You know god exists, you just don't like it.
Offline THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING. IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED. HAVE AT IT...
How about an appeal to reason and common sense? The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here? You have no answer for that. Christianity does. I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one. Common sense and logic tells us this is the case. I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind. You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him.
You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name. You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God. How ironic. Allah does not exist. That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him. What for? He doesn't exist. Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others.
I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason. You know He exists. You just don't like it. Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods". But you don't. It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.
- Login to post comments
Uh, no.
First, you said that I was saying this:
"You're effectively arguing that the only people who should be permitted to speak-up on an issue are those with academic credentials and/or notoritety as a published author."
Now, you said that I was implying this:
"the only people capable of doing something for the 'revolution' are those whom have post-secondary degrees and/or are established authors."
Make up your mind. Was I saying that the only people who should be allowed to speak up on an issue are those with academic credentials, or was I saying that the only people who could do something about an issue are those with academic credentials? Those are two different claims.
But yes, I believe that someone who has academic credentials and a real job in the field of academia can make a difference with more efficacy than a bum. So if Brian wants to pass himself off as a martyr for atheism, it just will not work.
Daniel Dennett took it to, remember? In other words, you guys ambushed them at some atheism conference, asked them if they denied the existence of God, and they said "yes". Watching the Youtube clips, I got more of a "I'll just tell these guys what they want to hear so they will leave me alone" type of vibe.
The Blasphemy Challenge has nothing to do with denying the existence of evidence. As far as I know, there is not a single video out there in which people say, "I deny the existence of evidence for the Holy Spirit". The video asks them to deny the existence of God.
The point is, religion is a big deal to some people. And a lot of people do take blasphemy seriously. You may not like it, but the fact remains that it is not your place to raise someone else's child. Don't pretend that posting an ad for Blasphemy Challenge at some children's website isn't a seedy thing to be doing because it is. If someone is going to make a decision for a child (and the fact is, children really do not know what they want), it ought to be the parents. And then when the children become adults, they can learn for themselves and then decide if they want to continue believing. But you have absolutely no right to be messing with someone else's child. If you want to teach your garbage to your own child, then fine. It's not your place to pull my child aside and tell him to deny the existence of God anymore than it is my place to then pull your child aside and start teaching him religion.
Read closely what I wrote.
I said that Dawkins is not relying on donations.
In other words, Dawkins is not depending on donations for his daily living. He has other income streams, which, unlike Mr. Sapient's, are not imaginary.
Dawkins actually is an intelligent guy. Brian Sapient is not, which is why you won't see him debating anyone in public other than Ray Comfort or Firefly.
And any child who walks into a bookstore with his parents might see his book.
Your point? How does this compare to actually advertising on children's websites and getting children to upload a video of themselves doing something that a religious parent would take really seriously?
Okay, here's how it went down between me and Jilly-Bean:
I made a post in response to someone asking about where God is and what God was doing before he created the universe. In the post, I was pointing out that in theory, God is neither spatial nor temporal and therefore, those are not questions that you can ask in any meaningful way about God. Nowhere in the post did I actually posit the there is God, but I was merely explaining God in theory. The point of the post was to make it clear that in order to deny or accept God, you must have a real conceptual understanding. To prove that God must be understood as neither spatial nor temporal, I cited some bible verses, showing that this understanding of God is nothing new and is actually a basic tenet of all monotheism.
Jill responded and said "No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of 'nonexistent'."
In response, I cited the dictionary to show that there is no definition of "existent" or "nonexistent" that would cite mass, energy, or temporality as a necessary component of the definition, thereby making the claim that existence includes mass/energy/temporality an empirical claim at best.
Then Jill responded by saying, "Ooh, go run behind a dictionary?" So on the one hand, she accuses me of giving self-serving definitions to certain words and on the other hand, if I cite another source, she will say that I'm "running behind it". So I guess the only person who should be allowed to define words is Jill?
So then Jilly changes the subject. She says, "If god has no mass, energy, or temporality... how can you know it exists? I mean in any quantifiable way." What, weren't we talking about the definition of nonexistent? Now we are talking about ways that we can know that there are things with no mass/energy/temporality? It was kind of bizarre because these discussions are going on all the time. Theists are always coming on these message boards and giving proofs for God, a being which they would agree is neither in space nor time. I ask why she wants to have the same discussion that's being had on practically every other thread.
Jill responds by giving me some convoluted argument with a premise stating, "There is no evidence for God." I responded by asking, "How do you know that?" She responds by saying, "I've sought it, and found none. No evidence has been presented otherwise."
So because you have not found evidence, you know for a fact that none exists? Can I conclude that tachyons do not exist simply on the grounds that I never found any? Or better yet, if I have never seen an actual turtle or found one, could I just conclude that turtles does not exist? It was clearly a non-sequitur.
So exactly where did I run in circles or alter definitions?
I know you don't see it, GoR. That's because you run about the point.
To lay it out for you, I never said I know there is no evidence, but have come to the conclusion that there is no point to believing in "god" because despite every opportunity (including a search for it myself) no evidence is forthcoming. Which is quite a distance away from your carefully redefined version of my argument. To repeat and simplify for the less intelligent: I have not concluded that there is no god, just that there isn't any evidence to come to the conclusion that there is one. It's a subtle but important difference. I won't blame you if you have to have someone explain it to you a few times.
Good luck with that.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
The universe is eternal, it allways was and allways will be. It is cyclic in behavior and therefore will go on and on in and out like the breath of life. As a matter of fact "life" itself is an enrgy that when in the right circumstance can manipulate matter and structure to "design" examples of itself in it's determination to not just survive but to thrive and with this desire comes self awareness and with self awareness comes intelligence and so with life's need to thrive and through this need will "design" examples to make that possible. There then is your "intelligent design", very simple.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person
Welcome to the forums, JstNEarthling.
My opinion is that you were claiming the former. Of course, the only person who knows exactly what you meant is yourself, so feel free to clarify.
In that case, you must reject the research done by Albert Einstein - a 'bum' patent clerk who had no formal post-secondary education when he first elucidated his idea on General Relativity.
I was not there personally, but that is not really characteristic of outspoken individuals like Hitchens or Dawkins, who are fairly likely to tell you to cram it up your ass if you they don't like your message. Can you at all substantiate this claim? Or is it just a 'feeling' you get?
Hm. What does Chandler say, again? This doesn't really jive with what you claimed, does it?
And ergo should be off-limits to ridicule or discussion? You know very well that this is not the stance of any of the authors you mentioned.
And they should not, if we're to grow out of old superstitions. Why should people tremble in terror over something which we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of?
Moreover, some people take seriously the notion that women are not owed equal treatment. Should we respect that? Some people think that certain ethnicities are inferior. Should we respect that? Some people believe that people should be stoned to death for picking-up firewood on the Sabbath. Should we respect that?
This is like saying that it is not 'my place' to inform child services upon seeing children being abused by their parents. Some people are shitty parents, and frankly, yes - it is my place to resist against suffering in the world so that, among other things, children don't mature into entities of bitterness and destruction.
It's not a move for the squeamish and half-hearted, certainly. How you can characterize informing children that the deity that their parents espouse to exist is fictional as 'seedy' is beyond me, given the near certainty of the claim's veracity.
'Ought' to be the parents? Why? This phrase contains a hidden premise; an 'ought' or a 'should' always needs to be followed with it's justification, or it's empty assertion.
Except that this often proves not to be the case. Children who've become indoctrinated by their parents typically carry their religion with them into adulthood (See: Imprinting).
Do you see what you're doing? You're building a case based on emotional pleading. The above sentence is no different than stating, 'You have absolutely no right to be promoting your 'garbage',' except that you've added 'children' for emotional impact.
I have every right to halt the propagation of harmful superstition, yes, even when your child is involved. You'll also perhaps note that your argument from the special objectivity of parenthood fails at a fundamental level; parents are influenced by exterior forces, and thereby indirectly transfer those influences to their child (not to mention that in any circumstance beyond the parent locking their child in the house, the child will be under exterior influences - being 'messed with' - regardless).
Except that you're implying that teaching a child beneficial things like critical thinking are the same as teaching them harmful things like superstitious dogma.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
There is no evidence for God. How do we know? Because it's never been presented. Evidence has to be presented before it's called 'evidence' (as Thomathy would say at this point, words do have meanings, and this is for a reason). There could perhaps be some indicator for a deity's existence that we just haven't yet discovered, but we can't call that evidence because it hasn't yet been discovered.
We know that tachyons exist because we discovered the evidence for them. Now, before we had discovered the evidence for them, yes - it would be bad reasoning to assert that there are these vague things called 'tachyons' that you simply have faith exist.
Likewise with your turtle example. If we never had any evidence of turtles existing, only some vague allusions to them, it would be unreasonable to assert that they exist on faith alone.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Compare with the following sentence:
So by your standards, Kevin can beat his own children senseless as long as he doesn't beat other people's children senseless?
The parent has full juristiction over their own child? So a farther can rape his own daugthers according to you?
Nice sentiment...
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
But this is problematic. If God is not a spatial or temporal entity (that is, God exists outside the observable universe), how could we know of God at all? If it's through divine revelation, than he does interact with our universe and is spatial/temporal in that he is able to manipulate people's thoughts.
Even if we can't detect God, we should be able to detect that God is doing things. Yet we don't.
I agree with the underlined, but again, here lies the problem:
I've yet to hear from anyone who can actually create a coherent conceptualization of what God is.
Care to try your own hand at it?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I was going to write something akin to this, but shied away from being crude.
Thanks for stepping-up, Nik.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Umm, no.
Because (1) rape is a federal crime, (2) rape is immoral, (3) raising a child under a religion is not even remotely the same as being violent to a child.
Why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home who is being taken to Church every Sunday?
You are the one who was telling everyone what I meant, but now you've decided that I can speak for myself all of a sudden? You're not being very consistent.
Nothing to do with what I've said.
Hitchens and Dawkins took the Blasphemy Challenge. How does that in any prove that they approve of advertising it to children without the consent of parents?
The Blasphemy Challenge challenges individuals to deny that God exists, thereby committing the unforgivable sin and proving that they are not afraid. Are you disagreeing?
Not what I said.
And that's your view. You have no right to impose that on another person's child.
Or will you say that because you have the right to report child abuse, you also have the right to teach the child things without the parent's consent?
Nothing to do with what I've said.
What evidence do you have that religion causes children to mature into entities of "bitterness" and "destruction"? Is there some sort of case study being done?
Why hasn't the federal government caught wind of this and banned religion?
Furthermore, you comparison between religion and child abuse is just... warped. You seriously have problems.
I'm saying that it is seedy to be advertising the Blasphemy Challenge on children's websites. What part of that do you not understand?
Because children are the responsibility of the parents? Are you disagreeing with that?
So that gives you the right to raise them yourself? Seriously, I would LOVE for you to bring this sort of testimony into a courtroom. LOL
Umm, no. I'm not doing anything like that. I'm saying that it is absolutely appauling to be advertising the Blasphemy Challenge on children's websites.
No, you don't.
You just don't get it.
1) Laws do not dictate absolutely everything that is right or wrong. They are approximations.
2) Yes, it is. You might consider why we consider rape immoral?
3) Not even remotely the same? In some cases (Muslim countries, for example), the two are completely analogous. In most cases, the child is threatened into belief with scare-stories of what will happen to them if they fail to conform to the dogma - indeed violent, even if the violence isn't physical.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And if you do, are you saying that raising a child with that belief is not raising them "under a religion" as you call it? Sure it's not your religion, but you'd have to admit that it is a religion, and I imagine that you would feel entitled, perhaps even obliged, to object to such behavior.
Anyway, they did remove all those little girls from that Mormon compound in Texas a while back. Do you think it was wrong of them to do that?
And also, why is it that child services will not remove a child from a home where both parents are atheists? I though atheism was "garbage" according to you. Don't you care about the wellfare of those poor children of atheist parents who, as you put it earlier, really don't know what they want?
I mean, I care about your children's welfare and happiness.
Don't you care about the welfare and happiness of mine?
Who's being more compassionate of the two of us then, if I have the capasity to care about all children, not just my own?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Your friend Mr. "Sapient" disagrees. Watch the Nightline debate.
I have considered that quite thoroughly.
Telling a child that sinners go to Hell is not the same as actually beating your child with barbed wire.
So no, they are not even close.
Dear lord, you are so deep and philosophical. I just feel so... enlightened being in your presence.
You are seriously clueless. This is not just an issue of atheism. The issue is one of parental control.
No, it's an objective fact. And show me in the Koran where it teaches children to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. I want you to cite me the specific passage.
I would object to it if that was the actual teaching, which I seriously doubt that it is.
I don't know. Did they do it simply because of the Mormonism or was it something else?
Okay, you clearly have no reading comprehension whatsoever.
Looking at your picture, I doubt that you'll be having any children anytime soon.
Really?
Really?
It appears that it's not me who has problems with consistency.
It doesn't, but this is a deflection. You were talking about whether or not they actually took the test.
I don't know if Dawkins approves or not, frankly. I'll ask him.
Not at all. You said that there wasn't a 'single video out there' that prefaced this with the fact that the conclusion is based on a lack of evidence; in fact the video in the original advertisement expressly states this.
Again, this is a deflection.
Then what is your point? You said some people take their religion seriously. What's your point? There's no automatic virtue in that.
It is not 'my view'. That there is no evidence that we have any god or Hell to fear is an objective fact.
Your stance is, then, that a parent has a right to hold dogmatic sway over their child if that's what they wish to do, and that children have no intrinsic right to education (or, indeed, hardly any rights at all)? Is that correct?
Children who are not kept under strict lock and key will learn things without parental consent anyway, and yes, I do think that this is a good thing. Learning & knowledge are the cornerstone of modern civilization, and should not be 'regulated' as though they are hazardous substances.
A) You might care to examine the work being done in the field of evolutionary psychology, more specifically the work of Robert Altemeyer. This title might get you started.
You'll also note I was more specifically referring to dogma.
B) The federal government, while in most using it's best judgement to pass legislation to protect people, is as imperfect as any other human tool and sometimes tries to protect us from things that are not really harmful and fails to protect us from things that are harmful.
My opinion on this matter was actually shaped by Dr. Richard Dawkins.
Didn't you just finish appealing to his authority not that long ago?
I understand that you're claiming that. I don't understand why you're claiming that. What's the justification?
No, not at all. And when someone is responsible for something or someone, and then acts irresponsibly, what's the appropriate action?
And this would be a strawman. I'm not looking to 'raise' anyone kids; I am looking to properly educate them.
As far as that's concerned, it's already been to court (See: Dover Trial), and the educators won - unequivocably.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Okay, try to follow along here:
I said that someone with a higher education could do a better job making a difference. In other words, Brian "Sapient" wants to vindicate the fact that he's a loser by saying that he is dedicating his life to "curing theism", when in fact, plenty of people are doing the same thing and they are not losers.
Then you said:
"In that case, you must reject the research done by Albert Einstein - a 'bum' patent clerk who had no formal post-secondary education when he first elucidated his idea on General Relativity."
Did I say that we ought to reject everything that Sapient says because he is a loser?
Umm, I acknowledged from the outset that they took the test. You then inferred from that that because they took the test, they approve of advertising it on children's websites.
No, I said that there wasn't a video that was simply denying the evidence for the existence of God. The videos contained people that were denying the existence of God.
The point is, you have no right to impose your views on THEIR children just because you disagree with them.
Only if you equivocate on the word "evidence".
Children have the right to education, which is why it is a law that they must go to school.
But now you are equivocating on "education".
That's it? Don't you want to give me any statistics?
So I should believe you over the federal government? LOL
When did I say that X is true because Richard Dawkins says so?
I've already explained that.
The problem is, you have an absolutely warped conception of what constitutes responsible parenting.
Do you have kids? If so, tell me where you live so I can call child services.
You would have to be educated yourself in order to do that, and I don't see that you are anymore educated than Mr. "Sapient".
You're not a very good stalker. First of all, Kevin was mistaken, and as a good stalker you would know that Dawkins didn't do the Blasphemy Challenge. However, ironically he mentioned "young" people a gazillion times in a statement he made about it.
Your stalking skills have not informed you well on Hitchens either. (igexpandingpanda is that you?) Maybe you should go after the big fish. Or is attacking/stalking a non-credible low life bum all you're capable of?
Hitchens doesn't have a direct quote in regards to advertising to teens for the Blasphemy Challenge but it would be preposterous to think that he would be against it. We're talking about teens by the way, we're not on the streets ruining Santa Clauss for toddlers. Hitchens is the type of guy who supports war in Iraq because he would like to see the dangers of Islam dissapear. If it were up to him he'd nuke the entire middle east. I don't think he'd have a problem advertising to teens if he would be capable of supporting destroying an entire region.
He happens to think teaching kids the principles of Christianity are immoral...
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
1. Kevin is right, I'd agree.
2. If laws do dictate right and wrong, and since there is no law against advertising on Teen Beat, then it must be right.
3. I'm not responding for your benefit, as is true with all my posts to you, I'm responding for the benefit of the onlooker.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
So do you consider that a serious thing to teach children?
Or are you seriously suggesting that if it is not written in the Koran word for word then there cannot be a single person on the face of the planet who could ever do that?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
OK, so this discussion is about parental control.
What do you feel the boundaries of parental control are?
Should people be able to interfere with parental control if there is abuse?
If yes
Should people be able to interfere with parental control if the abuse is only verbal?
If a parent believes something do they have the right to teach it to there children?
If yes
What if the belief causes the child to harm themselves?
what if the belief causes the child to harm others?
What if the belief is obviously insane?
Do parents have the right to have their children not be exposed to certain things?
If yes what type of things should parents be able to keep from there children?
What if those things are taught in school?
What if those things come from a source of media that the parent allowed their child to view? i.e. TV channels, websites, whatever.
What if this exposure comes from the child's friends, teacher, or other prenatally approved acquaintances?
[Edit: Certain things should probably never be taught to children regardless of the source, do you feel atheism to be one of these things? Also added a little to the end to help clarify what I was trying to say.]
No.
It's a horrible thing to teach children.
Yes.
Mormonism aside, polygamy is against the law.
No.
Concern only for yours.
That's the impression I got.
Again, feel free to clarify if I'm not taking your message as intended.
Advertising = Imposing?
Again, it's also not just a matter of disagreeing with someone. Someone is telling their children something that isn't true in order to frighten them into being obedient, and I'm opposed to that.
Ridiculous. How i it equivocating to say that there is no evidence for God's existence?
Again, ridiculous. How is it equivocating to say that teaching children to be skeptical is educational?
The idea is that the book includes those statistics.
No. You should, however, believe the evidence over the federal government.
You said that Richard Dawkins was a proper leader for the atheism community because of his credentials and notoriety.
You can claim that all you wish; it's not like mine is the kooky fringe idea. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Singer, Pinker and Krauss, at the very least, all have the same opinion and for the same reason.
I don't have children, no. I suppose this is the appeal to parenthood where you pretend that this discludes me from discussing what is or isn't good for a child's health?
The above people certainly are educated, aren't they? So what's their problem, then?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Then you're a moron.
But you do not know if it is true or not.
There is evidence. People have been presenting evidence for the existence of God for centuries. Some people accepted it, others have not. Just because you say that the evidence presented is unacceptable does not mean that it is.
Umm, telling children that God does not exist is not educating them. It's imposing your views on them, which you cannot prove yourself. Certainly you believe that you can prove it, but that's irrelevant.
I'm not giving you commission.
So what is your evidence?
That's not an appeal to authority.... and I never said that. I did say that Dawkins is in a better position to make change because of his credentials.
"Discludes"? Is that even a word? Did you mean "excludes"?
And you said you were an English teacher??
He certainly knows how to go out (for now) with a bang. After this post God of Rock proceeded to create about 30 threads mostly with no content within 5 minutes. All mods that were present instantly agreed to ban.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Buller?
I thought not.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Disclude is synonomous with exclude.
I admit - it isn't really a word in contemporary use. Then again, nor is antilogism.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I was a bit surprised so many fed the troll for so long and you didn't ban him earlier. Then I realized he was a great advertisement for showing how insane, immoral and twisted a theist can be.
There is no surer sign of your opponent's inadequacy than when he begins arguing with your spelling and grammar rather than your points.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Ah, good thing that Douche is gone!
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Yeah, except Jesus. Remember Him? He died and came back to life. There were hundreds of witnesses to this fact of history. Sounds like an afterlife to me. Yeah, yeah I know you don't even think He existed. It is easy to live your life when you can just do away with the truth/reality with a hand wave because you don't like it. However, in the long run it doesn't work.
Do you not exist?
First, I would ask you to define what a flip-feep is. If you like I can give you the definition of what a soul is. There is actually a known definition for that. It is not something I made up as oppossed to your flip-feep analogy. Then I would ask you where in the Bible you find evidence for this scenario you provided.
I don't care necessarily what it's called and I have already found the truth so why should I keep persuing? Maybe you shouldn't waste your time fighting against something you don't even think exists. That is insane. It seems you are fighting against nothing while I am defending something. Doesn't seem too rational on your part. Seems kind of senseless for you to be fighting against what you perceive to be equivalent to the boogeyman. Makes no sense whatsoever but, hey, it's your life.
You only think you have exposed or picked apart a fallacy but you haven't. This is not offered as proof of God only as part of the logical reasons to believe in God.
First of all I never called anyone a fool. I merely quoted what God defines as wise and what He defines as a fool or foolish. I never said "Mr. Sapient is a fool". I only pointed out that God says, "The fool says, in his heart, 'there is no God'". If the shoe fits...
Furthermore, if you read the Bible within its proper context and not "cherry pick" as is so often done by you and others you would find that it discusses this concept in light of sin and anger. For example:
B. (Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more important the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"
When Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that you should not call anyone a fool, contextually, He was speaking of those who were unrighteously angry. That is why Jesus mentions anger in this verse. There is a righteous anger which is not sinful (Eph 4:26 - "Be angry and do not sin . . ." ) as well as unrighteous anger that is sinful (James 1:20 - "for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."). When God is angry with someone, He is always righteous in His anger. Jesus, being God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col 2:9
, can righteously be angry with people and pronounce upon them the foolishness of their deeds which He did (Matth 2:17). Also, undoubtedly, Jesus knewPsalm 14:1 which says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God . . ." Jesus didn't forget the well known verse and God is not wrong for calling someone a fool, especially when it is true.
So, we see that the condemnation by Jesus in regards to calling someone a fool is in the context of doing it out of unrighteous anger which does not fit the later citations of Jesus labeling the hypocritical Pharisees as fools.
As I said before, I have already found the truth so why would I keep persuing it? If I have found the truth then everything else outside of that truth is NOT true. And, believe me, this site and your responses found in this site, are so far from the truth as to be polar opposites. It is so far from the truth that it warrants light be spread among all the darkness.
Hmmmm. What sins? Let me see...
1. Lying. Have you ever lied?
2. Stealing. Have you ever stolen anything. When you stole it and the value of what you took is irrelevant.
3. Adultery. Jesus said if you look at a person with lust you commit adultery in your heart. Have you ever done that?
4. Murder. You may say you have never taken a life but God says if you hate anyone you are a murderer. Have you ever hated anyone?
5. Dishonoring your mother and father. Have you ever done everything your parents told you to do?
6. Not honoring God first in your life. Do I even need to ask?
7. Coveting. Have you ever desired something that belonged to someone else?
Should we continue?
Are you honestly going to tell me that neither you, nor Mr. Sapient have ever lied, stolen, coveted, lusted, etc.? Those are the sins I am refering to. Are you innocent of these?
First of all, you don't get to define what sin is. God does. Secondly, I never stated nor insinuated that I judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. You are way off base. I was only refering to what God says about the matter. If you have a problem with what I wrote take it up with God. Those are His words/thoughts not my own. If you have a problem with it you don't have a problem with me you have a problem with God.
I don't even know what you are rambling about. I do not make things up as I go. I have a basis for what I believe. That basis is the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. It is the truth as revealed by God. I do not speak of my own authority but from what God has already revealed as being true. Now, you may not beleive that and I can deal with that. But on what basis do you say what you say? If you are saying that "you are going to hell for being a judgemental prick, and skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, are going to heaven for humbly accepting that they can only know that which humans can percieve" where do you get this information from? My information comes from the Bible. That is my authority. If you are the source of your statement then you are making it up and you are your own god.
This is part of the problem with not understanding. Assumptions. When did I ever say I had not sinned? It is precisely because I am a sinner that I am a Christian. I have broken all of the commandments myself as well. Are you saying that you haven't? Are you perfect? I am not perfect which is why I need a Savior. I have sinned. The point that was being made was that if you die in your sins (if your sins have never been forgiven) then God will carry out justice and give you what you deserve. God is good and by nature must punish sin. All of it. No matter how "big" or how "small". He does not tolerate sin. If God is just, which He is, he will send all those who die in their sins to Hell. That is not my opinion that is what God says in the Bible. However, God is rich in love and mercy and extends grace to anyone who will receive it. By suffering and dying Himself on the cross to take the punishment that you and I deserved God can forgive your sins. All of humanity is on death row. He can legally dismiss your court case if you throw yourself at the mercy of the Judge because of the sacrifice of Jesus.
Neither you nor I get to decide what sin is. What you or I believe is irrelevant. What matters is what is true. However, my 'beleifs" are based on something other than myself. I am not God so therfore I can not base it on something intrinsic. My "beleifs" are based on the Bbile. On what do you base your knowledge of sin and the afterlife on?
Again, it does not matter what my undestanding or your understanding is. The only thing that matters is what is true. Neither God nor His word are open to interpretation. There is only one God and there is only one meaning of the scriptures. And I may not know you but I know what the Bible says and if what you state is contrary to what the Bbile states then you are in error not the Bible because you are not God.
Hundreds of witnesses?
This just gets stupider and stupider.
Premise 1: What you or I believe doesn't matter.
Premise 2: You base your beliefs on the bible.
Premise 3: I base my beliefs on science and the body of knowledge it has produced.
Conclusion 1: The first premise renders the second and third irrelevant.
Conclusion 2: The subject is moot.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
If there were 100s of witnesses please name 25 complete with DOB, home address, and a notarized statement to the effect they saw the previously dead corpse of one Yahshua bar Joseph aka Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus Christ walk among the living. If you can't do that, please provide a signed list of such witnesses dated to the 1st century CE or list at least the first 100 names of those 100s that saw the corpse walk among the living in the 1st century CE and historical proof for inclusion of these 100.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
I have no idea if Yahshua bar Joseph existed or not and even if he did that isn't proof Yahweh sent part of himself to be killed to placate himself over an issue on the insignificant backwoods planet Earth in one galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies.
You have absolutely nothing that substantiates truth/reality based on the Jewish myths of the bible that were misinterpreted and regurgitated into Christian delusions.
*EDIT* Added the following:
When anger is attributed to God or he is said to be angry this is an emotion showing disappointment in his human creatures. Disappointment indicates the god can't be all-knowing as he would already know or have known even prior to constructing his universe that said creature would do something other than he'd really like. That being the case he would not be disappoimted or angry. Every place in the bible where the god shows such emotions shows the writings of men about their delusions of the mythical god.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Looking only counts? What about doing? When I was married I engaged in sex outside of marriage on multiple occasions. After I was divorced I never had a problem with married women who wanted to have sex with me.
I have never devoted that much effort in disliking someone. But since I'm a citizen of the US and have voluntarily voted persons into office that have sent troops into foreign lands that killed others I'm guilty of this along with the rest of the voters in the US. No I don't mean Bush.
I used to burn sheep in sacrifices to him but the city cited me for violating the outdoor fire ordinance.
With every single advertisement I see.
Really I tried but the god never spoke to me even after all those sacrificed sheep. I leave my phone on next to my bed every night waiting for his return call but alas so far no contact. I'm of the opinion SETI will have results first. You may be erroneously attributing the 66 or so books of the bible (varies depending on your religious sect as to #) to be the god Yahweh making comments but you have countless issues with the fictional Jewish literature or myths to explain first.
I knew it! You are using the myths written by ignorant ancients in some version of the bible. Depending which version you use affects the basis of your delusion.
I see no evidence that after death nothing else is different from the condition I was in before I was born, not existing.
To quote a famous president, "there you go again", sin can only exist if there is a god to irritate. No god of thunder Yahweh no sin.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Another dismissal of the truth with a simple hand wave. How easy life is when we can just live life by hand waving off those things which we don't like to deal with.
Hundreds of witnesses? What hundreds of witnesses? They never existed
*wave hand as gesture of dismissal*
Things just get darker and darker.
Premise 1: God is the author of truth.
Premise 2: The truth never changes.
Conclusion 1: What you or I believe has no bearing on what is truth.
Conclusion 2: The truth is true even if no one believes it.
Conclusion 3: A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.
Even if God were to raise someone from the dead you wouldn't believe.
This is why I specified a "follower". I should have left my wording at just that. You are right to say anyone who accepts Christ period is a Christian. My purpose on here is to discipher between a "Christian" and a "follower" or "Churchianity" and "Christianity". It really annoys me to see someone represent the Christ I know with that kind of approach.
The reason why I specify is because it seems like 90% of the reasons I see on your site for "not being a Christian" are the things that dispensationalists (Churchianity) have implemented into the system. It's not what it is to be a Christian and it's not what it's about.
The point is, the problems that are being addressed, when it comes down to it, are a poor excuse for not believeing in or following Christ.
I understand your take in that you have done your homework and came to the conclusion that there is no God. Please do not misunderstand me. There are a lot of people like that on here too.
Which Christ do you follow? Christ the Intercessor or Christ the Interposer?
The intercessor is described in the gospels - the interposer is described in Paul's work.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
At least you are honest enough to admit this. However, I, too, live unafraid of judgement because my sins have been forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and I have repented of my sins and trust in the Savior. Unfortunately, those who do not repent and place their trust in Jesus will be judged by the Law and all their sins will be exposed and will be found guilty of breaking those Laws whether we are afraid of judgement or not.
What proof do you have of this? For anyone to make this statement and have it be worth anything they would have to have all knoweldge of all things known and yet to be known.
I will play your game. But why do you need 25? Wouldn't 3 or 4 be sufficient? I will name just a few for the sake of time, however, with the data you requested.
Firstly, Peter aka Simon Peter.
DOB: approx. 1 BC
Home address: Bethsaida, east of the Jordan River
notarized statement: 1 Peter and 2 Peter written to the churches scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.
Status: Deceased
Secondly, John aka John the Apostle
DOB: 6 AD
Home address: Galilee in Northern Israel
Notarized statement: The gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John
Status: Deceased
Thirdly, Paul aka Paul the Apostle, The Apostle Paul or Paul of Tarsus
DOB: Unknown but known to have been born in Tarsus Known to have died approx. 64-67 AD
Home address: Tarsus, Turkey
Notarized Statement: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephisians and Philemon.
Status: Deceased
No need for cursing. There are ladies and gentlemen who visit this site.
You admit that you "have no idea" if Jesus existed yet you so aggressively criticize and mock those who know and testify of His existence. Interesting. That makes no sense. If you had an idea then maybe you could contribute something worthwhile. Otherwise those who have "no idea" about a particular subject should remain silent or at least neutral in the matter.
No, except that is what He said (not in those words). and He proved it by raising from the dead.
What proof do you have that they were/are myths?
This is a false statement. Anger is "a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire." Disappointment is "defeated in expectation or hope". Just because God gets angry doesn't mean He is "disappointed".
Another false statement. God knew that man would sin even before He created them. Therefore, He still can be angry at sin without having to be disappointed at what occurred because He knew it would happen. All of it was part of His will but that doesn't mean He isn't angry with sinners and the breaking of His Laws. what proof do you have that the men who wrote the Bible were delusional and that the God of the bible is a myth?
Ah yes, the forgiveness loop.
1. Commit "sin"
2. ask Jesus to forgive you
3. go to 1
But wait, Paul said there is no law for the believer - all one has to do is believe in Jesus and that one can break God's law (sin) as much as they want to.
Wow - good thing atheists have morals and don't do that stuff.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin