jackalope14 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag* The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it? If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals. Possibly, but from what I've read it seems like God made a moral code for humans to follow after the Earth was populated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 ...Would that even matter? We'd all be related anyways...Twice over, apparently, since Noah and his family had to start it all over. Nevermind the fact that this is impossible genetically. I've heard religious people here say many times over "Nuh-uh! After 5 generations genetic defects are no longer a problem!"...Yea, whatever. Ever heard of those Mormon Polygimous sects? They're being ridden with deformed babies and stuff. It's like the Bible actively being disproved in real-time experiments! Well, that particular story(s), anyways. And if one or two is false, why take the rest seriously? Religious people (some anyways) have actually reverted to saying the Bible isn't "literal" just so they can keep saying is was inspired by God. I dunno' why people can't just accept that people back then were stupid, wrote a story, and here we are, arguing over it. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag* The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it? If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals. Possibly, but from what I've read it seems like God made a moral code for humans to follow after the Earth was populated. There still subjective then, God could therefore change them at any time in the future. Absolute means morals stay the same throughout ALL time. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope14 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag* The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it? If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals. Possibly, but from what I've read it seems like God made a moral code for humans to follow after the Earth was populated. There still subjective then, God could therefore change them at any time in the future. Absolute means morals stay the same throughout ALL time. Did I say they were absolute? I think your the one who started talking about them being absolute. I was just trying to tell lordkrahn that I dont think God considered adam and eve incestuous. Nevermind the fact that this is impossible genetically. I've heard religious people here say many times over "Nuh-uh! After 5 generations genetic defects are no longer a problem!"...Yea, whatever. Ever heard of those Mormon Polygimous sects? They're being ridden with deformed babies and stuff. It's like the Bible actively being disproved in real-time experiments! Well, that particular story(s), anyways. And if one or two is false, why take the rest seriously? Hypothetically, if God was as All powerful as the Bible says he is, dont you think he would be able to prevent those genetic defects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope14 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? What part of "all powerful" dont you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? What part of "all powerful" dont you understand? I understand every word of it. What part of "proof to the contrary" or how about "where is your proof, anyways?" don't you understand? No need to get snippy, Mister. There are logical thinkers, and then there are people who just say "The Bible says so." which isn't a logical argument at all. You're not taking into account that the Bible could very well be fiction mixed in with historical places. Yes, said places existed, but that doesn't mean there is a God in the sky lookin' down on us, does it? I have nothing against people who believe in God, but at least have a reason other than "The Bible says so."...I believe there could be a God, but I'm also not a guppy. I'm not going to sit back and not question it, because when you don't question it, you turn into one of those "The Bible says so." drones that take no part in logical discussions because they feel they're better than that. That they don't NEED to explain anything, because afterall, "the Bible says so." The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Did I say they were absolute? I think your the one who started talking about them being absolute. I was just trying to tell lordkrahn that I dont think God considered adam and eve incestuous. The Bible teaches absolute morality, and since you take Gods word to be law. I would say the majority of christians beleive in moral absolutes. If you don't how can you ever condem anyone to have sinned, when what you deem is a sin changes? You can't hence moral absolutes. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuum Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Did you know the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion? But I don't believe in a lot of the stuff in the New Testament. Yes, it's mostly all fluff based around some true events. ...Did you know that the Nile river floods like, every year? French scholar and mathematician R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz in the 1950s was the first to note water erosion to the Sphinx, an idea expanded upon by writer John Anthony West in the 1970s. In the 1990s Robert M. Schoch of Boston University investigated the geology of the Sphinx at the urging of John Anthony West, and concluded based solely on the geological evidence that the Sphinx must be much older than currently believed. Schoch has argued that the particular weathering found on the body of the Sphinx and surrounding ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅditchÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope14 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? What part of "all powerful" dont you understand? I understand every word of it. What part of "proof to the contrary" or how about "where is your proof, anyways?" don't you understand? No need to get snippy, Mister. There are logical thinkers, and then there are people who just say "The Bible says so." which isn't a logical argument at all. You're not taking into account that the Bible could very well be fiction mixed in with historical places. Yes, said places existed, but that doesn't mean there is a God in the sky lookin' down on us, does it? I have nothing against people who believe in God, but at least have a reason other than "The Bible says so."...I believe there could be a God, but I'm also not a guppy. I'm not going to sit back and not question it, because when you don't question it, you turn into one of those "The Bible says so." drones that take no part in logical discussions because they feel they're better than that. That they don't NEED to explain anything, because afterall, "the Bible says so." Did you read my earlier post? I was making a hypothetical situation. IF the bible is true (like many Christians believe) and IF God is all powerful like the Bible says then why couldnt he stop genetic defects from happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordkrohn1626 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? What part of "all powerful" dont you understand? I understand every word of it. What part of "proof to the contrary" or how about "where is your proof, anyways?" don't you understand? No need to get snippy, Mister. There are logical thinkers, and then there are people who just say "The Bible says so." which isn't a logical argument at all. You're not taking into account that the Bible could very well be fiction mixed in with historical places. Yes, said places existed, but that doesn't mean there is a God in the sky lookin' down on us, does it? I have nothing against people who believe in God, but at least have a reason other than "The Bible says so."...I believe there could be a God, but I'm also not a guppy. I'm not going to sit back and not question it, because when you don't question it, you turn into one of those "The Bible says so." drones that take no part in logical discussions because they feel they're better than that. That they don't NEED to explain anything, because afterall, "the Bible says so." Got to say you are very intuitive :) RS name: lord krohn Combat 138slayer specific: 103 whips, 38 dark bows and 250+ dragon boots dropped to date.Dragon drops: 5 Half shields, 21 drag legs, 8 dragon skirts, and 9 drag meds dropped to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yes, but that's a lame argument. It's not really an argument once you just say "God made it possible!", is it? It's just the end-all and it takes no thinking or factual proof at all. Did God also help Noah build the Ark and defy physics keeping it afloat? Did God also bring all the animals from other continents to Noah, then put them back? Why even write about Noah if God did all the work? What part of "all powerful" dont you understand? I understand every word of it. What part of "proof to the contrary" or how about "where is your proof, anyways?" don't you understand? No need to get snippy, Mister. There are logical thinkers, and then there are people who just say "The Bible says so." which isn't a logical argument at all. You're not taking into account that the Bible could very well be fiction mixed in with historical places. Yes, said places existed, but that doesn't mean there is a God in the sky lookin' down on us, does it? I have nothing against people who believe in God, but at least have a reason other than "The Bible says so."...I believe there could be a God, but I'm also not a guppy. I'm not going to sit back and not question it, because when you don't question it, you turn into one of those "The Bible says so." drones that take no part in logical discussions because they feel they're better than that. That they don't NEED to explain anything, because afterall, "the Bible says so." Got to say you are very intuitive :) Yep, Tigra r0xx0r these debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 There's no reason he couldn't have, Jackalope, but I just think it's a lame argument. It's the whole "God can defy physics and science because he created it, but oh yea...science is BS and the Bible is truth!" stuff. Adn that's really all it is...People saying science is BS because it goes against the Bible, but when it suits them, they'll say that God created science and thus can manipulate it. That may be the case, but science today is telling us that God doesn't even exist. Unless the Dinosaurs were some previous failed experiment God failed to mention, and what we believe to be "early man" were either also failed experiments he again failed to mention, or in actuality, are The Nephilim of Bible tale (which wouldn't make sense, seeing as it says they were giants, and early man was smaller than modern humans, and umm...No giant bones so far...), then the Bible is just...wrong. We know that these things existed before the Bible was ever even thought about...I fail to see why God wouldn't mention these things. They're pretty important. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Hey Death..i just read it over...and over...and over again...and also looked at the different dimensions that we dwell in....and i change my view The thing is...God exists OUTSIDE of OUR time interval..so what to him was 6 days...could be a period of time to us. he is not limited by time, he dwells outside of it and is not constrained by it. kind of like how you have: ----past----present----future (this is our time line) ----GOD---- (then you have God who is outside of that time line) it would make a bit of sense...but by looking at the fact that God dwells outside of our time interval..it could add up to time periods...and 6 literal days to God would be seen as a a larger period of time to us. like i said b4 though...i still don't know how factual dating is or how true it is...just putting that out there i do not believe in an infinitely expanding universe though because of the way heat travels from bodies. if it was infinitely expanding...wouldn't the temperature be constant in our world because of this factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 There's no reason he couldn't have, Jackalope, but I just think it's a lame argument. It's the whole "God can defy physics and science because he created it, but oh yea...science is BS and the Bible is truth!" stuff. Adn that's really all it is...People saying science is BS because it goes against the Bible, but when it suits them, they'll say that God created science and thus can manipulate it. That may be the case, but science today is telling us that God doesn't even exist. Unless the Dinosaurs were some previous failed experiment God failed to mention, and what we believe to be "early man" were either also failed experiments he again failed to mention, or in actuality, are The Nephilim of Bible tale (which wouldn't make sense, seeing as it says they were giants, and early man was smaller than modern humans, and umm...No giant bones so far...), then the Bible is just...wrong. We know that these things existed before the Bible was ever even thought about...I fail to see why God wouldn't mention these things. They're pretty important. How does science go against believing in God? If anything they coincide :-s . We can't really come anywhere close to disproving a God with science; the God could easily be a transcendent one who just created everything and let things roll, or be in some form we can't possibly begin to understand. Science is corrently not, and will never, disprove the existence of a God. Maybe the Bible, but not a God. Personally, I don't think God talked to people and things any more back then than he does now :-w . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 As science advances the need for God decreases. He will become less personal and become more of an event, and only more of an event because we can't explain the start of the universe and an infinite regression is impossible. God has and will always be something mysterious to fill in the gaps, he was once personal and jealous and very much like a tyrant, as society progresses God becomes less and less personal until the majority of the gaps we have in science are filled. When we get to the point of pinpointing what started the universe, that event will be God. A trancendant God is all well and good, but if you beleive all of the Bible to be correct, it doesn't work out. If you beleive in absolute morality, it doesn't work either. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notorious_Ice Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 how does science go against believing in God? If anything they coincide Eh? . It's not about whether there can be a god, this thread is *suposed* to be about whether the bible is rubbish or not. We can't really come anywhere close to disproving a God with science; the God could easily be a transcendent one who just created everything and let things roll, or be in some form we can't possibly begin to understand. Science is corrently not, and will never, disprove the existence of a God. Maybe the Bible, but not a God. Exactly. There is no way to prove or disprove a god, though 'facts' in the bible have been disproven- regardless of any narrow minded fundimentalist who believes science is somewhat guesswork. The only thing left is the morals, and since the bible was written so long ago, they are outdated. As Satenza said, If you beleive in absolute morality, it doesn't work. If anyone here agrees that the 'facts' such as the world being flat, and the world is 6000 years old etc are rubbish, and that morals cannot be absolute as they change over time, then what are your reasons for not thinking the bible is rubbish? Don't be afraid your life will end, be afraid it will never begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 There's no reason he couldn't have, Jackalope, but I just think it's a lame argument. It's the whole "God can defy physics and science because he created it, but oh yea...science is BS and the Bible is truth!" stuff. Adn that's really all it is...People saying science is BS because it goes against the Bible, but when it suits them, they'll say that God created science and thus can manipulate it. That may be the case, but science today is telling us that God doesn't even exist. Unless the Dinosaurs were some previous failed experiment God failed to mention, and what we believe to be "early man" were either also failed experiments he again failed to mention, or in actuality, are The Nephilim of Bible tale (which wouldn't make sense, seeing as it says they were giants, and early man was smaller than modern humans, and umm...No giant bones so far...), then the Bible is just...wrong. We know that these things existed before the Bible was ever even thought about...I fail to see why God wouldn't mention these things. They're pretty important. How does science go against believing in God? If anything they coincide :-s . We can't really come anywhere close to disproving a God with science; the God could easily be a transcendent one who just created everything and let things roll, or be in some form we can't possibly begin to understand. Science is corrently not, and will never, disprove the existence of a God. Maybe the Bible, but not a God. Personally, I don't think God talked to people and things any more back then than he does now :-w . Science and God can exist together, assuming God just randomly decides to break the laws of science in order to do things, which, sure...He can do that. However, Evolution and God don't go together at all. That's why religious people accept science, but deny Evolution, which is science, not a belief. There is a great deal of proof that the Earth and the things on it did indeed evolve from former-states, but this contradicts the Bible. It's a matter of what you want to believe...Modern science, or ancient history stories. Now, I believe there could be a God, but I do NOT believe he is this random-assed Christian God that everyone bows to. That God makes no sense at all. Punish good people, create just to destroy, blame it all on Satan, blah blah blah. I refuse to believe someone, like for example, my father, is going to burn eternally in Hell just because he never accepted Jesus. My dad's a really good person and always worked hard to provide for us and I am to believe someone like him will be punished because they just didn't have TIME to sit and ponder if Jesus was the Messiah? Please. My dad doesn't have TIME to think about crap like that. He's too busy thinking about things that matter, because if he didn't, we'd be out in the streets. This is the kinda' thing religious people like to avoid answering. When you ask "Why would a good person like that be sent to Hell?" they kinda' just avoid it or give the old "Well, God gave them a choice..." speach. Wrong. God doesn't give some people choices. Some people do not have the knowledge of God, even. They dunno' a word about him. And I'm to believe these people are all going to Hell and only Christians get eternal life? Ha. The Christian religion is a false one, even if Jesus was the Messiah. And why should I have to get sucked into a cult for salvation? Why can it not just be about me and God? Why can't I die, go up and have a little conversation with God and be judged that way? Surely it can't be black and white. It can't just be "You accepted Jesus, you're going to Heaven, you didn't, you're going to Hell." I refuse to believe God is that...Stupid. He isn't. People are insulting him by assuming it's like that. I guess, in closing, when I stand before God and he says "Begone, for I never knew you." I can say "It is you who knew me better than anyone, it is I who did not know you." and God could respond "Yes, and that is because your faith in me was small." And I can respond, "My faith was not the problem, but my lack of stupidity was. Would you rather I blindly accepted the masses rhetoric about you, which portrayed you as an evil, hateful God, or would you rather I question their statements and challenged them with my own, implying that you are indeed the loving God you claim to be?" Surely, God wouldn't send someone to Hell just because they tried to understand him in a way that wasn't in par with the masses, who I consider to be wrong, because they make God out to be a bloodthirsty evil being, and they seemingly only worship him out of fear. I have no fear of God, because I know that an infinite benig would like nothing more than to hear my point of view rather than sit and listen to same same old "fake love out of fear" story. If he wishes to send me to Hell, so be it, but it will have to be for something a little less petty than not accepting Jesus. And for the last time, joining a cult doesn't give you access to Heaven anymore than it does me. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 As science advances the need for God decreases. He will become less personal and become more of an event, and only more of an event because we can't explain the start of the universe and an infinite regression is impossible. It's just the opposite. God becomes more personal the more we realize science can't fill the relationship-shaped void in our lives. Do you honestly think science is going to bring you fulfillment in life? hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag* The Bible doesn't say God didn't create other beings. The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve are responsible for every being that ever existed either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 As science advances the need for God decreases. He will become less personal and become more of an event, and only more of an event because we can't explain the start of the universe and an infinite regression is impossible. It's just the opposite. God becomes more personal the more we realize science can't fill the relationship-shaped void in our lives. Do you honestly think science is going to bring you fulfillment in life? God doesn't bring fulfillment in life, correct me if I am wrong but every human on this planet religious or not wants something more. Whether that be material or spiritual we are all searching for felicity and thats human nature. Science brings truth, and truth brings some fulfillment as oppose to religion which just attempts to cloud it. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 God doesn't bring fulfillment in life, correct me if I am wrong but every human on this planet religious or not wants something more. Whether that be material or spiritual we are all searching for felicity and thats human nature. Science brings truth, and truth brings some fulfillment as oppose to religion which just attempts to cloud it. Yeah, and I've never heard a human being say "Wow, science has brought me so much fulfillment in life! I'm so glad I've spent my life acquiring knowledge that neither affected my heart nor helped me love the people around me". When you're on your deathbed, are you going to say "Gee, I just wish I had studied science more!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 God doesn't bring fulfillment in life, correct me if I am wrong but every human on this planet religious or not wants something more. Whether that be material or spiritual we are all searching for felicity and thats human nature. Science brings truth, and truth brings some fulfillment as oppose to religion which just attempts to cloud it. Yeah, and I've never heard a human being say "Wow, science has brought me so much fulfillment in life! I'm so glad I've spent my life acquiring knowledge that neither affected my heart nor helped me love the people around me". When you're on your deathbed, are you going to say "Gee, I just wish I had studied science more!"? Of course not, I don't study science. I don't think it is the most important thing in the world, however it's the best tool we have for discovering truth. I know when I'm lying on my deathbed hopefully i can be proud of helping change society for the better for it is the only world and life we are sure about. I will certainly not be thinking about whether I have impressed a God enough to get into heaven. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I will certainly not be thinking about whether I have impressed a God enough to get into heaven. Lol, me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 God doesn't bring fulfillment in life, correct me if I am wrong but every human on this planet religious or not wants something more. Whether that be material or spiritual we are all searching for felicity and thats human nature. Science brings truth, and truth brings some fulfillment as oppose to religion which just attempts to cloud it. Yeah, and I've never heard a human being say "Wow, science has brought me so much fulfillment in life! I'm so glad I've spent my life acquiring knowledge that neither affected my heart nor helped me love the people around me". When you're on your deathbed, are you going to say "Gee, I just wish I had studied science more!"? Actually, I could see that being thought. Science is fascinating and we're always finding out new stuff. Once you read the Bible...That's kinda' the end of it. You know all there is to know about it. These people who claim "Oh no, I've read the Bible 100 times and I'm STILL learning about God!" are dilusional. God isn't that mysterious if you're religious...He's only mysterious to people like me who just don't get why it's accepted that he's a "loving God" while at the same time he'll send good people to Hell. I don't believe that, however...But you do. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Science and God can exist together, assuming God just randomly decides to break the laws of science in order to do things, which, sure...He can do that. Or He could have just created our universes scientific laws and let it be. However, Evolution and God don't go together at all. That's why religious people accept science, but deny Evolution, which is science, not a belief. There is a great deal of proof that the Earth and the things on it did indeed evolve from former-states, but this contradicts the Bible. It's a matter of what you want to believe...Modern science, or ancient history stories. I don't know what religious fanatics you seem to know so well, but most religious people believe that God and Evolution go together, and that the Bible can be wrong. Personally I've given up on taking anything in the Bible literally, and I just look for the meanings. Revelations is an interesting read though :) . Again, it doesn't have to agree with the Bible for God to have dun it. The Bible is erroneous. Now, I believe there could be a God, but I do NOT believe he is this random-assed Christian God that everyone bows to. Me neither :-w . That God makes no sense at all. Punish good people, create just to destroy, blame it all on Satan, blah blah blah. I refuse to believe someone, like for example, my father, is going to burn eternally in Hell just because he never accepted Jesus. Again, agreed, it's total bull. Then again, "accepting Jesus" could be a parallel to being an overall good person, and following Jesus as a precedent. That's where I personally find Christians to be wrong in thinking that you have to be a Christian to "accept Jesus' [teachings] into your heart". I mean, what the hell, "Ghandi's going to hell'? I got quite a laugh out of that one. My dad's a really good person and always worked hard to provide for us and I am to believe someone like him will be punished because they just didn't have TIME to sit and ponder if Jesus was the Messiah? Please. My dad doesn't have TIME to think about crap like that. He's too busy thinking about things that matter, because if he didn't, we'd be out in the streets. Again, agreed. Don't really see where you're going with this tangent though. You seem to like going out on random rants in your religious responses :P . This is the kinda' thing religious people like to avoid answering. When you ask "Why would a good person like that be sent to Hell?" they kinda' just avoid it or give the old "Well, God gave them a choice..." speach. Wrong. God doesn't give some people choices. Some people do not have the knowledge of God, even. They dunno' a word about him. And I'm to believe these people are all going to Hell and only Christians get eternal life? Ha. The Christian religion is a false one, even if Jesus was the Messiah. And why should I have to get sucked into a cult for salvation? Why can it not just be about me and God? Why can't I die, go up and have a little conversation with God and be judged that way? Surely it can't be black and white. It can't just be "You accepted Jesus, you're going to Heaven, you didn't, you're going to Hell." I refuse to believe God is that...Stupid. He isn't. People are insulting him by assuming it's like that. Geez this is a long tangent :-w . I guess, in closing, when I stand before God and he says "Begone, for I never knew you." I can say "It is you who knew me better than anyone, it is I who did not know you." and God could respond "Yes, and that is because your faith in me was small." And I can respond, "My faith was not the problem, but my lack of stupidity was. Would you rather I blindly accepted the masses rhetoric about you, which portrayed you as an evil, hateful God, or would you rather I question their statements and challenged them with my own, implying that you are indeed the loving God you claim to be?" It just keeps going... Side note: Christians picture God as a loving God, and generally don't agree with the excuses and myths the Hebrew people made up to justify and explain what happened to them. It's Greek theology all over again :lol: . Surely, God wouldn't send someone to Hell just because they tried to understand him in a way that wasn't in par with the masses, who I consider to be wrong, because they make God out to be a bloodthirsty evil being, and they seemingly only worship him out of fear. I have no fear of God, because I know that an infinite benig would like nothing more than to hear my point of view rather than sit and listen to same same old "fake love out of fear" story. If he wishes to send me to Hell, so be it, but it will have to be for something a little less petty than not accepting Jesus. And going... Side note #2: God doesn't send us to Hell- that's just something made up to make people do good, as well as giving people the idea of karma being real. We send ourselves to Hell. Oh, and yes, those who believe because it's simply a more suitable option than atheism really need to start thinking instead of whimping out. And for the last time, joining a cult doesn't give you access to Heaven anymore than it does me. Amen. So speaks Tigra, thus ends the tangent. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now