How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Wicked Pilot]

Well then, someone close this waste of time. Bandwidth cost money, this idiot is not worth a cent.

[Darth Wong]

I already dealt with Boyd on my Creationism HateMail page. His inability to think rationally is quite clear.

[data_link]

He didn't change the law. And God cannot change his nature. Even for an omnipotent being, some things are intrinsically impossible. A perfectly good being could not commit an evil act for instance. A perfectly just being could not change the law because doing so would only make it less just.

The solution to this problem - the law condemning us to Hell, with no hope of redeeming ourselves - was not to change the law, since that was impossible, but rather to remove the cause of our condemnation - sin. We cannot earn our way out of sin by good deeds, therefore it had to be removed by the willing sacrifice of perfect innocent. Only God is perfectly good therefore Jesus had to die for us so that are sins could be removed.
Next you're going to ask why, if this has been done, do we need to bother about Christianity, right? Well, in order for us to be forgiven, we have to accept God's offer. That's it.

I'm sorry, but did you just say that God cannot change his nature? Then perhaps you would like to explain why I can change my own nature at will, being one moment a kind young man and the next a cold-clooded bastard. Does this mean I am more powerful than God?

Besides, according to the bible, God has commited many evil acts. See Genesis - God kills every living thing that breathes air. Even if you want to make the absurd argument that everyone save Noah and his family was unspeakably evil, why does God kill all the innocent animals? What have they done to deserve his wrath? Or see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19 - God kills everyone except Lot and his family - Lot, who is so "just and righteous" that he sends his daughters out to be raped by the mob surrounding his house. Is this your idea of justice? or Gen. 38:7, where God kills Judah's firstborn. For what? God doesn't say. And all that from Genesis. Shall we move on to Exodus?

Exodus 4:24 - God threatens to kill Moses for being uncircumsised. Or all the plauges that God casts upon Egypt. These would not be nessecary if the Pharoh's heart wasn't hardened. Who hardened the pharoh's heart? God did. See Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, and 14:8. Then, after hardening the Pharonh's heart some more, he ruthlessly drowns his entire army in the sea for an act which He caused them to do. in 19:12, God threatens to kill anyone who touches Mt. Siani. In 20:24, he instructs his people to make "burnt offerings" What kind of sick God is pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Thousand of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse - why would a just God put it in the bible? 22:20 - God says that anyone who believes in a different God shall be utterly destroyed. Ex. 29 - instructions for animal sacrifice. 31:14 - everyone who does work on Sunday shall be put to death. (Gee, does this mean Jesus is put to death for his actions in John 5:16?) He says the same thing in 35:2-3. This is all from the first two books of the bible, and I'm not touching Leviticus. So, I think it's safe to say that God's nature is not perfectly good and just and that He should have no problen allowing unrepentant sinners to go to Heaven. Of course, why would he want to when he can torture them in hell for all eternity?

No, because as I said, you have to ask him to forgive your sins. And you have to do so with sincerity.

You get out because you are deemed to have repaid your debt to society. I'm sure that if anyone in Hell honestly repented of their sins, they would go to Heaven. Jesus went there at one point to preach to sinners and offer them the chance of repentance. However people there are there because they haven't and won't repent.

You said that anyone in hell who is honestly repentant of their sins would go to heaven. We are honestly repentant of the things we do wrong. You on the other hand, think that because you are a Christian that you're getting a get out of hell free card. If there is a God and He is even remotely just, you are going to end up in hell. If, however, God acts the way he does in the Bible (which is not even remotely just), then frankly, I'd feel better going to Hell and serving in the resistance movement organized by Satan.

What do you mean by objective reality?

I mean the reality that exists regardless of your point of veiw. You have repeatedly demonstrated your total lack of ability to understand objective reality in the past, therefore I deduce that it is unlikely that your POV will have any correlation with reality in the future. So far I have been proven correct.

How is it anything other than purely subjective. You decide the criteria for something being wrong. You decide what is harmful to people. It's all stuff you've made up, rather than being based on a reliable external source. Totally subjective, in other words.

ROTFLMAO! Excuse me but, how is harm to others a subjective quality? Are you perhaps suggesting that it is a subjective matter whether breaking someone's arm is harmful? And what is this external source, by the way? Would it be the personal whims of a made-up entity perhaps? How objective.

than a system based on the whims of a God who has already admitted that he has no problem with slavery,

Wrong

How so? Neme one verse in the bible that condemns slavery. On the other hand, I can name several that support it. Gen. 9:25, for instance.

or killing people for being uncircumcised,

I'm not circumcised. Jesus never commanded people to be circumcised. Paul makes it very clear that circumcision is unnecessary. It is a mere symbol.

Try Gen. 7:10 - "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and they seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised." Or the example above og God trying to kill Moses for being uncircumcised.

or stoning children to death for being disobedient to their parents?

Different time, different culture, very rare occurrence.

And direct order from God. Lev. 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Read I said and tell me how 'love thy neighbour' can be interpreted to mean 'go torture people'.

Read what I said and tell me how the bible can be interpreted to mean God is just.

I never said that. Stupidity is lack of intelligence. Ignorance is lack of knowledge.

Then why did you say that Christianity is for "intelligent and ignorant alike" as though they were diametrically opposed to one another?

You don't believe in God. That is an opinion, not an objective verifiable fact. The idea of God existing is not irrational. In order for something to be irrational, there must be no reason behind it. There are, however, reasons for believing that God exists. Whether those reasons are good enough is a matter of opinion. that doesn't mean that people who hold a different view are necessarily irrational, however.

What reasons would these be?

Very small statistical sample from a biased source. You're bound to get more people like that on a forum for mocking Christianity. I know plenty of people who have been converted to Christianity or had their faith strengthened through reading the Bible.

And yet you used a sample of one to "prove" that Christianity is logical.

Once an ardent atheist who was converted when he questioned world experts on the historical evidence for the gospel

Strawman. The existence of the books shows that people have been converted from atheism to Christianity by the evidence. Just as books about UFO show that people looking at evidence have come to the conclusion that UFOs exist. My point was that people held certain views, not that the views were correct.

Good. Then stop using the number of people who believe in a phenomenon as evidence of its truth, as you were doing here.

Is there historical evidence in favour of Christianity? Yes. Many a book has been written on it.

you misunderstand me. When i say we are free from guilt, I mean it in the sense that we are not trapped by it. by repenting of our sins, we are cleansed of them and have no reason to feel guilty. We are only guilty when we are sinners and when I sin, I do feel guilty, but I know that the guilt isn't permanent because God removes it. When you have done no wrong (as is our condition when we repent and have our sin wiped way) there is no reason to feel guilty.

So you believe that if you repent you have done no wrong? This is what I was talking about when I said "Just because you are a Christian you think you get a 'get out of hell free' card." Logical people don't suffer from the delusion that they are in the clear just because they are sorry for what they've done; we also do everything in our power to make it right. But you don't, because you think "well I said I'm sorry, so I don't have any rsponsibility for what I did wrong." And you wonder why we hold you in contempt.

And what have I said that is stupid? I hold a certain belief,but I view science independently of it. Do you believe I am stupid for holding the opinion that Christianity is true, or is there another reason?

And why do you attribute malice to my actions? Surely that is making an unfair assumption about my motives. Surely if I am talking to people about love and doing so in a considerably more polite manner than the majority of people i this thread, then malice would be the last thing to ascribe to me unless you believe that Christians are by definition malicious. Or is there some other reason that has not occurred to me, as to why you think I'm being unpleasant towards people.

I hold you stupid for holing the opinion that the Bible is true, the opinion that the Biblical God is just, and the opinion that the bible has nothing to say about scientific matters. I attribute no particular malice to your actions, I am merely pointing out that you are willfully continuing an action that is pissing people off.

Care to quote me insulting science? I'm a scientist myself and am quite aware of the successes and limitations of science. All it is capable of doing is describing how the universe appears to work. Do you agree or disagree with me on that?

You insult science because you claim that it's models are contrivances used to describe reality, yet where they contradict the bible (the instances I've mentioned) you think that they do not, in fact, have any connection to reality. You may think that is irrelevant because this is all events in the past, but if Science's models do in fact have some connection to past reality, the biblical account of God's actions is invalidated and your faith has no basis, because you admit that the bible is a lie. So instead of following this path, you say that "God just created things to appear that way, but they aren't actually that way." THAT is the insult to science - to say that its models do not describe the way the universe actually works, and it's an insult to God as well, because it says he is such a sadistic bastard that he would deliberately create a massive illusion instead of giving us a decent chance to know the truth. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot: your god IS a sadistic bastard, so this describes him perfectly.

fun·da·men·tal·ism Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

'A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles' is the primary attribute, which is always true o a type 1 fundamentalist. The 'intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism' is a secondary attribute which is not necessary for a fundamentalist. To claim that all type 1 fundamentalists have that attribute would be a fallacy.

No, it wouldn't, because of Ex. 22:20. You certainly are intolerant of homosexuality and atheism.

How so? Since when were you persecuted for following Jesus? IIRC, you don't believe he was the Son of God

And exactly why is it that our beloved president publicly stated that anyone who didn't believe in God wasn't a citizen of the United States? Christians may have been persecuted once upon a time, but I challenge you to name ONE time in history, prior to the founding of America, where an atheist would NOT have been burned at the stake for heracy. And may I remind you that for over 1500 years, it was YOU doing the persecuting. Keep this in mind before you go whining about how christians were persecuted throughout history.

[Ghost Rider]

Ah I see his wall of Ignorance is strong...ah well my Cat of Doom will one day smite his puny god.

Go CoD...smite the foolish one.

[data_link]

Ah I see his wall of Ignorance is strong...ah well my Cat of Doom will one day smite his puny god.

Go CoD...smite the foolish one.

Who made this idiot a pokemon trainer?

[Ghost Rider]

jeez...did you read the 10 some odd posts defing why saying god is almighty is actually a huge fallacy...or did you miss them...I mean me and Darth Utsanomiko were just using them(Sky Pixie vs Cat of Doom) as reason why God is actually quite humourous given that people just arbitarily give them supremecy without any proof...or did all those posts escape you reading them

Honestly I find it rather insulting and funny how easily one jumps to conclusions while sniping at fundies.

If you didn't read it...then don't jump to conclusion about something you don't have any idea about.

[data_link]

jeez...did you read the 10 some odd posts defing why saying god is almighty is actually a huge fallacy...or did you miss them...I mean me and Darth Utsanomiko were just using them(Sky Pixie vs Cat of Doom) as reason why God is actually quite humourous given that people just arbitarily give them supremecy without any proof...or did all those posts escape you reading them

Honestly I find it rather insulting and funny how easily one jumps to conclusions while sniping at fundies.

If you didn't read it...then don't jump to conclusion about something you don't have any idea about.

Speak for yourself. I know perfectly well what you were talking about. Did it somehow escape your grasp that I WAS MAKING A FUCKING JOKE?

[Ghost Rider]

So I jumped to conclusions...I'm sorry.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Heh

looks like we have both Boyd and Durandel challenging each other to prove a negative....

Ok, let's level this field

Niether onee of you can prove or disprove the others point.

Calm the FUCK DOWN.

[Utsanomiko]

The Sky Pixie has made Durandal the winner by default.

Sorry, Jonathan, but you are wrong, and by default no less.

[Jonathan]

You describe killing millions of innocents to be "just"?

No. I describe death of millions of guilty as just. there's a world of difference. Incidentally, if it was men, acting on their own, then I believe it would be wrong because men did not give us live. God hover did and it is him we sin against and he who has the right to take life away.

What kind of fucked up value system do you describe to?

If you read my posts with an open mind rather than deciding what I've written without reading it, then you'll see.

Then go kill yourself you waste of carbon.

I think your view are wrong. I try to change them.

You think my views are wrong. You want me to die.

I'm curious, which attitude would be more in fitting with the Inquisition or Holocaust? Which do you think is the more twisted? Which one is wishing harm on a person, the one thing that secular humanists agree is completely wrong?

It is not my place to decide who lives or dies,, anyway. It is God.

If the little voices in your head tell you to kill someone, would you do it? I bet you would sinse you have no value system. You just blindly follow you invisible friend in the sky.

I've made it quite clear that I follow a Biblical value system which says that Man was made in the image of God and that we should love our neighbours, returning evil with love, sacrificing or others, putting myself last. see no reason why God would tell me to kill someone. If I seriously thought I was hearing such voices, I certainly wouldn't do it without being absolutely certain it was from God. That would no doubt involve confirmatory messages from other Christians, repetition of the message and some sort of brain scan to make sure I don't have a tumour growing that's driving me mad. Taking life is a very serious business and I forsee no circumstance in which it would be necessary for me to do. I certainly believe that I would never be called to murder.

And all those people in isolated parts of the world who never get indoctrinated into your religion get smited too.

Every man has a conscience, so he knows he should not sin, therefore anyone who sins has done so in full knowledge and deserves death. God does not have a responsibility to them. People have no innate right to be forgiven if they don't ask. Being loving, however, God has the Gospel for our salvation and commands us to spread its message. I believe that any who have, through no fault of their own, had no opportunity to see a bible and hear the Gospel spoken to them, will be give some opportunity by God, that he will reveal himself in some way to all those who are of a truly repentant heart.

It is not those who have not heard the Gospel that I worry for, but rather those who have heard it and rejected it, for they will have no excuse before his throne.

How about all those children God order killed, I guess they deserved it too. Gee, what a nice god your's is.

Anyone guilty of sin deserved death. Anyone who died and was not guilty, is in heaven and better off for the experience. This world is pretty crappy compared to Heaven and I would regard God taking an Innocent away as a liberation. However, it is something only he has the right to decide on, not man.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all month.

Why? I've already explained why the NT is reliable. The account therein is more reliable than pretty much any historical evidence. do you deny this?

Do you have any idea what appeal to authority is?

Yes. It is making claim based solely on your authority in a field when in reality you have none, or when you provide evidence from an authority that is in fact not authoritive in the field being considered. In what way is the New Testament not authoritive about Jesus?

Have you any idea what circular logic is? Here's some helpful advice:

Where have I used circular logic?

The Gospels have been confirmed as a reliable historical source.
The Gospels tell us that God is loving.
Based on this, I interpret the actions of God in the Old Testament as if he was the same person as appears in the New Testament, so that his words and actions are self-consistent.

Where is the circular logic?

BUY A FUCKING CLUE YOU FUCKING NAZI!

[/quote

Nazis wanted the Jews to die because they were Jews. Do you want me to die because I'm a Bible-believing Christian? It appeared above that you mistakenly or (willfully - I am not in a position to know which) misinterpreted what I said. Now that I have confirmed that your misinterpretation was wrong, do you want me to die? If so, what does that say about who you resemble? If not, can we have some intelligent debate rather than pointless name-calling?

[Jonathan]

Then there you go...why I should worship or believe anything that you or I cannot prove.

You are asking to put my mind in the hand sof something that may or may not exist.

Have you ever been in love? Has anyone ever told you they're in love with you? Do you have friends, family? You're taking a leap of faith with them all that they love you. I can't prove that God loves us any more than a wife can prove she loves her husband, or vice-verse. The closest I could come would be that if someone dies for another person, there's a good chance they love them. Jesus died on the cross, claiming he was God and that he loved us. The big question is, did he rise again? There is historical evidence that he did. Not proof, just evidence. But then, I never claimed otherwise.

And as or maturity...yeah we're going to hell because we don't believe in your own religous beliefs

Is that a 'yes I'm interested in intelligent debate' or a 'no, I think i know it all and am only interested in slinging mud' or something entirely different?

[Vympel]

There is historical evidence that he did. Not proof, just evidence. But then, I never claimed otherwise.

And piss poor historical evidence at that.

[Ghost Rider]

I see he uses his own experiences as empircal evidence

Amazing maybe I should as well...I mean I could see myself wrap myself in a variety of delusional states.

Wow...for God...well since God never benefited me when I worshiped him, he obviously doesn't exist...and no none can refute that.

And for Love well Love must exist because I've been told it.

Y'know this is definitly something I could use for any debate

[Durandal]

Have you ever been in love? Has anyone ever told you they're in love with you? Do you have friends, family? You're taking a leap of faith with them all that they love you. I can't prove that God loves us any more than a wife can prove she loves her husband, or vice-verse. The closest I could come would be that if someone dies for another person, there's a good chance they love them. Jesus died on the cross, claiming he was God and that he loved us. The big question is, did he rise again? There is historical evidence that he did. Not proof, just evidence. But then, I never claimed otherwise.

The fact that people take "leaps of faith" for love (which is a gross overstatement on your part) does not grant validity to the idea of God, much less the Christian scheme.

[Darth Wong]

You describe killing millions of innocents to be "just"?

No. I describe death of millions of guilty as just. there's a world of difference. Incidentally, if it was men, acting on their own, then I believe it would be wrong because men did not give us live. God hover did and it is him we sin against and he who has the right to take life away.

"Special pleading" fallacy.

Your God is an asshole. Tell me, if we used genetic engineering to create a race of slaves, would it be OK to treat them with unlimited cruelty? According to your "logic", the answer would be yes.

Nazis wanted the Jews to die because they were Jews. Do you want me to die because I'm a Bible-believing Christian?

Drop this attempt at self-righteous indignation, asshole. You spout justifications for mass-murder and unlimited cruelty while simultaneously pretending to hold the moral high ground. You have no morality; your entire system of "morality" is based on pure abdication of personal moral responsibility to the teachings of long-dead prophets claiming to represent an imaginary invisible man in the sky, and you are obviously ignorant of the definition of appeals to authority.

It is fallacious to appeal to any authority, because it presumes that the authority in question is completely, literally infallible with no possibility of error or even ambiguity or misinterpretation. The Bible is not infallible, nor is it unambigious or immune to misinterpretation. So it's a logical fallacy to appeal to its authority for anything (not that you would know or care about logic, of course).

Have you ever been in love? Has anyone ever told you they're in love with you? Do you have friends, family? You're taking a leap of faith with them all that they love you. I can't prove that God loves us any more than a wife can prove she loves her husband, or vice-verse.

Bullshit. God has not demonstrated his "love" for us in any way, while my wife has demonstrated her love for me in many ways. God has demonstrated cruelty toward us, while my wife has never demonstrated cruelty toward me. God's very existence is unsupportable, while my wife obviously exists, since she can be seen, heard, videotaped, etc. Your moronic comparison does not work.

Is there a certain amount of faith required for me to believe that my wife loves me? Yes. Is it as much faith as is required to believe that your God exists and loves us? Not even close.

[Jonathan]

Okay you want the rebuttals:Prove God made atoms.[/i]

I can't and never claimed to be able to. All I claim si that there is no inconsistency between the existence of God and the existence of atoms.

Prove God made a soul.

I can't. However a soul is a purely spiritual phenomenon therefore if a soul exists, there exists something supernatural. I believe that something is God.

Prove this with historical proof beyond your bible...and once again that JESUS, not God.

Jesus = God. I don't understand why you're saying otherwise. The Bible is pretty explicit about it. If he was just a man, there would be no Christianity. He refers often to himself as the Son of Man, a reference to Daniel 7:13. He says that just as the Lord is, 'I AM', using God's personal name for himself. He claims the ability to forgive sins, something only God can do. He says that there is no need for fasting while he is present. Fasting was done in atonement for sins, to bring people closer to God. While God walks among them, there is no need for fasting. He says that he and the Father are one. He class himself Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was written in Jewish Law, so he is calling himself Lord of the Law i.e. God. T suggest the Jesus did not claim to be God would be ludicrous and contrary to the available evidence.

As for historical proof, why should I need to use more than the bible? It has been verified as a reliable document, for reasons I have already given, though I will explain again if you so wish. It tallies with the accounts of other historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. There is archaeological evidence to support it. Why do you seek to disregard it?

Proof he did not create perfection...thank you.

? How is this proof that he is not perfect? He created us with free will so that we could love. How else do you suggest that we would be able to feel love?

Son of God, not God...unless the Bible was wrong.

False dilemma. The bible says he is God. If it didn't, there could be no Christianity.

Proof once again no perfection.

No it's not. He wanted us to be able to live him. That requires free will. We were created according to how he intended.

You said:

This all smacks of too much devotion without seing that in reality God was created for the stupifiying purpose of explaining thunder in the sky.

I said:

The Bible never attempts to explain thunder in the sky. In fact, what it talks about more than anything else is a relationship between God and man that culminates in God dying for us out of love, to give us the chance to be with him forever. There's a world of difference between explaining love and explaining lightning. You're thinking more of the Romans/Greeks and their gods.

Bible created to explain what again...it's first fable was the story of what...oh CREATION, dumbfuck...CREATION!!

You claimed that it was attempt to explain how the world worked. Simply saying that God created the world and giving an order provides absolutely no information about how it works. Think about it.

ah so Buddaha not accepting a man as his savior goes staright to hell?

Accepting a mere man as saviour would do nothing to prevent him going to Hell. Accepting Jesus Christ who was God incarnate as his saviour on the wother hand would save him.

(Only worshippers of God go to heaven...man that means Buddha, Ghandi and many great worshippers of other religons and people of peace of their own right are punished because they didn't believe in your BS)

oh you admit it's opinion...and you going on and on about the glory that is...makes one wonder.

I've absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Or what you mean by 'going on and on about the glory that is'. A belief is, by definition an opinion. It's who I think the world is. I think that Christianity is true. I know that it is in my heart, but that's not the same as saying that it's a fact which can be conclusively proved through some logical test.

As for your last only if you listen first

I've been listening while you ignore what I'm saying and presume that I'm saying something else. If you want to say something constructive, please do, I'll read what you write, just as I have been doing since I got here.

but hey why? you'll just respond "You just don't understand."

That's very presumptuous.

and after a while I've learned that why people never admit defeat.

People don't admit defeat because they either think they're right, as I do or they know they're wrong, but are too proud to concede it to others.

And if I wanted to score Brownie Points I would Go "Wong is god, and my savior I love evry words that he writes." Since I have yet to do this...

Where in that post did I mention Brownie points? That's a big ol' strawman you're beating your head against there.

and you are criticising my beliefs to suiot you pathetic ad homniem.(the thing data link was talking about) there ya go

You keep making these allegations and yet never say where I do this or what pathetic ad hominen I have actually uttered. It's all claims and no evidence. If I've really wronged you so grievously, why don;t you point out exactly where? Every word I've typed is up on this site for people to see. It relaly wouldn't be hard to quote me if I've done that.

Either point out what I've done wrong, with quotes, or drop the matter and I'll just assume it's just a misunderstanding.

[Darth Wong]

People don't admit defeat because they either think they're right, as I do or they know they're wrong, but are too proud to concede it to others.

Or they're too goddamned stupid to know any better, like your average Christian fundie moron.

[Colonel Olrik]

No, they also hate the sinner. They want to forbid them to marry and deny they can feel love, only lust.

I said that there are people who hate homosexuality, but don't hate homosexuals. Are you saying that that is wrong? I think you've misunderstood me and are under the impression that I was saying that 'fundies' only have the attitude I described.

So, they don't hate homosexuals, they just want to force them straight. They deny them love and marriage, but they don't hate them. If fact, "love the sinner". All the homosexuals in the world must be very relieved by now, due to your subtle distinction. By the way, I don't hate jews. I hate the jewish people as a whole. It sounds so much better, doesn't it?

To observe your separation of Science and Religion at work.

I presume you meant creationweb.org? And I've never posted there, so what does it have to do with my stance on separation of religion and science?

BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY WHO DO NOT HOLD THAT STANCE, you moron.

No it has not. Present evidence for the Biblical flood or don't mention it at all.

I'm not the one who mentioned it.

The article mentioned an ancient flood that could be the origin of the mith. Very different from the Biblical "kill everybody, they deserve" Flood

Figure of speech, eh? Many people have taken it at face value during centuries.

And those people were mistaken.

Says who? It says so in the Bible. Taking it literally, you should consider the chance of the Earth's round shape being an illusion. Doesn't God have the power to do that? Or is it more reasonable to simple assume the Bible to be mistaken in this scientific matter? And in all others?

And I would criticize someone who said he could see Australia from the Alpes.

Even if they were being poetical? Speaking allegorically rather than literally?

You choose to take some science of the Bible literally and to assume an alegorism in other? Interesting. No doubt, worthy of your new title.

[Ghost Rider]

I can't and never claimed to be able to. All I claim si that there is no inconsistency between the existence of God and the existence of atoms.

I can't. However a soul is a purely spiritual phenomenon therefore if a soul exists, there exists something supernatural. I believe that something is God.

Jesus = God. I don't understand why you're saying otherwise. The Bible is pretty explicit about it. If he was just a man, there would be no Christianity. He refers often to himself as the Son of Man, a reference to Daniel 7:13. He says that just as the Lord is, 'I AM', using God's personal name for himself. He claims the ability to forgive sins, something only God can do. He says that there is no need for fasting while he is present. Fasting was done in atonement for sins, to bring people closer to God. While God walks among them, there is no need for fasting. He says that he and the Father are one. He class himself Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was written in Jewish Law, so he is calling himself Lord of the Law i.e. God. T suggest the Jesus did not claim to be God would be ludicrous and contrary to the available evidence.

As for historical proof, why should I need to use more than the bible? It has been verified as a reliable document, for reasons I have already given, though I will explain again if you so wish. It tallies with the accounts of other historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. There is archaeological evidence to support it. Why do you seek to disregard it?

Because you you've yet to prove either Atoms or souls(amazing on the Soul bit since that is not reagarded in normal science as a viable object and in fact is truly in the realm of otherworldly)

As for you historical proof...I believe Vympel said it best...quite piss poor. Because you yet to provide dates or times.

? How is this proof that he is not perfect? He created us with free will so that we could love. How else do you suggest that we would be able to feel love?

Love is felt because of reciprocation...God has never reciprocated his love...and you've yet to prove hew is perfect except using whta you leanred in the bible which was made by imperfect beings.

As for the imperfection you said it better than I could in that statement alone.

False dilemma. The bible says he is God. If it didn't, there could be no Christianity.

So when he pleading to his Father that he must die...what are we know to presume God is talking to himself? Jesus Christ is refered to as the Son...why is it he is never refered as the Father nor is he accept by other religons as God. He isn't even given the second hand thought of being the Son let alone a divine pie in the sky most of the world worships.


[qoute]No it's not. He wanted us to be able to live him. That requires free will. We were created according to how he intended.[/quote]

Prove this one...

Why did he create things that would punish us if we were created with free will...so we're given to choices?

His way or the highway?

In giving us free will he essential said you either dogmatically follow me...or suffer eternal punishment because I'm right and everyone else isn't.

You claimed that it was attempt to explain how the world worked. Simply saying that God created the world and giving an order provides absolutely no information about how it works. Think about it.

And did not the Bible explain how the world worked...it' worked because God put it there regardless of how much evidence states otherwise.

Accepting a mere man as saviour would do nothing to prevent him going to Hell. Accepting Jesus Christ who was God incarnate as his saviour on the wother hand would save him.

Guess Buddha is still in hell along with Ghandi...some merciful all loving son of bitch

I've absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Or what you mean by 'going on and on about the glory that is'. A belief is, by definition an opinion. It's who I think the world is. I think that Christianity is true. I know that it is in my heart, but that's not the same as saying that it's a fact which can be conclusively proved through some logical test.

You actually know this in your heart and this is evidence?!

I know in my heart God doesn not excist...well geee two conflicting viewpoints...guess I go to hell for not beliving in God, and using my free will.

Where in that post did I mention Brownie points? That's a big ol' strawman you're beating your head against there.

You asked ...not I...you wondered if I was not catering to popular belief.

You keep making these allegations and yet never say where I do this or what pathetic ad hominen I have actually uttered. It's all claims and no evidence. If I've really wronged you so grievously, why don;t you point out exactly where? Every word I've typed is up on this site for people to see. It relaly wouldn't be hard to quote me if I've done that.

Well I can't speak for you so look at your own posts...then again why...you'll just say you didn't.

And what misunderstanding...you have literally stated because you believe God exist...therfore he must...what else can one say aside from that's the same as me saying my cat is God because I believe that.

[Utsanomiko]

Then there you go...why I should worship or believe anything that you or I cannot prove.

You are asking to put my mind in the hand sof something that may or may not exist.

Have you ever been in love? Has anyone ever told you they're in love with you? Do you have friends, family? You're taking a leap of faith with them all that they love you. I can't prove that God loves us any more than a wife can prove she loves her husband, or vice-verse. The closest I could come would be that if someone dies for another person, there's a good chance they love them. Jesus died on the cross, claiming he was God and that he loved us. The big question is, did he rise again? There is historical evidence that he did. Not proof, just evidence. But then, I never claimed otherwise.

There's a big difference between the supporting evidence of love from people and the existence of an impossible, contradictory being from an institutional fable book. Everything one's family of spouse does can support a conclusion on their feelings, assuming it's not some extreemly ellaborate act of a lunatic (nearly impossible in likelyhood). There's nothing on God. It's no more of a reasonable belief than Santa Claus, you're ignoring empirical evidence, logic, and scientific method simply for the sake of having a sappy belief to lift the burden of objectifying morality off of your shoulders.

Don't make me call the Sky Pixie on you.

[data_link]

HEY FUNDIE! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY POST? YOU KNOW - THE ONE WHERE I LIST ALL THE CRIMES YOUR GOD HAS COMITTED BECAUSE HE'S AN ASSHOLE?!

[Ghost Rider]

As for your did my motivation according to you and my ad hominem attack

I present to you your own words

lol That's mature. Please tell me you're interested in a debate rather than petty points scoring.

So you were saying, Jonathon?

And you have yet to answer data link's accusations...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

There is a very obvious question that must be asked here, and it's an oldie but a goodie: Should we eliminate fundamentalism and religion in general? Do we have a right to tell people what they can and cannot think? And how would you target people who believe in God? Lastly, by attempting to stamp out (read: persecute) Christians, do you realize that you'd be playing right into what their "holy" book says will be done to them? Why validate their faith? Leave them alone.

[Durandal]

There is a very obvious question that must be asked here, and it's an oldie but a goodie: Should we eliminate fundamentalism and religion in general? Do we have a right to tell people what they can and cannot think? And how would you target people who believe in God? Lastly, by attempting to stamp out (read: persecute) Christians, do you realize that you'd be playing right into what their "holy" book says will be done to them? Why validate their faith? Leave them alone.

That's like asking if we should eliminate Nazism because we don't have the right to tell people what to think. Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively strive to eradicate fundamentalism through the use of education.