Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?

[Pagan-prophet]

Sorry for taking so long…

juantoo3 said,

God as concept...hmm...are you certain you're not a philosophy student?

I have never taken a class on nor have I ever read a book about philosophy. I thought of that on my own.

I envy you, what little physics I understand is self-taught. However, perpetual motion is impossible because of friction. That energy may be converted, but it is no longer available for motion.

This is untrue. Heat energy can be transferred through a cycle until it reaches Kinetic energy once again. Energy cannot be “lost” to friction. Friction crates heat. When heated, Molecules vibrate faster than cooler ones. (Heat can be considered a form of Kinetic energy) Vibration is a form of movement (moving is Kinetic energy). All energies can transfer to any type of energy (many times energy requires to go through a cycle of types before it arrives at another type.

Energy is not exhausted or destroyed, yet it is gaining? I have read a number of articles by "astronomical physicists", and have heard competing claims from and between them. So do I accept your word, on faith?

Here we have a field in which is almost unexplainable to most physicists. However it makes sense after considering “String theory”. If you would like more information go to: http://superstringtheory.com/ You can find more on string theory using any search engine. Because I am pressed for time I am unsure if this sight explains the acceleration of the universe. (String theory also attempts to explain the start of the big bang.)

In other words, astronomical physics is still developing, and what one reads today may be irrelevant or only of passing interest tomorrow.

You could call it faith however, religious faith and science faith is entirely different. Wile religious faith involves almost no evidence behind it, science faith seems to be a belief based upon a large body of evidence. Yes, science is always changing, however it is still logic based on knowledge.

Please clarify what it is you mean by "being."

One who thinks.

From Dictionary.com:

To exist in actuality; have life…: I think, therefore I am.

My original statement was, “If God is a being and is infinite then he must be able to stay alive forever.” If God in infinite in every aspect then he his life must also be infinite.

The metaphor is the potter and the clay. Who is the clay to tell the potter what to do, or assign to the potter anything?

Who are you to say there is a potter? I can interpret your vision of a “potter” in, a being. If this is true, you are assuming that the God is a being. Is it not possible for God to be non-thinking, have no wants or desires? I look at “God” in many different possibilities. Because I don’t Know for sure anything about God, I can only look at all possibilities. One possibility is that God is a concept of the beginning. It (God) did not try to nor prevent the start of the universe, it just became. (This is one out of many different possibilities for what God is)

Whether a being or not is irrelevant. Whether beyond the infinite or not is irrelevant. Whether able to do anything or limited, is irrelevant. Whether sentient or not is irrelevant. Whether Prime or not is irrelevant.

How? These are all characteristics of what some people claim God has. All I am trying to say is, you cannot prove any of these things apply to God because you don’t know how God operates.

If He has a cause, it is irrelevant to us.

Why? You don’t know that God’s God is not testing us as well.

I didn't say God was impossible to understand forever and always. I have said, repeatedly and in different manners, that He is beyond our scope of understanding in this existence.

But you are assuming that there is an extra existence beyond this one. This is based on faith not logic. Moreover, why do you believe this?

----

It seems to me we are mostly in agreement here. The difference being that I have chosen to move on by faith based experience combined with rational logic, rather than get muddled and mentally bogged down and constricted by mindgames that can never be resolved in this plane of existence.

My argument is that faith cannot make you know anything. I don’t know anything about what I cannot sense. Therefore, until I do sense the creator I cannot make good assumptions.

Then you had a horrible Sunday-school teacher.

I never went to Sunday school. I went to church about ten times before I was twelve. Each time I went was because I wanted to go. Each time I went it was quite pleasant.

I said: “Why not tell us directly of his existence? (I would be able to love him if I knew him)”

Ah, but would you, really?

If I wanted them to love me, just as many religions suggested, then… yes… without a shadow of a doubt. Why would I not tell them? It would seem that God, by not telling us, is causing more confusion than necessary and toying with us. In addition, if what some people believe to be true is true (if you do not believe in Christ then you will go to hell), it would be even more of a reason to tell everyone about myself (so I could prevent people from going to hell).

So you only believe seeing is believing?

I believe, believing is not knowing.

And that love can only come from seeing?

It is difficult to love someone that might not even be there. I can Respect my unseen neighbor but until I know what he/she is like, where he/she lives or even that the person exists I cannot truly love him/her.

Or because you cannot see your "brother" in Africa, you are not required to love him, indeed cannot?

It is impossible to truly love someone I am unsure exists because there is no doubt in love.

You cannot see the universe expand, yet you believe?

I have my doubts.

Your opinion seems to me unbelievable.

Because we both have yet to prove each other wrong, I will agree to disagree.

What does the term, "by nature" mean to you? If morality is naturally inherent, your argument is moot.

Yes, It would be. However, I do not share the belief that morality is naturally inherent. Read the book “Lord Of The Flies”. It’s a pretty realistic view of human nature.

Yes. No matter how rational, no matter what religion, if a person cannot be moral to his fellow human beings, ultimate destruction is the final outcome.

Each religion describes morality differently. How can God expect humans to follow his rules if each religion is told what morality is (or how to live for that matter) differently?

said by me:

Is it possible to do anything you don’t want to do?

You said:

Yes, I don't want to sneeze, and I just did.

I said:

The answer is no, It is impossible to do anything you don’t want to do. (Dieing and getting sic do not apply.)

Want is relevant to possibility only in the case of the impossible.

I guess I did not state my idea fully. I meant it is impossible to do anything you don’t want to under your control. Such as, you are in your car and some guy puts a gun to your head and says, “drive” you can choose to drive or not. Because you rather not die you drive. You can take your chances and run away or you can take it in the face. Either way, it is your choice. If a car hits you then that’s not your choice but it is not under your control either.

I breathe, my heart beats, my blood circulates, I get hungry, whether or not I want to.

Some of these can be controlled through will. If you cannot control them then it is not applied to my revised argument.

I require food, shelter, clothing, water, whether or not I want them.

No you don’t. There is no “require” only want. Require by definition means, desire. Requirement is only a mindset to fulfill a want.

I thought you were arguing against free-will?

I was but only in the case of an omniscient and benevolent God in which others where arguing.

How can you tenuously apply the search for truth to hell? I stated, emphatically, DOING the teaching of the truth. This will lead to a path of understanding.

Ok… Tell me what the truth is… There are thousands to choose from… how do you know the one you picked will be correct?

 

[Pagan-prophet]

--continued--

Do they love their brothers and sisters (literal and figurative), neighbors (literal and figurative) and spouses, in a properly moral way?

moral

adj.

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Ok… where does it say what right or wrong is? I don’t see it. That’s because being moral only applies to ones belief in what good is. To be Moral means to be “good”. Satanists believe what they are doing is good. That makes them, in their mind, moral. Again, what your saying only applies to opinion.

Do they observe the natural and inherent morality?

I’m not saying that I agree with anything they do, but they believe that most man is naturally selfish, greedy, aggressive and evil. I disagree that morality is inherent. I believe that Morality is passed down through culture.

For example, in the book/movie Lord of the flies, a bunch of boys crash-landed on an island and there are no adults. They eventually turn on each other. A few boys get killed, Rumors spared about a “beast” that dose not exist, they set the forest on fire, and half of the boys kill a pig in a horrible discussing manner. I’m not saying that this book is a true representation of natural inherent human psychology, however it is a different opinion of inherent human nature.

You are struggling to confuse issues, to no end purpose but your own confusion. How can I be certain of what it is you specifically mean by "satanist."

I meant what I said but you missed my point. My opinion was not the opposite of yours. I was trying to show you that everything your saying is an opinion and cannot be proved to be correct either way. There will always be a counter argument to your argument because what where arguing is not understood…

…I specifically stated that was my belief based on prophecy. It is an assumption, one I am willing to take on, as a portion of the path of wisdom I have chosen. This is a portion of my intuitive experience.

I think this is where I turned in the wrong direction. I agree that I may have gotten off topic. I also admit that I may have stated a pointless argument. My apologies.

I said,

If God is love, then the absence of God must be hate, Sadness, depression.

You said,

Says who?

A priest told me once.

Who said God is all-loving?

I have herd from every church I have been to that God loves us all “God is good”. I have also herd from a priest that God is infinitely benevolent. I just assumed that meant that all-loving was similar to one who is infinitely benevolent.

He does not want to see anyone turn away, but that is their choice. Forced love is not love. If you vehemently and insistently turn away, what choice do you leave Him? If you choose to demonstrate that you are unworthy, why should you be granted pardon? The choice is yours, not His. He can create "yes-men" all day long, they are called angels (although some of them chose to say "no"). In this, we are granted a wonderful gift. We can choose to lead our lives in a manner fitting to move on to the next level, or we can go to the remedial class in the incinerator.

This is how I have began to view many religions after a few years of being part of some:

God made man.

Man was unable to understand why he is here.

Some men come up to the majority of men and tell them a story for why we are here.

The story also tells them how they should live.

Unfortunately, there where many versions of this story.

Man, some if not most, misinterprets this story and some are still unsure as to which is true and which is “made up”. Some religions, such as the Baha’I faith incorporates almost all of them.

My point is: how can you have faith in something that is perceived completely different on the other side of the planet. Little less then two sixths of the world is christen. Is the rest of the 4 billion wrong? The same could be asked about the Islamic faith or the Buddhist faith. If there is a God and one of the prophecies in which you claim to put faith in is right then the rest if not much of the world is mistaken. But to them, you are mistaken. On a larger scale, I believe that the majority of the people’s religion on this earth is driven by culture in the sense that most religious people seem to be a part of the religion that surrounds them.

Maybe the point of life is to prove yourself worthy of that period of learning. If you are not worthy, why should you be taught?

Why is it then that some get longer periods to prove themselves? That seems to be an unfair test. Also, Why not reincarnate humans so that if they are wrong they can try again until they get it right? That way, all of God’s people that he loves so very much, will get to love him in heaven.

Yet you argue from the stance of logic/rationality. Experience/intuition is fundamentally belief, because your senses can be deceived.

Using this logic, noting can be determined… This is somewhat what I have been trying to argue. I believe that you are trying to argue here that it is all right to believe things because everything is a belief. From what I gather, you believe that all things are an interpretation and therefore it is impossible to not believe things. This is logic that can also be looked at the other way: Everything is a belief so it is impossible to know anything for sure. I choose to look at this in a more neutral way. I believe that everything has a grater chance of being true when guessing because of the senses (There are many possibilities of what God is like because of the enormous amount of prophecies). Guessing because we don’t know what the answer is has a lesser chance of being true (the Christen religion is true).

I said, If God is love, then the absence of God must be hate, Sadness, depression.

Says who?

I had assumed the bible did because of the amount of times they said the bible was horrible (see near bottom for bible quotes).

The absence of moral expression of love is hate, sadness and depression. Those are human characteristics. God is love in the sense that God created love. He loves us, and wants us to love Him. God created other things (and non-things) as well, love is not the sum total of His existence. It is, however, the vehicle by which the universe operates.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

To lead a loveless life is to swim against the current and prove yourself unworthy. This is not rational, but it is real.

Again you claim that humans where born with a sense of (your type of) morality as if God had aimed them at this type of morality from birth. I think the environment in which one is brought up causes that person to act the way he/she does.

After this, you respond to my post to another person for a wile. If you would like to read what I have to say about hell then go down to the bottom of the page.

------

I said, “I am never satisfied with just one view of God. I do change my view about him/her/it because I don’t actually KNOW him/her/it.

This is called being of a reprobate mind. Such a mind is "unstable in all his ways", no slight intended.

What makes you think I am a morally unprincipled person? Just because my opinion and view changes does not mean I am morally bad. Moreover, if I am immoral in your eye then I should assume that you have a belief system that tells you what is moral and what is not. This applies you to a religion or a belief on God… Yet you claim to agree with my statement: “I think it is impossible to KNOW of God for sure.” So, why are you arguing your point so strongly if you believe that it has a chance of being false?

-----

I said, “I have strong beliefs”

You may wish to reconsider this statement. "I am never satisfied with one view of God" by definition means you do not have strong beliefs.

I’m sorry, I may have confused you. I meant that I believe I cannot have one view of God because I have no evidence toward just one view and then evidence against another. I cannot prove or disprove one religion (only concepts). Because of this, I believe that I cannot stick with one religion of God.

Likewise, it is impossible to rely on your intuition. So, by your arguments, since nothing can be confirmed or denied by logic or experience, nothing is real, everything is pointless…

That is an idea that cannot be disproved… the idea cannot really be proved either. Therefore, It cannot be argued. So I take it as a possibility…

What is the point of it all, if there is no point?

Well… there would not be a point…

One way to look at it is that when we die are souls go into a lake of other souls and we have all of our information form our past lives with us. When we join the rest of the souls, we trade information about ourselves. Eventually the lake will become omniscient (or at least know everything about ourselves)… one idea…

At no time have I meant any offense, and though some of my words may come across harshly there truly is no bad emotion intended anywhere in this post. If I have been out of line, I am certain I will hear about it.

…Ditto…

 

[Pagan-prophet]

JJM said,

You ask where this comes from. Well you see there was this little man named Jesus and he said things that a large group of people took to be true

correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there other religions that involve other leaders that have a large group of people taking what they say to be true? Here is just a list of some:

Moses-Jewish prophet, Zoroaster-founder of Zoroastrianism, Buddha-founder of Buddhism, Confucius-founder of Confucianism, John the Baptist-prophet and contemporary of Jesus ChristSt., Mohammed-Prophet of IslamSt., Loyola-theologian and founder of Jesuits, Calvin-founder of Calvinist branch of Protestantism, George Fox-founder of Quakers, John Wesley-founder of Methodist movement, Swedenborg-founder of Swedenborgianism, Brigham Young2nd-prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mary Baker Eddy-founder of Christian Science, Gandhi-Hindu reformer and Indian political leader; mother was a Jain. There are more…

Information from: http://www.adherents.com/adh_leaders.html

One of them is more correct than another right?

…and well you see kids when someone‘s teachings are that well known and people have conversations about the topics in his teachings references to them usually don‘t need to be pointed out. But some people don‘t realize that references are being made and then well kids ... Do I really need to finish my story.

You are assuming that your view of God is correct over others. Your saying that if your view of God is correct then I am wrong. But there is no way to prove that your right or that I am wrong. That was my whole point.

As I have said before I believe Good to be no more or less than God's opinion and Evil to be the opposite of God's opinion. Thus if you turn away from God you must not agree with his opinion thus not like good which means you prefer evil. And if you prefer evil then hell would not be torture. The reason it is perceived as torture is because only people who hate Evil try to describe it. So if you dislike God's opinion (good) then the absence of God's opinion would be bliss. That is why an all loving God would create hell. Only those who would enjoy Hell would Go there.

This sounds reasonable enough however it seems you fixate on the idea that people will enjoy hell. If you believe in Jesus then you would go to heaven (If you do not you will go to hell). Are you saying that if you don’t believe in Jesus than you prefer evil to good? I know many atheists of which the majority of them believe that people should be nice to each other. Many of the atheists that I know also have a sense of morality. Just because someone “turns away” from God does not mean that they are/enjoy evil…

You say “turns away” as if you where aimed at him from birth… I think it depends on your environment to weather or not you are aimed at God. For example, If you where born in an Atheist family then chances are you will become atheist. You would “turn to God” if you became religious when born in an Atheist family. I do not believe that Morality is inherent because I don’t have any evidence toward that it is.

And so you say:

So if you dislike God's opinion( good) then the absence of God's opinion would be bliss. That is why an all loving God would create hell. Only those who would enjoy Hell would Go there.

I still cannot believe how you would think that anyone would enjoy it in the way that it is described in the bible (it describes what the “evil” people in hell perceive hell to be like). You have said before that it was not a place with fire, however I have now found my gospel track and will now list the things the bible says about hell. Wile the entire list practically contradicts anything you have said about hell in the bible, the things in bold contradict other things you have stated before (at least I think it was you who claimed these things because I’m starting to get you guys mixed up )(either about hell not being a place of fire or hell being a alternative for people who disagree with God)

“1. A lake of fire (rev. 20:15)

2. A bottomless pit (rev. 20:1)

3. Horrible tempest (Ps. 11:6

4. A devouring fire (Isa. 33:14)

5. A place of sorrows (Ps. 18:5)

6. A place of weeping (Mt. 8:12)

7. A furnace of fire (Mt. 13:41-42)

8. A place of torments (Lu. 16:23)

9. Where they wail (Mt. 13:42)

10. Where there is no rest (Rev. 14:11)

11. A place of outer darkness (Mt. 25:30)

12. Where they scream for mercy (Lu. 16:24)

13. A place of everlasting punishment (Mt. 25:46)

14. Where they gnaw their tongues (Rev. 16:10)

15. Where they feel the wrath of God (Rev. 14:10)

16. A place of everlasting destruction (2 Thes. 1:9)

17. Where the fire never goes out (Mk. 9:48)

18. A place of everlasting burnings (Isa. 33:14)

19. Where they don’t want their loved ones to come (Lu 16:28)”

I'm sorry , when I said that God cannot allow sinners in heaven I used the wrong word. What I meant to say is that God doesn't allow sinners in heaven.

Then why not make a less harsh alternative to hell? Why not reincarnation? Why not give man a second chance? But no… Hell is where they can never repent. That, to me, is a discussing “punishment” to not knowing the truth…

I'd first off Like to say though that I don't ever remember saying God is infinite.

Then I apologize for assigning you to that belief. However you claim to be christen, and a christen, who takes the Bible to be the true word of God, believes that God is infinite in every facet. That is why I assumed what I did.

 

[Pagan-prophet]

I notice that I have made a few typos… I would have just edited my post but there does not seem to be that option here anymore…
One of them is,
“I had assumed the bible did because of the amount of times they said the bible was horrible (see near bottom for bible quotes).”
I meant to say,
I had assumed the bible did because of the amount of times it said the Hell was horrible (see near bottom for bible quotes).
And,
After this, you respond to my post to another person for a wile. If you would like to read what I have to say about hell then go down to the bottom of the page.
I meant to say,
After a wile, you responded to my post to another person for a wile. If you would like to read what I have to say about hell then go down to the bottom of the page.

The rest of the typos are easy to understand…

 

[JJM]

JJM said,


correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there other religions that involve other leaders that have a large group of people taking what they say to be true? Here is just a list of some:

Moses-Jewish prophet, Zoroaster-founder of Zoroastrianism, Buddha-founder of Buddhism, Confucius-founder of Confucianism, John the Baptist-prophet and contemporary of Jesus ChristSt., Mohammed-Prophet of IslamSt., Loyola-theologian and founder of Jesuits, Calvin-founder of Calvinist branch of Protestantism, George Fox-founder of Quakers, John Wesley-founder of Methodist movement, Swedenborg-founder of Swedenborgianism, Brigham Young2nd-prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mary Baker Eddy-founder of Christian Science, Gandhi-Hindu reformer and Indian political leader; mother was a Jain. There are more…

Information from: http://www.adherents.com/adh_leaders.html

One of them is more correct than another right?


You are assuming that your view of God is correct over others. Your saying that if your view of God is correct then I am wrong. But there is no way to prove that your right or that I am wrong. That was my whole point.

This is not what I'm saying. This was a reply you made to juantoo3. I just felt that you asked a question about something that was obvious. Juantoo3 said something and you asked where it came from. I felt compelled to point what I thought was obvious that it was a lesson form Christ. But like I said earlier if I'm wrong which there is always the chance feel free to tell me and I’ll whole heartedly apologies.

This sounds reasonable enough however it seems you fixate on the idea that people will enjoy hell. If you believe in Jesus then you would go to heaven (If you do not you will go to hell). Are you saying that if you don’t believe in Jesus than you prefer evil to good? I know many atheists of which the majority of them believe that people should be nice to each other. Many of the atheists that I know also have a sense of morality. Just because someone “turns away” from God does not mean that they are/enjoy evil…

You say “turns away” as if you where aimed at him from birth… I think it depends on your environment to weather or not you are aimed at God. For example, If you where born in an Atheist family then chances are you will become atheist. You would “turn to God” if you became religious when born in an Atheist family. I do not believe that Morality is inherent because I don’t have any evidence toward that it is.

And so you say:

Thank you for pointing out the "turn away" from God part. I truly think that anyone can get into heaven whether they believe in Jesus or not (that is to say on earth). I didn't mean to imply that all Nonchristians prefer evil. As far as I'm concerned most religions have some sort of truth to them. However I think that someone who can't accept the truth once they die will go to hell. I only said that someone who refused to accept these things after they die will not make it into heaven. But if they do not want to except them like I said they would if not enjoy prefure hell.

I still cannot believe how you would think that anyone would enjoy it in the way that it is described in the bible (it describes what the “evil” people in hell perceive hell to be like). You have said before that it was not a place with fire, however I have now found my gospel track and will now list the things the bible says about hell. Wile the entire list practically contradicts anything you have said about hell in the bible, the things in bold contradict other things you have stated before (at least I think it was you who claimed these things because I’m starting to get you guys mixed up )(either about hell not being a place of fire or hell being a alternative for people who disagree with God)

“1. A lake of fire (rev. 20:15)

2. A bottomless pit (rev. 20:1)

3. Horrible tempest (Ps. 11:6

4. A devouring fire (Isa. 33:14)

5. A place of sorrows (Ps. 18:5)

6. A place of weeping (Mt. 8:12)

7. A furnace of fire (Mt. 13:41-42)

8. A place of torments (Lu. 16:23)

9. Where they wail (Mt. 13:42)

10. Where there is no rest (Rev. 14:11)

11. A place of outer darkness (Mt. 25:30)

12. Where they scream for mercy (Lu. 16:24)

13. A place of everlasting punishment (Mt. 25:46)

14. Where they gnaw their tongues (Rev. 16:10)

15. Where they feel the wrath of God (Rev. 14:10)

16. A place of everlasting destruction (2 Thes. 1:9)

17. Where the fire never goes out (Mk. 9:48)

18. A place of everlasting burnings (Isa. 33:14)

19. Where they don’t want their loved ones to come (Lu 16:28)”

I will respond to each of these statements as numbered
1. I like to start off by saying that revelations can not always be taken literally. However, this pool of fire is not Hell if you read verse 14 before it. "Then Death and Hades thrown into the pool of fire (this pool of fire is the second death).” So this is not hell in fact hell is somewhat destroyed by that fire. It is nothing more than the final judgment where sinners are no longer aloud to repent.

2. This is not revelation 20:1 20:1 does refer to Hell (the abyss which is a dark cavern) but this phrase is not used.

3. Once again not in my bible may have something to do with my translation (it's a catholic version) which translation do you have. Mine says "And Rain upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone, a scorching wind their allotted cup" It does refer to fire raining for the sky but that is a punishment of the living not the dead

4. This is also referring to how people will die not their punishment in hell. This fire is symbolic It is Gods wrath is always referred to as fire.

5. Once again not in my bible when you say Ps you mean Psalms right. 18:5 is "The Breaker of death surged round me; the menacing Floods Terrified me." He is saying I'm scared of dieing not hell is sorrowful

6. Explained in #9 while it also says the Israelites will be pushed out into the darkness I believe if you read the whole passage it means to say that more gentiles will join Christianity than Jews.

7. This is explained in # 1 in my mind it is referring to the same event

8. You got me not form this one but the Fire described in verse 24. I'll have to think this over.

9. Goes with #7 this could imply that all the places where the term wailing and grinding of teeth is used could simply be referring to the last judgment. That could also be used to explain # 6. So thank you for helping me sort this out. It could also be used to describe # 6.

10. Like I said can't take Revelations literally but at this point in the vision Both God and Satan (the beast) have appeared and those that still follow Satan will follow him back to hell. The no rest may be an exaggeration of the Easy blissful lives of those remaining on earth. As apposed to Hell where one would still have to work.

11. Another wailing and grinding of teeth thing.

12. See # 8 for these are right after each other.

13. Also referring to the scene in #1

14. Hell is basically being invaded by Angels who are good so if they enjoyed evil of course they wouldn't like it when Evil was being defeated.

15. Like I said this is at the end of the world not in hell.

16. Someone who would hate hell describing it.

17. This is speaking of Gahanna A trash pit next to Jerusalem where the bodies of the executed where burned. While Gahanna was still in use its fire truly didn't ever go out.

18. Same verse as #4

19. Same scene as both # 8 and 12

SO I hope that helps you understand my opinion. If this is all the places where Hell is mentioned then I guess that one passage in Luke is the only thing that contradicts me. I'll have to ponder that.

Then why not make a less harsh alternative to hell? Why not reincarnation? Why not give man a second chance? But no… Hell is where they can never repent. That, to me, is a discussing “punishment” to not knowing the truth…

As shown in the passages above those people can repent on the last day.
Before evil is destroyed/ banished forever.

Then I apologize for assigning you to that belief. However you claim to be christen, and a christen, who takes the Bible to be the true word of God, believes that God is infinite in every facet. That is why I assumed what I did.

God is infinite in that he never ends He can do what ever he likes as well because he makes the rules so he can change them. But while he has the rules in place he follows them. While he doesn't have to give us free will one of his rule is that we do and knowing the future in my opinion takes away our ability to make our choices and thus breaks his own rule

 

[Pagan-prophet]

As shown in the passages above those people can repent on the last day.
Before evil is destroyed/ banished forever.

Wow! I’m really impressed! Thank you for taking the time to go through each passage for me.

This was a reply you made to juantoo3. I just felt that you asked a question about something that was obvious. Juantoo3 said something and you asked where it came from. I felt compelled to point what I thought was obvious that it was a lesson form Christ. But like I said earlier if I'm wrong which there is always the chance feel free to tell me and I’ll whole heartedly apologies.

Yes your right. This was a bit confusing. Here is what I said,

That is one very good opinion to a section to your meaning of life but let me ask you this: why do you believe that? Upon what evidence is your claim based?

I would agree that this is poorly written. A better way to get out what I was trying to say would be,

My point is: how can you have faith in something that is perceived completely different on the other side of the planet. Little less then two sixths of the world is Christian. Is the rest of the 4 billion wrong? The same could be asked about the Islamic faith or the Buddhist faith. If there is a God and one of the prophecies in which you claim to put faith in is right then the rest if not most of the world is mistaken. But to them, you are mistaken. On a larger scale, I believe that the majority of the people’s religion on this earth is driven by culture in the sense that most religious people seem to be a part of the religion that surrounds them.

I guess what I was trying to say is, why choose just this one religion and choose to assume others are wrong… why I asked this… I don’t know. I really don’t know if he researches other religions or not (seeing as how he is on CR he probably does though). I guess it was a poor assumption on my part… I was not asking however, where he got his information rather it was why he believed in the information he was given. He said he believed in prophecy, logic and interpretation. I just wanted to know why he believes in the cretin prophecy he has chosen.

Peace out,
-Pagan-prophet

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, pagan-prophet!

Here we have a field in which is almost unexplainable to most physicists. However it makes sense after considering “String theory”. If you would like more information go to: http://superstringtheory.com/ You can find more on string theory using any search engine. Because I am pressed for time I am unsure if this sight explains the acceleration of the universe. (String theory also attempts to explain the start of the big bang.)

I took a little time to peruse the site you listed, and as I had previously surmised, this is an exercise in math. By its own admission, it cannot even be made to conform within its own explanations to justify itself as a rational explanation of every observed reality. Some selected quotes:

"It's just as well that bosonic string theory is unstable, because it's not a realistic theory to begin with. The real world has stable matter made from fermions that satisfy the Pauli Exclusion Principle where two identical particles cannot be in the same quantum state at the same time.
-How many string theories are there? http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5a.html

"But now it is known that this naive picture was wrong, and that the the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they are each a special case of some more fundamental theory, of which there is only one. These theories are related by transformations that are called dualities. If two theories are related by a duality transformation, it means that the first theory can be transformed in some way so that it ends up looking just like the second theory. The two theories are then said to be dual to one another under that kind of transformation.
-How are string theories related? http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic6.html

"There's a problem with adding gravity, however. Most p-brane spacetimes turn out to be unstable. Supersymmetry stabilizes p-branes, but only for the certain values of p and d. Two of the most important p-branes in string theory are the two-brane in d=11 and the five-brane in d=10.
Since we're talking about a spacetime metric, we're obviously in the low energy limit of string theory. But p-branes can be protected from quantum corrections by supersymmetry, if they satisfy an equality between mass and charge known as the BPS condition. These branes are then known as BPS branes."
-Is there a more fundamental theory? http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7a.html

I would like to call attention to: "string theory is unstable, because it's not a realistic theory to begin with.", "now it is known that this naive picture was wrong, and that the the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they are each a special case of some more fundamental theory.", and "There's a problem with adding gravity, however. Most p-brane spacetimes turn out to be unstable." (emphasis mine) Since gravity is a long established component of sub-atomic theory, it seems that a theory that cannot justify gravity (or the other vital components) is at best a good excuse for rainy day mathematic futility. Something that is "unstable", "special case" or "not realistic" in my view certainly is no better than a rant at religion.

In other words, logic fails to fully understand reality (truth) as much as intuition. Both can be used in that direction, but both (so far) fall short.

 

[juantoo3]

The balance of the remarks can be addressed best by first clearing up some incorrect assumptions. I have not claimed Christianity to be the only path. I have not claimed Christianity to be the best path. I have claimed Christianity to be the path I was brought up in, therefore the path I am most familiar with. It is for that reason I address this in Christian terms.

If I may return to something I stated earlier, because it is fundamental to my perspective; "there is a passage in the book of Romans I love to use to address such things. Christians in my general experience overlook and avoid this passage, because it speaks of works and tolerance." Romans chapter 2, beginning at verse 12, (direct quote from the Companion Bible): "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

I believe this corresponds nicely with what bananabrain referred to as the "Noachide Laws." In other words, the golden rule equates with the karmic boomerang which equates with the Wiccan Rede. I do make the presumption that similar forms of morality are present at least in the other major religious players. Even in nature, herding and pack animals display morality towards one another.

In the end then, it is not what we believe, it is what we do with what we believe.

I am familiar with "the Lord of the Flies", and have even used the "Mad Max" series to explain the same phenomenon. What was not presented is that there was a "form of" morality even among the anarchist pack. Consider it in the light of "honor among thieves." If you are "in the clique", a form of morality develops for the safety, security and prosperity of the individuals in the group. "Strength in numbers." What religion serves to do is elevate this intuitively to a higher level, making the clique ever larger. At some point it got out of hand as the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. The fault is not in religion per se, it is in how religion gets applied through politics.

I know this is a bit off track, so now I will return. Religion is an attempt to understand and explain the unexplainable, just as logic is an attempt to understand and explain the unexplainable. Both fall short, but both make sincere attempts. It is in the doing, the sincere attempts, including (especially) the morality that is endemic, natural and necessary for the survival and prosperity of the all. It is that morality that is most relevant to us in this existence, all else is conjecture. THAT, is truth. It is for that truth that humans developed such things as society, culture, and government.

So, as long as we continue here to argue the conjecture, we will get nowhere. It is then a futile exercise in tail chasing. Fun, but entirely unproductive.

 

[Archangel]

God would certainly make a good "scapegoat", like anyone else at one time or another for that matter. But why would anyone demand perfection from he who does not demand perfection from them? He understands human imperfections and asks only acknowledgement. Humankind has turned its back to God for the most part, and then finds it necessary to blame him for everything which goes wrong? Ridiculous. But perhaps "human nature" to think like this? How could God live up to all those expectations? How can anyone not at least begin to understand the anger and frustrations of Jesus...let alone God himself?

 

[Quahom1]

God would certainly make a good "scapegoat", like anyone else at one time or another for that matter. But why would anyone demand perfection from he who does not demand perfection from them? He understands human imperfections and asks only acknowledgement. Humankind has turned its back to God for the most part, and then finds it necessary to blame him for everything which goes wrong? Ridiculous. But perhaps "human nature" to think like this? How could God live up to all those expectations? How can anyone not at least begin to understand the anger and frustrations of Jesus...let alone God himself?

Hmmm, as in Heaven, so on Earth...

God makes a good scapegoat for man's complaints, as do parents for their childrens' complaints. Ideally, parents understand the imperfections in their children, yet children usually find fault in the parents. Children turn their backs on their parents (usually for a short time, while trying to figure out their place in the world). And under normal circumstances, children invariably turn back to their parents. Time is the key.

Anyone who is a parent of teens and precocious kids can understand to a degree, the frustration of the Son and the Father. But I think the two have different frustrations. One is that of a parent seeing the potential of his child going to waste, and the other is that of the "older Brother" seeing his siblings showing their backside out of spite, to Dad.

As the oldest of five, I remember getting angrier than my parents at the antics of my siblings (even though I too went through the butt showing to my folks at one point). For a long time, I did become the "law enforcer" while keeping the folks out of the frustration picture. I just didn't want Dad (who worked his ass off), to have to deal with sibling stupidity.

Being HUMAN, it did not always work, but the template that Jesus sort of provided, was used.

The similarities between earthly families and heavenly social structure, are points to pause and reflect over...don't you think?

v/r

Q

 

[Archangel]

Hmmm, as in Heaven, so on Earth...

God makes a good scapegoat for man's complaints, as do parents for their childrens' complaints. Ideally, parents understand the imperfections in their children, yet children usually find fault in the parents. Children turn their backs on their parents (usually for a short time, while trying to figure out their place in the world). And under normal circumstances, children invariably turn back to their parents. Time is the key.

Anyone who is a parent of teens and precocious kids can understand to a degree, the frustration of the Son and the Father. But I think the two have different frustrations. One is that of a parent seeing the potential of his child going to waste, and the other is that of the "older Brother" seeing his siblings showing their backside out of spite, to Dad.

As the oldest of five, I remember getting angrier than my parents at the antics of my siblings (even though I too went through the butt showing to my folks at one point). For a long time, I did become the "law enforcer" while keeping the folks out of the frustration picture. I just didn't want Dad (who worked his ass off), to have to deal with sibling stupidity.

Being HUMAN, it did not always work, but the template that Jesus sort of provided, was used.

The similarities between earthly families and heavenly social structure, are points to pause and reflect over...don't you think?

v/r

Q

Good comparison. Yes, they are good to reflect over.

 

[juantoo3]

Indeed, they are.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Giving no damn

Forgive me for talking about myself.

About blaming God, there was a time when I was angry with God.

Now I am still angry with God, only my anger is platonic. Platonic? Yes, like there is love and there is platonic love.

Now I just indulge myself and impose on His patience with long discussions about His ways, His scripts, and what I think He could be better, could think better, and could do better.

At the end of the day, I always end up with giving God the benefit of the doubt or giving Him His due, as Jesus tells us: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar..., and in God we have a super all in all and all in on Caesar.

At the end of the day, also, I tell God, as Jesus advises us to do so: You are the boss, we are just your hirelings, unprofitable servants.

No, I don't get disturbed at all with God's ways, being platonic as I try my best to be all the time; but I do indulge in bringing up my perplexities about God before others to find out how they deal with them. In most instances, they don't see or can't, or won't see the perplexities.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Quahom1]

No fence walker here...

Forgive me for talking about myself.

About blaming God, there was a time when I was angry with God.

Now I am still angry with God, only my anger is platonic. Platonic? Yes, like there is love and there is platonic love.

Now I just indulge myself and impose on His patience with long discussions about His ways, His scripts, and what I think He could be better, could think better, and could do better.

At the end of the day, I always end up with giving God the benefit of the doubt or giving Him His due, as Jesus tells us: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar..., and in God we have a super all in all and all in on Caesar.

At the end of the day, also, I tell God, as Jesus advises us to do so: You are the boss, we are just your hirelings, unprofitable servants.

No, I don't get disturbed at all with God's ways, being platonic as I try my best to be all the time; but I do indulge in bringing up my perplexities about God before others to find out how they deal with them. In most instances, they don't see or can't, or won't see the perplexities.

Susma Rio Sep

Good Afternoon Susma,

Your very thought pattern is the sort that God enjoys, or sees potential in (I think).

My grand mother (rest her soul) told me very young that God prefers us Hot or Cold towards Him. He can work well with both, because they are flip sides of the same coin. What He can't stand is the luke warmers. She said it would be like eating a freshly baked apple with spices, or chewing on frozen apple slices. Or having to eat an apple that is two weeks over ripe...very mushy, and disgusting.

I argue with God all the time. I won't call it a debate because for one I'm very emotional, passionate about it, and two I'd be way out of my league.

My arguements are usuallY started with "WHY" and end with "I SEE NO LOGIC IN THIS, SO WHAT'S THE POINT". Then usually within the course of minutes, hours or days, I am answered. The answer is invariably clear, specific, and often with a touch of humor or awe (to drive the point home).

Then of course I feel stunned, or chastised, or elated, depending upon what I was arguing about.

And you know what? God has made it clear from time to time that I was absolutely right!!!!

...but my timing was off.

Keep on arguing, and He'll keep on listening. He loves when we talk DIRECTLY to Him, with no camoflaged emotions.

("Hey son, I just got hit with a double barrel today, Susma and Q were fired up about such and such and they gave me an earful for several hours. Yep their blood was pumping, their brains were kicked into high gear and their hearts were full of emotion...they were well thought out on their respective matters though. When their spirits have calmed down, I'll whisper the answers they are seeking...can't wait to see the look on their faces.")

 

[El Greko]

If only I had the Pagan Prophet on my side, we could really enjoy a spin down at Starbucks.

Are you really a Pagan?

Are you really a Prophet, or is it just a term of endearment

Do you prophecy?

I have read the titantic battle in the earlier exchanges, my only regret is that I have no idea about most of what is being argued, but something about the Pagan Prophet draws me close to him or could it be her or what that be a Prophetess?

If I had the gift of prophecy I would love to find out you live near Sarfend, stoll along the seafront, eating a bag of chips and talk about, oh, just about everything except, of course, "all organised religion causes war" and try to love you like a brother and or sister

I am certain that everyone who contributes to his feature, on both sides of the fence, really are caring, warmhearted people, well , perhaps except me I would hate people to think I am nice, deep down, arrrrgggghhh

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Now, talk to each other.

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Pedro]

Hello All
I've searched this thread unsuccessfully for a mention of the Fall, for that, in christian terms, is where pain and suffering stem from. The story of the Fall in the bible is of course given under allegory, for all this pain and suffering didn't stem from apples. Yet there was a Golden Age when humanity walked in the Garden with God and the creatures and all was harmony. Conditions then were not the pain they are now. The creation of God was perfect. Then came the Fall, originated by a High Son of God, who exercising his free will, chose to go out of the will of God.
The story of the bible since then has been Gods plan of Redemption, which will ultimate in a return to Edenic conditions This will be a planet restored to its original status.

 

[El Greko]

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

I think I owe you an apology Rio, I had a good rant, but I am better now, it
was a hard week and I blue a fuse, that's showbiz!

 

[suanni]

Well said

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

Totally agree. Its time all differences were put aside. We're all made by the same being, we just call this being different names.
Then again.... I'm sure Bush and Bin Laden (or whoever decides to pick a fight) would find another subject to fight a war over. Isn't it man's way to find fault with others?

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Back to the thread

Totally agree. Its time all differences were put aside. We're all made by the same being, we just call this being different names.
Then again.... I'm sure Bush and Bin Laden (or whoever decides to pick a fight) would find another subject to fight a war over. Isn't it man's way to find fault with others?

I will just say this about Bush and company: for all the money and lives they are investing in their war against terrorism, if they just spend only a tenth part of finance and people, to talk with all peoples from where terrorists come, and compromise with them, terrorism will be a thing of the past from the terrorist groups. Obviously, that common sense is lost to them because they are after something else.


Shall we go back to the best proof of the lack of a deity?

Understanding deity as the conventional God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, I think the question is better phrased in the positive way: The best proof of God's existence.

For me, the real question in the final analysis is whether God is impersonal or personal, understanding a person as we humans are persons. And that's the only kind of persons we know and are in contact with directly and experientially.

What then is a person in human terms? A person in human terms is an agent with rights and obligations, and for the present stage of human mental development, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is there a personal God in those terms, or is God the sum total of the universe, including mankind, but that sum itself being impersonal?

I choose the luxury of the belief in a personal God, only with the following exceptions: no obligations strictly in Him, but otherwise He chooses to act in the manner of humans, i.e., like a human person: presenting Himself as being after rights and bound by obligations, going after happiness. You can find Him in some of His worst personalistic aspects in the Old Testament.

I say luxury of the belief in a personal God, for this is one luxury that I can afford and for me it is a good luxury, as long as you don't get overly addicted to it, as to forget the real metaphysical dimensions of God, and get drowned in the human personal ones which He allows Himself.

Susma Rio Sep