The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel And why would I "twist words," when I aim to please God, who abhors lies?

May be because the house of cards that seems to be your believe-system would collapse otherwise. You also are pride, and that is something that your god doesn't like either, AFAIK.

you are avoiding any and every answer whose source is the Bible. You have a uniform, canned answer for that--Bible is illegal

Of course I am, and we explained to you several times why that is the case. Nonetheless you are not able to use anything different as evidence as a so called holy book, that is known to be written by humans and assembled the way it is nowadays by other humans to fit their needs of spreading the religion in the way they wanted it to be. Not forgetting the circular logic.

Bible is illegal (which would be your bliss if it were so by civil law).

I don't think so, IMHO, believe what you want. But if you enter a discussion between different types of believers and non-believers with the topic of religion you should have your arguments ready. Obviously you don't. "It is written in the bible" counts as much as "It is written in the Qu'ran", "It is written in the Vedas" or "It is written in the Book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". None of those is an evidence of anything.

No implication of that in anything I've said. You're obviously the one twisting words.

Nope, I don't. You obviously (and I think many people here will second that) think that Christians are better people than other people (regardless of their (non-)religion), they are happier, more satisfied, can make use of more senses, have some knowledge that only they can understand, ... .

You've just admitted you believe people who are smarter are better.

No, I just have written what I can see in your posts.

How in the world is it random if it directly addresses the question! I advise you to check your definitions!

Wait, weren't you the person that related Abraham to Jesus' sacrifice with some random quotes from the bible?

Originally Posted by SL00b I can't speak for the person you addressed this to, but for myself, I don't hate God any more than I might hate Severus Snape or the Tooth Fairy.

The well-known Pink Unicorn came to my mind. Actually, I had to make a web-search for Severus Snape.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Reverting again to your god, which is human logic,

I know you're just trying to troll again here, but that might not be the worst analogy. After all, human logic has accomplished some amazing things. Your god has accomplished nothing.

Still, I find the natural universe more inspiring than logic. Logic is simply a key to unlock its beautiful mysteries.

Originally Posted by bluegospel what I said was that in this analogy, God is using a very fine process, which would be used commonly only to "test" a sample, to instead refine the whole lot, or at least that portion that is willing to be refined(sic).

So we're agreed that the word "refine" is a waste of time here. Thanks for leading this conversation in a pointless circle.

Originally Posted by bluegospel In fact, he, is infallable, yes. What he has created is by nature neither immortal, nor infallible. If you or I create something like, say, pottery, and in the process we mess up and yet correct it, we have not failed have we? And if we give up on a certain lump of clay because it's useless, we are not failures are we? In the same sense a perfect God can create something that is, or becomes imperfect.

If we created the lump of clay, and it fails, it's because we failed to create it properly. Duh.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I don't have to make a case for God. Your blood is on your own hands.

Troll.

Originally Posted by bluegospel In the context of eternity human logic only works (and imperfectly) in time. It doesn't work in the judgment. I for one have a higher plea than human logic in the judgment.

No, you don't.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If you or I create something like, say, pottery, and in the process we mess up and yet correct it, we have not failed have we?

Yes, you did. God is supposed not to ever mess up in the first place.

Originally Posted by bluegospel In the same sense a perfect God can create something that is, or becomes imperfect.

And in order to willingly create imperfect human, god must be evil, since human's imperfection will result in suffering.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I don't have to make a case for God.

If you can't argue, then you can leave.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Your blood is on your own hands.

This is arrogance. Why don't you drop pompous words and simply deal with the questions people ask? It looks like you have plenty of time to actually do that. How do you know that bible is not a lie? Even if you assume that creator exists, for all practical purposes the book could have been written by some kind of "devil".

Originally Posted by SL00b Oh, look, another indefensible assertion. ---------- Post added 10-10-11 at 08:47 AM ---------- --in response to Bluegospel's assertion that western education was founded on the Bible -- And another!

There is some history behind Bluegospel's assertion. The puritans (pilgrims in American lore) believed that the chief work of the devil was to keep man from knowledge of the scriptures, so teaching him to read was doing God's work. Hence the puritans insisted that there be free, universal, education, so that the devil could be confounded.

As for the decline of education coming on the heels of teaching evolution (another of Bluegospel's assertions). one could just as easily contend that it came on the heels of intergration, or of removing prayer from schools.

Like I said, I care a great deal for faith, but religion I have no need for. All of bluegospel's demands for ostentation and ignorance (conflating science with the dictates of religion, etc.) convince me that I am right.

If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact--

The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

I'm not saying that because they have relied on it then it's evidence. I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly. This the agnathiests fail to do, or to even attempt.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

My position is that I do not know whether god exists or not.
You insist it does exist, which challenges my position.
Burden of proof is placed upon you.
Prove that god exists.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly.

Your only arguments are citations of bible. My position is that I don't know whether bible is the word of true creator or not. You insist that it represents god's will, and the god is actual creator. The burden of proof is placed upon you. Prove the bible is the word of god and that the god is actual creator. Before that you may want to prove that god exists.

Now what?

I'm sure bluegospel is just a mean atheist trying to give a bad name to believers

Originally Posted by sycamorex I'm sure bluegospel is just a mean atheist trying to give a bad name to believers

Yeah, that's possible.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact-- The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case. I'm not saying that because they have relied on it then it's evidence. I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly. This the agnathiests fail to do, or to even attempt.

If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Veda, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Veda but in fact--

The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

I'm not saying that because they have relied on it then it's evidence. I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly. This bluegospel fails to do, or to even attempt.


But anyways, aren't there parts of the bible that are known not to be true?

Originally Posted by bluegospel If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact--

Except, they haven't. The overwhelming majority of humans throughout history have ignored the Bible as an authoritative evidential document. And why would they? As an authoritative document, it fails miserably. In some places it describes things happening that never happened, and in other places it says things that contradict the things it already said.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

Wrong again.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 There is some history behind Bluegospel's assertion. The puritans (pilgrims in American lore) believed that the chief work of the devil was to keep man from knowledge of the scriptures, so teaching him to read was doing God's work. Hence the puritans insisted that there be free, universal, education, so that the devil could be confounded.

That may be, but that's hardly supportive of the statement that public education is based entirely on the Bible.

And the fun thing is, once they taught people how to read the Bible themselves, they started figuring out something was wrong with it.

Originally Posted by SL00b I know you're just trying to troll again here, but that might not be the worst analogy. After all, human logic has accomplished some amazing things. Your god has accomplished nothing.

Quite wreckless. Supposing there is one living eternal God (which IMFirmO is self-evident). In that case it would be quite foolish to say something like what you just said because, it's probable, he did create the universe, in which case you've just made a spectacle of yourself before the whole creation, not to mention God.

Originally Posted by SL00b Still, I find the natural universe more inspiring than logic. Logic is simply a key to unlock its beautiful mysteries.

Agreed. Particularly good word choice, a key

Originally Posted by SL00b If we created the lump of clay, and it fails, it's because we failed to create it properly.

God created humans to live a joint life with God. The degree to which a human works together with God or resists him, in large part determines their ultimate success or failure. In other words, if the clay has a mind completely of its own, God's best effort, be it perfect, doesn't compensate for their defiance.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Quite wreckless. Supposing there is one living eternal God (which IMFirmO is self-evident). In that case it would be quite foolish to say something like what you just said because, it's probable, he did create the universe, in which case you've just made a spectacle of yourself before the whole creation, not to mention God.

Suppose there's one living eternal god which is evil or neutral. Evil deity will find that behavior acceptable and may reward for it, but punish you instead. Neutral deity will simply ignore both of you. IMO, it is quite self-evident, that if a deity exists it is either neutral or "evil".

Originally Posted by bluegospel God created humans to live a joint life with God.

You'll have to prove that too.

Originally Posted by reed9 The thing is, if we allow that the Bible can count as evidence, we must equally allow any religious text to count as evidence, from the Koran to The Upanishads, which of course is hardly helpful for you position either. It's astonishing that you don't see that fervent believers from every religion make the exact same sort of arguments you are making and support it with quotes from their traditions. If I accept that those arguments count as good evidence, then I'm left in the position that I must believe every religion to be true, which is rather contradictory.

Admission as evidence doesn't necessarily mean it's conclusive. I'm open to admitting any text to be considered in education and letting the students judge for themselves. After all, that's what I did.

Brought up in a rather loosely Christian home, as a teen I explored Islam, Asian religions, et al. In fact I held to Islam as my religion my final two years in highschool, completely abandoning Christ, and in fact forgetting he existed. Yet as I explored I came to the Bible, which captured my devotion for my recognition, not of a priorly loose Christianity, but recognition of the One who wrote it.

In short, I'm completely open to consideration of other religious texts. Let the readers judge for themselves. Let them read what they like, and let them judge for themselves. As far as this forum, I'm sorry but I don't like reading long passages from the Quran or Bhagavad Gita, but I am completely open to answering any reasonable-length passages you might put here from any text. And mind you, I've begun transcribing the video against blanket acceptance of divine law that someone posted here probably 6-8 weeks ago that I still mean to address, point by point. I've not forgotten.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 bluegospel's demands for ostentation

Is that the crux of this idea of "trolling?" I'm here to impress people? Besides being pointless (nobody here even knows my name!), it's because I know what it means to fear God that I try to persuade anyone. Somebody dies as an unbeliever at a higher rate than a soul a second, according to Leonard Ravenhill, who preached the first half of the last century. I deduce from that, every second a person's eternal destiny is sealed without any hope of any human or divine comfort. I can't help but warn people of the coming judgment, and if you were wise you wouldn't write it off.