ForumsWEPRTheism and Atheism

4684 508095
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,156 posts
Shepherd

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,684 Replies
Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,775 posts
Shepherd

( God -> ~God ) -> ~God, so ~God.


Here let me make you a state table, well it's not much of a state table since it's only one variable

a |
------
T | T
F | T

So for either 0 (true) or 1 (true) it's 1 (true), not sure what you're getting at.

There will still be people complaining "God didn't give me enough to believe in Him". God is always there in your heart, knocking at the door, and while your heart is closed, it's yet your own fault. I don't think you'll like your heart to be ripped open by force (even spiritually).


Why would an omnipotent being choose this method of weeding out people. He himself created people therefore he created logical and scientific people. These people would not choose faith but real evidence. Would it be that hard to give it to them? Instead of condemning them? Why does he require humans to spread his message when he is more than capable of spreading it himself?

Nearly true, God is not present in Hell.


Isn't God omnipresent?
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
959 posts
Peasant

So why does your god kill babies with a huge infant mortality rate? I mean, if this took way babies freedom, then why does your god kill babies on a massive scale? Good thing we have medical science...
You'll never know. It's possible that if that child would live, he'll bring too much sorrow into the world. (Yes, this is a what-if-false, but at the time God was measuring that child's life, it was one of the available outcomes) Be glad you have been given time to live.
So all those miscarried babies go to hell then?
This was already answered. Since you are off track, go read the whole of the topic first. Rest of the post ignored.
If it's impossible to do the right thing, it's still possible to ask for sorry. By the way, I don't know a lot about the Original Sin thing... not yet at least.
I can tell somthing, though I have no book handy right now... The Original Sin was what has turned us mortal, and punishment for this is eventual death. That sin came from disobedience, and could be remedied only by total obedience. No normal human is capable of this, even now, so God sent graces required for such a human to arrive, predicted His path by numerous prophets, and has done other stuff needed for people to recognize Him when He will finally arrive. Jesus walked that line from the very point of His descendance from Heaven, and obeyed the will of His Father to its fullest, thus redeeming the entire guilt of the Original Sin and all our other sins. Father resurrected Him on the third day, thus the bonds of human's death are broken, and we can now reach eternal life. At this point Jesus also led all the righteous who couldn't reach eternal life but were worthy of entering there (I expect will all the innocent children 314d1 speaks about) into Kingdom of God, where souls enjoy eternal happiness.
So the genocide in the book of Joshua was showing a message? All the death, slavery and **** showed a message? I think you need to read the old testament and revise your ideas.
Deuteronomy 3:1-6.
All God has to do to get me to believe he exists is provide me with evidence that would convince me of his existence.
While you don't want to accept God's signs deep inside your heart, no evidence will ever be enough for you.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,019 posts
Farmer

While you don't want to accept God's signs deep inside your heart, no evidence will ever be enough for you.


This is just the religious man's version of the 'no true scottsman' fallacy. Many of have stated time and again precisely what we would accept as evidence of God's existence and our willingness to look for it. The fact that God, if he is as you proclaim, knows this and does not provide means he either doesn't care, can't do it, or isn't real (among a few other similar options)
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
959 posts
Peasant

There is no line between what is to be taken literally and what is not. The way it's written even God could be just another metaphor.
If there will be the only one spot where "God" is said, maybe yes, but since the WHOLE of the Bible is full of words "I, the Lord, said that, and will do that" and similar, you no longer can declare this as a metaphor.
Considering the anti abortion stuff comes mostly from the Christians right, it's generally believed they get their soul at conception.
Correct.
But they are the same god who changed over time.
God didn't change, it's the humanity what changes, and now we can accept easier burdens in order to soften our hearts. We grew more compassionate and grew in other virtues as well, as a civilization, and when we were ready to ever start becoming better, Jesus came carrying a revolutionarising morale change, which is still active.
So TLDR, the bible shouldn't be used as morality?
Oh, blatant ignorance at its fullest. You call yourself a rationalist, why reacting as such? And since you give premises on what should follow from the text that you DIDN'T READ, this behavior is not tolerated.
We can even argue that there are no objective morals even if God does exist as those morals from God are just that God's subjective view of morality.
Well, God has the right to have His views on morality, because He defines this along with laws of physics, the innate structure of any living being and more. So this is not to be argued - because you're like an egg teaching a hen.
No there won't, because he's omnipotent and can do what he wants.
This will result in effectively revoking your free will to love God or not to love God. So yes, he is omnipotent, yes he can do whatever he wants, but since He respects our choices, He does not want to be forced to believe. So this statement is non sequitur, therefore false, and all the conclusions are unbacked.
Does what you say fit the definition?
"Inflammatory" fits.
Which again contradicts God's omnipresent quality.
Where it was said, and what's with the context? In this world God is indeed omnipresent, and Hell as "the place where God is not present" is outside. Jesus said "Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'", Mt 20:13, and was speaking about Kingdom of Heaven here, Hell is that darkness.
Here let me make you a state table, well it's not much of a state table since it's only one variable
I felt there's something wrong about that statement, thanks for showing this up.
This is just the religious man's version of the 'no true scottsman' fallacy.
Checked this, and didn't understand how my phrase is like imposing restrictions on this. Elaborate please. Given your "options", the reason is "does not want to force us into believing, because God respects our free will". Evidences provided are clues for you to accept that He's for real, but still you aren't forced to accept this.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,019 posts
Farmer

Checked this, and didn't understand how my phrase is like imposing restrictions on this. Elaborate please. Given your "options", the reason is "does not want to force us into believing, because God respects our free will". Evidences provided are clues for you to accept that He's for real, but still you aren't forced to accept this.


As I pointed out earlier, even if God were to manifest himself, as he did with Jesus, and perform miracles before our very eyes, again as was done with Jesus, he would not be forcing us to believe. However if he were to appear and perform acts which could be observed and only attributed to him that would be more than sufficient evidence to convince most atheists I know, myself included.

The fact that he does not says quite a bit about his nature. He claims, through the Bible, that he doesn't want any soul to suffer. He also claims that he knows us all better than we know ourselves and thus would know that such a thing would convince me. He also says that he is capable of doing such things. So he knows it would convince me, he knows my conviction is the only way to my not suffering, and he is capable of doing it. Why does he not? Would not a loving father do anything necessary to save his son? Surely I would think so, I know I would as a parent.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
959 posts
Peasant

What God wants of us is love Him, not just believe in Him. You can't buy love, you can't force someone to love, you can only display your love and hope the other one will love you in return.

Still, I have heard that there will be a permanent sign at Garabandal, when "The Miracle" promised there will occur, the vision said that it will be able to be photographed, but not touched, so everyone will know it to be of supernatural origin. Hope this will be available for me to see, and for you too, perhaps that will satisfy your wish of convincing evidence.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,019 posts
Farmer

What God wants of us is love Him, not just believe in Him. You can't buy love, you can't force someone to love, you can only display your love and hope the other one will love you in return.


Ah, but to be loved one must show itself worthy of loved. I would gladly love a god which I knew, a god which was benevolent, a god which was good and just and worthy of love. At such a time that I find one I will gladly love it. Until then I cannot love something which I do not even know is real, let alone worthy of being loved.

Still, I have heard that there will be a permanent sign at Garabandal, when "The Miracle" promised there will occur, the vision said that it will be able to be photographed, but not touched, so everyone will know it to be of supernatural origin. Hope this will be available for me to see, and for you too, perhaps that will satisfy your wish of convincing evidence.


I agree! I would greatly like to witness such a thing.
qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Shepherd

I'm not sure I understood what you mean, it's 10.30 PM and my English isn't good in evening.
Anyway, I think that it was men interpretation of god's moral to change, not god's moral itself. I also think that nowadays we have a more serious interpretation of it. Let's just say that ancients' interpretations of the world and the religion were... a bit weird.
You could answer "what guarantee that nowadays interpretation is correct?", there is nothing that guarantee that. If there was something, that would mean Christianity to be the True Religion, but there isn't.
So... we can only trust the fact that nowadays interpretations have stronger bases than ancients one. After all, ancients were ridiculously superstitious. Just look at medieval &quotroof" of god's existence ("god exists because it must exists"... ore "god exists because the bible says it does"... makes no sense). Looking back at those times I cannot blame any Atheist for not believe.
Nowadays moral is the fruit of theological studies and serious comparison with other religion, philosophies, doctrines...
Of course this doesn't prove that nowadays interpretation is the correct one, but surely it is based on something. I'd say it is based on rationality.
Using rationality we understood that creationism wasn't possible, and agreed with evolutionism; we understood that doing literally what is written on a 2000-years old book which talks about different times, societies, people, etc, was stupid, so we understood the importance of a morality based on the same concepts of scriptures (the Ten Commandments, Jesus's teachings...) but that actually responds to modern mankind and that doesn't force anyone in following it.
Men changed, human needs changed, so men's interpretation had to evolve. It's natural...


So basically you take a book which was written in really superstitious times and say I don't believe in those superstitions so I can pretend to take them out but really I'm taking out the bits I don't want. Why don't you just get rid of it altogether since it was written by such superstitious people. And what I meant was you take Gods morals as a holy law but since they change over time with societies morals why not just not be Christian. And by using rationality what is there to bind you to your superstitious book. You can't trust anything it says so just start over.

True, true. But it would mean starting from zero. It would be possible, but will take years and years. Maybe more that just one lifetime.
Using bible and other scriptures as a starting point is faster and safer, because is suggest you which topics are the most important ones. Even better, you can use essays made by other people in order tu argue pro or against a certain topic, in a few word studying morality is a long process... someone begun it 2000 years ago, we are keeping on with it.


Again, the problem is that you clearly don't agree with slavery and stuff so why do you follow the others. If you have to pick and choose your morals they clearly aren't morals so starting again would be so much better.

oh yeah I forgot, you haven't been left alone with a TV when the children's program abruptly ended, your babysitter wasn't long left and f*****g somewhere, and you haven't been told that it's a long way into the night and you can already sleep. Anyway, I don't know if there are children's TV channel accessible that's completely free of any ads, we here have none, and those ads are shown ignoring context, so you can get an arousing ad mid-toon. YMMV but since there's a damger for any kid left by TV to switch channels and not being able to switch back, there is a danger of him get spoiled irreversibly.


Well in England there's a channel called CBBC which is free of ads and I used to watch that when I was a kid. And childhood indoctrination needs to happen really often for it to work properly and some random guy in an ad isn't really seen as a figure of authority.

Basically, everything what should be prayed for is located above mundane world, still, healings have been granted occasionally. It's just people are excepting them getting healed *right now*, and get frustrated if they hadn't been. There is always point in praying, you however shouldn't expect immediate effect in any case.


What should be prayed for in heaven? It is supposedly amazing and everything so why pray? And most of those healings could probably have happened if there were no prayers and there are some that do with no prayer. And why does god randomly choose people. Do they deserve it more than others or is he just shooting down healings at random. Again, nearly all prayers are never answered, people who don't pray can sometimes be lucky, why bother praying? I mean if it had been proven to give a higher chance just don't bother and you get the same effect. Please can you prove that prayer works in more than one or two incredibly isolated cases before you reply to this.

Basically these particular words are part of the Old Testament, which is extended to all humanity by New Testament. And since Old Testament applied only to Jewish, and the Decalogue is brought into New Testament by direct word of Jesus, indeed some of the words of Old Testament should not be followed to letter. You know what MGW, you start repeating yourself.


But jesus is God and the OT is the word of God so why don't you follow the OT they are both god and if what God says is right he should never change his mind and if what God says is wrong why bother worshiping him.

Hello pal, you might have to know that to catch with times, which are accelerating exponentially, requires ditching one's cross, and that's not the way you could live a life with God. And, what do you exactly mean at "catching up with the times"? LGBT tolerance? Democracy with double/triple standards? Blatant ignorance of poverty of your neighbor? Feeding psychotropics to children? Rating everything that happens with money alone? Or something else?


So you agree that Christianity is an ancient superstition which must be ditched to catch up with the times then. And what worng with a life without God. Can you please provide us with some reasons for your God to exist and tell us how he makes your life so much better. Most of the world seem to cope OK without him. And I take it you prefered to dark ages or the Victorian era compared to this one then. If you think this era is so bad why do you do things like use modern medicine.

You are to prove that a given miracle can be attributed to Krishna. If you will not, you'll have to stuff the hole you tried to poke with your own head. So, start with Fatima.


You are to prove a miracle and then PROVE that it was Christian. And Fatima has an explanation so don't repeat that one again. It doesn't seem like enough to back up your religion since it is only like one miracle anyway. You can't prove the Bible with one religion which could be Krishna having a laugh and pretending to be your God. And Krishna was an example.

There will still be people complaining "God didn't give me enough to believe in Him". God is always there in your heart, knocking at the door, and while your heart is closed, it's yet your own fault. I don't think you'll like your heart to be ripped open by force (even spiritually).


God made us need evidence and God gave us no evidence. Why did he do both of those things. And His Noodliness is knocking at your hearts door is about as plausible as your God doing it. They have the same amount of proof to back them up.

Nearly true, God is not present in Hell. Hell as a place is a representation of what happens to the soul when God isn't there where the soul is. Hell as a condition, however, isn't so regular. Here is God, and in Hell He won't be around. So your soul feels God's love any single time while you're here, and you're so accustomed to this that you treat this as normal, like having air to breathe, and stop noticing this. Once a soul enters Hell, it suffers like you will if the air will suddenly go away entirely, but here you will die in minutes, there a soul can't die, so it suffers for eternity, since that air which is God's love will never return.


Yes, like God loves gays, women, slaves etc. And the soul can't feel pain so it won't be hurt. And no that is His Noodlinesses love you feel and only his loyal pastafarians will go to heaven. Again you are making assumptions which you can't back up. I say God doesn't exist and since I have a lot more evidence on my side than you do I am far more likely to be right so please provide evidence for your God.

You'll never know. It's possible that if that child would live, he'll bring too much sorrow into the world. (Yes, this is a what-if-false, but at the time God was measuring that child's life, it was one of the available outcomes) Be glad you have been given time to live.


yes and your argument is backed up so much by how God didn't kill Stalin or Hitler. There's even a short Roald Dahl story where a really sickly child is born but he just manages to survive and the mother is just saying "thank god, thank god". It ends by saying he grew up to be Adolf Hitler and caused the second world war and killed 10s of millions of people. Why didn't God kill them.

I can tell somthing, though I have no book handy right now... The Original Sin was what has turned us mortal, and punishment for this is eventual death. That sin came from disobedience, and could be remedied only by total obedience. No normal human is capable of this, even now, so God sent graces required for such a human to arrive, predicted His path by numerous prophets, and has done other stuff needed for people to recognize Him when He will finally arrive. Jesus walked that line from the very point of His descendance from Heaven, and obeyed the will of His Father to its fullest, thus redeeming the entire guilt of the Original Sin and all our other sins. Father resurrected Him on the third day, thus the bonds of human's death are broken, and we can now reach eternal life. At this point Jesus also led all the righteous who couldn't reach eternal life but were worthy of entering there (I expect will all the innocent children 314d1 speaks about) into Kingdom of God, where souls enjoy eternal happiness.


You're acting like Adam and Eve really happened but surely even you can't really believe that it happened. The Earth has been proven to be billions of years old and not 6000. You REALLY need to provide proof for this one.

Deuteronomy 3:1-6.


As far as I can see all this says is that God is corrupt and evil and commands you to break his commandments. This just shows how out of date your superstitions are.

While you don't want to accept God's signs deep inside your heart, no evidence will ever be enough for you.


God made me like this and provided no evidence. And you have closed your heart to his Noodliness and no evidence will ever be enough to prove him to you.

Considering the anti abortion stuff comes mostly from the Christians right, it's generally believed they get their soul at conception.

Correct.


But the whole anti abortion thing is still stupid since by that logic by failing to conceive a baby you kill its potential soul and since the baby can't think a potential soul is the same as a soul.

Oh, blatant ignorance at its fullest. You call yourself a rationalist, why reacting as such? And since you give premises on what should follow from the text that you DIDN'T READ, this behavior is not tolerated.


Again you support slavery, **** and genocide.

This will result in effectively revoking your free will to love God or not to love God. So yes, he is omnipotent, yes he can do whatever he wants, but since He respects our choices, He does not want to be forced to believe. So this statement is non sequitur, therefore false, and all the conclusions are unbacked.


He made us able to not love him but since we wouldn't not love him if we knew he was there it is his fault we don't love him.
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Shepherd

So basically you take a book which was written in really superstitious times and say I don't believe in those superstitions so I can pretend to take them out but really I'm taking out the bits I don't want.

In the bible there isn't only superstition. There are myths, theology essays, literature figures, metaphors, and so on. If it was mere superstition, I'd throw it away. But within myth, metaphors, etc. we can learn about ancients' way to see world and religion. This process, alone, it's not sufficient. We must also use our head to think "do I agree? Why?". If the answer is "yes, because [insert serious argument]", that means we found in the bible something we personally agree to. Maybe there is something else we may agree to, so we'd better keep on to read, understand, and analyse. If the answer is "no, because..." that means we don't agree with something, so we can try to confront our ides with the opposite ideas, which is always a good thing to do.

Again, the problem is that you clearly don't agree with slavery and stuff so why do you follow the others. If you have to pick and choose your morals

I don't have the morality I have because Christianity told me. Instead, I choose to follow Christianity because it has the same morality I've always had. ("always": I mean since I begun to think about morality, ethic, etc.)

I think everyone should mind what path to follow and, after that, follow that path (if he/she has serious arguments, of course).

I say God doesn't exist and since I have a lot more evidence on my side than you do I am far more likely to be right so please provide evidence for your God.

I don't think we need evidences to believe. There are so many theories about "what/who is god?" that we can't agree with them all. The most common one is about a great Holy Father, which is probably the hardest to demonstrate. But there are others. For instance, let's suppose that Holy Father doesn't exist (it's a legitimate supposition): well, in the world we live there are things like physical laws. What determined them? Nature, obviously (or call it however you want). Well some Christians actually say "I don't believe in any Holy Old Man, I believe in natural laws. I'd like to call that 'god'". I don't think Catholics to be of the same advice, but we are talking about Christianity in general, not only Catholicism. Someone other may say "I don't believe in Holy Father, but I think mankind's nature needs to know that there is something after death, and that there is one (or more) "superior intelligence" that rule the world. I call that necessity 'god'".
"God" is such a general therm. Anyway, we begun to talk about bible because of morality, not because we are looking in it proofs of god's existence (it's obvious that bible says god exists, that isn't a proof). If someone really wants to proof god's existence (or non-existence), he/she must look somewhere else. And be prepared to thousand of arguments pro and against it.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

If there will be the only one spot where "God" is said, maybe yes, but since the WHOLE of the Bible is full of words "I, the Lord, said that, and will do that" and similar, you no longer can declare this as a metaphor.


Sure I can. The Bible is full of metaphors so why would the Bible being full of stuff with God negate the possibility of that being a metaphor as well?

While you don't want to accept God's signs deep inside your heart, no evidence will ever be enough for you.


Are you just ignoring what's been previously covered?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

This process, alone, it's not sufficient. We must also use our head to think "do I agree? Why?". If the answer is "yes, because [insert serious argument]", that means we found in the bible something we personally agree to. Maybe there is something else we may agree to, so we'd better keep on to read, understand, and analyse. If the answer is "no, because..." that means we don't agree with something, so we can try to confront our ides with the opposite ideas, which is always a good thing to do.


that's a pretty long winded way of saying cheery pick the Bible.

I don't have the morality I have because Christianity told me. Instead, I choose to follow Christianity because it has the same morality I've always had.


So your morally okay with slavery, incest, child murder, and genocide? Oh right ignore these parts because you don't agree. I can find far better material to compare morals to then the Bible.

I don't think we need evidences to believe.


Your correct, but that makes the belief unfounded.

Well some Christians actually say "I don't believe in any Holy Old Man, I believe in natural laws. I'd like to call that 'god'".


This would simply be taking something we already have a definition for and relabeling it god. It really makes the label of god superfluous.

"God" is such a general therm.


Yes it is.

Anyway, we begun to talk about bible because of morality, not because we are looking in it proofs of god's existence (it's obvious that bible says god exists, that isn't a proof). If someone really wants to proof god's existence (or non-existence), he/she must look somewhere else. And be prepared to thousand of arguments pro and against it.


I agree here as well, doing so often just leads to circular reasoning.
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Shepherd

that's a pretty long winded way of saying cheery pick the Bible.



So your morally okay with slavery, incest, child murder, and genocide? Oh right ignore these parts because you don't agree. I can find far better material to compare morals to then the Bible.

I'm talking about the Christianity which admitted its errors about past bible literal interpretation, not about what you can read from the book. I won't ignore those part of the bible, instead I will look at them, then I will look at modern Christianity, and I'll think &quothew, we made huge step forward. I think we are developing a good way of thinking, separated from what the bible strictly says".
Nowadays Christianity is definitively against slavery, child murder, incest and genocide.

Your correct, but that makes the belief unfounded.

I think so. I'm of the advice that Christian cannot try to demonstrate faith in order to persuade someone to believe. The same ways, Atheists may try (and/or succeed) to demonstrate that faith is useless, showing believers' errors, but that would "just" change believers' interpretation of god once more (it would be a huge change). Serious believers would accept that, as we have already accepted the fact that creationism isn't possible, and eventually evolve. It wouldn't be so bad.

This would simply be taking something we already have a definition for and relabeling it god. It really makes the label of god superfluous.

True, it was just a silly example anyway. I meant that (here) we are trying to debate about god, but we don't even know if we are talking about an Holy Father, a physical law, a mere label, a human necessity, etc. Just a little excursus about dialectic.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

True, it was just a silly example anyway. I meant that (here) we are trying to debate about god, but we don't even know if we are talking about an Holy Father, a physical law, a mere label, a human necessity, etc. Just a little excursus about dialectic.


Given the number of times I run into it I usually figure I'm dealing with a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all loving, when I'm dealing with the Christian God. If this isn't your basic description then inform me so I can adjust accordingly.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
959 posts
Peasant

Well in England there's a channel called CBBC which is free of ads and I used to watch that when I was a kid. And childhood indoctrination needs to happen really often for it to work properly and some random guy in an ad isn't really seen as a figure of authority.
ANY info a child receives is yet unfiltered thus assumed as true. We here have a recorded example of how does the advertisement affect children, when a 3yo streamed out nothing except slogans. A horrifying event IMHO. Children don't yet differ ads from main programme, so they can also accept whatever is said in there into subconsciousness, which might cause any effect in fact. I expect this to not be studied at all.
What should be prayed for in heaven?
Literally, salvation. There are two kinds of people who are to be prayed for, alive people and dead people. We don't know the destiny of those already dead, so we pray for their acceptance in Heaven. We know that this life is temporary, but we know that the way how we lived here affects what awaits us in the eternity, so we pray that salvation will be granted to living people as well.
But jesus is God and the OT is the word of God so why don't you follow the OT they are both god and if what God says is right he should never change his mind and if what God says is wrong why bother worshiping him.
Do you mind learning comma placement? This text is capable to be read in at least two ways, so it's unanswerable. And read about humanity morale evolution.
So you agree that Christianity is an ancient superstition which must be ditched to catch up with the times then.
You again putting your wishes into my words?
You are to prove a miracle and then PROVE that it was Christian. And Fatima has an explanation so don't repeat that one again.
Fatima's "explanation" was refuted. Try again. Also Fatima is Christian because there was a documented vision of Holy Familty that's proven by this miracle.
And the soul can't feel pain so it won't be hurt.
You might probably have never felt sorrow. This is a brief example of your soul feeling pain. And yes, you've officially been labeled troll.
yes and your argument is backed up so much by how God didn't kill Stalin or Hitler.
Seriously, read Fatima's complete evidence. There was a word that Communism was sent as punishment for people's sins, and WWII too. In Garabandal, another vision sent a warning about us displeasing God with abortions as an example of a grave sin, and said if we don't repent, we'll get hurt harder than WWII - at least it's how I understood this. People will be given a chance to repent prior to suffering chastisement, and a miracle was promised. The Garabandal's vision is viewed by the Church as "non constat", so it might still appear false since we don't know the future, but since it wasn't yet named false, and some research have been conducted, there is no counter-doctrine evidence provided, meaning all that's spoken aligns with Christianity, so can be followed.
since by that logic by failing to conceive a baby you kill its potential soul
No, failing to conceive means there's no soul involved in the process. But conceiving and failing to bear, by any means, has a soul involved, and is an event where an unborn baby died. Sometimes this death can't be blamed on the baby's parents, but in case of abortion, the blame is almost fully on their heads.
You're acting like Adam and Eve really happened but surely even you can't really believe that it happened. The Earth has been proven to be billions of years old and not 6000. You REALLY need to provide proof for this one.
Well, I don't need to prove that Earth is 7000 years old, since it's indeed wrong. The commentary to Gen 1 says in total, that "day one" "day two" etc are not directly days, after all sun, moon and stars were created on day four (my mistake about saying day three), which actually means that days 1, 2 AND 3 of that story lasted an indefinite amount of time. So, why not 4.5b years, why not 13.7b years since the Big Bang (current data)? And about Adam and Eve, that wasn't addressed to you, that's a Church dogma basing on the Bible. Yes, I believe there were Adam and Eve, and it's still possible that they weren't the first men on the Earth's surface, but the first whose seed still lives.
While you don't want to accept God's signs deep inside your heart, no evidence will ever be enough for you.

Are you just ignoring what's been previously covered?
Links please? You seem to do the same.
erPicci
offline
erPicci
38 posts
Shepherd

Given the number of times I run into it I usually figure I'm dealing with a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all loving, when I'm dealing with the Christian God. If this isn't your basic description then inform me so I can adjust accordingly.

So far I got the feeling that different people are talking about different ideas of gods. The most common one is surely the omni-whatever father.
My idea of definition is something more general that could put together the other definitions. The downside to this is that a too-general definition may come out.
By the way, an all-around one would probably take a 100km post, and I'm not sure I am skilled enough to write it. I'll try to make a short version, just to give the idea: "something/someone that represent men's necessity to believe in something. Something/someone that hasn't got a define physical form, but it has got some clear basic concept (it is good, it wishes we to be free, it doesn't force anyone in to believe it). Books have been written about it, the most relevant is the Bible, which contains is a mix of 'raw information' written using a literary/mythical/metaphoric/etc. language, and so it has to interpreted..." I apologize in advance if it isn't a good description.
Christianity is based on Jesus, and God, and Bible, and men's interpretation, and so on, not just on one or two of these things.
Showing 1246-1260 of 4684