User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 12:43:08 AM EDT
[#1]
I own page 15
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:21:24 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:24:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Believe it or not, everything is not clearly explained in the Bible. Some things are read between the lines or you can make a WAG on. The test about a thought/opinion being correct/possible, is to measure it against what is known from the Bible. For example, look above at all of the posters who state God will let anyone who 'makes an effort' or 'believes in some god" that they are familiar with. - God addresses this clearly - No man enters without coming though Jesus - PARAPHRASE - pretty simple idea....... My WAG is that fetus', small children and mental defects will all find a place in Gods' loving arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does someone born without the mental capacity to have a concept of god get sent to hell? Also, is there just this monstrous pile of aborted fetuses in hell? Believe it or not, everything is not clearly explained in the Bible. Some things are read between the lines or you can make a WAG on. The test about a thought/opinion being correct/possible, is to measure it against what is known from the Bible. For example, look above at all of the posters who state God will let anyone who 'makes an effort' or 'believes in some god" that they are familiar with. - God addresses this clearly - No man enters without coming though Jesus - PARAPHRASE - pretty simple idea....... My WAG is that fetus', small children and mental defects will all find a place in Gods' loving arms. But no man enters without coming through Jesus--pretty simple idea... Everybody, yourself included, is arguing how black and white it is. But as soon as you're (as in, the crowd arguing how clear cut it is) confronted with a concept that's unpalatable (such as infants being condemned to Hell), there's suddenly this gray area ambiguity that requires you to read between the lines. It appears wholly hypocritical to me...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:46:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Amen, brother! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 9:59:36 AM EDT
[#5]
I have a few questions for those saying that people "reject" god.
Growing up, I believed in: Bigfoot, lake monsters, cupacabras, bigfoot, ET piloted UFOs, alien abduction, ghosts, dowsing, mothman. I also believed in christianity, Jesus as my savior, and the bible as the word of god. However, in a very short period of my life (in my early 20's), I began to question ALL of these things, requiring myself to have GOOD evidence for believing that these things were accurate descriptions of reality, and not just some things that I believed because I was told to believe or had "always" believed. I realized finding websites with an agenda to propagate myths (such as websites about UFO abductions) was not a particularly valid way of looking for truth or find evidence. What happened was as I continued to investigate all of these things using skeptical analysis, and I slowly realized the reasons people gave for believing in these things did not make much sense. The evidence was shotty, anecdotal, or just hearsay. There were deliberate hoaxes, scams, and liars. There were people who were severely mistaken. In all topics there was no evidence that was sufficient enough to convince me that any of these things were actually based in reality. My question is this: Did I "Reject" or "turn my back" on aleins, or Bigfoot, or UFO's, or dowsing because of "unrepentant sin" or "choosing to not believe"? If not, of all the things in that list that I formerly accepted on faith but upon investigation changed my opinion of, why would someone assume that god, the bible and Jesus would be subject to a different process of transition from belief to nonbelief? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:24:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. yep...exactly |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:47:15 AM EDT
[#7]
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:54:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 11:03:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. Then why is history full of votings on the material in the bible. We know that a great deal has been changed, removed and added. We also know that the bible was written long after the death of Jesus. It isn't something the priests like to talk about.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 11:17:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why is history full of votings on the material in the bible. We know that a great deal has been changed, removed and added. We also know that the bible was written long after the death of Jesus. It isn't something the priests like to talk about.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. Then why is history full of votings on the material in the bible. We know that a great deal has been changed, removed and added. We also know that the bible was written long after the death of Jesus. It isn't something the priests like to talk about.. I couldn't care less what some priests talk about. History is not "full of votings on the material in the bible". The Bible has been in its final form for many centuries. We have very old copies written in Hebrew and Greek and those still say exactly the same thing they said when they were written. It is untrue that "a great deal has been changed, removed and added." That is a lie told by people that do not know what they are talking about. You have been mislead. The New Testament was all written within 100 years after Jesus' death. If you don't believe in God or the Bible, that is your decision. But the historical facts about the Bible are not "opinions", they are facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:33:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yep...exactly Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. yep...exactly Again, this idea is preposterous. If the Bible is true - it says that FAITH is the answer. There will never, according to the Bible, be the 'proof' you speak of. You, collectively (so the parents can understand), have to make a personal choice based on faith. God is not going to drop by after work one day this week and explain everything over a cup of latte'. That's not how it works, non of it. Your excuses are way off base and useless. Just admit you don't believe - it is your choice. There will be no 'proof' discovered. If they dug up the Ark, Moses' staff and found a Pharisee hiding in a cave - the atheists would find a way to explain the 'proof' away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:37:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amen, brother! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Amen, brother! Double up on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:42:03 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. The 'Bible' was written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period. Romans created 'religion' to control the masses. My Opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:42:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:If they dug up the Ark, Moses' staff and found a Pharisee hiding in a cave - the atheists would find a way to explain the 'proof' away. It would be far more than evidence than they've ever produced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:46:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But no man enters without coming through Jesus--pretty simple idea... Everybody, yourself included, is arguing how black and white it is. But as soon as you're (as in, the crowd arguing how clear cut it is) confronted with a concept that's unpalatable (such as infants being condemned to Hell), there's suddenly this gray area ambiguity that requires you to read between the lines. It appears wholly hypocritical to me...? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does someone born without the mental capacity to have a concept of god get sent to hell? Also, is there just this monstrous pile of aborted fetuses in hell? Believe it or not, everything is not clearly explained in the Bible. Some things are read between the lines or you can make a WAG on. The test about a thought/opinion being correct/possible, is to measure it against what is known from the Bible. For example, look above at all of the posters who state God will let anyone who 'makes an effort' or 'believes in some god" that they are familiar with. - God addresses this clearly - No man enters without coming though Jesus - PARAPHRASE - pretty simple idea....... My WAG is that fetus', small children and mental defects will all find a place in Gods' loving arms. But no man enters without coming through Jesus--pretty simple idea... Everybody, yourself included, is arguing how black and white it is. But as soon as you're (as in, the crowd arguing how clear cut it is) confronted with a concept that's unpalatable (such as infants being condemned to Hell), there's suddenly this gray area ambiguity that requires you to read between the lines. It appears wholly hypocritical to me...? Again, instead of trying to poke holes (impossible to do) in the Bible - set aside your special snowflake feelings and try to understand the whole picture. Pretend you have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible. Pretend the only Bible ever written was just uncovered in a cave. By doing this, you would be able to focus on the entire picture - whether you believe it or not. You (again - collectively) have so many half truths, mis-statements and outright lies placed in your head that you can't understand a simple concept. Jesus spent most of his time dealing with regular - simple people. He spoke in simple terms. He surrounded himself with crooks, murderers, thief's and generally big time sinners. These folks were 'transformed' by their personal relationship with Jesus. What you (personally) called 'hypocritical' is just your mis-understanding exposed. An example from my perspective: I understand the idea behind carbon dating and mathematical extrapolation....I just feel the are mis-used in the context of our earth and universe born on dates.......I don't believe the dates used....I do however, understand the concept and hold out that I could well be wrong. See the difference between our 'beliefs'? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:46:08 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's just not true. Hell is an invention of men like Augustine. The KJV of the Bible translates several words as Hell, none of which are correct translations. You'll never get the inerrancy crowd to admit to any mistakes in the KJV of the Bible |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:21:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryIf you assume the Bible is true (I personally believe it is) for the sake of this thread, then there really is no question.
The Bible clearly states that NO ONE gets into Heaven without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Any arguments to the contrary are going outside of the premise of the assumption in the original question. This is the reason many so called good people will to to hell. In this life we all choose who we serve and we will all be judged by a Holly God when we die. It is not too late, repent of your sin and acknowledge Jesus's life was the ultimate sacrifice clearing the way for you to be saved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:22:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, this idea is preposterous. If the Bible is true - it says that FAITH is the answer. There will never, according to the Bible, be the 'proof' you speak of. You, collectively (so the parents can understand), have to make a personal choice based on faith. God is not going to drop by after work one day this week and explain everything over a cup of latte'. That's not how it works, non of it. Your excuses are way off base and useless. Just admit you don't believe - it is your choice. There will be no 'proof' discovered. If they dug up the Ark, Moses' staff and found a Pharisee hiding in a cave - the atheists would find a way to explain the 'proof' away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not hard to figure out...open and willful rejection of God = Go to Hell. Shitty way to live your life hoping God doesn't exist... I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. yep...exactly Again, this idea is preposterous. If the Bible is true - it says that FAITH is the answer. There will never, according to the Bible, be the 'proof' you speak of. You, collectively (so the parents can understand), have to make a personal choice based on faith. God is not going to drop by after work one day this week and explain everything over a cup of latte'. That's not how it works, non of it. Your excuses are way off base and useless. Just admit you don't believe - it is your choice. There will be no 'proof' discovered. If they dug up the Ark, Moses' staff and found a Pharisee hiding in a cave - the atheists would find a way to explain the 'proof' away. Excuses? Admit I don't believe? Was "as an atheist" not enough of an admission that I don't believe for you? And you said it perfectly: IF the Bible is true. Perhaps it isn't. And perhaps through continued exploration of our Universe we unveil evidence of a separate creation source. Would that not mesh with exactly what I said? The idea of believing in something absent any reason is what many would consider preposterous--what you yourself probably consider preposterous when it comes to just about anything BUT religion. You're right that I don't believe, but you're wrong that it was my choice. I only don't believe because I've been failed to be convinced, and because what I have been told contradicts many, many other ideas with very convincing evidence of their veracity. I could will myself to believe the Christian creation story and the idea of every species ever--even those that existed millions of years apart from one another--getting on board an ark two-by-two and the concept of somebody coming back from death and ascending into Heaven, but I simply couldn't force my brain to accept it as anything other than a pretty good story. I've tried. The fact that you seem upset by the fact that atheists ask for explanation and reason really speaks volumes. Yes, if we found "the" ark I'd be skeptical and certainly wouldn't be convinced that it verifies the ark story in the Bible. But it's not because of some grudge against religion or unwillingness to accept any information that may give credence to a religious story. I'm skeptical of scientific information too. When I hear of new discoveries, I'm curious about methodology, about attempts made by the rest of the scientific community to falsify the results. We should all be skeptics. Setting a standard for information ensures that reasonably good information is accepted, and completely unsupported information is rejected. For me, Christianity falls into the latter category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:29:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be far more than evidence than they've ever produced. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:If they dug up the Ark, Moses' staff and found a Pharisee hiding in a cave - the atheists would find a way to explain the 'proof' away. It would be far more than evidence than they've ever produced. wat |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:30:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'll never get the inerrancy crowd to admit to any mistakes in the KJV of the Bible Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's just not true. Hell is an invention of men like Augustine. The KJV of the Bible translates several words as Hell, none of which are correct translations. You'll never get the inerrancy crowd to admit to any mistakes in the KJV of the Bible I believe there were mistakes in punctuation since a lot of the scriptures were written without it. Imho, the biggest and most glaring mistake was in Luke 23:43. In my KJV it says. "and Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise". If one read all the other many texts in the Bible about death, than this is either a punctuation error or Jesus lied to Mary about not having ascended to his Father the following Sunday which is where God lives and it is sometimes called Paradise. In other words, Jesus had NOT gone to heaven over the weekend so the thief didn't go anywhere on Friday (the "today") spoken by Jesus. See how this reads with the comma in its proper place. "and Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise". Of course ymmv. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:34:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, instead of trying to poke holes (impossible to do) in the Bible - set aside your special snowflake feelings and try to understand the whole picture. Pretend you have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible. Pretend the only Bible ever written was just uncovered in a cave. By doing this, you would be able to focus on the entire picture - whether you believe it or not. You (again - collectively) have so many half truths, mis-statements and outright lies placed in your head that you can't understand a simple concept. Jesus spent most of his time dealing with regular - simple people. He spoke in simple terms. He surrounded himself with crooks, murderers, thief's and generally big time sinners. These folks were 'transformed' by their personal relationship with Jesus. What you (personally) called 'hypocritical' is just your mis-understanding exposed. An example from my perspective: I understand the idea behind carbon dating and mathematical extrapolation....I just feel the are mis-used in the context of our earth and universe born on dates.......I don't believe the dates used....I do however, understand the concept and hold out that I could well be wrong. See the difference between our 'beliefs'? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does someone born without the mental capacity to have a concept of god get sent to hell? Also, is there just this monstrous pile of aborted fetuses in hell? Believe it or not, everything is not clearly explained in the Bible. Some things are read between the lines or you can make a WAG on. The test about a thought/opinion being correct/possible, is to measure it against what is known from the Bible. For example, look above at all of the posters who state God will let anyone who 'makes an effort' or 'believes in some god" that they are familiar with. - God addresses this clearly - No man enters without coming though Jesus - PARAPHRASE - pretty simple idea....... My WAG is that fetus', small children and mental defects will all find a place in Gods' loving arms. But no man enters without coming through Jesus--pretty simple idea... Everybody, yourself included, is arguing how black and white it is. But as soon as you're (as in, the crowd arguing how clear cut it is) confronted with a concept that's unpalatable (such as infants being condemned to Hell), there's suddenly this gray area ambiguity that requires you to read between the lines. It appears wholly hypocritical to me...? Again, instead of trying to poke holes (impossible to do) in the Bible - set aside your special snowflake feelings and try to understand the whole picture. Pretend you have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible. Pretend the only Bible ever written was just uncovered in a cave. By doing this, you would be able to focus on the entire picture - whether you believe it or not. You (again - collectively) have so many half truths, mis-statements and outright lies placed in your head that you can't understand a simple concept. Jesus spent most of his time dealing with regular - simple people. He spoke in simple terms. He surrounded himself with crooks, murderers, thief's and generally big time sinners. These folks were 'transformed' by their personal relationship with Jesus. What you (personally) called 'hypocritical' is just your mis-understanding exposed. An example from my perspective: I understand the idea behind carbon dating and mathematical extrapolation....I just feel the are mis-used in the context of our earth and universe born on dates.......I don't believe the dates used....I do however, understand the concept and hold out that I could well be wrong. See the difference between our 'beliefs'? NOT impossible to do  ....but those holes are then explained away as "you can't take everything literally" or "it's a metaphor" even though Jesus dealt with simple people and therefore spoke in simple terms.
And so many half truths, mis statements, and outright lies placed in my head? I started my life as a Christian...baptized, raised in the church, and confirmed. So I'd agree that I did have many lies placed into my head. And then I subjected them to a standard of critical thought and rejected them. But clearly that's not what you're referring to...so which lies? How could you possibly know what half truths I've been told? Could you point to me lying in this thread? I doubt it...because all I've done is question the claims of others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:38:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Read this clear and salient point, then contrast that with the lunacy over on the Religion Forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 9:32:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read this clear and salient point, then contrast that with the lunacy over on the Religion Forum. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Read this clear and salient point, then contrast that with the lunacy over on the Religion Forum. Yeah, because Atheists are so smart and believers are so, what is the word.....oh, yes, filled with "lunacy". You Atheists are so full of yourselves. You can't even have a calm discussion without the vile pouring out of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 9:36:21 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 'Bible' was written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period. Romans created 'religion' to control the masses. My Opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. The 'Bible' was written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period. Romans created 'religion' to control the masses. My Opinion. You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:20:59 AM EDT
[#25]
The Romans corrupted it with their pagan ideas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:22:04 AM EDT
[#26]
I always thought atheists just turn into fertilizer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:26:27 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, because Atheists are so smart and believers are so, what is the word.....oh, yes, filled with "lunacy". You Atheists are so full of yourselves. You can't even have a calm discussion without the vile pouring out of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure anybody has said they hope God doesn't exist. As an atheist, I don't hope that. I'm indifferent. I hope only for a continued expansion of our collective knowledge about our Universe and its origins. If there at some point emerges a reason to believe there was a creator responsible for that, then I'd be happy to see that new information. Read this clear and salient point, then contrast that with the lunacy over on the Religion Forum. Yeah, because Atheists are so smart and believers are so, what is the word.....oh, yes, filled with "lunacy". You Atheists are so full of yourselves. You can't even have a calm discussion without the vile pouring out of you. How calm and civil... The vast majority of harsh language and accusations levied at a particular "camp" in this thread have come from the theist side. Understandably, I suppose. Religious beliefs are ones held extremely close to the heart, so I can understand why one would get emotional when those beliefs are challenged. The difference being I've been getting the distinct impression from most of the theists who have been replying in here that they view atheists as a singular class of people ("You atheists are so full of yourselves") who are the scourge of the Earth (again, in many cases, with reason...as that is what some are taught), whereas some of the people who I respect most in my life are religious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:30:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. The 'Bible' was written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period. Romans created 'religion' to control the masses. My Opinion. You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. Curious stance to take...do you apply it across the board? And if so, how do you reconcile the Christian story when it is so inconsistent with what we know to be historical fact? Evidence and the knowledge of man are infallible when they support the Bible's legitimacy, but are able to be cast aside if inconsistent with the Bible's stories? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:31:14 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought atheists just turn into fertilizer. Sort of, yea. So do Christians, whether or not their "spirit" goes and enjoys an afterlife. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:32:09 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sort of, yea. So do Christians, whether or not their "spirit" goes and enjoys an afterlife. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always thought atheists just turn into fertilizer. Sort of, yea. So do Christians, whether or not their "spirit" goes and enjoys an afterlife. I don't believe I end up as fertilizer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:39:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry bro, only the second abrahamic religion is the correct one, the first and third are screwed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No Jesus, No Heaven. So because I'm Jewish I'm going to hell? Sorry bro, only the second abrahamic religion is the correct one, the first and third are screwed. I like how Christianity which is practically the son of Judaism in many ways can tell the father religion what it is and isn't doing now. I seriously love laughing at Christians who say I'm going to hell. We are gods chosen people. We have a hell but it's nothing like Christianity's version. It also depends on who you ask. I don't believe in hell. So the fact you tell me I'm going to a place I don't believe in is hilarious. It almost amounts to fear mongering. Sin telling the father what he can do. Lol. And even if I did go to Christianity's version of hell I would drag as many religious zealots with me as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:41:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe I end up as fertilizer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always thought atheists just turn into fertilizer. Sort of, yea. So do Christians, whether or not their "spirit" goes and enjoys an afterlife. I don't believe I end up as fertilizer. Not even your body? I mean, we've exhumed Christians before. Their bodies were decayed like the rest of them. [shrug] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:42:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe there were mistakes in punctuation since a lot of the scriptures were written without it. Imho, the biggest and most glaring mistake was in Luke 23:43. In my KJV it says. "and Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise". If one read all the other many texts in the Bible about death, than this is either a punctuation error or Jesus lied to Mary about not having ascended to his Father the following Sunday which is where God lives and it is sometimes called Paradise. In other words, Jesus had NOT gone to heaven over the weekend so the thief didn't go anywhere on Friday (the "today") spoken by Jesus. See how this reads with the comma in its proper place. "and Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise". Of course ymmv. Its more than punctuation, its words being substituted for other words, and passages being added that weren't in older versions of the text |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:42:26 AM EDT
[#34]
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:42:35 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................. Not even your body? I mean, we've exhumed Christians before. Their bodies were decayed like the rest of them. [shrug] I'm not sure my body has any fertilizer value.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:42:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry.   Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No Jesus, No Heaven. So because I'm Jewish I'm going to hell? Sorry. I was honestly not hoping someone would seriously answer this so se my previous remark. Do some push ups until you figure why you're wrong and get back to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:43:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much! How very Christian of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:46:42 AM EDT
[#38]
The only "hell" is the one here on earth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:48:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How very Christian of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much! How very Christian of you. There is nothing like the smug, self-righteousness of a religious zealot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:49:06 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure my body has any fertilizer value. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................. Not even your body? I mean, we've exhumed Christians before. Their bodies were decayed like the rest of them. [shrug] I'm not sure my body has any fertilizer value. Don't be so sure, you never know when your body will feed a hungry apple tree, as Roger Williams (the founder of Rhode Island) found out
http://reverendnatshardcider.com/who-ate-roger-williams/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 11:07:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How very Christian of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much! How very Christian of you. So you feel Christians SHOULD care about atheists--and that we SHOULD care about what happens to them? ETA: Because (surprise) we actually do. For a Christian, speaking to an atheist is like warning someone to get out of a building because it is on fire and in danger of collapse. The atheist just shrugs and says: I don't smell any smoke--why should I believe you? Oh-and they assert that their skepticism is somehow responsible and virtuous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 11:27:03 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, you are wrong. Atheists love to trot out the "Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation, etc" argument as if it were the truth. It is not. Ancient copies of the Scriptures were found near the Dead Sea (they are called the Dead Sea Scrolls) in a cave. It surprised and disappointed Atheists to find that they were almost exact copies of modern copies of the Bible. The Bible is not what you would like to believe it is. It is accurate and says just what it has always said. If you choose not to believe it, that is fine. But don't pretend that it is an "interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation", because it is not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, you are wrong. Atheists love to trot out the "Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation, etc" argument as if it were the truth. It is not. Ancient copies of the Scriptures were found near the Dead Sea (they are called the Dead Sea Scrolls) in a cave. It surprised and disappointed Atheists to find that they were almost exact copies of modern copies of the Bible. The Bible is not what you would like to believe it is. It is accurate and says just what it has always said. If you choose not to believe it, that is fine. But don't pretend that it is an "interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation", because it is not. Quoted: You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. Are they exact copies or not? Passages were still added and subtracted creating new updated editions. A person still wrote them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 11:48:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you feel Christians SHOULD care about atheists--and that we SHOULD care about what happens to them? ETA: Because (surprise) we actually do. For a Christian, speaking to an atheist is like warning someone to get out of a building because it is on fire and in danger of collapse. The atheist just shrugs and says: I don't smell any smoke--why should I believe you? Oh-and they assert that their skepticism is somehow responsible and virtuous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much! How very Christian of you. So you feel Christians SHOULD care about atheists--and that we SHOULD care about what happens to them? ETA: Because (surprise) we actually do. For a Christian, speaking to an atheist is like warning someone to get out of a building because it is on fire and in danger of collapse. The atheist just shrugs and says: I don't smell any smoke--why should I believe you? Oh-and they assert that their skepticism is somehow responsible and virtuous. Based on the Christian message, yes, I think if they subscribe to that faith that they ought to. I also think that every person should have a general sense of compassion for his or her fellow man, even if their beliefs differ. As for the bolded question, why isn't it a perfectly valid one? As for the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that somebody who claimed divinity and knowledge of all things arson told somebody else 2,000 years ago that the building would be on fire, that somebody saw to it that 100 years later the warning was written down, and you then read that warning and told me to get out of the building because the divine being 2,000 years ago said this will be its time of collapse. Yea, I'd wait for the smell of smoke. And finally, I think reasonable skepticism absolutely is responsible. Without it we'd be subject to believing all that we're told, and nobody--theist or atheist alike--could go through life like that. Virtuous may be a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made I suppose. The trick is not to ascribe our skepticism simply to religious information, and realize that we'll desire more information on anything given to us at face value. How many times on GD has somebody posted some bit of information and the first reply asks for the link? We ought to investigate what we're told. It IS the responsible thing to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:20:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they exact copies or not? Passages were still added and subtracted creating new updated editions. A person still wrote them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nope, you are wrong. Atheists love to trot out the "Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation, etc" argument as if it were the truth. It is not. Ancient copies of the Scriptures were found near the Dead Sea (they are called the Dead Sea Scrolls) in a cave. It surprised and disappointed Atheists to find that they were almost exact copies of modern copies of the Bible. The Bible is not what you would like to believe it is. It is accurate and says just what it has always said. If you choose not to believe it, that is fine. But don't pretend that it is an "interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation", because it is not. Quoted:
You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. Are they exact copies or not? Passages were still added and subtracted creating new updated editions. A person still wrote them. In fairness, most Christians believe those responsible for writing, collating etc of the Bible were inspired to do so by God. There may be slight variations but to the best of my knowledge, none of those change the basic meaning or the story of salvation for all. The Bible read as a whole is very consistent even though it was written centuries apart. ymmv |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:35:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they exact copies or not? Passages were still added and subtracted creating new updated editions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they exact copies or not? Passages were still added and subtracted creating new updated editions. A complicated question, and I will try to answer. Take the case of the New Testament books. The originals, those written by Paul for example, are called autographs. There are no known autographs in existence. They were all lost. However, they were copied many, many times and we have some very old copies that have been preserved. When we compare all of these copies, we might find a very slight difference in a word or phrase in some of them. But we look at ALL of the best and oldest copies and put our faith that they were "most accurate". If a new copy is found that is different, it is not trusted. And by doing that, we have a Bible nowadays that is "very accurate" to the original copies. For people to say "there's been a lot of stuff added" is just nonsense. We KNOW what the oldest and best copies say. And that does not change. A person still wrote them.
People did indeed write them. But we as Christians believe that they were led by God Who made sure what they wrote was exactly what He wanted written. Here is something I have posted before. Evangelical Christians believe that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired to do so by God, Who wanted a written record for future generations to have.
We also believe that God Supernaturally Superintended the writing, gathering, and preservation of His Perfect Word to assure that it was accurate and without error, and exactly as He wanted it to be. This inerrancy applied to the original writings, called Autographs. All of these autographs have been lost. But they were copied hundreds of times and we have many of these very early copies. They are in agreement as to content. We believe that God also Supernaturally kept these books accurate and has preserved them for us without error. Of course, we also realize that anyone that can read Greek can "translate" to English and if they aren't very good at it, make errors. But we can compare any translation to the established copies and see if the translation is correct. And, before anyone asks, Yes, we believe all of this as a matter of Faith. If you don't believe it, fine with me. I am just explaining what we believe. I believe in the "plenary, verbally, infallible, inspired, and inerrant-in-the-original-manuscripts Word of God." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 1:07:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on the Christian message, yes, I think if they subscribe to that faith that they ought to. I also think that every person should have a general sense of compassion for his or her fellow man, even if their beliefs differ. As for the bolded question, why isn't it a perfectly valid one? As for the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that somebody who claimed divinity and knowledge of all things arson told somebody else 2,000 years ago that the building would be on fire, that somebody saw to it that 100 years later the warning was written down, and you then read that warning and told me to get out of the building because the divine being 2,000 years ago said this will be its time of collapse. Yea, I'd wait for the smell of smoke. And finally, I think reasonable skepticism absolutely is responsible. Without it we'd be subject to believing all that we're told, and nobody--theist or atheist alike--could go through life like that. Virtuous may be a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made I suppose. The trick is not to ascribe our skepticism simply to religious information, and realize that we'll desire more information on anything given to us at face value. How many times on GD has somebody posted some bit of information and the first reply asks for the link? We ought to investigate what we're told. It IS the responsible thing to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
don't know and don't care what happens to them, but they better not camp on an escalator I can tell you that much! How very Christian of you. So you feel Christians SHOULD care about atheists--and that we SHOULD care about what happens to them? ETA: Because (surprise) we actually do. For a Christian, speaking to an atheist is like warning someone to get out of a building because it is on fire and in danger of collapse. The atheist just shrugs and says: I don't smell any smoke--why should I believe you? Oh-and they assert that their skepticism is somehow responsible and virtuous. Based on the Christian message, yes, I think if they subscribe to that faith that they ought to. I also think that every person should have a general sense of compassion for his or her fellow man, even if their beliefs differ. As for the bolded question, why isn't it a perfectly valid one? As for the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that somebody who claimed divinity and knowledge of all things arson told somebody else 2,000 years ago that the building would be on fire, that somebody saw to it that 100 years later the warning was written down, and you then read that warning and told me to get out of the building because the divine being 2,000 years ago said this will be its time of collapse. Yea, I'd wait for the smell of smoke. And finally, I think reasonable skepticism absolutely is responsible. Without it we'd be subject to believing all that we're told, and nobody--theist or atheist alike--could go through life like that. Virtuous may be a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made I suppose. The trick is not to ascribe our skepticism simply to religious information, and realize that we'll desire more information on anything given to us at face value. How many times on GD has somebody posted some bit of information and the first reply asks for the link? We ought to investigate what we're told. It IS the responsible thing to do. And here we stand, in a burning building which you refuse to believe is burning, unless I offer you proof. That time will tell is no consolation for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 1:15:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And here we stand, in a burning building which you refuse to believe is burning, unless I offer you proof. That time will tell is no consolation for me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Based on the Christian message, yes, I think if they subscribe to that faith that they ought to. I also think that every person should have a general sense of compassion for his or her fellow man, even if their beliefs differ. As for the bolded question, why isn't it a perfectly valid one? As for the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that somebody who claimed divinity and knowledge of all things arson told somebody else 2,000 years ago that the building would be on fire, that somebody saw to it that 100 years later the warning was written down, and you then read that warning and told me to get out of the building because the divine being 2,000 years ago said this will be its time of collapse. Yea, I'd wait for the smell of smoke. And finally, I think reasonable skepticism absolutely is responsible. Without it we'd be subject to believing all that we're told, and nobody--theist or atheist alike--could go through life like that. Virtuous may be a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made I suppose. The trick is not to ascribe our skepticism simply to religious information, and realize that we'll desire more information on anything given to us at face value. How many times on GD has somebody posted some bit of information and the first reply asks for the link? We ought to investigate what we're told. It IS the responsible thing to do. And here we stand, in a burning building which you refuse to believe is burning, unless I offer you proof. That time will tell is no consolation for me. Someone of a different religion says the building is about to be underwater. Some of a different religion says the building is going to cool down to near absolute zero. We can't just "take your word for it", because there are many different, contradictory 'words' we could take, and can't possibly do all of them at the same time as the actions that they'd require are opposites. Thus we are forced to look into your claims, and why you believe these various things are happening to the building, only to find that there is no good reason to assume any of you are actually right. If the building was on fire, I suppose you could easily provide evidence of this. Until you can provide some evidence, there is no way to tell something that is true but unobservable from something that is just made up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 1:16:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bible has been changes enough times in the past for its rules to be useless as guidance, even if you believe in God. No it hasn't. That is a false statement. You have been lied to by Atheists. God is perfectly capable of keeping His Word accurate, and He has done so. The 'Bible' was written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period. Romans created 'religion' to control the masses. My Opinion. You can have an "opinion" about if you believe the Bible or not. But you can't exchange historical facts with "opinions". The Bible was NOT "written and 'updated' by a person time and time again to suit whatever agenda of the period". That is not factually accurate. We have very old copies of the books of the Bible and they say the same thing today that they said when they were written. And Romans did not "create religion". That is so silly that it is laughable. You cant deny that the Bible as it currently exists has multiple translational interpretations (NIV vs King James vs New Living, etc). Furthermore, the cannon, itself, has changed throughout history- just look at the list of Biblical Apocrypha, some of which are thousands of years old (See the Gospels of James/Peter). I'm pretty sure that their omission from the cannon was a result of human hands, and not God's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 2:23:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cant deny that the Bible as it currently exists has multiple translational interpretations (NIV vs King James vs New Living, etc). Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cant deny that the Bible as it currently exists has multiple translational interpretations (NIV vs King James vs New Living, etc). As we have explained a thousand times, the fact that there are many different interpretations in English (and hundreds of other languages) does not mean that we do not know what the priginal copies said in Hebrew and Greek. A person that is an Atheist, but has studied Hebrew or Greek could read and study and tell you if a certain translation is accurate to the original languages or not. You don't even have to be a Christian to do that. We know what the originals say and we therefore know if modern English translations are accurate or not. Furthermore, the cannon, itself, has changed throughout history- just look at the list of Biblical Apocrypha, some of which are thousands of years old (See the Gospels of James/Peter). I'm pretty sure that their omission from the cannon was a result of human hands, and not God's.
That, once again, is a matter of OPINION. You "think" that "their omission from the cannon was a result of human hands, and not God's.". I, and millions of other Christians, believe the opposite. I believe God is big enough to keep His Word just as He wants it to be. He has always been in control of His Word, not any men, even if they thought they were. Believe as you please. But understand that it is just that, a belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 4:04:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We also believe that God Supernaturally Superintended the writing, gathering, and preservation of His Perfect Word to assure that it was accurate and without error, and exactly as He wanted it to be. This inerrancy applied to the original writings, called Autographs. All of these autographs have been lost. But they were copied hundreds of times and we have many of these very early copies. They are in agreement as to content. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible? Like Adam and Eve, Noah, and all of it actually happened as it was written? Many years before deciding that I was an atheist, I spent a lot of time and effort on bible study. I just came to discover that I couldn't read the ridiculous, horrific and contradictory stories, and still believe that this was the work of an all powerful being. If you read some of it as parables and in the context of the time it was written you can find some entertaining stories, but I just don't follow a literal interpretation without suspending all reason and common sense. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
