Post Any Evidence For God Here

[daddy1gringo]

It's not just the inconsistencies between positions that many people have problems with daddy, it's inconsistencies within each position (or at least all of the non-100%-literal or non-100%-symbolic positions).

Well, right. I wasn't talking about dealing with inconsistencies so much as with having an objection to particular positions put forth in the process of an apologetic. For example, I have seen some here say that they consider Christianity to be ridiculous because there is no way that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's an illegitimate objection because that belief is not essential to being a Christian. The same for opposing legal equality for gay marriage. What I said also applies to contemning Christianity because someone, (as someone has done in this thread) responds to legitimate arguments by saying, "You'll know the truth when you're burning in hell, buddy!" I have never made a statement like that, and never will. (You can check; I have been posting on this forum for years, largely on this subject.) So that attitude is certinly not necessary to being a Christian. So the upside of the diversity of opinions on so many issues and doctrines is that those doctrines need not be a hinderance (or excuse).

How does anyone (christian or otherwise) decide which bits of the bible are literal truth, and which bits are symbolism and parable intended to guide us towards moral truth without being meant to be taken literally?

I think the difficulty here arises from certain implicit assumptions. I'm going to steal a metaphor from the introduction to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Consider the Kingdom of God to be a house with many rooms. Lewis presents his work as the hallway of the house; I present the "very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground" that I mentioned earlier as that hallway. You're not meant to stay in the hallway. It is in the rooms that there are chairs to sit in, meals to eat, fires to warm yourself by, and beds to sleep in. But you can't choose a room until you enter in the front door into the hallway. Choosing your set of convictions on the peripheral issues would amount to entering a room.

And who decides which is which?

That depends on who you talk to, and is one of the factors in choosing a room. My Catholic friends would say that it’s the Church “magisterium”. For what I would say, let me give you some background.

Background 1: Some in this forum have argued that there are no contradictions in the Bible. I believe that is true in one sense, but not in a sense that it is worth trying to prove here. Instead I say this:

Sure, the Bible is full of contradictions. Here’s a glaring one: Proverbs 26:4-5: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.” It tells you to do one thing, then turns around and tells you to do exactly the opposite. The whole Bible is the whole truth, therefore, part of the Bible is part of the truth, and as you know, a partial truth is a falsehood. Obviously, one of these is the truth, or God’s direction, for some circumstances and the other is for others.

The Bible is a big and multi-faceted book, and life, to which it applies, is also big and multi-faceted. Not everything applies to everything, so sure, it can be applied in different ways in different circumstances, and sure, it can also be misapplied.

Background 2: I was studying into the evolution of the Passover Seder and came across an article from a rabbi where he was discussing the Talmud. I wish I could find it again to quote it, but he asked, “Why does G-d leave so much in His Word to be interpreted and debated?” His conclusion was that God never intended His Word to be a cold, static thing inscribed on paper, or on stone, or whatever. He always intended it to be expressed in human flesh, so that it would have life. I could bore you to tears with a litany of Biblical support for that idea, but if you’re interested, just a few to look at would be 2nd Corinthians 3:3, Jeremiah 31:33&34, and 2nd Cor. 3:6

So my answer is that each one needs to hear from God for themselves on questionable and debated issues. It is the relating and interacting with God that is actually the point, rather than the letter of the law. In order to do that legitimately, though, you first have to come in the front door and get into the hallway. You can’t check out the doors to the different rooms from outside; it’s not a motel. An officer doesn’t give orders to the soldiers in the enemy army, and a (good) husband doesn’t whisper sweet nothings to someone else’s wife.

You will point out that many have thereby come to different convictions, and I answer that you are making the assumption that that is necessarily a problem, an assumption that unfortunately many Christians also make. I am convinced that the unity God always intended was less organizational and more organic.

And why does, for instance, your interpretation have more significance for you than Viceroy's (and vice versa) if you're both talking about the same immutable thing (absolute moral truth)?

Well, because it is mine. Or perhaps better said, it is the light that God has given me to walk by for the purpose and work that he has for me.

Is God's absolute moral truth actually a mutable and constantly changing thing as fits the culture (because every culture has different moral standards and the biblee has been influential in many of these different settings), or is it a fixed and unchanging thing (and if so why does biblical interpretation change over the centuries)?

I would say that God’s truth is universal and immutable, but we and our circumstances are not, so the application is not.

[crispybits]

What are the common ground beliefs that make up the hallway in your metaphor?

The reason I ask this is that I'm not sure these common ground beliefs are actually either universal (as in there will be some christians who would not hold them as truth), and therefore not common ground, or that they would be so vague as to mean you are essentially abandoning the "christian" element and just talking about the things which do not require a belief in a higher power, but rather just a moral sense of right and wrong.

I'm looking for common ground elements which mark christianity out as the only true path, the special and unique way to God (nobody comes to the father except through me), because without them what you have isn't a religion, or at least not christianity in any form I've ever heard it. If the common ground is just "be nice to each other" then I could achieve the same thing by adhering to the tenets of the sacred film "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".

[BigBallinStalin]

What are the common ground beliefs that make up the hallway in your metaphor?

The reason I ask this is that I'm not sure these common ground beliefs are actually either universal (as in there will be some christians who would not hold them as truth), and therefore not common ground, or that they would be so vague as to mean you are essentially abandoning the "christian" element and just talking about the things which do not require a belief in a higher power, but rather just a moral sense of right and wrong.

I'm looking for common ground elements which mark christianity out as the only true path, the special and unique way to God (nobody comes to the father except through me), because without them what you have isn't a religion, or at least not christianity in any form I've ever heard it. If the common ground is just "be nice to each other" then I could achieve the same thing by adhering to the tenets of the sacred film "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".

BLASPHEMY!!

IIRC, and I am mostly blindly jumping into this conversation, but the 'common ground beliefs' regarding salvation through Jesus with only Christianity predominantly started with the works of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, who both basically insisted that the Church is the only means through which salvation is attained. Keep in mind that much of what St. Augustine wrote was dropped in favor of St. Aquinas' crap important religious-political writings.

For them, the Church was the only true path either because (1) they said so, and/or (2) the Bible said so. That's basically what it boils down to. Some may argue that either/both Aquinas or/and Augustine meant that the 'Church' included multiple Christian Churches--except for of course the heretics, those unsavory Christian types--or they/one of them was referring to a specific Church, the Roman Catholic Church, so the Splitters and later abominations cannot be the true path to Magic Mountain.

So, the "common ground elements" are arbitrarily determined within the confines of one's interpretation of early Christian scholars up to modern Christian scholars. Once we see arguments that expand or contract at will this 'common' ground, then it becomes apparent that these "ground elements" are disputed, thus are not at all common and are definitely contradictory as a whole.

[daddy1gringo]

Actually, crispy, both you and BBS are way off on what the "common ground" would be. Cutting it down to the absolute, I would enumerate them thus:
1. There is a God, who is personal, not an impersonal force. He created us and the rest of the universe. (This would include everything from"Zap" to very distantly setting natural processes in motion. Any more specificity would go into disputed areas.)

2. We as human beings are created "in His image", meaning created to be like Him. At some point, each of us chooses to do what we know is wrong, known as "sin" which puts a separation between us and God.

3. Yeshua, Jesus of Nazareth, was/is that God in human flesh, referred to as the "Son of God". As such, his words and actions while here reflect and teach about the nature of God, and that reflection and teaching is one part of his purpose in coming here. The other part (I would like to add "the primary part", but some, though few if any, might disagree) of his purpose was to be crucified and die as a sacrifice in order to forgive our sin and take away the separation between us and God, allowing us to relate to Him.

4. The life of the believer should be characterized by "good works" or improved behavior. (I can't say any more about what constitutes "good works", or where they fit in. That's definitely in the "choose your room" department, but it's in there somewhere for everybody.)

From there I could extend the list with gradually decreasing commonality.

Maybe I could add:
4. God is responsible for us having the Bible as we know it in order to teach us about him. (Once again, that is pretty vague in order to include a wide diversity of views on just in what way and to what degree the Bible that we have is inspired.)

[Gillipig]

Man created god, and now god has gotten out of control, should we put him down?

[jonesthecurl]

Man created god, and now god has gotten out of control, should we put him down?

Put him down, you don't know where he's been.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, crispy, both you and BBS are way off on what the "common ground" would be. Cutting it down to the absolute, I would enumerate them thus:
1. There is a God, who is personal, not an impersonal force. He created us and the rest of the universe. (This would include everything from"Zap" to very distantly setting natural processes in motion. Any more specificity would go into disputed areas.)

2. We as human beings are created "in His image", meaning created to be like Him. At some point, each of us chooses to do what we know is wrong, known as "sin" which puts a separation between us and God.

3. Yeshua, Jesus of Nazareth, was/is that God in human flesh, referred to as the "Son of God". As such, his words and actions while here reflect and teach about the nature of God, and that reflection and teaching is one part of his purpose in coming here. The other part (I would like to add "the primary part", but some, though few if any, might disagree) of his purpose was to be crucified and die as a sacrifice in order to forgive our sin and take away the separation between us and God, allowing us to relate to Him.

4. The life of the believer should be characterized by "good works" or improved behavior. (I can't say any more about what constitutes "good works", or where they fit in. That's definitely in the "choose your room" department, but it's in there somewhere for everybody.)

From there I could extend the list with gradually decreasing commonality.

Maybe I could add:
4. God is responsible for us having the Bible as we know it in order to teach us about him. (Once again, that is pretty vague in order to include a wide diversity of views on just in what way and to what degree the Bible that we have is inspired.)

How do you know?

[daddy1gringo]

I was just answering crispy's question of what I considered to be the "common ground" of Christians. Despite the title of the thread, I wasn't posting this of evidence for God. This is just a list of beliefs, not intended to be reason to believe them.

The answer to your question would take some doing. Let me work on it. I already have a previous commitment in the "Archbishop" thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

I was just answering crispy's question of what I considered to be the "common ground" of Christians. Despite the title of the thread, I wasn't posting this of evidence for God. This is just a list of beliefs, not intended to be reason to believe them.

The answer to your question would take some doing. Let me work on it. I already have a previous commitment in the "Archbishop" thread.

Well, how about this:

How do you know that your own interpretation is the "commonly held elements"?

It seems that as you extend the claims on behalf of God and the inclusive goodies which come with God, you also exclude/contradict the claims made by other religions--even of the 'same book', e.g. the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

If you limit yourself to the Bible, then so much for the road to salvation for the Jews and Muslims.

If we accept this as the 'commonly' held elements, then which Christian sects are acceptable and which ones are heretical?
(at this point, we're in general agreement with the claims made by St. Aquinas).

[daddy1gringo]

As usual, you're mushing together several very different things. Let me try to take it step by step.

How do you know that your own interpretation is the "commonly held elements"?

It isn't. If I were going to give you my "own interpretation", There is a a lot more that I would have said. Over the years I have been involved with, and learned from Christians of many different denominations and non-denominational persuasions. We also have discussions and debates on various subjects on the Jesus Freaks Forum, where we pretty much run the whole gamut.

In answer to cripy's question, I was attempting to give what is not my, or enyone else's, "own interpretation", but rather the short list of things that everybody who is a "Christian" agrees with -- the things that are not debatable or disputed among Christians --the "hallway" of "Mere Christianity"

It seems that as you extend the claims on behalf of God and the inclusive goodies which come with God, you also exclude/contradict the claims made by other religions--even of the 'same book', e.g. the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

Exactly. I was not talking about "other religions", I was talking about Christianity, and attempting to define it at its bare core. Comparing that to the tenets of other religions is an entirely different subject.

If you limit yourself to the Bible, then so much for the road to salvation for the Jews and Muslims.

Once again, you apparently misunderstand the purpose of my post, but your grouping Jews and Muslims together in the context of "limiting {my}self to the Bible" shows a different class of misunderstanding. The Holy Book of the Jews is the first 2/3 of mine. That of the Muslims is not the same at all. It shares various characters and themes, but it is a different book.

If we accept this as the 'commonly' held elements, then which Christian sects are acceptable and which ones are heretical?

All,...none. That's the point. OK, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses would probably have trouble with "Jesus of Nazereth was/is that same God", but other than that, any person or organization that could be considered "Christian" share these few core beliefs. That's the point; that's the question I was answering.

(at this point, we're in general agreement with the claims made by St. Aquinas).

Of course, although Aquinas said a lot more, and some of those things would be disputed by some Christians. These are just the things that would not be disputed by anybody. Once again, that's the point. I was answering Cripy's specific question.

[PLAYER57832]

What are the common ground beliefs that make up the hallway in your metaphor?

The reason I ask this is that I'm not sure these common ground beliefs are actually either universal (as in there will be some christians who would not hold them as truth), and therefore not common ground, or that they would be so vague as to mean you are essentially abandoning the "christian" element and just talking about the things which do not require a belief in a higher power, but rather just a moral sense of right and wrong.

I'm looking for common ground elements which mark christianity out as the only true path, the special and unique way to God (nobody comes to the father except through me), because without them what you have isn't a religion, or at least not christianity in any form I've ever heard it. If the common ground is just "be nice to each other" then I could achieve the same thing by adhering to the tenets of the sacred film "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".

I know you addressed daddygringo, but here is the thing. There is almost nothing in his post with which I would disagree.

Yet.. if you have observed many of our past discussions, you would find that we each have some pretty major disagreements on certain things. However, we tend to agree on important issues.

The unifying factor of Christ is, plain and simply "Christ". I can go beyond that and point to groups I might not consider "true Christians", in that I don't necessarily think they actually consider that Christ really died on the Christ for our sins, but they very much do consider themselves Christian.

For myself.. A Christian is someone who believes that Christ died on the Cross and thus allows us to be forgiven for our sins. I would further add in the sermon on the mount, the 2 commandments he gave us as being "above all others" -- to love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself". Everything in the Bible, in my mind is really focused on leading and/or explaining that bit. Its a complex bit, though.

Beyond that, I think daddygringo and I would agree on one point. People are created differently for a reason. Given such disparity of thinking and experience, is it any wonder that God would set for us different tasks, different forms of belief.... and yet allow them all as valid.

To put it another way, faith is only part about serving God in and of itself. It is also about how we are who we are, growing into what we should be. The journey each of us has differs. So, the words and messages we hear will differ, too. Just as a parent must recognize that a child gifted in music has very different needs than a child gifted in sports (not to say you cannot be gifted in both!), so is God able to recognize that our needs differ. I know of parents who make their kids garden as punishment... and others who take the shovel and rake away as punishment. Waht is the overall standard? That punishment should be unpleasant, to teach that doing what is right is less painful than doing what is wrong. That ultimate goal is the same for every parent, but how we go about it differs highly indeed... in fact, even our views of right and wrong might differ, though that is another story.

[daddy1gringo]

^Well put.^

[crispybits]

Just so you guys know I am coming back to this but I've been mostly having a day off from unfounded delusions except to viciously mock them, and the current discussion deserves a serious rather than spurious response

[crispybits]

Right I said I'd come back to this as a serious discussion once I got out of the mockery mindset and seeing as Viceroy and premio have crawled back under whatever rock they emerged from I'm feeling less "prickly" again.

Actually, crispy, both you and BBS are way off on what the "common ground" would be. Cutting it down to the absolute, I would enumerate them thus:
1. There is a God, who is personal, not an impersonal force. He created us and the rest of the universe. (This would include everything from"Zap" to very distantly setting natural processes in motion. Any more specificity would go into disputed areas.)

2. We as human beings are created "in His image", meaning created to be like Him. At some point, each of us chooses to do what we know is wrong, known as "sin" which puts a separation between us and God.

3. Yeshua, Jesus of Nazareth, was/is that God in human flesh, referred to as the "Son of God". As such, his words and actions while here reflect and teach about the nature of God, and that reflection and teaching is one part of his purpose in coming here. The other part (I would like to add "the primary part", but some, though few if any, might disagree) of his purpose was to be crucified and die as a sacrifice in order to forgive our sin and take away the separation between us and God, allowing us to relate to Him.

4. The life of the believer should be characterized by "good works" or improved behavior. (I can't say any more about what constitutes "good works", or where they fit in. That's definitely in the "choose your room" department, but it's in there somewhere for everybody.)

From there I could extend the list with gradually decreasing commonality.

Maybe I could add:
4. God is responsible for us having the Bible as we know it in order to teach us about him. (Once again, that is pretty vague in order to include a wide diversity of views on just in what way and to what degree the Bible that we have is inspired.)

I'm going to rephrase your points slightly, partly for brevity, and partly for clarity in continuing the discussion.

1. God created everything.

2. God is personal. (by which I assume you mean God has a kind of personality? Or an ego? I'm not sure exactly what your definition of "personal" is in this point)

3. God created us in his image.

4. If we sin, we are making a choice to turn away from God, or reject him.

5. Jeshua, or Jesus, is God incarnate in human form.

6. Jesus was sent to teach us about God and his wishes for how we should live our lives.

7. Jesus was also sent to absolve our sins by being crucified.

8. Be excellent to each other (copyright Bill and Ted)

and then a maybe:

9. God inspired the Bible in order to teach us how we came to be and how to live our lives.

I think that's a fairly accurate assessment of your statements above, but if you disagree with any of them feel free to point out your objections of course.

Firstly, 1, 2, 4 and 8 (and 9 if you say "religious text" instead of "Bible") are not uniquely Christian. But lets ignore that for a moment.

Now, the responses:

1. Cannot be proven either true or false, but at the same time every a priori logical proof ever devised to attempt to provide an element of necessity to God's existence as the creator of everything has been found to have serious flaws. Either it's pleading a special exception (everything has to have a creator, except God of course he was just there), or it's merely filling a gap where in all honesty nobody can say they know anything (God of the gaps). There has never been the slightest shred of physical evidence that even comes close to proving that there is any sort of being outside of time and space who created everything we perceive as reality. In the absence of that evidence, is it more reasonable to believe in claims of illogical, supernatural beings, or to admit ignorance and simply say "I don't know"?

If I came to your back garden while you slept tonight and cut down a load of plants and planted a load of new ones, and took away your garden furniture and replaced it with a trampoline and then painted your grass blue, would your reaction be "God did it!" or would your reaction be to try and find a rational explanation for why your garden has been massively changed? If your immediate and totally honest reaction is not "God did it!" for these changes to your garden, then why would that be your reaction to reality? Why are you happy with a meaningless answer to the question "what caused everything" when you wouldn't be happy with that same answer to an infinitely more trivial matter? (And remember, God works in mysterious ways, if he decides that it's part of his plan for innocent newborn children to suffer with horrible diseases then trashing your garden could easily be part of his plan too...)

2. As I said I'm a little confused here by your use of the word personal, so a proper response would have to wait until you can clarify that for me.

3. I'm going to go with the loosest possible interpretation of this one (to fit the hallway analogy) and say that this means that our souls (to use the religious vernacular) are made in the image of his spirit, rather than it being a physical resemblance or anything like that. So spiritually, we are made in the image of something perfectly good and loving and forgiving. But we are spiritually imperfect, and we can be evil and hateful and vengeful. This is one of the core messages of Christianity, that we are all sinners, and that only through Jesus can we find salvation. So the only possible conclusions are that (a) this has to be thrown out as an incorrect argument, or (b) that God is also imperfect, and can be evil, and hateful, and vengeful, at which point the benefits of total spiritual abandonment to his whims seems more than a little ill-advised.

4. So God has set out a bunch of rules for making the world a happy, loving place. Brilliant! But we have a choice of whether to follow those rules or not, and if we don't, then we have rejected God, and separated ourselves from him. Again I'm going to go with the loosest possible interpretation, as provided by Player (and which you seemed to agree with) - love thy neighbour and love God. Those two basic rules provide the framework for all the rest right? Except can you ever remember a time when you CHOSE to love something? Sure you can choose to outwardly treat someone / something with love, compassion and respect, but I have never known any feeling of love develop because I chose to feel it. If you are married then did you choose to love your wife, or did you uncontrollably fall in love with her? Did you choose to love chocolate ice cream and really not like pistachio (for example)? I have never seen any evidence that emotions are choices. How we process emotions and how outwardly we display them and act on them is a matter of choice, but the emotions themselves are things that happen to us, not choices we make. If you disbelieve this then think of the food you most hate eating, and make a concious decision to love it in the same way you love your most favourite food. Now go out and buy some and eat it, and honestly consider whether you making that concious decision to love it makes any real difference to your base feelings upon eating it. You may change your acceptance level of the fact you are eating it, but I can cast-iron guarantee you won't put the first bite into your mouth and experience the same emotion of "mmmmm...... that's goooooood" as you would have if it had been your favourite food.

So, what we have is two basic rules, that provide the framework for all the other rules, that we have no choice if we are able to follow them or not. And the punishment for not being able to follow them (because willingness isn't a factor, it's a base part of our nature that we have no control over) is eternal separation from God. In the words of the late, great Christopher Hitchens: "God creates us sick, and commands us to be well". If a country passed a law that said everyone had to stop growing at 6 feet tall would that be a fair rule? So how is it in any way a fair rule to force us to love something if we are unable to do so?

5. See (1). This is invalid unless you're first honest thought is "God trashed my garden"

6. See (1) and (5)

7. See (1), (5) and (6). In addition to this, God, who is perfectly loving and forgiving, decided that he could not simply accept us for what we are (what he created us as), and instead that we must all pass some sort of "test". In order to set this test, he dragged himself down to Earth and had himself born in human form so that we could horribly mutilate, torture and kill him. Firstly, setting someone you love a test to see if they are worthy of you isn't love. Can you imagine setting your wife a test to tell if she really loves you? A truly loving relationship is also a trusting relationship, and no tests are required. Secondly, a being that can create an entire universe cannot think of a better way to prove his existence to mankind than to have himself killed by us? He can make a universe lasting billions of years (so far), and containing trillions of trillions of atoms, but the only way he'll know if we've "chosen" to love him is this? It seems to me a very petty way to achieve something that could have been achieved with much less ambiguity in any one of a number of different ways.

8. Good works and good behaviour isn't restricted to the life of the believer. This is not a uniquely Cristian, or even uniquely religious philosophy, and therefore while it is coincidentally part of Christian belief, it's more like part of the village the house is built in, rather than part of the hallway in the house.

This post is long enough without me ripping the divinity of the Bible to shreds (or in other words I'm bored of this for now) but I suspect you've seen several reasons why this also is flawed, which is why you've put it into the optional category.

Seems from where I sit that your hallway has large holes in the walls and floor (unless you honestly do think "God did it" when your garden gets trashed, in which case the holes are still there but maybe they aren't quite as big as they otherwise would be)

[Viceroy63]

People are created differently for a reason. Given such disparity of thinking and experience, is it any wonder that God would set for us different tasks, different forms of belief.... and yet allow them all as valid.

Player; I believe that you are mistaken about people being created differently. Because there is diversity in the human family (Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Red, Brown and what ever else have you), is not an earmark of God's creative processes. It is simply that God allows for and enjoys diversity in his creation. But there is no specific reason for being Black as opposed to being white. It is simply environmental mutations and adaptations (Not evolution).

Do you really believe that God set the task of all of these different religions and belief's that exist in the world today, or is it simply man's failure to fully and honestly accept the truth in God's word that has allowed for so many Divisions? If it is not God's creation then it must be Man's (influenced by an evil force element).

That God deals differently with each one of us based on our level of maturity and purpose in God's over all plans, and on a personal level, is not to say that he has assigned different tasks for us for in truth there is only but one task for man and that is to obey God. For any human father would deal differently with their teenage son then with their 3 year old and not the same. But both have the same task.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man."
-Ecclesiastes 12:13

That is the only task that men ought to concern themselves with. And if we truly accept the word of God at face value, then there should be no differences in belief or confusion in the matter because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). I personally do not believe that God organized all of these different churches and religious belief's that vary from place to place and people to people but that this is Man's invention; Modern Man's Babylon!

For where there is only One God who deals honestly and straight forwardly with all mankind the same way, individually yet the same; There can not by definition be, "many roads that lead to Rome!"

[crispybits]

People are created differently for a reason. Given such disparity of thinking and experience, is it any wonder that God would set for us different tasks, different forms of belief.... and yet allow them all as valid.

Player; I believe that you are mistaken about people being created differently. Because there is diversity in the human family (Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Red, Brown and what ever else have you), is not an earmark of God's creative processes. It is simply that God allows for and enjoys diversity in his creation. But there is no specific reason for being Black as opposed to being white. It is simply environmental mutations and adaptations (Not evolution).

Do you really believe that God set the task of all of these different religions and belief's that exist in the world today, or is it simply man's failure to fully and honestly accept the truth in God's word that has allowed for so many Divisions? If it is not God's creation then it must be Man's (influenced by an evil force element).

That God deals differently with each one of us based on our level of maturity and purpose in God's over all plans, and on a personal level, is not to say that he has assigned different tasks for us for in truth there is only but one task for man and that is to obey God. For any human father would deal differently with their teenage son then with their 3 year old and not the same. But both have the same task.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man."
-Ecclesiastes 12:13

That is the only task that men ought to concern themselves with. And if we truly accept the word of God at face value, then there should be no differences in belief or confusion in the matter because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). I personally do not believe that God organized all of these different churches and religious belief's that vary from place to place and people to people but that this is Man's invention; Modern Man's Babylon!

For where there is only One God who deals honestly and straight forwardly with all mankind the same way, individually yet the same; There can not by definition be, "many roads that lead to Rome!"

He loves you Viceroy - uh huh - he does! That's why all the fear and obedience rght?

[Viceroy63]

People are created differently for a reason. Given such disparity of thinking and experience, is it any wonder that God would set for us different tasks, different forms of belief.... and yet allow them all as valid.

Player; I believe that you are mistaken about people being created differently. Because there is diversity in the human family (Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Red, Brown and what ever else have you), is not an earmark of God's creative processes. It is simply that God allows for and enjoys diversity in his creation. But there is no specific reason for being Black as opposed to being white. It is simply environmental mutations and adaptations (Not evolution).

Do you really believe that God set the task of all of these different religions and belief's that exist in the world today, or is it simply man's failure to fully and honestly accept the truth in God's word that has allowed for so many Divisions? If it is not God's creation then it must be Man's (influenced by an evil force element).

That God deals differently with each one of us based on our level of maturity and purpose in God's over all plans, and on a personal level, is not to say that he has assigned different tasks for us for in truth there is only but one task for man and that is to obey God. For any human father would deal differently with their teenage son then with their 3 year old and not the same. But both have the same task.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man."
-Ecclesiastes 12:13

That is the only task that men ought to concern themselves with. And if we truly accept the word of God at face value, then there should be no differences in belief or confusion in the matter because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). I personally do not believe that God organized all of these different churches and religious belief's that vary from place to place and people to people but that this is Man's invention; Modern Man's Babylon!

For where there is only One God who deals honestly and straight forwardly with all mankind the same way, individually yet the same; There can not by definition be, "many roads that lead to Rome!"

He loves you Viceroy - uh huh - he does! That's why all the fear and obedience rght?

Crispy; It's sad that you do not understand the old language and what that word, "Fear" truly means. I guess that you have absolutely no respect for your parents because that is one of the definitions entailed in that word, "Fear." Also "Love" is entailed in that Word as well. If you do not obey your own human father then what good are you?

For you to post that disgusting photo of a man beating up a woman and compare that to true religion only shows the depravity of your own mind. The Bible tells us...

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"
-Ephesians 5:25

"Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them."
-Colosians 3:19

In other parts of the Bible Jesus even talks about "truly" loving even your enemy (Matthew 5:44) and not being angry with them for the wrongs they have done you but to trust in God, in all matters because God is just.

I have no idea where you got this very warped idea about the Bible, Religion or the teachings of Jesus Christ; But it is clear that you simply do not know what it is that you are talking about. And any one who thinks like this is in serious need of psychological help. I will mention you in my prayers to the true God of the Bible. A God of love and who wants us to obey him so that we may be happy in this life and blessed for living life right and doing things God's way which is the right way. The only way of true love.

"In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
-Deutronomy 30:16

[crispybits]

Exodus 20:3 - You shall have no other Gods before me

Job 28:24 - For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 - Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

2 Thessalonians 1:9 - These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord

1 John 3:1 - See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are.

Or in other words: Have no-one before me. I know where you are, and what you're thinking. Obey me. You are unworthy. If you leave me I'll punish you. I love you.

See I can cherry pick bits of the bible too. And by the way fear and love are VERY different things. That you could conflate the two just goes to show how confused you are by your brainwashing.

[premio53]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...

Well you're hardly the norm in this case then. The vast majority (way over 90%) have the same religious belief as their parents. That's just a fact and not deniable! I like that fact because it shows that all the dreamish reasons given as to why you believe something is just bs. You believe in it because your parents did, to me that doesn't sound koherent with religious dogmas in general.
But all this is just semantics and should't really affect what you believe in, the main thing to keep in mind is that religion is unsupported by evidence, and when something is unsuported by evidence there's no reason to believe in it. Like the tooth fairy or santa claus. Just because more people seriously believe in Christianity for example doesn't make it true. The search for truth is not a popularity contest, and the number of believers says nothing of it's likelyhood of being true. You can't trust the vote of the majority on matters which people are ignorant of, and if you could that still wouldn't have been any help as nonbelief has more supporters worldwide than any single religion.

What religious debators often do to feel better about themselves is to add all religions together and unify them under the word "religious belief", as if they're in it together against none belief, but they clearly aren't. A muslim is a heathen in Christianity, and he will go to hell if the christian god exists. And vice versa with most other religions. An atheist will also go to hell, not a special "no believer at all hell", but the same hell as the muslim.

Atheists are correct. Man gravitates toward idolatry (making up false gods) in every society on earth. There are millions of false gods - Hinduism alone has over 300 million of them - but there is only one Creator.

Equating belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is a demeaning argument that atheists use quite often. However, the difference is that while we can't prove the existence of the tooth fairy or God, belief in the tooth fairy is inconsequential. Belief in the one true God has eternal consequences. He is the one you will face on judgment day. Before you die I urge you to read the Gospel of John and the Book of Romans by the apostle Paul. You owe it to yourself.

[crispybits]

I could just as easily say that God isn't real and Allah is and you are going to muslim hell and I'll become a muslim now and when I die I'll go to paradise and be drunkenly fornicating with virgins forever.

Does it not matter to you whether what you believe is true or not? (and if it does, how do you know what you currently profess to believe is true?)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

mmhhh such smugness really sticks in my tummy.

-TG

[premio53]

I could just as easily say that God isn't real and Allah is and you are going to muslim hell and I'll become a muslim now and when I die I'll go to paradise and be drunkenly fornicating with virgins forever.

Does it not matter to you whether what you believe is true or not? (and if it does, how do you know what you currently profess to believe is true?)

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is the fact that hundreds of fulfilled prophecies prove the Bible is not just a fairy tale like the tooth fairy. The Koran does not have that supernatural element to confirm it and many statements in the Koran are taken from the Jewish sciptures.

[crispybits]

So none of the Christian prophecies come from Jewish scripture? Please enlighten me of all (or at least 2 or 3) the fulfilled prophecies from the New Testament...

Besides which, at best these verses prove that the writers of the bible made some good/lucky guesses about what would happen in the future and say nothing about the truth value of the claims of a Christian God. In addition, there are numerous examples of both prophecies that are predicted and fulfilled within the same book by the same author (which is no different to claiming that Gandalf saying "I think Smeagol will have an important role in this" somewhere early in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is a proof of divine power within that book because at the end Smeagol does destroy the one ring), or prophecies that were not fulfilled even within the same scriptures (in Joshua 3 God says that the Jebusites, among other tribes, will fall to the Israelites, but in Joshua 15 they survive and the Israelites leave having not defeated them), or prophecies that just never existed in the first place (such as in Luke Christ claims that it is written in the scripture that he will have to suffer, but nowhere in the Old Testament / Torah is such a prophecy made)

The Koran also claims (wrongly) a number of fulfilled prophecies by the way.

So I ask again - do you care in whether what you believe is the truth? And if you do care, how do you know if what you currently believe is true?

[premio53]

No they don't, at best they prove that the writers of the bible made some good/lucky guesses about what would happen in the future. In addition, there are numerous examples of both prophecies that are predicted and fulfilled within the same book by the same author (which is no different to claiming that Gandalf saying "I think Smeagol will have an important role in this" somewhere early in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is a proof of divine power within that book because at the end Smeagol does destroy the one ring), or prophecies that were not fulfilled even within the same scriptures (in Joshua 3 God says that the Jebusites, among other tribes, will fall to the Israelites, but in Joshua 15 they survive and the Israelites leave having not defeated them), or prophecies that just never existed in the first place (such as in Luke Christ claims that it is written in the scripture that he will have to suffer, but nowhere in the Old Testament / Torah is such a prophecy made)

The Koran also claims (wrongly) a number of fulfilled prophecies by the way.

So I ask again - do you care in whether what you believe is the truth? And if you do care, how do you know if what you currently believe is true?

The chances of the many prophecies in the Bible had as much chance of coming true as putting a piece of meat in a sealed jar and watching life spontaneous generate some time in the next hundred billion years. You will have to weigh the evidence yourself. True Christianity will never force you to believe in it (unlike Islam), but there is enough evidence for any honest person to realize that there are eternal consequences in their decision.

[Frigidus]

True Christianity will never force you to believe in it (unlike Islam), but there is enough evidence for any honest person to realize that there are eternal consequences in their decision.

Wait, so is it no big deal that we don't believe in God or are there serious fucking consequences for not believing? I guess in the same sense I'm not forced to obey the law, but I'll get thrown in prison if I don't.