The Gay Thread cont.

[Greg]

One last point on the inspired word of God or 66 points. As someone said, think about these facts:

_______________________________________
Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books contain no historical errors or contradictions. God’s word truly is an amazing collection of writings!
_____________________________

And as I keep saying, Daniel's prophesies concerning the rebirth of Israel came true in more than 20 Centuries after he said it would. Same with the discovery and excavation of Babylon and the restoration of Nebecannezera's Southern Palace and the
Isthar Gate amongst many other dwellings. These are just a few
prophesies that have come true in our life time.

The most impressive prophecy from Daniel for me is one we all missed including the Pharisees who should have known it better than anybody.

He told us that after 69 "weeks" or 483 years from the order to rebuild Jerusalem's walls was given (see Nehemiah) that the annointed One would announce himself. This was 483 years before Jesus makes his triumphal entrance into the city.

Daniel 9: 25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.

He cried for them because they should have known that this was the time and he was the one.

[AirFlacco]

EXCELLENT BRO.

But those Pharasees always missed it. They saw all the
miracles, raising the dead and they still crucified him.

Dan 9 is also where the anti-Christ reigns and trashes the
new Temple as part of the destruction you mentioned.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Another interesting prophesy coming to light this very moment
is in Micah 1 where Micah said the Edomites (current day Palestinians including the Hamas) will return to Edom
(now Jordan) and overthrow the King.

Jordan is one of the many countries in the middle east that is
under going revolution as we now speak, just like Micah said
it would.

Keep your eye on Jordan and also Babylon as mentioned 4 times
in Revelation. When the anti-Christ desecrates the temple he
has to go somewhere.

Many of us believe he goes to Babylon as mentioned above is
being restored as we now speak. The US Marines were
headquartered in the Southern Palace where Sodom Hussein was
going to move til he ran out of time-lol and they
trashed the place. Haliburton already fixed things and is building
more buildings. The Central Bank in Bagdad was destroyed in
the war and the US moved it close to Babylon.


The Army turned over the command of Southern Iraq to the
coalition forces in Babylon. Over 30 flags were flying that day.

The anti-Christ has to go someone and Babylon is as good a
guess as any. Then Christ destroys it once and for all.

This is one way we know the Bible is true and w/o error.



Great points Greg.

[Greg]

One of the most impressive prophetical references in the OT is Isaiah 52:13 through to the end of the 53rd chapter.

This was written at least 250 years before Christ and long before the Romans were crucifying people.

[AirFlacco]

I never understood it but Christ is the only Messiah that came exactly the
way it was prophisized in the OT - the only one and they still rejected him
and still do. He traces his lineage all the way to King David. Of course they
wanted the Messiah to free them from the Romans while Christ came to free
them from themselves.

Nobody else came like this and no one will til Christ returns.

[TheExtraPoint]

These kind of takes show nonsensical thinking. It assumes knowledge of God's purpose and plan for the universe and that is somehows misses the mark. Do you have some insight into the Creator's purpose and that indeed this universe is flawed in some way to fulfill that purpose?

Your understanding of the universe seems sound enough, though I disagree with the notion that you can state with any certainty that its formation is attributed to a "God". Theist religions require an inherent leap of faith that even a deeply religious individual like yourself would have to acknowledge.

But the larger point is that what you consider nonsensical thinking is to others (like me) considered intellectual curiosity, and that is at the foundation of the advances in science you seem eager to attribute to Christianity.

I also wonder if you can explain why is it so audacious to ponder in this instance what a "God's" intentions might be, yet in so many other instances his supposed thoughts, ideals, values, and morals are "known" and applied with what you consider certainty?

The intellectual curiosity I speak of is something I believe to be largely absent from the thought process of those who believe their existence can be explained by a personal God, or through text written thousands of years ago, and many hundreds of millions of years after the creation of the universe as we perceive it to have begun. Overall, the links between theism, its texts, and science as a whole are tenuous at best, and are typically misrepresented.

The ability to access another dimension gives a being incredible understanding in all manner of ways and limits it in no way.

LSD has a similar effect. New or altered perceptions enlighten the rather limited capacity of humans to perceive their existence. That's hardly proof of anything (though I agree with your premise).

Thus, if there is a Creator outside the universe, which is implied since the universe began to exist and something not in it would be its cause, it would more than likely have access to all of these. Further, IT WOULD NOT EVEN BE LIMITED BY THEM SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THEM!

This is guesswork. And in light of my own guesswork, I tend to agree instead with Stephen Hawking who said the following:

"The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

If you feel (like I do) that the laws of science explain everything, you might understand why so many people are not particularly concerned with the prospective marriage of two men or women.

[Greg]

Your understanding of the universe seems sound enough, though I disagree with the notion that you can state with any certainty that it's formation is attributed to a "God". Theist religions require an inherent leap of faith that even a deeply religious individual like yourself would have to acknowledge.

Okay, but I am attributing the beginning to God, to what do you attribute it and does that not take a leap of faith?

The universe cries out for a cause, and the fine-tuning calls out for an intelligent one, as does the existence of morality. This beginning is just one argument in a series I can present that leads to the Cross.

But the larger point is that what you consider nonsensical thinking is to others (like me) considered intellectual curiosity, and that is at the foundation of the advances in science you seem eager to attribute to Christianity.

The curiosity or interest is not of issue, the idea that the universe is flawed is. You MUST know the purpose of the universe to know if the design is flawed. To claim one knows this and thus is able to detect flaws as one see it is, IMO, nonsensical.

I also wonder if you can explain why is it so audacious to ponder in this instance what a "God's" intentions might be, yet in so many other instances his supposed thoughts, ideals, values, and morals are "known" and applied with what you consider certainty?

Pondering his intentions is one thing. That is quite differrent than claiming knowledge enough to start evaluating his creation based on yhour view on that purpose. Christians certainly ponder why things are the way they are, but to claim the design is flawed without knowing the intent completely is just foolish. And no Christian I know claims this much knowledge of God.

Beyond that, the flaws are usually something like the existence of evil. I can offer any number of reasons of why God would allow evil to exist. Thus, the existence of evil is not a flaw unless you know God intended for evil not to exist.

The intellectual curiosity I speak of is something I believe to be largely absent from the thought process of those who believe their existence can be explained by a personal God, or through text written thousands of years ago, and many hundreds of millions of years after the creation of the universe as we perceive it to have begun. Overall, the links between theism, it's texts, and science as a whole are tenuous at best, and are typically misrepresented.

What? How is believing we came from nothing by chance more intellectually curious than believing we came from a Creator?

As for the separation of science and Christinaity, Christians in Christian nations developed the scientific method as we know it.

LSD has a similar effect. New or altered perceptions enlighten the rather limited capacity of humans to perceive their existence. That's hardly proof of anything (though I agree with your premise).

I am sorry, but I don't get this poiint at all.

This is guesswork. And in light of my own guesswork, I tend to agree instead with Stephen Hawking who said the following:

"The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

What are the laws of science? We have laws of nature which science studies, there are no laws of science.

And let me make this plain and clear. What we call nature or natural CAME INTO EXISTENCE at the beginning of the universe, to say natural laws caused nature is pure nonsense, Hawking or not. Sometimes smart people say stupid things. This idea of Hawking's has come recently and if you look into the arena of physics you will find Hawking's latest ideas are met with indifference at best. If you asked physicists to rate the current best thinkers in the arena Hawkiing probably wouldn't make the top 20, maybe not even 50.

If you feel (like I do) that the laws of science explain everything, you might understand why so many people are not particularly concerned with the prospective marriage of two men or women.

And you are wrong. Science pressuposes any number of things it can not hope to prove. You must presuppose the existence of logic to do science, for example. Thus the scientific method can not ever hope to explain the existence of logic and reason.

I think William Lane Craig can explain this better:

[TheExtraPoint]

Okay, but I am attributing the beginning to God, to what do you attribute it and does that not take a leap of faith?

The difference between you and I is that I attribute the start of the universe too something quantifiable but unknown, whereas you attribute it to something not yet quantified and yet somehow "known" only to theists who have no real proof.

The universe cries out for a cause, and the fine-tuning calls out for an intelligent one, as does the existence of morality.

The correlation between morality and an intelligent cause for the universe is suspect. Morality is better described as a social construct that incidentally varies from person to person, society to society, religion to religion, and so fourth. It often varies within religions themselves. Morality is hardly a finite concept in the human DNA.

The curiosity or interest is not of issue, the idea that the universe is flawed is. You MUST know the purpose of the universe to know if the design is flawed. To claim one knows this and thus is able to detect flaws as one see it is, IMO, nonsensical.

Pondering his intentions is one thing. That is quite differrent than claiming knowledge enough to start evaluating his creation based on yhour view on that purpose. Christians certainly ponder why things are the way they are, but to claim the design is flawed without knowing the intent completely is just foolish. And no Christian I know claims this much knowledge of God.

My issue is not with the perception of flaw in the universe's conception, or the lack of flaw for that matter. What I take issue with is the presumption that there is in fact a conscious, "intelligent" purpose or impetus for the universe's existence in the first place.

Most of all, even if we both allow that a leap of faith is required to sustain our differing views on the subject, it is the absolutism of theist religion that I take issue with most. Science at least has a standard by which hypothesis becomes fact, even if it has yet to explain the universe comprehensively. Scientists don't claim that no God exists. They don't "claim" anything at all without definitive proof.

Theists on the other hand assert that their personal God absolutely does explain the universe. Theism is in and of itself a hypothesis veiled as fact by those who view it in a literal context. There is nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis, but there is a problem when hypothesis is presented as fact.

What? How is believing we came from nothing by chance more intellectually curious than believing we came from a Creator?

I don't suspect that we came from nothing, but my beliefs are irrelevant. My point is that the belief that science can explain the origin of the universe is by definition more intellectually curious than the view of someone who believes this IS explained by explicitly by the will of a God they can't prove exists to begin with.

As for the separation of science and Christinaity, Christians in Christian nations developed the scientific method as we know it.

That's true, but how does Christianity itself explain these developments, or those that have come in their wake? Hopefully you recognize that it doesn't.

What are the laws of science? We have laws of nature which science studies, there are no laws of science.

And let me make this plain and clear. What we call nature or natural CAME INTO EXISTENCE at the beginning of the universe, to say natural laws caused nature is pure nonsense, Hawking or not. Sometimes smart people say stupid things. This idea of Hawking's has come recently and if you look into the arena of physics you will find Hawking's latest ideas are met with indifference at best. If you asked physicists to rate the current best thinkers in the arena Hawkiing probably wouldn't make the top 20, maybe not even 50.

I wouldn't say that nature caused nature. I would say that nature simply is.

Stephen Hawking is a genius by every reasonable definition, but the quote I provided is certainly speculation on his behalf. The difference again is that he wouldn't claim otherwise. You're supposition about the intelligent formation of the universe is speculation just the same, yet it's often represented in a different way.

And you are wrong. Science pressuposes any number of things it can not hope to prove. You must presuppose the existence of logic to do science, for example. Thus the scientific method can not ever hope to explain the existence of logic and reason.

Who is to say that science can prove or disprove the existence of logic (the notion of which is rather convoluted IMO), or the existence of God for that matter? I simply find that one is more likely than the other to occur.

An early human could not possibly comprehend let alone explain string theory, the pineal gland, or particle collision, so it would not be unreasonable to think that future humans might be able to explain the origins of things we seek to understand but at present do not.

I'll leave you with this synopsis from another brilliant scientist you may or may not hold in high regard, with a nod to Galileo at the end.

[Galen Sevinne]

These kind of takes show nonsensical thinking. It assumes knowledge of God's purpose and plan for the universe and that is somehows misses the mark. Do you have some insight into the Creator's purpose and that indeed this universe is flawed in some way to fulfill that purpose?

And here is the intellectual privilege of faith. You have to prove nothing; yet for the scientifc minded, we have to prove all.

So god creates the human being, an organism that will perish with no water in about 2 weeks. Close to 1 billion of humans in his creation lack access to clean water. 15% of the population of the world is lacking it's second, next to oxygen, most vital resource.

I see a design flaw. You see it as me not undestanding some divine plan by a compassionate designer. That's convenient and that is intellectually lazy. If the government forced us to drive solar powered cars where 15% of the country was unable to gather enough solar energy to move their cars from their driveway, you would be outraged.

I could give plenty of examples that deny, for me, a competent creator but for you, no worries.

The intellectual privilege of faith.

Your condescension reveals your high view of your intellect but it does not come out into your argumentation here.

You also completely missed the idea of the being in the higher number of dimensions. You seem to think it has some limitation . . .

I see another design flaw; god created no sense of humor in you nor did you appear to appreciate Sagan's sense of humor in the mystic attributes he gave his apple.

LOL - seriously, making Platonic references might impress some people but your complete lack of understanding that the 3rd dimensional apple could perceive 2 dimensional pace better than 2 dimensional beings shows your ignorance on the matter.

I think my comedy/analogy was more directed at our apple-god not being able to perceive the 4th dimension. I'm glad though, for you, in the end our histrionic apple-god understands our 2 dimensional reality better than we do. I am sure that bolsters your faith.

And truly, we both know I could never impress you but if by some random chance I did, it would more than likely be quickly couched as an impression from another dimension (surely higher) that you aren't taking your bible studies seriously enough thus making me just a mere messenger.

Thus, if there is a Creator outside the universe, which is implied since the universe began to exist and something not in it would be its cause, it would more than likely have access to all of these. Further, IT WOULD NOT EVEN BE LIMITED BY THEM SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THEM

sorry but this is babble.

[Sirdowski]

Kudos for Sir for adding a slice of the cerebral to the conversation. You never disappoint as long as we can keep you away from the children.

Thanks, underhanded condescension and all.

First and foremost, Sagan's intention was to elucidate the 4th dimension and the phenomena associated with inter-dimensional communication; though I believe inter-dimensional amity was his choice of word. His choosing of the 4th dimension was only because it is the easiest dimension outside of elementary knowledge to conceptualize. The only thing limiting the apple-god to the 4th dimension was Sagan's choice to do so. He could have just as easily said, "the apple represents a being which is uninhibited by any single dimensional purview," and the same point could be taken. He was simply explaining how a being that transcends a dimension(s) can interact with other dimensions by a manner which seems to disregard the laws of that dimension, what Your attempt to confine God to this literal explanation, moreover to the 4th dimension, is a gross overestimation, and frankly, a giant straw man.

I do have a problem though...

It seems heretical, even in the eyes of this infidel, to cast god as a histrionic apple who can't be recognized or perceived without the serendipitious questioning of one's sanity. (well, on second thought that sort of makes sense...scratch that)

Humorous way to mock that explanation. The fact of the matter is, maintaining your atheism, you could hear a voice from another dimension and question your sanity as well, despite nothing "magical" really happening. And by magical I mean something outside the realm of scientific possibility.

Futher troubling though is the suggestion that our skittish apple-god exists below a manifold of greater dimensions where he can only gather mere perceptual shadows of reality quite like Plato often opined about organic man. (you know, I just might be warming up to this idea as well...scratch it again)

Again, taking the example literally. The only thing limiting the apple-god to the 4th dimension was Sagan for explanatory purpose.

I think maybe I can believe in your god afterall. It might explain the not-so-hard-to-notice flaws in his design if all along he was just oscillating between the need to be noticed as true and his enchantment of watching the fluttering shadows above, all the time while trying to follow the directions on how to put the pieces together below. Surely this would hinder his architecture while explaining why he is so angry.

If the video was confined to its face value, you might have something. Especially if he whipped out a pineapple from the 5th dimension to tease the apple.

The analogy beautifully combines the elements of insanity or let's just call it magical thinking involved as well as maybe why the creation is so horribly fucked up for what was once such a divine beginning.

Galen, as always, you show your hand. There is nothing magical (atleast not in the sense of being outside of science) about what the implications of Einstein's Relativity have taught science. Your posts exude the frustration of not understanding "why?" and the indignation associated with that frustration.

[AirFlacco]

LOL - That's the way it always is.

[jonboy79]

That clarifies.

This leaves you in one of 4 theistic groups. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or a personal view not shared by a large group.

All other belief systems are either pantheistic or atheistic (or agnostic if one can't decide).

Wow, HR, I actually am mostly in agreeance with you in this matter. who'd have thunk? I'm sortof a straddler of Deist theist as laid out here, with a hint of agnosticism. I take the philosophical proof of God as the first in a long line of cause and effects(causing the big bang0 as a near certainty. After that I'm unsure of exactly what a God may have done or be doing. I also think it is well above the 'paygrade" of a man to figure that out. Also, I'm very skeptical of basically any type of religious text as they are all ancient versions of Dianetics, IMO.
As far as I can tell, they are all jsut words written by man. Not saying that the places and stories aren't based in truth, simply that they are historical yet exagerrated texts. Probably similar to the Odyssey.

[Greg]

The difference between you and I is that I attribute the start of the universe too something quantifiable but unknown, whereas you attribute it to something not yet quantified and yet somehow "known" only to theists who have no real proof.

Why is God not quantifiable?

You say this but you have no proof, nor can you attribute the universe to something more quantifiable than God, a mind or soul or spirit. Matter, energy, space, and time began at the beginning of the universe. This is the math of Einstein proven over and over again.

Thus, whatever caused the start, it is immaterial, it is spaceless, it is timeless. Tell me, beyond a mind what could possible meet those qualifications and be "quantifiable"?

The correlation between morality and an intelligent cause for the universe is suspect. Morality is better described as a social construct that incidentally varies from person to person, society to society, religion to religion, and so fourth. It often varies within religions themselves. Morality is hardly a finite concept in the human DNA.

Culturual more's vary from people to people, etc. What is actually right or wrong does not. For example, when slavery was legal in the US was it wrong? Yes, it was wrong despite its acceptance culturally. So moarlity does not vary, what is wrong is wrong and right is right. I have no idea what you mean with the last line.

My issue is not with the perception of flaw in the universe's conception, or the lack of flaw for that matter. What I take issue with is the presumption that there is in fact a conscious, "intelligent" purpose or impetus for the universe's existence in the first place.

You did not bring up flaws or bad design, Galen did if I recall correctly.

I don't presume there is an intelligence behind the universe, it make ssense. For example, a objective moral law that applies to us all would require an intelligence. The design in the universe and life itself screams out for intelligence. That the universe would be capable of hosting any physical life whatsoever is incredibly unlikely considering the fine-tuning it requires. And the amount of information in the simplest life forms call for intelligence. I don't care how you slice it, we NEVER find design or information without intelligence and the only two places we accept this without assuming intelligence is the universe and life. Any other place we find the appearance of design and information we attribute it to intelligence.

Most of all, even if we both allow that a leap of faith is required to sustain our differing views on the subject, it is the absolutism of theist religion that I take issue with most. Science at least has a standard by which hypothesis becomes fact, even if it has yet to explain the universe comprehensively. Scientists don't claim that no God exists. They don't "claim" anything at all without definitive proof.

I would challenge this on all kinds of levels. Facts are one thing, interpretation of them is another and this is done by scientists all of the time.

You should be aware that various scientists disagree on all manner of things that are claimed by other scientists. So this idea they only work with "definitive proof" is just not correct.

Theists on the other hand assert that their personal God absolutely does explain the universe. Theism is in and of itself a hypothesis veiled as fact by those who view it in a literal context. There is nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis, but there is a problem when hypothesis is presented as fact.

I am sorry, when did I present God as a fact? But of course a theist is going to claim God explains the universe. I mean what else would you expect?

I don't suspect that we came from nothing, but my beliefs are irrelevant. My point is that the belief that science can explain the origin of the universe is by definition more intellectually curious than the view of someone who believes this IS explained by explicitly by the will of a God they can't prove exists to begin with.

Science has described the beginning (after the start) of the universe. The cause is what is at issue, which it can NOT hope to explain. Science has ruled itself out of explaining the cause as the cause IS OUTSIDE OF NATURE! Science studies nature. The cause of nature is just not in the paradigm of science.

That's true, but how does Christianity itself explain these developments, or those that have come in their wake? Hopefully you recognize that it doesn't.

What developments?

I wouldn't say that nature caused nature. I would say that nature simply is.

What? What we call the natural bagan to exist. It has not always existed.

Stephen Hawking is a genius by every reasonable definition, but the quote I provided is certainly speculation on his behalf. The difference again is that he wouldn't claim otherwise. You're supposition about the intelligent formation of the universe is speculation just the same, yet it's often represented in a different way.

Really, so how is my presentation different than yours? My supposition stems from the evidence. As I noted earlier, when we see what appears to be designed and when we find organized information we always accept these things were brought to be by intelligence. The lone 2 exceptions are the universe and life.

Who is to say that science can prove or disprove the existence of logic (the notion of which is rather convoluted IMO), or the existence of God for that matter? I simply find that one is more likely than the other to occur.

Anybody who has completed a Logic 101 class. This isn't deep, it is straight forward. You can not do science without presuming there is logic and reason. You may find the notion convoluted but acedemics do not.

An early human could not possibly comprehend let alone explain string theory, the pineal gland, or particle collision, so it would not be unreasonable to think that future humans might be able to explain the origins of things we seek to understand but at present do not.

You are missing an incredibly important point. YOU HAVE TO ASSUME LOGIC EXISTS TO EVEN BELIEVE EXPLAINING ANYTHING IS A POSSIBILITY. You can not hope to prove logic exists because the ability to prove it requires logic to exist. You would be arguing in a circle.

I'll leave you with this synopsis from another brilliant scientist you may or may not hold in high regard, with a nod to Galileo at the end.

Seen him on TV many times, I take no issue with him. Of course, if he looked at how unlikely it is we would survive in this universe, or even how likely we would even begin to exist, instead of the universe is "trying to kill us", he might take a different view of God's existence.

[Greg]

And here is the intellectual privilege of faith. You have to prove nothing; yet for the scientifc minded, we have to prove all.

This take is just nonsense itself. This was in response to your claim the universe is flawed in some wya. I said you could not hope to know it was flawed unless you knew the intent of the Creator. Can you know if there is a flaw in a Picasso without knowing what he meant to paint exactly? No, because anything you deem a flaw might be just as he wanted it.

So god creates the human being, an organism that will perish with no water in about 2 weeks. Close to 1 billion of humans in his creation lack access to clean water. 15% of the population of the world is lacking it's second, next to oxygen, most vital resource.

Interesting, so in 2 weeeks we should find a billion dead from lack of water? The flaw you think you detect is the result of our free will. We choose to live in these places. We choose to be greedy with resources. There is plenty of water, we just have to find ways to get it to people. If you would like I can give you a few Christian organizations that are drilling wells in 3rd world countries.

I see a design flaw. You see it as me not undestanding some divine plan by a compassionate designer. That's convenient and that is intellectually lazy. If the government forced us to drive solar powered cars where 15% of the country was unable to gather enough solar energy to move their cars from their driveway, you would be outraged.

God doesn't force people to live anyhere. There is plenty of water. People have chosen to live where it is hard to get or have chosen to overpopulate areas or have chosen to hoard it from others. None of that is God's fault. That is, unless you think free will is a flaw.

Quite frankly, this is one of the worst examples of supposed flaws in the universe I have ever read and indicates intellectual laziness.

I see another design flaw; god created no sense of humor in you nor did you appear to appreciate Sagan's sense of humor in the mystic attributes he gave his apple.

That is a solid intellectual take, insulting the oppositition. That is always the sign of a peronsn with a lot of intellectual bullets in the gun.

sorry but this is babble.

I am sure it is, much like an explanation of calculus would be to a squirrel.

[Greg]

Also, I'm very skeptical of basically any type of religious text as they are all ancient versions of Dianetics, IMO.

I take it you are comparing the writers of ancient religious texts with L. Ron Hubbard and his use of Dianetics to make himself money and get himself power.

Tell me, what did the authors of the New Testament gain from their writings?

[4G63]

I'm just gonna leave this here:



/runs

[AirFlacco]

He forgives you 4G despite your mocking him.

[wickedsolo]

You just are clueless. Christians take in the needy of all faiths all of the time. Or do you have examples of Christians treating Muslims badly (something current like what is happening to Christians in Egypt and the Sudan, etc - right now)?

Three words man.

Reverend. Fred. Phelps.


It's funny because all I've ever heard growing up was about how religions are meant to teach understanding and forgiveness, but instead what they mostly instill is intolerance and all that goes with it in the name of whichever "God" you choose to worship.

[wickedsolo]

Yes, well the Bible referes to itself in the sense I used. If you can pick and choose what you take as truth in the Bible what is the point of reading it at all. Just go ahead and make yourself a god and write your own rules.

Isn't that what the Catholic Church did anyway? All of the other denominations that followed suit did the same exact things.

The Bible, much like the Constitution, is a document that can be interpreted a hundred different ways and can be applied to almost anything.

[Galen Sevinne]

This take is just nonsense itself. This was in response to your claim the universe is flawed in some wya. I said you could not hope to know it was flawed unless you knew the intent of the Creator. Can you know if there is a flaw in a Picasso without knowing what he meant to paint exactly? No, because anything you deem a flaw might be just as he wanted it.

I can certainly judge the creator as flawed if I see people dying from their inability to obtain vital resources which the "creator" created a need for them to obtain. Food and water.

If you had the ability to create a car with the simple point of a finger and you created it in a fashion that it needed an additional finite resource, in which you would likewise also have to create, in order to actually run and be of value, I would scratch my head.

If you came back and defended your decision by saying I was unable to understand your rationale for creating the vehicle in manner where its utility depended on the addition of a separate finite resource, I would think you screwed up and were too full of yourself to admit it.

God doesn't force people to live anyhere. There is plenty of water. People have chosen to live where it is hard to get or have chosen to overpopulate areas or have chosen to hoard it from others. None of that is God's fault. That is, unless you think free will is a flaw.

More privileged thought.

Do you really think starving and dehydrated africans just need to hop on a plane and fly over here to where food and water are limitless? I think you solved the problem of world hunger! I will email them right away and tell them to buy an airline ticket and exercise their freewill to move! I see a Nobel prize in your solution. Gee I hope their internet provider is up an running and they have plenty of fuel in their SUVs to drive to the closest airport.

Quite frankly, this is one of the worst examples of supposed flaws in the universe I have ever read and indicates intellectual laziness.

You should check your privileged status and instead of accusing people of exercising their "freewill" incorrectly understand that you are in the minority in this world as far as how you are able to express your freewill.

I actually don't believe god is flawed; I believe god is a fairytale.

[darb72]

Three words man.

Reverend. Fred. Phelps.


It's funny because all I've ever heard growing up was about how religions are meant to teach understanding and forgiveness, but instead what they mostly instill is intolerance and all that goes with it in the name of whichever "God" you choose to worship.

You're falling into the trap of listening to the vocal minority. It's the exact same problem Muslims faced after 9-11 in that a very small percentage of the Muslims world wide got together and decided to blow shit up for no obvious reason. Suddenly the Muslims with the most face time on television are those declaring jihads left and right, so naturally everyone thinks that all Muslims are anti-USA which is no where near the truth.

The louder and zanier your antics, the more likely you are to be on television. Johnny Knoxville is a great example. You brought up Fred Phelps as an intolerant jackass, which he is. That's one. Now think of all the Christians you know who aren't jerks. You'll be surprised that we out number the jerks by quite a large margin.

To clarify, I mean Christians who aren't INTOLERANT jerks. I'm a Christian and a huge jerk but not intolerant. I just think people should strive to reach my lofty standards of awesomeness.