Just Watched 'Jesus Camp'

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Juddog,

You're joking, right?

You may consider it a joke now, but not for long. Whether you believe or not has no effect on what the truth is. Your "lack" of evidence is no excuse, nor shall you attempt to use it, because you shall learn the truth. The only question is when.

I've read Chrono's post and this hasn't made me venture into Christian any further than I have already, infact he's given my mouth a rather bad taste about the subject. Quoting various passages from a book I don't believe in does nothing for me and makes others like him look like fools.

Do you agree? If so why or why not?

If you hadn't noticed, I rarely quote directly from the Bible. Not there is anything wrong with it, but because I feel that if Bible verses would do some any good, then they would have already found it in the Bible. I also don't quote the Bible because I have never memeorized it word for word, and would have to keep breaking out my Bible software. I have never found that the value in Bible verses were contained in exact words, but in what those words contained.

But, you shall never get me to criticize anyone for quoting the Bible.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Juddog,

You're joking, right?

You may consider it a joke now, but not for long. Whether you believe or not has no effect on what the truth is. Your "lack" of evidence is no excuse, nor shall you attempt to use it, because you shall learn the truth. The only question is when.

I've read Chrono's post and this hasn't made me venture into Christian any further than I have already, infact he's given my mouth a rather bad taste about the subject. Quoting various passages from a book I don't believe in does nothing for me and makes others like him look like fools.

Do you agree? If so why or why not?

If you hadn't noticed, I rarely quote directly from the Bible. Not there is anything wrong with it, but because I feel that if Bible verses would do some any good, then they would have already found it in the Bible. I also don't quote the Bible because I have never memeorized it word for word, and would have to keep breaking out my Bible software. I have never found that the value in Bible verses were contained in exact words, but in what those words contained.

But, you shall never get me to criticize anyone for quoting the Bible.

How so? It's seem that too Chrono I should instantly become a Christian simply because he was able to spout out of few verses from the bible. I don't think so and if one was to simply convert from a couple passages rehearsed to them; maybe they should think about this more? No? Last year my college campus had a large Christian Fundamentalist group come to my campus and condem gays often citing passages from the bible, would you not criticize them?

 

[Seekermeister]

Tab,

How so? It's seem that too Chrono I should instantly become a Christian simply because he was able to spout out of few verses from the bible. I don't think so and if one was to simply convert from a couple passages rehearsed to them; maybe they should think about this more? No? Last year my college campus had a large Christian Fundamentalist group come to my campus and condem gays often citing passages from the bible, would you not criticize them?

I wasn't there, and did not hear what they said. The Bible can be used or misused, so I really can't respond. I shall say this, and I'm only using homosexuality as an example...God loves everyone, but He doesn't love everyone's behavior. Where the Bible condemns homosexuality, it does not necessarily condemn a homosexual. However, if anyone persists until their death, living as they please, without regard for God's law, then they have retained the condemnation that they have lived with. If a person is not willing to accept the "amnesty" offered by God, that is their business...until it encroaches on others.

 

[blackllotus]

I found the following page enlightening on the issue of homosexuality in the Bible:

An analysis of homosexuality in the Bible

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Jesus tapdancing Christ, you both are about as obtuse as Seekermeister is.

1.) Elfear: If you actually read and comprehended what I've said, you'd realize that NOWHERE did I state that God didn't exist. It's like talking to a fscking wall trying to get through to you. Now stop misrepresenting my words and listen up for once in your life: We do not have sufficient evidence to prove God's existence one way or another. The "evidence" you offer up is not evidence at all -- it's merely your personal annecdote.

2.) SuperFungus: No one has taken your dignity away ... are you really that thin-skinned? All I asked for was EVIDENCE that God existed. So far, all I've seen out of you is the same sort of anecdotal religious experience that means nothing in the context of proving God exists.

When you say we're all in the dark here - you don't know how right you are.

You seriously need to calm down. This is not a tirade against your mom or anything, it is (or was) a calm debate about evolution.

I comprehend what you're saying, that's why I stated "You seem to have found evidence that leads you to conclude that God does not exist or, at the very least, that God's existence is unprovable." You come off like you believe that there will never be sufficient evidence to prove that God exists. If I am wrong in that assumption than I apologize.

What kind of evidence are you expecting us to come up with anyway? Pictures of God? A mathematical proof that God does in fact exist? God's signature verifying that he did indeed inspire men to write the Bible (or other religious books)?

YES!! A signature as in the movie "CONTACT" found the base-11 computation of pii.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
blackllotus,

Yes. There are no valid, indirect ways of detecting the existence of a god. For example some people make the ridiculous claim that they "feel" god within themselves. This claim is ridiculous, not because it is impossible, but because there are many possible natural explanations for experiencing such feelings.

The truth is that those inner revelations are the only forms of proof that really matters. Yes, there is no end to the manners in which you might attempt to explain them away, but the only people that might impress, are you and those like you.

So based upon what you say, if I feel that I should kill someone else, and tell the judge that they were a bad person because I felt it, was I in the right or the wrong? I can tell you for certain the judge is not going to share your viewpoint. From what you say, you sound like a crazy person. I am not saying you are or aren't crazy, I am just saying the way you phrased your response is basically rely upon your inner beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, which defies all common sense and logic.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Tab,

How so? It's seem that too Chrono I should instantly become a Christian simply because he was able to spout out of few verses from the bible. I don't think so and if one was to simply convert from a couple passages rehearsed to them; maybe they should think about this more? No? Last year my college campus had a large Christian Fundamentalist group come to my campus and condem gays often citing passages from the bible, would you not criticize them?

I wasn't there, and did not hear what they said.

Ok so what if I write some new verses to the bible, and say that god spoke them to me. Will that get them automatically into the bible? What criteria does it take to get amendments to the bible, since obviously it hasn't kept up with modern times (you know, things like carbon dating and such, and to account evolution as a FACT, etc.)

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
This seems as good of a place as any, so as one whackjob to another, I will repeat a challenge that I have posted before, and not just on this forum. Since so many of you believe that evolution is fact, and shouldn't be questioned, I'm sure that you have a basis for this belief, other than that you were simply taught so. Since you must thoroughly understand the theory, you must also understand the "evidence" that supports this theory, from all of the related fields. If that is the case, then it should be a simple task for you to outline this evidence in a fashion that even a whacko can understand. No need to explain the theory, that is common knowledge...just the facts that make this more than a scientific dogma.

Here is your opportunity to demonstrate your brillance and enlighten the poor ignorant fundies like me.

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occuring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

 

[Seekermeister]

juddog,

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occuring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

The two posts prior to this go beyond the threadhold of what I believe is worthwhile to respond to. As far as any virus is concerned, it is not even considered to be alive. But were it alive, it still would prove nothing, because it is merely adapting, not evolving...did the virus become a germ? Did the virus become and insect? Did the virus become anything other than a virus?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
juddog,

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occuring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

The two posts prior to this go beyond the threadhold of what I believe is worthwhile to respond to. As far as any virus is concerned, it is not even considered to be alive. But were it alive, it still would prove nothing, because it is merely adapting, not evolving...did the virus become a germ? Did the virus become and insect? Did the virus become anything other than a virus?

You just admitted that the virus adapted, what do you think evolution is? Evolution is life forms adapting over time to conditions and passing those traits on to it's offspring. If a virus changes permanently and replicates itself, it has evolved. You just admitted that it adapted. If evolution didn't exist, then it would not have adapted and passed on those characteristics to another virus that would be it's offspring.

If a virus was not alive, then it would be inanimate; that is not the case, so clearly it is alive. Things in nature don't happen in big magical steps like the bible, life just does not work that way. Changes happen slowly over a very long period of time. Life forms can evolve without changing species. Once the change becomes pronounced enough, a new species will form. It has been documented to happen to a certain species of shrimp around the equator on the west and east of south america for instance. Over the course of enough time, this species split off into two separate species which can no longer mate with one another and produce fertile offspring.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Crono
Excellent post I am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.

The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.

Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.

Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph.

So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?

Microevolution is defined by wikipedia as "...the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level". This is directly observable in humans as well as animals and other types of organisms, and is undisputed in my personal opinion and does not contradict either the Bible nor scientific evidence.

According to Wikipedia, "Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species". This, as well as organic evolution, has never been observed. There is no empirical evidence to support macroevolution, but rather it requires a leap in faith. Every single "link" between species that has been found, and every type of biological classification is based on this faulty logic: if species A is similar to similar B, either genetically or morphologically, the two must have a common ancestor, or one evolved into the other. That is the entire foundation of macroevolution, and, like I have said and will continue to say until someone finally gets it, IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED! And that, my friends, is the sick beauty of the evolutionary "theory" ("religion" is a truer word for it): by definition, macroevolution takes millions of years, and no one lives anywhere near that long, and thus no one can observe it. That is why it takes faith to believe in macroevolution, and that is why it is a religion, and not science. I don't argue against science; you won't see me arguing against even the most forefront of research data in physics, chemistry, and biomedicine. I'm not claiming to be a geneticist or an evolutionary expert, but that does not mean I cannot recognize a religion disguised as science.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Juddog,

You're joking, right?

You may consider it a joke now, but not for long. Whether you believe or not has no effect on what the truth is. Your "lack" of evidence is no excuse, nor shall you attempt to use it, because you shall learn the truth. The only question is when.

I've read Chrono's post and this hasn't made me venture into Christian any further than I have already, infact he's given my mouth a rather bad taste about the subject. Quoting various passages from a book I don't believe in does nothing for me and makes others like him look like fools.

Do you agree? If so why or why not?

I don't mind so much if my words are judged as stupid or ignorant. But it does sadden me, though it doesn't surprise me, when people say that Bible verses leave a "bade taste". Salt flavors, and is necessary for life, but it does sting. So is the Truth to those who love darkness, and to those who wish to "do what is right in their own eyes". I would much rather be a fool in the sight of men than a fool in sight of God. I mean no personal offense towards you in that, but if you do take offense to that, ask yourself why.

The God of the universe, the one who reveals Himself through the Bible, is one of love, above all things. Don't reject His love for you out of selfish pride; it is the greatest thing a person can experience. It is the love that a good father has for a wayward child, despite all the offenses and rebellious actions that child has committed against him. I was that child, you are that child, and so is everyone else who is living in sin. But He is merciful and loving beyond compare, and if you just come to Him with all humility, and seek forgiveness, you will be saved. There is no other way a person can be saved, except by accepting gift of salvation that Christ provided by dying on the cross - He was the only one who could pay the debt of humanity, and He did it by demeaning Himself to human form, and dying for you.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
juddog,

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occuring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

The two posts prior to this go beyond the threadhold of what I believe is worthwhile to respond to. As far as any virus is concerned, it is not even considered to be alive. But were it alive, it still would prove nothing, because it is merely adapting, not evolving...did the virus become a germ? Did the virus become and insect? Did the virus become anything other than a virus?

Exactly. Even with organisms that develop and reproduce rapidly, and develop mutations or changes in genetic composition, we do not see nor have seen one species turn into another. By the way, I like and appreciate your posts Seekermeister; for the most part, they are close to or exactly what I would have said

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Crono
Excellent post I am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.

The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.

Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.

Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph.

So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?

Microevolution is defined by wikipedia as "...the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level". This is directly observable in humans as well as animals and other types of organisms, and is undisputed in my personal opinion and does not contradict either the Bible nor scientific evidence.

According to Wikipedia, "Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species". This, as well as organic evolution, has never been observed. There is no empirical evidence to support macroevolution, but rather it requires a leap in faith. Every single "link" between species that has been found, and every type of biological classification is based on this faulty logic: if species A is similar to similar B, either genetically or morphologically, the two must have a common ancestor, or one evolved into the other. That is the entire foundation of macroevolution, and, like I have said and will continue to say until someone finally gets it, IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED! And that, my friends, is the sick beauty of the evolutionary "theory" ("religion" is a truer word for it): by definition, macroevolution takes millions of years, and no one lives anywhere near that long, and thus no one can observe it. That is why it takes faith to believe in macroevolution, and that is why it is a religion, and not science. I don't argue against science; you won't see me arguing against even the most forefront of research data in physics, chemistry, and biomedicine. I'm not claiming to be a geneticist or an evolutionary expert, but that does not mean I cannot recognize a religion disguised as science.

The problem here is that you do not understand what science is. It has been observed over a period of years where one species splits off into two. So it is not a leap of faith, it is a logical conclusion. You are trying to flavor the data with your faith to make it understandable to your way of thought, and in so doing, are polluting the facts of the matter.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
juddog,

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occuring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

The two posts prior to this go beyond the threadhold of what I believe is worthwhile to respond to. As far as any virus is concerned, it is not even considered to be alive. But were it alive, it still would prove nothing, because it is merely adapting, not evolving...did the virus become a germ? Did the virus become and insect? Did the virus become anything other than a virus?

Exactly. Even with organisms that develop and reproduce rapidly, and develop mutations or changes in genetic composition, we do not see nor have seen one species turn into another. By the way, I like and appreciate your posts Seekermeister; for the most part, they are close to or exactly what I would have said

I think the quote that applies to you, in the immortal words of Charles Darwin:

"It is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

It is very sad that people like you are trying to pollute science by mixing your ideas of faith into it. You don't even understand the very basics of science, yet here you are trying to take on something that has been worked out over a hundred years by thousands of people, somehow thinking that you are right because you read a little blip somewhere and were misinformed about the nature of the research conducted.

Gravity is a theory. Why not try and disprove that to me as well? Do you even know how a theory is formed, and what a scientific theory even means?

 

[Seekermeister]

juddog,

I think the quote that applies to you, in the immortal words of Charles Darwin:

"It is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

It is very sad that people like you are trying to pollute science by mixing your ideas of faith into it. You don't even understand the very basics of science, yet here you are trying to take on something that has been worked out over a hundred years by thousands of people, somehow thinking that you are right because you read a little blip somewhere and were misinformed about the nature of the research conducted.

Gravity is a theory. Why not try and disprove that to me as well? Do you even know how a theory is formed, and what a scientific theory even means?

It is ironic that you would quote Darwin, because even he renounced evolution before he died. The only polluting of science comes from those such as yourself, who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. As far as your particular responses since my last post, I see no point in responding, because that would be rehashing old ground already covered.

EDIT: From what I could quickly Google, Darwin's renunciation is questionable. But, it is equally ironic that you would refer to Darwin as immortal, because if he were correct, immortality would be an empty concept.

 

[Elfear]

Juddog - You are correct that evolution is fact in its loose definition of "any process of formation or growth". That certain species have been observed to change on a small scale, like a bird's feathers changing colors, has been shown in a variety of lab experiments. The theory of evolution sees those facts and attempts to explain them in a way that corresponds with current data.

If I understand correctly, the part that some people have a problem with is the theory that all life is derived from a common ancestor or that a few cells evolved into a bacteria into a fish into an amphibian etc. That is the part that is not fact but one explanation for describing how life on earth came to be. That there are equally plausible explanations for how life came to be seems to be lost on those who tout evolution as the only answer.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
For example, when SETI seeks to hear voices from beyond the stars, that's "science," but when religous people claim they hear God speaking to them from Heaven, that's "whack job"-ish.

You're confusing two concepts. It is not unscientific to look for alien species, however it is unscientific to claim that they exist.

How often do you look for things that you think don't exist?

I look for God (or any god) all of the time.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
juddog,

For proof, all you have to do is look at the AIDS virus. It has changed forms multiple times. If you don't believe it exists, go to an AIDS support meeting and meet someone that has it. There is your proof of evolution as a FACT. The theory of evolution outlines the mechanism as a means to explain why the evolution occurs. Evolution is two-fold, you have the FACT of it occurring (which is observable under lab conditions), and there is the theory portion which attempts to find the exact mechanisms of how it occurs).

The two posts prior to this go beyond the threadhold of what I believe is worthwhile to respond to. As far as any virus is concerned, it is not even considered to be alive. But were it alive, it still would prove nothing, because it is merely adapting, not evolving...did the virus become a germ? Did the virus become and insect? Did the virus become anything other than a virus?

Exactly. Even with organisms that develop and reproduce rapidly, and develop mutations or changes in genetic composition, we do not see nor have seen one species turn into another. By the way, I like and appreciate your posts Seekermeister; for the most part, they are close to or exactly what I would have said

I think the quote that applies to you, in the immortal words of Charles Darwin:

"It is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

It is very sad that people like you are trying to pollute science by mixing your ideas of faith into it. You don't even understand the very basics of science, yet here you are trying to take on something that has been worked out over a hundred years by thousands of people, somehow thinking that you are right because you read a little blip somewhere and were misinformed about the nature of the research conducted.

I'm not trying to pollute science with faith, I am stating that evolution is a religion mixed with science. If I don't understand the basics of science, then please point out to me what these basics are, so I may brush up on them. I don't mind you criticizing my arguments or questioning my knowledge, but at least do so in a constructive manner. Just because thousands of people believe in evolution does not make it right. And of course Darwin would question the knowledge of his opponents. Just because he used such a tactic does not mean that he was smarter or wiser then those he insulted.

Gravity is a theory. Why not try and disprove that to me as well? Do you even know how a theory is formed, and what a scientific theory even means?

Gravitational theory isn't perfect, and there is a lot that we do not know about gravity. But while the theory may be incomplete or need revision (no scientific theory is perfect), I do not doubt that the force that we call gravity exists, because it is an observable phenomenon. I'm not saying evolution isn't true because it is a theory, I'm saying it is a poor theory that is really a religion because it requires faith without real, empirical evidence. I'm a fairly rational person. Just because I believe that God created the universe, as well as all life, doesn't automatically mean I am an ignorant hick living in Texas (no offense Texans - you have many intelligent people living there). What is funny is that if I were a scientist, I would be attacked less if I questioned the existence of gravity than if questioned evolution. Why? Most hardcore evolutionists defend it religiously, and won't hear of it being wrong, while real scientific theories are always subject to question. That''s the way science works.

 

[Seekermeister]

Poulsonator,

I look for God (or any god) all of the time.

This would be a good thing, except for the parenthetical portion of your sentence. Most people that look for God long enough will find one, but not necessarily the true God. Any other god is worse than none at all.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Poulsonator,

I look for God (or any god) all of the time.

This would be a good thing, except for the parenthetical portion of your sentence. Most people that look for God long enough will find one, but not necessarily the true God. Any other god is worse than none at all.

I haven't found this "true God" that you are so sure exists, either. I don't get how you can say "any other god is worse than none at all", when more people on this planet believe in a different god than you (I'm assuming you're a Christian). How are they worse off than you?

 

[Seekermeister]

Poulsonator,

I haven't found this "true God" that you are so sure exists, either. I don't get how you can say "any other god is worse than none at all", when more people on this planet believe in a different god than you (I'm assuming you're a Christian). How are they worse off than you?

I never said or thought that these people were any worse than myself. I spoke of their beliefs, not themselves. However, it is a person's beliefs that will ultimately determine their fate, and those who do not end up in the arms of the true God, will then be much worse than those who do. Many people think that religion is simply a matter of guiding or controlling people's behavior, thus all religions being "equal", but this is far from the truth.

 

[Poulsonator]

All religions are equal as they all rely on one thing...faith. Which makes perfect sense because there is no proof that there is a God.

Many people think that religion is simply a matter of controlling people because it is. It's also a way to make ridiculous sums of money, and it's a way to lazily explain things that you don't understand. Hmmm...why are there so many religions again?

I've survived 7 (yes, that number is correct) heart surgeries, along with a bout of spinal meningitis and some other maladies that really kicked my ass. I'm 32. There's no answer for it as that's just the way I was born. Now, if I'm supposed to take the religious side of this and say all of this was just a test, and that this test will "ultimately determine" my fate, well He can take that test and put it up His ass.

What really turns me off of the idea of an all-loving supreme being up in the sky that really cares about us is for the simple fact that this supreme being won't come down here to help solve any of our problems. How many people have to die daily in Africa by preventable diseases? How about the kids? How about the innocents dying in Iraq? Are you seriously telling me to believe in an all-loving, peaceful God when I can turn on the TV and see nothing but death, destruction, rape, etc.? This omnipotent God could stop all of the pain and suffering by waving his hand (or whatever), but he would rather stand by and watch as innocent children die horrible deaths. Give me a break.

 

[Seekermeister]

Poulsonator,

I'm not telling you to believe anything. That would be quite futile, because it is obvious that you have already decided what you will believe. Taken individually, there are answers to most of your "questions", but it would require an ear to hear...which you do not have.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Poulsonator,

I'm not telling you to believe anything. That would be quite futile, because it is obvious that you have already decided what you will believe. Taken individually, there are answers to most of your "questions", but it would require an ear to hear...which you do not have.

Please tell me, divine interpreter, what you did do to get your God ears?

Like the typical religious person, you danced around my questions. But if God can't answer them, why should I expect a mere mortal like yourself to be able to answer them?

As far as your last sentence, blow me. You don't know me and you don't know about my ears. Although you're quick to pass judgment like the typical, hypocritical Christian. Maybe my beliefs would change if I didn't get the same bullsh1t, stock response. I'm always up for discussion and am always looking for answers. Like science, I can change based on evidence. Unfortunately, the only thing religion has been able to say is the typical "there are answers, but you can't hear them". It's funny how NO ONE has the answers, yet every religious person says they exist. Faith! Not common sense, but faith!