# If There is No God



## MoonRiver

Why do Atheists object to the Bible?

My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible (without Godly inspiration - added to make it a little clearer). That would imply that learned men (and possibly women) interpreted historical events in a way to teach a moral story that they believed was best for their people.

Isn't that what Atheists want? 

This is just a thought exercise. Please don't get all wrapped up in it please.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Why do Atheists object to the Bible?
> 
> My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible. That would imply that learned men (and possibly women) interpreted historical events in a way to teach a moral story that they believed was best for their people.
> 
> Isn't that what Atheists want?
> 
> This is just a thought exercise. Please don't get all wrapped up in it please.


It is just a book to me. A pretty good book but nothing more. I don't object to the bible.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

There is one God.
But I also believe that man wrote the bible with their flawed hands, albeit with His inspiration. 

I think a lot of atheists object to the bible for the same reasons I do. Many of the words were put there under the auspices of His authority, when they were really just men recording their own terrestrial law of the time.

For example, I guarantee you that God never cared if a man provided his family with a lobster for dinner, if that was what he was able to bring home for them to eat that day. He didn't prohibit it, then change his mind a thousand years later. Man put that mud in the water. His direction has always been to feed your family, with whatever he provides that day, and rejoice in Him with your family before you consume it. 

His laws are very simple ones.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There is one God.
> But I also believe that man wrote the bible with their flawed hands, albeit with His inspiration.
> 
> I think a lot of atheists object to the bible for the same reasons I do. Many of the words were put there under the auspices of His authority, when they were really just men recording their own terrestrial law of the time.
> 
> For example, I guarantee you that God never cared if a man provided his family with a lobster for dinner, if that was what he was able to bring home for them to eat that day. He didn't prohibit it, then change his mind a thousand years later. Man put that mud in the water. His direction has always been to feed your family, with whatever he provides that day, and rejoice in Him with your family before you consume it.


Do you object to the bible or to how people use it?


----------



## Lisa in WA

My guess is that people might object to the bible because many people try to foist it's strictures upon the country via legislation.

For instance, why do we send so much aid and support to Israel?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Do you object to the bible or to how people use it?



...how people use it. ...on both sides.

My Bible was written for me and me alone. I am not allowed to use it to beat someone us 'side the head with it.

If someone else has a Bible, I believe that that Bible was written for them and for them alone, and so on, and so on...


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> My guess is that people might object to the bible because many people try to foist it's strictures upon the country via legislation.
> 
> For instance, why do we send so much aid and support to Israel?


 
Perhaps because they are an important friend to the U.S. in a very dangerous part of the world. We send 4x the money to Afghanistan than we do to Israel. I am generally against all such aid as it is against the Constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible


Men wrote the Bible either way, and after it was written by many men in many languages, it was translated by many men into many other languages, and each version differs slightly from the one before.

Atheists simply say they don't believe in *any* religion at all, not just Christianity.

I never see anyone complaining about how Buddhists or Hindus don't follow the Bible, so why all the concern with what atheists think?


----------



## wiscto

MoonRiver said:


> Why do Atheists object to the Bible?
> 
> My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible. That would imply that learned men (and possibly women) interpreted historical events in a way to teach a moral story that they believed was best for their people.
> 
> Isn't that what Atheists want?
> 
> This is just a thought exercise. Please don't get all wrapped up in it please.


I can answer that. I'm an agnostic, but my opinion of religion is pretty consistent with atheists I know. 

Many learned individuals wrote before and after the bible, not all of them claimed status as "the chosen people." Not all of them claimed to have been speaking to God in order to substantiate their ideals and their motives, which were sometimes violent. The only reason that the bible's logical inconsistencies are not dealt with academically or logically is because people have faith that the bible is the word of God him/her/itself, and so they feel that it is their duty to find truth in it no matter what other evidence might exist. The only reason that the ideas and ideals of "learned" people from thousands of years ago have continued through many centuries of scientific progress without change is because some people have faith that the people who wrote the bible had a connection to God....._because those people who wrote the bible claimed to have that connection to God._

But since atheists and most agnostics do not believe that God had anything to do with the writing of the bible, they dislike the bible because it was written by people who existed long ago, who could not possibly have understood the theory of evolution, who didn't know anything about outer space or that our bodies are composed of atoms, or that we walk on the earth because of the force of gravity. People living today regularly attempt to force everyone to recognize their moral authority based on the claim that their moral authority is derived from a bible and therefore God.

And even the moral uniqueness of the earliest Jews and Christians is doubtful. Laws of ethics and morality existed long before the bible. Learned people who existed long before Jesus wrote of things such as tolerance, forgiveness...some of them created the principles of democracy which survive today. Many of Judaisms principles were similar to, and likely influenced by Zoroastrianism. Yet the bible paints a very ethnocentric and ignorant picture of the rest of the world and the people in it. And that attitude has pervaded the modern incarnation of the three major religions of the west and near east.


----------



## gapeach

MoonRiver said:


> Why do Atheists object to the Bible?
> 
> My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible. That would imply that learned men (and possibly women) interpreted historical events in a way to teach a moral story that they believed was best for their people.
> 
> Isn't that what Atheists want?
> 
> This is just a thought exercise. Please don't get all wrapped up in it please.


I'm not gonna get all wrapped up in it but frankly, I think they see it as a threat.


----------



## painterswife

wiscto said:


> I can answer that. I'm an agnostic, but my opinion of religion is pretty consistent with atheists I know.
> 
> Many learned individuals wrote before and after the bible, not all of them claimed status as "the chosen people." Not all of them claimed to have been speaking to God in order to substantiate their ideals and their motives, which were sometimes violent. The only reason that the bible's logical inconsistencies are not dealt with academically or logically is because people have faith that the bible is the word of God him/her/itself, and so they feel that it is their duty to find truth in it no matter what other evidence might exist. The only reason that the ideas and ideals of "learned" people from thousands of years ago have continued through many centuries of scientific progress without change is because some people have faith that the people who wrote the bible had a connection to God....._because those people who wrote the bible claimed to have that connection to God._
> 
> But since atheists and most agnostics do not believe that God had anything to do with the writing of the bible,* they dislike the bible* because it was written by people who existed long ago, who could not possibly have understood the theory of evolution, who didn't know anything about outer space or that our bodies are composed of atoms, or that we walk on the earth because of the force of gravity. People living today regularly attempt to force everyone to recognize their moral authority based on the claim that their moral authority is derived from a bible and therefore God.
> 
> And even the moral uniqueness of the earliest Jews and Christians is doubtful. Laws of ethics and morality existed long before the bible. Learned people who existed long before Jesus wrote of things such as tolerance, forgiveness...some of them created the principles of democracy which survive today. Many of Judaisms principles were similar to, and likely influenced by Zoroastrianism. Yet the bible paints a very ethnocentric and ignorant picture of the rest of the world and the people in it. And that attitude has pervaded the modern incarnation of the three major religions of the west and near east.


An excellent post except for the bolded part.


----------



## Evons hubby

If there is no God then athiests and the faithful alike could not exist.... there would be no universe for them to exist in.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If there is no God then athiests, and the faithful alike could not exist.... there would be no universe for them to exist in.


But there is no god and yet we do exist.


----------



## wiscto

painterswife said:


> An excellent post except for the bolded part.


Well. Okay, at least some of them dislike the bible. I should have said they don't believe in it and left it that I guess, more diplomatic, but I can't say that I don't know atheists who outright hate it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> I'm not gonna get all wrapped up in it but frankly, I think they see it as a threat.


How can it be a threat?
That makes no sense at all

Do you consider Buddhism a threat to your religion, or do you just not think about it at all unless someone else mentions it?


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> But there is no god and yet we do exist.


And you are welcome to believe that ifn ya wants to.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Do you object to the bible or to how people use it?


I guess I'm not sure. Maybe 'object' was a poor word choice on my part. 

There are so many profound and invaluable lessons in the bible (both testaments), that I think its value outweighs any nonsense that found its way in there (I'm looking at you Deuteronomy). The same is true of the Quran, in my opinion. So, I don't suppose I object to the book itself. 

As for its implementation, man has certainly done some heinous things under the writ of its holiness, again, as so with the Quran. BUT, I also believe that these books have led people to live inspired lives in awareness of His greatness, in orders of magnitude more than individuals have used them to do evil. So, on the whole, I think people have used them for right. 

I guess where I object, if that is right word, is that God never speaks imperfectly to me (though my understanding may sometimes be imperfect), but the bible carries with it the flaws of man's understanding. Likewise, God has never caused man to do evil, but the bible has- relatively few as those numbers might be.


----------



## Jolly

Would somebody please point out what in the Bible has been proven by archeologists to be untrue?


----------



## wiscto

The burden of truth isn't just on the skeptics... I'll let you start with the burning bush.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I guess I'm not sure. Maybe 'object' was a poor word choice on my part.
> 
> There are so many profound and invaluable lessons in the bible (both testaments), that I think its value outweighs any nonsense that found its way in there (I'm looking at you Deuteronomy). The same is true of the Quran, in my opinion. So, I don't suppose I object to the book itself.
> 
> As for its implementation, man has certainly done some heinous things under the writ of its holiness, again, as so with the Quran. BUT, I also believe that these books have led people to live inspired lives in awareness of His greatness, in orders of magnitude more than individuals have used them to do evil. So, on the whole, I think people have used them for right.
> 
> I guess where I object, if that is right word, is that God never speaks imperfectly to me (though my understanding may sometimes be imperfect), but *the bible carries with it the flaws of man's understanding.* Likewise, God has never caused man to do evil, but the bible has- relatively few as those numbers might be.


I think its a vocabulary/language problem. Man simply does not have the proper vocabulary to discuss things on Gods level. The bible being written by mortals gets a bit confusing because of that.


----------



## gapeach

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can it be a threat?
> That makes no sense at all
> 
> Do you consider Buddhism a threat to your religion, or do you just not think about it at all unless someone else mentions it?


No. I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life. I don't remember them doing what Madelyn O'hair and her son did. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.


Because they want America to be a Godless nation. Starting in the late 1950s radical Atheists such as Madelyn O'hair and many others tried to take God out of schools and out of public life altogether. They scored their first victory in 1963, when they removed God from the pledge. Gradually from then until now Christian teachers and other staff members of the school system have been denied rights to talk about God to classmates, or to encourage their beliefs how ever positive they may be.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Would somebody please point out what in the Bible has been proven by archeologists to be untrue?


And just so you don't think that archaeologists don't dispute the bible. Here's a little introduction to the fact that some of them dispute the existence of Moses entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses


----------



## wiscto

gapeach said:


> No. I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life. I don't remember them doing what Madelyn O'hair and her son did. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.
> 
> 
> Because they want America to be a Godless nation. Starting in the late 1950s radical Atheists such as Madelyn O'hair and many others tried to take God out of schools and out of public life altogether. They scored their first victory in 1963, when they removed God from the pledge. Gradually from then until now Christian teachers and other staff members of the school system have been denied rights to talk about God to classmates, or to encourage their beliefs how ever positive they may be.


I'm agnostic, not atheist, but I think it's kind of insulting that you compare all atheists to this one incident. Would you like me to base my view of Christianity on David Koresh?


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> Would you like me to base my view of Christianity on David Koresh?


Why not? One martyr is as good as another.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps because they are an important friend to the U.S. in a very dangerous part of the world. We send 4x the money to Afghanistan than we do to Israel. I am generally against all such aid as it is against the Constitution.


 And perhaps also because of this:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-bible-says-israel-deserves-foreign-aid


----------



## wiscto

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why not? One martyr is as good as another.


:thumb: Okay then. I'll base my view of Christianity on this guy...










Or these people...


----------



## Lisa in WA

not to mention all the Catholic priests who abused children....


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> I'm not gonna get all wrapped up in it but frankly, I think they see it as a threat.


I'm not Atheist but I am of another faith and I can assure you that I absolutely don't find the bible to be a threat to me in any way. 

I'm quite comfortable with the idea that if a bible is important to someone, they should continue using but something entirely different guides me and hopefully, in the end we're all good and decent people.


----------



## gapeach

wiscto said:


> I'm agnostic, not atheist, but I think it's kind of insulting that you compare all atheists to this one incident. Would you like me to base my view of Christianity on David Koresh?


Not really. I remember Waco very well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No. I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life. I don't remember them doing what *Madelyn O'hair and her son did*. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.


Maybe you should take that up with them.
I don't believe they post here

Or should we judge you based on the actions of the Westboro crowd?


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Jolly said:


> Would somebody please point out what in the Bible has been proven by archeologists to be untrue?


A literal translation of Noah and the Ark does not work from so many different angles, that we end up with three possibilities:

1. The story was not intended to be taken literally, which raises the idea of metaphoric intent.
2. Serious magic _well_ beyond the realms of physics occurred, and with little or no apparent purpose.
3. The retelling of the story prior to inclusion in the Bible was flawed - an idea that has documented proof on its side from other cultures' written flood stories having significant variance.

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

The story of Jonah surviving in a leviathan (crocodile, not whale as commonly translated) is patently impossible without magic. What is MUCH more likely is the idea that it is a representative phrase, much like when we say someone is in hot water or "in a pickle."

There are numbers of other logical inconsistencies, including highly questionable population figures and battlefield figures, debatable age figures for some patriarchs, etc.


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> No. I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life. I don't remember them doing what Madelyn O'hair and her son did. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.
> 
> 
> Because they want America to be a Godless nation. Starting in the late 1950s radical Atheists such as Madelyn O'hair and many others tried to take God out of schools and out of public life altogether. They scored their first victory in 1963, when they removed God from the pledge. Gradually from then until now Christian teachers and other staff members of the school system have been denied rights to talk about God to classmates, or to encourage their beliefs how ever positive they may be.


The OP asked a valid question and it truly nothing to do with Muslim immigration but if you really want to go that direction, I can assure you that Atheists do not believe in the Koran either.


----------



## Woolieface

I think He answered the question of this thread
_
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

And *a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, *even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. - 1 Peter 2:6-8_


----------



## Jim Bunton

Jolly said:


> Would somebody please point out what in the Bible has been proven by archeologists to be untrue?


Many biblical scholars place the age of the earth at about 6000 years. I think most archeologists would consider this untrue.
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton

gapeach said:


> No. I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life. I don't remember them doing what Madelyn O'hair and her son did. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.
> 
> 
> Because they want America to be a Godless nation. Starting in the late 1950s radical Atheists such as Madelyn O'hair and many others tried to take God out of schools and out of public life altogether. They scored their first victory in 1963, when they removed God from the pledge. Gradually from then until now Christian teachers and other staff members of the school system have been denied rights to talk about God to classmates, or to encourage their beliefs how ever positive they may be.


I am an atheist and have no desire to take God from those who believe. I don't want the laws that I am required to follow to be based on the word of a make believe God. This is not meant to be an insult to those who believe. I hope it will help you see it from our view point.
Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> I am an atheist and have no desire to take God from those who believe. I don't want the laws that I am required to follow to be based on the word of a make believe God. This is not meant to be an insult to those who believe. I hope it will help you see it from our view point.
> Jim


Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Woolieface said:


> I think He answered the question of this thread
> _
> Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
> 
> Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
> 
> And *a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, *even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. - 1 Peter 2:6-8_


You can't be "disobedient" of a religion in which you have no belief, any more than you are a "disobedient Muslim" if you eat a pork chop.

The rules only apply to those who chose to follow


----------



## where I want to

Too bad for those that want a Bible free set of laws- that ship sailed eons ago. Western culture is permeated with the fruit of religious struggles to understand the world. An atheist would have no commitment great enough to have made those struggles of understanding and the result of an atheistic study of humanity would be in essence a political theory of how to manipulate the masses to get what is desired- dominance and advantage. A world of the Machiavelli or Stalin or Mao. And even they could not escape the religious origins of what the religious in their history defined as good. Just the mechanics. Even that bastion of personal rectitude Confusius took to the religion of his ancestors to determine the goal. He just created a roadmap to get there.
People of religion are the people interested in determining what is good and thus pleasing to God. Simply put- they created the laws because of their interest in it and it's way too late to create an alternative. Attempting that reinvention of the wheel s omehow always ends up being in the same place the religious found in their way. 
And that is not a bad thing. Moses may have come down from the mountain with a set of rules set in stone but humans have been elaborating on them every since.


----------



## mnn2501

Jim Bunton said:


> Many biblical scholars place the age of the earth at about 6000 years.


Actually, only a small portion do, mostly from the Evangelical crowd.


----------



## mnn2501

I am a believer, yet I know most of Genesis was a primitive tribes attempt to explain things they did not understand. Men wrote and decided what was going to be in the Bible.
The amazing thing is not how bad it is, but how good it is in spite of things men attributed to God.
God only gave us 10 Laws or Commandments, the rest were mans additions. Sadly most humans throw out about half of those 10.

BTW, I asked an Atheist co-worker once to describe the God he doesn't believe in and you know what? I could never believe in a God with those attributes either.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

It seems, if you take both the Faith-filled and the atheists at their word, that the major sticking point with the bible is in its implementation in the law of man. 

If we can all accept (or refuse to accept) that God will judge us all individually based on our merits and shortcomings, I think that we can all arrive at a set of laws that we agree on, or, at least, that would be much easier to achieve. 

As both a libertarian and a follower of my creator (which I believe to be mutually inclusive, BTW), I separate my humble judgements of both sins, and crimes, into those that bear victims, and those that are victimless. 

For example, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but, since both companions involved are consenting to it, I don't believe there is a victim there. It's not my place to judge the homosexual. I commit my own sins, and I know God will judge them, and will base his judgement on the sum-total of their lives. 

If God judges us all unfavorably based on a single sin of our lives, then there wouldn't be a single soul who lived more than 6 or 8 years on this earth in heaven, or whatever the favorable judgment gets us. 

On the other hand, if someone steals something from my house, God will count that in his judgment, and, because I'm the victim of their transgression, society has a mandate to pass a terrestrial judgment against them as well. They should be tried in the courts of man, and punished accordingly. God will have it on his list. 

Terrestrial judgments are a lot like the "wait til your father gets home" threat we all heard as children, both figuratively and literally. The punishment we got from our teachers was nothing compared to what we had coming when our parents found out how we'd disgraced them. 

To pen in the rest of the circle, drugs are a perfect example. I like coffee. A LOT. There are Starbucks in Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, Tokyo, Seoul, Muskat, Paris, Britain, and Frankfort (plus a few I am sure I forget to mention), where the morning baristas know me by name. I'm really no different than a heroin addict, in that regard. 

If I can maintain my habit, and do no harm to others, then I have only His judgment to worry about, and it WILL count against me. However, if I fail to provide for my wife in the effort to feed my coffee addiction, or, God forgive me, strike my wife in a caffeine induced rage, then I should also be accountable to the courts of man. 

Likewise, if you like heroin, have at it, brother. If you can maintain yourself according to the laws of man, have at it. But, if you hurt one of your brothers or sisters, or fail to meet your obligations to your children, or....whatever, then there's going to be hell to pay. (Pun intended, just for your Bear  ). 

That's all. 

I'm taking requests and bus fare to go up to Washington and straighten out these law books, if anyone has input or donations.


----------



## Nevada

Jim Bunton said:


> I am an atheist and have no desire to take God from those who believe. I don't want the laws that I am required to follow to be based on the word of a make believe God. This is not meant to be an insult to those who believe. I hope it will help you see it from our view point.
> Jim


They understand that. They pretend that they don't understand it, but when they consider what it would be like to live under Islamic law they react. They only pretend to not understand why we wouldn't want to live under Biblical law because that's what they want to happen.

I see forced prayer in school as pushing Christianity on those who might not want it. They see it as freedom to worship. Maybe they would see it differently if schools forced their children to worship some other religion. No?


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It seems, if you take both the Faith-filled and the atheists at their word, that the major sticking point with the bible is in its implementation in the law of man.
> 
> If we can all accept (or refuse to accept) that God will judge us all individually based on our merits and shortcomings, I think that we can all arrive at a set of laws that we agree on, or, at least, that would be much easier to achieve.
> 
> As both a libertarian and a follower of my creator (which I believe to be mutually inclusive, BTW), I separate my humble judgements of both sins, and crimes, into those that bear victims, and those that are victimless.
> 
> For example, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but, since both companions involved are consenting to it, I don't believe there is a victim there. It's not my place to judge the homosexual. I commit my own sins, and I know God will judge them, and will base his judgement on the sum-total of their lives.
> 
> If God judges us all unfavorably based on a single sin of our lives, then there wouldn't be a single soul who lived more than 6 or 8 years on this earth in heaven, or whatever the favorable judgment gets us.
> 
> On the other hand, if someone steals something from my house, God will count that in his judgment, and, because I'm the victim of their transgression, society has a mandate to pass a terrestrial judgment against them as well. They should be tried in the courts of man, and punished accordingly. God will have it on his list.
> 
> Terrestrial judgments are a lot like the "wait til your father gets home" threat we all heard as children, both figuratively and literally. The punishment we got from our teachers was nothing compared to what we had coming when our parents found out how we'd disgraced them.
> 
> To pen in the rest of the circle, drugs are a perfect example. I like coffee. A LOT. There are Starbucks in Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, Tokyo, Seoul, Muskat, Paris, Britain, and Frankfort (plus a few I am sure I forget to mention), where the morning baristas know me by name. I'm really no different than a heroin addict, in that regard.
> 
> If I can maintain my habit, and do no harm to others, then I have only His judgment to worry about, and it WILL count against me. However, if I fail to provide for my wife in the effort to feed my coffee addiction, or, God forgive me, strike my wife in a caffeine induced rage, then I should also be accountable to the courts of man.
> 
> Likewise, if you like heroin, have at it, brother. If you can maintain yourself according to the laws of man, have at it. But, if you hurt one of your brothers or sisters, or fail to meet your obligations to your children, or....whatever, then there's going to be hell to pay. (Pun intended, just for your Bear  ).
> 
> That's all.
> 
> I'm taking requests and bus fare to go up to Washington and straighten out these law books, if anyone has input or donations.


Here here, brother. I read your whole post but you had me at, "If we can all accept (or refuse to accept) that God will judge us all individually based on our merits and shortcomings..."

All we can do as a nation is strive for peace on earth. And that means our spiritual beliefs can play no part in the governments we establish as means of living together...in peace. Our own Constitution allows us to act for the general welfare, but in order to respect everyone's spiritual beliefs, we can only act on natural scientific evidence. Everything else we do for our own souls, individually, on our own time.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

wiscto said:


> ...Our own Constitution allows us to act for the general welfare, but in order to respect everyone's spiritual beliefs, we can only act on natural scientific evidence...


Careful with that, lest you forget that science has become a religion, to many, in its own right. Even to the most conscientious of observers, science is a system of provisional beliefs subject to correction, new evidence, and even complete reversal of course. Because of the endeavors of many, much less conscientious observers, science is becoming the American Church of Fascism. 

The Big Bang (I find it ironic that my iPhone won't let me type it without caps, even after 6 atempts to de-proper it) is laughable, for example. Even the (honest) scientists that accept it, admit that is a flawed theory based on broad-stroke resolution. Accepted in the right perspective, it follows the even broader-strokes described in Genesis (caps intentional), but nothingness did not beget everythingness in a 'bang'. He created it the way He did, and both science and Genesis fail to describe it adequately. 

There are plenty in both the Faith and science who would have you write the laws based on their personal bents.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Careful with that, lest you forget that science has become a religion, to many, in its own right. Even to the most conscientious of observers, science is a system of provisional beliefs subject to correction, new evidence, and even complete reversal of course. Because of the endeavors of many, much less conscientious observers, science is becoming the American Church of Fascism.
> 
> The Big Bang (I find it ironic that my iPhone won't let me type it without caps, even after 6 atempts to de-proper it) is laughable, for example. Even the (honest) scientists that accept it, admit that is a flawed theory based on broad-stroke resolution. Accepted in the right perspective, it follows the even broader-strokes described in Genesis (caps intentional), but nothingness did not beget everythingness in a 'bang'. He created it the way He did, and both science and Genesis fail to describe it adequately.
> 
> There are plenty in both the Faith and science who would have you write the laws based on their personal bents.


By that logic, any opinion is a religion. Any political ideology is a religion. Any decision one makes and believes is best is a religion. Which makes Libertarianism your religion, better check it off the list.


----------



## warnimct

If there is a heaven that is a better place than earth, why do religious people cry at funerals?


----------



## Woolieface

warnimct said:


> If there is a heaven that is a better place than earth, why do religious people cry at funerals?


Because we're still here without them...


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

wiscto said:


> By that logic, any opinion is a religion. Any political ideology is a religion. Any decision one makes and believes is best is a religion. Which makes Libertarianism your religion, better check it off the list.


That's quite a leap you're making. The having of the opinion is not what makes it questionable to base man's law on. It is the zealoted adherence to that belief, in a way that makes one wish to impose the rule and punishment of man on someone else, even when there is no victim of their transgression, that makes it misguided. 

If you catch me dumping my raw sewage into a public reservoir, and can prove scientifically that it harms my brothers and sisters, then try me and punish me for it. 

If, on the other hand, you find out I am catching rainwater and diverting it to my garden, in a matter and timing of my choosing, before letting it back into the hydro cycle, and you can find a single quack who says that my actions are contributing to global drought, then you would just be manipulating the body of your belief in order to unnecessarily exert control over me- a scenario that sounds eerily familiar to the complaints attributed by many to the conventional religions.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's quite a leap you're making. The having of the opinion is not what makes it questionable to base man's law on. It is the zealoted adherence to that belief, in a way that makes one wish to impose the rule and punishment of man on someone else, even when there is no victim of their transgression, that makes it misguided.
> 
> If you catch me dumping my raw sewage into a public reservoir, and can prove scientifically that it harms my brothers and sisters, then try me and punish me for it.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you find out I am catching rainwater and diverting it to my garden, in a matter and timing of my choosing, before letting it back into the hydro cycle, and you can find a single quack who says that my actions are contributing to global drought, then you would just be manipulating the body of your belief in order to unnecessarily exert control over me- a scenario that sounds eerily familiar to the complaints attributed by many to the conventional religions.


Yea. What you're talking about is still science. I wasn't expecting to have to defend science. But... Here goes. The difference in your story is that we can continue to study and discover the truth, because we can scientifically prove or disprove the "quack"'s statement. That is science, not religion. The fundamental pillars of any religious belief are unprovable, and they are therefore not scientific. 

In your same story, if someone tries to shut down your rainwater diversion because the Great Tree God said it is immoral, and the majority of people in your area believe that, they have put us in the unfortunate position of being forced to disprove their faith. We can't do that, because where the heck would we start? Water, gravity, evaporation, geology... We can fight that out scientifically because we know where to start.


----------



## Shine

I have asked God to take the word "if" out of my vocabulary as I seem to want to bargain with Him. It would be better if I had never ever understood the word "if".

But to consider the OP, If there is no God then my legacy will end, probably, after one generation has passed. My legacy will then be the dust that my body has returned to...

If the OP is wrong then I will be walking the streets of gold...


----------



## Shrek

All humans believe whatever they find themselves comfortable believing and adequate for them to come to terms with and acceptance of their own mortality.

I have no issue with other humans believing whatever they find they need as long as they don't harass me in my acceptance of my own mortality by droning on to me seeking validation of their views and beliefs as I choose not to harass them with my personal views to achieve my own mortality acceptance.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

wiscto said:


> Yea. What you're talking about is still science. *I wasn't expecting to have to defend science. But... Here goes.* The difference in your story is that we can continue to study and discover the truth, because we can scientifically prove or disprove the "quack"'s statement. That is science, not religion. The fundamental pillars of any religious belief are unprovable, and they are therefore not scientific.
> 
> In your same story, if someone tries to shut down your rainwater diversion because the Great Tree God said it is immoral, and the majority of people in your area believe that, they have put us in the unfortunate position of being forced to disprove their faith. We can't do that, because where the heck would we start? Water, gravity, evaporation, geology... We can fight that out scientifically because we know where to start.


Should I find it telling that you hold science in such a position that you find it surprising that you would have to defend it? 

History is riddled with as many examples of junk science as it is examples of the righteous behaving badly. Have you forgotten about global cooling? What would have happened, assuming that science's _current_ position is correct, if we had used the scientific backing of legislation to follow the proposed course of coal-dusting the ice caps in order to allow them to soak up more of the sun's heat, to keep them from sucking up the world's oceans in a great freeze?

If we had followed what science was telling us to do, then, where would we be now? What would Al Gore's movie have looked like then? Would it have been filled with even more exaggeration and manipulation of data? Or would it have actually been all correct, because the science-guided policies of the 80's led us to exactly the place he declared we were going over the next 20 years?

My point is not that science is without value. In fact, I place a fairly large stock in it, when it is conducted according to the scientific method, and developed without agenda or zealotry. The point I was originally trying to make was that I think the litmus test of deeming certain actions legal or illegal should be whether or not the action bears a victim. 

In that vein, the 10 commandments are probably the best starting point we could ask for. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th are transgressions that impact our brothers and sisters negatively, and are a solid basis for laws of man. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 10th, are crimes, if you will, against ourselves, and bear no need for man to try or punish us for them, God's got that taken care of.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> They understand that. They pretend that they don't understand it, but when they consider what it would be like to live under Islamic law they react. They only pretend to not understand why we wouldn't want to live under Biblical law because that's what they want to happen.
> 
> *I see forced prayer in school as pushing Christianity on those who might not want it.* They see it as freedom to worship. Maybe they would see it differently if schools forced their children to worship some other religion. No?


Now I'm not disputing that it may have happened somewhere, but even 50+ years ago (long before O'Hare), kids who did not want to say prayer at the beginning of school were NEVER, EVER forced to participate. 

One of my grandsons (20 yo) is in the process of figuring out whether or not he believes in God. Right now, he says he does not believe and the family (both sides, all Christians) respects his position. When we have family dinners, we hold hands as a family and give thanks to God for His blessings. GS is not forced to pray or even bow his head, but he's expected to be part of the circle as part of the family. Is he being forced to pray merely because he can hear the prayer?

Exactly what do you mean when you refer to 'forced prayer'?


----------



## Truckinguy

gapeach said:


> No. *I don't know one single Buddhist in my whole life*. I don't remember them doing what Madelyn O'hair and her son did. Only Atheists. If the USA continues to import Muslims, you may live to see something like this from them only it will be the Koran.
> 
> 
> Because they want America to be a Godless nation. Starting in the late 1950s radical Atheists such as Madelyn O'hair and many others tried to take God out of schools and out of public life altogether. They scored their first victory in 1963, when they removed God from the pledge. Gradually from then until now Christian teachers and other staff members of the school system have been denied rights to talk about God to classmates, or to encourage their beliefs how ever positive they may be.


I'll bet you do but you just don't know about it because they don't try to impose themselves on anyone which is all Atheists are asking. We don't mind whatever spiritual path you want to follow, we just don't want to hear about it or have our lives affected by it. There are general societal rules that we can all live under (murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. are wrong) that religion doesn't have a patent on that would allow everyone to conduct their personal lives as they see fit and not affect anyone else.


----------



## MoonRiver

I've asked the mods to close the thread. It has moved pretty far from the op. Good discussion for a couple of pages.

A thought.


----------



## mmoetc

And I'll now openly ask to have it left open. You asked a question framed in such a way as to to have no real answer. You lumped all atheists as one and offered no evidence of your premise. That the thread has drifted is to be expected. Many of the answers have been inciteful and well thought out. There still seems much to learn from what may yet be said.


----------



## painterswife

I agree. You may have started this thread but it is no longer yours. Want different answers ask different questions.


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> The burden of truth isn't just on the skeptics... I'll let you start with the burning bush.


Ok, that ones going to be tricky.... mostly coz that bush aint around any more..... it burnt up!


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, that ones going to be tricky.... mostly coz that bush aint around any more..... it burnt up!


For a God who created the universe, nothing is impossible, so I suppose He might have chosen to use a method that would just light that bush up but leave it unburnt....all the same, that would be one elderly bush if it were still around.


----------



## Evons hubby

Harry Chickpea said:


> A literal translation of Noah and the Ark does not work from so many different angles, that we end up with three possibilities:
> 
> 1. The story was not intended to be taken literally, which raises the idea of metaphoric intent.
> 2. Serious magic _well_ beyond the realms of physics occurred, and with little or no apparent purpose.
> 3. The retelling of the story prior to inclusion in the Bible was flawed - an idea that has documented proof on its side from other cultures' written flood stories having significant variance.


Remember Heinleins quote:

"One mans magic is another mans engineering". 

This leaves a fourth possibility. The bible story is accurate but our limited science is unable to understand what forces existed at that time. Lets go for a walk in a different garden of thought for a moment, and lets assume that the bible story is correct, instead of writing it off as superstition. According to the book prior to this flood man had never seen the sun because all (or nearly all) of the water that now fills our oceans was suspended in the sky. What a great uv filter that would have been, note that men prior to the flood lived for centuries, not decades. This would grant them time to accumulate a tremendous amount of knowledge. The ark might well have been a science lab rather than a zoo. It wouldnt be out of the question at all to store dna samples in a structure that size. 

Then, according to todays science, a huge meteor struck the earth, hitting it hard enough to tilt the earths axis, creating all new climate, and all that water that had been held in the sky came raining down. It would have obviously settled in the lower areas first. With the hydraulic pressure changes mountains would have been heaved up, accounting for the fossils we find today that were obviously once under water. 

With out that UV filter protecting man and beast from the sun, our aging process shortened to decades rather than centuries. With all but Noahs family out of the picture after the flood the preflood technology would be lost within just a generation or two leaving us basically in the stone age for centuries until little by little the short lifers began rediscovering and building the knowledge base once again. It is quite possible that we still would be considered quite primitive in our search for the engineering that Noahs generation held. 

No one can deny that we still have much to learn about the forces of nature that exist around us. What we call "magic" or "supernatural" is the things we have no understanding of. It doesnt mean they are not very real forces, and perfectly natural.


----------



## MoonRiver

HTML:







painterswife said:


> I agree. You may have started this thread but it is no longer yours. Want different answers ask different questions.


It has nothing to do with the answers. I've been here long enough to know when name calling and other abuse is about to start.


----------



## Truckinguy

MoonRiver said:


> Why do Atheists object to the Bible?
> 
> My point is this, if there is no God, then man must be responsible for writing the Bible (without Godly inspiration - added to make it a little clearer). That would imply that learned men (and possibly women) interpreted historical events in a way to teach a moral story that they believed was best for their people.
> 
> Isn't that what Atheists want?
> 
> This is just a thought exercise. Please don't get all wrapped up in it please.


Well, here's some direct answers to your questions.

First, I don't think atheists object to the bible, the objection is, and always has been, the imposition of people's beliefs on others.

Second, all Atheists want is to be left alone to live our lives in peace.

As with all subjects, we welcome a civil, informed discussion that will allow both sides an understanding of the other's point of view. If we end up agreeing to disagree, that's great, you're still welcome at my table and I'll help you with your roof/car repair/moving, etc.

One of the most annoying things ever said to me, when I said I didn't believe in God, was "Well, we will pray that you have your eyes opened so that you can see your need for a Saviour", implying that, not only am I wrong, I don't even know it. There was no acknowledgement or respect for my point of view, just that they were right and I was wrong and I just couldn't see it. This condescending attitude doesn't help at all.


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> And I'll now openly ask to have it left open. You asked a question framed in such a way as to to have no real answer. You lumped all atheists as one and offered no evidence of your premise. That the thread has drifted is to be expected. Many of the answers have been inciteful and well thought out. There still seems much to learn from what may yet be said.


Of course it had no real answer. I said it was a "thought exercise".

I tried to phrase the question so that it wouldn't become a Christian vs non-Christian debate, which looks like what it is becoming. It was more a "where does law come from" question. The 1st couple of pages were great, the 3rd is starting to get offtrack, and by page 5 nothing will be left to do but name call and insult.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Should I find it telling that you hold science in such a position that you find it surprising that you would have to defend it?
> 
> History is riddled with as many examples of junk science as it is examples of the righteous behaving badly. Have you forgotten about global cooling? What would have happened, assuming that science's _current_ position is correct, if we had used the scientific backing of legislation to follow the proposed course of coal-dusting the ice caps in order to allow them to soak up more of the sun's heat, to keep them from sucking up the world's oceans in a great freeze?
> 
> If we had followed what science was telling us to do, then, where would we be now? What would Al Gore's movie have looked like then? Would it have been filled with even more exaggeration and manipulation of data? Or would it have actually been all correct, because the science-guided policies of the 80's led us to exactly the place he declared we were going over the next 20 years?
> 
> My point is not that science is without value. In fact, I place a fairly large stock in it, when it is conducted according to the scientific method, and developed without agenda or zealotry. The point I was originally trying to make was that I think the litmus test of deeming certain actions legal or illegal should be whether or not the action bears a victim.
> 
> In that vein, the 10 commandments are probably the best starting point we could ask for. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th are transgressions that impact our brothers and sisters negatively, and are a solid basis for laws of man. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 10th, are crimes, if you will, against ourselves, and bear no need for man to try or punish us for them, God's got that taken care of.


You're still completely misunderstanding me. Science IS the scientific method. That is what I'm talking about. You're talking about the application of specific theories, junk science, and I'm saying that those principles can still be PROVEN WRONG by science. Why would you assume that when I say science, I am ultimately including junk science. Junk science has failed to follow the scientific principle and is therefore not science at all. Maybe you shouldn't have assumed that I don't understand that. Should I find it telling that you did?


----------



## Truckinguy

MoonRiver said:


> Of course it had no real answer. I said it was a "thought exercise".
> 
> I tried to phrase the question so that it wouldn't become a Christian vs non-Christian debate, which looks like what it is becoming. It was more a "where does law come from" question. The 1st couple of pages were great, the 3rd is starting to get offtrack, and by page 5 nothing will be left to do but name call and insult.


In all fairness, your first question "Why do Atheists object to the Bible?" is arguably a Christian/non-Christian question and, due to the history of this subject on this forum, you can't be too surprised if the subject gets a bit heated and/or have some degree of thread drift. That being said, it's an interesting question and I don't see it getting much out of hand going on it's fourth page here. You can't throw a question like that out into this forum and then reel it back after a couple of pages because you don't like where you see it going. 

I have my stance on religion but I'm still on a search along the path of my spiritual journey so I have great interest in discussing this with others and I"m interested in others point of view as long as they respect mine. I don't believe in the end of spiritual growth, we will all grow and learn until the day we die if we allow ourselves to.


----------



## oneraddad

I thought only liberals wanted threads locked ?


----------



## Tricky Grama

where I want to said:


> Too bad for those that want a Bible free set of laws- that ship sailed eons ago. Western culture is permeated with the fruit of religious struggles to understand the world. An atheist would have no commitment great enough to have made those struggles of understanding and the result of an atheistic study of humanity would be in essence a political theory of how to manipulate the masses to get what is desired- dominance and advantage. A world of the Machiavelli or Stalin or Mao. And even they could not escape the religious origins of what the religious in their history defined as good. Just the mechanics. Even that bastion of personal rectitude Confusius took to the religion of his ancestors to determine the goal. He just created a roadmap to get there.
> People of religion are the people interested in determining what is good and thus pleasing to God. Simply put- they created the laws because of their interest in it and it's way too late to create an alternative. Attempting that reinvention of the wheel s omehow always ends up being in the same place the religious found in their way.
> And that is not a bad thing. Moses may have come down from the mountain with a set of rules set in stone but humans have been elaborating on them every since.


Post of the day award.


----------



## wr

I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer but I could understand the reasons behind the question but I did anticipate the thread would follow it's own path.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> Of course it had no real answer. I said it was a "thought exercise".
> 
> I tried to phrase the question so that it wouldn't become a Christian vs non-Christian debate, which looks like what it is becoming. It was more a "where does law come from" question. The 1st couple of pages were great, the 3rd is starting to get offtrack, and by page 5 nothing will be left to do but name call and insult.


You phrased a question designed to pit Christians and non believers against each other. Atheists and the bible were your protagonists. You've offered nothing else to this discussion except your desire to shut it down because you fear it will become antagonistic. If you don't like the direction it takes, walk away. Frame a new post that doesn't mention two specific groups. Or read some of the well thought out opinions and learn from them. Ignore the bickering. Don't respond to it. You get to choose. It's sort of like getting to choose whether one believes in the bible and chooses to live by its rules.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MoonRiver said:


> HTML:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the answers. I've been here long enough to know when name calling and other abuse is about to start.


Be honest, you knew (or wanted) it was going to get snarky when you posted it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> They understand that. They pretend that they don't understand it, but when they consider what it would be like to live under Islamic law they react. They only pretend to not understand why we wouldn't want to live under Biblical law because that's what they want to happen.
> 
> I see forced prayer in school as pushing Christianity on those who might not want it. They see it as freedom to worship. Maybe they would see it differently if schools forced their children to worship some other religion. No?


"They", NV?
Where do you live? Sumatra?
Go look it up, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles, English law too.
Too late to do anything about that.
Now, harp on Islamic law & how "they" react & I'll ask you what parts of the Constitution you want to keep & what doncha want.
Oh, & can you provide the links showing where ANYONE advocates "forced prayer"? Where DO you get this crap? You cred is minuscule...


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Careful with that, lest you forget that science has become a religion, to many, in its own right. Even to the most conscientious of observers, science is a system of provisional beliefs subject to correction, new evidence, and even complete reversal of course. Because of the endeavors of many, much less conscientious observers, science is becoming the American Church of Fascism.
> 
> The Big Bang (I find it ironic that my iPhone won't let me type it without caps, even after 6 atempts to de-proper it) is laughable, for example. Even the (honest) scientists that accept it, admit that is a flawed theory based on broad-stroke resolution. Accepted in the right perspective, it follows the even broader-strokes described in Genesis (caps intentional), but nothingness did not beget everythingness in a 'bang'. He created it the way He did, and both science and Genesis fail to describe it adequately.
> 
> There are plenty in both the Faith and science who would have you write the laws based on their personal bents.


I'm not a fan of the Big Bang although the tv show is great. 
However, I'm wondering if it coulda been the "let there be light" moment? Why believe in Big Bang but not that"


----------



## Tricky Grama

warnimct said:


> If there is a heaven that is a better place than earth, why do religious people cry at funerals?


Are you serious? ever loved someone? Ever missed someone?


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> In all fairness, your first question "Why do Atheists object to the Bible?" is arguably a Christian/non-Christian question and, due to the history of this subject on this forum, you can't be too surprised if the subject gets a bit heated and/or have some degree of thread drift. That being said, it's an interesting question and I don't see it getting much out of hand going on it's fourth page here. You can't throw a question like that out into this forum and then reel it back after a couple of pages because you don't like where you see it going.
> 
> I have my stance on religion but I'm still on a search along the path of my spiritual journey so I have great interest in discussing this with others and I"m interested in others point of view as long as they respect mine. I don't believe in the end of spiritual growth, we will all grow and learn until the day we die if we allow ourselves to.


People who have strong beliefs in things that create societal failure simply disappear. Period. They either get absorbed into the culture that picked the right beliefs or they die out.
So everyone in society has a stake in this choosing. Tough luck on those who propose a belief of everyone choosing their own definition of good as in laws and behavior. A few people who think that having sex randomly with as many people as they can even though they have HIV can do more damage to a society than a society might be able to absorb. What about antivaccine beliefs or that old favorite- girls should not be allowed to be educated? Or that disputes can be settled with a gun?
In truth I doubt whether anyone really believes that personal choices should be unlimited. What people are saying is that their personal choices should be given priority.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Be honest, you knew (or wanted) it was going to get snarky when you posted it.


Where is Admiral Ackbar when you need him?


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> People who have strong beliefs in things that create societal failure simply disappear. Period. They either get absorbed into the culture that picked the right beliefs or they die out.
> So everyone in society has a stake in this choosing. Tough luck on those who propose a belief of everyone choosing their own definition of good as in laws and behavior. A few people who think that having sex randomly with as many people as they can even though they have HIV can do more damage to a society than a society might be able to absorb. What about antivaccine beliefs or that old favorite- girls should not be allowed to be educated? * Or that disputes can be settled with a gun?*
> In truth I doubt whether anyone really believes that personal choices should be unlimited. What people are saying is that their personal choices should be given priority.


A lot of major disputes have been settled with guns. Its a rough way of going about it but it is effective. (if you have the most guns and people that no how to use them)


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

wiscto said:


> You're still completely misunderstanding me. Science IS the scientific method. That is what I'm talking about. You're talking about the application of specific theories, junk science, and I'm saying that those principles can still be PROVEN WRONG by science. Why would you assume that when I say science, I am ultimately including junk science. Junk science has failed to follow the scientific principle and is therefore not science at all. Maybe you shouldn't have assumed that I don't understand that. Should I find it telling that you did?


My inclusion of junk science in the body history was not an assumption about your character or stance on the matter. That is precisely why I _asked_ you the question, rather than stating that it was where I infer you to be.

BUT, if we throw out all supposition, which happens to be where most of the junk science finds its footing, and adhere strictly to the scientific method, then we're left with next to nothing to work from. 

When conducted strictly according to the method, science is actually capable of *proving* very little. That is why most tenets of science carry the caveat "_theory_" in their title. The _Theory_ of Evolution, and the Big Bang _Theory_ have not been proven, nor could they likely be proven in our lifetimes. 

I happen to believe that evolution is how He endeavored to create the diversity of species. I also believe that the big bang theory is an explanation at least closer to the truth than Hoyle's solid-state theory. But, neither theory is adequately proven to provide the basis for one man to rule over another man's actions on. They are, still, with all of the scientific evidence accumulated, both heavily dependent on assumption, supposition, and man's confidence in his own wisdom, to fill in the blanks where concrete evidence is lacking. 

I've said before on this forum that I believe that the disconnect between the bible and science is wholly unnecessary, and carries on only because both sides of the argument seem to hold tight to the camp-belief that they've chosen, and refuse to allow any of the wisdom of the other side to "taint" their faith - be that faith in the bible or the body-science. 

On one side, the holders of the bible often refuse to accept that anything in the book could be off, even by a single letter, or that anything not described there could not have possibly happened. The 6,000 (or so) year history of the earth described in the book does not leave a lot of room to learn any more truth about things not described in it - like dinosaurs, galactic and solar accretion, or even the amount of time elapsed in the series of "the night and the day"s described in Genesis.

The holders of science, on the other hand, often seem to hold that, if they've found a scientifically-backed process to describe something that was described differently in the bible, that they now understand that process, thereby proving that it was their Nature who performed the act, meaning God could not have possibly been responsible. 

I'd point to Yvonne Hubby's excellent post on the last page (post #60), about one way that pre-Noah history could have played out. I'm, personally, highly skeptical that it accurately describes the events as they happened, but, his point was not that that was exactly how it happened. Rather, the point, as I took it, was that we don't know what we don't know, and lots of things seem crazy until we discover how they really work. 

Remember gravity? Probably the most elegant and predictable force in our universe was described, by one of the greatest (recent) minds of science, as the "spooky force from a distance".

A specific example that I think brings the bible and science together, if only both sides could accept some concession to their body-beliefs, is the story of creation in Genesis, and the current understanding of the forming of our solar system. In Genesis, Moses writes that God took the formless mass, and, in order, turned on the light, created a sky (dome) around the formless earth, joined the seas to allow the land to show, created the life of the sea and the air, life on the land, and then created man.

From our current scientific understanding of the formation of the sun, earth, and the history that has transpired since, there doesn't appear to be anything untrue in the Genesis story. In order for the bible-faithful to accept what the current scientific understanding adds to the story, they'd have to be willing to accept that a "day" and a "night", to God at the time of the creation, could be more than 24 hours, and could, instead, be thousands, millions, or billions of years. They also have to be willing to accept that maybe, when God created the life, he did not create them all, initially, in their current forms, but, rather, began a process by which the life forms he initially created would morph, over time, into the ones that fit his plan for any given time.

Likewise, for the science-faithful to stop painting the bible-faithful as some simple-minded adherents to superstition and fairy-tale, and accept that there may be something of substance behind their faith, they would have to accept that adding detail to something described in the bible, or finding some evidence that, for the time-being at least, seems to refute something from the bible, does not disprove God, or the book of his faithful entirely. 

God told Abraham the truth, as Abraham needed to understand it at the time. The generations preceeding Moses maintained that oral-history as faithful as they could. When Moses finally put his pen to paper in order to preserve the oral-history of God's words, he carried over a remarkable amount of the original truth.

The divide we find ourselves in today, is because many on one side refuse to look at anything that wasn't learned and written down by selected, revered men at least 2000 years ago, and many on the other side seem to think that understanding a thing makes man the master and god over that thing. It's almost as if both sides would rather worship man than He that should be worshiped, while we try to move forward our understanding of His creation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My inclusion of junk science in the body history was not an assumption about your character or stance on the matter. That is precisely why I _asked_ you the question, rather than stating that it was where I infer you to be.
> 
> BUT, if we throw out all supposition, which happens to be where most of the junk science finds its footing, and adhere strictly to the scientific method, then we're left with next to nothing to work from.
> 
> When conducted strictly according to the method, science is actually capable of *proving* very little. That is why most tenets of science carry the caveat "_theory_" in their title. The _Theory_ of Evolution, and the Big Bang _Theory_ have not been proven, nor could they likely be proven in our lifetimes.
> 
> I happen to believe that evolution is how He endeavored to create the diversity of species. I also believe that the big bang theory is an explanation at least closer to the truth than Hoyle's solid-state theory. But, neither theory is adequately proven to provide the basis for one man to rule over another man's actions on. They are, still, with all of the scientific evidence accumulated, both heavily dependent on assumption, supposition, and man's confidence in his own wisdom, to fill in the blanks where concrete evidence is lacking.
> 
> I've said before on this forum that I believe that the disconnect between the bible and science is wholly unnecessary, and carries on only because both sides of the argument seem to hold tight to the camp-belief that they've chosen, and refuse to allow any of the wisdom of the other side to "taint" their faith - be that faith in the bible or the body-science.
> 
> On one side, the holders of the bible often refuse to accept that anything in the book could be off, even by a single letter, or that anything not described there could not have possibly happened. The 6,000 (or so) year history of the earth described in the book does not leave a lot of room to learn any more truth about things not described in it - like dinosaurs, galactic and solar accretion, or even the amount of time elapsed in the series of "the night and the day"s described in Genesis.
> 
> The holders of science, on the other hand, often seem to hold that, if they've found a scientifically-backed process to describe something that was described differently in the bible, that they now understand that process, thereby proving that it was their Nature who performed the act, meaning God could not have possibly been responsible.
> 
> I'd point to Yvonne Hubby's excellent post on the last page (post #60), about one way that pre-Noah history could have played out. I'm, personally, highly skeptical that it accurately describes the events as they happened, but, his point was not that that was exactly how it happened. Rather, the point, as I took it, was that we don't know what we don't know, and lots of things seem crazy until we discover how they really work.
> 
> Remember gravity? Probably the most elegant and predictable force in our universe was described, by one of the greatest (recent) minds of science, as the "spooky force from a distance".
> 
> A specific example that I think brings the bible and science together, if only both sides could accept some concession to their body-beliefs, is the story of creation in Genesis, and the current understanding of the forming of our solar system. In Genesis, Moses writes that God took the formless mass, and, in order, turned on the light, created a sky (dome) around the formless earth, joined the seas to allow the land to show, created the life of the sea and the air, life on the land, and then created man.
> 
> From our current scientific understanding of the formation of the sun, earth, and the history that has transpired since, there doesn't appear to be anything untrue in the Genesis story. In order for the bible-faithful to accept what the current scientific understanding adds to the story, they'd have to be willing to accept that a "day" and a "night", to God at the time of the creation, could be more than 24 hours, and could, instead, be thousands, millions, or billions of years. They also have to be willing to accept that maybe, when God created the life, he did not create them all, initially, in their current forms, but, rather, began a process by which the life forms he initially created would morph, over time, into the ones that fit his plan for any given time.
> 
> Likewise, for the science-faithful to stop painting the bible-faithful as some simple-minded adherents to superstition and fairy-tale, and accept that there may be something of substance behind their faith, they would have to accept that adding detail to something described in the bible, or finding some evidence that, for the time-being at least, seems to refute something from the bible, does not disprove God, or the book of his faithful entirely.
> 
> God told Abraham the truth, as Abraham needed to understand it at the time. The generations preceeding Moses maintained that oral-history as faithful as they could. When Moses finally put his pen to paper in order to preserve the oral-history of God's words, he carried over a remarkable amount of the original truth.
> 
> The divide we find ourselves in today, is because many on one side refuse to look at anything that wasn't learned and written down by selected, revered men at least 2000 years ago, and many on the other side seem to think that understanding a thing makes man the master and god over that thing. It's almost as if both sides would rather worship man than He that should be worshiped, while we try to move forward our understanding of His creation.


Wowee wowee!

Post of many millenniums award.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> On one side, the holders of the bible often refuse to accept that anything in the book could be off, even by a single letter, or that anything not described there could not have possibly happened. The 6,000 (or so) year history of the earth described in the book does not leave a lot of room to learn any more truth about things not described in it - like dinosaurs, galactic and solar accretion, or even the amount of time elapsed in the series of "the night and the day"s described in Genesis.


I seem to recall my bible making a reference like "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" or words to that effect. That should make it quite simple for the bible believers to understand that prior to the flood time frames could be any number of eons.


----------



## Woolieface

The bible does say a thousand years equal one day, but in the creation account each day is specified as "evening and morning was the first day", etc.. It always amazes me how God foreknew all of our questions and thoughts of the day and answered us from the beginning. 

I don't struggle with the concept of a six day creation at all. I couldn't make this universe in billions of years. A Creator who could also has no issue with doing it in 6 days or 6 seconds.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Are you serious? ever loved someone? Ever missed someone?


I have loved a few, and have missed quite a few..... gotta get that durn rifle sighted in!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Tricky Grama said:


> Wowee wowee!
> 
> Post of many millenniums award.


Yeah, sorry for the book. I find it difficult to post in-brief while trying to get my point across on an idea that seems to agree with neither side in a highly contested and personal topic. I often don't realize how long a post was until I go back and error check myself.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yeah, sorry for the book. I find it difficult to post in-brief while trying to get my point across on an idea that seems to agree with neither side in a highly contested and personal topic. I often don't realize how long a post was until I go back and error check myself.


No apology neccessary. Posts like yours are why I didn't want this thread closed.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My inclusion of junk science in the body history was not an assumption about your character or stance on the matter. That is precisely why I _asked_ you the question, rather than stating that it was where I infer you to be.
> 
> BUT, if we throw out all supposition, which happens to be where most of the junk science finds its footing, and adhere strictly to the scientific method, then we're left with next to nothing to work from.
> 
> When conducted strictly according to the method, science is actually capable of *proving* very little. That is why most tenets of science carry the caveat "_theory_" in their title. The _Theory_ of Evolution, and the Big Bang _Theory_ have not been proven, nor could they likely be proven in our lifetimes.
> 
> I happen to believe that evolution is how He endeavored to create the diversity of species. I also believe that the big bang theory is an explanation at least closer to the truth than Hoyle's solid-state theory. But, neither theory is adequately proven to provide the basis for one man to rule over another man's actions on. They are, still, with all of the scientific evidence accumulated, both heavily dependent on assumption, supposition, and man's confidence in his own wisdom, to fill in the blanks where concrete evidence is lacking.
> 
> I've said before on this forum that I believe that the disconnect between the bible and science is wholly unnecessary, and carries on only because both sides of the argument seem to hold tight to the camp-belief that they've chosen, and refuse to allow any of the wisdom of the other side to "taint" their faith - be that faith in the bible or the body-science.
> 
> On one side, the holders of the bible often refuse to accept that anything in the book could be off, even by a single letter, or that anything not described there could not have possibly happened. The 6,000 (or so) year history of the earth described in the book does not leave a lot of room to learn any more truth about things not described in it - like dinosaurs, galactic and solar accretion, or even the amount of time elapsed in the series of "the night and the day"s described in Genesis.
> 
> The holders of science, on the other hand, often seem to hold that, if they've found a scientifically-backed process to describe something that was described differently in the bible, that they now understand that process, thereby proving that it was their Nature who performed the act, meaning God could not have possibly been responsible.
> 
> I'd point to Yvonne Hubby's excellent post on the last page (post #60), about one way that pre-Noah history could have played out. I'm, personally, highly skeptical that it accurately describes the events as they happened, but, his point was not that that was exactly how it happened. Rather, the point, as I took it, was that we don't know what we don't know, and lots of things seem crazy until we discover how they really work.
> 
> Remember gravity? Probably the most elegant and predictable force in our universe was described, by one of the greatest (recent) minds of science, as the "spooky force from a distance".
> 
> A specific example that I think brings the bible and science together, if only both sides could accept some concession to their body-beliefs, is the story of creation in Genesis, and the current understanding of the forming of our solar system. In Genesis, Moses writes that God took the formless mass, and, in order, turned on the light, created a sky (dome) around the formless earth, joined the seas to allow the land to show, created the life of the sea and the air, life on the land, and then created man.
> 
> From our current scientific understanding of the formation of the sun, earth, and the history that has transpired since, there doesn't appear to be anything untrue in the Genesis story. In order for the bible-faithful to accept what the current scientific understanding adds to the story, they'd have to be willing to accept that a "day" and a "night", to God at the time of the creation, could be more than 24 hours, and could, instead, be thousands, millions, or billions of years. They also have to be willing to accept that maybe, when God created the life, he did not create them all, initially, in their current forms, but, rather, began a process by which the life forms he initially created would morph, over time, into the ones that fit his plan for any given time.
> 
> Likewise, for the science-faithful to stop painting the bible-faithful as some simple-minded adherents to superstition and fairy-tale, and accept that there may be something of substance behind their faith, they would have to accept that adding detail to something described in the bible, or finding some evidence that, for the time-being at least, seems to refute something from the bible, does not disprove God, or the book of his faithful entirely.
> 
> God told Abraham the truth, as Abraham needed to understand it at the time. The generations preceeding Moses maintained that oral-history as faithful as they could. When Moses finally put his pen to paper in order to preserve the oral-history of God's words, he carried over a remarkable amount of the original truth.
> 
> The divide we find ourselves in today, is because many on one side refuse to look at anything that wasn't learned and written down by selected, revered men at least 2000 years ago, and many on the other side seem to think that understanding a thing makes man the master and god over that thing. It's almost as if both sides would rather worship man than He that should be worshiped, while we try to move forward our understanding of His creation.


Wow what a mouthful. Has the United States government passed laws regarding evolution? Last I checked, the only reason people complain about creationism being taught in school is because creationism is a religious explanation that is preached as fact, while *science* calls evolution the *theory* of evolution because the scientific method has shown that while some evidence supporting evolution exists, the data is incomplete. It is taught because we know that somehow, some way, changes have taken place over time. We teach what we can see and study, and we teach it as a theory, and we teach how we are trying to prove or disprove that theory using the scientific method; we teach it in part because it is a great example of the ongoing application of the scientific method. We teach the Big Bang *theory* because we have strong evidence that it occurred, and because it continuously leads to more scientific discoveries and more tests using the scientific method. We continue to attempt to prove or disprove scientific theories even as we teach them. 

What we *don't* teach is *why* any of that happened. We don't teach *your* beliefs. We don't teach *my* beliefs. And we shouldn't. They're just beliefs. 

You can believe all you want that science and religion are the same thing. You can lecture someone to "be careful" when that person already understands the challenges which science presents. You can do all that... But it doesn't make me wrong. We make laws based on what we can prove. As evidence stacks up, we make a decision based on that evidence if we feel forced to by the threat of disaster, we do the best we can at the time and then we continue to stack up more evidence until we can prove ourselves right or wrong. 

Like I said before. We can *not* do that with religious beliefs. Because we can't prove or disprove our moral authority as it is derived by the god we believe in. We can't compile evidence for or against, which means that we should never base our laws on religious beliefs that cannot even be *tested* by the scientific method and proven to those who do not believe what we believe. That is *all* I was saying. Most of your writings have had very little to do with what I actually said.


----------



## MoonRiver

Irish Pixie said:


> Be honest, you knew (or wanted) it was going to get snarky when you posted it.


I have fallen into that trap a couple of times, but I much prefer intelligent discussion to name calling and insults. If you read the link I posted to Camille Paglia's post at Salon, she wrote a serious article that directly addresses my op. That was what I was hoping for and to a degree, what we got.


----------



## wiscto

where I want to said:


> Too bad for those that want a Bible free set of laws- that ship sailed eons ago. Western culture is permeated with the fruit of religious struggles to understand the world. An atheist would have no commitment great enough to have made those struggles of understanding and the result of an atheistic study of humanity would be in essence a political theory of how to manipulate the masses to get what is desired- dominance and advantage. A world of the Machiavelli or Stalin or Mao. And even they could not escape the religious origins of what the religious in their history defined as good. Just the mechanics. Even that bastion of personal rectitude Confusius took to the religion of his ancestors to determine the goal. He just created a roadmap to get there.
> People of religion are the people interested in determining what is good and thus pleasing to God. Simply put- they created the laws because of their interest in it and it's way too late to create an alternative. Attempting that reinvention of the wheel s omehow always ends up being in the same place the religious found in their way.
> And that is not a bad thing. Moses may have come down from the mountain with a set of rules set in stone but humans have been elaborating on them every since.


People were creating laws similar to what Moses supposedly created long before Moses ever existed. Some atheists would say that it isn't the existence of God which motivates humanity to contemplate morality, but that human nature itself demands that we seek the most peaceful and "good" path. Many believe that religious beliefs are simply one way to explain what humanity as a whole inherently understands. Many believe that because the laws of morality are inherent, that the evidence of good or evil is something that humanity has always been aware of, and that religions were simply created out of what we knew. Many spiritual agnostics believe that this was God's intention to begin with, and as such believe that religions are man made and corrupted by motives. They also believe that because the understanding of good and evil exists within humanity itself, that all "struggles to understand" can be studied and learned from, rather than simply adhering to one particular "faith," *and they believe that faith itself is corrupt because it limits the struggle to understand. * They believe that through a continued "struggle to understand" instead of a continued dependence on the "understanding" of a few who lived long ago, good people will continue to be good people...that we don't need your bible or your Christianity. Many philosophers from the Enlightenment through today have done just that as atheists and agnostics who view the bible as just one expression in history.

That is far from a failure to "struggle to understand." And either way... The west was highly influenced by people who had no knowledge of your bible because they simply existed before it. Aristotle. Socrates. Plato. Even atheists like Democritus, Epicurus, Theodorus, Diagoras... 

And speaking of manipulation of the masses. Religion has a long history of manipulation and evil. Many religions build into their very tenets the subjugation of one half of the species. I'm a man, and even I can see how obvious it is that men created those religious tenets to manipulate women into subjugation for man's benefit. 

You can say that Machiavelli may have used his atheist views to excuse evil. And I can say that ISIS uses their religious views to excuse evil. So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't compare every atheist to Mao, Stalin, or any other monster...they all use whatever excuse suits them.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming already in progress!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I'm cutting up your quote only because I think it will be easier to respond to your post in-full that way, not in an effort to spin any of your words.



wiscto said:


> Like I said before. We can *not* do that with religious beliefs. Because we can't prove or disprove our moral authority as it is derived by the god we believe in. We can't compile evidence for or against, which means that we should never base our laws on religious beliefs that cannot even be *tested* by the scientific method and proven to those who do not believe what we believe. That is *all* I was saying. Most of your writings have had very little to do with what I actually said.


Actually, I don't believe that what we are talking about is entirely as far apart as you seem to think, but, for what it's worth, I don't see where I have an obligation to write things necessarily having to do with "what you said". Our exchange began when I posted my thoughts on reducing a lot of the conflict over putting biblical cannon into law, by reducing that cannon-to-law to only things that have a demonstrable victim, leaving the other victimless transgressions to the judgment of God. 

Your response was to "agree" and say that, then, the only standard by which we could base law was that which has been scientifically proven. Not really a direct response to my idea, or even an acknowledgement of what I was saying, but that's cool. Engaging discussions sometimes have to take 90 degree turns in order to get anywhere. 

In direct response to your position, I stated that we have to be careful in choosing to make science the one and only standard by which we base our laws, since it is inherently flawed itself (far from a "lecture" as you deem it below, but if that is how you see it, I'm sorry that you see it that way, but not that I said it). 

The direction that our discussion has taken, since that point, has been one of you taking apparent offense at my suggestion that science is anything less than a flawless point from which to base all of our societal progress, and me trying to make the point that the conventional religions, and the one we call science are both flawed in their own right, and we can only take what we can find of value in each. 

If that is all the further our discussion can progress, then I will bow out and leave this where it lays.



wiscto said:


> Wow what a mouthful. Has the United States government passed laws regarding evolution? Last I checked, the only reason people complain about creationism being taught in school is because creationism is a religious explanation that is preached as fact, while *science* calls evolution the *theory* of evolution because the scientific method has shown that while some evidence supporting evolution exists, the data is incomplete. It is taught because we know that somehow, some way, changes have taken place over time. We teach what we can see and study, and we teach it as a theory, and we teach how we are trying to prove or disprove that theory using the scientific method; we teach it in part because it is a great example of the ongoing application of the scientific method. We teach the Big Bang *theory* because we have strong evidence that it occurred, and because it continuously leads to more scientific discoveries and more tests using the scientific method. We continue to attempt to prove or disprove scientific theories even as we teach them.
> 
> What we *don't* teach is *why* any of that happened. We don't teach *your* beliefs. We don't teach *my* beliefs. And we shouldn't. They're just beliefs.


As I said above, my original point was speaking, exclusively, to the point that I think our laws need to be limited to ones that protect victims and provide them recourse against their offenders. It had nothing to do with what was taught in school, but, if you'd like to pin me down on that point, I don't think that our government has any business in establishing what is taught in school. The same as my opinion on gay marriage, it's not that I think the government should go one way or the other, it's that I don't think they should have any say in it at all.

The idea that we need standardized, government mandated education is actually a relatively recent paradigm, but one that seems to be accepted as unquestionably necessary and ever-present. It's not. The problem with your idea to expunge the teaching of creationism, and mandate the teaching of evolution in schools is that it does favor a side that you happen to believe in, while going against a belief that many (perhaps more) consider fact, as evidenced by the book that they hold dear. 

Science cannot disprove anything that happened in the bible. Regardless how silly you may think that it makes some of it look, it can't *disprove* any of it because the scientific method itself acknowledges that it can't prove a negative. Likewise, much of what is written in the bible can't be proven, because, I believe, God set much of this up intentionally to require a dose of faith in its acceptance. 

So that leaves us with two sides that can't thoroughly be proven. One side because its Author wanted faith in its adherence, and the other side because its prescribed methodology accepts that most of its work only advances theories. But, still, in the face of this conundrum, you want everyone else to adhere to your side because it's "more righter", or "less wronger", or...or...just because. 

Science is a religion. I'm sorry - because you can't see it, not because I said it. 

I take what I can from both sides and try to be content in not pressing any of my beliefs on anyone else, unless there is a victim involved. 



wiscto said:


> You can believe all you want that science and religion are the same thing. You can lecture someone to "be careful" when that person already understands the challenges which science presents. You can do all that... But it doesn't make me wrong. We make laws based on what we can prove. As evidence stacks up, we make a decision based on that evidence if we feel forced to by the threat of disaster, we do the best we can at the time and then we continue to stack up more evidence until we can prove ourselves right or wrong.


I do, and will continue to, because science is a religion. Your continued point that science is the only basis for action, because it is the only mode by which things can be proven, accepting that nearly all of its body is theory, because science actually can't prove very much at all, but that we should still accept it as our supreme direction because it is the most bestest truth we have in our pockets today, isn't doing much to change my mind, to be honest with you. I didn't start out this discussion with you under the assumption that you were a member of the Church of Science, but you are quickly filling in that picture for me. 

To bring this back to my original point, before I walk away from this discussion, should it prove impossible to advance any further; I'll posit that some necessary legislation can only come from the guidance of traditional religion. For example, science cannot prove why it is wrong to steal something. In the paradigm you posit, we then shouldn't/couldn't legislate against that. The laws of physics can only _prove_ that if something is in your hands, then you control it and it is yours. It's through the teachings of the conventional religions that we know why it is wrong to have gotten that thing in your hands through ill-begotten means. We need legislation against that action because the bible(s) told us it was a transgression, and logic tells us that it is a transgression that bears victims. 

Likewise, no religious text that I've read makes any mention of the contact-effect of second-hand smoke. Science, on the other hand, was able to discover, and prove with some level of reasonable certainty, that it can be harmful to others. Therefore, smoking in an enclosed space with non-consenting individuals, is a transgression with victims, and should be legislated against. I'm a smoker, but I can accept not smoking in an airplane or a restaurant. 

Both sources of guidance have merit, but both can also be abused and twisted.

Some fanatical adherents to the bible(s) would say that the prescribed punishment for theft is the cutting off of the hand, that is the only acceptable legislated punishment, their book says so, so let it be done.

Some fanatical adherents to science would say that evidence suggests that a single puff of tobacco smoke can create untold long-term health dangers, even in re-atomized residue left on surfaces previously smoked around, and we should, therefore, ban all smoking, and take that freedom away from those that should know better but don't.

I stand by my original point that American law should be based on only trying to provide recourse of victims against their offenders. It bothers me not one whit if you choose to see science as the ultimate source of unquestionable guidance. I think you will be doing yourself a disservice, but, as long as you don't try to force that belief on me, I've got nothing more to say to you about it, except to suggest that you would be wise to at least consider that all scientific "proof" is provisional, while many of the teachings of the bible(s) have stood the proof of time.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Sorry. Did it again.


----------



## mnn2501

A day can mean an age, as far as 'evening and the morning' It doesn't really work without a sun (light) and a formless earth


----------



## Woolieface

mnn2501 said:


> A day can mean an age, as far as 'evening and the morning' It doesn't really work without a sun (light) and a formless earth


_
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day_. - Genesis 1:5

The first act of creation was light. The sun was created later as something which Has light, but, as we know, isn't the only source of it. The heavenly bodies mark time but don't Make time.

_And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day._ - Genesis 1: 16-19


----------



## Truckinguy

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> To bring this back to my original point, before I walk away from this discussion, should it prove impossible to advance any further; I'll posit that some necessary legislation can only come from the guidance of traditional religion. For example, science cannot prove why it is wrong to steal something. In the paradigm you posit, we then shouldn't/couldn't legislate against that. The laws of physics can only _prove_ that if something is in your hands, then you control it and it is yours. It's through the teachings of the conventional religions that we know why it is wrong to have gotten that thing in your hands through ill-begotten means. We need legislation against that action because the bible(s) told us it was a transgression, and logic tells us that it is a transgression that bears victims.


I think this brings us back to the OP. Atheists (and other non-Christians, I suppose), would argue that the Bible should not be the benchmark to base legislation on due to the large number of victimless crimes that are frowned upon. In addition, it's entirely possible for humans to make morally right decisions on their own without the need for a religion. It can be recognized that stealing, for instance, is wrong based on the fact that it has a victim and one feels that they would not want anything stolen from them so the logical progression would be to make a law against it. 

The Bible says that many things from homosexuality to picking up sticks on a Sunday are wrong and, I believe, both are punishable by death. I don't think many Atheists really have a problem with either one so we wouldn't want laws against those written for no real reason.

As I said earlier, Atheists don't object to the Bible. If people want to live their lives based on it's teachings, knock yourself out. Just don't try to get us to do the same.

BTW, don't apologize for your long posts. They're good reading.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I read an interesting article (I forget where), when I first started working through what the Bible meant to me and my life with God, that the Hebrew words that Moses wrote down, and were later translated into English as "morning", "evening" and "day", also held the contextual definition, in Hebrew, for "beginning", "end", and "period". 

Assuming, for only a minute, that that is true, look at the impact that single subjective choice made in translation could have made in the relationship between the Bible and science. 


Short post!
Check it out!
BAM!! That just happened.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm cutting up your quote only because I think it will be easier to respond to your post in-full that way, not in an effort to spin any of your words.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't believe that what we are talking about is entirely as far apart as you seem to think, but, for what it's worth, I don't see where I have an obligation to write things necessarily having to do with "what you said". Our exchange began when I posted my thoughts on reducing a lot of the conflict over putting biblical cannon into law, by reducing that cannon-to-law to only things that have a demonstrable victim, leaving the other victimless transgressions to the judgment of God.
> 
> Your response was to "agree" and say that, then, the only standard by which we could base law was that which has been scientifically proven. Not really a direct response to my idea, or even an acknowledgement of what I was saying, but that's cool. Engaging discussions sometimes have to take 90 degree turns in order to get anywhere.
> 
> In direct response to your position, I stated that we have to be careful in choosing to make science the one and only standard by which we base our laws, since it is inherently flawed itself (far from a "lecture" as you deem it below, but if that is how you see it, I'm sorry that you see it that way, but not that I said it).
> 
> The direction that our discussion has taken, since that point, has been one of you taking apparent offense at my suggestion that science is anything less than a flawless point from which to base all of our societal progress, and me trying to make the point that the conventional religions, and the one we call science are both flawed in their own right, and we can only take what we can find of value in each.
> 
> If that is all the further our discussion can progress, then I will bow out and leave this where it lays.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said above, my original point was speaking, exclusively, to the point that I think our laws need to be limited to ones that protect victims and provide them recourse against their offenders. It had nothing to do with what was taught in school, but, if you'd like to pin me down on that point, I don't think that our government has any business in establishing what is taught in school. The same as my opinion on gay marriage, it's not that I think the government should go one way or the other, it's that I don't think they should have any say in it at all.
> 
> The idea that we need standardized, government mandated education is actually a relatively recent paradigm, but one that seems to be accepted as unquestionably necessary and ever-present. It's not. The problem with your idea to expunge the teaching of creationism, and mandate the teaching of evolution in schools is that it does favor a side that you happen to believe in, while going against a belief that many (perhaps more) consider fact, as evidenced by the book that they hold dear.
> 
> Science cannot disprove anything that happened in the bible. Regardless how silly you may think that it makes some of it look, it can't *disprove* any of it because the scientific method itself acknowledges that it can't prove a negative. Likewise, much of what is written in the bible can't be proven, because, I believe, God set much of this up intentionally to require a dose of faith in its acceptance.
> 
> So that leaves us with two sides that can't thoroughly be proven. One side because its Author wanted faith in its adherence, and the other side because its prescribed methodology accepts that most of its work only advances theories. But, still, in the face of this conundrum, you want everyone else to adhere to your side because it's "more righter", or "less wronger", or...or...just because.
> 
> Science is a religion. I'm sorry - because you can't see it, not because I said it.
> 
> I take what I can from both sides and try to be content in not pressing any of my beliefs on anyone else, unless there is a victim involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, and will continue to, because science is a religion. Your continued point that science is the only basis for action, because it is the only mode by which things can be proven, accepting that nearly all of its body is theory, because science actually can't prove very much at all, but that we should still accept it as our supreme direction because it is the most bestest truth we have in our pockets today, isn't doing much to change my mind, to be honest with you. I didn't start out this discussion with you under the assumption that you were a member of the Church of Science, but you are quickly filling in that picture for me.
> 
> To bring this back to my original point, before I walk away from this discussion, should it prove impossible to advance any further; I'll posit that some necessary legislation can only come from the guidance of traditional religion. For example, science cannot prove why it is wrong to steal something. In the paradigm you posit, we then shouldn't/couldn't legislate against that. The laws of physics can only _prove_ that if something is in your hands, then you control it and it is yours. It's through the teachings of the conventional religions that we know why it is wrong to have gotten that thing in your hands through ill-begotten means. We need legislation against that action because the bible(s) told us it was a transgression, and logic tells us that it is a transgression that bears victims.
> 
> Likewise, no religious text that I've read makes any mention of the contact-effect of second-hand smoke. Science, on the other hand, was able to discover, and prove with some level of reasonable certainty, that it can be harmful to others. Therefore, smoking in an enclosed space with non-consenting individuals, is a transgression with victims, and should be legislated against. I'm a smoker, but I can accept not smoking in an airplane or a restaurant.
> 
> Both sources of guidance have merit, but both can also be abused and twisted.
> 
> Some fanatical adherents to the bible(s) would say that the prescribed punishment for theft is the cutting off of the hand, that is the only acceptable legislated punishment, their book says so, so let it be done.
> 
> Some fanatical adherents to science would say that evidence suggests that a single puff of tobacco smoke can create untold long-term health dangers, even in re-atomized residue left on surfaces previously smoked around, and we should, therefore, ban all smoking, and take that freedom away from those that should know better but don't.
> 
> I stand by my original point that American law should be based on only trying to provide recourse of victims against their offenders. It bothers me not one whit if you choose to see science as the ultimate source of unquestionable guidance. I think you will be doing yourself a disservice, but, as long as you don't try to force that belief on me, I've got nothing more to say to you about it, except to suggest that you would be wise to at least consider that all scientific "proof" is provisional, while many of the teachings of the bible(s) have stood the proof of time.


You replied to me to correct me. I don't know why you equate debate with "offense." I'm not offended, I'm trying to clarify what I'm saying because I don't think you get it. My opinion is that you don't understand the word "science." Science is nothing more than an accumulation of things that can be observed through the scientific method. To put it your words, I'm sorry - because you can't understand what I'm saying, not because I feel badly for saying it. You're the one who offered some specifics, and I didn't agree with you. 

We can prove scientifically that stealing is bad. We've observed it, we've studied the effects, we know that no one wants to be stolen from and we know the chaos that will ensue if civilization doesn't protect individuals from stealing. That's science. We also decided not to cut off hands. We observed it, we studied it, we found that it was an inhumane thing to do and that it did not accomplish the goals that it was meant to accomplish and instead caused a great deal of problems associated with society and authority. We observed it, we studied it, we chose a different path because the punishment didn't fit the crime...that's science. We also determined that Democracy appears to be the best system, so, sometimes when everyone disagrees, we just have to let democracy run its course because anything else seems to be far more explosive. We observed it, we tested it, we studied it. That's science. 

As for this discussion "progressing," if you think that I have to agree with you that science is religion in order for this to progress, then yea, you might as well just stop, because I don't agree. I don't even agree that you understand what I mean when I say "science." 

As for creation. Public schools should teach what we can observe, test, and study. They shouldn't be required to teach the Christian story of creation just because Christians think they can apply the science to the story and call it metaphor. It isn't our job to teach that to your kids, it's yours if you so choose. Should we teach all of the creation stories? Ojibwe, Sioux, Navajo, Mayan, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian....? No. Government and "the public" should teach what we can study using the scientific method and leave the rest to individuals and their families.


----------



## Woolieface

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I read an interesting article (I forget where), when I first started working through what the Bible meant to me and my life with God, that the Hebrew words that Moses wrote down, and were later translated into English as "morning", "evening" and "day", also held the contextual definition, in Hebrew, for "beginning", "end", and "period".
> 
> Assuming, for only a minute, that that is true, look at the impact that single subjective choice made in translation could have made in the relationship between the Bible and science.
> 
> 
> Short post!
> Check it out!
> BAM!! That just happened.


here is evening and morning -

morning - http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1242&t=KJV

evening - http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&t=KJV&p=0#s=t_conc_1013

Day can refer to a time period.


----------



## tarbe

What I object most to is when people (generally in a position of authority) misuse the bible (at least some times intentionally) to control people.

I have run into this enough in the American Catholic and Protestant churches to have left both.

Fortunately, I still belong to the Church that matters to me...the Church made up of living stones.


Tim


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> Now I'm not disputing that it may have happened somewhere, but even 50+ years ago (long before O'Hare), kids who did not want to say prayer at the beginning of school were NEVER, EVER forced to participate.
> 
> One of my grandsons (20 yo) is in the process of figuring out whether or not he believes in God. Right now, he says he does not believe and the family (both sides, all Christians) respects his position. When we have family dinners, we hold hands as a family and give thanks to God for His blessings. GS is not forced to pray or even bow his head, but he's expected to be part of the circle as part of the family. Is he being forced to pray merely because he can hear the prayer?
> 
> Exactly what do you mean when you refer to 'forced prayer'?



The elementary school I went to in 5th grade in a small southern Ohio town had prayer before school started and you were not allowed to sit down and opt out. You got sent to the Principal if you didn't say the pledge and the prayer.


----------



## Patchouli

This is a very interesting thread and I have greatly enjoyed the discussion between Wiscto and GunMonkey especially. 

I had a hard time understanding what the OP was aiming for in his original question. I am an Atheist for all intents and purposes and I have no ill feelings towards the Bible. Because I was raised in a Christian home and my father was a Pastor and I spent most of my life as a Christian I have a pretty deep knowledge of the Bible and Christian history. I generally enter into the discussion more to point out the facts on the history or the Bible that people seem to be missing. I don't have a dog in the fight but I still find theology an interesting topic for discussion.

I do have a problem with trying to force strictly biblical laws on all of us through legislation. I tend to lean Libertarian on moral choice type laws dealing with sexuality, drugs and things like that. I am against any laws that affect consenting adults that don't harm anyone else. I don't have a problem with laws that are biblical that also coincide with what is best for society. So I won't support or knock something just because a Christian puts it forward as God's will for our nation as found in the Bible. I would take each thing to be decided on it's own merits.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Truckinguy said:


> I think this brings us back to the OP. Atheists (and other non-Christians, I suppose), would argue that the Bible should not be the benchmark to base legislation on due to the large number of victimless crimes that are frowned upon. In addition, it's entirely possible for humans to make morally right decisions on their own without the need for a religion. It can be recognized that stealing, for instance, is wrong based on the fact that it has a victim and one feels that they would not want anything stolen from them so the logical progression would be to make a law against it.
> 
> The Bible says that many things from homosexuality to picking up sticks on a Sunday are wrong and, I believe, both are punishable by death. I don't think many Atheists really have a problem with either one so we wouldn't want laws against those written for no real reason.
> 
> As I said earlier, Atheists don't object to the Bible. If people want to live their lives based on it's teachings, knock yourself out. Just don't try to get us to do the same.


I think that's nearly entirely the point I was trying to make, Truckin', and our differences in there are not even worth mentioning to the point of debate. At that point, I'd offer you a beer, and strike up a different topic, something more heated, perhaps. :buds:

But, in keeping with the thread, and to add to what I see as your point, I think that the judgment of man is so subject to fault that it should be kept strictly to trying to redress those transgressions that bear out victims, flawed as those judgments may end up being, and leave the, for lack of a better word, _baser_ transgressions between the individual and God, where He is much better suited to passing judgment. 

If we choose to subject ourselves to a higher standard, and more discerning judgment, then that is between us and Him, and, I believe, it only contributes to making us a better version of ourselves.

He taught me that lesson through a prostitute I met in Osaka. Beautiful girl, inside and out. I'm sure you would have liked her. 

She was born into a Buddhist family, but self-converted to Catholicism as a high-schooler. She'd committed her share of youthful transgressions, but found her birth religion to be lacking in judgment, as a whole. She was confident, in her heart, that she was a good person; a daughter that God could be proud of, despite any mistakes that she had made. In the end, she wanted to know that the struggles she was going through on this world would amount to something more definitive than just "another chance" at getting it right. 

She understood some about the Judeo-Christian God through friends, and, maybe because of her own hard-headedness, wanted to prove to Him that, despite any wrongs she'd committed, she was still worthy of His love, and deserving of a respite at the end of this life. 

She stole a Bible, started reading it, and called herself a Christian, which became more difficult after she realized it meant that she had to admit the same to her friends and family. Talk about being laughed at. She was pretty and hard-headed, though, so I suspect that test was less difficult than she described it. 

Shortly after her conversion (as a young adult, everything comes to us "shortly" doesn't it?), she found herself in a position where the only way she saw tenable to support her toddler daughter was to leave her with her sister and ply the one trade that her time in high-school had shown her she was good at. 

And, so we met. 

Now, if you think I'm committed to admitting my acceptance of Him whenever the topic comes up, you should see me with a bit of whisky in me (like now (long day (don't judge (not your place)))). Anyway, she hung out where the whisky was, because she knew that's where the Americans were, Americans carried money, and that's how we met. 

After discovering a fair bit about her, we found ourselves in a place away from where the whiskey was, and she explained to me that she knew what we were doing was a sin. 
I didn't take issue. 

She explained that God was sure to express his disappointment in us, and then move on to the rest of our long lists. BUT, his judgment would be MUCH less favorable if she was doing what she was doing to feed a drug habit, rather than to support her daughter in the best way she knew how. And, that "if I hurt her, or tried to cheat her, God would have some VERY stern words for me".

Thankfully her English is WAY better than my Japanese, or I'd still be laughing.

We hit it off immediately, and still share the occasional phone call or text in times of moral dilemma. 

Four or five years later, she is still plying her trade, her daughter is now in grade-school (well provided for), and she is one of the points, if you will, on my moral compass. 

"God, bless the wicked" is part of my daily prayer, because we're all on this road together.

And I don't want to be left behind.


----------



## Patchouli

That is a fascinating story GunMonkey.


----------



## painterswife

I am very glad this thread did not get closed.


----------



## Jolly

Just as a debating point...Why is stealing bad?

In terms of evolution, it is often an effective means of survival and propagation. In pure scientific terms, shouldn't we be teaching our children to steal, so as to capture more resources for themselves?

And if such was the norm in society, there would be no penalties for stealing. There might be welfare for those lazy folks that don't have enough get up and go to steal for themselves, or some form of assistance for those too old or infirm to steal.

Stealing is a good thing, provided it is an integral part of society.

Isn't it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Why is sacrificing a virgin into the volcano wrong?


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Why is sacrificing a virgin into the volcano wrong?


I can't really say if it right or wrong...... But I can think of better ways to eliminate virgins.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Jolly said:


> Just as a debating point...Why is stealing bad?
> 
> In terms of evolution, it is often an effective means of survival and propagation. In pure scientific terms, shouldn't we be teaching our children to steal, so as to capture more resources for themselves?
> 
> And if such was the norm in society, there would be no penalties for stealing. There might be welfare for those lazy folks that don't have enough get up and go to steal for themselves, or some form of assistance for those too old or infirm to steal.
> 
> Stealing is a good thing, provided it is an integral part of society.
> 
> Isn't it?


Humans by nature live in colonies. Good and bad is defined by what benefits the colony not the individual. It is bad for the colony if you can not trust those around you not to take your stuff. It forces you to use valuable energy and resources protecting what you have instead of adding to it. 

Jim


----------



## Evons hubby

Jim Bunton said:


> Humans by nature live in colonies. Good and bad is defined by what benefits the colony not the individual. It is bad for the colony if you can not trust those around you not to take your stuff. It forces you to use valuable energy and resources protecting what you have instead of adding to it.
> 
> Jim


If it's bad for the colony to allow people to take our stuff, why do we hire government officials to do it?


----------



## Truckinguy

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But, in keeping with the thread, and to add to what I see as your point, I think that the judgment of man is so subject to fault that it should be kept strictly to trying to redress those transgressions that bear out victims, flawed as those judgments may end up being, and leave the, for lack of a better word, _baser_ transgressions between the individual and God, where He is much better suited to passing judgment.


I think this addresses an issue that I have with the Bible, which is that there are things that are regarded as "sins" that actually have no victim but seem to be arbitrarily classified as "wrong". I used the example earlier of picking up sticks on a Sunday which may be a bit of a stretch but it is something that bears the penalty of being brought outside the city and stoned to death due to God commanding that the seventh day be a day of rest. Is it a good idea to work hard for six days and rest on the seventh? Sure. Is it something that should result in the forfeiture of your life? Of course not. It's just another reason not to use the Bible to base our laws on.

I find it hard to wrap my head around something that has no victim and yet seems to need to be held up to some sort of judgement after we die. If there is no victim, is it just arbitrarily deemed a sin just to add to the list of sins for control purposes? 

I believe that if someone based their life on following the Bible then they should follow the Bible in it's entirety. I know I and other non-Christians that I know are bothered by the fact that most Christians seem to pick and choose whatever parts of the Bible that seems to suit them and ignore other parts. Christianity is now divided up into hundreds of different factions each following the Bible to varying degrees depending on their individual moral interpretations.

You posted earlier about the translation of words having more than one meaning and that's an issue a lot of us have, the Bible being translated through a few languages by many different individuals and the meaning of different passages being changed due to the perspective of the individual who interpreted it. I think the Bible should be taken in a big picture context rather than trying to dissect it down to it's individual words and phrases to try and get some deeper spiritual understanding. If we all simply treated each other the way we would like to be treated the world would be a better place. 

I don't think that most Atheists have a problem with the actual Bible, it's the misuse of the Bible for individual agendas that is the real issue.

By the way, I don't judge you, I have more then enough points on my moral compass to be passing judgement on anybody. I'll take that beer, though...:buds:


----------



## Tricky Grama

My favorite 'man-made' sin is the Friday observance/penance of abstaining from eating meat.
No longer a sin! 
What did 'they' do w/all the condemned souls of yrs past? Did they get bailed out?

The 'no picking up sticks' on the Sabbath is a good one too. Used to be "blue laws" in some states...anyone else remember?


----------



## where I want to

So the anti Bible faction berates the Bible faction for 'selective' use of the Bible, as if someone who claims that it is not a good source for guidance really can choose how it is used by those who do find it a good source as guidance, while of course being very selective themselves. 
It seems, if people look to the Bible for guidance, then the anti Bible faction criticizes them if they do it selectively, while simultaneously criticizing sticking with a strict intrepretation. And by interpretation, they mean their own interpretation of course.
This, of course, supports the desired goal of dismissing the Bible as a guide to anything as, no matter how it is used, it will be done wrong.
As to freedom to act according to personal conscience, it seems to be simply that it is ok if it matches the choice of the critic but is subject to internet stoning if it doesn't. 
Which just seems to be same technique of bullying pointed in a slightly different direction.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> So the anti Bible faction berates the Bible faction for 'selective' use of the Bible, as if someone who claims that it is not a good source for guidance really can choose how it is used by those who do find it a good source as guidance, while of course being very selective themselves.
> It seems, if people look to the Bible for guidance, then the anti Bible faction criticizes them if they do it selectively, while simultaneously criticizing sticking with a strict intrepretation. And by interpretation, they mean their own interpretation of course.
> This, of course, supports the desired goal of dismissing the Bible as a guide to anything as, no matter how it is used, it will be done wrong.
> As to freedom to act according to personal conscience, it seems to be simply that it is ok if it matches the choice of the critic but is subject to internet stoning if it doesn't.
> Which just seems to be same technique of bullying pointed in a slightly different direction.


That is hilarious. Everything you just accused the anti bible group of the pro bible group does to their own group. " I know the bible better than you" "you need to do more bible study because the bible does not say that".


----------



## where I want to

It's really hard for a person to evaluate what actions of theirs has a victim or not. If you limit the definition of victim to those you personally inflict physical injury onto, it may be clear. But, if you include unintended side effects, that damage can be widespread yet never seen but the perpetrators. 

For instance, a person can drive intoxicated and four general catagories of things can happen: they can arrive neither injured or causing injury or they can injure just themselves or they can injure others directly or they cause cause others to injure still others.

There have been people on this forum who think that driving intoxicated is a personal and permitted choice and they only should be penalized if they actually kill someone else. That is the equivalent to the no victim, no crime idea of personal responsibility.

But that leaves out of consideration the cascade of damage that such behavior can trigger. Just as a swerving drunk driver can cause the following driver to take radical action to avoid them, causing them injury while the intoxicated driver goes obliviously on their way, the choosing of a standard of "it doesn't harm anyone else" can leave a trail of injury behind to which they are oblivious. 

And it is that what a historical perspective can do and why it deserves not to be casually dismissed. If a society has seen over time the damage done by the obvious, it can and should say that, while someone may not see the point (ie oblivious), they must still obey the law that protects the rest of the world from that blindness. 

That such consideration is subject to evolution is not a flaw in the original law but is actually a strength to deal with changing environments. But a lag between the change and the law adapting is the period where the wise evaluate whether a change from what was successful in the past is a good thing or not.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> So the anti Bible faction berates the Bible faction for 'selective' use of the Bible, as if someone who claims that it is not a good source for guidance really can choose how it is used by those who do find it a good source as guidance, while of course being very selective themselves.
> It seems, if people look to the Bible for guidance, then the anti Bible faction criticizes them if they do it selectively, while simultaneously criticizing sticking with a strict intrepretation. And by interpretation, they mean their own interpretation of course.
> This, of course, supports the desired goal of dismissing the Bible as a guide to anything as, no matter how it is used, it will be done wrong.
> As to freedom to act according to personal conscience, it seems to be simply that it is ok if it matches the choice of the critic but is subject to internet stoning if it doesn't.
> Which just seems to be same technique of bullying pointed in a slightly different direction.


I"m not anti-Bible, I actually think that the Bible is a good source of guidance on the same level as Aesop's fables or Greek mythology. You can read the story and learn a valuable social lesson. I believe the bible has some degree of historical accuracy and I think it's possible that Jesus lived and likely did much of what they said he did. However, just because he claimed to be someone special doesn't mean he was. I think things that were called miracles can be explained today by science. I"m not trying to open this thread up to a big debate about science vs miracles, I'm just stating what I believe. I'm a big history buff and I find it interesting reading about archeology in the Middle East that possibly coincides with Bible stories. 

If someone wants to live their life based on the bible, I say have at it. Use all of it or use any percentage that makes them feel comfortable. Just be prepared to explain why it's ok to restrict gay rights, for example, because the Bible says it's wrong while not being prepared to impose the death penalty on those who work on the Sabbath.

There is an umbrella of general laws that we can all live under and still have the freedom to pursue our individual lives. Don't kill anybody, don't steal other people's stuff, don't defraud anyone, don't do anything to anyone without their consent, etc. Just don't use the Bible or any other holy book to make a law or cultural practice that says I can't eat pork on a Friday (we know how to cook it now), my gay friends can't get married (no harm to anyone) or women have to be covered from head to foot (degrading to women).


----------



## Jolly

Folks tend to confuse what is allowed in the OT vs. what the NT says (Age of Law vs. Age of Grace. Grace superceded Law)



> If someone wants to live their life based on the bible, I say have at it. Use all of it or use any percentage that makes them feel comfortable. Just be prepared to explain why it's ok to restrict gay rights, for example, because the Bible says it's wrong while not being prepared to impose the death penalty on those who work on the Sabbath.


Can you show me in the NT where you would be put to death for working on the Sabbath?


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Folks tend to confuse what is allowed in the OT vs. what the NT says (Age of Law vs. Age of Grace. Grace superceded Law)
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me in the NT where you would be put to death for working on the Sabbath?


Maybe man decided they could not live by the OT and wrote the NT to make life easier.


----------



## Truckinguy

Jolly said:


> Folks tend to confuse what is allowed in the OT vs. what the NT says (Age of Law vs. Age of Grace. Grace superceded Law)
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me in the NT where you would be put to death for working on the Sabbath?


It's in the Old Testament, I believe that is what the picking up sticks analogy is referring to. Are you saying the OT is obsolete and no longer relevant?


----------



## where I want to

There comes the oblivious part. It is selective to say that not killing someone is a proper law, for example, but it disregard the times when it is a matter of survival to kill. Or is spreading AIDS killing, or is not providing education killing or etc etc etc. 
That is what I mean by oblivious. A person just may not notice the harm they cause because it doesn't harm them. 
Most things that were historical crimes had a basis at one point in time. And, if calling it a crime has successfully supressed the over all harm to society,then we might all find ourselves doubting whether the harm exists. Only to find that removing the prohibitions lead to harm we had little experienced and so dismissed.
Even the pork issue is not as simple as you might think. The cooking of pork was something my mother drummed into my head because of the danger of trichinoses. Yet, since the rise in factory farming of pigs has significantly reduced the danger of that, I am no longer so aware of the issue. Not to mention that many people never got it right. And with the animal rights issues, we might find ourselves with a rise in danger of pork. Not to mention pigs tend to eat everything and might certainly have issues which we know nothing about at the moment. Maybe even issues newly a problem with globalization of disease and parasites or climate change.
No- I just don't think that people, especially having been protected from their own stupidity for a couple of generations as now, should be so willing to throw away the knowledge of their ancestors. Not only is it possible tgey will get it wrong, it is sure that they will.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Truckinguy said:


> I"m not anti-Bible, I actually think that the Bible is a good source of guidance on the same level as Aesop's fables or Greek mythology. You can read the story and learn a valuable social lesson. I believe the bible has some degree of historical accuracy and I think it's possible that Jesus lived and likely did much of what they said he did. However, just because he claimed to be someone special doesn't mean he was. I think things that were called miracles can be explained today by science. I"m not trying to open this thread up to a big debate about science vs miracles, I'm just stating what I believe. I'm a big history buff and I find it interesting reading about archeology in the Middle East that possibly coincides with Bible stories.
> 
> If someone wants to live their life based on the bible, I say have at it. Use all of it or use any percentage that makes them feel comfortable. Just be prepared to explain why it's ok to restrict gay rights, for example, because the Bible says it's wrong while not being prepared to impose the death penalty on those who work on the Sabbath.
> 
> There is an umbrella of general laws that we can all live under and still have the freedom to pursue our individual lives. Don't kill anybody, don't steal other people's stuff, don't defraud anyone, don't do anything to anyone without their consent, etc. Just don't use the Bible or any other holy book to make a law or cultural practice that says I can't eat pork on a Friday (we know how to cook it now), my gay friends can't get married (no harm to anyone) or women have to be covered from head to foot (degrading to women).


Truckin, I know few agnostics but those I know are of your mindset. Except they know the difference b/w the Old Testament & New Testament. The no pork, the no dairy w/meat, death to Sabbath workers, are not Christian followings, not of the New Testament.

As well as most educated folks know there was a Jesus Christ, no "imaginary person"! The history in that "fictional magic book" is pretty accurate, ya gotta think about ALL the translations! 

Then there's the Apocoylpse...


----------



## mnn2501

Truckinguy said:


> I believe that if someone based their life on following the Bible then they should follow the Bible in it's entirety. I know I and other non-Christians that I know are bothered by the fact that most Christians seem to pick and choose whatever parts of the Bible that seems to suit them and ignore other parts. Christianity is now divided up into hundreds of different factions each following the Bible to varying degrees depending on their individual moral interpretations.


Some of us realize the the Bible was written by man and not by God, as I said earlier, God only gave us 10 commandments to follow and didn't even give us a penalty for not following them. His Son after seeing the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery, did not punish her, did not require anything in the way of penance but instead told her to 'go and sin no more'
Sounds to me like He wants us to be better people rather than weigh us down with rules.


----------



## Txsteader

_*25*Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men._
_ *26*For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: *27*But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 
1 Corinthians 1: 25-27
_


----------



## Jim Bunton

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If it's bad for the colony to allow people to take our stuff, why do we hire government officials to do it?


Government does what we the people want. I believe this because in 2014 The U S house had a 95% success rate for those that ran for reelection. The lowest it has been since 1964 is 85%. The Senate had a 82% success rate in 2014 and dipped down to 55% in 1980. Even so over all most incumbents that run get reelected. Until most incumbents start losing elections they are carrying out the will of the people.

Jim Bunton


----------



## Woolieface

I believe the Old Testament is the picture of perfect justice...the New Testament is the picture of perfect mercy. Not only is being sinless (keeping the law perfectly) impossible for fallen humans, but much of it was made a greater burden on the people than it was ever intended by Him to be by religious leaders who were no more capable of keeping it than the people they shepherded. I think Jesus had this to say about the Sabbath...
_
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: - Mark 2:27 _


----------



## Shine

Furthermore, I see the old and new testaments as complimentary, not as one being the extension of the other but something new, more expanded and different.

From what I am learning, the old testament which had the Jews as the promised people who repeatedly turned away from God as the ones to whom the Law(s) were given. For some Jews, the Laws were a way to make themselves pleasing in the sight of God and some Jews loved God so much the Law was written upon their Heart. At the same time, few people were capable of reading so they had to be told of the Law by the "holy" men. Only the people who loved God were doing what God intended, for the rest, they turned the Law into a blasphemous thing. It became a ritual, a fad, something to go to town about, not about Glorifying God. Those who loved God did not need the "holy" men to intercede for them as they knew in their hearts what was what. It is almost like the reasoning behind the Law was to show that no man could, of himself, make himself righteous.

The new testament brought many changes, the Law was made, well - not null but no longer as important as a personal relation with Jesus who goes before God for us. Jesus gave us two new[not really new] laws to follow: Matthew 22: 37-40 - &#8220;&#8216;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.&#8217; 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: &#8216;You shall love your neighbor as yourself.&#8217; 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&#8221;

This is not to say that there is no longer a "Law" but it is to change the dynamics namely that God will cause people to do His law himself.

People think that hey, I chose to be a Christian or I chose Jesus or God. I would offer that God or Jesus chose you first. God reached out and made Himself pleasing to us - not us deciding one day - eh... I'm going to Church... 

I find now that things that I used to do in my earlier life and found them pleasurable are no longer pleasurable, some things that I used to do are down right ugly to me now. I could say, "Oh, I just changed" but to be realistic, I do not know when I stopped liking this or that thing that I no longer do, it was somehow filtered out of my life. I find God's Word pleasing to be a part of, it is like a warm blanket on a cold night. I used to find God's Word cumbersome and dry, now I look to it with excitement. 

I believe that God Himself chose me, and put a heart in place of the stone that I once had, it is His irresistible calling that put me on this road and this is where I am currently at...

In everything, I will wait upon Him...


ETA: Sorry - missed a point that I wanted to make. So when someone accuses you of not following Old Testament laws then that is a sign that they do not understand the work of Jesus. Paul explains it perfectly...


----------



## Truckinguy

Tricky Grama said:


> Truckin, I know few agnostics but those I know are of your mindset. Except they know the difference b/w the Old Testament & New Testament. The no pork, the no dairy w/meat, death to Sabbath workers, are not Christian followings, not of the New Testament.
> 
> As well as most educated folks know there was a Jesus Christ, no "imaginary person"! The history in that "fictional magic book" is pretty accurate, ya gotta think about ALL the translations!
> 
> Then there's the Apocoylpse...


I"m not sure I understand all the labels. I was raised Christian and at 16 I and most of my family parted ways with the sect except for one sister who remained with them. I personally have no use for Christianity as it was used to cause a lot of damage to our family and many others we know. I feel a great deal of comfort from Wicca, Paganism and other Earth centered religions although I don't follow them but a lot of their concepts and philosophies make sense to me. I appreciate the seasons, I respect the cycle of life and death in Nature and I treat others the way I would like to be treated. I try to live my life as simply as I can and I try to remain as open minded as I can about everything. I think there is more to life than meets the eye but what it is I haven't decided yet. The Christian message makes no sense to me, the notion of having to reach for some unattainable level of perfection without which one will burn in fire for eternity. I prefer to live by tangible concepts, if I put my hand in fire it gets burned, if I subject water to temperatures below freezing it will turn to ice, the earth goes around the sun causing morning and night, etc. That is science and, unless the laws of physics gets turned on their ear, those things are unlikely to change.

I know it's human nature to label everything to make it easier to make sense of it but I'm not sure what label I fall under. I'm still a work in progress, I guess..


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> The Christian message makes no sense to me, the notion of having to reach for some unattainable level of perfection without which one will burn in fire for eternity.


If that were the message I'd been taught about Christianity, it would sour my opinion a lot too. That isn't... or Shouldn't be the message though. It's sure not at all what Jesus spoke of. 

The message isn't that we can reach perfection, or really even do anything that is of our own works that qualifies us for eternal life. That has proven an unbearable burden to humanity since the first humans left paradise. Grace is our hope... Grace provided by the only One who ever did fulfill the whole law. He adopts us into His perfection when we accept that.


----------



## Txsteader

The Potter and the clay. We are _transformed_ by the Potter's hands, tried by fire, until we are perfect in His eyes. 

We are incapable of achieving perfection on our own. The spirit is willing, but oh, how weak is the flesh.


----------



## beenaround

Talking about a book usually entails it's been read. Discussing a book typically involves reading it more than once.

I've read it straight through 7 times in 3 years. I gave the book that's been so influential that opportunity.

I can guarantee no men could put it together. We simply can't get along that well or for half that amount of time.

I'll boil the book down to this. it's either telling man why they are sinners or telling man who the Savior is. People read so and so did something wrong, taken to the conclusion above; Do you do that? If yes then there's the problem, if no keep reading it will get to you eventually.

Typically in the finding of a wrong a penalty for that wrong is outlined. A look at the penalty Christ paid will show He paid for that wrong. For example He was hung from a tree/cross held there by 3 nails/darts. David had a son who rebelled, his second in command chased him. The son got hung up in a tree trying to escape, he was killed as he hung there with 3 darts. Incidentally the second in command was false and a betrayer. 

There are hundreds of these similarities. No men could put together these events telling the same story over and over encompassing thousands of years with one purpose, we simply do not posses the ability to get along like that. The bible read under this umbrella never contradicts itself and remember, I've read the book. 

I've also read a bit of world history and in so doing how the book was used in it. If anyone cares to avoid repeating history I suggest reading the bible for yourself as it was given to man for each individual.

I can also say this, It's God who opens things up to be understood, so it doesn't matter which translation you read. I started reading with one simply request, I wanted to know whatever He was willing to show me and didn't care if it proved me 100% wrong or if I learned anything, I was able to read and that's what I was going to do.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jim Bunton said:


> Government does what we the people want. I believe this because in 2014 The U S house had a 95% success rate for those that ran for reelection. The lowest it has been since 1964 is 85%. The Senate had a 82% success rate in 2014 and dipped down to 55% in 1980. Even so over all most incumbents that run get reelected. Until most incumbents start losing elections they are carrying out the will of the people.
> 
> Jim Bunton


Seems a shame they cannot follow the law contained in the very document that created it instead of the will of the ignorant masses.


----------



## beenaround

Truckinguy said:


> As I said earlier, Atheists don't object to the Bible. If people want to live their lives based on it's teachings, knock yourself out. Just don't try to get us to do the same.


I met one I could respect, claimed he'd read the book 6 times. He knew all the talking points, but that was his limit.

Question to ponder. People seem to love to complain, complaining about the bible is common, the flood a good one. The hot symbol these days is the rainbow which by the book is Gods promise the world would not be destroyed by a flood again. 

The book says the end of days will come with fire. What is it people need to put out a flood of fire? :flame: Next time the flood is "debated" remember this question and maybe step outside the question and ask; What's my motivation here?


----------



## beenaround

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seems a shame they cannot follow the law contained in the very document that created it instead of the will of the ignorant masses.


They do, people just have a false understanding of the function and purpose of government.

Government is punishment for bad behavior and has the ability to punish all for the sins of one.

Government regulates and what does it regulate? It regulates freedom and how does it get the opportunity to regulate freedom and it's always away? When freedom is infringed upon by the people on the people. There is never "no law against it" because laws were created when this creation was created. The law that gives sinful man government is the breaking of "Love your neighbor".

There's your proof God created this, break that law, and it has been a billion times a billion times over, and government is the penalty. As incentive for the people to get along government is always highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power so who is false and who is true to their purpose? It isn't government, they are the only true player in this whole mess.


----------



## mnn2501

beenaround said:


> I've read it straight through 7 times in 3 years. I gave the book that's been so influential that opportunity.
> I can guarantee no men could put it together. We simply can't get along that well or for half that amount of time.


You do know then that it was written by a number of different men over a couple thousand years and put together in its final form by the Catholic Church 3 centuries after the last of those books and letters had been written, they also had dozens more books and letters that at one time or another were deemed Scripture by the various Christian Churches, that did not push the agenda the Roman Church was looking for?

Lets at least be honest about it if a claim like yours is going to be made.


----------



## Truckinguy

Woolieface said:


> If that were the message I'd been taught about Christianity, it would sour my opinion a lot too. That isn't... or Shouldn't be the message though. It's sure not at all what Jesus spoke of.
> 
> The message isn't that we can reach perfection, or really even do anything that is of our own works that qualifies us for eternal life. That has proven an unbearable burden to humanity since the first humans left paradise. Grace is our hope... Grace provided by the only One who ever did fulfill the whole law. He adopts us into His perfection when we accept that.


That's the message I was taught and it's reinforced all the time by Christians I talk to or read about. It's Heaven or Hell, no? I'm told that when I die I'll go to one or the other and I'll never achieve the level of perfection required to get into Heaven by myself because I'm not good enough therefore Jesus had to die to cleanse my soul in order to get into Heaven.

The part that really disturbs me is that perfectly good people are told they are no good from the get go. We are told we are born in sin and some of the words I've heard used by Christians to describe themselves over the years are "filthy, lost, weak, unworthy, worthless," among others. It's very sad that so many people think so little of themselves. It's psychology 101, tell people something for long enough and they'll start to believe it.

I believe I was born through the love of my Parents, I'm a pretty good guy who has done some dumb things in my life and some things I'm not proud of but I try to treat everyone fairly and in a friendly manner and I'm open to learning life lessons and becoming a better person. I don't believe I'm a bad enough person that it had to cost someone their life.

I think it's time for a Stuart Smalley moment. Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, doggone it, people like me!" There, doesn't that feel better?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Truckinguy said:


> That's the message I was taught and it's reinforced all the time by Christians I talk to or read about. It's Heaven or Hell, no? I'm told that when I die I'll go to one or the other and I'll never achieve the level of perfection required to get into Heaven by myself because I'm not good enough therefore Jesus had to die to cleanse my soul in order to get into Heaven.
> 
> The part that really disturbs me is that perfectly good people are told they are no good from the get go. We are told we are born in sin and some of the words I've heard used by Christians to describe themselves over the years are "filthy, lost, weak, unworthy, worthless," among others. It's very sad that so many people think so little of themselves. It's psychology 101, tell people something for long enough and they'll start to believe it.
> 
> I believe I was born through the love of my Parents, I'm a pretty good guy who has done some dumb things in my life and some things I'm not proud of but I try to treat everyone fairly and in a friendly manner and I'm open to learning life lessons and becoming a better person. I don't believe I'm a bad enough person that it had to cost someone their life.
> 
> I think it's time for a Stuart Smalley moment. Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, doggone it, people like me!" There, doesn't that feel better?


Post of the day award! I really only give one a day too.


----------



## where I want to

I suppose if you think of religion as a magic formula than it appears to be irrational and brutal indeed. But if you think of it as a process- a road map on how to examine and improve your life- it is using the wisdom of centuries of thinkers so that everyone does not have to try to work out everything for themselves everytime.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> I suppose if you think of religion as a magic formula than it appears to be irrational and brutal indeed. But if you think of it as a process- a road map on how to examine and improve your life- it is using the wisdom of centuries of thinkers so that everyone does not have to try to work out everything for themselves everytime.


I think most Christians think of it as a magic formula. We were taught that all you have to do to get into Heaven is accept Jesus as your saviour, all would be forgiven and, voila, here's your golden ticket. Christians aren't expected to grow as a person, they're supposed to toe the line and do as they're told. I don't think it's a mistake that the Bible uses the analogy of the shepherd and his sheep.

Again, it's not the actual religion that a lot of us have an issue with, it's the misuse of it that is an issue. Follow whatever spiritual path that moves you, go to church every Sunday, kiss the Wailing Wall, travel to Mecca or dance naked in the forest in the moonlight. Just don't discriminate against others, don't break up families and don't make arbitrary laws that affect me and my life based on your religion.

That's a general "you", not personally directed at you, WIWT.


----------



## Evons hubby

beenaround said:


> They do, people just have a false understanding of the function and purpose of government.
> 
> Government is punishment for bad behavior and has the ability to punish all for the sins of one.
> 
> Government regulates and what does it regulate? It regulates freedom and how does it get the opportunity to regulate freedom and it's always away? When freedom is infringed upon by the people on the people. There is never "no law against it" because laws were created when this creation was created. The law that gives sinful man government is the breaking of "Love your neighbor".
> 
> There's your proof God created this, break that law, and it has been a billion times a billion times over, and government is the penalty. As incentive for the people to get along government is always highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power so who is false and who is true to their purpose? It isn't government, they are the only true player in this whole mess.


i was referring to our federal government and its seeming inability to govern as it was intended.... With the limitations placed upon it by the constitution.


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> That's the message I was taught and it's reinforced all the time by Christians I talk to or read about. It's Heaven or Hell, no? I'm told that when I die I'll go to one or the other and I'll never achieve the level of perfection required to get into Heaven by myself because I'm not good enough therefore Jesus had to die to cleanse my soul in order to get into Heaven.
> 
> The part that really disturbs me is that perfectly good people are told they are no good from the get go. We are told we are born in sin and some of the words I've heard used by Christians to describe themselves over the years are "filthy, lost, weak, unworthy, worthless," among others. It's very sad that so many people think so little of themselves. It's psychology 101, tell people something for long enough and they'll start to believe it.
> 
> I believe I was born through the love of my Parents, I'm a pretty good guy who has done some dumb things in my life and some things I'm not proud of but I try to treat everyone fairly and in a friendly manner and I'm open to learning life lessons and becoming a better person. I don't believe I'm a bad enough person that it had to cost someone their life.
> 
> I think it's time for a Stuart Smalley moment. Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, doggone it, people like me!" There, doesn't that feel better?



Hell is a word used broadly for more than one term in the bible. One is a place of holding, also called "the grave". The firery end that people talk about has more in common with the final judgment - the lake of fire. Most believe that this is an eternal state of torment, but it is perhaps likely that it is simply anhialation. It is the destination of Satan and fallen angels. People only end up at this destination by refusing God's grace that He's offered.

Heaven might also be somewhat misunderstood. God resides in the heavens and there is a place of rest for the soul who has departed Earth, but the final outcome isn't described as an eternity of spirit existence in the Heavens. The end goal is that Jesus will come and live With us, Reign on this Earth and we will be clothed in new and incorruptible bodies that are no longer mortal. The future Earth will have sin and evil and death removed. It will be what was intended from the beginning.

People have trouble with the part that says they aren't good enough. We all want justice, yes? Justice can not come but by a perfect standard by a perfect Creator. If He allows less than that, we will always suffer with the evils that plague this world. We can't, any one of us, claim that we are not part of that problem. We all do wrong...big wrongs, little wrongs...if perfection isn't the standard, there is no line in the sand we will not cross. Jesus not only paid the price for our wrongs but He does offer us the ability to be perfect in the world to come. However, while in this flesh, we can't but be subject to the war between good and evil.

Who is Perfectly good? No one has achieved that but the one who payed our price. I have known many wonderful and decent people and I try very hard to be one of them, but try as I might, not one day passes that I don't do or think or say something that I know He'd rather me not have. I look forward to a time when that is not my struggle nor the struggle of any person who has spent their life fighting the good fight.

It's ok to admit we're not ok...it's ok to say that we need help, that we can't do it ourselves. We're going to get the dirt washed off...we just got to get in the water.

I think nothing is as profound and full of real love and meaning as someone who will lay down their life for me. It becomes so much more meaningful to know that person was God and that He, of all beings, did not have to do this, did not have to care but He still did.

_"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."_ - John 15:13

Yeah...He calls us His friends.


----------



## mmoetc

If this heaven on earth what was what your god intended all along and he is all powerful and could have just created that in the first place why this millenial long social experiment pitting humans against each other with all the strife and suffering to winnow out the "worthy"? Wouldn't it have been easier to just create the worthy in the first place? I know, The Lord works in mysterious ways. He also seems to have a rather perverse sense of humor in those works.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> I think most Christians think of it as a magic formula. We were taught that all you have to do to get into Heaven is accept Jesus as your saviour, all would be forgiven and, voila, here's your golden ticket. Christians aren't expected to grow as a person, they're supposed to toe the line and do as they're told. I don't think it's a mistake that the Bible uses the analogy of the shepherd and his sheep.
> 
> Again, it's not the actual religion that a lot of us have an issue with, it's the misuse of it that is an issue. Follow whatever spiritual path that moves you, go to church every Sunday, kiss the Wailing Wall, travel to Mecca or dance naked in the forest in the moonlight. Just don't discriminate against others, don't break up families and don't make arbitrary laws that affect me and my life based on your religion.
> 
> That's a general "you", not personally directed at you, WIWT.


As a person who raises goats, I think of shepherd and flock differently. As the shepherd, I worry about the animals I have. I worry that they have access to the right food, that their health issues are caught early and treated, that I protect them from diseases, that they have clean water, shelter. I enjoy watching their interactions with me and others. I do control some large scale behaviors- I have fences. That keeps them from getting into bad situations and helps keep predators from attacking them. I actually like my animals, even when they are a PIB. I know they have their own agenda, to which I do a great deal of adapting of my own.
Probably the trouble with the analogy of shepherd and sheeps comes from the fact that very few actually have herds anymore and simply do not understand the relationship anymore. And certainly do not understand the worry and thought and effort that goes into a successful flock.

I wonder if much of the antireligion feeling that is expressed here has more to do with abandoning the constraints of childhood. Adolescent rebellion that is not reexamined until old age where the prospect of inevitable death drags one back to a review and renegotiation. The old "you can't tell me what to do anymore" of the teen ager. And everyone knows how that works out.

Me- I think that if people followed the ten commandments - ahem- religiously, with a few additions, the world would be a much better place. The worse problems come from people who tolerate their own mistakes, if they even acknowledge the mistakes in the first place, very easily while holding on tightly to the anger at other people's mistakes.

I guarantee that if your life did not impinge on mine, I would not care about your choices. But, if you can not tolerate any abridgement of your own freedoms when they spill over into mine, if you can not accept any negotiated agreement on mutual limits, then you best find an island to yourself.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Woolieface said:


> will be what was intended from the beginning.
> 
> Jesus not only paid the price for our wrongs but He does offer us the ability to be perfect in the world to come.
> 
> _"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."_ - John 15:13


You seem well versed in the meaning of the Bible. I have always had a question about how Jesus paid for our sins. Along with that how God gave his only begotten son. 
My understanding is Jesus came down to earth to walk and live among the mortals. During that time he acquired a following and ultimately was put to death on a cross. 
If this is in fact the gist of how he died for our sins and how God gave his son. I don't see the sacrifice either of them made for us. Jesus who is destine to live in the Kingdom of God for all eternity spent 33 years on a trip to earth where at worst he spent Five hours in pain then went back to his fathers house. Doesn't seem so bad. What am I missing?

Jim


----------



## where I want to

Jim Bunton said:


> You seem well versed in the meaning of the Bible. I have always had a question about how Jesus paid for our sins. Along with that how God gave his only begotten son.
> My understanding is Jesus came down to earth to walk and live among the mortals. During that time he acquired a following and ultimately was put to death on a cross.
> If this is in fact the gist of how he died for our sins and how God gave his son. I don't see the sacrifice either of them made for us. Jesus who is destine to live in the Kingdom of God for all eternity spent 33 years on a trip to earth where at worst he spent Five hours in pain then went back to his fathers house. Doesn't seem so bad. What am I missing?
> 
> Jim


The "why have you forsaken me" very human doubts....... The temptations that were real temptations- 

We all would like certainty and guarantees. It's the dealing with the lack of them that creates the word faith.


----------



## mnn2501

Truckinguy said:


> That's the message I was taught and it's reinforced all the time by Christians I talk to or read about. It's Heaven or Hell, no? I'm told that when I die I'll go to one or the other and I'll never achieve the level of perfection required to get into Heaven by myself because I'm not good enough therefore Jesus had to die to cleanse my soul in order to get into Heaven.
> 
> The part that really disturbs me is that perfectly good people are told they are no good from the get go. We are told we are born in sin and some of the words I've heard used by Christians to describe themselves over the years are "filthy, lost, weak, unworthy, worthless," among others. It's very sad that so many people think so little of themselves. It's psychology 101, tell people something for long enough and they'll start to believe it.
> 
> I believe I was born through the love of my Parents, I'm a pretty good guy who has done some dumb things in my life and some things I'm not proud of but I try to treat everyone fairly and in a friendly manner and I'm open to learning life lessons and becoming a better person. I don't believe I'm a bad enough person that it had to cost someone their life.
> 
> I think it's time for a Stuart Smalley moment. Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, doggone it, people like me!" There, doesn't that feel better?


Not every Christian religion teaches those things -- many do, but not all.


----------



## mnn2501

mmoetc said:


> If this heaven on earth what was what your god intended all along and he is all powerful and could have just created that in the first place why this millenial long social experiment pitting humans against each other with all the strife and suffering to winnow out the "worthy"? Wouldn't it have been easier to just create the worthy in the first place? I know, The Lord works in mysterious ways. He also seems to have a rather perverse sense of humor in those works.


Its a judge of our charector, if we didn't have the chance to try and God just placed us where we deserved to be by our very nature, then we would call unfair, He never gave us a chance


----------



## MoonRiver

If you go back to earliest man and then wander through time up to 2000 years ago, you almost have to end up with a bible.


----------



## Woolieface

mmoetc said:


> If this heaven on earth what was what your god intended all along and he is all powerful and could have just created that in the first place why this millenial long social experiment pitting humans against each other with all the strife and suffering to winnow out the "worthy"? Wouldn't it have been easier to just create the worthy in the first place? I know, The Lord works in mysterious ways. He also seems to have a rather perverse sense of humor in those works.


Is love real if you're forced to love? Everyone had a choice and everyone still does. Our ancestors chose poorly and relinquished the earth He gifted us with to His enemy. 

God must be God...He must adhere to His own law or He becomes a liar. Satan would use that fact to condemn us all by demanding the just penalty for our sin, but God had a genius plan for our redemption.


----------



## mnn2501

Jim Bunton said:


> You seem well versed in the meaning of the Bible. I have always had a question about how Jesus paid for our sins. Along with that how God gave his only begotten son.
> My understanding is Jesus came down to earth to walk and live among the mortals. During that time he acquired a following and ultimately was put to death on a cross.
> If this is in fact the gist of how he died for our sins and how God gave his son. I don't see the sacrifice either of them made for us. Jesus who is destine to live in the Kingdom of God for all eternity spent 33 years on a trip to earth where at worst he spent Five hours in pain then went back to his fathers house. Doesn't seem so bad. What am I missing?
> 
> Jim


How much time are you willing to put in to find the answer?


----------



## Woolieface

Jim Bunton said:


> You seem well versed in the meaning of the Bible. I have always had a question about how Jesus paid for our sins. Along with that how God gave his only begotten son.
> My understanding is Jesus came down to earth to walk and live among the mortals. During that time he acquired a following and ultimately was put to death on a cross.
> If this is in fact the gist of how he died for our sins and how God gave his son. I don't see the sacrifice either of them made for us. Jesus who is destine to live in the Kingdom of God for all eternity spent 33 years on a trip to earth where at worst he spent Five hours in pain then went back to his fathers house. Doesn't seem so bad. What am I missing?
> 
> Jim


Not only did He, a being who had every right to exist without experiencing suffering, suffer for us in a way few can comprehend physically, but He also suffered in that the Father had to turn from Him, leave Him in the sense of being spiritually separate. That's hard to grasp for us maybe...but He was rejected, His whole soul, put aside by the Father in that moment.

In the aftermath, it says Jesus descended to the pit. He suffered that separation and torment for the next three days and while doing so, He preached the gospel to those in the prison.

The suffering factor aside, we have to understand what the law of sin is. It is written..."the wages of sin is death." We die because we sin. We would not only die mortally but we would die eternally without something to justly pay the debt we incurred.

The price is life...and the life, it is said, is in the blood. Life's blood must be shed to pay for sin. In that principle He established animal sacrifice as a means by which the people could cover their sin temporarily and also remind them of the grave implications of sin.

No person with their own sin debt (incurred or inherited) could pay the price...not even for themselves. No animal life is sufficient to pay the debt of self aware, morally accountable beings. Thus came the Son, who was neither tainted by inherited nor incurred sin debt and could, and did, perfectly and knowingly, fulfill all of God's law. He was the only one who could.


----------



## Jim Bunton

mnn2501 said:


> How much time are you willing to put in to find the answer?


 I have read and studied the Bible in the past and that is one reason I am an atheist so I don't expect to spend too much time looking for an answer to a question I think is a work of fiction.

If someone would like to explain their belief I will read it with as open of mind as I can.

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton

Woolieface said:


> Not only did He, a being who had every right to exist without experiencing suffering, suffer for us in a way few can comprehend physically, but He also suffered in that the Father had to turn from Him, leave Him in the sense of being spiritually separate. That's hard to grasp for us maybe...but He was rejected, His whole soul, put aside by the Father in that moment. That pretty much describes what a baby goes through when it is brought in to the doctor for a check up and shots. The parents hold the baby down while it is stuck with a needle. I know many will view my comparison as ridiculous but to a baby it is horrible. As opposed to a man who believes he is the son of God and is confident he will rejoin his father in heaven.
> 
> In the aftermath, it says Jesus descended to the pit. He suffered that separation and torment for the next three days and while :yuck:doing so, He preached the gospel to those in the prison.
> 
> The suffering factor aside, we have to understand what the law of sin is. It is written..."the wages of sin is death." We die because we sin. We would not only die mortally but we would die eternally without something to justly pay the debt we incurred.
> 
> The price is life...and the life, it is said, is in the blood. Life's blood must be shed to pay for sin. In that principle He established animal sacrifice as a means by which the people could cover their sin temporarily and also remind them of the grave implications of sin.
> 
> No person with their own sin debt (incurred or inherited) could pay the price...not even for themselves. No animal life is sufficient to pay the debt of self aware, morally accountable beings. Thus came the Son, who was neither tainted by inherited nor incurred sin debt and could, and did, perfectly and knowingly, fulfill all of God's law. He was the only one who could.


I will drop this if you find it offensive.
Jim


----------



## Woolieface

Jim Bunton said:


> I will drop this if you find it offensive.
> Jim


No, I'm not offended. Just want to try to explain if I have the words for it.

I am not sure that any of us can comprehend what Jesus went through in His separation from the Father. In the case of the baby, the fear that the baby endures is fright based on his own survival instincts, but there is much more to the rending of a spiritual relationship that is so absolute that He calls Himself One with the Father. Not just a matter of fear or terror of losing one's mortal life. He was utterly alone, bereft of His father's compassion and presence, grief stricken, heart broken and without comfort.

I don't think we can assume how fully He was aware of what the whole of the Father's plans were. I believe He had been left with enough uncertainty that He would have to use faith, as we do. That would complete the necessary requirements of Him having led the perfect life under conditions that every human can relate to.


----------



## Jim Bunton

So he was left feeling like the a human? The main difference being he had actually had a direct face to face relationship with his father a better then any of us knew what he was. Shouldn't that have made it easier to have faith for the very short time he was left on this earth?

Jim


----------



## mnn2501

Jim Bunton said:


> I have read and studied the Bible in the past and that is one reason I am an atheist so I don't expect to spend too much time looking for an answer to a question I think is a work of fiction.
> 
> If someone would like to explain their belief I will read it with as open of mind as I can.
> 
> Jim


There is no brief answer *that would be satisfactory*. Took me a long time to figure it out and I never did figure it out until I was willing to do something with that knowledge.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Did the Bible provide you with a satisfactory explanation, or did you just accept it on faith?

Jim


----------



## Woolieface

Jim Bunton said:


> So he was left feeling like the a human? The main difference being he had actually had a direct face to face relationship with his father a better then any of us knew what he was. Shouldn't that have made it easier to have faith for the very short time he was left on this earth?
> 
> Jim


A lot of things about how Jesus felt and what He was thinking while things like His temptation, betrayal and crucifixion were taking place is not laid out for us in the text. What it's like being the Son of God on earth, I'm sure none of us can really know that. We can only try to understand in our limited way what that relationship to the Father is like and what Jesus had to face, but we are given a stark and gripping picture of what those feelings were doing to Him on the outside.
_
And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. - Luk 22:41-44_

But, it is true that He was left to face the fear, the turmoil and the pain that any human would... and above that, He had to experience the abandonment of the Father, which we never have to experience, even in the throes of a painful death.

Jesus cried out on the cross "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?". It's clear that He was not in possession of all knowledge of His whole plan and here is where His faith endured the ultimate challenge. One we never have to be able to relate to.


----------



## mnn2501

Jim Bunton said:


> Did the Bible provide you with a satisfactory explanation, or did you just accept it on faith?
> 
> Jim


Again there is no brief satisfactory answer, I wish there were but if there was a brief satisfactory answer everyone would be a Christian. I will say I was Agnostic for 20+ years prior to becoming Christian ( was raised Christian but got away from it in my late teens), it took me over a year of Study, prayer, fellow shipping and learning. 

I got my answer, but even if I could explain my entire process, it still wouldn't be enough for you if you didn't go through a similar process yourself.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Jim Bunton said:


> Did the Bible provide you with a satisfactory explanation, or did you just accept it on faith?
> 
> Jim


One of the biggest pitfalls to some finding God is organized religion.:facepalm:
Another thing is just the simplicity of looking all around you ,even your news reports now days,point to two forces God and the Devil .Well enough of that ,lets start looking near the end . Has Jerusalem became a stumbling block to all nations yet as the Bible says ? How close are we .

Zec 12:3
âAnd it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

Now here is another guy that wanted to know about a city from Geneses and what he found . Once you get past this then take a truthfully look at the great flood and the real reason for it ,not what you been told for sure .:thumb:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzVR5HTcR1I[/ame]


----------



## Shine

mnn2501 said:


> You do know then that it was written by a number of different men over a couple thousand years and put together in its final form by the Catholic Church 3 centuries after the last of those books and letters had been written, they also had dozens more books and letters that at one time or another were deemed Scripture by the various Christian Churches, that did not push the agenda the Roman Church was looking for?
> 
> Lets at least be honest about it if a claim like yours is going to be made.


One with the faith necessary to believe that the Bible is God's self revelation to His children sees that no matter who touched it, it was still "edited" by the Lord in Heaven.


----------



## Shine

Truckinguy said:


> It's in the Old Testament, I believe that is what the picking up sticks analogy is referring to. Are you saying the OT is obsolete and no longer relevant?


Haven't read through the threads since this post so to insure that it has been answered - It is relevant to show the history of God's mercies, kindnesses, love, perseverance, wrath, anger and punishments. Yes for that...

The old covenant was superseded by the new testament. 

Hebrews 8:13
In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and grows old is ready to vanish away.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> If this heaven on earth what was what your god intended all along and he is all powerful and could have just created that in the first place why this millenial long social experiment pitting humans against each other with all the strife and suffering to winnow out the "worthy"? Wouldn't it have been easier to just create the worthy in the first place? I know, The Lord works in mysterious ways. He also seems to have a rather perverse sense of humor in those works.


If you gave a mansion to a man that already has many mansions, will he appreciate your gift?


----------



## beenaround

mnn2501 said:


> You do know then that it was written by a number of different men over a couple thousand years and put together in its final form by the Catholic Church 3 centuries after the last of those books and letters had been written, they also had dozens more books and letters that at one time or another were deemed Scripture by the various Christian Churches, that did not push the agenda the Roman Church was looking for?
> 
> Lets at least be honest about it if a claim like yours is going to be made.


What's your point? I said man couldn't get along in order to put it together like it is.

Lets be honest, have you read it? If you have you've no doubt seen how the curse of the tower of Babel was reversed.

As for the dozens of others...I enjoyed reading them. How about you?:flame:


----------



## beenaround

Shine said:


> Haven't read through the threads since this post so to insure that it has been answered - It is relevant to show the history of God's mercies, kindnesses, love, perseverance, wrath, anger and punishments. Yes for that...
> 
> The old covenant was superseded by the new testament.
> 
> Hebrews 8:13
> In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and grows old is ready to vanish away.



the case can also be made that as wrong as the learned were the first time Christ came, so will the learned be the next time He comes. If anyone wants to know who their savior is, the first 39 books make it clear. They are in no way obsolete. As I read it if anyone wants to know where Christ is coming from with his teachings, they are all stories from the first 39. The reason His take on it ticked off the learned the first time was because they taught from those teachings, but never saw the truth of them the way they were meant to be. I suspect it will be the same the second time He comes.


----------



## beenaround

Shine said:


> One with the faith necessary to believe that the Bible is God's self revelation to His children sees that no matter who touched it, it was still "edited" by the Lord in Heaven.



Kind of. There is a faith needed, but it isn't something man can muster. The faith needed to save a man is the faith of Christ that is appropriated to man. Salvation is truly of God and as a man who is honest with himself, I'm thankful.


----------



## beenaround

Jim Bunton said:


> I have read and studied the Bible in the past and that is one reason I am an atheist so I don't expect to spend too much time looking for an answer to a question I think is a work of fiction.
> 
> If someone would like to explain their belief I will read it with as open of mind as I can.
> 
> Jim


Just curious, how did you read it? Why the disclaimer of "as open a mind as I can"?

If you've read it you must be familiar with it. Right? What did you think about the part where it clears children of the penalty of sin? You do know the test that proves sin don't you?

Creations screams the existence of God and you claim your atheism comes from reading a book?


----------



## mnn2501

Shine said:


> One with the faith necessary to believe that the Bible is God's self revelation to His children sees that no matter who touched it, it was still "edited" by the Lord in Heaven.


That's YOUR belief, not mine. My belief is in Christ, not necessarily a book.


----------



## Shine

mnn2501 said:


> That's YOUR belief, not mine


so be it, I am not here to change you, I was explaining my understanding... 

OK?

Edited you post I see, that's all right. I welcome you to the family that's spoke of in Thessalonians... We may differ in understandings but we are advised to love one another.


----------



## Tabitha

If there is no God, it does not matter. If there is, it does.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> If that were the message I'd been taught about Christianity, it would sour my opinion a lot too. That isn't... or Shouldn't be the message though. It's sure not at all what Jesus spoke of.
> 
> The message isn't that we can reach perfection, or really even do anything that is of our own works that qualifies us for eternal life. That has proven an unbearable burden to humanity since the first humans left paradise. Grace is our hope... Grace provided by the only One who ever did fulfill the whole law. He adopts us into His perfection when we accept that.



Matthew 5:38 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Might want to read that whole chapter. And then move on to James.

2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> As a person who raises goats, I think of shepherd and flock differently. As the shepherd, I worry about the animals I have. I worry that they have access to the right food, that their health issues are caught early and treated, that I protect them from diseases, that they have clean water, shelter. I enjoy watching their interactions with me and others. I do control some large scale behaviors- I have fences. That keeps them from getting into bad situations and helps keep predators from attacking them. I actually like my animals, even when they are a PIB. I know they have their own agenda, to which I do a great deal of adapting of my own.
> Probably the trouble with the analogy of shepherd and sheeps comes from the fact that very few actually have herds anymore and simply do not understand the relationship anymore. And certainly do not understand the worry and thought and effort that goes into a successful flock.
> 
> I wonder if much of the antireligion feeling that is expressed here has more to do with abandoning the constraints of childhood. Adolescent rebellion that is not reexamined until old age where the prospect of inevitable death drags one back to a review and renegotiation. The old "you can't tell me what to do anymore" of the teen ager. And everyone knows how that works out.
> 
> Me- I think that if people followed the ten commandments - ahem- religiously, with a few additions, the world would be a much better place. The worse problems come from people who tolerate their own mistakes, if they even acknowledge the mistakes in the first place, very easily while holding on tightly to the anger at other people's mistakes.
> 
> I guarantee that if your life did not impinge on mine, I would not care about your choices. But, if you can not tolerate any abridgement of your own freedoms when they spill over into mine, if you can not accept any negotiated agreement on mutual limits, then you best find an island to yourself.



You know what is really sad you and I are better shepherds than God is according to your description. I have sheep and goats and I do the same for my flock. Last time I checked God has left us out here to the mercy of the elements and the wolves and whatever illness blows through. There is no shelter provided, no care. We are on our own.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> Its a judge of our charector, if we didn't have the chance to try and God just placed us where we deserved to be by our very nature, then we would call unfair, He never gave us a chance



Would it not be better to never exist than to exist and be chucked in hell at the end? 

Oh and you might want to look into Calvinism because according to them you do get what you deserve no chance or choice given to you at all.


----------



## Truckinguy

Woolieface said:


> If that were the message I'd been taught about Christianity, it would sour my opinion a lot too. That isn't... or Shouldn't be the message though. It's sure not at all what Jesus spoke of.
> 
> The message isn't that we can reach perfection, or really even do anything that is of our own works that qualifies us for eternal life. That has proven an unbearable burden to humanity since the first humans left paradise. Grace is our hope... Grace provided by the only One who ever did fulfill the whole law. He adopts us into His perfection when we accept that.


Sorry, I"m just a little confused but it seems you just contradicted yourself. First you say that shouldn't be the message and then you seem to say that perfection is required for eternal life and we can't do it by ourselves. This is the message that I hear constantly from pretty much any Christian I talk to, from sitting through years of Christian services and Christian shows on TV. The message is that, no matter how hard we try, we don't have the capacity to be good enough to qualify for eternal life/Entrance to Heaven/avoidance of Hell. 

Not trying to be obtuse, trying to understand.


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> Sorry, I"m just a little confused but it seems you just contradicted yourself. First you say that shouldn't be the message and then you seem to say that perfection is required for eternal life and we can't do it by ourselves. This is the message that I hear constantly from pretty much any Christian I talk to, from sitting through years of Christian services and Christian shows on TV. The message is that, no matter how hard we try, we don't have the capacity to be good enough to qualify for eternal life/Entrance to Heaven/avoidance of Hell.
> 
> Not trying to be obtuse, trying to understand.


If I may answer......_we_ don't have the capacity by ourselves to reach that perfection. That is why we need Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is by the trials and tribulations of this life that our spirits are perfected.....as a lump of clay on the potter's wheel is shaped and then fired in the kiln to become a perfect vessel. Christ is our teacher & guide, the Holy Spirit is our helper who gives us the strength and faith of Christ needed to endure the trials.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> As a person who raises goats, I think of shepherd and flock differently. As the shepherd, I worry about the animals I have. I worry that they have access to the right food, that their health issues are caught early and treated, that I protect them from diseases, that they have clean water, shelter. I enjoy watching their interactions with me and others. I do control some large scale behaviors- I have fences. That keeps them from getting into bad situations and helps keep predators from attacking them. I actually like my animals, even when they are a PIB. I know they have their own agenda, to which I do a great deal of adapting of my own.
> Probably the trouble with the analogy of shepherd and sheeps comes from the fact that very few actually have herds anymore and simply do not understand the relationship anymore. And certainly do not understand the worry and thought and effort that goes into a successful flock.
> 
> I wonder if much of the antireligion feeling that is expressed here has more to do with abandoning the constraints of childhood. Adolescent rebellion that is not reexamined until old age where the prospect of inevitable death drags one back to a review and renegotiation. The old "you can't tell me what to do anymore" of the teen ager. And everyone knows how that works out.
> 
> Me- I think that if people followed the ten commandments - ahem- religiously, with a few additions, the world would be a much better place. The worse problems come from people who tolerate their own mistakes, if they even acknowledge the mistakes in the first place, very easily while holding on tightly to the anger at other people's mistakes.
> 
> I guarantee that if your life did not impinge on mine, I would not care about your choices. But, if you can not tolerate any abridgement of your own freedoms when they spill over into mine, if you can not accept any negotiated agreement on mutual limits, then you best find an island to yourself.


You have some good points on the subject of flocks. I understand the care that a shepherd gives to the flock and I know the care that I put in to my animals. I don't consider myself as a sheep, though. I"m a strong human being that can stand on my own two feet and take care of myself. 

If you're talking about any anti religion feeling that is expressed in my posts I can tell you it has nothing to do with any adolescent rebellion, rather it comes from seeing so many people cause so many others so much grief and anguish using religion as the basis. The pain and suffering I've seen from so many people being separated from their families, made to feel inferior and isolated and some driven to suicide is heartbreaking. It very nearly cost me my life when I was basically living on the streets for three years starting when I was 17. Fortunately, I had some friends who saved me who, surprising to me at the time, were generally non religious.

I"m perfectly willing to negotiate mutual limits on freedoms and adopt laws that make sense and have actual practical applications. I think we can agree that the aforementioned crimes of murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc should have a law against them for our mutual benefit. However, if your Bible says that you are forbidden from working on Sunday I won't put up with a law that prohibits everyone from working on Sunday because there is no reason for it. If you choose not to work on Sunday, that's great, I wouldn't try to pass a law to force you to.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Truckinguy said:


> You have some good points on the subject of flocks. I understand the care that a shepherd gives to the flock and I know the care that I put in to my animals. I don't consider myself as a sheep, though. I"m a strong human being that can stand on my own two feet and take care of myself.
> 
> If you're talking about any anti religion feeling that is expressed in my posts I can tell you it has nothing to do with any adolescent rebellion, rather it comes from seeing so many people cause so many others so much grief and anguish using religion as the basis. The pain and suffering I've seen from so many people being separated from their families, made to feel inferior and isolated and some driven to suicide is heartbreaking. It very nearly cost me my life when I was basically living on the streets for three years starting when I was 17. Fortunately, I had some friends who saved me who, surprising to me at the time, were generally non religious.
> 
> I"m perfectly willing to negotiate mutual limits on freedoms and adopt laws that make sense and have actual practical applications. I think we can agree that the aforementioned crimes of murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc should have a law against them for our mutual benefit. However, if your Bible says that you are forbidden from working on Sunday I won't put up with a law that prohibits everyone from working on Sunday because there is no reason for it. If you choose not to work on Sunday, that's great, I wouldn't try to pass a law to force you to.


Well I think Jesus settled all the Sabbath business more than once ,they got quite ill at him for a little corn picking . Being religious don't have one thing to do with being a follower of Christ ,now if one can get the grasp of that ,one has a good start to understanding .What many over look is if I steer you wrong or anyone that is on my head . For that reason I stick with the Bible only anything else is confusion .


----------



## Shine

There are people on here that somehow expect Christians to be perfect. Ain't gonna happen. There are people on here that wish to detract from Christ's Message because Humans are Humans. 

While people can beat up on me for this, I believe that Christ looks at our intentions, He covered us with the Blood of the Unblemished Lamb. Both God and Jesus understands the sinful nature of mankind, God makes it easier for some with the unresistable beckoning, others He leaves in limbo - there is no accounting on our level as to why and wherefore.

We are placed in a sea of turmoil, we have been provided with the Word, by the text of the Bible, the Word has saved us. It is now upon us to embrace the aspect of surrender.

For those that think "surrender" is a pacifistic term, I would offer that any believer that operates within the power of Jesus, if felt with an honest and contrite heart, can understand that there are no boundaries.

This does not mean that we can change the balls that pop up in the lotto machine, it means something totally different. It means that this life upon this spinning chunk of dirt and metal is insignificant. It means that He will watch to see if you love others, He will watch to see what is in your heart.

I submit this as what I understand.

When, if you could, you looked back at earth from a camera that you might place upon Pluto and compare the photo to the picture that you might have taken from Pluto's moon, they would appear the same. When God looks upon us, even the most simple sin appears to be on level with the most heinous serial killer. Sin is sin. God offers us an eternity where we do not have to sin... Yet, you must believe...


----------



## Fennick

Patchouli said:


> You know what is really sad you and I are better shepherds than God is according to your description. I have sheep and goats and I do the same for my flock. *Last time I checked God has left us out here to the mercy of the elements and the wolves and whatever illness blows through. There is no shelter provided, no care. We are on our own*.


I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, haven't posted before this either, just sort of been skimming through clicking on the "like" button occasionally, but your post jumped out at me and I want to express an opinion after reading the bolded part above. Understand, this is just my opinion.

I don't feel like we're at the mercy of elements and wolves and have no shelter or care or that we're all on our own. It has nothing to do with whether or not any god has neglected to provide those things for us though. 

I look at it like this. No other living things on earth have those protections either, they're all on their own to contend with the elements and other hazards of living too, (including humans being a hazard to them) so why should we humans be special and be favoured with those protections if other living things don't have them too? 

We, as humans, do possess something superior that no other living things on earth have got and it protects us. That superior thing enables us to overcome all those things and not need any special protection or favouritism from any god. By comparison to humans all other living things are disabled and handicapped, they live a brutal life and need to be protected by humans. That superior thing is the human brain. We wouldn't be here where we are now, typing on a keyboard inside a comfortable dwelling enjoying all the benefits and luxuries that we have been able to provide for ourselves if we didn't have our superior brains. Go look in current events forum and see the announcement released just today that an effective vaccine against Ebola virus has been created. We created that vaccine and many other vaccines against illnesses that blow through, it wasn't the work of some god, and it's because of our superior brains.

Now creationists might say that the superior human brain was created by a god and evolutionists might say that the superior human brain evolved out of something that was just another animal that evolved out of some kind of primal slime or whatever. That's neither here nor there to me because the fact remains that we do have superior brains and everything else does not, and because of our superior brains we don't need a god's protection but all other things do need our protection and even need protection _from_ us in those times when humans get stupid and destructive. 

Maybe some god planned it to be that way, maybe not, (and I don't care to speculate about that - it doesn't matter to me) but I can't complain about not having any protection or special treatment from a god when I know I don't need it because I already am special and can protect myself because of my superior human brain. We aren't on our own, we humans have each other for support and to learn from and to learn new things together and continue to create new things together when we put our superior brains together and I'm very, very happy and thankful for that.

Humans ----> :idea:

:happy2:


----------



## JJ Grandits

Is there a God?

Eventually everyone of us will find out.


----------



## Jim Bunton

beenaround said:


> Just curious, how did you read it? Why the disclaimer of "as open a mind as I can"?
> 
> If you've read it you must be familiar with it. Right? What did you think about the part where it clears children of the penalty of sin? You do know the test that proves sin don't you?
> 
> Creations screams the existence of God and you claim your atheism comes from reading a book?


I read it over 40 years ago while in high school and I don't recall a lot of the details of what I read. As far as the open mind comment it is an acknowledgement that we all go into this subject with our preconceived ideas. 

Jim


----------



## Truckinguy

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well I think Jesus settled all the Sabbath business more than once ,they got quite ill at him for a little corn picking . *Being religious don't have one thing to do with being a follower of Christ* ,now if one can get the grasp of that ,one has a good start to understanding .What many over look is if I steer you wrong or anyone that is on my head . For that reason I stick with the Bible only anything else is confusion .


Ah yes, I think I would agree with you there. I think there is a huge difference between being religious and being spiritual. I was also taught, correctly I believe, that the only connection with God that matters is your own personal connection, not one that goes through anyone else or relies on some man made teaching structure that is open to the control and manipulation of humans.

It's disturbing that there are blind masses who follow their religious leaders without question and rely on them for their interpretation of the Bible. Your average Christian doesn't have the time or the resources, access to original manuscripts or the knowledge of the languages involved to get the accurate meaning from the original writers so they have to rely on the trust of those who can do that. It can be a bit of a concern when many words can have different meanings and thus change the context of the passage.


----------



## mnn2501

Patchouli said:


> Would it not be better to never exist than to exist and be chucked in hell at the end?


If you believe in the cartoon version of hell so many believe in. The English word 'Hell' is used for 4 very different words in the Bible; sheol, hades, tartarus and gehenna. None of which has the meaning most people believe 'Hell' to have.


If you are going to believe in the Bible, or not believe in the Bible, at least learn what it actually says. Just reading an English version once or a number of times, won't give you the full picture. The really sad thing is that many people preaching from the Bible, don't really understand the Bible, and it causes many drastic misunderstandings which no doubt has led many away from God.



Patchouli said:


> Oh and you might want to look into Calvinism because according to them you do get what you deserve no chance or choice given to you at all.


I looked into it, To me its a sad misunderstanding of what scripture actually says.


----------



## Truckinguy

mnn2501 said:


> If you believe in the cartoon version of hell so many believe in. The English word 'Hell' is used for 4 very different words in the Bible; sheol, hades, tartarus and gehenna. None of which has the meaning most people believe 'Hell' to have.
> 
> 
> If you are going to believe in the Bible, or not believe in the Bible, *at least learn what it actually says*. Just reading an English version once or a number of times, won't give you the full picture. *The really sad thing is that many people preaching from the Bible, don't really understand the Bible, and it causes many drastic misunderstandings which no doubt has led many away from God.*
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into it, To me its a sad misunderstanding of what scripture actually says.


As demonstrated in your first sentence, the Bible can actually say different things depending on who translated it. Most people don't have the time or knowledge to read the Bible in a different language or read the original transcripts in order to get a better perspective.

If we are taught the cartoon version of Hell, how would we believe otherwise? I was brought up for the first 16 years of my life intensely studying the Bible and since then have done a lot of research on Christianity and other religions and my experience is that it is rare to find any reference to Hell as anything other than the fire and brimstone eternal punishment. It's reinforced in culture and preached on every Christian TV show I've watched.

Unless people can refer intelligently to the original writings, they're forced to accept what is spoon fed to them by others who may also be misinformed themselves.

I agree with your statement that I bolded red and perhaps I should include myself in that category. I suppose I"m trying to reconcile what I was taught in the first place versus what I've observed and experienced in direct opposition to that.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Matthew 5:38 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
> 
> Might want to read that whole chapter. And then move on to James.
> 
> 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
> 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
> 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
> 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
> 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
> 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
> 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
> 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
> 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
> 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
> 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
> 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


Have you ever known someone who would say "I love you", but their actions told you something altogether different? When faith is real, it manifests in your life. It effects your decisions, it has an impact on your moral standard and it compells you to trust God when natural instics would tell others to rely on themselves. Saying you have faith but showing it nowhere in your life speaks volumes about the sincerity thereof. All the same...works can never save anyone, they are simply the evidence of faith.

Perfection is our destination...salvation is how we'll get there.


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> Sorry, I"m just a little confused but it seems you just contradicted yourself. First you say that shouldn't be the message and then you seem to say that perfection is required for eternal life and we can't do it by ourselves. This is the message that I hear constantly from pretty much any Christian I talk to, from sitting through years of Christian services and Christian shows on TV. The message is that, no matter how hard we try, we don't have the capacity to be good enough to qualify for eternal life/Entrance to Heaven/avoidance of Hell.
> 
> Not trying to be obtuse, trying to understand.


Perfection is required, but we are unable to achieve it ourselves in our mortal life. Jesus is the substitution for the perfection we can not obtain in this world. In the world to come, we too will be perfect as, as He is.

Our inability to do what is required to live an eternal life is why God sent His mercy in the person of His Son. He could justly destroy the human race...but instead He gave All for us that we might one day experience a life without death, sorrow or sin.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> You know what is really sad you and I are better shepherds than God is according to your description. I have sheep and goats and I do the same for my flock. Last time I checked God has left us out here to the mercy of the elements and the wolves and whatever illness blows through. There is no shelter provided, no care. We are on our own.


_
From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy.

I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. _- Psalm 61:2-4


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> As demonstrated in your first sentence, the Bible can actually say different things depending on who translated it. Most people don't have the time or knowledge to read the Bible in a different language or read the original transcripts in order to get a better perspective.
> 
> If we are taught the cartoon version of Hell, how would we believe otherwise? I was brought up for the first 16 years of my life intensely studying the Bible and since then have done a lot of research on Christianity and other religions and my experience is that it is rare to find any reference to Hell as anything other than the fire and brimstone eternal punishment. It's reinforced in culture and preached on every Christian TV show I've watched.
> 
> Unless people can refer intelligently to the original writings, they're forced to accept what is spoon fed to them by others who may also be misinformed themselves.
> 
> I agree with your statement that I bolded red and perhaps I should include myself in that category. I suppose I"m trying to reconcile what I was taught in the first place versus what I've observed and experienced in direct opposition to that.


I've found this site to be a great tool - http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=61&v=3&t=KJV#s=539003

For every word in the bible, there is provided there a reference you can click and see the literal translation in its original language. It clears up so much for those who have questions about what was really stated before the Bible was translated into various languages...and it's not time consuming really. The Bible is worth anyone's time to go through at least once and really read with an open heart and mind... and with these nifty, newfangled computer helps, we don't have to crack open dusty old tomes in an ancient library to do it.


----------



## Truckinguy

Woolieface said:


> I've found this site to be a great tool - http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=61&v=3&t=KJV#s=539003
> 
> For every word in the bible, there is provided there a reference you can click and see the literal translation in its original language. It clears up so much for those who have questions about what was really stated before the Bible was translated into various languages...and it's not time consuming really. The Bible is worth anyone's time to go through at least once and really read with an open heart and mind... and with these nifty, newfangled computer helps, we don't have to crack open dusty old tomes in an ancient library to do it.


Hey, cool site. It even has the Darby version of the Bible I was raised on. I'll check it out in more detail later in the weekend.


----------



## mnn2501

Truckinguy said:


> As demonstrated in your first sentence, the Bible can actually say different things depending on who translated it. Most people don't have the time or knowledge to read the Bible in a different language or read the original transcripts in order to get a better perspective.
> 
> If we are taught the cartoon version of Hell, how would we believe otherwise? I was brought up for the first 16 years of my life intensely studying the Bible and since then have done a lot of research on Christianity and other religions and my experience is that it is rare to find any reference to Hell as anything other than the fire and brimstone eternal punishment. It's reinforced in culture and preached on every Christian TV show I've watched.
> 
> Unless people can refer intelligently to the original writings, they're forced to accept what is spoon fed to them by others who may also be misinformed themselves.
> 
> I agree with your statement that I bolded red and perhaps I should include myself in that category. I suppose I"m trying to reconcile what I was taught in the first place versus what I've observed and experienced in direct opposition to that.


I grew up in the same kind of Church, one preaching hellfire and damnation. I left the Church at age 17, turned from God and didn't look back for 20 years, when I discovered my ideas of the Bible and religion were not necessarily the correct ones and I got a witness of Christ, now at age 59 I am still studying and developing my beliefs, but I'm not just taking someones word for it.


----------



## Tabitha

This is something I have given a lot of thought and struggle to over the years. 

To be considered are Motives. Once the "worst" was over for the early church, and it became the accepted "religion" of the state, the wolves in sheep clothing started having a hay day. Wherever there is money to be gotten off the flock, there will be a wolf there to manipulate and take it. When there is power and control to be gained, not the righteous but power hungry psychopaths will be there to grab it. The concept of hell, which as such is not biblical, has been a major tool to manipulate the "christian" masses. 

Matthew 10:16 
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

This is the impression I got over the years. God has let us loose in an evil world. 
He is not raising up a bunch of wussies. No , faith that shows results, overcoming evil, a struggle, where you need to put on the armor. 

Eph.6:11-18 
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Tabitha said:


> This is something I have given a lot of thought and struggle to over the years.
> 
> To be considered are Motives. Once the "worst" was over for the early church, and it became the accepted "religion" of the state, the wolves in sheep clothing started having a hay day. Wherever there is money to be gotten off the flock, there will be a wolf there to manipulate and take it. When there is power and control to be gained, not the righteous but power hungry psychopaths will be there to grab it. The concept of hell, which as such is not biblical, has been a major tool to manipulate the "christian" masses.
> 
> Matthew 10:16
> Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
> 
> This is the impression I got over the years. God has let us loose in an evil world.
> He is not raising up a bunch of wussies. No , faith that shows results, overcoming evil, a struggle, where you need to put on the armor.
> 
> Eph.6:11-18
> 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
> 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
> 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
> 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
> 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
> 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
> 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
> 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


Your statement 

The concept of hell, which as such is not biblical, has been a major tool to manipulate the "christian" masses. 
That is the lie the Devil has convinced so many of .

Now granted should people follow the rest of your post they would be on the right track . But keep in mind also .
13 âEnter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


----------



## Shine

MNN2501 said in part: "but I'm not just taking someones word for it."

This is the best policy, test EVERYTHING against scriptures, He has revealed His own secret to you and others in the way that He has seen fit. If you are pure in your learning then His truth will come to you in His time...


----------



## Dutchie

gapeach said:


> I'm not gonna get all wrapped up in it but frankly, I think they see it as a threat.


How do you figure that?


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> If you believe in the cartoon version of hell so many believe in. The English word 'Hell' is used for 4 very different words in the Bible; sheol, hades, tartarus and gehenna. None of which has the meaning most people believe 'Hell' to have.
> 
> 
> If you are going to believe in the Bible, or not believe in the Bible, at least learn what it actually says. Just reading an English version once or a number of times, won't give you the full picture. The really sad thing is that many people preaching from the Bible, don't really understand the Bible, and it causes many drastic misunderstandings which no doubt has led many away from God.
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into it, To me its a sad misunderstanding of what scripture actually says.


You know I get sick and tired of these snotty little comments. I know more about the Bible than most of the posters here. I have read it cover to cover multiple times and I studied Greek and Hebrew so I can read it in the original languages too. What did you do read a website? Hit a concordance? 

I have also studied with a Rabbi for a couple of years so I can give you the Talmudic thought on the subject too.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> Have you ever known someone who would say "I love you", but their actions told you something altogether different? When faith is real, it manifests in your life. It effects your decisions, it has an impact on your moral standard and it compells you to trust God when natural instics would tell others to rely on themselves. Saying you have faith but showing it nowhere in your life speaks volumes about the sincerity thereof. All the same...works can never save anyone, they are simply the evidence of faith.
> 
> Perfection is our destination...salvation is how we'll get there.



I am sorry but that passage in James is very, very clear. Justification by works. There is no loophole there. If he wanted to say the proof is in the pudding he would have worded it differently.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> _
> From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
> 
> For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy.
> 
> I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. _- Psalm 61:2-4



That's a lovely bit of musical lyrics there. Sadly it doesn't happen in anything other than a spiritual sense. Physically we are still out here at the mercy of those elements, wolves and diseases.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> That's a lovely bit of musical lyrics there. Sadly it doesn't happen in anything other than a spiritual sense. Physically we are still out here at the mercy of those elements, wolves and diseases.


Yea and if you don't see any wolves you may just be one :thumb:


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> I am sorry but that passage in James is very, very clear. Justification by works. There is no loophole there. If he wanted to say the proof is in the pudding he would have worded it differently.


This explains what I understand, my comments at the end:

*Paradoxical Terminology
*

~~~
In Romans 4, Paul addresses the question, How was Abraham justified? In this question, "justified" means "reckoned righteous before God," and Paul's answer is: by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, received by faith alone. But when James asks how Abraham was justified, he is assuming that Abraham already had faith. So his question really is, How was Abraham justified in claiming to have faith? In this question, _justified_ means "judged to have made a valid claim," and James's answer is: by producing good works. The questions are different, the answers are different, the justifications are different.
Paul speaks of a justification that comes by faith and not by works, while James speaks of a justification that comes by works and not by faith. Paul teaches us that we are constituted righteous before God by faith alone. James teaches us that the genuineness of our faith is demonstrated by our works.
*Faith Completed by Works*

I will not attempt to answer all the remaining questions that arise from James 2, but there are two that require some comment. First, what does James mean in 2:22 when he says that Abraham's "faith was completed by his works"? In the Roman Catholic interpretation, this is taken to mean that there is a deficiency in faith as a means of justification that must be compensated for by works.
But this interpretation rests on a misunderstanding of the verb that James uses, translated "completed" by the ESV. It means "to bring something to its conclusion" or "to bring it to fruition." James is not saying that faith is deficient as the means of justification, but that it comes to its intended goal when we produce good works. This is exactly the thought that follows when James explains the completion of faith in verse 23.


http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/02a.html



When God has endowed us with the necessary faith then the "works" will be pleasing to us, they will give us the warmness of love, true love. So naturally we progress to that point, who we were before the endowment is not who we are now. I believe that most everyone goes in the direction of least resistance, when we are endowed with the Holy Spirit then our faith is shown through our works because, inside us, that is the path of least resistance [internally]. 

ETA: Further re-reading of the verse quoted would cast light on those that profess faith but do not show "works" and James is saying all together that if the faith is in you then the works will show others of that faith, if you falsely say that you have the faith then it will be evident by your empty "works". 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/james2-24.html

*What about James 2:24* (&#8220;You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only&#8221; James 2:24, NKJV.)
&#8220;&#8230;James is dealing with people who profess to be Christians, and yet they don't evidence the reality of their faith by their works [deeds]. Over, and over again&#8230; people will say they have faith and they don't have works, and James is saying that real faith always produces works as a result&#8230; The question is, 'A man may say that he has faith, but will that faith justify him?' If it is just a 'said' faith&#8221;&#8212;no, it won't!&#8221; (D. James Kennedy in&#8220;Irreconcilable Differences,&#8221; a roundtable discussion and television broadcast, Ft. Lauderdale FL, 1995)​


----------



## beenaround

Jim Bunton said:


> I read it over 40 years ago while in high school and I don't recall a lot of the details of what I read. As far as the open mind comment it is an acknowledgement that we all go into this subject with our preconceived ideas.
> 
> Jim


well that's something, not much to hang your hat on IMO or have any real ideas about the book. The book is used all the time by anyone who wants control over people and not just religion.

I kind of get off on reading books people have a hard time getting through, some have been worth it. When it comes to the bible I got to the point where any questions asked were left to it to answer and whatever answer it gave that was all there was.

For example sin came into man when man knew good and evil, the book talks about children not having that ability. An age of accountability is said to exist, it's evident when a person realizes they are naked.

Or another example would be those who claim the ark couldn't hold all those animals. It never said at what stage of development they were. The same people claim we came from pond scum. 

One last example, the unforgivable sin. The books of the law are the only place that mentions sin the has no sacrifice and must be paid by the doer. Willful, intentional sin is the kind. 

I lied, one more. There are names that are blotted out from the book of life. If you remember the books accounting of names you know the lists are long and arduous. If you'd of taken the time to learn them you'd see names in future lists removed, you also get a glimpse at why those names were gone. Kind of be good to know what those people did don't you think?


----------



## beenaround

Shine said:


> Twhen we are endowed with the Holy Spirit then our faith is shown through our works because, inside us, that is the path of least resistance [internally].


Then His Faith is shown. It's a gift.

The first 39 use the descriptive attributes of God as His name, I don't think anything change with the last 27. Faith, Hope, Joy... the things we need are not things, they are God. If we have them through us they are God/Holy Spirit in us.

A thing I noticed about everyone in the bible except one was David. It is said about him that the Holy Spirit never left him. His son on the other hand had a definite time listed when He left him and the days grew dark.


----------



## beenaround

Patchouli said:


> I am sorry but that passage in James is very, very clear. Justification by works. There is no loophole there. If he wanted to say the proof is in the pudding he would have worded it differently.


It is very clear, now be honest with yourself and ask if you meet the requirements? There is only one who did and it is His perfect works that are attributed to us, or you can try and get by on your own. Remember the same book requires perfection, that is also crystal clear.

As I said before, the book is either telling a person why they are undone or who their salvation is. The last 27 books are the law for the days between Christs first coming and His second and I'm positive when He comes again we will be found just as wrong and stiff necked as the people were when He first came.

This passage points right at people who think they have dotted all there is to be dotted. Taking credit for works God does is ungratefulness, a sin.

There's good news though.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> This explains what I understand, my comments at the end:
> 
> *Paradoxical Terminology
> *
> 
> ~~~
> In Romans 4, Paul addresses the question, How was Abraham justified? In this question, "justified" means "reckoned righteous before God," and Paul's answer is: by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, received by faith alone. But when James asks how Abraham was justified, he is assuming that Abraham already had faith. So his question really is, How was Abraham justified in claiming to have faith? In this question, _justified_ means "judged to have made a valid claim," and James's answer is: by producing good works. The questions are different, the answers are different, the justifications are different.
> Paul speaks of a justification that comes by faith and not by works, while James speaks of a justification that comes by works and not by faith. Paul teaches us that we are constituted righteous before God by faith alone. James teaches us that the genuineness of our faith is demonstrated by our works.
> *Faith Completed by Works*
> 
> I will not attempt to answer all the remaining questions that arise from James 2, but there are two that require some comment. First, what does James mean in 2:22 when he says that Abraham's "faith was completed by his works"? In the Roman Catholic interpretation, this is taken to mean that there is a deficiency in faith as a means of justification that must be compensated for by works.
> But this interpretation rests on a misunderstanding of the verb that James uses, translated "completed" by the ESV. It means "to bring something to its conclusion" or "to bring it to fruition." James is not saying that faith is deficient as the means of justification, but that it comes to its intended goal when we produce good works. This is exactly the thought that follows when James explains the completion of faith in verse 23.
> 
> 
> http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/02a.html
> 
> 
> 
> When God has endowed us with the necessary faith then the "works" will be pleasing to us, they will give us the warmness of love, true love. So naturally we progress to that point, who we were before the endowment is not who we are now. I believe that most everyone goes in the direction of least resistance, when we are endowed with the Holy Spirit then our faith is shown through our works because, inside us, that is the path of least resistance [internally].
> 
> ETA: Further re-reading of the verse quoted would cast light on those that profess faith but do not show "works" and James is saying all together that if the faith is in you then the works will show others of that faith, if you falsely say that you have the faith then it will be evident by your empty "works".
> 
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/james2-24.html
> 
> *What about James 2:24* (âYou see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith onlyâ James 2:24, NKJV.)
> ââ¦James is dealing with people who profess to be Christians, and yet they don't evidence the reality of their faith by their works [deeds]. Over, and over againâ¦ people will say they have faith and they don't have works, and James is saying that real faith always produces works as a resultâ¦ The question is, 'A man may say that he has faith, but will that faith justify him?' If it is just a 'said' faithââno, it won't!â (D. James Kennedy inâIrreconcilable Differences,â a roundtable discussion and television broadcast, Ft. Lauderdale FL, 1995)​


The Arminian position and the Calvinist opinion on salvation and a mishmash of the 2 have pretty much been the object of theological debate from the very beginning of Christianity. You can find very solid support for both in scripture. It's one of those areas where the Bible is so contradictory that it just leaves everyone fighting. Trust me I have read all the spin on both positions. The simple fact is anyone who is truly honest will admit you can not definitively prove either position. Faith alone or Faith plus works are equally supported. Either side has a pile of verses they have to try and spin away.


----------



## Shine

If salvation can be achieved through works then there is Glory for us to claim in the achievement to Salvation. This would of necessity take away Glory from God. Do you think that we can redeem ourselves through our works?


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> You know I get sick and tired of these snotty little comments I know more about the Bible than most of the posters here. I have read it cover to cover multiple times and I studied Greek and Hebrew so I can read it in the original languages too. What did you do read a website? Hit a concordance?
> 
> I have also studied with a Rabbi for a couple of years so I can give you the Talmudic thought on the subject too.



Come on Patchouli, of all the people I read, that have different opinions than my own on several subject I have found your reasoning and style sound even if I disagree. The posters thoughts to me were far from out of line or untrue. 

A vast majority of followers of faith do just that they follow, it's easy someone else sets their rules. 

Your proclaimed resume is impressive, but try to remember others do go to great lengths to understand their faith. The whole concept of the Talmud, right,,?

Shalom


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> If salvation can be achieved through works then there is Glory for us to claim in the achievement to Salvation. This would of necessity take away Glory from God. Do you think that we can redeem ourselves through our works?


You are bringing an assumption to scripture and then spinning the Bible to suit your assumption. That spin is Calvinist.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> I am sorry but that passage in James is very, very clear. Justification by works. There is no loophole there. If he wanted to say the proof is in the pudding he would have worded it differently.


Considering this is a definition for the word "justify", I think what I explained fits the text: _dikaio&#333; - to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered_

In the verses from James, here is an example given:

_"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." - 2:19_

As an example of belief in God, but no evidence of faith.

and...

_"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." - 2:23_

As an example of the evidence of faith being in Abraham's actions to follow what he was promised, not what his eyes could see.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> That's a lovely bit of musical lyrics there. Sadly it doesn't happen in anything other than a spiritual sense. Physically we are still out here at the mercy of those elements, wolves and diseases.


Did you notice in that Psalm how trust was a conspicuous element of the message? You would be surprised what He will provide to someone who will trust Him for it.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> Did you notice in that Psalm how trust was a conspicuous element of the message? You would be surprised what He will provide to someone who will trust Him for it.


You might be surprised how many trusting Christians die every day. For every thankful Christian whose house didn't get plowed down by a tornado there are 49 who lost their homes. Now you spin that as God has a plan for all the people who lost their homes. I look at it and say tornadoes are strange things and they can run through a neighborhood of 50 homes and take out all but one. You see God and I see nature. But ultimately if 49 out of 50 homes are going to get annihilated I don't see much protection from God do you? Much benefit to faith?


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> You might be surprised how many trusting Christians die every day. For every thankful Christian whose house didn't get plowed down by a tornado there are 49 who lost their homes. Now you spin that as God has a plan for all the people who lost their homes. I look at it and say tornadoes are strange things and they can run through a neighborhood of 50 homes and take out all but one. You see God and I see nature. But ultimately if 49 out of 50 homes are going to get annihilated I don't see much protection from God do you? Much benefit to faith?


We all die...trusting and not. We all see adversity, Christian or not. 

_And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose._ - Romans 8:28

The story doesn't end at a burnt house nor even a mortal death. There is no end to His provision. Humans are incredibly short sighted by nature.

Yes, I've seen one church spared in a devastated town and one life spared out of hundreds who died and one soul saved out of thousands who rejected Him.


----------



## Guest

[No message]


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> We all die...trusting and not. We all see adversity, Christian or not.
> 
> _And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose._ - Romans 8:28
> 
> The story doesn't end at a burnt house nor even a mortal death. There is no end to His provision. Humans are incredibly short sighted by nature.
> 
> Yes, I've seen one church spared in a devastated town and one life spared out of hundreds who died and one soul saved out of thousands who rejected Him.



My point was just to show the difference in our perspectives.  Every religion comes up with reasons for why their God either chooses not to directly affect their followers lives or seems erratic in the way they affect them. To the outside observer is just looks like no one is actually at the controls at all. That is one of the many observations that eventually kicked me into Apatheism.


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> My point was just to show the difference in our perspectives.  Every religion comes up with reasons for why their God either chooses not to directly affect their followers lives or seems erratic in the way they affect them. To the outside observer is just looks like no one is actually at the controls at all. That is one of the many observations that eventually kicked me into Apatheism.


Yes, it does appear that way but once you've been shown Glory, there is no way to "un-see" it.


----------



## Tabitha

Sawmill Jim said:


> Your statement
> 
> The concept of hell, which as such is not biblical, has been a major tool to manipulate the "christian" masses.
> That is the lie the Devil has convinced so many of .
> 
> Now granted should people follow the rest of your post they would be on the right track . But keep in mind also .
> 13 âEnter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


....so, broad is the road that leads to destruction....I don't get what you are getting at. Should it say "that leads to life forever in an everburning hell?" Instead of destruction, by fire btw.


----------



## mnn2501

Patchouli said:


> You know I get sick and tired of these snotty little comments..


What snotty little comments are you talking about?

You can prove almost anything out of the Bible as long as you are willing to put your blinders on and come to it with a preordained opinion -- which most people do.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> My point was just to show the difference in our perspectives.  Every religion comes up with reasons for why their God either chooses not to directly affect their followers lives or seems erratic in the way they affect them. To the outside observer is just looks like no one is actually at the controls at all. That is one of the many observations that eventually kicked me into Apatheism.


It would make sense to a scholar. Right now I'm reading a book on the early history of the Byzantine Empire. Part of that was the hot button religious question of whether Jesus was the eternal Son of God or subordinate and created by God. And reading the history of that, tied into politics as it was, you can see that none of it simply sprang into existence arbitrarily. It was a furious debate that changed and challenged heads of state. 
Saying that your version doesn't seem to do what you expect it to do has more to do with your expectations than anything else.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> My point was just to show the difference in our perspectives.  Every religion comes up with reasons for why their God either chooses not to directly affect their followers lives or seems erratic in the way they affect them. To the outside observer is just looks like no one is actually at the controls at all. That is one of the many observations that eventually kicked me into Apatheism.


I totally understand that from outside first hand experience of God's involvement in a life, it can look absent. I don't think anyone else's experience can become our own. I do know God's involvement in my own life, and because of that I can catch glimpses of it in other lives, but what made me observe it in the first place was taking a first step to trust. Cuz we can't walk on water until we get out of the boat.


----------



## Woolieface

Tabitha said:


> ....so, broad is the road that leads to destruction....I don't get what you are getting at. Should it say "that leads to life forever in an everburning hell?" Instead of destruction, by fire btw.


The final judgement, the lake of fire, has been taken by most to mean eternal consciousness in that lake of fire. Others see it as a final destruction. I'll be honest and say I don't think I have received sure knowledge of which it is, but for sure eternal Life is a far better choice than either.


----------



## Shine

Woolieface said:


> The final judgement, the lake of fire, has been taken by most to mean eternal consciousness in that lake of fire. Others see it as a final destruction. I'll be honest and say I don't think I have received sure knowledge of which it is, but for sure eternal Life is a far better choice than either.


Someone described it to me once and suggested that the afterlife for those that He saves will be total companionship with God and that those that are not saved will experience the total absence of God. They also compared the experience of the total absence of God to the feeling that Jesus had the moment of quoting "My Lord, why has thou forsaken me?"


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> Yes, it does appear that way but once you've been shown Glory, there is no way to "un-see" it.


I can say that yes it is definitely possible to see what you think is the hand of God and then later not see it at all anymore.


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> What snotty little comments are you talking about?
> 
> You can prove almost anything out of the Bible as long as you are willing to put your blinders on and come to it with a preordained opinion -- which most people do.


I think I explained that in my post. The assumptions that I have only read it in English from you. From others the assumption I haven't read it all or I know nothing about Christianity or faith or theology.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Tabitha said:


> ....so, broad is the road that leads to destruction....I don't get what you are getting at. Should it say "that leads to life forever in an everburning hell?" Instead of destruction, by fire btw.


Well is sure don't appear the rich man was having a lot of fun .
Luke 16:24 And he called out, âFather Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.â

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow...hell-21-eye-opening-scriptures/#ixzz3hbaB8F2O


----------



## mnn2501

Patchouli said:


> I think I explained that in my post.


If you had, I wouldn't have asked



Patchouli said:


> The assumptions that I have only read it in English from you. From others the assumption I haven't read it all or I know nothing about Christianity or faith or theology.


Where did I even imply that? I was replying to a post about eternal burning in a lake of fire - many peoples view of 'Hell' and pointing out that's not what the Bible actually says. I wasn't talking to any one person in particular.
Paranoid much?


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine said:


> Someone described it to me once and suggested that the afterlife for those that He saves will be total companionship with God and that those that are not saved will experience the total absence of God. They also compared the experience of the total absence of God to the feeling that Jesus had the moment of quoting "My Lord, why has thou forsaken me?"


That was the heart of what we were to think and ponder over while asking God for understanding.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

kasilofhome said:


> That was the heart of what we were to think and ponder over while asking God for understanding.


My self I can't see bothering God he made it plain for understanding when he made it plain so many times :hammer: One more 

Matthew 25:41, NIV. âThen he [the Lord] will say to those on his left, âDepart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.â â




See post#217 Also


----------



## Shine

Sawmill Jim said:


> My self I can't see bothering God he made it plain for understanding when he made it plain so many times :hammer: One more
> 
> Matthew 25:41, NIV. âThen he [the Lord] will say to those on his left, âDepart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.â â
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post#217 Also


We may be speaking of the same thing, I wonder what the absolute absence of God is like. I can only think of intense pain, complete alone-ness, darkness... As we are here, He is with us so the total absence... hmmm...


----------



## kasilofhome

I wonder about physical pain and emotional pain.

I imagine the physical pain of fire....and I know via my brother what burns are like.

Flash pain.... then no pain .... the great pain during healing.
That's bad enough but add in stewing in regret ... abandoned facing the reality that the results are thru personal choices.

That there is no difference between crunching a baby for a living and knowingly accepting the wrong change at a mega Mart.

Works do not work.... but not working does not work too.. and how does one self score their faith..

Freewill ... mandates a need for grace.


----------



## Shine

kasilofhome said:


> I wonder about physical pain and emotional pain.
> 
> I imagine the physical pain of fire....and I know via my brother what burns are like.
> 
> Flash pain.... then no pain .... the great pain during healing.
> That's bad enough but add in stewing in regret ... abandoned facing the reality that the results are thru personal choices.
> 
> That there is no difference between crunching a baby for a living and knowingly accepting the wrong change at a mega Mart.
> 
> Works do not work.... but not working does not work too.. and how does one self score their faith..
> 
> Freewill ... mandates a need for grace.


Many times the Bible speaks of purity, it is my contention that with God knowing that He made us as sinners that we are going to sin. I feel that God looks to our heart, He seeks us to be humble. It is as if we were about to die and someone just stepped in and saved us, with us having everlasting gratitude and humility, every time we wake, dine, marry, and die, giving to Him the Glory of it all and not with an expectant heart but only a heart that has been refined in the fires of this world towards the pureness that He deserves. The fires of this world are of His doing, I think, purifying some with each pass. I do not think that humans can know goodness without being face to face with vile and despicable evil. When we face the fire, it is then that He looks to our heart's intentions all the while knowing that the mind is at the ready to lead us astray.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Shine great post :bow: BUT God did not make us sinners ,we inherited it from those before us ,and may of added a few sins along the way . :facepalm: God has nothing to do with creating sin that is the work of his competitor . Want a scape goat for sin go back to Adam and Eve and the Serpent :thumb:


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> If you had, I wouldn't have asked
> 
> 
> Where did I even imply that? I was replying to a post about eternal burning in a lake of fire - many peoples view of 'Hell' and pointing out that's not what the Bible actually says. I wasn't talking to any one person in particular.
> Paranoid much?


That's odd since you quoted me twice in your response. Are you really trying to say you weren't specifically addressing me here? 



mnn2501 said:


> Patchouli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not be better to never exist than to exist and be chucked in hell at the end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the cartoon version of hell so many believe in. The English word 'Hell' is used for 4 very different words in the Bible; sheol, hades, tartarus and gehenna. None of which has the meaning most people believe 'Hell' to have.
> 
> 
> If you are going to believe in the Bible, or not believe in the Bible, at least learn what it actually says. Just reading an English version once or a number of times, won't give you the full picture. The really sad thing is that many people preaching from the Bible, don't really understand the Bible, and it causes many drastic misunderstandings which no doubt has led many away from God.
> 
> 
> 
> Patchouli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and you might want to look into Calvinism because according to them you do get what you deserve no chance or choice given to you at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I looked into it, To me its a sad misunderstanding of what scripture actually says.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truckinguy

Shine said:


> We may be speaking of the same thing, I wonder what the absolute absence of God is like. I can only think of intense pain, complete alone-ness, darkness... As we are here, He is with us so the total absence... hmmm...


I experience the world without God and I don't feel any of those things that you speak of. It is a beautiful world and Nature is alive and full of wonder. I experience great joy when spending time with family and friends and satisfaction from many of my accomplishments. I feel a great sense of freedom from the constant guilt trip of Christianity and I realize I'm flawed and that's ok, I can stand on my own two feet and learn from my mistakes. I embrace the range of emotions from the great love I experienced when my beautiful little niece was born last year to the incredible grief I felt when my Dad died a couple of years ago. I have a sense of peace from the knowledge that, when I die, I will be returned to the Earth and fulfill my place in the Circle of Life. Life is joyous and fulfilling if you let it be.

I get very weary from the constant intellectual dissection of the scriptures, who said what and what each word in any translations means. I don't think that was what Jesus meant in the first place. I believe he said that in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven we had to become like little children, implying innocence and simplicity. The best people that I have known are the quiet, simple people who go about their business without a lot of fanfare but would give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. I think we make things overly complicated and can't see the forest for the trees. I think our time would be better served if we stopped wasting it by all this intellectual discussion and go outside and make the world a better place by volunteering for the community, helping those who need it and making our little corner of the world a better place. That family who doesn't have enough to eat surely doesn't care whether the Earth is 6000 or 40 billion years old if they don't have enough food in their belly tonight.

The greatest thing that we can do as humans regardless of our spiritual path is to show love and compassion for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We should be too busy caring for others to have any time for conflict between each other.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> I think our time would be better served if we stopped wasting it by all this intellectual discussion and go outside and make the world a better place by volunteering for the community, helping those who need it and making our little corner of the world a better place. That family who doesn't have enough to eat surely doesn't care whether the Earth is 6000 or 40 billion years old if they don't have enough food in their belly tonight.
> 
> The greatest thing that we can do as humans regardless of our spiritual path is to show love and compassion for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We should be too busy caring for others to have any time for conflict between each other.


Although being hungry seems to be a trigger for violence rather than a diversion from it, I agree that is a beautiful picture. Unfortunately, people being people, it's never that simple.

For example, the local meal charities here are all religious in origin, a challenge taken up due to religious conviction. The nonreligious seem to feel that government is responsible for this so prefer to vote for action rather than take action themselves.

Also, those meal charities that offer a place for the homeless also create pockets of violence and theft due to congregations of drugs and people with mental illness.

If people behaved well without guidance, then the whole idea of sin and salvation would not exist. But people don't so it does. 

Beside there are whole realms of other things beside helping the "less fortunate" that contribute to a good society- such as a work ethic, honesty, and education to name a few. Heck, even the words "less fortunate" is no where as clear as all that.


----------



## oneraddad

I'm with Truckinguy, I look out my window and see nothing but nature. Everything I observe has a cycle of life and then returns back to the earth as topsoil. To think I'm some how different or there's a plan for me is something I just can't feel. But.... My family is the opposite and feel God in their life everyday. I was raised Catholic but I just never felt God just as I never felt gay. So I understand both sides and won't criticize either.


----------



## painterswife

I agree. I don't need anything more than my time here on earth. I was lucky to have that in a time where life is easy and fun.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> I agree. I don't need anything more than my time here on earth. I was lucky to have that in a time where life is easy and fun.


Though I am trying to reveal what God means to me it is not in an attempt to change anyone on here. Someone else is assigned that task and they do it so much better than I ever could.

I believe that the primary goal given by the Bible is to acknowledge and praise God and then all there is left is to love one another as if the love we have for them is the love that we want others to have for us.

So, none of you are misguided, you have the idea, this world is a beautiful place, people are wonderful and the smile that you put on your face really should come from your heart.


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> I experience the world without God and I don't feel any of those things that you speak of. It is a beautiful world and Nature is alive and full of wonder. I experience great joy when spending time with family and friends and satisfaction from many of my accomplishments. I feel a great sense of freedom from the constant guilt trip of Christianity and I realize I'm flawed and that's ok, I can stand on my own two feet and learn from my mistakes. I embrace the range of emotions from the great love I experienced when my beautiful little niece was born last year to the incredible grief I felt when my Dad died a couple of years ago. I have a sense of peace from the knowledge that, when I die, I will be returned to the Earth and fulfill my place in the Circle of Life. Life is joyous and fulfilling if you let it be.
> 
> I get very weary from the constant intellectual dissection of the scriptures, who said what and what each word in any translations means. I don't think that was what Jesus meant in the first place. I believe he said that in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven we had to become like little children, implying innocence and simplicity. The best people that I have known are the quiet, simple people who go about their business without a lot of fanfare but would give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. I think we make things overly complicated and can't see the forest for the trees. I think our time would be better served if we stopped wasting it by all this intellectual discussion and go outside and make the world a better place by volunteering for the community, helping those who need it and making our little corner of the world a better place. That family who doesn't have enough to eat surely doesn't care whether the Earth is 6000 or 40 billion years old if they don't have enough food in their belly tonight.
> 
> The greatest thing that we can do as humans regardless of our spiritual path is to show love and compassion for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We should be too busy caring for others to have any time for conflict between each other.


Choosing not to involve God in your view of the world is not the same as complete separation from God. The absence of His mercy in this world would lead to complete destruction of everything we know and the things that we can look at and enjoy, like the nature He created would decay and dissolve. 

It IS a beautiful planet... He is an amazing artist, and He created bonds of love and our ability to have happiness in that. 

Really, the message of Christianity doesn't have to get that complicated. He made the important things so simple that even a child could understand them. In fact He told us to come to Him like little children....not with our adult, jaded skepticism. Here is, really, the whole of the thing all summed up so beautifully simple and short...

*"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...that whosoever should believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting Life."* - John 3:16

THAT is the Gospel.


----------



## Oxankle

There is no harm if one believes in God and follows the commandments. Such a person is almost assured of a reasonably serene and ordinary life.
If there is no God at the end of that life such a person simply dies and becomes one with nature.

On the other hand, If one denies the existence of God and lives the profligate life of the non-believer, what happens if that person dies and finds out there IS a God after all? Who's the joke on then?


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

Oxankle said:


> There is no harm if one believes in God and follows the commandments. Such a person is almost assured of a reasonably serene and ordinary life.
> If there is no God at the end of that life such a person simply dies and becomes one with nature.
> 
> On the other hand, If one denies the existence of God and lives the profligate life of the non-believer, what happens if that person dies and finds out there IS a God after all? Who's the joke on then?


Ox, when you mention the profligate life of the unbeliever, what do you mean?


----------



## Oxankle

By that I mean that many of those who profess to be atheists see no reason to adhere to the moral codes of the believer. Many do; man has an inherent desire to conform to his society, but left to their own devices many more stray far afield. It is as if "those rules don't apply to me". 

If one asserts that most of man's laws are derived from some form of the moral code, yes many atheists conform to the law of the land.

All of which begs the question; who will the joke be on?


----------



## oneraddad

Oxankle said:


> By that I mean that many of those who profess to be atheists see no reason to adhere to the moral codes of the believer. Many do; man has an inherent desire to conform to his society, but left to their own devices many more stray far afield. It is as if "those rules don't apply to me".
> 
> If one asserts that most of man's laws are derived from some form of the moral code, yes many atheists conform to the law of the land.
> 
> All of which begs the question; who will the joke be on?



Hey Ox, why do you think they have communion ?


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> By that I mean that many of those who profess to be atheists see no reason to adhere to the moral codes of the believer. Many do; man has an inherent desire to conform to his society, but left to their own devices many more stray far afield. It is as if "those rules don't apply to me".
> 
> If one asserts that most of man's laws are derived from some form of the moral code, yes many atheists conform to the law of the land.
> 
> All of which begs the question; who will the joke be on?


I am pretty sure that if I am wrong and there is a God he is going to look at my life and choose me over quite a few of those who believe in him and say they live for him. I don't' believe that belief in him would be any sort of good reason to deny access to a place called heaven .


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Ox, when you mention the profligate life of the unbeliever, what do you mean?


Since the two out standing words here or unbeliever and profligate let me see if I can expand or expound it those two words .

We know the definition of unbeliever that is settled :thumb:
Now profligate to live extravagantly and wastefully ,now this means of live style can be delivered to a person from the prince of this world (Satan) .Where upon what they get now is all they will ever have it is their full reward period .They laid up no treasure in heaven .

Luke 16:25
"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

If I am wrong correct me :thumb:


----------



## Oxankle

"I am pretty sure that if I am wrong and there is a God he is going to look at my life and choose me over quite a few of those who believe in him and say they live for him. I don't' believe that belief in him would be any sort of good reason to deny access to a place called heaven ." 

If you go around advocating the killing babies you might want to rethink that. 

Now, if you simply mean that a good many people who profess a belief in God do not live up to their professed beliefs, you are correct. 

Even so, if you compare 10,000 people who profess a belief in God to another 10,000 who deny the existence of God, you will find fewer thieves and murderers, rapists in the first ten thousand. It is simply the law of big numbers.


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> "I am pretty sure that if I am wrong and there is a God he is going to look at my life and choose me over quite a few of those who believe in him and say they live for him. I don't' believe that belief in him would be any sort of good reason to deny access to a place called heaven ."
> 
> If you go around advocating the killing babies you might want to rethink that.
> 
> Now, if you simply mean that a good many people who profess a belief in God do not live up to their professed beliefs, you are correct.
> 
> Even so, if you compare 10,000 people who profess a belief in God to another 10,000 who deny the existence of God, you will find fewer thieves, murderers, rapists and abortionists in the first ten thousand. It is simply the law of big numbers.


The law of averages I suspect would prove you wrong on that. Then there is the stats on the people in jail. Far more belive in God than don't.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

Oxankle said:


> By that I mean that many of those who profess to be atheists see no reason to adhere to the moral codes of the believer. Many do; man has an inherent desire to conform to his society, but left to their own devices many more stray far afield. It is as if "those rules don't apply to me".
> 
> If one asserts that most of man's laws are derived from some form of the moral code, yes many atheists conform to the law of the land.
> 
> All of which begs the question; who will the joke be on?


Ox, thanks for qualifying your generalization that non- believers live profligate lives. You might find, as I have, that thinking in terms of unqualified stereotypes robs you of your ability to see the world as being full of individuals, many as worthy as yourself though of different beliefs.

Your ideas about unbelievers are not that out of the mainstream, based on my experiences. I can remember a very earnest co -worker asking me "Without a submission to God, what keeps you from just raping every pretty girl you see?" I actually have heard variations of that question a number of times. The answer, in my mind, is that I received my moral compass the same way believers do - not from a god, but from the family and community that socialized me, so my morality will be much more similar to that of my believer friends than different. Of course I do not worship, or tithe, or do the religion-specific things that believers accept as moral imperatives, but in matters of conduct, personal integrity and so on I expect if you knew me you would recognize me as a moral being not inferior to yourself.

And to the question you have asked, which I would have taken as rhetorical had you not repeated it, the answer is that there is no joke. We all are doing our best to make sense of a world of doubt, fear, turmoil and inconsistency. You find peace and purpose through your religion, and I am glad for you, though I am on a different path. If it turns out the Creator is not the god you worship, or the rules end up being different than you were led to believe, and you end up consigned to eternal torment despite your best intentions, I am quite sure I could not find it in myself to say "The joke's on you."


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Ox, when you mention the profligate life of the unbeliever, what do you mean?





painterswife said:


> The law of averages I suspect would prove you wrong on that. Then there is the stats on the people in jail. Far more belive in God than don't.


 A person saying they believe there is a God don't get it even Satan believes there is a God Believe is worthless unless put into action. Those depending on sliding in on their own goodness are in for a rude down fall.
A Tree and its Fruit
â¦22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'


----------



## painterswife

Sawmill Jim said:


> A person saying they believe there is a God don't get it even Satan believes there is a God Believe is worthless unless put into action. Those depending on sliding in on their own goodness are in for a rude down fall.
> A Tree and its Fruit
> â¦22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'


Well that God sounds like a pompous jerk that needs to be worshipped rather than a God who loves all his creations even if they don't know or believe he exists.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> I am pretty sure that if I am wrong and there is a God he is going to look at my life and choose me over quite a few of those who believe in him and say they live for him. I don't' believe that belief in him would be any sort of good reason to deny access to a place called heaven .


What if God's standard has nothing to do with one human compared to another. You and the hypocrite might actually be on equal ground then.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Well that God sounds like a pompous jerk that needs to be worshipped rather than a God who loves all his creations even if they don't know or believe he exists.


Are you sure you don't hold basically the same view as He speaks in that verse? That verse is about the hypocrites you have pointed out who profess to know Him and do not live it.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> What if God's standard has nothing to do with one human compared to another. You and the hypocrite might actually be on equal ground then.


I don't need to be compared to know I have lived as moral a life than most god fearing church goers. If believing in God is the ticket needed to get to heaven, it is not a place I want to be.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

painterswife said:


> I don't need to be compared to know I have lived as moral a life than most god fearing church goers. If believing in God is the ticket needed to get to heaven, it is not a place I want to be.


And that is your free choice :thumb:

It was just Wooliefaces ,me and others duty to try to provide correct information ,as we are called to do :thumb:


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> I don't need to be compared to know I have lived as moral a life than most god fearing church goers. If believing in God is the ticket needed to get to heaven, it is not a place I want to be.


Nah...believing that God _exists_ is not the ticket, but if His standard is not graded on the curve that people often figure it might be, they have not taken the time to reasonably consider what it means to be wrong about Him in general.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Nah...believing that God _exists_ is not the ticket, but if His standard is not graded on the curve that people often figure it might be, they have not taken the time to reasonably consider what it means to be wrong about Him in general.


Why would a god grade on a curve. You either ticked enough boxes or you did not. No one else's opinion would matter. If there is a god I bet he is laughing himself silly about of those who think they know better than their fellow Christians what is right and what is not.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Why would a god grade on a curve. You either ticked enough boxes or you did not. No one else's opinion would matter. If there is a god I bet he is laughing himself silly about of those who think they know better than their fellow Christians what is right and what is not.


I'm saying He doesn't grade on a curve...nor by ticked off boxes, but you're right, no one else's opinion matters. I'm sure He's not really amused when we willfully get it wrong, nor when we take our error and flaunt it as if it is truth.

All of us, though, are learning... and in that process, can't possibly be without error. If we're honest with ourselves, we admit that, and if we all keep in mind the simple things that really count, we'll love each other anyway.


----------



## Oxankle

Scott; whoa--I do not hold myself out as superior to anyone. Any thinking man knows that he will fail the test somewhere, sometime, and perhaps often. The important thing is to keep trying, and to build upon each success so each day, each year may find us a little better men. 

Being "churched" or religious does not make men good, it only makes them a little better than they would otherwise be.

Further, I am not so sure about that torment. According to what I hear unless a man is a real stinker he stands a pretty good chance of being forgiven for some of his minor faults. Better consult the experts there. The way I heard it there are some minor faults and some that are real deadly.


----------



## Woolieface

Oxankle said:


> According to what I hear unless a man is a real stinker he stands a pretty good chance of being forgiven for some of his minor faults. Better consult the experts there. The way I heard it there are some minor faults and some that are real deadly.


Nothing so deadly that His blood can not cover it if we will have the covering.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I am pretty sure that if I am wrong and there is a God he is going to look at my life and choose me over quite a few of those who believe in him and say they live for him. I don't' believe that belief in him would be any sort of good reason to deny access to a place called heaven .


I believe everyone will have a chance.
Sooner or later.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> The law of averages I suspect would prove you wrong on that. Then there is the stats on the people in jail. Far more belive in God than don't.


Well, they do now. It's surprising how many find 'religion' in prison.


----------



## Patchouli

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Ox, thanks for qualifying your generalization that non- believers live profligate lives. You might find, as I have, that thinking in terms of unqualified stereotypes robs you of your ability to see the world as being full of individuals, many as worthy as yourself though of different beliefs.
> 
> Your ideas about unbelievers are not that out of the mainstream, based on my experiences. I can remember a very earnest co -worker asking me *"Without a submission to God, what keeps you from just raping every pretty girl you see?*" I actually have heard variations of that question a number of times. The answer, in my mind, is that I received my moral compass the same way believers do - not from a god, but from the family and community that socialized me, so my morality will be much more similar to that of my believer friends than different. Of course I do not worship, or tithe, or do the religion-specific things that believers accept as moral imperatives, but in matters of conduct, personal integrity and so on I expect if you knew me you would recognize me as a moral being not inferior to yourself.
> 
> And to the question you have asked, which I would have taken as rhetorical had you not repeated it, the answer is that there is no joke. We all are doing our best to make sense of a world of doubt, fear, turmoil and inconsistency. You find peace and purpose through your religion, and I am glad for you, though I am on a different path. If it turns out the Creator is not the god you worship, or the rules end up being different than you were led to believe, and you end up consigned to eternal torment despite your best intentions, I am quite sure I could not find it in myself to say "The joke's on you."



The sad thing is they don't see how disturbing that question truly is to the rest of us. The deeper question to ask is would you really go around raping every pretty girl you saw if it wasn't for your religion? That's scary......


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Tricky Grama said:


> I believe everyone will have a chance.
> Sooner or later.


That chance is now according to the Bible ,while you are still alive :thumb:
Later is where you find the anointed cherub that got kicked out of Heaven :facepalm:


----------



## Shine

Good reply Scott. There will, forever, be christians that profess and use the Bible for their power. Should you run across a true Christian, they will never tell you what to do or how you should do it. Set that as a template. Real Christians are the ones that you see doing good with no intention that they be seen. They will answer your questions without any requirement that you believe them. They will be true to another all the while loving you.

You see, Christians operate on a different level, there are just a few so you can understand why the name gets a bad rap.

Me? - I fear when people call me a Christian, for that seems to place me into a category where I have accomplished something. I prefer that someone would say of me that I love the teachings of Jesus. 

There is quite a lot about this world that passes for pleasure, but I have found that acting upon those things that Jesus taught us to do supersedes many of those. There is a feeling that you know in your heart rather than your mind that quantifies this pleasure. There is no need for others to see you in this act, it is personal, it is real.

The One that needs to see it will.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Well that God sounds like a pompous jerk that needs to be worshipped rather than a God who loves all his creations even if they don't know or believe he exists.


The bible tells us that men were created in His image.... Look around... Do you see any pompous jerks in your neighborhood?


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, they do now. It's surprising how many find 'religion' in prison.


Yeppers, I found mine during my first marriage!


----------



## FourDeuce

"It was just Wooliefaces ,me and others duty to try to provide correct information ,as we are called to do"

You'll never be able to provide correct information unless you can prove it's correct. That's the problem most religious people have. You can call your information correct all day long, but if you can't prove it's correct, you'll be wasting your time. :hammer:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "It was just Wooliefaces ,me and others duty to try to provide correct information ,as we are called to do"
> 
> You'll never be able to provide correct information unless you can prove it's correct. That's the problem most religious people have. You can call your information correct all day long, but if you can't prove it's correct, you'll be wasting your time. :hammer:


Proving a religious belief is easy, getting nonbelievers to accept that proof.... Not so much.


----------



## Woolieface

FourDeuce said:


> "It was just Wooliefaces ,me and others duty to try to provide correct information ,as we are called to do"
> 
> You'll never be able to provide correct information unless you can prove it's correct. That's the problem most religious people have. You can call your information correct all day long, but if you can't prove it's correct, you'll be wasting your time. :hammer:


Sowing seed is never a waste of time, but we can't make it rain, we can't make the sun shine and we can't make the infertile soil give life to the seed.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Sowing seed is never a waste of time, but we can't make it rain, we can't make the sun shine and we can't make the infertile soil give life to the seed.


I grew up in the desert country of eastern Oregon. The sun rose and set everyday and shined down upon our fields, we made it rain as needed with sprinklers, and that infertile ground burst forth with some of the highest crop yields in the world. Just sayin.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I grew up in the desert country of eastern Oregon. The sun rose and set everyday and shined down upon our fields, we made it rain as needed with sprinklers, and that infertile ground burst forth with some of the highest crop yields in the world. Just sayin.


Yeah, if only our efforts were so effective in the field of the soul. Spiritual "ground" and "seed" is kind of beyond our sprinklers and fertilizer, I reckon. 
_
And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. -_

Mark 4:4-8


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Yeah, if only our efforts were so effective in the field of the soul. Spiritual "ground" and "seed" is kind of beyond our sprinklers and fertilizer, I reckon.


I think a lot of it depends on how good the spiritual farmer is. In those realms we need to lead by example if we ever hope to teach others. I cant remember the exact quote but Chuck Holton used to have a tagline something like "its hard to make others believe the bible while you are hitting them over the head with it." Something like that anyway.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think a lot of it depends on how good the spiritual farmer is. In those realms we need to lead by example if we ever hope to teach others. I cant remember the exact quote but Chuck Holton used to have a tagline something like "its hard to make others believe the bible while you are hitting them over the head with it." Something like that anyway.


Grand Ma told me you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink :facepalm:


----------



## Evons hubby

Sawmill Jim said:


> Grand Ma told me you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink :facepalm:


Theres a trick to it... learned if from my grampa... just put a wee bit of bourbon in it.


----------



## where I want to

What happens in atheistic societies has plenty of examples. There are enough communist countries to see it in reality. As far as I know, there are no countries organized on the basis of vague premises of "spirituality. " People transfer their belief from religion to the party, poltical theory, military, gang or whatever. They have the same proportion fanatical believers, quiet circumventers, opportunists, criminals, etc except where corruption and lawlessness has corrupted the majority who spend all their thoughts and efforts on getting what they want to the exclusion of anything else.

Some here are posting as if there is an alternate, benign and undefined, scheme for social ordering. There is only different methods of control which create different quality of life. Somehow, I can't see a nagging and politically correction method surviving very long in the face of even one determined assault by a differing opinion.


----------



## mnn2501

FourDeuce said:


> You'll never be able to provide correct information unless you can prove it's correct. That's the problem most religious people have. You can call your information correct all day long, but if you can't prove it's correct, you'll be wasting your time.



Only the Holy Ghost can convert someone, its our job to teach, but never coerce or annoy (which I know some do).


----------



## FourDeuce

"Sowing seed is never a waste of time,"
You keep forgetting the seed, though. You're just scattering fertilizer until you prove your story is true.:hand:
"but we can't make it rain, we can't make the sun shine and we can't make the infertile soil give life to the seed."
And you can't convince a rational person that your story is true if you can't prove it's true.


----------



## FourDeuce

mnn2501 said:


> Only the Holy Ghost can convert someone, its our job to teach, but never coerce.


Then you're wasting your time(and your credibility) by speaking about it at all, if you can't prove it. You can't teach somebody the truth if you can't prove it's true.


----------



## FourDeuce

"What happens in atheistic societies has plenty of examples."
There are even more examples of what happens in religious societies. That's why our Founding Fathers were very careful to avoid creating a theocracy.:thumb:


----------



## Woolieface

FourDeuce said:


> "Sowing seed is never a waste of time,"
> You keep forgetting the seed, though. You're just scattering fertilizer until you prove your story is true.:hand:
> "but we can't make it rain, we can't make the sun shine and we can't make the infertile soil give life to the seed."
> And you can't convince a rational person that your story is true if you can't prove it's true.


Those that consider themselves rational often believe things they can't prove. Proof is, to one person, what it isn't to another. I have never seen proof, first hand, that the world is round. 

Evidence is available, but proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you. If you have not seen sufficient evidence by simply looking at creation, there is no evidence I can provide that's better.


----------



## mnn2501

FourDeuce said:


> Then you're wasting your time(and your credibility) by speaking about it at all, if you can't prove it. You can't teach somebody the truth if you can't prove it's true.


Its up to me to teach, its up to you to prove it true for yourself or ignore it or tell me to stop bothering you - its your choice but there are ways you can prove its true to your satisfaction - I did and I was agnostic for over 20 years when I receive my undeniable proof.


----------



## FourDeuce

mnn2501 said:


> Its up to me to teach, its up to you to prove it true for yourself or ignore it or tell me to stop bothering you - its your choice but there are ways you can prove its true to your satisfaction - I did and I was agnostic for over 20 years when I receive my undeniable proof.


That's not how logic works. You should learn that before you try to teach anybody else anything.:ashamed:
BTW, if your proof was undeniable, you could show it to other people.


----------



## FourDeuce

Woolieface said:


> Those that consider themselves rational often believe things they can't prove. Proof is, to one person, what it isn't to another. I have never seen proof, first hand, that the world is round.
> 
> Evidence is available, but proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you. If you have not seen sufficient evidence by simply looking at creation, there is no evidence I can provide that's better.


I'll leave it to anybody who believes things they can't prove to speak for themselves. I don't do that. It isn't being rational.
"proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you."
Not for rational people. Actually, proof is very consistent among rational people.
People keep saying evidence is available, but when asked if they can produce it, they never do.
If the "best" evidence you can produce is a logical fallacy, you have no evidence. That's what atheists have been saying for thousands of years.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Woolieface said:


> Those that consider themselves rational often believe things they can't prove. Proof is, to one person, what it isn't to another. I have never seen proof, first hand, that the world is round.
> 
> Evidence is available, but proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you. If you have not seen sufficient evidence by simply looking at creation, there is no evidence I can provide that's better.


Can I butt in and add to yours :facepalm: If one really wants to prove the things in the Bible some of the best proof comes from those that spent years and tons of money trying to prove it was a lie . God won't revel his self to those not looking or interested in learning about him . 

I posted the video of the man that sold his business and started searching for the city of Sodom and what he found .Every detail he found fit the Bible down to the last detail. 

The Jews returning back to their land in one day .It happened .
Even where Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and not one stone left on another .It happened 

Try Israels six day war no teaching military academy will mention it because they all say it was impossible .

Just look at what is happening to day in the East Israel is near surrounded

Zec 12:3
&#8220;And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

And for those not liking history or prophecy or putting time into looking for Gods workings either I will leave you with this scripture .

The rich man also asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his brothers to repent so that they would never join him in hell. Both requests were denied. Abraham told the rich man that if his brothers did not believe in Scripture, neither would they believe a messenger, even if he came straight from heaven.


----------



## mnn2501

FourDeuce said:


> That's not how logic works. You should learn that before you try to teach anybody else anything.:ashamed:
> BTW, if your proof was undeniable, you could show it to other people.



No, because my proof was specific to me and entirely logical

People should not try to define how things work that they have no concept of.

Spiritual or religious things are not hard science things. You can't prove soft science things or explain why something specific remains a theory. So please stop trying to portray the world as black and white.


----------



## Woolieface

FourDeuce said:


> I'll leave it to anybody who believes things they can't prove to speak for themselves. I don't do that. It isn't being rational.
> "proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you."
> Not for rational people. Actually, proof is very consistent among rational people.
> People keep saying evidence is available, but when asked if they can produce it, they never do.
> If the "best" evidence you can produce is a logical fallacy, you have no evidence. That's what atheists have been saying for thousands of years.


Just curious... ever see the Earth from space with your own eyes? How about an atom? Keep in mind, pictures in books and the assurances of other learned people do not count. That isn't proof....that's belief. 

As for evidence... it's easy to miss evidence of something you don't have any interest in knowing.

But Christians don't win any door prizes for beating a dead horse so, carry on.


----------



## where I want to

FourDeuce said:


> I'll leave it to anybody who believes things they can't prove to speak for themselves. I don't do that. It isn't being rational.
> "proof is just what you decide it is based on what evidence is good enough for you."
> Not for rational people. Actually, proof is very consistent among rational people.
> People keep saying evidence is available, but when asked if they can produce it, they never do.
> If the "best" evidence you can produce is a logical fallacy, you have no evidence. That's what atheists have been saying for thousands of years.


So, to cut down all the emotion rhetoric- you believe that there is no proof that God exists and therefore no one with a rational mind could believe in it. And therefore people who believe in God do not have a rational mind. And you, who do not believe, do have a rational mind (which is a pretty dubious assumption as non belief is clearly not the sole providence of even the marginally clever.)
Yet, if God's existence could be proven so that human could understand, a rational human would no longer believe in God anyway as what they can understand can't be omnipotent nor omniscient, as a human's limitations are such that they do not fully understand themselves, their world, the universe, etc, and anything that can't be proven to be omnipotent and omniscient is not godlike. Every time the clear a hurdle of knowledge, they immediately run into another hurdle.
So, since a human can not recognize any godlike attributes, whether it exists or not, they can not ever have those things proven. It may not be that proof doesn't exist as much as no human would know proof if it hit them over the head. 
I suppose there are some people who would consider God to exist if God, like a movie, reached out His hand to swat them every time they misbehaved, like a giant helicopter Mom. However that would lead to a universe run for the benefit of every two year old mind and not be very Godlike in the end. 
Me- I think is is a giant waste of time for anyone who does not believe to run around trying to stick pins in the beliefs of others. In fact a great ugliness of dog in the mangerness. It seeks to destroy what may be a great benefit to a person yet gains nothing for themselves in the nonbelief they attempt to create.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> BTW, if your proof was undeniable, you could show it to other people.


None are so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> What happens in atheistic societies has plenty of examples. There are enough communist countries to see it in reality. As far as I know, there are no countries organized on the basis of vague premises of "spirituality. " People transfer their belief from religion to the party, poltical theory, military, gang or whatever. They have the same proportion fanatical believers, quiet circumventers, opportunists, criminals, etc except where corruption and lawlessness has corrupted the majority who spend all their thoughts and efforts on getting what they want to the exclusion of anything else.
> 
> Some here are posting as if there is an alternate, benign and undefined, scheme for social ordering. There is only different methods of control which create different quality of life. Somehow, I can't see a nagging and politically correction method surviving very long in the face of even one determined assault by a differing opinion.



Some Communist countries chose to eradicate religion because it gave people a cause to rally around. And places of worship gave them a place to gather and plot. Those are not Atheistic societies anymore than a country that forces everyone to claim a state sponsored religion is a religious one. 

Technically speaking I would say America today is that vaguely spiritual country. There are a lot of people who still nominally claim Christianity as their religion the reality is very few actually attend Church. Most people either claim or live a fairly vague spirituality here today.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> Some Communist countries chose to eradicate religion because it gave people a cause to rally around. And places of worship gave them a place to gather and plot. Those are not Atheistic societies anymore than a country that forces everyone to claim a state sponsored religion is a religious one.
> 
> Technically speaking I would say America today is that vaguely spiritual country. There are a lot of people who still nominally claim Christianity as their religion the reality is very few actually attend Church. Most people either claim or live a fairly vague spirituality here today.


Sure some Communist countries allowed some regulated religion as long as it kept to it's place but in essence they are atheistic. In fact I remember tge words that Communism and religion are incompatible. 

As to a vague spirituality, that is very recent although agreedly very vague. At least in some circles. But it is the spirituality itself that has faded as people really pay no attention to inconvenient beliefs or check their conscience very much at all. It is more aspirituality than vague spirituality.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> None are so blind as those who refuse to see.


Is that your way of admitting you have no proof? Doesn't work very well. In fact, it doesn't address the subject at all. Was it supposed to?


----------



## FourDeuce

mnn2501 said:


> No, because my proof was specific to me and entirely logical
> 
> People should not try to define how things work that they have no concept of.
> 
> Spiritual or religious things are not hard science things. You can't prove soft science things or explain why something specific remains a theory. So please stop trying to portray the world as black and white.


If your "proof" is specific to you, then it isn't logical. If it's logical, anybody can see it.
"So please stop trying to portray the world as black and white."
Since I was not trying to do that, there's no need to stop.


----------



## Raeven

where I want to said:


> Sure some Communist countries allowed some regulated religion as long as it kept to it's place but in essence they are atheistic. In fact I remember tge words that Communism and religion are incompatible.


Please point me to one war -- any war -- that was fought to advance the cause of atheism.


----------



## FourDeuce

Woolieface said:


> Just curious... ever see the Earth from space with your own eyes? How about an atom? Keep in mind, pictures in books and the assurances of other learned people do not count. That isn't proof....that's belief.
> 
> As for evidence... it's easy to miss evidence of something you don't have any interest in knowing.
> 
> But Christians don't win any door prizes for beating a dead horse so, carry on.


It's even easier to miss evidence when nobody presents any.


----------



## FourDeuce

where I want to said:


> So, to cut down all the emotion rhetoric- you believe that there is no proof that God exists"
> 
> Nope. I don't believe that.
> 
> "and therefore no one with a rational mind could believe in it."
> 
> Nope, I didn't say that either.
> 
> "And therefore people who believe in God do not have a rational mind. And you, who do not believe, do have a rational mind (which is a pretty dubious assumption"
> 
> IF anybody made that assumption, it was you, since I didn't.
> 
> "as non belief is clearly not the sole providence of even the marginally clever.)"
> 
> That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.
> 
> "Yet, if God's existence could be proven so that human could understand, a rational human would no longer believe in God anyway as what they can understand can't be omnipotent nor omniscient,"
> 
> Where did you find that rule? Did you make it up? I noticed your attempt to move the goalposts there(another type of logical fallacy). Believing in something is not the same as understanding it fully.
> 
> "as a human's limitations are such that they do not fully understand themselves, their world, the universe, etc, and anything that can't be proven to be omnipotent and omniscient is not godlike."
> 
> Did you want to discuss believing in something or "fully understanding" something? They're two different subjects.
> 
> "Every time the clear a hurdle of knowledge, they immediately run into another hurdle."
> 
> Not rational people.
> 
> "So, since a human can not recognize any godlike attributes,"
> 
> You can't prove one claim by making another unproven claim.
> 
> "whether it exists or not, they can not ever have those things proven. It may not be that proof doesn't exist as much as no human would know proof if it hit them over the head."
> 
> That's another subject, too. Maybe you should finish one subject before you switch to other subjects.
> 
> "I suppose there are some people who would consider God to exist if God, like a movie, reached out His hand to swat them every time they misbehaved, like a giant helicopter Mom. However that would lead to a universe run for the benefit of every two year old mind and not be very Godlike in the end."
> 
> So YOU are in charge of deciding what is godlike? I thought you said no human could understand that stuff.
> 
> "Me- I think is is a giant waste of time for anyone who does not believe to run around trying to stick pins in the beliefs of others."
> 
> That's nice, but rational people prefer to make their own decisions about what is a waste of time.
> 
> "In fact a great ugliness of dog in the mangerness. It seeks to destroy what may be a great benefit to a person yet gains nothing for themselves in the nonbelief they attempt to create.


IF you want to talk to people, you need to learn to stop assuming you know what's going on in their minds. In fact, if your "argument" includes talking about other people's thought processes when you're supposed to be proving your own fairy tales are true, you need to learn some critical thinking skills. You can't prove your fairy tales are true by talking about what other people might be thinking, and you definitely can't do it by lying about what they are thinking.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> IF you want to talk to people, you need to learn to stop assuming you know what's going on in their minds. In fact, if your "argument" includes talking about other people's thought processes when you're supposed to be proving your own fairy tales are true, you need to learn some critical thinking skills. You can't prove your fairy tales are true by talking about what other people might be thinking, and you definitely can't do it by lying about what they are thinking.



I would agree with that, for the most part, although it's not much of an assumption about what you are thinking when you refer to "fairy tales" is it?
I may be country, but I ain't dumb.

I might also be tempted to ask,"What would you accept as proof?", except that the answer might prove elusive as well.

The "proof" my friend, has come and gone. It is also proof, that even when God walked the earth in flesh, there were some who still did not believe.

You may dismiss this as another offering of "no proof", but it isn't necessarily intended only for you. It is also a lesson for others, especially believers, to give insight into human nature, faith, and why, how and who God reveals Himself to.

We are now in Matthew, and one miracle I've overlooked before has great meaning now. It's the healing of the Centurion's servant.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8:5-13

One verse in particular hit me right in the gut.
......
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, &#8220;Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
......

At the very same time, Pharisees were following Jesus in the crowd, witnessing the same events, yet mocking Him, trying to entrap Him and stubbornly disbelieving Him.
The point is, God is asked in every generation to prove His existence. He does so willingly to those who have the heart to seek Him.

And so it goes.....


----------



## FourDeuce

When you have no proof for your claims, it's easier(and shorter) to just admit you have no proof. If you don't understand basic logic(as in what constitutes proof), that would call for some remedial basic logic education. It's not elusive for anybody who is looking for it.


----------



## Jolly

FourDeuce said:


> When you have no proof for your claims, it's easier(and shorter) to just admit you have no proof. If you don't understand basic logic(as in what constitutes proof), that would call for some remedial basic logic education. It's not elusive for anybody who is looking for it.


What started the universe? Why does the universe operate by uniform laws of nature? Why is it so orderly? So reliable?

How was DNA created? Why does earth reside in the Goldilock Zone, and have all the necessary elements for carbon-based life forms?

Where did the human brain come from, since there is such a massive jump in intelligence from our nearest relatives?...Evolution cannot explain it. 

No, I can't prove that God exists, but you can't prove He doesn't.


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> When you have no proof for your claims, it's easier(and shorter) to just admit you have no proof. If you don't understand basic logic(as in what constitutes proof), that would call for some remedial basic logic education. It's not elusive for anybody who is looking for it.



It seems to be very important for non believers to extract this admission.
I suppose upon that admission, for them, the case is forever settled.

And here it is.
You are correct, I have none, and can offer you no proof of God.
That very point is the concept that I tried to explain, and what is so elusive for those who insist on proof before another step is taken.

I might ask you, "What multitude of things do we take on faith everyday, without a shred of proof?"

Until this last generation, it was rare if not impossible to prove who one's biological father was.
I never have.
Yet every year, I manage to prove it to myself and everyone around me, who knew him, lol.
I never questioned his paternity for a moment.
Sure, the male members of our family are almost carbon copies of each other going back hundreds of years, we have similar personalities, similar viewpoints and actions in similar situations. We all have the same last name.
But that isn't proof. In a courtroom, a lawyer would dismiss it as purely circumstantial.

I wasn't there for my conception, I have no video or eyewitnesses, although the act itself is no proof of paternity.
I never took a DNA test and it would be hard to find any of his 40 years after his death.
I couldn't produce a shred of evidence if I had to.

Proof? Not by a long shot.
However, if I _were_ to question it, after the laughter faded, my sanity is what would be the subject of investigation and proof, LOL.

Hopefully, I have shown that a remedial course in logic isn't necessary. I *can* distinguish Faith, from Proof.

It isn't the proof that comes first, that comes later, which by that time, is unnecessary.

What I have found in previous debates, is that the asker doesn't want proof in order to believe, they want the offer of proof so they can refute it, and continue in disbelief.
That too, is unnecessary, you have been given the free will to do so already.



Jolly said:


> What started the universe? Why does the universe operate by uniform laws of nature? Why is it so orderly? So reliable?
> 
> How was DNA created? Why does earth reside in the Goldilock Zone, and have all the necessary elements for carbon-based life forms?
> 
> Where did the human brain come from, since there is such a massive jump in intelligence from our nearest relatives?...Evolution cannot explain it.
> 
> No, I can't prove that God exists, but you can't prove He doesn't.




Yes, and to sum it up in one verse.........

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,* the evidence of things not seen.*


----------



## where I want to

Raeven said:


> Please point me to one war -- any war -- that was fought to advance the cause of atheism.


Korea, Viet Nam, Khmer Rouge, Russian Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, etc.


----------



## where I want to

FourDeuce said:


> IF you want to talk to people, you need to learn to stop assuming you know what's going on in their minds. In fact, if your "argument" includes talking about other people's thought processes when you're supposed to be proving your own fairy tales are true, you need to learn some critical thinking skills. You can't prove your fairy tales are true by talking about what other people might be thinking, and you definitely can't do it by lying about what they are thinking.


But, but, but ....... that is exactly what you do constantly. There is no making it up- no intrepretation of your thoughts. Just repeating what you say.
The usual arguing takes place:
1) God does not exist.
2) Therefore there is nothing that can prove God exists
3) Therefore no one can ever prove God exists
4) Since there can never be any proof God exists, God does not exist.

Then you say - aha, God does not exist. What kind of logic is that anyway. 

In truth, as I said, the exercise of proving God's existence is silly. Ultimately, God is defined as beyond the understanding of man. So, as I said, the evidence could be sitting on the end of your nose and you would not see it.

So, since the silliness of the demand to prove what can not be proved is a given, why do you do it? And why do you do it with such emotional intensity? What does it matter to you that someone else believes?


----------



## mnn2501

FourDeuce said:


> When you have no proof for your claims, it's easier(and shorter) to just admit you have no proof. If you don't understand basic logic(as in what constitutes proof), that would call for some remedial basic logic education. It's not elusive for anybody who is looking for it.


Repeating the same thing multiple times does not make it true.


----------



## mmoetc

Woolieface said:


> Just curious... ever see the Earth from space with your own eyes? How about an atom? Keep in mind, pictures in books and the assurances of other learned people do not count. That isn't proof....that's belief.
> 
> As for evidence... it's easy to miss evidence of something you don't have any interest in knowing.
> 
> But Christians don't win any door prizes for beating a dead horse so, carry on.


I can prove the roundness of the earth through some rather simple geometry combined with observation and measurement. I have looked "through" an electron microscope and seen some mighty small things. I don't require my eyes to have seen everything to know they exist. But I do do require some proof, other than the belief of others that they do. I can't state for certain the origin of our worlds. It might be some supreme being, even your god. It just hasn't been proven to me so I'll keep looking and asking.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Korea, Viet Nam, Khmer Rouge, Russian Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, etc.


So the converse is that those who fought against these movements were fighting for religion? I remember a lot of flags being placed in newly "discovered" lands in the name of God, king/queen, and country. I don't recall any c&#322;aims made in the name of atheism.


----------



## where I want to

Ok- simply put. 
I have seen any number of people who considered themselves in need of reforming their lives finding that ability through religion. Drug addicts, homeless, mental illness, etc- all needing to feel forgiven for what they know they did wrong, to themselves and others. All needing to feel unconditional love and guidance to make a better life for themselves. A place to obtain strength.
In fact I was visiting a very elderly person who I have known all my life. She was not religious, clearly having told me more than once that Jesus was a good man but nothing more. At the end of her life, she suddenly announced during one visit that Jesus had come to her and told her she had done good with her life. Obviously she had been feeling guilty and was relieved to be told that her worries were unfounded- which they were. But she needed that forgiveness.
I would not attempt to dissuade one of these people from their faith, even if they felt the need to lecture me about what they consider my personal failings. It would be a meanness beyond measure if I succeeded and useless if I didn't.


----------



## Woolieface

mmoetc said:


> I don't require my eyes to have seen everything to know they exist.


Me either.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Ok- simply put.
> I have seen any number of people who considered themselves in need of reforming their lives finding that ability through religion. Drug addicts, homeless, mental illness, etc- all needing to feel forgiven for what they know they did wrong, to themselves and others. All needing to feel unconditional love and guidance to make a better life for themselves. A place to obtain strength.
> In fact I was visiting a very elderly person who I have known all my life. She was not religious, clearly having told me more than once that Jesus was a good man but nothing more. At the end of her life, she suddenly announced during one visit that Jesus had come to her and told her she had done good with her life. Obviously she had been feeling guilty and was relieved to be told that her worries were unfounded- which they were. But she needed that forgiveness.
> I would not attempt to dissuade one of these people from their faith, even if they felt the need to lecture me about what they consider my personal failings. It would be a meanness beyond measure if I succeeded and useless if I didn't.


Then why the need to dissuade those that don't believe as you do from their faith, or lack thereof? Why lecture them about what you consider their failings, including their non belief in your god?

I've met a lot of people who have found peace through various religions. I know many who are quite content with no religion. There seems, to me, to be room for all.


----------



## Raeven

where I want to said:


> Korea, Viet Nam, Khmer Rouge, Russian Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, etc.


 I think even you know what a distortion it is to have named any of the conflicts you listed. How embarrassing for you, if you really believe any of them were fought in the name of atheism. If you actually do, I encourage you to revisit your history education. It is sadly lacking.

I know quite a few Vietnam vets. When Iâve asked them what they were fighting for over there, not a single one ever said, âTo stop the evil creep of atheism!â

The answer is none. No war or conflict was ever started or fought by a group of atheists trying to impose atheism on others. 

Try to remember, atheists are not an organization or a club. All they have in common is to not believe in something that is not proved to exist. I am an a-theist in the same way I am a-leprechaun and a-fairy. 

I donât care if you choose to believe in those things. Just stop trying to force me to believe in them, too. And stop trying to assume some sort of moral superiority for it. You have no basis for that, either.


----------



## mmoetc

Woolieface said:


> Me either.


Nice edit. Maybe a comment on my full thought world be more productive.


----------



## Woolieface

mmoetc said:


> I can prove the roundness of the earth through some rather simple geometry combined with observation and measurement. I have looked "through" an electron microscope and seen some mighty small things. I don't require my eyes to have seen everything to know they exist. But I do do require some proof, other than the belief of others that they do. I can't state for certain the origin of our worlds. It might be some supreme being, even your god. It just hasn't been proven to me so I'll keep looking and asking.


Ok.

You mean is that you require some Evidence (not proof) of things existing which you can not see for yourself, because anything you can not first-hand observe for yourself can not be "proven" to you. 

Me too. But I had to have a reasonable expectation that they might exist in the first place in order to look for or recognize the evidence.


----------



## mnn2501

Raeven said:


> I know quite a few Vietnam vets. When Iâve asked them what they were fighting for over there, not a single one ever said, âTo stop the evil creep of atheism!â


But you heard plenty of people in the 50's and 60's saying they were fighting to stop the "Godless Commies"


----------



## Raeven

mnn2501 said:


> But you heard plenty of people in the 50's and 60's saying they were fighting to stop the "Godless Commies"


If you can show where that war was fought solely for the purpose of stopping the spread of atheism, you'll have made a valid point. Otherwise, it's just Stuff People Said.


----------



## mmoetc

Woolieface said:


> Ok.
> 
> You mean is that you require some Evidence (not proof) of things existing which you can not see for yourself, because anything you can not first-hand observe for yourself can not be "proven" to you.
> 
> Me too. But I had to have a reasonable expectation that they might exist in the first place in order to look for or recognize the evidence.


I've never seen the Taj Mahal but I don't doubt the stories of those who say they have. It's fairly easy to have a reasonable expectation that a man might have such a palace built. Show me a reasonable expectation that a god exists and I'll look at your evidence. But you'll have to explain why this god only revealed himself to a small portion of the earth's population 5,000 or so years ago ignoring populations much greater who worshipped then , and still do, a vast array of gods of their own. It's easy for me to have a reasonable expectation that early man created strong mythical beings to explain that which they had no tools to examine. Times change, knowledge is gained and childhood beliefs are set aside. Some cling to them longer and that is their privilege. Now, do you believe the earth is a spherical body?

ETA- have I mentioned lately how much I hate it when people try to tell me what I meant, especially when they get it wrong? I generally write exactly what I mean.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> ETA- have I mentioned lately how much I hate it when people try to tell me what I meant, especially when they get it wrong? I generally write exactly what I mean.


That happens a lot on this board! To hear some folks tell it I am quite an uncaring monster. :shrug: I generally just consider the source and don't let it bother me. As my second wife's mother used to say "you shouldn't worry too much what other people think, they very seldom do."


----------



## Woolieface

mmoetc said:


> I've never seen the Taj Mahal but I don't doubt the stories of those who say they have. It's fairly easy to have a reasonable expectation that a man might have such a palace built. Show me a reasonable expectation that a god exists and I'll look at your evidence. But you'll have to explain why this god only revealed himself to a small portion of the earth's population 5,000 or so years ago ignoring populations much greater who worshipped then , and still do, a vast array of gods of their own. It's easy for me to have a reasonable expectation that early man created strong mythical beings to explain that which they had no tools to examine. Times change, knowledge is gained and childhood beliefs are set aside. Some cling to them longer and that is their privilege. Now, do you believe the earth is a spherical body?
> 
> ETA- have I mentioned lately how much I hate it when people try to tell me what I meant, especially when they get it wrong? I generally write exactly what I mean.


I've never seen God, but I don't doubt the stories of those who say they did. It's fairly easy to have a reasonable expectation that a Creator might have created this universe. 

The reasonabe expectation has already presented to you in creation. I can't do better than that.

As for why God elected one nation to reveal His law to, and one nation to become the vehicle through which Messiah and knowledge of Him came to the whole world, you have to understand that the whole world fell away from knowing Him once, and He elected a representative nation to bring knowledge of Him back to the whole world. In the gap in between...most of the world did not worship imaginary beings...they worshipped real beings who were in opposition to God.

Yes, I believe Earth is a spherical body... but I don't have proof that it is. Possibly I could prove it to myself, but I've never tried to because ...well, I guess it's just not a priority for me. 

I say you meant evidence and not proof because proof is first hand observation...evidence is information that supports a possibility.


----------



## FourDeuce

mnn2501 said:


> Repeating the same thing multiple times does not make it true.


Somebody should tell religious people that. :thumb:


----------



## Sawmill Jim

FourDeuce said:


> Somebody should tell religious people that. :thumb:


Religious in what way you can be religious about washing your car :thumb:


----------



## beenaround

Raeven said:


> Please point me to one war -- any war -- that was fought to advance the cause of atheism.


There is no such thing as a belief that doesn't include some sort of god. Or maybe atheism is not really a belief without a god, it's an effort to destroy God. In either case there is a god even if it's just you being that god.

Define the "cause of atheism" and I'll show you a war fought over it. I'm sure Russia has fought a few, China the same. Do you think N.Korea fights wars for a god, they fight them to promote themselves as gods which is atheism.

Rome fought wars believing they were gods.

The atheist fights internal wars all the time.

If the atheist isn't their own god, what are they?

FWIW I think the sacrifices of Christ cover the sin of atheism, but not the trouble it causes in this life. It is said God has enemies and also said men can be that enemy, I wonder about that. From where I see things the enemy of God is the enemy of man He came to defeat and that enemy is death, not flesh and blood, but the things that cause man misery.


----------



## Raeven

beenaround said:


> There is no such thing as a belief that doesn't include some sort of god. Or maybe atheism is not really a belief without a god, it's an effort to destroy God. In either case there is a god even if it's just you being that god.


 No, atheism is non-belief in any god. Itâs clear you donât understand atheism. Your failure to grasp non-belief does not make it less true. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in something for which there is no evidence. I donât care a whit about âdestroyingâ something for which I have no evidence exists.

There is no âcauseâ of atheism unless a war has been fought in the name of it. Since no war has been fought for such a cause, you will perhaps begin to appreciate my point. It *was* the point.

As I said, I no more believe in a god than I believe in leprechauns or fairies. Your assertion that âthere is no such thing that as a belief doesnât include some sort of god,â is only something you have said, presumably because you believe it. But you have no authority whatsoever for the statement, and as such, it is meaningless and not an argument for anything. Saying it isnât evidence for anything other than what you believe. It is fully unfounded, along with your assertion of âsin,â which is equally meaningless to one who does not have any basis to accept it as true.

I know you cannot accept it, but most atheists I know (and I know a lot of them) are good human beings simply because itâs the right thing to do. We donât need a book to tell us that. We live among you, everywhere. Weâre not eating babies or plotting world domination. Weâre not flying planes into buildings. We work at soup kitchens, give to charity, do good works for the sake of it. We dance, we throw parties, we tell jokes. We're not a club or an organization, we don't have a secret handshake. We love our families and want to provide for and protect them. We only wish to be left alone to live our lives as you do, without someone imposing their bookâs values on us. You donât have to hate me because Iâm an atheist. I donât hate you because youâre a believer. I donât care what you believe. You need to stop caring so much about what I donât believe.


----------



## FourDeuce

"If the atheist isn't their own god, what are they?"

Human beings.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> I've never seen God, but I don't doubt the stories of those who say they did.
> 
> I say you meant evidence and not proof because proof is first hand observation...evidence is information that supports a possibility.


I am glad you don't doubt the word of us who have seen Him. Having that one on one chat with Him was all the proof I needed.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am glad you don't doubt the word of us who have seen Him. Having that one on one chat with Him was all the proof I needed.


Cool...you can compare notes with Moses later.


----------



## where I want to

Raeven said:


> I think even you know what a distortion it is to have named any of the conflicts you listed. How embarrassing for you, if you really believe any of them were fought in the name of atheism. If you actually do, I encourage you to revisit your history education. It is sadly lacking.
> 
> I know quite a few Vietnam vets. When Iâve asked them what they were fighting for over there, not a single one ever said, âTo stop the evil creep of atheism!â
> 
> The answer is none. No war or conflict was ever started or fought by a group of atheists trying to impose atheism on others.
> 
> Try to remember, atheists are not an organization or a club. All they have in common is to not believe in something that is not proved to exist. I am an a-theist in the same way I am a-leprechaun and a-fairy.
> 
> I donât care if you choose to believe in those things. Just stop trying to force me to believe in them, too. And stop trying to assume some sort of moral superiority for it. You have no basis for that, either.


The minute atheism becomes a state policy, it has no problem being every bit as cruel, inhuman and self righteous (or more so) than any religious group. That it is harder to organize around a principle of opposing religion does not mean it is somehow more principled- it is just less competent.
Some people do fight in the name of their religion but generally as tools to achieve some other goal of power. People's specific religion tends to be -ahem- flexible, especially among the powerful. 

Governments have looked to religion as a way of control and of keeping the dangerous powerless rather than as a principle. A few have used atheism the same way and it has lead to the same results.
So, if atheism is a foundation of a state's identity, it has been used to violently eliminate the religious. Then, having purged itself at home, to move on to "free" other people of the burden of their religious too. And that is war. And frankly at a much more violent level than anything done in what you would choose to call a religious war.

Actually you might benefit from an examination of the history of how religion became a battle ground from the later part of the Roman Empire through the times of violent assault of the surrounding peoples trying to carve away the weakenened parts to the relative firming of religious identity in the middle ages. That period of conflict, about 1000 years, would provide much understanding of current issues as the scramble for survival (and losing a war usually meant mass murder) exposes the naked reality as no one power was strong enough to rewrite history solely from their own benefit. Things that look magical to you now, like religion, become very earth based. I think you would find yourself say "oh, that is why" a lot more. 

Anyway, even without that understanding, if you assign war as based on religion because one of the antagonists is religious, it would be reasonable to assign war to atheism if one of the antagonists is atheistic too. Otherwise it looks like a cherry picking expedition.


----------



## where I want to

FourDeuce said:


> "If the atheist isn't their own god, what are they?"
> 
> Human beings.


It is the "human being" part that is so very ugly. As far as I can tell, although complaining about the religious vociferously, the atheists seem to be just as low a bunch of self serving bullies as any religious partisan. They just do it in the names of themselves (frequently disguising the self part by calling it "others") as opposed in the name of a religion.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> It is the "human being" part that is so very ugly. As far as I can tell, although complaining about the religious vociferously, the atheists seem to be just as low a bunch of self serving bullies as any religious partisan. They just do it in the names of themselves (frequently disguising the self part by calling it "others") as opposed in the name of a religion.


I agree and I'll take it one step farther.. Most atheists replace god with government...


----------



## stanb999

To the opening question...

People make deities to justify their crappy lot in life and their generally meager existence. It's much easier to accept abject poverty knowing your likely to get the "prize" of everlasting life. It applies the smug christian face we atheists are so fond of.


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> To the opening question...
> 
> People make deities to justify their crappy lot in life and their generally meager existence. It's much easier to accept abject poverty knowing your likely to get the "prize" of everlasting life. It applies the smug christian face we atheists are so fond of.



...or maybe, you have not been shown what you need to see or have felt what you need to feel. You cannot destroy these things for people that have seen and felt these things with mere words.

Is there something going on that might prevent these things from coming your way?


----------



## FourDeuce

"It is the "human being" part that is so very ugly."

That's a good demonstration of what Nietzsche said: "The Christian resolution to find the world *ugly* and bad has made the world *ugly* and bad." 

"As far as I can tell, although complaining about the religious vociferously, the atheists seem to be just as low a bunch of self serving bullies as any religious partisan."

And how far have you taken that? Have you met many atheists?


----------



## FourDeuce

"Is there something going on that might prevent these things from coming your way?"


The main thing keeping me from accepting that fairy tales are true is critical thinking skills.


----------



## FourDeuce

stanb999 said:


> I agree and I'll take it one step farther.. Most atheists replace god with government...


I'll call that bet. Got proof?


----------



## mnn2501

stanb999 said:


> To the opening question...
> 
> People make deities to justify their crappy lot in life and their generally meager existence. It's much easier to accept abject poverty knowing your likely to get the "prize" of everlasting life. It applies the smug christian face we atheists are so fond of.


That's funny, I never realized I was in abject poverty.
I'm not as rich as Trump, but I always run out of bills to pay long before the money runs out.


----------



## mnn2501

I will say one thing about an atheist I work with. I once asked him to describe the God he does not believe in (ie list their attributes) and you know what? I could never believe in a fantasy being like that either. 
I don't know where many atheists get their ideas about the Christian God from, but it certainly is not an informed opinion.


----------



## where I want to

FourDeuce said:


> "It is the "human being" part that is so very ugly."
> 
> That's a good demonstration of what Nietzsche said: "The Christian resolution to find the world *ugly* and bad has made the world *ugly* and bad."
> 
> "As far as I can tell, although complaining about the religious vociferously, the atheists seem to be just as low a bunch of self serving bullies as any religious partisan."
> 
> And how far have you taken that? Have you met many atheists?


The only ones who have felt called on to take it up as banner are on line here. I'm sure I have met others who are atheists but, since they have not felt a need to smack people over the head with their opinions, I can't tell for sure.

And Nietzsche is certainly not the one to quote for much- he managed to find the world pretty ugly all by himself. He pretty much found everyone revolting, refusing to accept that anyone else had any valid thoughts. His words read better than he lived. And, though typical for those who spend their life objecting to reality, is not useful to those who have a life.


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> "Is there something going on that might prevent these things from coming your way?"
> 
> 
> The main thing keeping me from accepting that fairy tales are true is critical thinking skills.


Yup, that right there will get 'er done. You might as well take yer 'cleanse me' flag down and put it in storage.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Shine said:


> Yup, that right there will get 'er done. You might as well take yer 'cleanse me' flag down and put it in storage.


Heard it said .Once on board the train of unbelief most remain on it till it reaches it's destination :bow:


----------



## stanb999

mnn2501 said:


> That's funny, I never realized I was in abject poverty.
> I'm not as rich as Trump, but I always run out of bills to pay long before the money runs out.


Your missing the point, Cristanty was created to pasify the masses. I'm not suggesting it didn't work.

Are you suggesting it had greater meaning?


----------



## stanb999

Sawmill Jim said:


> Heard it said .Once on board the train of unbelief most remain on it till it reaches it's destination :bow:


Are you a smug christian? How is that Jesus like?


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> Are you a smug christian? How is that Jesus like?


What is it you believe that Christians feel smug about?


----------



## stanb999

Praise Odin


----------



## stanb999

Woolieface said:


> What is it you believe that Christians feel smug about?



They are smug in their belief in fairy tales. AKA Gods on my side... so who
is on yours?


----------



## poppy

stanb999 said:


> They are smug in their belief in fairy tales. AKA Gods on my side... so who
> is on yours?


You got it backwards. I'm on God's side and that ain't gonna change.


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> Are you a smug christian? How is that Jesus like?


Jesus was not smug when he made comments such as those that your are replying to, just convicted in their meanings...


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> Your missing the point, Cristanty was created to pasify the masses. I'm not suggesting it didn't work.
> 
> Are you suggesting it had greater meaning?


Another one, Christ walked this earth to show that the current mindsets of His times were all wonkered up. He walked a path that no one else can, He bowed to no one except His Father. How many people did you bow to today? You see the same paradigm is still in play. The same characters are filling the spots and have throughout history, it has been the same battle, over and over. 

...or did you just walk a path in righteousness without caring for the wiles of this world? Did you do everything right today, not right by someone else's standards, only by the standards that you understand to be good?


You can't even do that...


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Sure some Communist countries allowed some regulated religion as long as it kept to it's place but in essence they are atheistic. In fact I remember tge words that Communism and religion are incompatible.
> 
> As to a vague spirituality, that is very recent although agreedly very vague. At least in some circles. But it is the spirituality itself that has faded as people really pay no attention to inconvenient beliefs or check their conscience very much at all. It is more aspirituality than vague spirituality.


Let me try that again. A society is neither religious or Atheist unless the CITIZENS choose to be religious or Atheist. Just because the people at the top want to force a particular religion or no religion at all on their citizens does not mean that their citizens agree and follow through on it. 

America is on it's way to nothing but vague spirituality on the part of it's people. While we still have a majority who claim Christianity as their religion only 17.7% of Americans actually attend Church on Sundays. The only churches with growing numbers are sheep stealers. In another decade or 2 vague spirituality will be the majority. 

There are tons of genuinely spiritual people out there who have consciences and see there is more out there than can be easily explained via science.


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> What started the universe? Why does the universe operate by uniform laws of nature? Why is it so orderly? So reliable?
> 
> How was DNA created? Why does earth reside in the Goldilock Zone, and have all the necessary elements for carbon-based life forms?
> 
> Where did the human brain come from, since there is such a massive jump in intelligence from our nearest relatives?...Evolution cannot explain it.
> 
> No, I can't prove that God exists, but you can't prove He doesn't.


Ah the joys of circular reasoning......


----------



## Patchouli

mnn2501 said:


> But you heard plenty of people in the 50's and 60's saying they were fighting to stop the "Godless Commies"


Propaganda is an awesome thing isn't it?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> Let me try that again. A society is neither religious or Atheist unless the CITIZENS choose to be religious or Atheist. Just because the people at the top want to force a particular religion or no religion at all on their citizens does not mean that their citizens agree and follow through on it.
> 
> America is on it's way to nothing but vague spirituality on the part of it's people. While we still have a majority who claim Christianity as their religion only 17.7% of Americans actually attend Church on Sundays. The only churches with growing numbers are sheep stealers. In another decade or 2 vague spirituality will be the majority.
> 
> There are tons of genuinely spiritual people out there who have consciences and see there is more out there than can be easily explained via science.


Was these some of what you were referring to :shrug: This is talking about the last days .

2Ti 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


----------



## Marshloft

Sawmill Jim said:


> Was these some of what you were referring to :shrug: This is talking about the last days .
> 
> 2Ti 3:5
> _*Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.*_


 When I was a young christian, I always wondered what that meant.
Now i know.


----------



## stanb999

Shine said:


> Another one, Christ walked this earth to show that the current mindsets of His times were all wonkered up. He walked a path that no one else can, He bowed to no one except His Father. How many people did you bow to today? You see the same paradigm is still in play. The same characters are filling the spots and have throughout history, it has been the same battle, over and over.
> 
> ...or did you just walk a path in righteousness without caring for the wiles of this world? Did you do everything right today, not right by someone else's standards, only by the standards that you understand to be good?
> 
> 
> You can't even do that...


So your Christ accomplished nothing? Can we now discuss the great Odin?


----------



## stanb999

poppy said:


> You got it backwards. I'm on God's side and that ain't gonna change.


Check mate!


----------



## stanb999

Patchouli said:


> Let me try that again. A society is neither religious or Atheist unless the CITIZENS choose to be religious or Atheist. Just because the people at the top want to force a particular religion or no religion at all on their citizens does not mean that their citizens agree and follow through on it.
> 
> America is on it's way to nothing but vague spirituality on the part of it's people. While we still have a majority who claim Christianity as their religion only 17.7% of Americans actually attend Church on Sundays. The only churches with growing numbers are sheep stealers. In another decade or 2 vague spirituality will be the majority.
> 
> There are tons of genuinely spiritual people out there who have consciences and see there is more out there than can be easily explained via science.


The reason for this is because the bible and other texts written by late stone age people have lost meaning in the modern world. It's hard to fear what the bible professes is gods work... pestilence, disease, famine. We know what causes these things and more. It doesn't take a man in the sky to work up a deadly virus. You don't need to be cursed to have an abundance of cabbage worms. Extreme weather can cause crop failure, but was it god? In the early church and less learned societies today. "god" directly affected things. Now it's to the point in the western world that most devout still pray for god to change the out come of some event... But they are hardly surprised that god doesn't directly intercede.


----------



## FutureFarm

stanb999 said:


> So your Christ accomplished nothing? Can we now discuss the great Odin?



Sure, we can discuss Odin. I honestly don't know much about the Norse Pantheon. Please share with us what you believe about him. Although since I don't know much and am likely to ask questions, if you want to discuss Norse Religions, maybe you should start a new thread.


----------



## stanb999

FutureFarm said:


> Sure, we can discuss Odin. I honestly don't know much about the Norse Pantheon. Please share with us what you believe about him.


Odin, along with the other warrior gods/spirits served to give strength to those about to enter battle. You would pray to the god of your choice. You would pray for their protection. Battle in the late stone age was especially personal but not particularly dangerous (weapons weren't overly effective). So it was thought that those that actually got killed in battle had lost favor with their god. For whatever reason. 

The reason myths persist is our need to make sense of difficult circumstances. The reasons society promotes religion is many but one of the earliest recognized ones is basic need for warriors to defend it from outsiders. I see the gods and there complexity as a general progression. 

In small villages/close quarters religion isn't especially needed because a man generally doesn't need to be convinced to defend his wife and his children. Your highly motivated. 

Next a simple spirit god that can "help" you in a pinch when defending your village (your ancestors ect.) Your defending your friends and family. Your really motivated.

Next your a warrior for a small nation fighting to defend your nations land your fighting to defend your "neighbors" land not necessarily your own. Your god is finally developed enough to give you a place to go after death, but he can still directly affect the outcome of things. (AKA Odin) Your kinda motivated

Finally your a warrior for a nation. your expected to go off and die for a cause that doesn't necessarily help you personally. You need a good place to go and to make the "enemy" evil. AKA modern religions god. you expect to be paid.


----------



## FutureFarm

Do you believe in Odin? If not who is your god? Odin seems like a very violent god. Do you often find yourself in such violent situations and dire straits?


----------



## stanb999

FutureFarm said:


> Do you believe in Odin? If not who is your god? Odin seems like a very violent god. Do you often find yourself in such violent situations and dire straits?


No not at all. I do not believe in gods or other myths. Tho they can be entertaining thought experiments. I like to think about what worshiping a "sun" god can teach us about the seasons. I like to entertain the idea of pagan ideals, like sharing the harvest and having a proper order to things. The fact that their is no good or evil, things just are as in Buddhism. Lots of interesting ideas indeed.

Odin, is not nearly as violent as most modern gods... Yahweh killed off all the life on the planet except for a small few with floods. The god of the new testament plans to burn the entire planet to assert his dominance and even kill the dead!!! Gods are rather violent fellas.  

No I do not find myself in bad situations like the early stone age peoples.


----------



## FutureFarm

Are there not examples of the Christian God instructing his followers to share with the poor? Don't Christians believe that their God created everything and ordered it? It seems that most of the pagan ideals you mention exist in Christianity. 
If you do not believe in any God, why does it matter to you if others do? Why do you belittle their beliefs by calling them fairy tales?


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Are there not examples of the Christian God instructing his followers to share with the poor? Don't Christians believe that their God created everything and ordered it? It seems that most of the pagan ideals you mention exist in Christianity.
> If you do not believe in any God, why does it matter to you if others do? Why do you belittle their beliefs by calling them fairy tales?


And somehow those pagan ideals existed before the idea of your god came to fruition in an obscure tribe in the desert. They existed in many places, with many traditions in the absence of any knowledge of your god. They exist today in many places and with many people who look at your stories and believe them to be fairy tales. If we're to honor and respect your beliefs that the rest of us are wrong and you're right why can't you respect and honor the belief that others have that your stories are nothing but fairy tales. Aren't we all free to believe as we wish?


----------



## stanb999

FutureFarm said:


> Are there not examples of the Christian God instructing his followers to share with the poor? Don't Christians believe that their God created everything and ordered it? It seems that most of the pagan ideals you mention exist in Christianity.
> If you do not believe in any God, why does it matter to you if others do? Why do you belittle their beliefs by calling them fairy tales?


Not really, god never said much at all to Christians. Jesus is said to have said things tho.

Sure Christians have a creation myth.

Christianity is made up of many myths from earlier religions. Virgin birth, after life, the concept of hell and but a few.

I don't care if people believe in myths. I care when they force their beliefs on others. 

Am I to respect the belief of a child in Santa? Do you respect an adult that asserts belief in alien visitation? What about belief in psychics, tarot, and reading chicken entrails? How are these myths different?


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> They are smug in their belief in fairy tales. AKA Gods on my side... so who
> is on yours?


I don't know a lot of Christians who feel smugly that "God is on my side".... I think most of us feel that God is on humanity's side and we each, individually, have the choice to participate in what He offered or not.


----------



## FutureFarm

I have always respected the beliefs of others. I have never mentioned my religion, just that I don't know much about Norse religions. I don't expect you to agree that my beliefs are correct, unless we believe the same things. Everyone is free to believe in whatever they wish, and I certainly respect your right to believe in whatever you want. I'm just curious as to why there is so much hostility towards Christians if, as you said, most of what they believe is a retelling of pagan ideals and most of the people here who are being hostile with the Christians lift up the same ideals as good, just from different sources? It seems that the good pagan ideals and the evil Christian zealots both support many similar things.


----------



## stanb999

Woolieface said:


> I don't know a lot of Christians who feel smugly that "God is on my side".... I think most of us feel that God is on humanity's side and we each, individually, have the choice to participate in what He offered or not.


Sure you do. Your just not on the right side of the argument. 


The choice... Yes according to Christians god "gave us " free will. Excising it is the surest way to end up in the fiery pit of eternal damnation.


----------



## FutureFarm

Specifically, If someone told me they were visited by aliens, or had the ability to decipher the future through Tarot cards, or chicken entrails, I would not be offended. There is a Tarot reader who has an office near where my grandma used to live. I don't believe in the reader's ability to tell the future, but I don't begrudge or belittle those who do. Maybe she can and everyone who saw her knows what's coming.


----------



## stanb999

FutureFarm said:


> I have always respected the beliefs of others. I have never mentioned my religion, just that I don't know much about Norse religions. I don't expect you to agree that my beliefs are correct, unless we believe the same things. Everyone is free to believe in whatever they wish, and I certainly respect your right to believe in whatever you want. I'm just curious as to why there is so much hostility towards Christians if, as you said, most of what they believe is a retelling of pagan ideals and most of the people here who are being hostile with the Christians lift up the same ideals as good, just from different sources? It seems that the good pagan ideals and the evil Christian zealots both support many similar things.


Here is one that most would find abhorrent.. There are hundreds more tho.

I'm not legally able to run for political office in the state of Pennsylvania as an atheist because of Christians.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> I don't care if people believe in myths. I care when they force their beliefs on others.
> 
> Am I to respect the belief of a child in Santa? Do you respect an adult that asserts belief in alien visitation? What about belief in psychics, tarot, and reading chicken entrails? How are these myths different?


The usual objection to "enforcing religious" beliefs seems to be immediately followed by insisting on enforcing their own personal beliefs. What if I object to your personal beliefs? Or your neighbor's or the mob's? 
That is actually an argument for limiting government involvement. To limit the intrusion of the current collective opinion into private beliefs. If someone believes in tarot readings being good for determining foreign policy- fine. But don't demand I pay for the hiring of government psychics. 
And as for being different- most religious thought is directed towards improving the quality of human morals. Beliefs are chosen towards that end.
The other things you mention are used to gain personal power over others- the opposite of moral growth.
And yes, you should respect a child's belief in Santa Claus, at least as far as using their belief as a weapon to bolster your own self importance by confronting them. Just as a child is trained not to point a finger at your -ahem- unusual choice of clothing, facial hair or comic con costume. It's called being respectful of others.


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> Sure you do. Your just not on the right side of the argument.
> 
> 
> The choice... Yes according to Christians god "gave us " free will. Excising it is the surest way to end up in the fiery pit of eternal damnation.


Well, you're free to run blindfolded in traffic but no one expects that to not result in consequences...


----------



## stanb999

Woolieface said:


> Well, you're free to run blindfolded in traffic but no one expects that to not result in consequences...


And right there is the smugness. 


Check mate.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> And right there is the smugness.
> 
> 
> Check mate.


How is saying that a religious idea of free will being that you have to right to exercise that to your deteriment at your own choice smugness? That has built into it your own idea that free will always leads to condemnation in the eyes of a religion when what happens is that it simply provides guidance so that the free will can be used with less chance of self harm.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> The usual objection to "enforcing religious" beliefs seems to be immediately followed by insisting on enforcing their own personal beliefs. What if I object to your personal beliefs? Or your neighbor's or the mob's?
> That is actually an argument for limiting government involvement. To limit the intrusion of the current collective opinion into private beliefs. If someone believes in tarot readings being good for determining foreign policy- fine. But don't demand I pay for the hiring of government psychics.
> And as for being different- most religious thought is directed towards improving the quality of human morals. Beliefs are chosen towards that end.
> The other things you mention are used to gain personal power over others- the opposite of moral growth.
> And yes, you should respect a child's belief in Santa Claus, at least as far as using their belief as a weapon to bolster your own self importance by confronting them. Just as a child is trained not to point a finger at your -ahem- unusual choice of clothing, facial hair or comic con costume. It's called being respectful of others.


I agree with the first statement, you should note I said most atheists replace god with government. I agree the surest way to individual happiness is individual freedom.

How is hiring government psychics different that the having a religious fella on a navy ship or at a military base? I see it as the same. So all religious ceremonies should banned from public places. IE the town square. 

Teaching children not to point fingers isn't christian, it's secular. Christians teach their children to discriminate. They know who goes to their church and who doesn't. Discriminating has consequences but it's not "bad" or "good".


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> How is saying that a religious idea of free will being that you have to right to exercise that to your deteriment at your own choice smugness? That has built into it your own idea that free will always leads to condemnation in the eyes of a religion when what happens is that it simply provides guidance so that the free will can be used with less chance of self harm.


If the bible stories are true...
Your deluging your self if you believe Christians have free will to act as they wish. They are convinced they will burn in hell if they step out of line. At least this is what the bible tells them. It also says an exceedingly small number of folks will be saved from the fires of hell... 144000. They always think it's them that's going to avoid the fire. A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else. Chances are those saved wont be you. It won't be anyone you ever met or will ever meet. 

That's what I mean by smug


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> I agree with the first statement, you should note I said most atheists replace god with government. I agree the surest way to individual happiness is individual freedom.
> 
> How is hiring government psychics different that the having a religious fella on a navy ship or at a military base? I see it as the same. So all religious ceremonies should banned from public places. IE the town square.
> 
> Teaching children not to point fingers isn't christian, it's secular. Christians teach their children to discriminate. They know who goes to their church and who doesn't. Discriminating has consequences but it's not "bad" or "good".


We lived in different worlds- in my world, the sermons from the pulpits were all about doing better by recognizing personal failings, acting charitably despite personal doubts, loving the most unlovable, honoring relationships, etc etc etc. All that holy nonsense designed to make you feel bad about what you had done sometimes but offering options to improve for more self satisfaction.

Actually, doesn't it give you pause that the less people have identified as religious, the more people have equated freedom to be rude and self satisfying as personal freedom?


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> We lived in different worlds- in my world, the sermons from the pulpits were all about doing better by recognizing personal failings, acting charitably despite personal doubts, loving the most unlovable, honoring relationships, etc etc etc. All that holy nonsense designed to make you feel bad about what you had done sometimes but offering options to improve for more self satisfaction.
> 
> Actually, doesn't it give you pause that the less people have identified as religious, the more people have equated freedom to be rude and self satisfying as personal freedom?


I guess it depends.. If your ultimate goal was salvation according the book then doing good works sure increased your chances. But the good works weren't done for the sake of others. It was done for your goal. Salvation.



I don't know that people are any different. The unwashed masses of the roman era were called that for a reason.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> If the bible stories are true...
> Your deluging your self if you believe Christians have free will to act as they wish. They are convinced they will burn in hell if they step out of line. At least this is what the bible tells them. It also says an exceedingly small number of folks will be saved from the fires of hell... 144000. They always think it's them that's going to avoid the fire. A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else. Chances are those saved wont be you. It won't be anyone you ever met or will ever meet.
> 
> That's what I mean by smug


Different religions teach different ways. I never heard a priest use the world "hell" ,which I thought was a swear word, until I participated in a group visiting different services as an interfaith ecumenical exercise when I was 16.
But somehow, I can't see that preaching making a point about self destructive behavior is the same as curtailing freedom. It may or may not take. Your choice. But still, if I believe that taking street drugs would lead to a bad spot, I would certainly try my utmost to convince any other person I knew not to choose that option. Doesn't mean they can't despite anything I say. They have the freedom, I just try for education before the exercising the freedom.
If you advocate trying to prevent harm as a curtailing of freedom, then you would have to show such a level of constraint by others that the harm of restraint far exceeds the harm of the choices being attempted.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> I guess it depends.. If your ultimate goal was salvation according the book then doing good works sure increased your chances. But the good works weren't done for the sake of others. It was done for your goal. Salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that people are any different. The unwashed masses of the roman era were called that for a reason.


In the end I don't think any religion thinks that heaven can be bought by "good works". I think "good works" are a training ground to find self satisfaction. That something that seems so contrary to nature such as sharing food can actually make you happy.

Edited to add- I guess people who believe getting killed by killing othere's in the name of Islam might fit that discription. But, despite the hope of the efficacy of legacies by some, I never heard of it otherwise.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> Different religions teach different ways. I never heard a priest use the world "hell" ,which I thought was a swear word, until I participated in a group visiting different services as an interfaith ecumenical exercise when I was 16.
> But somehow, I can't see that preaching making a point about self destructive behavior is the same as curtailing freedom. It may or may not take. Your choice. But still, if I believe that taking street drugs would lead to a bad spot, I woukd certainly tey my utmost to convince any other person I knew not to choose that option. Doesn't mean they can't despite anything I say.
> If you advocate trying to prevent harm as a curtailing of freedom, then you would have to show such a level of constraint by others that the harm of restraint far exceeds the harm of the choices being attempted.


Priests (aka Catholics) used the word hell all the time. It was why you went to confession. If you didn't get that message I don't know what to tell you.


An Adcouncil VS a Sermon. Interesting dichotomy no?
Preaching as you are discussing isn't bad or good nor is it particularly religious. A good mentor of any type advocates the same things. The religious bend is you get hell if you tell them to bug off and don't listen.


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> If the bible stories are true...
> Your deluging your self if you believe Christians have free will to act as they wish. They are convinced they will burn in hell if they step out of line. At least this is what the bible tells them. It also says an exceedingly small number of folks will be saved from the fires of hell... 144000. They always think it's them that's going to avoid the fire. A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else. Chances are those saved wont be you. It won't be anyone you ever met or will ever meet.
> 
> That's what I mean by smug


A couple of points for you:
The proper word would be "deluding"
No Christian will "burn in Hell" if they step out of line. We are to follow the teachings of Christ BUT God made us as sinners, we will sin numerous times before we meet our fate. I sincerely believe that it is our intent that He looks to, if we sin and find ourselves in that sin and it is not an intentional sin then we can ask for forgiveness and seek to not do that again. Intentional sin is the "gotcha" though, we cannot sin just because God forgives us, our heart has to be in line with His teachings.
144,000 - Those are the Jews, the Elect Jews that will go to Heaven.

The last four sentences before your closing are pure presumption but this stands out to me: "A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else." in as far as One did.

Hope that helps.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> Priests (aka Catholics) used the word hell all the time. It was why you went to confession. If you didn't get that message I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> 
> An Adcouncil VS a Sermon. Interesting dichotomy no?
> Preaching as you are discussing isn't bad or good nor is it particularly religious. A good mentor of any type advocates the same things. The religious bend is you get hell if you tell them to bug off and don't listen.


Never went to confession. Not part of the church in which I was raised. Although come to think of it, I did hear once that it was an option. But I never heard of anyone doing it.

BTW the bible was used as the basis for all sermons as in "Todays text is (whatever was chosen)" and then the elaboration began. Pretty religious to me.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> In the end I don't think any religion thinks that heaven can be bought by "good works". I think "good works" are a training ground to find self satisfaction. That something that seems so contrary to nature such as sharing food can actually make you happy.
> 
> Edited to add- I guess people who believe getting killed by killing othere's in the name of Islam might fit that discription. But, despite the hope of the efficacy of legacies by some, I never heard of it otherwise.


I have a Surprise for you. Your not a traditional christian. Your beliefs are closer to a spiritualist as alluded to earlier in this thread. You IMHO believe in god, but the rest is mumbo jumbo. Your not worried about hell. 

Don't start reading the bible... It will turn you off like it did me. I was in a similar place more than 15 years ago.


----------



## mnn2501

stanb999 said:


> If the bible stories are true...
> Your deluging your self if you believe Christians have free will to act as they wish. They are convinced they will burn in hell if they step out of line. At least this is what the bible tells them. It also says an exceedingly small number of folks will be saved from the fires of hell... 144000. They always think it's them that's going to avoid the fire. A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else. Chances are those saved wont be you. It won't be anyone you ever met or will ever meet.
> 
> That's what I mean by smug


Sorry, but you are believing an interpretation of the Bible. The modern English Bible does not totally convey the actual meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew


----------



## stanb999

Shine said:


> A couple of points for you:
> The proper word would be "deluding"
> No Christian will "burn in Hell" if they step out of line. We are to follow the teachings of Christ BUT God made us as sinners, we will sin numerous times before we meet our fate. I sincerely believe that it is our intent that He looks to, if we sin and find ourselves in that sin and it is not an intentional sin then we can ask for forgiveness and seek to not do that again. Intentional sin is the "gotcha" though, we cannot sin just because God forgives us, our heart has to be in line with His teachings.
> 144,000 - Those are the Jews, the Elect Jews that will go to Heaven.
> 
> The last four sentences before your closing are pure presumption but this stands out to me: "A selfless person would take the fire to save someone else." in as far as One did.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Did you find that interpretation the bible? It plainly states who will burn in the unending pit of fire. Basically all those who aren't warriors for god at the battle of Armageddon. It's pretty clear. Maybe you should.


----------



## stanb999

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, but you are believing an interpretation of the Bible. The modern English Bible does not totally convey the actual meaning for the original Greek and Hebrew


Oh it's pretty clear. shall we parse it? 

the 144000 and the others... Are you planning on being one of the "others".

The others are angels. Angles never set foot on earth.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> I have a Surprise for you. Your not a traditional christian. Your beliefs are closer to a spiritualist as alluded to earlier in this thread. You IMHO believe in god, but the rest is mumbo jumbo. Your not worried about hell.
> 
> Don't start reading the bible... It will turn you off like it did me. I was in a similar place more than 15 years ago.


No, actually. I think that the Bible is the repository of a lot of human thought about God and life. It has a lot of wisdom on how to be a more balanced human and to find joy and satisfaction. Just so every person does not have to reinvent the wheel in every lifetime, never progressing past one lifetime's work. 

That it can be misused, distorted and mis understood by people is not unexpected. That is human. It's like most everything- you get out of it what you go looking to find.


----------



## Shine

where I want to said:


> In the end I don't think any religion thinks that heaven can be bought by "good works". I think "good works" are a training ground to find self satisfaction. That something that seems so contrary to nature such as sharing food can actually make you happy.
> 
> Edited to add- I guess people who believe getting killed by killing othere's in the name of Islam might fit that discription. But, despite the hope of the efficacy of legacies by some, I never heard of it otherwise.


Your statement: I think "good works" are a training ground to find self satisfaction."

I differ with you in my understanding. In my walk as I am called closer and closer I am being changed, things are placed into my heart that used to not be aligned with my way of thinking. No longer do I curse except in emergencies and then I ask for forgiveness and help to not do that again. Other things are just like that, somehow, now they are pleasing to me in my heart more so than in my mind. I believe that the Holy Spirit is actively working within me.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> No, actually. I think that the Bible is the repository of a lot of human thought about God and life. It has a lot of wisdom on how to be a more balanced human and to find joy and satisfaction. Just so every person does not have to reinvent the wheel in every lifetime, never progressing past one lifetime's work.
> 
> That it can be misused, distorted and mis understood by people is not unexpected. That is human. It's like most everything- you get out of it what you go looking to find.


We actually agree... Well sorta. 

The bible was ordained by the last great roman emperor to pass the knowledge of the ages forward threw the dark ages that they were sure would follow the collapse of the empire. The church acting not unlike a time capsule or library. They taught the priests real knowledge. Math, astronomy, physics, the art of building, etc. They set it up so the institutions would be supported with taxpayer funds AKA tythe. Quite ingenious if I do say so myself. 

Later they lost their way when they gained too much power and tried to keep the knowledge to themselves. IMHO it's why the dark ages lasted 1000 years instead of just a century or two as originally intended.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> How is hiring government psychics different that the having a religious fella on a navy ship or at a military base? I see it as the same. So all religious ceremonies should banned from public places. IE the town square.


Sorry - I lost this issue but do have a response. The providing of religious services to the military does not control the actions of the military. It provides comfort and guidance to those who need it. 
However, if the military should consult the Bible on military tactics as a matter of policy, then that is equivalent to a psychic consultation.


My impression is that you think ideas based on religious teaching are are so compelling that humans are unable to choose anything else. I certainly have never been that way. But then I have the inheritance from a mother actually called a heathen by a priest from the pulpit. I respect ideas, especially ones with a long history and many creators.  But have no need to fight my way free. I'm free and need to fight my way in.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> Sorry - I lost this issue but do have a response. The providing of religious services to the military does not control the actions of the military. It provides comfort and guidance to those who need it.
> However, if the military should consult the Bible on military tactics as a matter of policy, then that is equivalent to a psychic consultation.
> 
> 
> My impression is that you think ideas based on religious teaching are are so compelling that humans are unable to choose anything else. I certainly have never been that way. But then I have the inheritance from a mother actually called a heathen by a priest from the pulpit. I respect ideas, especially ones with a long history and many creators. But have no need to fight my way free. I'm free and need to fight my way in.



If they were fully supported by their respective communities it would be fine. But my tax dollars are used for his funding... We can agree to disagree about navel chaplains. 

If the teachings weren't so compelling to the average person there wouldn't be so many. 2 billion followers is a rather impressive tally. For a ancient book that is at best difficult to read, heavily translated, and often misquoted. 

Just because ideas are old doesn't make them good or bad. IMHO


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> We actually agree... Well sorta.
> 
> The bible was ordained by the last great roman emperor to pass the knowledge of the ages forward threw the dark ages that they were sure would follow the collapse of the empire. The church acting not unlike a time capsule or library. They taught the priests real knowledge. Math, astronomy, physics, the art of building, etc. They set it up so the institutions would be supported with taxpayer funds AKA tythe. Quite ingenious if I do say so myself.
> 
> Later they lost their way when they gained too much power and tried to keep the knowledge to themselves. IMHO it's why the dark ages lasted 1000 years instead of just a century or two as originally intended.


You happen to hit on an idea which is part of a book I am reading now. Byzantium by John Julius Norwich. I am only through the first book of the trilogy but I see just the opposite of what you are saying.
They were as clueless as anyone else about the world collapsing and changing. They intended to restore past glories. The last Roman Emperors were struggling for survival against both outside and internal chaos. They kept alternately dividing authority and reclaiming it to deal with outside pressures and, as religion was one unifying force, trying to appease differing beliefs and eliminate them just as erratically..

In the effort to find unity, many elaborations and councils tried to find common ground and a single interpretation. Hopelessy it turned out.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> If they were fully supported by their respective communities it would be fine. But my tax dollars are used for his funding... We can agree to disagree about navel chaplains.
> 
> If the teachings weren't so compelling to the average person there wouldn't be so many. 2 billion followers is a rather impressive tally. For a ancient book that is at best difficult to read, heavily translated, and often misquoted.
> 
> Just because ideas are old doesn't make them good or bad. IMHO


Yes but I can see providing for what needs the participants want as they have been deprived of the normal freedom to seek their own solutions, even if I don't want that particular service myself.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> You happen to hit on an idea which is part of a book I am reading now. Byzantium by John Julius Norwich. I am only through the first book of the trilogy but I see just the opposite of what you are saying.
> They were as clueless as anyone else about the world collapsing and changing. They intended to restore past glories. The last Roman Emperors were struggling for survival against both outside and internal chaos. They kept alternately dividing authority and reclaiming it to deal with outside pressurres and, as religion was one unifying force, trying to appease differing beliefs and eliminate them just as alternating them.
> 
> In the effort to find unity, many eleboratiins and councils tried to find common ground and a single interpretation. Hopelessy it turned out.


What's the point of having secret knowledge and letting it out? Proof is in the pudding.

The only learned people in the west were from the religious institutions for 1000 years.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> Yes but I can see providing for what needs the participants want as they have been deprived of the normal freedom to seek their own solutions, even if I don't want that particular service myself.


Can you explain this better?


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> I have a Surprise for you. Your not a traditional christian. Your beliefs are closer to a spiritualist as alluded to earlier in this thread. You IMHO believe in god, but the rest is mumbo jumbo. Your not worried about hell.
> 
> Don't start reading the bible... It will turn you off like it did me. I was in a similar place more than 15 years ago.


You have a point there, I prefer NOT to be called a "Christian" - again, that sounds like I have completed or accomplished something, I have not. There are many Churches that I have turned and walked out of, not wanting to be a part of what they had going. 

There is much in the Bible that I do not understand, a more precise description IMO than "mumbo-jumbo" [sorry] However, many times I have been seeking answers for this or that and have found them to be revealed in areas of the Bible that I was looking for answers for a different sort... Boom, right there they are.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> What's the point of having secret knowledge and letting it out? Proof is in the pudding.
> 
> The only learned people in the west were from the religious institutions for 1000 years.


Ok- here we totally part ways. In my experience conspiracies on a large scale are impossible as more than a very few select people can ever keep their mouths shut or avoid falling out. 
I doubt that someone, ruler or no, is so preternatually intelligent that they can plan out the far future while giving up on being able to keep the next generation from falling off a cliff. All that the wisest can ever do is look to their own crisis.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> Can you explain this better?


If a person needs a warmer coat than I need, I will not object to paying for it if I already have an obligation to provide clothing. If the goal is to give them what they find needful to do the work I have asked, then I will try to provide. That I don't need it does not mean they don't- people vary. 
Of course if they need something so peculiar as to be previously unknown to man, then I would question whether it is a real need.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> Ok- here we totally part ways. In my experience conspiracies on a large scale are impossible as more than a very few select people can ever keep their mouths shut or avoid falling out.
> I doubt that someone, ruler or no, is so preternatually intelligent that they can plan out the far future while not giving up on being able to keep the next generation from falling off a cliff. All that the wisest can ever do is look to their own crisis.


What if it wasn't a "conspiracy" as much as a plan. It could be done in plain site to those learned enough to know. Who would be opposed? The fact that it was done would be lost to time as the original people died off. A generation or two removed it's a legend. Five generations it's a conspiracy story old men discuss. 10 generations.. it never happened. 

I believe most people are basically good. No original sin here.


----------



## stanb999

where I want to said:


> If a person needs a warmer coat than I need, I will not object to paying for it if I already have an obligation to provide clothing. If the goal is to give them what they find needful to do the work I have asked, then I will try to provide. That I don't need it does not mean they don't- people vary.
> Of course if they need something so peculiar as to be previously unknown to man, then I would question whether it is a real need.


Why is it my job to provide the coat in the first place? If they need a coat it's their own business. What if they should have a coat but choose to be cold? My only place in the coat discussion is hoping they find the coat or what ever it is they feel they need. Because I'm generally nice. 


Realizing this is metaphorical.


----------



## stanb999

And yet another reason to dislike the pushers... Public schools in the USA

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...anipulating-quotes-push-christianity-students










Thing is he didn't say it. :/


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> Did you find that interpretation the bible? It plainly states who will burn in the unending pit of fire. Basically all those who aren't warriors for god at the battle of Armageddon. It's pretty clear. Maybe you should.


Yes - straight from the Word.

I would change the portion past the word "basically" to read: those that turn from God and deny His existence. Those are the people that I understand to "burn in the unending pit of fire" as you put it...

There again too, I understand that those going to Heaven will experience the total companionship of God and those not being saved to be relegated to the total absence of God, I believe those are the differences of Heaven and Hell.


----------



## mnn2501

stanb999 said:


> Oh it's pretty clear. shall we parse it?
> 
> the 144000 and the others... Are you planning on being one of the "others".
> 
> The others are angels. Angles never set foot on earth.


So its your interpretation and no one else's. Sorry, didn't realize we had such greatness right here on this board.

Some people give Christians a bad reputation.


----------



## mnn2501

stanb999 said:


> Angles never set foot on earth.


Perhaps its time for you to dust off that Bible and read it again, Angels are messengers and they've set foot here a lot in the Bible.


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> And right there is the smugness.
> 
> 
> Check mate.


It was an explanation of cause and effect. I'm not smug about it, but there's no better analogy, maybe, for the effect bad choices have. If we expect them following physically bad choices, why not after spiritually bad choices?


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> I guess it depends.. If your ultimate goal was salvation according the book then doing good works sure increased your chances. But the good works weren't done for the sake of others. It was done for your goal. Salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that people are any different. The unwashed masses of the roman era were called that for a reason.


You know, the bible specifically states that good works do not equal salvation. That's just the thing, really... there's nothing to be smug about, we didn't earn anything.


----------



## stanb999

Woolieface said:


> You know, the bible specifically states that good works do not equal salvation. That's just the thing, really... there's nothing to be smug about, we didn't earn anything.


Of course. It says the only way to salvation is fighting for god at the battle of Armageddon.


but without them..
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> Of course. It says the only way to salvation is fighting for god at the battle of Armageddon.
> 
> 
> but without them..
> James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


Please recheck your info, on a number of fronts you are incorrect.


----------



## stanb999

Shine said:


> Please recheck your info, on a number of fronts you are incorrect.


Find a quote in the bible that isn't disputed. 

Your conviction is what proves the rule...

Christianity as with any faith is open to interpretation. Religions are based on myth and habit. by their nature they can't be proved or disproved. 

please refer to my second posting on the thread...


stanb999 said:


> To the opening question...
> 
> People make deities to justify their crappy lot in life and their generally meager existence. It's much easier to accept abject poverty knowing your likely to get the "prize" of everlasting life. It applies the smug christian face we atheists are so fond of.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> While we still have a majority who claim Christianity as their religion only 17.7% of Americans actually attend Church on Sundays.


So you equate church attendance w/ spirituality?

I know lots of Catholics, for example, who are deeply spiritual but who have stopped attending because of the scandals going on in the Catholic church.

Same applies to Protestants as more churches embrace the social justice meme.

ETA: IOW, the decline in church attendance has a lot to do w/ the conflict of teachings from the pulpits w/ what the scriptures say.


----------



## Farmerga

I don't know if this has been answered, but, it is a very simple question that has been posed: What if there is no God? Answer: We will never know because when we die, we cease to exist and there will be nothing there to contemplate our lack of existence. 

The question, with which we should concern ourselves, is What if there is a God?


----------



## stanb999

Farmerga said:


> I don't know if this has been answered, but, it is a very simple question that has been posed: What if there is no God? Answer: We will never know because when we die, we cease to exist and there will be nothing there to contemplate our lack of existence.
> 
> The question, with which we should concern ourselves, is What if there is a God?


That statement is about the worst reason to embrace a religion... AKA God insurance. Pray now "just in case"

What if the "real" god is found only in some other religion?

Suppose god is ------ every time you pray? She has to listen to your endless problems. Why would she want to? She has already laid out a plan for you. She's thinking you should be grateful for your life and accept her wonderful gifts. 

You just might be better keeping your thoughts to your self. :goodjob:


----------



## Farmerga

stanb999 said:


> That statement is about the worst reason to embrace a religion... AKA God insurance. Pray now "just in case"
> 
> What if the "real" god is found only in some other religion?
> 
> Suppose god is ------ every time you pray? She has to listen to your endless problems. Why would she want to? She has already laid out a plan for you. She's thinking you should be grateful for your life and accept her wonderful gifts.
> 
> You just might be better keeping your thoughts to your self. :goodjob:


 That statement wasn't meant to encourage someone to embrace religion, I didn't mention Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Yo-wa, Ra', Zeus, or the Flying spaghetti monster. it was simply an observation about how a simple question can be over-complicated. My replacement question is not so simple. 

Perhaps you should understand the thoughts of others before vomiting up your thoughts on a public forum?


----------



## stanb999

Farmerga said:


> That statement wasn't meant to encourage someone to embrace religion, I didn't mention Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Yo-wa, Ra', Zeus, or the Flying spaghetti monster. it was simply an observation about how a simple question can be over-complicated. My replacement question is not so simple.


sure it is. because unless you won the birth lottery or happened to pick the right religion. The result is the same.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I don't know if this has been answered, but, it is a very simple question that has been posed: What if there is no God? Answer: We will never know because when we die, we cease to exist and there will be nothing there to contemplate our lack of existence.
> 
> The question, with which we should concern ourselves, is What if there is a God?


The answer, for me, doesn't change. I'll live my life the same. I'll treat people and the earth well. I'll do my best to lead a good existance and leave a better world than I entered. If there is a god they can judge me on that. If their standard is that I didn't say the proper words once a week or face the proper direction while saying them or sacrifice a goat to them on occasion, so be it. 
I can defend who and what I am and what I have done in this world. It hasn't all been good and even my failings have taught me much. On balance I think I've done more good than harm. It's either good enough for whatever god might exist or it isn't. But it's good enough for me and mine.


----------



## Farmerga

stanb999 said:


> sure it is. because unless you won the birth lottery or happened to pick the right religion. The result is the same.


 You seem to be assuming that there would be one "correct" answer, when it comes to religion, or, that religion would be necessary at all.


----------



## stanb999

Farmerga said:


> You seem to be assuming that there would be one "correct" answer, when it comes to religion, or, that religion would be necessary at all.


The religions assume their is one correct belief. They are needed to get close to their god of choice. If your affiliated with a church or on your own ideas your way of doing things is what turns the ear of the man in the sky... Otherwise what would be the point? 

I personally assume it's fairy tails and non-sense.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You seem to be assuming that there would be one "correct" answer, when it comes to religion, or, that religion would be necessary at all.


If there isn't a correct answer why all the effort to convince others. A whole lot of human suffering has and continues to occur because certain groups thought they possessed the correct answer. If there is no correct answer why the insistence that laws for everyone be based on one groups answer?


----------



## Farmerga

stanb999 said:


> The religions assume their is one correct belief. They are needed to get close to their god of choice. If your affiliated with a church or on your own ideas your way of doing things is what turns the ear of the man in the sky... Otherwise what would be the point?
> 
> I personally assume it's fairy tails and non-sense.


 That is why I asked my question. People seem to be caught up in religion, or, lack thereof and fail to think about the obvious questions. Assuming there is a god. Which religion is correct? Is any religion correct? Am I correct? Are you correct? Can any of these questions be answered? Is there any way to "turn the ear" of God?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> If there isn't a correct answer why all the effort to convince others. A whole lot of human suffering has and continues to occur because certain groups thought they possessed the correct answer. If there is no correct answer why the insistence that laws for everyone be based on one groups answer?


 I personally believe that laws should be based on protection of people from force and fraud. Those are fairly universal. Now, as can be seen on other threads, oddly enough the definition of "people" is a matter of great debate.


----------



## stanb999

Farmerga said:


> That is why I asked my question. People seem to be caught up in religion, or, lack thereof and fail to think about the obvious questions. Assuming there is a god. Which religion is correct? Is any religion correct? Am I correct? Are you correct? Can any of these questions be answered? Is there any way to "turn the ear" of God?


The religious assume they are correct. Always. Because if they didn't they wouldn't be religious. It's the general idea.

Your looking for doubt/answers in others, where the answers and doubt are in you.


----------



## Farmerga

stanb999 said:


> The religious assume they are correct. Always. Because if they didn't they wouldn't be religious. It's the general idea.
> 
> Your looking for doubt/answers in others, where the answers and doubt are in you.


 No, no doubt here. Just curious about the thoughts of others.


----------



## where I want to

stanb999 said:


> The religious assume they are correct. Always. Because if they didn't they wouldn't be religious. It's the general idea.
> 
> Your looking for doubt/answers in others, where the answers and doubt are in you.


Correct is an over statement - useful in determining actions pleasing to God is closer. And pleasing God leads to a more satifying life. 
Correct assumes an absolute answer that can be found by humans. And the best humans can to is to try to get closer to God, not to be God.
For some, ceremony and ritual are helpful. For others, meditation and polemics get them closer. For others, doing what they have found good themselves leads to being closer to an ultimate good.
I think, if you ask the wrong questions of religion, you will certainly derive the wrong answers. But that is not the fault of religion on general but a fault of the questioner.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

where I want to said:


> Correct is an over statement - useful in determining actions pleasing to God is closer. And pleasing God leads to a more satifying life.
> Correct assumes an absolute answer that can be found by humans. And the best humans can to is to try to get closer to God, not to be God.
> For some, ceremony and ritual are helpful. For others, meditation and polemics get them closer. For others, doing what they have found good themselves leads to being closer to an ultimate good.
> I think, if you ask the wrong questions of religion, you will certainly derive the wrong answers. But that is not the fault of religion on general but a fault of the questioner.


Nothing new under the sun The more things change the more they are the same .The opposition has nothing new to spout it is the same message across all times .
Genesis 3: 4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."&#8230;

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


----------



## FourDeuce

mnn2501 said:


> I will say one thing about an atheist I work with. I once asked him to describe the God he does not believe in (ie list their attributes) and you know what? I could never believe in a fantasy being like that either.
> I don't know where many atheists get their ideas about the Christian God from, but it certainly is not an informed opinion.


Ah, so YOU know what an informed opinion about gods is? Great. You do know that it can't be called an informed opinion unless you can prove it, right? I've never seen an informed opinion on gods so far. :clap:
BTW, why in the world would you ask somebody to describe something they don't believe in? Don't you understand what the burden of proof means? People who don't believe in things don't need to describe them. People who believe in things are responsible for describing what it is they believe in.


----------



## Patchouli

stanb999 said:


> Oh it's pretty clear. shall we parse it?
> 
> the 144000 and the others... Are you planning on being one of the "others".
> 
> The others are angels. Angles never set foot on earth.


I take it you used to be Jehovah's Witness? They are the only group I know of that is confused and thinks there will only be 144,000 people in Heaven. That interpretation flies in the face of scripture itself. 



> Revelation 7:
> 4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
> 5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
> 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
> 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
> 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
> 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
> 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.


There will be 144,000 Jews and a great multitude of Gentiles.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> You know, the bible specifically states that good works do not equal salvation. That's just the thing, really... there's nothing to be smug about, we didn't earn anything.


And then it also specifically states that it does.


----------



## Woolieface

I'm utterly confounded where you get the notion of - "It says the only way to salvation is fighting for god at the battle of Armageddon.".

If you have only read a few verses in the whole Bible, you had to have run across John 3:16, which I have quoted in this thread.

I've also replied in this thread to the James quote...



stanb999 said:


> Of course. It says the only way to salvation is fighting for god at the battle of Armageddon.
> 
> 
> but without them..
> James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> I take it you used to be Jehovah's Witness? They are the only group I know of that is confused and thinks there will only be 144,000 people in Heaven. That interpretation flies in the face of scripture itself.
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 144,000 Jews and a great multitude of Gentiles.


Yea someone missed their revised proclamation after they did a member head count :smack Their head knocker didn't want anyone feeling left out . That is what happens when they put men in charge instead of doing as they were told . 2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


----------



## Patchouli

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yea someone missed their revised proclamation after they did a member head count :smack Their head knocker didn't want anyone feeling left out . That is what happens when they put men in charge instead of doing as they were told . 2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


We were just talking about that. I said surely they have met the 144,000 quota just in their own members in the last decade. I didn't know they had revised their position.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> And then it also specifically states that it does.


_"shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."_

Remember how I said that one might say "I love you", but the one that shows the truth of that in action, is the one we will believe? As it says above... the faith is shown by the works, it is the evidence thereof.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> We were just talking about that. I said surely they have met the 144,000 quota just in their own members in the last decade. I didn't know they had revised their position.


Bad thing about cults they get caught in their traps they created .Worse thing is their follows believe ,their top head knockers newest prophecy instead of stoning them . Look up their off the wall predictions from the start . I worked with one years ago the things they really believe aren't told till long after one is sucked in . They use a slow process ,rather subtle the one been forever used .


----------



## Woolieface

Sawmill Jim said:


> Bad thing about cults they get caught in their traps they created .Worse thing is their follows believe ,their top head knockers newest prophecy instead of stoning them . Look up their off the wall predictions from the start . I worked with one years ago the things they really believe aren't told till long after one is sucked in . They use a slow process ,rather subtle the one been forever used .


When merchandise is involved, I think they call that a pyramid scheme... when weird old guys dancing around owls in a California forest do it, they call it "politicians".


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Woolieface said:


> When merchandise is involved, I think they call that a pyramid scheme... when weird old guys dancing around owls in a California forest do it, they call it "politicians".


Yea if there were any demon casting going on in places they would run out of hogs fast :awh:


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> Ah, so YOU know what an informed opinion about gods is? Great. You do know that it can't be called an informed opinion unless you can prove it, right? I've never seen an informed opinion on gods so far. :clap:
> BTW, why in the world would you ask somebody to describe something they don't believe in? Don't you understand what the burden of proof means? People who don't believe in things don't need to describe them. People who believe in things are responsible for describing what it is they believe in.




Your definition on "informed opinion" is correct, for the most part.
You left out the part that it IS still an opinion or judgement. It is backed up by some evidence, knowledge or proof, that the opinion holder believes to be true.

It's easy to "prove" something to your *own* satisfaction, but proving it to someone else's standards is an entirely different matter.
I notice you keep asking for "proof" over and over again.
A few have offered pieces from their own life, but that is unacceptable to you, and probably most other people as well.
What I'm saying is, what you ask is impossible for others to give you.
It's been my experience that in some cases, I'm talking about earthly, material subjects now, that all the evidence and proof one can muster won't convince some people of anything once their minds are made up.

Most believers have had God prove Himself to us in very personal ways, ways that defy any "logical" explanation. To quote hundreds of prophecies, millions of personal testimonies.......won't mean a thing to you.
We can't do it.
If you want to know, you'll have to ask for it yourself. If you never ask for yourself, and be willing to accept the answer given, then you don't really want any proof to begin with.


----------



## Marshloft

Sawmill Jim said:


> Bad thing about cults they get caught in their traps they created .Worse thing is their follows believe ,their top head knockers newest prophecy instead of stoning them . Look up their off the wall predictions from the start . I worked with one years ago the things they really believe aren't told till long after one is sucked in . They use a slow process ,rather subtle the one been forever used .


 Well, from the get go, satan was really good at putting sugar in the formula. Helps to swallow the lies ya know.
And you're right, nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Marshloft

farmrbrown said:


> If you want to know, you'll have to ask for it yourself. If you never ask for yourself, and be willing to accept the answer given, then you don't really want any proof to begin with.


 No truer word spoken in this entire thread.
And as Jesus spoke his last words. "It is finished."


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> _"shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."_
> 
> Remember how I said that one might say "I love you", but the one that shows the truth of that in action, is the one we will believe? As it says above... the faith is shown by the works, it is the evidence thereof.


Hebrews 10:26-31 - If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, âIt is mine to avenge; I will repay,â and again, âThe Lord will judge his people.â It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 

http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0GKHFr2 Peter 2:20-22 - If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 

http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0TnKEVMatthew 7:19-23 - âEvery tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!ââ 
http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0lVvmD
​
​
​


----------



## Marshloft

Patchouli said:


> Hebrews 10:26-31 - If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, âIt is mine to avenge; I will repay,â and again, âThe Lord will judge his people.â It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
> 
> 2 Peter 2:20-22 - If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
> 
> Matthew 7:19-23 - âEvery tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!ââ ​​


​​ 
Thats some pretty heavy stuff you quoted there. That there is some real meat, not some pablum for the young christian. And you all thought being a christian was easy. Hmmmph.


----------



## stanb999

Patchouli said:


> I take it you used to be Jehovah's Witness? They are the only group I know of that is confused and thinks there will only be 144,000 people in Heaven. That interpretation flies in the face of scripture itself.
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 144,000 Jews and a great multitude of Gentiles.



Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.

Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

stanb999 said:


> Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.
> 
> Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


Well I would expect most any one that has eyes and can read the English language that has enough comprehension skills not to put their hand on a hot stove to read instructions and take them as wrote . No interpretation needed 

To say JW' are christian proves one don't possess such skills ,of any sort


----------



## Shine

stanb999 said:


> Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.
> 
> Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


Why would you, an atheist come in here and ask specific and pointed questions that have missed the actual meanings as if you are a learned person with regards to the meanings of certain verses?

If you would listen to some one here that have already offered you some insight as to the meanings of certain things, like there being an Old Testament that discussed the Old Covenant and a New Testament which explains the New Covenant then you might "grow" in your understandings.

The "Law" of the Old Testament was superseded by the New Covenant. If you Believe in Jesus, then the New Covenant controls. If you do not believe in Jesus but believe the Old Testament [like many Jews] then you are still bound by the Old Testament.

My excuse? I am a sinner bought with the Blood of the Unblemished Lamb. There is nothing that I can realistically brag about except for what has been done to me or for me, even when I do manage to live good, it is because of all the gifts that have been showered upon me, not because I am capable of living good on my own.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Hebrews 10:26-31 - If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, âIt is mine to avenge; I will repay,â and again, âThe Lord will judge his people.â It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
> 
> http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0GKHFr2 Peter 2:20-22 - If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
> 
> http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0TnKEVMatthew 7:19-23 - âEvery tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!ââ
> http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/M...rue-christians-can-lose-their-/#ixzz3iC0lVvmD
> ​
> ​
> ​


I think those are all great examples of the same concept. You don't know a bad tree until it doesn't produce any good fruit. It was bad inside all along...but the fruit (or lack of it) is your proof.


----------



## Woolieface

stanb999 said:


> Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.
> 
> Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


Nobody asked for perfection, but you did use certain verses to uphold your point. Why have an opinion on a text you're not trying to understand in the first place?


----------



## Patchouli

stanb999 said:


> Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.
> 
> Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


Well first of all I am an Apatheist not a Christian.  But I happen to have been a Christian most of my life and I know the Bible pretty thoroughly. So when I get into these discussions I actually know what I am talking about and I enjoy the theological discussion. Since you freely admit you don't my question would be why are you trying to tell people what the Bible says when you obviously don't have a clue? I don't wander into the Mechanics section and try to argue with them about how to fix a tractor. I don't know anything about it and it would just frustrate them and make me look silly.


----------



## Raeven

How do any of you know the Bible is true? What evidence do you have for that?

I mean, that's the threshold question, isn't it? You can throw verses back and forth at each other all you like about whose interpretation is the "correct" one, but if it's just another historical text filled with myths and it can't be verified to be anything else, then so what? You may as well be arguing about Homer's Iliad.

It's also the actual subject of this thread. The OP asked why atheists care about the Bible, and here's why: A lot of people in this world live their lives as though it's a How To manual, and I don't find any authority for that. None. My own reading of it (twice) is that, objectively, it's not a great How To manual for anything.

You can talk about your personal experiences with your god all you want, but again, those experiences are just not evidence for anything. Lots of people claim to have personal experiences with aliens, too (there's even a religion around it!). An entity that cannot be differentiated from one's own imagination is of incredibly little interest, to me -- except for the fact that I must live among people who do accept it at face value and as a result, try to make me do things I have no basis to do like pray at public meetings and not shop on Sundays. Or in some cases, want to kill me.


----------



## Shine

Raeven said:


> How do any of you know the Bible is true? What evidence do you have for that?
> 
> I mean, that's the threshold question, isn't it? You can throw verses back and forth at each other all you like about whose interpretation is the "correct" one, but if it's just another historical text filled with myths and it can't be verified to be anything else, then so what? You may as well be arguing about Homer's Iliad.
> 
> It's also the actual subject of this thread. The OP asked why atheists care about the Bible, and here's why: A lot of people in this world live their lives as though it's a How To manual, and I don't find any authority for that. None. My own reading of it (twice) is that, objectively, it's not a great How To manual for anything.
> 
> You can talk about your personal experiences with your god all you want, but again, those experiences are just not evidence for anything. Lots of people claim to have personal experiences with aliens, too (there's even a religion around it!). An entity that cannot be differentiated from one's own imagination is of incredibly little interest, to me -- except for the fact that I must live among people who do accept it at face value and as a result, try to make me do things I have no basis to do like pray at public meetings and not shop on Sundays. Or in some cases, want to kill me.


OK, fair enough. I have had a number of incidents that point me towards the crux of the matter, that God and Jesus is real. I will not provide details of them here as that would open myself to ridicule amongst those that have not been shown. For me, they came at a time when there was no mistaking them for what they actually were, I have been shown, I have been pushed into the light, I cannot say "Wow, it's dark in here" [which is sacrilege] while standing in the light.

That being said, I cannot grab someone and bring them into the light, one might reason that from what I say that the light is on where I stand but without them seeing that light, I can readily see where they might doubt it.

If is not my task to bring people into the light. It is my task to conduct my life as it is in the light for others to see. I am guided in that effort by something outside of this realm. I am for His use, if He sends someone to me for the answers that I understand, then I am to explain the light, as I brush past people during each day, it is for me to show happiness, caring, love and kindness. 

There are times when I am called to be strict, to be firm and unwavering, in those times, it is not necessary for me to step out of the light, it is quite important for me to remain in this light all those whiles.

Now, all this is not to say that I am a portion of the light but I am given the ability to reflect that light, while the light is on me, through my actions and words, I might be able to reflect that light so that others might get the slightest glimpse of what He has bestowed upon me.

However - none of this is about me, it is about Him...


----------



## Guest

Raeven said:


> How do any of you know the Bible is true? What evidence do you have for that?
> *
> The definition of BELIEF is easily found on the device you typed this with.*
> 
> 
> I must live among people who do accept it at face value and as a result, try to make me do things I have no basis to do like pray at public meetings and not shop on Sundays. Or in some cases, want to kill me.


Prayer at public meeting are becoming rarer by the day, athletes are criticized and chastised regularly for exposing their beliefs, public schools have outlawed it, etc. Your getting your way, are ya happy.

Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside in this country for a few decades and businesses that wish to follow their beliefs and close on their days of worship have every right to do so. Maybe you would prefer the government run businesses with their hours of operation.

Exactly what religion wants to kill an atheist?


----------



## FourDeuce

"It is backed up by some evidence, knowledge or proof, that the opinion holder believes to be true."
Not quite. People believe all sorts of nonsense. There is a reason you can't testify in court using "things you believe are true" as testimony. Informed opinions need more than just "a belief that they are true".
"It's easy to "prove" something to your *own* satisfaction, but proving it to someone else's standards is an entirely different matter."
That's the neat thing about logic. Logic works as a standard for ALL rational people. Anything you can prove logically can be proved to any rational person's standards.
"Most believers have had God prove Himself to us in very personal ways, ways that defy any "logical" explanation."
If they deny any logical explanation, then they are not logical.
"To quote hundreds of prophecies, millions of personal testimonies.......won't mean a thing to you."
Of course not, when the goal was to prove any gods exist. Prophecies and personal testimonies don't prove any gods exist.
"We can't do it."
It's good that you recognize that. More religious people need to recognize that fact.
"If you want to know, you'll have to ask for it yourself."
I've been asking for about 45 years.
"If you never ask for yourself, and be willing to accept the answer given, then you don't really want any proof to begin with."
Your opinion of what I "really want" has nothing to do with whether you can prove your claims. I've noticed many religious people keep trying to change the subject when it comes to discussing their beliefs. They try to talk about anything and everything except whether they can prove their claims. Even after you admitted you couldn't prove your claims, you still try to make excuses by bringing in what you believe I want. IF you can prove your stories are true, what I want doesn't matter. If you can't, what I want still doesn't matter. To a rational and honest person, the only thing that matters in this discussion is whether you can prove your claims.


----------



## FourDeuce

dlmcafee said:


> Prayer at public meeting are becoming rarer by the day, athletes are criticized and chastised regularly for exposing their beliefs, public schools have outlawed it, etc. Your getting your way, are ya happy.
> 
> Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside in this country for a few decades and businesses that wish to follow their beliefs and close on their days of worship have every right to do so. Maybe you would prefer the government run businesses with their hours of operation.
> 
> Exactly what religion wants to kill an atheist?


You might want to check a bit before you claim that Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside. :/


----------



## Guest

FourDeuce said:


> "It is backed up by some evidence, knowledge or proof, that the opinion holder believes to be true."
> Not quite. People believe all sorts of nonsense. There is a reason you can't testify in court using "things you believe are true" as testimony. Informed opinions need more than just "a belief that they are true".
> "It's easy to "prove" something to your *own* satisfaction, but proving it to someone else's standards is an entirely different matter."
> That's the neat thing about logic. Logic works as a standard for ALL rational people. Anything you can prove logically can be proved to any rational person's standards.


People are convicted daily on the BELIEF that the evidence they were presented as truths actually are just opinions and observations presented by so called experts. Live your life as you choose, but I doubt seriously that it does not contain some BELIEF in something unprovable to others. Your RATIONAL person is nothing more than a BELIEF in itself of the person you deam rational.


----------



## Raeven

dlmcafee said:


> Prayer at public meeting are becoming rarer by the day, athletes are criticized and chastised regularly for exposing their beliefs, public schools have outlawed it, etc. Your getting your way, are ya happy.
> 
> Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside in this country for a few decades and businesses that wish to follow their beliefs and close on their days of worship have every right to do so. Maybe you would prefer the government run businesses with their hours of operation.
> 
> Exactly what religion wants to kill an atheist?


First, you really need to learn how to use the 'quote' feature on this forum. You have misquoted me above, and I'd appreciate it if you would edit it to fix it -- or have a Mod do it, if you can't.

There are a lot of states in this country that still have Blue laws on the books that require at least some businesses to close on Sundays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States

Do you EVER fact-check anything you say?

I can take you to at least 3 places in my own state that still open public meetings with prayer -- and I live in the most atheist state in the Union.

There are Christians who want to kill atheists, please don't pretend otherwise. There certainly Muslims who do, as well. There may be others... I'm just speaking from personal experience on this particular issue at this point.

As for athletes revealing their beliefs... seriously? LOL, it was a Big Deal recently that this guy just publicly revealed he is a non-believer: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god

But you're going to try and pretend it's the *believers* who are being oppressed?? Good grief, they don't even start the game till everyone has said a group prayer in the locker room!

At least try to stay within the facts, ok?


----------



## Raeven

Shine said:


> OK, fair enough. I have had a number of incidents that point me towards the crux of the matter, that God and Jesus is real.


And *Shine*, I respect your right to have that belief, if not the belief itself. I respect that it is true for you. I won't try to impose my way of looking at the world on you so long as you don't try to do the same to me. That's all I ask as an atheist in this world.


----------



## Raeven

dlmcafee said:


> People are convicted daily on the BELIEF that the evidence they were presented as truths actually are just opinions and observations presented by so called experts. Live your life as you choose, but I doubt seriously that it does not contain some BELIEF in something unprovable to others. Your RATIONAL person is nothing more than a BELIEF in itself of the person you deam rational.


No. You keep saying 'belief.' We keep saying 'evidence.' Big difference. Here's the problem. Your beliefs can't be tested or falsified. Ours can. I will change my belief if I see evidence to support that change. See the difference?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> "It is backed up by some evidence, knowledge or proof, that the opinion holder believes to be true."
> Not quite. People believe all sorts of nonsense. There is a reason you can't testify in court using "things you believe are true" as testimony. Informed opinions need more than just "a belief that they are true".
> "It's easy to "prove" something to your *own* satisfaction, but proving it to someone else's standards is an entirely different matter."
> That's the neat thing about logic. Logic works as a standard for ALL rational people. Anything you can prove logically can be proved to any rational person's standards.


I can prove my belief with actual events to where I know with a certain absoluteness that this is the truth. I cannot show you, you must be shown within yourself. This is what "faith" is all about. It is not for me to prove anything to you, that is the beauty. I do not make the choice, I only accept the choice...

While much of what you say about belief is true, I fail to see where you are going with this other than to sufficiently prove to yourself that there is no God. Am I incorrect?


----------



## Guest

FourDeuce said:


> You might want to check a bit before you claim that Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside. :/


In the US they pretty much have, unless you need that alcohol fix or the new car in some states and in those you may wish to step up your game and demand your rights if the government laws enforce it.


----------



## Raeven

dlmcafee said:


> In the US they pretty much have, *unless you need that alcohol fix* or the new car in some states and in those you may wish to step up your game and demand your rights if the government laws enforce it.


LOL, the implication being, of course, that anyone who might need to dash out and buy a 6-pack of beer or a bottle of wine for an impromptu gathering on a Sunday has to be an alcoholic, right? There's an honest way of arguing.


----------



## Shine

Raeven said:


> LOL, the implication being, of course, that *anyone* who might need to dash out and buy a 6-pack of beer or a bottle of wine for an impromptu gathering on a Sunday has to be an alcoholic, right? There's an honest way of arguing.


Forced implication. The suggestion was but one of many reasons, did he imply that it was the only one or did you?


----------



## Raeven

Shine said:


> Forced implication. The suggestion was but one of many reasons, did he imply that it was the only one or did you?


Why have the laws at all?


----------



## Shine

Raeven said:


> Why have the laws at all?


I do not support the "blue" law, it is not in line with what I understand. When "man's" law tries to supersede God's laws then I think that this is not in line with what we are called to do.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Raeven said:


> First, you really need to learn how to use the 'quote' feature on this forum. You have misquoted me above, and I'd appreciate it if you would edit it to fix it -- or have a Mod do it, if you can't.
> 
> There are a lot of states in this country that still have Blue laws on the books that require at least some businesses to close on Sundays:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States
> 
> Do you EVER fact-check anything you say?
> 
> I can take you to at least 3 places in my own state that still open public meetings with prayer -- and I live in the most atheist state in the Union.
> 
> There are Christians who want to kill atheists, please don't pretend otherwise. There certainly Muslims who do, as well. There may be others... I'm just speaking from personal experience on this particular issue at this point.
> 
> As for athletes revealing their beliefs... seriously? LOL, it was a Big Deal recently that this guy just publicly revealed he is a non-believer: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god
> 
> But you're going to try and pretend it's the *believers* who are being oppressed?? Good grief, they don't even start the game till everyone has said a group prayer in the locker room!
> 
> At least try to stay within the facts, ok?


Well first off if you knew what a real christian was ,not only you but anyone that does know would make such a statement as the one below .

There are Christians who want to kill atheists, please don't pretend otherwise.


----------



## Raeven

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well first off if you knew what a real christian was ,not only you but anyone that does know would make such a statement as the one below .
> 
> There are Christians who want to kill atheists, please don't pretend otherwise.


I've met all sorts of Christians, all claiming to be "real" Christians, and they can't even agree among themselves about what that is. If you doubt it, just look at the number of religions all based on the term, 'Christianity.'

Please feel free to give my your own particular definition of a "real" Christian, and I promise you, another "real" Christian will be along to argue with you about it.


----------



## Tommyice

dlmcafee said:


> Sunday blue laws have gone by the wayside in this country for a few decades and businesses that wish to follow their beliefs and close on their days of worship have every right to do so. Maybe you would prefer the government run businesses with their hours of operation.


My county in New Jersey still has "blue laws." Some of the towns are more strict than others, but really no electronic, no clothing and no construction or repairs are to happen (unless you perform the construction/repairs yourself--contractors are forbidden). You can buy food and entertainment only. And surprisingly, the book stores are not allowed to be open--someone might, gasp, buy a book about business. The horror!


----------



## Guest

Raeven said:


> First, you really need to learn how to use the 'quote' feature on this forum. You have misquoted me above, and I'd appreciate it if you would edit it to fix it -- or have a Mod do it, if you can't.
> 
> *Did those quoted selections not come from your post? If you feel I have violated you in anyway contact the mods yourself, I directed my response to portions of your post, no need to to waste space with you total post. Maybe you should school everyone, it is done on both sides of debates in this forum*
> 
> There are a lot of states in this country that still have Blue laws on the books that require at least some businesses to close on Sundays:
> 
> *states should make their own laws, you disagree and it's closer to home for you to change*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States
> 
> Do you EVER fact-check anything you say? *yep, do you ever exaggerate your micro society and assume it is true on the whole *
> 
> I can take you to at least 3 places in my own state that still open public meetings with prayer -- and I live in the most atheist state in the Union.
> 
> There are Christians who want to kill atheists, please don't pretend otherwise. There certainly Muslims who do, as well. There may be others... I'm just speaking from personal experience on this particular issue at this point.
> 
> *so a religious person tried to kill you, I am truly sorry to hear that*
> 
> As for athletes revealing their beliefs... seriously? LOL, it was a Big Deal recently that this guy just publicly revealed he is a non-believer: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god
> 
> But you're going to try and pretend it's the *believers* who are being oppressed?? Good grief, they don't even start the game till everyone has said a group prayer in the locker room!
> 
> *cherry picking internet news is fun ain't it*
> 
> At least try to stay within the facts, ok?


Have not seen a fact yet in your post that leads me to BELIEVE as you do, but see I think that is good and your right.


----------



## Raeven

dlmcafee said:


> Have not seen a fact yet in your post that leads me to BELIEVE as you do, but see I think that is good and your right.


I'm not trying to persuade you to believe or think as I do. The OP asked a question about why I as a non-believer have any issue with the Bible. I answered that question. It is you who is impugning a motive beyond that to my comments.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Raeven said:


> I've met all sorts of Christians, all claiming to be "real" Christians, and they can't even agree among themselves about what that is. If you doubt it, just look at the number of religions all based on the term, 'Christianity.'
> 
> Please feel free to give my your own particular definition of a "real" Christian, and I promise you, another "real" Christian will be along to argue with you about it.


They can argue all they want it won't change facts wrote in the book they themselves claim to follow .I prefer as some more here do, to be referred to as followers of Christ not the word Christian as it's meaning has been to bastardised .

Jesus never instructed his followers to try to force anyone into acceptance .
There are many that call their self christian that are going to fair far worse that you because they were neither hot or cold 
Followers are called to be a light not a club . I could type pages but just one more .You will know a tree by it's fruit .It is your free choice not mine I made mine I couldn't make yours even if you wanted me to .

Another thing we are commanded to do is at some point is 

Matthew 10:12
12 As you enter a house, wish it peace. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. 14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your wordsâgo outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

We are told we have done our best to shut up and leave you the way we found you and move on . Not kill you because then WE would deprive you of every making a change should you ever desire too. 

My nickles worth


----------



## Shine

Sawmill Jim said:


> My nickles worth


I'm a thinkin' that's more like 75 or 80 cents worth...


----------



## Txsteader

Raeven said:


> How do any of you know the Bible is true? What evidence do you have for that?


2 Corinthians 5:17 - _Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

2 Corinthians 3:18 - And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. 

_This is how I know the Bible is true. 

I am different & not because I make myself be different but because Christ has changed my heart & is changing/perfecting my spirit.


----------



## Patchouli

Raeven said:


> LOL, the implication being, of course, that anyone who might need to dash out and buy a 6-pack of beer or a bottle of wine for an impromptu gathering on a Sunday has to be an alcoholic, right? There's an honest way of arguing.


I didn't take it that way at all. It was just a more colorful way of saying it. Most Blue laws have gone by the wayside. I grew up in a town where everything was closed except necessary businesses. These days it's mainly car dealerships and alcohol that is prohibited and everything else is open and for sale.


----------



## Raeven

Sawmill Jim said:


> They can argue all they want it won't change facts wrote in the book they themselves claim to follow .I prefer as some more here do, to be referred to as followers of Christ not the word Christian as it's meaning has been to bastardised .
> 
> Jesus never instructed his followers to try to force anyone into acceptance .
> There are many that call their self christian that are going to fair far worse that you because they were neither hot or cold
> Followers are called to be a light not a club . I could type pages but just one more .You will know a tree by it's fruit .It is your free choice not mine I made mine I couldn't make yours even if you wanted me to .
> 
> Another thing we are commanded to do is at some point is
> 
> Matthew 10:12
> 12 As you enter a house, wish it peace. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. 14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words&#8212;go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.
> 
> We are told we have done our best to shut up and leave you the way we found you and move on . Not kill you because then WE would deprive you of every making a change should you ever desire too.
> 
> My nickles worth


You and *TxSteader* are using phrases in the book as evidence that the book is the word of your god. Evidence doesn't work like that. The phrases in the book are only that -- phrases in a book. Nothing about them proves that their origin is from your god, to me.


----------



## Raeven

Patchouli said:


> I didn't take it that way at all. It was just a more colorful way of saying it. Most Blue laws have gone by the wayside. I grew up in a town where everything was closed except necessary businesses. These days it's mainly car dealerships and alcohol that is prohibited and everything else is open and for sale.


Except there are still Blue laws with respect to alcohol and car dealerships.

Again, why have the laws at all?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Raeven said:


> You and *TxSteader* are using phrases in the book as evidence that the book is the word of your god. Evidence doesn't work like that. The phrases in the book are only that -- phrases in a book. Nothing about them proves that their origin is from your god, to me.


Exactly! Thank you.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly! Thank you.



Wow, what an awesome contribution to the discussion. Adds a whole new insight.

I would bet that you want to do to this thread the things that you did in the other thread - right? - You're starting off the same...


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Raeven said:


> You and *TxSteader* are using phrases in the book as evidence that the book is the word of your god. Evidence doesn't work like that. The phrases in the book are only that -- phrases in a book. Nothing about them proves that their origin is from your god, to me.


Had no intention of proving to you but one thing How to tell the difference between those claiming to be christian and the followers of Christ .I totally understand to unbelievers the Bible is foolishness .I had a hopeful moment thinking one of the world could see the difference and that the true follower of Christ would never harm a non believer other than self defense .It just flat out an't our job . 

As followers of Christ we understand too that unbelievers must be about their fathers business and go to great lengths unknowing sometimes to do his work :smack


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> "It is backed up by some evidence, knowledge or proof, that the opinion holder believes to be true."
> Not quite. People believe all sorts of nonsense. There is a reason you can't testify in court using "things you believe are true" as testimony. Informed opinions need more than just "a belief that they are true".



Actually, that happens in courtrooms everyday. That's why opposing counsels can get expert testimony that are completely opposite. Obviously both can't be true, but both are accepted as "informed opinions".





> "If you want to know, you'll have to ask for it yourself."
> I've been asking for about 45 years.
> "If you never ask for yourself, and be willing to accept the answer given, then you don't really want any proof to begin with."
> Your opinion of what I "really want" has nothing to do with whether you can prove your claims. I've noticed many religious people keep trying to change the subject when it comes to discussing their beliefs. They try to talk about anything and everything except whether they can prove their claims. Even after you admitted you couldn't prove your claims, you still try to make excuses by bringing in what you believe I want. IF you can prove your stories are true, what I want doesn't matter. If you can't, what I want still doesn't matter. To a rational and honest person, the only thing that matters in this discussion is whether you can prove your claims.





Raeven said:


> No. You keep saying 'belief.' We keep saying 'evidence.' Big difference. Here's the problem. Your beliefs can't be tested or falsified. Ours can. I will change my belief if I see evidence to support that change. See the difference?



That's a common refrain, I want proof.
Now a sincere question.
What "proof" would do it for you?
The reason I ask isn't for argument, belittlement or debate, far from it.
I am asking so that it will be given to you.





Raeven said:


> And *Shine*, I respect your right to have that belief, if not the belief itself. I respect that it is true for you. I won't try to impose my way of looking at the world on you so long as you don't try to do the same to me. That's all I ask as an atheist in this world.



And that is perfectly fair.:goodjob:


----------



## Txsteader

Raeven said:


> You and *TxSteader* are using phrases in the book as evidence that the book is the word of your god. Evidence doesn't work like that. The phrases in the book are only that -- phrases in a book. Nothing about them proves that their origin is from your god, to me.


No, I explained it as plainly as I know how. Apparently you choose to ignore that. So be it.

ETA: No mortal can make you understand God. If you really want to know if He exists, it's up to you to seek Him. He has promised to answer if you are sincere in your quest. But you have to WANT to know Him.


----------



## Shine

Did not see your post Raeven, can do.
_

_


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, that happens in courtrooms everyday. That's why opposing counsels can get expert testimony that are completely opposite. Obviously both can't be true, but both are accepted as "informed opinions".


As someone who sat in courtrooms for many years and listened to opposing expert witness testimony more times than I can count, it's more the case that they are both correct depending on what value system or perspective is applied. As is often said in courtrooms, reasonable minds can differ on matters of opinion. And when the opinion offered isn't reasonable, the jury decides which one to disregard.



farmrbrown said:


> That's a common refrain, I want proof.
> Now a sincere question.
> What "proof" would do it for you?
> The reason I ask isn't for argument, belittlement or debate, far from it.
> I am asking so that it will be given to you.


I appreciate that your question is sincere and I am not making mock of it with anything I am about to say. I am answering your question.

You know what would be way more compelling than a million ways of saying "Man, there's probably something out there. We don't know. Therefore, [my religion]?" Show me an actual miracle where the laws of physics were broken, and it was subjected to rigorous, scientific peer review in the way that science works where anyone and everyone from everywhere has a crack at proving it false â and it still stands up as well as, say, Einstein's theory of relativity.

Show me a reliable study that demonstrates that people who are prayed for recover from cancer 70% more often than similar people who aren't.

Show me how people of a particular religious persuasion regularly live to 150 years and nobody else does. 

Something like that.

Show me something *other* than exactly the sort of stuff you would expect to see if all religions were not true but there were people who sincerely believed them and wished to make up arguments for them. Because the world we live in is *exactly* the world you would expect to see if there was no god-like entity that interacted with us, but people believed there was. *Exactly*.


----------



## Shine

You do not know how many people want just that... but I would ask you, If He proved Himself to you beyond a doubt, where would that put you? Faith, by intent, is the belief of things or principalities not yet seen.


----------



## jross

There are many writings, Josephus for one, who wrote regarding those who died for the Christ, rather then confess other than what they believed. There are no writings about those who sacrificed themselves for other beliefs and religions. Thousands of writings exist regarding Holy Scripture, some ancient and some new age, some heretic and apostate, but they were written nevertheless. God allows us to stray from Him, and we will pay, one way or another. I prefer to believe the writings of those who witnessed the Christ, especially Paul who persecuted the new believers until he met Christ on the road to Damascus. As far as evolution goes, please demonstrate an example of a transitional fossil. There aren't any.


----------



## Raeven

Shine said:


> You do not know how many people want just that... but I would ask you, If He proved Himself to you beyond a doubt, where would that put you? Faith, by intent, is the belief of things or principalities not yet seen.


*Shine*, if it ever happens, you'll be among the first to know.


----------



## Txsteader

jross said:


> There are many writings, Josephus for one, who wrote regarding those who died for the Christ, rather then confess other than what they believed. There are no writings about those who sacrificed themselves for other beliefs and religions. Thousands of writings exist regarding Holy Scripture, some ancient and some new age, some heretic and apostate, but they were written nevertheless. God allows us to stray from Him, and we will pay, one way or another. *I prefer to believe the writings of those who witnessed the Christ, especially Paul who persecuted the new believers until he met Christ on the road to Damascus.* As far as evolution goes, please demonstrate an example of a transitional fossil. There aren't any.


And not just to believe in writings. Have you ever known someone who was changed by meeting Christ? It's real and visible but unexplainable....other than to say that, as the scripture says, He changes us.
ETA: actually, it's our love for Him that causes us to want to change.


----------



## Shine

Txsteader said:


> And not just to believe in writings. Have you ever known someone who was changed by meeting Christ? It's real and visible but unexplainable....other than to say that, as the scripture says, He changes us.
> ETA: actually, it's our love for Him that causes us to want to change.


Please, if you will, another way of saying that: It's His love for us that causes us to be happy with His changes.

No ill intent.

ETA: If we start with "us" then it implies that we got some part in it, that we took the first step. I have learned that with Him - He is always the starting point.


----------



## Txsteader

Shine said:


> Please, if you will, another way of saying that: It's His love for us that causes us to be happy with His changes.
> 
> No ill intent.


You're right, Shine. He loved us first.


----------



## Tricky Grama

stanb999 said:


> They are smug in their belief in fairy tales. AKA Gods on my side... so who
> is on yours?


What fairy tales are you referring to?
Most scholars admit the bible is pretty historically correct, that there WAS a Jesus Christ, that He was crucified...so if you are dissing the Bible, you're pretty much among the uninformed...


----------



## Tricky Grama

stanb999 said:


> Priests (aka Catholics) used the word hell all the time. It was why you went to confession. If you didn't get that message I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> 
> An Adcouncil VS a Sermon. Interesting dichotomy no?
> Preaching as you are discussing isn't bad or good nor is it particularly religious. A good mentor of any type advocates the same things. The religious bend is you get hell if you tell them to bug off and don't listen.


Wow, I'm sure glad you know what all Catholics are taught all over the world.
Does your particular belief system teach anything about pompous rears?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Txsteader said:


> So you equate church attendance w/ spirituality?
> 
> I know lots of Catholics, for example, who are deeply spiritual but who have stopped attending because of the scandals going on in the Catholic church.
> 
> Same applies to Protestants as more churches embrace the social justice meme.
> 
> ETA: IOW, the decline in church attendance has a lot to do w/ the conflict of teachings from the pulpits w/ what the scriptures say.


Post of the day award.

Count me among those not supporting the Church. However, I give quite a bit to my alma mater-catholic school.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I take it you used to be Jehovah's Witness? They are the only group I know of that is confused and thinks there will only be 144,000 people in Heaven. That interpretation flies in the face of scripture itself.
> 
> 
> 
> There will be 144,000 Jews and a great multitude of Gentiles.


Learn sompin' new ever day...I thought the Mormons believed that!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> We were just talking about that. I said surely they have met the 144,000 quota just in their own members in the last decade. I didn't know they had revised their position.


Wait-I'm pretty sure the Mormons believe something like that too b/c they ALSO revised their #s...
Someone tell us...


----------



## Tricky Grama

stanb999 said:


> Why would you expect me, an atheist to be perfect in my interpretation of your personal beliefs? It would be the same as asking you to parse Hindu texts for the exact meaning, to a certain sect. As you note Jehovah's witnesses are arguably Christian and they get a different meaning from the book? IMHO the book when read is all over the place with what it tells you you must do.
> 
> Like the law of the old testament is the law... forever. yeah, all the bat ---- crazy stuff. Can a cheese burger while not "good" for you ensure your eternal damnation? You are aware of the law, so what excuse do you give?


If you are gonna dis something & give misinformation about the dissing then you should expect to be corrected.
Unless you're just trying to act like a real rear.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Raeven said:


> LOL, the implication being, of course, that anyone who might need to dash out and buy a 6-pack of beer or a bottle of wine for an impromptu gathering on a Sunday has to be an alcoholic, right? There's an honest way of arguing.


TX is pretty much considered a part of the "Bible Belt" & alcohol can be bought on Sun.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> *Shine*, if it ever happens, you'll be among the first to know.


:clap:
I actually liked your answer, it was honest, and not an easy one.

When I googled medical studies on intercessory prayer, there was zero evidence there.:rain:
While I have a few thoughts on why, it's irrelevant to the topic.

When you mentioned physics and Albert Einstein, I had to smile. I believe he really tried to prove God's existence - or not, the rest of his life.
Even his great mind couldn't do it.:hrm:


I don't doubt that He *will* reveal Himself to all, eventually. But I hope that it is soon.........and better than anyone could imagine.


----------



## Raeven

Tricky Grama said:


> TX is pretty much considered a part of the "Bible Belt" & alcohol can be bought on Sun.


That's nice.

Still waiting for an answer on why we should have Blue laws at all.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> :clap:
> I actually liked your answer, it was honest, and not an easy one.
> 
> When I googled medical studies on intercessory prayer, there was zero evidence there.:rain:
> While I have a few thoughts on why, it's irrelevant to the topic.
> 
> When you mentioned physics and Albert Einstein, I had to smile. I believe he really tried to prove God's existence - or not, the rest of his life.
> Even his great mind couldn't do it.:hrm:
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that He *will* reveal Himself to all, eventually. But I hope that it is soon.........and better than anyone could imagine.


farmrbrown, you're an honest broker in your faith and I always respect that. Thank you for having a reasoned and respectful discussion on the subject, and for allowing that my views have some basis. I appreciate it.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

farmrbrown said:


> :clap:
> I actually liked your answer, it was honest, and not an easy one.
> 
> When I googled medical studies on intercessory prayer, there was zero evidence there.:rain:
> While I have a few thoughts on why, it's irrelevant to the topic.
> 
> When you mentioned physics and Albert Einstein, I had to smile. I believe he really tried to prove God's existence - or not, the rest of his life.
> Even his great mind couldn't do it.:hrm:
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that He *will* reveal Himself to all, eventually. But I hope that it is soon.........and better than anyone could imagine.


But like his first coming most missed it because they wanted a earthly king .This time many will miss his coming until it is to late because they still don't believe he came the first time .

Birth pangs begin - Matthew 24:6-7, Mark 13:7-8, Luke 21:9-11

http://trackingbibleprophecy.com/birthpangs.php


----------



## Woolieface

Raeven said:


> You and *TxSteader* are using phrases in the book as evidence that the book is the word of your god. Evidence doesn't work like that. The phrases in the book are only that -- phrases in a book. Nothing about them proves that their origin is from your god, to me.


No human being will ever prove it to you. You would do better to either be content in your non belief as others are in their belief or seek where you'll find....but it's pointless to ask human beings to prove God to you. Unless that is something you already know and the only point is to bolster your faith in no faith.


----------



## Raeven

Woolieface said:


> No human being will ever prove it to you. You would do better to either be content in your non belief as others are in their belief or seek where you'll find....but it's pointless to ask human beings to prove God to you. Unless that is something you already know and the only point is to bolster your faith in no faith.


I'm completely comfortable, happy and content in my non-belief. My responses on this thread were in answer to the question by the OP and subsequent questions posed to me by other posters. I'm not seeking anything here from anyone -- least of all "saving." I'm expressing my answers to questions.

I did not ask anyone to "prove God" to me. I answered a question by a poster who asked me what would constitute proof to me.

You need to read more carefully, I think.


----------



## Woolieface

Raeven said:


> I'm completely comfortable, happy and content in my non-belief. My responses on this thread were in answer to the question by the OP and subsequent questions posed to me by other posters. I'm not seeking anything here from anyone -- least of all "saving." I'm expressing my answers to questions.
> 
> I did not ask anyone to "prove God" to me. I answered a question by a poster who asked me what would constitute proof to me.
> 
> You need to read more carefully, I think.


I carefully read a request for proof or evidence a few times... but I'm glad you stated your position of not expecting that.


----------



## Patchouli

Raeven said:


> Except there are still Blue laws with respect to alcohol and car dealerships.
> 
> Again, why have the laws at all?


I am not for Blue Laws.  I was just confirming they are mostly gone these days. The ones that remain are just lingering remnants of old laws and people for the most part just don't care enough to get rid of them.


----------



## Patchouli

jross said:


> There are many writings, Josephus for one, who wrote regarding those who died for the Christ, rather then confess other than what they believed. There are no writings about those who sacrificed themselves for other beliefs and religions. Thousands of writings exist regarding Holy Scripture, some ancient and some new age, some heretic and apostate, but they were written nevertheless. God allows us to stray from Him, and we will pay, one way or another. I prefer to believe the writings of those who witnessed the Christ, especially Paul who persecuted the new believers until he met Christ on the road to Damascus. As far as evolution goes, please demonstrate an example of a transitional fossil. There aren't any.


Are you saying no other religion has martyrs? Because that is very untrue. Every religion has a list of adherents who died for their beliefs.


----------



## sunshinytraci

An example of a transitional fossil for Jross courtesy of Wikipedia:

"The hominid Australopithecus afarensis represents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors. A number of traits of the A. afarensis skeleton strongly reflect bipedalism, to the extent that some researchers have suggested that bipedality evolved long before A. afarensis.[17] In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors, implying an upright posture.[17]:122

While the pelvis is not entirely like that of a human (being markedly wide, or flared, with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure radically remodelled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism. The femur angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait allows the foot to fall closer to the midline of the body, and strongly indicates habitual bipedal locomotion. Present-day humans, orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature. The feet feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. Besides locomotion, A. afarensis also had a slightly larger brain than a modern chimpanzee[18] (the closest living relative of humans) and had teeth that were more human than ape-like.["

This is from the Wikipedia page on transitional fossils. If you dont like Wikipedia, look up the sources used within and read them. Museums are a good place to go as well.

Creationists are often looking for some dramatic event such as a monkey giving birth to some hybrid human spontaneously. It just doesnt work that way. It takes a vast amount of time and our lives just are not long enough to witness major changes to species.

Oh and we are not descended from chimpanzees; we share a common ancestor with them. Of which this fossil is an example.


----------



## Truckinguy

Woolieface said:


> No human being will ever prove it to you. You would do better to either be content in your non belief as others are in their belief or seek where you'll find....but it's pointless to ask human beings to prove God to you. Unless that is something you already know and the only point is to bolster your faith in no faith.


We really don't require Christians to provide proof, the only reason we ask for it is because Christians use their religion to try and impose laws and rules on everyone based on their view, such as the aforementioned Blue Laws, opposition to gay marriage, etc. We are quite content to go quietly about our lives until such time as religion is brought into the conversation and then we're willing to have a discussion about it. Until then, we're happy that you explore whatever religious path that makes you feel comfortable until it starts to affect us negatively, in which case we feel the need to stand up and say something.

As Billy Joel says: "We didn't start the fire...".


----------



## Shine

Quote by sunshinytraci: An example of a transitional fossil for Jross courtesy of Wikipedia:

While I appreciate your research if we are to consider Darwinisn to be valid and if there is an evolutionary path between the primates and us then there would be a scattering of primates that would appear more like humans with varying capabilities tracking between humans and primates. There are just the absolutely fewest of these available for study. Your citation of this being is one in quite a large number, quite possibly a fluke rather than a standard bearer. You would think that there would be an overwhelming amount of proof and a distinct and clear historical record due to the number of people that are out there looking for these types of answers but alas, they are so few and far between that it takes away from your suggestion of this as a reasonable answer.

Another thing that Darwinism dictates is that there would or most probably should be 4 or 5 more species that have accomplished the state of being self aware - the concept or "me", or "I" - there is very little proof of other species having this capacity.


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> We really don't require Christians to provide proof, the only reason we ask for it is because Christians use their religion to try and impose laws and rules on everyone based on their view, such as the aforementioned Blue Laws, opposition to gay marriage, etc. We are quite content to go quietly about our lives until such time as religion is brought into the conversation and then we're willing to have a discussion about it. Until then, we're happy that you explore whatever religious path that makes you feel comfortable until it starts to affect us negatively, in which case we feel the need to stand up and say something.
> 
> As Billy Joel says: "We didn't start the fire...".


I guess I don't understand the "try to impose laws and rules" thing. You really won't find many greater oponents to laws forcing anything on anyone than me, but if that is the major issue, it still evades me why asking for proof of God's existence is relevant to a debate on legislation. Should Islam try to impose Islamic law on American citiens, my first talking point won't have anything to do with the existance of Allah.

Most conversations I have that end up involving religion are started by those that oppose it. I've been evangelized by more Athiests than I have witnessed to non believers. That might say that I need to do something better, but the point is, my faith becomes an offense to people even when I don't mention it. That's a generalization, of course, and some might be happy to stay quiet and peacable about it, but it's absolutely not true that the world does not pick fights with God. Yeah...they pick fights with God, because we who believe in Him are really just the easy targets of that offense many take at the very idea of being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> Quote by sunshinytraci: An example of a transitional fossil for Jross courtesy of Wikipedia:
> 
> While I appreciate your research if we are to consider Darwinisn to be valid and if there is an evolutionary path between the primates and us then there would be a scattering of primates that would appear more like humans with varying capabilities tracking between humans and primates. There are just the absolutely fewest of these available for study. Your citation of this being is one in quite a large number, quite possibly a fluke rather than a standard bearer. You would think that there would be an overwhelming amount of proof and a distinct and clear historical record due to the number of people that are out there looking for these types of answers but alas, they are so few and far between that it takes away from your suggestion of this as a reasonable answer.
> 
> Another thing that Darwinism dictates is that there would or most probably should be 4 or 5 more species that have accomplished the state of being self aware - the concept or "me", or "I" - there is very little proof of other species having this capacity.



There may be a lot of people looking but there are not a lot of million or more year old remains floating around out there.  

As for self awareness there are at least 10: http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html


----------



## sunshinytraci

Patchouli said:


> Are you saying no other religion has martyrs? Because that is very untrue. Every religion has a list of adherents who died for their beliefs.





Shine said:


> Quote by sunshinytraci: An example of a transitional fossil for Jross courtesy of Wikipedia:
> 
> While I appreciate your research if we are to consider Darwinisn to be valid and if there is an evolutionary path between the primates and us then there would be a scattering of primates that would appear more like humans with varying capabilities tracking between humans and primates. There are just the absolutely fewest of these available for study. Your citation of this being is one in quite a large number, quite possibly a fluke rather than a standard bearer. You would think that there would be an overwhelming amount of proof and a distinct and clear historical record due to the number of people that are out there looking for these types of answers but alas, they are so few and far between that it takes away from your suggestion of this as a reasonable answer.
> 
> Another thing that Darwinism dictates is that there would or most probably should be 4 or 5 more species that have accomplished the state of being self aware - the concept or "me", or "I" - there is very little proof of other species having this capacity.




I appreciate the calm and rational question as these things can become quite heated. 

Read the Wiki article. It will explain why. 

Species are ALWAYS in transition. The "links" between the fossils we have found are subtle differences and are not always preserved. To preserve a fossil is such a delicate process requiring so specific a set of conditions that the record is always going to appear to have "holes" for someone who requires smooth or requires to see every possible transition possible. 

Genetics, virology and other biological sciences do confirm rather than dispute evolution which is why the theory is so widely excepted as fact among scientists. It makes predictions that have been validated over and over again from differing disciplines.


----------



## Truckinguy

Woolieface said:


> I guess I don't understand the "try to impose laws and rules" thing. You really won't find many greater oponents to laws forcing anything on anyone than me, but if that is the major issue, it still evades me why asking for proof of God's existence is relevant to a debate on legislation. Should Islam try to impose Islamic law on American citiens, my first talking point won't have anything to do with the existance of Allah.
> 
> Most conversations I have that end up involving religion are started by those that oppose it. I've been evangelized by more Athiests than I have witnessed to non believers. That might say that I need to do something better, but the point is, my faith becomes an offense to people even when I don't mention it. That's a generalization, of course, and some might be happy to stay quiet and peacable about it, but it's absolutely not true that the world does not pick fights with God. Yeah...they pick fights with God, because we who believe in Him are really just the easy targets of that offense many take at the very idea of being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way.


I think the Blue Law example is a good one if I'm correct that it was a Christian idea to bring in a law against working on Sunday based on God resting on the seventh day. I personally don't have an issue with working on Sunday (or The Sabbath which is actually Saturday to some) and I don't want a law on the books saying I can't work on Sunday based on someone else's religion. Further to that, if someone is going to use their religion to base a law on that would affect me I'm going to ask them to verify the validity of that religion. If it happens to be proven that working on a Sunday is an actual hazard to our health I'm ready to listen to a proposal that we not work on Sundays. However, if the only reason is that the Bible said so I wouldn't support that. 

I suppose I am also generalizing about atheists not bringing up the subject but most people that I know who don't follow the Christian path have no reason to even comment on the subject unless it's brought up in conversation. It's a non-issue until it's made an issue. 

Your last sentence is another example of Christian ideals being projected on others. You speak of non believers being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way. This is another way that Christians provoke a reaction in people who don't subscribe to the idea of being born in sin. Personally, I haven't done anything in my life that would warrant much in the way of repercussions, let alone being condemned to Hell.


----------



## Truckinguy

sunshinytraci said:


> I appreciate the calm and rational question as these things can become quite heated.
> 
> Read the Wiki article. It will explain why.
> 
> Species are ALWAYS in transition. The "links" between the fossils we have found are subtle differences and are not always preserved. To preserve a fossil is such a delicate process requiring so specific a set of conditions that the record is always going to appear to have "holes" for someone who requires smooth or requires to see every possible transition possible.
> 
> Genetics, virology and other biological sciences do confirm rather than dispute evolution which is why the theory is so widely excepted as fact among scientists. It makes predictions that have been validated over and over again from differing disciplines.


Yup, I think anyone who breeds animals can attest to that. We bred for many reasons, size, colour, shape, large litters, hardiness and a host of other reasons. We can make changes in a line of animals in only a few generations. It's no stretch of the imagination that great changes have been made over millions of years.


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> There may be a lot of people looking but there are not a lot of million or more year old remains floating around out there.
> 
> As for self awareness there are at least 10: http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html



I have to stand corrected on this one.


----------



## Woolieface

Truckinguy said:


> I think the Blue Law example is a good one if I'm correct that it was a Christian idea to bring in a law against working on Sunday based on God resting on the seventh day. I personally don't have an issue with working on Sunday (or The Sabbath which is actually Saturday to some) and I don't want a law on the books saying I can't work on Sunday based on someone else's religion. Further to that, if someone is going to use their religion to base a law on that would affect me I'm going to ask them to verify the validity of that religion. If it happens to be proven that working on a Sunday is an actual hazard to our health I'm ready to listen to a proposal that we not work on Sundays. However, if the only reason is that the Bible said so I wouldn't support that.
> 
> I suppose I am also generalizing about atheists not bringing up the subject but most people that I know who don't follow the Christian path have no reason to even comment on the subject unless it's brought up in conversation. It's a non-issue until it's made an issue.
> 
> Your last sentence is another example of Christian ideals being projected on others. You speak of non believers being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way. This is another way that Christians provoke a reaction in people who don't subscribe to the idea of being born in sin. Personally, I haven't done anything in my life that would warrant much in the way of repercussions, let alone being condemned to Hell.


I've personaly never felt a necessity for blue laws. A business can do what it sees is morally fit by the standards of the owner. Whereas most Christians might feel like observing a Sunday sabbath, I personally don't see Sunday as the sabbath day, though I have no objection to a congregationmaking it their day of gathering and worship.

All that is just about by the wayside anyway, as we've discussed in this thread. Not too many places closing on Sunday anymore.

I would say a lot of Christians today work on Sunday out of necessity and don't necessarily want to be stopped from doing so, either.

People who do not believe might have no reason to bring it up...but in my experience they do and often jump on any oportunity to do so...often hunting a suggestion of some kind of hypocrisy in the believer.
_
"Your last sentence is another example of Christian ideals being projected on others. You speak of non believers being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way. This is another way that Christians provoke a reaction in people who don't subscribe to the idea of being born in sin. Personally, I haven't done anything in my life that would warrant much in the way of repercussions, let alone being condemned to Hell."_

I can't help but provide the answer from my source, because it is my source and because it is the topic, but I am not trying to gain a reaction. The reaction is sometimes already there waiting for an oportunity. How you said you feel about your actions and what reprecussions are befitting it, is the basis of why Christianity is an offense to the world...the very Idea that there is accountibility of that sort, whether you believe the idea or not and whether I talk about it or not...the offense is already in the world.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> There may be a lot of people looking but there are not a lot of million or more year old remains floating around out there.


Exactly! If not why not? There seems to be plenty of other remains out there.... Just not the ones that "should" be there if the theory is true. Maybe, just maybe they can't be found because they never existed..... Naw that couldn't be right, that would Rain on the parade of all the learned ones. :rain:


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! If not why not? There seems to be plenty of other remains out there.... Just not the ones that "should" be there if the theory is true. Maybe, just maybe they can't be found because they never existed..... Naw that couldn't be right, that would Rain on the parade of all the learned ones. :rain:


They aren't there because they just don't last a million years. Think about that for a minute. How many million year old skeletons would you realistically expect to find? There aren't tons of remains for anything out there except sea creatures that are easily fossilized. Remains break down quite easily or we would be sitting on mountains of bones.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! If not why not? There seems to be plenty of other remains out there.... Just not the ones that "should" be there if the theory is true. *Maybe, just maybe they can't be found because they never existed..*... Naw that couldn't be right, that would Rain on the parade of all the learned ones. :rain:


Fossils have been found dating back almost 3 million years
Just what is it you think is missing?:



> The earliest documented members of the genus **** are **** habilis, which evolved around *2.8 million years ago*;[4] and it is arguably the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of use of stone tools.
> 
> The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex.
> 
> During the next million years a process of rapid encephalization began, and with the arrival of **** erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3.[5]
> 
> This increase in human brain size is equivalent to every generation having an additional 125,000 neurons more than their parents. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools.
> 
> **** erectus and **** ergaster were also the first of the hominin line to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly! If not why not? There seems to be plenty of other remains out there.... Just not the ones that "should" be there if the theory is true. *Maybe, just maybe they can't be found because they never existed..*... Naw that couldn't be right, that would Rain on the parade of all the learned ones. :rain:


Fossils have been found dating back almost 3 million years
Just what is it you think is missing?:



> The earliest documented members of the genus **** are **** habilis, which evolved around *2.8 million years ago*;[4] and it is arguably the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of use of stone tools.
> 
> The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, although it has been suggested that this was the time in which the human SRGAP2 gene doubled, producing a more rapid wiring of the frontal cortex.
> 
> During the next million years a process of rapid encephalization began, and with the arrival of **** erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850 cm3.[5]
> 
> This increase in human brain size is equivalent to every generation having an additional 125,000 neurons more than their parents. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools.
> 
> **** erectus and **** ergaster were also the first of the hominin line to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

These push the timeline back to 4.2, 6 and 7.2 million years respectively:



> The quest for the earliest hominin[edit]
> In the 1990s, several teams of paleoanthropologists were working throughout Africa looking for evidence of the earliest divergence of the hominin lineage from the great apes.
> 
> In 1994, Meave Leakey discovered Australopithecus anamensis. The find was overshadowed by Tim D. White's 1995 discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus, which pushed back the fossil record to 4.2 million years ago.
> 
> 
> In 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut discovered, in the Tugen Hills of Kenya, a 6-million-year-old bipedal hominin which they named Orrorin tugenensis.
> 
> And in 2001, a team led by Michel Brunet discovered the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis which was dated as 7.2 million years ago, and which Brunet argued was a bipedal, and therefore a hominid&#8212;that is, a hominin (cf Hominidae; terms "hominids" and hominins).


----------



## where I want to

Woolieface said:


> I've personaly never felt a necessity for blue laws. A business can do what it sees is morally fit by the standards of the owner. Whereas most Christians might feel like observing a Sunday sabbath, I personally don't see Sunday as the sabbath day, though I have no objection to a congregationmaking it their day of gathering and worship.
> 
> All that is just about by the wayside anyway, as we've discussed in this thread. Not too many places closing on Sunday anymore.
> 
> I would say a lot of Christians today work on Sunday out of necessity and don't necessarily want to be stopped from doing so, either.
> 
> People who do not believe might have no reason to bring it up...but in my experience they do and often jump on any oportunity to do so...often hunting a suggestion of some kind of hypocrisy in the believer.
> _
> "Your last sentence is another example of Christian ideals being projected on others. You speak of non believers being held accountable for their actions in the most ultimate way. This is another way that Christians provoke a reaction in people who don't subscribe to the idea of being born in sin. Personally, I haven't done anything in my life that would warrant much in the way of repercussions, let alone being condemned to Hell."_
> 
> I can't help but provide the answer from my source, because it is my source and because it is the topic, but I am not trying to gain a reaction. The reaction is sometimes already there waiting for an oportunity. How you said you feel about your actions and what reprecussions are befitting it, is the basis of why Christianity is an offense to the world...the very Idea that there is accountibility of that sort, whether you believe the idea or not and whether I talk about it or not...the offense is already in the world.


I remember reading once that the Sabbath was for man's benefit, not for God's. And like much of the wisdom in religion, it is as much for practical reasons that it benefits humanity as anything else. A fact that is lost on those who only think that religion is an arbitrary rule book created by religious authority with fiendish delight. It's like atheists have formed a pact with church hierarchy to make pawns of the rest of humanity. They have found delight in the war to make people toe their respective lines. 

Personally some sort of consensus in society that people can expect be free from the demands of work without having to justify it on at least one day promotes the health and well being of those people. It is time carved out from demands and pressures to allow freedom, not slavery.


----------



## Raeven

where I want to said:


> I remember reading once that the Sabbath was for man's benefit, not for God's. And like much of the wisdom in religion, it is as much for practical reasons that it benefits humanity as anything else. A fact that is lost on those who only think that religion is an arbitrary rule book created by religious authority with fiendish delight. It's like atheists have formed a pact with church hierarchy to make pawns of the rest of humanity. They have found delight in the war to make people toe their respective lines.
> 
> Personally some sort of consensus in society that people can expect be free from the demands of work without having to justify it on at least one day promotes the health and well being of those people. It is time carved out from demands and pressures to allow freedom, not slavery.


 ROFL, hyperbolic much?

I donât give a ratâs patootie how many days a week any business is open or closed. I know businesses that are open for only 2 days a week. I know businesses that are open 7 days a week. The point is, they should have the choice to be open or closed on whatever days they choose, not have those days dictated to them by some arbitrary religious practice.


----------



## Woolieface

where I want to said:


> I remember reading once that the Sabbath was for man's benefit, not for God's. And like much of the wisdom in religion, it is as much for practical reasons that it benefits humanity as anything else. A fact that is lost on those who only think that religion is an arbitrary rule book created by religious authority with fiendish delight. It's like atheists have formed a pact with church hierarchy to make pawns of the rest of humanity. They have found delight in the war to make people toe their respective lines.
> 
> Personally some sort of consensus in society that people can expect be free from the demands of work without having to justify it on at least one day promotes the health and well being of those people. It is time carved out from demands and pressures to allow freedom, not slavery.


True, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. We all need a break, right? Even critters, back when critters were doing a lot more of our work, deserved a break once a week. Without a Sabbath, I think man's natural self service tends towards trying to make that profit at the expense of their neighbor, their animal and even their own health. God knew what He was doing when He said "take a rest".

I do miss the days when there was this one day a week that families were free to be together, to worship, eat, relax and for a little while, forget the toils of their lives. It helped everyone have a better attitude, I think. Even non Christians should be able to appreciate the value of needing that moment to decompress.

I suppose I only don't have an opinion that blue laws should be a government mandate because the government continually pushes the impression that it's the "god" we should bow to. There are still small towns here and there that observe a day of closing businesses and resting once a week. A local level is where that decision is best made, maybe.


----------



## FourDeuce

If you support freedom for ALL Americans, that decision should be made by the people who own those businesses.


----------



## Guest

FourDeuce said:


> If you support freedom for ALL Americans, that decision should be made by the people who own those businesses.


I agree but, with the exception of 2 HT members I know of, I have seen few who actually want freedom without their caveats. Demanding that everyone else pay and support them.


----------



## where I want to

Raeven said:


> ROFL, hyperbolic much?
> 
> I donât give a ratâs patootie how many days a week any business is open or closed. I know businesses that are open for only 2 days a week. I know businesses that are open 7 days a week. The point is, they should have the choice to be open or closed on whatever days they choose, not have those days dictated to them by some arbitrary religious practice.


Too bad it doesn't work like that. What really happens is that businesses in competition for retail dollars are open as many hours as they can have supported by sales. So that the result is that people are called on to work many different schedules and numbers of hours and finding time to get together with friends and family is so difficult as to impossible for many. Life gets lived on the internet, which like many stores, is open 24/7.

It is the commercial interests that have freedom under this scenario, not people. Unlike you, I do care about the employees and will not shop at times where where I feel their employees need to be free from work for the living of their lives. Whatever those times society chooses to call family holidays. Based or religious requirements or not. 

Note that most businesses that are not public consumer driven are closed on certain days. If not needed for money making, the health of employees is the controlling factor.

I have worked for a 24/7 company that ran a business that was needed for emergencies. I worked holidays and missed many family get togethers as a result. All are now gone who would have been there and it's too late to make up for it now.


----------



## Guest

I find it ironic that the most vocal against blue laws claims their location here on HT as Oregon. A state not listed as having blue laws and recently the auto dealers association in that state lobbied to enact a Sunday Blue Law for financial reasons.


----------



## Woolieface

FourDeuce said:


> If you support freedom for ALL Americans, that decision should be made by the people who own those businesses.


That's fine too but the only towns I have known to have blue laws in effect are so small that new businesses have no issue going a foot outside the limits to open their store. Normally these towns are populated by folks who are still taking their Sunday drives with the kids and packing picnic lunches.


----------



## mnn2501

sunshinytraci said:


> Creationists are often looking for some dramatic event such as a monkey giving birth to some hybrid human spontaneously. It just doesnt work that way. It takes a vast amount of time and our lives just are not long enough to witness major changes to species.
> 
> Oh and we are not descended from chimpanzees; we share a common ancestor with them. Of which this fossil is an example.


Who says God can't/doesn't use evolution? (I know some Christians say that but not all).
One mans magic is another mans (or perhaps Gods) science.


----------



## mnn2501

Truckinguy said:


> . This is another way that Christians provoke a reaction in people who don't subscribe to the idea of being born in sin. Personally, I haven't done anything in my life that would warrant much in the way of repercussions, let alone being condemned to Hell.


Just know that not all Christians believe in 'original sin' and not all believe in a 'burning forever' type of 'hell'


----------



## where I want to

mnn2501 said:


> Just know that not all Christians believe in 'original sin' and not all believe in a 'burning forever' type of 'hell'


Details, details, details.......


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> True, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. We all need a break, right? Even critters, back when critters were doing a lot more of our work, deserved a break once a week. Without a Sabbath, I think man's natural self service tends towards trying to make that profit at the expense of their neighbor, their animal and even their own health. God knew what He was doing when He said "take a rest".
> 
> I do miss the days when there was this one day a week that families were free to be together, to worship, eat, relax and for a little while, forget the toils of their lives. It helped everyone have a better attitude, I think. Even non Christians should be able to appreciate the value of needing that moment to decompress.
> 
> I suppose I only don't have an opinion that blue laws should be a government mandate because the government continually pushes the impression that it's the "god" we should bow to. There are still small towns here and there that observe a day of closing businesses and resting once a week. A local level is where that decision is best made, maybe.


I think the biggest problem is choosing a set day. If you pick Sunday as the official day off for everyone what about the people whose Sabbath/Holy day is on Saturday? Or Friday? Or on full moons and 8 times a year on various days of the week. 

If a business owner is a Christian and wants to close on Sundays I say good for them. I have always respected Chick-fil-a's decision even if I do always crave a chicken sandwich when they are closed.  Everything but chain stores and Sonic close here on Sundays and it is mainly because business would be really slow even if they were open. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't want the county to pass an ordinance to close everything on Sundays though.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> I think the biggest problem is choosing a set day. If you pick Sunday as the official day off for everyone what about the people whose Sabbath/Holy day is on Saturday? Or Friday? Or on full moons and 8 times a year on various days of the week.
> 
> If a business owner is a Christian and wants to close on Sundays I say good for them. I have always respected Chick-fil-a's decision even if I do always crave a chicken sandwich when they are closed.  Everything but chain stores and Sonic close here on Sundays and it is mainly because business would be really slow even if they were open. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't want the county to pass an ordinance to close everything on Sundays though.


Well, the Sabbath Is on Saturday. That's what the Bible says....but, again, I'm not pushing for any government laws to enforce anything. A county-wide ordinance is too big in my opinion, too.


----------



## Raeven

where I want to said:


> Too bad it doesn't work like that. What really happens is that businesses in competition for retail dollars are open as many hours as they can have supported by sales. So that the result is that people are called on to work many different schedules and numbers of hours and finding time to get together with friends and family is so difficult as to impossible for many. Life gets lived on the internet, which like many stores, is open 24/7.
> 
> It is the commercial interests that have freedom under this scenario, not people. Unlike you, I do care about the employees and will not shop at times where where I feel their employees need to be free from work for the living of their lives. Whatever those times society chooses to call family holidays. Based or religious requirements or not.
> 
> Note that most businesses that are not public consumer driven are closed on certain days. If not needed for money making, the health of employees is the controlling factor.
> 
> I have worked for a 24/7 company that ran a business that was needed for emergencies. I worked holidays and missed many family get togethers as a result. All are now gone who would have been there and it's too late to make up for it now.


You know nothing of my care for employees and/or shopping practices and have no authority to speak to them. Stop making assumptions and trying to use them to augment your puny arguments.

As for missing your family get togethers, you could have quit and gotten a job that accommodated your needs. Or did the evil atheists foreclose that possibility for you, too?


----------



## Raeven

dlmcafee said:


> I find it ironic that the most vocal against blue laws claims their location here on HT as Oregon. A state not listed as having blue laws and recently the auto dealers association in that state lobbied to enact a Sunday Blue Law for financial reasons.


We do have Blue laws as they pertain to the purchase of hard liquor. I know this because I once wanted to purchase a bottle of brandy on a Sunday when I realized I was out, and had friends coming for dinner had been promised a flambe dish that required the brandy. No flambe for them. Ridiculous.

If auto dealers are successful in enacting a Sunday Blue law for financial reasons, I have no problem with that. It's their business and if they have a basis for it other than religious reasons, more power to them. It's the *arbitrary religious nature* of most Blue laws that I am discussing. You keep trying to make it about something else.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

mnn2501 said:


> Just know that not all Christians believe in 'original sin' and not all believe in a 'burning forever' type of 'hell'


Sounds like another case of bastardizing the word christian to me :rain:


----------



## where I want to

Raeven said:


> You know nothing of my care for employees and/or shopping practices and have no authority to speak to them. Stop making assumptions and trying to use them to augment your puny arguments.
> 
> As for missing your family get togethers, you could have quit and gotten a job that accommodated your needs. Or did the evil atheists foreclose that possibility for you, too?


Well neither more do you, although your personal situation was not in my thoughts at all. In fact, I did not even notice who made the post I responded to. Although the snarky language and personal reaction should have made it clear.

But under no circumstances is it important. It is simply not all about you, no matter how angry you seem to get about it. It is a choice made for every working person, who might actually care more than a rat's ass what is imposed on them. 

Seeking insult where there was none and holding onto them with such vindictiveness is unbecoming.


----------



## Guest

Raeven said:


> We do have Blue laws as they pertain to the purchase of hard liquor. I know this because I once wanted to purchase a bottle of brandy on a Sunday when I realized I was out, and had friends coming for dinner had been promised a flambe dish that required the brandy. No flambe for them. Ridiculous.
> 
> If auto dealers are successful in enacting a Sunday Blue law for financial reasons, I have no problem with that. It's their business and if they have a basis for it other than religious reasons, more power to them. It's the *arbitrary religious nature* of most Blue laws that I am discussing. You keep trying to make it about something else.


Oregon law titled Measure 3 (1904), a "local option", sets the sale of alcoholic beverage measures within the local community. The state alcohol control board having overall jurisdiction. I guess if your local town, city or county regulate sales it could turn you blue. The fact is your state is not listed as a state with enacted blue laws.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Oregon law titled Measure 3 (1904), a "local option", sets the sale of alcoholic beverage measures within the local community. The state alcohol control board having overall jurisdiction. I guess if your local town, city or county regulate sales it could turn you blue. The fact is your state is not listed as a state with enacted blue laws.


Here in ky we don't have blue laws, but we do have dry laws ! It's that local option thing and we still have a lot of dry counties.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Here in ky we don't have blue laws, but we do have dry laws ! It's that local option thing and we still have a lot of dry counties.


The town where I lived as a teen in western NY was (it is still) dry. PITA.


----------



## mnn2501

where I want to said:


> Details, details, details.......


The LDS (Mormons) do not believe in original sin or in the traditional view of Hell.

Articles of Faith - number 2 applies here

Hell


----------



## mnn2501

Sawmill Jim said:


> Sounds like another case of bastardizing the word christian to me :rain:


The key words in that sentence are "to me"

1) Most doctrinal issues boil down to interpretation.

2) Our interpretation isn't unreasonable.

3) If you think our interpretation is unreasonable, then it all boils down to opinion.

4) I'm not about to argue an opinion with you.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

mnn2501 said:


> The key words in that sentence are "to me"
> 
> 1) Most doctrinal issues boil down to interpretation.
> 
> 2) Our interpretation isn't unreasonable.
> 
> 3) If you think our interpretation is unreasonable, then it all boils down to opinion.
> 
> 4) I'm not about to argue an opinion with you.


Don't want to argue opinion as they won't and never have amounted to much .Then lots of folks drag out tons of other books other than the Bible and down the wrong trail they go :duel:

Some things don't require interpretation when one interprets where non is required it leads to twisting scripture . A real early example is 

Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


----------



## Marshloft

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Here in ky we don't have blue laws, but we do have dry laws ! It's that local option thing and we still have a lot of dry counties.


 Lived in oklahoma for a short period. Didn't know till we moved there that it was a dry county. Had to drive into oklahoma city to buy warm beer. Couldn't buy it cold.
It took till last year for kansas to finally rid itself of the liquor blue law. Before that, we had to cross into missouri on sundays.
During the football season, we still have to stock up for sunday games, as the chiefs start at noon most times, and the liquor store doesn't open till noon.


----------



## Truckinguy

mnn2501 said:


> Just know that not all Christians believe in 'original sin' and not all believe in a 'burning forever' type of 'hell'


This seems to be the predominant teaching from my experience. It's what I was raised on and what seems to be the prevailing presentation in society. Most televangelists that I've seen seem to preach that and, regardless of what people may think of televangelists, they have a loyal following and reach a wide audience with their message. There has always been the typical God vs Devil message which usually includes the concept of Heaven and Hell. If that isn't the message then the message needs to be clarified between all Christians before it's sent out. It's the conflicting messages that cause a lot of people to question the movement as a whole. Being "born in sin" has always been the cornerstone of the message that I've been aware of, thus necessitating the need for a Savior. If there is no original sin, would that not eliminate that need and undermine the entire message of the Bible?

Quite a few pages back, someone mentioned that the original word used for Hell has a few different meanings, including the word "grave". It is these differing interpretations that really muddy the water on what should be a simple message: "Believe in me and you'll be saved and have life eternal". All teachings that I've heard always have one of two endings: eternal life in Heaven or eternal torment in a fiery Hell. Is there another ending that I'm not aware of?


----------



## where I want to

The essence of the anti-religionists seems to come down to one thing. If the individual is happy with themselves, that is good enough and they should not have to hear anything to the contrary that disturbs that self satisfaction. They don't need religious thought as this satisfaction is innate. 

I just don't understand the apparently endless obsession with what religious think to the contrary. If someone does not believe in hell or everlasting life or original sin, what is so deeply disturbing to them that someone else does? Why no seeking to compromuse where ever possible rather that running through the village with flaming torches to hunt down the monsters? Why not seek understanding of those religious, admit to the good while reserving criticism for the bad? Why not fit in the obvious need that religion fills with the world view of the nonreligious? That is what the religious does- hates the sin while admitting that all are sinners. Why can't the anti religious agree that humans innately contain conflicts in their nature that, whike motivating kindness sometimes, creates massive cruelty at other times?

It tends to look like the bullying cool kids in high school inflict on the not cool kids. Someone wearing "the wrong" clothes is subject to constant harrassment over nothing. The brand of shirt, for Pete's Sake.


----------



## Marshloft

Maybe separating the word "Religion" from "Christianity" is in order.
I was gonna comment, but this guy says it better than I ever could.

_*God Hates Religion*__ 
A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel._
_ The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion._
_ *Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. *Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society._
_ It is the propensity of man to formulate religion - to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion! The apostle Paul refers to it as "self-made religion" (Colossians 2:23), and goes on to indicate that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, Paul is saying that "religion is of no value against man's sinfulness." In fact, religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction._
_ Religion is essentially idolatry. Men worship their man-made formations and structures - their ideological idols formed in the concrete of inflexible minds. When the apostle Paul came to Athens (Acts 17:22), he observed their idols and exclaimed, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects." The Greek word that Paul used for "religious" literally means "to have great respect for demons."
_ _
To document that God hates religion, note the following passages of Scripture:__"...every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods." (Deuteronomy 12:31)_
_"I have had enough of burnt offerings...Bring your worthless offerings no longer...I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts; they have become a burden to Me... So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you... I will not listen..." (Isaiah 1:10-15)_
_ "I hate, I reject your festivals; nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies...take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps." (Amos 5:21-24)_​_ These passages bear out the fact that God hates religion, and all of its procedures and programs; rituals and regulations._
_ Religion is inevitably the result of man taking that which is of God and forming it, formulating it, in such a way that men end up "playing God." Men can form idols out of wood or stone in an attempt to represent God, or they can formulate ideological idols (belief-systems, doctrinal definitions, theological theses). The men who thus form and formulate become the "chief priests" of the new religion because they are regarded as knowing the most about what God is like, and well they should for they formed "it."_
_ There are three features which seem to be basic to all forms of man-made religion. Religion involves absolutism, authoritarianism and activism. Now there is nothing wrong with absolutes, authority or activity. God is absolute, authoritative and active. But when any man or group of men attempts to establish themselves as the arbiters or regulators of God's absoluteness, authority or activity, they then begin to "play god," and religion is the result as they impose their perspective of absolute, authority and activity on others._


----------



## mnn2501

Truckinguy said:


> This seems to be the predominant teaching from my experience. It's what I was raised on and what seems to be the prevailing presentation in society. Most televangelists that I've seen seem to preach that and, regardless of what people may think of televangelists, they have a loyal following and reach a wide audience with their message. There has always been the typical God vs Devil message which usually includes the concept of Heaven and Hell. If that isn't the message then the message needs to be clarified between all Christians before it's sent out. It's the conflicting messages that cause a lot of people to question the movement as a whole. Being "born in sin" has always been the cornerstone of the message that I've been aware of, thus necessitating the need for a Savior. If there is no original sin, would that not eliminate that need and undermine the entire message of the Bible?
> 
> Quite a few pages back, someone mentioned that the original word used for Hell has a few different meanings, including the word "grave". It is these differing interpretations that really muddy the water on what should be a simple message: "Believe in me and you'll be saved and have life eternal". All teachings that I've heard always have one of two endings: eternal life in Heaven or eternal torment in a fiery Hell. Is there another ending that I'm not aware of?


I'll grant you that's what many believe, however There is another ending, the last part of this linked lesson describes it 

If everyone could agree there would only be one Church rather than dozens of denominations and thousands upon thousands of independent Churches


----------



## Evons hubby

Truckinguy said:


> This seems to be the predominant teaching from my experience. It's what I was raised on and what seems to be the prevailing presentation in society. Most televangelists that I've seen seem to preach that and, regardless of what people may think of televangelists, they have a loyal following and reach a wide audience with their message. There has always been the typical God vs Devil message which usually includes the concept of Heaven and Hell. If that isn't the message then the message needs to be clarified between all Christians before it's sent out. It's the conflicting messages that cause a lot of people to question the movement as a whole. Being "born in sin" has always been the cornerstone of the message that I've been aware of, thus necessitating the need for a Savior. If there is no original sin, would that not eliminate that need and undermine the entire message of the Bible?
> 
> Quite a few pages back, someone mentioned that the original word used for Hell has a few different meanings, including the word "grave". It is these differing interpretations that really muddy the water on what should be a simple message: "Believe in me and you'll be saved and have life eternal". All teachings that I've heard always have one of two endings: eternal life in Heaven or eternal torment in a fiery Hell. *Is there another ending that I'm not aware of?*


my dear departed daddy studied the scriptures carefully for many years... According to him there is indeed another alternative ending. Something about being burned as the chaff (which in my experience burns quite rapidly) then spending eternity in hell... Again according to dad the word hell means a hole in the ground... Used during biblical times as a place to store root crops. His take on it was basically "when yer hot yer hot and when yer not yer not" or "it's black in the box". Whatever the truth really is he knows now.


----------



## Txsteader

mnn2501 said:


> I'll grant you that's what many believe, however There is another ending, the last part of this linked lesson describes it
> 
> *If everyone could agree there would only be one Church rather than dozens of denominations and thousands upon thousands of independent Churches*


Indeed. The Apostle Paul warned in 2Timothy and Romans of that very issue......not so much a matter of 'agreeing' but rather of not teaching a different doctrine, thus leading people astray. And yet, beginning in their time.........


----------

