Supposing He Doesn't Exist

2007-05-18 [DanClark]: A religious person would say that the proof is staring at you in the mirror. Philosophy can debate the existance of God, but they can't explain why everything exists.

2007-05-20 [thoughtfox]: Actually, it can - big bang theory, evolution, etc. As Laplace commented about God, "I have no need for that hypothesis." I'm quite aware of what religious people say - I've seen a number of religious people struggle in my Philosophy class because they're unable to challenge their own beliefs. I tried to present this question to one of them to help them with a test, and she answered, "but he does exist." She couldn't conceive a world without God, but she had little justification for her belief. I'll present more arguments as I go through my Philosophy material, I'm just caught up with my other subjects right now.

2007-05-21 [iippo]: Has anyone actually ever explained in a non-religious way where matter came from? *not to debate but asking out of curiosity* Sure, you can say "big bang" but there had to be something to "bang" first, right (if I understand correctly, the big bang explains that everything in the universe was condensed into one place and then exploded outwards)?

2007-05-21 [thoughtfox]: I'm sure people have, although I myself have not come across such theories myself as yet. Will look into that when I get the time. One thing the atheist could argue is that it's just always been there - that there was no creation, and that there will be no end: matter is, has been for infinity, and will continue so.

2007-07-29 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: An athiest can say that, yes, but it lacks logic. Time is relative and difficult to explain, but matter can not have existed for infinity. We have scientific proof of Earth's toddler years - the primordial sea life emerged from. But what came before that? And what act forced life into existence?

2007-07-30 [thoughtfox]: The problem I have with creation arguments is always, what created the creator? So I could give you that before earth's toddler years was just pieces of matter floating about that collected into planets, such as the earth. You could ask what came before that, and before that, and before that, and you're again going back to infinity.

And if we assume that God can cause Himself, why can't the universe?

2007-07-30 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Now you enter a realm of things humans don't have the capacity to understand. We experience time as a linear entity - beginnning at a certain point and ending at a certain point - but even science questions that. We, as humans with limited intelligence, are not meant to understand all there is to life and time and the universe. We like to think we know everything, but we've hardly scratched the surface.

2007-08-01 [thoughtfox]: I'm not saying we know everything, and even if we will never understand everything, we ought to do everything to get as close as possible, no? We can't just assume God fills the gaps.

Granted, time travel could be possible. It could still be that the universe creates itself. The matter of time is but one issue, but causation quite another. It could be that through time-travel, the universe perpetuated itself.
The logical flaw is, if we assume that God could create itself , why could it not be that the universe, as it stands, in a chaotic and unconscious form as it may appear as far as we know, created itself?

2007-08-01 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: We ought to try to learn as much as possible, but humans have a habit of assuming we know more than we do. If current science cannot measure and explain something, we say it does not exist, but this is folly. Current science 50 years ago would have said that a computer that fits in the palm of your hand would be impossible, but we know today that it is not. In time, all we know of the world could change. All our assumptions undermined, all our "undeniable" scientific knowledge made obsolete.

And why do we require solid, tangible, measurable proof of forces larger than ourselves? Is it driven by an innate fear that no such force exists? Science and logic are great, we rely on them far too much. There is proof, even if there is no explanation.

The universe could not have gone back and perpetuated itself. If that is so, there would have been no time to go back to. Let us forget the matter of how the universe itself came to be, for as it is now, we can't understand it, but consider instead how mindless, chaotic matter came together in perfect harmony to create solar systems, stars, planets, the primordial sea of toddler Earth, the first life forms, the exponentially more complex life that grew from the unicellular beings. No coincidence of events could have perpetuated such events and led to the extremely complex, and flawed but amazing life forms that exist today.

2007-08-02 [thoughtfox]: You're attributing more to Science than it actually is. The real scientific position on God is agnostic - we just don't know. Anyone who tells you otherwise is going beyond the bounds of it.

And you've hit the hammer on the head: science and logic are great. They're the best we've got. I'm not saying science is flawless, but as a method, it provides information that is reliable and controllable. Through science, we've established everything in our civilisation. It's something testable and repeatable: it shouldn't matter where or who you are, you would be able to repeat a scientific experiment. No other source of knowledge can do that reliably. Even common-sense fails us - think about Galileo's experiment. It makes common sense that a cannon ball and an egg should fall at different rates, no?

As for your appeal to the design argument, while I will concede that the universe is in a Goldilocks position, to say it must be the product of intelligent design isn't necessarily true. If we consider the example of the watch on the heath, granted, one wouldn't believe that it just came to be by natural erosion. But watches haven't reached their complexity just by intelligent design either. It all started with sundials, noting the changing positions of shadows. Primitive, but effective. Then the vibrations of pendulums that could be kept constant. That's where we find gears from. Then springs came into the picture. It wasn't just an intelligent designer making our watch, it was a slow and chaotic process: inventions come about when someone tries something different, even though it might not work. The lightbulb wasn't just the product of intelligent design. It was the product of 900 attempts that didn't produce lightbulbs.
So assuming that chaos and gradual processes of change couldn't possibly account for the universe isn't completely true. Moreover, what if it's not that everything has come to fit so perfectly, but that things came to fit into the situations at play already? Planets came into a perfect range for orbiting as opposed to colliding by a gradual balancing of forces and explosions, for example.
I agree that evolution doesn't give a satisfying account for the diversity of life, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a watchmaker behind it.
And surely there seems to be an inconsistency between a perfect creator and flawed life-forms?

2007-08-23 [Nazarath.93]: If we were to prove the big bang theory right, and lets say there is some futuristic technology that proves god is non existent (Yes an impossibility I know) and the proof is evident to anyone who looks at it. Under this situation almost all of the largely devout people would still believe in god, even though they knew he was wrong. Not because they are Pragmatists, but because their subjective mind will cling on to their long held beliefs and thoughts, and to them God will still be real, because their subjective mind will almost always overrule their rational mind. This is a good example of this kind of situation if anyone is interested: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/rituals/pact/Egan-mystery.html
Just thought I would place that in the conversation, anyways I must applaud this wiki, very nice work thoughtfox.

2007-08-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Why do so many people insist on separating God and science? To some, the big bang and evolution disprove God, but why can't they be tools of God? And to Nazarath - ironic name, by the way - what if there is some futuristic technology that proves God exists? Will then the athiests tenaciously hold on to their beliefs?

2007-08-23 [Nazarath.93]: Because the bible, the foundation on which god is made into a character, has no evidence of evolution and science. It was written in a time when people had no knowledge of these things, so one disproves the other. I personally think the idea of god has changed so much over the ages, he doesnt match the idea of the god that is originally in the bible. People try to suit their Deity to their needs, and they try to incorporate that these sciences, that are proven, are a work of the god that made no mention of them in the very book that founds his entire existence.
And how is my name Ironic, if I may ask?

2007-08-24 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: So why can't our interpretation of the Bible change? They didn't have science back then, no technology. They had no explanation for where life came from. The Bible is founded on Truth - but not every word in the Bible is fact. Some people just can't get their minds around that - not every parable is true. But everything in the Bible has purpose. Teaches a lesson. And most of what is in the New Testament was not written to be part of a compilation of writings - they were written by certain people to certain groups for specific purposes at certain times. Therefore not every word would be applicable to our current times. Should the Bible - written thousands of years ago - be full of scientific explanations? Should it give technological, scientific evidence? Then how would the people back then understand? You can't change a Deity to fit your personal needs. God doesn't change for you. We must change our perceptions for Him. Interperet the Bible, find the Truth behind the words. Look deeper than face value. The Bible doesn't found God's entire existence. Long before the Hebrew Scriptures were bound together, long before the Church decided which scripture to include in the Bible - there were believers.

Nazarath, Nazareth - Your name makes me think of Jesus, so it's ironic to me.

2007-08-24 [Nazarath.93]: oh yeah, my name is actually and offshoot of the word, thats how I came up with it.
the bible: a two-thousand year psychodrama Try reading that. It explains the flaws of the bible.
And your insisting that we can change the bible, but we cant change god? My dear, God IS the bible. Every word in the Bible makes up god, without the bible there is no god. Therefore no Christianity, and there was a bible back before the Hebrew scriptures, it was transferred from person to person Orally. Then the scriptures were written, and satan only knows how much of the scriptures changed during the passing!
And yes, the Bible is an answer to all the questions of creation. Sure, it doesnt need to explain things that we have proven today. But in lieu of that, they told lies! things that are proven wrong today! Even more so, stolen lies from other religions!
Im sorry but the bible is seeming a little suspicious to me.

2007-08-24 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Oh yeah, I'm going to trust an Elftown Wiki to have factual information. Of course the Bible has flaws. It was written by people!! "Every word in the Bible makes up God..."?? Makes up...okay, then. Jesus had the Hebrew Scriptures but no New Testament, therefore no Bible when he started Christianity - back then The Way. So, you're wrong. Christianity began, the Church was formed, and the Church put together the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures along with what would become the New Testament. The Bible as we know it is both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It was put together and packaged *after* the Church began. And the Church, historically corrupt back then, picked and chose which writings to include in the Bible. People. People are fallible. God's existence does not rely on people. They didn't tell lies, they told stories to explain the things they couldn't. The Bible is not all fact. It is all Truth. I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand that, but that's the way it is. Even some Catholics think the Bible is 100% fact - they are sadly mistaken and misinformed. They are typically the crazy - sorry, but they are a little crazy - zealots who persecute and hate because they think the Bible tells them to.

2007-08-24 [iippo]: And several people have had deeply religious experiences and experienced the presence of God having little or no experiences of the Bible. God does not only speak to the people who read the Bible, albeit they are better at recognising when he does so. Saying that the Bible makes up God is the same as saying that the things I write in Elftown make up me. It's only a fraction. The world around you also "makes up" God.

2007-08-24 [Nazarath.93]: They call them deeply religious experiences, when any realist or someone with logic would quickly apply them to any uncommon occurrence. Then they go to the bible after that because its the most owned and purchased book in history, and there is hardly a person in the world today that hasnt heard of Christianity. What any person who has a "Religious Experience" does is interpret an event wrong and then they go to the first religion they know about, and then I see them on the 700 club, or any random public access christian show.
And Jesus wasnt a christian, he was a Jew. Some guy named Abraham got a crazy Idea of monotheism and Jesus was raised believing in that one god, and that he was his son. So knowing the bible is corrupt, and wrong you still follow god? And you say you dont personalize your Deity?
Well I call that personalization really, which is a good thing in my opinion. I do respect the christians who dont follow the bible, at least fully, and look at god as a loving and caring guy. I respect your veiws, but the bible (however flawed it may be) has produced groups like the Westboro baptists.
But dont you think you could instead follow a different god? Since the bible was written by people, could you write your own god? Much like they did? Its just a god creating system, that all theistic religions have done, they made up their gods and had their stories. And today Christianity follows every word of the bible, if not they you are not a Christian, you just have similar views, and youve personalized their god. Half the people with those "religious experiences" only call them god's doing because they know of Christianity, and how prevalent it is, if Odinism was as prevalent then they would attribute their experiences to Odin. See my point?
The church today comes from the corrupt church back then, and now thats what the church is, and the church says if you do not go to it and follow its word then your not a member of the church therefore not a Christian. But as ive said, its good to have your different views and acknowledgment that the bible was written by man, and is flawed, I respect your views and I think all christians should be that way.

2007-08-25 [iippo]: The Bible has been edited by people - it's not everything that God has to say to us, that is why it's confusing. Several books have been left out, several passages from the books in there have been left out... But that does not mean that God is flawed like that. Otherwise it'd be like this:
GOD: "Love all people, hate is wrong."
People: "Did you hear that, God said 'all people, hate!' We must hate everyone now!"
It's not God's fault that people got it wrong. What he can do (and has done) is correct the message by continuing to talk to people.
And some religious experiences can't be interpreted the wrong way. When a 14-year-old boy, who has very little knowledge of Christianity and is spiritually confused, sees two glorious beings come from the sky and the other one says "this is my son, Jesus. Hear him" there is no room for interpretation.
The church today comes from the corrupt church back then
Most churches do, yes.

2007-08-25 [Nazarath.93]: Remember: your talking to one of the most god skeptical person to ever live. I dont believe in any deity so my natural instinct is to assume that when you say "God said this" I see it as "Some kook who says God said this"
Anyways, I must apologize. Ive been trying to not argue online, especially about religion. The way I see it debating online, especially about religion, is like racing in the mentally challenged olympics, if you win, your still mentally challenged. So ive been remiss about that, I just came here to state an opinion of mine. But if you want to talk about them more please feel free to message me.

2007-08-25 [iippo]: I apologise too, the net is indeed a bad place to discuss issues of religion or faith - it's better to just agree to disagree and keep the mutual respect of each others' opinions :) But thank you for the insightful chat ^^ And sorry to the owner of the wiki if this got off topic.

2007-08-25 [Nazarath.93]: yeah, especially with opposing veiws like satanism and Christianity. the two will never be able to agree, so talking about it around eachother is rather pointless.

2007-08-25 [The 5 Elements]: i just got one question...if you dont believe in the diety how can you argue against it?

2007-08-26 [Nazarath.93]: if you must know I have two reasons.
Reason 1. is because of all the evidence against God etc Im sure youve heard that before.

Reason 2. Because if I dont argue against it, then how can I learn if im right or wrong?

2007-08-27 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Several points to address -

First, you think that because some aspects in the Bible were borrowed from other religions, that makes them untrue? For example, the name Lucifer. That is a name humans gave him. Besides, the entire story of Lucifer's fall is a parallel to the fall of humanity. God created us, gave us life and free will, we can choose to turn away from him, but we will forever be separated from him if we do. When they wrote the story of Lucifer in the Bible, they could have used the name because people would have known what it meant. It would have been a common element and something for people to relate to.

No, it's not wrong to follow God knowing the Bible is corrupt. I do not worship idols. The Bible - though it's message is holy - was created by humans, therefore it is bound to be corrupt. I worship God, not a book. There is a BIG difference. The Bible is a tool of God - it is not God, nor did it create God.

Of course the Church is corrupt! Are you blind? What institution run by man is not corrupt? That's why I don't belong to any church. Sometimes I may attend a mass, but I do not affiliate myself with Catholocism. But that doesn't make me any less of a believer in God's eyes. Man gave names to faith. God knows my heart, and if I refuse to be a part of a corrupt, ridiculous party driven by mob mentality, that doesn't change my faith in Him.

What's wrong with debating on the Internet? Yes, I apologize if I get too passionate about something while debating, but that's the same with any form of communication I choose. The Internet brings people together. It is a vast, powerful form of communication. And with debates such as these, the point is not to win. You can't win this fight. We could, after all, both be wrong. But everyone, on the Internet or in person, has a right to state their beliefs and defend them.

If you think about it, Satanism and Christianity - in their true forms - are simply two aspects of one religion. In order to work, both must accept and believe in both Satan and God. But they differ in which they follow.

You can NEVER learn if you're right or wrong until you die. That's it. We can't know. I could be wrong, you could be right. Or I could be right, and you wrong. Or, we both could be wrong. Humans lack the capability to ever comprehend the Truth, but we can try. We can have faith, and believe in something greater than ourselves. If I'm wrong, then that's going to be pretty embarassing. But I have chosen my faith. I have seen all I need to believe, and this will not alter. When I debate, I defend my faith. If you want to learn - as best you can - if you're right or wrong, spend more time considering the other person's opinion, instead of instantly telling them they're wrong. There's nothing wrong with exploring faith - or the lack thereof.

2007-08-27 [Nazarath.93]: Im not going to bother responding to all of that, just understand that satanism and christianity are 2 different religions. Satanism has NOTHING to do with christianity. go to Churchofsatan.com for more reference, or read the satanic bible.

2007-08-27 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Are you Satanic? Or...a Satanistic...wow I've never actually had to say that word. Regardless, I think followers of Satanism - those poser kids (emos, "goths") - who say there is no God and they are Satantic are hilarious. Because they're ignorant. There is no Satan without God. That's what I was saying. God - Satan. Equality rules. Life is by nature symetrical.

Thanks for the info - I readily and happily admit I know little about Satanism - but I don't feel like ... dirtying myself is the best way to put it ... by reading that bible. I love learning about religions - Hinduism and Buddhism mostly - but only those based on love. Anything else is in my eyes humanity's sad attempt to spread hate. Misery loves company. But she can't have mine.

2007-08-27 [Nazarath.93]: My main quarrel with debating online, or anywhere is it gets nowhere. Unless you have sheepishly followed a herd into a religion and know nothing about it, then you hear someone proving you wrong and talking about another religion more appealing, but its wrong to convert. And since im not trying to convert, and you will never believe any of my arguments, tell me the point of simply talking about it until people get frustrated? The last paragraph you wrote hit the nail on the head, and also I did listen to your opinions, I enjoy doing so thats how I learn, but sometimes the only way to get the best of people's opinions out of them is trying to prove them wrong. But ive heard your argument a thousand times, and im sure I will another thousand times, thats why I hate debating online.

2007-08-28 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: True, my argument may seem redundant to you - as yours is to me - but why silence ourselves? I just feel that no matter what you believe, you should stick up for it. Otherwise your faith - whether in God or self - is pointless. No, not pointless. It doesn't matter...well it does, but not to the world. I'm not saying go out and try to convert, but if your beliefs are challenged, defend them. Even if it is redundant or silly.

But I do admit I debate too much. Not just about religion. In tenth grade History class I spent an hour debating half the class alone. And I won. Because I'm hardcore like that :P Just kidding. Really, I just feel that if I don't defend my beliefs, I admit in some way to the rest of the world that they don't mean anything.

I do get what you're saying, though. Tell someone they're wrong and you'll learn what they really believe - and if that belief is strong at all.

2007-08-28 [Nazarath.93]: Well satanism is a lifestyle, that fills the void in one's life called "Religion" there is no need to defend it to people who do not know of it. There are hundreds of satanists that will never say they are satanists because it may harm them. The satanic religion cannot be harmed because it is a institution of the self, so long as there is one satanist then the satanic message is defended. So standing up for satanism isnt necessary, since its a religion of the self the only persons satanic beliefs your challenging are your own, if you challenge them then your not a satanist, so your not attacking me. if that makes sense.

2007-08-28 [Nazarath.93]: Ok, I really want to stop talking about satanism here. This isnt a satanist page, nor for people to learn about satanism. besides I dont want anyone getting angry with me. So please any questions about satanism, ask me in the form of a personal message, and I will tell you how to answer them.

2007-08-28 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Yeah, we got a bit off topic, here. Oops :)

2007-08-28 [Nazarath.93]: yeah...

2007-09-05 [thoughtfox]: please do feel free to debate candidly, provided you back up your words. This is a page for debate.

2007-09-05 [thoughtfox]: As for the Bible, I do think it is important to distinguish religion (including the bible) from belief in God. Naturally, most religions do believe in God, but in different forms: Buddhism and Taoism portrayed God in a manner that was excluded by the definition in my Philosophy class. But one can also believe in God without religion. It is possible to deny every single word of the Bible and still believe in God.

2007-09-05 [Nazarath.93]: Ok good, I didnt want to float off subject and have someone get mad at me.

2007-09-06 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: I agree with thoughtfox about the Bible. God is very subjective. An individual's experience with God cannot be defined by society (or an institution - the Church, especially a young, corrupt Church). I don't consider myself religious, merely spiritual. Yes, many people say that, but most of them are fools.

2007-09-06 [Nazarath.93]: I call that personalizing a deity, in the mind of a atheist thats the most logical point of view.

2007-09-06 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: No, I don't decide how God is, but the way I experience Him is different for me than it is for the lady down the street. Because I am fundamentally different from the lady down the street and God knows this. God knows that I don't like the whole ritualistic, empty, pointless "mass" thing, and that someone else telling me what and how to believe is meaningless to me. My God is the same God of the Bible, but I see him most in sunsets, rain, children, birth, growth, love.

I once heard a quote - I can't remember who said it - but he/she was, in my opinion, totally right. "True religion is nothing more than a relationship with God."

Unfortunately, a personal relationship with God has been so overpowered by the rituals of the Church, so most people see "religion" as what you call yourself and whether you go to mass once a week to sit/stand/kneel/sit/stand/kneel/eat bread/kneel/sit/stand to be "saved."

2007-09-06 [Nazarath.93]: thats great and all. But through the eyes of an atheist your god isnt presenting himself to you and you are deciding how he is based on how you want him to be. If he were real then yes, you would be right.
That will always be my opinion, until your god proves himself right.

2007-09-06 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: My opinion will always be that he has given enough proof, if only we choose to see it. Why should our creator prove himselves to us? Why do we demand proof in order to believe? That sort of cuts out the faith and belief part.

2007-09-06 [Nazarath.93]: My opinion is that you choose to see it as proof, while there are many many things that help deny his existence. Why should we need faith?

2007-09-06 [thoughtfox]: There's actually no real evidence either way, I don't think. The arguments against God have as many flaws as arguments for God. What things would you say deny God's existence, Nazarath?

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: Corruption in all his institutions are one, Hypocrisy in his holy book and among ways of following him (peace and war oriented sects for example), Science disproving many of the Old testament books, the fact that the bible's stories were mostly all stolen from older stories, Evolution (Hereditary also follows those lines, etc), Psychology (particularly the human animal relations that were separated in the bible), The ridiculous stories, also the new age "Christian-Atheism" that is going on in the world right now (please look it up) is fair indication that the Christian religion is going in a downward spiral. And last but not least the misunderstanding of a majority of followers, almost all christians do not read the bible, and they do not understand what stories are meant to be metaphorical or not thus the many interpretations of God.
While these all help show the faults of the Christian religion, I do not deny the Possibility of a "God", as I said I think Miss Bukowski has the right idea, if there is a god then he would be more indescribable therefore there should be no religion(s) forming around a god, religion should be a personal thing, no cathedrals or churches, no groups or sects just faith with one persons ideas of the god having no effect on the others. So yes there is no evidence proving the theory of A god, but I doubt he is anything like the Christian religion would even fathom to describe.
I however do not believe in a God, because I am not a pragmatist, I am an evidentialist, If the Deity cannot prove himself to me I feel no need to believe in one. I think pragmatism is a sanctimonious belief of weak minded people who will cower at the thought of punishment. They also forget one very important fact: If they are just believing in a Deity to escape punishment then they are in fact just kissing the God's ass and they do not really believe they are just being cautious in a sanctimonious way, in which case if that displeases the Deity then perhaps they will suffer the punishment they seek to avoid, or suffer it even worse should the Deity be non merciful.
I think if there were such a God it would be forgiving in my lack of belief because he designed me to be this way, perhaps he would see me as more intelligent for my skepticism who knows? I dont think it exists, but if it does I feel no need to fear punishment, from what ive heard from certain people he is very forgiving.
But my main point is, I dont deny the possibility of a Deity, but I am wholeheartedly against the Christians stupid outlook on God.
Sorry for the long comment you have just read, I summed it up as best I could.

2007-09-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Actually, Nazarath was right when he said God would be forgiving. I can't recall where this is from, perhaps the Bible, but it is said that it is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. That is, either believe or not believe but do if fully. If you sort of believe and play the part to escape punishment, like Nazarath brought up, that's BAD.

But yes, I do agree with Nazarath that institutionalized relgion is bad. Maybe there should be no mass, but what about people gathering to worship as a group? Not just in religion, but in many aspects of life, doing things together is better. For the mind mostly. It gives a person a sense of community. But all the different names we think are so important, the ritualistic masses, the pompous cathedrals, all that can go. Take the Vatican for example. The Pope sits high and mighty on a throne in a palace of luxury trying to get others to stop world hunger, when the riches in his bedroom alone could probably feed a third world country for a year. Hipocracy.

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: Too true.
But then again worship groups are how larger groups are formed...yes this might sound socially controlling, but I dont think people should be allowed to share faith with one another. Because parents get controlling, and then the sword becomes a conversion tool, and so on and so forth. Its to risky putting faiths together because they simply cannot last in peace forever...Just look at the renaissance, and especially look at the formation of the Lutheran church. Another sect had to be formed because the main sect had become capitalists!
Religion should strictly be a self thing, Im all for whatever people believe in as long as it doesnt end up:
At sword point
With bombs on chests
Teen suicide because of parental piety.
etc.
See what im getting at?

And by the way, the bible said god was forgiving, it also said he was damning. Jesus: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"

2007-09-07 [iippo]: God was forgiving, it also said he was damning.
I understand it like this: the world had commited a crime against God (=sin). Someone needed to be punished, but punishing the whole world and everythign in it would not have been just and would have made God sad because He kinda liked everything and everyone He had made. So He got this plan: I'll make this guy, Jesus take the blame, but since Jesus is kinda me, no one but me will actually suffer. Both justice and mercy was fulfilled.

2007-09-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Oh I agree about the parents thing. My dad...when I was young he was this hypocritical religious nut. He'd lecture my brothers and I for hours on end about our "sins" (I was six at the time). But there he was blowing all the money my mom made, since he was jobless most of the time, emotionally abusing us, and eventually cheating on my mom. I think parents should let their kids decide.

But yes, when humans gather to do things, the groups become larger and then you get mob mentality. Sad fact, but true. It's a bit utopian to believe small groups could get together without it going wrong, I know.

I do see what you're getting at. People using God to justify war and murder is enraging. But that is people's fault, not God's.

You have to remember that Jesus might not have said that. Whoever wrote it - it sounds familiar, but I'm not sure which book it's from - was probably still imagining Jesus as the Messiah the Jews had envisioned - a warrior with a sword, come to smite their enemies.

iippo, You're not exactly correct. Yes, humanity had sinned against God, and God needed to send a message. It was less to punish someone and more to spread His word and open the gates of Heaven to all. I don't think the "gates of Heaven" were actually closed. I think when the Bible said that they meant that if more people heard His word, more would come to Him, thus more would go to Heaven. Anyway, He came to Earth himself, in Jesus. Jesus isn't "kinda" God, according to the Trilogy, Jesus *is* God. Jesus, in his immense love for all people, SACRIFICED Himself for us. He could have escaped "punishment," but he let himself be captured and sentenced and killed. There is the mercy for humanity. From love, not damnation.

And I believe God does not turn any soul away. If a soul comes to him seeking forgiveness - and really meaning it, not just trying to escape Hell (which is a whole different topic) - He will never turn them away. Only those who knowingly turn from God and reject Heaven go to Hell. And Hell is merely eternal separation from God.

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: I dont see how a person dying forgives us, it sounds like some stupid thing god said that would somehow make sense (Your all sinners so I will let you kill my son and you will be sin free) A little to...commercial advertisement to me. Besides that was all in the bible, and we know how corrupt that is. even more according to the bible, jesus actually committed every sin known to man, he was angry, he often filled sexual favors, he was an attention whore and was envious whenever someone stole the spotlight, he also stole on his travels mostly to feed himself he was also a large glutton, and was wrathful when he couldnt get food (He was passing through a mountain and saw a fig tree that's fruit was not ripe, he cursed the tree and it died, sounds a little angry and gluttonous to me!) even in a supposed removed document from the book of Matthew he even had intercourse with one of his male disciples (I cannot clarify how accurate that is as ive only read passages and references not the actual removed text itself). Well the list goes on, but if you follow the bible then Jesus is not so perfect as you may think, but then again the bible is corrupt so Jesus may have been different due to the capitalism tearing away the bible, or he could have not existed at all...Up to you to decide what really happened.

2008-01-22 [Melocrie]: Saying something doesn't exist because there's no solid evidence, is like denying all immaterial things, like the conscious or maybe even the concept of 'the Heart'. I believe most of all in a Goddess, a great mother to us all. The thing is that we don't 'need' evidence to believe in something, but if anything, the belief itself could be the actual evidence. But it still all depends on whether you see a diety as a concept, or an actual person...

2008-01-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: First of all, it wouldn't have been God saying "I'll kill my son." It was God saying, "I love you, despite your sins, and I will come to Earth and die for you, to prove my love and open the gates of Heaven to all." Not that the gates were closed, but with Jesus' birth and sacrifice, more people know about God's love and open their hearts to God - thus opening for themselves the gates of Heaven.

Jesus filled sexual favors in the Bible? I'm sorry, I missed the Book of Jesus’ Orgies. Jesus did get angry. Hell, he tore apart a Temple courtyard because they were disrespecting it. But He was human. I repeat - in Christianity, Jesus was FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. Man sins.

And Jesus’ existence is not solely in the Bible. Several historians wrote of a Teacher, Messiah, or crazy man traveling and spreading the word of God.

You aren't innovative or genius for saying the Bible is corrupt, therefore we can't believe a word of it. Your argument is actually redundant, repetitive, and ineffective. Haven't I said before that the Bible is not to be taken as word for word fact? Haven't I said that MAN picked and chose what would go into the Bible? Haven't I said that man is fallible??

2008-01-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Melocrie is right. You cannot prove a thing does not exist if you cannot prove it does. The lack of proof for a thing does not point towards its nonexistence. And in the beginning, religion was based around a feminine deity. When society grew and became more patriarchal, they replaced the Goddess with a male God. The men who ruled society wanted also to rule Spirituality. God the "Father" in the Bible was used merely because society would be more open to a male God, not because God is a male.

2009-03-11 [~Spirit Fox~]: I see your point in that La Douleur Exquise, people would be more open to God as a male because when you'er little most children run to their father to protect them, but also for punishment, and scolding. Also, parents scold to point you in the right direction, and since he suposibly created everyone and everything, then he would be their father. *^.^' and I just relaized I jumped in, sorry...*

2009-03-14 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Personally, although God has no gender, I think the feminine deity is more appealing. Mother, creator, caregiver. Maybe it's just because I was raised by a single mother.

2009-03-21 [iippo]: I think God has a gender, I think He is male. And as it's ridiculous to my brain to think that you would have a father but not a mother, I also think there is a 'Heavenly Mother' there somewhere.

2009-03-27 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Gender is biological. If one has no body, one has no sexual organs, thus one has no gender.

2009-03-28 [iippo]: Err, I do actually believe that God has a body. And the male gender bodyparts that come with it o.O

2009-03-28 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: A physical body? Jesus did, and Jesus was God, but Heaven is not a physical place, fit to house physical bodies. The Bible says man was created in God's own image, but people take that a bit too literally to mean the body. People are not their bodies. I mean, what makes a person a person is their soul, not their physical being.

2009-04-01 [iippo]: I think it only makes sense. I believe God is exactly like us except he has a perfect body, the same goes for Jesus, and I believe that people have actually seen them, physically, and can testify that they are made out of same flesh and bone as we are. And if heaven isn't a place for physical bodies, then what is the big fuss with the resurrection? The whole point of Jesus Christ was that he died and then lived again, physically in his body.
To me, soul = body + spirit. When a person dies, the spirit and body are separated, and neither of those is that person anymore (the spirit is probably slightly more it - I've never seen a spirit, but I know people who say that when they saw someone they knew dead, they felt like "that isn't so-and-so, that's just some meat, the actual person is somewhere else" and I think that makes sense) but I also think that because Jesus was resurrected, everyone else will too, and that kind of is a hint that the physical body is an important thing, in this life and in the life after death.
And I also believe people are their body and mind/spirit combined. I don't think I'd be the same person I am today if I was really short, or a man, or a different colour etc... because I am what I am because of my experiences, and my physical existence by default shapes my experiences (mostly how other people see me and react to me: if I looked very different, certain people wouldn't have been attracted to me at the time when they were, therefore I wouldn't have had those relationships and I wouldn't have gone through those experiences that necessarily shape my person, and I would therefore be a totally different person).

2009-04-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: You just disproved your own argument. You said that what body one inhabits shapes their personality, but when they die, their body is just meat. How then is a body part of the soul? And Jesus was resurrected because He was not just a man. He was man and God in one. He did go to Heaven in body, and Mary was as well, but in no way implies that anyone else deserves it. Jesus was God, Mary the mother of God. After death for the rest of humanity, bodies just rot.
I am not my body. My phenotype is basically a fluke, a combination of genes that has nothing to do with me, the me that will exist beyond death. I am not my brown hair, my blue eyes. I am not the faint red birthmark on my arm. If I looked different, maybe I would have had different friends, maybe those friendships would have changed decisions I made and where I might be at this moment, but ultimately, I am not what I look like or who my friends are.

2009-04-08 [iippo]: o.O It's not an argument, and I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to outline what I believe (though I'm not good at words so sometimes I fail to communicate what I mean), and in turn hear what you believe (because I find it interesting). I don't see a contradiction, can you help me see what you mean?

I consider the soul to be the combinations of spirit and body, and when the body withers away after death (rots, burnt to ashes, eaten, whatever happens) and the spirit goes on to wait for resurrection, neither of those is the actual person. The actual person is more than the sum of its parts. But in the resurrection (which I do believe will come to everybody, I think that is what Christ came for, to die and rise up again, to defeat the clutches of death, as much as to defeat the clutches of sin by offering himself as atonement) the spirit and body are combined again to be the soul, restored and perfect, just like Heavenly Father. And so the soul (body and spirit) lives on forever, immortal and eternal. I believe that that is part of the meaning of life, to gain a body. We are born so we can have a body because it enables us to learn things (how can you know what pain is if you can't experience it? how can you know what love is if you can't feel it? etc...)

I believe the plan is for all of God's children to find happiness, and for that you need a body. And you need a body to have a family, and I believe family is central to God's plan for his children. And then after death and resurrection there will be eternal happiness, and I think you need a body for that too. It makes me happy to know that I am here to learn and grow, and that there is a continuation of that learning and growing afterwards too, that it's not all a waste. :P Without a body, I wouldn't be able to make art or sing, and those are the kinds of things I want to continue to do in eternity. :)

2009-04-08 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: I'm not calling this an argument. I meant argument as in 'a process of reasoning; series of reasons; a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.' The contradiction in your statement that I see is this - if the soul is the spirit and the body, why then would the spirit ever leave the body? I think the body is a vessel, and physical being is as you say extremely important, but ... bodies die. Souls don't. And if the soul is spirit and body combined, then everyone who dies is torn in two, separated, rendered unwhole until...what? The end of the world, when bones disappear from the ground and reform their former bodies? This life, this body, it's transitory. It ends, and the soul goes on to a higher form of life, completely different than this one, where the body isn't necessary. Your worldly desires cease to exist.

The Bible mentions angels singing, so maybe it's just a different kind of song, not the result of air passing vocal chords, but something deeper, something infinitely more beautiful.

Bodies aren't perfect. A person can have a whole soul inside a broken body. When we die, we are released from all the things that hold us back from true joy. It's a journey, and when it ends, it's not going to just start back up again with all the same elements. We will have had our chance to do things we love - to sing and paint, to read, to learn. I believe that what comes after holds wonders I can't even imagine, perfect peace, happiness, beauty, and love greater than anything this world has to offer.

2009-04-11 [iippo]: The Spirit leaves the body because death is a necessary part of life, it's what we inherit from Adam and Eve: they fell, became mortal, they were told they would die if they ate the fruit, and they did (they didn't die on the spot, but they did die eventually) and therefore we all will die also physically. They also brought spiritual death into the world: in the garden they were with God, and spiritual death is to not be in God's presence. Christ's atonement cancels out death: he defeated death by rejecting it. He gave up his life and took it back, to enable everybody to get their bodies back too. And if we follow him as his disciples, we can also overcome death and let his atonement wash our sins away and return to God after the judgement. So, yes, I do think everyone who dies is torn in two and separated (though we are all already unwhole) until the end of the world. There is a transitory place for the spirit to be in, either a paradise or a prison, where we wait for the second coming, millennium and resurrection. And that is why Christ paving the way for physical resurrection is so important: if he hadn't, we'd all remain unwhole, from birth til death and beyond. But because he did, that gift of resurrection comes to everybody eventually. There is mention of 'resurrection of the just' and 'resurrection of the unjust' in the Bible, so it doesn't all happen at once, but it will all happen eventually.

... <_< I also think that angels have bodies, at least some of them. I believe angels are people who lived (or will live) and were righteous and are now glorified beings that God can use as messengers. So that's why they can sing :P

And I agree that worldly desires cease to exist when we die, but I'd blame most of the worldly desires we have on Satan. He is skillful at tempting, so skillful that we don't know what we want and what he wants us to want. Without his influence in our lives, if he didn't exist at all, we would all do God's will, I reckon. Our spirit wants what our heavenly father wants, but because the flesh is weak, Satan knows just the tricks to make us give in. That's why we all sin, no-one is perfect enough to completely control themselves. But we can try and get better at it, we can reject Satan's temptings even before death. And when we die, we go out of his reach, and therefore he has no power to tempt us there anymore, and our worldly desires cease (I must admit, I'm kind of looking forward to that >_> Not enough to try to get there sooner, but yeah... ^_^)

I agree, bodies aren't perfect, and death releases us from things that hold us back (again, mostly Satan's stuff) but I don't think that the journey ends with death. It continues, we continue to learn when we are spirits out of our bodies, and we continue to learn and grow when we get our bodies back, until we can get no further for whatever reason. The blessings promised to Abraham - eternal increase - can be obtained by those who make that covenant with God, and keep it til the end. So I do agree with the not going back, this life is the time to do the important things. Now is the time to do your best, to make sure you are prepared to meet God. And I don't now if there is singing and painting afterwards, I hope there is, but I know that all everything there will be good and perfect.