like to challenge it.  Please provide a premise and or premises for number three.

"There is nothing supernatural."


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Are you ever going to attempt to refute or rebut anything I've said, or are you simply going to keep playing childish games?
> 
> Your religion was disproven and you have not even attempted to refute the arguments made.



Oh and thank you for your time.

Childish games? 

What about proven to be false?  That will sound much better.

Your argument is invalid.  Based on your definition of God and your inadequate inferential claim.  That is not a good reason to conclude God cannot and does not exist. (Simple)

I believe you are a reasonable arguer, just this argument shows that you lack wisdom and most of all understanding.

Will you answer the question, have you ever believed in God?

By the way, who said what was my religion?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> From my understanding of the revealed word of God, God is in all his creations.  Also, from my understanding, God is love.



if A=B, then B=A

If God = Love, then Love= God

Love:

Noun

    * S: (n) love (a strong positive emotion of regard and affection) "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"
    * S: (n) love, passion (any object of warm affection or devotion) "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for cock fighting";
    * S: (n) beloved, dear, dearest, honey, love (a beloved person; used as terms of endearment)
    * S: (n) love, sexual love, erotic love (a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction) "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love"
    * S: (n) love (a score of zero in tennis or squash) "it was 40 love"
    * S: (n) sexual love, lovemaking, making love, love, love life (sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people) "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life"


Therefore,
God:
Noun

    * S: (n) love (a strong positive emotion of regard and affection) "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"
    * S: (n) love, passion (any object of warm affection or devotion) "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for cock fighting";
    * S: (n) beloved, dear, dearest, honey, love (a beloved person; used as terms of endearment)
    * S: (n) love, sexual love, erotic love (a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction) "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love"
    * S: (n) love (a score of zero in tennis or squash) "it was 40 love"
    * S: (n) sexual love, lovemaking, making love, love, love life (sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people) "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life"

So you're saying that feelings of affection inspired men to genocide?

This is the basis of the ten commandments.  It is up to the person (free will) to acknowledge this or not.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Again, it is not my definition. It is the definition forwarded by members of a set of debunked religions.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > From my understanding of the revealed word of God, God is in all his creations.  Also, from my understanding, God is love.
> ...



If you want to look at it (argument form) that way.  Seemingly, you really like to quote other people.

Free will is you can either accept or reject whatever you want to.  

You have to know what was before you can know what is.  So, why were the people killed?

Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 2, 2009)

Want to know if there is a God?  Serve others with love and care for their needs.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 2, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> You have to know what was before you can know what is.  So, why were the people killed?



False. Do you know that you are? Do you know all tat was before you were?

Your assertion falls apart.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 2, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > You have to know what was before you can know what is.  So, why were the people killed?
> ...



That is why I am asking you to tell me why the people were killed?

Have you ever believed in God?


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 3, 2009)

It is illogical to conclude that a statement is false without asking for premises first.
That is one of the first concepts taught in argument analysis.
You can assess that the conclusion is PROBABLY false, but that is not for certain.
Asking for premises reveals the authors inferential claim and reasons for concluding such.
Assessing without that information, the reader comes across as biased or stupid.
But people already know this, I suppose.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 3, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Want to know if there is a God?  Serve others with love and care for their needs.



Love this answer.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 3, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever believed in God?
> ...



Do you believe in human goodness?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 3, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Do you believe in human goodness?



Human goodness has nothing to do with God though. God was one mean motherfucker in the bible. If you fucked with him, he'd smite your ass before you could say what the fuck.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 3, 2009)

froggy said:


> if you athies say its not hereidtsry or hand me down why does it bother you if someone says a prayer aloud wheter it be in school, in court, in church, why?



It bothers me if someone says a prayer outloud in a public place in America where he or she is not invited to do so.

Silent prayers don't bother me a bit, and I am quite respectful toward others who pray quietly and inobtrusively.

Pray loudly in places of worship or when you're alone.  Live us all live in peace.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 3, 2009)

froggy said:


> if you athies say its not hereidtsry or hand me down why does it bother you if someone says a prayer aloud wheter it be in school, in court, in church, why?



It bothers me if someone says a prayer outloud in a public place in America where he or she is not invited to do so.

Silent prayers don't bother me a bit, and I am quite respectful toward others who pray quietly and inobtrusively.

Pray loudly in places of worship or when you're alone.  Let us all live in peace.


----------



## WhiteLion (Oct 4, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > if you athies say its not hereidtsry or hand me down why does it bother you if someone says a prayer aloud wheter it be in school, in court, in church, why?
> ...



Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword(THE WORD/THE BIBLE).

Matthew 10:35 For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

Matthew 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

I know i cast my pearl before the swine here, however somethings can never be left without saying, you were told?!?!?!?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 4, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Are you for real?


----------



## Smartt33 (Oct 4, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Are you ever going to attempt to refute or rebut anything I've said, or are you simply going to keep playing childish games?
> 
> Your religion was disproven and you have not even attempted to refute the arguments made.



   How is a religion disproven? Does that mean it is not a real religion?   Which religion are you talking about?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 4, 2009)

Smartt33 said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Are you ever going to attempt to refute or rebut anything I've said, or are you simply going to keep playing childish games?
> ...


It's claims are proven false.

For instance, its god can be proven to not exist.


----------



## WhiteLion (Oct 5, 2009)

Smartt33 said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Are you ever going to attempt to refute or rebut anything I've said, or are you simply going to keep playing childish games?
> ...


Well, there's the religion of Evolution & Humanism i know of those whom assemble to study and teach its lies every single week and prove no more than the Preacher right down the street????


----------



## logical4u (Oct 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Present the documents that show the Bible is false.
> ...


These are about what people believe (they cannot disprove the existance of G*d).  Their futile attempts of logical arguements are highly selective and do not look at everyday wonders and facts: the amount of food varieties, the weather that (for the most part) works to nourish the earth and makes seasons that keep food plentiful, sunrises that take your breath away, the moon and stars that make you look outward (away from man) to discover greater things.  They would tell you these thing (miraculously ) happened, they have no coherant explanation, just beliefs and theories (like religious people).



JBeukema said:


> You mean like the Jews committing genocide becuse god told them to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where are the numbers for those the muslims killed?  Where are the numbers for those the atheists killed (you might call them communists)?  Where are the numbers for those the dictators and tyrants killed?  We have guessed the nazis killed over 6,000,000, are you saying that was for G*d?  Highly selective in what you choose to believe.



JBeukema said:


> you claimed miracles happen. You must prove it.
> 
> 
> Because they practiced Guerrilla warfare when their enemies marched in columns
> ...



Aren't your statements against the Bible "opinions"?  How can you prove the things that are in the Bible did NOT happen?  



JBeukema said:


> Do you people ever not lie?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I have to die and will, but if I believe in Yeshua as my savior and repent my sins and try to live according to His teachings, there is a chance that after I am judged and punished for my sins I will be reunited with those that I love.  To deny Him, is to condemn yourself, but you will have a chance to do that to His face, for EVERY knee will bend before Him (that includes yours).  Good Luck with that whole arguement about you couldn't believe it because of eyewitness accounts.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 5, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



You're being sarcastic, right?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 5, 2009)

logical4u said:


> These are about what people believe (they cannot disprove the existance of G*d).  Their futile attempts of logical arguements are highly selective



this should be good...


> and do not look at everyday wonders and facts: the amount of food varieties,



So the fact that we evolved to eat a variety of energy/nutrient sources proves your god?

Care to demonstrate? 


> the weather that (for the most part) works to nourish the earth and makes seasons that keep food plentiful,



So your god is evidenced by the fact that we evoked to suit our environment? Why is the test of the known universe so unkind to our physiology, then, if you wish to try this "suitable environment" argument?




> They would tell you these thing (miraculously ) happened,



Where did you user you quoted claim "miracles"?



> Where are the numbers for those the atheists killed (you might call them communists)?



So now atheist = communists? 

Are you really that uninformed, or are you just being willfully ignorant?


----------



## WhiteLion (Oct 6, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> WhiteLion said:
> 
> 
> > Smartt33 said:
> ...


 Sarcasm?? what are you on crack cocain? exact same thing, just on a more formal setting, Evolution & Humanism is nothing more than a neo-religion with government backing.........


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > WhiteLion said:
> ...



So religion is a lie and a religion?

You can prove that germs don't mutate?

You can prove that scientists since Louis Pasteur and Alexander Fleming have been involved in some giant conspiracy?

I'm calling Poe's law here. Nobody can be that ignorant and thick.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 6, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



How?

Please demonstrate on this message board.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Smartt33 said:
> ...



The most common form is for a deity to be impossible by definition.

Helios, for instance was a god who drove the chariot which pulled the sun around the earth.

The sun is not pulled by a chariot around Earth.

Thus, Helios is impossible by definition- like a round triangular square with parallel sides intersecting at 13 degrees with angles that all up up to 42.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 6, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



What was said about Helios was symbolism in mythology.    

That is a riddle, each word represents something else, and what happened to seventeen degrees?  But anyway, that still does not prove that God does not exist.   You are such a surface dweller, you have to be able to solve or figure out things, or at least scratch beneath the surface.  I know how YOU can prove if God exists.  Just ask God to show you a sign that he exists and look for the sign (be sincere when you say it).  Then report back to the message boards.

Who eats of the tree of sorrows?  What fruit grows on the tree of sorrows? (Hint: not what you find on google)


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> What was said about Helios was symbolism in mythology.
> 
> That is a riddle, each word represents something else, and what happened to seventeen degrees?  But anyway, that still does not prove that God does not exist.   You are such a surface dweller, you have to be able to solve or figure out things, or at least scratch beneath the surface.  I know how YOU can prove if God exists.  Just ask God to show you a sign that he exists and look for the sign (be sincere when you say it).  Then report back to the message boards.
> 
> Who eats of the tree of sorrows?  What fruit grows on the tree of sorrows? (Hint: not what you find on google)



I'm curious, can I, too, prove god's existence in this way?  Or did the capitalized YOU mean only Setarcos can?


----------



## WhiteLion (Oct 6, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> WhiteLion said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...


Im suprised you didnt call Murpheys law?? Louis Pasteur(real science) has nothing to do with evolution or humanistic worship, your comparing apples to oranges...


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> What was said about Helios was symbolism in mythology.



Here you see the classic theistic method: Change your claims whenever they cannot stand so that you can claim they've not been refuted 


> Just ask God to show you a sign that he exists and look for the sign (be sincere when you say it).  Then report back to the message boards.




And I'm back..

Doesn't exist.

I tried about three dozen gods and none of them are real.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 6, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> Louis Pasteur(real science) has nothing to do with evolution or humanistic worship, your comparing apples to oranges...


I'm calling Poe's law.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 7, 2009)

Montrovant said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > What was said about Helios was symbolism in mythology.
> ...



Sure.


----------



## Joe_Penalty (Oct 7, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > What was said about Helios was symbolism in mythology.
> ...



Three dozen times does not sound like a sincerity.

Please explain how I changed my claim.  I have made no such claim.  I simply challenged your assertion that God (Abrahamic) did not exist and you already know what you said.

But you have to think on a deeper level than the current one you are choosing to think.  Words have different meanings.  You cannot be that closed minded.  You sound like, instead of wanting to learn, you just want to prove that God does not exist.  You give the impression that you completely understand everything.  When it is obvious, that understanding is what you lack.

So my question to you is; What are your intentions, to prove that God does not exist, or to actually learn something?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 8, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > These are about what people believe (they cannot disprove the existance of G*d).  Their futile attempts of logical arguements are highly selective
> ...



Look, evolutionists believe that there was a great explosion and that stars, planets and space debris came into existance.  They have no explanation for what caused the explosion, no comprehensive explanation of why galaxies formed (versus one giant galaxy), no explanation of why out of all the planets they have discovered, only the earth positively can support life as we know it.  
Then evolutionists want us to believe that out of pure coincidence life started (or maybe it was some cells stuck on a meteorite), after billions and billions of years of the earth cooling and establishing an atmosphere.  That "life" "got busy" in the "swamps" and "evolved" (miraculous transformation) into "other forms" of life.  They cannot explain why that would happen or if it "actually" happened (you just have to have faith in them because no one can prove any different as of today).  So out of one cell, millions of life forms evolved into very distinctive species that have remained virtually unchanged (in a world where everything was going crazy evolving into other species, when man started documenting the species, all that evolving just STOPPED) since man identified the species and notated said species.  
Evolutionists all over the world have been searching for living proof of evolution for over 100 years and they can't produce one case of a species "evolving" into another species (this does not include selective breeding).  But the evolutionists continue to have the "faith" that men evolved from that original extremely primitive life.  Every skeleton found is examined and if it is not a perfect human, an evolutionist will pretend it is part of the evolutionist chain of man's march from apehood.  The same evolutionists cannot explain why we have the variety of life on this planet that we do: according to their theories, if a species was successful, there would be no reason for it to evolve farther as they have stated as a reason to why apes have not continued to evolve (since theoretically they could eventually become men, but that hasn't seen any movement either).
When you take a step back and look, the evolutionists have more faith (in men) than the people that believe in the Lord have faith (in the Lord).  The difference: the Lord's believers have been writing his word for eons (yes, that is thousands of years), the evolutionist have been writing men's word (unsubstanciated) for decades.  It is a matter of reason to where you will put your faith.


----------



## JenT (Oct 8, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



 well said! 

Lately I've also been wondering, Who defines what works and what doesn't work in the evo-world? I mean, if it's all just by chance, then Who engraved it as successful and keyed it into DNA as such? If there is no divine intelligence orchestrating the creations, then how would life be able to define itself in any way whatsoever? SomeOne had to judge the parameters of every living component or we would have as many different bloodtypes as the bazillions of years evos claim to need, we would have various types of skins, some that supported a shape and some that sort of blobbed into goo sometimes and sometimes didn't. We'd have so many variations of every kind of possibility, someOne had to define it, to shape it, to accept it into the DNA blueprint, it's inescapable. And obvious. To everyone except those who demand there is no Creator because they want to be accountable only to themselves.

Sort of like kindergarten runs amuck until the Teacher shows up.


----------



## froggy (Oct 8, 2009)

[QUOTE To everyone except those who demand there is no Creator because they want to be accountable only to themselves.
[/QUOTE]

after thier death bed they will be accountable for themselves for sure. no way out of that then.


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 8, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Look, evolutionists believe that there was a great explosion and that stars, planets and space debris came into existance.



Do cite any scientific literature on evolution which claims ToE posits any such thing.


> Then evolutionists want us to believe that out of pure coincidence life started



So your objection is that you don't feel special if your god didn't make you?



> That "life" "got busy" in the "swamps" and "evolved" (miraculous transformation) into "other forms" of life



Such 'magical transformation' happens ever day. Ever heard of MRSA?
\
\





> Evolutionists all over the world have been searching for living proof of evolution for over 100 years and they can't produce one case of a species "evolving" into another species



Let's Google that


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 8, 2009)

JenT said:


> Lately I've also been wondering, Who defines what works and what doesn't work in the evo-world? I mean, if it's all just by chance, then Who engraved it as successful and keyed it into DNA as such?



Noone engraved anything. Do try to learn the fundamentals of the science prior to interrupting the discussion.


----------



## stinkinlibs (Oct 11, 2009)

i noticed your hiding in here SETERCOS are you scared to answer the question?


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 16, 2009)

Joe_Penalty said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Joe_Penalty said:
> ...



I once prayed to god to announce to the entire world, in all the languages, with a booming voice in the sky, that he exists and pronounce which religions are truth and which are not.
(that was actually in two prayers!!)

I am still waiting for a response.  If I let a religious loon interpret this, he/she  would claim I was not sincere enough.  Bottomline, I did not have enough faith.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 16, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> I once prayed to god to announce to the entire world, in all the languages, with a booming voice in the sky, that he exists and pronounce which religions are truth and which are not.
> (that was actually in two prayers!!)
> 
> I am still waiting for a response.  If I let a religious loon interpret this, he/she  would claim I was not sincere enough.  Bottomline, I did not have enough faith.



I think you recieved your response. It was a no.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 17, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Look, evolutionists believe that there was a great explosion and that stars, planets and space debris came into existance.
> ...



My point was: evolutionists "faith" is a lot harder to "believe" than the "faith" of the Almighty Creator.


----------



## logical4u (Oct 17, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> Joe_Penalty said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The religions of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, and muslim), believe the Lord will make this announcement when He comes to judge the living and the dead.  There will be thunder, lightning, the disappearing of islands, earthquakes and a lot of light along with the voices of angels, and then finally of the Lord.  At that point, if not well before, you should hit your knees and beg forgiveness of being such a weak being (I do this, I am not implying that I am any better, just that we are, all, sinners), and beg, BEG for mercy.

If you read the OT books, you can get a vague idea of the power of the Lord.  It is a wonderful thing to believe that power can be used for your protection (a lot tougher than any gov on the face of the earth).


----------



## froggy (Oct 22, 2009)

back in Deuteronomy days women who were found not to be virgin after marring were stoned to death by the townsmen,fornifacators (both man and woman) were stoned to death if that were the punishment now days i wonder if the sin would be that plenty.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

Adultery also was considered stealing another man's possessions....this is why it was a major sin....  Women did not have freedom as today, they could not work for a living either and they could not ask for a divorce, but the man could....this is how it was until the 19th/20th century I believe....?


----------



## logical4u (Oct 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Adultery also was considered stealing another man's possessions....this is why it was a major sin....  Women did not have freedom as today, they could not work for a living either and they could not ask for a divorce, but the man could....this is how it was until the 19th/20th century I believe....?



Yeshua put women on equal footing with men:
He forgave the woman that committed adultery (and told her to: STOP THAT)
Women were among His teachers and witnesses
When the elitists tried to trap him about Moses and the laws of divorce, Yeshua explained that a man or woman (that remarried in the same state of sin as when divorced) were guilty of adultery.  Before this, just the woman was held accountable.  Women were now responsible for their own lives, just as men (it took men longer to figure that out, some still haven't).

The laws of the OT were because men did not have G*d written on their hearts.  After Yeshua, every man is born with G*d written on their hearts (they know of a spiritual being, far, far greater than themselves), and the laws do not need to be as finite (your children will not be held accountable, by the Lord, for your sins).


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 22, 2009)

An interesting piece on a debate that may never end, only immortality on earth would end it or would it? 

Appendix: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3). 
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4). 
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe. 
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6). 
8. God exists.

Edge: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD &mdash;  By Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Edge 305


----------



## Kalam (Nov 23, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> An interesting piece on a debate that may never end, only immortality on earth would end it or would it?
> 
> Appendix: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
> 
> ...


I used to use the cosmological argument. The problem is that a cause-effect relationship requires the passage of time, which, of course, did not exist until matter and the universe came into being.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 23, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> An interesting piece on a debate that may never end, only immortality on earth would end it or would it?
> 
> Appendix: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
> 
> ...



Premise number 1 and 2 is debatable.  The universe might have always existed in some form.  There is the pulsating universe theory.  

See Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kalam (Nov 23, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> The universe might have always existed in some form.  There is the pulsating universe theory.



Not likely... the universe's rate of expansion is increasing and there seems to be no indication that the trend will reverse. 

WMAP- Fate of the Universe


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Found Rebecca very close to my own opinions of religion. 

Interesting if you can listen and work or whatever. 

36 reasons for God
Bloggingheads.tv - The Atheist Soul

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/36-Arguments-Existence-God-Fiction/dp/0307378187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction (9780307378187): Rebecca Goldstein: Books[/ame]


----------



## froggy (Jan 19, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Adultery also was considered stealing another man's possessions....this is why it was a major sin....  Women did not have freedom as today, they could not work for a living either and they could not ask for a divorce, but the man could....this is how it was until the 19th/20th century I believe....?



Does knowing that make you a manhater?


----------



## Bezukhov (Feb 5, 2010)

Did the Universe have an absolute begining? The Hindus believe that the Universe endures a ceaseless process of births, lives, and deaths; only to start all over again.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 6, 2010)

froggy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Adultery also was considered stealing another man's possessions....this is why it was a major sin....  Women did not have freedom as today, they could not work for a living either and they could not ask for a divorce, but the man could....this is how it was until the 19th/20th century I believe....?
> ...



Why would it?  

Men are fabulous creatures....so different from women in so many ways, they are intriguing, interesting, funny, strange and different from me....that's what makes them "male" verses female, that's what keeps my attention and forever quest, of trying to figure them out.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 6, 2010)

Bezukhov said:


> Did the Universe have an absolute begining? The Hindus believe that the Universe endures a ceaseless process of births, lives, and deaths; only to start all over again.



Science believes it has a beginning....the Big Bang

So do those who believe in one God...believe there was a "Beginning"...

And maybe other tribes or religions believe there was a beginning as well...

Not to diminish the Hindu's belief in ceaseless process of births, or rebirths...the Universe is constantly changing...but only AFTER it had its beginning, imo.

Care


----------



## Bezukhov (Feb 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> > Did the Universe have an absolute begining? The Hindus believe that the Universe endures a ceaseless process of births, lives, and deaths; only to start all over again.
> ...


 
Science has yet to determine what preceded the big bang. I still have a hard time accepting that the 'cause' of the Big Bang was not the result of some previous 'effect'. 

The Big Bang did not happen in a vacuum (no pun intended, well, only a little.)


----------



## Jurginvoncelle (Feb 22, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Adultery also was considered stealing another man's possessions....this is why it was a major sin....  Women did not have freedom as today, they could not work for a living either and they could not ask for a divorce, but the man could....this is how it was until the 19th/20th century I believe....?



Viking women could wear the husbands pants, walk around the encampment 3 times, and confront the man to his face with "I divorce you" said 3 times. Puts new perspective on who wears the pants.


----------



## pro II (Feb 27, 2010)

they are intriguing, interesting, funny, strange and different from me....that's what makes them "male" verses female,

genonetwentysevenisnotplural

She is called Shekhina.

peace


----------



## konradv (Mar 24, 2010)

_By the way? When you look out your window and see the clouds blowing by, does that prove or even indicate that across the entire planet the wind is blowing only in one direction? _
---------------------------------

A little off-topic, but this is the same kind of reasoning you get from AGW deniers.  They think, just because it's cold and snowing outside their front door, that proves Global Warming is a fraud.  Drives me crazy, too.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 1, 2010)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Can't stand logic and reasoning getting in the way of irrational beliefs huh?


----------



## Kalam (Apr 1, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> ...


I'm sure it has nothing to do with the self-righteous douchebaggery that occasionally accompanies atheism.


----------



## del (Apr 1, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> ...



nope, can't stand preachy assholes with nothing to say. why don't you expand on how god's existence can't be proved, because no one's ever done that before.

really


----------



## Michael1960 (Apr 21, 2010)

The Illuminati (Illumined Naughty), Satans Sin Agog & The Heretical English Language


After several years of battling an invisible third party presence that identified itself as Lucifer, I feel the time has come for me to write.  I have found Lucifer to be condescending (and con descending) and oppressive.  There is a dual purpose to the word condescending.  Condescending  means to show a patronizing attitude.  When split into two words; con descending  it infers that mankind has descended into a criminal (con) state.  The word Illuminati (illumined naughty) infers that one sees enlightenment in a naughty state.  

Lucifer is also an anticipator.  The word health can be sounded out as hell before health. This infers that before one attains health they must progress to hell.  The word alive can be sounded out as a lie before alive.  This infers that before one is alive, they must lie.  Mankind and its nations have fallen to the Babylonian religion of lies.  During this current age, should the Behistun Inscription be updated it would include that the remainder of the world has fallen to Babylon.  Lucifer has coerced and intimidated mankind throughout history into evil acts contrary to Gods commandments.

Use of words that sound alike with different spellings and meanings (heterographs) have allowed Lucifer to play a game of free association with words to hide hints and threats.  Some examples are sun and son, nun and none, perish and parish, and pray and prey.  Lucifer also plays games with homonyms, synonyms, etc. to further hide hints and to enable liars to play games with words.  Now, why do you suppose God spelled backwards is dog?  These are all examples of the condescending nature of mankind to evolve the English language in a corrupt manner.

The word synagogue has been mocked with the words sin agog.  To sin agog means to be enthusiastically sinning.  The use of this phrase is in keeping with con descending and illumined naughty.  It is yet another attempt by mankind to corrupt the Jews from their worship of God.

Gods word (Logos) is being mocked with the pluralized form of the word; logo  which represents the corrupting influence of corporations.  The word logo was created during the 1930s during the heyday of the occultist administration of FDR. Abraham Lincoln is said to have wrote I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."   However, I hate to break the news to Lincoln that corruption in high places has been with us since civilization began.  I have also had firsthand experience with this nature of corporations when I was employed by an environmental restoration company, under contract to a natural gas company during the height of Enron chicanery, that began playing games corrupting employees en masse and I resigned rather than be corrupted.  The company, in part, did this to become a low cost provider of so called environmental services to its client and also to appease Lucifer.

Many religions have condescendingly placed their gods in the sun. Historically, the use of the swastika has been used as a solar symbol.  A person need only look at an unusual swastika, composed of the Hebrew letters Aleph and Resh  that appear in the 18th century Kabbalistic work "Parashat Eliezer" by Rabbi Eliezer Fischl of Strizhov.  A swastika symbol is enclosed by a circle and surrounded by a cyclic hymn in Aramaic making up the rays of the sun. The hymn, which refers explicitly to the power of the sun ( aka The Unconquerable Sun), as well as the shape of the symbol, shows strong solar symbolism.  The Hebrew letters Aleph to Resh stop short of the Hebrew letter for God, Shin (or Sin).  When one looks at the Phoenician equivalent letters to the two Hebrew letters they indicate a pictorial symbol for an eye and a white flag for surrender.  In other words eye surrender.  It bears stating that Phoenicia is a country that worshipped the false god.  Lucifer specializes in the use of fear of pain or actual pain to create lousy sell outs.  Atheists have also bowed down to the Unconquerable Sun by writing condescendingly of religion, setting up occultic contrived story lines for biblical personages, celebrating solstices, and by having American Atheists® selling sun ornaments.  Some Indonesians have assembled ritual transformation masks, one of which was brought to Antiques Roadshow on television, which had an unhappy face mask within a sun mask.  No kidding. 

Art through the ages has passed on allegories where mankind has appeased Lucifer in their works.  Michaelangelos sculpture Moses was conceived as having horns coming out of his head like the devil.  Michaelangelo did this in allegorical fashion to indicate that lawgivers are evil.  However, lawgivers are necessary because mankind is inherently greedy and fearful.  Lawgivers must regulate the hell out of mankind and its institutions (e.g., corporations). 

The pagan Romans quartered dead criminals in a condescending search for God in an expectation that wings would be formed to take the body away.  From this practice comes the term handbasket to Hades.  From the movie that put Freemasons on a pedestal, National Treasure, the character Ian is a criminal.  Ian follows Iam in an alphabetical sequence.  Also, in the film Braveheart, when Mel Gibsons character is drawn and quartered during the films final sequence, a bird is shown taking flight immediately following this.  Talk about a condescending allegory.  In the criminological textbook Criminological Theory:  Context and Consequences there is an excerpt in the book where a noted author was mocked for his rationale on what drove people to crime by stating that criminals may not have sprouted wings as angels have done, not because it was not in them to do so, but because their wings were clipped (inferred: their arms) before they were ready to try them.  As seen on Amazon.com, Tommy Hilfiger has come out with a Hades sweater.  Its interesting to note that the sweater comes without arms.

It must be stated that original sin is fear.  Fear of what some might term as the unknown. Mankinds global hints, a small portion of what I have elaborated on here, may or may not be true.  I hope the hints and threats are not true.  In any event, the sinning out of fear of the actual Lucifer, not some unfortunate scapegoat, needs to stop.  Sinning only strengthens the hold that Lucifer has on this world and the hereafter.

As a message to all I would suggest that you dont pull any punches in an attack on Lucifers empire.  What is needed are more whistleblowers to show just how corrupt this world is.  Theres been too much silence across all walks of life, and silence gives safe haven to the not so hidden evil Luciferian empire.  It would be wrong to be cowed into silence, so we all must speak up and follow Gods commandments.

Freemasonry and their doctrine of salvation through crime

The Freemason organization is a criminals paradise. Where else can so many willing persons, or partners in crime, be found. Oaths and other requirements to always assist a brother in need, always keep a brothers secrets (or knowledge of crimes, fraud and corruption) and to perjure yourself to protect a brother are prime examples of how Freemasons have been leveraged across the ages. Leverage is used by many parties to manipulate people to do what they want for nothing. Freemasons have set themselves up like bowling pins to the criminal element and Lucifers whims.  There is considerable documentation regarding the vows Freemasons take where they have stated awful blood oaths identifying what would happen to themselves should they give up their organizations secrets. The fear is not what their fellow brothers would do to them on earth but what Lucifer would orchestrate in the hereafter.  One needs to remember the corrupted English language and hell before health and a lie before alive.

An author quoted extensively by the Freemasons, Mircea Eliade, wrote in his book "The Sacred and the Profane" that man imitates the gods and that these are sacred acts even when man allows himself to be led into acts that verged on madness, depravity, and crime. It isnt Yahweh or Christ that is being spoken about here but the false god Lucifer and its assortment of emanations (e.g., Baal, Moloch, etc.).  Mircea Eliade is an author that enables the belief that the commission of crimes and fraud are sacred acts.  The significance of Freemasons using a plastic skull to drink wine from during the Templar Degrees of the York Rite is symbolic of being depraved.  What about taking the high road, acting righteous, and dropping out?  The initiate, upon learning the Freemasons manner either quits and is granted a dimit (timid spelled backwards in a condescending manner) or commits crimes to appease Lucifer.

The book Lexicon of Freemasonry omits definitions for the Devil, Lucifer and Satan. The Freemasons have judged that profane eyes cannot handle their definitions so they leave them as esoteric knowledge to be obtained. Given Lucifers penchant for contrived, coerced story lines, theres no telling who might end up in those roles.  Youve got to remember the corrupted English language and hell before health and a lie before alive.  As the Freemasons perpetrate crimes in order to corrupt one might question the origination of this mandate. In the Lexicon of Freemasonry it is written that an angel of the Lord spoke to Moses from the burning bush but yet in another location in the book it is identified to have been God. How can both entities have been used for the one event? Lucifer is also generally accepted to have been at one time an angel of the Lord. If it was Lucifer, being disingenuous, Lucifer would have intended the stating of the ten commandments to be an exoteric front and that the recipient would know that they should be violated.  Being disingenuous is a recurring theme with Freemasons as Albert Pike explains that Masonry jealously conceals its secrets from all except the adepts and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve to be misled.

There is a word used by the Mafia; omerta, meaning silence. Heavily ingrained in American society is the term; code of silence. You hear of it amongst the police to protect rulebreaking policemen, rap artists in their no snitching code, professional sports personages and most athletic trainers in their covering up of steroids users, freemasons, religious leaders in their covering up of transgressions, accountants in their games in hiding debt and other falsifications.   Codes of silence corrupt many as people choose to remain silent when faced with knowledge of crimes, fraud or rulebreaking. Weve been a society of accomplices in the face of wrongdoing for hundreds of years since the earliest days of this nation. The founding fathers imprinted the motto Mind your business upon legal tender of the United States. Mind your business has the esoteric meaning of keeping quiet in the face of wrongdoing or evil.

Innumerable today are persons in industry that are masonic-minded.  The news often includes stories of CFOs and accountants falsifying companys financial statements, back-dating stock options, natural gas traders gloating over screwing over California residents by orchestrating numerous shutdowns of power plants, insurance corporation employees rigging bids to steer business to companies giving them kickbacks, mutual fund companies allowing after hours market timing trading and regulators looking the other way when crimes are committed. What you see in the news is only the tip of the iceberg. The powers that be only expose enough corruption to convince most of the public that they are doing something about it. The number of people willingly going along with the shams vastly outnumbers those that come forward to put a stop to the shameful acts. Sigmund Freud in the book The Future of an Illusion said it best; There are countless civilized people who would shrink from murder or incest but who do not deny themselves the satisfaction of their avarice, their aggressive urges or their sexual lusts, and who do not hesitate to injure other people by lies, fraud and calumny, so long as they can remain unpunished for it; and this, no doubt, has always been so 
through the ages of civilization.

What the Freemasons and like-minded people have done is to sell human society downstream in order for personal success. What is especially offensive about the Freemasons and secret societies is that they spread their corruption behind the scenes while putting up a whitewashed front. The exoteric front of Freemasonry sounds harmless. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Ten Points of Doctrine, esoterically warned of secret societies when he said only the members of the body are distinguished (inferred: not their methods). As with Mircea Eliade, Cyril refers to vice mimicking virtue, an allusion to mans attempts to mimic the gods by acts verging on depravity and crime. During the heyday of Freemasonry, they also had a secret manner of foot placement when standing before a judge in order to be recognized as Freemasons to get away with the crime or for leniency.  In this way they were free in crime.  

Then there are those good men who fight the Luciferean empire. We are all aware of what befell Captain Morgan when he went to publish the secrets of the Freemasons. What schools history books do not say is that there was an anti-Masonic wave that hit the United States that culminated in a severe drop in admitted Freemasons and the formation of an anti-masonic political party that became a significant third party for a time.  The lack of coverage in school of these events and of the corrupted English language has the Freemasons seal of approval.  Also, the Captain Morgan Rum Company would have you believe they named their rum after a legal pirate, Henry Morgan, born in 1654.  The esoteric explanation is that their advertising campaign mocks the good Captain Morgan who revealed some Freemason secrets.  When Captain Morgan went public with the Freemason secrets, the Freemasons tried good Captain Morgan on alcoholism charges, mocking his own sin of drinking.  This is the way Lucifer deals with good people with a conscience, picking on and magnifying their sins.  Thus the picture we are given of good Captain Morgan is that he is a pirate representing the spirits business and, according to the advertising campaign at one time would say Drink responsibly, Captains orders.  Just like Michaelangelo mocking lawgiving Moses with his sculpture with horns, here we have a person of conscience being mocked by a rum swilling pirate giving orders to drink responsibly.

We must all battle Lucifers occultist empire at every turn for goodness sake and for the righteous unsyncretized Gods sake.  

So many quacks, so little time.


----------



## jswiftproposal (Apr 25, 2010)

Michael1960 said:


> The Illuminati (Illumined Naughty), Satans Sin Agog & The Heretical English Language
> 
> 
> After several years of battling an invisible third party presence that identified itself as Lucifer, I feel the time has come for me to write.  I have found Lucifer to be condescending ........... occultist empire at every turn for goodness sake and for the righteous unsyncretized Gods sake.
> ...



    either you are disturbingly serious or a great satirical writer.... either way I laughed my ass off when I read that!!!!   

p.s.   LOOK!!! ITS PHUCKING LUCIFER --->     OH NO!!!!!!     
save me god


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2010)

_When one looks at the Phoenician equivalent letters to the two Hebrew letters they indicate a pictorial symbol for an &#8220;eye&#8221; and a white flag for &#8220;surrender&#8221;. In other words &#8220;eye surrender&#8221;. _
------------------------------------

I'm a little confused.  What is "eye surrender" supposed to mean?


----------



## Michael1960 (Apr 29, 2010)

konradv said:


> _When one looks at the Phoenician equivalent letters to the two Hebrew letters they indicate a pictorial symbol for an eye and a white flag for surrender. In other words eye surrender. _
> ------------------------------------
> 
> I'm a little confused.  What is "eye surrender" supposed to mean?



-------------------------------------

Esoterically, it has a meaning of an "eye" surrendering.  You'll need to note the sunburst the all seeing eye is within in the Great Seal on the back of the US dollar bill.


----------



## RevRabbiJCG (Jun 11, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...


Try telling that one to the survivors of Hitler's concentration camps. We have Auschwitz, Mecklenburg and Sobibor and reminders of Hitler's blood thirsy obsession of killing the Jews.


----------



## RevRabbiJCG (Jun 11, 2010)

Michael1960 said:


> The Illuminati (Illumined Naughty), Satans Sin Agog & The Heretical English Language
> 
> 
> After several years of battling an invisible third party presence that identified itself as Lucifer, I feel the time has come for me to write.  I have found Lucifer to be condescending (and con descending) and oppressive.  There is a dual purpose to the word condescending.  Condescending  means to show a patronizing attitude.  When split into two words; con descending  it infers that mankind has descended into a criminal (con) state.  The word Illuminati (illumined naughty) infers that one sees enlightenment in a naughty state.
> ...


Umm, if you'd read more deeply into the symbols. The horns represent light after all it's hard to carve light out of stone. 

  Jesus defeated satan, so the devil is a defeated foe. Try reading the Bible and go from there. You cannnot defeat the enemy of our souls on your own.


----------



## DDdavis (Jul 17, 2010)

The founding Fathers of  this Great Nation put IN GOD WE TRUST on our money, and it is still there. This Nation is only 210 years old and is the super power, that has helped every nation on the planet. It did not happen just by accident, its because God has Blessed this nation from people that have no beliefs other than what they can produce on their own, thats why God himself will fight the last two battles, to show that he is who he said he was from the beginning.Get ready for it will be a good show. The psalm 22 of King David of the crusifiction of Christ was written 1000 years before the fact, right down to the words that would come from the Chief Priest mouth, and the solders gambeling at the foot of the cross, and you think that man could set that up. Man couldnt even make a ship that wouldnt sink on the first trip.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 18, 2010)

DDdavis said:


> The founding Fathers of  this Great Nation put IN GOD WE TRUST on our money,






Thanks, troll, i needed a good laugh.


----------



## Neubarth (Jul 26, 2010)

Gunny, you need to fire the moderators who are attacking historically accurate threads.


----------



## YWN666 (Aug 6, 2010)

DDdavis said:


> The founding Fathers of  this Great Nation put IN GOD WE TRUST on our money, and it is still there.



*Not true.*


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 6, 2010)

Spoiler Alert! There  isn&#8217;t a god. It can&#8217;t be proven, why bother? With all that silly worshipping or building mosques , churches or suicide bombers, it&#8217;s madness.  I can&#8217;t prove god doesn&#8217;t exist, but I can prove human delusion. I won&#8217;t bother to link the two, it&#8217;s as obvious as the nose on yer face.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 3, 2010)

The smartest man alive says god isn't necessary. The universe always existed. I ain't that smart, figured that little ditty out for my self years ago. Surprise surprise. What IF God was one of us, just a slob like one of us? Hmm.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 3, 2010)

SW2SILVER said:


> Spoiler Alert! There  isnt a god. It cant be proven, why bother? With all that silly worshipping or building mosques , churches or suicide bombers, its madness.  I cant prove god doesnt exist, but I can prove human delusion. I wont bother to link the two, its as obvious as the nose on yer face.



Of course you could just talk with Him and learn that way that He is quite there.

You can prove human delusion though? Sounds delusional.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 4, 2010)

Goodie gumdrops. Avatatar sweetheart, you are so wonderfully naive, I love you. Prayer is like flipping a coin, and it works on the same principle. I don&#8217;t need to prove anything.  YOU do, if ya believe in god. So were do we go from here?


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 5, 2010)

Islam is just a nother' hate group. I can't stand "Christians" for that matter, they think they can get absolution or forgiveness from a priest. Say a few " Hail Mary&#8217;s" and all is forgiven? They better worry about us mortals that WON'T forgive them. God is one thing. They better worry about the rest of us human beings. God  has left the building.


----------



## u2scram (Oct 26, 2010)

"Of course you could just talk with Him and learn that way that He is quite there."

that would be a very one-sided conversation. what would you discuss with him? the latest football results? quantum physic, perhaps? better not. its obvious from the torah, bible and koran that he is completely ignorant about that.

and ultimately those books are the most powerful weapons in the atheists arsenal. they are so ignorant, contradictory and so riddle with errors that they could only be written by men. men from primitive tribal societies that knew nothing about the universe that they lived in.

a ten year old today would probably have a more accurate picture of the universe than god appears to have.


----------



## Iowa10000 (Nov 13, 2010)

10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

God to me is Love, and love comes from the mind and heart and in noway do I need a religion or a book or another person to lead me to what I believe and how I act.

Religion has spent so much time in this world building buildings and trying to convince others on what to believe to be saved they have completely forgotten what  I think God would be doing, looking to help those who need help not joining together to glorify HIM thinking that is what he would want.


----------



## forever2b (Nov 29, 2010)

I don't think we can define what God is simply because He is too complicated. We can get parts of him through the Bible and other things but we cannot define Him with our human brain, and if we try it will seem almost contradictory. Just like cars cannot make nor define factories, we cannot make nor define God.


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 29, 2010)

forever2b said:


> I don't think we can define what God is simply because He is too complicated.



Except that you're defining 'God' as something too complicated to define..


----------



## forever2b (Nov 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> forever2b said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think we can define what God is simply because He is too complicated.
> ...



Ok then, I guess I can define God as complicated. And also other things according to the Bible, but what I really wanted to say was we cannot get the full picture of God and cannot completely define him. Yea.


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 29, 2010)

forever2b said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > forever2b said:
> ...


Except you're the one defining 'God' as something you can't completely define.

It's nothing more than a sad cop-out by someone incapable of comprehending what (s)he's even saying.


----------



## forever2b (Nov 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> forever2b said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



So what if I am the one defining God as somethings I can't completely define? Can you completely define dark matter? Or how the universe began in complete detail? I know what I am talking about so stop judging me. How would you feel if others said that to your post?


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 29, 2010)

forever2b said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > forever2b said:
> ...



One doesn't define how the universe began, genius. One would explain how it 'began'. One might describe the events which took place and/or the forces at work.

So no, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know what you're trying to say. You already define 'God' in your mind. You do so completely. You define 'God' as something you can't _understand_ completely and therefore cannot explain or describe in complete detail. But your definition is complete. Whether it is accurate or not is another matter, as is whether or not it is a useful definition- as, too, whether or not you are capable of communicating that definition effectively.

However, whether you are intellectually aware of it or not, every time to reference 'God' you are referencing a conception- a definition- of 'God' that you hold in your own mind.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 29, 2010)

yes jb, God is defined by ones own image of Him.....so what else is new?

God is an alien, not of this Earth....that's my definition....want to duke it out, over my definition of Him?


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 29, 2010)

Care4all said:


> yes jb, God is defined by ones own image of Him.....so what else is new?
> 
> God is an alien, not of this Earth....that's my definition....want to duke it out, over my definition of Him?




The Sumerians would agree with you 

Annunaki: 'They who from Heaven to Earth came'


----------



## logical4u (Nov 30, 2010)

SW2SILVER said:


> The smartest man alive says god isn't necessary. The universe always existed. I ain't that smart, figured that little ditty out for my self years ago. Surprise surprise. What IF God was one of us, just a slob like one of us? Hmm.



Wisdom and intelligence are two, totally different things, please don't use intelligence as your yard stick for leadership.


----------



## 8236 (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > What "Big Bang"?  You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law?   The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.  A scientific impossibility.  Simple scientific equation:  you cannot create something from nothing.
> ...



(This may have been replied to b4)
The laws of physics in the infinitessimal moment after the big bang are (meaning 'have to have been') the same as the laws of physics now. It is on that premise that we are able to extrapolate back in spacetime to be able to say anything at all about the conditions in the early universe.


----------



## 8236 (Feb 7, 2011)

Gunny and RGS, best not to talk Physics in your posts: Your lack of understanding does your arguments no favor.


----------



## u2scram (Feb 18, 2011)

"&#8216;&#8220;The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!&#8221;" Edmund Burke"

burke lived from 1729 - 1797. he was hardly commenting on todays marines. tho he certainly could have been commenting on those few whose murderous behavior has been revealed by wikileaks .


----------



## JBeukema (Mar 27, 2011)




----------



## icyteru (Mar 28, 2011)

logical4u said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > The smartest man alive says god isn't necessary. The universe always existed. I ain't that smart, figured that little ditty out for my self years ago. Surprise surprise. What IF God was one of us, just a slob like one of us? Hmm.
> ...



wisdom is more important than intelligence. especially in this religion forum.


----------



## JoReba (Mar 29, 2011)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.  Call it what you want, but there you have it.  I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.
> 
> Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.
> 
> Okay, discuss ....



Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12, "Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all maner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice and be exceedingly glad:  for great is your reward in Heaven:  for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

Did you have a problem with this ... ?


----------



## LumpyPostage (Apr 4, 2011)

The greatest thing God did was create Al Gore so he could create the internet so all the best and brightest of humanity could solve all the world's issues on message boards.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 4, 2011)

LumpyPostage said:


> The greatest thing God did was create Al Gore so he could create the internet so all the *best and brightest of humanity* could solve all the world's issues on message boards.


That completely fails to explain your presence here.


----------



## Wiseacre (Apr 8, 2011)

Let me ask you guys a question:   many people will blame religion for the atrocities committed in the name of some church, God, or faith.    However, unless a religion actually requires violence, is it not really the fault of the human beings who commit atrocious acts in a misguided attempt to follow their beliefs?    If a particular faith is supposed to be non-violent, is it right to blame that faith or religion in general if it's practicioners fail to follow the basic concepts of whatever they believe?   

The teachings of Christ for example was supposed to be all about peace, love, mercy, and forgiveness.   It's supposed to be non-violent, no matter what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament.   So the deaths and tortures that occurred during the Inquisition under the auspices of the Catholic Church were contrary to the basic premises of Christianity;  seems to me that is not the fault of religion or Christianity if some people, even many people, did terrible things in contravention of what the basic tenets are supposed to be.   Kinda like a few US solders doing outragious things at that prison in Iraq, or committing rapes or stealing from the locals.   Do we say the whole US Army or the USA  itself is therefore responsible?    No.


----------



## GunZawga (Apr 11, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Let me ask you guys a question:   many people will blame religion for the atrocities committed in the name of some church, God, or faith.    However, unless a religion actually requires violence, is it not really the fault of the human beings who commit atrocious acts in a misguided attempt to follow their beliefs?    If a particular faith is supposed to be non-violent, is it right to blame that faith or religion in general if it's practicioners fail to follow the basic concepts of whatever they believe?
> 
> The teachings of Christ for example was supposed to be all about peace, love, mercy, and forgiveness.   It's supposed to be non-violent, no matter what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament.   So the deaths and tortures that occurred during the Inquisition under the auspices of the Catholic Church were contrary to the basic premises of Christianity;  seems to me that is not the fault of religion or Christianity if some people, even many people, did terrible things in contravention of what the basic tenets are supposed to be.   Kinda like a few US solders doing outragious things at that prison in Iraq, or committing rapes or stealing from the locals.   Do we say the whole US Army or the USA  itself is therefore responsible?    No.





So you agree the SAME should apply to the few hundred Muslims that read the old testament also?


----------



## Wiseacre (Apr 11, 2011)

Can't say that I know a whole lot about Islam.   It is said to be a religion of peace, so if a muslim commits acts of violence against others then IMHO he has contravened his own beliefs.    In that sense, I think he is responsible for his actions and his religion is blameless.    If an imam or someone in the muslim faith convinces the person to become a martyr and take as many lives as possible then that person is at fault also.  I do not think it is a religion's fault of someone commits heinous acts in the name of their God knowing it is not the teachings of that religion.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 11, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Let me ask you guys a question:   many people will blame religion for the atrocities committed in the name of some church, God, or faith.    However, unless a religion actually requires violence, is it not really the fault of the human beings who commit atrocious acts in a misguided attempt to follow their beliefs?    If a particular faith is supposed to be non-violent, is it right to blame that faith or religion in general if it's practicioners fail to follow the basic concepts of whatever they believe?
> 
> The teachings of Christ for example was supposed to be all about peace, love, mercy, and forgiveness.   It's supposed to be non-violent, no matter what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament.   So the deaths and tortures that occurred during the Inquisition under the auspices of the Catholic Church were contrary to the basic premises of Christianity;  seems to me that is not the fault of religion or Christianity if some people, even many people, did terrible things in contravention of what the basic tenets are supposed to be.   Kinda like a few US solders doing outragious things at that prison in Iraq, or committing rapes or stealing from the locals.   Do we say the whole US Army or the USA  itself is therefore responsible?    No.



When people blame religion instead of those actually responsible, they aren't taking a good look at what's going on.


----------



## LumpyPostage (Apr 12, 2011)

Blame is easy.  Self-reflection and personal responsibility are harder.


----------



## Wiseacre (Apr 12, 2011)

Isn't that one of the atheists' biggest contentions, that religions are bad cuz so many people have been killed or tortured in the name of God?    Where's the pushback, I'm saying here that religion itself is not to blame if  human beings do terrible things using religion as a reason when in fact it's greed, envy, power, lust, whatever.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 19, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Let me ask you guys a question:   many people will blame religion for the atrocities committed in the name of some church, God, or faith.    However, unless a religion actually requires violence, is it not really the fault of the human beings who commit atrocious acts in a misguided attempt to follow their beliefs?    If a particular faith is supposed to be non-violent, is it right to blame that faith or religion in general if it's practicioners fail to follow the basic concepts of whatever they believe?
> 
> The teachings of Christ for example was supposed to be all about peace, love, mercy, and forgiveness.   It's supposed to be non-violent, no matter what the Bible says somewhere in the Old Testament.   So the deaths and tortures that occurred during the Inquisition under the auspices of the Catholic Church were contrary to the basic premises of Christianity;  seems to me that is not the fault of religion or Christianity if some people, even many people, did terrible things in contravention of what the basic tenets are supposed to be.   Kinda like a few US solders doing outragious things at that prison in Iraq, or committing rapes or stealing from the locals.   Do we say the whole US Army or the USA  itself is therefore responsible?    No.



Eh... yeah no.  There are secrets and sects and secrets within sects and sects with secrets... Who is really the good guy? What one labels suits today's criminal may very well be tomorrow's hero.  Who's most mentally fit for the battle? Perhaps that is the truest reason for anything called 'Religion'.


----------



## LumpyPostage (Apr 23, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Isn't that one of the atheists' biggest contentions, that religions are bad cuz so many people have been killed or tortured in the name of God?    Where's the pushback, I'm saying here that religion itself is not to blame if  human beings do terrible things using religion as a reason when in fact it's greed, envy, power, lust, whatever.


I think the one thing atheists agree on is their belief that God doesn't exist.  Pointing out the hypocrisy of some institutions wouldn't be a valid reason to go atheist.  You can believe in God and still think your priest is a dick.


----------



## Bill Angel (Apr 28, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Isn't that one of the atheists' biggest contentions, that religions are bad cuz so many people have been killed or tortured in the name of God?    Where's the pushback, I'm saying here that religion itself is not to blame if  human beings do terrible things using religion as a reason when in fact it's greed, envy, power, lust, whatever.



In the Soviet Union a lot of people were killed or tortured on behalf of Joseph Stalin, who was an atheist. 

I think that the "pushback", as you term it is that Christianity asserts that ALL human beings have souls, and that all of these souls are of equal value in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ.
[this is one reason why conservative Christians are opposed to abortion]
Christianity rejects the concept of Social Darwinism, which is that if a society is strong enough to wipe out its enemy competitors, then that's OK, since survival of the fittest or strongest is the only thing that matters. If a society does brutal things out of feelings of greed and lust, that's OK as far as social Darwinism is concerned, as these brutal amoral actions are believed to result in a strengthening or greater "fitness" of this society, at the expense of the "weaker" elements of the population.


----------



## Wiseacre (Apr 28, 2011)

The pushback I was talking about is from those who say religion is a bad thing because of all the terrible things that have been done through the ages in the name of one religion or another.    I am suggesting that in most cases there might've been other motives at work and that some people may have used religion as an excuse for doing terrible things.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 28, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> The pushback I was talking about is from those who say religion is a bad thing because of all the terrible things that have been done through the ages in the name of one religion or another.    I am suggesting that in most cases there might've been other motives at work and that some people may have used religion as an excuse for doing terrible things.



I'm an atheist, religion is almost never the reason for killing it's just an excuse leaders use to motivate their subjects.

The biggest reasons people go to war are for power and/or resources/money.

But for the button pushers in history's warmongering, it's a lot easier to motivate your soldiers by saying "go kill them because you're a future resident of heaven and they're a future resident of hell!!!!!" rather than saying "go kill them because my empire isn't wide enough and my oil drum is getting low!!!!"

If all religions disappeared tomorrow, in my opinion it wouldn't affect the # of horrible things man does to each other.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > The pushback I was talking about is from those who say religion is a bad thing because of all the terrible things that have been done through the ages in the name of one religion or another.    I am suggesting that in most cases there might've been other motives at work and that some people may have used religion as an excuse for doing terrible things.
> ...



In my humble opinion, if all religious disappeared tomorrow, man would wipe itself out.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 28, 2011)

I am not sure what is more scary.... a world striving for successful living by omitting God/god/whatever or a world demanding absolute recognition toward God and all gods deserving of worthy notice and worship. The 'delicate' balance seems necessary to me, but I'm yet the observer.


----------



## Freedomlover (May 2, 2011)

God does not send a person to hell. He has given each person free will to make choices. The choices that person makes throughout their life to trust and obey God's commandments is just the beginning of the process to grow in His grace. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me". That phrase could not be any clearer! 

Jesus also said in response to a question put to Him by the the Pharisees concenring which of the commandments was the greatest. In belief or non-belief this is where the rubber meets the road because Jesus' answer was "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your might and with all your strength. And the second is to "love your neighbor as yourself." This is not a "holier than thou" attitude, it is the way God expects us to live our lives. If all who claim to be Christians would live this way, putting God first and self after one's neighbor the world would be a much better place!

God wants every person to go to heaven. We decide for ourselves if we are willing to live according to His command in order to go in that direction at the end of life. The choice is totally ours. God acts on what choice we make. In the New Testament it is taught that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that is the judgement. If there is no punishment there is no need for a judgement, but be assured a judgement day is coming for all of us. We will make an account of our life but the very first queation may be "What did you do with Jesus Christ?". Depending on what that answer is will determine the rest of your life accounting. The great news is that through Jesus our sin(s) can be forgiven and our lives reordered so that we live a life in accordance to the two greatest commandments that Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees. You may ask just these two, aren't there ten? Yes, but jesus pointed out that if we obey these two you will also be fulfilling the other eight because you will not want to violate those as you live day by day.

God is a God of love. He is also a God of judgement. Make the the right choice and you can partake of the former. If not, then we will fall under the latter. I hope you that read this make the right choice. Don't look at others and their faults and dimiss what God wants for all of us. Chistianity is a one by one faith. A person's salvation does not depend on parents, siblings, friends, churchgoers, or anything else but our PERSONAL relationship with God through His Son. Don't be critical of those who do things you do not like in the name of religion. They are answerable to God, it is not our place to judge but only to love.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 28, 2011)

Sunni Man said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > > I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.
> ...



Well, those secular atheist dont believe in god, but they do have a religion. 

Communism.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 10, 2011)

hotaceline said:


> hi,
> i'm new here,
> can you tell me about this forum?



That many of the guys will enjoy your posts.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 16, 2011)

You have to seperate the world from God. The world and what it does has nothing to do with your personal realtionship with Chirst. Anyone who has killed in the name of God has shamed himself because God does not require blood. The only blood that was needed was spilled on the cross with Christ. 

Religion ;not God; is the single biggest tool in the devils bag of tricks. We as Christians where given the light that was Jesus's. We are to let it shine as an example to bring glory to the Father first and secondly to bring others to him. Church and religion have nothing to do with that.

We are supposed to assemble ourselves to worship our heavenly Father but it does not have to involve money or property or anything wordly. 

For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.&#8221;  Matthew 18:20.  

Christianity and politics do not go together either. If you are a Christian then dont get an abortion, but no where in the bible does it say to protest openly and make a spectical of yourself. Go pray in your closet and your Father will reward you. If the school will not allow your children to pray in school then pray with children before school and teach them to keep Christ in their hearts and to give no heed to the world.

And as far as a debate on religion; its meaningless. There is no debate. Christ dies for our sins so that we may go to heaven. If you beileve him and allow him and his Father to abide in your heart then you will go to heaven. If you dont beileve what I tell you then I will pray for you but I am not going to beat you over the head with it. God gave us the freedom of will to go to heaven or hell.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Jul 4, 2011)

If there is a GOD, he would end this bloody thread NOW, I beseech thee! No?  Well that is all the proof I need.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jul 5, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> If there is a GOD, he would end this bloody thread NOW, I beseech thee! No?  Well that is all the proof I need.



This is a really good discussion and what have you added to it?


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 5, 2011)

Gunny said:


> I'm giving fair warning straight - up.  Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved.



This is a derailment.

Let's see if it is removed.


----------



## rstrats (Jul 11, 2011)

Freedomlover,

re: &#8220;God does not send a person to hell.&#8221;


Perhaps not, but he does send them to the lake of fire.  Revelation 20:15 - &#8220;And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.&#8221;


----------



## Wingsofwind (Jul 12, 2011)

Fuck you


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 12, 2011)

Wingsofwind said:


> Fuck you



No Thank you.


----------



## lehr (Sep 14, 2011)

Gunny said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....
> ...



sports & religion are nuts !

they have no meaning !


----------



## ZiemanZnzoru (Oct 10, 2011)

religion is a way that you find you  and your self , it gives hope ,power and love in hearts.


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 10, 2011)

ZiemanZnzoru said:


> religion is a way that you find you  and your self , it gives hope ,power and love in hearts.


Strange that one has to worship someone else to find onesself.


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 10, 2011)

it's alchemy


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 10, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> it's alchemy



Alchemy within the brain, perhaps.

We are biochemical machines after all.


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 10, 2011)

that too, but it's spiritual alchemy... of the mind


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 10, 2011)

AN ALCHEMY OF MIND - Diane Ackerman


----------



## Gordy (Oct 29, 2011)

Whether you believe in god or not the bible is real and represents a history of mans relationship with God.I have never read the bible cover to cover or even got close to it. But once I realized the bible was about man not god it made for alot more interesting read. I mean common god made women from adams rib. If thats not the male ego shining right thru. How about they talk about slavery and its ok as long as its not your own people. Useing the lords name in vain and the male ego..


----------



## Iridescence (Oct 29, 2011)

It is a very multifaceted book, even as cut ad it is. Why? Perhaps because of it's author(s). What I know, as a woman, there is not yet a book that has captivated me as it has... And no other author has come close to eliminating it for me. There are many amazing books and many amazing works, but to me and for me, those only prove the bible to be what it is... *he*arts* as *he*ads*


----------



## Brucethethinker (Nov 10, 2011)

Freedomlover said:


> God does not send a person to hell....God wants every person to go to heaven.


If that was the case, we'd have no argument.  Isn't it a fact that god does want to send people to hell who refuse to accept jesus?





Freedomlover said:


> The great news is that through Jesus our sin(s) can be forgiven...


I don't want my sins forgiven, I want to pay for them, just like I pay my bills.  To me, accepting christianity is equivalent to declaring bankrupcy.  I'll never even need to consider bankrupcy, because I don't borrow money so I have no debts.  I'll gladly spend 3 days on the cross to pay for my sins.





Freedomlover said:


> God is a God of love. He is also a God of judgement.


You mean like "tough love"?  The reason for tough love is to teach a child.  What's there to teach once I've been sentenced to hell for eternity?  I can defend how I've lived, I haven't been perfect but I've done the best I can, and that's all that can be asked or demanded.  So I don't need christianity.


----------



## DDU (Nov 13, 2011)

Literal interp like.


----------



## Duped (Apr 21, 2012)

Religion is man made for power, and wealth. Christ is for iternal life abundant!  We all belong in the lake of fire. I don't know how anyone can look at this world, and come to the conclusion that it is not by design; it escapes me. The difference between Christianity, and all other faiths is that in other faiths man beleives he can do something that makes him righteous. In Christiananity it is God that makes you righteous through faith in his grace.
 It is apparant that  non beleivers have contempt  for beleivers most often. What they don't realize is it is the spirit of this world in them that hates God. God does not wish any should perish. He loves the sinner but hates the sin, and will eradicate it. I am sure he hates religion!


----------



## Reptilian (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm bored with this whole debate


----------

