Loving God is just that reason. It's not about making browny points to gain anything, it's not about "assuring" your afterlife, it's not about avoiding punishment or in the hopes to receive a reward. It is loving God for he is God, he is our creator, our giver, our provider. It's for the plain sake of loving God, again not to gain anything or better assure anything for one's self.

Well, I like it, anyway. I really like the way they manage to work a little humor into each episode, to break the tension, without turning it into a farce. I've never seen Game of Thrones, so I can't comment on it, but I'm glad that you like it.

Well, hey, it's your thread, so by golly you can talk about whatever you want, right?

Good point about the lifespans back in ancient times. Fear of death was a more pressing concern back then!

You're right about religion providing a purpose in life for many, too. That's a good point. In fact, the cult I was raised in (Jehovah's Witnesses) often touted the fact that serving God gave our life purpose. And, in a similar vein, religion also provides a social network for people who might not otherwise have one. (Like me.)

Of course, that can be a two-edged sword in some cases. In the case of the JWs, if a member decides that he/she no longer believes in the Witness dogma, he/she is labelled an "apostate," and is shunned. So, any member who is having doubts has to consider the possibility that if he/she speaks up about them, it could cause him/her to suddenly lose all of his/her "friends." (And family.)

Once again, the dark side of religion rears its ugly head.

Cannot believe this went on for 45 pages. Easy answer. You will find out the truth when you die. All the best.

Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either:
1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith.
2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.)
3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.)
4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you.

Or, any combination of the above.

I think that the anger stems from fear. I believe it was Freud who observed that as long as our species fears death, there will be religion. Regardless of who said it, however, it makes a lot of sense. Hence, the anger when you challenge their religion, as religion provides a comfort zone from death, and offers the hope of seeing dead loved ones again. When you appeal to them with logic, their mind tries to respond to it, but then fear of losing the comfort zone, i.e. facing death, kicks in.

I understand the appeal. I would love to be wrong about all of this. Not only would I love to see some of my departed family members again, but I would also love to have another life to look forward to, since the current one was largely wasted on a stupid cult and a really bad marriage. But, I just don't see enough solid evidence to warrant actually believing that it's going to happen. Like you, I can separate fantasy from reality.

Ironically enough, my favorite TV show is Supernatural.

Thanks, Lazarus. Breaking out of the circular logic loop is one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in these kinds of discussions, as you no doubt know. It's like:
"This is true because the Bible says so."
"Why should we take the Bible's word for it?"
"Because the Bible is the word of God."
How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?"
"Because the Bible says that it is the word of God?"
"Why should we take the Bible's word for it?"

And...repeat.

As for how Cowboy will reply...well, I imagine it won't be long before we find out. ;)

He CAN'T repeat himself until he actually speaks up the first time. And, again, a bunch of ancient books that claim to be speaking for him is NOT the same thing as him actually speaking. How can you not see the distinction?

I'll use Ra again. If I told you something along the lines of "Ra is the true god. He has been worshiped for five-thousand years; much longer than Jesus or Yahweh. And, Ra says...blah, blah, blah..." and I started quoting stuff from tomb inscriptions and Egyptian myth, you would be telling me the same thing I'm telling you; that Ra hasn't SAID anything. All we have is preserved writings attributed to him.

No doubt! Cowboy kinda' reminds me of Tom (Loki) Hiddleston.

That you David, would like to also accommodate you for your "generosity" through the discussions on here. Never take it personally offensive or state/post anything personally offensive toward another :). Just keep in the "discussion" level, and appreciate that VERY MUCH.

What do other people have to do with this discussion? Did I state that I was raised Christian or had any affiliation of Christianity growing up? Not claiming to either as that's irrelevant too the discussion, as was your post about such.

No, he exists for every, only some give him the credit of that which is spoken bout.



That would totally be your choice, again not here to change your perspective.



What are you talking about? None of which you state goes with anything of the Christian belief or my specific believe. There is but one judgement.



Nothing is "flimsy" bout it either, even through the thread of "evidence of God". Nothing can "prove" God wrong so how can it not be "solid" proof?

That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person.

There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus.

If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time.

Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent.

Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P

Sorry to inform you, but that would be incorrect. I believe in God because I have felt his presence first hand.

How does age make it less viable? Does age make it less truth? If so, how and why? And maybe he has given us something solid, just since "science" has ruled out "God", the things in question that happened were just placed in the "freak of nature", placed in some "theory" or some category of such.

lol? I stopped responding to your posts because they are not the topic of the discussion at hand nor the thread in itself. I've included a few of your recent posts in this post as display of my meaning. Not one of them is in reference to if God is a loving God or not.





Which again none are in reference to if God is a loving God or not, just merely on the existence of God, which is not what this thread is about.

Well, Lazarus...that's a very deep subject that you've broached there! There are so many different Bible translations. And, each one has its adherents, claiming that it is the TRUE word of God, or the one that is most faithful to the oldest extant manuscripts, while decrying the others as the work of Satan.

It's not surprising, though, if you look at the transliterated passages in an interlinear Bible, one thing that immediately becomes apparent is that translating this book into English is as much an art as a science, due to the vast differences between Hebrew and English, and Greek and English.

All of which underscores something I've said many times before: An All-Knowing, All-Wise God, who ostensibly created us, our brains, our system of communication, including all the different languages, would have known that the written word was not the best medium to employ in transmitting his all-important instruction manual to us. Too many opportunities for misunderstandings.

And, in keeping with the theme of this thread, it wasn't very loving of God to demand that we follow the rules found in his all-important instruction manual, when he presented said manual in a way in which it was ripe for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

Try not taking things out of context.


Leviticus 21

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

Remember, people in the Old Covenant were judged on Earth for their sins. Thus Jesus referencing a multitude of different deformities or irregularities in a person eg., brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire. These types of people in reference are that way because of their sins, thus they are "defiled". And read even further, these "rules" were not "standard". They were specific to a specific group for a specific reason.

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Sorry, Sir, but you are incorrect. I do not choose to close my eyes to the evidence of God's existence. On the contrary, I have examined the evidence my whole life. I spent the first forty years of my life as a Christian. I spent many a year as an apologist, so I know well the position you are in as regards trying to defend the indefensible.

At this point in my life, I simply choose to examine any evidence I see on the subject with logic and common sense.

You know, you just did EXACTLY what Lazarus predicted you would do. You quoted the Bible!

Romans 1:20

"20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

(*Gasp!*) Lazarus must be a prophet!