is there a God?

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Wow, you just blew me away babe. This is the single best post that I have read in TF for a long, long time. Mucho respect lovely Riya! Muah!

8) :wink:

.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

[WiCKeDBiRD]

:idea: :idea: :idea: :wink:

.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

where did Cain's wife come from?

A : from Venus

Ref... aka Proof : a book called Men are from Mars : Women are from Venus 8) :wink:

[scutfargus]

I find the evidence offered by Christians (quotes from the bible, hearsay from people that had a very primitive understanding of the world around them) to be dubious (at best) proof of God's existence.

Of course. This is why I don't believe that I have made any real attempt to offer "proof" of God's existence.

An equally likely scenario is that Jesus was a very convincing delusional, not unlike many others from history before and since.

Finally, someone who has the guts to reject Jesus outright without trying to make up what Jesus is out of their imagination. I applaud you for being intellectually honest, something which appears to be rare around here. In reading the Bible, this is one reasonable explanation for Jesus, and a lot more plausible one that calling Him a great moral teacher.

By the way J, do you know how long His public ministry was for? A mere 3 or 4 years. Most religous teachers taught for decades. Jesus was barely a blip on the radar screen. Isn't it weird that we separate history by Him? Why would we do that?

Does it really sound more plausible that we have virgin births, people made from the ribs of others, original sin, parting of the seas, not to mention most people in the world having "gotten it wrong" simply by the mere geographical accident of their birth etc etc and on and on. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but offering up bible passages as "proof" of anything is laughable to me. Interesting story, a good read, but I've read better and more imiginative moral narratives than this one.

You actually make some good points. People being made from the ribs of others. That is completely ridiculous! How could anyone even suggest such a thing could happen? How could anyone believe that? Oh, except scientists who are working on cloning, but what do they know? They're not as smart as you and I who know such a thing could never happen.

And you forget to mention, Adam being made out of the dirt. What the heck was that all about ? How could a man be made out of the same chemicals as we find in the earth? That is impossible. We're made out of completely different chemicals than the organic matter of the earth, aren't we? I guess I'll have to consult a biology book on this one.

And just the very idea of God being able to do something miraculous. Certainly not! How could God do anything like that? Miracles never happen. Everything can be explained by science. Okay, I need to go now and worship my younger brother, who is a scientiest. See you around.

[scutfargus]

Why do people keep encouraging Scutfargus? :roll: This thread digressed long ago..... Even the entertainment value of this thread has vanished except maybe to those who desperately need to get a life.

Scut has demonstrated that all he wants to do is bring one little lamb back to his God. Then he will have succeeded. That is the world he lives in and then he hopes maybe another will do the same thing and many souls will be saved.

If you really want an intellectually stimulating discussion about this sort of thing go listen to talks by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, an English speaking Thai monk. Visit the Joseph Campbell forum or Carl Jung forums, etc? There are folks there who think about these things on a deep level.

Nash, old buddy, you may not like me much, and I can live with that. But look back at your previous posts. Who has read what you have to say and then makes a comment about it? I mean a real comment and not a one-liner about something vaguley related?

Maybe you're that lamb?

[CiaranM]

Maybe you're that lamb?

don't mention lambs when jimba's about scutfargus, he'll beat u to it ...

[eagle]

Why do people keep encouraging Scutfargus? :roll: This thread digressed long ago..... Even the entertainment value of this thread has vanished except maybe to those who desperately need to get a life.

Scut has demonstrated that all he wants to do is bring one little lamb back to his God. Then he will have succeeded. That is the world he lives in and then he hopes maybe another will do the same thing and many souls will be saved.

If you really want an intellectually stimulating discussion about this sort of thing go listen to talks by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, an English speaking Thai monk. Visit the Joseph Campbell forum or Carl Jung forums, etc? There are folks there who think about these things on a deep level.

Nash, old buddy, you may not like me much, and I can live with that. But look back at your previous posts. Who has read what you have to say and then makes a comment about it? I mean a real comment and not a one-liner about something vaguley related?

Maybe you're that lamb?

Awww thats so touching. :cry: SO nash who after you spill your guts doesn'y understand a thing you say and then goes on for pages about verses and Jesus mmm who is that careful he thinks your a lamb now baaaa baaaaaa BAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAA watch your a**

[robbie36]

The reason that the 'God theory' has stuck around for so long is that most people seem perfectly happy to accept God as a metaphor for anything that is not understood by man at the current time.

So the average God proponent (not the loonies like Scutfargus) when faced with say the theory of evolution will simply say 'Ok I accept that but who invented evolution?'.

I find this way of thinking pretty unsatisfactory. For a start if the world as we know it is really simply an infinite improbability in which we, as humans, have just got very lucky, then it makes God neither interesting nor worth worshipping at all. (Gee I have sneaking feeling that Scutfargus might agree with me on this point which would kind of put a big dent in my argument.)

God is not a satisfactory explanation for anything and therefore is not worth believing in. I dont happen to believe in fairies, goblins, ghosts, flying saucers or Gods but I am happy to change my mind if someone presents some credible evidence to the contrary.

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it and stop indoctrinating people into these ridiculous notions from birth.

[cs3602001]

scutfarg,

I hope you did not see my post as some kind of personal attack or threat, it was merely my opinion on how I perceive some of the so called "Fundamental" Christians out there, very quick to quote Liviticus when it suits them or their point/argument, as I mentioned earlier regarding the body piercing scenario.

Also the Ten Commandments fall under mosaic law, so they are also considered defunct I guess.

The title of the thread is "is there a God?" I believe yes there is, maybe not one as certain religions portray but I have a belief that sits right with me.

Belief in something does not open an automatic gateway called total acceptance.

Trying to "prove" his existence with the use of the bible is, as I see it a futile effort that leads nowhere. Whatever "proof" anyone provides you will always be able to find a study which offers "proof" against the "proof"!!!!!

For me, my "belief" is based on personal experience. My own experience of the church is limited, I found it hard to 'hear' a lot of the service, when talking about parting waters and feeding thousands of people with a couple of fish, etc, etc. I know a lot of this is open to interpretation, but listening to the service actually closed my mind more than open it. I found one Minister from a United Reform Church in UK, he was cool, spoke about real things, real issues, real life and practical application of some of Jesus teaching in everyday life, just common sense, not bible bashing.

One other guy a Minister at my Grandmothers funeral, from Canada, he was also a great guy in the way he got the message across, more a message of spirituality than religion, without the use of bashing the bible, times have certainly changes as have peoples attitudes towards the church and the bible, obviously not too many churches have changed with the times, so I am not surprised by a lot of peoples rejection of todays organised religions.

Now a real Miracle would be for scutgoat to take the cotton wool from his mouth and stick it in his ears.....

[CiaranM]

just U answer 2 very simple questions. u know they only need a yes or no answer.

1. do U believe we must be a christian to get to heaven ?

2. do U believe all non-christians will go to hell ?

now surely even u can answer these two questions ..... can't u ??

I quoted Jesus, Paul and John for my answer. If you don't read the quotes, then, of course you don't know my position.

Why do you need to call this person Jesus? What not just call him "Ciaran" and be done with it. I have quoted Jesus many times and you have rejected that in every way possible, by disparaging the manuscipts, by disparaging me, etc. Why is it so doggoned important to you to have Jesus agree with you? The Jesus of the Bible does not agree with your viewpoint. The Jesus of the Bible talks about hell for ANYONE who does not believe in Him. The Jesus of the Bible did claim to be God on many occasions. Since 99.9% of everything we know about Jesus is in the Bible, why are you so set in making Him over in your own image? Why not accept that fact that this Jesus is someone you do not like and just reject Him? Why not pick a person to be your moral/spiritual leader who agrees with you? Buddha seems to be a big favorite around here; why not select Buddha and tell everyone how great it is going to be spending eternity with Buddha and you two will make sure only the really evil people are kept out of heaven together (because, of course, they don't deserve love or forgiveness). Or, whatever Buddha taught. Since what a person actually taught is not that important to you, why not just make up stuff about Buddha and claim he is your god/guide/leader or whatever?

scutfargus u really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. u persistently refuse to answer the question. i didn't ask for the answer from jesus, john and paul. i asked for ur answer, but once again u bottled out.

it is not important to me for jesus to agree with me, i respect him for many of the characteristics i have already outlined. u r continually ramming "UR" version of jesus down everyone's throats and constantly telling us "U" r right and we r wrong. well sorry i believe everyone is free to take whatever meaning they feel is right from the bible and apply it to their lives. it doesn't mean they r right, but it also doesn't mean they r wrong. as for calling this person ciaran as opposed to jesus, now why would i want to do that.

and lastly coming on to a thaifriends website and taking cheap shots at buddha is not a very clever or respectful thing to do. in fact i am sure many ppl will find it extremely arrogant, insulting and offensive. i know i did and i'm not buddhist. once again i have to question the reasons and motives for u coming and preaching on this website !!

[Tinian]

That's it? The only answer you can give is: 'yep, they go to hell, sorry'. Don't you find it slightly worrying that you seem to be upholding an attitude to religion which allows no room for doctrinal development and which has no room for complexity or ambiguity? I'm sorry to tell you this - but, like all religions, Christianity HAS changed and developed many of its views over the centuries - it's not a static thing. You are allowed to question things a little bit, you know.

Tinian, this is not my universe. I did not make any of the rules. I am going to have to trust the God knows what He is doing and that He is righteous.

Various factions of Christianity have changed this doctrine or that; the fundamentals of Christianity (hence, the abused term Fundamentalist) have always been the same. This is why I often quote Scripture without comment to answer a question. What some church believes today or tomorrow is not my concern. What the Bible says does concern me.

And finding a church which has that concern is a lot more difficult than you might think.

I can see your viewpoint - you want to return to a source text because you feel that centuries of interpretation may be subjective (and no doubt because you believe the OT and NT are all 'God's words'). However, I personally would lean more towards Augustine's view, which is that on reading the bible, one is left with a strong sense of dissatisfaction. There isn't much philosophical detail in the texts, they are sometimes not particularly coherent, and above all there is loads of stuff that is need of interpretation and expansion. Take the song of songs for example - how are we to take that amazing passage which is so full of metaphor and imagery? This is a question that has challenged people for centuries and that has allowed a plethora of thought (based around the notion of allegory and symbolism) that has acted as a platform for incredibly sophisticated paths of spiritual development.

Some problems with fundamentalism appear to me this:

1) It tends to take the bible literally (and your words about narrative/hagiography being simply a form of 'lies' suggests this very approach - it can't value the role of metaphor in religious practice) and devalues the role of interpretation and limits the importance of independent thought.

2) It ignores centuries of traditions of philosophy and interpretation which, to me, often express the most stunning achievements in Christian thought.

3) It is an individualistic approach which devalues the importance of community and tradition (such individualism in the protestant approach has often, ironically, led to greater secularism in societies such as Britian and has also greatly influenced ideologies such as capitalism).

4) By concentrating on the value of a single TEXT so greatly, there is often a devaluation of important religious practices based around ritual (though all forms of Protestantism do have ritual, even though they tend to deny it).

5) Fundamentalism often breeds dogmatism. And a lack of tolerance.

You may think that all of the above are perfectly fine views and that you are happy to adopt them. However, I think you would be kidding yourself if you didn't accept that the very views that you have been propounding here are BOUND to have been influenced by systems of thought which you cannot say solely derive from an unsullied reading of the bible. Your views ARE dependent on interpretation, whether you like it or not (as are all our views about texts - religious or otherwise). People such as Augustine or Aquinas were simply being honest about the fact that they were interpreting (though of course they believed they were formulating 'true' interpretations). Like all Christians, you will, for example, have been influenced by the effects that (neo-)Platonsim has had on Christianity. Your views on communion will no doubt not solely be derived from the bible but from long traditions of debate on the matter. And I wouldn't be surprised if your ideas about hell are not solely bible-based. And there are bound to be many many others.

Finally, I admit that I am rather suspicious of the charismatic movement (which is often connected with fundamentalism). My main problem with it is that there is a huge focus on emotion over thought - what primarily matters when you go to church is being filled with the holy spirit and not thinking deeply about the important and difficult issues that christianity raises about life. In Britain, charismatic churches are often full of very young people who go to get a 'buzz' from feeling high on God and from the sense of security that being part of a club brings - but very often a sense of disillusionment sets in when fundamental issues about religion and life are not being discussed in a particularly profound manner by the preachers in the church (who usually resort to very extreme and manipulative lectures on the importance of 'us christians' against 'those unbelievers' and on how wonderful it is that 'us lot' are not going to hell.) I realise that this is my subjective view, but there it is.

[robbie36]

Coming back to the 'was Jesus a delusional?' question raised by a couple of people. My 'feeling' is that he was.

I have often wondered if I am the son of God or that I am God - I have a feeling that a lot of people do. You then basically take the view that life is simply a game, mental masterbation to keep a single all powerful sentient force intellectually stimulated in the face of unbearable loneliness.

Of course this makes everything and everyone an illusion dreamed up by my imagination. While this is clearly a possibility (and seems far more likely than the God theory) I have decided to ignore it as a belief. I have a feeling if I declare myself to be God or simply the son of God, it might not lead to much happiness although rather like the Thai magician monk, I might get a lot more shags.

That there have been numerous people declaring themselves to be God or 'sons of God' over the centuries doesnt really surprise me. Of course Scutfargus attaches so much importance to Jesus because his legacy has proved so powerful. What he fails to understand is that it is the metaphor of Jesus that has proved fairly successful BECAUSE it has been adapted by each successive generation to fit peoples own philosophies. If Christianity had relied on keeping the Bible as the whole and absolute truth it would have died out centuries ago.

[johnno]

Johno is that you giving a sermon on the mound in your profile ? Are you jesus come back to get us. If so we need to talk

yes eagle, and if you don't do like i say and do it quickly, you will go straight to that bottom of that hole (by the way, that big hole is called saudi arabia) 8) :shock:

[johnno]

And I am closed minded and illogical.

Congratulations, scutfargus. After more than 20 pages, you finally wrote something that is true.

careful loburt, that sounds to me like you are agreeing with scutfartygas calling himself names. isn't that the same as name calling? 8) :shock:

[methedevdas]

First of all.. Yes There is A god.

Dont talk about books dont see poeple, dont see the religion... dont see any thing.. just Answer my Simple Question...

" MAN CAN MADE THIS WHOLE UNIVERSE.. these mountains.. these trees.. these lifes.. these many things.. whom alive.. and whom not.. GOD IS THERE.. there is a BIG power whom contorling all the things..

There is a Power whom create these all things which we can see with our nacked eyes..

man.. i can say.. we cant control this TF site sometimes its hard to Control memebers.. so think about whole Universe.. whom take care of those..

There are many questions born ..if you said like NO GOD..

and many Proofs too that god is there~

FOR BUDD POEPLE.. THIER GOD IS BUDD WHOM CANT MOVE AND CANT DO ANY THING.. SO HOW COME HE MADE EVERYTHING.. BUDD HIMSELF MADE BY MAN.. .

AND MANY GODS... BUT REAL POWER IS THERE WHOM CONTROLING ALL

[johnno]

The names were not made up; they were simply transliterated into English from the Greek and the Hebrew. You see the same thing done in the news every single day when they make reference to a world leader outside of the nation that you live in. Why are you trying to read so much into this.

If you need to see the name, then try the Hebrew Names Version. However, I doubt that this is what you are interested in.

ok, but why is that only the name of those close to jesus were translated, and not everyone else? would you call that "product enhancement" to use modern terms?

my problem with "christianity" has always been the "beat up" that churches and scholars like to give the bible. the bible is a good story and if you follow the teachings, you will live a good life. same as any religous instruction, be it buddhism, muslim etc. but when people (and its always peoples interpretations, not the book itself) come along and twist the story to get out of it what they want to, then religeon becomes very boring.

my mother is a right wing christian zealout (you can always tell a zealout, but you can't tell them much) and we have many a lively discussion about religeon and the bible.

funny story - when i was about 14, i started going to the baptist church cos they had a lively youth group (meaning they had lots of hot young girls there). my mother found out about me associating with the riff raff of the baptist church (she was angican) and forbid me to go there anymore. young girls versus my mother, you know who won, not my mum. anyway, about 10 years later, i had left home and when i was home on holidays, i found out that my mother had changed religeons from anglican to..... guess who?....give up?..... baptists of course. but that was ok cos my mother said so. i reminded her about her forbiding me going there. ahhhhhhh, they have changed now, they are good.

[johnno]

FOR BUDD POEPLE.. THIER GOD IS BUDD WHOM CANT MOVE AND CANT DO ANY THING.. SO HOW COME HE MADE EVERYTHING.. BUDD HIMSELF MADE BY MAN.. .

AND MANY GODS... BUT REAL POWER IS THERE WHOM CONTROLING ALL

a bit simplistic meth, but i agree with the basics of what you say here. i am not an authority in the buddhist religeon, but i don't think they say buddha is God. buddha was a man so i don't think he could be God. and how do you know God can move? have you seen him move? and how do you know God is a he? could be an it. uh oh, so many questions. bring on scutfartygas for a definative answer 8) :shock:

[robbie36]

and many Proofs too that god is there~

FOR BUDD POEPLE.. THIER GOD IS BUDD WHOM CANT MOVE AND CANT DO ANY THING.. SO HOW COME HE MADE EVERYTHING.. BUDD HIMSELF MADE BY MAN.. .

AND MANY GODS... BUT REAL POWER IS THERE WHOM CONTROLING ALL

And then we wonder how people can be so stupid as to take a big plane and plough it into the WTC simply on the basis that they will be rewarded by 72 virgins in the next life?

[ling_dtua_khaao]

And then we wonder how people can be so stupid as to take a big plane and plough it into the WTC simply on the basis that they will be rewarded by 72 virgins in the next life?

Yeah you'd have to be really stupid to do it just for 72. I'd hold out for at least 80.

Find more sensible remarks here.

--Ling

[scutfargus]

The names were not made up; they were simply transliterated into English from the Greek and the Hebrew. You see the same thing done in the news every single day when they make reference to a world leader outside of the nation that you live in. Why are you trying to read so much into this.

If you need to see the name, then try the Hebrew Names Version. However, I doubt that this is what you are interested in.

ok, but why is that only the name of those close to jesus were translated, and not everyone else? would you call that "product enhancement" to use modern terms?

All of the names of those in the Bible are transliterated. The translation of "Jesus" would be "Savior" and the translation of "Christ" would be "Messiah." When you refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, you are calling Him "Savior Messiah." We automatically put His name and title together like a first and last name, but in the first century, this was blasphemous to some.

my problem with "christianity" has always been the "beat up" that churches and scholars like to give the bible. the bible is a good story and if you follow the teachings, you will live a good life. same as any religous instruction, be it buddhism, muslim etc. but when people (and its always peoples

interpretations, not the book itself) come along and twist the story to get out of it what they want to, then religeon becomes very boring.

There are a lot of churches which are relatively accurate about the basic message of Christianity; i.e., faith alone in Christ alone for salvation. However, there are very few where there is actually good teaching.

There are two places where Satan attacks (whether you believe in Satan or not, you must realize that this world is filled with violence and evil): Satan does everything he can to keep anyone from understand the gospel (he is known as the father of lies, so lying is his most often used approach). Along these lines, I think he could be called the father of revisionist history, as people seem to make up history now. The second attack of Satan is on the believer himself. Satan does everything in his power to keep believers from maturing and advancing. That's why people can go to church for years and still show no spiritual advancement.

the bible is a good story and if you follow the teachings, you will live a good life. same as any religous instruction, be it buddhism, muslim etc. but when people (and its always peoples interpretations, not the book itself) come along and twist the story to get out of it what they want to, then religeon becomes very boring.

You yourself have just put a twist on Scripture. Now, far be it from me to discourage someone from leading a moral life but that does not score points with God (although it does make for a much better society).

The requirement of a blood sacrifice goes back to the fall of Adam and Eve and runs all the way through to the crucifixion. You cannot simply throw out God's requirment for justice here. Adam and Eve, after they sinned, were clothed with animal skins, not fig leaves (the fig leaves were their idea). This requires an animal to be killed. When Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to God, Abel's blood sacrifice was given respect and Abel's sacrifice of works was rejected. There are several chapters in a row about blood sacrifices. You cannot say the Bible is a great book to learn to live a moral life by and ignore this.

The crucifixion of Jesus is so important as to have a shadow version of it in Gen. 22 and a complete description of it in Psalm 22 and Isa. 53, and I think you know the Bible well enough to know that these were written hundreds of years prior to the crucifixion.

When Peter suggested to Jesus that He not go to the cross, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan!" You just cannot ignore the cross or chalk it up to a bad situation that happened. There is nothing that stands out more from beginning to end in Scripture.

[eagle]

I think Scutfargus is GOD .......... his wrath is upon us if we smite him

[robbie36]

Scartfug.

Lets keep it simple.

This is a shagging site. Guys only 'debate' with you to score points in the shagging game. You are a pretty easy target and you are fair game. We will poke fun at you and play with you because we can and we will destroy your absurd faith theories until the cows come home simply to impress the girls.

You have faith in your own beliefs, however illogical or absurd. Go for it. But dont be surprised if we expose you as an emotional delinquent. When I first saw your comments I thought you were taking the piss. Now I realise that you are serious.

While you think you are doing God's work bear in mind that you are really aiding and abating the devil.

[DJTX]

This is a shagging site.

OK everyone now - repeat the above 10 times fast :roll:

[scutfargus]

Coming back to the 'was Jesus a delusional?' question raised by a couple of people. My 'feeling' is that he was.

That there have been numerous people declaring themselves to be God or 'sons of God' over the centuries doesnt really surprise me. Of course Scutfargus attaches so much importance to Jesus because his legacy has proved so powerful. What he fails to understand is that it is the metaphor of Jesus that has proved fairly successful BECAUSE it has been adapted by each successive generation to fit peoples own philosophies. If Christianity had relied on keeping the Bible as the whole and absolute truth it would have died out centuries ago.

You actually make a good point, but I am not sure why man would just pick Jesus to fill in as this metaphor. What I have seen ever since I believed in Jesus Christ is tons of people getting Jesus on their side. I recall reading a letter in my local newspaper about how Jesus would be involved in animal rights if He were here today (which He is, of course--herer today, not involved in animal rights). The most common belief from the unbeliever, is that Jesus was simply a really really moral man. However, no one in the Bible talked about hell more than Jesus did. He was very exclusionary--you believe in Him or you do not have eternal life.

What the men of God in the Bible said often upset those who heard them, but nobody upset the masses like Jesus. We often picture him sitting around with hundreds of people listening intently to Him (which did happen on occasion), but most of the time what He said just completely irritated the religious establishment and a huge host of others. Jesus so upset people by His words in that day that the two greatest systems of jurisprudence in the ancient world, the Roman government and Jewish law, both conspired to crucify Him.

The only problem with your view, while being more intellectually honest than others is, why do we have that red thread of blood sacrifice running from beginning to end in the Bible? Who invented that and who kept it going over thousands of years? Many people find the idea repulsive, but it runs all the way from the beginning of the Bible and suddenly stops with Jesus. Suddenly, animal sacrifices disappeared from this earth (with a few exceptions, of course).

And we divide history by this man, whose public ministry was so brief as to be, as I have said before, barely a footnote in history.

And what of all the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus? How could that happen? How did they know these things about Him. How could the crucifixion be described in more detail in the Old Testament than in the New?

Now, even to those who stood at the foot of the cross, they still had to take it on faith that Jesus was paying for their sins. They could not even see Him during the time that God judged Him, as a thick darkness covered Golgotha at that time. All they could hear was His screaming (as we know from Psalm 22, not from the gospels).