Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/1/07 05:39 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:30 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: Understandable. If you don't want to believe, i know no one in this forum or anyone is going to be able to convince you.

Do you wish to belive in Allah? NOT? OMG YOU MUST BE CLOSE-MINDED.

Did i ever say that disbelief automatically meant you were single- minded. No.

That doesn't make sense. If I need to believe in god to understand god, then it stands to reason that god doesn't exist. :

God doesn't make sense, even to those who believe. Our belief in god is more about becoming closer to him, not just understanding him. And even then we get minimal understanding because he is beyond human comprehension. When you believe in god, then you start to understand how much you dont understand and that is the understanding we get from our belief. It is meant to make us put our trust in God because from our belief, we know that he understands. That is why you must believe to understand.

By that logic, EVERYTHING in Religion and Science needs to be opposites. It isn't named "Religion", it is named "Ecneics". Oh, and Ecneics bases itself on the lack of evidence and unlogic.

One more thing, "ecneics" isn't a word. Did you mean ethnics?

---

At 7/1/07 05:56 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:
One more thing, "ecneics" isn't a word. Did you mean ethnics?

No, I wrote Science backwards, since you argued that religion and science is opposites and that everything is opposites within them. It was part of a semi-joke to help you understand how it wasn't true.

---

At 7/1/07 06:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:56 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:
One more thing, "ecneics" isn't a word. Did you mean ethnics?

No, I wrote Science backwards, since you argued that religion and science is opposites and that everything is opposites within them. It was part of a semi-joke to help you understand how it wasn't true.

Your right, not everything about them is opposite, but there are still some oppsoites within them, such as that whole understanding/belief thing i talked about. But, i did not say everything is opposites within them, i just simply stated they are oppsites. Which brings up another point. Do you know how you and i interpreted my statement that they are opposites
differently(even if it was a slight difference), that is how it is with the bible. It leads to different interpretations, some abtract and out of there, some literal, some limited, some extreme. And that is part of the reason why we have this conflict in the first place.

---

At 7/1/07 05:41 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: all books are open to interpretation, but that doesn't justify misquoting.

Then who decides what is interpretation and what is misquoting? The Bible does not contain any guide for "how to cherry-pick verses" or "how to bend and shape verses correctly".

For example, Job 26:7 is very often quoted as support for that the Bible knew about the earth floating in space:

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Sure, if you already know about the planet earth and how it is in space, on "nothing", then you can see this verse as prediciting that. BUT, had you NOT know about planet earth and how it is in space, this verse would NOT have ment the same at all.

All verses in the Bible can be bent to support ANYTHING. I mean, Mez is arguing right now that when Jesus said he did not come to remove the old laws, he really meant that he came to remove the old laws.

---

At 7/1/07 05:52 PM, Drakim wrote:

and I was talking about "Until everything is accomplished", because that is when Jesus says the old laws will stop being valid. Not when a new set of laws was added to the Bible. Not when he died on the cross (and arose right after anyway).

Hello? I realize I quoted wrong, however, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law.

I'm not arguing if we still have it. What i'm saying is that we're not commanded to follow it.

9/10 commandments from the old testament are repeated to follow in the New. What's missing? "Keep the Sabbath...". In the New, they are told to "reserve a day for the Lord". We are told that God is sick of the blood of animals. And Jesus was attacked for working on the Sabbath.

So either Jesus was disobeying his own rules, or he came to put a new set.

Then how come so may Christians like to point to the old law when they need moral justifications?

Pft, I don't.

Like, against homosexuality and divorce? Or does the old laws only apply when it fits you?

I believe marrige is covered in the New Testament.

Seriously Mez, werever the Bible is perfect or not is such a silly question that I won't bother arguing with you anymore. No matter what I point out, verses can be bent and shaped to avoid the contradiction because everything in the Bible is so vauge.

All I want is for you to defend it.

They were given new sets of rules in the New Testament. Do not sacrifice. God does not dwell in temples. Be baptized. And such and such.

Point is that the Old Law doesn't apply to people today.

And that's why your "contradictions" are worthless.

Take the first one (I think it was). "God is satisfied" and "God is dissatisfied". Both are in the Old Testament. However, one refers to the creation and the other refers to the people's sin and disbelief.

Someone can create something and be satisfied with it, and they can also be dissatisfied later if it breaks.

---

At 7/1/07 06:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

All verses in the Bible can be bent to support ANYTHING. I mean, Mez is arguing right now that when Jesus said he did not come to remove the old laws, he really meant that he came to remove the old laws.

Because I misquoted and that wasn't what I meant.

That's like me criticizing you for saying "sunrise" when the sun doesn't rise. We're also talking 2000+ years ago. Do you honestly think they had a word for "space"?

You claimed there were contradictions. You said you proved that to me. I demonstrated that there wasn't and that some of the contradictions coming from your source are things WE also do (such as sunrise and sunset).

And now, instead of defending your assertions that the Bible has contradictions, you are resorting to the "well... it can have different meanings" approach.

Blah! Humbug!

I'm not going to lie and try to defend my quoting of Jesus. Because I did mess up. But please, don't give me that "different meanings" crap.

---

At 7/1/07 06:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

Like, against homosexuality and divorce?

I believe marrige is covered in the New Testament.

A lot of Christians still quote Leviticus for their stance against homosexuality, even though it has tons of other rules and commandments that are just fucked up by modern standards.

---

At 7/1/07 06:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:41 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: all books are open to interpretation, but that doesn't justify misquoting.

Then who decides what is interpretation and what is misquoting? The Bible does not contain any guide for "how to cherry-pick verses" or "how to bend and shape verses correctly".

Misquoting is when you stirng words together from different pages, different passages, etc. or when you knowingly or purposly take a passage out of context to support your own point. Now, if you take something the wrong way becuase you actually believe it is the right way, that is interpreting it. The line between misquoting and interpretation is defined by whether or not the person knows the right interpretation. Like i said, if you interpret something the wrong way because that is what you tuely believe that is what it was supposed to mean, fine. But if you know what it is supposed to imply, yet say it implies something totally different, than that is misquoting.

All verses in the Bible can be bent to support ANYTHING. I mean, Mez is arguing right now that when Jesus said he did not come to remove the old laws, he really meant that he came to remove the old laws.

Now if what you say is true and there are SINGLE verses that contain those quotes, then Mez in contradicting himself and not helping his point. If they were strung together from different places, even if it was different sentences, then well, he is still not helping his cause.

Also, just because they can be bent to mean anything doesn't mean that those meanings were intended by the author's.

---

At 7/1/07 04:54 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote:

At 7/1/07 04:01 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

I doubt your teacher actually said that, or at lest the way your making it sound. A teacher can't attack or even question a students religion, by law they can't even bring it up; However if he said creationism isn't science then he's correct. Creationism doesn't pass the test for being science, it has no evidence, nor any usable model or correct model. Any attempts to understand geology through the bible have failed, quite miserably. A big portion of it comes down to Noah's flood; everything we see in geology points away from a massive global flood. Of course you also have the fact that every law in physics would be violated, but that's another argument, I suppose.

My teacher DID say this! In America, law ain't shit.

Then you may have a legal case against him. Of course that depends on the exact nature of what was said and how, but if your correct and he out of the blue said this then you have something to argue.

I know creation doesn't pass the test that science has. That's why many scientist, DON'T believe it.

Then why continue to believe in it? If there is no evidence for it, why believe something which is so outrageous and against reality? Or do you not believe in it, and I'm simply misunderstanding your position?

I don't see why science messes with religion, they should just let it go.

There was a time when people would drill holes in there heads to release the demons which made them sick. People how said the sickness wasn't caused by demons or that drilling holes in there head would not work where ether ostracized or burned.

Science is a candle in the dark, trying to make sense of the world around us, allowing us to see, and live better lives. Science messes with religion because religion makes clams which are contradictory to evidence.

Noah's ark could have been from the ice age thing!

No it couldn't. The Noah's ark myth may have come from a small local flood somewhere in the Mediterranean. More then likely the flood story is simply a retelling of the Gilgamesh.

I'm just trying to format them together now. The ice melted, and the water overflowed! I want to post this story I read. It's not true, but it has a good point ^^

It is possible the flood story did originate from a small local flood, but it isn't at all what the bible or devote followers say it was. It literally isn't possible, with out suspending the laws of physics, and if you do that you have other problems.

Proof is a mathematical and philosophical term, it doesn't exist in science. What we have is evidence, and theory. Our theories grow and change to incorporate new evidence and information, and sometimes they are completely rewritten. We change our theories because nothing is ever known completely, there's always something new lurking beyond the horizon. Nothing, and I do quite literally mean nothing is ever known to 100% certainty; even our own existence.

Then maybe science doesn't exist? Just kidding ^^.

Hmm... Cute, I suppose.

We have evidence in a bible.

The bible it self can not be used as evidence for it self. It a contradiction.

The bible is a theory to some.

Not in the scientific sense of the word, which is different then the vulgar sense.

To some it's a fact, and others it's a false fact.

That the bible is exist is a fact, what the bible says may not be.

Can you tell me how we may not exist though?

First you have to understand what I mean when I say exist, as there are many ways to interpret what I said.

I could have meant that we don't exist in the reality we see around us, that it is somehow an illusion (think of the matrix), this isn't what I was saying, though we can prove if it is true or false because of the nature of our place in the this reality namely that all our sensory data is caused by our surroundings as such we are dependent upon them for understanding our existence. If our soundings aren't real we wouldn't be able to tell because our sensory data is dependent on it. This isn't what I meant, but I do think it brings up a good point on our dependence to the evidence we see around us, and therefor the unlikely possibility of anything existing out side of what we can interact with, i.e. God, heaven, etc...

What I did mean was our consciousness it self may not exist. We may physically exist in some form, but are we truly aware? What reason is there to think so? The only reason philosophy gives is “cogito ergo sum”, I think therefor I am. But this is an axiom, it has not been proven, or shown to be true, merely assumed. It is possible that this is incorrect, that thinking it self doesn't imply existence. That is in a nut shell what I meant.

Personally I know a great deal about your religion, and many others as well. That's one of the reason I don't believe in it. I also know that science doesn't say there is no god, a scientist may, personally say such things, but science it self is agnostic.

I don't have a relgion, sorry. I read, and go my days by how they develop. I believe in God, and Jesus, but I'm still a non denominational person ^^. Okay, I see your point.

So you do realize you have a religion then?

First off if that's true, then when did god create the others? There is no mention of when or where in Genesis. Second off Adam and eve had more then two kids, they also had twin girls before Cain killed Able, who where to be their brides.

Read the bible man. It says that there are other people!

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

Adam and Eve can't fuck that much XD. I did not see the part of the twins, so maybe it's a different version of the bible? Honestly, I don't remember the twins..

It came up in coversation several times with a preacher. I'm not sure the version or book, sorry.

Even if Adam and Eve are not our ancestors, which brings forth it's own questions, like why are we suffering for there sin then? But I digress, how do you explain what happened post Noah's ark? There where only four families on the ark, Noah and his three sons.

We are not suffering for our sins. Jesus saved us from our sins.

Then why dose child birth still hurt? Why do we get sick and grow old? These are the sins man kind is cursed with for eating from the tree of good and evil.

I've been meaning to post that for some time now, I just kept forgetting. If you know religion, you should know that Jesus saved us from our sins.

Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

I'll read some more in the bible, and get back to you on the ark, okay!?

Please feel free to, just realize I've probably heard the arguments before, but maybe you can bring forth something new?

Knowing God has nothing to do with science. Whether god exist or not, truly is irrelevant for the sake of discovery. Unless god choses other wise it can't be observed or interacted with. Evidence of it's existence dose not it self exist. Therefor from the stand point of science it must not exist with in the confines of what is being observed, namely the universe.

I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying, that's why I don't believe science, because many scientist don't know jack about relgion, and yet they dis it.

But many do know much about religion, in fact many are religious them selfs. To be fair the only reason there has been so much animosity toward religion over the past decade or so, is due to the creation and intelligent design movement.

---

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote:
Read this guys:

Does evil exist?
[...]
www.snopes.com

Your own source says this is false. Though I don't think you care about who wrote it, just what it says. Well then it's still false.

The whole nature of hot, cold, light and dark, don't have any meaning in the scientific context. Hot and cold are a vulgar word use to describe a feeling of temperature, in science there is only heat (which is nigher hot, nor cold) a quantitative measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms, and molecules. The same goes with light and dark. Your equivocating the word usage in an attempt to answer the question. This is a logical fallacy, and you have yet to answer the question of good and evil.

---

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

It is possible the flood story did originate from a small local flood, but it isn't at all what the bible or devote followers say it was. It literally isn't possible, with out suspending the laws of physics, and if you do that you have other problems.

See, once again you're making this huge mistake.

Either there is a God and he can bend physics. Or their is no God and the law of physics cannot be bent.

Your problem is assuming that there is no God because man cannot bend physics.

You have it one way or the other. I don't see you going about how God made man out of dirt.

The bible it self can not be used as evidence for it self. It a contradiction.

It can, however, be used as a historical document.

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

Why do you eat when you're not hungry?

Then why dose child birth still hurt? Why do we get sick and grow old? These are the sins man kind is cursed with for eating from the tree of good and evil.

According to the Bible, this is all because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. If they had not, then they would have lived forever. There was no disease and no death. This all didn't happen until afterwards.

Christ is known as the ultimate sacrifice. Basically covering the sins we make in our lives much like how in the Old Testament they would sacrifice animals for the sins they made.

It didn't mean that everything in life was going to be perfect and that we wouldn't feel any pain.

Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

The point was that if you continue to obey God's word, then you would die and be in heaven.

Think of it this way. If you do not obey God's Word, then your sins will not be forgiven when you die. If you do obey God's word, then they will be.

It's not a "Well, Jesus died for our sins so we can do what we want" kind of thing.

---

At 7/1/07 06:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

The bible it self can not be used as evidence for it self. It a contradiction.

It can, however, be used as a historical document.

Only in some cases; historians dispute the validity of some parts- there was a Penn and Teller about it.

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

Why do you eat when you're not hungry?

Because food tastes good?

Then why dose child birth still hurt? Why do we get sick and grow old? These are the sins man kind is cursed with for eating from the tree of good and evil.

According to the Bible, this is all because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. If they had not, then they would have lived forever. There was no disease and no death. This all didn't happen until afterwards.

Christ is known as the ultimate sacrifice. Basically covering the sins we make in our lives much like how in the Old Testament they would sacrifice animals for the sins they made.

It didn't mean that everything in life was going to be perfect and that we wouldn't feel any pain.

Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

The point was that if you continue to obey God's word, then you would die and be in heaven.

Think of it this way. If you do not obey God's Word, then your sins will not be forgiven when you die. If you do obey God's word, then they will be.

It's not a "Well, Jesus died for our sins so we can do what we want" kind of thing.

According to you. You can only prove that using circular reasoning as I illustrated before (i.e. why is the bible true? god says so. How do you know god says so? the bible is true. why is the bible true?, etc. etc.) Eternal damnation serves no purpose. The most likely explanation is that Hell is a scare tactic and Heaven is a bait for people to be good people; and that hopefully one day people would have good will without needing this sort of mythology.

But that's just what I've surmised.

---

At 7/1/07 05:31 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Come on, don't toss around lies. Einstein never said that. That is an old story that we have all heard a lot of times before, and it changes based on the situation that the Christian needs to fit it into.

FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO SAID IT WAS FALSE.
Yes it was false, and I also said in the post before that, the story was NOT true. Please read my posts before you decide something that I'm trying to say. The point was just for a story. I thought you guys would like it. I liked it... There is another.... Let me find it....

---

At 7/1/07 07:06 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Only in some cases; historians dispute the validity of some parts- there was a Penn and Teller about it.

Yes, but you know what I mean.

Because food tastes good?

Exactly. What if God did what he did just because he felt like it?

The most likely explanation is that Hell is a scare tactic and Heaven is a bait for people to be good people; and that hopefully one day people would have good will without needing this sort of mythology.

Why?

If they didn't, then there would be nothing preventing people from doing whatever they want.

Then again, you making this claim is nothing more than trying to bait religous people into an arguement, making it worthless.

---

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

Do you want to why we suffer in life? Because God gave us the freedom of choice and we chose to make it like that. Thats why. While God will forgive us for our sins, humanity generally doesn't and we get punished accordingly.

---

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Read the bible man. It says that there are other people!

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

To try to understand why God does something is impossible. That is why people don't believe sometimes. They think that because it can't be exaplained that it doesn't exhist. That's not true, but then again i can understand where they come from because that is what science is about, explaining the unexplained.

---

At 7/1/07 07:16 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: Do you want to why we suffer in life? Because God gave us the freedom of choice and we chose to make it like that. Thats why. While God will forgive us for our sins, humanity generally doesn't and we get punished accordingly.

I've always thought that that's a very stupid argument. I don't really think that God's all like "yeah, choose whatever you want, and if you screw up, well, tough shit. oh by the way if you didn't do anything wrong and bad shit happens to you anyway, that's, like, uh. a test! yeah, i'm totally testing you. okay gotta go now bye"

If you ask me, there's suffering and all because (and I'm trying my best not to sound too emo in here) life without suffering is just plain boring. Why do people think that God is somehow obliged to create some sort of merry-go-lucky Carebear world where everything's unicorns and lollipops? I mean, that'd be like totally gay. You really think anybody could be happy in there?

---

Well, I've heard that pain, does not exist. Pain is just a mental thing. That's why some people can do stuff, while others cannot. Childbirth may not hurt, if we can get the mentality out of our minds?
I believe in God, because The Bible says so. It's just something that I feel. I love God, very much, no matter what any of you say. I love Jesus, and I believe Jesus saved me from my sins, and all of you as well. I wish we could all believe in God, but I'm sure some of you wish we could all go with Science.
I have faith in Jesus. I've always wanted to read the Satanic Bible for study reasons. Just to see what that says in there.
Here's a story of what me and my aunt were talking about.
Jesus is gonna return, okay? And when he does, he will take all the believers in Christ, and God, and he will make them rise into the air, all the way to the heavens! The non believers are gonna be like 'WTF MATE!?' and Satan is gonna be all like, yeah it's cool guys, I'll make it all good for you guys. Satan will return peace for seven years.
The thing is, after the seven years, he is going to make an army, he wants to fight God or something like that. But Jesus wins and he throws Satan into the Sea of Fire. And I don't know what happens after that.
Here's is another story:
This is a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at USC. There was a professor of philosophy there who was a deeply committed atheist. His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn't exist. His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic. For twenty years, he had taught this class and no one had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever 'really gone against him' (you'll see what I mean later).

Nobody would go against him because he had a reputation. At the end of every semester, on the last day, he would say to his class of You don't know, Jack 300 students, "If there anyone here who still believes in Jesus, stand up!" In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, "because anyone who does believe in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that he is God, and yet he can't do it." And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and it would shatter into a hundred pieces. The students could do nothing but stop and stare. Most of the students were convinced that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago, there was a freshman who happened to get enrolled in the class. He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about this professor. He had to take the class because it was one of the required classes for his major and he was afraid. But for 3 months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said or what the class thought. Nothing they said or did could ever shatter his faith, he hoped.

Finally the day came. The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom. The professor shouted, "You FOOL!! If God existed, he could keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!" He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleats of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away, unbroken.

The professor's jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood up proceeded to walk to the front of the room and share his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of God's love for them and of his power through Jesus.
www.snopes.com
indicates legends of indeterminate origin.

---

At 7/1/07 07:27 PM, Empanado wrote:

If you ask me, there's suffering and all because (and I'm trying my best not to sound too emo in here) life without suffering is just plain boring. Why do people think that God is somehow obliged to create some sort of merry-go-lucky Carebear world where everything's unicorns and lollipops? I mean, that'd be like totally gay. You really think anybody could be happy in there?

At one point, there was a perfect world with nothing wrong... the Garden Of Eden. And it was perfect.... until Adam and Eve CHOSE to disobey god by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But you're right, God is not obligated in any way to create such a world for us to enjoy on earth any more.

---

He gave people everything, but they went and listened to Satan, do you think he really wants to give us something extremely amazing on earth? You get a place here, and then when you die, you continue living in HEaven if you believe.

---

At 7/1/07 06:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

It is possible the flood story did originate from a small local flood, but it isn't at all what the bible or devote followers say it was. It literally isn't possible, with out suspending the laws of physics, and if you do that you have other problems.

See, once again you're making this huge mistake.

No I'm not.

Either there is a God and he can bend physics. Or their is no God and the law of physics cannot be bent.

Agreed if god dose exist then he can bend or even break the laws of physics, though there are likely to be repercussions and evidence of this; But that's besides the point.

Your problem is assuming that there is no God because man cannot bend physics.

No, that isn't my problem I've not denied that god could do this if it is possible. Though that kind of power and capability brings up arguments and contradictions all it's own.

You have it one way or the other. I don't see you going about how God made man out of dirt.

Your right I haven't, but people who believe that are well incapable of bring ether logic or science into the argument. So I see nothing to argue with. If you believe god miricaled every thing, then good for you. However as soon as you believe in that, science gose out the window and can't be used in your argument. That's the point of what I'm saying.

The bible it self can not be used as evidence for it self. It a contradiction.

It can, however, be used as a historical document.

Maybe in a few case, but certainly not in most. The majority of historical events and mythos in the bible are almost blatant plagiarisms of other cultures which are far better at speaking for them selfs then the bible is.

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

Why do you eat when you're not hungry?

That doesn't answer the question seeing how I'm not god. God if it existed should be perfect (at lest according to most Christians), a perfect god would have a plan and reason for everything, you know the whole omnisciences thing.

Then why dose child birth still hurt? Why do we get sick and grow old? These are the sins man kind is cursed with for eating from the tree of good and evil.

According to the Bible, this is all because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. If they had not, then they would have lived forever. There was no disease and no death. This all didn't happen until afterwards.

That was my point. Element's said that Jesus death removed our burden of sin, that we no longer have to face it. I'm trying to point out how that's incorrect, every one still suffers, the pain is still there, even for Christians. I'm not talking about anything metaphysical like believing in Jesus will allow you into heaven.

Christ is known as the ultimate sacrifice. Basically covering the sins we make in our lives much like how in the Old Testament they would sacrifice animals for the sins they made.

Correct.

It didn't mean that everything in life was going to be perfect and that we wouldn't feel any pain.

I didn't say it would or should. The person I was addressing did or at lest implied it.

Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

The point was that if you continue to obey God's word, then you would die and be in heaven.

Think of it this way. If you do not obey God's Word, then your sins will not be forgiven when you die. If you do obey God's word, then they will be.

It's not a "Well, Jesus died for our sins so we can do what we want" kind of thing.

Again, I didn't say it was, I was addressing the Element's statement.

---

At 7/1/07 07:09 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:31 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Come on, don't toss around lies. Einstein never said that. That is an old story that we have all heard a lot of times before, and it changes based on the situation that the Christian needs to fit it into.

FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO SAID IT WAS FALSE.
Yes it was false, and I also said in the post before that, the story was NOT true. Please read my posts before you decide something that I'm trying to say. The point was just for a story. I thought you guys would like it. I liked it... There is another.... Let me find it....

Yes and I answered it as if the person who wrote it was irrelevant. If you read my short post on it, you'll see my response to the story's line of reasoning; namely that it is logically false.

---

At 7/1/07 07:16 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

Do you want to why we suffer in life? Because God gave us the freedom of choice and we chose to make it like that. Thats why. While God will forgive us for our sins, humanity generally doesn't and we get punished accordingly.

Read what I wrote again. I didn't implicate anything about what happens after death, about judgment or anything like that. Believing in Jesus will not remove the pain of this life, whether that's because he doesn't exist, doesn't care, or some unknown divine reason is up to you. The point is even after his death we still suffer in life regardless of belief.

At 7/1/07 07:21 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:

At 7/1/07 06:46 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Read the bible man. It says that there are other people!

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

To try to understand why God does something is impossible. That is why people don't believe sometimes. They think that because it can't be exaplained that it doesn't exhist. That's not true, but then again i can understand where they come from because that is what science is about, explaining the unexplained.

I was asking when god made the others according to bible, or if it was mute on the subject. If something happened then it has some form of explanation to it, some mechanical reason or “how”. My problem with the bible, and religion as a whole is evidence, there isn't any. That's the majority of my argument, where is the evidence? Why dose the universe look some 13.7 Gy old, if it's not? Why doesn't anything in geology match the global flood of the bible? Etc, etc, etc... I also have a problem with some of the logic behind religion, there's to much logical contradiction, even in the very nature of god.

---

At 7/1/07 07:30 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Well, I've heard that pain, does not exist. Pain is just a mental thing. That's why some people can do stuff, while others cannot. Childbirth may not hurt, if we can get the mentality out of our minds?

Pain is the result of physical trauma to the body. Such as cutting your self, burning your self ect. While the mental pain of an injury is partaly blockable through medtation, and certainly throw medication. It doesn't remove the trauma the body suffers. The feeling of pain may be out of your mind, but it's still there.

I believe in God, because The Bible says so.

But that's not a valid argument, unless you can back up the viability of the bible. So far you haven't.

It's just something that I feel.

Feelings are deceptive. What matters is what you can measure, show, and if applicable prove.

I love God, very much, no matter what any of you say. I love Jesus, and I believe Jesus saved me from my sins, and all of you as well.

You can believe what you want, but constantly repeating it doesn't make it anymore true, or add any more weight to your argument. I have yet to hear something that truly backs up the validity of your belief structure.

I wish we could all believe in God, but I'm sure some of you wish we could all go with Science.

Science and god aren't mutually exclusive, provided you can keep god out of the laboratory, there's no reason you can't believe in god, and also work with science.

I have faith in Jesus. I've always wanted to read the Satanic Bible for study reasons. Just to see what that says in there.

It's not to different from your text, at lest message wise. Most satanist are actually atheist, in that they don't believe in a god. They follow the religion on it's own merits, and don't expect any favor in the after life for it.

Here's a story of what me and my aunt were talking about.
Jesus is gonna return, okay? And when he does, he will take all the believers in Christ, and God, and he will make them rise into the air, all the way to the heavens! The non believers are gonna be like 'WTF MATE!?' and Satan is gonna be all like, yeah it's cool guys, I'll make it all good for you guys. Satan will return peace for seven years.

Except, that's not what your bible is actually suggesting. You may interpret it that way but it doesn't fit with the rest of the book. If you take the rapture literally then heaven in in the clouds some where, I hope you don't think that's the case because if you do then you have other problems to worry about.

The thing is, after the seven years, he is going to make an army, he wants to fight God or something like that. But Jesus wins and he throws Satan into the Sea of Fire. And I don't know what happens after that.

Every one who fights against god burns for all eternity, every one who found faith in god goes to heaven. Pretty much it.

Here's is another story:
This is a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at USC. There was a professor of philosophy there who was a deeply committed atheist. His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn't exist. His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic. For twenty years, he had taught this class and no one had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever 'really gone against him' (you'll see what I mean later).

Nobody would go against him because he had a reputation. At the end of every semester, on the last day, he would say to his class of You don't know, Jack 300 students, "If there anyone here who still believes in Jesus, stand up!" In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, "because anyone who does believe in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that he is God, and yet he can't do it." And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and it would shatter into a hundred pieces. The students could do nothing but stop and stare. Most of the students were convinced that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago, there was a freshman who happened to get enrolled in the class. He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about this professor. He had to take the class because it was one of the required classes for his major and he was afraid. But for 3 months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said or what the class thought. Nothing they said or did could ever shatter his faith, he hoped.

Finally the day came. The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom. The professor shouted, "You FOOL!! If God existed, he could keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!" He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleats of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away, unbroken.

The professor's jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood up proceeded to walk to the front of the room and share his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of God's love for them and of his power through Jesus.
www.snopes.com
indicates legends of indeterminate origin.

I fail to see the point, you mean to imply that god kept the chalk from breaking? If that so true, then why only this class? Why after so long? You have some many other events where god could present his influence yet doesn't. Believers who simply ask for there child's life to be saved. Why dose he not help them?

I do see a moral in the story, don't get me wrong. But it isn't god, it's more like don't be an ass.

I have many stories my self, things which can make one question god, and those that believe. Stories while great for entertainment and good at passing along morals, don't actually bring forth evidence.

---

At 7/1/07 09:24 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

No I'm not.

Yes, you are.

Agreed if god dose exist then he can bend or even break the laws of physics, though there are likely to be repercussions and evidence of this

Why? If he is indeed all powerful, then wouldn't he be able to make it like it never happend?

Your right I haven't, but people who believe that are well incapable of bring ether logic or science into the argument.

If God exists and created the Universe, then the only logical result would be that he can do what he wants with it.

I don't really understand why that's so hard for you.

Maybe in a few case, but certainly not in most.

What is this... "most" of which you speak?

That doesn't answer the question seeing how I'm not god.

Gee, who could've guessed that.

God if it existed should be perfect (at lest according to most Christians), a perfect god would have a plan and reason for everything, you know the whole omnisciences thing.

So just because you don't know it means that there isn't one? Ok, gotcha.

---

I leave for 2 months and this thread is still on the front page? Impressive....

If you ask me, there's suffering and all because (and I'm trying my best not to sound too emo in here) life without suffering is just plain boring. Why do people think that God is somehow obliged to create some sort of merry-go-lucky Carebear world where everything's unicorns and lollipops? I mean, that'd be like totally gay. You really think anybody could be happy in there?

I think suffering exists because people differ in their opinions. Not everyone likes the same thing, one man's trash is another man's treasure. In a simple example: Gassing the Kurds made Saddam a happy man, but I'm sure the Kurds weren't too thrilled....

---

At 7/1/07 07:16 PM, Memorize wrote:

The most likely explanation is that Hell is a scare tactic and Heaven is a bait for people to be good people; and that hopefully one day people would have good will without needing this sort of mythology.

Why?

If they didn't, then there would be nothing preventing people from doing whatever they want.

Then again, you making this claim is nothing more than trying to bait religous people into an arguement, making it worthless.

There would indeed be something preventing people from doing whatever they want;
secular ethics.

---

At 7/1/07 10:35 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

There would indeed be something preventing people from doing whatever they want;
secular ethics.

Hardly. As seen in the United States, something like secular ethics will keep changing over and over to the point where people won't have ethics.

ex. once again, prostitution.

---

At 7/1/07 07:27 PM, Empanado wrote: If you ask me, there's suffering and all because (and I'm trying my best not to sound too emo in here) life without suffering is just plain boring. Why do people think that God is somehow obliged to create some sort of merry-go-lucky Carebear world where everything's unicorns and lollipops? I mean, that'd be like totally gay. You really think anybody could be happy in there?

First of all, the entire premise of Pain or Evil being necessary and/or beneficial is complete trash. Not only are they not necessary, but life appears undeniably better to me without either of the two. Grief, anger, and frustration are natural parts human society, but pain and evil never seem desirable. Murder, theft, exploitation, rape, mental illness, trauma and injuries, genocide, hatred, extortion, lying, war, violence over power, starvation, illness, we can do without all of them.

None of that is necessary for an "interesting" life. Very rarely does it directly impact you, so do you think your life is completely "boring"? I thoroughly enjoy myself and achieve mental and physical fulfillment without any of those Pains and Evils, so they are obviously not necessary to life. I don't believe a single person who actually had to deal with Pain and Evil would agree that those "interesting" events are worth having.

Now, on to the point of God's obligations to Humanity. Even if he is the Lord who rules over us, Rule is not a one-way street. While loyalty is demanded from below, protection and support is required from above. If God is so lax in his duties that he fails to protect his Citizenry, and even throws ills down to plague them for no justifiable reason, then he has not earned our Loyalty. An un-deserving Lord is worse than a disloyal follower because the Lord betrays all of those below him and deceives them into still following him.

If God is to earn my belief and loyalty, then he must demonstrate his worthiness first. What has he delivered to me to honor his side of the deal? He is not responsible in any way for my current "good fortune"; that comes from the work of myself and my family members. He is not responsible for my good health; that comes from my relative youth, regular physical activity, and good habits. Even if I won the lottery, it would be as a result of my action, not anything from God, so why should I lay my Loyalty at his feet?

If God--and the Church below him--does not hold up their side of the bargain, I see no reason to support either. I will not be scammed, exploited, and used by those who do not return anything to me. It's all that simple; if God does not earn my Loyalty, he does not deserve it. Regardless of his existance, he must earn Faith, and his failure to protect and serve those I see means we should not serve him in return.

---

At 7/1/07 11:33 PM, Draconias wrote:

It's all that simple; if God does not earn my Loyalty, he does not deserve it. Regardless of his existance, he must earn Faith, and his failure to protect and serve those I see means we should not serve him in return.

Question: If God exists, then he is responsible for your being here (I don't he picked you out, I mean without him, there wouldn't be a you). Just like you obey your parent's rules, he would want you to obey his. And if the Bible is true, then it proves how people are not loyal and basically tell God to "screw off, we don't need you".

And if the Bible is true, then God also came in human form and experienced the same temptation and suffered much more than you or the average person. By being beaten, mocked, whipped, then nailed to a cross by his creation, all to make your life better.

That would mean that a few hundred or thousand years later, people acknowledge this, but refuse to accept it. Claiming they'd rather live by their own rules rather his God's rules despite his beating and death.

And if the Bible is truth, then death also does not mean the end because it states that God created heaven and those who follow his rules will live eternally without pain or suffering.

So, provided the Bible is true, what have YOU done to earn a spot in that heaven?