100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Are YOU in Danger? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Slowhand wrote:
I believe we concur. 
Now we just have to get the rest of the world to be more like this view of Jesus....or God or Buddha or Mohammed what have you. 
What God would disagree with that?!? No reasonable God would disagree with that. I'm confident of that. 
To Cowboy, You can create your own version of Jesus, or accept the creation of religious radical zealots. In fact, you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares, because they realize that you are already working on the assumption that all information is equally faith-based. Therefore, by that very assertion, you have handed everyone your approval that their ideas have precisely the same merit as yours in your mind. Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. I thank you for your acknowledgment and recognition that all religious views are on precisely the same footing. And I'm sure the Pastafarians are equally appreciative of your full support for their noodlely supreme being having equal merit to your imagined faith-based picture of fascist "Christ". Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. You missed the point of what you're referring to all together my friend. A fact is only a fact to YOU if you accept it as such. People say the world is round, no matter what anyone does or says this will NEVER be fact to you less you accept it as such. Jesus being the only begotten child of God, our Savior will NEVER be a fact to YOU less you accept it as such. And this goes with ALL "facts". Take the fact that Abraham was a president. This is only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could deny it up and down, you could come up with a million excuses as you do with Christianity that it is not fact, that Abraham was never president. The fact that man has walked on the moon. This is again only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could again, could deny this fact up and down, coming up with all kinds of reason's and excuses as it not being a fact as you do with Christianity. *side note, not claiming you don't think he was a president or that we never walked on the moon, just again merely an examples of what a fact is* I didn't miss the point at all Cowboy. I understand you perfectly. You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". I'm simply saying that if you offer me the very same conditions and situations then clearly, by your standards of what constitutes a "Fact", then anything I choose to believe in will indeed be a "Fact" for me. Thus you confirm that my believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is every bit as "Factual" as your belief that Jesus was a fascist dictator. Because as you've just said, you believe that "Facts" are nothing more than totally subjective opinions that require no evidence to support them. I personally don't agree with your views of what you consider to be "facts". If we go by your definition here then it's a FACT that there is no God for atheists who are convinced there is no God because they have accepted that to be a FACT in their mind. According to you reincarnation, pantheism and the Buddhist spiritual view in general is indeed a FACT for Buddhists, because they have accepted it as such. According to you it's a FACT that a Moon Goddess and Sun God exist for the Wiccans because they have accepted it as such. According to you a "Fact" is just another name for a "belief". 
~~~~~ But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. One thing I will agree with you is that I can't say with certainty that the world is indeed a spherical planet. And I wouldn't demand that this be accepted as a "Fact". However, I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to believe that there is an extreme probability that it is a spherical planet. I'd put my money on if I were betting. Same thing is true about whether or not Albert Einstein actually lived. I wouldn't swear that it's a "fact". I don't know, I never met the man in person. However, once again, I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on it that the man actually did exist and dot he things he was said to do. Why? Because from my perspective there is tons of evidence that this was indeed an actual event. However, if we go back to the days of ancient superstitious mythologies I wouldn't want to start betting on things that far back. Especially concerning the kind of dogmatic extremism that you push. I wouldn't even bet on the precise accuracy of any verbatim quotes that were attributed to Albert Einstein. On the contrary I'm willing to bet that many of the quotes that are attributed to Albert Einstein have indeed been modified slightly and may not be worded precisely the way Dr. Einstein worded them originally. But here you are quoting from an extremely ancient book that has been translated and transcribed so many times by so many cultures, and it didn't even contain ORIGINAL content to begin with in terms of quote attributed to Jesus. Even the authors of the Bible are speaking FOR Jesus and clearly there's no rational reason that they would get things correct verbatim. Yet, you PUSH for 'verbatim extremism' and try to claim that it's "factual". Well, I have a quote for you Cowboy. It's from Dr, Richard Feynman. You decide whether or not you think it is an accurate quote, but far more important than that pay attention to what he's saying, because IN TRUTH, it doesn't matter who said it, the words speak for themselves Cowboy: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. There's plenty of evidence for Christianity being a fact. There's manuscript after manuscript. Just you choose not to give validity to those manuscripts and call them hearsay rumors. That is your choice, your decision. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman All I got to respond on this comment, is you might want to read it twice my friend. There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. More specifically about faith and facts. Do you know for a fact you have liver? And if so, how do you know for a fact that YOU have a colon? Do you know for a fact everything is made up of little cells? And if so, how do you know for a fact that EVERYTHING thing is made up of little cells? Do you know quite a bit of the world is covered in water? And if so, how do you know for a fact that QUITE A BIT of the world is covered in water? ect ect, again the list could go on for ages. All of those things can be DEFINITIVELY proven. Can you prove God actually was behind the Bible? No you can't. Therein lies the difference. No "fact" can be definitely proven except if you drop something it'll go down. Outside of that, there is almost absolutely NO "absolute" fact, that could not be denied in one way or other. For example, I do not believe the world is round. I believe the world to be more of a square shape. That is why people had thought the world was flat, because we live on one flat spot of the world so therefore the people didn't know of the rest that has been untraveled. So therefore, not it's not fact the world is round, that's just hearsay rumors. *for example purposes only, I do no personally believe as such* |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Sat 04/30/11 11:33 PM
|
|
Slowhand wrote:
I believe we concur.
Now we just have to get the rest of the world to be more like this view of Jesus....or God or Buddha or Mohammed what have you.
What God would disagree with that?!? No reasonable God would disagree with that. I'm confident of that.
To Cowboy, You can create your own version of Jesus, or accept the creation of religious radical zealots. In fact, you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares, because they realize that you are already working on the assumption that all information is equally faith-based. Therefore, by that very assertion, you have handed everyone your approval that their ideas have precisely the same merit as yours in your mind. Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. I thank you for your acknowledgment and recognition that all religious views are on precisely the same footing. And I'm sure the Pastafarians are equally appreciative of your full support for their noodlely supreme being having equal merit to your imagined faith-based picture of fascist "Christ". Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. You missed the point of what you're referring to all together my friend. A fact is only a fact to YOU if you accept it as such. People say the world is round, no matter what anyone does or says this will NEVER be fact to you less you accept it as such. Jesus being the only begotten child of God, our Savior will NEVER be a fact to YOU less you accept it as such. And this goes with ALL "facts". Take the fact that Abraham was a president. This is only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could deny it up and down, you could come up with a million excuses as you do with Christianity that it is not fact, that Abraham was never president. The fact that man has walked on the moon. This is again only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could again, could deny this fact up and down, coming up with all kinds of reason's and excuses as it not being a fact as you do with Christianity. *side note, not claiming you don't think he was a president or that we never walked on the moon, just again merely an examples of what a fact is* I didn't miss the point at all Cowboy. I understand you perfectly. You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". I'm simply saying that if you offer me the very same conditions and situations then clearly, by your standards of what constitutes a "Fact", then anything I choose to believe in will indeed be a "Fact" for me. Thus you confirm that my believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is every bit as "Factual" as your belief that Jesus was a fascist dictator. Because as you've just said, you believe that "Facts" are nothing more than totally subjective opinions that require no evidence to support them. I personally don't agree with your views of what you consider to be "facts". If we go by your definition here then it's a FACT that there is no God for atheists who are convinced there is no God because they have accepted that to be a FACT in their mind. According to you reincarnation, pantheism and the Buddhist spiritual view in general is indeed a FACT for Buddhists, because they have accepted it as such. According to you it's a FACT that a Moon Goddess and Sun God exist for the Wiccans because they have accepted it as such. According to you a "Fact" is just another name for a "belief".
~~~~~ But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. One thing I will agree with you is that I can't say with certainty that the world is indeed a spherical planet. And I wouldn't demand that this be accepted as a "Fact". However, I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to believe that there is an extreme probability that it is a spherical planet. I'd put my money on if I were betting. Same thing is true about whether or not Albert Einstein actually lived. I wouldn't swear that it's a "fact". I don't know, I never met the man in person. However, once again, I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on it that the man actually did exist and dot he things he was said to do. Why? Because from my perspective there is tons of evidence that this was indeed an actual event. However, if we go back to the days of ancient superstitious mythologies I wouldn't want to start betting on things that far back. Especially concerning the kind of dogmatic extremism that you push. I wouldn't even bet on the precise accuracy of any verbatim quotes that were attributed to Albert Einstein. On the contrary I'm willing to bet that many of the quotes that are attributed to Albert Einstein have indeed been modified slightly and may not be worded precisely the way Dr. Einstein worded them originally. But here you are quoting from an extremely ancient book that has been translated and transcribed so many times by so many cultures, and it didn't even contain ORIGINAL content to begin with in terms of quote attributed to Jesus. Even the authors of the Bible are speaking FOR Jesus and clearly there's no rational reason that they would get things correct verbatim. Yet, you PUSH for 'verbatim extremism' and try to claim that it's "factual". Well, I have a quote for you Cowboy. It's from Dr, Richard Feynman. You decide whether or not you think it is an accurate quote, but far more important than that pay attention to what he's saying, because IN TRUTH, it doesn't matter who said it, the words speak for themselves Cowboy: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. There's plenty of evidence for Christianity being a fact. There's manuscript after manuscript. Just you choose not to give validity to those manuscripts and call them hearsay rumors. That is your choice, your decision. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman All I got to respond on this comment, is you might want to read it twice my friend. There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. More specifically about faith and facts. Do you know for a fact you have liver? And if so, how do you know for a fact that YOU have a colon? Do you know for a fact everything is made up of little cells? And if so, how do you know for a fact that EVERYTHING thing is made up of little cells? Do you know quite a bit of the world is covered in water? And if so, how do you know for a fact that QUITE A BIT of the world is covered in water? ect ect, again the list could go on for ages. All of those things can be DEFINITIVELY proven. Can you prove God actually was behind the Bible? No you can't. Therein lies the difference. No "fact" can be definitely proven except if you drop something it'll go down. Outside of that, there is almost absolutely NO "absolute" fact, that could not be denied in one way or other. Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sat 04/30/11 11:37 PM
|
|
Slowhand wrote:
I believe we concur.
Now we just have to get the rest of the world to be more like this view of Jesus....or God or Buddha or Mohammed what have you.
What God would disagree with that?!? No reasonable God would disagree with that. I'm confident of that.
To Cowboy, You can create your own version of Jesus, or accept the creation of religious radical zealots. In fact, you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares, because they realize that you are already working on the assumption that all information is equally faith-based. Therefore, by that very assertion, you have handed everyone your approval that their ideas have precisely the same merit as yours in your mind. Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. I thank you for your acknowledgment and recognition that all religious views are on precisely the same footing. And I'm sure the Pastafarians are equally appreciative of your full support for their noodlely supreme being having equal merit to your imagined faith-based picture of fascist "Christ". Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry. You missed the point of what you're referring to all together my friend. A fact is only a fact to YOU if you accept it as such. People say the world is round, no matter what anyone does or says this will NEVER be fact to you less you accept it as such. Jesus being the only begotten child of God, our Savior will NEVER be a fact to YOU less you accept it as such. And this goes with ALL "facts". Take the fact that Abraham was a president. This is only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could deny it up and down, you could come up with a million excuses as you do with Christianity that it is not fact, that Abraham was never president. The fact that man has walked on the moon. This is again only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could again, could deny this fact up and down, coming up with all kinds of reason's and excuses as it not being a fact as you do with Christianity. *side note, not claiming you don't think he was a president or that we never walked on the moon, just again merely an examples of what a fact is* I didn't miss the point at all Cowboy. I understand you perfectly. You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". I'm simply saying that if you offer me the very same conditions and situations then clearly, by your standards of what constitutes a "Fact", then anything I choose to believe in will indeed be a "Fact" for me. Thus you confirm that my believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is every bit as "Factual" as your belief that Jesus was a fascist dictator. Because as you've just said, you believe that "Facts" are nothing more than totally subjective opinions that require no evidence to support them. I personally don't agree with your views of what you consider to be "facts". If we go by your definition here then it's a FACT that there is no God for atheists who are convinced there is no God because they have accepted that to be a FACT in their mind. According to you reincarnation, pantheism and the Buddhist spiritual view in general is indeed a FACT for Buddhists, because they have accepted it as such. According to you it's a FACT that a Moon Goddess and Sun God exist for the Wiccans because they have accepted it as such. According to you a "Fact" is just another name for a "belief".
~~~~~ But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. One thing I will agree with you is that I can't say with certainty that the world is indeed a spherical planet. And I wouldn't demand that this be accepted as a "Fact". However, I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to believe that there is an extreme probability that it is a spherical planet. I'd put my money on if I were betting. Same thing is true about whether or not Albert Einstein actually lived. I wouldn't swear that it's a "fact". I don't know, I never met the man in person. However, once again, I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on it that the man actually did exist and dot he things he was said to do. Why? Because from my perspective there is tons of evidence that this was indeed an actual event. However, if we go back to the days of ancient superstitious mythologies I wouldn't want to start betting on things that far back. Especially concerning the kind of dogmatic extremism that you push. I wouldn't even bet on the precise accuracy of any verbatim quotes that were attributed to Albert Einstein. On the contrary I'm willing to bet that many of the quotes that are attributed to Albert Einstein have indeed been modified slightly and may not be worded precisely the way Dr. Einstein worded them originally. But here you are quoting from an extremely ancient book that has been translated and transcribed so many times by so many cultures, and it didn't even contain ORIGINAL content to begin with in terms of quote attributed to Jesus. Even the authors of the Bible are speaking FOR Jesus and clearly there's no rational reason that they would get things correct verbatim. Yet, you PUSH for 'verbatim extremism' and try to claim that it's "factual". Well, I have a quote for you Cowboy. It's from Dr, Richard Feynman. You decide whether or not you think it is an accurate quote, but far more important than that pay attention to what he's saying, because IN TRUTH, it doesn't matter who said it, the words speak for themselves Cowboy: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact". But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact". There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well. There's plenty of evidence for Christianity being a fact. There's manuscript after manuscript. Just you choose not to give validity to those manuscripts and call them hearsay rumors. That is your choice, your decision. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman All I got to respond on this comment, is you might want to read it twice my friend. There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people. Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them. Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them Ect ect. More specifically about faith and facts. Do you know for a fact you have liver? And if so, how do you know for a fact that YOU have a colon? Do you know for a fact everything is made up of little cells? And if so, how do you know for a fact that EVERYTHING thing is made up of little cells? Do you know quite a bit of the world is covered in water? And if so, how do you know for a fact that QUITE A BIT of the world is covered in water? ect ect, again the list could go on for ages. All of those things can be DEFINITIVELY proven. Can you prove God actually was behind the Bible? No you can't. Therein lies the difference. No "fact" can be definitely proven except if you drop something it'll go down. Outside of that, there is almost absolutely NO "absolute" fact, that could not be denied in one way or other. Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. Yeah I've heard of pictures. I can show you one of me shaking hands with sasquatch. People of this world truly has given this creature a bad name. He's got a big heart and only wants tender loving care. And that's a fact :)......... it's gotta be, I have pictures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Yeah I've heard of pictures. I can show you one of me shaking hands with sasquatch. People of this world truly has given this creature a bad name. He's got a big heart and only wants tender loving care. And that's a fact :)......... it's gotta be, I have pictures. That's precisely what you're doing with the Bible Cowboy. You're basically saying, God is a jealous male-chauvinistic pig who who hates heathens and homosexuals and is appeased by blood sacrifices and even had his very own son crucified on pole to appease himself and demand that all humans must condone his sadism or he will cast them into everlasting punishment. And that's a fact,....... It's gotta be, You have BOOK that says it's all true! ~~~~~ And that's precisely all you have. You have absolutely NOTHING beyond that. A totally unverified collection of fables, that has absolutely no independent evidence to back up it's outrageous claims about an unreasonable irrational angry and bitter God. Yet you claim,..... it's gotta be true, we have it as a BOOK! Well we have Greek mythology as a BOOK too, so I guess that as to be true as well then, and so must be Thor, and Odin, and about 2500 other Gods that have been written about in fables. You've just demonstrated precisely how much credibility your religion has with your example of the Sasquatch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Yeah I've heard of pictures. I can show you one of me shaking hands with sasquatch. People of this world truly has given this creature a bad name. He's got a big heart and only wants tender loving care. And that's a fact :)......... it's gotta be, I have pictures. That's precisely what you're doing with the Bible Cowboy. You're basically saying, God is a jealous male-chauvinistic pig who who hates heathens and homosexuals and is appeased by blood sacrifices and even had his very own son crucified on pole to appease himself and demand that all humans must condone his sadism or he will cast them into everlasting punishment. And that's a fact,....... It's gotta be, You have BOOK that says it's all true! ~~~~~ And that's precisely all you have. You have absolutely NOTHING beyond that. A totally unverified collection of fables, that has absolutely no independent evidence to back up it's outrageous claims about an unreasonable irrational angry and bitter God. Yet you claim,..... it's gotta be true, we have it as a BOOK! Well we have Greek mythology as a BOOK too, so I guess that as to be true as well then, and so must be Thor, and Odin, and about 2500 other Gods that have been written about in fables. You've just demonstrated precisely how much credibility your religion has with your example of the Sasquatch. You're basically saying, God is a jealous male-chauvinistic pig who who hates heathens and homosexuals and is appeased by blood sacrifices and even had his very own son crucified on pole to appease himself and demand that all humans must condone his sadism or he will cast them into everlasting punishment. First off, with what you were referring to that I said about sasquach. That was total ummm, sarcasm if you will. Was said to give thought, wasn't true at all. Was just for thought. Secondly, you're spreading lies. You're basically saying, God is a jealous male-chauvinistic pig who who hates heathens and homosexuals and is appeased by blood sacrifices and even had his very own son crucified on pole to appease himself and demand that all humans must condone his sadism or he will cast them into everlasting punishment God hates no one. God doesn't even hate Satan. God loves each and every being he's ever created, again including Satan. And no God is particularly male-chauvinistic, he has only given males the leader position. Doesn't make males superior, doesn't make males more important. Males are merely the leaders. They have been given the job of leading, they also have to hold up to this title God has given them. Men aren't superior to women, they aren't more important. They are just the leader. God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. God is appeased by blood sacrifices because it is so important. Especially in the time that it was required for forgiveness of sins in sacrifice. Blood = protein = strength = survival. Strength was highly important in particularly that time, all the work was done by physical labor. So it was definitely a "sacrifice" made giving that important substance up in hopes to receive forgiveness of one's trespasses. God had no one put on any pole for anything. You, me, this person, that person, all persons that have ever and will ever walk this world put Jesus up on that cross. Jesus gave himself for YOU, not for God. Jesus' blood was shed to give YOU the chance to partake in heaven. Well we have Greek mythology as a BOOK too, so I guess that as to be true as well then, and so must be Thor, and Odin, and about 2500 other Gods that have been written about in fables. My sarcastic remark about having pictures of me and Sasquatch was in response to Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. Cause even with "pictures" one is still putting faith in that those pictures are legitament, are real, are true, are not created, ect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My sarcastic remark about having pictures of me and Sasquatch was in response to Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. Cause even with "pictures" one is still putting faith in that those pictures are legitament, are real, are true, are not created, ect. Those pictures are a hell of a lot more evidence than you have. Hell you don't even need pictures, you can look around and SEE how much of the earth is covered by water. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 05/01/11 01:03 AM
|
|
My sarcastic remark about having pictures of me and Sasquatch was in response to Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. Cause even with "pictures" one is still putting faith in that those pictures are legitament, are real, are true, are not created, ect. Those pictures are a hell of a lot more evidence than you have. Hell you don't even need pictures, you can look around and SEE how much of the earth is covered by water. I can? When I look around, I see dirt. I see no water. The only place I could go to, to see water is the river. And the river is only but maybe 20 foot wide and who knows how long. But nevertheless covers a very very small portion of the Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 05/01/11 01:20 AM
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. If one knows of the punishment of a crime, then wouldn't it be the person that allows them self to be tortured forever? If you know that if you slide a knife on your skin it will cut you. So you slide this knife on your arm. Did the knife cut you? Or in reality did you not cut yourself? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 05/01/11 01:23 AM
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' perhaps God does 'interventions' when people are on a spiritually dangerous path, but certainly loving people doesnt MANDATE he does such interventions on EVERYONE who chooses a spiritually dangerous path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Sun 05/01/11 01:31 AM
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' What good parent, would sit there and watch as their child burned, and begged, BEGGED for forgiveness, and to be released from the hell they are enduring. Short answer: NONE. There is no way you are gonna ever convince me that a God who does that, is a God of love. Natural consequence? Don't make me laugh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' What good parent, would sit there and watch as their child burned, and begged, BEGGED for forgiveness, and to be released from the hell they are enduring. Short answer: NONE. There is no way you are gonna ever convince me that a God who does that, is a God of love. Natural consequence? Don't make me laugh. I understand. WE are all free to believe what we want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' What good parent, would sit there and watch as their child burned, and begged, BEGGED for forgiveness, and to be released from the hell they are enduring. Short answer: NONE. There is no way you are gonna ever convince me that a God who does that, is a God of love. Natural consequence? Don't make me laugh. I understand. WE are all free to believe what we want. Here's my problem with religion and Christianity. You are told you are free to think what you want. Ok fine, great. But THEN you follow up to say that if you don't believe certain things or books, you will surely die and cease to exist at the least, or burn and be tortured mercilessly for all eternity at the worst. Is this really freedom, really and truly? To put it into perspective, it'd be like if you were in a relationship, you were unhappy and wanted to leave, and then told that you could leave if you wished, but if you did you'd be killed. This in a nutshell is the Bible God. I don't care how you want to spin it, but that is not freedom, that is spiritual rape, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' What good parent, would sit there and watch as their child burned, and begged, BEGGED for forgiveness, and to be released from the hell they are enduring. Short answer: NONE. There is no way you are gonna ever convince me that a God who does that, is a God of love. Natural consequence? Don't make me laugh. I understand. WE are all free to believe what we want. Here's my problem with religion and Christianity. You are told you are free to think what you want. Ok fine, great. But THEN you follow up to say that if you don't believe certain things or books, you will surely die and cease to exist at the least, or burn and be tortured mercilessly for all eternity at the worst. Is this really freedom, really and truly? To put it into perspective, it'd be like if you were in a relationship, you were unhappy and wanted to leave, and then told that you could leave if you wished, but if you did you'd be killed. This in a nutshell is the Bible God. I don't care how you want to spin it, but that is not freedom, that is spiritual rape, plain and simple. No you are not free to think what you want, you are not free to do what you want. You CAN do those things, yes. But you are not free to do them. That is what judgment will be. We will be judged on how we lived. And no, believing certain books has nothing to do with it. It is the words themselves that is important to be believed. That is where the faith comes in, faith that those words are true. Doesn't matter if those words are put in the holy bible, some odd ball named book, or any other book for that matter, the book itself is only as valuable as the paper it's printed on. And on the rest of your post, what is so different then the government and how the world runs itself? Why is it seen so bad when God does things in the same way we do things? God will "kill" no one. It is a judgment brought upon oneself. Eternal life is a gift. That is why Jesus said "Deny me before man, I will deny you before our father". Or in other words "Deny me before man, I will deny you the gift". And that also will explain why it appears to be a "Do as I say or die" form of thing. Death is naturally the end of our lives. We are born, we live, we die. Jesus OFFERS eternal life if one wishes to take it up. We as of now are not eternal. We are mortal human beings, but Jesus offers to make you eternal if you wish for it. Again, it is a gift given to those whom are obedient to the few things we have been instructed to do or not to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sun 05/01/11 03:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 05/01/11 03:36 AM
|
|
God doesn't hate homosexuals, God hates "sin". Sin is disobedience to God, and he hates sin itself, not the person doing the sin. God loves us unconditionally. If he loves unconditionally, then there should no conditions put on how to receive that love. That there is, shows the love is NOT unconditional. It simply doesn't worse, your so called truth fails. His love isn't conditional.....??? It's everlasting, God loves everyone. God loves saints God loves regular simple people God loves murderers God loves that person God loves this person God love EVERYONE. You cannot love everyone and then in the same breath allow them to be tortured forever. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. parents do it , its called letting their kids make their own way,,,although people will disagree on what constitutes 'torture', vs what constitutes a 'natural consequence' What good parent, would sit there and watch as their child burned, and begged, BEGGED for forgiveness, and to be released from the hell they are enduring. Short answer: NONE. There is no way you are gonna ever convince me that a God who does that, is a God of love. Natural consequence? Don't make me laugh. I understand. WE are all free to believe what we want. Here's my problem with religion and Christianity. You are told you are free to think what you want. Ok fine, great. But THEN you follow up to say that if you don't believe certain things or books, you will surely die and cease to exist at the least, or burn and be tortured mercilessly for all eternity at the worst. Is this really freedom, really and truly? To put it into perspective, it'd be like if you were in a relationship, you were unhappy and wanted to leave, and then told that you could leave if you wished, but if you did you'd be killed. This in a nutshell is the Bible God. I don't care how you want to spin it, but that is not freedom, that is spiritual rape, plain and simple. freedom of choice has never weighed in more than the reality of actoin and consequence as to the other, as I have stated before, for the individual who truly does not believe in a God or a judgment, why would they be expecting anything but death? I do expect to continue living and not to perish at the hands of another, but I dont expect to continue living forever and NEVER die. SO I think the analogy regarding the murderous ex is inaccurate. THese are two different standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
My sarcastic remark about having pictures of me and Sasquatch was in response to Umm.......ever heard of pictures.......x-rays? All of the things you mentioned are very very easily proven. Cause even with "pictures" one is still putting faith in that those pictures are legitament, are real, are true, are not created, ect. No kidding? That's precisely the point I was making Cowboy. It makes no sense to even try to converse with you because every point I ever make goes right over your head. It's was precisely your sarcasm that I was referring to. The POINT that you made with your sarcastic remark also applies to the Bible. In other words your "FAITH" in the Biblical stories has absolutely no more merit than someone's "FAITH" that Sasquatch exists. The fact that you were being sarcastic doesn't change the FACT that the very same thing applies to your "FAITH" in totally unsupportable stories of supernatural superstitious events that have been claimed by the authors of the Bible, yet have absolutely NO independent historical evidence beyond that. In fact, rumors of the Sasquatch probably have more independent historical evidence simply because more independent people have reported seeing one. However, even with that we don't give the Sasquatch much merit. The reason being that the reports simply aren't consistent enough nor high enough in number to be consider anything more than people's own superstition, imagination, and/or possible fraud. So is we actually apply your "sarcastic" remark to the Bible we can see the parallel. The Biblical writings don't even have as much independent historical background confirmation as do things like the Sasquatch or say the Loch Ness or UFOs and alien abductions. Yet most people do not believe in the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness, or UFOs and alien abductions. I'm just pointing out that your very own sarcasm actually applies to the very fables that you are attempting to claim must be true. Yet you have no more 'evidence' for the things that you claim "must be true" than exists for these other things that you sarcastically scoff at. As far as the rest of your post goes, I'm quite sure that if any God exists he/she/it/them does not hate anyone. However, that's irrelevant to the hateful picture of a fascist hateful God that YOU PAINT. The first thing you need to realize is that the so-called "God" that you create exist only in YOUR MIND. Just like Slowhand pointed out, you're not speaking of any actual "Jesus". All you're doing it creating your very own "Jesus" and trying to sell that marionette doll to everyone. Even if there were some truth to the writings of the Bible, many people (including many denominations of Christianity) would totally reject your personal extremist interpretations of those texts. So you have a very long way to go. First, you'd need to so convincing evidence that the biblical writings are even worthy of consideration as written (which no human being has ever been able to do to date), but then even that would only be a STARTING point for you. Then you'd be in the truly impossible position of having to convince everyone that Jesus thinks like YOU do when you decide to interpret those scriptures! I personally don't think you'd convince very many people of any such thing. I'm certain that you'd never convince me. Even if I had reasons to actually give those fables any merit (which I don't) I still wouldn't agree with YOUR interpretations. I personally feel that your interpretations are basically driven by your own personally need to make it appear that Jesus hates everyone who refuses to cower down to YOUR personal opinions. I've already shown where, even according to those texts themselves, Jesus himself would NOT support your views. So even if those stories were true, I would still hold out that you are an abomination to the very message that Jesus himself was attempting to teach. I disagree with your interpretations of these stories whether they are true or just fables. It's makes absolutely no difference at all. I still disagree with your obsession to use the Jesus character to support your religious bigotries and prejudices. Just like Slowhand pointed out, the Jesus that "You Create" is not the same Jesus that other people see in those same stories. You're "Jesus" is YOUR VERY OWN CREATION, whether he was a real character or not. So you have nothing going in your favor at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kleisto wrote:
Here's my problem with religion and Christianity. You are told you are free to think what you want. Ok fine, great. But THEN you follow up to say that if you don't believe certain things or books, you will surely die and cease to exist at the least, or burn and be tortured mercilessly for all eternity at the worst. Is this really freedom, really and truly? To put it into perspective, it'd be like if you were in a relationship, you were unhappy and wanted to leave, and then told that you could leave if you wished, but if you did you'd be killed. This in a nutshell is the Bible God. I don't care how you want to spin it, but that is not freedom, that is spiritual rape, plain and simple. I agree, This is a huge problem with this religion. Too many people fall into the trap of thinking that this religion gives them the right to condemn people in Jesus' name. They rape spirituality, they rape Jesus and use him to spread their hatred and religious bigotry. It's utterly stupid, and perverted. Any so-called "God" who would condemn people for the utterly petty and stupid reasons that these hardcore Christian extremists claim, could not in any way be "righteous". And that flies directly in the face of what they claim this God is supposed to be. So their position on "God" is untenable. They are out to spread the Hatred of God to everyone who refuses to support their religious bigotries and lifestyle prejudices in the name of Jesus Christ Almighty. But the problem is, in order to succeed in their dastardly they necessarily need to drag Jesus through the mud and totally destroy his character. And that's truly all they are doing. They are perverting their very own vision of "God". They have no respect for any God, or for their fellow human beings, and they most certain have no respect for Jesus as they continually abuse his name attempting to spread their hateful religious bigotry. I realize, like Slowhand and others have pointed out, that everyone who believes in Jesus does not view him in the same way. Even I give Jesus far more respect that the Christian extremist who use his name to spread hatred toward non-believers. My view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is far more respectable than the views of those who are trying to portray Jesus as being an irrational mad-man/demigod who condemns people for not believing in him. Such a portrait of Jesus only makes him out to have no better moral values that Hitler. ~~~~ What truly surprises me is that more DECENT Christians don't speak out against these hateful proselytizers and stand up for the things that Jesus actually did stand for. If I were a Christian I most certainly would speak out against the extremists who filthy up the name of Jesus like this. The problem is that the stories are indeed designed to support precisely this kind of religious bigotry and hatred in the name of Jesus. That's the problem right there. This religion was DESIGNED to make people cower down before it! Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the source of this religion had to be from the minds of mortal men, because no truly benevolent "God" could have ever created such hatred and shame. That would fly in the very face of the idea that it was a benevolent God in the first place. So these proselytizers are just spreading their hatred in the name of Jesus, is all. And yes, that is truly sad. 
No truly benevolent "God" could possibly be as ignorant and hateful as these people try to make out: You make a perfectly good point when you say: Is this really freedom, really and truly? To put it into perspective, it'd be like if you were in a relationship, you were unhappy and wanted to leave, and then told that you could leave if you wished, but if you did you'd be killed. This in a nutshell is the Bible God. All this so-called "God" is doing is saying, "Love me or DIE!" 
Hitler could do that. There's nothing special of divine about such a picture of so-called "God". The Christian picture of God is nothing but pure hate in a nutshell: "Love me or DIE!"   
Some "God" that is. 
|
|
|
|
|
