At least I have evidence in the Bible itself to support my view. All that ripping of babies from wombs and flooding the entire Earth and all that. Like spejic implied, is God so weak or bereft of ideas that He couldn't find a nicer, less destructive and violent way to do things? Well, you interperet it one way, I interperet it another, David Koresh, Pat Robertson, Mother Theresa, Bishop Tutu, St. Francis of Assisi, the Aryan Nation, etc. etc. etc., all interpret it differently because there is no definitive way to interepret it. There is no definitive way to interepret it precisely because it is so vague and garbled and self-contradictory. Granted, people are great at picking only what they want to believe out of even the clearest text, but the NT is a happy hunting ground for such abuse.
> You think tooth decay is evil? So God just made suffering because he likes it? What kind of God is that? >>What about lightning or earthquakes or >> tornadoes or hurricanes? > It's called Nature. Live with it. These are "Acts of God" if you believe in God. Why is he inflicting suffering on people? These are concrete examples of bad things that are not caused by creating a universe with free will. Yahweh is sadistic. > Actually, I think God's pretty pleased that we > have become able to feed and cloth ourselves > without relying on manna and quail, just as a > parent is pleased when a child matures to an > adult. Yet whenever the Jews turned from God and went to look for their own comfort or salvation, God puchished them. The guy picking up sticks to light a fire to warm and feed his family was acting in a self-reliant manner. Moses killed him for it. > How is that any more evil than the little girl who > gets raped to death by a pedophile in Cali in > 2002? If the girl suffers and nothing comes from it, how can you say there is any justice in the world? If she suffers and it given the reward of heaven, then why is she so lucky and I wasn't murdered when I was a little boy? Isn't a moment or even a few hours of pain worth eternety in bliss? > Why do you worry about things you cannot > affect and work on things you can? The idea that God is just is one of the few concrete examples of his nature that we have. If it can be shown to be self-contradicory, or contradictory with his past so-called actions, then it can be shown that the idea of God is self-contradictory, and disproven. > Luke 15: 11-31 I've known many atheists who died atheists, and I certainly plan on being one of them.
How about another round of "Pillar Of Fire" and miracles to put the fear and awe of God into the bastards instead of, say, killing off all Egyptian newborns because stupid Pharoah decides to be a pighead? What did those poor kids have to with letting the Hebrews go anyway? I'm sorry, but if God is defeated by a couple of sheepherders so that His only recourse is wanton slaughter of bystanders, then I laugh at his wussy Divine Ass. Of course, all this is to take the Bible at its word as history which is tenuous at best. I'm just pointing out that as shown to us, God is portrayed as a stupid ass-hole. Not His fault, necessarily, but you'd think He'd have a better sense of PR... Sorry again, but the Bible really lends itself to abuse in a way that, say, the Buddhist sutras significantly do not. It IS possible to warp both texts, and the Koran, the US Constitution and probably "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People". But the Bible makes it much easier than most. Damn near everything Saul of Tarsus wrote that has come down to us? Of course, much of that is people taking Saul's writings totally out of context as if they are a systematic general philosophical doctrine rather than notes to disparate communities written "on the fly" and to specific situations but there you go. It just makes it easier to play "pin the meaning on the Saul", doesn't it? I'll get into specifics over the weekend as I have one foot out the door here today.
Yeah, about those two.... Well, I'll defer to a better writer. Robert Graves in his not terribly well-known novel "King Jesus" has this hilarious passage, which touches on this very topic. I once heard a Roman Chrestian cry out at a love-feast where I was a guest: "Listen, brothers and sisters in Christ, I bring glad tidings! Jesus rolled up the Ten Commandments given to Moses, by substituting two of his own: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and all thy strength.' And 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'" Great applause. A former Judaist sitting next to me blinked a little and then said dryly: "Yes, brother, that was well said by the Christ! And now I hear that those rascally Jewish copyists have stolen his wisdom and interpolated the first of these overriding Commandments into the sixth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy, and the second into the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Leviticus!" "May the Lord God pardon their thievish wickedness!" cried a pious matron from the other end of the table. "I am sure the Pharisees are at the bottom of it!" Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, in case you were wondering. Well, that's not much a punishment. We're not with God now. I doubt the threat of not being with Allah for all eternity holds much fear for non-Muslims. Jesus will just have to find someone else to be a sunbeam.
No, I'm not agnostic either. Agnostics tell people they aren't allowed to believe one way or the other, which is just as wrong as saying people are wrong to believe/not believe. I'm against institutionalised faith. Religious persecution was pretty much finished by the end of the 1600s. Only a tiny percentage of migrants to America went to escape persecution. Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the terms Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh etc were invented by atheists or agnostics. I'd be willing to bet the terms atheist and agnostic weren't invented by atheists or agnostics either. If you have made a concious choice about your religion, as you claim, then you have obviously decided to reject the koran in favour of the bible. How did you decide the bible held the answers and that the koran didn't? The thing is if people don't believe in certain laws then they are quite free to campaign against them and have them possibly removed from law. They can stand up and say "I think this is wrong". They don't have to dislike it but say "well I'm an American and Americans believe you shouldn't go faster than 55mph so I believe that too." Had you been born into a Muslim family do you think you'd be a Christian or a Muslim? If you agree you'd most likely to have been a Muslim then do you think a person's religion has more to do with what they were TOLD to believe when they were growing up, or is it always a concious choice? You seem to be under the impression that religious persecution is rife in England. England's actually an incredibly secular society and as a result people are probably more free to worship how they want than in a god-fearing country like America. It would be nice for once if a religious person (or an atheist) would just say "look, this is what I believe, but I'm prepared to accept that I could be wrong." It's the "I believe therefore there is no room for aguement" attitude that does both sides no favours.
Er that's why there are over 1 million muslims in the UK. I've always had an impression that the UK is better when it comes to religous freedom than Bible bashing America.
THe UK has the best Religion, which is no Religion (IMO). 48% of people in the UK claim to belong to a religion, compared with 86% of people in the US and 92% of Italians. It's predicted that in the next forty years Christian life will be dead in the UK.
That is definately my impression. The only "prejudice" that the UK may beat the US on is "class" prejudice. Here in the US, $$$ removes all class distinctions...
Originally posted by AFCA It's quite easy to prove that there is no God. No God as described in the bible that is. God is almighty, and he is good... right? Take a look at all the crap that happens on this planet. If God is almighty and in fact good... he would do something. So he might good, but definitely not almighty. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever study[/b][/i] the Bible as opposed to "I read a couple of verses here and there"? I guess when thinking about "all the crap that happens here" you would have to operate from the premise that all the crap that happens on this planet is largely the fault of man. Racism, greed, oppression, etc, etc, etc. But then again, it's just a hell of a lot easier to blame God for not fixing it than do something about it yourself, isn't it? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way I see it, all gods are actually one. Satan. Satan who corrupts the peoples minds, dividing them, making them hate each other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you believe in Satan, but not God? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making them think that their faith is the only true faith. Get outta here with your religious crap. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is your crap any better than mine? You sound almost jealous. Not a single word of that goes into my arguments. Is God almighty? Or is he good? You choose.
Look, what I'm talking about is the way kid's are starving because of someone else's economic screw up. I'm saying God IS a dick if he really did exist if he doesn't fix that. If I saw some little kid with a broken leg because some bastard hit him with a car and drove off and I just left him to rot instead of helping him to the hospital then, yes, I'm a dick. In the same way God would be a dick if he didn't fix starving kids's problems when he supposedly is able to. And obviously I'm to setting on around waiting for God to fix it if I don't even believe in him. It was an attempt to point out how ludicrous it is to believe in a compassionate and all powerful god when so many people are suffering because of someone else's screw up.
No, agnostics tell people they're not sure either way. That either we can't be sure or they're justnot personally sure. Some may say you're not allowed to believe either way, but every belief or non-belief system has those intolerant adherents. America is not a god fearing country. Just because most of our citizens our religious doesn't mean we'e a faithful government. Our government is a secual one, also, no matter how much some people try to involve their religion into it. [/QUOTE] It would be nice for once if a religious person (or an atheist) would just say "look, this is what I believe, but I'm prepared to accept that I could be wrong." It's the "I believe therefore there is no room for aguement" attitude that does both sides no favours. [/QUOTE] I've seen people from both sides do it. I've only met one atheist who is as overbearing as a lot of Christians I've met, but I'm sure that's only because they're in the majority so you're bound to see more dickheads come from that faith. Or it could be atheists in American really have no choice other than interact with people from other faith's where as in the Bible belt all you find is Christians out the yin yang.
Nope. One of the reasons I listed my statement as a prejudice. It's based on discussions with British citizens, who comment that the class system in their country is much more stifling than any religious or racial system. Of course I didn't say that there is no class system in the US.
I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to believe in a strong possibility that some sort of god exists, in the most general sense. However, it is extremely unreasonable and illogical to believe in a specific version of what God is, what God is like, or what God wants, or how God prefers or requires humans to live their lives. Because, there are an infinite number of possible answers to these question, and no solid evidence to speak of. So, as far as I can tell, there are only two ways to arrive at a specific religious viewpoint which supposedly answers the above questions. One method (the one chosen by the vast majority of people) is to simply accept what the most prominent authority figures in your early life have told you to believe. This requires the assumption that the specific, idiosyncratic circumstances of your upbringing and the messages you've received as a result just HAPPEN to correspond precisely with the theological blueprint for the universe. Of course, this is a bizarre assumption, given the infinitesimal odds of that being the case. The other option, chosen by a minority of religious people, is to convert to a belief system other than the one you were brought up with. But, once again, choosing among the infinite number of available or possible belief systems without any solid evidence gives you infinitesimal odds of being correct - so assuming that you have chosen correctly (or, "having faith" in your particular choice) is a hopelessly bad wager.
The same is true here, too, although I'd argue that racism is an equally strong factor in both societies. English football fans don't sing "You're a town full of Pakis..." and throw bananas on the pitch at black players for nothing. Hell, you don't even see that kind of behavior at sporting events here in the USA anymore. You said that in the US "money removes all class distinctions" when anyone who has even watched 'Caddyshack' knows that's not true. The Kennedys, for example, have had beaucoup money for four generations now and while the American lower middle class considers them "America's royalty" there are some Boston brahmins, old Virginia families, Mayflower descendants and DAR members who have far less money than the Kennedys but would still beg to differ that the Kennedys are in their social class.
And if this guy gets his way Christianity will be replaced by Islam. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020908/4/d9396.html
Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist Can I disprove your assertion that my soul will be headed to a heaven or hell after my (undoubtedly) untimely demise? No, I cannot. However, allow me to posit this thought as your koan for this evening... Why will I not become an earthworm, or grasshopper, or rhesus monkey upon the next reincarnation of my eternal soul? Because there is an equal amount of reliable concrete evidence of this outcome for my "soul" after death as there is for a trip to some eternal paradise. (i.e., none). Heaven and hell are pure conjecture. There is no evidence of an afterlife, and plenty of scientific observations (re: brain activity, brain injury, and personality) that would indicate something other than the existance of a "soul". As for the beginning of the universe... the "Big Bang" is conjecture, but it is an explaination that fits a good number of existing observations. However, why the assumption by laymen that the universe has a concrete beginning? Infinity is a difficult concept to grasp, but if the universe is infinite yet expanding in the x, y, and z dimensions, why not also in the other easily measurable 4th (time) dimension? Why not be infinite in additional 5th, 6th, and 7th dimension (not observable by our senses)? It's a simple, logical assumption that is not contradicted by any known observations. Being difficult to understand does not implicate the involvement of a god. Science has all the answers, but we don't have all the science.
I don't think I've heard the "town full of..." song for a long time now, at least 10-15 years, and I've never seen a banana thrown at a black player. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to assume it's a widespread and common occurrence is a bad misconception. Class distictions here mean no more than Americans desribing themselves as having blue or white collar backgrounds. Money doesn't remove class distictions, it creates them. The phrase "upwardly mobile" has a lot more to do with social status than pure wealth.
Yikes. Me and my sloppy language. I should try this again. "It seems to me that "class" may matter more in England than it does in the US, based on a statistical sampling of ex-English. They indicated one of the reasons they came over to the US and Canada was that they were sick of the class prejudice over there." FIN
I am christian, so I will only talk about the father of Jesus. Some humble answers to common questions: Why science haven't found God? Well, according which I have read, the only way to finding him is searching for him, and the only way to search him is to believe in him. The only way to have god presence in our lives is to live as a christian, and to live as a Christian is far more than just giving a few cents to a poor man. Proof me that good exist. Jesus have already told us about this: "Glory to the ones that didn't saw and believe, because of them is the heaven" Sorry for the errors, but its a translation of a translation of translation... but I hope that the main idea is still there (im not used to write in english). Who is qualified to see the heaven? Jesus told us: "You must effort to pass through the narrowest door" And exactly how narrow is this door? I don't know, but just very few are going to fit on it. The christian have murdered many people in god names, Aren't they bad? Remember that dose are human acts, not necessary the gods will. And Finally, Im Totally Agree with Pascal, who said that is more rational to believe in good. And this is why: Anyone decide to believe in god, an there is 2 possibilities: 1) God doesn't exist. 2) God exist. Lets explore the first one: 1.1.- I Believe in god, so I "waste my life with useless rules", then i die... and that's all. 1.2.- I don't believe, so I have a few years of living. if im rich and handsome, good for me, but if im poor or disabled, there's no to much hope for me. In the end I died and that's all. The second: 2.1.- I believe in god and I follow his rules. In the end I have eternal life in the paradise. 2.2 .- I don't believe in him or I don't follow his rules, so I GO TO THE HELL OF ETERNAL SUFFERR!!! AAAAAAHHH! Which is the best scenario? I personally would like to live for ever and see the WC of the year 22 century and beyond. So is the 2.1 And which is the worst? To disappear is bad, BUT ETERNAL SUFFER??? Its the 2.2. Which coincide with the god exist possibility. For a believer the worst scenario is the 1.1, is it really a bad life to try be brother with everyone And the best, the 2.1, oh YEAH! For a no believer the worst scenario is the 2.2.... SCARY. And the best? The 1.1, enjoy your 0-120 years of life, I hope you are Bill Gates, Michael Jordan or something like it. So, you decide.
I'd have thought whether someone goes to hell or not (assuming hell exists for now) would depend on how they'd lead their life. I can't imagine someone who has lead a good life being sent to hell for not believing in god. In that case all babies that are stillborn or die in infancy would go to hell as they would not believe in god at that stage of their lives. If someone's a bad person then they are a bad person, their beliefs don't come into it. The unfairness of life arguement, that there must be a reward for being good or it doesn't make sense, I'm afraid proves nothing. It could well be that mother theresa and hitler went to the same place after dying - i.e. nowhere. That isn't fair, true, but there's absolutely no reason to expect life to be fair. Evolution has shown that the strong or lucky thrive and the weak and unfortunate die. It would be nice to think that people are rewarded/punished in the afterlife, and I hope they are, but just because some people can't accept the inherrent unfairness that is inevitable in life is no grounds for assuming that there must be some kind of final justice. 1.2 could well be the way of the world.
Perhaps rurally, but the urban south is anything but unifaceted. I live in Birmingham and there is everything you could think of around here: Hindu Temples, Mosques, Synagogues...there's a nearby Tibetan Buddhist monastery. I see Sikhs quite often around here, there's a Ba'hai congregation. No, its not New York or Chicago in terms of numbers of people, but there's an amazing amount of diversity here.
Ephesians 2:8 & 9 says For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Isaiah 64:6 says that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. So when GOD asks you "why should I let you into my heaven", and all you can do is hold up a bucket of wet, stinking, torn, stained rags, don't be surprised. And why should GOD let you in? He sent his pure, undefiled only son as an atonement for your sin. Because of you, his only son died an excrutiating death on the cross. All you had to do was accept it. That's it! Just accept it. But no, you ignored it and by doing so rejected it. He sends you his son to die for you, you reject him and hold up a few dirty rags. What did you expect to happen?