is there a God?

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Now if it comes to a God or no God theory I am naturally going to assume there is no God. What I fail to see is the argument that I should respect other peoples faiths. If people want to believe in things for which there is no proof of existence that is up to them - Gods, afterlifes, tooth fairies, goblins, UFOs, abduction by aliens etc - I just dont see why I am supposed to respect these beliefs..

What P' Rob has said .... :idea: :idea: :idea:

[biachung]

we are all gods

and jesus was black :shock:

[Khun_Sam]

The Bible will never convince people here that God exists.

Scut, you need to know your audience.

This would probably do a better job.

[eagle]

The Bible will never convince people here that God exists.

Scut, you need to know your audience.

This would probably do a better job.

[/quot

Whats the picture for are you trying to "straighten " him out

I do believe in the 'GODDESS"

[scutfargus]

scut. If you want proof to support your opinions, you aren't going to find it in the Bible. It is a document that has been so manipulated by so many self-serving individuals over so many centuries.

I am accused constantly of making bold statements and accused of being dogmatic without stating any supporting evidence (although I use more logical and supporting evidence than anyone else in this thread).

Here is a perfect example of a dogmatic statement, without any proof, and which would go completely unchallenged if it were not for me.

The Catholics did not come into the picture until the late 4th century AD. We have all kinds of manuscripts which predate the Catholic church and St. Jerome (who translated the Bible into Latin and is wrongly accused of distorting the Scripture). Have you not ever picked up a history book before? However, since history revisionism is the new religion, I guess you can make any bold statement that you like.

Now, did the Catholic church go astray? Sure they did. Jerome didn't. His Latin translation, used by the Catholic church, was quite good. What the Catholic church did was two things (1) the incorporated the apocrypha into the canon of Scripture and (2) they gave the pope the authority (actually, he took it) to overrule Scripture. These were the distortions you can blame the Catholic church for, if you want to be historically accurate (not a priority around here).

We have pieces of manuscripts which go back to 125 AD, which is unheard of in ancient world literature. I recall one person in this thread twice made the terrifically misinformed statement that apparently someone therefore wrote the New Testament in 125 AD. Like the statement made above, this is completely dogmatic and lacking in any historical proof.

Unknown to bjay above, there is a rather complex science known as Biblical criticism where the manuscripts are weighed against one another and the best text is determined. Since we have over 24,000 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts from the New Testament, this is quite a job. However, when it comes to problem passages and problem verses, there are barely a handful of them. Then end of Mark is bogus (the last 3/4ths of the final chapter); a couple of verses in the Sermon on the Mount are bogus; the story about Jesus forgiving the prostitute where he draws in the sand is a bogus story. We are fully aware of these passages and any good Bible (e.g., the NKJV or the NASB) lists these problem passages and gives the best reading. So to say any of the New Testament was manipulated and changed through the years is ridiculous; we have manuscripts from every single century--if there was any serious manipulation, we'd know about it. We also, even without a single manuscript, could assemble almost the entire New Testament just based upon the first few centuries of Christian writings where the Scriptures are quoted as authoritative.

Now, just so you have a point of reference, let's look at the writings of Julius Caesar. Now, no one ever questions whether Caesar was a real historical figure nor do they question his position in Rome. However, even though his writings come from roughly the same period of time as the New Testament, do you know how many copies we have? 10. Do you know what the earliest copy is? 900 AD. This is typical for ancient literature.

The only piece of ancient literature which really stands out and is anywhere close to the Bible when it comes to number of copies is Homer's the Illiad...we have 643 ancient copies of that, and actually the copies we have go back to only 500 years after it was written. I am not aware of any other ancient literature where we have that many copies and where the copies we have are so close in time with the original writing. Except for, of course, the New Testament.

Now, what about the textual variants. Bjay alledges that there are many changes and revisions made in the Bible (and he inaccurately blames the Catholic church for this). There are about 20,000 lines in the New Testament; there are about 15,000 lines in the Illiad. There are 40 lines in the New Testament which are disputed (meaning, we have alternative readings--the correct readings are not for the most part disputed). There are 764 lines in the Illiad which are disputed. 5% of the Illiad is corrupt; 0.5% of the New Testament is similarly corrupt (and, since we have 24,000 manuscripts, we have pretty well figured out how these questionable verses should read).

If you want to go to the source documents to understand Jesus than your best bet is the Nag Hammadi texts which were supposedly written by direct disciples of Jesus (eg. Thomas and Mary) and buried shortly therafter in the Egyptian wastelands far from the manipulative quills of Catholic fathers.

Now, do you really need me to cover the history of the faked gospel according to St. Thomas? Do you need me to give you a similar history lesson about the Old Testament?

And, as for the supposed "manipulative quills of the Catholic Fathers," again, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about--not even half a clue. Yet, you are repeat this pretend history as if it is true. Now, I am not a Catholic and there are a lot of things about the Catholic church that I don't care for, but it is also offensive for you to peddle this nonsense that the Catholic Church made all of these changes in the Bible. It tells me that you have no idea as to what you are talking about. What the Catholic church did do when it became more and more corrupt is it kept the Bible out of the hands of the people and it executed those who made attempts to get the Bible out into the world again. But, it did not make all these wholesale changes you think it did, because, WE HAVE THE VERY OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN READ LATIN. WE CAN PUT THE LATIN MANUSCRIPTS NEXT TO THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ARE OLDER AND SEE THAT LITTLE OR NO MANIPULATION TOOK PLACE.

But notice, in subsequent posts, I will be called names; Bjay won't, even though he just makes up history and presents it as fact. You see, most of you have no problem with what someone says, true or not, as long as it does not contradict what you believe. As soon as I state something dogmatically which contradicts what you believe, some of you go into an emotional tizzy--even when I provide secular and nonsecular sources to back up my position.

[zeusbheld]

am accused constantly of making bold statements and accused of being dogmatic without stating any supporting evidence (although I use more logical and supporting evidence than anyone else in this thread).

agree, generally true, on THIS thread at least....

However, since history revisionism is the new religion, I guess you can make any bold statement that you like.

then ya gottta ruin it by making a bold, dogmatic statement without supporting evidence.

[scutfargus]

If you do not think that you do not hold some basic fundamental beliefs for which you have no proof, then you do not know yourself very well.

This is one of those arguments for religion that is most absurd. Everyone must have a 'faith' based set of values, so mine are just as good as yours.

Unless, of course, they are wrong, and you spend eternity burning in the Lake of Fire. To me, that would sort of qualify as have an inferior set of values. On the other hand, it is your choice.

Why cant someone have a set of values that are directly proportional to the proof and reject faith altogether?

There are literally hundreds of books out there under the heading of Christian apologetics. If you want to see a logical approach to the existence of God, the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Savior, the fact that He rose from the dead; the fact that the Bible is the Word of God--there are a lot of books which will give you all the logic and proof that you need. The one I recommend is Josh McDowell's "Evidence which Demands a Verdict (Vol 1)." If you were really seriously pursuing the truth, you would pick that up and read it with an open mind.

What I have seen most people do is grab onto whatever set of beliefs allows them to do whatever it is they want to do, and, if called upon, be able to rationalize these beliefs. Not only do I believe it is your right to do this, God allows you that right as well. God is sovereign; since we are created in His shadow image, we have volition (which is a shadow image of sovereignty).

But when you die, and we both know that you will die, you will have made your choice as to whether you want to spend eternity with God or not. Just like every decision you makes has consequences, your persistent rejection of Jesus Christ also has consequences.

Even though I can provide you with many reasonable proofs that Jesus is God and that He arose from the dead, God has given you the ability to reject all of this evidence. Your free will. Believing in Jesus Christ is a choice; not the end result of a logical argument.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

If you do not think that you do not hold some basic fundamental beliefs for which you have no proof, then you do not know yourself very well.

This is one of those arguments for religion that is most absurd. Everyone must have a 'faith' based set of values, so mine are just as good as yours.

Unless, of course, they are wrong, and you spend eternity burning in the Lake of Fire. To me, that would sort of qualify as have an inferior set of values. On the other hand, it is your choice.

:shock:

This what happened to whoever wants to fire P' Rob my beloved BrO --->>>

[Loburt]

And, as for the supposed "manipulative quills of the Catholic Fathers," again, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about--not even half a clue. Yet, you are repeat this pretend history as if it is true. Now, I am not a Catholic and there are a lot of things about the Catholic church that I don't care for, but it is also offensive for you to peddle this nonsense that the Catholic Church made all of these changes in the Bible. It tells me that you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

As soon as I state something dogmatically which contradicts what you believe, some of you go into an emotional tizzy.

Obviously you've gone into an emotional tizzy, scutfargus.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

But when you die, and we both know that you will die, you will have made your choice as to whether you want to spend eternity with God or not. Just like every decision you makes has consequences, your persistent rejection of Jesus Christ also has consequences. .

Oiiiiiiiii -eternity- ......

Well well.. spending a life time with someone who you know very well is kind of HARD already.

Let alone spending an eternity with Someone....

[Loburt]

If you do not think that you do not hold some basic fundamental beliefs for which you have no proof, then you do not know yourself very well.

This is one of those arguments for religion that is most absurd. Everyone must have a 'faith' based set of values, so mine are just as good as yours.

Unless, of course, they are wrong, and you spend eternity burning in the Lake of Fire. To me, that would sort of qualify as have an inferior set of values. On the other hand, it is your choice.

Excuse me, Scutfargus, but in the other thread where wrote that I find it offensive that you are telling the Thai Buddhists here that they will burn in hell because they don't believe in Jesus, you said that you NEVER said any such thing. Only that they would miss out on eternal life.

Now hear you are telling us that if people's faiths are wrong (don't match yours as far as Jesus goes) they will spend eternity burning in the Lake of Fire.

I think this proves that you're nothing but an out-and-out two-faced liar.

Now don't work yourself up into an emotional tizzy over this.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Scutfy Darling,

A few of serious questions....

What is the diffirence between Heaven and Hell ?

< I know that in Heaven there is God.. and in Hell there is the Devil>

But what I would like to know is.....

What is the diffirence of...

- the weather < 4 seasons?? .. I really do love -Spring- very much>,

- environment < flowers??.. I do love hydrangea to bits>,

-decoration style <colour, traditional, minimalish, or modern classic??.. I do love scandinavian furnitures BTW>,

- facility between both places...

So, it would be helpful & easier for me to make up my mind...

where I want to settle after I died.

At the moment, I kind of like Hell better as I assume all of my friends would be there in Hell..

So, its better if I dicided to live there as I would be able to be with my friends.

I really DO hope that the Devil could be able to handle -US-. 8) :wink:

[CiaranM]

ok folks i asked scutfargus 2 simple questions, bloody hell seems like years ago now, which required a simple yes or no answer. as is his wont he refused to answer them spouting a load of drivel from the bible to PROVE his point. so just to take the blinkers off a quick summary of what fundamental christians believe ...

nobody (and that means nobody) will go to heaven unless they are "born again". now u could be born a christian, raised as a christian and live ur life as christian, but unless u r born again u ain't going to heaven ... 3 guesses where u will be going. now "born again", as far as i can understand it, means u must accept jesus as ur saviour etc etc and make this decision to embrace him as the way to salvation etc etc WHEN u have reached maturity.if u don't uh uh, trouble ahead !!

so all u non-believers, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus and "not proper christians" sorry u r all going to burn for etermity in hell !!(hope i haven't missed anyone of the list but if i have don't worry ... u r gonna burn baby burn).

now bearing in mind christians make up (in theory) approx 30%+ of the worlds population and the fundamentalists make up only a fraction of this it could be kind of lonely up there in heaven.in fact the catholic church is the biggest christian denomination, but they r not proper christains and they will burn in hell also. mind u if it's ppl like scutfargus up there how can u tell if u r in heaven or in hell.

now obviously anyone with a modicum of intelligence will realise this is complete and utter bollocks !! well u would think that wouldn't u, but nope that is genuinely what these fundamentilist nutters really do believe. see u all in hell ... maybe !!

[robbie36]

I love to log on and see what our whiter than white persil washed delusional believes in today.

My favourite one of late is this one below. Read it carefully and see if you think he is saying the same as I think he is.....

I am going a little far afield here, but the degeneracy of some cultures was unbelievable, and the Bible only hints at this. However, what we have uncovered with archeology is that some ancient religious had this statue of Molech (I believe I am recalling the god's name correctly) would had his arms out and he would be heated by fire and then people would come and lay their live babies onto his heated arms for them to die as a sacrifice to Molech. This may help to explain why God required some ancient peoples to be wiped out.

I think he is saying that archaeologists have unearthed a statue of God at which a tribe has sacrificed their sons in a fire beneath the statue's outstretched arms. Now we would all agree that this is very strange if it is true (including Scartfargus). But look at how he has reconciled this in his head.

2 facts

A statue of God

Signs of human baby sacrifice

2 assumptions

There is a God

He is all powerful

So he takes the two facts and these assumptions and quite logically concludes that God has made this tribe sacrifice babies to Him as payment for their mortal sins. No one can argue with his logic. From his point of view it all makes quite a lot of sense. But lets be a little more sensible.

Lets take some different assumptions

It is stupid and irrational to have strong beliefs in things that we cant possibly know whether they exist or not.

That people often are stupid and irrational and have these strong beliefs (aka Scutfargus)

And that there are people who do stupid and irrational acts based on these beliefs.

Now apply them to the 2 facts

A statue of God

Signs of human baby sacrifice

Now we can easily reconcile these strange facts by concluding it looks likely that there existed a tribe of irrational and delusional people who were so stupid they sacrificed their sons at a statue of their God. This to most people sounds a lot more convincing.

Now poor Scartfargus is too far gone with his particular brand of brainwashing to recognise the logic here but I suspect most other people are not.

I hope people can see why I have quite a strong belief that there is no reason why I should accept the view that 'we should respect other peoples religous beliefs'. And also why I dont think our education system should try and indoctrinate children with strong religous convictions.

[Khun_Sam]

Doesn't seem like the first picture has convinced anyone that God exists. How about this one?

[Loburt]

So he takes the two facts and these assumptions and quite logically concludes that God has made this tribe sacrifice babies to Him as payment for their mortal sins. No one can argue with his logic. From his point of view it all makes quite a lot of sense. But lets be a little more sensible.

I"m not defending Scutfargus here, Robbie, but I think you're misinterpreting what he wrote.

He's saying that people sacrificed their babies to this false god Molech, and for doing so, Scutfargus's god, the real god (according to scutfargus) wiped out these people for being so degenerate.

Of course, considering some of the stuff that has gone on in various cultures and societies since the time of Molech, you have to ask why Scutfargus's god hasn't been wiping out cultures left and right. Including many "Christian" societies.

And it might also be appropriate to ask why God asked Jacob (was it?) to sacrifice his son Isaac (?) to him if that's so degenerate. True, according to the bible God intervened and stopped Jacob from killing his son. It was a test. But wasn't Jacob just as degenerate as those people sacrificing their babies to Molech?

Why did Jacob and is people get a pass, so to speak? Because God decided "he's my guy" and those mamalucs worshipping Molech aren't my guys?

Pretty capricious, don't ya think?

[Loburt]

Well, Khun Sam, no that doesn't prove to me God exists.

Now, if suddenly the lovely Elle showed up in my bed, fulfilling my every wish and desire, then I'd be more inclined to believe.

[Khun_Sam]

It's Abraham, not Jacob.

[Loburt]

Oh, Robbie, you're so WICKED!

[Khun_Sam]

Well, Khun Sam, no that doesn't prove to me God exists.

Now, if suddenly the lovely Elle showed up in my bed, fulfilling my every wish and desire, then I'd be more inclined to believe.

Maybe you're right because He also created this. :shock:

[robbie36]

So he takes the two facts and these assumptions and quite logically concludes that God has made this tribe sacrifice babies to Him as payment for their mortal sins. No one can argue with his logic. From his point of view it all makes quite a lot of sense. But lets be a little more sensible.

I"m not defending Scutfargus here, Robbie, but I think you're misinterpreting what he wrote.

He's saying that people sacrificed their babies to this false god Molech, and for doing so, Scutfargus's god, the real god (according to scutfargus) wiped out these people for being so degenerate.

Hmmm could be I guess. Although it is still same, same but different.

(Scutfargus view is that the God wiped out the tribe for worshipping another God. It is still the worshiping of any God that was at the root of the problem.)

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know, If you insist on burning your sons at your statue of God, evolution will knock you on the head pretty quickly.)

And you certainly dont need to bring a God into it.

I guess to Buddhists who dont have a 'God' this all seems very strange.

[robbie36]

Is there a God, What Booring Dribble. Seems to come from Americans more than most that others ive met.........Haaaaaaaalleeeeelujaaaaah

So whats interesting?

What is your favourite color?

How many 3rd world orphans died of starvation?

How large are some girl ****?

Who won the FA cup?

Telll met what is interesting and why and I will listen.

[pr0nmaster]

whether there is a god or not is not at all an interesting topic to me.....the ramblings of some desert dwellers a few thousand years ago are of little consequence and really shouldn't require us to to spend much time as to why they are both absurd and invalid......barely a little more than animism perhaps...which is possible even a more valid form of spirituality in that it implies some perceptive inisight into the nature of things....

if we must mentally masturbate why dont we discuss the hidden properties of four dimensional flat space.....that will seperate the mice from the men...

[Khun_Sam]

I think this very simple short story by an ex Harvard professor is quite appropriate to the thesis of this thread:

There are two waves drifting along in the ocean, one a bit bigger than the other. The bigger wave suddenly becomes very sad and upset. The smaller wave asks what's wrong. "You don't want to know," the bigger wave says. "What is it?" the small wave asks. "No - really - it's too terrible. If you knew what I knew, you'd never be happy." The small wave persists. Finally the big wave explains: "You can't see it, but I can see that, not too far from here, all of the waves are crashing on the shore. We are going to disappear." The small wave says," I can make you happy with just six words, but you have to listen very carefully to them." The big wave doesn't believe it -- what does the small wave know that he doesn't -- but he's desperate. After a while of doubting and mocking the small wave, the big wave finally gives in, and asks the small wave to tell him. And so the small wave says: "You're not a wave, you're water."

-Ram Dass

I don't think the story is that simple. It could be taken on different levels and interpreted in many different ways, same as for any so-called holy scriptures/books.

Why don't people use more direct and more concise language so as to avoid any confusion as to what their message is? All these metaphors only help to create threads like this one.

[zeusbheld]

if we must mentally masturbate why dont we discuss the hidden properties of four dimensional flat space.....that will seperate the mice from the men...

dont just squawk son.. start that thread!

as for mental masturation, one is less likely to mess up one's keyboard that way than through the other kind...