fakeitormakeit2

Not sure why you are assuming I am a Protestant, but I'm not. I don't really care about Catholic doctrine; it's sillier than some belief sets, less silly than others, but that doesn't really matter. I have a poor opinion of the Catholic Church because everything I have seen of its behavior suggests that it is an organization that is mainly concerned with maintaining its own power, wealth and prestige over all else. In this it is similar to most other large organizations or governments. I also take a dim view of some of the church's policies. I spent the 1990s living in the Boston area and was rather disappointed at seeing how the Cardinal Law scandal was "managed". Finally, the church's history is rather bleak. That said, I do think it has finally taken some steps forward to more enlightened thinking, though it has a long way to go. Yes, and don't forget Gregor Mendel. But these are a tiny handful of exceptions. Overall, when it comes to the suppression of knowledge, science and technological advancement to improve people's lives, there has been no group more responsible over the last 2,000 years than the Catholic Church. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Galileo, among *many* others. According to what I've read, Catholics do believe that atheists will burn in hell. 1. I am not assuming you are a Protestant. I was stating if you heard negative comments from other Christians, it would most likely be from a Protestant. The whole scandals were terrible and they were dealt with and there's only so much you can do, especially after you've had to pay compensation to all these people. The priests were wrong, yes, but they were not supported and they were reprimanded and many removed for their actions so its not like they were supported by us. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not look to control anything. It may appear so, but it does not. It has many followers, yes, and so it may appear so. The Church has a set of ideologies, if a follower believes and supports these, economic, social and political decisions will be in tune with what they believe in because you cannot separate a moral that corresponds with religious morals from your secular morals, you'd have to be able to have different persons. I'll have you know, I am a person who frequents Catholic events and we form different charitable and social justice committees, last month we put on a benefit concert for Haiti, this month we're collecting toiletries for a homeless shelter, so I don't see how that has to do with the retention of wealth or power seeing as how those use funds and energy to actually conduct. I don't know why people think Catholics are like what Hitler saw the Jews as. We do not secretly control everything. I was having a conversation about politics and somehow my friend and I got on the topic of JFK. I brought up a caricature I saw once of JFK in the White House on a throne and the Pope was standing next to him whispering in his ear. Really now, is that necessary? I'm pretty sure he never even met the Pope. I'm not quite sure when you say the history is bleak. And there may be Catholics who do bad things, sure. I don't know why people use that as an attack and I find it rather comical seeing as how everyone is flawed and in every religion, race, political party or any group there will always be bad people. 2. The Catholic Church in whatever they have blocked scientific advancement, as in Galileo, was wrong yes. You know about the fault but I'm pretty sure you didn't know that an issue of apology was declared by a later pope. In fact, Pope John Paul II had all the Church's mistakes compiled in a list and he read them out and apologized on behalf of who ever did what. Now I don't know what you've learned about Catholics, but no we are not like the Amish, we use technology. 3. And whatever you read was just wrong. period. I don't need my beliefs and the policy of the Church which I have studied extensively to be told me by someone else.

Ugh, you're lucky. I've gone from like 75-88 in Pyramid Plunder, I'm still to get a Pharaoh's Scepter...

Just for the record I really don't care about this bill at all, but I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the doctors that are coming here, as you say, for innovation in heart disease, cancer, etc. and the doctors this bill will affect. It seems to me that the most affected doctors would be surgeons, physicians, nurses, etc. i.e. the ones you find in normal hospitals across the country. I find it hard to believe that doctors who immigrate to work in the most cutting edge facilities on complex diseases will be seeing any of the new 30 million or so people that will be covered by this bill. I just don't see the correlation because most doctors I have seen throughout my lifetime (albeit 20 years is not a 'lifetime') are pharmaceutical lapdogs and none of them are cutting edge researchers. I believe most Americans see those type of doctors as well. 1. To dispel the misconception that doctors are so overly payed is indeed false. The majority of any profit made by a doctor goes to malpractice insurance because in America you sue if you drop hot coffee on yourself, 2. Which leads me to my next point. Even if you reform an entire system, it effects all related systems, therefore to pass something like health care effectively would require the updating of many many institutions, which won't happen especially because this bill was rushed to the extent were it makes provisions for certain laws but the actual substance of the laws are not even written yet. 3. People think doctors turn these people who can't afford insurance away? Bull crap. When my dad was chairman of St. Joseph Hospital he raised the required amount of free service provided by physicians to people who cannot afford medical service. Many [Catholic] hospitals require that physicians who practice there give free service to those who cannot afford it for nonessential things, and people who enter the ER like dying cannot be rejected to begin with. 4. And just because you tell your doctor to give you antibiotics when you have a virus and they say no and instead try to give you something that will actually work doesn't mean they're "pharmaceutical lapdogs". In fact there was a law passed last year, I'm not sure if it was in NJ or the entire US, that you're unable to receive gifts from drug companies over the price of like, $5. 5. As for the doctors who came here from foreign countries because of new developments, etc. my dad came from Italy, the Gemalli University ( which is pretty decent seeing as how its the hospital that the pope goes to) and lead the initiative of the modern-"clean" feeding tubes (a new thing at the time). He chooses to see people from a city so poor that it is a 50% reduced tax zone. So yes, immigrant doctors who come because of new methods will be effected by the bill. 6. Lastly insurance companies find ways to delay their payments before, now it will be even worse and co-pays will be higher, so for the people who could afford it before, it hurts more.

But their references are highly intelligent, I don't know if these were coincidences but they even reference Standard Arabic (the scholar language) and lore with things such as the Mahjarrati. I mean they even got the adjectival form correct! These people do their research.

This is very true. Plus I was waiting around in my dad's office and I was a laboratory report sheet. There are different results dependent upon the race of the person whose blood, tissue, etc. was tested.

Yes, for a religion that claims to be the One Real Truth, you guys seem to have an awful lot of trouble agreeing on anything. How many thousands of sects, versions and cults do you folks have at this point? ;) I wasn't speaking specifically of the RC church, but that was a nice collection of straw men there! The RCC has its own collection of serious problems, which I don't really want to get into. Most folks already know what they are. The RCC is an interesting curiosity for me, though, largely for its creativity in being dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology and layering an entire additional set of beliefs on top of it. BTW, I've heard far more derogatory comments about Catholics from other Christians than from atheists... You've probably heard poorly of Catholics because 1 They & Eastern Orthodoxy were the Churches that everyone fractured from so obviously you'll have resentment against those whose mindsets you oppose, 2 Many detest our hierarchical system. By the way, the Catholic Church was not "dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology" rather Protestants protested many of the Catholic institutions. I did not say the Catholic Church is without fault, it is flawed like all other human institutions, but we don't do what you claim. I also see Catholics as some of the most open minded, tolerant and logic oriented Christians. I particularly find it funny when people have the misconception that Catholics are anti-science when it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who invented the Big Bang Theory and Pope John Paul II gave like 5 addresses on how science and faith are complimentary and not conflicting. And as a part of Catholic tolerance, we don't say non-believers will burn in hell like some of the absurd sects. Everyone is entitled to their own creed, and as long as they maintain a good life, their religion or lack therefore should not be questioned. Although I do get annoyed by arrogant atheists who scoff at theists (and vice versa). As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm against the entire thing as I find it so foolish that every morning I am subject to swear my loyalty to America. More so, claimed 'under God' and last I checked this is no theocracy and I find it rather inappropriate even though I do swear my allegiance to my God.

And only nitwits like you generalize Christians, lets take a look at what you said of Christians and compare it to the largest denomination, Roman Catholics, shall we? No No, separation of state and church endorsed by the Council of Bishops of the USA No, the Catholic Church is more of a bring-a-non-Catholic-friend kind of place, and the only people I can think of who does that is Jehova's Witnesses. No, I go to a Catholic School which I have been to its prom and there have been Jews and a Muslim who I met there, as well as they attend my school. You're not required to believe in Christian, but if someone tells you Merry Christmas/Hanuka/Happy Holidays don't say they're politically incorrect and you should be polite and respond. And I'm sorry to hear that for whatever president said that, but the Catholic Church believes anyone of any creed that does not lead directly to violence can be good (affirmed in Diginitatis Humanae). So congratulations on generalizing 2.1 Billion people under 30,000 different belief systems, I would say that's bigotry.

Well I'd say it depends on the wording of the amendment because since an amendment is a touch up on the constitution, it could carry a lot of weight, or it could not. Generally an amendment is added because it is needed because the Constitution has not made provisions or specifications for what the amendment deals with, therefore it would generally it would not supersede or be inferior to the Constitution articles themselves because they are to express the same line of thought. They should be extensions rather then overrides, but if an override is needed to extend the train of thought, then so be it. I think that the first amendment supersedes the general welfare clause because that would give the government power to take away people's expression under the justification that its for the safety of everyone or benefit, and we all know the Benjamin Franklin cliche about liberty and safety. As for the 10th Amendment I feel it overrides the last line of Article 1 section 8.

Of course he would say that. :rolleyes: I find partisan politics and factionalism so stupid, once you're elected you should vote American not Republican, not Democrat, not whatever you want to call yourself. That being said though, the bill is under violation of the 10th amendment (an amendment I particularly don't like but it is still valid in the law system therefore it must be yielded to) and I find this health care bill foolish, a waste of money and it will shrink the budgets of average American families who will not receive a benefit but will pay for people who can't afford health care. This will also decrease states' ability to spend money on other things and it will probably decrease the salary of doctors. This bill is a bunch of foolishness consolidated onto paper which I bet the Democrats didn't even read before they voted for it. And although I'm completely against it, I bet many Republicans didn't read it either before they voted nay.

If a bureau was added in the government called the bureau of waste reduction, I'm positive the money it would save would exceed its cost by at least tenfold.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist? The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it. That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence. Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information. So because you, or any other theist, claims to have felt such experiences, I should be agnostic towards said experiences? You may be surprised, but people from different (or even very different) religions claim to have had those experiences. That automatically means that basing any specific religion on these experiences is pointless. What does Christianity has to offer that Islam does not? What does Islam has to offer that Buddhism does not? etc... Can you disprove any of our theistic experiences that we have claimed to be testimony?

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages. Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive. Call it whatever you want. I just find it absurd that legal marriages are not something that exists on every democratic country. First of all, there is no successful country that I have heard of that is purely democratic. Democracy is something that is purely idealist and cannot be used in a large scale as the state would become extremely partisan, populist and mobocratic. Secondly, I dislike how people try to associate democracy with a synonymous connotation to justice. As for letting the churches win? It is no win for the churches. It is nominal. The blacks fought for rights that were deprived from them. Making the distinction between legal civil union and religious marriage would be simply for clarity of distinction and plainly nominal other then one being religious and the other associated with legal benefits.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist? The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it. That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence. Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages. Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

First of all, Nancy Pelosi should have been removed when it was found out she was using the Air Force as her personal chauffeur. But on-topic, socialized health care is the worst idea ever. Before something so unsustainable as this is introduced, things like stop funding belligerent countries, cutting military expenditure, withdrawing from other countries and granting visas to immigrants who work in the US which would require them to pay taxes would help increase the wealth of the US citizen. We wouldn't need such a large military if we didn't feel the need to invade another country every 10years to install a puppet government. I'm also sure that if agencies to crack down on corruption were implemented more properly, it would actually increase money usable in a budget even if it cost money to run these agencies. If the government did all the things I've listed, there would be enough money to sustain social security, end hunger in the US and employ the jobless on civil projects. Now my father who is a doctor will make less, be taxed more and those who actually work will be penalized for working and making money. The only people I would have helped if I signed a bill to help people in need of health insurance is children under the age of 16 who have no one they can depend upon, which wouldn't make much of a difference as doctors help young people brought to the ER without asking questions. And a lot of people who support this bill are foolish because they believe it will help them. The only people it will help are those who are struggling to even cling onto a meager salary (and I use meager generously). By creating more and more of this nonessential social institutions, we drain our money that could be used towards more essential things and we kill incentive to actually work for oneself. Instead of spending the high hundreds of billions of dollars in health care, imagine if Obama did a CWA like FDR. I'm no fan of FDR, but I say CWA would be a much much much much better option.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha And to respond to the comment about children being born without legs, God does not make physical and scientific interventions otherwise that would tamper with our own right to free will. Plus if God were to intervene with any problem and we had no problems, there wouldn't really be a point in living.

Why do you need to ask? Actually explain why they are 'wrong on so many levels' rather than threaten to... Because I'd be wasting a few minutes of my life explaining to someone that marriage didn't come from the Bible, and that nowadays people marry for certain legal benefits such as... Now, there are couples than do not have that privilege because they're denied those rights. Ok, so if gov and religion should be separate then the government should only give civil unions unbiasedly with all the legal benefits and then churches can grant marriage, that way churches retain their right to marry and the gays get their benefits.

[hide] Hehe, i think we talked past eachother again. by perspectives i mean exactly what you outline: the context in which the same beliefs ring true, but with a new insight. [/hide] 1. I'm not a big fan of the King James version but that's just me. In my religion we read from what is called the Pe[cabbage]to(a), it is the Bible in Aramaic, talk about ancient. Nonetheless, just because something is ancient does not mean its lesson are confined and not expandable. True, the OT was the last CANONICAL message of God, but not the last. The last of revelation was revealed with Jesus. But our personal revelations can continued and we must identify that people wrote the Bible, and it is our own commonality as mortal, finite, imperfect humans that we can draw links to the authors. Rather then translate it (which is the point of reading the Bible directly out of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic), the ideal circumstance would be to know the language and interpret it because translation changes meaning. Practically that is not possible for everyone, especially people who aren't lingual. We shouldn't translate it anymore as the actual meaning grows further and further from the point when we do so, so we should rather use a new understanding rather then a new text. 2. As for belief being a prerequisite for salvation in Catholicism is effey. For many years it was actually more generally accept that a good non-believer was saved by Jesus's death as well, but recently closer inspection of original text has some theologians questioning if a non-believer can be saved now. As you know, I'm against the latter notion. 3. Different Church rites are allowed to have different theologies as long as they retain the central dogmas. I've attended private Catholic schools for the last 14yrs or so, I thought this was the same for both but it might not be. 4. In the Bible, Jesus clearly states several times to apply your morality to life, but to keep Church and state separate. Although he does not outright say so, he does say many things, such as give to Caesar what is Caesar's. 5. Deuteronomy and Exodus's Commandments preceded the Jewish belief that YHWH is the only god, and even though other people don't know it, their gods are YHWH too. Since God is just and helping others is just it extols the God of justice and kindness. Since there is only one God, praise is only given to Him. The worship of idols has to be explicit, like oh I worship Og, who is YHWH's enemy. We have many different names for the same God. In my own religion he is called Aloho, Allah, YHWH, LORD and God. Another worshiping of idols would be the abandonment of doing what is right, to pursue making as money as possible by disregarding others. Rejection of God can be done by atheists who have not rejected him before. I.e. one who abandons justice for self interest.

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here. 3. Meh. 4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely? 5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." Gene Roddenberry It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires. 6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays". 7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery. 8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically? Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient. Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right." A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect? If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative? 1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer. 4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God. 5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity. 6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful. 7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus. 8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will. And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc. God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil. And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well. And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask. [/hide] 1. I never thought or assumed that you're Jewish. As far as I've got to know Judiasm and Christianity, they have the same God- Jehova. If Jehova was ever wrong during the OT 'era', he was wrong for you too. 4. I'll explain my point here through slavery. If an author wrote rules regarding slavery while being 'divinely inspired', then that author gave us the closest thing to the 'word of God'. I could see, perhaps, slight changes of God's original intent, but the idea itself- rules regarding slavery- was something God intended to present, this way or another. If the word of God is eternal, then God allowes slavery, period. 5. Controlling our own desires? Why would a certain amount (approximately 8%) of humans be born WITHOUT the desire to 'reproduce'? I could understand, perhaps, the concept of protected sex as a sin, maybe some other sexual actions considered sin. I could understand that because these are actions of people who still have the desire to "mate" with the opposite sex. They have the 'ability' to want to fulfil God's desires. But gays don't have that. Why would a person ever be created with the opposite of God's desires? 6. If such a scenario, of a murderer who is holy, or even very holy, is possible- Why did Jesus himself say it's okay to kill a murderer? Wikipedia- "The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, Do not murder.[46] Jesus also tells a parable in which a king justifiably destroys a group of murderers.[47] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, come from the heart." And- "The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[48] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of bearing the sword.[49] One criminal on the cross contrasts his death as due punishment with Jesus death as an innocent man.[50] When Jesus appeared before Pilate, both Pilate[51] and the crowd[52] recognize the principles of bloodguilt. There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[53] Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[54] The profession of soldier is portrayed in a noble light when the Apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God.[55] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[56] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurions servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[57] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay." 7. I could be wrong about what the sign said, but I can gurantee the sign existed, I can gurantee the bus company or w/e supplied us with the time. Just like I said on #4, the rules of slavery may not be God's specific intent, but the idea itself, the idea of supplying us with rules regarding slavery, is something God did intend to do. "Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today." Yes, but if they were inspired by God to supply such rules, then God wanted them to. Just like you said, God's word is eternal. Also, I didn't "jump to extremes"- What else could it be? It's either God inteded to supply those rules, or he didn't. If he didn't, the authors made it up. 8. "The initial creation was out of love for humanity." Love for humanity? How can God (or anyone for that matter) love something that doesn't exist? "And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc." There's nothing to comperhend, you didn't give me a satisfying explanation. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one to refuse to even comperhend that paradox. To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll explain it slowly. God is omniscient. That means God is all-knowing. All knowing means God knows everything. The future, by that definition, is something God already knows, and have known forever. If God, or any other being/creature/whatever, knows the future, then that means the future is set. You were bound to commit specific sins long before your grand-grand-grandfather was even born, it was decided whether or not you'll go to Heaven aswell. Pre-destination is something that can't not exist if God is omniscient. That also cancels the concept of free will- If someone was bound to be a murderer before he was even born, what's the point of punishing him for that? Unless you give me a satisfying explanation that would cancel this one, the paradox stands unsolved. "And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well."- Well, that could be tilted towards further explaining my previous point. Here, you're relying on logic. You admittedly say that God couldn't destroy evil, because that's a side effect of free will. Well, I'm certain that if you will be able to explain that paradox from my previous point, you'll say something along the lines of an entity that is above logic, et cetera. If God is above logic, wouldn't that mean he could, unlogically, allow free will and the lack of evil at the same time? "if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied." I never said it means God liked it, I said he allowes it. Don't misquote me. I'll explain it here for the third time. Whether the rules supplied regarding slavery are God's specific words, or the way humans grasped his words, doesn't matter, because either way, it means God atleast once related to slavery, and he wouldn't have if he didn't allow it. The only other possible scenario is that the authors made it up. Unless you can find a third scenario that eliminates both, these are your options. "First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers." We're not physically discussing it, you get a chance every time you start typing a response. As I had explained 2 sentences ago, unless you can supply a third scenario that eliminates both others, these are your options. Feel free to disregard the options I gave you if you know of one. "Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask." No you didn't... 1. Firstly, as a small theological technicality, Jehova I find to be a mistranslation and German attempt to add vowels to YHWH since in middle eastern languages vowels are implied and they tried to combine Adonai and YHWH to get the incorrect name Jehova. A more accurate (but Arabic corruption) of YHWH I've heard is Yahuwaha. And the God is the same. But as I said, the authors did not physically come into contact with the actual God until Jesus, therefore they had speculations of God's expectations and tried to think of how God is, that is why the OT is retained as a book of wisdom but not a book of law. Again, there will be Protestants who probably disagree with me, but I am not a Protestant nor have I taken the time to study indepth Protestant thought foundations. 4. As I was saying, there is divine and physical knowledge. Divine inspiration means they got through to a bit of divine knowledge but did not have even a small fraction of it. Just because they were divinely inspired does not mean they could defy logic. They did not automatically see the future, etc. An interesting discussion occurred when we were discussing the divinity and humanness of Jesus. He had 100% divine knowledge because He was part of the Trinity and thus had power to give new commandments directly. But was Jesus able to know the words of the scripture without education of them? And I answered quickly and surprised everyone no. The understanding of scripture and ability to issue commands would come naturally to Jesus. But scripture is a worldly book, which is compromised of human knowledge. Because Jesus was also fully human, he did not have the ability to know physical knowledge that he was never presented with. So God did not allow slavery, simply people did. There were many things in the OT in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus goes the Scripture tells you X but I tell you Y. In the book of Isaiah if you would like me to source Scripture says that God would speak but they would not understand. We are imperfect finite beings. We will make mistakes. We can easily be shortsighted. Plus slavery was more of a secular thing then it was religious, don't think of it in terms of 1700s America, rather more then a contract for playing off debt. I'm not justifying it but it wasn't a horribly pressing issue of the day that was obviously immoral and it was being justified by saying God allows it. 6. "Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." That is from an encyclical by a Bishop. There is no distinction between the sexual orientation of a person and therefore it is incorrect to say someone is a homosexual therefore they will burn. The homosexual actions are what is the sin though. God does not also intend to have children born with a leg but it does occur and a physical intervention would affect our free will. Now it would be wrong of this minority of people with a leg to chop someone else's leg off just so that they must get a leg , therefore they must sustain from doing so. In no way do I think homosexual is violent or effecting other people at all. But in the Catholic understanding, if you are a Catholic you are suppose to remain chaste as a part of your vocation. You might be thinking well we aren't talking about priests. The purity of chastity in the Catholic Church is only lost when (1) it is outside marriage [or if you really want to stretch it, having sex with someone you don't love], (2) in an act of sodomy. With this understanding, homosexual actions are wrong. God did not intend to make a homosexual a homosexual, but that's how his or her chemical balance was formed. The point of following chastity also creates a life style of inner peace and control [this is all under the assumption one if a Catholic.] Other then the preservation of marriage, the Church cannot tell non-believing homosexuals to actually adhere to a chaste lifestyle because the Catholic law is something that should be followed in the Church as opposed to in the state, which I will explain in my next point. 7. Please see #4 where I talk about the two types of knowledge, etc. It is not God's intention to enslave others. 8. Because it goes back to God being a being outside of time, therefore He loved creation before He created it since He is timeless, and it existed, was existing and will exist before He created it. This element would require the belief in God. And you didn't have to explain to me your supposed paradox, I'm not thick, I very well understood what you meant. I think you were trying to tease me by saying you'd explain it slowly like I'm mentally slow or a loon. God's knowledge of the future does not make it set. It means God knows what is going to happen. The murderer made the choice to kill. You're also judging this murderer by assuming he'll receive punishment by God. Perhaps his internal conflict and sorrow is enough? Christianity is all about salvation and repentance and forgiveness to those willing to accept forgiveness. Sorrow can only be decided by the murderer, thief, rapist, etc. God knows what you'll do, it doesn't mean He determined it. Since He is outside of our time, He sees all time at once. He knows what will happen from beginning to end, but it doesn't mean he determined it. It is comparable to walking the path of a mountain as opposed to the person who has the whole mountain in sight. This also explain the provincial mindedness of the Jews who wrote the laws of slavery as they only were looking at their immediate time and not the grand picture, although they could not as could not being finite beings in this time. If God had not given us free will, then why didn't He just give us the Bible of His own creation in our hands? If God is good how is there evil? It is free will. And no, since evil is a product of free will but the removing of evil it is the limiting of our own free will which would be a violate of God's gift of free will. Anyway, you are understanding divine inspiration like a fundamentalist. God did not actual say to the person, hey such and such. First of all, to reach canonization of a divinely inspired document, it is a process not just writing it down. Secondly, divine inspiration is a spanning term over the books of the Bible and are inclusive of the morals. The secular rules are human fabrications. And there is no place in the Bible that say The LORD said about slavery X or YHWH your lord says Y about the practice of slavery. It just has writings of slavery by a group of nomads trying to understand God. And yes, I did answer these question. What you ask me in return to my answers are answered simply extensions of the original answer.

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here. 3. Meh. 4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely? 5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." – Gene Roddenberry It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires. 6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays". 7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery. 8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically? Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient. Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right." A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect? If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative? 1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer. 4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God. 5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity. 6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful. 7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus. 8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will. And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc. God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil. And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well. And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask.

Really? There's not one Rabbi I met in my life that claims that to be true, and I've met more than enough. It clearly says "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13) And if that's not enough- Wikipedia says: "Jewish law views the shedding of innocent blood very seriously, and lists murder as one of three sins (along with idolatry and sexual immorality) fall under the category of yehareg ve'al ya'avor, meaning "One should let himself be killed rather than violate it."[41] Jewish law enumerates 613 Mitzvot, or commandments, including prohibition of murder and a number of other commandments related to the preserving of human life and administration of justice in cases of shedding of innocent blood." Oh, stealing is okay then, as long you're only taking what you spent. Amazing, and to think I thought the Bible was immoral. You and I both know my stances regarding that, and I've continuously explained that very specific part to you. I'm not going to explain it again- Because it's off-topic, because I'm pretty sure it will lead to a long off-topic discussion, and because that specific statement of yours, after knowing my stances in the matter, seem immature and only in the purpose of teasing. And I thought the word of God was eternal. But alright, I'll follow your line of thought. So, according to you, moralities and immoralities, even those spoken of in the Bible, are affected by the time they're applied. Hmm... I don't see what has changed in society that would mean homosexual acts were wrong once and are now okay. Either homosexuality is just wrong according to your God, in which case I'd have to say, your God doesn't make much sense (sexual orientation, I think you'll agree, is not a matter of choice, and as such, disallowing it or calling it a sin is plainfuly dumb), or those 7 or so verses stating homosexual acts are wrong, are wrong, which would seriously endanger the Bible's credibility. It doesn't matter if what they're doing (judging them) is a sin or not, because the facts are that homosexuality is unjust according to the Bible. So it may be that they should not judge them, but the bottom line is that God would judge them. And as I stated earlier, since sexual orientation cannot be choisen, God judging it would not even make him humane, it would make him less than that. I could also argue that murdering and committing homosexual acts are both sins- and sins for which you should be killed. So, judging any murderers is wrong in that manner. You should kill them without judging. Just like gays. You see, I never understood that. Jesus, supposedly, came by, decided there's a reason to share the NT with the world, at the same time said that Christians should not ignore the words of wisdom spoken of in the OT, as those are the words of God, yet ignoring parts of it is okay? What makes one part of the OT applicable to Christianity, and another not? "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"- Epicurus. In other words, how comes that, for example, a Christian who goes to church every sunday, who prays to God almost constantly, who never sins and is basically the perfect Christian, could die of illness at young age? I'm not saying that specific person discussed was a perfect Christian, or even a Christian, I'm discussing the certaincy of such a case to have existed- Why? I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this. 1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say. 2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites. 3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you. 4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion. 5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual. 6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not. 7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth. 8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention. Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

You're quite interesting to discuss with. It is a pleasure and honor to discuss with you. I do not defend God's killing of innocent people as He does not kill the innocent, nor does He kill at all. As I said, He does not do physical intervention but spiritual. That's why Jesus came to fight with a tongue of fire instead of torches of fire and swords against the common belief that the Messiah would be a warrior. The Israelites saw God as a god who lobbies for their own interests. But the change of the God of Israel in scripture is not because God changes His mind how to act, rather the reception and revelation of God is changed within the minds of the people. Let me present an example. John is a kind person. But he is unfairly blamed for something he didn't do by Bob. However, after time passes Bob does not question if John did Action X anymore, but he sees that he's a nice kid and his opinion of him changes. John is unchanging, but the clarity of Bob's view solidifies. I find nothing wrong with a non-believer. If they accomplish the same introspection of conscious and pursuance of justice, then there is no difference between the believer and non-believer. You cannot force belief of God upon someone. But as I said, In a sense you follow God if you exert a strong following to your own conscience because it is God's gift of our own ability to judge therefore that means you're utilizing a gift of determining the right and wrong given by God. You are incorrect in your assumption that you must believe in Christ for salvation, I am unaware with every sect of Christianity but I am part of the largest grouping (catholic) and this is untrue. I do not know which, but Protestants [and extremely fundamental Catholics, even to the extent were they go against Magisterium] believe "solo scriptirium' (Scripture alone) and faith can save a person. Some even speak of pre-destination, etc. No, that's against Catholic teaching. It's too complex to go into the whole system of Catholic belief foundations, but they're different. I am part of a special Church rite of Catholicism called the Maronites, followers of a 4th century monk who expressed tolerance and help for all, including the pagans (unheard of at the time). I am very learned in Catholic teachings as well as Maronite teachings and I have had the privilege to learn differently from a bishop at one point (who in the Catholic Church has what is called Magistarium which is teaching authority). Anyway, the ultimate goal of the creed I follow is not to covert everyone to the same religion. That would make things easier but...No, that is not it. Rather the goal is the journey itself, towards fraternity, charity, love, peace, clarity, wisdom, guidance. The abandonment of God will make you lose salvation, yes. But abandonment of God in the sense of turning away from your judgment to follow what you want to do regardless if you feel it is wrong. Therefore, you damn yourself. Salvation is given to everyone, as God gave everyone grace, not just Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or Theists. Everyone. I do consider myself a Christian, a Catholic [follower of the guidance of the Bishop of Rome] and a Maronite [follower of the guidance of Maroun and his successor, the Patriarch of Antioch]. I am a Soldier of God. Now that might sound crazy extremist but that's not the context that is meant. God's weapon is not the sword [or nuke in this time, hahaha] but the tongue, heart and helping hands. My allegiance is to do my duty to God as his soldier, to console the sad, help the needy and sacrifice my own resources to those who do not have, regardless of their belief of religion. Sure, I may trip up sometimes, I may fall [faceplant]. But I have not failed. Holiness is the journey, not being perfect, and one has not failed until they completely and finally abandon what they've followed as their understanding of right. That also requires us to continue introspection and ask ourselves 'what do I truly believe is right?' As for the reasons of needing to follow our beliefs if we have them? "Do not oppress the song-bird of heart in a cage of fear". One must express their own beliefs, and it is human nature. One who believes but does not act contradicts himself and he truly must not believe in whatever belief this may be if he cannot act on it. Without the adherence to some code of law, secular or not, there would be no order and also you should follow as you believe, otherwise one would be cowardly and if one does not follow what they believe, then what is left of them? As for my thought of prayer, yes it is rather unique. But I am not the only one who holds this idea. I had to contemplate to myself one day after I had found God (I believed there was no God), what is prayer? After thinking about it I reached that conclusion. Prayer is not the simple repeating of words that have no meaning to us. It is our personal conversation with God. This includes our own acts of kindness and God's response can be seen in our own acts as well as others, and nature. I must have been influenced by Eastern thought [i read a lot of philosophy], as my favorite philosopher who also happens to be from the same religion I converted to held a like opinion. I guess it must be considered my own personal understand of revelation. This discussion has not altered my perspectives but it has made me reflect on my beliefs and my development, and for that I must thank you infinitely for as it was a priceless gift. It has also caused me to realize the theological difference there is between my people (eastern church) and the conventional local thought (western church).

Logically then (not my opinion, just continuing your own logic to its ultimate conclusion), life on earth is meaningless and in extention so are our lives and existance on earth. Why are there then ethical codes we should abide by, they have no meaning! why not murder, when life is meaningless? why not steal, when the physical holds no value? In this setting, why has then any god even created a non-eternal existence, before the "true life"? (back to my personal reflections) This apparent fundemental contradiction cannot be explained by the use of logic. religion requires faith, logic as a way of knowing is obsolete, thus it is no wonder there are so many "infidels": there is no reason why we should believe, unless we believe. Those of faith therefore remain of faith, those without faith remain non-believers and any discussion is futile. The arguably "missionary" goal of these discussions is also obsolete both in the religious, and the atheist, agnostic or deist perspectives. We cannot change what we truely believe any more than we can choose our everyday likes and dislikes. Morally speaking (this holds a prerequisite of non-evil dieties), those who don't believe cannot be punished for not believing, as they cannot choose to believe. Also, those who do believe in religion cannot be punished in an atheist, agnostic or deist perstpective: holding our own views, if their beliefs are true or not, is inconsequential. The only thing that matters is living a good life. You are wrong in your own extension of my statement, and it is not my opinion but an extension to what I said in a twisted fashion. I said it was not effected by God. We are suppose to enjoy this life, yes. But we cannot act without order. And the reason we are suppose to not kill murder and steal is not because we please God. My moral code would not change tomorrow if I found out through scientific proof God does not exist tomorrow. You are suppose to act in a respectful and kind manner to others for your love for others. Physical is not meaningless, it just not directly affected by if there is a God or not other then the Prime Move. Yes, faith is needed to believe in religion, but as I said respect should be out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we fear damnation, that defeats the point of love, because if you love out of fear then you do not truly love. And your statement of faithful remain faithful and non-believers remain without faith is also wrong. A firm believer can be shaken by an event in their life, as well as a non-believer can obtain faith. Furthermore, if any atheist is a good person and they do acts of kindness and they try to follow conscience as best they can, then they know God. They may not accept that there is such an apparition of God, but they are wise and filled with wisdom, and being filled with wisdom is God's will which they pursue. And you're quite provincial minded. Discussion is not [always] about winning converts. The trading of information is both enjoyable and applicable in life. Learning more about those around you and mindsets. Learning different perspectives and having an open mind and hearing the words of others. Everything does not have to be about win or lose, can't a discussion be for the simple fact of discussion? Agreed fully. There isn't enough time to spend it all pleasing a God through reverence and prayer when there's life to be lived. Especially since that life can be used to clean it up for the next generation... We've got 80 years at most. Might as well make them count. And doing an action of kindness, such as cleaning the world up so that our children may enjoy the world, is a greater prayer then any words able to be spoken. Pray is not the dictionary definition of it. "Your daily life is your temple and your religion" A prayer would be to help that little old lady to her car. To be blasphemous would be to beat that new kid up because he didn't "know his place".

In the Old Testament you shall not murder is applied only to your fellow countrymen. Killing anyone else is not considered wrong in the OT unless they are peaceful aliens in the land. That's why if you read the New Testament Jesus says your neighbor is anyone when preaching basically instead of the provincial idea of the countrymen. You must also remember when reading the OT and comparing to the NT, yes the OT is a source of wisdom but Jesus fulfilled God's instructions through His sacrifice of Himself and therefore the OT has been modified by Jesus's final revealing of last revelations. That's why several times in the NT it says Jesus was unlike the scribes [religious scholars], because he spoke with authority [i.e. only God has authority in deciding was is ultimately just and since Jesus was God He had this power, unlike the mortal scribes]. Secondly, you mention do not steal. Israel had to instate the "ban" on things they captured in war, were you take what you had spent in the war and destroy everything else that is in excess. It is clear in the earliest book of the Bible, Genesis, as Abraham is offered things and he only takes what he spent and lets the Canaanites he teamed up with take the rest after they invited him to take his share. Also, a king of Israel (I don't recall whom) profits from a war, and as a result he is killed for his disobedience to God's commandment. So their "plundering" is compensation. However if you are referring to the modern state of Israel, yes they are quite vicious and sack other countries and take their land for their own will and continue creating settlements outside their zone even after they promised to stop. Ooops, did I say that out loud? There's also the belief that revelation continued and evolved and more was revealed til Jesus, and our understanding of said revelation changes til today. They are not inconsistencies. Rather changes and evolutions in method of thinking. A process of evolution, such as even our own evolution from a small mammal to homo sapiens, was a process of changes to structure. We cannot say evolution was incosistent, because quite frankly I don't even know if that makes any sense at all. For gays, the people who say they will burn in hell for being gay because God hates them, I say they are evil and wrong. First of all, in the NT it says you'll be judged 7x for judging your neighbor. Plus God loves everyone, including the gays. It is an evil act to say the gays are damned. Plus if you use Sodom as an example God hates gays, that's not why he destroys Sodom. It because Sodom in the story is filled with 100% sinners and they try to harm peaceful foreigners who turn out to be angels, so God waits til Lot and family leaves Sodom and then he obliterates it. As for slavery, as I said Jesus completes scripture's "contract", He is Word and He brings the New Law. And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

With the billion or so Christians out there, and the very small minority that are actually dangerous... Most people know not to follow the violent bits, and that's a GOOD thing. hahaha, I was just watching something about the WBC... Crazy...Crazy...Crazy... Nor do i wish to be grouped with...those... Really, they are extremely hateful. They speak of loving everyone yet they hate Catholic, blacks, jews, gays and "f + ag enablers". Not to judge, but I think they will rot in the deepest pit of hell while the gay people will be in heaven.