Is God real post your thoughts!

[dpattle]

[hide=]

I remember about two years ago I used to troll on here about God, acting like a creationist and that the world could be 10,000 years old. I think it was less about trolling, and more about expressing my frustration about the stupidity and willful ignorance of my parents. Any time I try and educate them about the subjects of cosmology or biology (evolution), they treat me like some arrogant [puncture] that's trying to end their beliefs in God. I mean, I am an arrogant [puncture], but when it comes to the education of others, especially people like my parents, I try and be as humble as I can. Rather than trying to understand what I am telling them, they blast me in defense of their religion, and tell me evolution is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to remove God out of our lives.

 

 

 

Anyway, that was a ton of rambling. So during the election with all these people making their choices based on their dogmatic beliefs, I began to question what I believed and where I ended up on the line along theist and atheist. I began to question the Judeo-Christian God especially, as well as Allah (which would be the same God). The different rules inside the religion didn't make much sense to begin with, but then when I thought about the concept of Hell, then I was REALLY at a loss for words. The idea of an omnipotent being, sending people to a place to die and suffer and burn for all of eternity for a mild 100 years on Earth, when he was the one that "created" this person to start...just makes absolutely no sense. As explained in the Death Penalty thread by Bluelancer, sociopaths do not think like your traditional person; they don't value life, and could/would kill someone without a second thought. How could God send someone to hell for killing someone, when it was God that created his mind to think like a sociopath in the first place, and for all eternity no less? It just seems a tad harsh for an omnipotent being that created us and knows what we will do. Oh, speaking of which, that's why the idea of "free-will" doesn't make sense, either. I have free-will, but he knows what I'll do. Why let me be born at all if you know I'm destined for hell? None of it makes a bit of sense.

 

 

 

 

 

So I guess I do believe in God, but I'm not sure what "God" is. I wouldn't be so sympathetic towards the atheists' cause if there wasn't so much that is threatening the school system and our rights as citizens. I don't blame religion for the cause of war, I blame nationalism and pride in one's heritage; that divisiveness to so easily condemn those that are different than you, it just goes much farther than religious differences. Although I don't believe in a jealous or vengeful creator, I would say that I am a Christian. I think of Jesus as a wonderful man with wonderful parables that showed people great ways to live one's life. So to that, I subscribe to the Jeffersonian Bible, and try to incorporate his teachings to my everyday life. What more is a Christian than a "Follower of Christ"?

[/hide]

 

 

 

WOW. where to start. First of all, i removed some of your quotes to try to make this shorter. i just now figured to do the hide thing but oh well. :thumbsup: First of all, can you blame your parents? I just for some reason cant believe that i am the descendant of a monkey that evolved into man, i dont know why... :| My major concern with it is the concept of "the big bang" starting the world as we have come to know it. Tell the truth, why would there be an explosion, in a completely placid space, for no reason? how would that even happen? scientists still cant answer that, and yet they accept it and take it as fact. How do they know we came from monkeys and such, just because they have opposable thumbs too? There systems are somewhat like ours so we must have come from them? I just can't see it, sorry. :wall: Lastly, about evolution...Darwin is credited as the father of it, but how did he actually know this before claiming it as fact? did you know he was actually raised as a christian? my thoughts are he probably created evolution and etc theories to vent his anger and frustration at the church.

 

 

 

yes God made us, but he didn't put us on this earth to be tortured, and hurt on purpose and just to die; shall we not forget that the world was at first perfect and the way he wanted it to be. The human race messed up, and therefore we are where we are now. Now on the subject of hell...WOW!! so many people, especially, but not limited to, catholics, have the wrong idea of hell. The think as soon as you die, you either go to hell or heaven, that is just not the case. NOTHING in the bible validates this! yes hell is real, but it is not in effect at the moment. The bible says in Revelation(dont have time to pinpoint it now else i would) that when Jesus returns once again, the DEAD IN CHRIST shall rise first and be caught up in the clouds, then the living in Christ shall also be caught up right after. Notice that the dead that were not in Christ do NOT rise again(atleast not now) it is then that God takes his people to heaven(not when they die) and hell commences. Hell is actually fire from heaven that is unable to be put out and will burn everything(kinda like Sasuke/Itachi's amaterasu~~Naruto Buff here). The earth will be "cleansed" by this fire during a period of a thousand years. When this period is over, then New Jerusalem(where everyone has been living in heaven) shall come down to earth and everyone that had witnessed been killed by "hell" during the cleansing period will wake up one last time to see Jesus and realize the folly of their ways. as the Bible says, "every knee shall bend,ever head shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

 

 

God doesn't want to see us die, but at the same time, he can't just let everyone live in sin and not trusting or believing in him. So he gave the human race a simple yet complicated choice, follow me and live, or don't follow me and surely die. No one can make you go one way or the other, because God doesn't force anything, he'll push and hint and try to help you out, but in the end, it is ultimately your choice. He loves us, and sees our hardships, but if we trust in him, he will see us through. God will take you through hell, to get you to heaven(hell in this context is symbolizing hard times on earth)

[dpattle]

First of all, there is no contradiction in the bible...PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

If that's true, you should have absolutely no problem completing fully Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

 

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

 

 

 

 

 

"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"

 

 

 

um, yeah..these aren't actual "contradictions" as i was meaning. The thing about this is that each one of these are just accounts from different people. They are bound to be a little different each, mostly just in the wording, and yet still there is really no contradiction as they all not only deliver the same message in the end, but are not inspired by the holy spirit, but rather MEN(aka HUMANS not being influenced by god on what to write(one of the very few times in the bible where they can put it in there own words))

 

 

 

# Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

 

# Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

 

# Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

 

# John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

 

 

 

I mean really? the point is it was in the morning as they knew it(they didn't use the 12 hour clock we do now, rather just sunset to sunset), and it could have still been dark when the women left and john saw them, and Luke may have only known that it was early in the morning(maybe he was just waking up, or wasn't up at the time), and mark said they arrived at the sepulchre at the rising of the sun, which would completely validate John's writing as they could have left when it was yet dark, and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. simple.

 

 

 

Much is also lost in different translations for they say different things and word things differently for different readers. Most of the cases posed are just plain word choice differences. Those that weren't can't be used as an example because again, these are what men themselves thought they saw. One can see something the other didn't, or see two sides of the same thing and disagree(the farmer and the two color hat story, don't remember what its called. Between the lions ftw).

[venomai]

So, you're comparing the majority of the world's strongest belief to a marketing ploy/random children's story, eh?

 

In saying that God is "as real as" some undoubtedly non-existent entity, it only serves to point out that neither entity actually exists. It says nothing about how many people believe in it, or its impact on humanity, etc.

 

 

 

How would that be wasting anything?

 

Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc. This certainly would be a waste if it was all for nothing.

 

 

 

Atheism, on the other hand, does not expect any such payment. With atheism, your extra free time and money can be wasted on more valuable alternatives, such as sleep and television. :thumbup:

[dpattle]

I believe in an eternal "after-life" in heaven and I feel that the possibility of ending up in hell is something too big to just ignore.

 

 

 

What about the possibility that you're wasting the only life you get worrying about what an imaginary man thinks of you?

 

 

 

How would that be wasting anything? Besides, you brought up possibilities which speaks for itself. There is a possibility that you could be the wrong one and that you're "wasting" your only life being an atheist.

 

 

 

Mhm, I think of it this way: If i am a believer, and live a good clean life, still have clean fun, and am still "rich" in my heart, and God turns out to be false and not true, what have i lost? Nothing! What have i gained? I still lived a good life. But if it is true, i have gained eternal life.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if i am an (fill in the blank) and don't believe in God or Jesus, and they aren't true, what have i lost? nothing! What have i gained? I still lived a relatively good life(hopefully). And if God just so happens to turn out true,...then i have in fact gained nothing, and literally, lost eternity.

 

 

 

Remember the old saying, better safe than sorry.

[Zierro]

In saying that God is "as real as" some undoubtedly non-existent entity, it only serves to point out that neither entity actually exists. It says nothing about how many people believe in it, or its impact on humanity, etc.

 

 

 

Keyword: undoubtedly

 

 

 

Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc. This certainly would be a waste if it was all for nothing.

 

 

 

But couldn't you say that you're also gaining something from theism? I don't consider it a waste if you're getting something out of it. It's just as much of a waste as having a religious debate.

[dpattle]

So, you're comparing the majority of the world's strongest belief to a marketing ploy/random children's story, eh?

 

In saying that God is "as real as" some undoubtedly non-existent entity, it only serves to point out that neither entity actually exists. It says nothing about how many people believe in it, or its impact on humanity, etc.

 

 

 

How would that be wasting anything?

 

Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc. This certainly would be a waste if it was all for nothing.

 

 

 

Atheism, on the other hand, does not expect any such payment. With atheism, your extra free time and money can be wasted on more valuable alternatives, such as sleep and television. :thumbup:

 

 

 

That my friend depends on how you view it. Some [religious leaders] do in believe that it is all about money or sacrifice, but that is also incorrect. The bible says give freely and joyfully. After all, if you believe in God, then you know he created the gold that gives that paper you call money value, he created the sun and the moon to dictate time, and lastly, he created everything known to man. Besides, The Bible says that if you give, it is a testimony of your faith to God, and you will basically get back more money and be prosperous. Kind of like an investment of sorts. And trust and believe, i'd rather give money to the church so they can help feed the homeless and bring more people to Christ than use it to by irrelevant things that can only last and make you happy for so long. Feeling generally don't go away. the feeling i had going to that homeless shelter and seeing kids without a home right here in Columbus-i will never ever forget. Even if you're not Christian, things like that should tell you where priorities should be, and make you think just a little bit harder about what to do with your "treasure."

[dpattle]

 

But couldn't you say that you're also gaining something from theism? I don't consider it a waste if you're getting something out of it. It's just as much of a waste as having a religious debate.

 

=D>

 

yes, yes it is. unless someone's life is utterly changed by that "debate." though i doubt that will happen here...but you never know what innocent bystander is reading and finally sees "the light." :D

[Rebdragon]

Mhm, I think of it this way: If i am a believer, and live a good clean life, still have clean fun, and am still "rich" in my heart, and God turns out to be false and not true, what have i lost? Nothing! What have i gained? I still lived a good life. But if it is true, i have gained eternal life.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if i am an (fill in the blank) and don't believe in God or Jesus, and they aren't true, what have i lost? nothing! What have i gained? I still lived a relatively good life(hopefully). And if God just so happens to turn out true,...then i have in fact gained nothing, and literally, lost eternity.

 

 

 

Remember the old saying, better safe than sorry.

 

Weak-minded. Worthless. Pathetic.

 

 

 

Pascal's Wager is a way to coerce people into becoming part of Christianity out of nothing but fear. It's a manipulation technique. And you know what? In spite of the fact that any other religion has as much possibility of being right as your own, in spite of the fact that they could all be wrong, you caved. You act like you love God when you don't. You just want a ticket to Heaven. True worshippers should despise your kind, as should those who also stick to their guns and do not accept any faith.

 

 

 

Frikking scum.

[Th3_Crusader]

I used to be Christian until World History, learning about all regilions, then I just slid away form Any religions.

[tryto]

First of all, there is no contradiction in the bible...PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

If that's true, you should have absolutely no problem completing fully Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

 

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

 

 

 

 

 

"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"

 

 

 

um, yeah..these aren't actual "contradictions" as i was meaning. The thing about this is that each one of these are just accounts from different people. They are bound to be a little different each, mostly just in the wording, and yet still there is really no contradiction as they all not only deliver the same message in the end, but are not inspired by the holy spirit, but rather MEN(aka HUMANS not being influenced by god on what to write(one of the very few times in the bible where they can put it in there own words))

 

 

 

# Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

 

# Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

 

# Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

 

# John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

 

 

 

I mean really? the point is it was in the morning as they knew it(they didn't use the 12 hour clock we do now, rather just sunset to sunset), and it could have still been dark when the women left and john saw them, and Luke may have only known that it was early in the morning(maybe he was just waking up, or wasn't up at the time), and mark said they arrived at the sepulchre at the rising of the sun, which would completely validate John's writing as they could have left when it was yet dark, and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. simple.

 

 

 

Much is also lost in different translations for they say different things and word things differently for different readers. Most of the cases posed are just plain word choice differences. Those that weren't can't be used as an example because again, these are what men themselves thought they saw. One can see something the other didn't, or see two sides of the same thing and disagree(the farmer and the two color hat story, don't remember what its called. Between the lions ftw).

 

 

 

 

 

So it's not the word of god, there are contradictions, it's written by men who can be wrong. Thanks.

[magekillr]

Okay, you may not adhere to it, but Pascal's Wager has some pretty faulty reasoning if you consider the assumptions it's founded upon.

 

 

 

You assume that the deity you are gambling on is the right one. The problem is that the probability that God exists is the same as the probability of Zeus existing, of Shiva existing, of Ishtar existing, and so on. So how do you know that the deity you are betting on is the correct one? Why does a belief in God have more epistemological weight than a belief in another deity?

 

 

 

You assume that if there is a God and you bet on His existence, He rewards on the basis of faith. Aside from what a religious text tells you, which isn't verifiable evidence, there is no evidence establishing God's nature as being one way or another, namely because there's no evidence of God to begin with.

 

 

 

So no, I don't consider Pascal's Wager a logical reason for belief because it rests on some unverifiable (and extremely unlikely) assumptions.

 

 

 

But just ponder the general questions: how do you know with certainty that the deity you are betting on is the RIGHT one? And what makes you so sure the reward-risk scheme is in your favor? What if there are severe consequences to betting on the WRONG deity's existence?

 

 

 

I'm sure God won't know that you really have no faith to begin with, and are making a "gamble".

[venomai]

Keyword: undoubtedly

 

If somebody claims that god is as real as the Easter Bunny, I think it's quite clear that they consider both entities to be undoubtedly non-existent.

 

 

 

But couldn't you say that you're also gaining something from theism? I don't consider it a waste if you're getting something out of it.

 

I suppose you mean psychological comfort? Obviously, this would be destroyed if you were to find out that your god does not exist, and that all your "payments" were for nothing.

 

 

 

yes, yes it is. unless someone's life is utterly changed by that "debate." though i doubt that will happen here...but you never know what innocent bystander is reading and finally sees "the light."

 

I was a theist before I began debating. (I also believed that LSD was synonymous with PCP, guns were the cause of crime, life in jail was a good punishment, all prostitutes were sex slaves, etc.) It's amazing how much can be gained by simply discussing and questioning your once-held beliefs.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if i am an (fill in the blank) and don't believe in God or Jesus, and they aren't true, what have i lost?

 

Unless, of course, you believed in the wrong god!

 

 

 

 

I think I'll play it safe and stick with atheism. :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

I used to be Christian until World History, learning about all regilions, then I just slid away form Any religions.

 

Hahahaha world history. All religions. Haaaa.

 

 

 

Also, haaaa Pascal's Wager. I think that's the stupidest reason to be religious. I mean, I guess, logically, it can be a good idea, but God =/= logic. About 32 xkcd comics come to mind right now.

 

 

 

If somebody claims that god is as real as the Easter Bunny, I think it's quite clear that they consider both entities to be undoubtedly non-existent.

 

Which I think is stupid. I mean, there might be an Easter Bunny, but for one thing, I don't really care. So there's one reason why the Easter Bunny is nothing like God. Personal beliefs. Woo.

[dpattle]

First of all, there is no contradiction in the bible...PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

If that's true, you should have absolutely no problem completing fully Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

 

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

 

 

 

 

 

"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"

 

 

 

um, yeah..these aren't actual "contradictions" as i was meaning. The thing about this is that each one of these are just accounts from different people. They are bound to be a little different each, mostly just in the wording, and yet still there is really no contradiction as they all not only deliver the same message in the end, but are not inspired by the holy spirit, but rather MEN(aka HUMANS not being influenced by god on what to write(one of the very few times in the bible where they can put it in there own words))

 

 

 

# Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

 

# Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

 

# Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

 

# John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

 

 

 

I mean really? the point is it was in the morning as they knew it(they didn't use the 12 hour clock we do now, rather just sunset to sunset), and it could have still been dark when the women left and john saw them, and Luke may have only known that it was early in the morning(maybe he was just waking up, or wasn't up at the time), and mark said they arrived at the sepulchre at the rising of the sun, which would completely validate John's writing as they could have left when it was yet dark, and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. simple.

 

 

 

Much is also lost in different translations for they say different things and word things differently for different readers. Most of the cases posed are just plain word choice differences. Those that weren't can't be used as an example because again, these are what men themselves thought they saw. One can see something the other didn't, or see two sides of the same thing and disagree(the farmer and the two color hat story, don't remember what its called. Between the lions ftw).

 

 

 

 

 

So it's not the word of god, there are contradictions, it's written by men who can be wrong. Thanks.

 

 

 

It's people like you that twist the words of the Bible and make it seem as if it's meaning something else. But hey, you're right, THAT PART is not particularly the "word of God" the contradictions as you call them are only when people write their opinions, and things as they experienced it. 3 people can experience the same thing and recall from memory different things when it comes to specifics. The "word of God" part are the rules and "regulations" he has given us to follow and obey. Things that tell us how to live life, and the verses that were inspired by the holy spirit. Since the majority of the Bible is just that, and only a little bit normal mens accounts, we as people easily call the whole Bible the "word of God," it's just more convenient. i hope you understand now. I was talking about the different accounts of the disciples when i said they were bound to be a little different...they technically don't actually contradict because they don't state opposite things, just details of a general idea. The bible actually does this on purpose. It's like when crime scene investigators talk to different witnesses(who have no reason to lie)and use their stories, though from different points of view with different details, to piece together the story.

[mmmcannibalism]

shall we not forget that the world was at first perfect and the way he wanted it to be. The human race messed up, and therefore we are where we are now

 

 

 

Just a little logic I think you should see if you believe that.

 

 

 

a. christianity assumes god is infinetly powerful and can forsee everything that will happen ever

 

 

 

b. christianity claims god created humanity

 

 

 

therefore, god must have created humanity knowing exactly what would happen, which means he created humanity knowing we would "mess up". According to christianity, god flooded the entire earth wiping out the entire population -noah and family. Since god must have known he would have to do this, it proves he had some reason to want to. So now we know god created a flawed species that he knew he would have to constantly punish to keep in a decent virtuous state. If god created humanity knowing he would have to punish it he is a sadistic ruler that likes causing harm to his creations. Unless you want to admit he didnt forsee humans failing, in which case he is not an infinitly powerful being. Also, to further back up the claim god is either fallable or sadistic, if he can forsee everything why create lucifer? there wouldnt be a need for hell or punishment if humanity had not been made with such a critical flaw.

 

 

 

oh and Im by no means an atheist, proud agnostic, and willing to accept that I could be wrong about there being a god.

[Foxtrot17]

God is a Banana.

[dpattle]

shall we not forget that the world was at first perfect and the way he wanted it to be. The human race messed up, and therefore we are where we are now

 

 

 

Just a little logic I think you should see if you believe that.

 

 

 

a. christianity assumes god is infinetly powerful and can forsee everything that will happen ever

 

 

 

b. christianity claims god created humanity

 

 

 

therefore, god must have created humanity knowing exactly what would happen, which means he created humanity knowing we would "mess up". According to christianity, god flooded the entire earth wiping out the entire population -noah and family. Since god must have known he would have to do this, it proves he had some reason to want to. So now we know god created a flawed species that he knew he would have to constantly punish to keep in a decent virtuous state. If god created humanity knowing he would have to punish it he is a sadistic ruler that likes causing harm to his creations. Unless you want to admit he didnt forsee humans failing, in which case he is not an infinitly powerful being. Also, to further back up the claim god is either fallable or sadistic, if he can forsee everything why create lucifer? there wouldnt be a need for hell or punishment if humanity had not been made with such a critical flaw.

 

 

 

oh and Im by no means an atheist, proud agnostic, and willing to accept that I could be wrong about there being a god.

 

 

 

oo, you where doing so well in the beginning. Yes, God knew that the race he created was in fact flawed and would mess up, and as so, had made the plan for salvation even before mankind sinned. What you must understand, or at least try to, is that God did not actually cause bad things to happen and people to suffer. Yes he knew what was to come, but what exactly do you think he should have done? the only way to make sure none of this had happened was to not create anyone who had even the slightest chance of disobeying. But by doing this, he would in essence have created drones, robots so to speak, who didn't obey him or follow him because they loved him, but rather because they had no CHOICE. THAT is exactly what god doesn't want. what good would it be to make anything at all if they are just drones who have no choice and do as you say not because of love, but rather because they are forced to? It was not a flaw, he simple gave the gift of choice, hoping that all would obey him out of love, not his force. I sure as hell wouldn't want to create a whole race of non loving creatures. Now while he decided this, he also decided that he would then take those who did in fact love him to heaven. Frankly, that's my hope, that i can love him enough to obey him and go to heaven. I personally don't like this world, and especially don't like the crazy people in it(murderers, rapists, etc., not you all. lolz \ ), and i can't wait for the day when he comes back. What you speak of, as if it was his fault we are suffering today, is in fact just us taking control of the gift of choice he gave us. Hopefully someone will CHOOSE to follow him, not because of someone else, but just because they love and have faith in Him.

[mmmcannibalism]

I'd still like to know why god created humanity, since his infinite power guarentees he knew how it would turn out. Id be willing to wager its possible to give a being free will and not have it turn out being disobediant.

 

 

 

The logic that we were made with free will to make a choice only works if you assume god had to create the universe. Wouldnt it be better to have no universe, no pain, no suffering?

[dpattle]

I'd still like to know why god created humanity, since his infinite power guarentees he knew how it would turn out. Id be willing to wager its possible to give a being free will and not have it turn out being disobediant.

 

 

 

The logic that we were made with free will to make a choice only works if you assume god had to create the universe. Wouldn't it be better to have no universe, no pain, no suffering?

 

 

 

I can't say if it'd be better without a universe, planets, or any species. I know i wouldn't be here, tip.it wouldn't be here, and neither would RS or any of this...tbh, i think i'd like to exist...but i guess im not sure since i dont know whatd it be like not existing? :? :-k

 

 

 

Then again, i think i'd like to at least have lived...

[fastortoise]

God is a Banana.

 

Did you know we share 50% of our genes with bananas?

 

Obviously God had something to do with this abomination!!

[Zierro]

If somebody claims that god is as real as the Easter Bunny, I think it's quite clear that they consider both entities to be undoubtedly non-existent.

 

 

 

How can you make the claim that God is undoubtedly non-existent? I don't know but when you compare a theists arguments with the arguments of an Easter Bunny believer, I think that makes things pretty clear. While you might not be satisfied with the justification theists have behind their beliefs, I think it would be foolish to say it's on the same level as somebody actually believing the Easter Bunny to be true.

 

 

 

I suppose you mean psychological comfort? Obviously, this would be destroyed if you were to find out that your god does not exist, and that all your "payments" were for nothing.

 

 

 

Could you actually find something like that out? If there was God and there was an afterlife then you would be have the consciousness to "know" God exists if you saw him after your life on Earth. However, if God doesn't exist and there is no afterlife, you wouldn't "know" that you were wrong anyways. You'd just be dead. So I ask again, how would that be considered a waste?

[Sly_Wizard]

First of all, there is no contradiction in the bible...PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

If that's true, you should have absolutely no problem completing fully Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

 

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

 

 

 

 

 

"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"

 

 

 

um, yeah..these aren't actual "contradictions" as i was meaning. The thing about this is that each one of these are just accounts from different people. They are bound to be a little different each, mostly just in the wording, and yet still there is really no contradiction as they all not only deliver the same message in the end, but are not inspired by the holy spirit, but rather MEN(aka HUMANS not being influenced by god on what to write(one of the very few times in the bible where they can put it in there own words))

 

 

 

# Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

 

# Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

 

# Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

 

# John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

 

 

 

I mean really? the point is it was in the morning as they knew it(they didn't use the 12 hour clock we do now, rather just sunset to sunset), and it could have still been dark when the women left and john saw them, and Luke may have only known that it was early in the morning(maybe he was just waking up, or wasn't up at the time), and mark said they arrived at the sepulchre at the rising of the sun, which would completely validate John's writing as they could have left when it was yet dark, and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. simple.

 

 

 

Much is also lost in different translations for they say different things and word things differently for different readers. Most of the cases posed are just plain word choice differences. Those that weren't can't be used as an example because again, these are what men themselves thought they saw. One can see something the other didn't, or see two sides of the same thing and disagree(the farmer and the two color hat story, don't remember what its called. Between the lions ftw).

 

 

 

 

 

So it's not the word of god, there are contradictions, it's written by men who can be wrong. Thanks.

 

 

 

You ignored what (s)he wrote out.

[dpattle]

wait, i don't think i ignored anyone? who ignored who Sly_Wizard

 

 

 

Btw, "he"--but its ok, you didn't know. :)

[Sly_Wizard]

wait, i don't think i ignored anyone? who ignored who Sly_Wizard

 

 

 

Btw, "he"--but its ok, you didn't know. :)

 

 

 

He ignored you lol

 

 

 

Anywho...

 

 

 

Weak-minded. Worthless. Pathetic.

 

 

 

Pascal's Wager is a way to coerce people into becoming part of Christianity out of nothing but fear. It's a manipulation technique. And you know what? In spite of the fact that any other religion has as much possibility of being right as your own, in spite of the fact that they could all be wrong, you caved. You act like you love God when you don't. You just want a ticket to Heaven. True worshippers should despise your kind, as should those who also stick to their guns and do not accept any faith.

 

 

 

Frikking scum.

 

 

 

Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms).

 

 

 

So much anger.

[dpattle]

wait, i don't think i ignored anyone? who ignored who Sly_Wizard

 

 

 

Btw, "he"--but its ok, you didn't know. :)

 

 

 

He ignored you lol

 

 

 

Anywho...

 

 

 

Weak-minded. Worthless. Pathetic.

 

 

 

Pascal's Wager is a way to coerce people into becoming part of Christianity out of nothing but fear. It's a manipulation technique. And you know what? In spite of the fact that any other religion has as much possibility of being right as your own, in spite of the fact that they could all be wrong, you caved. You act like you love God when you don't. You just want a ticket to Heaven. True worshippers should despise your kind, as should those who also stick to their guns and do not accept any faith.

 

 

 

Frikking scum.

 

 

 

Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms).

 

 

 

So much anger.

 

 

 

oh, kk kool.

 

 

 

There really is a lot of unnecessary anger from and to both sides. I think its best if you state your reasons without the little angry/mean sidenotes. =)