so,actually you Mystics have a Sense which any Rational Human being is lacking!
Pray tell what that extra sense is!

Common....

I re-read the first line.

You are right, I am talking about a slightly different topic. But you have no right to condemn me for that. You have no right, because being off-topic in this thread is a sin you yourself have also heavily committed.

You talk and talk, like us, but you are obviouslty god's little pet, coz for you it's okay to be off topic, but for us, it is not. You little brat, god's own favourite.

You see, the topic is, actually, "he hangs the earth on nothing."

What do your posts say that is related to the topic, to the subject?

I reject vehemently your vehement and haugty reprimanding me for not staying with the topic, since you are even a bigger non-stayer-with-the-topic yourself.

That's one thing. And... would it kill you to admit, that the logical structure of the bible makes the tenets of Christianity ridiculously impossible?

I am not talking factual impossibilities, they can be smoothed over with applying a little faith, but the christian faith forces the followers to believe absolutely and irrefutably impossible things. Not only impossible in the physical world, but impossible in all worlds.

I mean, you can keep your faith, I have no problem with that. But I do have problem when a god comes to me and says, "1=3".

This I won't take from no god.

Or he says, publicly, for all to hear and witness it, "I've come to uphold the law, not to change it," and five minutes later the entire Jewish religion is so changed under his spritual leadership that its own mother would not recognize it.

Or he says "I'm my own son." "I'm my own father."

Or he says "I'll kill my son, to save mankind, with a slow and painful death. I could do it any other way, too, since I am omnipotent. But I'll do it this painful way. Oh, and I'm infinitely good."

Or he says to me, "I'm omnipotent." Omnipotence as a concept is not a valid or possible characteristic. If the characteristic can't possibly exist, how can god have it? and if he is so smart, how come he never saw this before any man?

So take my plea, and do admit that christianity as a logical construct is replete with self-contradictory, impossible elements that would not be possible to happen or to exist under any circumstances, and ask all Christians to agree, and when you all agree, I leave you be.

You see, to me christianity is a religion, big deal, I have my own faith. I don't mind christians trying to convince more people to join in in their faith, because that is a sentiment that I again share, I want people to join my faith. That is the first reason why i am trying so hard for you to leave your christian dogma. First leave christian dogma, then join the atheist faith. BUT there is something that bugs me big time, and that is the stupidity of christians for insisting tooth-and-nail that impossible is not only possible, but we must accept it.

That's the only thing that bugs me about christians. Their stupidity, even possessed by their smartest.

(Christians have a lot of good things going for them, too. I admire the church going group of people, coz they have a low crime rate, a high compliance rate with the law and with societies rules, which I believe is a good thing. This is not so very true of all other groups, although I think that people who attend mosque and other public worship are also very law-abiding and compliant. So it's not necessarily only the christians that have this very positive trait that I like, but church-going christians are definitely that too.)

However:

If you can't agree that 1 is never equal to 3, if you can't agree the omnipotence is impossible, if you can't agree that a person can't be the forecomer of himself, then please, don't come to me and tell me what is smart and what is stupid.

That's a nice little rant, but totally of-subject and quite funny. Do I detect a hint of jealousy?


Regardless of your paranoia, I said nothing about going off-topic, now did I?
I was responding to someone's view of the "God/Jesus story", which most non-delusional people know originated with the Bible and Scriptures.

Your redacted quote is the cause of your confusion. His first line, the one to which I was referring was this:



It has nothing to do with "faith", it has to do with what is written in the Bible. You don't need faith to read and comprehend words do you?

You do however, need "faith" to believe that something that doesn't exist in the bible is actually written there.

This post reeks of stupidity.


Show me where God said "1=3"
Show me where God said "I'm my own son." or "I'm my own father."
Show me where God said ""I'll kill my son, to save mankind, with a slow and painful death. I could do it any other way, too, since I am omnipotent. But I'll do it this painful way. Oh, and I'm infinitely good." (or even something vaguely similar)



What I think is really stupid is that Atheists believe (without evidence I might add), that all matter and the universe came from nothing!

It's not a function of the atheist to believe that all matter came from nothing. The atheist beleives there is no god. Period. Other aspects of an atheist are connected to other parts of his persona.

Show me where... etc.

Okay. did god say those things? He said "I am a mean and jealous god" and yet christians say he is infinitely good.

There must be a connection why they connect the two mutually exclusive traits and agree both are possible to exist.

HOwever, it is possible to follow the reasoning of a logical deducing that if there is a the son, who is god, there is the father, who is god, and there is the holy spirit who is god, AND on top of that there is only 1 god; then this can only mean that three gods = 1 god, eliminate the god, and then you get 3=1.

God is the father. God is the son. God is one. Therefore he is his own son, and he is his own father. I need not go to the neighbours to borrow some brain to see this.

God is omnipotent. God had his own son sacrificed to save mankind. The painful death of god was to save mankind. It was god's idea and his only, that he save mankind this way. He is omnipotent; he can do anything. He did this, for instance. He could have saved mankind by winding up an alarm clock. In his omnipotence he could have made the winding of the clock to be the key action that will save mankind from sin. Since god is truly ompnipotent, he can will anything and make it reality. He willed to torture his son, and he had been able to will to not torture his son, but wind an alarm clock, as an example, and thus save mankind. There is no reason why he couldn't have done that. The reason that his son got tortured to save mankind is because god willed it that way, and god had his will be done, since god is ompnipotent. Yet torturing your own son is not an act that is described as "good" or "moral".

I don't know why you are forcing me to go into such detail to explain to you the obvious. But I do, coz you call my post as reeking of stupidity. I resent that, and look who is reeking now.

Please don't defend your criticism of my posts by reducing your criticism to the single line, "wux, your post reeks of stupidity". All I did was take lines from the bible, from christian dogma, and juxtapose them. I never changed a dogma, I never changed a religious fact, I just put them next to each other in way that shows their illogical impossibility in co-existence.

You forgot to include in my "stupidity reek list" one item: how the son announced "I have come not to change the law but to uphold it" and he changed the law completely around. Christians eat pork and seafood, which is not allowed by the old law. Christians can't get divorced, whereas that had been possible under the old law. Christians must get baptized, can work on Sabbath, don't need to wear a cap, don't need to get circumcized, don't do bar-mitzvah for their sons, don't need to stone an adulterous woman to death, all things that were customs or laws before, and the son god changed them, despite his categorical statement that he had made to uphold the law, not to change it.

Common....






definitely not!


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mysticism.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/common_sense.html

Again, you are forcing me to baby-feed you with things that you don't understand. If you are really incapable of comprehending such things on your own, then why are you on an adult site where adults and grown-ups are discussing things that are way above your level of comprehension? I told you three times, in more and more detail what the topic was, and how you went off it. You insisted twice that you were on topic. If you can't understand such an obvious thing of what constitutes a topic, which is marked and labelled "topic", then I think you still won't get what the topic is if six angels were ringing bells, and hearald would trumpet into your ear, "this is the topic".

I don't know how you got that I am jealous or paranoid... that's yoru god who is jealous "I am a mean and jealous god".

Get a grip on yourself. Take some deep breaths, and check into the emergency ward of any hospital, and tell them that you imbue people with emotions which they definitely don't display signs of, yet in your own judgement you definitely think you saw them display it.

I am not a doctor, I can't and won't say you are sick. But I am scrathcing my head where you saw jealousy in my words and text. Please describe in detail why to you I appeared jealous and paranoid.

One more thing. If you say I was off topic, and you were off topic, but you were discussing the subject, then I call you on a technicality. You named the subject what you were replying to. I can name what I reply to my subject. There is a slight rule, not strictly enforced, to not go off topic. There is no rule to stick to one subject or another. So your reprimanding me in the first place "you are off topic, wux", is invalid in case of a "subject", but valid in case of a "topic". If it's a "topic" I had gone off, and I should be punished for that, then you should too. If it's a different subject from the subject you decided to talk about, then you have no right to right me and bring me to account why I had gone off subject.

Really. Check your blood pressure now.

OK wux, put a pillow on your keyboard, I don't want you hurting your head...


wux, your post reeks of stupidity and you should probrably borrow some brains from your neighbor...



You should have followed the advice I gave 2smileloudly... (research these things first)
You also really need to learn the difference between the topic (the original poster's topic) and the subject (what I was discussing).


Soooo, you claimed "All I did was take lines from the bible...", right?

Well, I still don't see anything from the Bible now do I?

Now you add more to your silly claims? 'He said "I am a mean and jealous god"' Tell you what, I'll give you 1/4 point if you can defend that claim partially, a whole point if you can defend that claim fully...



If you can defend your claims, show me, if not, admit defeat and walk away...

Wow, is wux another one of your personalities?


I speak of researching what's in the Bible and you equate that to mysticism?

So yeah, I have common sense and you don't...