"So help me God!?!"

[AE14]

This has been an interesting read. A few more things I want to interject.

The reason Christians have a divorce rate almost equal to secular peeps is because of posers. There are many Christians who learn about God and Jesus Christ, but then just like to slap on the title and walk around still being secular. A real Christian functions differently, you can tell who they are because they have found something and it shows. It shows in there personality, their eyes, their lives period.

Christian posers? Is it like getting dressed up for halloween? Or is it something more?:dunno:

As a Christian I just witness by nature. I would rather risk having someone blow up in my face than facing that feeling of guilt all day because I missed an opportunity to save someone or didn't listen to what God was telling me.

I have to say this must be a tough existence, considering that your behavior of trying to give testimony to those that dont want it shows a complete and utter disrespect for hte person in general. Must not allow for a lot of fun at times.

About the atheist bit. I didnt say all atheists were into 666, only the one I met, but all the others I have met acted just as much of a jerkwad. Like I said, I dont doubt there are great guys who are atheist(I believe one of you posted about you being atheist and people wouldn't know it). I am just saying in Ohio every one I have met is a jerk. If I meet an atheist that says no thanks man, I have my own thing. But is sill up for a game of tennis, or will still spot me on a bench, sure. But I really have no preconceived notions about them I just have what I have learned from firsthand experience with them. That therefore is simply me telling you what I have experienced time and time again. So blame the atheists who are representing your ideals so badly. Just like we have to deal with Christians who really are just here to "play" Christian.

regarding the bolded part, you are way too young to have met a great cross section of athiests. However, many are jerkwads (your word) as are many christians, jews, muslims that I have met. Must be athiests "posers":hammer:

Keep something in mind, I am a nontheist jew, and I have been told on countless occassions that I killed Jesus, I should have horns (damn mistranslations of the bible), that I control all the money in the world, etc... and by whom did I hear these things.....Christians!

 

[Irish Cannon]

That's the problem. Unless I ask someone to share their believes with me, I don't want to hear it. But many Christians keep pushing their ideas on others and when you say "no", they try even harder. Plus telling people they are going to "hell" because they believe in something else is just f...ing wrong in my mind.
Until all religions realize, that their way to God isn't a better way, but simply different and until they learn how to respect and accept it, there will never be peace on Earth. And pushing your ideas on others, when nobody asks you to, isn't gonna earn you that respect, for yourself, your belief system and your religion.

We can't ever "realize" this as Christians because we know it to be untrue.

I agree with you about people shoving their beliefs in your face, and I have trouble with that as well. I'm a Christian that witnesses by my lifestyle. I'll talk with those that want to talk, I'll listen to those that want to talk, and I'll give them my beliefs, and my reasoning as well, but to those that don't ask of it, I don't really speak. I believe that God opens opportunities for us to witness to others, and we will know when that time is. I've never believed in handing out tracts, or weirding people out in any way. That's not how i should be done. As you said, it only pushes people further away.

 

[Irish Cannon]

Keep something in mind, I am a nontheist jew, and I have been told on countless occassions that I killed Jesus, I should have horns (damn mistranslations of the bible), that I control all the money in the world, etc... and by whom did I hear these things.....Christians!

Blame those people, not the faith as a whole. Those people are obviously just wack-jobs. I wish people understood that more. Christians are STILL PEOPLE. Nobody is perfect, including us, and I think that's quite obvious. Nobody knows that better than a true Christian. The whole reason we believe we need salvation is BECAUSE OF our imperfection. Too often people blame Christianity for something that the person does. The faith is pure, we aren't.

 

[AE14]

Blame those people, not the faith as a whole. Those people are obviously just wack-jobs. I wish people understood that more. Christians are STILL PEOPLE. Nobody is perfect, including us, and I think that's quite obvious. Nobody knows that better than a true Christian. The whole reason we believe we need salvation is BECAUSE OF our imperfection. Too often people blame Christianity for something that the person does. The faith is pure, we aren't.

trust me IC I do blame them as individuals and not religion. Personally I find religion to be a sense of security more than anything else. NO ONE knows for sure what life truly is and what is out there after death, however most religions give a sense of an answer which in turn gives people a sense of security. As a non theist I cannot believe in something that is beyond my realm of understanding.

I think that all religions are riddled with hypocriscy and nonsense. Lets look at your bolded comment. Yes people are imperfect, however we are creasted in gods image. Does that make god imperfect? Also keep in mind to, that mistranslations have run rampant over the years and there is no true way to know what was really originally said. I just think that blind faith is so dangerous, and that is what religion truly is.

 

[Zero V]

trust me IC I do blame them as individuals and not religion. Personally I find religion to be a sense of security more than anything else. NO ONE knows for sure what life truly is and what is out there after death, however most religions give a sense of an answer which in turn gives people a sense of security. As a non theist I cannot believe in something that is beyond my realm of understanding.

I think that all religions are riddled with hypocriscy and nonsense. Lets look at your bolded comment. Yes people are imperfect, however we are creasted in gods image. Does that make god imperfect? Also keep in mind to, that mistranslations have run rampant over the years and there is no true way to know what was really originally said. I just think that blind faith is so dangerous, and that is what religion truly is.

A Christian strives for perfection, doesnt mean they are perfect. Lets say I get this guy to start going to church. Well he was a big time party animal. He starts coming, so he calls himself a Christian, but he is still struggling with drinking and sex. It could take him 6 months to overcome those weaknesses. But he is still a Christian, no? He is no hypocrite, he is simply taking on his demons. He hasn't matured as a Christian yet. No one can overcome a weakness instantly.

Secular people do not feel guilt over drinking or having premarital sex. A Christian should, and if they dont they are most likely backslidden and cannot feel God anymore. Christianity brings a person into war with themselves over weaknesses and temptation. Temptation=a way of life for many secular people(i was one, so yeah i know. Its all about girls n fun), where as for Christian it = a trial meant to be overcome, and we avoid committing sins. But just like in a war, not every battle is won. It is the fact that you are fighting to be better that makes you a Christian.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Secular people do not feel guilt over drinking or having premarital sex. A Christian should, and if they dont they are most likely backslidden and cannot feel God anymore. Christianity brings a person into war with themselves over weaknesses and temptation. Temptation=a way of life for many secular people(i was one, so yeah i know. Its all about girls n fun), where as for Christian it = a trial meant to be overcome, and we avoid committing sins. But just like in a war, not every battle is won. It is the fact that you are fighting to be better that makes you a Christian.

That is quite the broad act of psychologism. I apologize, but this post is ridiculous. How do you know 'secular individuals' do not feel guilt and/or temptation? I know that as martyrs, many Christians often try to monopolize socially-mindful action, but it is not the case. Further, do you know each secular person sufficiently enough to generalize as to their specific wants, desires? In fact, you do not know every secular individual; and, apparently, do not know 'life' enough based on your ridiculous categorizations.

I apologize for my abruptness, but this was one of the most ignorant, short-sighted posts I have read in some time, and we are all stupider for you posting it. As per the principal in Billy Madison: may god have mercy on your soul...

...Each individual is faced with temptations, religion merely tints the lens through which one interprets their actions.

 

[Irish Cannon]

That is quite the broad act of psychologism. I apologize, but this post is ridiculous. How do you know 'secular individuals' do not feel guilt and/or temptation? I know that as martyrs, Christians often try to monopolize socially-mindful action, but it is not the case. Further, do you know each secular person sufficiently enough to generalize as to their specific wants, desires? In fact, you do not know every secular individual; and, apparently, do not know 'life' enough based on your ridiculous categorizations.

I apologize for my abruptness, but this was one of the most ignorant, short-sighted posts I have read in some time, and we are all stupider for you posting it. As per the principal in Billy Madison: may god have mercy on your soul...

...Each individual is faced with temptations, religion merely tints the lens through which one interprets their actions.

I don't think Zero means it the way you point it out. I have no doubt he knows that secular people can feel guilt. I'm pretty sure he was speaking specifically of drunkenness and pre-marital sex. Most secular people see nothing wrong with either of these acts, therefore, would have no guilt. I don't believe Zero means secular people are NUMB to guilt.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

This argument will degenerate into nothing more than faith-based reasoning and - it is a true thing - unverifiable statements on both our parts. I will take my leave preemptively, prior to my intelligence being lowered from passing banter with you. I hope for your sake that one day you will come to the realization that 16% of your country is atheist, which amounts to you just making a generalization about [approximately] 55 million individuals.

[to Zero]

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't think Zero means it the way you point it out. I have no doubt he knows that secular people can feel guilt. I'm pretty sure he was speaking specifically of drunkenness and pre-marital sex. Most secular people see nothing wrong with either of these acts, therefore, would have no guilt. I don't believe Zero means secular people are NUMB to guilt.

Again: you know 'most' secular people? I think in order to make ourselves appear intelligible we must always attack our own arguments for holes, prior to releasing them into the sphere of discussion. Not much of that happening here.

Anyway, as I said, that particular post was unfathomably ridiculous, and I have no particular desire to participate in this discussion. You in particular are a decent person though, IC!

 

[Irish Cannon]

Again: you know 'most' secular people? I think in order to make ourselves appear intelligible we must always attack our own arguments for holes, prior to releasing them into the sphere of discussion. Not much of that happening here.

Anyway, as I said, that particular post was unfathomably ridiculous, and I have no particular desire to participate in this discussion. You in particular are a decent person though, IC!

"Most secular individuals I have come in contact with..." I guess I would say. But to be honest, I've never talked to a secular individual that felt pre-marital sex was wrong...ever. I can say that truthfully. I'm obviously not saying they don't exist, but the number would be slim. At least in the United States.

And thank you.

 

[dsade]

1) Where is drinking classified as a sin?
2) That must come as a surprise, since Noah - a drunk - was considered the righteous man above all others.

 

[Irish Cannon]

1) Where is drinking classified as a sin?
2) That must come as a surprise, since Noah - a drunk - was considered the righteous man above all others.

I didn't know drinking a beer was the same as being a drunkard.

 

[Irish Cannon]

And Noah was not a repetitive drunk...it was an isolated incident that tore his family apart.

 

[dsade]

And Noah was not a repetitive drunk...it was an isolated incident that tore his family apart.

I thought the whole "incest with his daughters while we was drunk" and "cursing his son, Ham, for >GASP< seeing him naked" is what tore his family apart...not the drinking itself.

EDIT: Which raises a good point...anyone who has ever been really drunk knows that it puts quite the damper on your physical sexual abilities - which means he must have not been drunk enough NOT to perform, which means he must have been sober enough to realize that this was his freaking DAUGHTERS (yes, two separate incidents) he was aroused by and sexing up.

/I want a daughter in the streets but a freak in da bed.

 

[Irish Cannon]

I thought the whole "incest with his daughters while we was drunk" and "cursing his son, Ham, for >GASP< seeing him naked" is what tore his family apart...not the drinking itself.

Yes, a result from his drunkeness. Do you not see the significance in God using flawed people to do His work? It proves you don't have to be perfect to still have respect and love from God. You could be the worst of the worst, and still be loved; just as any good parent would offer love to their children.

 

[dsade]

Yes, a result from his drunkeness. Do you not see the significance in God using flawed people to do His work? It proves you don't have to be perfect to still have respect and love from God. You could be the worst of the worst, and still be loved; just as any good parent would offer love to their children.

See my edit above...and you have just excused anyone who commits any act with the defense "your honor, I was just drunk".

And apparently, he must have hated the entire population of the REST of the world to wholesale slaughter them (still, supposedly "his" children).

 

[Irish Cannon]

See my edit above...and you have just excused anyone who commits any act with the defense "your honor, I was just drunk".

And apparently, he must have hated the entire population of the REST of the world to wholesale slaughter them (still, supposedly "his" children).

When have I ever said it's okay and an excuse? It's not.

Dsade, I honestly have to say, you have some of the crappiest logic, and you twist people's words around so horribly, that it becomes nearly impossible to have a discussion with you. I won't even attempt it any further.

 

[dsade]

When have I ever said it's okay and an excuse? It's not.

Dsade, I honestly have to say, you have some of the crappiest logic, and you twist people's words around so horribly, that it becomes nearly impossible to have a discussion with you. I won't even attempt it any further.

You are defending an undefendable, morally reprehensible book. When I point out the logical inconsistencies, I am called all sorts of names and those who support it retreat to the fog of unquestioning faith.


For those challenged let me summarize my last point:

Zero-v claims drinking is a sin.

Noah, held up by GoD to be the MOST RIGHTEOUS MAN ALIVE (as well as his family, which we shall analyze in a second) to the point where every OTHER person in the world (including babies that have been alive for mere minutes...those evil newborn!!) is brutally slaughtered by this same god.

Noah, as told in several subsequent verses, gets drunk many times.

One time, the poor helpless guy is somehow subdued and sexually assualted by one daughter (part of this righteous family). The next night, by the OTHER daughter. See my poiint about levels of drunkenness and sexual ability...the man had to have had some control and awareness.

Another time, noah gets blind stinking drunk and passes out naked. his 3 sons know about it, two of them do not look but the 3rd looks. He, and HIS ENTIRE DESCENDENT LINE, is immediately cursed. Now, why is seeing your father naked a sin worthy of being cursed? Second, why are his innocent descendents cursed for something they didn't do, if we are judged by our own actions?

Ok...Noah got drunk...if you think this is a sin then that is ONE thing. Committing incest was not caused by the drunkenness...it was caused by committing incest. The man was not completely out of control, and if you think he is not responsible for what happened while drunk, then you must now apply that morality to EVERYONE - including todays wife-beaters, drunk drivers, bar fighting scum etc. in order to be just and fair.


Where's the logical problem?

 

[Irish Cannon]

Ok...Noah got drunk...if you think this is a sin then that is ONE thing. Committing incest was not caused by the drunkenness...it was caused by committing incest. The man was not completely out of control, and if you think he is not responsible for what happened while drunk, then you must now apply that morality to EVERYONE - including todays wife-beaters, drunk drivers, bar fighting scum etc. in order to be just and fair.

No, he definitely is responsible, just as wife-beaters, drunk drivers, and bar fighting scum. I don't in any way think drunkenness is an excuse to anything. I'll get back to the others when I have time.

 

[dsade]

No, he definitely is responsible, just as wife-beaters, drunk drivers, and bar fighting scum. I don't in any way think drunkenness is an excuse to anything. I'll get back to the others when I have time.

Cool.

I used to have a rabid streak in these arguments, then I realized that it just puts everyone on the defensive.

I do try to deal with this logically...so no worries, interested in hearing your take.

 

[B5150]

This has been an interesting read. A few more things I want to interject.

The reason Christians have a divorce rate almost equal to secular peeps is because of posers. There are many Christians who learn about God and Jesus Christ, but then just like to slap on the title and walk around still being secular. A real Christian functions differently, you can tell who they are because they have found something and it shows. It shows in there personality, their eyes, their lives period.

Yeah there is a difference, there is a line that has to be crossed. Because if you dont cross that line, then your still normal.

Ya know, not for nothing brother, but you speak in absolutes, that quite honestly don't sit well with me at times.

You are a child in your faith and a child in your age. I mean neither as disrespect or belittlement.

Up until now you have not been tempted by sin beyond what you have experienced...YET.
Up until now your faith has not be tested beyond what faith you possess...YET.
Up until now you have not had a trial or tribulations that has crossed that line that has changed your disposition...YET.

 

[B5150]

I used to have a rabid streak in these arguments

You're such a quitter! :rippedhand:

 

[Zero V]

You are a child in your faith and a child in your age. I mean neither as disrespect or belittlement.

Up until now you have not been tempted by sin beyond what you have experienced...YET.
Up until now your faith has not be tested beyond what faith you possess...YET.
Up until now you have not had a trial or tribulations that has crossed that line that has changed your disposition...YET.

So you assume a young man of 22 years may have not had to endure anything? Or has not been tempted? And has not had his faith tried?

Sorry if my speaking sounds like absolutes. But it probably always will. If I am not absolutely sure about myself, and don't speak showing that assurance. Then I am doing nothing but bending to others. Dont you think America and Americans have done enough bending?

 

[Zero V]

I don't think Zero means it the way you point it out. I have no doubt he knows that secular people can feel guilt. I'm pretty sure he was speaking specifically of drunkenness and pre-marital sex. Most secular people see nothing wrong with either of these acts, therefore, would have no guilt. I don't believe Zero means secular people are NUMB to guilt.

Exactly. Secular people can be good people. Most I think feel guilt over stealing, or murder, or if they betrayed someone. But drinking and premarital sex, is something strived for my almost everyone I knew in highschool.

Drinking an alcoholic beverage in and of itself may not instantly be a sin. But it weakens a person to perform sin, and drunkenness itself is a sin. I have watched in a bar what goes on, its pretty disgusting. I understand drinking something light to relax at the end of the day, or to celebrate. But every one today just seems to want to get plastered, get the girls drunk, and get laid.

Alcohol I am sure has contributed to some of histories greatest works in the form of writers and artists using it. It is also something that destroys people, and is often just used as a way to run from a problem, or to have a blast because you cant stand right anymore.

Speaking from my past, a bottle of beer in no way inhibits me. Therefore if i drank a beer, would I have sinned? Only if I decide to break the law and drive. If I drink 2/3rds a bottle of tequila, then would I be in sin. Most likely I would be feeling quite intoxicated after that. Now for someone to be in the ministry they should have to give up all alcohol. But I think there are even a couple families in our church that see a glass of wine with dinner as ok.

But this means there is no point for jeager boms, ground zeros, or any other mixed drink simply made to intoxicate you. Point being, the only reason many people today drink, is to get messed up, get lucky, and have a good time.

Been to the party's, and its kinda why I can speak so easily against it. It makes people disgusting, nothing more than irritable animals. Nothing good really comes from alcohol today. So then why do it? Even the thing about wine being healthy for you cant be used anymore. That benifit comes from resveratrol and today you can get it in extract form, I have a product I drink that has it in it. So what purpose than either a crutch, party aid, or increasing our chance of getting some is alcohol? If you sip on a glass of scotch or wine while writing, or playing a game of cards, or to calm your nerves good deal. But i believe the group doing that in comparison to the group doing the opposite is so much smaller.

I ask almost every person I come in contact with they why drink, party, and have sex. They all say the same thing, to have fun. So is that what humans are degraded to? Simply giving into animal urges because thats the only way to have "fun" today? The second question I ask usually goes deeper, and then they open up and agree they always feel empty, and that its just and endless circle that they are beginning to hate. Then comes the salvation part...

I generalize saying drinking is bad because of today's youth. But in a weird sense we do see karma come around. When people destroy their liver with it, or get STD's from that random girl they were with at that party they were plastered at. I dont see anything wrong, nor can I feel bad for them. If can play the game, you can pay the price.

I must just be more charismatic in person or something cuz for all the discussions I have been in on this board, i have been in more in real life. And they are often much much easier, and the people will usually show interest and even change. Then again I work off emotions and I cant sympathize with a 17 inch LCD screen that shows no emotion...

 

[Irish Cannon]

So you assume a young man of 22 years may have not had to endure anything? Or has not been tempted? And has not had his faith tried?

Sorry if my speaking sounds like absolutes. But it probably always will. If I am not absolutely sure about myself, and don't speak showing that assurance. Then I am doing nothing but bending to others.

I strongly agree with this. Age has nothing to do with anything. Just because a man's hair is gray does not make him wise.

 

[B5150]

So you assume a young man of 22 years may have not had to endure anything? Or has not been tempted? And has not had his faith tried?

Sorry if my speaking sounds like absolutes. But it probably always will. If I am not absolutely sure about myself, and don't speak showing that assurance. Then I am doing nothing but bending to others. Dont you think America and Americans have done enough bending?

I strongly agree with this. Age has nothing to do with anything. Just because a man's hair is gray does not make him wise.

You missed the point completely.

There is a huge difference between humility and bending.

Zealotry often makes a witness unappealing and repelling, rendering his witness worthless.

Ones 'self' assurance speaks in volumes and that volume can render silent the whisper of Holy Spirit. He does not need your 'self' assurance to be effective.

What you see about things now, and most importantly, about yourself, you will see differently, including, and most especially, the way you witness. This I can promise you.

 

[Irish Cannon]

You missed the point completely.

There is a huge difference between humility and bending.

Zealotry often makes a witness unappealing and repelling, rendering his witness worthless.

Ones 'self' assurance speaks in volumes and that volume can render silent the whisper of Holy Spirit. He does not need your 'self' assurance to be effective.

What you see about things now, and most importantly, about yourself, you will see differently, including, and most especially, the way you witness. This I can promise you.

How can you come to this conclusion without knowing who I am, what I stand for, or how I witness?

 

[B5150]

Because if 20 years from now you are the same as you are at 21 nothing changed and you didn't grow.

If you are a Christian you are on a LIFELONG process of BECOMING more and more like Christ. So inherently you MUST change, and therefor WILL be different.

The old saying "God accepts us just the way we are and loves us too much to leave us that way" really is literal and is just as applicable at 21, 31, 41...91 to Christians as well.

I am not attacking either of you. This is a simple evolving as a human and a Christian.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I must just be more charismatic in person or something cuz for all the discussions I have been in on this board, i have been in more in real life. And they are often much much easier, and the people will usually show interest and even change. Then again I work off emotions and I cant sympathize with a 17 inch LCD screen that shows no emotion...

I find you difficult to speak to [and take seriously] in such discussions because I cannot recall a single post you have made with any semblance of verifiable statements; all of your posts are made from a purely conjectural and uninformed perspective which transposes your faith into zealotry. This easily perceivable zealotry makes you an ineffective communicator, and makes it difficult for any individual [not 'of faith'] to see that you are bringing an 'open-conversational' perspective to the discourse.

In all honesty, your political knowledge is sparse at best, and this becomes an issue when you interject in political discussion with faith-based reasoning [an oxymoron if I have ever spoken one]. As Reaper replied to you earlier on, there are so many things afield in your posts it is difficult to understand where to begin. If you wish for people to heed your advice more - particularly in an environment of intelligent debators - add substance to your posts which are completely lacking thereof. Nobody is going to feel their belief-system challenged by purely conjectural, intransigent faith blindly repeating dogmatic cliches!

 

[DR.D]

Cool.

I used to have a rabid streak in these arguments, then I realized that it just puts everyone on the defensive.

I do try to deal with this logically...so no worries, interested in hearing your take.

Why don't you start your rabid 'logic streak' by getting the story right! You butchered it pretty bad my man. Perhaps you were thinking of Lot, instead of Noah?

Noah didn't have sex with anyone apparently, and he may not have literally been drunk with wine either. BUT, based on much study, it appears that he may have been physically castrated by Ham and/or his second wife impregnated by Ham. It appears that the pertinent information in this story may be embedded in the ancient verbiage, terms and context. Whatever happened, Ham's descendants were likely cured because of a sexual violation which resulted in a genetically corrupted offspring. That's the only imperative I have ever seen in the Bible for God to decree an entire race destroyed, to eradicate nephilim offspring from the future genome.

 

[DmitryWI]

I find you difficult to speak to [and take seriously] in such discussions because I cannot recall a single post you have made with any semblance of verifiable statements; all of your posts are made from a purely conjectural and uninformed perspective which transposes your faith into zealotry. This easily perceivable zealotry makes you an ineffective communicator, and makes it difficult for any individual [not 'of faith'] to see that you are bringing an 'open-conversational' perspective to the discourse.

In all honesty, your political knowledge is sparse at best, and this becomes an issue when you interject in political discussion with faith-based reasoning [an oxymoron if I have ever spoken one]. As Reaper replied to you earlier on, there are so many things afield in your posts it is difficult to understand where to begin. If you wish for people to heed your advice more - particularly in an environment of intelligent debaters - add substance to your posts which are completely lacking thereof. Nobody is going to feel their belief-system challenged by purely conjectural, intransigent faith blindly repeating dogmatic cliches!

Do you really believe he understood what you just said to him? I have tried to reply to his posts in this thread so many times, but most of the time I ended up deleting it. Like you said, it's very difficult to talk to him (he probably will take it as a compliment LOL) and most of his posts is non-sense (to me, anyway) and in no way represents Christianity.

 

[DmitryWI]

As a Christian I just witness by nature. I would rather risk having someone blow up in my face than facing that feeling of guilt all day because I missed an opportunity to save someone or didn't listen to what God was telling me. .

but all the others I have met acted just as much of a jerkwad. .

I am just saying in Ohio every one I have met is a jerk. That therefore is simply me telling you what I have experienced time and time again.

there is a line that has to be crossed. Because if you dont cross that line, then your still normal.

If you were jumping in my face with your religious crap every chance you get, I would be a jerk to you too. Does it make me a bad person? It's a simple law of physics. The harder you push, the more resistance you get.
Try to put yourself in other person shoes, you are as big of a jerk to him...

 

[DmitryWI]

Originally Posted by DmitryWI
Until all religions realize, that their way to God isn't a better way, but simply different and until they learn how to respect and accept it, there will never be peace on Earth.

We can't ever "realize" this as Christians because we know it to be untrue.

This is pretty sad and this is exactly why I don't believe in "Bible God".

 

[dsade]

Why don't you start your rabid 'logic streak' by getting the story right! You butchered it pretty bad my man. Perhaps you were thinking of Lot, instead of Noah?

Noah didn't have sex with anyone apparently, and he may not have literally been drunk with wine either. BUT, based on much study, it appears that he may have been physically castrated by Ham and/or his second wife impregnated by Ham. It appears that the pertinent information in this story may be embedded in the ancient verbiage, terms and context. Whatever happened, Ham's descendants were likely cured because of a sexual violation which resulted in a genetically corrupted offspring. That's the only imperative I have ever seen in the Bible for God to decree an entire race destroyed, to eradicate nephilim offspring from the future genome.

I concede the example...I was confusing Noah with Lot, however in your correction of the names you have even further cemented my point with a second example of god holding up as a "good and righteous man" someone quite scumbaggardly.

Also, if you have issue with the translation of Noah, I would be quite interested in reading the philological correction.

 

[dsade]

An interesting analysis, for those truly interested in a critical critique of the bible's moral compass:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Zero V]

You missed the point completely.

There is a huge difference between humility and bending.

Zealotry often makes a witness unappealing and repelling, rendering his witness worthless.

Ones 'self' assurance speaks in volumes and that volume can render silent the whisper of Holy Spirit. He does not need your 'self' assurance to be effective.

What you see about things now, and most importantly, about yourself, you will see differently, including, and most especially, the way you witness. This I can promise you.

I understand to a degree what you mean. But it is pretty insulting when these people assume I don't understand the real world. It just occurs to me to argue to try and explain myself will have a point that is mute. I drop tidbits, but the whole story just wont do. I will say half the people on the other side of the fence here are most likely just eager to take stabs at the argument, and could care less about the actual material. I rather leave em stabbing at the material, than my personal life.

Will I grow, yes. I have grown so much in 2 years alone, people dont even remember what I used to be. When I was secular. Today though I seem more and more Christians who fall into these categories A-like most of you stereotype a Christian to be, have never seen the real world and cant understand it. or B-to afraid to express themselves, and stand up for the beliefs. or C-just wearing a name tag, its like when you see that Kroger dude at the mall still wearing his shirt...

Dmitry I understand. but this has turned into a discussion. At no point technically have i pushed anything on anyone, I have stated my beliefs, and just constantly have to answer to posts, and add in more. In a real life situation you have to remember this wouldn't be week long thread, it would be 5 minutes, then this part is done....do i bring up God to peopel again after first witnessing to them? Yeah, but when its the right time. It might be a week, or even months before the time is right again.

Mullet. reading your post involving zealotry(though it has a nice selection of vocabulary), is almost a laugh. I dont intend that to be negative. But the reason I interject usually with faith based reasoning is it is because of the lack of it today is the reason America is in its current state....so when America is dead, it is no excuse for secular people to use it as another reason to claim there is no God. Though it will likely become another one of their arguments...

 

[dsade]

There is no such thing as faith based reasoning.

 

[DR.D]

There is no such thing as faith based reasoning.

Faith based reasoning is actually all there is. Your belief that there is no God (even though you may not really know) is based on your reasons. Most people base their reasons on probabilities or odds based on previous observation. Science is base on perceived reason, religion is based on doctrinal reason, atheists have their reasons, etc. To make any choice at all requires faith (belief without proof) even if it's deciding to turn at a stop light. You don't turn if it's red because you believe you might get hit, even though you can't possibly know if the other guy will stop or not. Why not be faithful, if it's the best you can do anyway? And why even give a **** about somebody elses faith, why waste your words if you honestly think it's BS? That is illogical. Are you sure you're not starting to get interested?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Mullet. reading your post involving zealotry(though it has a nice selection of vocabulary), is almost a laugh. I dont intend that to be negative. But the reason I interject usually with faith based reasoning is it is because of the lack of it today is the reason America is in its current state....so when America is dead, it is no excuse for secular people to use it as another reason to claim there is no God. Though it will likely become another one of their arguments...

This is precisely what I mean! You do not even know the meaning of zealotry! Zealotry does not necessarily connote negativity, but rather vehement and active support of a particular religion, often without rational justification.

And no, you interject with faith-based reasoning because you are incredibly unversed about the topics we are speaking about: you have little to no awareness regarding the ethnic-cultural struggles you natter on about, particularly their historical basis; you have no knowledge on politics whatsoever; and could not have less of a clue about the particular reasons for the Global Economy being in the clusterfuck that it is. Plainly, you have no clue what you are speaking about!

If you claim you are such a motivational speaker, stop for a moment and be a listener! People of your own faith, your seniors, have told you that you sound like an ass - heed that advice! Literally, you sound like an idiot. For the time being, stop making posts and read; consume knowledge so that you may realize how stupid some of your opinions are! At that point, come back to the discourse with a faith verified by some objective sense of reality.

Take your reply, for example: you completely ignored the subject matter, and your typical afield fashioned rambled on about some general categorization of 'secular society'. I have no clue how you found god with your head so far in your ass!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I understand to a degree what you mean. But it is pretty insulting when these people assume I don't understand the real world. It just occurs to me to argue to try and explain myself will have a point that is mute. I drop tidbits, but the whole story just wont do. I will say half the people on the other side of the fence here are most likely just eager to take stabs at the argument, and could care less about the actual material. I rather leave em stabbing at the material, than my personal life.

No, you are just unknowledgeable, Zero! Please stop making excuses. I am not calling you unintelligible, but rather extremely uninformed. You just do not have the requisite knowledge to natter on in the fashion you do. Stop speaking and read; rinse and repeat.

Will I grow, yes. I have grown so much in 2 years alone, people dont even remember what I used to be. When I was secular. Today though I seem more and more Christians who fall into these categories A-like most of you stereotype a Christian to be, have never seen the real world and cant understand it. or B-to afraid to express themselves, and stand up for the beliefs. or C-just wearing a name tag, its like when you see that Kroger dude at the mall still wearing his shirt...

No, nobody is assuming anything about Christians in general. They were speaking about you specifically, because your lack of life experience shines through in each and every single one of your posts. You can blabber on and on about your vast life experiences, but your naive posts on every subject matter from Politics to lampshades paints a different, unmistakable picture: you do not know what you are talking about!

This is the best advice I can give you: nobody here believes that you are a gritty life-veteran with myriad experiences to glean knowledge from, and subsequently bless us with the illuminations you derived thereof. You are a typical twenty-two year old, except instead of blabbering on about Budweiser and women, you blabber on about Jesus and your personal testament. I hope - somebody very soon - you come into that particular realization. Nothing makes a communicator more effective than coming to know what he does not know!

 

[B5150]

I understand to a degree what you mean. But it is pretty insulting when these people assume I don't understand the real world. It just occurs to me to argue to try and explain myself will have a point that is mute. I drop tidbits, but the whole story just wont do. I will say half the people on the other side of the fence here are most likely just eager to take stabs at the argument, and could care less about the actual material. I rather leave em stabbing at the material, than my personal life.

Will I grow, yes. I have grown so much in 2 years alone, people dont even remember what I used to be. When I was secular. Today though I seem more and more Christians who fall into these categories A-like most of you stereotype a Christian to be, have never seen the real world and cant understand it. or B-to afraid to express themselves, and stand up for the beliefs. or C-just wearing a name tag, its like when you see that Kroger dude at the mall still wearing his shirt...

My observation is that you seem to have too many absolutes. You make some claims and statements and profess things about Christians and Christian faith in absolutes that just are not true.

For instance you even have a label to categorize the them Christians from the me Christian. You make many generalizations regarding their do's that you don't do and their don't's that you do. I hate to break it to you but you are no better than Christian A, B, or C.

Nor is it for you to assess yourself as such, even more importantly profess yourself as such in comparison to others. Very many of your posts are you comparing you to others...other Christians as well.

It gives off an elitist and superiority attitude.

Your witness is your witness and your walk is your walk. Speak about yourself and for yourself and wear your own shoes. Your character shortcomings in the eyes of God are just as many and great as any ones elses. If you don't think so then you have not examined yourself quite as well as you think you have or need to.

If you have to tell people how different you are then maybe you are not so different. If you are different from others then you would know there is no need to tell people how different you are.

Jesus was one of us. He sat with us, ate with us, drank wine with us, celebrated with us, mourned with us and lived among us. The us were liars, thieves, murderers, prostitutes and tax collectors. You are equal to a liar, a thief, a murderer, a prostitute and a tax collector. Nothing has changed since the man died on the cross for us and them. You got nothing more going on then they do except for the blood of Christ.

It is not my intention to insult or offend you and I am trying to express myself to a brother with as much love as I can.

I was baptized at your age 21 years ago and I have some experience in life and as a Christian who is full of infirmity. I am still full of shortcomings that make me worthy of death. I always will be until my last breath. So are and will you. Humility goes a very long way as a witness to Christ.

 

[Irish Cannon]

Originally Posted by DmitryWI
Until all religions realize, that their way to God isn't a better way, but simply different and until they learn how to respect and accept it, there will never be peace on Earth.



This is pretty sad and this is exactly why I don't believe in "Bible God".

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

That's why I believe it to be true. I really don't care whether you think it's sad or not. It's not my concern.

 

[dsade]

Faith based reasoning is actually all there is. Your belief that there is no God (even though you may not really know) is based on your reasons. Most people base their reasons on probabilities or odds based on previous observation. Science is base on perceived reason, religion is based on doctrinal reason, atheists have their reasons, etc. To make any choice at all requires faith (belief without proof) even if it's deciding to turn at a stop light. You don't turn if it's red because you believe you might get hit, even though you can't possibly know if the other guy will stop or not. Why not be faithful, if it's the best you can do anyway? And why even give a **** about somebody elses faith, why waste your words if you honestly think it's BS? That is illogical. Are you sure you're not starting to get interested?

I never said "I believe there is no god", I said "I lack belief in god".

One is a positive claim, the other simply NOT a claim.

 

[DmitryWI]

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

That's why I believe it to be true. I really don't care whether you think it's sad or not. It's not my concern.

Well, since you are so educated, do you mind going to this thread Invalid Link Removed

And answering few of my questions regarding this the same verse? Post # 138.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Faith based reasoning is actually all there is. Your belief that there is no God (even though you may not really know) is based on your reasons. Most people base their reasons on probabilities or odds based on previous observation. Science is base on perceived reason, religion is based on doctrinal reason, atheists have their reasons, etc. To make any choice at all requires faith (belief without proof) even if it's deciding to turn at a stop light. You don't turn if it's red because you believe you might get hit, even though you can't possibly know if the other guy will stop or not. Why not be faithful, if it's the best you can do anyway? And why even give a **** about somebody elses faith, why waste your words if you honestly think it's BS? That is illogical. Are you sure you're not starting to get interested?

You are unfortunately [and deliberately] blurring the line between categorical statements of doctrine v., normative agnostic statements. Being clear, agnosticism here extends beyond merely theological connotations into the Philosophical tradition established [in modern times] by Hume; such a view espouses that all statements, aside from those of a purely trivial nature, are "I believe..." statements tempered with a certain degree of doubt; only you are incorrectly inferring lack of proof in doubt. Let us be careful how we misrepresent logical terms less we seem unintelligible!

Here is a brief description I give of Agnosticism in another thread:

Agnosticism [Philosophically speaking] is a certain skeptical analysis of the possible truth-value of categorical statements on the Universe. For example, a Christian says, "All murder is bad, based on Gospel" or "All people have an afterlife", and bases both of those statements on a Universal predication of truth-value - i.e., a Deity.

An Agnostic, on the other hand, does not make categorical statements based on the Universe but rather make's statements based on a certain empirical-skepticism, analyzing the truth value of a statement based on the human's capacity for knowledge - i.e., if God is the ultimate reality, then it is beyond the capacity of a human-agent to know anything in its certainty as we must mediate all things through our intellectual faculties.

In most senses the term "I believe..." is meant to imply a lack of direct experiential knowledge of a phenomenon, and a claim to knowledge based on an analysis of available evidence: "I believe the Titanic was struck by an iceberg". Religious statements are the only time we allow people to conflate "I believe..." statements with "I know..." statements, a priori of the thing they claim to know!

And, one which applies specifically here to your statements:

Religious statements [not merely referring to sentences, but religion-as-cultural-text - i.e., the broader 'message' of religion] are often categorical. Categorical statements are statements which make claim to universal truth-value; or in other words, statements which are true in all instances. In this way, categorical statements are very transitive, insofar as claiming the relation R to all subsets of x.

An example would be Socrates' statement: All men or mortal. This is categorical as it has a universal truth-value [All men are in fact mortal] and it is transitive [it applies the relation R {mortality} to all subsets of x {men}]. We say such categorical statements are valid only in instances where the definition of the word necessitates an indexical statement. For example, "All squares have four sides" is universal, for every square has four sides, and if it does not, it is not a square - therefore the categorical statements, "All squares have four sides" is valid.

The issue here is verifiability. We can make the statement, "All squares have four sides" without experiencing every square, because squares by definition have four sides; statements not of this kind [trivial or definitive statements] are all belief statements, tenured by a certain amount of doubt. For example, in saying "The Sun will rise tomorrow", one really means to say, "I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen hundreds of billions of times previously, and I have no reason to believe it will not". While it is almost undoubtable the Sun will rise, a categorical statement may not be made about it because it could have blown up millions of years ago and will just reach us now.

And this is the issue Agnosticism takes with Theism: Theistic statements are almost exclusively categorical, and not tenured by the necessary doubt of an Agnostic. You see, while you are reducing Agnosticism/Atheism to nothing more than an absence of a belief, or determination of negativity towards Theism, they are much more complex positions; in reality, they hinge up truth-value statements and verifiability.

While you have incorrectly determined every decision as based on faith, such is very ostensibly not the case! Faith may be conflated with, "Belief with lack of verifiable proof to any individual aside from the experiencer". Such is not the 'doubt' involved in skeptical scientific analyses.

I am not challenging your faith, but merely ensuring we are using and understanding the operative terms here correctly! I am sure, D, if you witnessed somebody incorrectly describing the AR you would step-in as well.

 

[DR.D]

... I am not challenging your faith, but merely ensuring we are using and understanding the operative terms here correctly! I am sure, D, if you witnessed somebody incorrectly describing the AR you would step-in as well.

Mullet, we used to have great discourse back in the day (at least I though) so you should know me better. I am a physicist as well as a Christian. Whatever bits of data I can integrate from ALL observation forms the foundation of my logic. I don't believe anything in full from any particular school, my belief is whatever resonates from an open, eclectic process. In other words, I try not to miss anything! I seek absolute truth, that's it, and I don't care where I find it. You don't think I get your point? You're still missing mine, which was technically accurate. Think about it, and think of the implications concerning your methodology. Is there ever any real predication? There is an intrinsic and predictable uncertainty built into everything we try to validate. You might actually cloud your understanding worse with that relativistic attitude, but it doesn't eliminate the uncertainty. Maybe you fear a Nihilistic conclusion? Regardless, there must be a standard. So what will be your standard to establish reality? Empirical-skepticism?? OK, a logical start, but you already admitted your human capacity for knowledge is limited, so how can you be your own standard? That is impossible. Your logic is therefore fundamentally flawed right outta the gait. You lack some of the same fundamentals that you criticize these Christians about! If you believe that a square has 4 sides based on empirical-skepticism, then you put your faith on a premise that is necessarily in error already, and only really useful in practical matters where it doesn't matter much anyway. Perhaps you underestimate the influence of these error limits on the system. Whether by intentional deceit or honest error, you have to account and correct for it if you honestly wanna apply it as an argument, but still all you get is a few extra sig figs on your probability.

The fact is, god already exists. Did he make us? Well, if nothing else we made him. Regardless, their is a specific slot to be occupied in the mind of humanity, and god's name is on that slot. I am challenging you to rethink your definition of god and form your own conclusion, an updated perspective, with no prejudice or precepts. Question your present standard of faith based reasoning if you want to advance in understanding. Question your system from time to time in general IMO.

 

[dsade]

The fact is, god already exists. Did he make us? Well, if nothing else we made him. Regardless, their is a specific slot to be occupied in the mind of humanity, and god's name is on that slot. I am challenging you to rethink your definition of god and form your own conclusion, an updated perspective, with no prejudice or precepts. Question your present standard of faith based reasoning if you want to advance in understanding. Question your system from time to time in general IMO.

Perhaps it would help clear up the discussion if we were to hear your detailed description of this god. Some concrete characteristics.

You use the pronoun "he", which is either for convenience or you actually believe such a being to be of the male gender (why would god need a gender?)

Some people believe that "god is love", which obviously exists, but render the term god superfluous.

Some claim god is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good - which has been handled to death and proven to be ridiculous and self-contradictory, not jibing at all with concepts of free will and the existence of evil - which again returns concept of god into a vague, useless term.

This is not an attack at all - at least not to you. Much has been written about this. The bible holds contradictions in it (as well as countless atrocities and LACK of morality), which pretty much eliminates its authorship by some perfect divine being. It knocks it down to the level of a "sometimes nifty, but utimately either fictional or such a mixture of fiction with "fact" rendering it unusable as proof". I am truly curious to hear your definition, because to ponder the existence of anything called "god" we have to know what we are all taking about...define your terms, if you will.

 

[Irish Cannon]

Mullet, it seems as though you believe science is based purely on fact...Don't you realize that PEOPLE are the ones conducting the experiments and analysis, thus already infiltrating prejudices, whether conscious or subconscious?

Here's an excerpt from an article done by Russell Blaylock that I thought was interesting. (A Christian Professor of Biology at Belhaven College)

"Growing from logical positivism, science became imbued with its power and became resentful towards those it envisioned to be its enemies-primarily in the areas of theology and metaphysics. This is despite the fact that, as many have observed, science owes its very existence to theology, mainly that the universe is an ordered and logical creation.

Over time, scientists become convinced that their view of the universe was not only the most accurate, but the only one that should be allowed. This tendency of a discipline to demand that its intellectual competitors yield the public forum is legendary. Many today are of the opinion that if something cannot be verified by the scientific method, it is not to be accepted as valid and is labeled as speculation or worse (in their lexicon), a superstition.

Wiser men of science have long recognized that there are things in this universe that cannot be understood by utilizing a scientific viewpoint, that is, that science can only tell us about material phenomenon or forces that have a repetitive nature, which then lends itself to examination and measurement. In fact, outside the realm of science there exist a tremendous number of phenomenon that will remain unknown and that contain many secrets that only God can know."

 

[Irish Cannon]

This is not an attack at all - at least not to you. Much has been written about this. The bible holds contradictions in it (as well as countless atrocities and LACK of morality), which pretty much eliminates its authorship by some perfect divine being. It knocks it down to the level of a "sometimes nifty, but utimately either fictional or such a mixture of fiction with "fact" rendering it unusable as proof". I am truly curious to hear your definition, because to ponder the existence of anything called "god" we have to know what we are all taking about...define your terms, if you will.

When studied and examined closely, I don't find this to be true, but I can't distance myself from you completely since there are always things that we won't completely understand.

You say the Bible lacks morality in certain cases, but you also have to understand the reasoning behind it...I'm sure you get upset when you see cases where God ordered the slaughter of entire villages of men, women, and children...They were EVIL people. You can't instill the good without first taking out the bad. And yes, children CAN be evil. You better believe that I'd have no problem taking out a seven year old threatening my life who has been brainwashed since birth. I'd have no problem with that.

 

[dsade]

Mullet, it seems as though you believe science is based purely on fact...Don't you realize that PEOPLE are the ones conducting the experiments and analysis, thus already infiltrating prejudices, whether conscious or subconscious?

Here's an excerpt from an article done by Russell Blaylock that I thought was interesting. (A Christian Professor of Biology at Belhaven College)

"Growing from logical positivism, science became imbued with its power and became resentful towards those it envisioned to be its enemies-primarily in the areas of theology and metaphysics. This is despite the fact that, as many have observed, science owes its very existence to theology, mainly that the universe is an ordered and logical creation.

Over time, scientists become convinced that their view of the universe was not only the most accurate, but the only one that should be allowed. This tendency of a discipline to demand that its intellectual competitors yield the public forum is legendary. Many today are of the opinion that if something cannot be verified by the scientific method, it is not to be accepted as valid and is labeled as speculation or worse (in their lexicon), a superstition.

Wiser men of science have long recognized that there are things in this universe that cannot be understood by utilizing a scientific viewpoint, that is, that science can only tell us about material phenomenon or forces that have a repetitive nature, which then lends itself to examination and measurement. In fact, outside the realm of science there exist a tremendous number of phenomenon that will remain unknown and that contain many secrets that only God can know."

quick comment here...men do not rise from the dead in an ordered, logical universe.

Science believes everything MUST follow laws. Religion gives an "out" to a magic old man, who somehow doesn't have to follow those laws - thereby becoming a wildcard and rendering the universe BACK as disorderly and distinctly ILLogical.