You know, I look through the list of threads and there are a few which ask questions like what's your nationality, what are your problems or what do you think of X? Originally for this thread I was going to ask Who Believes in God? But then I thought: that's going to exclude a whole lot of people, which I don't want because I'd like everyone to have a word in this, so, whether Christian or not, here we can talk about God :)

I know, He's a big deal (pun intended :p) to talk about and loads of people might get very hot-headed about this kind of subject, as it is very deep to say the least. But I'm hoping there'll be polite and reasonable comments here anyway, please.

I'm not intending for there to be any rants here (you know, like those extremists - no offense to them - who like to shout at people about God), because it's not pleasant for everybody else and it's not a great way to have a conversation. And that's what I really want: a conversation, that's easy-going, thought-provoking and inclusive. Everyone's welcome to say their thoughts, and, well, even start an argument (provided that it doesn't involve insults and swearing!). shrugs How can there not be arguments? (Provided again that they're respectful to others) And it's interesting to hear people's opinions.

I'm a Christian myself (no duh) and I'm just curious about the amount of other Christians on ff.net too, as I rarely find any outside of church. But it feels really great when I discover one on ff.net and it comes as a surprise to me heh.

So...what are your thoughts?

Well, I think that's because it's just kind of like separating them too much into different groups, so it seems like there's too much division. Like it doesn't feel like we're together if we say either we're Catholic or Protestant, instead of the one word Christian, which contains both. I don't quite like saying I'm a Protestant instead of a Christian because there really isn't a need to - a Christian is a Christian. Both denominations believe in the same God, so I don't see what the need is to point out which group you specifically belong to. The important thing is what you believe in. The only difference is how we express that belief.

I don't exactly believe in a God...but I'm not completely atheist. If that makes ANY sense at all.

I don't really believe in heaven and Hell but I do believe in Limbo. heh...Awkward subject but oh well. I'm apparently a 'Christian' as I was Cristand (not at birth but at the age of around 12?) but just because I have been doesn't mean that I HAVE to believe right? :P My Dad, however, is.

Re: the 'eye for an eye' thing: I'm not a believer myself, but that bit's pretty explicable. Since the arrival of Jesus formed a 'second covenant' for humanity, what he said takes precedence in the event of explicit contradiction. The Sermon on the Mount, for instance, largely consisted of a string of 'the old laws said this, but you're better off doing this', with the implication that anything not touched upon should be kept as it was. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", and all that.

Yes, I'm a trivia addict. Why'd you ask?

More accurately, one big retcon upon which an entire religion is based. Later ones spawned entirely new religions, Islam being the most famous... and then there's Mormonism, where the retcons went critical. Not the worst religion out there, and the frequent revisions make it easy for it to shed its more troublesome aspects as it goes, but mein Gott, the backstory's a mess. Given the presence of 'the Angel Moroni' as an integral part of the foundation mythology, one can't help but feel that Joe Smith was subtly extracting the Michael from his congregation.

The major justification for Christianity's Second Covenant, IIRC, was that the tribes of Israel had gone from a beleagured, warlike people with just about everyone in the Middle East out to get them (sound familiar?), to a relatively mature, peaceful civilisation that just happened to be under foreign occupation. It wasn't so much 'changing his mind' as deciding that they were ready for the next step in their spiritual enlightenment. Step three, for the record, is supposed to be the Second Coming/End of Days, which will presumably involve another covenant. Whether that'll end up being any clearer re: the whole gay marriage business remains to be seen.

Not quite - it was more a case that they were intended to turn the other cheek regardless from that point onwards, because they were ready to do it by then. Sort of the same as how you expect different things from children and adults.

Also, one of the big changes Jesus brought about was a message of tolerance for others and a willingness to spread the word outside Israel. The Second Covenant marked the point at which the faith was ready to go international, after being raised and incubated by a single 'chosen race' (ye gods, that mpreg thread left its scars). Remember the Good Samaritan? The entire point of that story was that even ancient enemies, like the Samaritans, had the capacity to serve God just as well as (or better than) the most holy of the Jews.

Personally, even though I'm in a very dedicated religious family, I'm completely and utterly unbelieving (makes for awkwardness, seriously). I'm really logically minded, and so the earth being created by some omnipotent person just doesn't gel for me. Neither does someone coming back to life after dying. It just doesn't work into my way of thinking. None of it.

And as has already been mentioned, all the contradictions. That alone would be enough for me, to be honest. Saying one thing at one point, then the complete opposite later down the line.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

I try to be a Christian, but I know I do not try hard enough. I was brought up in quite a typical Irish way, where pretty much all the local people attend mass, all the local children go to faith schools, etc, but although religion is quite central to the community, it was never forced upon me in any way. I'm very thankful for having this sort of upbringing, where I've sort of been guided along but have been entirely free to make my own decisions regarding belief.

I dislike the view that is commonly presented on tv where Christians are either deluded and extremist, or have to make a major 'mistakes' which are someone worse than identical mistakes made by athiests, which are therfore presented (wrongly, in my opinion) as being a fault of the religion, instead of a human fault. Christianity in schools is often mispresented too- I've attended both a Catholic primary and secondary school, and have never had religion forced upon me in either place- we are educated about alternative religions, as well as the more scientific theories for creation etc. Christianity is often presented as being a very negative thing in the media at present, and is treated with little respect. For example, it really annoys me how rosary beads can be worn as fashion items on tv, and how 'Jesus Christ' can be said casually, or even as an insult; things like this have become so common that they normally go unnoticed, however, if symbolic Islamic clothing was worn as fashion, or prophets of other religions were alluded to so casually in popular programmes, there would unquestionably be a huge uproar, which I consider to be very unfair.

I have met a few of the more extreme Christians which has indicated that I don't quite agree with every single aspect of the religion, but I do think that the vast majority of the Bible is still, and will always be, highly relevant- I suppose I agree that society has changed, but righteoughness and basic humanity never really will, and while I believe that Christian teachings can change slightly over the years and progress as human knowledge progresses, we do have to strongly consider whether the changes in society are necessary before we label a Biblical view as 'wrong' or 'irrelevant'; for example, I am strongly pro-life. I think that abortion is much, much too common in today's society- I would understand (but not necessarily justify) legalised abortion if it was only used in very extreme circumstances, but the fact that it is easily provided to and used by many people who have barely even thought about it, and who don't consider it to be a big deal, is entirely wrong in my opinion.

I don't pretend to be a person of good faith. I'm not. I had strong faith until a few years ago, then went into a sort of phase where it felt like I was just praying to nothing, and like I wasn't connecting with God. Due to things that were going on in my family and stuff, we stopped going to mass on such a regular basis, and I doubted Christianity for a while. However, I think I'm growing out of that phase at the moment. Hopefully, anyway. I just need to make more effort and prioritise better. Basically, I turned to prayer when things started to go really wrong, and I do feel that God helped, with one quite serious situation in particular, that, in my opinion, could not have been resolved so quickly by coincidence. There's been a few little random, minor things along the way that have helped restore my faith recently too. I know a lot of people are sceptical about this sort of thing and would put it down to mere coincidence, but, as an example, I remember a couple of times whilst doing gcses, where I had prayed to St. Joseph of Cupertino a while before the exam, and then had urges to look at really random, seemingly insignificant little things in my textbooks before the test, which of course, came up- it just surprised me because they were pieces of information that I honestly never ever would have even thought about looking over otherwise. It's just little things like that that remind me of God. Oh dear, this turned into a bit of an essay, so I'll stop now, but I'd be quite shocked if anyone has read this far without having given up as a result of my rambling anyway :P

Re: the child-adult thingy, I wasn't advocating it as much as explaining it. My perspective on religion is that it serves as a magnifier - all you get out of it is more of what you put in. A good person can become a saint, whilst a bad one can become a monster. I've never felt the need for it myself, and doubt I have the proper sort of mindset for it at any rate, but I hsave no real objection to religion and belief as a concept.

Not going to stop me poking fun at the more absrd aspects of organised religion that pop up so very often, but I don't see it as an unambiguous force for bad in the world, either.

Wow, I just left this thread alone for people to talk and some interesting things came up. There's one thing I can say to sum it up: it's complicated hehe. But it is complicated of course. Christianity is around 2000 years old and a lot of things have spread out from it to make it into a MASSIVE subject.

I don't have all the answers either (sadly), nobody does. "God works in mysterious ways", the human mind cannot comprehend God's thinking or love. So I don't blame anyone for thinking that God seemingly contradicts himself in the bible, like what >>9 said about the laws changing from 'an eye for an eye' to 'turn the other cheek'. But what he does is what he knows is right for us.
I do admit that God was much more strict during the Old Testament. But that was because the people then were so sinful. Until he sent Jesus to Earth to make a way for us to be right with God, the easy way; because back then you'd have to keep sacrificing farm animals for your sins to be forgiven every single time, and that was a messy business and hard to do.

>>11 I can understand what you're saying. This is now the world of technology, where material things are taught to be one of the most important things to have and if you don't have many gadgets, furniture etc you = poor, not up-to-date, stingy with money, whatever; just that you're not following the crowd. And it's really a shame that the motto of technological, secular nations is "seeing is believing". That's a shallow way to live. But the bible says blessed are those who have faith in the Lord, but even more blessed are those who cannot see and believe; along those words.
Tom, one of Jesus's disciples, got that message in the end when he said he wouldn't believe Christ came back to life unless he saw him himself, with the holes in his feet and hands.

So don't lose faith. God is there and always will be, even though he doesn't seem to be. The bible says to not be swayed by the ways of this world, but be still in the Lord :) (along those lines, can't remember exact words!) Keep praying to him, and he will answer.

Aw, does that make me the only Muslim here? :p
I jus want to see how many atheists will respond to this (and how):
I've been wondering about a religion a lot (cuz it's a big part of life :p) and what I have noticed is that a large proportion of those people who i find to be more abusive in ways of being racist, generally agressive, or something else, are atheists. That isn;t, of course, to say that that means all of them, as I know many who are like that who are not atheists but then i also know a handful of atheists who are pretty nice people. I wonder, how many other people have noticed a vague connection between religious belief and morality? Maybe it's just the people I know.

Also, how many Christian's here go out on Sunday's e.g. go out with friends, go shopping, do work etc.?

Annnnd, how do you do that referencing thing with the arrows and the post number?

Rawr, Sundays, not Sunday's. And while I'm at it, how many people regularly go to church, and also, to which subdivisions of Christianity do you place yourselves? And to any atheists, what made you not believe?

Continuing from my last reply as I knew I would give a long reply :p.

>>12 About the way Jesus spreads the gospel to one group and then tells them to spread it themselves, it's not him being lazy or uncaring if that's what you're getting it. 1) As Iaculus said in >>10 everyone, even Gentiles, can spread the gospel. They have been chosen to do this job so that others may listen. Remember, Jesus was God in a human body. He couldn't possibly go to every nation in his lifetime to talk about God, even though he is God yet not God. Yeah, that confuses me too. Anyway; besides that he had a purpose to fulfill, and that was to die on the cross.
2) Again, what I said in my last post >>15 more blessed are those who cannot see and believe. God wants us to be independent, as well as looking to him for help. Otherwise we may never grow spiritually if God keeps being there. I know that doesn't sound right, but here's an example: would you still be able to grow into an adult inside if your parents always check up on you every day, giving a few advice on life as if you didn't know anything? God wants us to be strong enough to stand on our own without him having to tell us what to do all of the time, and that means to have faith.

Now about children as opposed to adults, and religion as a for of control; the latter can be a misconception for Christianity. When the bible says to be more like a child, it doesn't literally mean 'be a child'. It's saying that we should have the characteristics of a child, which is to be innocent, humble, honest, kind, caring, loving and all the other positive things of a child. 'Only then can we enter the kingdom of God' - if we still like to think about hurting someone, revenge etc then you are not holy enough. Of course no one is perfect, but we should be in likeness of Jesus as much as possible; pure of heart.
Yeah, people can be stupid (my first offense, sorry but it's true), we see it every day, or on the news. Because we have a limited capacity compared to God. And we make up a thing called ideology which can lead ourselves from the truth of things.

Religion as a form of control: could be, and in some cases yes. But Christianity is not controlling. It welcomes everybody to it and doesn't force people, but it still calls out to them. Why do you think it's controlling?
I think it's some people who pretend to be holy who take advantage of Christianity or other religions, and turn it into a controlling thing. But it's not.

Ah, as I was typing my second post there are other posts before it.

>>17 Yes, it's true that God can see into your heart and doesn't need a physical act to know you've sinned. The main purpose for sacrificing animals is to symbolise sacrificing sin so that it can be rid of and the path to God is made right again. Why God needed this is because it takes more willingness and faith to go out to kill an animal than to half-heartedly ask for forgiveness.
I've heard a sermon on this several times: back in those days, to kill an animal takes hard work and all day. You'd have to walk your animal (if a cow, horse) or carry it (if a Chicken, goose) all the way to a sacrificial altar. There would be a long line of people waiting for their turn. While waiting your animal can make a lot of mess (especially if a cow); there would be poo and wee everywhere; the stink will be unbearable - the animals can sense death so they react to it terribly. And it's a LONG wait. When at last it's your turn, you must take a knife and slit the animal's throat, then get a bowl and collect its blood. You can imagine how bloody it will be; it gets on your robes and all over the floor which you need to step on. The blood symbolically purifies you, because it's from an innocent, which is pure of sin. After washing it away you are forgiven.

This act of killing would still have carried on if Jesus didn't come to replace those animals and purified the whole world with his blood.
So it's not about proving one's faith per se, but it shows it. When the second covenant was made by Christ, that was God's message that he really wants us to be right with him again, without having to go through suffering the act of killing an animal (as he understood that it wasn't very nice either).

On your second question (or last one) God tests one's faith to make one's faith stronger. in the bible it says, metaphorically, that people, like silver, are place over fire to purify and make into a better, tougher state. You only grow stronger if you're put through trials, do you agree? Like a butterfly breaking free out of its cocoon, it won't be able to fly if it doesn't make an effort to push out. Trials in life are to strengthen you physically and spiritually in faith. And also to mature your faith.

I agree with you on human beings treat a religion they like similar to a fandom. But that's people's fault, not God's. Humans are selfish and can change things to how it suits them rather than listen to something they don't like. It's sad really, how people can ignore the bible and make excuses that don't make sense with what they've done.

>>18 To do the highlighting number hold shift and press this symbol > twice on the keyboard, then without spacing enter the number to which you want to highlight. Sorry about just answering that and not to your whole post, this one's getting too long to do that!

>>23 The words are inspired by God which the people writing the bible could hear, in spirit, and interpreted them in human language. It's impossible that all of the words can be thought up by people, proclaiming all the miracles and messages of God so intricately and detailed. If the bible is a product of people, then how can information non-accessible to them be recorded, unless they made it up so accurately? Like with Jesus before being betrayed by Judas; he goes away to pray and he weeps. Who was there with him to witness him do this? No-one - his disciples had fallen asleep where he left them.

Okay, give me an example of religion being used to control the masses. I know that Hitler used his 'religion' saying that only those born with white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair are the pure species on earth and any who are different should be killed. Is Christianity used in the same way in terms of propaganda, powers of persuasion?

There is some sexism in religion, it's in every society. But God loves equally, and maybe the reason why men are seen holding power most of the time is because God knew how societies would react if he allowed a woman to hold power. Seriously, think about it. If Jesus was not a man, would people of that time feel inclined to listen to a woman proclaiming the gospel? Would they respect 'her' more? The way of society back then didn't put women on the same level of respectability as it did for men, and even today women are still implied as the weaker of the sexes unconsciously, whether or not people understand and accept them as equally strong in a position of power as men. Back then, if Jesus was a woman, there would be contraversy and people would be telling 'her' off for being so ambitious as a lady, which would make it darn well harder for 'her' to spread the word and be taken seriously.
I'm trying to be reasonable here. It would be a waste of time trying to make people get over Jesus being a woman and then accepting the word of God. So I don't think God is being sexist. He's anything but that.

>>24 This is the closest thing to an argument I've had all week!

Okay, so a direct revelation is better to strengthen faith than a trial. But that supports the 'seeing is believing' motto and not God as someone who not only physical but spiritual too. It would make him as a God redundant if he'd only use physical scenes to prove his existance. What's the point of a heart then, or spirituality? We'd only be seeing with our eyes, not with our hearts. If that direct revelations kept going I'd have the impression that God is putting on entertainment for his own benefit rather than benefiting people by making them stronger in character and spiritual believers. And if that's so, then what would Christianity MEAN anymore?

And how would you know how a martyr feels like when he's dying? What's the point of being a martyr only to satisfy one's ego, when they can do so many other ways, like getting over a million views on their Youtube video? Plus, being a martyr is selling your life for God, suffering and dying for him. Only a really egotistic person would go that far just to gain a giant sense of self-worth.

And flagellates are to do with Catholicism, right?

I'll be provocative by saying, YOU'RE WRONG. God is wanting all right, wanting for our love and return to him. It's not just the faith, it's us. He. Loves. Us. It's so simple, no wonder why some Christians can get so angry at people for not getting this fact. It's all about us from the beginning, that he wants to be with us again. But people keep denying him, people keep cutting him off and they keep undermining him. All we need is God, he can provide anything, do you agree?

It's so hard to explain, yet so simple. He is love. He is Father. There is one fundamental point of Christianity: it's about relationships. What God wants is a relationship with us and there is so much involved in that simple want. Just like with earth fathers wanting a relationship with their children.
Yes, he is God - he can have anything that he wants. But taking things by force is not what he does, because that's not what he is, it's not what he stands for. It sounds stupid when the one thing he doesn't have is us.

Technically, there is often considered to be some difference between an argument and a debate. I might also point out, on an entirely unrelated topic, that statistically, there are most likely far more unpleasant theists than there are atheists. This is not because of the inherent merits (or lack thereof) of either side, but because an overwhelming majority of the world's population are self-identified believers.

On the atheist side of things, one thing that precious few debaters seem to reason through is the simultaneous assumption that:

(1) Religion, an activity that over 80% of the planetary population participates in, is a trap for the gullible and the simple-minded, and...
(2) Human beings are quite intelligent enough to form their own, independent systems of morality without outside encouragement/inspiration.

The two are mutually contradictory. If you adhere to one, you're going to have to explain how better to broadly disseminate a rough system of morality. If the other, you've got a bit of a statistics problem staring you in the face. There are ways to work 'round this, but it's a common enough pitfall to warrant some serious consideration.

>>28 Sorry about that. My emotions were high on that point, but I wasn't trying to be aggressive in a negative way.

Again, I will say that God works in mysterious ways and we can't full understand his reasons for making us the way he has, or how he is. But the bible does say that he made us in his image; it's hard to explain properly but from that it means we have the spirit of God in us then, and so we have the capability of being holy. He's given us a conscience, to know what's right and wrong. We don't know how exactly he looks like, but since he made us in his image, we can sort of picture him when looking at ourselves.

And we have a part of his nature; we have the instinct to create life and nurture it, to give it a name and love it. We also care about nature and life itself. It's not with ego or conceit when I say we have a few similar qualities to God or he to us. This is what I've learned from bible studies and sermons.
Wanting us to love him isn't shallow. Well it sounds shallow but that isn't the only reason he has, that's not what I'm saying. His love is beyond human comprehension too. It is by that he'd made us 'wonderfully and fearfully'. He knew we would be sinners, but he did it anyway because well he loved us.

Of course he's not like us, but he understands us; our pains and pleasures, likes and dislikes. He was in a human body once. He was tempted and went through pain as well.

Interesting that you say you don't believe in any religion, as I once heard my earth dad say that Christianity isn't a religion, it's a salvation. Religion is something like a system of control, something made up from this world. Salvation doesn't come from man, but from God.
Also, one sunday I had an enlightening conversation with a man and he said that all religions came from one. It's like maths, it's only one subject. So with religion, all of them lead to one God. He said that the other religions that came about were just changed and interpreted the religion they came from in different ways, but they all lead back to it. Like in Indian religion, they believe all paths lead to the same god.

>>27 1)A tentacled mongoose may be the result of pollution that we humans have exposed to the earth, not a sign from God. A result of our own doing of not taking care of the earth very well, which God instructed us to do.

2) Right, all that happened in the past. That was bad, but is it still happening today, at least one or two of those in the list?

3) Eh, guess I was on the wrong track on that one. Was just trying to explain why women were never on the scene of power where men are.

For Point 1 on post 26: The suffering that I was talking about was more to do with believers going through trials of faith. When they go through trouble, they can be made stronger by turning to God instead of relying on themselves for something they cannot handle to their abilities. This is more on the spiritual side, being stronger on the inside for trusting in God's help. The 'seeing is believing' motto is more with the physical. If people abuse others because they were abused themselves that makes them weak inside for taking it out on others. That I would call selfishness to an extent.

History lesson! What was the first thing Stalin did when he was establishing Communism in Russia? He attacked the Church of course! Without God's laws, there was only man's laws. The argument goes both ways. The Bible hasn't been altered in thousands of years. The decrees are solid. For man to come into power, he must first alter the current religion. The church in the Middle Ages, as someone else has said already, denied the peasants the right to read. Why? With knowledge comes power! They could read the Bible and know the faults of the church and kick them out of power. We need to study the Bible to show ourselves approved. We need to back ourselves up with facts and say "You can't do that!" And thus, we have less corruption in the government.

You know something's up with a government, when it starts restricting religious rights. Let's look at current day China, for instance. No Christianity allowed. The government is unbelievably large. No one in the world can tell China what to do. And that's a scary thought since, with the flip of a finger, China can destroy most of the world's economy.

With people focused on pleasing God, there is less chance that people will try to please a ruler, making governments smaller and the world a better place to live in with less government regulation, which is corrupt in America, and I think pretty much everywhere else.

I firmly believe in God. There's no better high than worshiping my Lord.

One magic word for you: theocracy.

It doesn't work as well as you think, as often as you think. Good examples: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Taliban-era Afghanistan. For Christian unpleasantness, check out the excesses of the American Deep South for your mild dosages, and a fair chunk of central Africa for the utterly hideous heavy-duty stuff. Meanwhile, the least religious country in the world, Sweden (85% atheist/agnostic/irreligious, as compared to China's 59%, which may be as low as 30% if one interprets the many varieties of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism) is a remarkably successful, prosperous liberal democracy.

There is in fact remarkably little correlation between religiosity and good government - freedom of belief, whether atheist, theist, agnostic, deist, or whatever, is quite another story.

That said, then, the dealio for atheists is not 'how to make religion go away', but rather 'how to make the best of it'. It's a distinction quite a few get hung upon. Me, I like to see and work with the positives - the negatives are all too easy to find.

I just like to have something to belive in. I think most people do and everyone has their own beliefs. People who follow a religion believe in what their religions have to say. Even atheists believe in something, they believe in science and the fact there is nothing else.
Religion is a personal thing and mocking people for believing in it or for not believing in it is small minded on both accounts. Who are we to judge what is best for the other person, and what works for them.
Religion has been around in different forms for thousands of years, every ancient civillisation had Gods that they prayed to.

That being said, I hate the way it is used as an excuse for evil things. That doesn't sit right with me, religion should be peaceful, but instead people use it as an excuse to hurt and kill others.

(sorry if it doesn't make much sense but I haven't been sleeping well lately and i am enormously tired at the moment.)

I'm a Southern girl and don't don't see the deep south "unpleasantness" of which you speak. The true followers of Christ are the sweetest people I know, far from unpleasant.

All of your "good" examples are the countries where the leaders manipulate the public using religion = What I was complaining about. We as citizens study the religion used, find the faults in the leaders' logic, and kick them out. That's the problem with government: It gets so big. The people themselves should have the power, not a few officials telling the whole what to do. But that's government, not God.

I firmly believe there is a God. You know why? Last year, a kid in my youth group had terrible warts for the longest time on his hands. We all prayed over him, and you know what? NO warts! They disappeared! Prayer is a powerful thing. You cannot deny its power.

>>21
Fair enough. I can;t remmeber where I was going with that yesterday.

>>22 Thanks :)

>>32 Chirstianity is allowed in China. But you're only permitted to be part of the official church, which is totally controlled by the government, making it mroe political than religous and half defeating the point.

>>33 But you neglect that theocracies can work. They haven't recently, but they have in the past.

>>39 A teacher in my school was widowed, and was going through a difficult time. She was away from home with her children for a while and she had been praying for help. When she returned home, she had a letter from someone she barely knew nearby with some money and a note saying 'God told me you needed this'. There are a lot of stories out there about reasons people have to believe. they're nice to hear :)

(Late, I know; been busy)

@Iaculus- I think that really depends on the atheist (and, again, links back to the point that beliefs and morality are down to individuals). There are probably different atheist denominations... I find it ironic that atheism is becoming a religion of sorts. There are already missionaries. And some atheists must gain the same sense of belonging and enlightenment FROM being atheists- evidence, I believe, that the desire to bond under a belief has nothing to do with an innate belief in God.

Someone said that they have a religion because they LIKE to believe- that is my point. It shouldn't be confused for actual EVIDENCE, though, if you follow the logic of the above. Again, the fandom comparison. I believe in God because I like to think that there is a 'why', but I am aware that this is vanity, and my comprehension of the universe may simply be limited by the fact that I am human. I know that I have no answers. So I choose to believe, because the alternative makes no sense- to ME...

... but I do not confuse a belief in God with a belief in a religion.

As for the 'warts' argument, fish. Barrel. Who would like to shoot?

And as for the teacher... One day, in primary school, one of my teeth fell out. I kept this to myself, but when I returned to my place of residence- egad! The tooth fairy had left me a pound. How she did it, I have no idea, but I'll ask my mother at some point. Anyway, it's a true story, so make of it what you will.

I said that theocracies do not work 'as well as you think, as often as you think'. I did not say that they are completely, inherently unworkable... but then again, neither are dictatorships (cf: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk). It's just that relying on them as a generally-good form of government is asking for trouble.

The Deep South's current issues are with LGBT rights (up to and including a worrying lack of hate-crime legislation in some states), the Intelligent Design business (anything that is not a recognised scientific theory, a very particular term that does not just mean "an idea I have", has little-to-no place in science class, or at least not on the same level as an empirically-tested theory, in the same way that the theory of evolution does not deserve to be the central topic in an English class), and good ol' abstinence-only sex education (wanting your kids not to have sex until marriage is fine, but failing to prepare them for unexpected eventualities - and assuming that married sex is automatically safe - is not). All three of these are heavly influenced by Christian pressuree groups.

In fact, in a way, these can all be considered precisely the sorts of things you complain about - 'leaders manipulating the public using religion' - seeing as they either spread misinformation (Intelligent Design being a scientific theory), or restrict the public's options (LGBT rights and sex ed). What do you mean by 'the people should have the power', though? That everyone should have the right to do as they wished (within reason), or that policy should be set according to the will of the majority? If the latter, I can certainly see the early Christians taking issue with that... when they weren't being set on fire/crucified/fed to wild animals/otherwise killed horribly by the will of the majority, anyway.

Two things re: the warts. First off, were any other treatments used on them? Second off, warts are known to be particularly susceptible to the placebo effect (which prayer certainly provides) - which may be due to the fact that they're caused by viruses, and physiological stress weakens the immune system.

And on a completely different note:

@eeyop- I notice that you are a big Fullmetal Alchemist fan- do the atheist messages bother you? I'd have thought it would feel similar to how Narnia or 'Harry Potter turns to the Lord' feel to me...

Oh, man, you did not just compare Narnia with 'Harry Potter Turns to the Lord'. That's like mentioning Clarke and Paolini in the same breath because they both include atheist themes in their work.

@Iaculus- my sense of humour is strange. Besides, HPTTTL is a work of art.

I am NEVER serious. Well, rarely. You should know that by now...

I've been away from this for too long. Now I'm getting lost within the new direction this is taking o_o

>>34 Ah, I see. I'm a little dense so you must make it clearer for me. So we're not continuing our previous argument, or does that mean you've agreed with my latest points?
Also, concerning >>32's (Trapped in Reality) quote on the bible not being changed, it has, mainly stemming from the language being translated over and over again into other hundreds of languages. But the main general message still runs throughout the translations, it's just in different ways. The man who I talked to at my church told me that because of the language being changed from the original Jewish the message of the bible is changed too. Even though the general message is there in an English bible, it can't give the same meanings as there are in the Jewish versions. He said the only way we can really understand the bible fully is to learn the original language for it.

Which kind of means that the bibles in different languages aren't exactly complete in that way :s

>>38 Right, it is nice to have something to believe in but is that the only reason to do it? Because it feels nice? Then that would make the religion pointless because that is not it's purpose. For Christianity, and all religions, to believe in God means believing he's really there, not that 'hmm, maybe he is real, maybe he's not; but I'd like to think so' sort of way, you know? It's much more serious than a thought like that, but that's not to say that Christianity is dull or one-minded. You must take it deeper into your heart. Don't see things with your eyes but with your heart.
Sorry if that was a bit too serious for you heh, I can think too deeply sometimes.

And now I notice that a few more posts has been addded while writing my last post. I'm so slow.

>>44 Yeah I am a FMA fan, kind of a strange liking since I don't agree with Ed that humans are just merely bodies that can be bought; or perhaps not so strange as religion can easily come into that. I was somewhat offended by the episode in which he said that heh. So yes, the atheist attitude he has bothers me from his words that 'scientists, or alchemists, are the closest things to a god', which is blasphemous to me because well, in the 12 commandments it says that there should be no other god but the one true God. And humans like to play god, but they seem to forget that they are not gods.
Although Ed admits that humans are not gods, but mere humans in the episode where Nina and her dog dies, which is turn-around from his previous attitude.

@eeyop- Oh, I didn't notice your earlier post; I'll check back in a minute.

As for translations- don't forget the people with power cutting, adding and altering content for personal gain.

As for my reason for believing in God, it has been misconstrued. Again. This is becoming a pattern- am I writing in riddles, or are my posts being skim-read?

I say that I believe that there is a reason for everything, based on my personal experiences so far, and because of the human desire for a 'why'? But while a person may think that everything needs a 'why' or a cause, that may be BECAUSE they are human, and that need for a reason is a limitation of the human mind. Therefore, my belief may well be wrong. I believe because the alternative makes no sense to ME, but that may just be because I, as a human, do not have the capacity to understand or accept the alternative.

Or it may just be my personality. What does our resident atheist believe?

I believe that there is no inherent purpose to reality - that most of what happens does so due to simple chemistry and physics filtered through a myriad of probabilities. I believe that we are here because of simple, random chance and the mostly-unconnected decisions of others, and that death is the end for us.

I also believe that we are incredibly fortunate to have the opportunity to live our lives and shape the world as we do, regardless of how we received it, and that given there isn't anything else, we should strive to make the best of it that we can. I believe that having no purpose to begin with does not prevent you from creating your own, whatever that might be. I am an altruist by choice - I try to be kind, polite, and helpful insofar as I can simply because I like people as a whole, and because I believe that kindness engenders further kindness.

I wish to create a mortal, physical legacy, not to rack up karma points for another life, but rather to somehow ensure that I am remembered, and that my living presence on this world has resulted in some lasting improvement for it and those who come after me.

That's my goal, anyway - I have no idea whether I'll achieve it or not, and many things (not least my own human frailties) render it less likely than I might hope, but it seems only fair to aim for it anyway.

That about answer things?

Very nicely put. I will never agree with the first part, but the second is roughly my own philosophy- I just don't apply it on the internet. Because I am a lousy hypocrite with a cruel sense of humour. And because I like experimenting on people by exposing them to my personas, to further my experience of the world and my understanding of it. Yes, I am warped. I find this fact rather amusing. Which is more warped. Etc.

>>51 1st point: The bible may have been written by human hands, but again the words in it are inspired by God, apart from the letters and poems in it, like from Paul. But you say that it was created by people. Have you ever heard of the many manuscripts, papers and names of locations found supporting the bible? In a documentary I watched about the bible there have been found many ancient writings matching with information in the bible, and architecture that the bible names, existing in the world. There is a place called Megiddo-something where the final battle between Christ and Satan is to take place, I think. There is even a letter by Caesar mentioning Christ.

And how can you explain how the bible predicts the natural disasters the earth will experience nearer the second coming of Christ? Look at the latest earthquake in Haiti for example. It's impossible that the authors of the bible will have been able to document such information about so many details about the activites, events, names and small details of its time AND the future events.

The man in church (Greg, that's his name) says that the higher-ups may be hiding information concerning the truth of things to manipulate people, as you've said; and to protect themselves by maintaining that control. They don;t want to lose power. That's how they work.

2nd point: God has a purpose for everyone, connecting to your belief that everything has a purpose. He chooses who goes through trials and become stronger, he has a reason for their life specifically to spread his word.

I understand that he does not need trials or proof of strength to know if someone is strong; he knows everything. In the bible it says when you are weak you are strong, meaning when you are down or beaten God works through you to make you stronger. This is how he shows himself and demonstrates his power through you for others to see. Trials show God in action if you open your heart to him. When you have looked everywhere for help but finding none, the only thing left to turn to is God. And that's when you can believe in him, when all else fails.
As I've said before in another post, the bible says you shouldn't lean on yourself when in trouble, but lean on God; along those lines. The everyday and amazing miracles you've heard of or witnessed testify to God's real power.

>>52 I don't agree with your first point either because then what is the point of talking right now if the reality of things is so obscure? If everything is due to physics and biology, and that is how things are run by today, and death is the ultimate ending then...what's the point of striving to be better people, what's the point of being kind when at the end of our lives, we become nothing?
What's the point of being remembered when nobody will remember after dying?

I feel that your first point made the rest of your post erm pointless heh, not to be rude. I can't think of the human race evolving from apes, from simple animal instincts to the working intelligent thinking mind, knowing art and thinking about the idea of existance.
Why are there still primates on earth then?

If God does exist and he's as great as they say, why did he create humans? Really, we're destroying the planet, killing his beloved animals, we're sadistic (everyone is to a different extent, admit it!) There's a severe disproportion with the yin and yang.

Really, if I were God I wouldn't have invented us (paradox?) Which is why I'm such a firm atheist. We are proof that God either doesn't exist or he's doing a bad job, cause the planet would be an all round better place without us

No offence intended towards any Christians. These just be my views.

>>51 That's some shaky logic there. The fact that a place like New York exists does not necessarily mean that Spider-Man exists, and the fact that Napoleon existed does not mean that he started a major international incident over a missing dragon egg. Ever seen those Hollywood flicks 'based on historical events'? Yeah.

Oh, and where'd you get the thingy on the Haiti quake? That sort of thing tends to get rather less impressive when you realise that the exact same verse has been seen as 'perfectly predicting' a half-dozen other incidents.

>>52 What's the point of not doing so? Last I checked, we were part of a fascinating, complex, and often endearing species on a perfectly nice planet, with an entire universe to explore. Why does it matter where we came from, or where we're going? If that's not a reason to make the best of our time here, I'm not sure what is.

As for altruism, well... let me put it this way. When you help out your friends and loved ones, is it because you consider it your divinely-mandated duty, or just because you care about them and like to see them happy? As mentioned, I rather like humanity, so why not try to improve their lot in whatever small way while I'm here - not for my own satisfaction, but for theirs? Why not see if I can improve things a little?

That's one gripe I have with arguing religion on the 'net - the 'if I didn't have God, I'd be a sociopath' argument. It isn't exactly helping one's case.

I think you misunderstand the concept of evolution. Its central aspect is 'survival of the fittest' - that is to say, the creatures best adapted to their environment ('fit' for it) are most likely to thrive. We and most other primates adapted differently due to different evolutionary pressures caused by different habitats - savannah and forests, respectively. Note, for instance, that our upright gait lets us see farther, whilst making us less well-suited for climbing. The high intelligence, meanwhile, is more necessary when you cannot outrun or hide from your predators and prey as easily as you can in a forest.

You will note also that the large primates, whose evolutionary roles are most similar to ours, have become increasingly endangered - you could say that we're phasing them out to some extent. This is not to say that them disappearing off the face of the earth is inherently good, right, and necessary - evolution is a natural phenomenon with no will of its own, like an earthquake or hurricane. It is not a drive by all creatures towards a simgle, transcendent endpoint, but simply the observation that life gradually adapts to wherever it happens to live, often to the exclusion of places where it doesn't usually live.

@Eeyop- Iaculus has covered this pretty well, so I will just add:

1. You will never see me state that Jesus is a myth. He is a legend. The Bible is a mix of historical truth, mistakes, fantasy and lies. Ever heard of king James?
2. I suggest that you don't comment on the theory of evolution if you don't know it (or rather, you know the incorrect version propagated by those that are benefited by distorting it); it weakens your argument.
3. Your belief that God has a purpose for people is just that, a belief. There is no evidence. I believe it, as I believe that anything as complex as the universe must have a purpose, but this may just be because my brain works in that way. Whether or not the fact that my brain works in that way is evidence of God is a question that can never be answered.

@Iaculus- that is exactly what irritates me most in most theists' approach to atheists, too- and I'm a theist. You have enviable patience.

@Dragonfriend- you could argue that that does not disprove God, but just human descriptions/perceptions of God. The fact is, we have no way of knowing if he is benevolent, omnipotent or omniscient, these are just human ideas. It comes down to whether you believe that the description of God in holy texts is the only possible description of God. I believe that nobody has the answers, and no-one ever will, because we are just human. It's too big for us. For all I know, though, I'm completely wrong. But I won't make the mistake of saying that I am correct about anything- how can I? For all we know, the purpose of life is to plant cacti.

>>42 last paragraph, the two stories don;t act as analogies towards one another since they're not parallel . . .

>>56 To be nice and politically correct and all, you ought tto say 'theists' rather than 'Christians'. Also, what you say would mean that you don;t believe in God because you think that if god did exist, he's doing things badly. And a theist would nto say that because they would not think that they could place themselves in the position of God. I don;t understand how anyone CAN say 'if I were God' - humans find it hard enough to understand what oneanother are thinking and why rthey do what they do - and that's with great amounts of studying behavioral (spelling?) patterns and even physical evidence by doing brain scans. Now, to think what a force/power/presence that you have so little idea of the nature of is thinking should surely be impossible, should it not?

@60- the analogy works because the logical basis for each have the same flaws. Any argument you use against one can be used against the other. Try it; you'll see what I mean.

>>56 Now, I'd probably disagree with that. Earth without humanity would be... different, not better or worse. Different creatures would thrive, different creatures would die out. We're not the only beings with a capacity for sadism - dolphins and chimpanzees, for instance, can be vicious, vicious little buggers. In fact, there is docoumented evidence of chimpanzees employing primitive and highly unpleasant forms of warfare - we're talking rape and baby-eating here.

As sapient beings, we have an unprecedented capacity to shape life and the environment to our whims, but much of that's more likely to backfire on us than on the planet, in the long-term. I doubt, for instance, that many sea-creatures would object too much to the ice-caps melting, even as the waves sweep over London. What makes us unique is our ability to consciously preserve and protect these things if we wish, not our capacity for destruction - a swarm of locusts can manage the latter just fine.

What intrigues me is our potential and our adaptability - no other species in the planet's history has got this far on brains alone, and I'm rather interested to see how it pans out. The extraordinary acts of kindness and self-sacrifice you see alongside the daily atrocities are just a pleasant perk.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I have. Life is too miserable without him. I've spent all my life in a church, and I've felt empty. It wasn't until middle school when I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into my life when I felt that hole in my soul fill.

Right, on the theory of evolution, I do understand it and how it works . I believe it does exist and is happening all around us, but I cannot believe it started the race of mankind because the bible says God created man. My guess on why there's not much evidence on this, and there's some scientifically i.e chimpanzees sharing human genes is that maybe God is testing us on our faith on that one. Again, he works in mysterious ways; and I can't explain that on my own.

>>56 Well, that question has been answered indirectly in previous posts: God created us because he loves us. He made us wonderfully and fearfully, knowing what we are capable of and what destructive things we would do. But he loves us so much anyway, just because we are his creation; and he is a God who gives life, not a selfish God who does things for his own benefit but one who provides for every living thing we know. It's another of those subjects that is confusing and hard to understand, because with the logical way we think in, we see creating something that is (somewhat) detrimental to the planet and morally capricious illogical.
But God's love transcends logic and human understanding. That's most of what I can say about that.

>>57 I was just drawing on your point that we're all here because of chemical/biological activities by chance producing all life including us. I quote from your post: "I believe that there is no inherent purpose to reality..." which I inferred as you saying that then life really has no meaning, therefore no point because we're here from random chance; and so whatever thing we do is pointless, leading to life being an illusion of purpose.
I wasn't saying I didn't believe in evolution, that is very real.

>>58 1st point: I did say in my other last post that there are corroborating manuscripts from around the world pertaining to the bible and supporting it. And that perhaps the government is hiding some of this evidence of the bible to manipulate people's views so they don't stop looking to them for a purpose in life. A little like the Pharisees of Jesus's time.

3rd point: I believe there's evidence of God having a purpose for everyone. First off, the bible says that everyone who hears the good news must spread it to everyone else in God's name. 'We are the body of Christ' - we each have a job to do, like the parts of the body.
Every day hundreds of people turn to God. Their lives change in a single moment of faith, they shed their old life and change their character for the better. You'd be amazed at what kind of people start to believe in God. I've read a biography on someone who was really low in life; he'd beat people up from anger, he was discriminated and put in prison. But one Christian told him about the bible and he'd begun to change inside, and in the end believed in God. (The biography's called Taming the Tiger.) That person even gave a talk in England.

There are plenty of miracles happening around the world, leading people to God. They may not be bringing dead people back to life, but they're still life-changing still. Trapped in Reality gave you a true story of one.

>>62 That's why I hate the idea that we humans have derived from chimpanzees capable of such acts against their own kind. It's scary as well as disgusting.

And our type of destruction is not the same as those of the locust - they are devouring crops for food, not to wage a war against us from a whim. We in history destroy territory and kill people and animals for our own selfish gain i.e racism, fashion, sport, not for food. I know that not all wars might have been on a selfish basis, but they're certainly not natural.

@eeyop- You blatantly do not know the theory of evolution, because you continue to insist that it states that humans have evolved from apes. This is not the case; the theory states that humans and apes have a common ancestor. There is an enormous difference.

• Your 'evidence' is still from the Bible. And you will find examples of happy converts to every religion.

• I KNOW that those manuscripts exist. That is why I say that Jesus is a legend, not a myth. If you do not know the difference between a myth and a legend, look it up.

@eeyop- You blatantly do not know the theory of evolution, because you continue to insist that it states that humans have evolved from apes. This is not the case; the theory states that humans and apes have a common ancestor. There is an enormous difference.

• Your 'evidence' is still from the Bible. And you will find examples of happy converts to every religion.

• I KNOW that those manuscripts exist. That is why I say that Jesus is a legend, not a myth. If you do not know the difference between a myth and a legend, look it up.

Okay, you didn't have to post twice. I understand evolution in its own term; I didn't quite know that apes and humans split from one ancestor. I always see images of chimps and humans in the general scheme of human evolution so forgive me for that misconception.
I was saying that I didn't like the idea of humans coming from something so simplified from the very beginning.

1st point: And every religion should lead to the one religion that spread to every other religion. So converting to one religion kind of connects to the first religion.

2nd point: So, you're agreeing that God does exist? Because Jesus is God.

@eeyop-

1. Ah, that was bad phrasing on my part. I was also referring to 'converts' to atheism; the word 'religion' was misleading. Incidentally, what say you on converts to Scientology?
2. No, I believe that there was a man named Jesus who preached at around the time the Bible claims. Whether or not he was God is another point entirely- I do not believe that he was. By your logic, Muslims believe that Jesus is God. And, as I have stated before (multiple times) I am a theist, so I do believe that God exists.

@eeyop- another opposing argument to your first point is that humans have just taken parts from older religions and altered them with time- humans like tradition. For example, as I'm sure you know, Jesus was not born on the 25th of December; Christians took the date of a pre-existing festival and changed it to Christmas.

>>68
>>69

Belief in jesus does not equate in a belief in God. I don't think that logic applies to anyone but Christians (not too sure on the likes of Rastafarianism). I'm sure a lot of people believe in the existence of a man called Jesus, but they didn;t agree with his message. Muslims believe in Jesus. They believe a lot in his message, believe in his miracles, but they don;t think he is God. I think quite a few historians believe in Jesus' existence, but they might well be atheists for all you know.

>>70
I think that supports the argument rahter than opposes it - if all religions were stemmed form the same root religion, than the differences between them would be due to the taking of other practises and adapting them inot a new religion.

@71- I am well aware that Muslims believe that Jesus was one of Allah's prophets, but was not Allah, nor the son of Allah, as Allah neither begets or is begotten. That was my POINT.

The practices of different religions stay similar, but the beliefs that go with these practices change. Obviously, between the 'newer' religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) there is a lot of overlap, but if you compare Hinduism to Islam, for example... The only real link between religions is the belief in God, but then there's Buddhism. So we could say that morality was the link, but then no two religions can agree on their morals.

God created humans for us to worship him. I mean he is an all-powerful God. He thinks of us as his children. As little kids, (most of us) idolized our parents as impressive, bullet-proof beings that will always protect us. God is our parent.

He can't force us to do anything, though. He gave us free will. We can worship him, or we don't worship him. He cries over those who don't, but he doesn't interfere in their lives. Those that do, he rejoices over, and like any good parent, still lets them make their own decisions, but nudges them into the right direction.

Adam and Eve messed up big time. He forgave them, but what good parent doesn't punish wrong-doing in his children? He corrects them with love in hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

Life puts us through trials, and we grow from these experiences. We are still living with faith like a child, but we can't remain as baby Christians. Most refuse to accept that.

On a similar topic, what are your thoughts on Satan?

sorry about this late reply. Again.

>>69 Point 1: What do I think about Scientology? My initial thought would be it's kind of weird. How can believers of it think of themselves as immortal spiritual beings, when firstly they're not born as a spirit; secondly, 'immortal'? That's just putting yourself on God's level and that isn't logical to me. Plus the whole reincarnation thing, I don't believe in that. God gave us one life to lead and only one life. I find reliving in another body after death seems quite selfish when you think about it. Reincarnation isn't even a proven thing, it's more like a believed theory or prediction come from the believers. Has anyone ever claimed themselves as the person who died before them? Unless in their new life they're a completely different person, which I don't understand either.

The whole thing confuses me really to be honest. What's your view on it?

Point 2: So as a theist you believe that God and Jesus are two separate beings? And you believe in both. But you also say, in previous posts, you know there is evidence of the bible's truth and there's no denying it. So wouldn't you come to believe that Jesus as God, in a separate yet connecting spirit, is true too, considering that the rest of the bible or most of it has so much clarity?

>>70 Right, I understand that part about people changing methods of religion to fit with their world and traditions. It's really just people who alter beliefs or redirect them toward idol gods to suit their purposes, or indulge lies, control over each other etc. If the practises of most religion are similar to an extent, it can be believed that some parts of religion that do not match or lead from the practises cover the truth, and are lies, made by man.

>>73 That is one purpose why he created us, and another is to spread his word so that others can come to know him and do the same.

The free will bit can be seen as a stupid thing to give us by some people. Why give us the will to disobey him? I can compare life to the Sims game; you can either let your Sims do what they want and intervene to correct their mistakes, or you control everything they do to avoid them flooding the bathroom or something. How disatisfying and boring life can be if God were to do everything for us and keep everything so perfect. That's not what life's about. And God loves us enough to let us think for ourselves, as individuals. His love is that big, knowing how sinful we can be and what we're capable of.

But Satan is to blame for the fall of mankind too, introducing temptation to Eve. But some people seem to think it's all her fault >:|

My thoughts on Satan? Well, taking out how an evil, cunning, sadistic, malicious, and chronic liar he is, I'd say he's a very troubled fellow, as an understatement. And I don't feel like meeting him any time soon. What about you?

Dude, there's a lot of thick comments here and I didnt really feel like reading them all! I read the last one and Mostly agree with ya!

Im also a christian and have been since the age of thirteen. I like discussing various philosophical theories 'cause it helps me strengthen my own faith...so...yeah!...

My drama teacher came up with a cool saying the other day ... 'Trying to explain God to Humans is like trying to explain the TV's electric system to a cat, he's just not meant to be within our understanding...' I thought that was pretty cool...

Oh! and just coz i feel like saying it (This is relevent to anime fans...) Vic Mignogna is a christian!! PEACE OUT DUDE! YOU ROCK!

haha, that's fine. There were a lot of deep themes discussed above, so no worries. You can ask other questions or bring up new thoughts if you like. Or the same ones, whatever! Let's talk about it all over again ;)

I like that saying of your teacher's, that's a good example. Another one I've heard is to draw a big circle on paper. That would be God's knowledge. Then make a tiny dot in the middle of it. That would be mankind's knowledge. Makes you feel kinda stupid but it's quite a true illustration of how much we know compared to what God knows heh. Yes, we are very stupid -_-'
Good thing He's on our side!

Okay first of all nice thread. secondly I didn't read the whole thread just few things here and there, what triggered my attentions were things likes "a Christian is a Christian. Both denominations believe in the same God" of the OP of this thread, and the concept of atheism and the theism goes with morals.

let me introduce myself first. I am a Christian Eastern Orthodox in PAPERS only. I actually don't believe in the "power above"
I was baptized when I was 1 year old. That's how i got my first name [and that's how all greeks get their names too] my name is after the saint Eleftherios: http://www.atheavensgate.com/Saints%20of%20the%20Church/18-St.%20Eleftherios.jpg
christianity lessons where a main course in school for all 12 years of 1st level education. even my first ID card had a X.O. [Christian Orthodox] on it, later government passed a law of removing few things from the new ID cards [like religion].
Church, I remember to be forced to go when I was very young [until one day when I was 6 or something, wearing a skirt and sitting on the chair with my legs open and on the chair flushing the priest with my cotton white little panties :P]
I can't say I am an atheist even though i might act as one. lets say that I'm a non-religion person.

on the subject now. Christianity [if you with of all types of christians, catholic, protestants, eastern-western orthodox, other christians] they are the majority of the population.
I personally never understood the concept of the god being a man! [why not a woman?] also there are not historical statements that Jesus Christ ever exist in the world[I am not sure of that one though, I read it somewhere so I leave it as it is, take it as a personal opinion] Christianity is also a very young religion, and its concept is actually the same with previous religions. Religion in general is a way for humans to find strength in themselves. from the beginning of the human race, ppl raised their heads and made a god out of the Sun, because sun meant, light, warmth, food, safety. at their first sun eclipse they didn't know what sacrifice to do at the god sun so not to leave them.
now a days more and more ppl don't need to find strength in something other than themselves [that's how atheism started]
there is a big difference between "disappointed christians" and "atheists" but ppl seem to mix those two a lot.
a real atheist is the person, who do not believe in anything else than their own selves.
if someone claims that is an atheist but on the contrary blames whatever known gods for their own misery, then sorry but my friend you are not an atheist you as are disappointed with your religion.
a real atheist would say "I fucked up" not "where was god when I needed him" also to be an atheist you have to have balls, because when you need help you are on your own, there is not "lord help me" , or "oh my god, what do i do" or "holy mother of christ" and such.

as for the last thing that got my attention, is the morals and religion thing.
morals are come from your family, not any religion, I got baptized when i was 1 did that made me a better person than the younger baby next door that it wasn't baptized yet? I think not.

>the following sentences will have some curse language so sorry about it

also I don't know how far catholics go with that shit but the orthodox church says that the newborns are sinners until their baptism they hold the Adam and Eve fuck night sin. and because such things are human's bullshit to say the least, is the reason i don't believe in church and religion in general. because whatever good man kind put a hand on it turned it into shit. religion too. how many wars and genocides had been made in the name of some god, especially from christians. Jesus condemned temples but ppl continued to build churches and earn money, catholic and orthodox churches were separated because they didn't agree on the money. Jesus said "Love of ALL" [or something] but ppl still follow the "eye for an eye" and "turn the other [ass]cheek" [as it was mentioned].
priests rape young boys and girls, priests make strict orders, to make ppl repent, and those who claim to be strong believers and go to church every sunday and pray every night etc, they turn they head and gossip, they turn the other side and curse, they turn the other way ans abuse.
there was a murder of a famous greek actor about a year or so ago, it came out that the man was homosexual and his murderer was a man from the streets, drugs along with sex turned to be a crime with victim the actor. the next days a priest screamed on the TV camera that the actor was a sinner and that he will burn in hell and that his soul will never find peace, and that he curse him too because he was a homosexual.
that was like the priest who says the young woman who lost her child due to pregnancy complications that she is a murderer, it is the same as the law of women who are on their period can not go closer to "holy items".
sorry but I prefer to be without religion or even god, than to have such losers tell me what to do or not.
I am a person that I don't use the "OMG" I prefer to say "holy fuck" instead of "holy mother of whatever"
Also as I don't ask for gods help I don't blame any for my misery either.
that's All I had to say
sorry for the long post.

Actually, there was quite a bit of historical evidence of varying reliability to suggest that Jesus lived around about the time the Bible said he did. Here's a fairly well-sourced Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Also, I don't think you quite get the 'turn the other cheek' business. It's quite the opposite of demanding an eye for an eye.

Lastly, it was not temples themselves that Jesus condemned, but rather their misuse for commercial purposes. Hence the ejection of the merchants from the Great Temple in Jerusalem. Doubt he would have been very fond of Scientology, either.

I was raised in a Christian household. I respect religious people (of any demonination) but I am not religious any more. I can believe that there is a God, but whether he is the one I was taught about is a whole different thing.

I find it difficult to believe that takes an active interest in the lives of humans on little things (thinking of the whole 'we prayed for the warts to dissapear- and they did! 'miracle' mentioned earlier) yet is happy for man to 'make his own way' on big things- like Haiti right now.

Belief in Jesus doesn't mean a belief in God (eg, the Jehovahs Witnesses.)

Also, as previously mentioned, I find the hypocrsy of religious people pretty appalling and the bible contradicts itself with it rules of conduct.

The old testament God sounds almost psychotic at times (the destruction of Caanon's (sp) people, the books that just discussed all the nations that were going to die for their sins...) where Jesus and the new testament are all peace and love. Yet God is meant to be consistent (??)
Another example would be the whole 'sins of the father.' In the first testament, entire families are slaughtered for what one family member did, and generations are apparently cursed. Yet, the latter hlf of the Bible condems this.

There were a few other things that made me leave organised religion but I'll leave it there for now.

>>79 You had a lot to say. One thing: you really didn't need to use the kind of language, thanks. That wasn't being very respectful to the first post I made or to everyone here who may be believers. Or to God really.
Anyway, can't change that now.

The other things you've said were mentioned before in the previous posts and I answered them if you've read them. But I will just say them again here anyway, in no particular order.
I'd say Jesus was born a man instead of a woman because it wouldn't have been very effective if he was a woman. In all societies women were not seen as praise-worthy than men, in the past. Rather unfairly women were dubbed as the weaker of the sexes, in mind and body, and that they were more sinful in nature than men. Although in today's world women are treated more fairly than in the old times, they are still treated in some ways weaker and 'less worthy' than men in positions of power or authority.
If women were not as respected and acknowledged so much during the time of the bible, how do you expect Jesus (if he was a woman) to be able to pull off his journeys, teachings, and miracles without being backhanded for being too ambitious, unlady-like, and crazy, as women were seen as, if they did something deviating from 'normal' women-behaviour? People would definitely not have listened as much to him then, or followed him and believed in God.
It was more logical to be a man so that people would actually listen, and be able to without causing a lot of unnecessary contraversy for following a woman, 'the weaker of the species'. Do you understand? God wasn't being sexist at all; he was being logical in that way.

On another point: Christianity is a young religion? How do you know that? Give me the names of those previous religions then. If those religions you're talking about are the ones existing today, like Buddism, Hinduism etc, I don't think they're much older than Christianity. Other religions must have come from Christianity, developing into themselves as separate groups. That's why some of their practises are so similar to Christianity's and why in the centre of them is a deity called God, with different names for Him but the same meaning. In Indian religion they believe that all religions lead to the same God. 'Allah' means God too. Other religions are somehow linked to Christianity in one way or another, so it makes sense that somehow they have run off from it and have changed slightly over hundreds of years to be how they are now, yet still having similar features to each other and Christianity.
I was told that religion is like maths. There is only one subject out of all the stems that come from it, and which all lead back to it in the end.

People are the ones who change things, not God. God is still the same as he was in the beginning and still teaches what is taught in the bible. It's only people's ideologies and superstitions that make them want to believe in a 'sun god' or even make themselves as gods. It's peoples' fault that religion has such a shallow appearance these days, so it makes it so hard to associate with it. 'The ways of this world are evil'. Shouldn't believe everything you hear, especially from humans.

Continuing from my last post because it got too long.

>>79 On your last point about morals: You learn rules, common sense, behaviour, thought, speech, manners, what's right and wrong generally in life, and a lot of other things than you would from other people; because your parents are supposed to be your first important teachers in life. It's a bit more intricate in life teaching than the bible, but the bible does teach about important ways to live your life too.
Yes, morals can come from your family, but not every one of them. Face it, your family isn't perfect and they can't know everything that is right or wrong. In fact, what one family sees as correct behaviour in a certain situation, another family sees it as misbehaviour in 'normal' society.
The bible says you should 'honour your mother and father' in the 12 commandments. But the commandment above that is 'to worship God as the one true God and no others'. That makes God more important than your family, as he is the creator of all who rules over your life. And his teachings are perfect.

I think you got the concept of baptism all wrong, if you're saying that it 'should have' made you a better person. Baptism is an act to show you're ready to be cleansed of sin by God and to be in his family. It's a step you must take yourself to show you really mean it that you believe and worship God. Baptism isn't like a sort of 'magical' cleansing of your soul; it's more of a symbol of washing your sins away, and being 'born again'.
Since you're not any better than your neighbour, it just shows that you haven't given your heart to God at all, and have decided not to follow his teachings. Otherwise, you would probably know God a lot more personally.

Oh yeah, on to your very last whole paragraph: All I can say simply, and I have said this before, is that it's man's (and women's) fault that such crimes, debauchery and evils had come around over the years, never God's. The problem is the free will he gave to us all. But that's because he loved us so much that he didn't want to rule over us forcibly and make us love him back; if it was forced it wouldn't be true love, would it? He wanted us to willingly love him but with our own choice, so that it's all the more true and deeper. That goes with how we choose to live our lives too.
But, as you can see, many people ignore God and do their own thing. It was their choice, and it's still our choice to do what we do. So, God's fault? No, not really; it's OUR fault that wars came about, that murders, rapes and stealing exist. We choose to do that, then blame God for it, which is just naive.

>>81 I've said this before, but I will say it again. 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'The human mind cannot comprehend the mind of God', something along those lines. I guess that's not such a convincing answer for you, on the point of why in the old testament of the bible is so different from the new, and why God seemed so ruthless before the New. But that's what the bible says. And would you believe you can understand how God works anyway? He isn't human, you know. And he knows EVERYTHING; how things will turn out, what will happen, when they will happen. It's not something that can be explained so much as 'he's God'.
So he knows what he's doing, but I can't explain his actions (except for those that make sense heh).

Few things you're mistaken about there, eeyop. First off, not all ancient civilisations were as patriarchal as you cut them out to be. Egypt in particular had at least five female pharaohs, and relatively equal rights. Also, I believe that katakana-lady was grumbling about the perceived gender of God, not Jesus. Note that in both the Old and New Testament, God is referred to as a 'he'.

Hinduism in its current form is at least three thousand, five hundred years old, and its roots stretch back almost seven thousand years... as opposed to Christianity, which is two thousand years old (if that), and a spin-off of the three-thousand-year-old religion of Judaism. Krishna is generally accepted to have lived around 3200-3100 BC, whilst Abraham was around the 2000 BC-mark, half a milennium after the erection of the Great Pyramid of Giza by Egyptian polytheists. Please, do a little bit more research before you make these sorts of claims.

Also, wasn't it ten commandments?

Well, most societies are patriarchal, that's what I'm saying.
Huh, I see. Well, guess I've learned something new. Or old, whatever. I was going by the bible, since it does say God was there in the beginning of time. So I'd figured Christianity was there first too. Never mind.

Ah, my mistake. sorely embarassed now I'm no good with numbers apparently.

A number of societies around the Mediterranean and the Middle East at the time were patriarchal, yes. Globally, I wouldn't be so sure - hard-line patriarchy was largely the creation of Abraham and Aristotle (indeed, it's suggested that the latter cribbed from the former), and even a fair number of civilisations around that area weren't so keen on it. The Phoenecians, for instance, were thoroughly egalitarian, and the various Celtic tribes were so diverse in their attitudes that we can't even get a decent average out of it.

Certainly, though, the notion that patriarchal societies were the norm at the time is on some very shaky ground... though I wouldn't go so far as to assume the 'matriarchal golden age' theory, either. That seems too much like wishful thinking in the other direction.

>>82

>One thing: you really didn't need to use the kind of language, thanks. That wasn't being very respectful to the first post I made or to everyone here who may be believers. Or to God really

I said I am sorry for the language I was going to use and also I didn't put any god in the same sentence with my curse language.
and let me explain a bit why I used that language.
Because I new born is a new born and it can't be a SINNER because church says so [see the word church?], it is like they are telling me that when I got born and i wasn't given to my mother for the 20 first days of my life because they putted me into quarantine, BECAUSE I was holding the Adam's and Eve's "exploration of the wonders of sexual activities" sin [the F word I used in the other post]. Sorry but I can't accept that neither the fact of sick babies or babies who are sold to pederasts.
I have never been a blasphemer in my life and I will never be so please don't accuse me for that.

secondly the god-goddess thing, I wasn't talking about Jesus, but The god everyone is talking about. as for goddesses Kali was one, and also don't forget the female ancient greek gods.

What I don't get is why you get upset with the "Christianity is a young religion" christianity is 2000 years old ONLY.
Buddhism is a bit older than Christianity

>Buddha was born in Lumbini, around the year 563 BCE

Hinduism even more

>The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India date back to the late Neolithic in the early Harappan period (5500–2600 BCE)

Judaism:
At its core, the Tanakh is an account of the Israelites' relationship with God from their earliest history until the building of the Second Temple (c. 535 BCE).
Although I was actually referring to religions before Christianity like Egyptian gods

>Cattle were domesticated in Egypt by 8,000 B.C., and by 5,500 B.C. stone-roofed subterranean chambers and other subterranean complexes in Nabta Playa are seen to contain the tombs of ritually sacrificed cattle, indicating the worship of the goddess Hathor

or Greek gods
Mainstream Greek religion appears to have evolved from the earlier Mycenaean religion from the Mycenaean civilization of Bronze Age Greece(3300–3000 BC).

>quote: "'The ways of this world are evil'. Shouldn't believe everything you hear, especially from humans."

That's the difference between us, I don't need to believe in that there are evil conspiracies to go on with my life. Also I did explained why the human at the beginning for the kind had make a god out of the sun, it wasn't superstition it was need for survival.

Last but not Least: don't get upset because there are ppl who don't believe, it's also choice as your choice to believe in god.

Technically, Kali is both male and female. In fact, so are a surprising number of Hindu gods.

It's complicated.

>>89 Well, yeah you said sorry that you were going to use swear words, but you still did it after reading my first post about not using them in posts. You just ignored it, either that or you didn't want to listen to it, which is kind of the same thing.
You were kind of blaspheming when you said the F word anyway; any swearing and substitutes for swear words are an offense to God really, even if you didn't use his name.

Well, Jesus is technically God, only in human form. Know the Holy Trinity? It's a bit complicated.

You know, I think the belief in a sun god was based on a superstition anyway. Bcause if believers of that god wanted to survive, they should not keep wasting food by giving it to a motionless statue or shrine and eat it.

Did I give the impression that I was upset that people don't believe? Well, I do know that it's everyone's choice not to, as well as to believe. What I'm upset about more is how stubborn people can be, and proud (of it).

>>91 you are being irritating by calling me blasphemer

>blaspheme: to speak about God or the holy things of a particular religion in an offensive way; to swear using the names of God or holy things.

I am going by science NOT the bible so spare me with the lessons please.

also by saying the I am sorry for what I'll write is an acknowledgment that I do respect your words. there is a very thick line between respect and doing what you have been told not too. I don't think I ever said anything in this thread that offended anyone personally.
and you put insulting and swearing in the same sentence so. in every language there are the swear words for a reason, they are not always offensive, there are cases that they used to make a point even more powerful.

you should really check again what you saying about god.
first you say that every religion is under the same god[ or something like that] then you say that jesus is god.

it is like you are saying to me that every other religion is a lie and that christianity is the only true faith.

>What I'm upset about more is how stubborn people can be, and proud (of it).

what do you mean by that? that I am probably proud and stubborn because I state such opinions? or that you are stubborn and proud for stating yours?

also I say it again, not all ppl believe in gods, so stop that "god this" "god that" it kind of erase your points in your first post.

@Eeyop- Research before you post, make sure you know what a post says before you reply to it, and don't make things up/give false definitions

@Katana-woman- Stop twisting Eeyop's words, ignoring the first post in the thread, being an absolute hypocrite (in other words, telling others off for being aggressive while being extremely aggressive yourself), allow others to HAVE BELIEFS and stop posting incoherent arguments in which one point bears no relation to the next.

I Believe in God...I'm a Christian too. :D

>>93 Thank you.
I wasn't trying to make things up; I was going by the knowledge that I have of things, which are mostly what were taught to me. On the meaning of blaspheming, I don't believe it's fixed within saying things which include words to do with God and his name; I say any words that have meanings of intentional offense, insult or name-calling qualities, whether or not directed at God, are against God anyhow. Bcause he doesn't support that kind of language; he stands for goodness and kindness.
So, Katana-woman, you believe God doesn't mind people using using foul language? Doesn't make sense if he's supposed to be a pure and holy God.

>>94 Cool, great to know that :))

It's usually wise to assume that you don't know everything, and research any potential sources of uncertainty before you make a declarative statement about something. Not always feasible, but wise.

Your teachers are not omniscient - they're only human, after all. Certainly, I've stumped mine more than once.

Personally, I don't hold swearing as inherently immoral - it's just a way to give your speech extra emphasis. The reason I disapprove of excessive swearing is because it's lazy communication - cursing loses its impact when you overuse it. Words should be used with care and precision, in writing and elsewhere, and not just flung out like weeks-old shit.

>>95
are you talking to me? if yes, why are you referring to me as "katana-woman"?
I was hopping that you wouldn't follow the "3 dots" person's antics. a person who called stupid my using of random Japanese in my fics, and then they use this technique to make up a name for me. katana=sword it is incorrect Japanese to say katana-woman, it doesn't mean "sword woman", that would be "katana no onna" also at the >>85 Iaculus called me "KATAKANA-lady" a.k.a: "second syllabary group of Japanese language-lady" because of the Katakana I use to write my name. FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana
You also thanking the same person, who calls me a hypocrite, and you are also keep calling me blasphemer
[but I guess those two words for your god are not "intentional offense, insult or name-calling"]
but anyway how should I know what your god mind or not? I don't believe in him so I can't be able to know.

Of course. I know I don't have all the answers; really I'm just using what I've been taught and what I've read on certain subjects so far. And remembering more or less the words that people have said in sermons and in person. I know they're not all-knowing as well, but they should be more knowledgable than me anyway.

I suppose that swearing can be a form of lazy communication, in want of a better way to express attitudes. Emphasis, yes it can be effective in certain areas. For humour...I have to admit, when used in good jokes I find it funny, although there's still a thought in my head saying 'that's wrong'. Being contradicting doesn't help.
But I do think swearing comes from a bad source, like when you get so furious at something, you just have to let it out. I understand that people are only human and all, they don't have unlimited patience; a plausible excuse, yet as humans we still have the choice to not do things we know are bad. Getting angry of course is not a good thing, and that's where I think curse words come from; when you want to 'damn' things or people to hell because you abhor them so much.

Although it's not so much in religious meaning like that nowadays; it's now more of an expression of hate and insults and crude jokes. When my friends sometimes swear I know they do it in a casual way, not intended to offend, but I still feel hurt by it because of the reason I gave in my last post. I think swearing has become less shocking or serious in some cultures, and has turned into a normal, everyday thing now as people became less and less religious. Which is probably why you don't find it as such a bad thing, as I do.

>>97 Sorry, I can't type with katakana characters and I didn't know how to address you since I didn't know what your name meant. Wasn't meaning to offend you there.

Well, you should probably know the nature of God generally more or less, even if you don't believe in him.

>>99 nobody asked you to say my name, but you find it okay to adopt someone else's way of addressing me, that's what is annoying in this case. to end that, I am known as SeraEris. my current name though is セーラーエリスは刀の女ですか。ＳｅｅｒａａＥｒｉｓｕ　ｗａ　ｋａｔａｎａ　ｎｏ　ｏｎｎａ　ｄｅｓｕｋａ？= Is SeraEris a sword woman?
you can call me SeraEris.

as for my "how should I know what your god mind or not"
I was being quite sarcastic with that.
and I would like you to answer my question.
let me rephrase myself from >>97:

>You are thanking the person who calls me a hypocrite, and you are also keep calling me blasphemer. Aren't those two words "intentional offense, insult or name-calling" for your god?

I want to know what you believe about that!

I'm calling you a hypocrite because you ARE a hypocrite. Read over your previous posts. Note the difference in Iaculus' self-aware humorous hypocrisy (otherwise known as irony) in his post, and yours. 'Katana-woman' evidently went over your head- it was a reference to your aggression (rather like attacking people with a KATANA), the fact that your name reminds me of Sephiroth and Aeris (the former masamuned the latter), and a play on the word 'katakana'. Incidentally, your name comes up as a bunch of blank squares on my phone's screen (it doesn't have pretentious wapanese fonts installed, for some reason). And please, google the difference between sarcasm and irony, because by saying that you were being sarcastic, you confirm that you were being insulting. Also, calling Catholic beliefs '5h1t' and saying 'holy f**k' generally counts as blasphemy. @Eeyop- kudos for your patience and your dignified approach. As silly as I frequently find you, you have a good heart.

wow u guys write really long comments i'm sure i'll read them eventually but firstly this is a really good thread, secondly i'm a christian and thirdly i've written this because something came up in my class and i said ‘sex before marriage hurts people’and then i was like ohhhhhhhhhh dear i'm in trouble and i need a way of getting my thoughts out and in order but i would like to hear what u guys think chritians and non- chritians...

Firstly, I do understand why you wouldn’t think it’s wrong. It’s just a bit of fun why shouldn’t you when both people are willing and use contraception. This is totally logical and if I wasn’t brought up in a Christian way I probably wouldn’t question that freedom however...
When I first thought about the reason I said ‘sex before marriage hurts people’ I thought about the fact that there is a lack and almost a fear amongst many (not all) people of commitment. To devote yourself entirely to one person for the rest of your life is scary and a huge decision to make. A lot of people now days who have sex before marriage- from what I can see- have a committed or sometimes even loving relationship. Some have meet someone and after one week or even one night have sex with them- which they are perfectly within their right to do but I don’t believe that can be called a deep relationship or one that is likely to survive. Marriage is therefore a symbol of commitment, loyalty and love. Not only that but in marriage you are declaring it to your family, friends and to God -proving your love and allowing them to stand witness, bless and share in the happiness. Also, least at the time you’re getting married you should believe that it is forever- it is concreted, stamped and set in stone.
My second point is that in today’s society sex has been devalued it has become an object, an advertising trick something instantly pleasurable- an animal instinct- simply lust. But I believe that there should be more to it than that. I see sex as something pure and special that you do with the one person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. This significance is hard to convey and understand so here’s a short story...
Before Creation there was God and god is love.
Why did god create the human race?
Because he was bored? No
Because he was Lonely? No. Father, son and Holy Spirit
Because he wanted love and adoration? No he was love and needed nothing else
However the nature of love is to give- protect, provide, grow, create...
Love therefore overflowed and created the human race as so Adam and eve where created
And because they were made in the image of God they also loved and tier love overflowed and so they created their children.

Sex is therefore a way to show your love to the other person. Why did God create us with interlinking bodies if we aren’t meant to become one physically? Giving yourself to them -submitting and being equal- however today more and more sex seems to be a power struggle- people are afraid of making themselves so vulnerable. In today’s world this kind of love is hard to find.
I am not applying this to all people I know there are some who aren’t married who have a deep commitment sometimes even more than those that are married. But some people will do anything and say anything to get sex- so if a guy says “I love you and want to spend forever with you” how is he to be believed. Marriage is not a guarantee but it isn’t a step that should be taken lightly.

Thirdly, even with contraception there is a chance of pregnancy and if that child is born there can be extreme pain. Unintentional pregnancy can cause a multitude of problems and pain for the child and parents.

Fourthly, sex outside of marriage can include affairs. People with multiple partners often get hurt.
Furthermore, there is a chance of getting an std when people have multiple partners where as there isn’t a chance when you are loyal to one person and one alone.

I know a woman who had a hard past with lots of sexual partners and who now never want sex again but that not the point. She told me that the first time she had sex it was tinged with shame. I know not everybody fell like this but a lot do and this isn’t what sex was created to be.

These arguments show that sex outside marriage can cause hurt to the individual but i think just by looking at the world today the social consequences are obvious.

I'm always innately suspicious of that whole 'golden age' thing - the fact that extramarital sex used to be harder to find does not necessarily mean that less of it happened, whilst the increased durability of marriage too often served as something of a trap. These days, if two people have irreconcilable differences, they no longer have such a harsh choice between the massive social stigma and economic loss of a divorce or wearing lots of makeup and nice, concealing clothing in order to hide the bruises... especially women.

Sex with multiple partners certainly raises your odds of catching something unpleasant, but not as much as one might think if you insist on using the proper protection. Though condoms aren't perfect, they are very effective indeed, to the point where you're much more likely to seriously mess yourself up skiing in the Alps than you are to do so boinking someone with appropriate precautions. Curiously, though, 'God Hates Skiiers' does not seem to be such a popular slogan.

Conversely, it is fallacious to assume that monogamy will completely protect you from STDs. There are quite a few that either of you could contract from something other than bumping uglies, either by birth or by some other form of accidental fluid exchange, whilst monogamy does not preclude having previous partners who you or they were equally faithful to.

If extramarital sex is such bad news for you, though, what's your opinion on gay marriage and the like? I mean, it's not as if one's orientation is a choice (I, for one, did not wake up one day and decide to be heterosexual), so it seems a bit unfair to deny a good number of people the option of expressing their love for each other.

What Iaculus said, and then some.

I know a polygamous guy. He's a very pleasant, happy person. Your argument hinges on the fact that monogamy is the 'ideal'- what if it is not, and we have simply been socialised into believing this (to make matters of inheritance easier to decide on)?

>>103 bows in respect to you, thank you for this post.

I would like also to add that:
marriage do not guarantee someone's faithfulness.
love and respect for your partner(s) and self control is what makes ppl stay faithful in a relationship.

as for STDs its all about protections, there are ppl who are doing only one night stands but BECAUSE they use protections EACH AND EVERY time they are completely healthy.

there was a discussion few years ago about a prostitute who had AIDS. she was being targeting from a lot because an innocent woman got Aids, because her husband had sex with that prostitute.

the prostitute was condemned but whose fault was really?
actually it was the woman's who had sex with her husband without using any kind of protections, it was also her husband's fault for cheating on his wife, and sleep with someone else and on top of that don't using any protections.
the prostitute was simply doing her job, she didn't forced the man to sleep with her, it was also his choice not to wear a condom.

Sex has really been taken off the pedestal as a pure and holy thing to be respected since the biblical days. Young people and older ones are encouraged a lot more to do it because of the increased availability of contraceptives, condoms and birth preventing devices that women can use - also abortion, and even operations to surgically remove ovary ducts to prevent getting pregnant. To me that's like playing God; taking away life and preventing life from being conceived naturally.
It's like saying to everyone 'sure, go on, have sex. don't worry if it's a one-night stand or outside of marriage; we have pills to get rid of unwanted babies. we've got you covered'.

To make it even worse, being promiscious increases the chance of catching STIs. And if you don't know your partner's sexual history you might be taking a risk having sex with them.

Being unfaithful in a marriage is a temptation. It actually extends to your thoughts. Looking at another man/woman with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart. So marriage does have to be taken seriously and commitment to the other person. But that's not easy in this world either, because of the easy option of divorce and fast break-ups. Kids growing might be getting the impression that divorce isn't such a bad thing because there's news about it all the time, especially kids in with divorced parents.

as someone whose parents got divorced, trust me, we know its a bad thing on account of our families being ripped apart...

as someone whose parents got divorced, trust me, we know its a bad thing on account of our family being ripped apart...

whoops double posted- sorry

>>106
sex outside marriage or one night stands DO NOT increasing the possibilities of catching STDs or pregnancy! NO USE OF CONDOMS does!

also abortion, pills, and all other anti-pregnancy methods have been created to help ppl when it is needed NOT to allow ppl having free sex and don't care about consequences.

as for abortion it is really a huge subject but I'll give only one example: there was a woman in a christian country were abortion is illegal, the women was married and all and wanted to have a child, when she got pregnant, due to some rear case her baby was brainless, and when it would be out of its mother's womb it would die instantaneously. the woman asked from her country to make an exception to this law and let her abort the child. guess what happened...church said no, the woman gave birth to the brainless baby that died the next moment. women who have given birth know what kind of bond is that of the mother and the unborn child. and what endless pain all that brought to her.

as for divorce. because it is not a taboo anymore that doesn't mean that everyone takes a divorce without a reason.
let me tell you another sad story. that goes back in time a bit.
my grandmother was arranged married with my grandfather. my grandfather was abusing my grandmother physically every single day because "he was the man" my mother as a child grew up in an environment where everynoon at lunch she was afraid that her parents will kill each other. when my grandmother asked for her own parents to end that marriage, they refused to help her and send her back. also my grandfather gave my grandmother an STD, and refused to pay for the doctors.
my mother with such childhood, didn't want to get married ever, but her father arranged married her with my father. lets not talk about what kind of environment I grew up, at least my father is not abusive physically... but that doesn't change the thing that I would prefer if my mom had got a divorce.

>>106 Various contraceptive methods have existed throughout pretty much all of recorded history. As far back as Ancient Egypt, we have evidence of salves and unguents intended for precisely that purpose, as well as some rather terrifying lambskin condoms. I would go into the prehistoric methods of abortion as well, but I'm a nice person, and want you to be able to sleep at night.

The biggest difference between then and now is that the modern equipment is less likely to result in its user dying horribly, and I, for one, think that being able to decide what to do with our bodies without the everpresent spectre of death or injury isn't such a bad idea.

Humans have been trying to play God in various arenas for milennia - it's just that these days, we're better at it.

@...
sorry

@moonphase- Why on Earth are you apologising?

for making a sweeping generalisation- was I not supposed to?

Woah holy crap 110!

Yeh, I don't believe in God (cba reading entire thread!)
Like cmon... a book written by hundreds of people about some dude who could walk on water??=/.. I remember we got a talk on Christianity on school... well.. I gave them a piece of my mind lol

@moonphase- Sweeping generalisations should always be avoided (points to anyone who rolled their eyes; I'm afraid I still find that joke funny), but I don't know why you were apologising to me about it. It didn't harm or offend me in any way; it was just a weak line of argument and I was pointing that out.

point taken :)

My family are Christians and I've gone to a Catholic primary and high school because of that however I can say we don't go to church at all really.

Despite living in a Christian family I don't acvtually believe in God, I do believe that there is some form of life out there that overlooks space and time however I don't think it's responsiblie for creation - I simply think it was created along with everything else in the Big Bang. I also disagree with many things in the Bible.

Some may think this idea weird, I don't really speak about my beliefs unless asked about them. In which cases I'll freely answer questions about my faith.

I am considering converting to being Wicca, when I mentioned htis once to a friend she simply rolled her eyes and said "you too huh?" as it seemed she'd had another friend who had rebellef against her famiyl and become Wiccan. Because of that I haven't spoken about this idea much, I don't want people to believe it's something I'm doing simply out of teenage rebllesim(is that even a word?) So for the next few years (at least until I'm 19) I'll think deeply about my beliefs and whether or not I do want to make this commitment.

So yeah. ^^

>>110 @SeraEris Yes, the contraceptives and abortion may be there when really needed. But what I was saying is that some people don't take it at all seriously and might half-heartedly hope that maybe they won't catch STDs without protection, or that if they use it they are free to have sex all the time because there's no chance of unwanted pregnancy. With abortion, it's just too easy to apply for it when you discover you're pregnant and don't want the baby. Don't know about everyone else here, but I find that so unnatural just terminating a life inside of you just like that. And sad.

>>112 @Iaculus I agree that advanced technology today is very fortunate in that the world is surviving better and longer, and also makes life comfortable. Although what concerns me is, as you put it, that we're (more accurately scientists and those with the technology) are getting too good at playing God and crossing the boundaries of human limits when we're not supposed to.

>>116 You make the bible sound so ridiculous that way. Yes, it was written by humans, but it was inspired to them by God. It seems to me that you haven't studied much on what the content of the bible means, and don't know the deeper menaing of it.

>>120 @eeyop my dear I am saying exactly that. If ppl are irresponsible that's not technology's or science's fault. If I buy a fast car and drive it like a maniac on the streets and get killed or kill other ppl because I am irresponsible. it is not the creator's of the car fault is mine who decided to break the speed limits.
and most of the times ppl became irresponsible because they don't have any knowledge on the subject or because they ignore the knowledge. and go with the motto "Yeah like it would happen to me"
having unprotected sex is a choice so those who make that choice have to deal with the consequences.

>I find that so unnatural just terminating a life inside of you just like that. And sad.

abortion is not used only for unwanted babies, it is also used to prevent a birth of a baby with Down syndrome and/or when pregnancy is dangerous for the mother, and also when the complications in pregnancy are fatal for the baby, then the removal is done with the same practice.

There was someone my mother worked with who was raped and fell preganant. She kept the baby due to religious pressure. The little boy looked like the rapist. She often beat and injured him to the point where he had to be hospitalised. My mom was his social worker.
I myself think abortion is very serious and do not like it myself. In fact my mom was encouraged to abort me as she had little money and my dad was an idiot. I'm glad she didn't but struggled on. However, I think its pretty complicated. Its not just 'oh I'll murder mah baby 'cause I can't be bothered.'

>>122 it might had been easier for her to accept the little boy if she wasn't forced to keep it, but choose for herself.

It's just the fact that abortion is a man-made possibility and not mother nature's 'invention' which I don't like. It's not a natural thing. I can understand that issues come up when the baby inside you might not be so fortunate when born, and that there is a choice to prevent its suffering by aborting it; and when social circumstances make it impossible to care for one. But it's still not natural.

>>124 also pills, surgeries, hospitals, doctors, etc are man-made to extend human life.
all ppl should be left die at their early forties [the longest] as it was happening thousands of years ago when science wasn't advanced, because it is natural.

>>124 "It's just the fact that abortion is a man-made possibility and not mother nature's 'invention' which I don't like. It's not a natural thing."

Neither is the computer you're using to type that. Neither are the books the Bible is written in. I'm sorry, but you'll have to come up with a better argument.

Since the dawn of human society, those with power have been deciding who lives and who dies. In fact, it could be described as the very essence of a politician's job. Saying that it's God's sole preserve all of a sudden brings to mind an old saying about missing horses and stable doors.

Or...:

IEYUI

NOBOMENU

RENMIRI

YOJUYOGO

HASATEKANAE

KUTAMAE

>>126 Well those have very different purposes for us. They're extending the reach of commmunication between people from across the world, which is a good thing, until you idolise it. Also, those things don't exactly probe the body in any way; the equipment for abortion does. That's what I'm talking more about. Books and computers don't terminate life. Abortion does. That's the difference.

>>128 eeyop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
it is not only to end a life but also to save a life.
also what do you feel about surgeries, pills, doctors, hospitals. every one of them effects the body to extend human life. which is more against nature than an abortion. do you know that ancients due to lack of medicine were dying at the very "old" age of 30 the most? [in Africa it still happens], do you know that in few decades ppl will think of us as poor little things who have dies so young at the ages of 80, that's how anti-age practices work. ppl seem to accept it as natural. you also take a pill when you have a cold, you also go to for a surgery that would save your life, you also don't let your grandparents without the 16 pills they need everyday to survive [that's how many my grandmother takes actually] you don't leave a diabetic without their insulin, because you know they are going to die. you too give blood out of the goodness of your heart for those who need it. every single act effects body every single act is against human nature, every singe act extends human life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/feb/12/religion-atheism-science

hey this article talks about how atheism is (or is not) compatable with science. He argues that science has shown that
a) Religion is natural in society
b) is unlikely to be demolished and
c) that followers of religion are not all brainwashed and stupid.

Its very interesting and I think people on both sides of the debate will find it intriguing.

That has some very shaky reasoning. For a start, the assumption that university-educated people are intelligent. Trust me, it's not always the case. Next, the idea that intelligence counters suggestibility- you can have superstitious people who are otherwise intelligent, just as you have superstitious fools. Another weakness of the article is that the author uses sweeping statements ('not brainwashing') without backing them up with evidence. That's not a quick forum post, that's an article; there's no excuse.

I agree that a desire to be part of something like a religious group is natural (as I believe I said roughly 100 posts ago). I don't see how that links to the religion vs science debate, because faith in other things (ie: atheism) is just as easily pushed by the brain. The desire to be part of a group could just be a basic survival instinct.

I don't think that theism and science are natural enemies; God might have caused the Big Bang. But as for organised religion? Heh.

LOLLOLLOL.

This is something I read a few years ago, and it's just as amusing now as it was then:

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

Marvel at the line of argument so broken it pricks your feet with its shards!

>>133 The quotation from the Qur'an bible confused me, with all the information about the theory of evolution surrounding it. Also the quote at the bottom of the homepage; don't know who said it, but it kind of made sense to me.
I'm beginning to think that there's so much more to the creation of life on earth than what the bible says. It doesn't give great detail so anything could be possible.

hey right im a christian live in england and tbh i belive there is a gd i witness it everyday in my life, yeah i do wrong things bt i wud rather believe in a god that loves me and caers for me then spend an eternity after death burning in hell in torture and pain with heat so incredible that your skin should incinerate but not being able to die.

I dunno - I quite like a tan, and good spelling alongside it.

Some aspire to be great.

Some aspire to be Jedward4eva.

O', Iacarus, fly not too close to the sun, lest your waxen wings melt!

Some aspire to rid the world of bad spelling.

Alas, I think it be not possible...

Fortunately for hannah, I do not believe that the Sermon on the Mount has anything particular to say about run-on sentences.

Paul, on the other hand? All bets are off.

AND PEOPLE ASK WHY I LOVE THIS GUY!!!

I never questioned it. I merely choose to roll my eyes at your enthusiasm, whilst chuckling to myself at Iaculus' statements - even when the said statements are a dig at myself.

You know, you could have not spelt the whole f word there, thanks; just to respect the first post I made. Anyway, I understand your horror from reading the link.

>>137 God is a judge as well as a father and a friend. Ultimately, after death you must give an account of what you've done in life and God will judge whether it has been a holy one or an 'evil' one, in which the latter involves not practising his word, or believing in him rather. He's not a doting dad who can be taken advantage over.

Eh. I think this thread has run out of subjects to talk about. How about how all life began? I actually am a bit sceptical of the christian's belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and the other lifeforms. There are plenty of dinosaur fossils and evidence of other species gone extinct that we'd probably never seen before. The evidence of dinosaurs confuses me a lot. Adam and Eve couldn't have possibly survived with those roaming the land too, right? Which leads me to think of other possibilities of the inhabitants on earth came about.

But what does everyone else think?

>>145 eeyop you are saying that the thread is running out of subjects but you seem to ignore my question twice
I asked you something at >>129 and >>125 but even though you answered other stuff you haven't even comment on my question, that was directed to you.
anyway that's my third try so I hope of getting an answer from you.

on your new subject about how life began.
well as I have stated already I am not a believer of the bible so I am going with science so yeah, ppl come from apes.

>> 145,As for Adam and Eve and the dinosaurs; dinosaurs were long extinct before humans came into existence. As Adam and Eve were not the first creations (God made the world, then realised something was missing,) they could have been created after the dinosaurs. As for the other point, I suppose I find: "God is a judge as well as a father and a friend," and "He's not a doting dad who can be taken advantage over" to be slightly contradictory. None of my friends would judge me and send me to burning hell. Neither would either of my parents. Equally they are not easily taken advantage of. To 'dote' means to overly love (in a foolish manner.) I do not think not wanting to send someone to be burnt and tortured for all eternity is a sign of a loving (but not too loving!) father. I also wonder about the purpose of giving us freedom of will, if we suffer for making the 'wrong' choice anyway. Might as well take away the free will. Also, obeying Gods laws does not mean you strictly love him, it may be that many worshippers are just frightened of a scary afterlife. So God gets no love and we get no real choice.

Pointless.

@Iaccy- THAT. I've already seen it posted elsewhere, so right now I'm too tired to vent. You've summed it up, though.

@eeyop- I stopped bothering with this thread because the only person who could follow what I was saying was Iaculus, not because 'this thread has run out of subjects to talk about'. I, like Seraeris, got fed-up with having my posts ignored, or getting nonsensical replies to questions I hadn't asked/ points I hadn't raised. Make of that what you will.

No idea what it was all in italics...

>>149 you pressed "space" after the >>
so they works as the

>single one that gives italics.

excuse my out of topic-ness

Well, sorry, I just thought you had forgotten about your questions because it was written a long time ago. There was a lot of other people's comments as well which I couldn't process all of my answers for at once, making me skip over some.
Well, if you would like me to answer post 125 and 129, okay then.

There are some sciences which we use that I think are bad generally, but I see medicine such as pills or surgery as the good things to come out of science. I was having more of an issue with how we're using science, particularly the subject of abortion we were discussing before, to terminate life. I was trying to say that that was unnatural, in that it would not ever be possible if we did not have the technology to do it.
I wasn't arguing over the unnaturalness of having the science we have today, just what we use it for.

>> 151

"particularly the subject of abortion we were discussing before, to terminate life. I was trying to say that that was unnatural, in that it would not ever be possible if we did not have the technology to do it."
Back street abortions?

http://www.efc.org.uk/Foryoungpeople/Factsaboutabortion/Unsafeabortion#1115033245

oh, and thank you セーラーエリスは刀の女ですか。 :)

that was not my question actually.
I was asking if you find unnatural to extend human life [using medicine or other sciences]

>>147 God is doing his job as a judge. He is being fair, and following the laws he laid down for us. Just like in a real court, if a law has been broken, the crime must be punished. He doesn't want to send us to hell in the first place, but since we have sinned and all that, it's not fair to those who deserve to go to heaven who are not as 'bad' (essentially christians). It's also like with a parent and a child; if a parent loves their child, they should punish them so they are corrected and do the right thing next time.
God had given us the rules of life to follow, and during our lives we should have done so. If we haven't that was our own choice.
Again, God loved us too much to control our actions, so he gave us free will so that we can be free to love him or not. To give an example, you wouldn't decide everything for your adult child after he/she has left to start their independent lives. You'd have a hand in it sometimes, giving advice or help, but you can't do everything for him/her. That saying if you had the power to.
And those people who 'believe' in God because they're scared of going to hell aren't really believers much because they're missing the whole point of believing. Unless they're willing to have a relationship with God, then they won't get close to him enough to get to heaven, in a basic words.

>>152 That's still terminating life, which I still find wrong in itself.

>>154 Like I said, the medicine or other sciences which are for human improvement, or positive treatment, on the body are what I think good. Well, the medicine we use today, coming in pill or liquid, are basically unnatural since they don't come like that naturally in the first place. So of course it wouldn't be natural if we could extend our own life spans. But I still think it's one of those things that are good, and which make us nicely advanced as humans.

>>155
I understand what you are saying. However,as you say, everyone has sinned. No one gets it right, just some are 'less bad' and therefore go to heaven. It is unfair that God made rules that no one can follow and some people do not even understand (e.g. the banning of homosexulity.) Also, parents do not tell their children 'you are an adult now; you are free to do as you feel' and then murder their offspring for living a life they do not approve of (well, some do...) If God allows us free will only to decide if we love him or not, then its still heartless, as people who do not love God are sent to hell.

>>157
Fair enough. But I was just showing that even without the technology, people would still find a way of aborting.

sadly for one more time my suspicions were true.
bible is a book that everyone who claims to be a faithful religious person tries to explain, even though that's literally impossible to do, since the book is not written straightforward. the meaning they give to the said book has two sides, that go something like that:

1. "this is bad because the book says so, but if it's done that way is okay" that goes to previous statements of yours eeyop saying that "humans shouldn't try playing gods" in the case of abortion IS a sin according to your book but in the case of extending human life over its limit is okay.
2. "This is right, but if you don't do it the same way it is written in the book, then you are a sinner" again that goes to previous statements. "sex as long as is an act of love it okay, but not a homosexual one" sex is a sin for the book as long as it is outside marriage, also it is a sin as long as is not making-babies act. also the anti-pregnancy pill, the next-day pill, or condoms with sperm-killer can also be considered as termination of a new life techniques.

so technically I am a murderer of the 15 babies that i should have with my boyfriend because we used sperm-killing condoms all 15 times we had sex. that's one funny thought if you ask me.

>>158 God isn't trying to be unfair. It may be harsh, but it's us who need to bring ourselves up from the people we are, and asking his help to do that. He tells us to be more like Christ, the perfect example of character. To be more LIKE him, not BE him is something we can all do. God knows we're not perfect, but would like us to be the best that we possibly can. When we fall, that's when prayer comes in, so we can either ask for forgiveness or help, or even just to thank him.
Are you saying that God murders his children, by sending them to hell? That's not what I was saying before. To be frank, it's us who make him make that decision by not living the way he approves of.
It may seem heartless that way. But God did make it possible for his word to be spread to the world; now everyone can get their hands on a bible, read it and know what he says. Heh, and it's up to his followers to spread it too, more than by reading it. I think the problem here is that you and others on this site aren't willing to open your hearts to God and that's why you can't feel the same as I do. It sounds a little nonsense to you probably; you'd have to experience what I or other christians have experienced of our belief.
We can only teach you so much, but we can't teach you like God does. It's all down to you whether or not you take him up.

History of Abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

>>161
We can try and be Christ-like, but if we can't because either we do not believe the bible, or we don't believe in a God, or the Christian God, we do not understand its contradictions, etc we get sent to hell. It seems that its pretty easy to get sent to hell, unless you are a Christian and live your life constantly asking for help and forgiveness.
God murders his children by sending them to hell? No, I think hell is worse than killing someone. Its eternal torment. That's not harsh, its psychotic.
As for being a Christian, I was a Christian from the age of five. I was going to get baptised. But before doing so I wanted to make sure I understood the bible. So I read and studied. Then I realised a lot of issues with the bible and my religion. There's no need to be condescending, as I do know what I am talking about. I could not stand there and condemn all homosexuals, all those people of different religions. I could not stand there and tell them that they were wrong and that they were going to a fiery torment for all eternity because they are sinners and have only bought on themselves. It made me want to vomit. So now, I am no longer a Christian. I still have my bible. I still read it and admire some parts of it. I still hope there is a God. But I hope he is not the one you worship. I'd rather die.

>>160 I admit, I don't know everything about the bible, I haven't learnt all of it but I do know enough from it about certain subjects. And I don't know everything about the world. You and others have asked me what do I think about things, leaving aside the bible. I've given you my own thoughts here in the previous posts, okay? and obviously there's some contradiction between my thoughts and what's said in the bible. I never claimed to be someone who has plenty of knowledge about it and can make it true to all reading it.
So no, I'm not really calling you a murderer for using condoms. I don't even think that.

>>163 I'm sorry that I don't know the solution to all that. I wish that the bible could be a lot more clear for those who pointed out its inconsistencies and disagreeable laws that seem really harsh. I'm not perfect either obviously, I do feel similarly about it. I'm afraid I can't explain it any other way except that it's the will of God and we can't understand how he works. Or thinks.
I didn't know you used to be a christian. When were you going to be baptised? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

>>166
It's cool. I decided not to get baptised two years ago, after three years of really poring through the bible. I decided that instead of not really understanding, but hoping for a future life that might happen, that, instead, I was going to try and be the best person I can be in this life and have as much of a positive affect on it as possible.

>>166
It's cool. I decided not to get baptised two years ago, after three years of really poring through the bible. I decided that instead of not really understanding, but hoping for a future life that might happen, that, instead, I was going to try and be the best person I can be in this life and have as much of a positive affect on it as possible.

>164 I didn't say that you called me a murderer actually I called myself murderer. also I might used your statements but i was referring to all Christians not just you, because along with you a lot other ppl use the same words and statements.

I was generally talking

Hm. It's partly because I 'open my heart to God' that I reject the Bible.

Right, I need to head off soon so I'll make this my last post for tonight.

>>165 That's an interesting notion, but no I haven't considered it as such. Although when I think about it it sounds like one almost. From the 'precise mechanics' do you mean the 'method' of the creation process?
Right, thanks for the suggestion.

>>167 I see. So are you about 20 years old now?

No, but close, why?

>>172 Was just wondering because I got baptised around 2 years ago, so I thought we could've been the same age or something. I'm 20 if you're wondering.

>>173 Yes, I get what you're talking about. That just makes the parable unrealistic...huh. Well, even though the Good Samaritan may not likely happen in real life, as you've said the important thing is the illustration of how we should act toward our neighbours, including other groups of people different to us. Being more like Jesus and doing unto others what you would like others to do unto you.

It's just a parable, it doesn't exactly describe a true story, but has moral message at the end of it. That's what it basically is.

I know my opinion is going to be controversial and a lot of you will be against it and wonder how I can be such a monster but it has too be said I don't see what's wrong with that Utah bill.
I don't belive abortion should be used as a method of birth control. I think if someone has been raped or it will harm the mother and if the baby will be born to a live in pain they should be allowed. Special cases basically but if a woman has gotten pregnant without taking precautions and can support the baby then I think it's wrong. The babies feel pain during abortion. I don't think anyone should feel pain for someone elses mistakes.You can have an abortion at 24 weeks. Baby have been born and survived healthly at 22 weeks. At the very least the time you can have an abortion at should be put back to a date where the baby can't feel pain.

god does not exist. it is just a story that people tell us

Sorry. I'm stupid. I don't agree with the death penalty and serious jai aspect of it.
I can see your point, your a lot smarter than me, and your probably right but I still think abortion at a stage where the babies feel pain is wrong. It's not a method of birth control. Abortion also messes up the body.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think woman who have multiple abortions as a form of birth control is wrong.

I'm not saying that it is. I appreciate that every case is diffrent.However you have to admit that some women do you it as a form of birth control when they could in fact look after the baby or take precautions. I never said or think that it's killing babies for giggles. I know that it can be quite a moral dilema involved. I'm not against contraception or anything like that. I think it should become more widely available and of course I think it should be an option but I do object to woman where it isn't there first abortion and they haven't taken precautions to keep save and that the age of when the fetus can be terminated should be cut back from 24 months to around about 18 where the baby won't feel pain.

Everything is worth discussing.I know they are rare but they still exist. I think abortion should have a later date and at least a restriction on the number you have not just because of the culture but because of the harm it does to the body. Many woman who have had an abortion have trouble convieing because of the damage done to there cervix.
People should just be more open about it. How many late abortions happen because people are scared and ashamed if there was more information on contraception other than the obvious.
I'm going to say it again though I'm not against abortion but belive that the maximum age to terminate the fetus should be reduced.

@swiftswallow

I totally understand what are you saying.
but I have just a question. what if a woman has a hook up gets pregnant because she was stupid enough not to take protections, then because of the law that makes abortion illegal, she gives birth to the kids, but she ends up hating it because it destroyed her perfect career, her social life, her image. how this child will grow up? it's own mother hates it to death. probably abuse it. what kind of person that child will grow up to be? maybe another society monster.
humanity goes forward, banning abortion makes go backward, Countries and states should try to EDUCATE their kids first before banning things, because what ppl lack is the knowledge of things.

>>186 To that question, I say that it's her choice whether to love or hate the child, who hasn't done anything wrong to her, except apparently being born which is also not its fault. She shouldn't be mad at the baby but at herself, understanding it's her fault for not being careful and using protection.If she does this and accepts her new responsibility like an mature adult that'll be great. If she does not want the baby she can opt to make it available for adoption to parents who do, instead of abusing it due to feeling selfish anger toward it. That should be the last option I think because the baby should be with its real mother naturally.
And if the baby grows up with unfair abuse, when he/she reaches the age when they can make adult decisions, it's up to him/her whether to use their bad childhood as an excuse to be a criminal or whatever; or realise and understand the circumstances his/her mother was in, and why she was like that to him/her, accept it, forgive, move on, and try to be a better person than she was because you can't change the past. And even though s/he had not had the best of childhoods, s/he should still know what is wrong or right in whatever they do, so not everything can be blamed on the mother.

>>187 One sentence: THIS IS NOT UTOPIA, it's the real world.

yes she should take responsibility and all but that was an example of a regular woman. with emotions that she can't control. as for adoption, don't you think we have enough orphans all ready to bring some more poor souls in the world? as for "society monster" I am not talking about someone who will become a person full of bitterness who will make other ppl sad around him/her. we always talk about how parents are unable to raise their children right. who have no idea how to be parents. giving a choice to a person to decide if they can be parents or not, can make make the word a better place.
and
>>188 @RayRay i applaud you because you are a person who realize what you can do and what you can't, not giving a birth to a child that you don't find yourself able to raise properly, shows how mature you are and you understand what PARENT means.
the reason that ppl become parents even though they don't qualify to be, is what has made the world so rotten. because everything starts from one's birth and childhood. and that's psychologically proven.

It was very intresting to read other peoples opinions on this. I'm the first to admit I know very little so hearing everyones opinions on this has given me a lot to consider.

So >>186 I'll try to give an opinion on the matter. Right or wrong I don't know I'll just write out what I'm thinking.If it was illegal and the mother did get pregnant and had an unwanted child. That she abused. It would be tough it depends on what type of abuse the child was recieving if you mean starved off affection. It could lead to problems in later life but many people who have had this kind of abuse went on to life successful lifes. Like Winston Churchill. If it was physical I would hope someone would notice but that could be unlikely. Hopefully if there was somewhere else for the child to look up too. Grandparent it could get better but again maybe not. It depends on the attitude of the child as well a lot of our traits we are born with. If the child could cope it would be OK but if it couldn't that would be bad. Why would the mother not give up the child to social services? They may have problems so this could make it worse for the child...

Overall I don't have the answer everywhere, everyperson is unique but in a situation like this I would hope some-one would notice. Just because a child has been abused doesn't mean they can't carry on with life. Everybody has a choise it's how we in society deal with it I suppose. if everybody had loving and supportive family there would still be crime. I know it's simply put but bad people would still exist. A child should be given a chance to choose.
>>188
Good for you to admit that. It's mature of you to think so.

All I'm saying is that the date should be put back because when a baby is capable of living independant life from the mother it should have it. Once is a mistake. Twice forgivable but a third time it's getting unresponsible. With so many other short-term and long term options available. I think people should become aware of these first. Sorry if that was a bit lectury.

Hey! Kinda wish I'd joined earlier but am excited to see such a debate. For me from as far back as I remember my life has centred on trying to work out lifes purpose (as I reasoned life is short and not that exciting so better to focus on escape routes). However that hasn't been a straightforward ride and would take to long to summarise fully here so will try and give a woefully short b/grnd.

Where I am now...well I was raised a Christian and baptised at 14 and fell away completely by 20 (not in doubt of God's existence but my ability to serve) to the point where I basically gave up on salvation and friendships and turned to serving the enemy briefly. Since then have wandered in the no-mans land between as a detached shadow observing the world (sometimes sniping at God to see if I can get a reaction or playing Devil's Advocate to experiment with how I see the World).

Christianity wise I'd say experientially from all I've gone through it feels right. I may have dreamt voices and experiences, I'm self critical enough to accept that possiblity, but my observer thinks all the coincidences unlikely. On the other hand any religion must be founded on an external basis (the world is a closed building where X says outside is sea and Y says outside is purple fields of grass...it needs something external to settle it). Christianity claims the Bible as this...therefore it needs to be inerrent/God's externally inspired word or else it crumbles...but the more I examine it the harder I find it is to justify that claim (noting not all of the Biblical books claim to be such themselves and couldn't given when it was written there was no real concept of the Bible and therefore what justifies its reading as the word of God?). Thus I find myself at this paradox...

...Anyway thats where I am (as a detached observer am always happy to try and answer any Q's about anything as it helps me process stuff better) :) - Should probably for continuities sake add in my view on abortion.

Personally I think she should be a given choice. If a woman really wants an abortion its better its done safely than illegally. But advice etc. should be provided beforehand on the consequences (potential feelings of guilt etc. and the other alternatives).

Thats different to what is morally right. If there's no God we go by human morality...which would be varied and culturally dependant and probably be pro-choice up until a set time (but this is unsatisfactory because there's no real way to determine what time that should be...if there's no God do we even have souls?). Christian morals would seem to suggest in absence of anything clear to do the most loving thing (What would Jesus Do hardly seems appropriate here ;) - unless he really was a woman in disguise :o). In which case it's for the woman to decide and to be judged on her internal conscience/heart at the time...if she's acting out of love for the child then there shouldn't be a problem.

Of course it gets messy where the mother and/or child might die and the mother wants to save the child and the father the mother (I seem to think there was a House episode on something like this)...I guess a Christian response might be to go through with it trusting in God to save both or again to say each party would be judged on their heart at the time (acting out of love for the others) whatever conclusion they reached (still should be the womans call ultimately unless irrational).

@193, The christian responses depend on the denomination. Roman Catholics would likely refuse abortions and deal, but the neighborhood methodist would probably chat about your feelings and attitude towards it.

@185, Abortion can happen any time up to the day before birth, essentially, if the child is already dead, extremely handicaped or causing extreme damage to the mother. If the child is healthy, however, it's preferred not to abort it because of that whole deal about it having a heart beat and can feel pain, etc.

@RayRay, I also wish to appauld you.

I used tobe against abortion. My mum had me at 17, her boyfriend dumped her, her dad threw her out the house. She had to struggle to get a council house (staying at a special place for young homeless mums for a while.) She had to really struggle through university, taking a year out. We had virtually no food at times, and everyday was a fight. Luckily, now everyone is fine. Mum got a career and now works in a uni, and I have younger siblings. I'm pretty grateful that my mum worked so hard to keep me alive and happy, all whilst sorting herself out.
HOWEVER, since, you know, goring up, I realised that it is not that simple. My friends who are students have aborted, and honestly, in a way it may be the kinder thing for, as rayray says, my friends can't be parents right now. They are too immature and have no money. I have another friend who has kept her baby, though still in uni. However, her bf is stable and in work and they even have a place together, so its a different circumstance. My friend can afford to look after the baby. Of course, the best course of action is to be as careful as possible during sex.

>>194

Ah yes that's true it does depend a bit on the denomination. When I use 'Christianity' I'm basing it on how I've been brought up to best read/understand the Bible (A mixture of Baptist/my own common sense in interpreting). It goes to show though on such unaddressed issues that 1) The Bible teaches love of God then others as its central message and so 2) That formula is unclear enough to give birth to multiple denominations/ways to apply it.

When the Bible is unclear I'm not sure denominations/rigid rules are helpful; its then simply the case that God will, if he exists, measure/judge the persons conscience/inner motives.

Curse my lack of spell-check!

One of my friends have used abortion as an emergency contraception and whilst they have done the right thing, being totally incapable of handling a child, you do wonder whenever the whole thing could have so easily been avoided by the oh-so-many forms of contraception.

@moonphase, I also feel like applauding your mum.

This is a lot to think about. I don't ever think there can be an option that will please everybody.
The adoption process is such a difficult one maybe if they made it easier in this country to adopt. I know that my uncle they tried to stop adopting my cousins with because they said they could't provide the irish culture needed. Luckily my mum provided that but it still took them years to finally adopt. You would still reach saturation point though.
Even in the old days you had problems with all this with the single mother homes. So why didn't we reach saturation point back then? Just curious if anyone knows?

@198 That 1966 decree and the Cighid orphanidges? That was truly nasty.

Anyone remember the documentry?: Bulgarias Abandoned Children. (Mother dearist then decided to show me brain scans of neglected children. Really broke my heart. I cried for some time.) Also a nasty example. (Btw, if I missed your meaning, sorry.)

@199 True, true, there aren't options that please everyone. Reasoning depends entirely on the reason, if you get my meaning. It's like saying: A 14 year old can have an abortion, but an 18 year old should know better. It's impossible to state right and wrongs on sheer grouping.
Also, if you don't mind me asking, what's what about needing to provide an Irish culture?

@200 (sorry I missed your post) I know of a really sweet Christian couple who took years to adopt two girls. They have them know, but it took ridiculously long. Then again,the adoption process takes so long because they need to check it's all legal, blah de blah blah, and that the kids aren't being maimed. To be honest, it's like what, 9 out of 10 cases of abuse are within the family? If someones that sick, they won't adopt, they'll just violate a relative.

You're right though. Children can't just be adopted. Pretty sad.

You would initially be surprised at the lengths some people will go to, but no, adoption is lengthy and sometimes expensive, due to all the travelling, paperwork etc that has to be done and stuff... so yeah, who would spend that money...

But at the same time, I don't think it should be used as a last resort. The kid may go to a nice family, but how old will it be by the time that happens... it's sad to think of it, but sometimes abortion is the kindest way.

I'm surprised something that hasn't been raised is the issue of the mother not being able to carry the baby. It's been mentioned, by Iaculus I believe, but yeah, that's a big factor.

Also, has anyone seen that pro-life poem, meant to discourage people, the baby talking to the mother.
I want to write an opposite version of that. From the POV of a mother who's been forced to keep a child she doesn't want... if they can force it, so can I.

=]

@201 The irish culture thing is that my cousins birth father was irish so they were trying to say that my uncle couldn't provide for the child because he was scottish and couldn't give the child his irish culture which they said that wasn't fair and would damage the baby but my mums irish so they told them that she would provide the genetic and cultural roots back to Ireland. It took them years it was only thanks to the foster mother that they got adopted.

I think that the Bible is really a load of crap because it was written by humans and that was basically like saying: 'we know what happens after death' even though nobody actually does. I don't have anything against Christians but I really hate the ones who take the Bible mega-seriously and start telling other people how to live their lives- i.e. homosexuality is a 'sin', Wicca is 'evil' etc. So I definitely don't think that the church should sit above government because not everybody is religious.

Personally I believe in some sort of deity&afterlife because of my own experiences. Though I'm not really prepared to say what it is and I don't like to shove it down other people's throats.

>>205 If I weren't already a smiling atheist, I'd become one after listening to Stephen Fry. What a man.

And this discussion of God is more the Christian God than anything else, so to some degree the thread isn't doing the title justice. C'mon people, variety is the spice of life. Discuss Hindu deities too, they make about as much sense as Jesus, I should think.

As a rule I won't discuss anything that I know nothing about, and unfortunately I know nothing of other relegions, apart from the snippets that I've learned from friends over the years.

Same, while I could delve deeply into Christianity and Islam, even Pagan and Spiritualism, my knowledge of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jedism is also rather limited. :P
Even so, @207, your "they make as much sense as Jesus" statement amused me somehow, so I'll give a shot at it... though I don't suppose I'll be correct. Teachings differ. :/

Brahman is causally referred to as the Hindu God, but I think it actually means something like 'power' or maybe power of a supreme being. There are many expressions of the divine being, Shiva, Vishnu and Kali, for example which are associated with particular abilities or situations. There's no exact founder of Hinduism, only the Sanskrit's. Besides, interpretations of Brahman, God, may vary from Hindu to Hindu.

I found their beliefs of reincarnation a little odd however. 'You die and move up or down depending on your good or bad actions in the previous life.' So from the holy white cow, which gets cared for and respected, you progress to the lowest form of human... which doesn't.

>>209 But it's true!

In your example example of cow to man, we have an excellent example of the general, prevalent notion of humans being TEH AWESOME, and the lowliest of us is still ever so much more blessed than a perfectly happy, looked-after animal. A large part of religion is making people feel good about themselves, so really, it's not too odd.

My problem with reincarnation would be a practical one. There're more people than ever has been before, so does it mean that a lot of really, really nice animals have died recently? Do I, in fact, have the soul of a truly pleasant flamingo?

And the little dung beetle that could is filling in that flamingo?

I'm atheistic, but I'm fairly knowledgeable about Islam. And know little bits of Buddhism. Yeah.

sooo...god...heck of a fella, he seems to resent me...is it my hair? or is it that i dont like him and tried to kill his son?

You're drunk Jam. Go home -sigh-

Or it could be the fact that you're an ATHEIST! -gasp!-

im wiccan sarah

>>205
That was awesome, thanks for sharing. They only have the edited version on youtube (well, that was all I could find anyway.) I love how Fry is not condescending or rude, but he still manages to put his point across so forcefully. I wish more debates were like that. I think by not damning every individuel Catholic, and not mocking their religion or God, his point came across as more valid and less biased.

Incidentally, some comments on that page say Galileo was not tortured. By what I remember (I watched a documentry on it once...years ago...) he was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Is that true (I'm so stupid) I can't remember...? If that is true, while he was not harmed physically, I don't think being under house arrest is a whole lot of fun, especially for his 'crime.'

I'm so jelouse of Fry's eloquence!!

im also wiccan/pagan. It makes me sad to hear (not on this page) people insult religons they don't understand.

>217,

what have people done or said to you? If you don't mind me asking?

>>217 yeh i hate that too, but i insult anything so its hypocriticle

>>217 i am mr.zygote

>> 217,

I thought there was a difference between paganism and wiccan- and that there were many different forms of paganism.

there are many different forms of a chimichanga too

I may have got my Hindus and Sikhs mixed up there...
Regardless, reincarnation seems to involve around the poorly structured equation from yours truly:

Good Deeds + Kindess = Better life -> Higher Power

Bad Deeds + Wickedness = Poorer life -> damnation!

Please know, they aren't to insult anyones intelligence, but that seems to be how these things lay out. Good, you get praised, bad, you get punished.
Though I think Hindus believe once one has realised how small their needs and wants are, when all desires have gone, they'll have broken the recycle of Samsara and not be reborn anymore. On that theory, people could just be born people. I don't think plant life is included, as it's slightly different.

... I'm going to hazard a guess and say yes, though I'm not sure if Hindu's say if they belong to any particular denominations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82-sudS7y-s
Homosexuality and the Bible :)

This guy wrote an email to Fred Phelps arguing that the Bible isn't against homosexuality and has been mistranslated. I downloaded the email, (there is a link to it in the youtube video I have linked.) But here are a few bits and peices I have chosen out of his arguments. I'd like to hear (or rather, read) other views.

The first is Sodom an Gomorah:
"The first passage we encounter which supposedly condemns homosexuality is genesis 19:5. This is of course the famous story of how God supposedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of “illicit homosexual activity”. At face value, this may seem true, however, upon further inspection of the original Hebrew text, it becomes clear that it is not. This is the translation of the text:

“bring them out, so we may know them!”

Know means know! In many recent texts, words have been added to twist the meaning so as to condemn homosexuality. There are no Bible references further on in that mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom, rather, that it’s sin was the worship of idols, and of inhospitality to strangers.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

The word “know” used in Genesis 19:15, is the Hebrew Yada, which is the Hebrew verb “to know” It is used upwards of 900 times in the bible, and is never meant in a sexual context. In Genesis 19:15, it is used by the people of Sodom to demand that Lot bring out the strangers to the city so that they might know who they were. Sodom was a tiny military fortress in the inhospitable climes of the Dead Sea area, so the only people they were ever likely to meet were enemies. That is why they wished to know who they were, as they might have been enemy spies."
....

(On Leviticus describing homosexulity as 'abomination')
"To begin with, we must examine the word ‘abomination’. It is used many times in Leviticus, but in actuality it was used to describe things related with Idolatrous worship, which is exactly the use it is put to here. Further examination of the word shows that originally, it was used to describe things which went against the cultural norm, not anything that was inherently evil.
Both of these passages describe not homosexuals, but heterosexuals engaging in sex as part of the Baal fertility rituals, which were performed to guarantee good crops and healthy livestock (...) The word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. The first know appearance of the word in print was in 1869, in a German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously, arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.
Therefore, it is impossible that the word could appear in the bible. In fact, since the concept of homosexuality was developed in the late 19th Century, biblical writers would not have understood the concept of a loving, same-sex committed relationship, and there would be no words in the language linked to the concept.

Also, in the passage from Corinthians it also states that the ‘effeminate’ will not inherit the kingdom of God. The use of this word is also a fallacy. the word used in the original Hebrew is “malakoi”, which literally translates as vulnerable. This means that it is not homosexuals who are condemned, but those who are soft and easily led into sin.
Despite this, sexual activities between people of the same sex were common in Greek and Roman society, and were actually widely accpeted!

Many say that homosexuality is unnatural, however there is evidence against this thought in the natural world. Non-human animals like lions, dolphins, bison, penguins, seagulls, lizards, sheep, and spotted hyenas (and this is just to name a few) have shown homosexual behaviour. And since these animals act entirely on instinct, and do not posses the rationale which sets humans apart, how can this behaviour be described as unnatural?"

Sorry, I didn't have time to examen all of your post, but one thing I wonder then is when the angel comes to Mary and tells her she will have a child, she says she can't because she doesn't know a man, and I find it hard to believe that she doesn't know any men especially when she's engaged to Joesph, while if it meant she slept with one, that would make perfect sense.

>>228 I am not really sure but if I remember correctly the angel went to Mary when she was 15 and she indeed didn't know any man
and after accepting the angels offer, they paired her with Joseph, who agreed to keep her virgin...

I think she was already engaged, because Joseph was upset when he found out she was pregnant, because they hadn't had sex. So she knew men is a literal sense, but had not had sex.
So what we have to research is the original translations. The word 'know' was, in original text of this incident, 'yadda', which apparently, was used in the bible 900 times, and not in a sexual context. So, the question is when Gabriel spoke to Mary did he use 'yadda' or another term?

This is a frequent issue with the bible; for example we just use the word 'love' where in the bible there were different kinds of words meanings different types of love (i.e. familial, romantic etc) but we translate it all into that one word.

>>227 That is an interesting email. It would be great if what he's saying is true, but I'm not entirely convinced, sorry. First of all, do you have evidence of the things he says in his email, or evidence of his studying the bible so thoroughly on this case? He doesn't give links to his studies or sources; no footnotes, appendixes or references. Not trying to call him a liar really, but I can't take in his words so easily if there is no way of knowing where he gets his information. If he is trying to convince Fred Phelps, a firm believer, of his views, he should really give more evidence of his info to make it more authentic.

No offense, but, on watching spazabarri's video he looked really nervous, trying to appear confident or funny too hard, by his twitchy movements; and he tends to babble and hesitate somewhat during it. And the way he ended it...doesn't make me convinced. And he still didn't give any references to his source/s. Just by analysing his movements I'm given the impression that he's nervous, has shaky confidence (probably because he's just emailed someone who's quite an extremist and is frightened by what the response will be like), and thinks that jerky, almost angry, arm gestures will get his point across for maybe a lack of confidence in his own email. That's just what I can feel coming from the vid.

In the email, I agree he made a good point on the contradiction in Leviticus on what and what not to eat, or else you are punished, yet we do eat pig etc and do not get punished, and you get prejudiced for being a homosexual. And I agree on the last point he made on loving your enemies. I don't think he should've used the tone of voice in saying 'I hope some of you will see sense' and should've been more polite but oh well.

One point I will argue against is on animals demonstrating homosexuality, and thus makes it natural. It may be natural to them because of their instincts, or when there may be no females (or males) around; but that's exactly the same thing as to why it's unnatural in humans, on the fact that humans possess rationale (said in the email) and self-control which sets them apart from animals. Humans can CHOOSE to engage in homosexual sex, whereas animals do it by INSTINCT.
Also, there's pre-marital sex being a sin, which counters a few of his points on homosexual sex being engaged in Baal fertility rituals, and being common in Roman and Greek society. If homosexual activities WERE accepted, there's still the sex before marriage sin condemning that, if they were engaged in before marriage.

Like I said, if what he's saying in the email is true, it'd be great, but I'm still not entirely certain of it.

I do agree that he needs to reference his evidence, it was the first thing I noticed. However, I don't think his behaviour is anything to read into. Lots of people on the net are tense and anxious, especially when arguing something controversial. So I don't think you should read too much into it.

I agree with his argument that the Bible is often taken out of its historical context. Without knowing the culture and traditions of the time, the rules are more nonsensical. Plus, it seems that people do pick and choose from the Bible. You could argue that certain rules about food are not followed, because in the Greek scriptures the symbolism of them was no longer needed, and they were now 'clean' and suitable for cunsumption. The same was not said of homosexuality, Paul was still set against that. HOWEVER, Paul was also against women talking in church a being a 'teacher over men', but that still happens.

As for humans choosing to engage in homosexuality, well that is still debatable. There is arguments for homosexuality being a part of your genes, not a lifestyle choice. If it is biological, then its natural for people to be attracted to the same sex as themselves. Therefore, it is unfair to say that they are unnatural and that they should ignore their feelings.

The point about fertility acts (which may or may not be true, as we ourselves have to find the evidence of such as he provides none) are still valid. He was not denying that they sinned, but, like Sodom, that the sin was not neccesarily homosexulity itself.

>>30 I didn't read everything in this thread, cause it's a lot and I'm just joining. I don't believe in God, Jesus and the bible. My opinion on all this is that Christianity was and is a sekt that survived and didn't go down the drain like a lot of sekts did.

'But the bible does say that he made us in his image; it's hard to explain properly but from that it means we have the spirit of God in us then, and so we have the capability of being holy. He's given us a conscience, to know what's right and wrong'

So if this is true, then what the hell is going on right now, with priests molesting children, if they supose to have the spirit of God in them? Explain that to me and don't give me the crap about it's God's will. This can't be God's will and I thought that priests had to preach wrong from right? How are they gonna do that if they don't even know it themselfs? Sorry for the rant but this get's me so angry.

You all preach about the bible, Jesus and stuff while this is going on, so shoot me but I just don't get it. And if God is so good why doesn't he do anything about it?

I apologise if this is harsh, but haven't you noticed that nowhere in the bible or Christianity has there been a slight mention of dinosaurs?

Adam and Eve were the first created, but what about all this on evolution?
As you can see, I am against (Not a very nice way to say it..) religion. I am an empiricist and empiricists can never belong to any religion. You know why?

Because-they only believe in something when it can be explained.
Dinosaurs, I believe, because there have been bones, fossils and even frozen mammoths!
God. No witnesses, no description, no proof. Get it?

I keep saying this to people-If Lord Of The Rings was written way back when, we could be worshipping the fellowship. Gandalf the grey/white.
Hell could be Isengard. The devil-Saruman and/or Sauron.

'Miracles' described in the bible can be explained as every day occurances.
i.e-The separation of the sea. That can happen when a tidal wave is about to occur elsewhere.

I also understand that there wouldn't be any wars if it weren't for religion.E.g- WWII. Hitler, Christian, kills Jews because of their RELIGION.

I don't despise people if they are religious. I don't even hate them. I have a few Christian and Jewish friends, I just don't understand those people who go by every single word of the bible.

P.S-sorry if this is a little too harsh, but I just want to get my message across...

About the translations. If you had an incredibly imaginative mind, it could mean absolutely anything. Some of the things in the bible are vague, making you think it could mean such-and-such and resemble 'this'.

We were asked to do this report about Easter last year at school, and how Jesus died and was resurrected, and all of us came to bumps on the road about how the boulder had moved from the grave and how Jesus could survive all those lashes, cuts and starving to death. Some of it is believable, but other parts are rather difficult to come about.

It is a pure fact that Jesus was actually real, but there was this programme on Discovery channel (I've forgotten the name...Something like 'who was the real Jesus') and they said that the person who was crucified was a man called Simon. I didn't watch it, though. It sounded a little weird...

This is kinda going off-topic, but I believe that this world we live in is not really as it seems. i.e. there are powerful forces around us like Gods, but we just don't see or notice them. (It may just be my imaginative side taking over my brain...)

>>235 I'm also confused about the dinosaurs never being included in bible's explanation of creation, or discussed in sermons. There's the issue of dinosaurs conflicting with how God made humans in his image, and humans in the dinosaur period in theory descended from apes so Christianity denies dinosaurs in that part. I for one though don't deny such creatures existing because of the stark amount of evidence for it. But the bible has evidence around the world itself, ranging from manuscripts and stone tablets to locations mentioned in the bible. There's been plenty of research and study into it too.

Another thing, the bible doesn't quite go into a lot of detail into processes; the descriptions are brief generally. It would be a massive book if it included the workings of, say, the biology of plants during their first creation.

>>235 and >>238 as far as I understand, dinosaurs existed way, way before humans arrived on earth. It wasn't like the Flintstones. Therefore, if the Bible is true, it wouldn't mention the dinosaurs as they were nothing to do with humans. When descrbing the Earths creation in Genesis, it doesn't mention by name any animal, and there is a suggestion that there was a period of time before the animals were made, and then the humans.
>>235 I totally disagree that there would be no war without religion.As said in >>236 by sharingansupergirl, most wars involving religion use it as an excuse to help justify the atrocities they commit, or to persaude more people to jointhe cause. War will exists as long as people look different, have different cultures, different ideaologies, live in different countries, have different policies, are power hungry and have different opinions. Humans would fight over 'what is the best colour,' it's our nature.
>>233, well all religion has to start of as a sect. For years the Romans hated Christians and viewed them as a freaky cult, like scientology. It was only accepted after Constantine converted to it.

Sorry I skimmed through a lot of it, but I thought I'd give my feedback on it. I'm a new earth creationist, believing the world was recently (thousands of years ago) created by God in the six days as recorded in Genesis. I don't believe any major evolution has occurred an the plants and animals exist about the same as they did in the beginning. (Small changes like wolves evolving into the different types of dogs I agree with)
@232: The way I've understood the rules set down in Exedus and Leviticus were the laws and customs for the nation of Isreal not for all believers, which was supposed to have God as their king and he spoke through the judges. Eventually this became a theocracy with a king leading them, but the king was still subject to God. In the new testiment, God basicly tells Peter that he has made unclean foods clean, showiwng that God is also reaching out to the gentiles.
@233: One part of being created in God's image was the ability to choose how we want to live our lives. We can choose to love God and obey his commandments, or we can choose to go against them. This free will allows us to sin, and in those priests cases molest the children. Keep in mind just because someone claims to be a servant of God doesn't mean they are. If I wanted to I could stand up and say that I believe in Allah and follow all the teachings of the Koran, but that doesn't mean it's true. God is just though, so their crimes will be payed for, and I wouldn't want to be those priests when that time comes.
@238: The reason the word dinosaur is never mentioned in the Bible is because that name only came about in the past few hundred years. Dinosaurs did in fact live at the same time as humans, but were likely not called that at the time. The behimenth that Job encountered could have very well been a dinosaur.

Oh, definitely.

there's a fair bit of evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. There are ice cores in antartica that date back about four billion years, (its when the ice melted and re-froze, so it sort of like dating tree rings.) Scientists have used carbon dating and radioactive dating and have found minerals and rocks which are about four billion years old which itself is similar to the age of the sun. Btw, do you believe the universe is also six thousand years old? Cause astronomy disagree with that.

What evidence do you have that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Behemoth means nothing. Its simply described as a large beast that eats grass and is scary. He could be anything- including a fictional monster. That's no evidence of the bible descrbing a dinosaur of some kind. Also, the bible is very specific about certain lines of Kings and about geography, so I fail to see why they would not go into describing a dinosaur more fully.
Finally, if dino's and humans did live together, then why are there no humans fossilised within the same starta as dinosaurs?

>>235 I 100% agree with all of this. There is evidence that we have evolved from the apes, if you look at them, they are the closest to us as resembling humans.

And wars are always fought in the name of religion, Hitler killed Jews because he saw them as a thread to his society. If they had been prisoners of war, and I mean in the true sense of the word, he would have never killed them. I have been to Buchenwald, one of the prisoncamps in Germany and I tell you the shivers ran down my spine when I walked there, knowing what had happened so many years ago.

Like tilldeathdouspart789 I don't hate people who believe in God, I have many friends who are Christians and believe in it with all their hearts. We have many heated discussions when it comes to relegion.

And there is no evidence God has ever excist, I mean I'm willing to believe that there was a man named Jesus and that many people followed him, there are enough people in the past who had a lot of followers, cause they believed what they preached.

And one more thing, the bible was written by men. I mean, priests can't mary because the bible says so, no wonder they molest children, you can't tell me it's healty. And you're not gonna tell me that Jesus never laid in bed with a woman, didn't he say to his people, go and multiply, or something like that.

When I was in England last year, we visit a small church and the reverent gave us a tour and he talked about coming from the city and his wife had some problems adjusting to the country life. I mean, he was married and a reverent. They also don't believe that Maria was visit by an angel and became pregnant without having sex, not sure how you say it in English but I think you know what I mean, they are protestants I think. Sorry, but come on it's very hard to believe that ever happened.

So who ever said that priests can't mary? Like I said, the bible was written by men. I'm gonna stop now before this is gonna turn out to be a page full.

>>243 there is evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestor, not that we came from them.

The genocide of the Jews, amongst other people, wasn't a Holy War, but the Vatican going along with it just helped justify what they were doing. Hitler wanted to create a 'perfect' race of aryan people.If it were as simple as religion he would have killed all religious groups but one,and he didn't. The Jewish aren't just a religion but a nationality. What happened to them was as much to do with racism as it were anything else. Hitler still killed Christians who were Jewish sympathisers, who were non white, who wouldn't join in with the war and who were disabled. Like many Muslim people today, the Jews were demonised and blamed for all of Germany's problems (i.e. the poverty.) It was partially Hitlers personal vendetta and partially just convinient as there were tensions between most of Germany and the Jewish.

As for Jesus not having children, that's not an issue. He was Gods son and had a 'higher purpose' him not having a wife or kids isn't a sign of the bible being ridiculous or contradicting itself. Lots of the bible's heroes were not married. Genesis did say 'fill the earth' but it never said everyone had to have sex and have kids.

WW2 started for different reasons, but one of the main reasons was because Germany had lost so much in the Treaty of Versailles (after WW1) and Germany was humiliated. Hitler wanted Germany to regain their power in the World. Though Jews suffered the most (and therefore when people think of WW2 they usually think of the Holocaust), the war wasn't just about killing Jews.

Also, no-one can state 100% that humans were descended from apes, or that evolution even exists. Evidence does not mean full-proof scientific fact. e.g. People in the olden days thought that the world was round and that Earth was in the middle of the universe. Even today things we believe to be right may in fact be proven wrong in the future.

Nobody IS stating that humans are 'descended from apes'. READ THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE REST OF THREAD BEFORE YOU 'CONTRIBUTE'.

>>246 About that evolution...Well the evidence is ALMOST full-proof scientific facts. Do you not remember Sir Charles Darwin? The one who showed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors? Remember the sample of birds he took from different places? They were the same type of bird, but had slight differences in the wing shape, beak etc. AND they have been finding bones and such of our early ancestors. If you have a look at them, then you could tell that we descended from apes. Its just another word for adaptation, really. Like foxes. The common fox has orange fur for blending in with it's surroundings. Arctic foxes have white fur in the winter to blend in with the snow, and grey-ish fur in the summer to do so, also. I take evolution very seriously and I KNOW it exists. No-one can say that evolution is not real, since it is everywhere around us. This world started with single-celled organisms...Now tell me how creatures that have legs, teeth, eyes, skeleton, speech have come to existence without evolution?

I also find it funny that people draw attention to the fact that a THEORY may not be '100% certain'. Also, @250- READ THE POST BEFORE YOURS AND FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING YOU HOLD DEAR, STOP SAYING PEOPLE HAVE 'EVOLVED FROM APES'. DUX EXPLAINED THE THEORY CORRECTLY AND YET YOU STILL MANAGED TO AMKPTJMDAKQGJM...

But Dux...

"As are the elements, such are the spheres,
Mutually folded in each others' orb"

MEPHISTOPHELES KNOWS BEST.

I would rather have your love than music from the dresspheres.

Wait...I am pretty sure that 249 was not on when I posted. Hmmm...My computer's been acting up.
But, I shall believe whatever I want to!-My thoughts in a nutshell. This thread could go on about all of this, since it is a world-wide dispute.
Does God exist?
Does evolution exist?
Is there life after death?
Is there a heaven/hell?
Is this actual world real, or is it just a dream?
Do we have souls?
Is our soul the actual thing that gives us our own point of view on things?
Is there such a thing as aliens/ghosts?
All I have to say...
Un-explainable events are explained by our imagination and point of view. We may be thinking on the wrong lines, here. Are we the gods? Is there gods among us?
These questions were placed here for us to not answer, so I choose to go with the flow and believe that each of these questions have no complete answer.

Well, there is a mixing here of science and philosophy.

You said in >>250 that you know evolution exists because there is a lot of evidence for it.

The other questions are more to do with philosophy; things like 'the meaning of life' the soul and the afterlife are all what religion attempt to explain, but it's all based on faith.

Science is fact based evidence.

If this world is a dream then it is still my reality, hence it doesn't matter if its a dream or not.

I never think about aliens either, there is no proof they exist and they make no impact on my life if they do (and if they are making an impact, I don't know about it, so it still doesn't seem worth thinking about.)

latest news of what church hides.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_predator_priests

nothing new to that though...

also today in the news i heard that Vatican associates pederasty with homosexuality! grrrrr, pederasty cases all over the freaking world, most of the times had happened into the household, by "straight" family members, like fathers or uncles.
pederast are pederast, just plain rapists nothing more, they are not straight or gay or whatever, someone HAS to tell them THAT.

oh yeah, I read about that:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8620135.stm
The cardinal has said there is a 'link' between the two; basically homosexuality breeds paedophillia, not celibacy.

"According to the satistical data collected by the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith, "about 10% of cases were paedophilia in the strict sense, while 90% were cases of ephebophilia [the sexual attraction in adults to adolescents]", he added.

"Of these approximately 60% referred to individuals of the same sex and 30% of heterosexual character."

I think that jobs in the church attract paedophilles (similar to teaching or youth work) because it involves being around children, and even if caught, they can terrify the children with 'hell' and get protection from the vatican. I don't think celibacy is to blame per say.

pedophilia is a sexuality, period!
something that the individual can't control or help, as no one else can control their sexualities.

Though pedophilia, along with bestiality, necrophilia and such, are ranked as forms of rape. because one or more of the participants in the sexual act DO NOT want to or Can't choice to do it because of fear or/and inability to speak.

the rest of the known sexualities such as hetero, bi, homo, pansexuality, etc the participants have a choice to do it or not, not force or anything like that.

so they simply CAN'T connect any of the sexualities with pedophilia.

My mum was a social worker, and I've worked with kids (some who were abused sexually) and I would argue it isn't a sexuality, it's a perversion and in some cases a mental disorder. Paedophillia is also a lot to do with control and acting in a manner that offers sexual gratification, without needing consent or restraint. Basically, like rape. Rapists also say they can't help what they do, but it isn't a sexuality. Its at best a disorder, and at worst simple evil inclinations.
Paedophilles really plan to ensnare their victims. Sometimes they wait for years for the child to get to the 'desirable'age before abusing them. Therefore they can show restraint when it suits them.

WARNING: This article is pretty grim:http://www.helping-people.info/articles/dsm.htm

"Because of the ego-syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges or behaviors do not experience significant distress. It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia."

>>259
thanks for clearing this up, so the use of the term "sexuality" is wrong, I didn't want to go into psychology about that because I didn't know. I used sexuality so to compare it with other sexualities. but you gave one more reason to prove Vatican wrong!
;)

>>260, thanks. What's truly pathetic is that this is an obvious attempt of the Vatican to push attention away from the recent child abuse scandal and onto homosexuality. I'm glad it hasn't worked.

>>261 which is sick and sad, and I'm glad it doesn't working

So, poor old Christianity has been discussed over and over. How about...cults? ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3uDmyGq8Ok

Well I don't mean to come across to strongly or highly opinionated... I'm getting a little annoyed and frustrated reading this thread.

But I am atheist and I take this view for any religion/cult. How is it possible that in this day and age people are still gullible enough to beleave in 'god' or some sort of higher being. It makes no sence, I see the bible as one big book of legands and as we all know legends are usually old and there for very highly exaggerated, so most of it proberbly happened just not quite so extream. I was brought up to be christian but it wasn't stuffed in my face except at school.

My sick minded dad is one of these born again christians and I see it as an excuse for him to just forget his 'sins' and make what he has done in the past forgiveable, like his discusting acts on children, I dont think I need to say anymore about that! Which proberbly fules my anti-god point of view.

Just looking at history should be enough to tell people that religion is bad news, remember the protestant-catholic divide! We need contraception and abortion to stop our world from becoming over run by humans more than it already is. People seem to be fine with killing animals but a human... No cant do that! The Romans used to have sex with the same sex, but people seem to have forgotten that aswell.

>>16 had it down to a T

Ah! Yes! The classic answer to everything... 'god put it there to test our faith' whatever your just kidding yourself there.

And to eeyop1428 I think you need to open your eyes more and see the world around you! its not pretty, so why hasn't god done somthing about it! humans are savages, they kill, rape, distroy other people, the enviroment and animals. We are not the best thing in this world. And yes I'm sure if in the Bible it was a woman who was written as all holy or whatever then yes men proberbly would go with it... untill there power hungry nature took over.

However... just to confuse people more. I do celebrate x mas and easter, and I think that our country should continue to do so, when that city (I cant remember which) wouldn't even say Happy Christmas when they switched on the lights, that was stupid and pathetic! I'm a believer of tradition! and christmas etc is a part of that. It may not have been originally christian but it is still a fundamental part of being British! Also I respect other peoples views and usually don't express mine to avoid such outbrusts.

Everyone has there view well that was mine! although I didn't quite explain it well enough I think, and I agree with most of the athiest views on here.

religion can be a force for good, I mean, religion is more than Christianity, and a lot of rage seem focused on that.

But I think religious people who have a Constantine-like attitude to their religions have a lot to answer for.

@266- No, truly missing the point would involve writing a lengthy post about Ben Badis.

I'd like to say that you shouldn't worry about your religion if you believe something so strongly then for you it must be true that is what I believe. For my religious status, I might be going to hell according to some because I plucked things from various religions that sounded good to my ears such as a God but also a Goddess (night and day, moon and sun, man and woman,prey and preditor, yes and no. I could go on) Reincarnation sounds pleasant but also nirvana.

I do not like the Bible, I find it very good ( for lack of a stronger word) that you can believe anything in that book when you know how it has come to be

For one it was written by man and I don't care how many times you tell me God told you himself what you should write or w/e it was still a man/womman/several people who wrote it.
It was decided in like 400 a.d. what would ocme in the Bible ( the gospels etc.) At this "meeting" it was also decides is Jesus was a divine being.. at first they said no many people believed he want but then they decides that yes he was a divine being. How believable is that no offence. I respect people who can still believe the bible knowing this cos it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because of the Adam and Eve story women were put back several hundred years in "evolution" Because it was Eve's vault for plucking the apple and putting man on earth.

I think that was a almost Rant...
Anyway positive (the Bible always puts me on Edge I think I really do loathe it...)

My point and main believe is
That if you believe it then for you it is true.
I can't and won't believe that if there is a God he would punish man/woman with eternal hell which mena that neither do I believe in heaven. (this is me) You either keep going or choose to stop but I don't know what happpens when you stop.

What I really want to say, I think, is that I respect what you believe( try to at least and as long as it's not rubbing me in the face) because if you believe it there must be a reason for that ( unless you're mindless sheep which many people are but I'm not going into that because that would be insulting) and because I believe that I believe in all religions just like I believe there must be many different dimensions for all that to fit...
I hope this makes sense to people and I hope they respect what I and what others may believe.

I do believe in god, heaven and hell. But not in the bible or other religious books.
Someone or more people have written it down in some point in history. How do you know they got it right? Even if they were divinely inspirated, they could have interpreted it differently then it was meant, to fit their own world.
Then throughout time people copied it, may have changed words to fit their ideas, or simply made mistakes. Things being left out or added.
I base what I believe in on different things: scientific research, holy books, things I hear and see everywhere I go. This means as I learn more, things I believe in change to fit what I've learned, it's always in motion.

>>269
dont forget that the bible has only 4 evangelists [if I'm right mybe 5 i don't remember] and church had chosen only them, and all the other books that other evangelists had written are destroyed of simply locked into dungeons, away from the public eye.

Richard Dawkins argued in his documentary (The God delusion- yes, I was too damn lazy to bother reading the book) that all religion is dangerous because it inevitably will bring rise to extremism. He wasn't at all keen on the bible, it has to be said that the Hebrew scriptures are pretty rought sometimes. I remember being terrified as a kid when reading about 40 kids who ollowed afterone of God's prophets (I can't remember who) ad kept calling him 'baldy.' They got killed by she-bears for their crime!! There's a few examples in he Bible of that kind of harshness. But I digress, the truth is, extremism is in every religion I can think of, (in particular we all know of Islam and Chrstianity.) And considering that we have enough reasons for killing each other already, is religion worthy it? Personally, I still hold to my opinion in >> 265, but I'm curious to what others think :)

I think everything can be twisted into extremism. I mean science and politics have also had cases. Religion is just easy to manipulate because the people who where around at the time are all gone and ,at this stage, we are just left with what other people wanted us to see.

Sure the bible may have contradictions and things in it that you won't agree with, but that's life, to say it bluntly. Life is also full of contradictions and unbelievable events. Science can't explain everything, it can't explain miracles or turns-of-events that just happen. It can't even get a definite answer on the beginning of life. It's pretty much speculation and theory, which may be mostly truthful but not entirely for sure. Some say life started because of meteorites hitting the earth, or an enormous explosion of a dying star; if there is supposed to be one answer to it then how come there are so many theories saying something a little different?
But anyway, you can't totally understand or explain the bible, but you can't do the same for life either. Fact can be stranger than fiction sometimes, and paradoxically life can be both fantasy and fact. The bible is an enigma, and so is life. There are some things in both that you can't believe in or choose to believe in, which others agree with or don't. So what can you believe in truly? That's where faith comes in.

>>273
I think your right. The bible is what people make it. Thats why it has evolved the way it has but the core message has remained the same. I guess religion, in the simplest sense, is a way to contain human nature and try to prevent it from being bad. I mean religion is not bad. People have used it as an excuse for bad things but religion is not bad. It's just people have got to take it in context with the rest of the world. Just like it is bad to have a view concerned with only religion. It is bad to have a view only concerned with science.
And like eeyop1428 said everything is based on faith and hope which everything in the world is based on.

>>273, yes but to defend science, science never claims to be absolute truth, and that you should just believe in it regardless. Science is based on fact. Theory is based on observation and hypothesis. It's not the same as the Bible saying that there is a God, he loves you, obey him or go to hell, you owe him your life and he made miracles happen- all not fact based or even evidenced by tried-and-tested theory.
The reason why science has different explaination is because they admit that it is a theory, and that they are working it out. Very different to religious clerics.

>> 272, it's true that politics and race and many other things add to extremism and people abuse religion and use it as an excuse for hate. YET, you can't deny that religion is almost always involved in these things. Politics and religion go hand in hand. So does culture and tradition. E.g. The Pope says contraception is bad, and there we go, AIDS spreads even more in Africa. A cleric declares the West to be a land of infidels and evil doers that will die in the Holy War, and there we go, terrorist attacks.

And the Bible, in particular the Hebrew sciptures, encourage hate and intolerance; Yahweh was more than happy to isolate his people and to brutally kill anyone who got in his people's way; even committing or encouraging genocide. Look at what the Israelites did to Caanan.

"And like eeyop1428 said everything is based on faith and hope which everything in the world is based on." I would argue that in the modern world, fact, evidence and tried and tested theory is what we base things on, not faith and hope...

But we do really. Nothing is exact that is what science has taught us. What I mean is we know in most cases , lets say, a child will be born with 2 legs. Bad example I know but hear me out. Me can't guarntee anything, it may be highly likely that it will happen but we can't guarntee. We have faith in it because we have seen it so many times before but it is faith none the less based on trust.
Hope is the same because there is so much we don't know. There may never be able to cure cancer but we hope to. So we fund it because we hope. Hope is all around us. From little things in the things we don't know but want. So really hope and faith is everything in the world. From religion and science faith and hope has remained constant and no matter who you are you have them. Everywhere in the world.
I guess thats what I was trying to say.

>>275 Em to your earlier comment I never saw it, so sorry for not replying to before. I'm not justifying it but if you think about it, it was a way of putting people off commiting crimes. These came from the days when church and the law were the same (well more open) it was to act as deterent just like jail is today and the death penalty in some countries. I know it's not justifiable but I think thats what the reason behind it is.

"We have faith in it because we have seen it so many times before but it is faith none the less based on trust." >> we can predict a child will be born with two legs because we have 'seen it so many times before.' Tried and tested theory.
Supporting evidence.

The same cannot be said for people going to Heaven or Hell when they die or Jesus coming back to Earth. Belief in those things is 'faith.'

Encouraging genocide is not a justifiable detterent then or now.

It has evidence but it does not happen each time. There is a small chance that it won't be born with 2 legs. We have faith in it to do right. We can not predict exactly.
I admit they require more faith but it is faith in trusting in others words. It is faith from trusting your fellow man. They have been spoken to. Now I myself do not have faith in this, I have hope in this. I hope there is a heaven and as Jesus has died for our sins, I suppose it's justifiable to say I hope there is an out of work hell out there. I hope because I want to but even if there wasn't I would still follow the 10 comandments because they are the bases of good living and I have faith in them because I have seen the evidence that they are good rules of conduct to follow.
I never said it was but I was trying to give a reason of possibilty as why it was said. I mean science has had genocides too and some pretty disgusting theorys but I don't condem the whole of it because of them.I did not say they were right or that I agree with them but I was trying to give a reason.

There are many things supported by hard facts and evidence, which demands to be believed in and cannot be denied. Those things are seen, touched and proven by human eyes and hands. Those things which are definitely 'real' to our senses can be acknowledged by logic. But other things are acknowledged by instinct, abstract feelings, or inner gut feelings which you can't explain, because it isn't logical but emotional. When you're presented with something which cannot be believed for the first time, you're torn between mechanical logic and unrestrained internal instincts or feelings. On one hand you think something is impossible to exist, on the other you have a sliver of belief that it is because you just 'feel' it. It's like the mystery of how say elephants can always seem to find their way to a waterhole very far away, or why they touch the bones of other dead elephants as if in mourning or paying respect. What goes on in their heads? The question still hangs in the air.
I've heard of a miracle story by my sermon one sunday about a woman who couldn't walk, and she was in this christian conference; she truly believed that she would walk after she got prayed for. She even bought a pair of shoes for the moment. It so happened that she stood up, put on the shoes and walked out of the building by herself after everyone's prayers in the room. She had so much faith that she was granted the ability to walk. I admit this story sounds very unbelievable to me; my logic tells me to be skeptical, but then my feelings say that maybe that could have really happened. I don't know, but I supposed to believe in that kind of account is to see it for ourselves with our own eyes. In a world where 'seeing is believing', the things that are seen must be real. But the unseen things can be just as real, if you feel it in you so strongly, like instinct. You can call it a hidden truth as opposed to seen truths. Not everything can be explained, or is there to be found.
What I find funny is how people still can't seem to believe in an impossible concept like God when there are actual facts enough to show that he is a possibility, and outweighs claims against him. One reason I can think of of why that is, is because people are too afraid perhaps. Or proud of themselves, that they don't like to be 'owned' by someone else; or their logic defeats their feelings. Whatever the reason, the evidence is still there before them. In the end it's their choice to accept it or keep ignoring it. Scientists believe in aliens, why not believe in God.

>>280, "It has evidence but it does not happen each time. There is a small chance that it won't be born with 2 legs. We have faith in it to do right. We can not predict exactly."

You seem to be confused. Theory and hypothesis are not fact. I said in an earlier post that scientists say theory when something is not fact. We can assume that a child will be born with two legs because that happens the most- theory based on evidence. I did not say 'everyone is definitly born with two legs.'

There is a difference between fact, evidence-based theory and faith.

You know for a fact that humans breath oxygen.

It is a evidence-based theory that evolution happened.

It is a faith that Jesus was resurrected.

>> 280 "I mean science has had genocides too and some pretty disgusting theorys but I don't condem the whole of it because of them.I did not say they were right or that I agree with them but I was trying to give a reason."

What do you mean 'science has had genocides', I do not understand? What do you mean by 'disgusting theories'?

It still does not change the fact that religion has strong connections to many of the wars and hatred that exist in the world. And telling me the reason for something is not justifiable, so it is a moot point.

>>281, "Scientists believe in aliens, why not believe in God."
Many scientists don't believe in aliens at all. Some religious people do.

"What I find funny is how people still can't seem to believe in an impossible concept like God when there are actual facts enough to show that he is a possibility, and outweighs claims against him."
Tell me these facts that outweigh the arguments against a creator.

The story about the woman who walked thanks to faith doesn't mean anything. People have seen the Loch Ness Monster and strange lights in the sky like an aliens ship. I still do not believe in monsters or aliens.

"But other things are acknowledged by instinct, abstract feelings, or inner gut feelings which you can't explain, because it isn't logical but emotional."
But lots of people do not believe in things because of a gut feeling. They analyse, look at evidence, weigh up the possibilities and then decide if it's believable or not. It's nothing to do with people being afraid or proud, it's about being reasonable, pragmatic and realistic. It's why we are not all superstitious anymore, or trapped in a state of permanant childishness.And a lot of people do not feel that way about a god or religion- there is not gut feeling telling them it's true. Hearing about god is, for many people, the same as hearing about fairies.

>>284
The basic priciple of the holocaust was to breed the ideal human. Getting rid of all those people who were not deamed suitable by the theory of selective breeding. And a lot of countries did studys into that. That was what I meant. Science was used as an excuse to kill jews,disabled people and gypsys on the bases of the perfect being. Thats what I meant about science.
I'm going to be rude here and say. If your going to say religion is connected to everything evil, you've got to look at what connects it.What connects it is humans. People make things bad. People use Religion as an excuse, science as an excuse, other people as an excuse. Human nature is to lie and to cheat.
Politics also has equal problems but we don't stop with it. We try to learn from our mistakes and continue. That is what we've got to do with religion and saying it's wrong, is not going to change anything. Religion is not bad, science is not bad but people are. You've got to have balance a life based on scientific logic is boring and total literal religous creativity is unhealthy. You need both in life.
I don't want to be rude but this debate is sort of pointless because no matter what I say about god existing and you about science. Neither of us is taking on the others views.

"I'm going to be rude here and say. If your going to say religion is connected to everything evil, you've got to look at what connects it.What connects it is humans" It's ok, I don't think that saying that is rude at all. People do bad things, I mentioned earlier in a couple of posts that religion is used as an excuse for people to do what they want. However, the problem is that religion often encourages that feeling of hatred. So we go back to the Hebrew God encouraging/engaging in genocide of other nations.

The 'ideal human' is a good example of scientific theory being used to justify a prejdice. However, as you say, people have learned from that. We now know that a lot of what the nazi's believed about the 'perfect human' is nonsense. As a result, we do not follow those practices any more, and are careful about issues such as genetic engineering. However, one, where science changes and evolves it's theories, religious texts remain the same generation after generation. Two, certain scriptures are not removed from Holy Texts, because they are the word of God. Therefore, instead of certain prejudices being challenged and discarded (i.e. the 'perfect' race or homosexuality)the remain in tact. And concordantly, there will always be there as a fuel to prejudice, and an excuse for violence.

"You've got to have balance a life based on scientific logic is boring and total literal religous creativity is unhealthy" Not necessarily, many atheists love life, and live full, eciting lives filled with wonder and awe for the world we live in. We don't all need God.

"I don't want to be rude but this debate is sort of pointless because no matter what I say about god existing and you about science. Neither of us is taking on the others views"

I am taking on your views, I just (so far)have a counter argument for them. It's a debate.

oh and just a quick note "Politics also has equal problems but we don't stop with it." Yes, politics is riddled with problems, but we can't 'stop' politics. We could, technically, stop religion.

Sorry, I'm not good with the internet. I can't tell if people are getting angry or what,lol. I need faces and tones of voice.

The bit your saying about the hebrew texts I get but , I guess, I should expalin what religion is to me. Religion isn't the pages of the bible or any other book. It's the spirit of it. The message that we must love and respect. The books were written by man. So really religion, like science, was being twisted to support a view. It's just that it happened so long ago that it has now been accepted as fact.
When I made the scientific remark it wasn't aimed at atheists it was aimed at the logical one step at a time approach. What I mean is if you only accept everything that is fact and analyse and never do crazy things on the thrill of an emotion or idea it's never going to work and if you never question the world and what you've been told, accepting it with no evidence you will live unhealthy lifestyles. You need a mix of spirtiuality and logic to learn about the world around you. You may be happy but you may be living wrong(if that makes sense).

Oh you could never really stp religion. You could never stop people grouping together and respecting each other. Having hope in something and faith. Based on the fact that we don't know everything and that theres more out there. The thread about ghosts is a good example of that. They don't belive in god but they belive in spirits. And, it could be argued from my perspective, that spirituality is the bases of all religion.

Well, there's a difference between spirituality and religion. I think people could just stop believing in God, e.g. people don't believe in fairies anymore.

Well some people still do belive in faries. They may stop beliving in god the way he is presented now but I don't think you could ever get away from the feeling that theres something out there we don't know. The wonder of what if, and just the trust based on nothing. The things that can't be explained.

Oh just on an afterthought people no longer belive in fairies but they now belive in aliens. The thought process is the same, some superior race out there.

But again, I'm talking religion not spirituality. People will still be philosopical and spiritual, but society could come to a point where people do not base their lives (going against their own logic) to follow the rules a book says.

Some people believe in aliens, but I think most people actually don't. It's certainly not believed the same way religion is (on a mass scale)or even how fairies were (fairies were ancient gods anyway.) People who believe in aliens are usually treated (in the media) as a joke.

But again, I'm talking religion not spirituality. People will still be philosopical and spiritual, but society could come to a point where people do not base their lives (going against their own logic) to follow the rules a book says.

Some people believe in aliens, but I think most people actually don't. It's certainly not believed the same way religion is (on a mass scale)or even how fairies were (fairies were ancient gods anyway.) People who believe in aliens are usually treated (in the media) as a joke.

But thats where your wrong about religion. Religion isn't based on the pages of a book. The books are used to document all the things that we can't explain. Religion and spirituality go hand in hand.The idea of a spirit comes from religion, the bases of heaven is based on it. Sprituality is the essence of religion, that has been studied by many people to give it more of a form. If you look at how diverse religion is yet the essential elements remain the same. Because the spirit is the same.

Not necessarily, I think you mix religion and spirituality to make them almost the same thing, and they are not. Atheists are capable of being spiritual and philosophical. You don't have to have a religion to engage in that.

Spirituality isn't based on pages of a book, but religion most certainly is.

The argument you are using is very similar to when religious people say that, without religion, no one could have morality/a moral compass, which isn't true either.

Spirituality is innate (and some feel it more than others) but religion is not necessary to human life.

Spirituality is a generalised concept that is personal to each person; 'spiritual muslim' 'spiritual judaism' etc

But religion is a physical organisation based on traditions and following the spiritual concepts set by their leaders (e.g. Christ.)

So while the two intertwine, it's perfectly possible for the physical one to end (how many dead religions are there?) but the other one to continue.

Spirituality is less of an issue because it is personal, it doesn't have a book saying one group is Chosen over another, or that certain people are doomed to die.

It's probably one of the reasons why heavily spiritual religions (thinking the far East and some forms of paganism here) are less criticised than organisations of doctrine religions such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

So, in conclusion, it is conceivable that one day,new religions will stop growing out of the old ones, people will still philosophise about the concept divine, purpose and the after life.

Only we won't have self righteous clerics or religious leaders screaming that hell and heaven are FACT that people who are gay deserve to die and that ancient traditions should not be questioned.

We will, hopefully, have moved on from that. And we can't move on, until organised religion is gone.

You can not put sprituality of religion on a scale and the idea that more spiritual ones are somehow less objectional is , no offense, but nonsence. Sprituality is in the hands of the beholder. I don't think you realise how diverse religion is.

I admit it is conceivable that one day there will be no religion but it's unlikely. You gave the set rules of tradition and humans are creatures of tradition. Even little things like take-ont night. We are pack creatures and thats why organised religion exists. Take your dead religion point. Sure they died out but look what happened new ones replaced them. The same will happen look at the rising levels of paganism. It's the whole pack instinct.

I will admit I was a tad offended by your remark about the gay people. Not every religion has this view and it is wrong to use it as an argument. That is the equivalent of pointing a poor view of a few scientists, lets say, that we should just let famines happen and not intervine because it will help with the overpopulation crisis. Not a lot of scientists agree with this but a few do. I don't however judge the whole concept of science on this. They are a minority who do this and not all religions have this. Brethrens for example debate the bible with no religous leader to find an understanding and are constantly questioning it.

You say we can't move on until organised religion is gone. If I am correct this is extreme atheism, which in my opinion, is just another for terrorism. Organised religion will always exist. It may change it's name and it's values but it will always be there. The point is the only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes not just abandon it, because if we do it only means that when we are gone someone will take it up and the same problems will exist. We should learn from our mistakes not what has happened. Religion is not bad it's the people.

"You can not put sprituality of religion on a scale and the idea that more spiritual ones are somehow less objectional is , no offense, but nonsence."
Why is it nonsense? I said that spirituality and religion intertwine, but argued that they are still two different things; in the most obvious sense, one is a concept, and one is tangible.

"Sprituality is in the hands of the beholder. I don't think you realise how diverse religion is."
I do't understand what point this is supposed to be making. Again, I said that spirituality is something that is private and personal, but religion is a shared organisation. I also seperated different types of religion and havn't dumped them all in one group (i.e. I seperated religions such as Taoism and some pagan religions, which are more spiritual, to one's like Christianity, which are more doctrine based.)

"Sure they died out but look what happened new ones replaced them. The same will happen look at the rising levels of paganism. It's the whole pack instinct."
I said that new religions spring out of the old ones, but that this can slowly but surely stop happening. People are not instinctually religious, and there is a difference between religion and tradition. Lots of non-Christians celebrate Christmas. They don't need religion to do this. Religion is not an instinct.

"I will admit I was a tad offended by your remark about the gay people. Not every religion has this view and it is wrong to use it as an argument"
I also used Heaven and Hell; not every religion believes in those. It was obviously just an example of things different religions have taught, I don't know why you chose just to focus on that. Again, you're accusing me of stuff I havn't really said.

Oh no I meant when you said some religions were more spiritual. I mean take the lighting of candles in the Roman Catholic church it is spiritual. Just because it takes a diffrent form of spirituality. You say it's more doctrine based it is still equally spiritual. It is just manifesting in a diffrent way. Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks.

What I meant was how diverse diffrent religions are. I mean you've grouped christianity together. Christianity has so many diffrent form, rituals and traditions it can't possibly be judged the same.

"You say we can't move on until organised religion is gone. If I am correct this is extreme atheism, which in my opinion, is just another for terrorism."
What terrorist acts have atheists commited?

"Organised religion will always exist"
So you keep saying, yet no real argument has been put up for this- you talk about generalised spirituality instead.

"The point is the only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes not just abandon it, because if we do it only means that when we are gone someone will take it up and the same problems will exist."
In other words, by someone else 'picking it up' 'it' means religion, so religion continues...

"We should learn from our mistakes not what has happened. Religion is not bad it's the people."
But, as I said before, the religious Holy texts do not change. Unless you cherry pick from the Bible, you have to accept that certain 'bad' things are encouraged. As long as these texts exist, so will people willing to enforce them in the most violent ways possible.

I haven't accused you of anything. I just took that one as an example.
Is the new worship of Christmas not a new form of religion?

>>303, but all Christianity is based of a Holy Book, in this case the Bible. It is doctrine based.

Religion has spirituality in it, and vice-versa, what I am saying is, they are not exactly the same, though they intertwine. Therefore, they can be seperated, and where one is a concept and will continue, one is tangible and could, feasibly, end.

The holy texts have changed you wrote a while back about how some of them were kicked out of the re-write.
The prinicple of extreme atheism is to get rid of organised religion by any means. Violence has been suggested and encouraged by leaders in this field, Richard Dawkins for example, they create fear. Religious people may not belive wrong but by no means should they be made to feel scared and ashamed of their beliefs.

>>306
They are so intertwined though that it would be extremally hard to get rid of it. Picture this spirituality is the roots of all religion. Religion is the shoots. Religion can be cultivated and made to grow in a certain way by someone not connected. Cut away the religion. More religion will just grow.

>>305, No it isn't. People don't worship anything in Christmas. It's a celebration of family and consumerism and is borne out of tradition. Celebration and worship are different things. I would say that there isn't even any spirituality in ('modern') Christmas.

Saturnalia was a precurser to Christmas, but they worshipped different things and had ddifferent meanings. New Christmas isn't a new form of religion at all, and therefore, vry different.

"Violence has been suggested and encouraged by leaders in this field, Richard Dawkins for example, they create fear." Evidence?

"The holy texts have changed you wrote a while back about how some of them were kicked out of the re-write."
All the more reason to not believe what they say is fact, and, again, if people are going to cherry pick, why not just get rid of the religion and lead a moral life led by logic instead?

"They are so intertwined though that it would be extremally hard to get rid of it. Picture this spirituality is the roots of all religion." So are you saying that spirituality causes religion to be? I'm not as convinced. Plus, I beleive that people can discuss the divine and the 'spirit realm' without turning into masses of people who have nothing more than faith that something is correct. Philosophy and spiritual discussion can be personal, discussed and debated. Religion sells itself as fact.

>>309
It is based on traditions which is a clear component of religion. It was part of an old religion the transfered to a new one because that was the lifestyle.
They do worship at christmas. You are encouraged to share and all the pictures of santa(who used to be a saint, another example of parts of the dying religion being transfered to the new) doesn't it remind you bit of church and the pictures of jesus?
When new religions come that are diffrent they'll reconise that tradition as being difrent it may not be religious but it certinly has the potential of growing into it.

"When new religions come that are diffrent they'll reconise that tradition as being difrent it may not be religious but it certinly has the potential of growing into it."
Sooo...you are saying Christmas isn't religious. May have a chance of growing into something religious, but it isn't now.

The elements that were religious are slowly dying off. Father Christmas is becomming nothing more than an ad for coca-cola.

And nobody actually worships father christmas- most kids have pictures of various cartoon characters, but we don't think they are real or pray to them.

'Encouraged to share?' Again, that isn't a sign of religion. People give and recieve gifts- it's a celebration. People do the same sort of thing on birthdays and valentines, which are not religious celebrations.

Yes.
We don't worship him but he has changed from his original history. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are going through a time of change in christianity and religion in this coutry. We have an oppertunity to change it for the better rather than just condemn it.

What would you think should be changed?

Well, from my opinion in the churches I go to, it would be nice for there to be no longer the whole against each other thing. For example my mum, a catholic, had to sign a contract when she married my dad, a protestant, that all children would be raised catholics. The whole stigma of being mixed would be nice to dispear.
The whole anti-gay thing makes no sense to me. I mean what happened to treat other people the way you want to be treated yourself. My best friend is gay and nearly all my friends are gay or Bi. I think theirs only 3 of us who aren't.
Faith schools should go. I mean I don't see the point in them. I missed maths and went to mass insteed, bearing in mind I'm only 16, that is some scarily old fashioned values and meant when I went to secondary school. I was way behind.
The control the church has is not right. Church and politics should not mix and schooling as well. They should organise community events sure. Sunday school is cool as long as it was nice as the one I went to (Which was a protestant one, take that Vatican!) where it was all about the ten comandments and colouring in. Learning the basics of the bible and a little bit of debate.
Contraception would be fine. Women would be equal. It would not be above the law.
What about you?

I believe in God,I'm christian and hate everyone who racists beliefs. Like O my god and Jesus Christ and saying Jew or calling muslims bad people because some of them are terrorists. That's also why I'm not going to stop saying things like cancer and go to hell.

>>316
Yeah that is really annoying. What abuse have you got from being a christian?

>>315, I'd change so many things, it might as well not be the same religion.

The problem with some of the changes you would like to make is that for less liberal religious people, that would be going against the Bible and therefore a sin. It would be seen by some as you making up and following your own rules instead of God's rule; extremist religious groups would even say liberals were false prophets. Hence the debate over female priests and homosexuals. There will always be those who follow the Bible (or whatever Holy Book) to a T, and would find liberal religious members trying to change parts of the religion to suit a more modern viewpoint deeply offensive.

I wouldn't change the religion though, because religion is how it relates to the individual. I can see what your saying and it works both ways more relaxed christians also would scorn them. I suppose thats when it would split. However the church reqires people to control(which is pretty bad) and so will swing whatever way gets them the most followers.
The bible can be interpeted in so many ways and condradicts itself in so many ways it can support any lifestyle. Thats why I think it's easier just to follow the 10 comandments (and I guess the 11 of muslims with the don't hurt animals) kinda childish but it's easy to understand.

"I wouldn't change the religion though, because religion is how it relates to the individual."
But religion is an organised set of rules that people follow regardless, not a personal thing that can be changed. But this is the same discussion as earlier, so I won't go into it again, as we're going in circles.

"I think it's easier just to follow the 10 comandments (and I guess the 11 of muslims with the don't hurt animals) kinda childish but it's easy to understand."
I understand, but then, I don't think you need any religion in order to follow these rules. The vast majority of mankind know it's bad to steal, murder etc. No one needs a religious leader to tell them that.

True, but without the ten comandments you wouldn't get the oppertunity to colour in. We can't take away the oppertunity to colour in multicolour virgin marys to children!XD

Oh and afterthought. I suppose the diffrence is you won't burn in hell for eternity while demons beat you up, so they say. :P

...

I could take on a demon... >:)

Lol, thats the attitude. Tag team with someone REALLY evil...like Stalin. I'd pay to see that dictators V.S demons.
Hell, would probably be more intresting. I mean heaven you would have to be so good all the time. Like staying over at your grannys. You'd end up mad and at least in hell your already damned so it wouldn't really matter what you did, you could just go crazy.
As a christain shouldn't really be saying that...

haha, well...the good thing is...people in the bible were often not good (King David) but God still loved them, s I think, maybe you could still mess about, even in Heaven- as long as no one got hurt. I dunno...

I read a comic where a the protagonist goes to Heaven, and everyone is just sitting on chaors smiling. Because they are so content, they just don't do anything. Then he went to Hell, and it was basically the same as Earth (hahaha.)

Well he loved them but maybe they went to hell all the same, you know rules are rules. Would heaven have rules? That would sort of suck.Don't think I make the cut to get in anyway. Especially if the jehovas are right about only a select 10 000 getting in. Theres no way I can compete with Mother Theresa, damn her.
Hehe sounds a good comic. Maybe it would be like blackadder. In hell your allowed to do all the things that get you in there like adultry, cheating and murder. While in heaven you always have to be good. It's begining to lose it's appeal...

well, the Jehovahs believe only so many are going to Heaven, but everyone else stays on Earth (onl it's perfect- like Garden of Eden style.)

I say, just appreciate the beauty and joy that surrounds you now, and, if there is an afterlife, what happens, happens, y'know?

Yeah, thats right. I mean whats the point in wasting time thinking about it to excess. Just do what feels right to you because then it will be the right path for you. You need balence anyway, the occational bad stuff, I tried being perfect once and I was never more unhappy. It was the worse feeling in my life. Nah who cares about heaven and hell anyway. Lifes too long as it is.

@324 In heaven you wouldn't have any sort of temptation to do evil or sin, why would there be there? Also, it's not just about being good; it's about glorifying and worshipping God because you want to, and are obedient to him. If life were just about being good and following conduct and rules, most people may well go to heaven because it's easier to do than truly committing yourself to an unseen figure. If you're saying those things I don't think you're taking heaven and hell seriously enough, unless you're joking there. Which probably would mean you're not anyway, but you should know if you are or not in yourself.

Anyway, in response to post >>285: 'Many scientists don't believe in aliens at all. Some religious people do.' - Haven't you heard of theories by some scientists that alien lifeforms may exist? I meant those scientists who study space, planets and stars mainly who would be most likely inclined to believe in it. Stephen Hawkins for example believes aliens exist out there somewhere. There have been documentaries saying how Mars is similar to Earth and could harbour some alien life on its surface because it has some similar conditions for life to Earth. Although alien life is not confirmed for definite. Who knows, maybe life IS out there somewhere. [shrug]

'Tell me these facts that outweigh the arguments against a creator.' - Well, not that I have any links to these, but there are manuscripts found connected to the events in the bible or relating to other information in it, which I have mentioned in previous posts in this thread. Ancient letters by Caesar (sorry if that is spelt wrong) mentioning either Jesus or another name connected to Jesus (eg Messiah). Jerusalem itself containing the locations within the bible. Catastrophic weather destroying lands and threatening humans; a sign of the Earth dying, or the apocalypse drawing nearer, as foretold in the bible. The stories of miracle events from people over the world in accounts; there are so many, are they really lying then? To be very general, everything around us can be evidence of God; ironically making him the creator of science which is so used against him.

As for miracle accounts, I can tell you my own, though most of them aren't like spectacular miracles but they are either surprising or too coincidental to be a result of chance: I'd wanted a new pen, and some days later one was on the floor in a building. I'd thought about a childhood friend several times and how he was doing, and he was at the same bus station one day. One day in the bus station I sat down, looked out of the window and saw the word 'God' on the side of a bus, the word being a part of a longer word, but I sat in the particular place where I would see 'God', so to speak heh. One I will never forget is when I crossed the street on an amber light, slowed down a little to wait for my brother to catch up, and then a motorbike zoomed past inches in front of me; my heart stopped and knew that I could have been seriously hurt or probably died, if my brother were not with me.
Of course, even if you looked up these things, and read them with your own eyes, you would not begin to believe because you won't open your mind or heart to God truly. You're still thinking in mechanical logic, seeing things pragmatically. You are 'blinded' by the world's culture.

Well, there we have it. Imagine someone being in need of a pen. Almost unthinkable, right? Now, imagine a pen being left on the floor in a building within the space of- get this- a week! The chances of that happening must be a million to one!

I'm trying to keep out of this thread, because I've given up on the possibility of intelligent debate here, but every so often you guys tickle me, you really do...

THERE WUZ DIS PACK OF MUSHROOMS IN DA SUPAMARKET, RITE, BUT ANOTHER PACK WUZ COVERING UP 'ROOMS', SO HOLY CRAP IT MUST B DA APOCALYPSE TOMORROW CUZ WE'RE GONNA TURN INTO MUSH!!!1

As you say: 'The story about the woman who walked thanks to faith doesn't mean anything. People have seen the Loch Ness Monster and strange lights in the sky like an aliens ship. I still do not believe in monsters or aliens.' - How do you know if what those people saw was actually the Loch Ness monster? Or that those strange lights were really alien spacecraft? No one has ever brought in concrete evidence of these witnesses, and any photography or image of them are always blurred, shadowed or obscure. It could be anything, the real thing or a hoax. You shouldn't believe everything you hear on tv or read in newspapers, and not everything is true to the eye. People's recounting of what they have seen can be warped a little or altered. You don't know whether they were tricked by lighting or shadow, drunk, making it up or were in a state of panic when these sightings happened. People can lie. But again, you'd have to be there to know for yourself.

'But lots of people do not believe in things because of a gut feeling. They analyse, look at evidence, weigh up the possibilities and then decide if it's believable or not. It's nothing to do with people being afraid or proud, it's about being reasonable, pragmatic and realistic. It's why we are not all superstitious anymore, or trapped in a state of permanant childishness.And a lot of people do not feel that way about a god or religion- there is not gut feeling telling them it's true. Hearing about god is, for many people, the same as hearing about fairies.' -
Now how do you know if people are not afraid or simply proud, unconsciously or not, when it comes to not wanting to believe? You say this as if you know what goes on in their heads, but are you very sure of this assumption? You may approach something analytically, with an objective mind, but others aren't like you in the same way. There many emotions a person can feel, and frankly one which they feel the most is fear; fear of the unknown, the unseen, the deviant. God can be feared for that reason. Or perhaps fear of being outcast for believing in him.

'It's why we are not all superstitious anymore, or trapped in a state of permanant childishness.' - Seriously, there are plenty of people who are superstitious, or trapped in a state of permanent childishness, whether they know it or not. Idols, objects of spiritualism to repel 'evil forces', or wives' tales and other things, still exist that speak of illogical superstition. Even the colour black remains as a sign of bad luck or omen, unconsciously or not; it's pressed into our minds already and can't be removed wholly by simple logic. And people can easily be childish, or think childishly; and they won't admit it either.
I do know that a lot of people don't believe from 'gut feelings' but are born into believing or just conform with others. But those who are committed would feel something like a hunch or connection inside, at least a true sense of belief. Religion is just a word. What matters is the connection or expression behind it. That is how you know what it is. Like love. What is love? It is the connection/expression you get from it.

@332- Ever considered being a missionary for Atheism? I think you'd be good at it.

>>330 In all honesty , I'm not joking, it would be kind of cool if you people who knew what they were talking about could take over because, I fully admit, I still rate pre-school level on these things. So I guess it would be cool to see what intelligant people say so I might learn something.
>>324
I was joking,lol. Maybe I don't take heaven and hell seriously enough and I don't appreciate the stuff he does but sometimes you've got to laugh at yourself. It was the only way to redeem myself after my ramblings and half baked ideas. Besides I think being good will get you further than being devoted ever will.

>>329, "Anyway, in response to post >>285: 'Many scientists don't believe in aliens at all. Some religious people do.' - Haven't you heard of theories by some scientists that alien lifeforms may exist? "
There was no reason to tell me about scientists who do beleive in aliens as I never challenged their existence.

" Well, not that I have any links to these,"
With no evidence your argument is already weaker.

"Ancient letters by Caesar (sorry if that is spelt wrong) mentioning either Jesus or another name connected to Jesus (eg Messiah). "

a- Jesus was a common name.
b- I never challenged the existence of Jesus.
c-Even if he did exists, that doesn't mean he was the son of God.

>>329
"Jerusalem itself containing the locations within the bible"

That is still not proof that God exists. It just means that Bible authors knew the layout of the land.

"Catastrophic weather destroying lands and threatening humans; a sign of the Earth dying, or the apocalypse drawing nearer"
These things have been happening since the beginning of the earth.

"The stories of miracle events from people over the world in accounts; there are so many, are they really lying then?"

There are also many different creation stories from all around the world. Are they all lying?

"To be very general, everything around us can be evidence of God; ironically making him the creator of science which is so used against him."
Such as?
"As for miracle accounts, I can tell you my own, though most of them aren't like spectacular miracles but they are either surprising or too coincidental to be a result of chance:" None of those worked for me.They seemed very much like chance. You sound like those people that believe in luck- they attribute every bad thing (no matter how meaningless) to the fact that they walked under a ladder that day... Also, if true, why the hell is god letting children die and get raped, but making sure you find a pen?

"you would not begin to believe because you won't open your mind or heart to God truly."
Nice get-out clause to make up for a weak argument- "if you don't believe me, it's all your fault for not being as Holy as I! How I pity you O Blind One!" I often find religious people, when faced with fact or a difficult argument, fall back on being sanctimonious. Then they can feel smug and enlightened, even though what they said was nonsense.

>>332 "How do you know if what those people saw was actually the Loch Ness monster? "
I don't believe they did. I also do not believe that a woman stood up and starting walking due to Bible magic.
"You shouldn't believe everything you hear on tv or read in newspapers, and not everything is true to the eye."
I...don't. I also don't believe everything I read in the Bible.

"Now how do you know if people are not afraid or simply proud, unconsciously or not, when it comes to not wanting to believe?"
Again, I didn't say EVERYONE, did I?

" Seriously, there are plenty of people who are superstitious..."
I didn't say everyone wasn't childish or superstitious either!! At least read my posts properly!

"Religion is just a word."
A word that has a meaning and is something physical in the real world. In the same way you can't really get all metaphysical about 'retail industry.'

"What is love? It is the connection/expression you get from it."
There is a difference between 'religion' and 'spirituality.'

>>335 Even though I haven't provided any links, you can still look it up. It's not like I'm trying to lie to you.

>>336 The earth has not experienced as much freak weather as it has done during the last recent years. Any extreme weather would be naturally conceived and slower to manifest by many years. Right now it's being sped up by increasing pollution and carbon dioxide, with the increase of industry.

'There are also many different creation stories from all around the world. Are they all lying?' - I would say yes, if they vary from each other when they should be saying the same things about how the earth began and what happened at the time. Besides, how would we know for definite what really happened? We weren't there at the time.

>>337 Such as...,everything. As I had said so. There are many examples to choose from; the plants, the animals, the weather, us.

I'm not superstitious like that. I suppose I can only say that I don't feel as if the things that had happened were coincidence or meaningless, when they have happened several times in my life. It comes from experiencing them and thinking about them in connection with each other. It may be meaningless to you, but it's different for others.
As been said in previous posts, God cannot intervene forcefully in human lives; there is the free-will issue again.

>>338 Well, I didn't say that to feel all smug and proud of myself. Do you think I'm making up all that I've said? It's not like I'm trying to, you don't know the things I've experienced, concerning my belief. You obviously don't want to believe in God or the things said in the bible, that's why you don't get answers from it which you can relate to in a way that feels deep, like it really means something. And if you did try to once, you gave up on it, and so losing your faith and link to it. You've never really prayed to God have you? What I've just said may sound abstract, but this is coming from my 'heart', you know, the human heart which you can't see? Like everyone on earth can do; not being fake with words.

>>339 Here's what you said: 'People have seen the Loch Ness Monster and strange lights in the sky like an aliens ship.'
You didn't say that people 'might have' or 'perhaps had' seen the Loch Ness monster and strange lights in the sky like an alien's ship, making me think you stated that as truth. You should reword your sentence.

I was being general in my answer to that. Saying: 'But lots of people do not believe in things because of a gut feeling.' is also being general, so I referred to those general people you mentioned.

When you said 'we' it sounded like you mean everyone there. Again you should reword it.

Religion is just a word. Like I said, it's the meanings behind it that impact the world, which you sort of said in a different way.

I was only comparing the two concepts to show how you know what something is by the expression you get from it, not by it's wording. From religion there is spirituality. And vice versa.

"Even though I haven't provided any links, you can still look it up."
The evidence you gave was not proof of a creator. Not adding links to a reputable site or book just mkade the argument weaker.

"It's not like I'm trying to lie to you."
So you say, but I don't know you or your character. You couldbe trying to lie to me. Plus, just telling me something isn't going to make me believe it.

The global warming issue, to me, is too uncaertain to base any beliefs. I do think global warming is partially the earths natural cycle, but man-made emmissions have aggravated it. However, it's important to note that
a) there are two sides of the argument. People who are skeptical of global warming have good reasons to be so. Right now, we are not certain what has caused it.

b) it is not 'The day after tommorow.' It doesn't seem much like armaggeddon to me- if it's anything its more to do with people and pollution moreso than an angry god.

"Besides, how would we know for definite what really happened? We weren't there at the time."
Your cynicism for different creation stories is the same I have for miracle stories. As for certain myths (like the flood)popping up all over the earth, that also happens with fairytales (China has its own ancient version of cinderella- read - see Marina Walkers 'From beast to the blonde.')Stories travel.

"Such as...,everything. As I had said so. There are many examples to choose from; the plants, the animals, the weather, us." My question of 'such as?' still stands. What about the weather, animals and us?

"It may be meaningless to you, but it's different for others."
Evidently.

"God cannot intervene forcefully in human lives; there is the free-will issue again."
I'm guessing that is a response to my question of why god is helping you find a pen, but not helping a child who is being raped. Free will doesn't cut it in that argument. The child has no will, and you had the free will to buy a pen...

"Well, I didn't say that to feel all smug and proud of myself..." You son't have to say it bluntly, you just sound self satisfied 'well, you just don't understand, so blind...' Don't use the personal history I have told you, and then make assumptions about me! You have no idea. And is anything, I'm in a good position, because all these half hearted, airy fairy arguments I have heard before and can argue against faster.

"You should reword your sentence." No, I don't have to. That sentence was clear.

"When you said 'we' it sounded like you mean everyone there. Again you should reword it." Everyone where?

"I was being general in my answer to that. Saying: 'But lots of people do not believe in things because of a gut feeling.' is also being general, so I referred to those general people you mentioned."
I think the difference is I was talking about the odd person in general, where you made generalisations about people.

A con of the internet is that there is too much information; it's hard to distinguish what is truth and what is not for certain things. It's the same with newspapers and magazines, but more so on the internet because you have the power of being anonymous and free speech. You can't believe some things that I say because I'm a stranger, but then why would a stranger go so far to simply lie to equally unknown users on the 'net? Why bother to an extent? I can't force you to believe me; I can only give you my word that what I say is not two-faced.
And facts can be manipulated by others, information can be overloaded, begging the question of what is genuine or fake. I say one thing that makes us confused is our attachment to material things vs the spiritual aspect of our lives.

>>343 God cares about what happens to us. I can't tell you why he doesn't intervene in horrible crimes like child abuse, apart from what I said above, but I do believe that he will take care of those children who had suffered, as he watches over everyone, and deliver punishment to the abusers who deserve it. The bible says that he is a fair and loving god, who has everything in his control. He hates sin, not sinners. So he will punish accordingly but also reach out to those who don't yet know him. He is a god of second chances.

You argue with the knowledge and experience of this world, which can be limited to some extent. It doesn't have the answer to everything, as impressive the amount of human achievements in history are. The mind is like a cup; it can't contain beyond its limit.

Wow, interesting debate. I haven't read all the posts - there's an awful lot of them (will try though).
Well, hi everyone. I do believe in God and I'm a Muslim. I like to think I'm pretty liberal and open-minded. I personally believe that religion itself -as in the belief in God- is fine but it's how people use or skew it that causes all these problems. For example, Islam is a religion of peace however you have all these extremists and terrorists who take the religion and start killing in its name. (It really makes me sick to be honest).
I have no problem with people believing in what they want whether theist, atheist or just not sure. One thing I really hate though is when people try to shove religion down your throat, it really puts people off, I know this from experience, my Dad would do this and it made me hate religion for a while.

@BlackMage16 Hello, I've heard of a constitution which forbid Muslims to believe in gods other than Allah, and doing so meant imprisonment and even execution. But many Muslims wanted to change their religion, although they were afraid of the constitution placed over them, and Saddam. It got changed however by a petition for the constitution to protect those who wanted to convert to another religion, and though it doesn't specify its support for it, it does now say it will respect the religions of others, therefore they are safe. Which is a great miracle, because many Muslims then converted to Christianity in peace.
I suppose a figure like Saddam is someone who'd used religion to control the country with tyranny and fear.

I agree. What you believe in is of your own choice and no one else's. It's not right to be controlled or influenced by another.

>>347 I think every religon has moments like that.

@eeyop1428
I really don't know much about what's going on around. But the Saddam regime was a pretty twisted one and people weren't exactly free, however in some ways the Iraq invasion has caused many more problems. ~sigh~
The change in constitution is at least a step in the right direction. Belief is you own choice, no one should involve themselves as its between you and God (or whoever you believe in). Its sad that in so many countries people have no choice and are forced to be of a particular faith which is completely against Human Rights, besides they're never really going to be of that faith as they're just pretending to fit in/ not get in trouble etc.
In some ways I understand why people say that religion and politics shouldn't mix as it causes problems such as these. Look at some of the so-called Muslim countries (I say Muslim as I don't believe they are Islamic as they abuse the religion) which implement laws many of which serve to subject women- which has nothing to do with Islam, this is simply a cultural thing- seriously in one country women can't drive, they have to have male drivers... ~sigh~

Not allowing women to drive, right. Then they could make chauffeurs out of the men, thus it's the law's fault if they don't like it heh. Though I find that more sexist than a cultural thing. It's like saying women don't have the ability to operate a vehicle, when they actually do. Ridiculous.

Saddam not only used fear to keep Muslims in place in terms of religion, but he also made the population think that the Americans refused to send them much needed medicine for their children, and so they hated the Americans. In truth, they did send the medicine but Saddam took them, sold them for money to spend on himself, and told the Muslims otherwise. Pretty sick of him, how he could let those poor children die while he went after his own glory, using their deaths as a promotion of himself. But thankfully he had been found out, and the truth revealed.

Sometimes it's not really about religion specifically, but about politics and power-play between governing bodies in such conflicts. They're just using religion as a tool for winning. That's one of the reasons why many people hate religion, thinking it only starts wars and negative things happening, when it's only the people who use it make it look bad. Like Fred Phelps (seriously, this man's so bad, watch him on Youtube, you'll get what I mean. His words disgrace God).

@347- DO YOUR RESEARCH.

From Wikipedia, no less:

While mainstream scholars uphold capital punishment for apostates for Islam,[13] a number of scholars argue the punishment is reserved for those who have committed treason against the Muslim community, or who rejected Islam during the time of the prophet Muhammad.

In a book on the issue, Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that Islamic law that calls for death for apostasy is in conflict with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment.[17]

Medieval Muslim scholars (e.g. Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (e.g. Hasan at-Turabi), also have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates (see below) should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general.[18] These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty.

Other prominent Islamic scholars like the Grand Mufti of Cairo Sheikh Ali Gomaa have stated that while God will punish apostates in the afterlife they should not be executed by human beings.[19]

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar, writes that punishment for apostasy was part of Divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (see Itmaam-i-hujjat), hence, he considers it a time-bound command and no longer punishable.[20]

[edit] Qur'an
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[21]

W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only," adding that Shafi'is interpret verse [Qur'an 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in the Qur'an.[22] Wael Hallaq holds that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text."[3] The late dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi'a religious authority, stated that the Quranic verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy.[7]

Popular Islamist author Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi argued that verses [Qur'an 9:11] of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy. However, some scholars reject Mawdudi's interpretation. S. A. Rahman concluded "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter…"[23] He continues and says that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

In his book on Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Rahman declares the verse [Qur'an 2:256] to be "one of the most important verses of the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind…". He goes on to criticize the attempts by Muslim scholars over the ages to narrow its broad humanistic meaning and impose limits on its scope in their attempts to reconcile it with their interpretations of Muhammad's Sunna.

[edit] Hadith
Writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Heffening holds that contrary to the Qur'an, "in traditions [i.e. hadith], there is little echo of these punishments in the next world… and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty."[15] Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet."[3]

Some hadith report that in some cases Muhammad allowed apostates to live:

Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah's Apostle said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good."[2]
Another hadith reports that Ubayd-Allah ibn Jahsh converted to Christianity and Muhammad also left him unharmed.[24][25]

Ayatollah Montazeri holds that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam to combat political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and is not intended for those who simply change their belief or express a change in belief Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He argues that capital punishment whould be reserved for those who desert Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community, and those who convert to another religion after investigation and research.[7]

[edit] Historic
According to Muslim Islamic scholar Cyril Glassé, death for apostasy was "not in practice enforced" in later times in the Muslim world, and was "completely abolished" by "a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260AH/1844AD."[26]

"You can't believe some things that I say because I'm a stranger, but then why would a stranger go so far to simply lie to equally unknown users on the 'net? Why bother to an extent?"
Because you want me to believe you when you have no evidence to back up anything you say and so haven't answered the majority of my questions/challenges.

"And facts can be manipulated by others, information can be overloaded, begging the question of what is genuine or fake."
Some things are just fact. Stop relying so heavily on pseudo-philosophy because it doesn't mean anything and isn't a real answer.

"I can't tell you why he doesn't intervene in horrible crimes like child abuse... but I do believe that he will take care of those children who had suffered"- Still doesn't answer why he saved you from being pen-less and allowed them to suffer in the 'short term.'

"You argue with the knowledge and experience of this world, which can be limited to some extent."Sure it's limited, but even more limited is arguing that something is true because you have a 'feeling.'

"It doesn't have the answer to everything" No but that doesn't mean I have to find answers in something that isn't there.

Confessions of a Former Christian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5TWTTPHF8&feature=related

Since the thread is tl;dr I'm just returning to the original question.

I'm not religious, and I see the characters from the Bible(which incidentally is the only Holy Book I have access to) as nothing but characters. Having said this, I don't really like God all that much.

But I won't say anything else, as I'm not here to make enemies. I don't want to offend anyone here and since my opinion certainly would I'll just leave it at this.

@354- Try to please everyone and you'll please no-one. I happen to like freedom of speech.

@Anonymous - I know, but I'm always kind of blunt when giving my opinion on religion.

I think organized religion is a load of rubbish. I hate the repressive effects it has on people and the severe hampering of knowledge.

Aside from that I have several more petty views on the subject that pretty much revolve around me being on Lucifer's side because I think God is a hypocrite.

>>352 The evidence I know of is unseen, of the holy spirit, which comes through believers and circumstances. You can know this through faith, which is one of the main running aspects of Christianity. Belief is most genuine if you have faith in something, believing it is true and real even though you cannot see it. Since God is not of this world, how can we see him with human eyes? He is too great for that kind of perception. I haven’t quite answered some of your questions because I have already answered in one way with previous posts, and as you like to see physical evidence of my answers which are mainly spiritual in nature, based on faith and concerning experiences and different outlook on life, it’s predictable that you would dismiss them as weak and proving nothing. Also, my previous answers will remain the same so I won’t repeat them uselessly to you when you continue to side-step them. The answers are from the truth of the bible and testimonies from people; they still stand.

Yes, some things are fact, I’m not denying them. But other things are not, and can continue to be manipulated, reshaped, or contorted by people, such as the media. Some information may be withheld from the public, or altered for others’ benefits; or to blind the public from the whole truth. If governing authorities can use religion as a controlling tool, they can also use other subjects and bodies of facts to do the same. Why not? Anyone can lie; that’s fact.
You keep pointing your finger at the bible for its ‘faults’, but all in all the issues in it are in the past; yes, they happened, but it’s plainly history now. I think the main mark that’s being missed is the gift of salvation that is now free for everyone to take, and all the good things God has given and continues to give to his people. Your cynicism prevents you from hearing God because you always push him away, as do many others. Just by thinking or talking negatively about the faith pushes him away. He wants to be near you, but it’s your actions which stop him from doing so. When I said that ‘you would not begin to believe because you won’t open your mind or heart to God’, that’s what I meant. And since God never forces anyone to do things, he can’t be blamed for the sins of today. It’s all our doing in this world, our selfishness which causes conflict or poison. I’m not perfect myself. But God will always forgive, and will always love us, no matter how wretched we are. He can makes clean again, if we ask for his forgiveness, admitting what we’ve done wrong, and accepting Jesus as our saviour. It’s simply all down to our choice. It’s not a forced bargain; it’s a free present of life. We either take it, or leave it.

God has promised that all thing work together for good to those who love and serve him faithfully. In Romans 8:28 it says ‘And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose’. He has promised to supply every need we have. In Phillipians 4:19: ‘But my God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.’ And other such promises in the bible tells us that God takes care of his believers, for their every need and provision in life, even for little things, for example giving one a pen. He cares so much that he wants the best for us while wanting to make us happy, not by giving what we want, but need, including discipline. But he can’t work for those who don’t follow him, for they refuse to be in his family, and thus in his protection and care. Although bad things happen to people and innocent children, God uses tragedies and circumstances to demonstrate his miracles, and make something good come out of them, to lead victims of abuse to him, along with the witnesses. Even the abusers or criminals who feel guilty can be led to God. To affect greatly the lives of people, God may act in a miraculous way at a low or serious point of their lives. For when there is nowhere else to turn to, there is only God, and that’s when he can show himself to you when you choose to turn to him for help. God works inmysterious ways as well, and he does things that we may not expect but we can always rely on him having good timing and knowing what to do. We must trust in him, even when things seem hopeless, and remember that nothing is impossible for God.
And sometimes when there are some really hateful things, they are used to brighten things which are good.
God may take action, but he has given all of us the power to do so as well. We can’t expect him to fix our problems all of the time; he has given us tools to help ourselves and others: common sense, kindness, self-control, courage, the bond between men and women, our bodies to move and act, and more. So we can put a stop to abuse and suffering with God, while God works through us too. He strengthens us when we’re weak, and empowers us with his strength.

I am only a messenger of God, so his teachings aren’t mine, nor are the words of the bible. It says that if people do not support or respect Jesus, then they will not do so for his followers. But it also says, if God is for us, who can be against us? I spread this message to do his will and invite others to accept him into their lives. Again, it’s all down to your choice after hearing it. That’s what I have to say about that.

>>353 This video is weak. By listening and re-reading his words I can see a rather weak and frivolous dismissal of Christianity; one person’s rant against a religion. He says that he had an emotional attachment tohis belief, which is not the right attitude to it in the first place. If he was a true believer, he would have known that the most important thing is God, not his emotions toward him, and he would have known God’s character, that he is fair, good, loving, kind, gentle etc, plus his teaching on how to live and behave (the fruits of the spirit). He let his emotions get in the way (being irritated), and lead him away. He should have exercised patience and remembered that God has control over things. Also, the heart of Christianity is not laws or rituals; it’s relationships - a relationship with God, with other believers, and non-believers. It’s about unity and peace between people, to be together for the same things in life, which is good and joyful for all. I don’t think ‘FightingAtheist’ understood that when he turned away from Christianity. Otherwise he wouldn’t have done so, at least not so easily.
By basing his beliefs now on logic and reasoning of the human mind, he is limiting and cutting himself off from the spirit of God and trapping himself in the thinking of this world. Thus he can’t hear God anymore.

He belittles the creation of humans in the bible by saying that ‘people were created from dirt’. This seems to me like an offhanded attempt to make the bible seem weak or laughable, which can be childish in a way or naive. Dirt is dirt, and humans are obviously blood and flesh. The word ‘dirt’ or ‘clay’ could be a metaphorical use showing how humans are made /i/like/i/ clay (i.e. God is the potter, man is the clay); we are easily made and can be easily unmade - another meaning is we are nothing like dirt and have no power against God, to humble us. But anyway, he is relying on science instead of God now, which again prevents the holy spirit from working in and around him. Not saying that science doesn’t have a place in our lives or is useless, but that he looks to science as the most prominent source for answers instead of God who is all-knowing and all-powerful, which is wrong. He is idolising science in that way.

He was right that God is loving and kind, but he forgets that God is also a judge as well as a father and a friend. So he makes God seem contradictory, but God has told that he is the judge. As a parent, he punishes because he loves, so that we may live the right way and learn from our mistakes. I see how heavy such punishments are in the Old Testament, but it shows God shouldn’t be angered or tested, like children do to their parents frustratingly. I suppose the punished ones in the Old T. did so in a more serious manner for God to act in such a way. But the new Covenant, the new promise, with God was made in the New T. so God will not have to punish us because Jesus had sacrificed himself in our favour, washing our sins away, so that we can come to God in peace and forgiveness.

Again, he belittles Christ and his birth and death, downsizing his importance and holiness. He does this by saying simply ‘the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then flew up into the sky’, and streaming all this into one simple sentence. Jesus didn’t ‘get killed’, he was crucified, sacrificed, willingly; he wasn’t murdered. He didn’t ‘fly into the sky’, he was taken up into heaven by the Holy Spirit where he would sit at the right side of God until the day he comes back to earth. And even though he is all the way up there, he is still looking out for us and vouching for our well being. Childish/naive dismissal once again, and ignorant of how important and meaningful Christ’s death is, to the world.

He says ‘I realize now that the difference between these beliefs is minuscule’. That is wrong. The differences between Christianity and other religions is immense. What other religion has a god who loves his creations as his children; or tells them to love each other and forgive each other; or who loved us enough to come down to earth as a man, experienced being a human among us, taught us in close quarters, and sacrificed himself for our sake; or who is so intimate with us, we can call him Father and Friend? God is set apart from other gods because of what he teaches, and what he does, and who he is.

He believes that God created Hell, but that is wrong. He never created it in the first place; only when the angel Lucifer went against him was Hell formed, as a punishment for warring against God. If anyone is to blame for the creation of Hell, it is Satan. But God doesn’t want anyone to go to Hell; he wants us to go to heaven to be with him again. And as a judge, as well as a father, he has no choice but to deliver punishment to those who are against him. We have been given a chance for life, but it is our choice whether or not we accept it. Rather than fearing Hell, we should fear God, for he is God and all else is under him. This fear should be in respect, humbleness and acknowledgement, not cowardice or all-consuming fear.

‘FightingAtheist’ says ‘However an emotional person rolling around on the floor screaming gibberish was all the evidence I needed’. Once again he diminishes what is more holy than how he puts it. An ‘emotional person’ is someone who is experiencing the power of the holy spirit, and the ‘gibberish’ would be the language of tongues, a gift from God. My brother can speak in tongues sometimes, and he isn’t being ‘emotional’ or ‘crazy’. I don’t understand him, but I know it is given to him by God.

On the statement about prayer, I guess that ‘FA’ may not have known the right way to pray as outlined in the bible. Some people may pray ‘shopping list prayers’ which only asks God to do things, or to solve things, for them, but do not thank him for his gifts or confess sins and ask for forgiveness. That is not right, and it’s not building up a relationship with God. Praying has been described as a hotline on which you can use any time, any where to talk to God about any thing. It may not only be used as a call for help, but also to just talk and seek solace from God, as prayer is a connection to heaven. As the bible tells us, the right way to pray is to first praise God for what he has done in your life, then to confess any sin you have and ask for forgiveness and his guidance to avoid sin, and then you can ask him requests, for others and yourself, which are good, not selfish requests.
There is a thing called the power of prayer, when several or more people pray earnestly enough for something, and God may act. If you give up praying, God may not be able to answer you, or help you, for prayer links you to him.

‘FA’ says he has read the entire bible. If he had then I would think he had seen the truths taught in it, and studied them thoroughly; he would know that what he is saying is against God and is wrong. And he would know that by saying all of these things it shows he has little faith and many doubts, which separates him from God. The ‘atrocities committed in the name of Christianity’ were not by God but by people, and the devil who led them. God did not command them to murder, lie, or abuse each other. The fault is not God’s. And the things which are prosecuting, oppressing, and stunting us today, are not by God either. I’m sorry that if any Christian behaves in those ways, but know that that is not what God supports, and that that behaviour is by the person. God is not oppressive; he gives us choices. He offers, but does not force us.

Posting the link to this video will not deter me from believing in and following God, because I have a relationship and hope with him. I and the many Christians who have seen and know his truth, and continue to do so, will not stop following him because he is the one true God. Thousands of people come to Christ every day; even today millions of people, not all of them Christians or even religious, continue to recognise him as the most perfect and challenging human being ever to have lived. Fashions, fads and crazes come and go, but 2000 years after the death of Jesus not millions, but billions of people follow him. The video is by one person who has lost his faith for God, and I pray that God will lead him back to him.

I’ll be honest here: I was somewhat discouraged by the posts denying Christianity in this thread. I had said what I said in responding posts, as kindly and truthfully as I could, but there always seemed to be a counter to what I’ve said. My thoughts were that it’s because the posters had not opened themselves to God, had not experienced the spirit of God, so they rely on the answers of this world, which are many; but are not the truth of God. My answers cannot be changed, because they are as they are; I can only repeat them. I felt watched over by God but I still felt down by not getting the message through to others. I was by myself. But one thing I sometimes forget is that I’m not by myself, I’m not in this alone. I may be the only Christian speaking longer in the thread, but there are many others who are doing the same thing around the world, face to face with other people.
A few weeks ago I went to an open concert event called The Big Church Day Out with friends. It was overcast and drizzling with depressing rain, which didn’t help my grey mood. But when the concert began, I saw so many Christians all in one place; a giant crowd huddled together, laughing, smiling and cheering in the cold. Seeing so many Christians lifted my heart; I was not alone, and we all sang even though it was wet and cold - it was a celebration and praise for God. I was happy to see fellow believers, so happy that tears welled up in my eyes. The presence of God was in that place and his spirit was over everyone. I remember statements in previous posts in this thread expressing the negative nature of Christianity, but being among that concert was totally different. Everyone was so happy, joyful and excited. If any of you were there too, how could you claim these people are boring, or silly, or in it for themselves? The concert was all about God, and his works, quite simply. And we sang straight into the night, singing in the darkness; it was magical, but that cannot begin to describe the whole of it. I had a feeling that the crowd of people, their unifed voices breaking the air, and hands up high, was a taste of what it would be like worshiping God in heaven.

There were 2 or more American bands playing, and these are the words from the lead singer of the band Toby Mac, which are inspiring and encouraging: ‘Listen, every one of us are gonna lose our way at one time or another in this world. We’re all gonna lose our way; I lose my way all the time, man. I feel like I’m pursuing this faith in God...sometimes I’m sprinting toward that goal...and other times I find myself on the side of the road, choking and gasping for breath. Every one of us are gonna lose our way, but just ‘cause we lose our way, we make some mistakes, we stumble, we fall, it does not mean that we have to lose our soul.’
This belief in God is strong under the surface, and it will continue to gain followers and save. I invite you to listen to songs by well-known Christian bands, a few of which who played on TBCDOut are Toby Mac, Switchfoot, Israel Houghton and Hillsongs United.

Again, the message of Chris