Dumbass Fundies

[SirNitram]

I never volunteered for Hell. I simply Am, and I live according to real morality, not orders. And yet, according to you and your stupid little book and insipid, spoiled brat of a divinity, I'm gonna burn? Oh yes, it's a 'gift' to be saved. Please, you moron, indenturing yourself as a 'gift' was a lie bandied around in the Roman Empire. I realize your societal subculture hasn't advanced past that, but the rest of us have.

So, what exactly am I indentured to do?

Pretend you love God out of fear of punishment.

biblically speaking - and if we are discussing hell we are speaking Biblically - what must I do from now on because I have accepted the gift?

'Love' God. Not because you choose to, not because he's lovable.. But to escape Hell. That's not love, that's lip service, and an insult to any truly moral being.

Tell me, wise one, what one or more things, should I fail to do them...what one or more things should I chose to do them...will result in my going to hell?

Not loving the demented egomaniac you call a diety.

[Darth Servo]

You DO know what FREE means don't you?

No sacrifices.

W/o sacrifices, we never grow. No pain, no gain. If God wanted us to not have to sacrifice, he wouldn't have made life on Earth the misery that it is (disease, famine, etc)

No baptism.

John 3:3-5 disagrees with you.

No tithe.

Then tell the preachers to stop sending the collection plates around.

No church attendence.

Ah, so according to your belief, we don't need churches. Quick, tear them down. They're taking up valuable real estate.

no NOTHING is added to that simple admission in order to enter the presence of God.

Then why did he go to the bother of giving us commandments in the first place. The idea of salvation by grace alone is one of the ideas that leads many christians to think they can do what ever they want and get away with it. Oh, wait, those weren't true Christians, were they?

Would he LIKE for you to aknowledge his ways in your life?
Of course!

Do you HAVE to to make it to heaven?
Nope.

Then Hitler went to heaven and Ghandi went to hell. If God created the universe and its laws then he created heaven and hell. A truly just God would have created more than two possibilities. But then your God isn't very imaginitive is he?

If you are homeless and on the street and I walk up to you and offer you a Jed Clampett rll of cash and say "Here, thake this as my free gift" and you do not reach out your hand and accept the gift, who's fault is it you remain on the street?
YOURS!

There are OBSERVABLE benefits of taking the cash. There is no OBSERVABLE evidence that hell exists.

If you stand before a judge and he condems you to death, then hesteps down from the bench and turns himself over to the balif and offers to be executed in your place, do you complain because he sentenced you, or love him for the gift that means that you don't have to die?

Anyone in this position probably killed someone. The family of the person killed would never accept the judge's death as justice.

IF you go to hell you VOLENTEERED to go.

The way out has been provided - free of charge - to any who will accept...no strings attached.

Not "vindictive and evil" from where I sit.

If God cared about us HALF as much as you say, he would give us something better than "my prophets 2000-3000 years ago said so" as evidence of his existance.

[GC]

The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

I don't have to change your minds.

Suit yourselves.

2 minutes after we die we'll all be well informed who had the right idea.

I'm not worried.
I presume you are not either.

Let's just wait and see.

[Queeb Salaron]

The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

I don't have to change your minds.

Suit yourselves.

2 minutes after we die we'll all be well informed who had the right idea.

I'm not worried.
I presume you are not either.

Let's just wait and see.

::Nods:: We will find out. We may well find out that no one earth is right at all, and that there's a big elephant that we need to ride, and if we didn't acquire the skills to know how to ride elephants in life, then we're doomed to be trampled by elephants in the afterlife.

Or something.

[Hotfoot]

The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

The less you think about the plumbing, the easier it is to go back to the outhouse.

I don't have to change your minds.

Suit yourselves.

2 minutes after we die we'll all be well informed who had the right idea.

I'm not worried.
I presume you are not either.

Let's just wait and see.

Oh, brilliant counter argument. Why bother trying to argue any of this rationally in the first place if you're just going to fall back on that line of garbage?

[Superman]

Yes, it's the old "you will see in the end!" argument. When the fundies start using that one, it means they have lost the debate and simply resort to "I am right and you are wrong."

[Queeb Salaron]

Oh, brilliant counter argument. Why bother trying to argue any of this rationally in the first place if you're just going to fall back on that line of garbage?

Ahem.

He's just a man, trying to explain how he thought the word of God could make life seem less insane. So he shares what he's read, what he understands; it makes sense to him. It makes perfect sense. He's never seen the world so clearly. "Turn his back on Free Will? Has he lost his mind? He'd rather kneel down than take charge of his life?" And he knows what people think, but it doesn't sway him. He can see the writing on the wall. And he knows how people treat, how they treat each other: Sacrifice to benefit the all.
--NOFX

What exactly are we trying to argue logically, here? Answer me that.

[Rye]

It is the message that matters, not how God is perceived by different men of different cultures.

I actually agree here, of course i believe how "god was seen" were just interpretations of the universe anyway.

Only trouble is...christianity's message. Seemed to start out well enough, till Paul "interpreted" it for us.

[Hotfoot]

Ahem.

He's just a man, trying to explain how he thought the word of God could make life seem less insane. So he shares what he's read, what he understands; it makes sense to him. It makes perfect sense. He's never seen the world so clearly. "Turn his back on Free Will? Has he lost his mind? He'd rather kneel down than take charge of his life?" And he knows what people think, but it doesn't sway him. He can see the writing on the wall. And he knows how people treat, how they treat each other: Sacrifice to benefit the all.
--NOFX

Yes, very nice, but entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.

What exactly are we trying to argue logically, here? Answer me that.

GC started off attempting to argue that his version of Christianity is the only "real" version. That's one. Then he attempted to argue that God's gift of heaven is like unto being offered a wad of cash on the street. He tried to logically defend these points and failed, then falling back on the old, "well, I'm right, you're wrong, and you'll see when you die," line of bullshit. It's a cop-out.

The "logic can't apply to religion" is another cop-out.

[Queeb Salaron]

GC started off attempting to argue that his version of Christianity is the only "real" version. That's one.

Hmm. Ok.

Then he attempted to argue that God's gift of heaven is like unto being offered a wad of cash on the street.

But according to some Christian belief, that's what it's like. And who are we to say that they are wrong. He cannot prove that such is the case, but can you disprove it? For that matter can you or anyone else disprove the existence of God?

He tried to logically defend these points and failed, then falling back on the old, "well, I'm right, you're wrong, and you'll see when you die," line of bullshit. It's a cop-out.

Yes, I'll agree on that point.

The "logic can't apply to religion" is another cop-out.

Well, you chose your words correctly, but I doubt you did so on purpose. Logic can apply to religion, and it does, but you must take into account the broad spectrum of human emotions, something of which scientists know little. People take comfort in religion, and I would argue that this comfort is justification enough for religion to exist unquestioned. But as for FAITH, that's an entirely different story.

[Darth Servo]

The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

Ah, you can't answer my points about the ridiculous nature of your beliefs so you sitck your fingers in your ears and say I'm "overthinking" even though one of your points was directly contradicted by the book you hold so dear.

2 minutes after we die we'll all be well informed who had the right idea.

Yep. You'll learn that the Hindu's were right immediately before you're re-born as a cockroach.

[Hotfoot]

But according to some Christian belief, that's what it's like. And who are we to say that they are wrong. He cannot prove that such is the case, but can you disprove it? For that matter can you or anyone else disprove the existence of God?

As was pointed out, handing out a wad of cash on the street has observable effects. Heaven doesn't, and thus the analogy fails.

Well, you chose your words correctly, but I doubt you did so on purpose.

I do try to be very specific with my wording. I am not always successful in that regard, but then nobody is perfect.

Logic can apply to religion, and it does, but you must take into account the broad spectrum of human emotions, something of which scientists know little. People take comfort in religion, and I would argue that this comfort is justification enough for religion to exist unquestioned.

I would argue that the good should have to be weighed against the bad, myself. Also, it would be very dangerous to leave religion unquestioned, in my opinion. Religions offer easy answers to hard questions for the sake of "comfort", but this can have a detrimental effect on a society. Going by your line of reasoning, professed "Mediums" such as John Edward should be allowed to continue doing what they do unquestioned because they offer "comfort" to people.

But as for FAITH, that's an entirely different story.

Yes, faith is an entirely different story, and it cannot be very well be discussed rationally, because it does not require rational belief in the first place.

[Darth Servo]

Then he attempted to argue that God's gift of heaven is like unto being offered a wad of cash on the street.

But according to some Christian belief, that's what it's like. And who are we to say that they are wrong. He cannot prove that such is the case, but can you disprove it? For that matter can you or anyone else disprove the existence of God?

But thats what the debate is really about. Science doesn't NEED to disprove a religion. Its the beilevers that need to provide the evidence IN FAVOR of their position for it to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

People take comfort in religion, and I would argue that this comfort is justification enough for religion to exist unquestioned.

Comfort would be justification for the religion to exist, but for it to exist "unquestioned"? That was the policy the church used in the dark ages and it led to atrocities. Humanity was able to get OUT of that period BECAUSE it questioned the authority and beliefs of the church. NOTHING should ever go unquestioned.

[GC]

The "We'll see" comment is not designed to convince you of anything or make any point in debate.

You may interpret it as "You win" if you like.

All that it means is that I'm content in my position.
I have no need to "prove" it to you.

My previous posts on this thread serve only the purpose of having the truth out there at least once in this pile of error.

Ignore them all if you like.
no skin off my nose.

[Queeb Salaron]

As was pointed out, handing out a wad of cash on the street has observable effects. Heaven doesn't, and thus the analogy fails.

The analogy fails, but the general concept remains the same. Try this analogy, instead: You're walking down the street, and you see a sign that says "There is a man handing out money around the corner." Well, you have no way of knowing if the man is handing out money or not, or even if there is a man at all. You are faced with two options: You can either believe that there is a man there, or you can refuse to believe. This is, I think, a somewhat better analogy... though maybe you could explain why it may not be?

I would argue that the good should have to be weighed against the bad, myself. Also, it would be very dangerous to leave religion unquestioned, in my opinion.

I would agree if your point was that we should question the ACTS of religious people, and not necessarily the religion itself. Think of it in legal terms: It is legal to be a Satan-worshipping (note that I didn't say Satanic) occultist, but the minute you sacrifice an animal to Satan, your religion is considered invalid. This goes into the whole ortho doxis vs. ortho praxis, a discussion that I'm sure has been on this board more than once.

Religions offer easy answers to hard questions for the sake of "comfort", but this can have a detrimental effect on a society. Going by your line of reasoning, professed "Mediums" such as John Edward should be allowed to continue doing what they do unquestioned because they offer "comfort" to people.

And if people want to pay $9.95/minute to talk to a psychic medium to calm their nerves, then who am I to tell them otherwise? In this respect, the concept of religion is little different than the concept of sport: If participating makes you feel good, and if no one gets hurt, then why not participate?

Yes, faith is an entirely different story, and it cannot be very well be discussed rationally, because it does not require rational belief in the first place.

Right, exactly. And because Christianity is founded on a Faith element, it is a waste of time to try and apply logic. reason simply does not hold any weight when trying to go point-counterpoint with Christianity, because you have to understand that the most fundamental aspect of Christianity, the Ressurection, is totally illogical, irrational, and impossible. But regardless, people believe it. Disprove it all you will, people will still believe.

[Darth Servo]

The analogy fails, but the general concept remains the same. Try this analogy, instead: You're walking down the street, and you see a sign that says "There is a man handing out money around the corner." Well, you have no way of knowing if the man is handing out money or not, or even if there is a man at all. You are faced with two options: You can either believe that there is a man there, or you can refuse to believe. This is, I think, a somewhat better analogy... though maybe you could explain why it may not be?

But usually when there is a sign saying something like "free money" it usually comes in the form of an E-mail scam.

I would agree if your point was that we should question the ACTS of religious people, and not necessarily the religion itself. Think of it in legal terms: It is legal to be a Satan-worshipping (note that I didn't say Satanic) occultist, but the minute you sacrifice an animal to Satan, your religion is considered invalid. This goes into the whole ortho doxis vs. ortho praxis, a discussion that I'm sure has been on this board more than once.

Since beliefs ALWAYS preceed actions, YES, beliefs CAN be dangerous. No one ever killed anyone without first thinking about it (even if it was only for a split second).

And if people want to pay $9.95/minute to talk to a psychic medium to calm their nerves, then who am I to tell them otherwise? In this respect, the concept of religion is little different than the concept of sport: If participating makes you feel good, and if no one gets hurt, then why not participate?

Its not much of a comfort to the families of some low income guy whose family needed that $9.95 to buy some food that week. If something is KNOWN to be a scam (coughpsychichotlinescough), we have a moral DUTY to point it out.

Right, exactly. And because Christianity is founded on a Faith element, it is a waste of time to try and apply logic. reason simply does not hold any weight when trying to go point-counterpoint with Christianity, because you have to understand that the most fundamental aspect of Christianity, the Ressurection, is totally illogical, irrational, and impossible. But regardless, people believe it. Disprove it all you will, people will still believe.

If the beliefs of a particular religion are self contradictory, logic can and does apply to point that out.

[Darth Servo]

The "We'll see" comment is not designed to convince you of anything or make any point in debate.

You may interpret it as "You win" if you like.

All that it means is that I'm content in my position.
I have no need to "prove" it to you.

My previous posts on this thread serve only the purpose of having the truth out there at least once in this pile of error.

Ignore them all if you like.
no skin off my nose.

Yeah, right. Thats why you've been sooooo persistant in posting here. You thought you could win a convert or two with your rhetoric but you failed miserably, and it fooled no one. And you now whine about it.

[Hotfoot]

The analogy fails, but the general concept remains the same. Try this analogy, instead: You're walking down the street, and you see a sign that says "There is a man handing out money around the corner." Well, you have no way of knowing if the man is handing out money or not, or even if there is a man at all. You are faced with two options: You can either believe that there is a man there, or you can refuse to believe. This is, I think, a somewhat better analogy... though maybe you could explain why it may not be?

It's more along the lines of: "There is a man around a corner in a city on the dark side of the moon orbiting the planet F'ratk in the Andromeda Galaxy who is handing out money." You could spend your entire life devoted to nothing but the belief that that man exists, and trying to get to him. You might even convince other people to similarly dedicate their lives towards trying to reach that man. Meanwhile, other people claim that the man lives on the moon, or on mars, or at Pegasi 51. They all offer their own ways of how to get their, but obviously anyone who doesn't follow those ways won't ever get the money, and are thus left out in the cold. The methods are arbitrary in the extreme, and while you might argue that the ability to readily travel to Andromeda would mean that you could stop by the Moon, Mars, and 51 Pegasi as well, what if the truth is that the man is outside of even our local galactic cluster?

It's nice to try and paint it as an unconditional gift, but that is plainly not the case with the vast majority of Christian docterine. I'm not saying that it can't be the case for a specific branch of Christianity (or for a specific faith), but overwhelmingly it is not. To defend a majority by the actions of a minority is not logically sound.

I would agree if your point was that we should question the ACTS of religious people, and not necessarily the religion itself. Think of it in legal terms: It is legal to be a Satan-worshipping (note that I didn't say Satanic) occultist, but the minute you sacrifice an animal to Satan, your religion is considered invalid. This goes into the whole ortho doxis vs. ortho praxis, a discussion that I'm sure has been on this board more than once.

If we never questioned religion, we'd still be in the dark ages with the Catholic Church ruling over us with an iron fist, and we would not be having this conversation.

And if people want to pay $9.95/minute to talk to a psychic medium to calm their nerves, then who am I to tell them otherwise? In this respect, the concept of religion is little different than the concept of sport: If participating makes you feel good, and if no one gets hurt, then why not participate?

No one gets hurt? I would beg to differ. You obviously are not considering financial damage from various price scams, nor emotional and psychological damage from being fed lies by a con artist.

Right, exactly. And because Christianity is founded on a Faith element, it is a waste of time to try and apply logic. reason simply does not hold any weight when trying to go point-counterpoint with Christianity, because you have to understand that the most fundamental aspect of Christianity, the Ressurection, is totally illogical, irrational, and impossible. But regardless, people believe it. Disprove it all you will, people will still believe.

Yes, and people still believe the Earth is flat, the center of the universe, and that evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools. That shouldn't go without argument at all, I guess.

[Queeb Salaron]

It's more along the lines of: "There is a man around a corner in a city on the dark side of the moon orbiting the planet F'ratk in the Andromeda Galaxy who is handing out money." You could spend your entire life devoted to nothing but the belief that that man exists, and trying to get to him. You might even convince other people to similarly dedicate their lives towards trying to reach that man. Meanwhile, other people claim that the man lives on the moon, or on mars, or at Pegasi 51. They all offer their own ways of how to get their, but obviously anyone who doesn't follow those ways won't ever get the money, and are thus left out in the cold. The methods are arbitrary in the extreme, and while you might argue that the ability to readily travel to Andromeda would mean that you could stop by the Moon, Mars, and 51 Pegasi as well, what if the truth is that the man is outside of even our local galactic cluster?

Either way you like. I happen to think that "getting God" means nothing more than living a morally upright life. And if that's as difficult as travelling to Andromeda, well... Then there's a whole other aspect of humanism that needs to be discussed.

It's nice to try and paint it as an unconditional gift, but that is plainly not the case with the vast majority of Christian docterine.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The majority of Christian doctrine says that God loves all of his creations, and accepts them regardless of their transgressions on earth. The NT talks about it for chapters on end. You could create an entire new book on biblical examples of God's unconditional love (or, as the Greeks called it, Agape).

I'm not saying that it can't be the case for a specific branch of Christianity (or for a specific faith), but overwhelmingly it is not. To defend a majority by the actions of a minority is not logically sound.

But is it sound to let the minority hang out to dry while we defend only the majority? Even if it were true that Christians don't believe that God is all-loving and all-caring, your argument would still essentially condemn the minority who DO believe it, and that is not MORALLY sound. I'll take morality over logic anyday.

If we never questioned religion, we'd still be in the dark ages with the Catholic Church ruling over us with an iron fist, and we would not be having this conversation.

Thank God for Luther, eh?

No one gets hurt? I would beg to differ. You obviously are not considering financial damage from various price scams, nor emotional and psychological damage from being fed lies by a con artist.

That's what I said: So long as no one gets hurt. People actually believe in this stuff, so let them believe. Even if the person they talk to on the phone IS a con artist, there are those who claim to be real. So the people who spent $9.95/minute to get conned will just go to the friendly neighborhood tarot card reader down the street and get his fill there from someone else who professes to know of such things. And if no one is getting hurt, then it's fine.

Yes, and people still believe the Earth is flat, the center of the universe, and that evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools. That shouldn't go without argument at all, I guess.

My argument is that if they want to believe it, then fine. They can go on believing it. We know different, and we are in the majority. We can prove that the earth is round, we can prove that it is not the center of the universe, and we can prove that evolution does exist (all of which, by the way, the VAST majority of Christians believe, as well). So let them believe what they want. So long as they aren't murdering en masse everyone who doesn't have a Jesus-Fish on their car, and so long as they aren't banging on my door at 3am, who cares? I mean, We could have this same discussion on any number of things: Should pro-lifers want to "convert" pro-choicers? No. But they have a right to their beliefs as much as the pro-choicers do.

[Hotfoot]

Either way you like. I happen to think that "getting God" means nothing more than living a morally upright life. And if that's as difficult as travelling to Andromeda, well... Then there's a whole other aspect of humanism that needs to be discussed.

That's your belief. The majority of the Christian Religions would disagree with you on that. They would also argue as to what is moral in the first place. Either way, it's not remotely as easy as walking down a city block.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The majority of Christian doctrine says that God loves all of his creations, and accepts them regardless of their transgressions on earth. The NT talks about it for chapters on end. You could create an entire new book on biblical examples of God's unconditional love (or, as the Greeks called it, Agape).

Unconditional love is just that: UNCONDITIONAL. The examples of the conditions the Christian god puts on his love are legion. If he loves everyone unconditionally, then everyone would go to heaven, no questioned asked, end of story.

But is it sound to let the minority hang out to dry while we defend only the majority? Even if it were true that Christians don't believe that God is all-loving and all-caring, your argument would still essentially condemn the minority who DO believe it, and that is not MORALLY sound. I'll take morality over logic anyday.

The problem is with combining the two. If I'm attacking certain concepts and ideas which you (or the minority) do not hold, it is a fallacy to assume that because you share some minor thing in common with those who do hold that view, that I am attacking you.

Thank God for Luther, eh?

Oh, yeah, Luther was the best and only example of questioning the Church.

That's what I said: So long as no one gets hurt. People actually believe in this stuff, so let them believe. Even if the person they talk to on the phone IS a con artist, there are those who claim to be real. So the people who spent $9.95/minute to get conned will just go to the friendly neighborhood tarot card reader down the street and get his fill there from someone else who professes to know of such things. And if no one is getting hurt, then it's fine.

So then what does it take for someone to come to harm, in your opinion?

My argument is that if they want to believe it, then fine. They can go on believing it. We know different, and we are in the majority. We can prove that the earth is round, we can prove that it is not the center of the universe, and we can prove that evolution does exist (all of which, by the way, the VAST majority of Christians believe, as well). So let them believe what they want. So long as they aren't murdering en masse everyone who doesn't have a Jesus-Fish on their car, and so long as they aren't banging on my door at 3am, who cares? I mean, We could have this same discussion on any number of things: Should pro-lifers want to "convert" pro-choicers? No. But they have a right to their beliefs as much as the pro-choicers do.

The problem is that they ARE trying to force their beliefs on us. There ARE people trying to teach creationism in science classrooms in America, and there ARE people trying to make abortion illegal. Saying we should let these people continue doing so is absurd.

[NapoleonGH]

I'll put it in context of the verses it goes with, so its a bit clearer:

Matthew, 16: 15-18

15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tounges; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink the deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

So, immunity to venom is just ONE of the signs that can be an indicator of a believer, but remember what Luke 4:12 says:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

I'm sure God can make you immune to venom, but he also gives you the gift of reason. So don't drink poisonous things.

Oh yeah. God is good.

Ahah, If you truely believe in god, you arent putting god to the test at all, you are mearly demonstrating god's power and the righteousness of true believers to the infidels. If you have doubts as to god's ability to save you from poison, you question the power of god, and so you are putting him to the test and dont really believe in his omnipotency. If you truely believe in your god, then you are making no test of his power at all, merely a demonstration.

So once again take the test and demonstrate to us, once and for all, the awesome power of god.

[Alyeska]

The "We'll see" comment is not designed to convince you of anything or make any point in debate.

You may interpret it as "You win" if you like.

All that it means is that I'm content in my position.
I have no need to "prove" it to you.

My previous posts on this thread serve only the purpose of having the truth out there at least once in this pile of error.

Ignore them all if you like.
no skin off my nose.

In other words you made a claim and then got your ass handed to you so now your trying to save face.

[Hobot]

Perhaps he's just tired of the endless back and forth.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'll put it in context of the verses it goes with, so its a bit clearer:

Matthew, 16: 15-18

15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tounges; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink the deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

So, immunity to venom is just ONE of the signs that can be an indicator of a believer, but remember what Luke 4:12 says:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

I'm sure God can make you immune to venom, but he also gives you the gift of reason. So don't drink poisonous things.

Oh yeah. God is good.

Ahah, If you truely believe in god, you arent putting god to the test at all, you are mearly demonstrating god's power and the righteousness of true believers to the infidels. If you have doubts as to god's ability to save you from poison, you question the power of god, and so you are putting him to the test and dont really believe in his omnipotency. If you truely believe in your god, then you are making no test of his power at all, merely a demonstration.

So once again take the test and demonstrate to us, once and for all, the awesome power of god.

All of that circular talking doesn't change the clear logic chain; If I take a test, I'm taking a test. Testing God is a no-no, fella. I'd be testing the extent to which God is willing to manifest his will in my life. Come on, don't try to out-circumlocute me!

[NapoleonGH]

But it isnt testing god, if you truely believe, you know the outcome, you are DEMONSTRATING god's power. IF you do not understand the difference then you are rather beyond hope (which chewie your previous statemetns leads me to believe that you are within reach of hope, so unless i was dreadfully wrong, i hope not to be disappointed)