tothewire
dorian
Enkill_Eridos
kayms99
lawman2
centered2
obama the antichrist
bingo little
princessxxx
horsservice
1minionsopinion“A” DEBATE PAGE
If you like to debate pick a topic and one
of us (dorian9, kayms, enkill_eridos, tothewire, princess, OTA, betty
and site visitors)
will answer your post with
either a debate or agree to your post!
This should be fun! Any subject is fair
game… play nice or not on this page
and enjoy!
i_wanna_know_where_is_the_truth
youre_in_the_nude
SCROLL TO BOTTOM TO POST YOUR DEBATE…
EDIT by Enkill_Eridos: The below image is to remind everyone what a debate is.
What a true debate is in politics.
I thought that was funny.
Here is a random unrelated image.
/End Edit by Enkill_Eridos
tothewire said
NEW DEBATE TOPIC :How do you feel about Bush’s job prospects upon leaving the White House? And, what should his shadowy second-in-command, Dick Cheney, do next?
kathy (kayms91) said
Happy Thanksgiving everyone…
Enkill_Eridos said
Bush’s job prospects include and are limited to, port-a-potty cleaner guy. And Dick Cheney is going to be CEO of Haliburton once again I am sure. But first he should go quail hunting with Sarah Palin and John McCain.
tothewire said
lol E_E Love it!
tothewire said
I have tried to correct lawman’s doings…if there are other pages missing please look under post and we have to copy and paste them on new page. Some pages he actually didn’t delete, the others have lost all comments on them. Sorry for the mishap.
Lawman2 said
where are dorian and e_e where oh where could they be???
NEW DEBATE TOPIC I THINK THEY ARE EATING ALL THE WORLD PEACE ICE CREAM AND NOT SHARING IT WITH US!
Enkill_Eridos said
PSSH, I wish I had world peace Ice Cream! I have finals so I will not be as active until December 15th.
tothewire said
E_E We have missed you! Good luck with those finals!
dorian9 said
what? lawman in trouble w tothewire again?? missed everyone. in no. calif for a week will b back tonite. e.e, break for ice cream!
tothewire said
Dorian! We have missed you! Lawman is always in trouble with me, you know that!
kathy (kayms91) said
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two authors on this site… I just learned today that they recently tied the knot! Tothewire and Lawman2, after many years, have finally decided to make it ‘official’… read their engagement announcement here…
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/love-of-my-life/#more-2475
Congratulations again… I hope more special announcements soon follow!!
Lawman2 said
hey kay thanx! now the caveman needs to pro create so i can have several little cave people hanging around in my crib!
chrisskissess said
I hope they both end up working on a chain gang!
Lawman2 said
wow wish we were on a chain gang? lol chrisskissess you sound like one of my many ex girlfriends…sorry babe but no worries you’ll find someone to love you despite your emotional unbalanced personality! some men might find a woman with a mental disordered or deranged personality sexy…
Lawman2 said
just not this man…
douglaskev said
the best solution to uninsurance in america: Go!
tothewire said
Now that is a great debate topic! Let’s all have a run at this!
tothewire said
Our health care system is broken and too many Americans are falling through the cracks. So we know the problems: skyrocketing health care costs, 46 million uninsured, too many INSURED facing high medical bills , medical debt and high prescription drug prices.
So we look to the government for answers… Congress had a great opportunity to lower prescription drug prices this year, but the Senate blocked the vote on Medicare Part D negotiation (a great example of special interests at work). The drug industry did everything they could to protect their massive profits from Part D. And less than two months ago, reimportation was also blocked in the Senate.
tothewire said
I have heard some pretty interesting ideas…what are yours?
Enkill_Eridos said
1.) Let Vets with a Service Connected Disability purchase a Tricare policy. Tri Care is the government health insurance program designed just for Government Employees and Military.
2.) Fix the VA system. Just Fix it! Too many problems and cloak and dagger things to do just to get healthcare.
3.) Lower the already High Standards to get Medicaid. Let the average person who does not have children or disabilities who makes too much to be put on food stamps. These people pay into this system. And they are not allowed to get medicaid? That is a little broken don’t you think. Fix IT!
4.) If unwilling to allow the average working joe that makes too much for food stamps but cannot afford private healthcare be put on medicaid of which is apart of the Social Security Administration and more than likely they are paying in to the programs anyway. Give tax breaks to Insurance companies for having a program at a reduced rate for the people who cannot really afford health care.
5.) And if none of that works allow a government funded walk-in clinic for check ups and routine doctor visits. I am talking federally funded because some states have a state funded program that is similar but not all states have anything like that.
Those are my 5 steps to fixing the problem, if anyone in Washington is listening.
FIX IT!
tothewire said
LOVE IT!
tothewire said
I missed you E_E!!!!!!!
tothewire said
NOTE TO AUTHORS our privacy settings are always to be on open for anyone to view blog
kathy (kayms91) said
Response to Private – Pro Choice vs Pro Life…
EE..I can try and answer that.. I can’t speak for others but my point of view is that while I’m not for war in Iraq… I can understand why we are there now and need to be there now…if we leave without the assurance that Iraq can maintain control… things will be worse and terrorism will thrive and get stronger in that country… leaving us more vulnerable here…that’s my understanding anyway… our lives over here will be in more danger if we didn’t have control over there.. I remember not that long ago when everyday on the news it was reported that there were American casualties… it was very upsetting, it just seemed to be getting worse and worse as each day went by… but then there was the ’surge’ and now it’s so much better for the troops over there… it just makes me so angry that this surge wasn’t done sooner… and that the whole entire war wasn’t / isn’t handled better… but to go back to your point… I think that people who are pro life and who also seem to be ‘for’ the war understand that we would probably have more casualties on American soil if we don’t follow thru with what Bush started.
douglaskev said
Health Care
1-Medicare for all system (abolish all existing public health care programs- Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/VA- direct all funds to single program)
2-Surcharge on all Military expenditures to help fund in part
3-Regulation of Pharmaceutical industry to keep costs down
4-Private insurance for elective surgery only
5-Construction of more public health clinics
6-Gradual loan forgiveness to all medical professionals who work at these clinics, with 10 years of service= total loan forgiveness. (encourage more people to enter profession to meet increased need)
7-Electronic Medical Records @ all medical facilities
Lawman2 said
kay is right, and i would like to add this: there is a big difrence from sending a 5 year old child into war and a willing and able young man. if an intruder came into your home and you killed them to protect your family that would be a bit different than taking a small child and shooting them just because they are in the way…kind of like the caylee case.the word gameis slick, i use it all the time.it rarely changes the facts, just the people looking at them.
Lawman2 said
douglaskev!nice job with your summary!i was tempted to post parts of your post from your site to answer here on health care!but you did a great job covering the main points succinctly!
kathy (kayms91) said
A very precise point Lawman… war and abortion are two very different things… if liberals are going to imply hypocrisy or double standards by pro life people, they have to stay on the subject which is abortion! The only hypocrisy, in my opinion, of “pro life” people is when they make exceptions of when it is ‘ok’ to abort a human life.
So many liberals also want to compare abortion to the death penalty as a double standard argument against pro lifers and that makes no sense at all. Those two situations are complete opposites! Not comparable!
But back to the war / abortion comparison… I do see a hypocrisy, well maybe more of an ignorance, of pro choice people when they are so ‘anti’ war and also pro choice… the true irony there is that if we didn’t defend ourselves in these wars…there would be NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE!! A world where you have freedom of choice and no wars, unfortunately, doesn’t exist… don’t forget the many men and women who gave their lives, of their OWN choice, to save their fellow countrymen. Unborn babies don’t get to make their own choice. Another major difference between the two.
douglaskev said
why thank you lawman ^_^
kathy (kayms91) said
Well?… does anyone have a response to my response? Dorian, TTW, EE? Was my conservative explanation satisfactory? We need a liberal on here who likes to debate!! I want to debate!! ;o(
tothewire said
lol Kay! I have stated how I feel about this subject, and some debates can not be won by either side….thus the great debate has been going on and on and on and not just in the USA but all around the world.
dorian9 said
hi kay, i missed ya! the topics you mentioned we’ve all already put more than our two cents on so looks like we need to recruit some other liberal debaters here . your last post stated your freedom of choice argument pretty well.
i’m against war in general but i can think of only two wars that was necessary for the u.s to participate in, that’s american revolution and ww2. oh yes and in the “cold war” only in terms of the space program-man in the moon life on mars nuclear and astro physics kind of stuff.
i’m currently going thru my own debate of what to put in family and friends’ stockings this xmas. HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!
obama the antichrist said
Do i post the new debat topic here??? If you havent covered it:
These bailouts good or bad???
kathy (kayms91) said
Dorian… of course I am for freedom of choice…as long as it doesn’t impose on someone else…
TTW & Dorian…I was asking for a response to the response that I gave to EE’s question… but you guys are doing that thing again where you ignore / dodge the question / argument which wasn’t the subject of abortion but the implication that pro life people were hypocrites if they supported the war.
I loved it today when I watched the Dateline interview with Rick Warren… he said / reinforced what I’ve been saying to you guys all this time… I’ll quote him exactly…
Rick Warren: Tolerance used to mean, “I treat you with respect even though we disagree.” Some people want tolerance to mean now that all ideas are equally valid. That’s nonsense. There are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.
YES, THANK YOU RICK!!!
Here’s the transcript of the Dateline interview with Ann Curry which she got slammed for on the blog because of her clearly biased stance and ensuing ‘attack’ on him. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28298093/page/2/
Oh, and thank you for giving me the opportunity / reminder to address something else that I have a very strong opinion about… the practice of ‘Xing’ out Christ from ‘Christmas’. ugh!! I know that you are not a Christian ( in the Biblical sense I guess ) but I do think that you love Jesus…so Why, why would you ‘X’ out his name from the title of HIS Birthday? This may seem insignificant but it’s not!! Going back to what I explained earlier… there are two sides in this world.. those who are on God’s side and those that are not… WHOEVER came up with the horrible (satanic) idea of replacing CHRIST with an ‘X’ I’m pretty sure was NOT on God’s side… and you see how easily it worked / caught on?… EVEN CHRISTIANS DO IT!! A Mormon once told me that they prefer not to dwell on satan and his works, which I obviously agreed with but unfortunately you have to be aware and always on your guard ( especially Mormons, who need to question Joseph Smith). Christmas is a celebration of Christ… but now, more than ever this most important Christian day is getting attacked (by people who are against God)…by taking Christ out of Christmas (in name and in spirit).
P.S. AND… it IS OK to say Merry Christmas!! So Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays to all!!
tothewire said
Hey there OTA! Lawman say’s they are bad, I say they are a needed. When lawman returns from the store I bet he will post his reasons…
tothewire said
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Kay, although I try to value all ideas and thoughts as valid, it is impossible for me to say they are all equally valid to me. AND I think if everyone was being honest they would admit the same.
Too bad you and lawman agree on this subject as he would debate with you. I tire of re-stating and re-reading the same agruments over and over. I am used to leaving it up for others to decide who put forth the better argument.
Lawman2 said
the bailout rewards bad management and the intransigent labor unions that were chronically at one another’s throats.Even when the U.S. economy was booming—say, back in 1999 or 2006—the Big Three were hardly hitting the ball out of the yard. They were similarly flat-footed in the early and late 1980s. See the Michael Moore documentary Roger & Me. There is just no guarantee to the taxpayer that the Big Three (rather 2½, counting Chrysler) will get religion this time around.
If the U.S. cannot get carmaking right in good times and in bad, it needs to learn to get out of its own way. Companies such as Toyota and Honda—and their scores of U.S. workers—have shown themselves more than ready to step up to the opportunity.
tothewire said
While GM (GM), Ford (F), and Chrysler haven’t made real money in years, they have been restructuring to get their costs in line with their declining market share. The credit crunch drove what was an orderly restructuring off the road.
And GM, Ford, and their dealers have been around for 100 years, pouring a lot into our civilization and communities. Their longevity means they have legacy costs Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC) do not have in the U.S. Compare their vehicles with Honda and Toyota counterparts, and you’ll find they tie or beat their rivals in fuel economy. True, Detroit built too many SUVs, but they had buyers until recently. Finally, lack of a U.S. national energy policy has denied Detroit a predictive market for smaller vehicles.
Use Chapter 11 to throw workers and retirees onto the rolls of the uninsured—when we have no national health-care policy as European and Asian countries do? Persecuting Detroit or the UAW for fighting for health-care coverage in that policy vacuum seems immoral.
And could we really expect to call the U.S. a world economic power without a homegrown auto industry?
kathy (kayms91) said
TTW.. good point… it is respectful to try and see other’s views as valid (to some degree) but fundamentally, it is impossible for that to be true.
I personally think it’s better to be honest and not shy away from admitting that you don’t agree with another’s views but at the same time be genuinely respectful of that person’s feelings and to try to understand where they are ‘comming from’. And also it is important to accept that the other person may feel the same about your views (and be ok with that).
I heard something else reinforcing ( of my views) last night on Jay Leno’s show ( Tonight Show )… he had on Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of the book: Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. A book that Barrack Obama is supposedly using as an aid / guide for his upcomming job. On the show she made a statement of how Obama wants to have, on his team, members who disagree with him… who will debate with him, because as she says… debating is GOOD and brings new ideas to the table…
I just wanted to mention that…:o)
Lawman… I agree with your point that these substandard car companys don’t deserve to be bailed out… BUT, the hard cold truth is that if we don’t then our economy will get substantially worse…. and this country just can’t afford that…
obama the antichrist said
things are already bad we need to dig another hole of debt to make room for these bailouts! we are out of money to give away! The invisible hand will guide them to prosper or destruction but if they cant stand on their own then why should they still be a company? i am all for capitalism!
tothewire said
All valid points from each of us… of course I feel Kay and I hold the correct ones on the bailout issue…lol
obama the antichrist said
but define correct…
tothewire said
you are very bright there OTA…lol Can’t get nothing past you or lawman can we?
kathy (kayms91) said
There is a question to be asked here… can we survive a depression? We don’t have a whole lot of experience dealing with such a situation… what if it takes years and years to come out of this depression… what if we never get out of it? What if it gets so bad that EVERYONE is affected? Should we take the chance? Are you prepared for what the nightly news is going to be like every night? That is if we even still have the nightly news!
Well, I guess that was more than one question… but.. am I wrong… I mean, how bad can it get?? I’m afraid to even think about it… everything seems to rely on something else for it’s success…our economy seems like a house of cards. Can we find ourselves in a hole that is too deep to get out of?
tothewire said
Hey Kay just read a great post on Blue Collar Manifesto on this very topic! I am excited to read everyones comments on this subject!
http://bluecollarmanifesto.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/the-internet-revolution/#comment-5091
tothewire said
Hey read another great post today this time from our friend douglaskev… http://socialjusticenow.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/the-angry-black-racist/
tothewire said
I MISS E_E!
tothewire said
AGAIN! I should have said I miss E_E AGAIN!
obama the antichrist said
Kay how bad can things get….well we could all die by leeches, i hate those things they are gross, but we have already survived a depression and i think we can survive again but we need new leadership no mccain or obama but someone greater [not hard
], who that someone is i dont know
Lawman2 said
Merry Christmas EVERYONE!!!!
Lawman2 said
i don’t know…maybe the caveman ota!! hehehe
tothewire said
lawman left this comment on http://bluecollarmanifesto.wordpress.com/
Just wondering what everyone thinks about this???
“The EPA has recommended a carbon tax on cattle per head based on a ruling by SCOTUS.
This tax per head of cattle will do two things. It will raise food prices (like the use of corn for biofuels has) and quite possibly bankrupt many ranchers and farmers.
I’m wondering where they are going to find the cowboys to go plug up the cows butts …hehehe”
find the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28070487/
Lawman2 said
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
i find it harder to believe that ‘magic’ created life…
tothewire Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
http://hhandy.wordpress.com/new-mathematical-procedures/#comments
obama the antichrist Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
how do you think life came to be Lawman?????
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
the theory of “Punctuated Equilibria,” an updated version of darwin’s theory universally misunderstood and misrepresented by creationists, holds that natural selection does not proceed at a slow, uniform rate. rather, evolution involves long periods of little or no measurable change (stasis) “punctuated” by brief periods of intense changes – guided, of course, by natural selection.
it is nothing less than scandalous that creationist beliefs have survived into the twentieth century but it has even past it…must also express my embarrassment at the fact that there are many people who, despite the fact that they are relatively well schooled in evolutionary science dscredit it on ‘magic’ some god who is a jelous god, yet has nothing to do with his creation magically created us all. WHAT THE HELL? if your god is reall where the hell is he?if he can create the world in 7 short days,why doesn’t he step in and fix it now?after all he is a loving god who thinks of his believers as his very own children…any father who would neglect his children to this degree shouldn’t have off spring.yet he doesn’t make mistakes?right
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
i believe in what i can see,touch,feel,smell…not in santa,or your god
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
OTA… I don’t think Dick will be back… I’ve been waiting for a response from him for over a week now… I think he got stumped when I asked him to elaborate on the ‘contrary evidence’ that he claims disproves God’s existance. Atheists rely so heavily on ’science and logic’ but they fail to see that while we don’t have ‘proof’ (to their satisfaction) that God exists, we also don’t have proof that he doesn’t exist. How can any logically thinking person dismiss God without PROOF that He DOESN’T exist?? I don’t believe scientists work that way… they only dismiss a theory once it’s been disproven.. right? I read in the Bible that people who claim they don’t believe in God are hostile towards God… they know God exists but they have chosen to be His enemy. They are angry at God.
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
still yet you try to shove your belief that everyone deep down believes in god?my eyes are rolling kay…
i am not angry at your god,i am even angry that people still believe in it all,no more than i am at a child who believes in santa
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
you asked “contrary evidence?” why not take a few min and actually read the page i have.after all some of my own paper is quoted there.OR do you really want to know?because if you are just looking for another going no where debate i can do that as well but once again i’ll add as much bull shit in it as i do facts…hehehe
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
my wife is calling me to bed…i’ll be ready to read your comment in the morning kay!
sleep well all,good night from the caveman
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
I did read your page awhile back… could you just give a condensed, in your own words, version here to refresh my memory? What you posted before was someone else’s writings and really really long. And there was nothing in there that proved that God doesn’t exist anyway.
Again.. how can you justify dismissing the existance of God when there is no proof that he doesn’t exist?? You think it’s scandalous that sensible educated people believe in creationism? Once again… you (or anyone else) CAN’T come up with a better explanation as to how existance of the universe came to be! It’s ’scandalous’ to stubornly continue to try to come up with some ridiculous theory of how the universe got started when logic tells us that it ISN’T POSSIBLE. Really, scandalous isn’t quite the right word…
And yes, I do truly believe that everyone knows deep down inside that God does exist…. have you ever heard the saying…” there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole”.
Just again,… please post here (for everyone) your theoretic ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist… in your own words, condensed version… the long version is not necessary and will put everyone to sleep lol (really)… just put a link to your long version…
Rj Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
I don’t think people leaving you hanging, Kathy, because you’ve stumped them. I think they get tired of saying the same thing and it becomes obvious that they are wasting their time because you see what you want to see.
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
Rj… can you be specific about what has been repeated between me and Dick? Your response (for Dick and Lawman)is a frequently used excuse. Clearly Dick is stumped ( and Lawman also ), he implied that there is ‘contrary evidence’ and I simply asked him to elaborate. I’m just asking for specifics… I’ve been thru this so many times before with various issues ( and I’ve always gotten the typical response that you gave )… just give me a DIRECT SPECIFIC answer.. that’s all I’m asking. What is the contrary evidence that God does not exist???? If you feel that you’ve (or others) have answered this before… just humor me one more time and state it for the record here, now (without the copy and pasting of entire volumes of other’s writings, Lawman) … and if I ask again in the future just direct me to your response here… right?? I think I’m making it pretty simple…
It’s a cop out to not give specifics and then say I only see what I want to see. By not wanting to debate the issue, it’s you (and others) who only see what you want to see. Wasn’t it you, Rj, who said that debating only makes you stronger? We only grow when we debate ideas and views. I always seem to outlast everyone when it comes to these issues.
Again… if you can’t argue the issue any longer then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view on the issue. That’s what debating is for!!! That’s exactly how we grow intellectually. And if you think that I don’t consider another’s views when I debate with them then you are guilty of ignorance… you are only seeing what you want to see.
It seems that another person has been added to the team to come to the aid of those on the losing end of a debate with me ;o).
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
really? i think people work,and play in the real world and have lives that need attending to!
i stopped in to check the site in between and here YOU go with your own inflated ego that you accuse me of? lol
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
once again i will say this I DON’T WISH TO DISPROVE your god anymore than i would santa BUT I would like you to PROVE with science THAT this JEALOUS god DOES exist!
i can prove with science the probability of evolution… and have. Can you use science to prove that he does exist? I can answer that for you…NO you can NOT. So 0 percent probability compared to a small probability, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which i choose.
by the way kay quite a bit of my work WAS QUOTED on that page,so you do have it IN MY OWN WORDS now don’t you? If you go to the site listed you would have known that though.
not to mention HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE STATED FOR YOU OVER AND OVER my side, why should i take the time to do that again WHEN you are to lazy to read it in it’s complete form.
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
you said “Again… if you can’t argue the issue any longer then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view on the issue. That’s what debating is for!!! That’s exactly how we grow intellectually. And if you think that I don’t consider another’s views when I debate with them then you are guilty of ignorance… you are only seeing what you want to see.”
kay you only repeat your own side one way OVER AND OVER again IGNORING points made to discredit your side. THAT is not a debate that is what you call reverse ignorance and what i would call CHOICE OF IGNORANCE over FACTS.
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
If my ego seems ‘inflated’… I’ll be honest… it’s a tactic to get a response!! Still waiting for your response Lawman… no lame, weak excuses about ’some people have lives’ give me a break… you’ve been on here practically 24/7 for weeks on end now… Come on… just give it a shot… please tell me what evidence there is that God doesn’t exist… and if you cannot then so what!! I was right (in this instance) no big deal. By acknowledging that there is no evidence that God does not exist… that is you growing in knowledge… that’s not a bad thing!!
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
but hey i have to admit i do enjoy reading your “debates” as you could perfect your skill just be learning how to restate your side with new arguments.you dig in not unlike me,because WE BOTH LIKE TO WIN. we are not above hitting low,below the belt to win.tothewire pussy footin around trying not to offend here on the computer isn’t how anyone actually wins a case NOT EVEN HER.so all in all my hats off to you.just don’t expect me to do all the work on a debate while you ignore points and never restate…makes for a boring debate and others including myself get bored not defeated.
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
Again, can you just give a brief example of ‘your work’ here??
And my point is not that there is proof… I’m pointing out that with out defining evidence that God does not exist how can you justify dismissing Him?? That’s not a very scientific approach at all!! And the proof is ALL AROUND YOU that God exists!!! And you know why? Because you can’t come up with a logical theory of any other way that the universe was created!!!
AGAIN… please, just humor me and give a condensed answer to this, here…
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
And there you go again with the ‘ignoring points’ excuse… so you must know that I’m going to ask you to be specific and tell me what points ( or even one) that I’ve ignored… see, this is what you guys do… you avoid the issue by trying to turn the focus on how I debate…
where in this entire answer of yours is a simple answer to the question I have asked? What is the contrary evidence?? Wouldn’t it just be easier to answer the question??? At the very least you could put the link to your answer – even thought that is not what I’m asking for…
” once again i will say this I DON’T WISH TO DISPROVE your god anymore than i would santa BUT I would like you to PROVE with science THAT this JEALOUS god DOES exist!
i can prove with science the probability of evolution… and have. Can you use science to prove that he does exist? I can answer that for you…NO you can NOT. So 0 percent probability compared to a small probability, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which i choose.
by the way kay quite a bit of my work WAS QUOTED on that page,so you do have it IN MY OWN WORDS now don’t you? If you go to the site listed you would have known that though.
not to mention HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE STATED FOR YOU OVER AND OVER my side, why should i take the time to do that again WHEN you are to lazy to read it in it’s complete form.”
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
lol by the way kay on what basis do you think you stumped anyone?have you any idea how many times, while working on my PSM applied chemistry & biochemistry,i argued my side to people of science?play dumb then come back strong i always say.blindside them with facts they didn’t know you have.speak in laymen terms and write at a 9th grade level to appeal to the masses once you have their attention then bombard them with well stated and written responses.BUT first capture your audience.the first part is never hard for me as grammar has never been one of my strengths, not to mention i get lazy…hehehe
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
contrary evidence to something THAT HAS NO evidence…??lol
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
you have NO scientific evidence for me to disprove…kind of like what..oh yes MAKE BELIEVE
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
contray evidence would simply be ANY evidence proving evolution AT ALL.
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
simply because YOU HAVE 0% probability and i have a small % probability
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
And again… I’m not asking for your side to this issue (I know your side)… I’m asking for a specific answer to a specific question… which is either the ‘contrary evidence’ or how you can justify dismissing God without proof that he doesn’t exist?? These are specific scientific questions!
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
so that leads us back TO MY ORIGINAL statement doesn’t it? CAN YOU PROVE WITH SCIENCE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD?
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
kay do you read other comments OR just your own?
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
contray evidence would simply be ANY evidence proving evolution AT ALL.
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
simply because YOU HAVE 0% probability and i have a small % probability
kathy (kayms91) Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
I’m lost… have you ‘bombarded’ me yet with your great knowledge on this? If not then I can’t wait!!
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
missing points aren’t you there kay? gee i wonder why EVERYONE says the same things about your so called debates…
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
you’re lost?on which points kay? Do YOU or Don’t you have scientific evidence of your gods existance IF not then ANY proof of evolutionary points are a discredit to your side.
Lawman2 Says:
January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
i have to take my wife out for the day to see her parents and then out to eat.will be back later so you have plenty of time for your claim to fame…lol
JBFrenchhorn said
Hello. This is my first time posting here.
I’m replying to the issue of a livestock tax. You have stated some good reasons to oppose such a thing. I don’t know if it would have much of an impact on greenhouse gases. If it did, it would be due to other negative things–businesses making fewer sales and businesses closing. If they do want to control the production of methane from livestock, they might consider encouraging people to buy less meat (for health purposes or for environmental purposes). Of course this could negatively lead to the “shame, shame” thing on people who eat a lot of meat, as in the thing for people who drive large SUVs.
If the purpose of the tax were to raise money, then I think we could still find other better ways to do that. For instance, we might consider raising tariffs on goods from countries with documented records of human rights violations (some of which may contribute to their ability to produce cheap goods).
I didn’t read the whole article, but if this would actually end up causing people to have to buy their meat from foreign countries, unless such meat were much more expensive, wouldn’t the greenhouse gases emitted be about the same? The earth only has one atmosphere into which the methane from American and Argentinian cows goes. So would this really accomplish much other than making the politicians who support it look green?
Lawman2 said
hey there jb!glad you stopped in and commented!i agree with you.not only that but our good friend ota made another good point these so called taxes will also put the farmers in the red even deeper and ANOTHER bail out for the rest of us americans to flip the bill for!
went to your site,but couldn’t find a way to see post?…maybe you can leave us a link to post?
we do enjoy visiting other sites!
JBFrenchhorn said
Hi Lawman. Thanks for replying. My blog doesn’t actually have any posts yet. I set the blog up sometime in the beginning of 2008, but haven’t actually gotten around to making any posts yet. But I probably will soon.
You found your site from a link in the comments on one of the SNL videos.
dorian9 said
ooh, looks like lawman and kay started out the new year with everyone’s favorite no-win debate. you two take no prisoners.i can see both points of view here as one is scientific and and the other spiritual/religious. i think it all boils down to choice and committing to a belief. i choose to believe in God because there are things in life that cannot be deducted or inducted by scientific formula or analysis. i suspect God is in the equation with nature and natural laws which is an omnipresent powerful force. science has its own dogma: “no truth outside of science”. simply because the existence of God cannot be proved does not justify the declaration that God does not exist. albeit, either side does not carry burden of proof and any argument for or against is likely all about hubris and a “my dogma is better than yours” kind of thing. so the topic of God or no God now and ever shall be a debate without end. amen. i do love to read a passionate debate so carry on carry on!
kathy (kayms91) said
Actually Dorian… I’ve been arguing this issue on Lawman’s ‘turf’… science. Science begins with a theory that is either proven or disproven. My point is that the existance of God, while not proven, is also NOT DISPROVEN. So from a scientific point of view, God’s existance should not be discounted until / unless it is disproven… right?? If someone discounts God completely, basing their belief on science.. then they are not being honest and there are other factors affecting their choice to not believe.
And an even better point is the laughable idea that there is a scientific explanation for how the universe ( all of existance ) came to be. Science, which is based on logic, TELLS us that we can’t be here, IT’S NOT LOGICAL!! Science PROVES GOD’S EXISTANCE!! There is no other sensible explanation!!
I’m arguing on Lawman’s ‘turf’ and that he or anyone else cannot come up with answers / responses to these points also proves that this debate IS winnable but certainly not by atheists!
Enkill_Eridos said
I am going to have to disagree with Science proving a divine being’s existance. For one major reason, the theories on how the universe came to be cannot be proven unless we had a Delorian and a flux capacitor. And if Science proves one divine being’s existance then it proves that every other religion other than your is correct as well. From which I personally know is against your beliefs. Thus disproving your theory because it goes against your beliefs. That being said, some scientists are content with proving theories that can be proven and accept that not everything can be explained. Real Scientist do not care if god exists or not. Real Scientists believe that a theory or hypothosis that actually can be experimented with is more realavent to thier work. So basically I am saying who cares who is correct on how the universe came to be. Who cares if God and Christianity can be proven as fact of fiction. I have a news flash, Christianity is a faith based religion. What is faith? Faith is a belief that cannot be proved or disproved but still believed as truth. By definiton everyone’s faith is different and if you can be swayed from your beliefs, you really didn’t believe in it. So moot topic.
So now we are going to delve into a more important mystery for the new year. The reason Women are so moody and make men’s lives more difficult then they really need to be.
Enkill_Eridos said
Oh and I know it is very late for me to say this Kathy but umm If you are pro-life you are pro-life. War brings nothing but the opposite of joy, pleasure (for some people the opposite is pleasure as well.),creation. Which is miserableness, pain, and death or destruction. War is hell. It is truth. I try to scrub the blood on my hands off and it just does not come off. So are you only pro-life towards the unborn? Because the children that has died in Iraq they had no choice either. They were going to die either way. When a child is used as a bomb it is horrible. When you see a child as a possible bomb it is hard to get over. Killing a child is the hardest thing anyone will ever do. It haunts you, but I just so happen to enjoy breathing more than the kid who believes he is going to be exaulted before Allah because his parents brainwashed him into believing that. Which is why I really dislike organized religion because fanatic behavior is an athema to the human race. But killing a child is killing a child unborn or not. The effects are the same either by the woman who had the child yanked out of her because she was raped or whatever. Or me shooting a child because he had a grenade in his hand. The fact remains, a child is dead because of my descisions. I can justify this but someone’s sons and daughters are dead because of me. I am sure it hurts a lot more when it is your own child. The autrocities of war is the hardest any service member must deal with. And that punishment is worse than any death penalty. I am sure the same goes for an Abortion. Demand punishment for Abortions, truthfully those women are being punished in a way the government never can.
Dimitri said
no
as a devout christian and loyal follower of jesus, i will admit that God cannot be proven or disproven. that is the beauty of faith!!! it is not a science based in fact and science, but a full hearted belief in something much bigger, much greater than us all. Trying to prove God is exactly the opposite of what we are meant to do. We are to learn from his example on earth through his son our saviour Christ. Getting into exactly WHEN the second coming will be, or WHO the antichrist is completely is missing the point of christianity.
tothewire said
Great comment Dimitri! Welcome to our site! Warning you though Lawman and Kay take their gloves off in a debate!
dorian9 said
welcome, dimitri. would be nice to get your perspective on the many other topics that we cover here. we all agree and disagree on different points sometimes heatedly but all’s well in the end for the most part!!
tothewire said
lol E_E “So now we are going to delve into a more important mystery for the new year. The reason Women are so moody and make men’s lives more difficult then they really need to be.”
Because we can be!
Men are just as moody anyway! Maybe more so!
tothewire said
E_E how long were you in Iraq? Or were you in Iraq? I feel bad for all the men and women serving and fighting for us here. So sad.
Enkill_Eridos said
I was in Iraq from March 2003 to October 2004. I saw the beginning I am sure it has wound down just a little from then. From what I hear from some of my old buddies it isn’t as bad as it was when we were first there. So progress! Or they just tell me this so I feel we made a difference in Iraq. I was honorably discharged for medical reasons. And now for our next debate topic. Why do conservatives want to make Liberals look like monsters. I saw Harrity on Fox News and I was like wow they call this The Great American Panel? Three conservatives in a room with one guest liberal, not giving the liberal a chance to speak and being imposing to make liberals look like crazy rednecks. (the hate Harrity hotline section seemed fake.) I was really wondering if I was watching the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. I know most lobbyists are good at dodging questions and controlling debates because that is thier job. But The Great American Panel section towards the end of the show is just “leftist” bashing. I would go on the show and debate with this panel with TTW and Dorian as wingmen so to speak. Lawman is semiconservative so he would make me look like a jerk and that would not be cool. But here is the debate, Do you think this type of show does good work or is it just bashing one side or another for ratings. (Some Liberal Political Shows do the same thing as Harrity. I rarely watch any of these but sometimes I do because I like to yell at the TV when either side does something stupid. The O’reilly factor, Harrity, and others are my football.I do not watch them to get the news just to argue with the TV. Mainly because they are so damn predictable with I kind of know what there retort is going to be anyway.)I keep getting sidetracked, so the debate topic is….These so calle Political News Shows are they just Entertainment to be pooled with Jay Leno,Dave Letterman, Steven Colbert and John Stewart or should we see these shows like actual news like 20/20, 60 Minutes, and Dateline just to name a few. Response time. Go.
Enkill_Eridos said
Oh and by the way I am not just talking about conservative shows I am also talking about Liberal shows because some Liberal shows do nothing but Conservative bash. Each dealing their own brand of political poison.
kathy (kayms91) said
Yes EE.. I was gonna say, if you’ve ever watched Bill Maher, now there’s some conservative bashing.. but I like him a little better now ever since that show where he made a statement of compassion for the unborn child ” when they reach the point where they have their fingers and toes etc”. At which point the panel ( all fellow liberals ) went silent… I’ll never forget it… there was no agreement, no nods, no acknowledgements.. nothing but silence… “militant” liberals is what these people are.. they’re not going to budge an inch in their war to keep their ‘right’ to kill the unborn.
Yes, I think that these cable news shows do pander to the audience.. it’s all about ratings… Bill OReily is the worst of them all I think. That’s why Tim Russert’s Meet the Press was so successfull, he didn’t do that crap. And speaking of Jay Leno.. whenever he has a political guest on, he asks smarter questions than the cable news shows do a lot of times.
Lawman2 said
entertainment only!i like to watch them batter to and fro.just as it amuses me to start a debate just to read the responses!the thing is the set up… you have to enjoy the set up.you know the drawing them in and then slamming them down so fast that only the viewers (or readers)get it.the poor slob who got hit is still trying to recover from the set up.lol sometimes i am the poor slob,after recovering from the hit,i too even enjoy the set up!but it is funner to be the one setting up the stage (or debate)
Lawman2 said
i’d take kay and ota as my wingmen so to speak,that is if we could find common ground to agree on…hehehe
tothewire said
I had a brother in Iraq in 2003, he was there off and on until 2006. I feel sorry for the men and women, all the sacrifises you guys have made for us. I am thankful there are men and women who serve our country, but it makes me so sad for them and their families too.
I enjoy arguing with the t.v. too E_E! I would be proud to be your wingman!
@Lawman, what the heck was all that dribble about anyway? The set up? lol
kathy (kayms91) said
Hello Dimitri, it’s so nice to have another Christian here… would you like to share your position on the abortion issue?
About proving if God exists… I agree with what you said… faith is the key… God could easily prove His existence if He wanted to…but this way is better… it ‘weeds out’ the people who don’t want to know Him I quess?
My view is that while we cannot prove God exists, logic is on the side of His existence… because logic says that we shouldn’t be here… our existence isn’t logical ( where did existence come from? )… our minds are not able to understand but this reasoning strongly supports the idea that there is a mind that not only does have the capability of understanding but is also the answer to the mystery of our existence. God’s existence is the only sensible answer there is.
tothewire said
Lawman has been asking about you Kay! He keeps saying things like “If Kay were here she would have my back…” lol Kinda cute.
Enkill_Eridos said
I think we should have a little web styled show that actually debates a topic just to show people what a debate is supposed to be like. Put it on this site and youtube. See how many feathers we rumple.
kathy (kayms91) said
Lawman… I would have your back…on some things of course… I like that we both are not afraid to tell it like it is! And will debate ’till the end! You can be my wingman anytime!! ( ” no you can be mine” ) all right Maverick!! ( a little movie humor). And I know how hard that must be sometimes when your wifey doesn’t agree… strongly! I admire that TTW lets you speak your views even though she doesn’t always agree… that you two get along so well while having such opposite views.
douglaskev said
…..so what do people think of the stimulus legislation?
kay~ms said
From Caveman, Wife and Baby Post..
Arkangel_3 said… February 9, 2009 at Monday, February 9, 2009
Art…call it a day; it’s not worth it. Kay, I don’t know you nor have I debated with you before. All I have been able to determine about you based on your comments above is that you are a narrow and closed minded individual. You group people into statistical or political buckets like a bunch of cattle based on their political or socio-economic circumstances. Your way is the correct way. Your belief system is the correct belief system.
9/11 was carried out by people like you who were so narrow minded and ideologically “perfect”. I know. I’m a 9/11 survivor; I’ve had enough taste of political and religious fanaticism to last a lifetime. I was witness to the handiwork of human beings who think like you do, and as long as I breathe I will make sure this never happens again.
and another post…
For the record, I consider myself to be a political Independent, leaning toward the Progmatic Progressive side of the spectrum, although I do hold many Libertarian views. My position on abortion rights is decidedly Libertarian. Do not assume that I am a Liberal all the time, although when I am, I wear that distinction proudly and not with the derision that some would dispense upon those who consider themselves Liberals.
My response…
Arkangel.. I wanted to address your response of my assuming you are a Liberal ‘all’ the time… Dorian is right.. I do tend to label people Liberals who have leftist views.. really more specifically.. anti Christian views… I have no idea where the “Progmatic Progressive side of the spectrum” is… I’m guessing on the left side… and away from Christian teachings and beliefs. So you can replace all of the “Liberals” in my earlier post, in response to your earlier post, with Leftists or Anti Christian people. Oh and you don’t have to tell me that you are proud to be a Liberal (some of the time), I already know that Liberals are full of pride.
And also… you said.. All I have been able to determine about you based on your comments above is that you are a narrow and closed minded individual.
Could you please be more specific on which comments made you think that I am these things? Narrow and closed minded? … I would really like to know.. so I can specifically defend myself… which I know I will have no problem doing…
Arkangel_3 said
Kay,
Just read your reply. You use the word “Anti-Christian” twice, and “Christian” once. My wife and children are Christians (Roman Catholic) as is the rest of my family…all practicing. My uncle (and for whom I am named) is a Roman Catholic priest who recently retired as the Superior General of his order…that meant he ran his ENTIRE order. He met John Paul II on several occasions, and the current Pope once. What does all this have to do with things? Because I am NOT anti-Christian.
I subscribe to the belief system of Deism, which stipulates that the Universe itself is sentient or perhaps is God itself. Another facet of Deism are those who believe that there is a God who created the world and is not actively involved in the state of affairs of Mankind. It certainly acknowledges Jesus and Mohammad and the Buddha as prophets, and wise men who certainly understood more than most. Saviors? No. Deists do not have a Church per se, it is an individual using Reason to understand the universe. The closest you can come to organized Deists are Unitarian Universalists.
My replies were consistent with my belief system, just as yours were. However, I tried to use Reason and logic in presenting my points without unbridled passion. At no time was I being Anti-Christian, nor will I apologize for any perception of my statements. That is how you choose to interpret them. This is where your narrow mindedness can possibly be perceived by someone. You can express your Christian belief system without assuming that anyone who does not subscribe to it is incorrect, uneducated, unenlightened, or damned straight to hell. If I burn in Hell’s perdition, then I am in august company, for all human beings LIVE in hell already. It is an absence and lack of understanding of the nature of the Universe, which speaks through us. That is MY belief system. I did not nor will I condemn yours.
We disagree on the abortion issue. I have made my points known, and have nothing further to add to the discussion. You made your points several times along the way in that thread, yet you kept hammering them home, being intolerant and unaccepting of others who do not believe as you do on the topic. That too caused friction, and as a matter of fact, caused me to write a response or three on that thread despite my desire not to get involved. I could not let what rhetoric you were putting forth not to go unanswered by reason, and by an intelligent presentation of my beliefs. Perhaps I was not as successful as I thought I was.
Next point: “Pragmatic Progressivism” could best be described as Liberal thinking grounded in reality. You can achieve a means to your end, but it might take longer for you to get there because you need to be a realist more than an ideologue. Do not assume all Liberals are pro-choice, I know a number who are decidedly pro-life. Do not assume that Liberals are evil, because quite frankly, I can surely say that based on the proof that lies before us, Neoconservatives put this nation and the world on the brink. Thousands of innocents were killed, my rights and thousands of other citizens rights were violated. There is a financial disaster looming (yes looming; this isn’t the big stuff yet; just the tip of the iceberg.) Should I not bucket all of these people the same way? Should I not say that at least Liberals haven’t slaughtered hundreds of thousands in a war that should have never been fought? Based on this data, I can assume that Neoconservatives (and for that matter the current Republican Party) as “evil”?
The world is not black not white, evil against good, darkness against light. The world just IS, and it IS what we make it to be. Understanding the Universe and our part in it to collectively bring Humanity to the next phase of purpose is just a part of it…one that you must look for, because it only is revealed (no matter what it is, no matter how small) at a moment in time when you are ready. These moments of transition can only occur if you are open to them; and occasionally that means listening to the “evil” people on a side of an issue you are impassioned about. By not reflecting on a position opposite yours, you may deprive yourself of something…a knowledge you never had before. This is how I conduct my life: I listen, and I wait for those moments of transition…because they eventually come when you are looking…but you have to be open to them first.
lawman2 said
@ kevin
There is mounting evidence that the two primary economic shocks underlying our present malaise—the worst housing market bust since the Great Depression and the most wrenching credit crunch of the postwar period—are intensifying. And they are doing so at the very time that the U.S. economy is adjusting to record oil prices.
In recent congressional testimony, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson correctly observed that the economy would continue to encounter “bumps in the road” as long as home prices were falling. Unfortunately, the annualized pace of decline in home prices at the national level has now increased to over 16 percent, a rate that we have not seen since the 1930s.
Let’s address the two primary economic shocks underlying our present malaise…
1) Since housing constitutes the main component of the average American’s wealth, Congress should be more focused on the housing market than on short-term fiscal policy fixes. Declining home values have already taken a harsh toll on consumer confidence, which has plummeted to its lowest level in 28 years. A further drop in home prices could drive consumer confidence even lower.
2) The average Americans credit is bad and it’s going to get worse due to the economy. Banks are not going to lend to the average American anymore, especially after all this is said and done
lawman2 said
hey I see arkangel!welcome to our debate page…hold on to your hat!
lawman2 said
kevin i coppied and pasted from a post i wrote the other day called the stimulus package and the average joe.
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/stimulus-package-and-the-average-joe/
kay~ms said
Arkangel… I had asked for specifics and this is what you gave me…
We disagree on the abortion issue. I have made my points known, and have nothing further to add to the discussion. You made your points several times along the way in that thread, yet you kept hammering them home, being intolerant and unaccepting of others who do not believe as you do on the topic.
Again, I just wanted specifics and you gave me the common ’stock’ answer that I ALWAYS get… why is it so hard to get specifics??
But I will try and work with what you gave me…
I just looked over the other page.. CAVEMAN WIFE AND BABY and scanned mine and Art Predator’s responses… Art made a comment… WITH A QUESTION / QUESTIONS and I responded… she is representing her point and I was representing my point ( it takes TWO to argue!!) …AGAIN… you make NO SENSE when you say You made your points several times along the way in that thread, yet you kept hammering them home, being intolerant and unaccepting of others who do not believe as you do on the topic.
Why is this not the case for Art Predator??? She was “hammering” her point also??? Neither of us were in agreement… why is it only me who is “intolerant and unaccepting”????
You saw MY points as ‘hammering’ because YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THEM… You saw my points as being “intolerant and unaccepting” because YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THEM… this is hypocrisy and ignorance… this is REVERSE IGNORANCE!! And sorry.. but this is a common Liberal characteristic!! You are revealing yourself as just another COMMON person who DOESN’T LIKE IT when someone has an opposing view… ESPECIALLY when that view is the correct one!! And BTW, just a NECESSARY reminder….. There is NOTHING WRONG with believing that my view is the correct view!!!
So..this is why I asked you to be specific… is this why you couldn’t answer???
You shouldn’t call someone narrow and closed minded (and intolerant and unaccepting ) unless you can back it up…
You make the assumption that I am not looking at the other side… again…could you direct me to what made you assume that?
I do take pride in the fact that I look at the other side… do not assume that all conservatives are narrow and closed minded!!
In the case of abortion… I was in that position… again take you own advice and don’t make assumptions!
Now on to Religion…
You said… I am NOT anti-Christian.
I subscribe to the belief system of Deism, which stipulates that the Universe itself is sentient or perhaps is God itself. Another facet of Deism are those who believe that there is a God who created the world and is not actively involved in the state of affairs of Mankind. It certainly acknowledges Jesus and Mohammad and the Buddha as prophets, and wise men who certainly understood more than most. Saviors? No.
You can’t get more ANTI Christian than that!! You have beliefs that GO AGAINST GOD!! Christianity is the belief that Jesus IS our Savior…. Sorry.. but you ARE anti Christian in your beliefs!
You are a product of the “new age” religions… which twists the TRUTH of the Bible… and then believes there is nothing wrong with that.. that you are not even anti Christian!! You, along with millions of others are being ‘duped’.
You displayed a perfect example… you stated that you are not anti Christian yet you say that Jesus is not your Savior… what??? If you spread this belief… you are most definitely anti Christian..
You say it is not about evil vs good? That’s one of the biggest “new age” lies…
The world is not black not white, evil against good, darkness against light. The world just IS, and it IS what we make it to be. Understanding the Universe and our part in it to collectively bring Humanity to the next phase of purpose is just a part of it…one that you must look for, because it only is revealed (no matter what it is, no matter how small) at a moment in time when you are ready. These moments of transition can only occur if you are open to them; and occasionally that means listening to the “evil” people on a side of an issue you are impassioned about.
The hard truth is that evil does exist… how can you not say it doesn’t in this day and age??
Are you saying we shouldn’t fight it??
Are you saying that we should embrace everyone and everything??
Are you saying that it is wrong to believe that someone else’s beliefs are wrong???
a quote by Edmund Burke, an 18thcentury Irish philosopher…..
“THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING“.
You, along with millions of others have been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking that you don’t need to fight evil. It’s 21st century new age garbage…
In this world there are two sides… God’s side and the other side…
You’ve been fooled and are actually SUPPORTING the other side!!
These views of mine DO NOT support violence, hatred, intolerance etc… humanity can still “move forward” while people hold to their beliefs! True Christians are tolerant of others who have different beliefs… It IS OK for an individual to discuss THEIR beliefs!! Tolerance is respecting the other’s right to their beliefs… disagreeing with their beliefs does NOT constitute intolerance!! This is just more of the “new age” garbage that is spreading out there!!
And bottom line… it is ultimately supporting the other side!!!
arkangel3 said
I’ve tried Reason, clearly that has failed. I made all the points I was going to make and I cannot make any more. And was Art driving the point home as much as you were? Absolutely. The biggest difference was that Art was listening and used your arguments in an intelligent manner, while you went on and continued to reiterate what you had been saying over and over and over again.
Deism is NOT New Age, it’s been around since the 17th Century, and many who subscribe to it ARE Christians in addition to being Deists, because you CAN reconcile the two. Just ask Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
I do not accept Jesus as my savior…I’m damned. I don’t accept Mohammad as the Seal of The Prophets…I’m damned. I don’t accept The Way of The Buddha…I’m unenlightened and perhaps damned to repeat my mistakes endlessly. No matter how you slice it, I’m damned. So there, feel all better about it now?
When you are ready to debate constructively and reasonably, I will. I cannot debate ideologues. It’s a waste of my time.
lawman2 said
hehehe
dorian9 said
don’t eat all the popcorn, lawman…
ark, pleased to read a deist. if i were to choose to say where i stand on spiritual beliefs it’s a cross between deist and pantheist. i do believe in a supreme being, God, who is one with nature. also a fan of the illumined ones whom you’ve mentioned.
kay i’ve always admired your passion bt i can’t see things as good or evil God or satan and having to take “sides”. if one practices kindness and does not do any harm or threat anyone else’s well-being but does not go to church or accept Jesus as savior their souls do not merit damnation.God will embrace all who is good and would likely not turn away someone because of some technicality. please God don’t let there be red tape in heaven too.
kay~ms said
You did it AGAIN!!
The biggest difference was that Art was listening and used your arguments in an intelligent manner, while you went on and continued to reiterate what you had been saying over and over and over again.
I’m going to have to ask you again…could you please BE MORE SPECIFIC!
I don’t know what you are talking about… you are making it sound like I repeated everything word for word… again, what you are hearing is a view that you do not agree with… her view was stated over and over again … she’s pro choice… and my view was stated over and over again… I’m Pro Life… her arguments were the social problems etc.. my counter argument was nothing justifies killing an innocent life… I also made the point that death should not be a solution… that a fetus DOES feel pain.. that an unborn child has a RIGHT to their life… that late term abortions ARE MURDER!… which one of these points did I repeat over and over??? How did I not answer her questions as asked??? What makes you assume that I wasn’t listening? Because I don’t agree? I read all of her questions / points and I said that NONE of those points justifies taking an innocent human life… again.. I was listening… you are the one who is not listening!! All of the points that I made are views that go against your stance… that’s what you are hearing “over and over”… and you are calling me narrow minded??
And “new age” has been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years… it’s just given a new name each time… now it’s called ” The Secret “. But this ’secret’ is the same old crap…
Anyone who subscribes to the belief that God doesn’t answer our prayers, that He isn’t involved in our lives… is NOT a Christian… they can call themselves a Christian but they are not a TRUE Christian… Mormons call themselves Christians.. and they are not…
Why would you accept Mohammad?.. the man was a murder and a pedophile… Muslims don’t dispute that… Jesus never murdered anyone or commited any other sin… this is one example of many that SHOULD tell you who to believe in and who not to believe in…
And Dorian… You couldn’t be more wrong… you call rejecting Jesus’ death on the cross for your sins ‘red tape’??? It’s real simple… if you reject what God has done for you… you do deserve damnation… It’s no small thing!!! It’s something that none of us will ever have to do… it’s something we would never be able to do… what Jesus went thru for us is the greatest thing that anyone has ever done or ever will do… and you call rejecting this sacrifice ‘red tape’ or a ‘technicality’? This is what evil is.. in action… deminishing and/ or cancelling out God’s gift to us… this is the worst thing a person can do! This is EXACTLY what God’s enemy WANTS you to do!! And you all are falling right into line!!
arkangel3 said
If you can’t catch fish with the bait you are using, you need to use different bait. Perhaps you should learn from your fisherman.
lawman2 said
depends dorian, did you hog all that world peace ice cream all to yourself? lol
think i am goin’ fishin…got any stink bait anyone?
“Anyone who subscribes to the belief that God doesn’t answer our prayers, that He isn’t involved in our lives… is NOT a Christian…” kay you talkin about the ol’ caveman again? hehehe CAN YOU PROVE TO ME THAT YOUR GOD IS INVOLVED IN OUR LIVES? HAVE YOU SEEN HIS HAND REACH DOWN AND FIX ANYTHING HERE ON EARTH IN YOUR LIFE TIME?
just askin’
damn i just learned that i deserve damnation…guess i’ll just take that highway to hell on my old fat boy harley!
no really,i promised not to say things like that…typing them don’t count does it? hehehe
kay~ms said
If you can’t catch fish with the bait you are using, you need to use different bait. Perhaps you should learn from your fisherman.
What??? Yet more vague comments for me to ‘figure’ out… there should be a law against critisizing without backing it up…
Are you saying that my ‘technique’ to convert you is wrong? That certainly is in line… par for the course… The non believer telling me how to preach… same old stuff I’ve heard before… this is what I get every time inplace of specifics. Who do you all think you’re fooling???
Should I bother to ask you to elaborate?
THISISGODSPEAKING said
LAWMAN CAN TYPE WHAT HE LIKES
CHILDREN LISTEN TO KAY SHE HAS MY DIRECT NUMBER AND I AM NOT GIVING IT OUT TO THE REST OF YOU DEIST OR PANTHEIST AND CERTAINLY NOT THE DAMN ATHEIST
tothewire said
Lawman I have never disrespected your lack of belief. BUT you disrespect Christianity all the time.
THISISGODSPEAKING said
only on the debate page babe.isn’t that why we have this page…to debate???
i don’t disrespect you,kay,ota,dorian,ark,(maybe e but he and i do that all the time)or anyone else that visits our blog.i just was askin’
and the thisisgodspeaking i just find funny.i do not mean any disrespect with it.
tothewire said
You did it again.
Lawman2 said
sorry forgot to change that in the name field.
Lawman2 said
anyway i just get tired of everyone being able to god this and god that and i can’t say where the hell is your god anyway? is he taking an extending vacation or what?
kay~ms said
Yes Lawman… if you blatantly REJECT what Jesus had done for you, dying to cover your sins, if you blatantly reject His love… you will be damned… that is what the Bible says as witness to His resurrection. You won’t be damned for any sins that you commit except for this one… this is the one that you won’t be excused for… the ‘red tape’ so to speak.
God has answered my prayers time and time again… that’s my proof for myself… but you and other non believers will never see your own proof if you don’t humble yourselves and ask for help.
When God is ready… when HE decides to show Himself that’s when unbelievers will have the proof that they demand but it will be to late then…
Sorry to sound so ‘preachy’ but it’s the truth and needs to be said…
arkangel3 said
Why do I feel like I’m hearing Aunt Esther from “Sanford & Son”? LOL!
arkangel3 said
Here’s my explanation, Kay:
“You have been trapped in the inescapable net of ruin by your own want of sense.” – Aeschylus
arkangel3 said
Oh, one final thing: HAPPY 200TH BIRTHDAY, CHARLES DARWIN!
kay~ms said
Now who’s repeating themselves… with absolute vagueness, over and over…
really.. I could say the same about you… “You have been trapped in the inescapable net of ruin by your own want of sense.”
Lawman2 said
ark i forgot to tell you, one of your post(which i can’t let the cat out of the bag on which one)made our bloggers helping bloggers post!
authors i left a comment on the post about kelloggs and michael phelps about the bloggers helping bloggers. the post for monday is ready and scheduled but we still need to be looking for 6 more for the following week.if you have one picked out be sure to put in after you add the post and blog submitted by you!it will be fun!
Lawman2 said
instructions on how to is on that post.i think it is fun,maybe you will too!
Lawman2 said
i like that old show sandford and son…
Wyndee said
WOW- I feel like I’ve been outa the loop for so long, I have to read for days to catch up. lol.
First, Kay, cause you and I has like already talked before about pride and tough love. =) I wanted to compell you to word search pride, and come to realize- God is the one who humbles the proud, no us. We are called to love, and meekly correct those who are wrong. Can you tell me where you find Jesus demonstrating this ‘tough love’ you’re referring to?? I know what you’re saying, I understand your objective. Arguing has never won any souls for me tho. has it you?? Just some thoughts…
Dorian, You have a lot right when you say God will accept us all. What Im wondering is, whos standard of ‘good’ are you going by?? You said ‘good’ people dont merit damnation. My standard of good is prob. different than yours or others. So who decides. The Bible says that Jesus said He is the only way to God… If you believe God created the world, then you must see that his thoughts are higher than our own.
Lawman!!!! You are one funny guy. I bet you drive TTW CRAZY!!! haha. =)
I could seriously go on for days of testamonies to your question. It excited me reading it cause I love giving glory to God and all he’s done for me and my family. I’ll tell you the most rescent things tho. =) 2 weeks ago my Mom decided to come to church with me, and her arm got healed!!!!! She came and couldnt even lift it b4. that same day a friend of mine prayed for a girl who was instantly healed of scoliosis. Things like this happen all the time. My friends church in Redding CA had a boy healed of autism, and people healed of blindness.. and so on. My husband and I bought a house 2 years ago this month, and we moved in with nothing down, no closing costs, and it was $45,000 more than we had been approved for. YAY!!! One of my cooler stories was when a girl was praying for me, (we didnt even know each other, we were at a conference and she was a Bible college student) and she told me that she saw me as a child, a ballerina, and I was happy, and then the instructor came and said something to me and stold my joy.. She said other stuff too, but thats for me. =) Well, that was Jan 08. I didnt know much about it till this last weekend. (long story but someone brought up me being a ballerina) I asked my mom what ever happened in Ballet…? She said the instructor thought I was ‘not right’ for ballet, that I should try gymnastics. Now, I could see that as coinsidence…. or… I could remember the other stuff she said, and give it credit now. =)
When I say days, thats what I mean. So many things I have seen come to mind, but I would expire the length on the page. hahaa. I have actually felt the manifest presence of God before too. It was incredible. Last time was a week ago sunday at a potluck, going away party for our friends who are moving to Africa to be missinoaries. I was praying for a friend, cause she was discouraged, and Gods presence fell, and when I was praying, I was praying things I dont remember (they were for her not me) and when I was done, we were so filled with the spirit we coudnt control our laughter for 30 minutes. =) It was incredible. It changed our lives. All our friends and their family were staring, and ppl were coming over like, give us some!!! hahaahahaaaa….
I’ll stop with that. Its my rescent favorite.
He said if we draw near, He’ll draw near. Its our choice. He gave us choice to create real love. If we had no choice but to love Him, we would be mindless and not know Him for who He really is.
Lawman2 said
WYNDEE!good to read ya here again!we missed you! debate page isn’t safe for my wyndee,we fight with no gloves here…come over here and hide behind the caveman!
Lawman2 said
if you enjoyed reading these then you will love us on the missing link post…hehehe http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-case-of-the-missing-link-where-are-darwins-predicted-fossils/#comment-5019
Wyndee said
hahaa. ur a nut
Hors Service said
Ok, since John seems not to understand it, let’s continue on this page the debate of http://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-christian-conservatives-view/#comment-8445 , shall we?
@John
And the Americans were hesitating a lot about going into war in 1941, they needed Pearl Harbor to finally make a decision.
England wouldn’t have fully vanquished France, at this time of history, it was impossible, the two countries were too big.
But if England would have vanquished its colonies, you would still be English.
Of course it was in the interest of France, and you’ve since reimboursed.
I just mentioned it because you were being nationalisticly disdainful.
Still, you haven’t admitted your other mistakes.
Anyway, technical error doesn’t mean censorship, don’t be paranoïac^^
@Kay.
I’m sorry, I’m no professional, but I think the theories I gave you doesn’t use matter, only in one case energy (which is the same, I know, but netherless^^), and other cases dimensions.
But it still doesn’t answer to why there is something instead of nothing, true;) I think that’s what you meant?
Then If you ask where does the first matter come from, where does the Supreme Being comes from?
johnlloydscharf said
Oscar+Two+Face.jpg (image)
kay~ms said
Yes Hors, you are right..I realized that afterwards, but I see that you still get the point. Where did the first “whatever” come from that resulted in the universe’s existence?
And yes, of course that then leads us to the question.. where did God come from?
But this is exactly why I say that existence is illogical. Yet we are here. When you combine those two facts the only logical conclusion has to be a Supreme Being who has not equiped us with the capabilities to comprehend how it all came to be. Unfortunately, it seems that those who are pridefull will not accept this conclusion. Hopefully they will eventually be able to humble themselves during the time that God has allowed them here on Earth.
We humans have to realize that we are created beings and ultimately it is our Creator who is in control, not us. We are owned. Like it or not. And many just cannot accept that.
johnlloydscharf said
Ignorance seems to be the only element in the universe more common than hydrogen, Kay. “We humans” do HAVE to realize anything.
You remember when you claimed, essentially, that if everyone was Christ-like there would be world peace? Not only would that not happen, but if it did, it would be after Ar Meggedon OR the Bible would be untrue. Do you see the logical problems with that?
Were “We humans” to realize we are created beings and that ulitimately the Creator was in control, do you actually think it would make a difference? People do things they know are wrong and will cause them great pain – yet they do it anyway.
johnlloydscharf said
Oh, and by the way…. Douglas Adams’ puddle dried out on 2001.
kay~ms said
Did you mean to say “we humans” “don’t” have to realize anything? I think that’s what you meant. Yes, ignorance is extremely common. No one is immune including me.
I stand by my comment. If we are to be saved we do need to understand our proper place in the big picture. That being that we have wronged our Creator. He has offered to make it right for us because He loves us. Our gratitude is in response to the mercy and love that He has shown us. I don’t know how we can be saved and not have gratitude. And I don’t know how we can have gratitude without acknowledging that He is in control. So yes, we do have to realize that we are not in control.
Yes, of course I think that when we acknowledge that we are not in control it makes a difference… for one reason… we will then openly and aggressively search for Him and possibly learn about Him and His love and sacrifice for us. Will we still sin? Of course, that is why Jesus was sent to save us, it is impossible for us to be sinless.
johnlloydscharf said
Kay, you turned a straight claim into an if/then statement. You are assuming people, if they believed it, would chose to go beyond/forgo their nature in order to be saved/have an eternal life. Your local statement is:
IF you are to be saved, THEN you need to understand your position as a creation rather than the Creator. You assume people expect mercy or love from God. You assume people think someone is in control when most think there is nothing and no one in control.
Regarding forgiveness, it is a limited offer. Hebrews 10:26 (New International Version) 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
KJV:26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
OR IN CONTEXT:
23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
KEEP IN MIND THAT I FULLY EXPECT TO SUFFER JUDGEMENT AND AFTER THAT TO DIE THE SECOND DEATH.
Hors Service said
@Kay
You said:
“But this is exactly why I say that existence is illogical.”
Well, I don’t really think so. Why would it be illogical? We exist because it had a less than 0 probability, I think. Maths says a lot of things, but I personnaly don’t always (In fact, very rarely^^) understand them, and it’s possible we never find the mathemical proof of our existence. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, rather that we can’t found it (Like some primitves of some functions, or if there’s an infinite number of primary numbers couples, etc…)
By the way, you don’t have an answer to where God comes from, do you? Except than we’re not meant to understand it.^^
Then, I don’t have an answer either for why there is something instead of nothing^^
Well, I think that God has equipped us with a very interesting brain, fully functioning, it would be a blasphema not to use it^^ Maybe it’s the Plan? That we came to a high enough level of Consciousness to understand Him?
kay~ms said
John, I have GREAT NEWS for you!! You are taking those passages out of context… the following explains this clearly…
Question:
Would you please explain to me whether Hebrews 10:26 is speaking about a believer losing his or her salvation? Thanks for your input.
Response:
Thank you for your e-mail. Hebrews 10:26 can only be understood in its near context (and in the context of the book of Hebrews). Paul’s essential purpose in writing this book is to pull Jewish believers away from continuing in the temple ritual now that that ritual had been fulfilled in the incarnation, life, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For to continue with an elaborate system of rituals which spoke of the coming Savior and His future death on the cross was to say, in effect, that Jesus was not the Messiah and His death not valid. Continuation in the foreshadowing ritual after the real Christ had come and suffered in the flesh for real was tantamount to denying and disowning Him, and would eventually destroy the faith of those who persisted in the practice. Paul did not come to this realization at once (cf. the development of his understanding of true baptism as Spirit baptism: 1Cor.1:17). Indeed, his imprisonment, chronicled in the book of Acts, is a result of his persistence, for sentimental and “practical” reasons, in these rituals he loved. He had been warned not to go up to Jerusalem “through the Spirit” (Acts 21:4; cf. Acts 21:10-11), and then had agreed to sponsor the vows of some young men to show that “he lived in obedience to the [Mosaic] law” (Acts 21:24), which he certainly did not (1Cor.9:20-21). This was a blind spot, and a compromise, and Paul had previously pointed this out in the case of others (cf. Gal.2:11-14). To be fair, Paul is the first one of whom we know (apostle or otherwise) to even come to understand this issue with clarity (let alone to successfully explain it). And given that the primary features of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox faiths (not to mention to a very large degree many Protestant denominations) are still largely based upon emulating, adopting, copying or transforming the Jewish rituals (i.e., priests, incense censors, churches with paraphernalia resembling the temple, altars so that communion set in a sacrificial context, etc.), we can see that this was no small accomplishment. Whatever compromise Paul had been involved in is more than set straight by the book of Hebrews which explodes virtually every aspect of the argument for Jewish believers to continue in the traditional manner of worship. This overarching thesis of the book of Hebrews is at the center of the interpretation of Heb.10:26 (set here in a wider context):
(19) Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence in this entrance of ours into the [heavenly] holy of holies by the blood of Jesus, (20) an entryway through the [heavenly] veil [of separation] which is new and alive and which He has consecrated for us, that is [through the sacrifice] of His flesh (cf. Heb.10:10; 10:18), (21) and since we have [this] great high priest over the household of God, let us approach [the throne of grace (cf. Heb.4:16) to pray] with a truthful heart in complete faith, (22) our hearts sprinkled [clean] of [any] bad conscience and our bodies washed with pure water [of the Word (cf. Eph.5:26)]. (23) Let us hold on without turning [to the right or to the left] to the hope we have professed – for the One who has promised us [eternal life] is faithful. (24) And let us give careful attention to one another['s ministries] as motivation for [our own] love and good works, (25) not abandoning your mutual assembling (as some have made it their practice to do [and which makes this impossible]), but rather encouraging each other [to persevere in this work of the Lord], and doing so to an ever greater degree to the extent that you see the day [of the Lord] drawing [ever] closer. (26) For if we willfully continue in the life of sin after accepting and recognizing the truth [of the gospel], there remains no further sacrifice we can make for our sins, (27) but only a terrible expectation of judgment, and a burning fire, ready to devour those who oppose [His will]. (28) For anyone who set aside the law of Moses perished without mercy on the [testimony] of two or three witnesses. (29) How much greater punishment do you suppose will justly come to someone who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, and who has considered His blood of the covenant to be unclean (the very blood by which you were sanctified), and who has violently insulted the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 10:19-29
The last sentence here is the conclusion for this whole section. We see here what Paul means in the near context when he says above in the verse you ask about, verse 26, “if we willfully continue in the life of sin after accepting and recognizing the truth (of the gospel), there remains no further sacrifice we can make for our sins”. In other words, by continuing in the Jewish temple ritual, these Jewish believers were committing sin, and serious sin at that. Because every time they participated in an animal sacrifice, they were saying, in effect, that Jesus died in vain. This really is “trampling” Him under foot; this really is regarding His blood, that is, His death on the cross, as “unclean”, this really is “violently insulting” the Spirit who testifies to Him and to the validity of His work.
There were certainly reasons that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were drawn to these things: tradition, nostalgia, the desire to avoid confrontation with (and persecution by) unbelievers who expected it of them. But Paul lets these backsliding believers know in no uncertain terms that to continue in these practices will be the death of their faith. All sin endangers faith, because all sin is lawlessness (1Jn.3:4). If we are walking in the light (1Jn.1:7), we can confess our failings and be confident of forgiveness (1Jn.1:9). But if we are not walking in the light, that is, if we are involved in a pattern of rebellion, a pattern of sinful conduct we know to be sinful, if we willfully and arrogantly disobey God long and hard enough, then we have no fellowship with God (1Jn.1:6), and our hearts eventually become hardened to Him, and our faith decays and eventually dies – and without faith there is no salvation (cf. Matt.10:33; Lk.14:34-35; Jn.15:5-6; Rom.11:17-23; 1Cor.6:9-11; 10:6-12; 15:2; 2Cor.13:5; Gal.5:19-21; Eph.5:3-7; Col.1:21-23; 1Tim.6:9; 6:20-21; 2Tim.2:12; Heb.2:1-3; 3:6-19; 10:35-39; 2Jn.1:8-9). So while the specific application of Hebrews 10:26 “if we willfully continue in the life of sin” is to this particular pattern of sinning, any pattern of choosing a life of sin against God will lead eventually and inevitably to the same place:
(12) Make sure, brothers, that none of you develop an evil heart of unbelief (i.e., lack of faith) by turning away (lit. “apostatizing”) from the living God. (13) Rather keep encouraging each other every day as long as we still call it “today” (i.e. still remain in this world), lest any of you be hardened [in heart] by the deception of sin. (14) For we all have a share in Christ, as long as we hang on to that original confidence [of our faith] firmly to the end, (15) as it says: “Today if you hear His voice, Don’t harden your hearts as they did at the provocation [at Meribah].” (16) For who provoked Him, though they had heard? Did not all of them who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership do so? (17) And with whom was He enraged for forty years? Wasn’t it the very people who had sinned, then dropped dead in the desert? (18) And to whom did He swear that they would never enter into the [place of] rest [He had promised], but to those who had been disobedient to Him? (19) Now we see that they were unable to enter into this [place of rest] because of their unbelief (i.e., their loss of faith).
Hebrews 3:12-19
Every one is tempted by his own lust, being dragged away [by it] and enticed [by it]. Then, should lust conceive (i.e., should the person give in to it), it gives birth to sin. And sin, should it be fully carried out to the end (i.e., should the person give in to a life of sin), produces death (i.e., the death of faith).
James 1:14-15
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin (i.e., involved in sin) which is not unto death (i.e., is a deviation rather than a complete turning away), let him ask [forgiveness on his brother's behalf], and life will be given to him (i.e., forgiveness and deliverance), that is, in those cases where those sinning are not [sinning] unto death (i.e., engaged in a willful process of “deadly” faith destroying sinfulness).
1st John 5:16
Let us not put Christ to the test, as some of them (i.e., the Exodus generation) did and were killed by serpents. And let us not be complaining, as some of them complained, and were killed by the Destroyer. These things happened to them as an example to us and were written to warn us (i.e., to avoid similar apostasy) – we who live at the culmination of the ages (i.e., at the doorstep of the Tribulation). So let him who thinks he stands firm beware lest he fall (i.e., from faith; cf. Rom.11:22).
1st Corinthians 10:11-12
Don’t you understand that if you give your allegiance to anyone to obey them as servants, then you truly are their servants when you obey them? [This is true] whether [you give yourselves] to sin, which results in death (i.e., of faith ), or whether [you give yourselves] to obedience [to Christ], which results in righteousness?
Romans 6:16
kay~ms said
John, I posted a response… it is “awaiting moderation”.
johnlloydscharf said
Well, Kay, if it is an original concept, that would be interesting. I you are going to try to retread some old doctrinal position on once-saved-always-saved, I am not likely to respect that. I know the Word is never wasted, but there is certainly that hard ground and knowing what is profitable.
kay~ms said
Hors…you said: “We exist because it had a less than 0 probability,”
That is also illogical to me. How can you have less than nothing?
You said: “and it’s possible we never find the mathemical proof of our existence. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, rather that we can’t found it”
Surely it exists but we are only equiped with “finite” minds… we won’t ever comprehend “how”… maybe in the afterlife but it’s clear that God’s intention is that we will not know during our Earthly lives.
Hors, I think you are demonstrating a common trait of atheists… stubborness and ignorance. It’s the very science that atheists stand by that TELLS us that we are never going to know this information. Every “attempt” so far on this blog by atheists to theorize where the first (whatever) came from CLEARLY shows this stubborness and ignorance.
Even Darwin acknowledged the likelyhood of a Supreme Being.
You said: “By the way, you don’t have an answer to where God comes from, do you? Except than we’re not meant to understand it.^^
Then, I don’t have an answer either for why there is something instead of nothing^^ ”
Hors, this statement shows that you are missing / avoiding the point. I don’t expect an answer from you.. there isn’t one. I am asking you to ask yourself this question.
johnlloydscharf said
Kay, I think we can dispense with the claims of stubbornness and ignorance. We are all ignorant in some ways. Your stubborness may be my persistance.
I believe his writing skills leva something to be desired regarding the less than zero probability. I suspect he meant something to the effect that unless the probability is zero of creation by random events, he would not except it.
My opinion is that if anything is created with one in 10 to the power of 159,000 probability, I am just going to call it supernatural and a miracle.
johnlloydscharf said
Oh… that should have been accept rather than except
kay~ms said
“Kay, I think we can dispense with the claims of stubbornness and ignorance.”
John, please do not try to dictate / control what I say. Especially in that condescending “high horse” tone. It doesn’t make you look good (it displays insecurities) and your attempts will be in vein (Dorian can tell you that… much enduring from her in the past ten or so months).
You said: “Your stubborness may be my persistance.”
per·sist (pr-sst, -zst)
1. To be obstinately repetitious, insistent, or tenacious.
ob·sti·nate (bst-nt)
adj.
1. Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate.
ob·du·rate (bd-rt, -dy-)
adj.
1.
a. Hardened in wrongdoing or wickedness; stubbornly impenitent: “obdurate conscience of the old sinner” (Sir Walter Scott).
b. Hardened against feeling; hardhearted: an obdurate miser.
2. Not giving in to persuasion; intractable. See Synonyms at inflexible.
John, I’m not seeing a difference. Ironically, I’m actually seeing greater support for my point to Hors…
johnlloydscharf said
By all means…. Feel free to be stubborn and ignorant in your calling others stubborn and ignorant… Point….. Giggle…
Help me understand why it is ironic that I supported your point about there being a Supreme Being.
johnlloydscharf said
I warned you, “Your stubborness may be my persistance.”
To hold firmly and steadfastly to a purpose, state, or undertaking despite obstacles, warnings, or setbacks.
To continue in existence; last: hostilities that have persisted for years
Firmly resolved or determined; resolute. See synonyms at obstinate.
Characterized by perseverance; persistent.
johnlloydscharf said
Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate.
Difficult to manage, control, or subdue; refractory.
Difficult to alleviate or cure: an obstinate headache.
kay~ms said
How am I being stubborn and ignorant by saying that Hors is being stubborn and ignorant based on the points that he gave me? Please give me your basis for calling me stubborn and ignorant in this instance.
I didn’t say that you supported my point that there is a Supreme Being… I was making the implication that the definitions, particularly the definition for “obdurate” really seems to describe Hors’ stance in relation to what we are discussing… his stubborness in refusing to acknowledge the probability of God’s existence;
obdurate:
“hardening in wrongdoing” “Hardened against feeling” “Not giving in to persuasion”
johnlloydscharf said
per·ti·na·cious
Definition: determined
Antonyms: irresolute, tentative
res·o·lute
Firm or determined; unwavering.
de·ter·mined
Marked by or showing determination; resolute: was engaged in a protracted struggle with a determined enemy.
Decided or resolved.
dog·ged
Definition: determined, persistent
Antonyms: indifferent, irresolute, undetermined, yielding
un·re·lent·ing
Having or exhibiting uncompromising determination; unyielding: an unrelenting human rights worker.
Not diminishing in intensity, pace, or effort: an unrelenting ice storm.
re·lent·less
Unyielding in severity or strictness; unrelenting: relentless persecution.
Steady and persistent; unremitting: the relentless beat of the drums.
ad·a·mant
Impervious to pleas, appeals, or reason; stubbornly unyielding
in·tran·si·gent in·tran·si·geant
johnlloydscharf said
How am I being stubborn and ignorant by saying that Hors is being stubborn and ignorant based on the points that he gave me? Please give me your basis for calling me stubborn and ignorant in this instance.
Because you persist in that form of name-calling and it adds nothing to the argument for your case.
New International Version (©1984)
“Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive.
King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
johnlloydscharf said
Bible in Basic English
We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good.
kay~ms said
John, I believe that Hors is being stubborn and ignorant (ignoring facts). I believe that these are detrimental to his wellbeing. I am not desiring to insult him. I am not name calling, I am stating observations. With his comments to back them up.
You are just accusing me of childish 3rd grade name calling… that’s not what I’m doing. There is a difference.
johnlloydscharf said
Perhaps Hors Hors, is “demonstrating a common trait of atheists… stubborness and ignorance.” If you want to stereotype like that, I could start you a list of folks I think must be atheists from just some of the lesser known “evangelists.”
What part of that do you believe is not an insult to Hors. If there is a difference between that and “3rd grade name-calling”, help me understand.
King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
johnlloydscharf said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Alamo
johnlloydscharf said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Bentley
http://jesusblogger.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/disgraced-douglas-goodman-out-of-prison-and-back-into-the-pulpit-is-this-right/
johnlloydscharf said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
johnlloydscharf said
http://jesusblogger.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/disgraced-douglas-goodman-out-of-prison-and-back-into-the-pulpit-is-this-right/
Is this the one that put this on moderation?
johnlloydscharf said
Oh, then it must have been this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Bentley
bettyslocombe said
Tony Alamo looks like a wise guy: sorry a wiseguy. I enjoyed you two skipping through the dictionary; semantics is fun.
It’s fine to suspend judgement: agnosticism is probably less inflammatory than atheism. It depends on your personality more than anything, and it’s also fine for you to say that you believe in a Creator, but to say one is probable goes beyond what is probable, if you see what I mean.If we don’t know we don’t know.
John: those numbers are compelling I admit: but at least in my case, since we can’t know anything about any miraculous intervener, it has no practical effect. I could invent all sorts of qualities it may have, but since I don’t need I wouldn’t. Even if the concession is made to life creation, starting at that point, with no cultural input, what can we say? Nothing.
If there’s a need it will be answered (door knock open etc)and everyone will answer it for themselves in their own way: god, allah, est, wicca, and so on.
I think it was T.S. Eliot who said ‘When people cease to believe in god they believe not in nothing but in anything’. Personally I can’t even manage that.But I seem to get by.
The moderation is a technical glitchy thing: let’s all stop getting touchy about it.
johnlloydscharf said
Betty, beyond the numbers, there is that resurrection trick that sets apart Christianity.
I am not certain what you mean about skipping through the dictionary. I was starting that list of those atheists as defined by being stubborn and ignorant. While I started with Tony Almo, I am quite willing to refer to Fred Phelps to the top of the list.
kay~ms said
Betty, all 3 links that you posted are the same… from the same source, which while you say “aren’t aggressively leftwing” they look very much like government sponsored /affiliated links.
Please read this paragraph from Bill’s commentary, because it appears that you must have missed this part:
The bottom line is that years ago when President Obama ran for the Senate, he produced a short form “Certificate of Live Birth” that at the time was never challenged. This is NOT an actual birth certificate, but a document anyone can get, even if they were born in a foreign country. His actual long-form birth certificate is the document anyone born in the United States has and can produce, and the document Obama has REFUSED to provide. The link below give you a very good description of the difference between the two documents. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101483
The photographs on your links show a “certification of live birth” which as Bill explains is a short form document that can be easily obtained by anyone. The actual long form Certificate of Birth, which anyone born in the United States has, has not been produced by Obama.
click on the link and see what the actual differences are.
kay~ms said
Betty, cont… you want to call this an “absurd smear” but did you get all of the information before making such a claim? No… I understand that absurd claims exist but like I have stated earlier on this blog..I trust Bill Keller’s judgement and his information. Please don’t try to make us look like we don’t care about the welfare of our service men and women by questioning our president’s legitimacy. That’s the kind of thing that would fall under that catagory of “low down diry tactics”.
The question still remains… why is Obama having to spend so much money to defend this issue when all he has to do is provide his ACTUAL birth certificate.
You can go to http://www.wnd.com and find dozens of articles on this issue, where investigative reporters have been to Kenya, been to the hospitals in Hawaii, and have been blocked by Obama’s people at every turn.
bettyslocombe said
June 6:
In an article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin today, State Department of Health spokesperson Janice Okubo stated that the “Certification of Live Birth” is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Long forms are no longer available.
…you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
princessxxx said
john, i see that you referenced Todd Bentley.
here is a funny anecdote.
my doctor, she is a lovely educated woman that has her own missionary, she travels to africa and peru several times a year to provide medical treatment and “bibles” at her own expense.
well, doctor told me about todd bentley in Lakeland, FL having a healing revival and that i should find god and go to his revival.
I watched Bentley on t.v., and i could tell he was a fraud within the first 5 minutes. seriously, this man was claiming that people were actually being raised from the dead.
and people would come up to the podium and claim that god had given them gold teeth. are you serious? god in his almighty power and wisdom is going to give people gold teeth. what is god? some sort of hip-hop rap artist? instead of healing real illnesses, god is going to dish out ‘grills’? come on.
so the next time i saw my dr, i told her that bentley was a fraud and she and i got into a heated argument. i told her, i’m doubting your ability to be a doctor if you think this is for real.
well, we all know how that story ended. Bentley caught in an extramarital affair with a fellow employee of his ministry. TYPICAL.
and kay,
and birth certificates. i had to get a copy of my birth certificate pre 9/11. apparently somehow birth certificates from 1957-61 were lost or destroyed or something, so what i got was a certificate of live birth. and they didn’t just hand it over, i had to provide a lot of information to get it. so i am highly doubting that anyone could get a birth certificate that easily.
and world net daily is an extremely conservitude website. ann coulter is a regular contributor. what does that tell you?
kay~ms said
But Betty, that still leaves the question of where is Obama’s original birth certificate that his mother received when he was born. The long form with of the additional information that would help put this issue to rest. I haven’t heard anything about him or his mother (or father) loosing it but apparently that must be the claim. So, it’s that simple? He lost it, has a much easier to obtain short form and we just have to accept it? Why are people being turned away by Obama’s people when trying to get verifiable information of his birth location? I would really think that there would be more scrutiny for someone who is a candidate for the President of this country as far as their citizenship is concerned but apparently not. Just a piece of paper with very little information is enough? I don’t see the justification of critisism for the people who desire more information than that for the person holding the most powerful position in the world.
johnlloydscharf said
Princess, I listed Todd Bentley because he is stubborn and ignorant – the definition of an atheist, as defined by Kay. I much prefer assigning him to the atheist category. Likely God did the same. He certainly cannot believe Bentley is on HIS side. A-theist… Anti-God.
johnlloydscharf said
Princess, I listed Todd Bentley because he is stubborn and ignorant – the definition of an atheist, as defined by Kay.
johnlloydscharf said
I much prefer assigning him to the atheist category. Likely God did the same. He certainly cannot believe Bentley is on HIS side. A-theist… Anti-God.
johnlloydscharf said
I much prefer assigning him to the atheist category
kay~ms said
Uh John, again you are misunderstanding… I didn’t say “stubborn and ignorant” is the definition of an atheist. I said that is a common trait of atheists. I’m starting to think that you are here just to argue.. not really engage in any real debating. Contestual arguing doesn’t interest me.
Case in point…
You said: “KEEP IN MIND THAT I FULLY EXPECT TO SUFFER JUDGEMENT AND AFTER THAT TO DIE THE SECOND DEATH.”
Now, I have since showed you that you are mistaken! News doesn’t get much better than that!!
Your response….. suprisingly…NOTHING!
So I am only left to deduce that A: you’re statement, in all caps, was a lie or B: you are not a true believer as your statement implied.
Which is it?
princessxxx said
kay, might i add. i was a thousand times ruder to you when i first came on the scene here, and guess what? you took it like an adult. hurray for you.
so when we go get that ice cream, i’m buying.
but remember, i’m gay, so the ice cream comes with ’sprinkles’.
johnlloydscharf said
So, now you are 1000 times ruder and ten times that much irrelevant… but feel free to dance around the issues as the mocking bird you are… DANCE, DANCE, DANCE!! AH!HA!HA!
Hors Service said
@Kay
I’ll pass on the stubborn and ignorant thing, it’s not as if I wasn’t used to with you
you said:
“That is also illogical to me. How can you have less than nothing?”
Yep, my mistake^^ I should I have said more than 0 probability^^
As far as the theories goes, we could be living in one of the hundreds of billions of quasi-identical universes, created each time a probability has to resolve. It means that every evenement of a probability different than 0 is happening, but each times it creates his own version of the universe.
There could be universes when man didn’t appeared, we would be living in one where man did appear;)
Only one of the multiples theories…
You said:
“maybe in the afterlife but it’s clear that God’s intention is that we will not know during our Earthly lives.”
Why not?^^ Who are we to decide the Plan? Maybe, in fact, God give us a such beautifull brain in order to understand his Creation? Which would make much more sense to me, in fact.
You said:
“It’s the very science that atheists stand by that TELLS us that we are never going to know this information.”
Science doesn’t deal with such absolutes;) It just says that with today’s theories, there’s little but different than 0 probability than we found out.
Like, we KNOW that the Relativity Theory of Einstein is false. Sure. Applied to the origin of the universe (and black holes), it leads to aberrant results. It’s a model, all the physics are just models, going closer and closer to reality.
By the way, the difference between Science and Religion is that you don’t (at least, shouldn’t) believe in Science. What would be the point? It’s like believeing in chairs or that 1+1=2. Science just IS.
You said:
“Every “attempt” so far on this blog by atheists to theorize where the first (whatever) came from CLEARLY shows this stubborness and ignorance.”
You made the same, you even asked the question, then said the first whatever was the work of a Supreme Being, then I asked something like “Were does the Supreme Being comes from, then?”, and you finished saying it was not meant for us to understand. Am I right? I’ve perhaps misinterpreted.
If I’m right, well, you reasoning seems a bit illogic to me…
You said:
“Even Darwin acknowledged the likelyhood of a Supreme Being.”
Of Course! Evolution doesn’t care if there’s a God or not behind all this. It just says that, to us, the mutations are random, for example. (But there’s others ways of evoluting;))
You said:
“Hors, this statement shows that you are missing / avoiding the point. I don’t expect an answer from you.. there isn’t one. I am asking you to ask yourself this question.”
Then you’re asking me a question with no answer? It’s a trick^^ What if I’ve asked myself that question, and made my mind?
/
What are you all debating on whetever Obama has the proper certificate?! Isn’t this the American Dream? Aren’t you all immigrants at the origin?
Our President is the son of a Hungarian immigrant, and we don’t make all this fuss about it…
princessxxx said
kay, do you like to dance? it’s the best exercise.
we may have to go dancing after our ice cream social.
burn off those extra calories, not that we need to.
i’m not too familiar with SRQ niteclubbing these days.
there is a country western bar called Joyland halfway between my place and yours.
i ain’t afraid of no rednecks.
by the way, how is wyndee? i miss her, she is my favorite redneck.
and i bet she is a good dancer as well. tell her i said hello, please.
johnlloydscharf said
Do you feel clowned yet?
kay~ms said
P, I just tried to post a response and it disappeared… I’m going to try on the other page.
bettyslocombe said
It’s called clutching at straws, Hors.
johnlloydscharf said
It is called ignorance of who writes laws and has power, Hors. Our President has little to do with policy or direction of government.
They can complain about Bush all they want, but it was CONGRESS pulling the strings that got the world into a recession.
Why do you think with a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that little or nothing has changed for the better. Watch what happens with healthcare. Obama could not be more impotant.
Regarding foreign policy, there is less room to maneuver than Obama thought. The huge difference is the that instead of the prisoners being held in Guantanimo, they are being kept in Afghanistan. Of course, of you watch the BBC, you have seen several reports on that.
Yes. People are clutching at straws because they are seeing repeats of the administrations of President Johnson and President Carter when the Democrats were in complete control – expanding entitlement programs at an exponential rate.
Were it not for Newt Gingrich, we would have sold ourselves into Chinese slavery in the early 1990s. Denny Hastert did that and Nancy Pelosi it trying to double sell us to China with the Mad Hatter of the Treasury leading the way.
We do not need another president. We need another Speaker of the House like Newt Gingrich.
kay~ms said
Betty.. didn’t you mean “It’s called Hors is clutching at straws “? I think that’s what you meant.
Hors, please believe me that when I used the words stubborn and ignorant they were not for the purpose of being hurtfull or insulting although granted they aren’t compliments either. I see it as contstructive critisism. I am trying to be constructive not destructive. And if you’ll notice in comment #113, I actualy refered to myself as ignorant!
I really do feel like you are ignoring (root word for ignorance) very valid arguments for God’s existence.
Sure, you could say the same about me… I’m stubborn and ignorant for ignoring valid points that God doesn’t exist. But actually, I’m not sure exactly what those valid points are. Could you tell me? What valid points am I ignoring that says that God doesn’t exist? Maybe we just need to look at this from a different angle.
I said:
“Every “attempt” so far on this blog by atheists to theorize where the first (whatever) came from CLEARLY shows this stubborness and ignorance.”
You said: “You made the same, you even asked the question, then said the first whatever was the work of a Supreme Being, then I asked something like “Were does the Supreme Being comes from, then?”, and you finished saying it was not meant for us to understand. Am I right? I’ve perhaps misinterpreted.
If I’m right, well, you reasoning seems a bit illogic to me…”
Hors, I’m not the one who claimed to be able to explain it… you (atheists) keep attempting to explain where the first matter or energy came from but everytime atheists use already existing matter or energy. This appears as extremely stubborn and ignorant to me. Ignoring that you can’t get something from nothing ( a present scientific fact ). Stubborn because atheists continue to try to explain it anyway. And again, everytime, you use already existing matter / energy/ existence to try to explain it.
bettyslocombe said
Nice one Kay:ba da boom.
At the moment everyone is theorising.There’s no option.
There are many many more or less plausible theories: god, an endless cycle of universes, the multiverse, a unique universe( Paul Davies explains in The Goldilocks Enigma how it can have ‘popped’ into existence), intelligent designers who are merely more developed beings a la Matrix, etc etc: take your pick.
Either god is ‘existing matter’ :in which case where did god come from?
Or it isn’t matter at all, so if it did create matter that matter ‘came from nothing’. So you can get something from nothing. Q.E.D.
bettyslocombe said
Princess, rude you may have been, but with a certain naif charm.
Hors Service said
@Kay
Yes, I understand that when you say “stubborn and ignorant”, you don’t mean bad.^^ On the contrary of some others contributors equiped with a larger number of capital letter in their names^^
But i think that Betty meant that you’re “clutching at straws” when you try to prove that Obama isn’t born in America;) I think that’s no matter of importance, personnaly. Hey, nice expression, “clutching at straws”! A pleasant discovery for me^^
You said:
“I really do feel like you are ignoring (root word for ignorance) very valid arguments for God’s existence. ”
Well, to me I haven’t seen a really valid one yet^^
I take them all into account, I think, but I oppose them with other arguments, isn’t it? Which one did I not answered yet?
You said:
“But actually, I’m not sure exactly what those valid points are. Could you tell me?”
Well, we haven’t found anything in nature that could suggest that there is a God: the current verified theories (the ones that correspond very well to reality, and that no one is questioning much more) don’t need any supernatural explanation to hold, so it would be a surprise if macroscopicaly there was a God…
If it’s the God of christianity, why the Revelation have been made to a very few people, and why were the 2 Americas left apart?
And I think it’s the duty of Believers to prove that they’re right^^ If I say that ETs live in invisible to everything pyramids in orbit of Earth, controlling the life of Man by acting on our minds without any hope for us to notice it, well, nobody can prove me wrong^^
/
Matter/energy, you forgot dimensions^^
And YOU try to use God. Which is a bit too easy to me: where does this God come from?
We’re not sure of the explanation, in fact, so I don’t believe more in one theory than in one other.
But the God theory seems to lack consistance to me.
By the way, all
“something doesn’t come out of nothing”
Well, this assertion is currently being questioned by the scientifical community!^^ Yeah, that hurts the good sense, but a lot of particle physics is hurting the good sense anyway.
Nothing sure anyway.
The void seems to have a minimum energy!
Interesting developpements awaits us!
Science is getting more exciting than ever!
Maybe God came out ouf nothing, but the Universe could have also done it, so why not cut the intermediates?^^
johnlloydscharf said
Hadst thou, Demosthenes, an outward force
Great as thy inward magnanimity,
Greece should not wear the Macedonian yoke.
johnlloydscharf said
Kay, on the requirement for producing a birth certificate, I was required to produce one. I think it should be done for all government employment and thought it was in order to prove citizenship. You may be interested in this proposed bill:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25245.html
kay~ms said
Hi Hors… thank you, I do think of myself as sensible! And I think the first requirement of being sensible is having an open mind.
Which, after some thinking in the last few days, I have concluded that, based on your responses (and Betty’s too) that I don’t sense that you are keeping an open mind where God’s existence is concerned.
I am feeling kind of worn down in debating with you because I feel like you are not considering my points… that I’m wasting my time. But I won’t give up…
But it seems like every point I make is countered by you with a good point BUT not as good as my point. I know that you of course, will disagree and have an answer to this point but this is what I’m thinking and in debating with you, I’m just going to write what I’m thinking, for starters, because it helps keep me grounded… ever though your english is extremely impressive (I’m always impressed by people who are fluent in other languages) I sometimes am not exactly sure what your saying (and this could easily be my fault not yours). So, an already complex debate becomes more complex… which again, I am amazed by your ability to even debate this topic so well since it is not in your native language.
But bottom line, without an open mind, debating can be very, very tiresome. I feel like you and Betty don’t WANT God to exist. And it’s kind of like the drug addict that doesn’t want to get better… no amount of help is going to make a difference if they don’t want to be helped.
But, there is also the possibility that maybe you are winning our debate (some of your points have been better than mine I do believe) and you are way ahead of me in the scientific department.
Please dont’ misunderstand though, I think you are a very pleasant person to debate with, I do like debating with you and am glad everytime you come back.
So, anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest…
Now, you said..
“Well, we haven’t found anything in nature that could suggest that there is a God: the current verified theories (the ones that correspond very well to reality, and that no one is questioning much more) don’t need any supernatural explanation to hold, so it would be a surprise if macroscopicaly there was a God…
If it’s the God of christianity, why the Revelation have been made to a very few people, and why were the 2 Americas left apart?”
You keep resorting back to “scientific theories that correspond with reality”.
So, I’m going to keep resorting back to the science that tells us that we shouldn’t be here.
Yes, you can say that “well, we haven’t discovered the scientific answers yet” but I think that is, and sorry but, an ignorant statement. I think that fits that saying.. “clutching at straws”. At the very least… I would like to hear that as of today it is a fact that are existence isn’t logical and that could be a good argument for a Supreme Being. I think that would be a sensible statement.. right?
I don’t think that you have produced valid points that God doesn’t exists (points that I may be ignoring).
again you said: “Well, we haven’t found anything in nature that could suggest that there is a God: the current verified theories (the ones that correspond very well to reality, and that no one is questioning much more) don’t need any supernatural explanation to hold, so it would be a surprise if macroscopicaly there was a God…”
Where is it written that God and science must be separate? That it is either one or the other? Your statement implies that the two are not compatable and that is a common misconception. A Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of understanding or creating via scientific logic?
The ultimate question here is: is all of our existence a coincidence or planned?
Which is more likely? This is precisily where I feel that your answer, while good, is not as good as mine.
Just some examples… when I see a rainbow, to me it is a sign that not only does God exist, but that He loves us. It is one of the thousands of beautiful things that shows that He exists and cares. Why do we need to see in color? Why are flowers so beautiful? Another thought I had, when we see our veins under our skin, they are blue, our blood is blue… but when we are injured… it automatically turns a bright red. The boldest color.. it gets our attention. This fact displays thought and purpose by Someone. Or of course, it can be just a coincidence as atheists would say. Or evolution made it that way… ( I don’t know how that would be) and yes… as you would say ” we just don’t know the science for that yet”. But again, I would say, that is “clutching at straws”.
My bottom line oppinion is that Atheists MUST ignore many many things, must go way out of their way, to support the belief that God doesn’t exist. Ultimately using that line “science just hasn’t discovered that yet”. And I say… Why do you think that God couldn’t be the creator of the science? Where is it written that the two are incompatable??
You said: “If it’s the God of christianity, why the Revelation have been made to a very few people, and why were the 2 Americas left apart?”
Well, God’s word had to originate from somewhere. Are you asking why a giant hand didn’t come out of the sky and drop a book in every language? Or really, why He doesn’t just wave and speak to us all right now from up above so there is no more questions?
Basically, what you are saying I quess, is why God just didn’t “program” us to love and obey him from the start.. right?
Well, if you could have someone love you on their own by their own will or just make them love you with some magic potion, which would you prefer?
And if you opt for the magic potion… well, I know a few people who would also and the reason is because they are narcisists!!
) They don’t care why a person loves them just as long as they do!
There is no value in that. God wants us to want Him, to seek Him and love Him of our own free will. And that is not hard to do when we learn of His love for us. And put our trust in Him when it seems like He doesn’t love us because of hard times/ situations. Trust and love go hand in hand!
“and why were the 2 Americas left apart?”
Do you mean why the continents were formed, separated from each other?
kay~ms said
Betty, you said: “At the moment everyone is theorising.There’s no option.
There are many many more or less plausible theories: god, an endless cycle of universes, the multiverse, a unique universe( Paul Davies explains in The Goldilocks Enigma how it can have ‘popped’ into existence), intelligent designers who are merely more developed beings a la Matrix, etc etc: take your pick.
Either god is ‘existing matter’ :in which case where did god come from?
Or it isn’t matter at all, so if it did create matter that matter ‘came from nothing’. So you can get something from nothing. Q.E.D.”
There is an option to believe one theory or another. And my argument is that while you listed many theories, God is the most logical one to believe in.
Option 2 “an endless cycle of universes,” doesn’t discount God and I believe argues for His existence. Option 3 “multiverse” same thing… Option 4 same thing. And please if you could, post here Paul Davies explanation of how “it” popped into existence. I love those good laughs… I NEED those good laughs!!
)
Option 5 “more developed beings”.. where are they? They’re either not able to contact us or they don’t care… both highly unlikely.
so, see, I’ve just sensibly reasoned that God is the most logical explanation. The most logical option.
My question to you is, why have you decided to discount Him… the most logical pick / option?
You said: “Either god is ‘existing matter’ :in which case where did god come from?
Or it isn’t matter at all, so if it did create matter that matter ‘came from nothing’. So you can get something from nothing. Q.E.D.”
Yes, your question just brought us back to square 1… which is where did the first matter come from or where did God come from. Clearly, We are not going to have the answers to that. And my argument is that it is supportive of the existence of a Supreme Being more so than supporing the non existence of a Supreme Being. Because of the resulting evidence of the first matter that “popped” into existence. It overwhelmingly displays thought and purpose. It IS God waving at us from up above. Those that want to see Him will and those that don’t, won’t.
kay~ms said
I just read this devotional of Bill’s from Friday and thought I would share it since it is so relevant to this debate…
Some of my fondest memories as a young boy growing up in the ’60s was
getting up very early in the morning, turning on the television set, and
watching the late Walter Cronkite announce the latest blast-off of a manned
rocket into outer space. From the initial single man Mercury rockets, to the
two-man Gemini missions, to the three-man Apollo series that was highlighted
in July of 1969 by Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, to the current era of
the Space Shuttle flights and a manned space station, the space program has
been one of man’s great accomplishments.
I also remember the horrible reminders of how dangerous space travel can be.
I remember watching in tears as a fire in the capsule of Apollo 1 that was
still on the launch pad, killed astronauts Virgil Grissom, Roger Chaffee,
and Edward White. I remember 23 years ago seeing the explosion of the Space
Shuttle Challenger just 73 seconds after lift-off, killing all 7 aboard. The
past 40 years of space travel has been very exciting to witness, has
contributed greatly to advancing our existence in this life, and in the
future will continue to help us find answers to some of the great questions
that we have about our world.
Perhaps the greatest question ever asked is, “does God exist?” With over 2.4
million subscribers and having many subscribers forward each day’s
Devotional to their friends and family, having it posted on hundreds of
other websites and message boards each day, I get hundreds of emails daily
with that very question. Anyone that has ever taken a Theology 101 course
knows that right after the Table of Contents, the very first chapter is on
the “Existence of God.” I could spend hours proving the existence of God
because belief in the existence of God is intuitive, it is assumed by the
Scriptures, and it is corroborated by various arguments. But I am not going
to.
Instead, when anyone asks me “does God exist?” I tell them ABSOLUTELY. When
they ask me to prove it, I tell them to do two things. First, go look in a
mirror, and second, go outside and look into the sky. When you look into a
mirror and see yourself, YOUR EXISTENCE is one of the greatest proofs there
is that God exists. After all, one of the questions all men throughout human
history have asked themselves is, “where did I come from?” Evolution and
other theories have all proven to be impossible. There is only one
plausible, legitimate explanation, and that is GOD CREATED US. If God
created us, then God must exist.
When you go outside and look into the sky, the EXISTENCE OF THIS WORLD is
one of the greatest proofs there is that God exists. Man from the beginning
of time has asked “how were the heavens and earth made?” There have been
numerous theories put forth, but all have fallen woefully short of even
coming close to explain how the world in which we live was created. There is
only one plausible, legitimate explanation, and that is GOD CREATED IT.
Of course those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ and know that the
Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant Word simply go to Genesis Chapter One. The
existence of God is a given fact. Those who have made the choice to reject
Christ in the their life, will in many cases also reject the existence of
God. It is easier for them to live with themselves by believing that there
is no God, that Jesus is a story like Santa Claus, and that the Bible is
just a book of fables.
This way, they can live their life however THEY choose, free in their own
mind from being accountable to anyone. These people will rely on incredible
arguments, unproven scientific studies, and anything that they can find to
deny God exists so that they can feel better in their rejection of Him. For
people like this, you will never convince them God exists through arguments.
The best thing to do is to pray for them, since the God they reject is able
to open their hearts to His reality and love for them.
I love you and care about you so much. Only a fool would ever doubt the
existence of God. As a matter of fact, it would take greater faith than I
could ever dream of having, to even question whether God exists. Let me
leave you with some quotes by former astronauts about the existence of God:
“I am convinced of God by the order out in space.” Astronaut Eugene A.
Cernan:
“But when you leave the earth, in a spacecraft, I personally think there’s a
real motivation to look toward God. After being in space, I certainly have a
much greater appreciation for the world God has made, the universe He’s
created. It’s very clear in my mind that this universe couldn’t have
happened by chance.” NASA Astronaut Col. Jack Lousma
“To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to
me impossible. It just strengthens my faith. I wish there were words to
describe what it’s like…” Astronaut John Glenn
In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller
bettyslocombe said
I am afraid I am suddenly so utterly bored with this whole topic that I am seized by a terrible ennui and am taking a long sabbatical. Let’s just say, and I think I speak for Hors here:’chaque a son gout’. I suppose in our own way we are all searching for:
kay~ms said
See.. another liberal hiding behind humour.. that is a good movie though.. I saw it when it first came out.
But Betty, am I wrong? Isn’t it more sensible to opt for the existence of God?
Hors Service said
Hey Kay!
Happy that you answered my post and decided to come back in the debate!
I’ve still some energy left for the debate^^ “Chacun son goût”, but, hopefully, that doesn’t prevent people from discussing the issues :p But I understand Betty, sometimes, talking to walls gets boring after some time^^ It’s so difficult to go through.
But Kay, I think you’re more of a curtain, which make the debate bearable^^
Thanks for your congratulations on my language, but I think I don’t fully deserve them. I make a lot of mistakes, using french structures, and sometimes my ideas are deformed. I apologies for the misunderstandings.
You said:
“I feel like you and Betty don’t WANT God to exist.”
Well… Actually, I would prefer God to exist. I’m not a fanatical atheist, I don’t know for Betty, but in fact I like the idea of God, even if the debate (often, debating forces people to defend a more radical point of view than their own…) doesn’t always shows it.
I have an opinion on what God should be if I was a believer, an opinion about HOW (not what;)) people should believe, and if you would like to engage in a religious debate (like what is the nature of Jesus, does he end the revelation, things like that), I could play opposite you.
But I don’t believe God is existing.
You said:
“you are way ahead of me in the scientific department.”
I’m a scientific, maybe this time I’m ahead of you, but this doesn’t mean you can’t be right!
I could be Nobel Prize and you could still be right!
Please always consider my arguments as you’ve always done, with suspicion, scepticism, and other arguments^^
They’re made to be confronted.
And it’s a pleasure when they’re confronted to yours.
/
You said:
“So, I’m going to keep resorting back to the science that tells us that we shouldn’t be here.”
I wonder where did you get this, I still doesn’t find it^^
On the subject of the beginning of Space-Time , no theory says that we shouldn’t be there.
In fact, they don’t say that there should be nothing (not even vacuum) instead of something, or the contrary, because they can’t. It’s outside the range of Science.
They just say what is. Not why. There’s no morality or purpose in Science. It just exposes how the world works.
And the Earth turns, whether one believes that God created it or not.^^
You said:
“I would like to hear that as of today it is a fact that are existence isn’t logical and that could be a good argument for a Supreme Being. I think that would be a sensible statement.. right?”
I still don’t understand why existence shouldn’t be logical. We have no proof that it’s logical or not yet. (And I don’t think we will ever have one).
If you think it’s not logical, then why do you think non-existence would be more logical?
In some chemical processes, the system is more stable when the solution is heterogeneous instead of homogeneous. Which is strange, but explainable. Could be the same for the Universe.
And now:
If existence is not logical, why does the existence of God would make more sense? Where did He came from? Why does He exist?
I think telling “God created us” is just moving the problem.
you said:
“I don’t think that you have produced valid points that God doesn’t exists (points that I may be ignoring).”
At least He isn’t where a lot of people see Him (like in rain making, the american governements, or thunder…)
But then, I don’t think that you have produced valid points that God does exists.
It’s the same as, say, ETs living in great invisible pyramids in orbit watching and taking care of Mankind.
No argument for, no argument against.
It’s only Belief.
You said:
“Where is it written that God and science must be separate? That it is either one or the other? Your statement implies that the two are not compatable and that is a common misconception. A Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of understanding or creating via scientific logic?”
Here is it!
I don’t think that God and Science are opposed!
They’re just different!
You can be a scientist and Believe, as long as you don’t mix both! (The Jesuits make that very well)
To my mind, one shouldn’t try to explain Science with Religion, or justify Religion by Science.
I was just showing you that there wasn’t any logical reason to Believe.
Look, I BELIEVE that God doesn’t exist, but I can’t justify it. It’s the whole point of believing. (What would be the use of believing in something sure?)
It just hurts me when people find God where He isn’t.^^
like:
“when I see a rainbow, to me it is a sign that not only does God exist, but that He loves us. It is one of the thousands of beautiful things that shows that He exists and cares. Why do we need to see in color? Why are flowers so beautiful?”
And when people get burned in their houses, killed by wild animals, when children explose on mines, when people have a cancer, even after believing all their life, do you think it’s still a Gift of God? (Yes, it’s pushing things a bit far, but it’s in order to be understood^^)
Why are spiders ugly? They’re in fact just spiders. Why do we find them ugly? They’ve done nothing wrong.
We see in color, but we don’t see in ultraviolet, and we could see more marvellous things with it…
Flowers are beautiful because they have no choice: to survive, they must give the need to pick their spores to a maximal number of animals.
And some flowers are ugly, some even does smell like a corpse.
(Yes, it’s doesn’t explain why is there Beauty, I think that’s what you meant^^)
You said:
“Another thought I had, when we see our veins under our skin, they are blue, our blood is blue… but when we are injured… it automatically turns a bright red. The boldest color.. it gets our attention. This fact displays thought and purpose by Someone.”
Here, understand what I meant? I think you’re putting Purpose when there’s no need for Purpose.
1) Our blood is red, all the way from the feets to the head, ranging from bright red (rich in oxygen) to dark red (poor in oxygen). The veins are red too, but the skin filters light, and they SEEM blue. But they’re red^^
This color is due to a protein which links to oxygen, hemoglobine, common to most of the vertebrates.
2) Other animals (like insects) have a green blood. And if we had green on the body, it would be more obvious than red, because our skin is pink;)
3) We have 3 muscles to move the ear, and they’re totally useless. One muscle in the arm, useless too. When the baby gets formed, it shows a tail at the beginning, which disappear afterwards. See? No purpose for them.
4) Evolution didn’t force any color to the hemoglobine, so it just stayed red. No need to change. Like some of us do have beards. Some of us don’t.
You said:
“My bottom line oppinion is that Atheists MUST ignore many many things, must go way out of their way, to support the belief that God doesn’t exist. Ultimately using that line “science just hasn’t discovered that yet”. And I say… Why do you think that God couldn’t be the creator of the science? Where is it written that the two are incompatable??”
The two are compatible: God could have invented the logic, like a programmer invent the laws to his programm.
But, as an example: Last week at work, we made two tests: We made a multilayer of polymer-titan-polymer (3 layers stacked up), and a multilayer of polymer-glass-polymer.
And, to our suprise, water diffused through the glass one better than through the titan one!
It’s against all previous results!
Against what we thought would be logical!
We have no explanation for this yet.
But none of us said it was God’s fault.
See what I mean?
I think that seeing God everywhere is kind of missing the real nature of God.
You said:
“Well, if you could have someone love you on their own by their own will or just make them love you with some magic potion, which would you prefer?”
That’s not exactly what I meant^^
I meant, why did America didn’t received any Revelation?
Why does God didn’t gave the Revelation at the beginning, and wait like 6000 years to do so?
(Don’t believe the Scriptures on this point, it’s not an history book, the Jews didn’t even existed 10 000 years ago…)
Why did he didn’t do anything when all the other Gods gave revelations, and not even a hint to anyone?
That’s the problems I find in Christianism.
And personnaly, I would choose the option “No magic potion”. Their love wouldn’t have any value, I agree.
It seems to me that both believers and non-believers goes through the same problems in life, wherether they believe or not.
So I don’t understand why I would hope for God when I could go and do things myself.
I think that’s what He wants. “Help yourself and God will help you”.
I will put my trust in him when I will meet him and make sure he’s an okay guy^^
The only thing I’m sure of, it’s that He’s got a very special sense of humour…
I will perhaps answer you other posts later on, but as a beginning:
Bill Keller said:
“When you look into a mirror and see yourself, YOUR EXISTENCE is one of the greatest proofs there
is that God exists.”
It seems really egocentric to me. *Oh I’m so great, so intelligent, so wonderfull, I couldn’t have been just a freak accident, there MUST be a Superior Being (Who I look like, by the way) who created me!*
kay~ms said
Hors, you said that you like the idea of God but it is clear that you mean YOUR idea of God. Unfortunately we can’t create our own “ideal” god… He created us… I can’t help but think I am right that you do not want the God of the Bible to be real. And probably for the same reasons as most, you wouldn’t be able to do what you want to do, some of which we already discussed…having multiple sex partners as one example.
So it really does seem that your desire is to argue against his existence because you don’t want Him to exist.
You said: “I have an opinion on what God should be if I was a believer, an opinion about HOW (not what;)) people should believe,”
There you go again, insisting that there is a “right way” for people to believe. You can’t regulate spiritual beliefs. I do not need to keep an open mind about which god is the correct God… the God I believe in doesn’t tell me to kill or hate non believers, doesn’t tell me that I will someday be equal with him. The God that I believe in has found a way to give all of us salvation even though we don’t deserve it. The God I believe in loves everyone, the good and the bad. There is no reason for me to keep an open mind to other gods… my God is perfect. To tell me that I must / should have an open mind to other gods goes against my human rights. Do I hope that others, who’s god encourages violence, realize that they may be following the wrong god? yes. But I can’t say that they should have an open mind to other gods.. because I wouldn’t want someone to tell me that I “should” or else I am doing something wrong.
I said:
“So, I’m going to keep resorting back to the science that tells us that we shouldn’t be here.”
I wonder where did you get this, I still doesn’t find it^^
On the subject of the beginning of Space-Time , no theory says that we shouldn’t be there.
Ok Hors… is there a theory that proves that we can get something from nothing? If there isn’t then I stand by my statement that our existence isn’t logical.
“you can’t get something from nothing” My belief is that this is a scientific fact. But if not, then it is a theory… so there is your theory that says that we shouldn’t be here. I think that you are completely ignoring this “theory” that science, as we know it today, proves to be a truth.
You said: “And now:
If existence is not logical, why does the existence of God would make more sense? Where did He came from? Why does He exist?
God makes more sense because he represents the idea that there is something greater than us. That the universe is beyond our comprehension. Which, with the facts that we have today…existence is illogical, also the inability to duplicate life on our own and many other limitations, these clearly support the idea of a Supreme Being as opposed to “it is within our understanding, we can figure it out”… “it was the big bang” etc. etc.
Opting for the belief in science alone says that there is no one greater than us. We can figure it out, nothing is beyond our comprehension. That to me shows a lack of humility and complete obliviousness to us, our world and the universe. Why can’t there be someone greater than us?? Why can’t it be impossible for us to understand?? just look at the universe.. infinity… how do you apply logic to that?? yet it does exist… and we are left with not even one reasonable way to explain it’s beginning or end. Yet, you and Betty and all of the other atheists (Lawman) won’t even acknowledge the possibility of someone greater than us. When it IS the most reasonable explanation… What does that say??
You said: “I think telling “God created us” is just moving the problem.”
It’s not really “moving the problem”.. it’s acknowledging our limitations.
I said:
“I don’t think that you have produced valid points that God doesn’t exists (points that I may be ignoring).”
You said: At least He isn’t where a lot of people see Him (like in rain making, the american governements, or thunder…)
But then, I don’t think that you have produced valid points that God does exists.
Hors, God is in control of all things including “rain making, the american governements, or thunder”.
I don’t understand why it hurts you that people have faith. And how can you be so sure that God isn’t where people find him? How do you know this?
And yes, I have produced valid points to God’s existence… the order in nature, in all of existence. The reason our blood is red… a bright color to get our attention. And would green blood be as obvious to those who have darker complexions? Hors, I think you’re grasping at straws again…
Speaking of blood… I’m convinced that you must have Scottish blood in you… The Scottish and the French have a history… I do have some french by way of my scottish heritage. In case you’re not sure what I’m talking about…. the Scottish are known for being highly argumentive. Sometimes when I argue with you I feel like I’m arguing with my brother
)
Using reasons like us having muscles that are totaly usless and why the revelation wasn’t initially provided to the Americans, or that water inexplicably passed thru the glass easier than the titan or all of the human tragedies that happen on a daily basis, using these things as reasons ( because you do not have the answers), to not believe is basically, you setting the rules with God. It is you saying.. ” explain these things to me and then I’ll believe”. You want to make sure God is “an ok guy” and then you’ll believe. Well he gave you the Bible that says that he loves you enough to die for you… I’d say that makes him an “ok” Guy… wouldn’t you?
kay~ms said
And I forgot to say… talk about a brick wall… that’s my brother. He would argue for the sake of arguing, it was never for the sake of finding the truth. It was always a complete waste of time. And that is what I feel like you are doing Hors.
Hors Service said
You said:
“Hors, you said that you like the idea of God but it is clear that you mean YOUR idea of God.”
I like the idea of God in general, but it’s true that I particularly like MY idea of God. Of course. I do agree. And you mean YOUR idea of God too.
“Unfortunately we can’t create our own “ideal” god… He created us…”
Well, then why does so much people, even within your own religion, disagree on His subject? Some think they should kill in His name.
I still think one has to find his own way to God, to forge his own relationship with Him. And avoid people who tells you what to believe.
“I can’t help but think I am right that you do not want the God of the Bible to be real.”
You’re inaccurate, I think that YOUR God of the Bible can’t be the God. I think the (whole) Revelation of God is included in the Bible, but also in the other religions, so one can find the Truth of God either in learning a lot of religions, or eliminating the untruths in his own religion.
“And probably for the same reasons as most, you wouldn’t be able to do what you want to do, some of which we already discussed…having multiple sex partners as one example.”
False, I think that the Bible does allow multiple sex partners. But yes, it’s my interpretation… Anyway, if you want to discuss on this, please anwser to http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/a-cavemans-view-on-abortion/
Some of my friends are atheists and still don’t want to have multiple sex partners.
You said:
“There you go again, insisting that there is a “right way” for people to believe. You can’t regulate spiritual beliefs.”
It’s already done: for example, you can’t do human sacrifice, even if you believe God wants it.
And it could be: Abraham pratically killed his son.
“I do not need to keep an open mind about which god is the correct God… the God I believe in doesn’t tell me to kill or hate non believers, doesn’t tell me that I will someday be equal with him.”
You can still think that your God is the correct God, and understand why the other Gods are the wrong ones. Islamists don’t need to keep an open mind either.
“The God that I believe in has found a way to give all of us salvation even though we don’t deserve it. The God I believe in loves everyone, the good and the bad.”
Sodomites believed in it, too. It didn’t prevented them to die by His hand.
But you have your own interpretation of God, and if your God loves everyone, then I find it cool!
“There is no reason for me to keep an open mind to other gods… my God is perfect. To tell me that I must / should have an open mind to other gods goes against my human rights.”
Oh yeah, to tell you that you should be open-minded (but to believe in what you want), surely goes against human rights…
Think by your own, it’s also against human rights?
And the parents who killed their sick daughter by refusing all doctors, saying that only God should/could save her? Shall we respect their Right To Believe, too?
I think that Beliefs and Principles should never prevent one to do the right thing.
“Do I hope that others, who’s god encourages violence, realize that they may be following the wrong god? yes. But I can’t say that they should have an open mind to other gods.. because I wouldn’t want someone to tell me that I “should” or else I am doing something wrong.”
And how exactly do you want them to realize they follow the wrong one? If they have been thaught so since childhood, it’s very difficult to change one’s mind.
And I think that learning about other Gods helps you understand more about your own God.
Just as discussing with you about these issues helps me understand more about my own opinions. (by the way, I thank you for that)
You said:
“Ok Hors… is there a theory that proves that we can get something from nothing? If there isn’t then I stand by my statement that our existence isn’t logical.”
1) Yes there is, as I’ve already said, but I think that’s not what you mean;)
2) Why nothing at the beginning would make more sense than something at the beginning? 100 years ago, we believed that the Universe was eternal and infinite, always the same in every direction. It had always existed. After that, we (as the scientific community) changed our mind. And now, we are changing again.
““you can’t get something from nothing” My belief is that this is a scientific fact. But if not, then it is a theory… so there is your theory that says that we shouldn’t be here. I think that you are completely ignoring this “theory” that science, as we know it today, proves to be a truth.”
Huhuhuhu^^
You’re doing it wrong! All scientific facts are, more or less, theories. (That is to say, true in a certain range of parameters)
There’s no such things as scientific truths^^
EXCEPT: Maths. They’re fundamental truths.
“You can’t get something from anything”: Actually, this is being under review. I don’t know the details (I’m no physical theorist), but it seems that absolute vacuum has a minimum level of energy, and creates (and destroy) particles all the time.
A consequence is the Casimir Force (the one I was talking about^^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect (But carefull, this is Wikipedia, it’s VERY simplified, and inaccurate in parts, but the article is still good in general)
“God makes more sense because he represents the idea that there is something greater than us. That the universe is beyond our comprehension.”
Of course, we were designed by evolution to make balistics, not quantum physics…
And on the mathematical point of view, some things are beyond usual comprehension.
But the point I want to make is that things that we used to think that they were beyond our comprehension are now understood.
Therefor I think it’s unstable to find the reasons of one’s Belief in something we will understand sooner or later…
By the way, some theories says that the whole Universe has 12 dimensions, but only 4 are accessible to us. If it isn’t recognizing that there is something greater than us, then what is?
“Which, with the facts that we have today…existence is illogical, also the inability to duplicate life on our own and many other limitations, these clearly support the idea of a Supreme Being as opposed to “it is within our understanding, we can figure it out”… “it was the big bang” etc. etc.”
But maybe you don’t WANT the Universe being understandable. Because it would force you to change your Beliefs, perhaps? Just being ironical^^
To me, I think that even if one day we understand everything about the origin of the universe, it will still left a space for God. I don’t think that God is necessary to understand the Universe, nor that the understanding of the Universe is erasing God.
And we can duplicate life. It’s called… Reproducing!
We can’t (really) duplicate life on our own, but be carefull, I think it’s something we’re able to do. Basic life is nothing more than complicated chemical reactions. We have other limitations, but I think this one is a bad example.
Informatically, we can produce viruses, who have a “life” of their own, without our intervention.
Creating things doesn’t mean having absolute control on them. For example, God gave us freedom.
You said:
“Opting for the belief in science alone says that there is no one greater than us.”
You can’t believe in Science. Some people does so, but they’re wrong, it’s a fundamental mistake.
Science doesn’t require your belief. Science just is.
It’s stupid to believe in 1+1=2, or in chairs. Chairs, you sit on them, you don’t believe in them^^
“We can figure it out, nothing is beyond our comprehension. That to me shows a lack of humility and complete obliviousness to us, our world and the universe. Why can’t there be someone greater than us?? Why can’t it be impossible for us to understand??”
Science doesn’t say that there is no one greater than us. But we haven’t found Him yet. And we don’t need Him to understand how the universe work.
It’s like a program: you can figure out what the program IS, but not what the programmer IS.
Another analogy: ants can’t apprehend our world. For them, we’re Superior beings. But they don’t need us to understand the world, and we’re no Gods. But, to them, we are Gods.
“just look at the universe.. infinity… how do you apply logic to that?? yet it does exist… and we are left with not even one reasonable way to explain it’s beginning or end.”
There’s an infinite number of integers, and even a more greater infinite number of irrational numbers. It’s difficult to apprehend, but it’s pure logic, and there’s no Supreme Intelligence in it.
The Universe is infinite, true. But it seems that it’s only in the usual 4 dimensions (3 of space and one of time). The Universe is looking like it’s expanding, and where to? Other dimensions.
According to some theories, the universe is a torus!
A good analogy is the circle: from the point of view of the line, it’s infinite. But a circle could be expanding in a second dimension.
Fantastic, isn’t it?
Of course I’m not a specialist in this domain, so I may be inaccurate.
And 500 years ago, we had no reasonable explanation to bolts.
Now, we have.
Science doesn’t pretend to know everything, but at least Science is searching. That’s why it’s called research
“Yet, you and Betty and all of the other atheists (Lawman) won’t even acknowledge the possibility of someone greater than us. When it IS the most reasonable explanation… What does that say??”
I think that thinking there is some ONE greater than us is anthropomorphism, and one of the greatest evidence of human pride.
But I believe there are some THINGS greater than us, and I think it’s pretty obvious.
But we (as individuals) can’t apprehend what it is in its totality. Maybe as a specie.
To me, pure atheists are saying “There’s nothing greater than us” and believers “I know what’s greater than us”(or assimilate).
I think that both approachs are incredibly pridefull.
You said:
“It’s not really “moving the problem”.. it’s acknowledging our limitations.”
I don’t think the understanding of the origin of the universe is one of our limitations. We have theories about it. Everything is unclear yet, but we’re progressing.
You said:
“Hors, God is in control of all things including “rain making, the american governements, or thunder”.”
Then we have no freedom. But the Bible says that God set us free. So God isn’t involved in the macroscopical aspect of the things.
Maybe God created something, and is now desesperately trying to get the control back on it?^^
I don’t think so, but it’s a funny conjecture, isn’t it?
Like we created pollution.
You said:
“I don’t understand why it hurts you that people have faith.”
It doesn’t hurts me. But when this faith lead them to say wrong things, it hurts me. When their faith change them in boy scouts and help people, I have no problem with it.
“And how can you be so sure that God isn’t where people find him? How do you know this?”
Because God let us free. So at least, the world we live in is kind of on automatic mode: otherwise, it would be like being free in a prisoner cell.
You said:
“And yes, I have produced valid points to God’s existence… the order in nature, in all of existence. The reason our blood is red… a bright color to get our attention. And would green blood be as obvious to those who have darker complexions? Hors, I think you’re grasping at straws again…”
Does water have a choice about flowing downhill?
If something is not working correctly in nature, it disappears. And nature had 3,8 billion years to wipe out everything that wasn’t working well.
It could be God’s intention, if you want. But this logic doesn’t need God to work.
God isn’t necessary for this, but this doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
Yes, bright green would be more more obvious than dark red on those who have darker complexions.^^
And the problem of this reasoning is less the fail in logic (our blood is red -> it’s to get our attention -> there’s a purpose), but all the questions it’s not answering: why is our blood red, and not phosphorescent? It would be even better! Why can’t we assimile everything we eat, and prevent us from going to toilets? And more!
You said:
“I’m convinced that you must have Scottish blood in you…”
and
“the Scottish are known for being highly argumentive.”
Be very careful with that. The personality has practically nothing to do with genes, and everything to do with the culture and education.
And in fact, as far as my genealogy goes (not very far, I grant you), it’s french, and an Italian great great granpa. I would have appreciated a bit more diversity, but I haven’t chosen^^
You said:
“Using reasons like us having muscles that are totaly usless and why the revelation wasn’t initially provided to the Americans, or that water inexplicably passed thru the glass easier than the titan or all of the human tragedies that happen on a daily basis, using these things as reasons ( because you do not have the answers), to not believe is basically, you setting the rules with God. It is you saying.. ” explain these things to me and then I’ll believe”. You want to make sure God is “an ok guy” and then you’ll believe. Well he gave you the Bible that says that he loves you enough to die for you… I’d say that makes him an “ok” Guy… wouldn’t you?”
You’re using rainbows or the color of blood as reasons to believe. If you say that all the good things comes from God, then you must acknolewdge that the bad ones comes from Him, too.
What is the Purpose in this useless muscles? Why creating dinosaurs and then destroy them? (Dinosaurs are useless to Us, who seems so proud to be the Center of His Creation…)
And you think God is in control in governement making. Then, He is responsible for Hitler. (And I earn One Godwin Point^^ If you don’t know what it is, search the web;)).
So, He’s creating us, and then put a great big tree in the middle of Eden, and said “Oh, it would be very bad to eat this fruits!”, but why creating it?
And as you know, God created Lucifer.
He died for us, but was resurrected… Then what’s the value in dying? But I acknolewdge the value in His suffering.
If YOUR God exists, then He has a very special humour.
Or is it ineffability again?
(In reality, I think He is ineffable if He exists^^ But I think that your arguments are not good arguments
)
/
Same for me.
But I think that just talking about it makes you more open-minded than you want to recognize
I search the truth in debating, just as you. I’m no troll, at least I hope so. And I’m finding it, with your help, I’m evolving. Maybe not in the direction you wanted, though^^ But I thank you for that.
I don’t think I’m being of bad faith, but I can be mistaken. I just don’t recognize the validity of your arguments, with arguments to oppose
kay~ms said
You said: “I like the idea of God in general, but it’s true that I particularly like MY idea of God. Of course. I do agree. And you mean YOUR idea of God too.”
Hors, what I meant was that you do not want the most worshiped God, the God of the Bible, to be real. He’s not “my” God in the sense you are using. When someone on this continent or your continent claims that they are an atheist we know which God they are most likely rejecting. That is the God that you do not want to exist because His will does not match yours. That is what I meant. Am I right? I think there is a possible ulterior motive for your arguments, arguments not for the sake of finding the truth. I may be wrong but that is what I feel and that is why I’m asking. And I have to say that that is one of the most common reasons that people reject God.
I said: “Unfortunately we can’t create our own “ideal” god… He created us…”
You said: “Well, then why does so much people, even within your own religion, disagree on His subject? Some think they should kill in His name.
I still think one has to find his own way to God, to forge his own relationship with Him. And avoid people who tells you what to believe.”
Why do people disagree even within Christianity? Because humans are not perfect. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t perfect and Christianity is not true. It means humans have faults.
I agree that we have to find our own way but not by rejecting the truth of Christianity which is, by the way, the most reasonable and purposeful religion of all.
You said: And how exactly do you want them to realize they follow the wrong one? If they have been thaught so since childhood, it’s very difficult to change one’s mind.
And again from your quote up above “And avoid people who tells you what to believe.”
You answered your own point… you can’t avoid people telling you what to believe. It clearly starts when we are young…. But..there is a point where we do start to think for ourselves (God’s intention). That is when you use reason and logic (and your heart). These things tell you that it is wrong to hurt or kill innocent people because they don’t believe as you think they should. God gave us common sense and he gave us a conscience. Humility is also something we learn as we mature (hopefully.. unless we are too much under the influence of our pride). Humility is also required in order to find the right God. Mormonism is a perfect example where humility is lacking and therefore a hindrence in turning to the true God. Where is the humility in believing that you will become a god yourselve when you die? EQUAL with God!
You said: “Some of my friends are atheists and still don’t want to have multiple sex partners.”
That has more to do with an individuals sex drive…not religion. That argument doesn’t relate to someone wanting to have multiple partners but can’t because of religious restraints.
you said: “False, I think that the Bible does allow multiple sex partners. But yes, it’s my interpretation…”
Believe me Hors, you’re not the first one to misinterpret the Bible to fit your will and not God’s.
I said: “There you go again, insisting that there is a “right way” for people to believe. You can’t regulate spiritual beliefs.”
You said: “It’s already done: for example, you can’t do human sacrifice, even if you believe God wants it.
And it could be: Abraham pratically killed his son.”
This may be a “lost in translation” thing but I didn’t say regulate “spiritual practices” (human sacrifices for example).. I said regulate “Spiritual beliefs” ( thoughts in our minds). You can’t tell someone they are “doing it wrong” for not researching all the gods before they decide which one to believe in.
Speaking of “doing it wrong”… could you actually know that that line is from an American comedy classic “Mr. Mom”? That made me laugh
) ( now I shall thank YOU ;o)
You said: “You can still think that your God is the correct God, and understand why the other Gods are the wrong ones. Islamists don’t need to keep an open mind either.”
But Hors, I don’t NEED to understand why the other gods are the wrong ones.
No one has the right to tell Islamists that they should have an open mind towards spiritual beliefs (that they are wrong if they don’t), but I think they do need to keep an open mind, specifically because their god promotes hate and violence which when they use their reason, heart and logic, will then be directed to the true God. The God that will bring them salvation thru His love and mercy.
You said: “Sodomites believed in it, too. It didn’t prevented them to die by His hand.
But you have your own interpretation of God, and if your God loves everyone, then I find it cool!”
The Sodomites didn’t love and obey God. Have you ever loved someone but they hurt you in return… treated you badly? Were you angry at them? The main difference being that God is sovereign and has the right to exact judgement and even though you cannot understand His reasons that doesn’t mean they aren’t just.
You said: “Oh yeah, to tell you that you should be open-minded (but to believe in what you want), surely goes against human rights…
Think by your own, it’s also against human rights?
To tell me that I am wrong for choosing not to learn about other gods is disrespecting my human right to believe the way I choose.
I have to thank you once again, I am learning also as we debate… I hope that I never make the mistake of telling a Mormon or a Muslim that they “should” learn about other gods. I will tell them to keep an open mind as to who their “god” is. Yes! “that’s the ticket”… Thank you Hors! That is something that I would be okay with if someone told me that I should do the same.
You said: “And I think that learning about other Gods helps you understand more about your own God.”
Yes, but again, it is not necessary for me to know my own God by learning about false gods. It is not something that I “should” do.
You said: “And the parents who killed their sick daughter by refusing all doctors, saying that only God should/could save her? Shall we respect their Right To Believe, too?
Yes, again, respect their right to believe but this is again about religious “practices”. Obviously they must be regulated for the protection of the innocent.
Which leads us to…
You said: “I think that Beliefs and Principles should never prevent one to do the right thing.”
I think you left out “with the exception of abortion”.
I said:
“Ok Hors… is there a theory that proves that we can get something from nothing? If there isn’t then I stand by my statement that our existence isn’t logical.”
1) Yes there is, as I’ve already said, but I think that’s not what you mean;)
Yes, you are right, that is not what I meant… the Casimir effect uses something to “get something from nothing”.
You said: “2) Why nothing at the beginning would make more sense than something at the beginning?”
The nothing at the beginning is the Atheist’s argument …. God IS the Something at the beginning. And, yes it does make more sense… yay… we agree finally!!! Ahhh my work is done… for now
)
You said: “Huhuhuhu^^
You’re doing it wrong! All scientific facts are, more or less, theories. (That is to say, true in a certain range of parameters)
There’s no such things as scientific truths^^
EXCEPT: Maths. They’re fundamental truths.”
Ok… I’m probably falling right into a trap but…. 0-1= ?????????????? You can’t get something from nothing!! a mathematical fact! it’s illogical!!
You said: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect (But carefull, this is Wikipedia, it’s VERY simplified, and inaccurate in parts, but the article is still good in general)”
Yeah.. like I’m going to be able to understand that?!? But is was clear that something was used to get the “something from nothing”.
Wow, I don’t even think I’m half way thru yet….will address the rest tomorrow… phew!
kay~ms said
Hors.. cont..
You said: ““You can’t get something from anything”: Actually, this is being under review. I don’t know the details (I’m no physical theorist), but it seems that absolute vacuum has a minimum level of energy, and creates (and destroy) particles all the time.
A consequence is the Casimir Force (the one I was talking about^^)”
“an absolute vacuum” and “a minimum level of energy” qualifies as something (existence) not the “nothing” that something supposedly comes from. See, I’ve already explained this but the persistence/ insistence (and stubborness it seems) from Atheists to argue this point futilely and humorously continues.
You said: “Of course, we were designed by evolution to make balistics, not quantum physics…”
Because of this statement and another statement that you made:
I said:
“I’m convinced that you must have Scottish blood in you…”
and
“the Scottish are known for being highly argumentive.”
And you said: “Be very careful with that. The personality has practically nothing to do with genes, and everything to do with the culture and education.”
It appears that despite your affinity to science, you actually hold to the 2 statements you’ve made up above. This completely boggles my mind. I guess this is what you get when you combine liberalism with science?
What you are saying is that the mind is an exception in the evolution process theory? I definitely would like to challenge that.
I understand what you are saying when you say “be careful with that”. But I’m sensing some “Reverse Ignorance” starting to show itself again.
Here is a perfect example of liberalistic views now getting in the way of science. See how destructive liberalism is? It’s just more of that “lets make our own truth” liberalistic poison.
What makes you so sure personality traits have nothing to do with genes??? I won’t deny that environment has a major affect but our genes have a major affect also.
Or maybe I just touched a nerve… maybe you do have some of the Scot in you.. and you just don’t want to admit that I was right? Just asking. I’m still convinced that you do, maybe you need to do a more thorough job of researching your geneology?
You said: “By the way, some theories says that the whole Universe has 12 dimensions, but only 4 are accessible to us. If it isn’t recognizing that there is something greater than us, then what is?”
How about Someone? Who is in complete control of you and that you will have to answer to? Can you recognise that?
You said: “But maybe you don’t WANT the Universe being understandable. Because it would force you to change your Beliefs, perhaps? Just being ironical^^”
Fear of understanding the universe doesn’t factor in here with me…. God created the universe.
You said: “Does water have a choice about flowing downhill?
If something is not working correctly in nature, it disappears. And nature had 3,8 billion years to wipe out everything that wasn’t working well.
It could be God’s intention, if you want. But this logic doesn’t need God to work.”
It’s interesting how nature survived in spite of all of the things that weren’t working well.
The logic doesn’t need God to work but it needed God to create it so it could work. Creations still need a Creator.
You said: “Yes, bright green would be more more obvious than dark red on those who have darker complexions.^^”
I disagree… green is a camoflaging color. Humans, in the beginning were mostly outside especially when injured (because of outside dangers). Red would stand out more and increase the chances of being rescued / receiving help. All things considered, red seems to be the best color. Why didn’t God choose flouresents? I can’t tell you, I just don’t have the answers to everything but I refuse to let that fact get in the way of believing in a Creator. He still makes the most sense.
You said: “Why can’t we assimile everything we eat, and prevent us from going to toilets?”
Honestly? It’s one of the many ways that God keeps us humble. Also, if we are not eating healthy then we usually have a price to pay. The digestive process encourages healthy eating. See? Just more evidence of purpose in nature.
You said: “You’re using rainbows or the color of blood as reasons to believe. If you say that all the good things comes from God, then you must acknolewdge that the bad ones comes from Him, too.”
No, I’m not using those things to believe, I am using those things to further my argument. And yes, you are using your points to do the same I guess. But all of your points are more or less questions that you do not have the answers to. And THAT seems to be your argument for not believing Again, you are saying… “until these things make sense to me I will not believe”. God gave us enough evidence.
You said: “So, He’s creating us, and then put a great big tree in the middle of Eden, and said “Oh, it would be very bad to eat this fruits!”, but why creating it?
God wants us to use our free will to love and obey Him, how are we going to be able to use our free will if there are no temptations?
And as you know, God created Lucifer.
He died for us, but was resurrected… Then what’s the value in dying? But I acknolewdge the value in His suffering.
The ultimate punishment for sin is death. Jesus took on the ultimate punishment for us.
You keep arguing “why didn’t He make it better then”… which really brings us back to…”why didn’t He just program us to do His will?”
What if, Hors, He does have good reasons and answers for all of these questions, but He doesn’t want you to know them yet? What if this is just the way He wants to do it? Don’t you think a Supreme Being has that perogative?
You said: “But I think that your arguments are not good arguments”
The argument that there could be Someone greater than us? The very valid argument that our existence does not make sense scientifically from what we know to date? The argument that it is much more likely that we are planned and not an accident? Come on… really?… An Accident???
Hors, it is you (Atheists) who do not have ANY good arguments. And futiley trying to explain how you can get something from nothing (over and over) tops the list.
Again, atheists are the ones who have to IGNORE many things in order to not believe. What are believers ignoring that says that God doesn’t exist?
bettyslocombe said
The problem is Kay: if I.D. is material,it must also have an origin. If not then any matter it creates has come out of nothing,just as you accuse those who believe in non-intervention of saying.
Oh. I already said that. Any reply this time?
Princessxxx said
if I.D. exists, i’m going to need to see the original birth certificate and the birth announcement in “The Hebrew Times” before i believe it.
kay~ms said
Betty, I’ve never denied that there is a “problem”. That has always been my point. Our existence isn’t logical (whether is was created or by accident). My contention is that BECAUSE our existence isn’t logical it argues more in favor of the existence of a Creator. It tells us (loud and clear) that there is Someone greater than us who has decided to not allow us the answers to this question (for now).
Yes, your argument then, I’m sure, is … “why can’t it be just as likely that it was by accident that the something came from nothing?” It’s just not more likely that there is no purpose in our existence. If it is more likely, please explain it to me.
kay~ms said
Oh Atheists… where are you??
) I’m gonna say it again…. if you can no longer argue your view, then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view… right?
Hors Service said
I was waiting for the second part of your answer, and since it had now appeared to me (must have been kept “in moderation”), I’m gonna answer, but I need a bit of time^^
As well still going with the evolution thing…
Hors Service said
Let’s go…
You said:
“Hors, what I meant was that you do not want the most worshiped God, the God of the Bible, to be real.”
1) Since when is Truth a matter of numbers?
2) I refute also the major interpretations of the monotheist God (God, Allah, Yahve), Greek Gods and some other faiths, ranging from Paian religions to Buddhism.
“He’s not “my” God in the sense you are using.”
Oh yes He is. I use it in the meaning of “your interpretation of the divinity”. As everyone has his own Interpretation, influenced more or less by the feelings of the others and the society about it.
Look, you’re not Catholic (are you?), so we already have two Gods here.
Jews, Christians and Muslims from all sides pray theoriticaly the same God. Which doesn’t prevent them from not having the same religion.
“When someone on this continent or your continent claims that they are an atheist we know which God they are most likely rejecting. That is the God that you do not want to exist because His will does not match yours. That is what I meant. Am I right?”
No, I don’t think so.
1) You know His Wills? You had a Revelation? Hurrah, we found our next prophet. It’s only what you think are His Wills. A lot of people think differently, and still say they follow His Will.
2) What will it change that I believe or not? I already behave properly, at least I try to. I’ve got a thousand years of catholicism behind me, even if I want to, I can’t change my cultural background. So I behave already like most of catholics.
If I would believe, I would go on in having “multiple sex partners”, and loving them, because I think it’s authorised in the Bible and even encouraged.
I would still not go to church, as I don’t like being told what to think. But I would go to meetings, apostolic events, talk to priests, in order to share my faith and learn from the others believers, as a part from a mundane spiritual community.
The only big novelty if I would take your faith (meant as the christian faith) is that I would be less afraid of death.
“I think there is a possible ulterior motive for your arguments, arguments not for the sake of finding the truth. I may be wrong but that is what I feel and that is why I’m asking. And I have to say that that is one of the most common reasons that people reject God.”
Some does, but not me.
And I feel that it’s still better than the ones who accept God and then make evil in His Name.
You said:
“I agree that we have to find our own way but not by rejecting the truth of Christianity which is, by the way, the most reasonable and purposeful religion of all.”
And… You can say that and still say “I don’t know anything about the other religions and anyway I want to learn anything about the other religions?”
I’m left gaping.
So… Find your own way, as long as it’s the Christian way?
You said:
“You answered your own point… you can’t avoid people telling you what to believe.”
I’m proposing you HOW you should believe, not WHAT.
“It clearly starts when we are young…. But..there is a point where we do start to think for ourselves (God’s intention). That is when you use reason and logic (and your heart).”
Some stay under influence until they die.
I would add something to the list: always keep your mind open. Some people still want to “convert” gays, for their own good….
“Humility is also something we learn as we mature (hopefully.. unless we are too much under the influence of our pride). Humility is also required in order to find the right God. Mormonism is a perfect example where humility is lacking and therefore a hindrence in turning to the true God. Where is the humility in believing that you will become a god yourselve when you die? EQUAL with God!”
Where is the humility in believing that an omnipotent and omniscient entity, bigger than the universe, would care about a few evolved primates on a little planet circling around an average sun?
I personnaly think that humility is required to find that there’s no God.
You said:
“That has more to do with an individuals sex drive…not religion. That argument doesn’t relate to someone wanting to have multiple partners but can’t because of religious restraints.”
No, they’re feeling sexual attraction like the majority of the humanity, but they choosed to abstain before marriage for example, based on moral principles. Which I totally respect, even if I disagree.
But what I don’t like it’s the ones who say “God says so, so I must do it”.
Whatever does the Bible or the Coran or any book says, I strongly believe that everyone should find his own reasons to do act. Because the next step after “God says so, so I must do it” is “God says so, so you must do it”. Or the other way is that they consider you as an impure infidel.
You said:
“You can’t tell someone they are “doing it wrong” for not researching all the gods before they decide which one to believe in.”
You’re deforming. I said to have a reasonable overview. Like, for example, knowing about the muslim faith? They’re saying that their prophet is the next one after Jesus. It could be interesting, Jesus never pretended to be the last messenger of God, did he?
You said:
“But Hors, I don’t NEED to understand why the other gods are the wrong ones.”
I’ve been aware of that pretty well, thank you^^ You’re so convinced that yours is the right one, but you’ve never looked at anything else! It’s like saying that the pepperoni pizza is the best pizza ever, without having never tried the other ones!
You could maybe say “pepperoni pizza is a very good pizza, and I don’t need to try any other pizza, though I’ve never tasted them”.
“but I think they do need to keep an open mind, specifically because their god promotes hate and violence which when they use their reason, heart and logic, will then be directed to the true God. The God that will bring them salvation thru His love and mercy.”
So, don’t look at other religions, but look at your own, and understand that is not the right one…
A good approach too.
But the thing is, they will get to the “normal” muslim faith. Not to Christianity. Because according to you, one doesn’t have to have an open mind on other faiths.
I think that, even if thinking only by oneself could lead to truth, one could easily find himself blocked. And the only way to avoid this limitations is by an external point of view, someone or something that could show you what you can’t see anymore.
Like in the Antiques, I can’t remember who but I think it was Aristotes, he said that Man could explore and understand the whole universe by only the power of his brain. Which is, in theory, possible, but not in practice: it always lead to mistakes. So Science is always confronting itself to reality, to assert theories or on the contrary reject them partly or fully.
I think that it’s the same principle for beliefs and opinions. But HUGE difference: you confront with other beliefs.
“Have you ever loved someone but they hurt you in return… treated you badly? Were you angry at them?”
Yes, but I didn’t burn them down, and secondly, I’m a human. Not a God.
I feel that what you are doing is anthropomorphism (but it’s the basis of most religions…) God is supposed to be only love. And were the children of Sodom guilty of its crimes?
“The main difference being that God is sovereign and has the right to exact judgement and even though you cannot understand His reasons that doesn’t mean they aren’t just.”
So if I understand well, every good thing and love and such is an evidence that God exists, and the rest is God Moves In Mysterious Ways.
And you want me to believe it?
“To tell me that I am wrong for choosing not to learn about other gods is disrespecting my human right to believe the way I choose.”
Well, if you think being narrow-minded is part of believing in God… I don’t know what I can do with that^^
“Yes, but again, it is not necessary for me to know my own God by learning about false gods. It is not something that I “should” do.”
Ok, I respect your right to be ignorant^^
“I think you left out “with the exception of abortion”.”
No.
In Brasil, a 9 years old child got pregnant (of twins) from her step father. The doctors said they couldn’t save everyone, it was her or the babies (or even never the babies: she was too young and weak to carry them until the end).
So she had an abortion.
Still opposed?
Inhuman religious beliefs often ends in inhuman religious practices. So that’s why you don’t fight beliefs with laws (they’re for practices), but you fight them with debates, tolerance and humanity.
Of course, that’s only what I think.
“the Casimir effect uses something to “get something from nothing”.”
I’m no particle theorist so I’m gonna have problems explaining it, but the interesting thing is that this energy is coming from nothing. And we can’t explain (yet) where does it exactly comes from…
“The nothing at the beginning is the Atheist’s argument …. God IS the Something at the beginning. And, yes it does make more sense… yay… we agree finally!!! Ahhh my work is done… for now
)”
Nope, I just said it wasn’t God at the beginning, which is different^^
The Universe (12 dimensions) could also be eternal, and exist since ever, and for eternity…
On the mathematical point of view, matter/energy at the begining makes no difference.
So, God created it and then it all went by itself, but we can’t explain the origin of God… Well I cut the superfluous, and say we can’t explain (yet) how it all went by itself.
Why adding another layer of incomprehension?^^
So, why nothing at the beginning (like you seem to think, it all started from nothing) would make more sense than something (like, an eternal Universe) at the beginning?
It’s only a human limitation that we can’t easily apprehend infinities.
“Ok… I’m probably falling right into a trap but…. 0-1= ?????????????? You can’t get something from nothing!! a mathematical fact! it’s illogical!!”
0-1= -1!
And, on the physical point of view, it makes no difference: you can count the atoms in a cristal lattice or the lacks of these atoms, either way you get the result (And these apparent “holes” have some exotic proprieties sometimes…).
The right way of the formula is “nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything changes”. Getting something from nothing is… well… tricky, I’m not at all professional, but what I can say is that this corollar that seems obvious is under review.
And why couldn’t we have a 1 at the beginning? Like, a pre-existing universe, which have collapsed, and before it, an other one, etc etc…
“Yeah.. like I’m going to be able to understand that?!”
I’m sorry… It’s true that I have my head deep in the stuff, and I don’t always realize that others may not have the same background as me.
My mistake.
Short summary:
You have two conductive plates in absolute vacuum.
In this vacuum, particles (which are also waves, at this scale) appear and disappear all the time.
Between the plates, less wavelengths are authorized (only the ones with an integer number of times the distance between the plates) than outside the plates.
So, on the plates you have a pressure of non-existent particles on this plates, that tend to bring the plates together.
This is a proven effect.
So, something from nothing (but not the same nothing as you meant;)), as long as I understand it… Strange, and fascinating!^^
I’m only at the end of the first post!
Gee.
And the second one is even more interesting!^^
Okay, I will do the second one later.
Have a nice evening
Hors Service said
Then…
You said:
““an absolute vacuum” and “a minimum level of energy” qualifies as something (existence) not the “nothing” that something supposedly comes from. See, I’ve already explained this but the persistence/ insistence (and stubborness it seems) from Atheists to argue this point futilely and humorously continues.”
Of course, it doesn’t solve the “nothing” part, but it rises interesting perspectives: finally, something could come out of nothing…
And, again, why not something at the beginning? It would make perfect sense. On a scientifical point of view, there’s no reason why there should be preferentially nothing-nothing at the beginning, or something at the beginning (eternal universe)…
Of course, you would have to abdicate your “good sense” that tells you that all things must begin. But “good sense” just doesn’t work to do quantum physics.
You said:
“It appears that despite your affinity to science, you actually hold to the 2 statements you’ve made up above. This completely boggles my mind. I guess this is what you get when you combine liberalism with science?”
No.
1) You can’t combine an ideology with Science
2) Balistics is not a personal trait, it’s a specie caracter. It’s like the bees who see in UV, and are designed to recognize certain patterns in the flowers. Or the foal, who knows how to walk since the first instants. Pigeons makes logarithms on a daily basis, but would you call them intelligent? (as we)
The more the specie has a developed brain, the more it gets personal traits: it’s a way to adapt even more efficiently to the environnement, without having to wait for the next generation.
“What you are saying is that the mind is an exception in the evolution process theory? I definitely would like to challenge that.”
No. We got the mind first among the other species, which gave us a determinant advantage in the evolution.
“Here is a perfect example of liberalistic views now getting in the way of science. See how destructive liberalism is? It’s just more of that “lets make our own truth” liberalistic poison.”
We’re talking of science, and there you go again with “liberalism”…
“What makes you so sure personality traits have nothing to do with genes???”
Some years learning about it, reading articles, having biology lessons, etc… Nothing deep, though, I just know what everyone could know by himself without searching too much.
“I won’t deny that environment has a major affect but our genes have a major affect also.”
I depends on what trait. Predisposition to mental illnesses is also following the same principle.
The more complex is the feeling, the more independent from the genes it is.
For example, agressiveness can be partly related to testosterone levels in the body: huge levels of testosterone correspond in general to high agressivity. (But the contrary is not true).
But more elaborated character traits are practically exclusively linked to the environnement. Like faith, for example.
The “ability to stand a debate” has really nothing to do with genes, and everything to do with culture and education. Far too complex for genetical predispositions.
Second point: these are only statistics. They don’t care about individuals. If a study says that the Scot have 70% debaters among them, you can’t go and tell a Scot he’s a debater. It’s stupid. Worse than that: it’s racism.
I don’t go and tell every american he’s a Jesus freak, even if there’s more Jesus freaks in the USA than in France.
Third point: How can one be sure that the Scots are debative because of their genes, and not of their culture? And secondly, I know some Scots and they’re not half as debative as me. It’s just a stereotype.
“Or maybe I just touched a nerve… maybe you do have some of the Scot in you.. and you just don’t want to admit that I was right? Just asking. I’m still convinced that you do, maybe you need to do a more thorough job of researching your geneology?”
1) Maybe I’m from arabic or black or chinese ascendants, as a lot of people in France are, but you don’t seem to care.
2) My family used to be a poor family of the south of France, known for selling oat, in the medieval time. The other side have been cheese makers in the north, as poor as the other side. So I doubt that they had any links with Scotland.
3) In Europe and, by extension, in America, the genes are so mixed that one couldn’t make the difference between the genotype of a Scot and the genotype of an Italian. I probably have Scottish blood in me, but it doesn’t mean anything.
4) What if I had some Scottish blood in me? I don’t see any problem about having Scottish blood. As I don’t see any problem about having Arabian, Swedish, African, Peruvian blood.
But yes, you touched a nerve… I HATE racism, eugenism, and all forms of judgement based on the real or supposed genes one may have. That’s why I had to moderate myself to stay calm during this explanation, but I don’t think I managed to stay very scientific.
All humans characters are largely independant of the genes.
There’s as much predisposition in being moody because you’ve been born Swedish as because you’ve been born in Winter.
And what I hate in particulare, is the kind of saying “Oh, but it’s not your fault if you’re a stealer: you’re Arabic…” Segregation. “Separted (because different), but equal”. I can’t stand this “well-meant” crap.
Like you have to choose your “race” to have an identity card. Or a driving license.
Categories.
It upsets me.
Sorry. But it’s not only false, it’s also extremely dangerous: next thing you know, the Boss doesn’t want to hire you because you’re born in Chicago, and the people of Chicago have a “predisposition” to thief. It’s only statistics, but your Boss doesn’t want to take the risk.
You said:
“How about Someone? Who is in complete control of you and that you will have to answer to? Can you recognise that?”
If he is in complete control, then we have no free will. Contradiction.
Oh, a God that is our creator and has some effect on our lives could exist, I don’t deny that. But there’s no logical or scientifical reason to his existence. We can’t proove that He exists as well as we can’t proove that He doesn’t exists.
But I don’t think He could be omnipotent, as you think so strongly he is: if He can create a world where He has no power, then He is limited. if He can’t, then He is limited. Therefor, God is not omnipotent. If you see a fail, don’t hesitate to say so.
You said:
“Fear of understanding the universe doesn’t factor in here with me…. God created the universe.”
Good. That’s the whole point. If only all bigots could let us free with the whole “how universe works” stuff. Science is How, Religion is Why.
You said:
“It’s interesting how nature survived in spite of all of the things that weren’t working well.”
It’s because at the beginning, life was extremely simple, and there wasn’t really space for things to not go well. As you seldom see a bug in a pocket calculator.
“The logic doesn’t need God to work but it needed God to create it so it could work. Creations still need a Creator.”
What about an eternal universe? No beginning, no end?
You said:
“I disagree… green is a camoflaging color. Humans, in the beginning were mostly outside especially when injured (because of outside dangers). Red would stand out more and increase the chances of being rescued / receiving help.”
And increase the chances of being spotted by a predator. So, why didn’t He choosed blue? Anyway, are you still thinking that our blood is blue in our veins?
“Why didn’t God choose flouresents? I can’t tell you, I just don’t have the answers to everything but I refuse to let that fact get in the way of believing in a Creator. He still makes the most sense.”
Not really. In all the “purpose” exemples, we could easily replace God with “evolution”: the most adapted wins the bet. (And the eye has evoluted from very basics systems to the thing we have today. It’s a fact, still observable among the horseshoe crab, which possess a primitive system of vision.
It’s sad that so few humans use their eyes correctly)
And I don’t have the answers to everything, too. But I refuse to let that fact get in the way of non-believing in a Creator.
The difference is that I’m not pretending to Save Your Soul.
“Honestly? It’s one of the many ways that God keeps us humble.”
So, all the good things are proofs that God exists and loves us, all the others are to keep us humble. How easy. It must be this “transcendence” stuff again.
“Also, if we are not eating healthy then we usually have a price to pay. The digestive process encourages healthy eating. See? Just more evidence of purpose in nature.”
It seems to me that’s more logic than purpose. If we were eating unhealthy and still have perfect bodies, that would be an evidence for a Creator.
And there’s no such thing as an objective “healthy eating”. If we could eat everything with the same effect, then there would be no “healthy” nor “unhealthy” eating.
See? Just more evidence that we make up the “purpose in nature”.
“No, I’m not using those things to believe, I am using those things to further my argument.”
The argument to see purpose in nature, which is partly why you believe in God.
“And yes, you are using your points to do the same I guess. But all of your points are more or less questions that you do not have the answers to.”
At least I don’t pretend to have answers to them. I’m not asserting truths, here. Or “my” truth. I’m debunking a myth, which is different.
If it was political, like debating between two views of healthcare, I would have a point to make. Here, I’m just supposed to correct your arguments. I don’t believe in another God.
“And THAT seems to be your argument for not believing Again, you are saying… “until these things make sense to me I will not believe”. God gave us enough evidence.”
Which I still don’t see. Wasn’t self-evident enough, it seems^^
“God wants us to use our free will to love and obey Him, how are we going to be able to use our free will if there are no temptations?”
Oh, He wants us to love and obey Him? *You have free will, but you must use it correctly*?
And I still doesn’t see the point in loving and obeying Him. What use is it for Him? He wants some pets? Oh, transcendence again?
You said:
“The ultimate punishment for sin is death. Jesus took on the ultimate punishment for us.”
I don’t agree. There are worse, I think, like psychological torture.
And Jesus has resurrected. That was a nice move from His Dad, I acknowledge. But there’s some favoritism here^^
Again, that was very nice of Jesus, but I personnaly think He is dead for nothing.
You said:
“What if, Hors, He does have good reasons and answers for all of these questions, but He doesn’t want you to know them yet? What if this is just the way He wants to do it? Don’t you think a Supreme Being has that perogative?”
What if He just can’t do anything about it?
And If you got no answers to all of these questions, I think I prefer to cut the middleman, and directly say that we haven’t got all the answers because we haven’t got all the answers. Not because someone is hiding them from us.
But, of course, He could exist.
You said:
“The argument that there could be Someone greater than us? The very valid argument that our existence does not make sense scientifically from what we know to date? The argument that it is much more likely that we are planned and not an accident? Come on… really?… An Accident???”
Our existence makes sense scientifically from what we know to date, even if there is holes in the theories, but you don’t seem to be able to recognize that.
Other hints that we all derive from the same lifeform:
All living things share the same information-stocking aparuts: the DNA.
All living things are on the same side -explanation: there’s two ways to have the same molecule, like there’s two ways to make a hand: right or left-, Life is right-handed.
If God created everything, why everything is so alike? Why creating dinosaurs, then destroying them, if WE are the goal of Creation?
Questions again, I know. But I’m not the believer, here, it’s not up to me to make the answers.
Let us see like that: it’s a lotto game, with trillions of little balls shaking in a big basket. The speaker takes randomly one the balls, and say it’s the winner. One chance over trillions.
If we we’re there to talk about it, this debate wouldn’t exist. And there is billions of planets that doesn’t have this debate, because they didn’t had the luck to have life.
And, finally:
“Hors, it is you (Atheists) who do not have ANY good arguments. And futiley trying to explain how you can get something from nothing (over and over) tops the list.”
And you’re futiley trying to explain that an overpowerfull Being came up of nowhere, created us, a lot of flying angels, is watching us and there’s something after death?
I don’t believe in Santa Claus anymore, you know^^
By the way, I don’t try to explain how you can get something from nothing, I’m saying you that we could have something at the beginning.
And as we CAN get something from what was supposed to be nothing, I believe you’re quite wrong on this point.
“Again, atheists are the ones who have to IGNORE many things in order to not believe. What are believers ignoring that says that God doesn’t exist?”
Logic.
No, just joking.^^
Again, there’s no evidence for or against the existence of God.
I’m not saying it’s wrong for you to believe in God. I’m just saying that your arguments for doing so are bad.
The only valuable reason I’ve found for believing would be Descartes’ bet: “If I don’t believe in God, and He exists, I’m screwed. If I believe in God, and He doesn’t exists, then I haven’t lost anything.”
I personaly don’t believe because I don’t think this is a very good reason on the moral point of view. If I believe, I want to feel it deep in my soul, like I believe in Freedom, Humanity, Love.
kay~ms said
You’re forcing me to write a freaking book here but that’s fine… I sense your frustration also… were going to have to start picking and choosing points to debate or this could really, really get time consuming!!
Ok…
I said: “Hors, what I meant was that you do not want the most worshiped God, the God of the Bible, to be real.”
You said: “1) Since when is Truth a matter of numbers?”
I never said truth was a matter of numbers.. you’re missing the point…
I’m just going to repeat my philosophy again… if there is a Supreme Being, it would be logical to assume that He would make Himself known to us. Right? right. Put it this way… it would be the most likely scenario.
And the most likely way would be thru the written word, right? right. I mean, what other way would be more sensible?
We have the Bible, the oldest or one of the oldest texts pertaining to a Supreme Being. This book has survived thousands of years and is the most read book. These facts shouldn’t be ignored. That doesn’t translate into the “truth being a matter of numbers” (I’m didn’t that). The Bible is supported by other accounts in history and there is also archeological discoveries to further support the truth of this book. This also should not be ignored. Many, many prophets of God, written about in this book, have been martyred for this faith. There is also evidence to support this. This should not be ignored. A man named Jesus was written about by many historians and also his own disciples. Many of these people were eye witnesses to his death on the cross and His resurrection and they recorded their accounts. These accounts are the most revered writings in existence. This should not be ignored. After Jesus’ death they continued to follow Him and tell others the good news about what he had done for us all. This was highly unusual; once the leader died, the followers would scatter and the teachings would cease. This should not be ignored! And most of these disciples died horrible deaths because they would not denounce Christ. This should not be ignored!
I could go on and on. Basically each of these statements are powerful facts that should not be ignored… but when you put them all together… they really REALLY SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED! After assessing all of the many points to support the Bible great effort is required to “believe” that this God does not exist.
No, I’m not saying / didn’t say that truth is a matter of numbers.
You said “2) I refute also the major interpretations of the monotheist God”
Yes, I know.. it’s a pretty convienient (and common) excuse… but sorry, it doesn’t justify rejecting Jesus and what He has done for you.
I said: “He’s not “my” God in the sense you are using.”
You: Oh yes He is. I use it in the meaning of “your interpretation of the divinity”. As everyone has his own Interpretation, influenced more or less by the feelings of the others and the society about it.
Look, you’re not Catholic (are you?), so we already have two Gods here.
Hors, I’ve already explained to you that it’s not my interpretation. I am in line with the interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity… that’s not MY interpretation! There is only one God. Catholics follow the true God. Granted, not the right way in some respects. But they do follow the true God unlike the Mormons.
You said: “Jews, Christians and Muslims from all sides pray theoriticaly the same God. Which doesn’t prevent them from not having the same religion.”
First, Christianity and Judaism is not a religion, it is a faith. And Islam does not follow the same God as Christianity. They claim they do but Mohammed created a ficticious god based on the true God. The same with Mormonism.
I said: ““When someone on this continent or your continent claims that they are an atheist we know which God they are most likely rejecting. That is the God that you do not want to exist because His will does not match yours. That is what I meant. Am I right?”
You said: “No, I don’t think so.
1) You know His Wills? You had a Revelation? Hurrah, we found our next prophet. It’s only what you think are His Wills. A lot of people think differently, and still say they follow His Will.”
The point was that you do not want the God of the Bible to be real. His will is clearly defined in this book. You say (convieniently), “well, the translation is wrong so we don’t know His will”… Yeah.. and how do YOU know this? You might just be wrong! Or you may be partially wrong…( by your excuse).. there still may be many ( a majority of) accurate transalations! How can you justify rejecting an entire book on that premise?? Especially when so much of it CAN be validated with other historical accounts? Especially when it is logicaly a ludacris belief to think that all of these different authors just made everything up… that would be nearly impossible to do. And then to die for these lies?? Come on.. it’s just not reasonable to believe this.
You said: “2) What will it change that I believe or not? I already behave properly, at least I try to. I’ve got a thousand years of catholicism behind me, even if I want to, I can’t change my cultural background. So I behave already like most of catholics.”
Do you still not understand the concept of christianity?
YOu said: “The only big novelty if I would take your faith (meant as the christian faith) is that I would be less afraid of death.”
This isn’t about joining a faith, like say joining a club or something. It’s about accepting or rejecting Jesus and what He has done for you. It doesn’t matter what name is on the building that you go into every Sunday.
And incase anyone is wondering… it is required to believe in the REAL Jesus not the ficticious mormon one that is the brother of lucifer. And to believe that what He did will save you completely, not partially. The Son of God suffering and dying should never be considered insufficient.
I said: “I think there is a possible ulterior motive for your arguments, arguments not for the sake of finding the truth. I may be wrong but that is what I feel and that is why I’m asking. And I have to say that that is one of the most common reasons that people reject God.”
You said: “Some does, but not me.
And I feel that it’s still better than the ones who accept God and then make evil in His Name.”
Are you still using imperfect Christians to support your non belief? What does that have to do with anything? Like I’ve said so many times before… it not the fault of Christianity when self proclaimed believers misuse their free will!
And again, the point is Hors, that it may be better but it won’t even come close to saving your soul. So, basically it’s worthless.
I said:
“I agree that we have to find our own way but not by rejecting the truth of Christianity which is, by the way, the most reasonable and purposeful religion of all.”
You said: “And… You can say that and still say “I don’t know anything about the other religions and anyway I want to learn anything about the other religions?”
I’m left gaping.”
I meant that we still need to find our own relationship with God inside the Christian faith.
Again, I have no desire to learn about other religions, I am satisfied with mine.
And you are really contradicting yourself here… you insist that we should keep an open mind to other religions.. to learn about them before we decide to accept or reject them?
Well, you clearly don’t understand the true meaning of Christianity.. you can’t if you’ve said those things up above..
You said: “2) What will it change that I believe or not? I already behave properly, at least I try to. I’ve got a thousand years of catholicism behind me, even if I want to, I can’t change my cultural background. So I behave already like most of catholics.”
Again, Christianity is about accepting or rejecting Christ. YOu can be the most behaved person in the world but if you have rejected Christ you won’t be saved.
You clearly didn’t / don’t understand this, so you did not properly learn about Christianity before you rejected it. And what seems even worse is that it seems that you have studied Catholisism, so it would be sensible to conclude that you have learned this to some extent but have chosen to ignore the true meaning of Christianity. And then subsequently rejected it. How do you justify this?
continued…
Hors Service said
It’s true. Debating is interesting, but I don’t want it to become a chore.
Please select the subject you want.
I will go on with the sex stuff and on “Two wolves parabol”, but I think we should narrow to something.
You said:
“I never said truth was a matter of numbers.. you’re missing the point…”
You said I didn’t wanted the most worshipped God to be true. For all I know, early christians were considered nothing more as another sect. They had success, more than other contemporary monotheists religions, like mithraism.
“We have the Bible, the oldest or one of the oldest texts pertaining to a Supreme Being”
The hindus Vedas goes far before that, refering to Brahma, creator of all things (Hinduism is a very complicated religion, so if you want more info, you’ll have to search the web, I’m not feeling expert enough). And God has been an oral tradition amoung Jews (with other Gods), until they got it written. It has many different versions, and borrowing from other cults. Some of Bible’s stories are quite widespread, like the Noah’s Arch.
“This book has survived thousands of years and is the most read book. These facts shouldn’t be ignored. That doesn’t translate into the “truth being a matter of numbers” (I’m didn’t that).”
It’s the most sold book, but currently the Coran is getting more and more success. Greek mythology survived for a longer time, but nobody is believing in Zeus anymore.
“The Bible is supported by other accounts in history and there is also archeological discoveries to further support the truth of this book. This also should not be ignored.”
Wrong, for several reasons, some of it I have previously exposed:
1) If I say A and B are true, if A is true, that doesn’t makes B true. A lot of Bible stuff isn’t true, as there’s some good hints in it about what happened at the time.
2) The Bible is only one version of the story, the opposings populations have their owns. Exagerating is one common trait of Bible. Like the fall of Jericho’s walls, for example. It’s supported by archeological evidence.
3) If I say that A broke open the sea, and that the seas have effectively broken open, it doesn’t mean it’s because of A. Same for “God broke open the sea”.
4) Huge amounts of other religions’s litterature have also archeological evidence. That doesn’t makes them true.
“Many, many prophets of God, written about in this book, have been martyred for this faith. There is also evidence to support this. This should not be ignored.”
Being killed and wildly executed doesn’t makes you right, although it’s a good hint. And I shall remember you that not all of them were nice: Elie called the rage of a mob against unarmed Baal priests. There’s martyrs in every side.
Today, there’s a lot of so-called “martyrs”, achieving martyrdom with the help of C4 explosives.
“A man named Jesus was written about by many historians and also his own disciples. Many of these people were eye witnesses to his death on the cross and His resurrection and they recorded their accounts. These accounts are the most revered writings in existence. This should not be ignored.”
Some of them are strangely ignored. Still revered, but ignored from the common Bible. And a majority of humanity doesn’t take them a sacred, only 2 billions over 6.
Jesus has existed, it’s exact. He was a preacher, very well. Now, proove the resurrection with non-partial arguments and/or writings.
“After Jesus’ death they continued to follow Him and tell others the good news about what he had done for us all. This was highly unusual; once the leader died, the followers would scatter and the teachings would cease. This should not be ignored!”
What about Mahomet, then? That’s pretty usual, in fact. See all the evil Hitler can do 50 years after his death (Sorry for the Godwin point. I’m not AT ALL comparing Jesus to Hitler. Just as an example of ideology). Following the death of the leader, a faith has usually two ways: disappearing or expanding. We have today both of examples: some sects have disappeared, some are expanding. Some still have their leader.
“And most of these disciples died horrible deaths because they would not denounce Christ. This should not be ignored!”
Martyrdom is a good hint of being right, that’s true. When people wants to kill you, you’re usually following the right path. That’s why I’m taking it into account.
But I also have my eyes open. One can absolutely die for lies, as long as one’s believing in it.
Now I would like to adress the thing in the other post, “God is powerfull enough to let us know what is His True Will, and to have the Bible saying all His Wills”.
Then why did He waited so much time to give us some hints what was His Will? 8 000 years after the first humans! And He had to come back at least two times (for the Bible) for the Revelation to be complete!
Besides, if His Will was absolutely obvious, then to me, we wouldn’t get any choice, any Free Will. Which is not what God wanted to. So I think it’s our duty as believers to find the Truth beneath the words.
This words were twisted by men of various ages, with different moral values and a nationalist aim for several of them.
And if you read the Bible, in the old testament there’s partically a prophet per generation. How come we’re not having that? Jesus was the last prophet, and ended it all, we had enough hints?
“After assessing all of the many points to support the Bible great effort is required to “believe” that this God does not exist.”
There’s some truth in the Book of Mormon, that doesn’t make it true.
And Vedas have even stronger points in their favor.
I could also write a 5000 pages holy book with some good points, and then hide all holes with *transcendency* or *ineffability*.
The ability of humanity to interpret History at oneself’s convenience is well-known.
Don’t make me say that The Holy Bible is all lies. It’s not. A lot of truth in it, profond moral values, poetry, hope, love. I just keep my eyes open about what is it in reality. One shouldn’t take moral parables to the letter.
“Yes, I know.. it’s a pretty convienient (and common) excuse… but sorry, it doesn’t justify rejecting Jesus and what He has done for you.”
I don’t reject Jesus as such. I do realize what he has done for the improvement of humanity. But look, Gandhi was Hinduist. I revere Gandhi, but I’m not into his faith.
“Hors, I’ve already explained to you that it’s not my interpretation. I am in line with the interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity… that’s not MY interpretation! There is only one God. Catholics follow the true God. Granted, not the right way in some respects. But they do follow the true God unlike the Mormons.”
You’re not perfectly in line with fundamentalists: you don’t seem to be against homosexuality. Which is a good point. Maybe we could save you, after all. Keep up the good work of thinking for yourself.
And a lot of fundamentalists also believes that some people are dark-skinned because of their sins. It’s so good that you’re not following them either.
Therefore, it’s your interpretation of God and of moral values.
Anyway, the fundamentalist approach is not even the major part of christianity.
“First, Christianity and Judaism is not a religion, it is a faith. And Islam does not follow the same God as Christianity. They claim they do but Mohammed created a ficticious god based on the true God. The same with Mormonism.”
You haven’t read the Coran, or even a bit of it, you don’t know anything about Islam, just that *Mahomet and Mormons made everything up, but not the Apostles*, and you still assert this, without a flicker of doubt or self-criticism about your faith.
I must say, I’m impressed.
It’s true, you must have a very strong faith. And all I have to oppose is doubt.
Well, I think I will go on doubting.
“The point was that you do not want the God of the Bible to be real. His will is clearly defined in this book.”
Then why is everyone not sharing your view? It seems that it isn’t so clear, and, as I’ve said before, I think it’s intented to be unclear.
“You say (convieniently), “well, the translation is wrong so we don’t know His will”… Yeah.. and how do YOU know this? You might just be wrong! Or you may be partially wrong…( by your excuse).. there still may be many ( a majority of) accurate transalations!”
I just wanted to justify to be carefull with absolute statements, when you’re basing them on a book translated dozens of times.
One of the most widespread english versions of the Bible was the King James version, and it contains parts justifying the Anglican church.
“How can you justify rejecting an entire book on that premise?? Especially when so much of it CAN be validated with other historical accounts?”
I’m not rejecting an entire book, I think it’s a historicaly and morally a very important book, giving an essential view of how life could have been at the time, and an eternal ethical reference. There’s no need to be christian to take advice from the Bible.
“so much”?!
It’s based on historical facts, on the history of Jews, so it’s quite normal that it has an historical basis! It’s just that I don’t make God responsible for everything that happens in this book.
“Especially when it is logicaly a ludacris belief to think that all of these different authors just made everything up… that would be nearly impossible to do. And then to die for these lies?? Come on.. it’s just not reasonable to believe this.”
They maybe really believed it, but still made everything up. They perhaps intended it as a parable, but then everyone ended believing in it.
Mahomet was chased out of Mecca when he came with this religion, instead of going on with his wealthy business.
Buddha was a Prince, but throw everything away to reach Nirvana.
Is it reasonable to believe they’re false?
Come on, the old testament was initially an oral lore. And oral makes things change. Be aware of your own religion.
And most martyrs already believed, they didn’t need to create lies.
By the way, a lot of that has been used as propaganda afterwards. Look how islamist “martyrs” are used.
And there’s atheists martyrs, also.
You said:
“Again, Christianity is about accepting or rejecting Christ. YOu can be the most behaved person in the world but if you have rejected Christ you won’t be saved.” And all the *you have not only to believe, but to believe properly!* stuff.
It’s something I particularly dislike in YOUR (because, hopefully, it’s not the most shared view, thank God) view of Christianity.
So, everyone who died before the Christ came won’t be saved?
Peace heroes won’t be granted eternal life?
I’m sorry, but as long as you will believe that, I’m convinced that you’ll be on the wrong way.
If religion has learnt me something, it’s that God will judge us all at the end, on what we have done in life, how much love we have given, if we have taken the time to help the others, on what we have done to improve humanity, and this, even if we didn’t accepted Jesus.
Please accept that even if I would accept Jesus, this is something I would still believe. (note the term “believe”)
“Are you still using imperfect Christians to support your non belief? What does that have to do with anything? Like I’ve said so many times before… it not the fault of Christianity when self proclaimed believers misuse their free will!”
You’re an imperfect Christian, and I don’t take you as an excuse of not believing^^
I know christians that I think are close perfection, and don’t take them as a reason to believe, either.
It’s just an example of what “belief” can do. I’m just aware of it. I think that fundamentalists are hurting a lot of people.
“And again, the point is Hors, that it may be better but it won’t even come close to saving your soul. So, basically it’s worthless.”
Same as previous, I prefer to go in Hell if it’s to find Gandhi and Jaurès here than go to Heaven if Sarah Palin is too.
To reflect one of your comments, I would say that I find fundamentalist christians in general and you in particular, *morally confused*.
Twisted priorities.
“You clearly didn’t / don’t understand this, so you did not properly learn about Christianity before you rejected it. And what seems even worse is that it seems that you have studied Catholisism, so it would be sensible to conclude that you have learned this to some extent but have chosen to ignore the true meaning of Christianity.”
It has not occured to you that you were part of a little but loud group in America, that not every christian is on your side concerning the “true meaning of Christianity”, that you might be wrong and that I could be right, by luck?
“And then subsequently rejected it. How do you justify this?”
Because all the stories I’ve been told were full of holes. So I took the moral principles and the True Meaning Of Christianity out of them, and left.
I prefer to do what is good.
Hors Service said
Add a point:
Something I don’t also like with the whole “fundamental” business is the “fundamentalism” principle.
To me, the Bible is made to be interpreted, a as light one can carry whatever the situation, wherever he goes.
dorian said
The Bicycling Guitarist said
October 9, 2009 at Friday, October 9, 2009
Let’s look for things we DO agree on for a change:
Well Kay, at least we agree that there is a higher power or consciousness that creates or manifests the universe, even if we disagree on the details.
And I’d say we agree that it is good for humans to be in accordance with that higher power and not out for ego selves.
About letting go of the ego, letting go and let God, I think we agree about that too.
It’s funny that yes, I am being intolerant when I say I’m intolerant of intolerance. It is impossible to be truly selfless as long as one thinks of oneself as an ego trapped in a bag of skin. Goedel’s theorem comes to mind about the paradoxes resulting from self-reference.
Every religious group, in order to feel saved, must create an “out” group of those who are not saved or else they don’t have any meaning. This oneupmanship can be ridiculous, e.g. for one church to say we’re more tolerant than other churches, more inclusive, more aware of our shortcomings, whatever…
No, I haven’t run away, yet. Things are really bad in my personal life at the moment, but knowing that this pattern of energy will fade and dissipate brings me some measure of peace. ADKoB has nice people, including you Kay, and for a fundie you are more rational than most I’ve encountered. I do seriously believe that if you had the perspective I had, you would agree more with what I say. You might turn that around and say the same of me. Ideally each of us should be able to see the other’s perspective while still knowing what we know from our perspective, then that would be a more complete picture.
About the closest we could come to that would be if you try to explain my point of view to me, being corrected by me as you go until you can explain it to my satisfaction, while I do the same to you. It is my opinion that as our current level of interaction goes, I might be able to explain your point of view to you to your satisfaction more successfully than you can mine to me. That would be the point I was making in an earlier post, that some people can see the truths of more than one path clearly while others cannot.
Okay, step up to the plate again. Bring your bat!
dorian said
princessxxx said
October 9, 2009 at Friday, October 9, 2009
oh and kay, my stupid “christian” parents, they were just involved in the cover up, because, they didn’t want any scandals or anyone’s reputation hurt.
“honour thy mother and father” i just tossed that commandment right out the window.
TBG, kay doesn’t have a bat, it’s an emery board. she pulls it out and i sharpen my claws. LOL