Why Doesn't God Communicate With Us Anymore?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. Leviticus 20:13

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. Exodus 22:19

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. Chronicles 15:12-13

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Deuteronomy 13:13-19

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Deuteronomy 13:7-12

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. Isaiah 14:21

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. Jeremiah 48:10

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all Ã?¢?? old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. Leviticus 26:21-22

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18

I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 35:7-9

Your “LORD” sounds like a really great guy. [/quote]

All of these are Old Testament commands, which have been nailed to the cross. We are now under the new Testament, which speaks of turning your other cheek when slapped on the other.

Yes, there was a time when these things were commanded. What is your point? They aren’t any longer.

All those who killed in the “name” of God, did not do it for him. I have said it before:

When the text says nothing about killing for the sake of God, yet someone adds text that says its ok, who’s abusing who? Is the author the sociopath, or the person?

Frankly, people will twist scripture to meet their wants and evil desires.

Show me where in the New Testament where it commands us to kill.[/quote]

Well, not exactly sir. One must necessarily accept the doctrine of Jesus to accept your statement that we are now “under the NT”. You of course realize that statement does not apply to all faiths, particularly the Jews. It is also very hard to believe that the God of the OT and NT are one in the same. The Jews certainly don’t think so. Neither does Islam.

382

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How long have your been under the New Testament?[/quote]

Since Christ’s crucifixion. [/quote]

Which is disputed, hence the ever lasting doubt as to the doctrine of Jesus. Had he indeed been crucified and resurrected and a reputable record of that occurred, I hardly think such doubt would exist.

I can’t think of one modern event that actually occurred where my entire State of NJ would deny it in fact happened. But I can think of plenty of false claims that make Star Magazine and such.

How do you explain the Jews denial of your savior - and they were alleged witnesses to his “miracles” and such?

383

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
WOW! You do realize that many of science’s “theories” are also unprovable? We can provide PROOF. But that proof will not PROVE anything. There will always be loopholes and “what ifs”.[/quote]

You do realize that all of science’s “theories” are based on existing evidence, right?[/quote]

Evidence is subjective.

For something to be a theory, or beyond, it must be observable and testable. If not, it will always remain a guess based on one’s presuppositions. [/quote]

Are the claims of Christianity observable and testable?

384

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the BIGGEST problem I have with Christianity is the sense of ENTITLEMENT that comes along with it: OUR ‘God’ is the TRUE ‘God’ and the ONLY ‘God’ and if you don’t think so, you are sinner, you are swine and you are going to burn in HELL. You put YOUR religion BEFORE other people rights to freedom and you RUTHLESSLY PERSECUTE those who don’t conform.

A few pages back, I listed a nice long post about atrocities and wars waged in the name of your ‘God’. And instead of even acknowledging that ‘hey, that was FUCKED UP that we did that’, you pass the buck - it wasn’t OUR particular branch. You say that it isn’t like that anymore. ‘that’s Christianity’s DISTANT past’, right? Well, my ‘Christian friends’ the scars on my back say otherwise. My mother’s second husband used every method he could THINK of to ‘beat the sin out of me’ as he lovingly referred to our ‘sessions’ that went WELL beyond child abuse and would more accurately be described as torture.

He would take me down to the basement, get his bible out and read scripture while he attempted to ‘cast the demons away’. Beating me in the name of Jesus Christ OVER AND OVER FOR YEARS. I suppose in retrospect I should be GRATEFUL that he didn’t burn me alive. You see, I tried to convince myself that ‘he was just fucked up’ or that it was an anomaly or just a ‘one time thing’. But then I started reading about history. I learned about the Crusades and the VIOLENT history that you Christians don’t talk about. Sweep it under the rug. Just transfer the pedophile priest to a different parish so he can fuck MORE boys in the ass. After all, you just have to “confess your sins” and ALL is forgiven. Right?

I arrived at the inevitable conclusion that your religion doesn’t help people, it hurts them. You preach a fucking LIE. Your HYPOCRISY is incredible! Christianity gives it’s members the JUSTIFICATION to KILL, MAIM and HARM other people. It ENABLES sadistic and criminal behavior. It PROTECTS PEDOPHILES!!!

I mean how much lower can you get? And you have the balls to sit there on your high horse and tell me I’M a SINNER? I HATE your fucking religion and every thing it stands for. It’s a tragedy that it wasn’t stamped out in it’s infancy. And you people feel proud to go around calling yourselves “good Christians”? LOL - I’d have more respect for you if you went around calling yourself a “good Nazi”. At least you would have KILLED less people.

So what do you “good Christians” have to say about all the people who have been HURT in the name of your religion? Past and present. Where’s the fucking justification for that?

Forbes, Which chapter and verse gives Christians the “OK” to hurt other people? [/quote]

AC,

Sorry you had those experiences of Christianity. I can understand your position and I, for one, feel you’re right. Unlike you, I was raised a Christian under the best of circumstances…within a real Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver type of family. Went to church regularly and Bible School in the summer, but it was all presented in a calm, fun way and never pushed. Amidst all this love, when the pastor would get to the part about ONLY Christians would be saved and everyone else was wrong, I would just think "HUH??? But you just told us God is Love and mankind is His creation and we are all His beloved sons and daughters…and now you say ALL those people on the other side of the world are doomed??? Why would God create doomed people if He was Love? Intuitively, as a kid, I knew something was wrong with that idea and I never bought into it. Like you, I despise that notion and can only think of it as spiritual immaturity. Hopefully, one that will eventually be outgrown as people become mature in their spiritual life.

The story, life and experience of the magnificant risen Christ is available to all mankind…because it is the story of Divinity within the individual man/woman/life. This need not take on the Christian vernacular because Divinity within self is also available in other religions as well. Christianity doesn’t own all the rights to Divinity, although clearly there are a lot of Christians who think they do. And God is not limited to one religion either, He is in all of them.
[/quote]

Nicely put. I’ve been exactly where you are in my search for the truth.

385

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

Very well said. How does one go about proving faith? Much less over an Internet message board. In fact, it’s comical. And I’m laughing at both sides here. Christians, That’s why it’s called “faith”. As it says in the Bible,

Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If someone really wants to share my experiences in faith and what I have to say they’ll pm me. And the same goes for every other Christian on the board. If you think that you’re furthering God’s kingdom by fighting with atheists on T Nation think again (and I’m preaching to myself as well). While you may be sincere, you will be no more effective than the atheists are at pulling you away from God. Each side is only guaranteed a loss and there are no exceptions.

If an atheist is going to change it will not come from any of us spouting scripture, or other religious dogma on T Nation. It will come from their own journey, their own suffering and ultimately their own free will.

[/quote]

Aren’t you the conqueror of “logical fallacies”. Hmmm.[/quote]

That’s what I did for you, yes. And to date you have still not made much sense. But that’s what you do. You throw stones, you incite, but not much else.

When I mention atheists that’s exactly who I am talking about. Can’t follow that much? Or, is this part of your twisting and turning game? Yeah, most likely. So YOU now imply that I am lumping agnostics with atheists? Weak, but that’s what you are.

And I have seen your suffering all over this board. Cheating on your wife, alcoholism, porn addiction. You are in pain, yet you continue to run.[/quote]

You have real problems my friend. People may disagree with me, but do you think anyone, anyone at all is taking you seriously at this point?[/quote]

Says the man who set up an entire thread so that he could berate Christians. And is also the man with more personal problems than any 5 of us combined. What could possibly make you think that your opinion of anyone taking me seriously could possibly matter to me? You are the biggest joke on T nation and your past posts prove it.

And what is being in your late 40’s all about? Tell us. Is it about teaching people how to make better porno films? Well, you’ve really made something of your life huh? And if you think throwing out a few logical fallacies along with some cut and paste makes you look intelligent you are even more stupid than I originally thought.

No, nor did I miss the part about you confessing to having cheated on your wife several times. And that she left you. So, I guess she turned out to be smarter than you figured huh?

But you often lie.

Yes, I think that’s well known around here. Anyone who can give lessons on how to make better home made porn certainly is an expert at it. So…I guess you are good at something. That’s nice I’m sure the legacy that you leave your children will be rich with those types of accomplishments.

It looks like you’ve spent one more post not dealing with the subject but attacking me. It’s your sensitivity that allows you to notice when I attack you. But at the same time your stupidity that ignores the fact that you attack me first every time.

You can post all day long around here. You cut and paste from people who are in fact smart. You can post logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You can shout from the roof tops that you don’t believe in the Christian God. And you can attack me as well. But one thing will never change.

You’re still an idiot, and a fraud!

:slight_smile:

386

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Nicely put. I’ve been exactly where you are in my search for the truth.[/quote]

You mean the search that you’re undertaking between threatening to beat people up on the Internet and ridiculing Christians for their belief? You mean that search?

387

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

You’re a bright guy, and that was…meh, kinda clever.

But it would be accurate if you’d say, you have your faith, and no proof.

I’m not sure the “other” doesn’t have “proof” if you consider “evidence of absence”. I can use up all the space in this thread listing “evidence of absence” while you’d be hard pressed to list uncontroverted evidence in support of your faith.

Is that an unfair statement?[/quote]

Yes. It is unfair, as it missed the distinction between faith and proof. You can present all of the proof in the physical universe that God does not exist within the physical universe, as God very well should not.

Faith addresses the existence of something outside of what is known or provable.

Thats why it is faith.

Evidence of absence is somewhat redundant when you are trying to prove the existence of a supernatural being using physical proof. It’s not supposed to be there in the first place.

Even if the newer string theories and multi-verse theories are proven to be true of the physical universe, they can not and aren’t intended to prove or disprove the existence of God, a god, or any concept of God. They are designed to prove the origin of the natural universe, not disprove the existence of something outside of it.

[/quote]

I get what you’re saying and I respect your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

It’s somewhat disingenuous to back away from a burden of proof on the basis that the subject is “supernatural” in light of the claims that the “supernatural” has manifested in this world. For example, the claim that Jesus was God incarnate is a claim that is controverted even among those alive at the time, and not “decided” (actually, "claimed) until a few hundred years after his death. That’s just one example. Another would be “papal infallibility” and the Pope’s status as God’s representative on Earth. Given the track record of certain Popes, I’d say that claim is spurious to all.

I don’t like physical arguments to prove or disprove God. I am enamored with physics and theoretical physics though, but even if we do “unlock the universe” and explain “everything”, in my mind such a solution would not preclude God.

I think it’s perfectly satisfactory to admit your belief is based upon faith alone, and I think that it is. [/quote]

It’s not disingenuous. I never said I was Christian or Catholic. I’m as agnostic as a person can be in that I do not know for a fact that there is a god, or what kind, let alone describe details and create a social structure here on earth revolving around a hierarchy of funny hats. Hence the faith.

That thing with the pope defies any relevant spiritual principals that I understand or believe in.

I do, however, believe that there is something out there greater than ourselves. I simply do not know what it is, so I call it God.

388

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
For example, the claim that Jesus was God incarnate is a claim that is controverted even among those alive at the time, and not “decided” (actually, "claimed) until a few hundred years after his death.[/quote]

Uh, St. Peter, the first Pope, proclaimed this before Jesus was even dead, Mt 16:16. Doubting St. Thomas figured this out in the upper room.

[quote]That’s just one example. Another would be “papal infallibility” and the Pope’s status as God’s representative on Earth. Given the track record of certain Popes, I’d say that claim is spurious to all.
[/quote]

I’m not following how sinful nature invalidates Papal Infallibility? Can you explain that to me?

389

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

Very well said. How does one go about proving faith? Much less over an Internet message board. In fact, it’s comical. And I’m laughing at both sides here. Christians, That’s why it’s called “faith”. As it says in the Bible,

Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If someone really wants to share my experiences in faith and what I have to say they’ll pm me. And the same goes for every other Christian on the board. If you think that you’re furthering God’s kingdom by fighting with atheists on T Nation think again (and I’m preaching to myself as well). While you may be sincere, you will be no more effective than the atheists are at pulling you away from God. Each side is only guaranteed a loss and there are no exceptions.

If an atheist is going to change it will not come from any of us spouting scripture, or other religious dogma on T Nation. It will come from their own journey, their own suffering and ultimately their own free will.

[/quote]

Aren’t you the conqueror of “logical fallacies”. Hmmm.[/quote]

That’s what I did for you, yes. And to date you have still not made much sense. But that’s what you do. You throw stones, you incite, but not much else.

When I mention atheists that’s exactly who I am talking about. Can’t follow that much? Or, is this part of your twisting and turning game? Yeah, most likely. So YOU now imply that I am lumping agnostics with atheists? Weak, but that’s what you are.

And I have seen your suffering all over this board. Cheating on your wife, alcoholism, porn addiction. You are in pain, yet you continue to run.[/quote]

You have real problems my friend. People may disagree with me, but do you think anyone, anyone at all is taking you seriously at this point?[/quote]

Says the man who set up an entire thread so that he could berate Christians. And is also the man with more personal problems than any 5 of us combined. What could possibly make you think that your opinion of anyone taking me seriously could possibly matter to me? You are the biggest joke on T nation and your past posts prove it.

And what is being in your late 40’s all about? Tell us. Is it about teaching people how to make better porno films? Well, you’ve really made something of your life huh? And if you think throwing out a few logical fallacies along with some cut and paste makes you look intelligent you are even more stupid than I originally thought.

No, nor did I miss the part about you confessing to having cheated on your wife several times. And that she left you. So, I guess she turned out to be smarter than you figured huh?

But you often lie.

Yes, I think that’s well known around here. Anyone who can give lessons on how to make better home made porn certainly is an expert at it. So…I guess you are good at something. That’s nice I’m sure the legacy that you leave your children will be rich with those types of accomplishments.

It looks like you’ve spent one more post not dealing with the subject but attacking me. It’s your sensitivity that allows you to notice when I attack you. But at the same time your stupidity that ignores the fact that you attack me first every time.

You can post all day long around here. You cut and paste from people who are in fact smart. You can post logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You can shout from the roof tops that you don’t believe in the Christian God. And you can attack me as well. But one thing will never change.

You’re still an idiot, and a fraud!

:)[/quote]

Seriously, you’re a fucking nut job.

And I don’t see anyone else feeling like their faith is being attacked. Most of us are having a dialogue. Are you taking your wife’s estrogen? You’re seriously off your fucking rocker.

390

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Nicely put. I’ve been exactly where you are in my search for the truth.[/quote]

You mean the search that you’re undertaking between threatening to beat people up on the Internet and ridiculing Christians for their belief? You mean that search?

[/quote]

WHEN EXACTLY ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE THE PROOF THAT I’VE “RIDICULED” CHRISTIANS?

WHERE IS THE POST YOU FUCKING NUT JOB?

391

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

You’re a bright guy, and that was…meh, kinda clever.

But it would be accurate if you’d say, you have your faith, and no proof.

I’m not sure the “other” doesn’t have “proof” if you consider “evidence of absence”. I can use up all the space in this thread listing “evidence of absence” while you’d be hard pressed to list uncontroverted evidence in support of your faith.

Is that an unfair statement?[/quote]

Yes. It is unfair, as it missed the distinction between faith and proof. You can present all of the proof in the physical universe that God does not exist within the physical universe, as God very well should not.

Faith addresses the existence of something outside of what is known or provable.

Thats why it is faith.

Evidence of absence is somewhat redundant when you are trying to prove the existence of a supernatural being using physical proof. It’s not supposed to be there in the first place.

Even if the newer string theories and multi-verse theories are proven to be true of the physical universe, they can not and aren’t intended to prove or disprove the existence of God, a god, or any concept of God. They are designed to prove the origin of the natural universe, not disprove the existence of something outside of it.

[/quote]

I get what you’re saying and I respect your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

It’s somewhat disingenuous to back away from a burden of proof on the basis that the subject is “supernatural” in light of the claims that the “supernatural” has manifested in this world. For example, the claim that Jesus was God incarnate is a claim that is controverted even among those alive at the time, and not “decided” (actually, "claimed) until a few hundred years after his death. That’s just one example. Another would be “papal infallibility” and the Pope’s status as God’s representative on Earth. Given the track record of certain Popes, I’d say that claim is spurious to all.

I don’t like physical arguments to prove or disprove God. I am enamored with physics and theoretical physics though, but even if we do “unlock the universe” and explain “everything”, in my mind such a solution would not preclude God.

I think it’s perfectly satisfactory to admit your belief is based upon faith alone, and I think that it is. [/quote]

It’s not disingenuous. I never said I was Christian or Catholic. I’m as agnostic as a person can be in that I do not know for a fact that there is a god, or what kind, let alone describe details and create a social structure here on earth revolving around a hierarchy of funny hats. Hence the faith.

That thing with the pope defies any relevant spiritual principals that I understand or believe in.

I do, however, believe that there is something out there greater than ourselves. I simply do not know what it is, so I call it God.

[/quote]

Well, it appears we have common ground.

392

700×836 69.3 KB

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the BIGGEST problem I have with Christianity is the sense of ENTITLEMENT that comes along with it: OUR “God” is the TRUE “God” and the ONLY “God” and if you don’t think so, you are sinner, you are swine and you are going to burn in HELL. You put YOUR religion BEFORE other people rights to freedom and you RUTHLESSLY PERSECUTE those who don’t conform.

A few pages back, I listed a nice long post about atrocities and wars waged in the name of your “God”. And instead of even acknowledging that “hey, that was FUCKED UP that we did that”, you pass the buck - it wasn’t OUR particular branch. You say that it isn’t like that anymore. “that’s Christianity’s DISTANT past”, right? Well, my “Christian friends” the scars on my back say otherwise. My mother’s second husband used every method he could THINK of to “beat the sin out of me” as he lovingly referred to our “sessions” that went WELL beyond child abuse and would more accurately be described as torture.

He would take me down to the basement, get his bible out and read scripture while he attempted to “cast the demons away”. Beating me in the name of Jesus Christ OVER AND OVER FOR YEARS. I suppose in retrospect I should be GRATEFUL that he didn’t burn me alive. You see, I tried to convince myself that “he was just fucked up” or that it was an anomaly or just a “one time thing”. But then I started reading about history. I learned about the Crusades and the VIOLENT history that you Christians don’t talk about. Sweep it under the rug. Just transfer the pedophile priest to a different parish so he can fuck MORE boys in the ass. After all, you just have to “confess your sins” and ALL is forgiven. Right?

I arrived at the inevitable conclusion that your religion doesn’t help people, it hurts them. You preach a fucking LIE. Your HYPOCRISY is incredible! Christianity gives it’s members the JUSTIFICATION to KILL, MAIM and HARM other people. It ENABLES sadistic and criminal behavior. It PROTECTS PEDOPHILES!!!

I mean how much lower can you get? And you have the balls to sit there on your high horse and tell me I’M a SINNER? I HATE your fucking religion and every thing it stands for. It’s a tragedy that it wasn’t stamped out in it’s infancy. And you people feel proud to go around calling yourselves “good Christians”? LOL - I’d have more respect for you if you went around calling yourself a “good Nazi”. At least you would have KILLED less people.

So what do you “good Christians” have to say about all the people who have been HURT in the name of your religion? Past and present. Where’s the fucking justification for that?

Forbes, Which chapter and verse gives Christians the “OK” to hurt other people? [/quote]

AC, I share many of your sentiments and I was not raised in an environment as yours.

Religion has and always will be - the myths and fables contructed from ignorance of the truth and forced upon the people by a tyranical ruler as a means of financial, sexual, cultural, and mental control. Peaceful and tolerant religions share a bloody past as a result of power-lust. Many religions precede Christianity and all share many parallels. Christianity is not an original idea and serves to plagiarize many religions it would otherwise condemn.

I found peace when all religion in my life was discarded and I rendered myself accountable for my own actions. I would consider it an insult to ever be called a Christian as I have witnessed many times, the hypocrisies and evil-doings in the name of.

I am open to any revelation that may happen in this life to change my way of thought but I know people and the way religion is used to make slaves with mental shackles, to do as their religious hierarchy deems fit.

True knowledge of history will destroy religion for what it is - an absurdity of mankind. Illiteracy was the catalyst that enabled the spread of lies along with the sword. I know because I have traveled the world and seen the depiction of what I speak of. Mullahs still hold the authority in their respective regions of the middle east and this authority is recognized beyond established government. The same holds true in many parts of the world as well as areas of the U.S…

The information highway has started the eradication of religious blinders and will hopefully allow people to exercise something I do not find with Christians - generate an original thought.

393

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
For example, the claim that Jesus was God incarnate is a claim that is controverted even among those alive at the time, and not “decided” (actually, "claimed) until a few hundred years after his death.[/quote]

Uh, St. Peter, the first Pope, proclaimed this before Jesus was even dead, Mt 16:16. Doubting St. Thomas figured this out in the upper room.

[quote]That’s just one example. Another would be “papal infallibility” and the Pope’s status as God’s representative on Earth. Given the track record of certain Popes, I’d say that claim is spurious to all.
[/quote]

I’m not following how sinful nature invalidates Papal Infallibility? Can you explain that to me?[/quote]

Fair enough:

Can you enlighten me as to when the Pope as God’s representative begins and when the Pope as the man begins? And don’t you think the whole thing is a bit tortured?

I’m not understanding your scriptural reference with your comments.

"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

How does this rebut my claim that Jesus’ divinity was not accepted by those of his own time? And, are you denying the divinity of Jesus was not decided until several hundred years later? Finally, can you quote anything extra-biblical that would attest to the divinity of Jesus, or any miracle or the alleged resurrection? Anything at all from the Romans or Jews?

394

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html

If you can read this with an open mind and still conclude that the God of our universe and his time on earth could be subject to these disputes, I’d like to hear the rebuttals. I’m sure some claims can be rebutted, but there is an awful lot of “stuff” there that just doesn’t rise to the anticipated actions of the divine. The claim for Jesus’ divinity certainly appears to be a patchwork effort and not even something he claimed directly, which is an awfully curious demeanor for God.

Why not appear, claim directly to be God, perform verifiable miracles for all to witness, subject yourself to crucifixion and rise for all to witness?

I believe Jesus existed. I believe he was wise. I believe the doctrines that he taught have value. I also believe his followers created and profited from his divinity - perhaps out of sincerity to spread his teachings and imbue them with the divine to build following, or for profit, or both.

For the record, I don’t accept the posted link as “fact”. I know there are interpretations that can be raised and I know that other scripture will be raised to dispute the conclusions. However, all that aside, strip the claims to the basic themes, and it just doesn’t rise to the level of the divine or supernatural for me.

395

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]akram.mohamed wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
… And something can’t be invisible and pink to begin with…[/quote]

This was very clever.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. The invisible pink unicorn is designed to point out the flaws in religious thinking. Don’t be stupid, L2Google if you are unsure.[/quote]

You’re the one that used it, isn’t the “burden of proof” on you to prove that something can be invisible and pink, or show how something points out the flaws in religious thinking?

396

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys can blow ALL the smoke and bend the mirrors any way you want, but it STILL doesn’t change the SELF ADMITTED FACT that MAN is the source of ALL of the content of your religion.
[/quote]

Yes, Jesus was a man, but he was also G-d.

But, perhaps I can say for sure.

No, they are not “proof” in the sense you want. But, they are proof nonetheless.

I am not sure who called you swine, but I don’t believe you’re swine. Anyway, I don’t see how it is brainwash, there is several things in the world on both sides of the Church door that we have to accept on faith, that is why it is called faith and not reason. However, reason itself is based on faith it just matters what you stand on to which determines the soundness of your reason and logic.

We all have the freedom to think for ourselves. To just label someone as brainwashed because they disagree with someone is…a little bit of an intellectual slothfulness. I presume your using of Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers is directed towards Catholics (I didn’t read your whole message, so I didn’t pick this up until I read it as I am replying, so do not think I am picking on you). You would be surprised on the penance which was originally given for sins (I’ll tell you that originally it was much worse, from suspension of Mass for four years to corporal punishment. Also Catholics do not believe that forgiveness does not come from the Hail Mary’s and the Our Fathers, it comes undeserved through the form of absolution in confession. It’s undeserved, any mortal sin is worthy of punishment of Hell. Any Catholic (or Christian in general) that denies this is in need of picking up the Bible and Catechism. Mortal sins (ten commandments basically) half of which is against our fellow man are a serious manner. Any person (including those outside the faith, but ESPECIALLY those with the faith) who breaks one of the Ten Commandments (and to the Christians and Jews, remember it’s still the Ten Commandments, not the ten suggestions) deserves serious punishment, both temporal and limited (with in time and space of this life now) and eternal punishment. I say especially for a reason, I as well as the rest of the faithful expect those that know better to act better. Those that use religion for greedy purposes, those that are part of the Abrahamic religions that do evil against their fellow man are to be subject of the worst punishment as they know better.

We are not to deal harshly with our brothers that are not baptized believers. Those that are believers, that is different, but those that do not have the faith, absolutely not. Now, definition of “harsh” is subject to argument, I suppose, but calling someone swine is not one of them. However, it is no point of arguing that even though you may not be part of the “brainwashed,” you benefit from the, some what intact, morals of the “brainwashed” that those that ruled and rule this country have established and attempt to conserve.

I understand that generally societies and governments have had some kind of morals that they went by that could be described by the “brainwashed” as partially good (no killing, no stealing, &c.). However, that is not a given. We can see that from Russia to Latin America.

Our faith will never meet your burden of proof. I won’t apologize for that, it is a matter of fact, both the Faith and that it won’t meet your burden of proof. There is an ability to reason the Catholic Faith, but one has to stand on an assumption, just as one has to stand on an assumption to use their own burden of proof (namely that you’re burden of proof is the right burden of proof). I will say this, that it is never a good idea to test G-d. You either hear it and believe it or you don’t. I don’t suspect any further will be needed, now if you ask me why I believe something, I will gladly answer you, but it’s not up for to debate (not saying you can’t ask further follow up questions). However, it is what it is, you either believe it or you don’t, there is reason why things happened, but arguing if it happened or not is pointless. As I said, either you believe it or you don’t. However, just because you may not initially believe it is not my point of contention, and neither should it be someone else’s. So, no one! no one should be calling you swine, if they have I formally apologize. I know my word my not have much weight, but I hope you can truly take my apology at least on my behalf to know that I do not see you as swine (although who doesn’t like to roll in the mud once and awhile – not in the means of sin, but in actual mud). Plus, swine is a little pretentious for a Christian to be calling someone, as if they are a Christian they should be very aware of their own swine-like qualities, as I am. This is evident from last Wednesday, which was Ash Wednesday which we are told that we are to “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

[quote]
I am successful, meet my obligations with my family and children and have my life together more than MOST people… But I’m SWINE… Because I don’t believe what YOU believe (any you can’t prove that you’re beliefs are real). Gotcha. I’ll leave you judgmental assholes to continue on with your miserable little lives then.[/quote]

Although your success it to be looked at as a great accomplishment and an element of providence is on your side, Christians are to remember (as well we’re to remind the rest of the world) that we do not have a natural end, but a supernatural end (that maybe why someone called you swine, but is not sufficient to call you swine). I commend you on your accomplishments that you fulfill and over flow your obligations to your family (as we should all, and some Christians fail to do that for their own family) as well have your life together.

I have no reason to suspect that you would believe what I believe, that would be ridiculous in itself. It would be great if you did believe as I did, but I hold no expectations that you do believe what I believe. Would a voodoo man expect you to believe as he does? No, neither do I, do I believe you should? Yes, but expectations to? No. No reason to call you swine, brother.

397

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Amidst all this love, when the pastor would get to the part about ONLY Christians would be saved and everyone else was wrong, I would just think "HUH??? But you just told us God is Love and mankind is His creation and we are all His beloved sons and daughters…and now you say ALL those people on the other side of the world are doomed??? Why would God create doomed people if He was Love? Intuitively, as a kid, I knew something was wrong with that idea and I never bought into it. [/quote]

I’m probably getting a little off topic here, but as a kid, I always used to wonder whether there is an age limit for going to hell.

Will a five year old kid who died of cancer be tortured for eternity if they weren’t raised to believe in Christianity? That sounds like a pretty harsh punishment for someone so young that they really have no control over what they believe.

What about members of isolated tribes in South America who have had no contact with the outside world. Will they burn in hell for rejecting god, despite the fact that they haven’t even been exposed to Christianity?

I would be interested to hear the above questions answered by those who literally believe in the existence of heaven & hell.

398

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys can blow ALL the smoke and bend the mirrors any way you want, but it STILL doesn’t change the SELF ADMITTED FACT that MAN is the source of ALL of the content of your religion.

You CANNOT say for certainty WHAT inspired a person two thousand years ago. Greed or divine inspiration (or delusion…) You cannot say for sure. No matter HOW much you twist it!

While you BELIEVE they were “divinely inspired”, you cannot PROVE it! Scriptures written by MEN are not PROOF!
[/quote]

A couple of years ago I watched a documentary called “End of the World Cult”. The cult leader is a creepy old man who claims to be the Messiah. Amazingly, it seems to be gods will for the Messiah to have sex with the female members of the group (including his sons wife & a number of very young girls).

To any outside person, it’s painfully obvious that the guy is full of shit. His believers on the other hand have absolute faith that he is the mesiah.

I can say with absolute certainty that if his followers compiled a text on his prophecy, it would include eye witness accounts of miracles. They would not need to deliberately tell lies either. They would just need to describe what they have “witnessed”. His followers didn’t appear to be of particularly low intelligence either.

I guess my point here is that the human brain is very susceptible to being tricked (and it doesn’t necessarily have to be deliberate manipulation) & for this reason I find it a strange concept to have “faith” based on words written by men. Even with the incredible access we currently have to information, people are still very gullible & easily manipulated. I can’t even imagine how ridiculously gullible people were 2000 years ago.

399

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys can blow ALL the smoke and bend the mirrors any way you want, but it STILL doesn’t change the SELF ADMITTED FACT that MAN is the source of ALL of the content of your religion.

You CANNOT say for certainty WHAT inspired a person two thousand years ago. Greed or divine inspiration (or delusion…) You cannot say for sure. No matter HOW much you twist it!

While you BELIEVE they were “divinely inspired”, you cannot PROVE it! Scriptures written by MEN are not PROOF!
[/quote]

A couple of years ago I watched a documentary called “End of the World Cult”. The cult leader is a creepy old man who claims to be the Messiah. Amazingly, it seems to be gods will for the Messiah to have sex with the female members of the group (including his sons wife & a number of very young girls).

To any outside person, it’s painfully obvious that the guy is full of shit. His believers on the other hand have absolute faith that he is the mesiah.

I can say with absolute certainty that if his followers compiled a text on his prophecy, it would include eye witness accounts of miracles. They would not need to deliberately tell lies either. They would just need to describe what they have “witnessed”. His followers didn’t appear to be of particularly low intelligence either.

I guess my point here is that the human brain is very susceptible to being tricked (and it doesn’t necessarily have to be deliberate manipulation) & for this reason I find it a strange concept to have “faith” based on words written by men. Even with the incredible access we currently have to information, people are still very gullible & easily manipulated. I can’t even imagine how ridiculously gullible people were 2000 years ago.

[/quote]

What you can’t manipulate are prophecies of the Bible dealing with Jesus written hundreds of years before he was born. The accounts of his trial and crucifixation are prophesied. It would have taken a lot of cohorting with a Roman Empire and Jewish leaders that would have zero to gain from it to plan out Jesus’ death exactly as it was prophesied.

400

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Amidst all this love, when the pastor would get to the part about ONLY Christians would be saved and everyone else was wrong, I would just think "HUH??? But you just told us God is Love and mankind is His creation and we are all His beloved sons and daughters…and now you say ALL those people on the other side of the world are doomed??? Why would God create doomed people if He was Love? Intuitively, as a kid, I knew something was wrong with that idea and I never bought into it. [/quote]

I’m probably getting a little off topic here, but as a kid, I always used to wonder whether there is an age limit for going to hell.

Will a five year old kid who died of cancer be tortured for eternity if they weren’t raised to believe in Christianity? That sounds like a pretty harsh punishment for someone so young that they really have no control over what they believe.

What about members of isolated tribes in South America who have had no contact with the outside world. Will they burn in hell for rejecting god, despite the fact that they haven’t even been exposed to Christianity?

I would be interested to hear the above questions answered by those who literally believe in the existence of heaven & hell.[/quote]

Nowhere in the Bible does it mention a specific age limit for going to heaven or hell. So does a newborn child go to heaven if it dies? It was born into sin, but it hasn’t actually committed a sin or reached an age to even understand God. Luckily, as humans we don’t have to decide. God is the final judge. I can’t say for certain, but I don’t see a God that was willing to become a man and sacrifice himself for our sins as WANTING to condemn anyone to hell. Therefore, I would have to suspect the newborn would probably not go to hell. Again, I’m not God so I can’t say for certain. Psalms 139: 13-16 says the Lord knitted us together in the womb and knew us before we were born. That doesn’t sound like the work of a God that would relish it sending people to hell.

Meanwhile with those that have never heard the word, if you truly believe in the Bible then there are none that should not have heard the word. In other words, if Adam and Eve were the first and they walked with God, their chlidren knew God, their grandchildren knew God, then it was man’s fault for not passing the word from generation to generation about the word. God couldn’t be faulted for not reaching certain people. Afterall, God revealed himself again through Christ to eventually be preached to all ends of the earth. Are there some that have never heard of God? Probably. Are there those whose ancestors never had the chance to hear of God? Unlikely.