BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD and REINCARNATION

[grayg8rstevo]

I am just respectfully asking those who use this forum a two part question:

Do believe in a SUPREME BEING?
Do you believe that some souls have incarnated more than once?

You don't have to defend your position, as it is your own personal belief system.
Some believe in GOD but feel reincarnation is taboo.
Additionally, I have never met, conversely , anyone who did not believe in GOD and souls, to admit to believing in reincarnation. Kind of a non starter.

Read a lot of Edgar CAYCE books through the years and the thread of reincarnation seems to run through most of it.
I also have seen some fundamental Christian belief systems that seem to believe that the possibility of an immortal all powerful CREATOR and reincarnation is a contradiction. If anyone can verbalize that somewhat , I would appreciate it.

We have a diverse crew here . I respectfully am asking for your input.
Thank You
stevo:love:

[g8orbill]

I do believe totally in God and Jesus Christ His Son.

I do not believe in reincarnation

[channingcrowderhungry]

Both seem equally plausible to me.

I would think if you believe in reincarnation you would also believe in a higher being. Though this inverse is not true.

[helix139]

I believe in God and the Trinity of the Christian Bible. The Bible does not support the idea of reincarnation, therefore I do not believe in it. It supports the idea of the resurrection and judgement of the dead to eternal communion with or separation from God, so that is what I believe in.

[cocodrilo]

If time is infinite and there is an infinite number of universes, at some point somewhere each of us will be duplicated, more than once. Of course, we'll never know it so there's no point in worrying about it. All we can do is hope that we enjoy ourselves.

[lacuna]

I am just respectfully asking those who use this forum a two part question:

Do believe in a SUPREME BEING?
Do you believe that some souls have incarnated more than once?

Deep questions, Steve. I would imagine you have mulled them over and over in your mind before bringing them to the forum.

I don't know that what I think will bring you any comfort or reassurance but I'll respond and offer perspectives that are outside and beyond orthodox Christian doctrine for consideration.

First off - I don't believe in a "Supreme Being." I do consider myself to be a theist - more specifically a panentheist, but this concept of God is more in keeping with orthodox Judaism than orthodox Christianity. When Moses encountered God and asked God His name, he was told God's name was Ayeh Asher Ayeh. This translates to 'I Will Be What I Will Be' or 'I Am What I Am Becoming'. It denotes a dynamic process rather than a Being set apart. God is more Verb-like than Noun.

In Deuteronomy 6 the omnipresence of God is heard through the proclamation:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
Shema Israel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad

The Hebrew word Echad, translated as 'One', is a word meaning undivided wholeness, singularity. Judaism generally regards the phrase to mean God is intrinsically involved in and with creation or the Universe - every thing that exists. God is not separate from all we perceive and we are not separate from God. We are in God and God is in us. God is not a Being. God is Being.

Acts 17:28 relates Paul telling the Athenians it is God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

I need to make it clear, I do not believe the Bible should be interpreted literally as Fundamentalist and Evangelicals believe it should be. I do believe however, the Book holds much spiritual truth conveyed in metaphorical stories and other sage writings and prophecies. It is a Book with many layers of understanding.

In Genesis it is written God breathed into Adam (man) the breath of life (God's spirit) and man became a living soul. In Ecclesiastes it is written at the time of death the spirit of the deceased "returns to God who gave it." In Hebrews it is written the 'word of God is sharper than a 2 edged sword, dividing soul from spirit.'

So what happens to the soul? Jesus said there would be no marriage in the resurrection: "they cannot any more die; for they are equal to the angels, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." That seemingly implies there will be no physical body. Man became a "living soul" when the spirit of God was breathed into him. When the spirit returns to God upon man's death, the soul ceases to exist.


(This is not the end, but I've got to go out for a few hours. Will continue later.)

[gatorman_07732]

Reincarnation would be in my direct contradiction of ever lasting life in the kingdom of god and striving for goodness in gods eyes to achieve it. There would be no need to seek forgiveness of any venial sin. I believe you need to ask yourself the question, what are the benefits of salvation and Eternal life.

[David Shepherd]

I believe in God, the Trinity and the inerrant Word of God is the Holy Bible.

I do not believe in reincarnation, but I do believe in rebirth through Christ.

These beliefs are not just the beliefs of fundamentalist.

[cocodrilo]

what are the benefits of salvation and Eternal life.

The benefits of salvation depend on being saved from what.

If eternal life is so desirable, why do so many people commit suicide? A lot of people sure get tired of life on Earth. Once in the eternal realm, I assume they are stuck forever.

[gatorman_07732]

The benefits of salvation depend on being saved from what.

If eternal life is so desirable, why do so many people commit suicide? A lot of people sure get tired of life on Earth. Once in the eternal realm, I assume they are stuck forever.

Awesome question coco. Not everybody can have a true belief of salvation and Eternal life, because to do so you need to leave certain things in the hands of god especially during times of turmoil in your life. I can't emphasize how difficult this can be, but it is the difference when you put the lord in charge of your life and trust him. If one chooses to take there life, they have certainly not reached that point.

[CHFG8R]

Deep questions, Steve. I would imagine you have mulled them over and over in your mind before bringing them to the forum.

I don't know that what I think will bring you any comfort or reassurance but I'll respond and offer perspectives that are outside and beyond orthodox Christian doctrine for consideration.

First off - I don't believe in a "Supreme Being." I do consider myself to be a theist - more specifically a panenetheist, but this concept of God is more in keeping with orthodox Judaism than orthodox Christianity. When Moses encountered God and asked God His name, he was told God's name was Ayeh Asher Ayeh. This translates to 'I Will Be What I Will Be' or 'I Am What I Am Becoming'. It denotes a dynamic process rather than a Being set apart. God is more Verb-like than Noun.

In Deuteronomy 6 the omnipresence of God is heard through the proclamation:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
Shema Israel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad

The Hebrew word Echad, translated as 'One', is a word meaning undivided wholeness, singularity. Judaism generally regards the phrase to mean God is intrinsically involved in and with creation or the Universe - every thing that exists. God is not separate from all we perceive and we are not separate from God. We are in God and God is in us. God is not a Being. God is Being.

Acts 17:28 relates Paul telling the Athenians it is God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

I need to make it clear, I do not believe the Bible should be interpreted literally as Fundamentalist and Evangelicals believe it should be. I do believe however, the Book holds much spiritual truth conveyed in metaphorical stories and other sage writings and prophecies. It is a Book with many layers of understanding.

In Genesis it is written God breathed into Adam (man) the breath of life (God's spirit) and man became a living soul. In Ecclesiastes it is written at the time of death the spirit of the deceased "returns to God who gave it." In Hebrews it is written the 'word of God is sharper than a 2 edged sword, dividing soul from spirit.'

So what happens to the soul? Jesus said there would be no marriage in the resurrection: "they cannot any more die; for they are equal to the angels, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." That seemingly implies there will be no physical body. Man became a "living soul" when the spirit of God was breathed into him. When the spirit returns to God upon man's death, the soul ceases to exist.


(This is not the end, but I've got to go out for a few hours. Will continue later.)

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these things (bolded) sound very similar to aspects of Hinduism. On a side note, I actually was trying to look up the word for it (Brahamin, I think, at least as some Hindus define it) and was struck by all the information on the Wiki page. What an interesting religious tradition. I got stuck on that for about an hour.

[CHFG8R]

Reincarnation would be in my direct contradiction of ever lasting life in the kingdom of god and striving for goodness in gods eyes to achieve it. There would be no need to seek forgiveness of any venial sin. I believe you need to ask yourself the question, what are the benefits of salvation and Eternal life.

The Hindu system of caste actually deals with just that. One moves up the ladder in various incarnations depending on how one lived the previous one.

[108]

as an agnostic, i try to hold my beliefs lightly as they are just that, "beliefs", but I tend to lean towards the belief that there is no separate God figure, but that everything is unified, one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively via form...

therefore individual reincarnation gets a bit sticky since there would be no actual separate individual self or soul, but one consciousness's ever changing forms

but there certainly is quite a bit of cases to lead one to believe in reincarnation

[CHFG8R]

as an agnostic, i try to hold my beliefs lightly as they are just that, "beliefs", but I tend to lean towards the belief that there is no separate God figure, but that everything is unified, one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively via form...

therefore individual reincarnation gets a bit sticky since there would be no actual separate individual self or soul, but one consciousness's ever changing forms

but there certainly is quite a bit of cases to lead one to believe in reincarnation

We're on the same page here. For me, it's not that I have a problem with modern Christianity, but that it's hard for me to intellectually accept a story that rises very little - if at all - above the Greek/Roman Pantheon in terms of plausibility. In fact, I've always maintained that it's plausibility is based in it's ambiguity.

[WESGATORS]

Do believe in a SUPREME BEING?
Do you believe that some souls have incarnated more than once?

Yes to the first question (Christian)
No to the second question, but it's not that I explicitly believe that it doesn't happen, just that whether it happens or not has no practical bearing on my existence. If I have been reincarnated, I don't remember anything about a past life so there is no connection to be referenced. Whether I did or did not previously exist is not identifiable to me. If this is my first time existing and I will be recycled, then I guess I'll have to wait until next time to have an opinion on it. ;)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[cocodrilo]

Whether I did or did not previously exist is not identifiable to me.

But karma should tell you whether you were good or bad.

[WESGATORS]

But karma should tell you whether you were good or bad.

How do you know whether karma is reacting to actions in a previous life or actions in this life?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Gatormb]

Reincarnation would be in my direct contradiction of ever lasting life in the kingdom of god and striving for goodness in gods eyes to achieve it. There would be no need to seek forgiveness of any venial sin. I believe you need to ask yourself the question, what are the benefits of salvation and Eternal life.

Assuming you have a Christian background I'm confused by the bolded above as the Bible teaches we are saved by Grace (free gift, can't earn it), through faith (in Jesus) and not of any works lest any man boast.

[gatorman_07732]

Assuming you have a Christian background I'm confused by the bolded above as the Bible teaches we are saved by Grace (free gift, can't earn it), through faith (in Jesus) and not of any works lest any man boast.

If we never ask for forgiveness we can never achieve being saved. In a sense it must be earned was we can not go through life doing as we please in reckless abandon. If you never ask you will not receive. This also goes with forgiving others for what they have done to you. According to Catholathism and the seven sacrements.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Why_Confession.htm

The Sacrament of Penance, commonly called Confession, is one of the seven sacraments recognized by the Catholic Church. Catholics believe that all of the sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ himself. In the case of Confession, that institution occurred on Easter Sunday, when Christ first appeared to the apostles after his Resurrection. Breathing on them, he said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23).

The Marks of the Sacrament:


Catholics also believe that the sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace. In this case, the outward sign is the absolution, or forgiveness of sins, that the priest grants to the penitent (the person confessing his sins); the inward grace is the reconciliation of the penitent to God (which is why the sacrament is also sometimes called the Sacrament of Reconciliation).

[Lawdog88]

Some have an issue with the Catholic view that salvation is held out in front of a penitent believer like a carrot on a stick, such that the believer can only "know" it for certain, if and only if, "earn" it by some sort of personal effort or some sacramental acts, day by day.

Of course, the Protestant view is that we cannot "earn" or merit the Grace of God, no matter how we live, even by the act of asking for it; all we can do is receive it and thereafter, allow the working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate us away from the "old" man.

[Gatormb]

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these things (bolded) sound very similar to aspects of Hinduism. On a side note, I actually was trying to look up the word for it (Brahamin, I think, at least as some Hindus define it) and was struck by all the information on the Wiki page. What an interesting religious tradition. I got stuck on that for about an hour.

Heinz57. Little of this little of that all mixed in together for one happy family.

[Gatormb]

But karma should tell you whether you were good or bad.

coco, if reincarnation exists, I hope it's the Eastern version and a number of people on Too Hot come back as a tree, get harvested for paper and end up with the Bible being printed on them.

Speaking of Karma!:cry:

[gatorman_07732]

Some have an issue with the Catholic view that salvation is held out in front of a penitent believer like a carrot on a stick, such that the believer can only "know" it for certain, if and only if, "earn" it by some sort of personal effort or some sacramental acts, day by day.

Of course, the Protestant view is that we cannot "earn" or merit the Grace of God, no matter how we live, even by the act of asking for it; all we can do is receive it and thereafter, allow the working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate us away from the "old" man.

The way I see it is, if you're comfortable with it, and believe it then go for it. As long as you're practicing and giving all your faith you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I would never discourage anyone of their beliefs and give the impression that mine is superior to anyone else's faith. The most important thing is having your personal relationship.

[Lawdog88]

The way I see it is, if you're comfortable with it, and believe it then go for it. As long as you're practicing and giving all your faith you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I would never discourage anyone of their beliefs and give the impression that mine is superior to anyone else's faith. The most important thing is having your personal relationship.


You hit the sweet spot with that one, GMan.

[CHFG8R]

Heinz57. Little of this little of that all mixed in together for one happy family.

I'm curious why you feel the need to denigrate other people's beliefs in this way? Did I dispariage Christianity in this post? No.

Did you have an experience where Hindus denounced your beliefs and now you feel the need to reciprocate?

What do you fear that you feel the need to react to a harmless post in this way? Sorry, but it's kinda sad.

[CHFG8R]

The way I see it is, if you're comfortable with it, and believe it then go for it. As long as you're practicing and giving all your faith you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I would never discourage anyone of their beliefs and give the impression that mine is superior to anyone else's faith. The most important thing is having your personal relationship.


You, my friend, "get it."

[lacuna]

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these things (bolded) sound very similar to aspects of Hinduism. On a side note, I actually was trying to look up the word for it (Brahamin, I think, at least as some Hindus define it) and was struck by all the information on the Wiki page. What an interesting religious tradition. I got stuck on that for about an hour.

There are a number of striking similarities. The Vedas - the sacred writings of the Hindustani cultures - are the source of a number of fascinating myths that have interesting parallels in both Judaism and Christianity.

Brahma is considered to be the creative agent of the 3 major Gods in the triune Hindu tradition. Brahma's consort is Saraswati. Depending on which of the many myths associated with these two, Saraswati is not only his consort but also his daughter. Some of the myths have her as his sister. Brahma is revered by his devotees as being the source or father of mankind, with Saraswati being the mother.

God told Abram that he would be the father of a "multitude" of nations. (Genesis 17:4) God then said Abram's name was to be Abraham and his wife Sarai was to be known as Sarah. On two occasions Abraham tried to convince 2 Canaanite kings Sarah was his sister rather than his wife.

Abraham's nephew, Lot, fathered two nations incestuously with his 2 daughters who seduced their drunken father.

Whether or not there was a direct link between the Torah and the ancient Vedas that precede the writings traditionally accredited to Moses, it is indicative of an underlying commonality that has been lost but for what is left to us in those sacred writings.

[Tim85]

There are a number of striking similarities. The Vedas - the sacred writings of the Hindustani cultures - are the source of a number of fascinating myths that have interesting parallels in both Judaism and Christianity.

Brahma is considered to be the creative agent of the 3 major Gods in the triune Hindu tradition. Brahma's consort is Saraswati. Depending on which of the many myths associated with these two, Saraswati is not only his consort but also his daughter. Some of the myths have her as his sister. Brahma is revered by his devotees as being the source or father of mankind, with Saraswati being the mother.

God told Abram that he would be the father of a "multitude" of nations. (Genesis 17:4) God then said Abram's name was to be Abraham and his wife Sarai was to be known as Sarah. On two occasions Abraham tried to convince 2 Canaanite kings Sarah was his sister rather than his wife.

Abraham's nephew, Lot, fathered two nations incestuously with his 2 daughters who seduced their drunken father.

Whether or not there was a direct link between the Torah and the ancient Vedas that precede the writings traditionally accredited to Moses, it is indicative of an underlying commonality that has been lost but for what is left to us in those sacred writings.

Couldn't a lot of the stories have similarities almost solely from the Biblical story of Babel? I'm not really all that informed on the subject, but it seems like that could explain why there are "striking similarities."

[HALLGATOR]

Deep questions, Steve. I would imagine you have mulled them over and over in your mind before bringing them to the forum.

I don't know that what I think will bring you any comfort or reassurance but I'll respond and offer perspectives that are outside and beyond orthodox Christian doctrine for consideration.

First off - I don't believe in a "Supreme Being." I do consider myself to be a theist - more specifically a panenetheist, but this concept of God is more in keeping with orthodox Judaism than orthodox Christianity. When Moses encountered God and asked God His name, he was told God's name was Ayeh Asher Ayeh. This translates to 'I Will Be What I Will Be' or 'I Am What I Am Becoming'. It denotes a dynamic process rather than a Being set apart. God is more Verb-like than Noun.

In Deuteronomy 6 the omnipresence of God is heard through the proclamation:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
Shema Israel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad

The Hebrew word Echad, translated as 'One', is a word meaning undivided wholeness, singularity. Judaism generally regards the phrase to mean God is intrinsically involved in and with creation or the Universe - every thing that exists. God is not separate from all we perceive and we are not separate from God. We are in God and God is in us. God is not a Being. God is Being.

Acts 17:28 relates Paul telling the Athenians it is God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

I need to make it clear, I do not believe the Bible should be interpreted literally as Fundamentalist and Evangelicals believe it should be. I do believe however, the Book holds much spiritual truth conveyed in metaphorical stories and other sage writings and prophecies. It is a Book with many layers of understanding.

In Genesis it is written God breathed into Adam (man) the breath of life (God's spirit) and man became a living soul. In Ecclesiastes it is written at the time of death the spirit of the deceased "returns to God who gave it." In Hebrews it is written the 'word of God is sharper than a 2 edged sword, dividing soul from spirit.'

So what happens to the soul? Jesus said there would be no marriage in the resurrection: "they cannot any more die; for they are equal to the angels, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." That seemingly implies there will be no physical body. Man became a "living soul" when the spirit of God was breathed into him. When the spirit returns to God upon man's death, the soul ceases to exist.


(This is not the end, but I've got to go out for a few hours. Will continue later.)


Good post lacuna, I was particularly interested to find what you write of with respect to how God answered Moses. In my past readings it was presented as "I am that I am" or "I am". Moving this translation into verb form lends a whole new light on it and provides new food for thought. I have, for many years, thought we were part of a process if there is indeed an afterlife.

[grayg8rstevo]

Terrific responses. My understandings are Christian with some concepts outside those belief systems, which I believe are companion thoughts. At the core, there is only reuniting with the ETERNAL CREATOR. The CREATOR is all there is. We are all energy
and all part of ONE, yet distinct, and wherever we are when we are here, if sure seems like we are far apart. How is that for conundrums? I am always interested in what others think on the most important question of all time. Thanks, keep it coming.

[gatorman_07732]

Terrific responses. My understandings are Christian with some concepts outside those belief systems, which I believe are companion thoughts. At the core, there is only reuniting with the ETERNAL CREATOR. The CREATOR is all there is. We are all energy
and all part of ONE, yet distinct, and wherever we are when we are here, if sure seems like we are far apart. How is that for conundrums? I am always interested in what others think on the most important question of all time. Thanks, keep it coming.

The bottom line gray is it's great to discuss these things but not judge. I think most of us that posted on this thread appreciate your inquisitiveness.

[lacuna]

Sorry for the break. But to continue -

I Think from the verses in Genesis and Ecclesiastes I referred to earlier it could be deduced the soul, the egoistic aspect of our self, is produced from a joining of sorts (a marriage?) between the physical and the spiritual. When the physical is no longer capable of sustaining life as we recognize it, the joining is dissolved, the soul disintegrates and the spirit returns to Source.

I don't think the returning spirit retains memories, emotions or connections to the physical life most recently experienced in a way we can easily relate to. I think this apportioned spirit is part of the Universal Mind we commonly refer to as 'God'. This discrete allotted and incarnated portion allows God to experience and physically participate in Universal Totality. We are unaware of our greater heritage because it is limited, screened and opposed through our physical nature.

The natural world is an awesome center of recycling and revolution. The earth revolves, day endlessly merges into night and back again into day. The spinning earth in turn circles unceasingly around its solar center. The galaxy spins and repositions itself returning to a given point over a period of many thousands of years.

Bodies die and decay into elemental substances to sustain life in other forms. Water evaporates and is recycled endlessly through rainfall. Why is it so absurd to think our spiritual aspect - our conscious awareness, unencumbered with the emotional ties and egoistic impulses associated with our physical nature cannot also be recycled?

The Bible does not deny a rebirth but possibly for one verse that is frequently proof texted as evidence rebirth does not occur. Considered in context I don't think that's what it is necessarily saying:

Hebrews 9:23-28 ...
23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

This short verse is not denying the possibility the spiritual aspect of a person is reborn into another when the accounts of the former life are paid. Karma may even dictate future lifespan[s] are necessary to settle accounts.

Apparently the disciples had more than a passing acquaintance with the concept of rebirth and retribution as they asked Jesus in John 9:2 ... "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

In Matthew 11 Jesus tells his disciples John the Baptist is the prophesied return of the prophet Elijah. "He who has ears, let him hear."

If verses from the Bible are the basis for deciding whether rebirth is fact, there are more verses indicating it is true than the single one in Hebrews that is cited to disprove it. Orthodox Judaism, then and now, fully embraces the concept of rebirth.

Jesus said (Matthew 7:21-23) 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

What is the will of the Father? It's what Jesus has been teaching and what he continued to teach throughout his remaining time on earth. The 3 synoptic gospels that record his teachings do not have him saying his followers had to "believe in him" to be saved from a fiery eternal punishment. The esoteric Gospel of John is an entirely different emphasis on the incarnation of the Christ. I don't think it should be interpreted or understood as literally as the 3 synoptics are generally.

Christian orthodoxy rejects the concept of spiritual rebirth because it contradicts the dogma that requires Jesus to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins. The atonement doctrine commonplace in most evangelical churches today is the theory of Penal Substitution. It is not, I repeat, not the theory of atonement that was taught or believed in the earliest years of the incipient church. The followers of Jesus were more familiar with the Ransom theory (also now known as the Christus Victor Theory) of atonement. It is more in keeping with what Jesus said in Matthew 7 about doing the will of the Father as the means of entering the Kingdom of Heaven and does not require the Christian to believe in Jesus as much as it states the necessity of believing Jesus and doing what he taught.

In 1st Corinthians 5:7 Paul referred to Jesus as "our Passover Lamb." The trust the Israelites placed in the sacrificial rite of the Passover Lamb was what freed them from their bondage in Egypt. The self sacrifice of Jesus, and trust in believing what he taught, is what frees us from the bondage of sin in our life today. When we deeply apprehend and embrace the truth of his words and teachings, we don't want to sin any more. We shoulder our cross and follow in his steps. That's not to say temptation is removed. We all know it is not. But it does enable us to recognize the enslaving power sin holds over us. The truth sets us free (John 8:31,32).

If we don't get it right. Rejoice, sinner! We've got a chance to come back and re-test!

[wargunfan]

Awesome question coco. Not everybody can have a true belief of salvation and Eternal life, because to do so you need to leave certain things in the hands of god especially during times of turmoil in your life. I can't emphasize how difficult this can be, but it is the difference when you put the lord in charge of your life and trust him. If one chooses to take there life, they have certainly not reached that point.

Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting question about suicide. I have known Viet Nam veterans who had accepted Christ as their Savior and lived a life of faith for many years. Then at some point they became depressed (PTSD?) and killed themselves. I believe God makes allowances for those poor souls who fall into depression and choose to seek relief by ending their lives. God's mercy and loving kindness towards His children is from everlasting to everlasting.

[CHFG8R]

Lacuna, that sounds a lot like what I've been reading about Hinduism. This was an interesting paragraph from the Wiki page.

Hinduism grants absolute and complete freedom of belief and worship.[73][74][75] Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity.[76] Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy

A refreshing way to look at it if you ask me.

[lacuna]

Couldn't a lot of the stories have similarities almost solely from the Biblical story of Babel? I'm not really all that informed on the subject, but it seems like that could explain why there are "striking similarities."

There is an ancient commonality to all the stories that is impossible to ferret out. We can only marvel at the similarities and parallels and appreciate the deeper truths they attempt to convey. Aldous Huxley spoke of a Perennial Philosophy, a single underlying truth that was the foundation of all the world's religious traditions prior to the mythology and accumulation of dogma that all inevitably acquire.

[HALLGATOR]

Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting question about suicide. I have known Viet Nam veterans who had accepted Christ as their Savior and lived a life of faith for many years. Then at some point they became depressed (PTSD?) and killed themselves. I believe God makes allowances for those poor souls who fall into depression and choose to seek relief by ending their lives. God's mercy and loving kindness towards His children is from everlasting to everlasting.

I've never thought that a person who commits suicide could be considered sane as we normally view it. Perhaps in rare occasions, such as the terminally ill or someone in excruciating pain but when a person reaches the depths of mind and spirit that self-inflicted death is a viable option they have entered into the realm of insanity in my opinion.

[gatorman_07732]

Not to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting question about suicide. I have known Viet Nam veterans who had accepted Christ as their Savior and lived a life of faith for many years. Then at some point they became depressed (PTSD?) and killed themselves. I believe God makes allowances for those poor souls who fall into depression and choose to seek relief by ending their lives. God's mercy and loving kindness towards His children is from everlasting to everlasting.

War, regardless of what one goes through if you truly give yourself to him for the answer suicide will never be the answer. Their sickness over came there will for god to take over their life. We must look at Jesus Christ and ask who has gone through more than him. My opinions and mine only

[lacuna]

Good post lacuna, I was particularly interested to find what you write of with respect to how God answered Moses. In my past readings it was presented as "I am that I am" or "I am". Moving this translation into verb form lends a whole new light on it and provides new food for thought. I have, for many years, thought we were part of a process if there is indeed an afterlife.

God is a totality. Christian orthodoxy teaches God is a Trinity with the 3 aspects being Father, Son and Spirit. Hindu traditions also recognize a triune aspect to God as Brahma being the creative aspect, Shiva as destroyer and Vishnu as the stabilizing force. I think the Vedas are closer to reality than Christian theological doctrines on this subject.

As a thoughtful exercise I sometimes envision God through word play.

God is the Lover, the Beloved and the Loving.

The Knower, the Known and the Knowledge.

The Actor, the Acted Upon and the Action.

God is Totality. God opposes, accepts or receives then transforms.

Possibilities are endless.

There is a theological theory called Process Theology. It's embraces God as endless panentheistic manifestation. There's a lot on the 'Net having to do with Process Theology so you might want to do a 'google' search on the subject for further reading.

[wargunfan]

War, regardless of what one goes through if you truly give yourself to him for the answer suicide will never be the answer. Their sickness over came there will for god to take over their life. We must look at Jesus Christ and ask who has gone through more than him. My opinions and mine only

Of course suicide is not a rational answer to life's problems. Mired in the pit of depression one ceases to be rational. Men who have come back from the horrors of war suffer mental and emotional traumas you and I don't fully understand. My point is that when a Christian commits suicide we can't assume that the act nullifies their salvation. Even the strongest of Christians have lost marriages, relationships, even their sanity. When suicide is the last act of an emotionally broken Christian my belief is that God understands and forgives.

[gatorman_07732]

Of course suicide is not a rational answer to life's problems. Mired in the pit of depression one ceases to be rational. Men who have come back from the horrors of war suffer mental and emotional traumas you and I don't fully understand. My point is that when a Christian commits suicide we can't assume that the act nullifies their salvation. Even the strongest of Christians have lost marriages, relationships, even their sanity. When suicide is the last act of an emotionally broken Christian my belief is that God understands and forgives.

War, I appreciate you diving into this whole other side of this phenomenon and can only tell you what I think from my spiritual side of things. I think this might well be worth a thread with some posters on here that have much to contribute. Not to mention any names, but I think we can really have a good conversation of ideas as long as we respect those ideas.

[cocodrilo]

My point on suicide may not have been clear. When so many people find this short life on Earth to be unbearable or not worth living for whatever reasons, the idea of everlasting life would seem not to be universally appealing. (George Sanders left a suicide note saying he was leaving this "cesspool" because he was bored.) In fact the goal of original Buddhism, as I recall, was to quit living all together, release from the wheel of life, nothingness.

The Christian goal, of course, is just the opposite. Living forever will be joy and happiness. (How can one religion, Buddhism or Christianity, get it so wrong?)

[lacuna]

My point on suicide may not have been clear. When so many people find this short life on Earth to be unbearable or not worth living for whatever reasons, the idea of everlasting life would seem not to be universally appealing. (George Sanders left a suicide note saying he was living this "cesspool" because he was bored.) In fact the goal of original Buddhism, as I recall, was to quit living all together, release from the wheel of life, nothingness.

The Christian goal, of course, is just the opposite. Living forever will be joy and happiness. (How can one religion, Buddhism or Christianity, get it so wrong?)

Buddha taught his followers the Eightfold Path that frees the practitioner from the 3 poisons that are the cause of all dissatisfaction and suffering. Diverse lineage traditions label them differently but all agree the 3 are the negative, destructive actions and attitudes that bring misery to mankind.

Greed or attachment ... accompanied by cravings and lust

Anger, aversion or hatred

Ignorance ... the source of delusion and confusion

Buddha taught there is no independent existence and the self is an illusory aggregation of desires, cravings and aversions.

Buddhism is complex and seemingly paradoxical in many of its teachings. But it has multi-layered nuances that only become known to the practitioner sometimes many years after beginning a meditative practice and entering the Eightfold Path. To declare Buddhism nihilistic is to miss its intention and misunderstand its purpose.

Much of what Jesus taught is parallel or otherwise similar to what the Buddha taught but the cultural context and the details of the teachings differ. Jesus said we must put to death the old nature with its selfish desires and intentions. Buddhism's Eightfold path is a guide on how to accomplish that. The teachings of Jesus are intended to free the Christian from the enslaving power of the sinful nature (three poisons). The Eightfold path of the Buddha was designed to free the Buddhist practitioner from the 3 negative poisons that enslave those who are unaware they are deluded in their ignorance.

I would loosely equate the Buddhist practice of freeing the deluded self from the aggregate sufferings through the Eightfold Path with the self sacrificial path Jesus inspired in his followers. Buddhism is nontheistic and neither affirms nor denies the existence of God but its complex teachings make it a more complicated discipline than the simpler, more direct teachings of the Christ.

[Gatormb]

I'm curious why you feel the need to denigrate other people's beliefs in this way? Did I dispariage Christianity in this post? No.

Did you have an experience where Hindus denounced your beliefs and now you feel the need to reciprocate?

What do you fear that you feel the need to react to a harmless post in this way? Sorry, but it's kinda sad.

Actually, my response to your post was not really a response to your post. My response was a comment (a poor one IYO) on Universalism, that there are many paths to the same destination.

All the worlds religions can have it wrong (even though there are commonalities) but they can't all be right as each contradicts the others.

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. It was not my intent.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

I classify myself as an atheist with no belief of anything spiritual.

(But I have to admit, I have a big soft spot for what Lacuna describes :) )

[Lawdog88]

Buddha taught his followers the Eightfold Path that frees the practitioner from the 3 poisons that are the cause of all dissatisfaction and suffering. Diverse lineage traditions label them differently but all agree the 3 are the negative, destructive actions and attitudes that bring misery to mankind.

Greed or attachment ... accompanied by cravings and lust

Anger, aversion or hatred

Ignorance ... the source of delusion and confusion

Buddha taught there is no independent existence and the self is an illusory aggregation of desires, cravings and aversions.

Buddhism is complex and seemingly paradoxical in many of its teachings. But it has multi-layered nuances that only become known to the practitioner sometimes many years after beginning a meditative practice and entering the Eightfold Path. To declare Buddhism nihilistic is to miss its intention and misunderstand its purpose.

Much of what Jesus taught is parallel or otherwise similar to what the Buddha taught but the cultural context and the details of the teachings differ. Jesus said we must put to death the old nature with its selfish desires and intentions. Buddhism's Eightfold path is a guide on how to accomplish that. The teachings of Jesus are intended to free the Christian from the enslaving power of the sinful nature (three poisons). The Eightfold path of the Buddha was designed to free the Buddhist practitioner from the 3 negative poisons that enslave those who are unaware they are deluded in their ignorance.

I would loosely equate the Buddhist practice of freeing the deluded self from the aggregate sufferings through the Eightfold Path with the self sacrificial path Jesus inspired in his followers. Buddhism is nontheistic and neither affirms nor denies the existence of God but its complex teachings make it a more complicated discipline than the simpler, more direct teachings of the Christ.


Disagree, Lacuna.

Jesus was not just another in a long line of masterful teachers, spiritual seers, or inspired mystics.

The central claim of Christ is that his teachings have no meaning, efficacy, or effervescence . . . without the relationship to the Father that - only - He had, which was unlike anyone to walk the earth before or after. This is "the way."

His message was not about learning more laws, doing good works, picking up one's cross, repenting more, self-sacrifice, getting more holy, making it to heaven, or even loving more; He was and is the message.

What that means is that the Father sent him first, to be in this reality, the living, ongoing relationship with God the Father, and thereafter to be the passageway through and to the ongoing relationship with the Father for those who place their faith in Him.

The afterward regeneration and life-giving renewal empowered by the Holy Spirit after entering into the relationship, is the mechanism that enables the rest. Our obedience - or disobedience - to that regeneration, renewal, and empowerment that made and makes us at one with the Father, through Jesus the Christ, determines what kind of life we live.

And we live that relationship daily, to lesser or greater degree, depending on our obedience. Not by commitment, not desire, not intention, not formalistic observance, but by obedience.

Christ - the resurrected, glorified Jesus - is the door to the Father; the relationship is all. No other man and no other "religion" makes this outrageous claim.

John 17

New International Version (NIV)

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began . . . ."

[busigator96]

I once believed in God. Now I just believe we are a very small part of the universe.

We are recycle atomically and not reincarnated via transient soul.

I guess I will now go to hell.

[gatorman_07732]

I once believed in God. Now I just believe we are a very small part of the universe.

We are recycle atomically and not reincarnated via transient soul.

I guess I will now go to hell.

Busi, it's never to late to go back and with that I leave you this

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing.

He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!...."
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The river ran again.
And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped his right paw ..... brought both paws together...bowed his head and spoke:

"Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful...AMEN!"

[bakaduin]

At one time I was a believer. For much of my life in fact and even taught Sunday school. I have to say though I strayed a few years ago. The more I learned of science the less I believed in a higher being. The more I saw many of my fellow Christians damning good people to hell and not following the ideals they spoke of, the more disenfranchised I became.

At this point I firmly do not believe in a higher power and I believe that at this current point in the world, religion does more harm than good. I am not above the idea that something will change my mind in the future.

[Lawdog88]

Well, the hell message has a place.

Christians making "damning" pronouncements about other folks, generally has no place. However, although I am not comfortable with the hell message as the preeminent reason to flee from sin and seek God, for a small slice of folks, that is exactly what they need to hear.

So, the concept of temporal and eternal separation from God is something to be considered, because if properly considered by the man in need, it should engender the desirable kind of godly "fear" leading to wisdom (reconciliation and atonement with God), as the scriptures witness.

Neither being saved from hell nor punching a ticked to heaven, are the central foci of the Christian experience to me, but both do have a place in the overall message.

[tec68]

At one time I was a believer. For much of my life in fact and even taught Sunday school. I have to say though I strayed a few years ago. The more I learned of science the less I believed in a higher being. The more I saw many of my fellow Christians damning good people to hell and not following the ideals they spoke of, the more disenfranchised I became.

At this point I firmly do not believe in a higher power and I believe that at this current point in the world, religion does more harm than good. I am not above the idea that something will change my mind in the future.

Are you sure you actually knew the Lord in your heart? It sounds like you hoped He was real but you did not actually know Him.

[busigator96]

I have known too many Christians who used salvation at some kind of insurance policy and then they navigate their lives poorly and thus harming those around them.

[cocodrilo]

Looking at Islam, the argument that religion does more harm than good is not easy to refute. Christianity also has a blood-soaked past. But this, more specifically, is organized religion, not the personal kind between an individual and God.

The problem is that personal religion just doesn't seem to be enough. Religion, like political persuasions, has a natural tendency to organize itself, thus becoming corrupt and power hungry like all human organizations throughout history.

[gatorman_07732]

I have known too many Christians who used salvation at some kind of insurance policy and then they navigate their lives poorly and thus harming those around them.

It's not meant be be used as an insurance policy but a way of life. Yes we all slip, there is not a person on the face of this earth that lives iniquity free.

[busigator96]

No need to defend. It is just not for me anymore. I never meant my past post to be an attack, just my personal account as a baptist and my 9 years of pre/primary school upbringing. Established Christianity along with its 34,000 subgroups is not the design of a divine being.

[108]

curious, why is the God of religion a "he"?

[bakaduin]

Are you sure you actually knew the Lord in your heart? It sounds like you hoped He was real but you did not actually know Him.

I grew up a church every Sunday Catholic. Fully bought into the "believing is trusting in what you can't see" talk. Then I went to college and majored in science. Too many things just didn't fly for me. First and foremost when you dedicate yourself to a career where you prove before you trust it becomes difficult to trust without proof. I'm ok with my life as a non-believer and I am ok that my family, including my wife, still believe. Certainly life is a lot more reassuring if you believe there is something after death and I would never take that away from them. It just isn't for me. When I spent my whole childhood being taught things that I now consider to be complete fabrications it is difficult for me to sift through the things that may be true.

[tec68]

I have known too many Christians who used salvation at some kind of insurance policy and then they navigate their lives poorly and thus harming those around them.

They are sinners as are we all. That is no excuse for you or me or anyone else to use.

[tec68]

I grew up a church every Sunday Catholic. Fully bought into the "believing is trusting in what you can't see" talk. Then I went to college and majored in science. Too many things just didn't fly for me. First and foremost when you dedicate yourself to a career where you prove before you trust it becomes difficult to trust without proof. I'm ok with my life as a non-believer and I am ok that my family, including my wife, still believe. Certainly life is a lot more reassuring if you believe there is something after death and I would never take that away from them. It just isn't for me. When I spent my whole childhood being taught things that I now consider to be complete fabrications it is difficult for me to sift through the things that may be true.

I understand what you mean and in no way was I trying to insult or put you down. We all need to make this choice for ourselves.

I would never try to force my views on someone like many people on all sides do but I will do my best to inform and practice my beliefs as a Christian.

[dangolegators]

Organized religions that attempt to explain the origins of life and the universe are of no use to me, other than as an anthropological curiosity. As guidebooks for how to live one's life, there can be some value in the various bibles and beliefs of religions, but this can just as easily be corrupted and used in a negative way, as we see with the zealots of Islam and Christianity.

I have vague notions that we will exist again. Given the infinite nature of time and the universe, if we existed once, chances are we exist again in some form or fashion. That's just based on basic statistical probability.

[lacuna]

Disagree, Lacuna.

Jesus was not just another in a long line of masterful teachers, spiritual seers, or inspired mystics.

I agree. As Christ, Jesus is historically and spiritually pre-eminent among teachers, seers and mystics.

The central claim of Christ is that his teachings have no meaning, efficacy, or effervescence . . . without the relationship to the Father that - only - He had, which was unlike anyone to walk the earth before or after. This is "the way."

Among other things, Jesus taught his disciples to treat others as they wanted to be treated; to forgive others if they expected to be forgiven. Do these teachings have no meaning for the non Christian? For a Buddhist or a Hindu?

Can you refer me to specific scripture in any of the Gospels to support your assertion of a "central claim of Christ [ ] that his teachings have no meaning, efficacy or effervescence without a relationship to the Father" having previously been established?

His message was not about learning more laws, doing good works, picking up one's cross, repenting more, self-sacrifice, getting more holy, making it to heaven, or even loving more; He was and is the message.

When Jesus was asked by a Pharisee what was the greatest of the commandments he replied it was to "love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And the second is to love your neighbor as yourself." He said "all the law and prophets hang on these two commands."

In Romans 10:17 Paul wrote faith comes from hearing the message and the message is the word of God.

So, back to what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 ... Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven.

And what is the will (word) of his Father/God in heaven? I think it's certainly fair to deduce it is all Jesus had been teaching up to the point the words of Matthew 7:21 were spoken. And would continue to teach throughout his ministry.

John 8:31,32 ... 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14:23,23 ... 23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Love, the greatest of the commandments is essential and pre-eminent.

What that means is that the Father sent him first, to be in this reality, the living, ongoing relationship with God the Father, and thereafter to be the passageway through and to the ongoing relationship with the Father for those who place their faith in Him.

The afterward regeneration and life-giving renewal empowered by the Holy Spirit after entering into the relationship, is the mechanism that enables the rest. Our obedience - or disobedience - to that regeneration, renewal, and empowerment that made and makes us at one with the Father, through Jesus the Christ, determines what kind of life we live.

And we live that relationship daily, to lesser or greater degree, depending on our obedience. Not by commitment, not desire, not intention, not formalistic observance, but by obedience.

Christ - the resurrected, glorified Jesus - is the door to the Father; the relationship is all. No other man and no other "religion" makes this outrageous claim.

John 17

New International Version (NIV)

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began . . . ."

I'm thinking this might be a type of chicken/egg first dialogue. Our initial personal communions with God are probably internal conversations/awakenings that engage us from the point of our specific needs. Jung once wrote, "God enters through our wounds." As our circumstances (wounds) are unique God will 'speak' with us as is necessitated by our need. I don't think it can or should be reduced to a formula.

[lacuna]

curious, why is the God of religion a "he"?

It's mostly a cultural affectation, I think. Hebrew, like a lot of languages is gender specific so the language employed to convey the actions and intentions of God necessarily must be in terms either masculine or feminine.

The ancient scribes and prophets probably went with masculine as it denotes strength. Men initiate, they assert, they are generally more aggressive. Women are more accepting, passive and receptive. They historically have always been considered weaker to men.

Judaism allows that God is neither male nor female but encompasses attributes of both genders. The Hebrew word for Spirit (ruach) is female. The Shekinah of God is female. As is the term El Shaddai.

[gatorman_07732]

No need to defend. It is just not for me anymore. I never meant my past post to be an attack, just my personal account as a baptist and my 9 years of pre/primary school upbringing. Established Christianity along with its 34,000 subgroups is not the design of a divine being.

I never perceived it that way in the least, but just offering my view. I think that anyone who starts practicing and thinks it's going to be an insurance policy that bad things will not happen is going to come away unfulfilled and disappointed. There is nothing that claims bad things won't happen to you. That would be the wrong reason and it would indicate that ones heart is not in the right place. In fact, turbulent times tests those of us that are believers. This is all about a personal relationship and preparing for everlasting life.

[Lawdog88]

Lacuna, the point I take away from your lengthy post above, is that we have two divergent views of Christ: One that intellectualizes what Christ said, vs. one that accepts His exclusive claims about who He was . . . and who He is.

You query: Among other things, Jesus taught his disciples to treat others as they wanted to be treated; to forgive others if they expected to be forgiven. Do these teachings have no meaning for the non Christian? For a Buddhist or a Hindu? Answer: I suppose you would have to ask a non-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or, for that matter, an Atheist, what those teachings "mean" to them. I know that they do not have the same meaning as they do for the Christian.

You wanted clarification on whether Christ's teachings mean anything - presumably to any man, and certainly to the Christian - without [that man's] exclusive relationship with the Father having been established first, derived from my statement: "The central claim of Christ is that His teachings have no meaning, efficacy, or effervescence . . . without the relationship to the Father that - only - He had, which was unlike anyone to walk the earth before or after. This is "the way." (emphasis supplied).John 17, and the quotation I gave, describes exactly that exclusive claim, and shows that it is the relationship and not the teachings that are preeminent; in that passage Christ clearly centers on that exclusive relationship. It describes a number of things:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. [No other 'man' who walked the earth claimed to have authority over all people, with the power to give them eternal life.] Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and [that they know] Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [In other words, He expresses His sole authority from God, His power to give eternal life, and every man's ability to have ("know") it, by what ? By "know[ing]": 1) God, the only true God, and 2) [knowing] Jesus Christ, whom God has sent. Clearly both His authority to "give" eternal life and one's ability to receive it, depends on one's "knowing" God and Jesus Christ.] I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began . . . ."

His exclusive claim and exclusive relationship of "knowing" Jesus as co-equal to God the Father, and thus "knowing" the Father, is amply reinforced elsewhere in John's report of Christ's pronouncements, such as from John 14: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Or from John 10: "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . .," and "I and the Father are one." (Whereupon the Jews sought to stone Him, because He claimed to be God).

Prior to Jesus' pronouncement, no other Jew in recorded history had claimed to have been sent from God with the power to lay down his life and take it up (become resurrected) again. No man. Before Jesus' statements, to my knowledge, no Jew had ever claimed to be "one" (co-equal) with God, and to claim that he shared God's power over death. Christ's exclusive "oneness" and relationship claims with God are why the (other) Jews - masters of the Jewish law and teachings - picked up stones: they couldn't stand it.

And John 17 closes out with more on Christ's (as an orthodox Christian, I use Christ essentially interchangeably with Jesus, understanding the technical distinctions) exclusive claims and relationship with God the Father as follows (I have taken the liberty to embolden certain parts for my responsive emphasis, but of course, it all is important):

“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled."

"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me [note, not in His teachings or even in the words He spoke, claiming to be from God, but in Him] through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me — so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

“Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”


We are in Christ, and Christ - and the Father - is in us. Makes all the difference.

[reformedgator]

To many, Christ is admired & revered (even if they don't believe whom he claimed to be). To Christians, He is Lord & Savior. Big ,big difference, both now & for eternity.

[grayg8rstevo]

At one time I was a believer. For much of my life in fact and even taught Sunday school. I have to say though I strayed a few years ago. The more I learned of science the less I believed in a higher being. The more I saw many of my fellow Christians damning good people to hell and not following the ideals they spoke of, the more disenfranchised I became.

At this point I firmly do not believe in a higher power and I believe that at this current point in the world, religion does more harm than good. I am not above the idea that something will change my mind in the future.

B....interesting. Whatever you do...it is up to you . Interesting that belief in the knowledge of mechanics oF the universe would cause you to lose certainty that there was a CREATOR. I have heard that many times before.

I am no preacher, nor worthy of the title, but, in my comic book outlook on things...
I have had an iPad for two years. I am using it now. I have learned how to use most of the functions. Learning about the iPad has not convinced me that Steven Jobs did not
Help create it.

maybe just me.:laugh:

Personally, the Buddha gave good advice, a great way to process what we call"life".
JESUS, to me, said it most clearly and right to the point...As you do, it will be done unto you..THE GOLDEN RULE.
then, HE told us to love GOD with all our hearts ...and our neighbors as ourselves.
To me, in my simple world, GOD IS LOVE..HIS TOTALITY.
So, b....if you love unselfishly, and I would guess you certainly do, then you are already on the path. One day, you will park your reasoning human mind for just a little while..take that proverbial leap of faith and invite the HOLY SPIRIT in.
While I am no longer a human child ( just immature in my GC responses..lol), I can relate to THE FATHER and the child verbiage of the MASTER. I relate to that.

I am truly impressed with the honest responses here..immensely.
At the end of the day, to my mind, I no longer need the Sunday school to help me fashion my belief system. Don't worry about that, IMO.
Seeing what people who espouse science, and deny the existence of GOD, have done ( not you ) on this planet, it is clear to me that the ONLY thing of true value IS a loving relationship with the MASTER and THE FATHER.

I could not abide this madness without it. Regarding the EARNING vs. ATONING points above in different CHRISTIAN religions, I feel both are correct, in this:
One cannot earn his way into heaven, so to speak. ACCEPT or reject. period.
But, our sin, in my mind, is setting our collective wills against the perfection of GOD.
WE separated ourselves. GOD has never not been merciful. Our egos are the problem. As humans, we can do more to tear down the walls of pride that WE have erected which prevent us from experiencing now, the majesty of the HOLY SPIRIT.
JESUS had to overcome the weakness of the body and all physicality to complete HIS mission.
Anyway...being of good heart and a loving person is a wonderful start to the rest of your life. It matters..a lot.
:yes:

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I believe in God, Christ as His son and I recognize reincarnation as a symbolic & spiritual representation of something that very definitively happens in biology.

[CHFG8R]

curious, why is the God of religion a "he"?

See: The Authors.

[CHFG8R]

I grew up a church every Sunday Catholic. Fully bought into the "believing is trusting in what you can't see" talk. Then I went to college and majored in science. Too many things just didn't fly for me. First and foremost when you dedicate yourself to a career where you prove before you trust it becomes difficult to trust without proof. I'm ok with my life as a non-believer and I am ok that my family, including my wife, still believe. Certainly life is a lot more reassuring if you believe there is something after death and I would never take that away from them. It just isn't for me. When I spent my whole childhood being taught things that I now consider to be complete fabrications it is difficult for me to sift through the things that may be true.

Similar story to mine, only my eye opening was history. When you realize that just as large a percentage of the population in 200 BC believed just as fervently in the polytheistic tradition as people do today in Christianity and Islam, it hits home. This is why I believe Christianity and Islam are purposely ambiguous. For instance, I think even then it was patently obvious to many that the sun was NOT a chariot being driven across the sky. And yet, most believed with all their hearts that this was the case.

No way, IMO, that God and the creation of the universe, as he/it is defined by Christians, Jews, Muslims and others can be reduced to something that fails to rise above ancient mythology on the plausibility scale. I also find it hard to believe that "God" could be so rife with human flaws like vanity, anger, revenge, etc. Just doesn't compute with me.

[cocodrilo]

I also find it hard to believe that "God" could be so rife with human flaws like vanity, anger, revenge, etc.

Same for me. Which is also why I really can't believe in hell (eternal divine punishment for something), particularly since so much (if not all) of what we do (our "sins" etc.) are determined by genetics and environment (predestination, as Paul called this "mystery"). I still consider myself a Christian, because it was the tradition I was raised in and because I see some truth in all religions, but it is almost all expressed in myth and symbol. One must interpret what it all means by his or her own best lights, not by someone else's lights or merely by a sacred object like a book. This view is criticized as picking and choosing what one believes to be true, as opposed to being told what is true. My response to this criticism is, yes, that's right.

[CHFG8R]

Same for me. Which is also why I really can't believe in hell (eternal divine punishment for something), particularly since so much (if not all) of what we do (our "sins" etc.) are determined by genetics and environment (predestination, as Paul called this "mystery"). I still consider myself a Christian, because it was the tradition I was raised in and because I see some truth in all religions, but it is almost all expressed in myth and symbol. One must interpret what it all means by his or her own best lights, not by someone else's lights or merely by a sacred object like a book. This view is criticized as picking and choosing what one wishes to believe is true, as opposed to being told what is true. My response to this criticism is, yes, that's right.

Yet what is the alternative they offer? Trust in clergy?

Sorry, just can't go there.

[RayGator]

OK, everyone, time for a break! :)

+++++++

A man had a very important court appearance. Everything had to go just right or he would have some very big problems. He had to be in Court by 10:00 A.M.

He thought he was off to an early start to get there early but the traffic was horrible on the Interstate. And then when he finally arrived at the parking lot by the Courthouse, he could not find a parking space. He kept going back and forth, back and forth, on all the parking rows but he just could not find an empty space!

So he looked at his watch and it was now 9:50 A.M.! And he was desperate! Even though he was in a government parking lot, and someone might be looking, he thought he'd take a chance, say a little prayer, and ask God to provide him a parking space. So he bows his head, closes his eyes, and says: "God, this is very important. If you will provide me with a parking place I promise that next Sunday morning I'll start going back to Church!"

So he opened his eyes, and amazingly, right in front of him, is an an empty parking place!

So he looks up, and says, "Never mind God! I found one!"

+++++++

OK everyone, carry on............ :)

[busigator96]

I would like to quote Jacques Fresco with, "Christianity is a great idea, but when are they going to put it into practice?"

[busigator96]

I went to a private baptist affiliated school for 9 years, with Sunday school and church. Sometimes I even went Wednesdays nights. I was there more than the pastor.

[gator1986]

I went to church once, fell asleep... End of story

[tec68]

I went to a private baptist affiliated school for 9 years, with Sunday school and church. Sometimes I even went Wednesdays nights. I was there more than the pastor.

Every pastor must be just like that.

[busigator96]

That's why they have you stand up

And sing to repetitive hymns...to keep you awake.

[gator1986]

That's why they have you stand up

And sing to repetitive hymns...to keep you awake.

It's just boring, I'm a big believer in you can talk to god in any way you think is best. Fishing, hunting, surfing, anything that helps you connect I believe he will enjoy... But that's JMO

[wargunfan]

It's mostly a cultural affectation, I think. Hebrew, like a lot of languages is gender specific so the language employed to convey the actions and intentions of God necessarily must be in terms either masculine or feminine.

The ancient scribes and prophets probably went with masculine as it denotes strength. Men initiate, they assert, they are generally more aggressive. Women are more accepting, passive and receptive. They historically have always been considered weaker to men.

Judaism allows that God is neither male nor female but encompasses attributes of both genders. The Hebrew word for Spirit (ruach) is female. The Shekinah of God is female. As is the term El Shaddai.

Do your own research folks. Don't believe this stuff as put forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai

[SECund2nun]

Both seem equally plausible to me.

I would think if you believe in reincarnation you would also believe in a higher being. Though this inverse is not true.

Keep in mind that all Buddhists believe in reincarnation, but many Buddhists do not believe in a god.

[oragator1]

Keep in mind that all Buddhists believe in reincarnation, but many Buddhists do not believe in a god.

While I get your point, "all" is a bit strong:

http://www.buddhistsagainstreincarnation.com/

[Dreamliner]

Interesting that some of you would prefer the sort of God that you cannot relate to. Would you prefer to pursue a human relationship with such a person ?

Weird. Just weird.

[scamgtr]

Interesting that some of you would prefer the sort of God that you cannot relate to. Would you prefer to pursue a human relationship with such a person ?

Weird. Just weird.

Very astute point.

Moreover, why would anyone accept a God that works in "mysterious ways" when it doesn't have to? Why the cloak of mystery?

I cannot use God to explain life and what happens in the universe. We are a product of probability, natural trial and error, and time. It took billions of years for humans to evolve.

However, if I were to believe in something, reincarnation would seem to something that I could get behind if there were some kind of greater consciousness. It is forgiving and allows us to grow.

[Dreamliner]

Very astute point.

Moreover, why would anyone accept a God that works in "mysterious ways" when it doesn't have to? Why the cloak of mystery?

I cannot use God to explain life and what happens in the universe. We are a product of probability, natural trial and error, and time. It took billions of years for humans to evolve.

However, if I were to believe in something, reincarnation would seem to something that I could get behind if there were some kind of greater consciousness. It is forgiving and allows us to grow.

It's precisely this sort of fundamentalist intransigence, this rock-ribbed "I KNOW" certitude that rubs me the wrong way.

[oragator1]

It's precisely this sort of fundamentalist intransigence, this rock-ribbed "I KNOW" certitude that rubs me the wrong way.

Because there is none of that in religion.

[Dreamliner]

Because there is none of that in religion.

I can see you're not a big fan of irony.

[DeanMeadGator]

I do believe totally in God and Jesus Christ His Son.

I do not believe in reincarnation

Amen.

[WESGATORS]

Moreover, why would anyone accept a God that works in "mysterious ways" when it doesn't have to? Why the cloak of mystery?

To a young child, parents work in "mysterious ways" yet there is that trusting love that they are doing what's in their child's interests. It takes time to grow from the struggles and challenges that we face, but every now and then we look back and understand how we grew from a particular life hurdle.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

To a young child, parents work in "mysterious ways" yet there is that trusting love that they are doing what's in their child's interests. It takes time to grow from the struggles and challenges that we face, but every now and then we look back and understand how we grew from a particular life hurdle.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Kids usually don't understand pedophiles either.

[Itssaul]

To a young child, parents work in "mysterious ways" yet there is that trusting love that they are doing what's in their child's interests. It takes time to grow from the struggles and challenges that we face, but every now and then we look back and understand how we grew from a particular life hurdle.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Yeahp.

Totally applies to hundreds of African babies when they die of simple diseases.

[scamgtr]

Yeahp.

Totally applies to hundreds of African babies when they die of simple diseases.

Or to tsunamis that kill a quarter of a million people. I am sure there was a super good reason for that.

Religion and deity are human concepts. They were placeholders to explain the world until academia, art, and science could adequately explain the world. The world has progressed and the more interconnected we become the less relevant and less powerful religion becomes.

I don't pretend to know the meaning of life and the reason for the universe; but, I don't really need one to enjoy my life and my children or to make me live every day in some personally meaningful way. The world is an amazing and beautiful place in a wider and unbelievably more amazing and beautiful universe. I just don't think something other than matter and physics (for lack of better words) made it. This belief does not make life or this universe any less inspiring. I think the only insight that atheism gives me is that I only have these years here, so I better make them the best I can and enjoy time with those I care about and love.

[Itssaul]

Woah. Adequately explain the world?

There is much to learn young padawan

The things we know vastly outnumber the things we do know.


If there is some sort of god, and we discover it, and prove it, so be it.

No god of mine will preach against learning.

[Dreamliner]

Or to tsunamis that kill a quarter of a million people. I am sure there was a super good reason for that.

Religion and deity are human concepts. They were placeholders to explain the world until academia, art, and science could adequately explain the world. The world has progressed and the more interconnected we become the less relevant and less powerful religion becomes.

I don't pretend to know the meaning of life and the reason for the universe; but, I don't really need one to enjoy my life and my children or to make me live every day in some personally meaningful way. The world is an amazing and beautiful place in a wider and unbelievably more amazing and beautiful universe. I just don't think something other than matter and physics (for lack of better words) made it. This belief does not make life or this universe any less inspiring. I think the only insight that atheism gives me is that I only have these years here, so I better make them the best I can and enjoy time with those I care about and love.

Would it be fair to suppose that you wish to believe that belief in God is a wish projection ?

[scamgtr]

Would it be fair to suppose that you wish to believe that belief in God is a wish projection ?

I am not really sure what you mean by that.

I think religion is comforting because the alternative can be quite scary for some to think about. Some people need a reason for everything and religion explains a lot of things if you can invest into it. I can't buy into it, even as a child I had more questions than comfort by it. It is not stupid or weak, in my opinion, to believe or want to believe.

I do think religion had its origins in wanting to cushion a crappy existence with some kind of reward or reunion with those you are or were closest with. It also probably helped to explain things that were not easily understood without scientific observation and testing (e.g., thunder and lightening, seasons, and other natural phenomenon). I think over time it became used as a way to reinforce concepts that were important at the time to whomever was in power.

[Dreamliner]

I am not really sure what you mean by that.

I think religion is comforting because the alternative can be quite scary for some to think about. Some people need a reason for everything and religion explains a lot of things if you can invest into it. I can't buy into it, even as a child I had more questions than comfort by it. It is not stupid or weak, in my opinion, to believe or want to believe.

I do think religion had its origins in wanting to cushion a crappy existence with some kind of reward or reunion with those you are or were closest with. It also probably helped to explain things that were not easily understood without scientific observation and testing (e.g., thunder and lightening, seasons, and other natural phenomenon). I think over time it became used as a way to reinforce concepts that were important at the time to whomever was in power.

What I mean is, how do we know you're not just blowing this stuff out of your ass, the part about people making up religion to assuage their fears ?

[WESGATORS]

Kids usually don't understand pedophiles either.

:ninja: No idea what that is supposed to mean.

Yeahp.

Totally applies to hundreds of African babies when they die of simple diseases.

Is it the babies that you feel bad for or the ones that are left behind that have had to watch them suffer before they died? Isn't dying a means of sparing them from the pain that they are suffering?

Or to tsunamis that kill a quarter of a million people. I am sure there was a super good reason for that.

The irony of life is that we strive for a more livable world, but it is the struggles that we must overcome (sometimes struggles that threaten or even take life) that make life worth living. I don't have a direct answer for you in terms of why a specific death has occurred, but I believe that obstacles that are in front of us exist as opportunities for us to become better people. Still, the departed have it easy. It is the ones who are left behind that have the work to do.

Religion and deity are human concepts.

This isn't a falsifiable statement. Suppose they weren't human concepts. What would it take to convince you? Your faith prohibits you from considering the alternative possibility...otherwise you wouldn't have expressed it as a certainty.

They were placeholders to explain the world until academia, art, and science could adequately explain the world. The world has progressed and the more interconnected we become the less relevant and less powerful religion becomes.

Art? Science and academia do not compete with religion. The important components of most religions are not falsifiable. Science doesn't deal with that which is not falsifiable. For instance, could science every prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of prayer?

I don't pretend to know the meaning of life and the reason for the universe; but, I don't really need one to enjoy my life and my children or to make me live every day in some personally meaningful way. The world is an amazing and beautiful place in a wider and unbelievably more amazing and beautiful universe. I just don't think something other than matter and physics (for lack of better words) made it. This belief does not make life or this universe any less inspiring. I think the only insight that atheism gives me is that I only have these years here, so I better make them the best I can and enjoy time with those I care about and love.

As a former agnostic, I understand where you are coming and respect your view. I know that mocking your view doesn't serve a purpose of spreading the Word as God would have me do. Hopefully you have the same respect towards religion that you won't choose to mock the belief of others. I searched and searched (as instructed). I prayed on it, and nothing happened. I eventually came to the conclusion that no proof would serve as sufficient for me because I would be able to write it off as one thing or another. One day I was lifted up in a feeling I wouldn't try to describe to you, nor would I expect for you to believe my account as necessarily being something other than a figment of my imagination or something along those lines. The best I can tell you is that at a time when everything felt like it was crashing down or was capable of crashing down; I felt like all the worry had been immediately removed. That was my wake-up call. To this day, I don't think there was anything I could have done to bring the moment to me sooner. But since that day, I've had a different perspective about things.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

As a former agnostic, I understand where you are coming and respect your view. I know that mocking your view doesn't serve a purpose of spreading the Word as God would have me do. Hopefully you have the same respect towards religion that you won't choose to mock the belief of others. I searched and searched (as instructed). I prayed on it, and nothing happened. I eventually came to the conclusion that no proof would serve as sufficient for me because I would be able to write it off as one thing or another.

One day I was lifted up in a feeling I wouldn't try to describe to you, nor would I expect for you to believe my account as necessarily being something other than a figment of my imagination or something along those lines. The best I can tell you is that at a time when everything felt like it was crashing down or was capable of crashing down; I felt like all the worry had been immediately removed. That was my wake-up call. To this day, I don't think there was anything I could have done to bring the moment to me sooner. But since that day, I've had a different perspective about things.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS


Well said and wonderfully interesting.

It came to me that it is one thing to demand that God prove Himself, and quite another to ask God to reveal Himself to a sincerely seeking heart - that doesn't have an ego investment on whether He does nor not.

It is in the second situation, that IMO, you most often hear from Him for the first time.

But there may be multiple other ways.

[scamgtr]

What I mean is, how do we know you're not just blowing this stuff out of your ass, the part about people making up religion to assuage their fears ?

I have no incentive to fabricate what I think or believe.

I do think the personal consumption of religion is based on fear of the unknown. What lies on the other side of the bridge? The thought of absolutely nothing being on the other side can be terrifying to some people I am sure. That fear can be a powerful incentive to believe.

[Dreamliner]

I have no incentive to fabricate what I think or believe.

I do think the personal consumption of religion is based on fear of the unknown. What lies on the other side of the bridge? The thought of absolutely nothing being on the other side can be terrifying to some people I am sure. That fear can be a powerful incentive to believe.

But you do assume fabrication on the part of religious folks because YOU know they are delusional.

I can tell that this is a firmly entrenched belief of yours.

[Lawdog88]

But you do assume fabrication on the part of religious folks because YOU know they are delusional.

I can tell that this is a firmly entrenched belief of yours.


I commend you for pointing out his beliefs, and I commend him for having some. At least he knows what some of them feel like.

[scamgtr]

But you do assume fabrication on the part of religious folks because YOU know they are delusional.

I can tell that this is a firmly entrenched belief of yours.

What a person believes is not a fabrication in their own mind. I do not know if they are delusional or not.

There are many cogent and intelligent people that believe in God and I am sure that not all of them are motivated by fear. Being a believer does not make you weak or stupid. Nor does believing in a God make you delusional. Religion has done many good things for society. I do not hate religious people nor religion.

My belief or views on God could very well be wrong. It is simply my set of beliefs based on my education, experience, and reflection. There is a free market of ideas out there. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I have any kind of monopoly on the truth.

Of course my beliefs are firmly entrenched, they are part of the structure of my reality. They are what I use to make sense of the world. Certainly I believe is what I think is true; but I never presume to know the truth about something that neither me, nor my opponent on the other side of the argument, knows the absolute answer to.

[DowntownGator]

What a person believes is not a fabrication in their own mind. I do not know if they are delusional or not.

There are many cogent and intelligent people that believe in God and I am sure that not all of them are motivated by fear. Being a believer does not make you weak or stupid. Nor does believing in a God make you delusional. Religion has done many good things for society. I do not hate religious people nor religion.

My belief or views on God could very well be wrong. It is simply my set of beliefs based on my education, experience, and reflection. There is a free market of ideas out there. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I have any kind of monopoly on the truth.

Of course my beliefs are firmly entrenched, they are part of the structure of my reality. They are what I use to make sense of the world. Certainly I believe is what I think is true; but I never presume to know the truth about something that neither me, nor my opponent on the other side of the argument, knows the absolute answer to.

I too know that only fools believe in a God of Creation because most really smart people with science degrees believe evolutiondidit, and, clearly, any alleged God couldn't be smart enough to design the inner workings of a cell because not only is evolution a much more reasonable explanation, it also satisfactorily explains how life came from a rock whereas God simply says abracadabra and is done with it. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY

[Dreamliner]

What a person believes is not a fabrication in their own mind. I do not know if they are delusional or not.

There are many cogent and intelligent people that believe in God and I am sure that not all of them are motivated by fear. Being a believer does not make you weak or stupid. Nor does believing in a God make you delusional. Religion has done many good things for society. I do not hate religious people nor religion.

My belief or views on God could very well be wrong. It is simply my set of beliefs based on my education, experience, and reflection. There is a free market of ideas out there. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I have any kind of monopoly on the truth.

Of course my beliefs are firmly entrenched, they are part of the structure of my reality. They are what I use to make sense of the world. Certainly I believe is what I think is true; but I never presume to know the truth about something that neither me, nor my opponent on the other side of the argument, knows the absolute answer to.

You're back-peddling now. The result of a little pushback, perhaps ? Earlier you pretty much broad-brushed religious folks as delusional in brassily asserting that God is essentially fabricate (then considered to be real) in order to meet emotional needs.

[Itssaul]

I too know that only fools believe in a God of Creation because most really smart people with science degrees believe evolutiondidit, and, clearly, any alleged God couldn't be smart enough to design the inner workings of a cell because not only is evolution a much more reasonable explanation, it also satisfactorily explains how life came from a rock whereas God simply says abracadabra and is done with it. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY

I don't think many real atheists will say with certainty there is no god.

They will just say what they know, and for now they have evolution.

If they trace existence to a god, they will believe in it.

The religious on the other hand are usually adamant that their version is right and everyone else is going to be damned for eternity forever. On extreme cases we have wars, murders and terrorist attacks because of religion.

Maybe God did make everything, but as of now we have no proof.

Maybe once day when we reach scales bigger than the universe we'll find out.

[Dreamliner]

What is 'proof' anyway ? From what I can tell, it means everything AND the kitchen sink. It's just a term we throw in to short-circuit conversation.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

What is 'proof' anyway ? From what I can tell, it means everything AND the kitchen sink. It's just a term me throw in to short-circuit conversation.

Yeah, proof is a bit unfair. We don't really have evidence that anything has ever been proven.

[scamgtr]

You're back-peddling now. The result of a little pushback, perhaps ? Earlier you pretty much broad-brushed religious folks as delusional in brassily asserting that God is essentially fabricate (then considered to be real) in order to meet emotional needs.

Belief or non-belief is a difference of opinion.

You cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity exists. Moreover, I cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity does not exist. Conceding that neither side can produce empirical evidence that a God exists or does not exist is not back-pedaling. Until definitive information arrives that proves one of us wrong, then we are both said to hold an opinion.

My opinion is what it is. I do not believe in a deity. My opinions about life, the universe, and religion are exactly that - opinions. I do not have any issue with anyone expressing their opinion as long as it is done respectfully. I know what I think in my head and that I cannot prove is simply an opinion. What most religious people like yourself, fail to grasp is that their belief in a deity is the exact same thing my belief is, an opinion.

Moreover, I never said religious people were delusional or fabricating the existence of God. That is merely your attempt to change the tone of this thread into something else.

[Dreamliner]

Belief or non-belief is a difference of opinion.

You cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity exists. Moreover, I cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity does not exist. Conceding that neither side can produce empirical evidence that a God exists or does not exist is not back-pedaling. Until definitive information arrives that proves one of us wrong, then we are both said to hold an opinion.

My opinion is what it is. I do not believe in a deity. My opinions about life, the universe, and religion are exactly that - opinions. I do not have any issue with anyone expressing their opinion as long as it is done respectfully. I know what I think in my head and that I cannot prove is simply an opinion. What most religious people like yourself, fail to grasp is that their belief in a deity is the exact same thing my belief is, an opinion.

Moreover, I never said religious people were delusional or fabricating the existence of God. That is merely your attempt to change the tone of this thread into something else.

'Evidence' is another slippery term. It means everything and nothing. It is literally relative to the beholder. Where you are concerned, where is the evidence that any evidence I could adduce would be sufficient for you to believe ?

[DowntownGator]

Belief or non-belief is a difference of opinion.

You cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity exists. Moreover, I cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity does not exist. Conceding that neither side can produce empirical evidence that a God exists or does not exist is not back-pedaling. Until definitive information arrives that proves one of us wrong, then we are both said to hold an opinion.

My opinion is what it is. I do not believe in a deity. My opinions about life, the universe, and religion are exactly that - opinions. I do not have any issue with anyone expressing their opinion as long as it is done respectfully. I know what I think in my head and that I cannot prove is simply an opinion. What most religious people like yourself, fail to grasp is that their belief in a deity is the exact same thing my belief is, an opinion.

Moreover, I never said religious people were delusional or fabricating the existence of God. That is merely your attempt to change the tone of this thread into something else.

Opinion is ultimately determined by feelings, and not by the intellect.

[DowntownGator]

Belief or non-belief is a difference of opinion.

You cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity exists. Moreover, I cannot produce any evidence that proves a deity does not exist. Conceding that neither side can produce empirical evidence that a God exists or does not exist is not back-pedaling. Until definitive information arrives that proves one of us wrong, then we are both said to hold an opinion.

My opinion is what it is. I do not believe in a deity. My opinions about life, the universe, and religion are exactly that - opinions. I do not have any issue with anyone expressing their opinion as long as it is done respectfully. I know what I think in my head and that I cannot prove is simply an opinion. What most religious people like yourself, fail to grasp is that their belief in a deity is the exact same thing my belief is, an opinion.

Moreover, I never said religious people were delusional or fabricating the existence of God. That is merely your attempt to change the tone of this thread into something else.


There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

[g8tr80]

I don't necessarily believe in a supreme being, but I have not seen anything that would refute that there is a pretty good chance of some form of supreme power. We know millions of times more than a cave man did, and yet for everything we learn, everything we discover, we are no closer to an answer than the guy who lived in a cave. It just gets infinitely more complex both on a macro and micro level.

Reincarnation? I have no opinion. Probably not, but it would be kind of nice.

[scamgtr]

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

You view skepticism as a bad thing; unfortunately, I think you must assume I have very little knowledge of religion.

Apparently, atheists just must be born as such without reflection, investigation, or reflection. it simply never occurs to believers that its possible that someone could have examined both sides and simply drawn a conclusion different than them.

[scamgtr]

Opinion is ultimately determined by feelings, and not by the intellect.

What does this even mean? Do you seriously posit that opinions cannot be derived by using intellect only feelings?

How would you determine who you believe is the greatest football player? That is an opinion. How would you derive at your answer? Would it only involve how you feel about the player? Or would you use statistics to support your opinion?

Your statement is absurd.

[scamgtr]

'Evidence' is another slippery term. It means everything and nothing. It is literally relative to the beholder. Where you are concerned, where is the evidence that any evidence I could adduce would be sufficient for you to believe ?

Evidence and proof are not slippery concepts. We send people to death by lethal injection with evidence and sent people to the moon using scientific proof that this is the amount of thrust necessary to escape the earth's gravity.

You are merely playing games with the semantics. Show me any evidence or proof consistent with these everyday understandings of those words. However, it's easier to play semantics and claim there is nothing you can show me that would make me believe than to simply admit you have no evidence or proof.

[Dreamliner]

Evidence and proof are not slippery concepts. We send people to death by lethal injection with evidence and sent people to the moon using scientific proof that this is the amount of thrust necessary to escape the earth's gravity.

You are merely playing games with the semantics. Show me any evidence or proof consistent with these everyday understandings of those words. However, it's easier to play semantics and claim there is nothing you can show me that would make me believe than to simply admit you have no evidence or proof.

And yet we don't require this level of evidence to make some of the most profound decisions imaginable such as marriage, career, etc.

I'm not the wordsmith here. This is you bobbing and weaving because you were caught insinuating that people who believe in God are delusional.

[scamgtr]

And yet we don't require this level of evidence to make some of the most profound decisions imaginable such as marriage, career, etc.

I'm not the wordsmith here. This is you bobbing and weaving because you were caught insinuating that people who believe in God are delusional.

My statements speak for themselves, you have chosen to interpret them in the way you have. There is nothing more I can do to persuade you otherwise.

How do you view other people's beliefs in other deities?

For example, how do you feel about Allah and the Qu'ran?

What about people that used to worship the Greek and Roman Gods?

More specifically, how is/was their belief any real or less than yours?

Next, for argument's sake, let us assume for the purpose of this next question there is not a God, if this were true then how would you view a person's belief in something that does not exist?

[DowntownGator]

Evidence and proof are not slippery concepts. We send people to death by lethal injection with evidence and sent people to the moon using scientific proof that this is the amount of thrust necessary to escape the earth's gravity.

You are merely playing games with the semantics. Show me any evidence or proof consistent with these everyday understandings of those words. However, it's easier to play semantics and claim there is nothing you can show me that would make me believe than to simply admit you have no evidence or proof.

Really? Sorry to bust your bubble, but you obviously don't know the first thing about evidence. For example, the entire case for evolution, that is, not mere change but rather all life shares a common ancestor, is based on circumstantial evidence. Did you know that?

Just so the record is clear, it is important to note that there is ZERO demonstrable evidence that it is biologically possible for the progeny of bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs to be any other thing than bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs. Where is the reliable, repeatable, and credible scientific experiment relying on the scientific method proving bacteria and scamgtrs share a common ancestor?

By way of further example, someone allegedly finding a bone in the ground and making up stories about it is neither a scientific experiment nor scientific proof, however interesting the story may be. It is merely circumstantial evidence from which any number of inferences may be drawn, some reasonable others not so much.

Well, what is evidence? And what is proof?

Btw, my quotes to you weren't mine. They were from a very famous evolutionist named Hebert Spencer. Isn't it ironic that you didn't understand it?

[Dreamliner]

My statements speak for themselves, you have chosen to interpret them in the way you have. There is nothing more I can do to persuade you otherwise.

How do you view other people's beliefs in other deities?

For example, how do you feel about Allah and the Qu'ran?

What about people that used to worship the Greek and Roman Gods?

More specifically, how is/was their belief any real or less than yours?

Next, for argument's sake, let us assume for the purpose of this next question there is not a God, if this were true then how would you view a person's belief in something that does not exist?

^ This is a primary reason that your brand of skepticism does not deserve the benefit of doubt. Caught red-handed in your primary, brassy assertion, you quickly leap to your laundry list of sample objections as though you consider that the believer is obligated to play rope-a-dope with you.

[Lawdog88]

^ This is a primary reason that your brand of skepticism does not deserve the benefit of doubt. Caught red-handed in your primary, brassy assertion, you quickly leap to your laundry list of sample objections as though you consider that the believer is obligated to play rope-a-dope with you.


Down goes Ali !

http://i45.tinypic.com/316osgy.jpg

[busigator96]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed...therefore we are "reincarnated".

[scamgtr]

^ This is a primary reason that your brand of skepticism does not deserve the benefit of doubt. Caught red-handed in your primary, brassy assertion, you quickly leap to your laundry list of sample objections as though you consider that the believer is obligated to play rope-a-dope with you.

OK.

I never assume believers are obligated to play rope-a-dope. You signaled you wanted to play when you started calling out my brassy assertions and fundamentalist intransigence. As we have progressed you have failed to answer a single question. So I would hardly call what you are doing a back and forth.

Regardless of how you paint me, your belief does not make your deity real to me. If you want to think I called you delusional because of that, then so be it.

As far as your refusal to answer questions, your silence speaks volumes. Deflection and obfuscation are the signs of a weak argument.

Your ultimate defense is that my deity is different from that one. Let me give you a hint, every religion in history has taught the same thing to its followers.

[Dreamliner]

OK.

I never assume believers are obligated to play rope-a-dope. You signaled you wanted to play when you started calling out my brassy assertions and fundamentalist intransigence. As we have progressed you have failed to answer a single question. So I would hardly call what you are doing a back and forth.

Regardless of how you paint me, your belief does not make your deity real to me. If you want to think I called you delusional because of that, then so be it.

As far as your refusal to answer questions, your silence speaks volumes. Deflection and obfuscation are the signs of a weak argument.

Your ultimate defense is that my deity is different from that one. Let me give you a hint, every religion in history has taught the same thing to its followers.

There you go again. First you imply that believers are delusional, then adamantly deny it. Then you insist I play rope-a-dope, then adamantly deny that sneaky tactic.

I think I see a pattern emerging ...

In any case, the burden rests upon you to prove that God is made up. We deserve better than the deflection and obfuscation you're now projecting upon your disputants.

[AzCatFan]

Scam, Dream does enjoy obfuscating things, but he's mostly harmless. I too feel a lot like you in my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I have never felt there is a God, but I can't prove otherwise. Call me agnostic, but if push came to shove and I had to choose a position, I would go with the null position, which is God doesn't exist. But I don't deride anyone who happens to be a believer. Basically, if belief works for them, who am I to say they are doing anything wrong?

Some people don't like that because it doesn't fit into their paradigm as to what an atheist/agnostic should be. But that's their problem, and not mine.

To Downtown, yes, there is no solid evidence of evolution. But then again, that's why it is a scientific theory. But plenty of evidence does support the theory, and when new evidence is discovered, the theory is tweaked. And while you don't believe in fossil theory, the overwhelming majority of scientists who deal with fossils, including paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, etc., do. And no offense, I'm going to take their word over yours.

As to no evidence that one species begat another, what you are missing is time. It is estimated that life has been on Earth for 1 to 2 billion years. In contrast, humans have only been around 10,000 years, and recording history for 5,000. To put that in perspective, we have only been around .001% of time life has existed on Earth. To put that in more perspective, if you condensed the 1 billion years of life into 1 year, humans wouldn't show up until the last 5 minutes and 15 second. And wouldn't start recording history until the last 2 1/2 minutes. To expect us to understand, let alone witness things that happened in such a short time is nothing short of hubris in my opinion.

[scamgtr]

Really? Sorry to bust your bubble, but you obviously don't know the first thing about evidence. For example, the entire case for evolution, that is, not mere change but rather all life shares a common ancestor, is based on circumstantial evidence. Did you know that?

Just so the record is clear, it is important to note that there is ZERO demonstrable evidence that it is biologically possible for the progeny of bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs to be any other thing than bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs. Where is the reliable, repeatable, and credible scientific experiment relying on the scientific method proving bacteria and scamgtrs share a common ancestor?

By way of further example, someone allegedly finding a bone in the ground and making up stories about it is neither a scientific experiment nor scientific proof, however interesting the story may be. It is merely circumstantial evidence from which any number of inferences may be drawn, some reasonable others not so much.

Well, what is evidence? And what is proof?

Btw, my quotes to you weren't mine. They were from a very famous evolutionist named Hebert Spencer. Isn't it ironic that you didn't understand it?

Oh my goodness, you used someone's words whom I have never heard of and the fact that he was an evolutionist is ironic. Golly gee, you really got me good there. Shucks, I should just give up and go home.

I am so glad someone gave you talking points. Your quotes prove absolutely nothing except that you have tenable grasp on what irony means and that you also do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.

I know the difference between evidence and proof. I also know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.

I never mentioned evolution as evidence that a deity does or does not exist (as an aside, you should know that it is possible to believe in evolution and a deity, they are not mutually exclusive concepts). You injected this into the debate, but since you are bringing it up, let's go and examine the theory of evolution.

There is simply no way to devise an experiment to replicate 4.5 billion years of evolution. Your argument about that is a red herring. It is not a concept that can be tested completely through the scientific method. it would take 4.5 billion years to replicate. However, the strong circumstantial evidence indicates that humans evolved over time from bacteria. This includes looking at the fossil record as a whole, DNA research, observations, and limited experimentation.

Just because a phenomena cannot be observed or tested does not mean it does not exist. For example, just because I cannot observe it happening does not mean it is not true. I cannot see a black hole, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that shows they exist. Are you positing that black holes do not exist because you cannot observe, recreate, or test them? If so, find me one legitimate astrophysicist that agrees with you.

I have an idea, let's see how our evidence would play out in court:

Your deity decreed that he made you from clay. Your deity telling you this is direct evidence. However, your deity cannot even testify because he cannot be found to serve a subpoena. Moreover, his statements are out of court statements to be offered for the truth of the matter asserted (otherwise known as hearsay). Your evidence isn't even admissible and would not be allowed in a courtroom. Your deity cannot be found to testify or much less be cross-examined about his clay making activities.

Stymied, you present other direct evidence of your deity's wondrous design of the world and all the creatures in it. Such as people talking about how perfect the human body is that it had to be designed by some higher power. Talk about mystical sounding stuff.

Ok, so you have a liberal activist judge that lets you get past my motion for directed verdict.

At least I have some bones and a scientist that can testify to his education and credentials and explain what the bone means in the context of the rest of the fossil record. I will have other scientific evidence (e.g., DNA) that will be admissible to prove my case. It is all circumstantial, but at least it is reliable.

I like my evidence's chances against yours in front of a judge or a jury.

It is not PROOF (which would exclude all other answers definitively, but my own) of me being right, but I can produce more and better evidence to support my case.

As a philosophical aside, how is someone finding a bone in the ground and making up a story about it any less incredulous than someone writing down a story about talking to a burning bush? What is the gives your creation story more weight over evolution? Or over any other creation story for that matter?

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-KzVwu6es

[scamgtr]

There you go again. First you imply that believers are delusional, then adamantly deny it. Then you insist I play rope-a-dope, then adamantly deny that sneaky tactic.

I think I see a pattern emerging ...

In any case, the burden rests upon you to prove that God is made up. We deserve better than the deflection and obfuscation you're now projecting upon your disputants.

I suppose that I must apologize for my opinions, I had no idea that the mere utterance of the idea that your deity may not exist was enough to be considered both brassy and fundamentally intransigent. I had no idea that this idea was so foreign and radical to you that it would be offensive. I assumed that a smart person like yourself, might have heard some of this stuff before. Therefore, let me apologize for assuming that your comments directed towards me and my opinions meant that you were capable of and open to engaging in meaningful discourse. I will take all the responsibility for that and I am sorry.

However, despite your bluster, you refused to answer my questions. You refused because you knew exactly where those questions were going to take you.

But yet, your hit and run tactics and rehashing of your same original complaint; they seem to indicate you want to fight, but you just don't know how. So now you are shifting burdens; if your tactics weren't so predictable I would almost think you were somewhat clever.

However, let me set you straight. I am not the enemy. I do not hate your deity. In fact, if your deity was responsible for making your soul and he made everything in the universe, then by extension he also made me and my soul. Now, that is what would be called irony. In that particular instance, I would certainly refer to your deity's work as intelligent design.

I was never trying to prove that your deity does not exist. If you need to believe in unicorns that fart rainbows to get you through your days, then good for you. If you need that, there is nothing wrong with it.

What I have a problem with is when believer's think that their belief system is any more valid than any other. So, please don't try to sell me semantics about proof and evidence. That is not the real issue we are sparing over. As we both know, until I am feeding your farting unicorn candy apples, it is no more real to me than a Jedi.

The real issue is whether your farting unicorn is more valid than a Jedi. That is why you avoided my questions. You could not prove that your farting unicorn was more valid than a Jedi.

When the misunderstanding occurred I was merely trying to engage in discourse with you about the theoretical psychological basis of why a person might want to believe in a religious figure or deity. That was where you got all booty hurt and began lashing out at me about me saying that believers being delusional. That is your opinion of what you think I was trying to say. I understand how you could have seen it that way; but that is not how I meant it. I do think believing in a deity does require some form of suspension of disbelief; but, that does not make someone crazy or stupid.

Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot here, but I have no burden to carry in regards to your belief. I don't want to strip you of your right to belief, nor do I want to take away your religion, and I am not trying to change your beliefs. I am just trying to have an intellectual conversation. Finally, as clearly you know, I can never prove that something doesn't exist. I cannot prove your deity does not exist any more than you cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny does not exist. So Dream, you can sleep peacefully knowing that me and my fellow atheists cannot take your precious deity away from you because at the end of the day we know we can't prove that he does not exist.

[Zanso]

In any case, the burden rests upon you to prove that God is made up. We deserve better than the deflection and obfuscation you're now projecting upon your disputants.

Not quite how it works.

When you enter a court of law and are on trial for murder, there is not a rebuttable presumption of guilt. The burden of proof is not on the defendant to show that they did not commit the murder. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that the defendant committed the murder AND THEN the defendant's job is to prove they did not.

Or for example someone worships a flying spaghetti monster as their god. Can you prove he doesn't exist? Not anymore than anyone can prove your god doesn't exist therefore all hail the flying spaghetti monster.

[Lawdog88]

Riddle: Those who demand proof of God, will not get it.

[Zanso]

Riddle: Those who demand proof of God, will not get it.

It's a never ending logical fallacy, no point in even arguing tbh.

[Lawdog88]

It's a never ending logical fallacy, no point in even arguing tbh.


Quite true.

And that is where the experience of God actually begins: at the end of human logic.

[reformedgator]

Riddle: Those who demand proof of God, will not get it.

It is not a head or intellectual issue but a heart issue.

[busigator96]

Round and round the rugged rock the ragged rascal ran.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Quite true.

And that is where the experience of God actually begins: at the end of human logic.

Maybe I'll get there one day, LD. I'm still waiting for my Francis Collins moment. Not begging for it. Not resisting it.

In the meantime, there's just too much to enjoy. Like this Pliny the Elder beer. It's delicious and thought-provoking.

[CHFG8R]

Really? Sorry to bust your bubble, but you obviously don't know the first thing about evidence. For example, the entire case for evolution, that is, not mere change but rather all life shares a common ancestor, is based on circumstantial evidence. Did you know that?

Just so the record is clear, it is important to note that there is ZERO demonstrable evidence that it is biologically possible for the progeny of bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs to be any other thing than bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs. Where is the reliable, repeatable, and credible scientific experiment relying on the scientific method proving bacteria and scamgtrs share a common ancestor?

By way of further example, someone allegedly finding a bone in the ground and making up stories about it is neither a scientific experiment nor scientific proof, however interesting the story may be. It is merely circumstantial evidence from which any number of inferences may be drawn, some reasonable others not so much.

Well, what is evidence? And what is proof?

Btw, my quotes to you weren't mine. They were from a very famous evolutionist named Hebert Spencer. Isn't it ironic that you didn't understand it?

My guess? Sitting in a box alongside the equally if not more elusive "Proof of God."

I'm just curious why Christians and Muslims have such an issue with the mere concept of someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Where does this defensiveness come from? And why aren't Hindus, Jews, Budhists, Taoists, etc. as defensive about their beliefs?

[CHFG8R]

Scam, Dream does enjoy obfuscating things, but he's mostly harmless. I too feel a lot like you in my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I have never felt there is a God, but I can't prove otherwise. Call me agnostic, but if push came to shove and I had to choose a position, I would go with the null position, which is God doesn't exist. But I don't deride anyone who happens to be a believer. Basically, if belief works for them, who am I to say they are doing anything wrong?

Some people don't like that because it doesn't fit into their paradigm as to what an atheist/agnostic should be. But that's their problem, and not mine.

To Downtown, yes, there is no solid evidence of evolution. But then again, that's why it is a scientific theory. But plenty of evidence does support the theory, and when new evidence is discovered, the theory is tweaked. And while you don't believe in fossil theory, the overwhelming majority of scientists who deal with fossils, including paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, etc., do. And no offense, I'm going to take their word over yours.

As to no evidence that one species begat another, what you are missing is time. It is estimated that life has been on Earth for 1 to 2 billion years. In contrast, humans have only been around 10,000 years, and recording history for 5,000. To put that in perspective, we have only been around .001% of time life has existed on Earth. To put that in more perspective, if you condensed the 1 billion years of life into 1 year, humans wouldn't show up until the last 5 minutes and 15 second. And wouldn't start recording history until the last 2 1/2 minutes. To expect us to understand, let alone witness things that happened in such a short time is nothing short of hubris in my opinion.

I think it's pretty well established that humans have been around far longer than 10,000 years.

[Lawdog88]

Maybe I'll get there one day, LD. I'm still waiting for my Francis Collins moment. Not begging for it. Not resisting it.

In the meantime, there's just too much to enjoy. Like this Pliny the Elder beer. It's delicious and thought-provoking.


Human logic does not have to end, to enjoy a Pliny. In fact, it is part of the satisfaction of life, of which Solomon spoke.

And, not that additional evidence is required, Homer Simpson agrees.

[Dreamliner]

Round and round the rugged rock the ragged rascal ran.

I thought it was 'wugged wock.'

[bakaduin]

Really? Sorry to bust your bubble, but you obviously don't know the first thing about evidence. For example, the entire case for evolution, that is, not mere change but rather all life shares a common ancestor, is based on circumstantial evidence. Did you know that?

Just so the record is clear, it is important to note that there is ZERO demonstrable evidence that it is biologically possible for the progeny of bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs to be any other thing than bacteria, fruit flies, peppered moths, finches, and scamgtrs. Where is the reliable, repeatable, and credible scientific experiment relying on the scientific method proving bacteria and scamgtrs share a common ancestor?

By way of further example, someone allegedly finding a bone in the ground and making up stories about it is neither a scientific experiment nor scientific proof, however interesting the story may be. It is merely circumstantial evidence from which any number of inferences may be drawn, some reasonable others not so much.

Well, what is evidence? And what is proof?

Btw, my quotes to you weren't mine. They were from a very famous evolutionist named Hebert Spencer. Isn't it ironic that you didn't understand it?

There is nothing that scares me more in this world than the number of Americans who do not believe in evolution. Evolution is reality whether you choose to believe or not. It isn't documented in some book made by humans, it is documented in the Earth. You have to look no further than the domestic dog vs. the wolf or broccoli vs. brussel sprouts to see that.

[Dreamliner]

Evolutiondiditism is of sacramental value to some folks. It is a 'frightening' thing to them that others don't share their peculiar zeal. It is ruining their lives and making them miserable.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

There are some pretty hardcore religious nutters in California. Seems like all the televangelists are based in Orange County. Hell, even the former mayor of San Francisco is a nutcase Catholic.

Very true. My family lives very close to the Trinity Broadcasting HQ. We have pics of my little brothers stealing quarters from the Jesus fountain there.

[gatorplank]

I too know that only fools believe in a God of Creation because most really smart people with science degrees believe evolutiondidit, and, clearly, any alleged God couldn't be smart enough to design the inner workings of a cell because not only is evolution a much more reasonable explanation, it also satisfactorily explains how life came from a rock whereas God simply says abracadabra and is done with it. Enjoy!

Sounds like naturalistic prejudice to me...and the idea that God isn't smart enough to do x, y, or z is fool's talk. God is omniscient. There is no task that is beyond the limits of the knowledge and the wisdom of God.

[bakaduin]

Sounds like naturalistic prejudice to me...and the idea that God isn't smart enough to do x, y, or z is fool's talk. God is omniscient. There is no task that is beyond the limits of the knowledge and the wisdom of God.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? - Epicurus

[OaktownGator]

Sounds like naturalistic prejudice to me...and the idea that God isn't smart enough to do x, y, or z is fool's talk. God is omniscient. There is no task that is beyond the limits of the knowledge and the wisdom of God.
Hear that?! ... that was the sound of downtowngator's sarcastic post whizzing past your ear. :joecool:

And fwiw, evolution and creation/"intelligent design" are not mutually exclusive. A design that did not incorporate an evolutionary process for life to survive and thrive in wildly divergent and sometimes catastrophic scenarios (following meteor impacts, supercaldera eruptions, major ice ages, etc) wouldn't be nearly as intelligent as one that does incorporate an evolutionary process.

[gatorplank]

To expect us to understand, let alone witness things that happened in such a short time is nothing short of hubris in my opinion.

Interesting...Naturalism proposes to understand what happened does it not?

[gatorplank]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? - Epicurus

I'd take the side that God is able, but not willing. Epicurus makes his conclusion without all of the evidence. If Epicurus had ever lived to see the day that God sent Jesus to the cross to take on sin for us, then He'd be a fool to say that a malevolent God would do such a thing.

[AzCatFan]

Interesting...Naturalism proposes to understand what happened does it not?

Yes, of course we want to understand what happened. But it's not that easy. Our best way of understanding is observation, then duplication (aka the scientific method). Make a hypothesis, so some experimentation/observation, report results, then see if the results can be duplicated. With evolution, very difficult to do that, especially considering homo sapiens have only been around 10,000 of the 1,000,000,000 + years that life has existed. And have only recorded history (observations, for 5,000).

Basically, for all we know today, there is still much more we don't. Just look at advancements in technology the last 50 years. Someone living in 1963 would marvel at a fax machine, let alone a smart phone or tablet! And people continue to study paleontology and biology too. And today, we know more than yesterday, but there are still too many things we don't. And to assume we have all the answers is hubris.

And the truth is, we will never know everything. But the more we do, the less the God of the Gaps (I don't know, God did it) becomes relevant in my opinion.

[WESGATORS]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? - Epicurus

Does this same logic apply to humans? If you can afford more food than you need...if you can afford more house than you need...if you can afford more material non-productive items than you need.... Don't we permit that we don't give away all of our earnings because at some point gifting too much to folks is in itself a form of evil? If God were to shelter us from every evil, would that really be "good" for us? If a parent shelters their child from every evil, is that good for them? I think the conclusion of malevolence is presumptuous at best.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bakaduin]

Does this same logic apply to humans? If you can afford more food than you need...if you can afford more house than you need...if you can afford more material non-productive items than you need.... Don't we permit that we don't give away all of our earnings because at some point gifting too much to folks is in itself a form of evil? If God were to shelter us from every evil, would that really be "good" for us? If a parent shelters their child from every evil, is that good for them? I think the conclusion of malevolence is presumptuous at best.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I don't know about every evil but the starving masses in Africa? The innocents that die from a natural disaster? The Holocaust victims? If God has the ability to stop the mass murders of the Holocaust and instead damns them to months of suffering and finally gas chambers does that not make him malevolent?

[WESGATORS]

I don't know about every evil but the starving masses in Africa? The innocents that die from a natural disaster? The Holocaust victims? If God has the ability to stop the mass murders of the Holocaust and instead damns them to months of suffering and finally gas chambers does that not make him malevolent?

Maybe it's a little more complicated than that. After all, why not just point out what he allowed happen to His own Son?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bakaduin]

Maybe it's a little more complicated than that. After all, why not just point out what he allowed happen to His own Son?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

You are using an argument about something that may or may not have happened to debate something that did happen (the slaughter of millions of jews in the Holocaust).

[WESGATORS]

You are using an argument about something that may or may not have happened to debate something that did happen (the slaughter of millions of jews in the Holocaust).

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I am a Christian; so my opinions of God will necessarily have a Christian perspective. If you are already willing to discuss the theoretical existence of God, then why not permit the theoretical existence of a Christian God? My point is that there is a specific event that Christians believe in that is to the core of the concern that you have about the nature of God's perceived malevolence. That you can say "how do I know that happened" doesn't address the nature of the event as Christians believe it. In other words, that you don't believe it to have happened doesn't change principle of what is being discussed.

Similarly, if I were to claim the Holocaust never happened (and I don't claim that), that would not change the nature of how a God might be perceived as malevolent if it did happen.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[cocodrilo]

If God is not malevolent, can it not be argued that he is incompetent? He created a world that was judged (by him) to be "good," only to have it go out of control and seemingly be bent on self-destruction.

God repented once, apparently acknowledging his mistake, and sent a flood to destroy what he had made. But he didn't even have the will to do that, letting one family survive, and what good did that do? Can anyone argue that the world today is morally better than in Noah's time?

And this after God created the world in six days and then took a day off to reflect on how "good" it was.

If you wanted something built, would you let this God do it?

[Dreamliner]

Atheists sure do babble about God a lot.

[Lawdog88]

Atheists sure do babble about God a lot.


With His permission, too.

[CHFG8R]

Very true. My family lives very close to the Trinity Broadcasting HQ. We have pics of my little brothers stealing quarters from the Jesus fountain there.

I thought that was in Orlando? Seriously, right next to the Holy Land amusment park thingy.

[CHFG8R]

Sounds like naturalistic prejudice to me...and the idea that God isn't smart enough to do x, y, or z is fool's talk. God is omniscient. There is no task that is beyond the limits of the knowledge and the wisdom of God.

Furthermore, why can't the process, the mechanism if you will, of evolution be a creation of God? Who or what says that you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case?

[wargunfan]

This post is for Christians and is just a suggestion. For stronger admonition you might want to take another look at the scriptures regarding witnessing to the lost. It is not our task to prove the existence of God. Nor is it our task to defend God. He has given us a commission to give an account of the faith that is within us. My contention is that there are no real seekers after the Faith on this message board. There are some who use THFSG to revile the Lord and deny Him. But there are none who are making honest inquiry. We are not going to convince anyone against their will. Our calling; our only calling is to share the gospel with any and all who will listen with open minds and hearts. God will prepare the hearts of those whom He chooses and will judge the rest by their rejection of Christ. In fact they are already judged. It is counterproductive to try to answer every objection that the nonbelievers can dream up and a colossal waste of band width. When God wills that a person comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord we can rest assured that He will not be thwarted. As for me, I will gladly share my faith with anyone making an honest inquiry and just as gladly turn a deaf ear to the rest. If we all adhered to our calling and refused to be drawn into useless debates with atheists and heretics we would see an end to pointless threads like this one. I say let them go their way and reap accordingly. Of course this is JMHO.

[CHFG8R]

Interesting...Naturalism proposes to understand what happened does it not?

It proposes to attempt to understand what happened through science and other observable facts. Thus, it is refered to as the Theory of Evolution not the Fact of Evolution.

This, of course, is the biggest difference between most naturalists and their creationist counterparts. The former, through exaustive examination of facts, readily admits that the whole story is not complete and thus, still a theory. The latter has such questions wrapped up in a neat little package called the Bible and has no doubts whatsoever (at least that he'll admit) that his version of events is a fact.

[CHFG8R]

Yes, of course we want to understand what happened. But it's not that easy. Our best way of understanding is observation, then duplication (aka the scientific method). Make a hypothesis, so some experimentation/observation, report results, then see if the results can be duplicated. With evolution, very difficult to do that, especially considering homo sapiens have only been around 10,000 of the 1,000,000,000 + years that life has existed. And have only recorded history (observations, for 5,000).

Basically, for all we know today, there is still much more we don't. Just look at advancements in technology the last 50 years. Someone living in 1963 would marvel at a fax machine, let alone a smart phone or tablet! And people continue to study paleontology and biology too. And today, we know more than yesterday, but there are still too many things we don't. And to assume we have all the answers is hubris.

And the truth is, we will never know everything. But the more we do, the less the God of the Gaps (I don't know, God did it) becomes relevant in my opinion.

Not to belabor the point, but humans have been around for considerably longer than 10,000 years. I believe they have uncovered cities in Turkey and Central Asia that date to this point. Here's a snippit from the Wikipedia page.

By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period (50,000 BP (Before Present)), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.[40][41]

[CHFG8R]

Maybe it's a little more complicated than that. After all, why not just point out what he allowed happen to His own Son?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Actually, I'm not so sure it is. And, if it is, the complicated nature of it seems to serve only the religion and it's leadership.

Also, if you believe in the Trinity, wasn't it him. Oh, more of that complicated stuff. Yeah, right. It was him and his son and something else (holy ghost?). Can you see where the unindoctrinated can have a problem with some of these connundrums?

[Tim85]

Actually, I'm not so sure it is. And, if it is, the complicated nature of it seems to serve only the religion and it's leadership.

Also, if you believe in the Trinity, wasn't it him. Oh, more of that complicated stuff. Yeah, right. It was him and his son and something else (holy ghost?). Can you see where the unindoctrinated can have a problem with some of these connundrums?

Trying telling that to the millions of Christians world-wide who barely speak English and became believers because a missionary or local church told them the idea behind Jesus, and just the sheer philosophy of the forgiveness and love behind it is enough for them.

[CHFG8R]

Trying telling that to the millions of Christians world-wide who barely speak English and became believers because a missionary or local church told them the idea behind Jesus, and just the sheer philosophy of the forgiveness and love behind it is enough for them.

Telling them what? You mean telling them my question to Wes?

As I've said multitudes of times, I have no problem with their belief, your belief or even Dream's belief. What I do take issue with is the common disdain from folks like yourself towards those of us who dare to ask questions.

[Dreamliner]

Telling them what? You mean telling them my question to Wes?

As I've said multitudes of times, I have no problem with their belief, your belief or even Dream's belief. What I do take issue with is the common disdain from folks like yourself towards those of us who dare to ask questions.

I don't mind questions. Hell, I've got a couple of bajillion ones myself. I just find annoying the homework projects we're always getting from the foot-stomping, demanding types.

[bakaduin]

This post is for Christians and is just a suggestion. For stronger admonition you might want to take another look at the scriptures regarding witnessing to the lost. It is not our task to prove the existence of God. Nor is it our task to defend God. He has given us a commission to give an account of the faith that is within us. My contention is that there are no real seekers after the Faith on this message board. There are some who use THFSG to revile the Lord and deny Him. But there are none who are making honest inquiry. We are not going to convince anyone against their will. Our calling; our only calling is to share the gospel with any and all who will listen with open minds and hearts. God will prepare the hearts of those whom He chooses and will judge the rest by their rejection of Christ. In fact they are already judged. It is counterproductive to try to answer every objection that the nonbelievers can dream up and a colossal waste of band width. When God wills that a person comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord we can rest assured that He will not be thwarted. As for me, I will gladly share my faith with anyone making an honest inquiry and just as gladly turn a deaf ear to the rest. If we all adhered to our calling and refused to be drawn into useless debates with atheists and heretics we would see an end to pointless threads like this one. I say let them go their way and reap accordingly. Of course this is JMHO.

Honestly, the majority of posters on here are having a real and thoughtful discussion on religion and if you don't want to contribute then don't post. Same goes for Dream who has added nothing to the discussion.

[bakaduin]

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I am a Christian; so my opinions of God will necessarily have a Christian perspective. If you are already willing to discuss the theoretical existence of God, then why not permit the theoretical existence of a Christian God? My point is that there is a specific event that Christians believe in that is to the core of the concern that you have about the nature of God's perceived malevolence. That you can say "how do I know that happened" doesn't address the nature of the event as Christians believe it. In other words, that you don't believe it to have happened doesn't change principle of what is being discussed.

Similarly, if I were to claim the Holocaust never happened (and I don't claim that), that would not change the nature of how a God might be perceived as malevolent if it did happen.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

That is a worthwhile perspective and I understand where you are coming from. The more I knew about the world the more I thought if this god guy exists he's kind of an asshole. I find it much easier to believe that human nature allows some people to do messed up things than to think there is some omnipotent being in the sky who is just watching our misfortunes like a Roman king watches gladiators.

There is no benefit to not believing in god. If anything believing that life is it and there is no salvation is a tough thing to realize. I think part of the problem is having been raised Catholic the Bible was taught as a literal historical account. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. From the lack of existence of the events of exodus (the Great flood and the mass exodus of Jews for instance) to the ridiculous idea that the world is at best 10,000 years old I became disenfranchised. How am I supposed to believe it is true when so many parts have been disproven? Perhaps if I had been raised that the Bible was a book of metaphors I would have a different perspective.

[lacuna]

Do your own research folks. Don't believe this stuff as put forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai

Good to see you delving deeper, gunfan. More on the topic for your further consideration can be found here:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Lekh_Lekha/El_Shaddai/el_shaddai.html

...

According to the Jewish sages, however, Shaddai is a contraction of the phrase, "I said to the world, dai (enough)" (as in the famous word used in the Passover Haggadah, Dayeinu -- "it would have been sufficient"). God created the world but "stopped" at a certain point. He left creation "unfinished" because He wanted us to complete the job by means of exercising chesed (love) in repair of the world (tikkun olam).

Jacob's blessing given in Genesis 49:25, however, indicates that Shaddai might be related to the word for breasts (shadaim), indicating sufficiency and nourishment (i.e., "blessings of the breasts and of the womb" (בִּרְכת שָׁדַיִם וָרָחַם)). In this case, the Name might derive from the contraction of sha ("who") and dai ("enough") to indicate God's complete sufficiency to nurture the fledgling nation into fruitfulness. Indeed, God first uses this Name when He refers to multiplying Abraham's offspring (Gen. 17:2).

Understood in this light, the name El Shaddai provides a picture of God's nurturing love for our lives... God sustains us and loves us, like a mother loves her newborn child. El Shaddai is used almost exclusively in reference to the three great patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and (according to Exodus 6:2-3) was the primary name by which God was known to the founders of Israel (the name YHVH given to Moses suggests God's absolute self-sufficiency, whereas the name Elohim suggests God's soverign power). The word "Shaddai" (by itself) was used later by the prophets (e.g., Num. 24:4; Isa. 13:6, Ezek. 1:24) as well as in the books of Job, Ruth, and in the Psalms. In modern Judaism, Shaddai is also thought to be an acronym for the phrase Shomer daltot Yisrael - "Guardian of the doors of Israel" - abbreviated as the letter Shin on most mezuzot:


Note: While the name El Shaddai presents a "feminine image" of the LORD, this is assuredly appropriate, since God created both genders as a reflection of His image, as it is written: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female (זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה) he created them (Gen. 1:27). However, some people have made the dubious suggestion that El Shaddai should further be translated as "the many breasted One," even though such language suggests the abominable practices and idols common in various ancient fertility cults - customs that were later subject to the most severe judgment of God upon the seven Canaanite nations. It should be clear, in light of the overall context of the revelation given in the Torah, that the name El Shaddai is directly connected with the sanctity of the promise given to Abraham regarding the future growth of his family, and ultimately of the coming of the promised Seed, the Messiah...

[lacuna]

That is a worthwhile perspective and I understand where you are coming from. The more I knew about the world the more I thought if this god guy exists he's kind of an asshole. I find it much easier to believe that human nature allows some people to do messed up things than to think there is some omnipotent being in the sky who is just watching our misfortunes like a Roman king watches gladiators.

There is no benefit to not believing in god. If anything believing that life is it and there is no salvation is a tough thing to realize. I think part of the problem is having been raised Catholic the Bible was taught as a literal historical account. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. From the lack of existence of the events of exodus (the Great flood and the mass exodus of Jews for instance) to the ridiculous idea that the world is at best 10,000 years old I became disenfranchised. How am I supposed to believe it is true when so many parts have been disproven? Perhaps if I had been raised that the Bible was a book of metaphors I would have a different perspective.

Why do you allow traditional / orthodox doctrines to dictate to you the essence or substance of God? Why do you permit them to frame the parameters of any personal inquiry or curiosity of a spiritual nature you might have? Your doubts or objections seem to be against the fundamentalist conception of God as other.

[bakaduin]

Why do you allow traditional / orthodox doctrines to dictate to you the essence or substance of God? Why do you permit them to frame the parameters of any personal inquiry or curiosity of a spiritual nature you might have? Your doubts or objections seem to be against the fundamentalist conception of God as other.

Perhaps that is true.

[lacuna]

Lacuna, the point I take away from your lengthy post above, is that we have two divergent views of Christ: One that intellectualizes what Christ said, vs. one that accepts His exclusive claims about who He was . . . and who He is.

This, I think is our point of divergence regarding the Christ. I'm not convinced Jesus ever claimed to be God. Most all of the gospel evidence presented to substantiate this claim is found in John's gospel. John's esoteric presentation of Jesus as God is not found in the synoptics. Jesus refers to himself as the vine, a gate, a shepherd, etc. - all metaphorical representations designed to tell a story.

John's gospel abundantly quotes an overly verbose Christ, radically different from the rather more taciturn Jesus of the synoptics. Therefore I think any claims of divinity made by Jesus in John's gospel must be taken metaphorically rather than literally. I don't think Jesus would have said much of what John has him saying. Consequently I think Jesus never made any of these claims about himself. They were made by John in an attempt to make sense of his life and crucifixion.

You query: Answer: I suppose you would have to ask a non-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or, for that matter, an Atheist, what those teachings "mean" to them. I know that they do not have the same meaning as they do for the Christian.

There are a number of universal truths that were taught by Jesus and other ancient sages both secular and from other religious traditions. Why would you think the Buddhist or the Jew or the Hindi or the Taoist, etc. would not see the value and meaning in the Ethic of Reciprocity - the second greatest commandment according to Jesus when he instructed his disciples to love others as we love ourselves? There is no need to profess Christ as Lord and Savior to appreciate that teaching and others similarly taught in multiple and diverse religious expressions.

You wanted clarification on whether Christ's teachings mean anything - presumably to any man, and certainly to the Christian - without [that man's] exclusive relationship with the Father having been established first, derived from my statement:John 17, and the quotation I gave, describes exactly that exclusive claim, and shows that it is the relationship and not the teachings that are preeminent; in that passage Christ clearly centers on that exclusive relationship. It describes a number of things:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. [No other 'man' who walked the earth claimed to have authority over all people, with the power to give them eternal life.] Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and [that they know] Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [In other words, He expresses His sole authority from God, His power to give eternal life, and every man's ability to have ("know") it, by what ? By "know[ing]": 1) God, the only true God, and 2) [knowing] Jesus Christ, whom God has sent. Clearly both His authority to "give" eternal life and one's ability to receive it, depends on one's "knowing" God and Jesus Christ.] I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began . . . ."

His exclusive claim and exclusive relationship of "knowing" Jesus as co-equal to God the Father, and thus "knowing" the Father, is amply reinforced elsewhere in John's report of Christ's pronouncements, such as from John 14: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Or from John 10: "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . .," and "I and the Father are one." (Whereupon the Jews sought to stone Him, because He claimed to be God).

Prior to Jesus' pronouncement, no other Jew in recorded history had claimed to have been sent from God with the power to lay down his life and take it up (become resurrected) again. No man. Before Jesus' statements, to my knowledge, no Jew had ever claimed to be "one" (co-equal) with God, and to claim that he shared God's power over death. Christ's exclusive "oneness" and relationship claims with God are why the (other) Jews - masters of the Jewish law and teachings - picked up stones: they couldn't stand it.

And John 17 closes out with more on Christ's (as an orthodox Christian, I use Christ essentially interchangeably with Jesus, understanding the technical distinctions) exclusive claims and relationship with God the Father as follows (I have taken the liberty to embolden certain parts for my responsive emphasis, but of course, it all is important):

“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled."

"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me [note, not in His teachings or even in the words He spoke, claiming to be from God, but in Him] through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me — so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

“Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”


We are in Christ, and Christ - and the Father - is in us. Makes all the difference.

I refer you back to the definition of "echad" that I mentioned earlier in my first post on this thread. http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?p=6438347&highlight=echad#post6438347 We are all in God and God is in all of us. "The God in whom we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28) All Jews - then and now - consider themselves to be "sons of God." The claim, apart from the context of the virgin birth myth, is not such an unusual one.

[tec68]

My guess? Sitting in a box alongside the equally if not more elusive "Proof of God."

I'm just curious why Christians and Muslims have such an issue with the mere concept of someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Where does this defensiveness come from? And why aren't Hindus, Jews, Budhists, Taoists, etc. as defensive about their beliefs?

I cant speak for the other religions but most true practicing Christians will not have any issue with someone who doesn't share their beliefs.

Jesus asked his disciples to follow Him. He did not beg or demand.

[Itssaul]

I cant speak for the other religions but most true practicing Christians will not have any issue with someone who doesn't share their beliefs.

Jesus asked his disciples to follow Him. He did not beg or demand.

So shouldn't children be allowed to mature, and think for themselves before theyre indoctrinated?

[jdrgator]

So shouldn't children be allowed to mature, and think for themselves before theyre indoctrinated?

Given the changing nature of religious affiliation in the US, I believe most children (and if not most, than a substantial proportion) change their religion at least once or lose it in adulthood, so in effect, indoctrination isn't necessarily working so well.

[tec68]

If God is not malevolent, can it not be argued that he is incompetent? He created a world that was judged (by him) to be "good," only to have it go out of control and seemingly be bent on self-destruction.

God repented once, apparently acknowledging his mistake, and sent a flood to destroy what he had made. But he didn't even have the will to do that, letting one family survive, and what good did that do? Can anyone argue that the world today is morally better than in Noah's time?

And this after God created the world in six days and then took a day off to reflect on how "good" it was.

If you wanted something built, would you let this God do it?

My friend He did not bring sin into this world, Adam and Eve did after they were told not to do 1 thing.

God then gave us an opportunity to join Him in Heaven for eternity.

[Lawdog88]

This post is for Christians and is just a suggestion. For stronger admonition you might want to take another look at the scriptures regarding witnessing to the lost. It is not our task to prove the existence of God. Nor is it our task to defend God. He has given us a commission to give an account of the faith that is within us. My contention is that there are no real seekers after the Faith on this message board. There are some who use THFSG to revile the Lord and deny Him. But there are none who are making honest inquiry. We are not going to convince anyone against their will.

Our calling; our only calling is to share the gospel with any and all who will listen with open minds and hearts. God will prepare the hearts of those whom He chooses and will judge the rest by their rejection of Christ. In fact they are already judged. It is counterproductive to try to answer every objection that the nonbelievers can dream up and a colossal waste of band width. When God wills that a person comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord we can rest assured that He will not be thwarted.

As for me, I will gladly share my faith with anyone making an honest inquiry and just as gladly turn a deaf ear to the rest. If we all adhered to our calling and refused to be drawn into useless debates with atheists and heretics we would see an end to pointless threads like this one. I say let them go their way and reap accordingly. Of course this is JMHO.


WGF, you may be right on all counts.

I don't know if the Calvinist perspective or the Ariminian perspective is the most satisfying in addressing the perplexing question of whether it is God's calling, or our seeking, or some unique combination of the two, that causes us to accept God's grace and forgiveness, but I do know that His hand is stretched out still . . . for everyone. (IMO).

Many, many people I know accepted grace because of dire circumstances, and / or that their lives had gotten to the point that nothing mattered more to them than knowing whether God exists and whether He cared - for them. Perhaps some can come to know Him bit by bit and in the best of times, but I personally don't know many people who have had a salvation experience like that.

If folks are all materially comfy and living life to the hilt, egotistically deceived that they are actually in charge of their world, and think they are as morally fit as the next guy - and certainly, as much as the average Christian they see and judge - human vanity being what it is, that person will probably neither respond to or seek God. But when those mechanisms of life break down - as they most assuredly will - and the person honestly assesses and comes to grips with their deepest, innermost need or desire, God's grace can break through.

In short, I don't mind spending a moment or two on a silly message board every now and again, communicating the eternal truth that God cares for all of us, believer and non-believer alike, and that we can actually know His love for us like no other. If anyone has ears to hear, I hope they do.

[tec68]

This post is for Christians and is just a suggestion. For stronger admonition you might want to take another look at the scriptures regarding witnessing to the lost. It is not our task to prove the existence of God. Nor is it our task to defend God. He has given us a commission to give an account of the faith that is within us. My contention is that there are no real seekers after the Faith on this message board. There are some who use THFSG to revile the Lord and deny Him. But there are none who are making honest inquiry. We are not going to convince anyone against their will. Our calling; our only calling is to share the gospel with any and all who will listen with open minds and hearts. God will prepare the hearts of those whom He chooses and will judge the rest by their rejection of Christ. In fact they are already judged. It is counterproductive to try to answer every objection that the nonbelievers can dream up and a colossal waste of band width. When God wills that a person comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord we can rest assured that He will not be thwarted. As for me, I will gladly share my faith with anyone making an honest inquiry and just as gladly turn a deaf ear to the rest. If we all adhered to our calling and refused to be drawn into useless debates with atheists and heretics we would see an end to pointless threads like this one. I say let them go their way and reap accordingly. Of course this is JMHO.

This is mostly how I feel.

Like I said before, Jesus asked His disciples to follow. He did not command or beg or demand.

[tec68]

So shouldn't children be allowed to mature, and think for themselves before theyre indoctrinated?

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Luke 18:15-17

[gatorplank]

This post is for Christians and is just a suggestion. For stronger admonition you might want to take another look at the scriptures regarding witnessing to the lost. It is not our task to prove the existence of God. Nor is it our task to defend God. He has given us a commission to give an account of the faith that is within us. My contention is that there are no real seekers after the Faith on this message board. There are some who use THFSG to revile the Lord and deny Him. But there are none who are making honest inquiry. We are not going to convince anyone against their will. Our calling; our only calling is to share the gospel with any and all who will listen with open minds and hearts. God will prepare the hearts of those whom He chooses and will judge the rest by their rejection of Christ. In fact they are already judged. It is counterproductive to try to answer every objection that the nonbelievers can dream up and a colossal waste of band width. When God wills that a person comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord we can rest assured that He will not be thwarted. As for me, I will gladly share my faith with anyone making an honest inquiry and just as gladly turn a deaf ear to the rest. If we all adhered to our calling and refused to be drawn into useless debates with atheists and heretics we would see an end to pointless threads like this one. I say let them go their way and reap accordingly. Of course this is JMHO.

Yep. You are right. Some things are perceived with Spiritual eyes and spiritual ears that reprobates just don't have. The creation of the world is a spiritually discerned reality. The idea that the believer can obtain knowledge from the Holy Spirit through the spiritual realm is an idea that the naturalist simply cannot accept.

[HALLGATOR]

My friend He did not bring sin into this world, Adam and Eve did after they were told not to do 1 thing.



How do you account for Satan bringing it to Eve, according to scripture? He tempted her to eat of the forbidden fruit which was to go against what God had told them to do. Doesn't this tell us that it already existed, and it existed in the world, before Eve plucked the apple.

[Lawdog88]

How do you account for Satan bringing it to Eve, according to scripture? He tempted her to eat of the forbidden fruit which was to go against what God had told them to do. Doesn't this tell us that it already existed, and it existed in the world, before Eve plucked the apple.


That's a good point, Hall.

Seems to me that the allegory, metaphor, or literal occurrence of the fall of mankind, as understood in the scriptures, clearly shows a creation where evil was lurking about in it - but was indubitably subservient, however, to the permissive will of God. Seems like evil was not fully released into "the world" though, until the act of disobedience in the Garden.

It also begs the questions / arguments that many folks with a grudge hold against God:

Well, if God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why would he not have eliminated evil first - but instead let it hang around - before launching the grand experiment ?

I mean, it just isn't fair for God to have done it that way, knowing ahead of time that mankind would succumb to the temptations of the lesser light of evil, and fall astray.

Why couldn't we simply have a perfect creation from the get go instead of having to go through all this pain and suffering ?

Etc., etc., etc.

[HALLGATOR]

That's a good point, Hall.

Seems to me that the allegory, metaphor, or literal occurrence of the fall of mankind, as understood in the scriptures, clearly shows a creation where evil was lurking about in it - but was indubitably subservient, however, to the permissive will of God. Seems like evil was not fully released into "the world" though, until the act of disobedience in the Garden.

It also begs the questions / arguments that many folks with a grudge hold against God:

Well, if God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why would he not have eliminated evil first - but instead let it hang around - before launching the grand experiment ?

I mean, it just isn't fair for God to have done it that way, knowing ahead of time that mankind would succumb to the temptations of the lesser light of evil, and fall astray.

Why couldn't we simply have a perfect creation from the get go instead of having to go through all this pain and suffering ?

Etc., etc., etc.


Thanks for the answer.

Some of the very things you bring up as questions others have are what many inquiring minds have asked for a long time. I started asking them at a young age and was more or less told that was beyond my/our ken. Of course that didn't slow me down any I just ceased to ask them out loud until I was grown.

Going on what you wrote we could ask:

"Why did God make us to begin with?"

"If indeed he knew the outcome of placing Adam and Eve in the Garden why put them there?"

"Why did he allow Satan to corrupt what he created?" or

"Why did he allow the fallen angel to continue in existence?"

[scamgtr]

I think what upsets most atheists is most religious people's air of moral superiority. Just as I am sure that most atheists posts upset most believers because they have an air of intellectual superiority.

I have dealt with many believers. I have not found one that is willing to take the time to honestly and candidly answer questions about things that don't make sense in the Bible or about belief in a deity in particular. I have always received similar rebuffs...anger, told I never gave the Bible a chance, or that no answer would satisfy me. All these things played out exactly as they have in the past for me on this thread.

The simple fact of the matter is I have been to church, I have read the Bible, and I have been open to God. He just failed to show up in my heart and in the world I see. Where some people see a bigger picture, I see needless tragedy. When people say everything happens for a reason, I wonder why the riddle.

If you believe, your God made me and by extension how I see the world. What would be the purpose of my creation. Allegedly, it's my choice to accept him; however, this concept is not really compatible with an all-knowing God (he can see the past and the future). If he doesn't know the future, then how would we know that he prevails at the end of the Book of Revelation. This means that free will does not exist. Therefore, a person's individual acceptance or rejection of Christ is preordained. He already knows I will reject him. What is the point in my existence then?

Moreover, did Judas truly have a choice? One could argue he merely fulfilled prophecy. I have never understood how he could have been so vilified for enacting God's plan. Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The betrayal led to his crucifixion and ultimately the alleged possible redemption of all humankind. So why was Judas's betrayal a bad thing?

If he was merely fulfilling prophecy, it was preordained that this was how it was going to happen. Predestination and free will are not concepts that are capable of reconciliation, they are zero sum concepts. Yet, the Bible tries to have it both ways.

[lacuna]

Yep. You are right. Some things are perceived with Spiritual eyes and spiritual ears that reprobates just don't have. The creation of the world is a spiritually discerned reality. The idea that the believer can obtain knowledge from the Holy Spirit through the spiritual realm is an idea that the naturalist simply cannot accept.

rep·ro·bate (rpr-bt)
n.
1. A morally unprincipled person.
2. One who is predestined to damnation.
adj.
1. Morally unprincipled; shameless.
2. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

In a nutshell, the use of terms like reprobate when referring to a person who is not a Christian, comes across as callous and judgmental. It is an immediate strike against anything a Christian aspiring to evangelize and convert an unbeliever might have to say.

To be effective language like this should be tempered with sincere loving concern rather than harsh judgmentalism that immediately elicits a defensive posture.

Deliver the message in love and allow it to become the microscope that will in turn inspire and enable the one who hears it to examine him/herself.

2 Corinthians 13:5 ... Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?


Psalm 139: 23,24 ... 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Since I generally go for the most convenient beliefs due to being bad and lazy, here are my rankings:

1. There is no god
2. There's a non-intervening god
3. There's a god who intervenes, but doesn't think very highly of us
4. There's a god who intervenes and loves us

That's off the top of my head. If number 4 turns out to be correct, I want to go on the record and say thanks for my wife, kids, and pork products.

[Itssaul]

Since I generally go for the most convenient beliefs due to being bad and lazy, here are my rankings:

1. There is no god
2. There's a non-intervening god
3. There's a god who intervenes, but doesn't think very highly of us
4. There's a god who intervenes and loves us

That's off the top of my head. If number 4 turns out to be correct, I want to go on the record and say thanks for my wife, kids, and pork products.

You want to use a switch statement not if's

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

I thought that was in Orlando? Seriously, right next to the Holy Land amusment park thingy.

There could be a place in Orlando, too. But the place in Costa Mesa is a trip. It's right down the street from a huge shopping center, so they can run the donation plate straight to the Luis Vuitton store.

The place is all gold and marbled out. It reminds me of the fancy cups from the tomb in Indian Jones and the Holy Grail. There's no need for "cup of a carpenter" bullchit at TBN.

[tec68]

How do you account for Satan bringing it to Eve, according to scripture? He tempted her to eat of the forbidden fruit which was to go against what God had told them to do. Doesn't this tell us that it already existed, and it existed in the world, before Eve plucked the apple.

Well God saw what He had made and it was good.

Multiple times in the Bible it says sin came into the world through man.

Lucifer was an angel but the Bible says he was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies.

Its not a question that I can answer. I would need to do some research first but I do know that in the Bible it says "As for God, His way is perfect."

This is not an eternal life and we will know no sorrow or pain in Heaven.

Thank you for asking these questions. I will try to get back to you on the answers.

[tec68]

I think what upsets most atheists is most religious people's air of moral superiority. Just as I am sure that most atheists posts upset most believers because they have an air of intellectual superiority.

I have dealt with many believers. I have not found one that is willing to take the time to honestly and candidly answer questions about things that don't make sense in the Bible or about belief in a deity in particular. I have always received similar rebuffs...anger, told I never gave the Bible a chance, or that no answer would satisfy me. All these things played out exactly as they have in the past for me on this thread.

The simple fact of the matter is I have been to church, I have read the Bible, and I have been open to God. He just failed to show up in my heart and in the world I see. Where some people see a bigger picture, I see needless tragedy. When people say everything happens for a reason, I wonder why the riddle.

If you believe, your God made me and by extension how I see the world. What would be the purpose of my creation. Allegedly, it's my choice to accept him; however, this concept is not really compatible with an all-knowing God (he can see the past and the future). If he doesn't know the future, then how would we know that he prevails at the end of the Book of Revelation. This means that free will does not exist. Therefore, a person's individual acceptance or rejection of Christ is preordained. He already knows I will reject him. What is the point in my existence then?

Moreover, did Judas truly have a choice? One could argue he merely fulfilled prophecy. I have never understood how he could have been so vilified for enacting God's plan. Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The betrayal led to his crucifixion and ultimately the alleged possible redemption of all humankind. So why was Judas's betrayal a bad thing?

If he was merely fulfilling prophecy, it was preordained that this was how it was going to happen. Predestination and free will are not concepts that are capable of reconciliation, they are zero sum concepts. Yet, the Bible tries to have it both ways.

I will pm you the email of my pastor if you would like. I am pretty sure he will take the time to answer any questions you may have. I am sorry you have met believers like that.

As long as you are asking on a knowledge standpoint and not trying to just bashing.

[HALLGATOR]

Well God saw what He had made and it was good.

Multiple times in the Bible it says sin came into the world through man.

Lucifer was an angel but the Bible says he was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies.

Its not a question that I can answer. I would need to do some research first but I do know that in the Bible it says "As for God, His way is perfect."

This is not an eternal life and we will know no sorrow or pain in Heaven.

Thank you for asking these questions. I will try to get back to you on the answers.


Thank you for taking the time to honestly address it. I usually stay out of religious discussions these days because it is easy to wind up going from talking about it to arguing about it in a bad way. I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs, just interjecting some questions into the thread.

[HALLGATOR]

Here's another question of a lighter manner:


If there are angels would they sound like this? Not a religious song but perhaps spiritual in it's ability to stir the soul and nonetheless one performed by an amazing voice imho.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AQIGPPzWgCA?list=PLBE1325F9D54A0741" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[lacuna]

I think what upsets most atheists is most religious people's air of moral superiority. And judgmentalism also, I think Just as I am sure that most atheists posts upset most believers because they have an air of intellectual superiority.

I have dealt with many believers. I have not found one that is willing to take the time to honestly and candidly answer questions about things that don't make sense in the Bible or about belief in a deity in particular. I have always received similar rebuffs...anger, told I never gave the Bible a chance, or that no answer would satisfy me. All these things played out exactly as they have in the past for me on this thread.

This is probably because you have encountered Christians that are only versed in the predigested, spoonfed doctrines they have learned in their denomination of choice. Few Christians have taken the time to delve deeply into the matters of their own faith preferring to superficially rely on the creeds and associated teachings. Most are uncomfortable answering deeper more challenging questions and out of frustration will quickly resort to formulaic responses when confronted with contradictory aspects of their faith.

Over the years I have from time to time asked of Christians, "what it would do to your faith if you found the Bible was not literally true?" Several years ago I asked this question of someone who posts on this forum. He side stepped the question the first time I asked:

I also think that the clouds would have to open up from heaven and I would have to hear that from the Lord Himself in order to believe it. And if that was the way it was proven to me, then, yes, it would effect my faith, but it would be in a positive way because God promises that He works every for the good of those that love Him. Until that day comes, however, I'll still be a literalist down to the core.

But his candid reply to me when I asked him the same question a second time was heartbreaking. Here's what he wrote:

I think I have answered this question before, and you felt like I dodged the question, although, I think I honestly answered it. I do not believe that every passage is to be interpreted literally, but I believe that a passage should be interpreted literally if possible and if it makes sense contextually. Unless if the context makes it an impossibility, passages should be interpreted literally. So if it could be proven to me beyond a doubt that Jesus did not really say or mean that he is the only way to the Father, as you suggest was a fabrication that was later added in by some heretic, that would be a deal breaker for me because I believe in a high view of Biblical inspiration. I could no longer have any confidence in God or His word to the extent that I do. It would be devastating, and I am not really sure life would be worth living anymore. It would most definitely ruin my life. It would be a wounding blow to the very core of my being. I know for a fact that my life would be ruined to the point that I would never recover, and I would never be the same person that I am right now. I would be one of the most bitter people to ever walk the face of the earth. That is how important the idea of Biblical inspiration is to my life. It would completely rock my world, and turn it upside down.

So the question is what would the best alternative be? I think I would be the ultimate ultra-pessimistic post-modernist existentialist. And, personally, I doubt that the level of proof that I would demand for the possibility that you are hypothetically asserting would actually ever be produced.

Devastated; ruined; embittered; not sure life would be worth living.

Biblical inerrantists have much invested in their declarations of faith. They want it to be true; it must be true. From their fortress of self protection they will not allow anything less.


The simple fact of the matter is I have been to church, I have read the Bible, and I have been open to God. He just failed to show up in my heart and in the world I see. Where some people see a bigger picture, I see needless tragedy. When people say everything happens for a reason, I wonder why the riddle.

If you believe, your God made me and by extension how I see the world. What would be the purpose of my creation. Allegedly, it's my choice to accept him; however, this concept is not really compatible with an all-knowing God (he can see the past and the future). If he doesn't know the future, then how would we know that he prevails at the end of the Book of Revelation. This means that free will does not exist. Therefore, a person's individual acceptance or rejection of Christ is preordained. He already knows I will reject him. What is the point in my existence then?

Moreover, did Judas truly have a choice? One could argue he merely fulfilled prophecy. I have never understood how he could have been so vilified for enacting God's plan. Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The betrayal led to his crucifixion and ultimately the alleged possible redemption of all humankind. So why was Judas's betrayal a bad thing?

If he was merely fulfilling prophecy, it was preordained that this was how it was going to happen. Predestination and free will are not concepts that are capable of reconciliation, they are zero sum concepts. Yet, the Bible tries to have it both ways.

It sounds as though you have a Calvinist background. There are healthier ways than fundamentalist rigidity.

[Dreamliner]

Another reason I'm skeptical of skepticism: the modern skeptic says he'd believe if the clouds opened up and a gigormous hand descended. Ironically, this would make the skeptic more impressionable than the First-Century Jews he derides as gullible yahoos. The Jews witnessed miracle after stupendous miracle and still did not believe.

[tec68]

Thank you for taking the time to honestly address it. I usually stay out of religious discussions these days because it is easy to wind up going from talking about it to arguing about it in a bad way. I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs, just interjecting some questions into the thread.

Yeah, when I do discuss this I try my best to keep emotions out of play. There is no reason for me to get angry unless someone is just bashing.

I enjoy talking about my beliefs, the questions that are asked of me help me learn more myself. Many true practicing Christians are like that in my experience.

[Dreamliner]

Various other reasons why skeptics should be more suspicious of their own arguments:

*As we've seen (and yes, their experiences may have been poignant), the standard objections are just a smoke screen for a woundedness that emerged from a personal experience. First comes the emotional experience. Then they hide behind the stock objections.

*They lead by disparaging people of faith ... and are surprised when they get a little pushback. Then the spicy pushback serves to confirm that people of faith are mean-spirited and close-minded.

*They employ straw men as cover. Ex: they adduce the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis as evidence that the Bible cannot be true. And they will not admit another interpretation as this would eviscerate their objection.

[gatorplank]

I think what upsets most atheists is most religious people's air of moral superiority. Just as I am sure that most atheists posts upset most believers because they have an air of intellectual superiority.

I have dealt with many believers. I have not found one that is willing to take the time to honestly and candidly answer questions about things that don't make sense in the Bible or about belief in a deity in particular. I have always received similar rebuffs...anger, told I never gave the Bible a chance, or that no answer would satisfy me. All these things played out exactly as they have in the past for me on this thread.

The simple fact of the matter is I have been to church, I have read the Bible, and I have been open to God. He just failed to show up in my heart and in the world I see. Where some people see a bigger picture, I see needless tragedy. When people say everything happens for a reason, I wonder why the riddle.

If you believe, your God made me and by extension how I see the world. What would be the purpose of my creation. Allegedly, it's my choice to accept him; however, this concept is not really compatible with an all-knowing God (he can see the past and the future). If he doesn't know the future, then how would we know that he prevails at the end of the Book of Revelation. This means that free will does not exist. Therefore, a person's individual acceptance or rejection of Christ is preordained. He already knows I will reject him. What is the point in my existence then?

Moreover, did Judas truly have a choice? One could argue he merely fulfilled prophecy. I have never understood how he could have been so vilified for enacting God's plan. Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The betrayal led to his crucifixion and ultimately the alleged possible redemption of all humankind. So why was Judas's betrayal a bad thing?

If he was merely fulfilling prophecy, it was preordained that this was how it was going to happen. Predestination and free will are not concepts that are capable of reconciliation, they are zero sum concepts. Yet, the Bible tries to have it both ways.

The Bible certainly would agree with you on Predestination and the fact that people have a will. I think the Bible describes a will that is in bondage to sin and thus not free. Only God has free will because God is not in bondage to the power of sin. Ergo Jesus must have been God because He was not in bondage to sin. Being a Christian involves recognition of our slavery to sin and asking Jesus to free us from that slavery so that we can love and worship God.

[Dreamliner]

What do skeptics demand of God ? That he circumvent human will when they deem convenient ? Clearly they are not looking for a Divine Being. Maybe they're looking for a Divine Subject ?

Skeptics prattle about free will and then proceed to complain about its effects.

[gatorplank]

In a nutshell, the use of terms like reprobate when referring to a person who is not a Christian, comes across as callous and judgmental. It is an immediate strike against anything a Christian aspiring to evangelize and convert an unbeliever might have to say.

To be effective language like this should be tempered with sincere loving concern rather than harsh judgmentalism that immediately elicits a defensive posture.

Deliver the message in love and allow it to become the microscope that will in turn inspire and enable the one who hears it to examine him/herself.

2 Corinthians 13:5 ... Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

Psalm 139: 23,24 ... 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

I disagree. A person needs to know the nature of their own condition to know that they need to seek out the physician. The last thing an alcoholic needs is someone telling them how healthy they are. The people who genuinely love will tell it how it really is. It is hateful to do anything else.

[scamgtr]

Another reason I'm skeptical of skepticism: the modern skeptic says he'd believe if the clouds opened up and a gigormous hand descended. Ironically, this would make the skeptic more impressionable than the First-Century Jews he derides as gullible yahoos. The Jews witnessed miracle after stupendous miracle and still did not believe.

You have a valid critique of skepticism. I understand exactly where you are coming from with your critique and why you feel the way you do. Some skeptics will never have enough evidence to satisfy them; I do not count myself among those.

I would prefer to be able to believe than not. It would give me a great amount of comfort in a world that I view as unfair and unforgiving to most. However, God, in any form, has not filled my heart with the religious experience that you and others have felt. That is why I ask questions. I want to have my questions answered or maybe someone will explain something in a way that I have not thought about. I do not necessarily blame God for my lack of faith because obviously faith is a personal choice about believing without seeing. I simply have a disconnect with that aspect of faith. I do have anger towards God for the things I see in the world that I do not understand. I just haven't accepted that it does not really need to make sense for me to believe in something larger.

I have an inquisitive mind and I probably over think the whole faith aspect of what God represents. I probably came off like a douche to you and others on here; but, I am really not a monster or a reprobate. I just have not found my way there yet like you and others have. One day, I do really hope to feel the same things you and the others on here have shared. I thank all of you for sharing your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, while I may have questions and be a skeptic I truly do have an open mind and heart to what all of you say. I just have more questions than others do and I am a hard case; but just because I have tough questions or a high degree of skepticism doesn't mean I am against you.

[Dreamliner]

You have a valid critique of skepticism. I understand exactly where you are coming from with your critique and why you feel the way you do. Some skeptics will never have enough evidence to satisfy them; I do not count myself among those.

I would prefer to be able to believe than not. It would give me a great amount of comfort in a world that I view as unfair and unforgiving to most. However, God, in any form, has not filled my heart with the religious experience that you and others have felt. That is why I ask questions. I want to have my questions answered or maybe someone will explain something in a way that I have not thought about. I do not necessarily blame God for my lack of faith because obviously faith is a personal choice about believing without seeing. I simply have a disconnect with that aspect of faith. I do have anger towards God for the things I see in the world that I do not understand. I just haven't accepted that it does not really need to make sense for me to believe in something larger.

I have an inquisitive mind and I probably over think the whole faith aspect of what God represents. I probably came off like a douche to you and others on here; but, I am really not a monster or a reprobate. I just have not found my way there yet like you and others have. One day, I do really hope to feel the same things you and the others on here have shared. I thank all of you for sharing your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, while I may have questions and be a skeptic I truly do have an open mind and heart to what all of you say. I just have more questions than others do and I am a hard case; but just because I have tough questions or a high degree of skepticism doesn't mean I am against you.

scam, I am saying that skeptics SAY they require LESS evidence than the First Century Jews they caricature as credulous. I consider it ironic.

Don't worry about the way you came off. I rather enjoy the rough-and-tumble of debate. Besides, I'm a whole lot less ornery than Jesus was . :wink:

On the belief end, I totally hear you. I have questions myself. Indeed, I like to tell my Christian friends that I'm an agnostic every-other Tuesday. But it has helped me to know that faith and doubt are by no means mutually-exclusive. In a sense, I have given up the quest for certitude as it merely engenders more doubt.

Nowadays, I live in an area of intrigue and proper confidence. I reflect upon things like SOMEBODY, doesn't really matter who, writing "my words will never die." And here we are, two-thousand years later, Jesus remaining BY FAR the most influential figure in human history, with history fairly bending around him.

Things like that ... and there are many more.

[scamgtr]

The Bible certainly would agree with you on Predestination and the fact that people have a will. I think the Bible describes a will that is in bondage to sin and thus not free. Only God has free will because God is not in bondage to the power of sin. Ergo Jesus must have been God because He was not in bondage to sin. Being a Christian involves recognition of our slavery to sin and asking Jesus to free us from that slavery so that we can love and worship God.

I completely buy into the idea that humans are slaves to "sin" you need look no further than the recent economic collapse that was triggered by excessive greed; there are many other instances throughout history just plucking that out of the air (and no I am not an anti-capitalist).

My understanding of sin is that we are absolved of it through acceptance and belief in Christ and his Father. We are absolved through sin thorough the grace of God. Christ died and took the burden of human sin onto himself. Therefore, while we are sinners and still sin even after acceptance of Christ, we are forgiven and still loved and welcomed through belief, acceptance of his message, and ultimately his grace. This is an extremely powerful message of redemption for even the most wayward of souls. I am by no means free of sin in any sense of the word; nor will I be. I accept that part of his message; it is the belief/faith that trips me up. It is the intellectual mechanics of the suspension of disbelief. However, that is the essence of faith, it is acceptance without evidence or proof for lack of better terms.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

You want to use a switch statement not if's

While (!evidence.exists()) do{
inc(faith);
}

[Itssaul]

While (!evidence.exists()) do{
inc(faith);
}

Hah

Good stuff.

[Dreamliner]

We all live by faith.

[Itssaul]

We all live by faith.

Unless you have omnipotent powers, I doubt you know what people live by...

Especially those who are exotic to us, like Africans, western. Australians, tribes in Guatemalan mountains, we just don't know, assuming we do is foolish

[Dreamliner]

Unless you have omnipotent powers, I doubt you know what people live by...

Especially those who are exotic to us, like Africans, western. Australians, tribes in Guatemalan mountains, we just don't know, assuming we do is foolish

Seems like the real fools are the folks who do all kinds of crazy stuff, absent empirical verification, but want to put God in a beaker.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

In a nutshell, the use of terms like reprobate when referring to a person who is not a Christian, comes across as callous and judgmental. It is an immediate strike against anything a Christian aspiring to evangelize and convert an unbeliever might have to say.

To be effective language like this should be tempered with sincere loving concern rather than harsh judgmentalism that immediately elicits a defensive posture.

Deliver the message in love and allow it to become the microscope that will in turn inspire and enable the one who hears it to examine him/herself.

2 Corinthians 13:5 ... Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?


Psalm 139: 23,24 ... 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

In today's vernacular, the use of the term "reprobate" is often an almost affectionate rebuke to a friend.


rep·ro·bate /ˈreprəˌbāt/

Noun
An unprincipled person (often used humorously or affectionately).

Adjective
Unprincipled (often used as a humorous or affectionate reproach).

Synonyms

scoundrel - villain

[gatorplank]

I completely buy into the idea that humans are slaves to "sin" you need look no further than the recent economic collapse that was triggered by excessive greed; there are many other instances throughout history just plucking that out of the air (and no I am not an anti-capitalist).

My understanding of sin is that we are absolved of it through acceptance and belief in Christ and his Father. We are absolved through sin thorough the grace of God. Christ died and took the burden of human sin onto himself. Therefore, while we are sinners and still sin even after acceptance of Christ, we are forgiven and still loved and welcomed through belief, acceptance of his message, and ultimately his grace. This is an extremely powerful message of redemption for even the most wayward of souls. I am by no means free of sin in any sense of the word; nor will I be. I accept that part of his message; it is the belief/faith that trips me up. It is the intellectual mechanics of the suspension of disbelief. However, that is the essence of faith, it is acceptance without evidence or proof for lack of better terms.

Faith is simply trust. Evidence is everywhere of what God has done. Faith is trusting that God will keep His promises. The prophet Jeremiah once said that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Our hearts are like mighty fortresses that use all of their power to resist Jesus and His gospel. God in His love wages war on our hearts. Faith comes when God storms the gates, conquers the heart, and puts it in subjection to the power of the Holy Spirit.

[Itssaul]

Seems like the real fools are the folks who do all kinds of crazy stuff, absent empirical verification, but want to put God in a beaker.

Failed to see what atheists think...

It's more like "what do we put in this beaker?"

To us faith is another way of saying "don't ask questions"

[Lawdog88]

Failed to see what atheists think...

It's more like "what do we put in this beaker?"

To us faith is another way of saying "don't ask questions"


Honestly Saul, the vain delusion of skepticism is that the skeptic sees himself open minded and willing to ask ANY question whatsoever . . . except THAT question.

:laugh:

[Dreamliner]

Failed to see what atheists think...

It's more like "what do we put in this beaker?"

To us faith is another way of saying "don't ask questions"

I actually don't see a lot of questions from atheists, primarily just fussy demands.

[Itssaul]

I actually don't see a lot of questions from atheists, primarily just fussy demands.

Probablyselective memory, also most of us remain quiet

[Itssaul]

Honestly Saul, the vain delusion of skepticism is that the skeptic sees himself open minded and willing to ask ANY question whatsoever . . . except THAT question.

:laugh:

Not really, we just find it hard to jump to such grand conclusions with no evidence

[Lawdog88]

Not really, we just find it hard to jump to such grand conclusions with no evidence


You actually don't have to jump anywhere, if you ask the right question.

You know, THAT question.

[Itssaul]

You actually don't have to jump anywhere, if you ask the right question.

You know, THAT question.

Please entertain me with the question, I'm tryi to learn German over here
-_-

[AzCatFan]

Faith is simply trust. Evidence is everywhere of what God has done. Faith is trusting that God will keep His promises. The prophet Jeremiah once said that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Our hearts are like mighty fortresses that use all of their power to resist Jesus and His gospel. God in His love wages war on our hearts. Faith comes when God storms the gates, conquers the heart, and puts it in subjection to the power of the Holy Spirit.

Faith is trust absence of evidence. While you see evidence everywhere, others, like myself, do not see the same things. That's because the evidence is open to a wide variety of interpretations, and we can and do interpret internally. That's why religious faith is personal.

And it's a question that atheists like myself, and I think Scam often have is why we simply can't accept evidence of the divine like others do? In other words, why would God make me a skeptic? And yes, attempting to answer this usually, if not always, comes with a personal pain that Dream alluded to. And many atheists do attempt to use the intellectual superiority position that Scam talked about as sort of a defense mechanism.

As for myself, I'm way past the "angry atheist" phase and accept that my belief, or lack thereof, isn't superior or inferior to any body else. And now, I just try to be true to my own self, and that means being agnostic/atheist, and not deriding anyone who is religious. If it works for them, great. It's just not for me. Never has been, and most likely never will.

[Lawdog88]

Please entertain me with the question, I'm tryi to learn German over here
-_-


Good luck with your German.

The question is for you to first, determine, then honestly ask.

And it is the most germane one you could think of.

[Dreamliner]

Probablyselective memory, also most of us remain quiet

And yet here you are again, being extra-quiet, of course.

[Itssaul]

Good luck with your German.

The question is for you to first, determine, then honestly ask.

And it is the most germane one you could think of.

Where do we come from? Or variations of it.

Truth is... No one knows.

Not even us "intelligent" people :laugh:

As an answer on a test, it'd be blank until we can prove the origins theorem

[Itssaul]

And yet here you are again, being extra-quiet, of course.

Ummm did u not see my last post?

[Dreamliner]

Ummm did u not see my last post?

Of course I did. Your (mostly quiet) warbling about God never stops.

[Lawdog88]

Where do we come from? Or variations of it.

Truth is... No one knows.

Not even us "intelligent" people :laugh:

As an answer on a test, it'd be blank until we can prove the origins theorem


Hey, I'm not going to do your work for you. :laugh:

You figure it out, and do whatever you think you need to. After all, that is where we all came in the movie.

[Itssaul]

Of course I did. Your (mostly quiet) warbling about God never stops.

What?


Most are quiet, the rest are not.

How does my "warbling" about god ( mostly just saying there is no proof of god, or at least the current versions of god) prove my statement wrong?

[Dreamliner]

What?


Most are quiet, the rest are not.

How does my "warbling" about god ( mostly just saying there is no proof of god, or at least the current versions of god) prove my statement wrong?

Well, just to cite one instance, you continue to warble about about an aspect of the debate, so-called 'proof', which has been shown to be slippery and person-relative. We already get that you're not convinced. Let's hear from some other folks whom we can't hear over your, uh, quiet.

[CHFG8R]

You have a valid critique of skepticism. I understand exactly where you are coming from with your critique and why you feel the way you do. Some skeptics will never have enough evidence to satisfy them; I do not count myself among those.

I would prefer to be able to believe than not. It would give me a great amount of comfort in a world that I view as unfair and unforgiving to most. However, God, in any form, has not filled my heart with the religious experience that you and others have felt. That is why I ask questions. I want to have my questions answered or maybe someone will explain something in a way that I have not thought about. I do not necessarily blame God for my lack of faith because obviously faith is a personal choice about believing without seeing. I simply have a disconnect with that aspect of faith. I do have anger towards God for the things I see in the world that I do not understand. I just haven't accepted that it does not really need to make sense for me to believe in something larger.

I have an inquisitive mind and I probably over think the whole faith aspect of what God represents. I probably came off like a douche to you and others on here; but, I am really not a monster or a reprobate. I just have not found my way there yet like you and others have. One day, I do really hope to feel the same things you and the others on here have shared. I thank all of you for sharing your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, while I may have questions and be a skeptic I truly do have an open mind and heart to what all of you say. I just have more questions than others do and I am a hard case; but just because I have tough questions or a high degree of skepticism doesn't mean I am against you.

You and are really are on almost the exact same page here. I'll take it one step further. In many ways, I'm envious of the religious (sans Muslims- that's something I want no part of whatsoever). I also have little doubt that had I been raised by a church-going family, indoctrinated young and throughout my youth and was currently faithful that I would probably be more successful and happier. The latter I'm more sure about than the former. I have little doubt about that. The evicence is all around me of folks for whom their faith makes them better (DW has always been my favorite example).

I recently had an uncle pass from cancer and he confided in my father (who passed along to me) that the process is a lot harder without religion. Definitely made me think. Yet there is no way I my mind can accept much of current Christian doctrine, especially when one considers how fragmented it is even within the Christian community.

I also have a hard time with the fact that most of the people in the world are not Christians and yet they are just as furvent in their beliefs. The fact that a Hindu who lives his life to the letter as what could be defined as a Good Christian, but does not accept Jesus as his savior, is going to be punished (or separated from God) for eternity. Especially if said Hindu was never even exposed to Christianity as an alternative. Yet Ted Bundy, if he accepts Christ on his deathbed, goes to heaven? I cannot accept that premise now or ever FWIW. There are a lot of other inconsistencies that make it hard for me to accept, but I won't get into that here.

Safe to say, like you, I'm open minded and I do enjoy these kinds of discussions. I just wish some on the other side would be equally open minded and a little less defensive if you know what I mean.

Yet, thanks to lacuna's post, now I even understand the defensiveness.

[Itssaul]

Well, just to cite one instance, you continue to warble about about an aspect of the debate, so-called 'proof', which has been shown to be slippery and person-relative. We already get that you're not convinced. Let's hear from some other folks whom we can't hear over your, uh, quiet.

I see you liked the word quiet.

Proof is slippery but by no means should we just way "fck it, let's invent something up"

We should find answers and change theories as answers come

[CHFG8R]

Here's another question of a lighter manner:


If there are angels would they sound like this? Not a religious song but perhaps spiritual in it's ability to stir the soul and nonetheless one performed by an amazing voice imho.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AQIGPPzWgCA?list=PLBE1325F9D54A0741" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's an equally angelic voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t0W7jTyL0E

[CHFG8R]

We all live by faith.

True. Even the Athiest has to have faith that there is nothing. Otherwise, they're agnostic.

[Dreamliner]

I see you liked the word quiet.

Proof is slippery but by no means should we just way "fck it, let's invent something up"

We should find answers and change theories as answers come

Why change theories since the standard approach, to assuage a noisy (changing terms here) has worked perfectly well for billions ?

[Dreamliner]

I see you liked the word quiet.

Proof is slippery but by no means should we just way "fck it, let's invent something up"

We should find answers and change theories as answers come

Why change theories, to assuage a few, since the standard approach has worked perfectly well for billions ?

[CHFG8R]

Unless you have omnipotent powers, I doubt you know what people live by...

Especially those who are exotic to us, like Africans, western. Australians, tribes in Guatemalan mountains, we just don't know, assuming we do is foolish

Yet I think some might be surprised at how similar we all are. Given the number of different beliefs in the world and the faith of their respective practitioners, I honestly believe that there has to be a common thread that binds most if not all faiths.

That is what I seek.

[CHFG8R]

Faith is simply trust. Evidence is everywhere of what God has done. Faith is trusting that God will keep His promises. The prophet Jeremiah once said that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Our hearts are like mighty fortresses that use all of their power to resist Jesus and His gospel. God in His love wages war on our hearts. Faith comes when God storms the gates, conquers the heart, and puts it in subjection to the power of the Holy Spirit.

This I disagree with. I think the heart is pure upon birth and may even remain pure for the first few years. The evil, IMO, is learned not inherent.

[Itssaul]

Yet I think some might be surprised at how similar we all are. Given the number of different beliefs in the world and the faith of their respective practitioners, I honestly believe that there has to be a common thread that binds most if not all faiths.

That is what I seek.

What does a north Koreans have faith in?

[HALLGATOR]

Love Krauss along with Enya, Loreena McKennitt, Celine Dion and others.

[Itssaul]

Why change theories, to assuage a few, since the standard approach has worked perfectly well for billions ?

Are you saying billions know the right way to do things?

We change theories in science because data points us in a general direction, but the more we get, the more precise we are. The Higgs particle for example, we are not 100% sure that is what we found, but hell, if it's not then the probability of that happening is VERY low

[Dreamliner]

Are you saying billions know the right way to do things?

We change theories in science because data points us in a general direction, but the more we get, the more precise we are. The Higgs particle for example, we are not 100% sure that is what we found, but hell, if it's not then the probability of that happening is VERY low

Why don't you stick with what so easily occurs to you and let almost everyone else stick with what so easily occurs to them ?

That way everyone gets along and you can still thumb your nose at the billions.

[CHFG8R]

What does a north Koreans have faith in?

I would suppose his/her "Leader" and the Communist State. Maybe some closet Budhism or Taoism or Confusionism or Shintoism.

[Itssaul]

I would suppose his/her "Leader" and the Communist State. Maybe some closet Budhism or Taoism or Confusionism or Shintoism.

But to them, they don't need faith. They have seen his supreme power. Like golfing a 40 round.

[CHFG8R]

Why don't you stick with what so easily occurs to you and let almost everyone else stick with what so easily occurs to them ?

That way everyone gets along and you can still thumb your nose at the billions.

Hasn't Christianity changed theories several times. Is the current Catholic church the same as the early church? Were the Reformation and Counter Reformation not changes in theory? How about the acceptance of secularism and the church's place in secular society? Is that not a change in theory?

[CHFG8R]

Love Krauss along with Enya, Loreena McKennitt, Celine Dion and others.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Celine:laugh:

But do enjoy the rest. This song by Alison, in particular, I find very moving.

[Itssaul]

Why don't you stick with what so easily occurs to you and let almost everyone else stick with what so easily occurs to them ?

That way everyone gets along and you can still thumb your nose at the billions.

I don't try to convert anyone.

I do what I do, and allow u to do as u do ( as if u need permission)

But this is a forum, a place to express opinions ( sorry if I expressed mine in such a noisy manner)

Also with religion, billions don't get along (not saying atheists do get along, but christianity has quite the bloody past)

[CHFG8R]

But to them, they don't need faith. They have seen his supreme power. Like golfing a 40 round.

Not sure where you are going with this or even how it relates to my quoted post you replied to, but N. Korea is a different animal alltogether. Like Scientology, I think they are outside said "thread."

[CHFG8R]

I don't try to convert anyone.

I do what I do, and allow u to do as u do ( as if u need permission)

But this is a forum, a place to express opinions ( sorry if I expressed mine in such a noisy manner)

Also with religion, billions don't get along (not saying atheists do get along, but christianity has quite the bloody past)

And Islam's been bloody almost from day one and continues to be today.

[Itssaul]

Not sure where you are going with this or even how it relates to my quoted post you replied to, but N. Korea is a different animal alltogether. Like Scientology, I think they are outside said "thread."

I'm saying they don't need faith when they have the fabricated proof forcefully spoon fed to them.

Meanin it is possible to live without faith.

[Dreamliner]

Hasn't Christianity changed theories several times. Is the current Catholic church the same as the early church? Were the Reformation and Counter Reformation not changes in theory? How about the acceptance of secularism and the church's place in secular society? Is that not a change in theory?

None of this is relevant to me. I've already reckoned with refinement and diversity WITHIN Christendom.

None of this is relevant to the unmitigated skeptic. Refinement and diversity withing Christendom is not what he seeks.

[Dreamliner]

I don't try to convert anyone.

I do what I do, and allow u to do as u do ( as if u need permission)

But this is a forum, a place to express opinions ( sorry if I expressed mine in such a noisy manner)

Also with religion, billions don't get along (not saying atheists do get along, but christianity has quite the bloody past)

... almost as bloody as atheistic regimes.

[Itssaul]

... almost as bloody as atheistic regimes.

Those are usually government led not religion led.

[HALLGATOR]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Celine:laugh:

But do enjoy the rest. This song by Alison, in particular, I find very moving.

Yeah, everyones not going to like all the same performers. Another version of Down to the River to Pray that I enjoy. This is done in the fashion I connect to my early church days

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-mg7OiqgTO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Dreamliner]

Those are usually government led not religion led.

^ The atheist's escape device.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

"Atheist" is more of a generic word these days, largely because the term "non-theist" hasn't really taken off. In other words, an atheist doesn't necessarily throw out a whole sale rejection of Gods. I don't know any who do.

If you want to say an atheist has faith, that could mean a lot of things. It could mean so many things, that it is really a pointless thing to say at all.

[Dreamliner]

"Atheist" is more of a generic word these days, largely because the term "non-theist" hasn't really taken off. In other words, an atheist doesn't necessarily throw out a whole sale rejection of Gods. I don't know any who do.

If you want to say an atheist has faith, that could mean a lot of things. It could mean so many things, that it is really a pointless thing to say at all.

Not really, since we all live by faith. We are all alike believers.

[Itssaul]

^ The atheist's escape device.

Just like "faith" for believers,

But show me a group of people united by atheism that decided to systematically kill believers.

Key: has to be united by atheism, not nationality, or government

[Dreamliner]

Just like "faith" for believers,

But show me a group of people united by atheism that decided to systematically kill believers.

Key: has to be united by atheism, not nationality, or government

It is like faith. It's the faith that when governments wage war, you can blame it on religion. And when religion (of a sort) wages war, you can blame it on government.