Is God real post your thoughts!

[Shinjula]

And to the above above poster, where is that verse from?

 

 

 

And also, usually when it says he's a jealous God, it says so because he loves us, and he doesn't want to let us go.

 

Its from the one you yourself posted, you labelled it deut and its got a 15 in front of it, you'd think you'd know your own posts :)

 

be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

 

 

 

13 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. 17 Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. 18 Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers, 19 thrusting out all your enemies before you, as the LORD said.

 

That does not sounds remotely like a loving god, that is an extremely paranoid and jealous god. It's one thing to be saying worship only me because itll improve your life, or because its simply the right thing to do, but worship me because i damn well tell you to, oh and ill smite your enemies too is just the actions of a dictator.

[tryto]

It's an idea dude, he's saying that with him, everything is possible. I mean, I bet Jesus could move a mountain, but us, I don't think so. BUt he is saying if we have faith, nothing will stand in our way.

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above above poster, where is that verse from?

 

 

 

And also, usually when it says he's a jealous God, it says so because he loves us, and he doesn't want to let us go.

 

 

 

So basically, I can make the Bible say whatever I want to, because I can say some of it's literal and some of it's not, and I can choose which parts are. It says YOU. That means the person whom Jesus is speaking to, not HIMSELF.

 

 

 

I see things stand in the way of a lot of people who have faith.

 

 

 

So, you are saying to me, that you have very little faith. You can't move a mountain.

[Flyingjj]

 

 

 

So, you are saying to me, that you have very little faith. You can't move a mountain.

 

 

 

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it.

 

Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours.

[tryto]

 

 

 

So, you are saying to me, that you have very little faith. You can't move a mountain.

 

 

 

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it.

 

Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours.

 

 

 

Jesus is not going round about. He straight out says that nearly everyone with faith can do it. It's not like it's Revelations here, he's straight out saying it in very plain language. A mustard seed is very very small physically, and I would think it not a hard wager to state that inanimate objects don't have very much faith, so either way the point is the same.

 

Either you say that Jesus is LYING, or that you, nor anyone, has that much faith.

 

 

 

 

 

How can you justify worshiping a book that is supposed to guide your life, that says that you must obey ALL of it, and yet pick and choose what to believe in? Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are figurative and I can make as many graven images as I want, but you can dance around this with the same argument?

[Lenticular_J]

Nobody knows what Jesus said. His Disciples are dead, and so is He. Quit throwing a fit over it.

[user1991]

Nobody knows what Jesus said. His Disciples are dead, and so is He. Quit throwing a fit over it.

 

 

 

When Christians finally stop interfering with education/science/rights of certain people we will.

[Lenticular_J]

God, quit applying blanket statements. I'm sure that there've been at least two ignorant atheists.

 

 

 

Don't. Blame. Groups. For. Ignorant. People.

 

 

 

It's petty, and just as bad as the folks that protest gay rights.

 

 

 

Also: Interfering? Just because someone believes differently than you makes you no better, no worse. They're still people.

 

 

 

Plus, there's five hundred million more of us Christians. And if it came down to it, we'd have Jews and Muslims on our side as well.

 

 

 

We'd win.

[user1991]

God, quit applying blanket statements. I'm sure that there've been at least two ignorant atheists.

 

 

 

Don't. Blame. Groups. For. Ignorant. People.

 

 

 

It's petty, and just as bad as the folks that protest gay rights.

 

 

 

Also: Interfering? Just because someone believes differently than you makes you no better, no worse. They're still people.

 

 

 

Plus, there's five hundred million more of us Christians. And if it came down to it, we'd have Jews and Muslims on our side as well.

 

 

 

We'd win.

 

 

 

There are ignorant atheists yes..

 

 

 

Have you ever heard of the "no true scotsman" fallacy? These people believe these things because it says so in the Bible. They are in the majority.. so maybe it is *you* that isn't the real Christian, ever thought about that?

 

 

 

And if the trends continue, you will be in the minority probably within our lifetime.

 

 

 

Atheism = lack of belief in God

 

Christian = believes in God + a crapload of other stuff and may or may not believe in other things depending on personal denomination/opinions etc..

 

 

 

People are ignorant because of religion, I doubt you would claim it to be the other way around. Christians oppressing gays/other groups is done because their religion tells them to believe the Bible and it clearly says in the Bible "To lie with another man is an abomination."

[Lenticular_J]

I don't follow organized religion, no. But I am Christian. That's the nice thing about religion. It's personal.

[user1991]

I don't follow organized religion, no. But I am Christian. That's the nice thing about religion. It's personal.

 

 

 

You're in the minority within Christianity.

 

 

 

You can't claim that they aren't real Christians until you're in the majority.

[Lenticular_J]

And because you're so obviously unbiased, you can make all the claims you want over religion?

 

 

 

:/

[user1991]

And because you're so obviously unbiased, you can make all the claims you want over religion?

 

 

 

:/

 

 

 

No, but when the majority of Christians oppose gay marriage it isn't "ignorant" to point it out..

 

 

 

What's actually ignorant is to claim that they aren't "real" Christians.

[Lenticular_J]

I never said they aren't real Christians. Maybe you're strawmanning STRAWMANNING AAWWWW YEAH I LOVE ME A MAN OF STRAWWWW.

 

 

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

But seriously, can you read the minds of approximately 600 million people? Because I'd really like to learn that trick.

[Flyingjj]

 

 

 

So, you are saying to me, that you have very little faith. You can't move a mountain.

 

 

 

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it.

 

Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours.

 

 

 

Jesus is not going round about. He straight out says that nearly everyone with faith can do it. It's not like it's Revelations here, he's straight out saying it in very plain language. A mustard seed is very very small physically, and I would think it not a hard wager to state that inanimate objects don't have very much faith, so either way the point is the same.

 

Either you say that Jesus is LYING, or that you, nor anyone, has that much faith.

 

 

 

 

 

How can you justify worshiping a book that is supposed to guide your life, that says that you must obey ALL of it, and yet pick and choose what to believe in? Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are figurative and I can make as many graven images as I want, but you can dance around this with the same argument?

 

I am not saying Jesus is LYING.

 

I do not pick and choose what to believe in. Those are your words and your words alone. Why can't you say that the 10 commandments are figurative? Because the context the 10 commandments were given in had nothing to indicate that that they should be taken figuratively. This, on the other hand, does. Can faith be measured and quantified in any way that would indicate size? No. Therefore, you must look for deeper meaning in the figurative possibilities. Besides, Jesus was directly addressing the disciples at this point. They had repeatedly shown that they were of little faith. They had seen Jesus perform miracles over and over yet still doubted him whenever he was about to perform one or said something they didn't understand. Then there is the idea that we are making a comparison to the mustard seed's own faith, which can be looked at in a different metaphorical light. The mustard seed, as you said a very very small object, must have a large faith that it will receive all the water and nutrients it needs to grow. If we assume it does in the metaphorical sight, we need only look to the spreading nature of the mustard plant. In those days, mustard plants were looked upon as weeds because they spread so quickly and could so quickly take over a plot of land. Seen in this light, the spreading of the plant is a result/representation of the seed's (very large) faith.

 

 

 

Or, you could just go with the fact that the disciples did, indeed, have very little faith. As for myself, I already said that I believe I can move mountains (again, not figuratively).

 

 

 

On the subject of gay rights, sure the Bible says it is wrong, and I believe that. But that does not mean that we should punish those people or take away any human rights because they are homosexual.

 

 

 

Once again to you Tryto, I believe in the entire Bible, I DO NOT pick and choose what to believe in. Whether or not you think that is what I am doing, that's your opinion.

[Saru Inc]

Nobody knows what Jesus said. His Disciples are dead, and so is He. Quit throwing a fit over it.

 

 

 

When Christians finally stop interfering with education/science/rights of certain people we will.

 

 

 

Quit with the science crap, it's not the meaning of life.

 

 

 

Science can only tell you so much. After that, it's all you. Looking for science to answer all life's questions is like looking in a cookbook, to see how a couch is put together. Use it for what it's supposed to be used for.

[Rebdragon]

He's saying that religion shouldn't interfere with the realm of science (and people's rights). I.e., ID/Creationism should not be taught in schools as a science. Most people here don't care if people believe something; as long as it stays in their head it's not like it's hurting anybody. The problem arises when said beliefs infringe on other's lives in a negative manner, whether it be by blowing up a building for the sake of radical belief or by making people dumber for the sake of teaching in science something that is not a science.

 

 

 

And by the way, thanks for the God of the Gaps post. Not a fan of atheist logical argumentation (mostly because some people who use them are annoying) but your post is a nice paragon of that.

 

 

 

(and who's to say the meaning of life can't be found via science? do you really think you know the answer?)

[Saru Inc]

He's saying that religion shouldn't interfere with the realm of science (and people's rights). I.e., ID/Creationism should not be taught in schools as a science. Most people here don't care if people believe something; as long as it stays in their head it's not like it's hurting anybody. The problem arises when said beliefs infringe on other's lives in a negative manner, whether it be by blowing up a building for the sake of radical belief or by making people dumber for the sake of teaching in science something that is not a science.

 

 

 

And by the way, thanks for the God of the Gaps post. Not a fan of atheist logical argumentation (mostly because some people who use them are annoying) but your post is a nice paragon of that.

 

 

 

(and who's to say the meaning of life can't be found via science? do you really think you know the answer?)

 

 

 

I meant more of a spiritual version of meaning of life. And this brings meback to my earlier statement, that no science about the world beginnings should be taught. Not Creationism, or Evolution. It cuases too many fights with parents against school boards and such.

[MirageOfDeath]

And this brings meback to my earlier statement, that no science about the world beginnings should be taught. Not Creationism, or Evolution. It cuases too many fights with parents against school boards and such.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't Evolution be taught in a science class? Would you be offended it the church wasn't allowed to teach Creationism? We should be exposed to more points of views and be open minded about it instead of censoring education.

[Lenticular_J]

Eggggsactly. Which is why teaching Creationism or Evolution can lead to big [cabbage].

 

 

 

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some evidence that we all flew down here in spaceships twelve months ago. Maybe that's what made volcanoes.

 

 

 

RAWHATHORAWWWGH.

 

 

 

I just don't think either should be taught in detail in general biology classes - or people should have the right to take two classes, or something.

[user1991]

Eggggsactly. Which is why teaching Creationism or Evolution can lead to big [cabbage].

 

 

 

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some evidence that we all flew down here in spaceships twelve months ago. Maybe that's what made volcanoes.

 

 

 

RAWHATHORAWWWGH.

 

 

 

I just don't think either should be taught in detail in general biology classes - or people should have the right to take two classes, or something.

 

 

 

What? No, sorry. Just no. If you're in a science class, you will be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven. Sure, it is the "theory of evolution" but retroviral DNA is enough to make it ridiculous to deny it. I mean, I don't even know how it has got this far. There is literally a MASS of evidence for evolution. Evolution should be taught in science class along with gravity.

 

 

 

Creationism.. I mean really? I have never, EVER, heard even one slightly compelling argument for it.

 

 

 

I don't care if it causes conflict between parents and teachers. If you are in a science class you should be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Creationism should be taught about in religious class. And remember, I'm not talking about cosmology/origin of life here, we're only discussing EVOLUTION.

[BlueLancer]

With necessary respect due, americans are excluding themselves from the rest of the world and becoming delusional when it comes to education (the state of the public school systems doesn't help either).

 

 

 

In no other western country is it actually disputed which should be taught in school; Evolution or creationism, as if they are two interchangeable. (Poland and Germany could be seen as exceptions)

 

 

 

The other deals with mythological philosophy, while the other is a scientific theory with conclusive evidence, historical records and facts that are accepted by every major scientific organisation and regulating body in the world. Try figuring out which one is which.

 

 

 

Those 2 don't necessarily have to conflict if you conclude evolution is simply a tool a God used for shaping the world; That's fine. These theories belong in the religion class though; Not science.

 

 

 

I don't think it can be summed up any more simpler: You can still be religious and support evolution. You can support evolution and not be religious. The two are not "enemies" or separate 'beliefs'. The two don't conflict in any way, even the Vatican agrees:

 

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html

 

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

 

 

 

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

 

 

 

They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other, the Pope said.

 

 

 

This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.

 

 

 

Please, stop kidding yourselves. Even the Pope seems to have more common sense than american creationists.

[user1991]

 

 

 

Please, stop kidding yourselves. Even the Pope seems to have more common sense than american creationists.

 

 

 

I like the pope, the pope smokes dope.

 

 

 

Such a phrase is too cool to be untrue.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Please, stop kidding yourselves. Even the Pope seems to have more common sense than american creationists.

 

 

 

I like the pope, the pope smokes dope.

 

 

 

Such a phrase is too cool to be untrue.

 

 

 

The Pope is the most conservative religious figure on Earth and represents roughly 25% of the world population's religious views (not including the rest 8% of non-catholics). Try reading his statement again in light of this.

[user1991]

 

 

 

Please, stop kidding yourselves. Even the Pope seems to have more common sense than american creationists.

 

 

 

I like the pope, the pope smokes dope.

 

 

 

Such a phrase is too cool to be untrue.

 

 

 

The Pope is the most conservative religious figure on Earth and represents roughly 25% of the world's religious views. Try reading his statement again in light of this.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I can just imagine the pope, after a long hard day of indoctrination, relaxing in a jacuzzi with 9 Colombian hookers and a fat [wagon] joint, with Only Built 4 Cuban Linx playing in the background.

 

 

 

Sure, he may seem like an evil, anti-contraception former-nazi on the outside, but remember, that IS only on the outside.

 

 

 

 

my entire post is steeped in sarcasm

[dangeresque]

Eggggsactly. Which is why teaching Creationism or Evolution can lead to big [cabbage].

 

 

 

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some evidence that we all flew down here in spaceships twelve months ago. Maybe that's what made volcanoes.

 

 

 

RAWHATHORAWWWGH.

 

 

 

I just don't think either should be taught in detail in general biology classes - or people should have the right to take two classes, or something.

 

 

 

What? No, sorry. Just no. If you're in a science class, you will be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven. Sure, it is the "theory of evolution" but retroviral DNA is enough to make it ridiculous to deny it. I mean, I don't even know how it has got this far. There is literally a MASS of evidence for evolution. Evolution should be taught in science class along with gravity.

 

 

 

Creationism.. I mean really? I have never, EVER, heard even one slightly compelling argument for it.

 

 

 

I don't care if it causes conflict between parents and teachers. If you are in a science class you should be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Creationism should be taught about in religious class. And remember, I'm not talking about cosmology/origin of life here, we're only discussing EVOLUTION.

 

So what, you want it your way on the highway and screw others views? Their views should be respected, even if there is slim to no proof of Creationism, it doesn't mean that we should just not listen to what other's want. I'm not really a huge fan of either of them being taught in schools, not totally against it though. I think that they should teach evolution, as they already do...atleast in my school >_>, but not say that it is right or wrong (Which again is what my school does and it works out fine). I'm atheist's, but I don't think we shouldn't listen to religious people just because we think that they're wrong. They think that atheist's are wrong and they want creationism taught, that's where both sides are alike.

 

 

 

And don't make some long post about how "but yeah creationism is wrong!" because that's not the point.