Interesting indeed

[jewpinthethird]

It does have a point. But to me, it is nothing more than Chrisitian Propagada. I wouldnt say that Evil is the absence of God, but the absence of Love. By saying it is the absence of God, you are saying that before the belief of one God, the whole world was Evil. Which is not true.

More people have been killed in the name of Christ than in any war. During the Dark-Ages, it was religion that ruled the European world.

I believe that Religion is the fuel for he Human ego. Humans want to believe that there is more to their life than just reproduction. God is like that of a mother to a small child. No matter how much trouble a child gets into, there will always be a parent there to save them and love them. Humans need this comfort. God is also the explaination for all the things that man could not understand at the time (over 2000 years ago).

But just because I believe that, doesnt make it right. But according to Christianity, I am going to hell. It doesnt matter how good a person I was. And if this is true, then God is a pretty f*cked up being.

[Anticrombie0909]

But just because I believe that, doesnt make it right. But according to Christianity, I am going to hell. It doesnt matter how good a person I was. And if this is true, then God is a pretty f*cked up being.

[ultimategamer]

Ok, i'll try to make this post short, cause i would have posted several long and meaningful posts but every time i tried i ended up losing it.

That email about that college professor was really interesting, and is especially vital to any debate trying to prove the existance of God. I, myself, am agnostic. But that isn't whats important. Heres another key, if paradoxial, statement against God that will make anyone's brain churn for atleast a few minutes. This is something my friend told me.

If God is real, he is omnipotent.
If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
If God can do anything, (this is the important part) then can he create an object so massive and dense, that not even he can move it? If he can, then he cannot do everything. If he does, than he can't do everything. Its a lose-lose situation for Him.

Also, according to that email, evil is the absense of God. But how can this possibly be when God is suppose to be everywhere? If God is not everywhere, He is not "perfect" as things will slip by him or what not. Thus, if evil is indeed the absense of God, God must be imperfect.

[RobbyZero]

This is how it goes down.

If you believe in the whole bible jesus and blablabla story then good for you.

If your like me and don't or just dont know what to believe cause it all sounds so phony and a bunch of bullshit then good for us.

[jewpinthethird]

Ok, i'll try to make this post short, cause i would have posted several long and meaningful posts but every time i tried i ended up losing it.

That email about that college professor was really interesting, and is especially vital to any debate trying to prove the existance of God. I, myself, am agnostic. But that isn't whats important. Heres another key, if paradoxial, statement against God that will make anyone's brain churn for atleast a few minutes. This is something my friend told me.

If God is real, he is omnipotent.
If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
If God can do anything, (this is the important part) then can he create an object so massive and dense, that not even he can move it? If he can, then he cannot do everything. If he does, than he can't do everything. Its a lose-lose situation for Him.

Also, according to that email, evil is the absense of God. But how can this possibly be when God is suppose to be everywhere? If God is not everywhere, He is not "perfect" as things will slip by him or what not. Thus, if evil is indeed the absense of God, God must be imperfect.

Religion isnt perfect. And neither is science. Therefore, neither is right. But, maybe a mixer of the two is. But both sides are too are too arrogant to accept the other.

On the other hand, you have the religious countries of the Middle East fighting like a bunch of ninnies over their religious differences with technology invented/discovered by scientists (nukes, bio warfare etc.). Maybe it is this, the perfect combination of Religion and Science, that results in the end of the world. Maybe that is how it is destined to be.

[Anonymous]

But just because I believe that, doesnt make it right. But according to Christianity, I am going to hell. It doesnt matter how good a person I was. And if this is true, then God is a pretty f*cked up being.

if you did believe in God, would you want to believe in a God that controlled your thoughts and forced you to believe in what he said? if the God i believe in is actually existant, then thats not the type of being he is. he gives us a choice... to choose him or not to. what kind of God would force his subjects to worship him? not an omipotent, omnibenevolent etc. God, i would say.

More people have been killed in the name of Christ than in any war. During the Dark-Ages, it was religion that ruled the European world.

i'd like to apologize for the crusades. they were stupid and went against what true christianity stands for. i'm sorry.

If God is real, he is omnipotent.
If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
If God can do anything, (this is the important part) then can he create an object so massive and dense, that not even he can move it? If he can, then he cannot do everything. If he does, than he can't do everything. Its a lose-lose situation for Him.

that is obviously a paradox that doesnt seem solvable. but 1. i dont see how that is really all that relevant and 2. if the God i believe in exists, then he is obviously (as stated by several people already) not confined by the laws we know as humans, such as density and mass. problem solved.

Religion isnt perfect. And neither is science. Therefore, neither is right. But, maybe a mixer of the two is. But both sides are too are too arrogant to accept the other.

obviously true. if i were to blindly say "my religion is completely flawless" then i would have an extremely hard time proving it without using arguments of faith, which are pivotal in religion, and oftentimes in science (big bang, etc).

On the other hand, you have the religious countries of the Middle East fighting like a bunch of ninnies over their religious differences with technology invented/discovered by scientists (nukes, bio warfare etc.). Maybe it is this, the perfect combination of Religion and Science, that results in the end of the world. Maybe that is how it is destined to be.

read the book of revelation in the bible. thats pretty much right... though your version is way simpler.

heres a question for yall:

if the bible is so flawed, why is it so widely used by nonchristian historians, and why have so many of the prophesies it contains come true/ continue to come true?

[Falcon]

and by "guest" i meant falcon.

[ultimategamer]

if the bible is so flawed, why is it so widely used by nonchristian historians, and why have so many of the prophesies it contains come true/ continue to come true?

But you see, the bible IS flawed. Many things in it just don't make sense. Lets look at the basic most story of Adam and Eve. If they are the 2 first humans, and all human life comes from them (thats my understanding of it), how can we as a species surpass genetic thinning (or whatever term is used) caused by inbreeding? Royalty, for example, has proven countless times in the past that inbreeding causes...special children to be born. Should we all ride the short bus to school then, so to speak, and die out as a species?

Also, with the crusades, in the bible, God has had many important religious figures kill pagan men, enslave the children, and rape the women. How is this different from the crusades? In essense, its not.

Also, for these prophesies, name RECENT (within lets say 10-50 years) that are prophesized in the bible. Enlighten me. Historians use them simply because they must use every single piece of evidence they can to reconstruct our and the worlds history. When historians unearth, lets say, a mesopotamian tablet of a story, it doesn't matter whether or not they think its a fiction or non fiction, they must use it to the best of their abilities to help reconstruct the way things were.

[kineom34]

Like ultimategamer said, it's a relic that has survived for wuite a long time, and is widely available to all.
Unfortunately, it contradicts itself, so I"ve read. But I haven't come across any of this stuff. Most of the contradiction that I've come across comes in the form of the followers who misquote. :P

[altairian]

"Prophecy" is generally a bunch of crap. All a prophecy is, is ia general statement about something that could happen any time in the future.
Probably the best example of this is the writing of Nostradamus (it was Nostradamus right? I'm bad with names... ). He wrote a lot of "prophecies" by making general statements about conflict and such, so then in hindsight we can go "OMG NOSTRADAMUS SO PREDICTED THAT WHEN HE SAID ____ ". The best example of this would be the WTC attack in 2k1. Nostradamus had some writing about 2 towers burning, or something along those lines (sorry I'm too lazy to go find the actual passage) and after the incident people realized how similar that passage was to the incident.
But prophecies never give a time frame, or really any specifics for that matter either. So, IMO, they're complete bull. Anyone can write prophecy if they want to. All you have to do is make some general statement about any sort of possible occurence and make it sound good, and you have yourself a prophecy.

[kineom34]

It was Nostradamus. You didn't by chance see the History channel's show today on him? They talked about that, and Hister. Not hitler, but Hister. That's supposedly the name used to mean Hitler that Nostradamus used.

[ultimategamer]

this is for kineom and everyone else who wonders:

http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm

here is a rather interesting site that contains a LOT of biblical contradictions. Granted, a few on such a work would be understandable, but this pretty much shows more contradictions than you can shake a stick at.

[jewpinthethird]

Hah, I just saw that History Channel special.

Quote:

More people have been killed in the name of Christ than in any war. During the Dark-Ages, it was religion that ruled the European world.

i'd like to apologize for the crusades. they were stupid and went against what true christianity stands for. i'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

if the God i believe in is actually existant, then thats not the type of being he is. he gives us a choice... to choose him or not to. what kind of God would force his subjects to worship him? not an omipotent, omnibenevolent etc. God, i would say.

I am a good person. I am more "Christian" than most of the christians I know. I give to charity, I help those in need, I treat others as I would like to be treated etc. But because I do not believe in the grand entity known as "God", I am automatically going to hell. I could live the life of a saint, but according the Bible, I am a sinner for not believing in God. And if this is true, God has bad judgement. And a God with bad judgement is no God at all.

[Anticrombie0909]

But you see, the bible IS flawed. Many things in it just don't make sense. Lets look at the basic most story of Adam and Eve. If they are the 2 first humans, and all human life comes from them (thats my understanding of it), how can we as a species surpass genetic thinning (or whatever term is used) caused by inbreeding? Royalty, for example, has proven countless times in the past that inbreeding causes...special children to be born. Should we all ride the short bus to school then, so to speak, and die out as a species?

One thing I've always wondered about. Adam and Eve were the first two humans. They had Cain and Abel. Where the HELL did the next generation come from?

There's probably a logical explanation, but I'll just choose to say 'ew' and leave it at that.

[makaveli121212]

to all who dont go to church, the old testament is a group of stories...much like fables, they are not meant to be taken literally, but to teach a lesson...many of the things may have taken place in some form , but not in the extent the bible makes it to be

ie Noahs arc
there was a massive flood, and noah did gather two of the animals...well the ones he could find nearby, and the flood didnt cover the whole earth, just his region...it happened but not always ot the extent the bible says