Staredit Network

And he doesn't exist in your mind and therefore he doesn't exist for you. Yes this is the most simply put statement in this whole thread! Christians see God as objective; non-Christians see God as subjective or non-existant. Well put!

[right][snapback]125592[/snapback][/right]
This is not true. Think of books that are meant to entertain you (fiction, non-fiction, historical, mystery) that have characters. When you read about a character, you form in your mind his looks, personality, and reasoning based upon what you read from the book. Are they wrong? Not at all. The character in this book still does what he does. They just made their image of him. In the realm of Christianity where God is objective, the same goes with God and the Bible.

Different people read about God in this book and made their own "version" of God's looks, personality, and reasoning. And since people interepted differently, we get hundreds of different demoninations: Methodists, Baptists, Protestant, Presbyterian, Calvinists, Hugenots(French Calvinists), and many more. They all have the "requirements" of going to heaven (believe in God & believe that Jesus saved your soul from eternal damnation by sacrificing himself for all mankind's sins.) Their main points of difference is their interpretation of everything else. Maybe when people go to heaven (if there is a heaven), God will be pleased that this such&such group learned what he/she/it was trying to say the whole time.

P.S. (1. Techincally, they CAN be wrong because it might not be what the author had intended this person to be like, but Christians believe that God was not created by something else so it doesn't apply to God.

2. Yes I understand the argument that man could have created this book called the Bible just like the author created their own book and this is absolutely a possible thing.)

I guess this can also be applied to many of the other religions. (Even agnostics.)
Muslims have many subfactions (tribes) amidst'em that this in fact can also be said about'em too.



I suppose that those differences began in ol' Europe with the divergency of opinions on certain subjects that drove those branches of Christianism from the Catholic one. Not the 'books' itself. Guess I was wrong afterall... *Sarcasm* just take a peep at the many branches of it in there, please.

I think in one point in time I belived in God, I also belived in the easter bunny though, most people are taught that God exists when they are young and unknowing about this world and most kids belive this untill they are proven wrong by peers along their life. One kid must have seen that his parents were leaving easter baskets and he let everyone know that the easter bunny wasnt real, but no one has had evidence that God doesnt exists yet. Im not saying he does either, just the fact that most christians are christians because they havent had anyone to provide proof they shouldnt be, they dont have a friend who saw some guy walking on water and turning water to wine.
But then again we dont have proof that he doesnt exists, and with all these religions who claim their God is the real one who am I to doubt them? For all I know everyone of these religions could have their own God. But i'm going to leave it at that, take it as you will, but untill I'm told by a freind that God cured his cancer like he did back in the bible stories, I'll stick with my views and opinions.

Water + Alchohol --> Mixture for Wine(Product 1 + Product 2)

We have no need for saracasm if you're making a valid point


Hmm thats understandable; if some guy just did all these miracles what would you expect? He never actually SAID he was the Son of God.
(God supposedly called him his Son twice, Jesus calls God his Father (informal tense), when Jesus asks his desciples who he is and Peter says "you're the Son of the Most High God", Jesus said to tell no one of this (ironic that we know of this passage), and when Jesus talks about himself, he says it in the third person! (and the Son of Man bla bla bla bla) I wouldn't be surprised if Gentiles (who know nothing of OT) started teaching a billion different things of who Jesus is if they truly don't have a clue...) I'm not flip-flopping, at least not yet.. I'll read on.


Hmm... the fire&brimstone message. Well let's see... It includes the Apostes' and Nicene Creeds, only Christians are saved (that better be the vague term of the word Christians -.-), the Trinity, Jesus is God & Man in one, and so on.


only those who were baptized? Well, that was the ceremonial way in the Catholic Church to become with Jesus Christ. They most likely took that from when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (catchy name!) and also when one of the apostles baptized the Ethiopean in the book of Acts. Hold the correct religious beliefs seems to be belief in the Apostle and Nicene creeds???

Good works: theres a debatable one. "It is by faith alone we are saved, not good works, so that no one can boast." But, in a later book of the Bible it speaks of that faith without good works is dead, so the Catholics made a law that you do all this good stuff, hence the fire & brimstone message was born.


Ok before I get started there is one thing I must present to the non-existant jury:

There are Liberal Christians? IS THERE NOTHING SACRED?!?!?!?!?

Now about this passage, the liberal (shudders) Christians see the beginning and other points as a mythical place and puts things in metaphoric terms.
Huh? I that that was only Calvinists and Hugenots. They believed that just like God had a "chosen" people, God only chose a small group of people of the whole world to be saved. They believed that Jesus only died for those people's sins, and that those who are saved will be separated from "the damned" like the wheat from the chaff. Those who were predestined (Predestination- God only chose a small group of people of the whole world to be saved.) would be servants before God, or like be able to have the true Christian heart or whatever you call it, while everyone else wouldn't be able to.

That rediculously large quote above with the liberal Christians is mostly true, except since I have never met a liberal (shudders) Christian, I don't know if the part about them is true. If you look Basan's post above, you can see the website for yourself. It is quite accurate; only facts, no opinions.

I'm still trying to figure out how liberal Christians see the Bible as innaccurate yet still have some basis to prove that Christianity is true -.-

Now back to Basan's point: 1. Isn't is Christianity? Whats Christianism..
Ok TRULY back to Basan's point: Ugh.. did you want me to look at all the branches in denominations??? -.- (>.<) I looked at the Christian creeds (the page you are on when you click on it)
Oh well, I'll just need to skim

Hmm... interesting... I never thought of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness being part of mainstream Christianity because they're not...
The majority of those denominations I looked upon had the belief that Jesus died, went to the cross, saved us from our sins, and went to heaven.

I think I missed your point Basan...

Yeah, that we all should research better before posting it all diverged only depending from the 'books' ppl in those branches follow.

It all began in Europe with the Church's Inquisition that drove away many of the free thinkers of small difference amidst Christianism. Some of'em went to the U.S. and formed new colonies due to that prossecution.
In there, they may have began to recompile some of the parts of the 'original book' (whatever he was) to suit better their needs and accordin' to the interpretations they made different from the Catholic branch. Like I'd say, somewhat lost in translation...

And for instance did you know that in the U.K. the only reason it drove off from the rest of Europe was due to Henry VIII. He wanted to change wife and since the Pope (of that time) didn't allowed him to divorce, voilá there's a new variant of the christian faith that allowed him to do so. If it was done by a simple fact as that, imagine what else could been done. *Meh*





Count me... *Errm* my father instead as proof (liberal christian) your honour, since I became agnostic. *Meh*
They exist, ya know? Please, just don't assume they don't.

Perhaps not buyin' many of the older parts (read most of the old testament) of it when compared to science advancements? Heck, even the Pope is a mild creationist. (I know, I know... I've used that link here before but just couldn't resist. )
That is, he believes that a truth cannot contradict another truth. Now, all I need is for someone to define what truth really is...

For me the christian principles should work, but since it's not a perfect world n' folks just fool 'round with the notion of charity fro instance. For a fact I know liberals to better christians for the nearer fellow man (or woman) than the more zelaot conservative ones. These last ones try to just play as nice, but in reality they don't apply jack-sh*t of christianity's good deeds (morale n' principles in life situations).
So, if those (again, morale n' principles) would step out of the theory realm, I'd buy it more easily. Btw, I try to use many of common sense when applyin'em. That's from where my agnosticism mostly came.

Not the Adam n' Eve bit... again!?! Fellas, please find sound evidences. If there were only them 'round who was left to write, tell the tale? Spread the word you might say...
The best I can grant is that some unknown entity, may gave the push for the initial life, the rest is only evolution. Thus the Adam & Eve plus the 7 days fairy tale just isn't... feasible.
*Imao* Then someone came along decided to name it God, Allah or whatever and made a religion after it.
See Lucy, for instance. Not a full primate but not an homo specimen either. What better proof that evolution takes a looong time to do it's work?

Edit reason: Oppss... Now that I've came to read it better, I rambled a lot. The principles part was uncalled for. *Sigh*
The rest for proof that even someone can change when proof(s) is(are) presented, I'll keep to lighten the debate.

I know this was posted a while ago, but I really wanted to comment on it.

Our system of describing math is a human concept, the symbols and the methods, but that does not mean it is only a human concept. If an alien had 2 dumbfruitname fruits, then it found 2 more dumbfruitname fruits, it has 4 fruits. Maybe it doesn't say 4; the fact that 2+2 is always 4 should be enough. It may use a different symbol, like Æ for 4, but it means the same amount. If you take an ancient salt grain, it still has a recordable weight and size. It is interpreted through human methods and symbols, but if someone did it in roman numerals, it doesn't mean the result does not exist. If you were to use units, such as a dot for each number, any person would be able to understand it (if they had some basic grasp of some kind of math). If an alien found the symbols like ". . ." it would still interpret it as 3, just in its own numerical system. If you take the something moving quickly over the water, it will eventually travel at half the speed, then half of that (quarter of the original speed) and so on. That happens even if there are no people to understand it is going at 1/2 the speed than before. Without our understanding of math, we would just describe it as slowing down, but it is slowing down at a fixed rate, or an exponential rate, or a chaotic rate, depending on the conditions, but I will be measurable. If we didn't measure it however, who's to say it isn't slowing down? If it is, it is slowing down at some kind of rate. We just apply our numerical system to understand this mathematical rate.



I think that is very accurate. If someone here that is Christian were raised by Muslims, they would be supporting Islam and think Christianity was wrong, and Christians go to hell, or what Muslims believe. They would constantly support Islam in belief that Allah will accept them. It's the same thing the other way round. If someone here that is Muslim was raised by a Christian family, they would most likely be supporting Christianity thinking that Muslims go to hell and that they are right. It's an illusion that is passed on from generation to generation about the world, and whatever family you are born into, you will most likely follow the ideas that you were taught when you were young, so every religion thinks they really are right and everyone else burns in hell.

Have you ever think if in a battle between god and satan the good had lost and the bad guy had win... if satan is the good guy but he lost and god is the bad one but he won , he created the church which oblige us to think he s the good one... but he don't do a sh*t, satan is in a jail waiting us , dumb human, to understand who is who!!

by the way i don't beleive in god

Gh[o]st_

i think that simple thing :
God = Santa Claus
yess, think what u want about it, but for me god is like santa claus, it is absolutly for children ! Or people who don't want to accept that Santa Claus don't exist !

Sorry but I don't agree. I'm agnostic, with atheist tendencies lately, and was raised to be a christian (a liberal one, I might add).
I still use my common sense to apply some of it's principles that I endorse, but not all the mambo jambo related to it. Heck, I even chose if wanted to be baptized (at 11 of age).
Later on, after realizing that many of it's principles are only in the theory realm (read not applied in reality by many of it's follwers), I've came to realize that God/Allah/whatever is a human concept made to make us feel better and maybe to atributte explainations of the unknown to Him/Her/It. So, by that standard I don't believe in those deities unless it's proven to me without a shred of doubt they do exist. It might exist an higher entity(ies) but 'till that is proven to me, I'll just stick to what's real (aka proven)...

I forgot to mention it was a general comment. Not everyone follows that pattern, but a lot do.

When Jesus rose from the dead and visited the deciples, one deciple was very un-believeing. He said that he would not believe it until he touched the hole's in Jesus' hands and the bare ribs on his side.

When Jesus came to that deciple, he asked him to touch the holes' in his hands an the bare ribs on his side.

There is a message behind this scripture true or un-true. Some people don't believe until they see it or touch it themselves. Religion is a belief. Not a science.

That sums it all... I guess.

Edit add: In case anyone wants to debate logic vs. faith, please head here. It's already occuring.

This thread really IS about faith vs Logic. THink weshould stick with the topic that's already going

No biggie. Sorry if the plug-in offended you. We already covered it, from the "God" view point, imho so why draggin' it further?
By any chance have any new stuff to add into the debate here? If so, be my guest n' lead the way.

god damnit people dont u all get it. this god thing is a scam and annoying so any jesus freaks loves god so much go have sex with him or have a orgy with his disciples. i dont beleive in hell or heaven so ha there go suck some while ur at it.

poeple these days need to get this stuff straight he isnt real and all the suckers out there are wasting there time praying to him like hes our father. that im running away from his ass.

You dont get it. YOu still have not grasped the idea that people are entitled to their own opinions and idiots like you shouldn't be posting stupid responses like this just to discourage them from their beliefs.


If you have a ing problem with this, then i say you better ing leave. This is not a place where you can flame people by spouting out pure bull that say absolutely nothing.


All you had to say was the first 7 words and everything would be fine. Now you look like a fool. You're just acting plainly retarded. Nobody likes you, do you get it? Yea please stfu before you know what you are talking about.


And what proof do you have that he doesn't exist. If you just say he doesnt exist without any proof, then you're just stupid.

Nike, at least for once I mostly agree with M.Army.

1 -

What by any chance, I didn't get? That you're an arrogant prick?
This is the Serious Debate area and you're supposed to do a little more elaborate posting in here (aka suport what you state).
Next time read the whole thread before you state crap like that, please. You don't seem to be follwing the current point at hand.

2 -

*Sighs* I rest my case (on the above point). Swearing, at least in here, won't make you look smarter. In fact, it's the other way around.
In case you didn't noticed already, this isn't 'the stfu and do what I tell you' section.
So, by this standard do a better debate or please restrain yourslef from even posting in this section. I'd surely support that concept, if you won't change your posture here.

3 -

Proofs that he doesn't exist, please.

I don't think any of these free-thinkers went to North America until the 1600s, and that wasn't due to the Inquisition (it was because they were fanatically puritan). Most free-thinkers who wanted to escape the Inquisition before then just went to England, as it was pretty much out of the Pope's control (The Pope has excommunicated a number of English monarchs over the ages for not accepting his mandates).

As for the free-thinkers escaping to the European colonies in South/Central America - not a chance. The number of missionaries there trying to convert the 'savages' would have recognised a notorious free-thinker. Portugal (so you should know this, Basan) even had a proper colonial inquisition for a time.



Good point. You're thinking like a human though, which means that you're trying to find a logical solution. All systems try to preserve themselves, and logic is no exception. It believes itself to be the last word in perception and interpretation. You simply cannot imagine a Universe without maths. Nor can I for that matter; the very idea is terrifying.

Just try to imagine some alien race that could not differentiate quantities or sizes or rates... How would they perceive the Universe? Would they be sentient by our standards? Would they use some other system to understand the Universe and would we be sentient by their standards if they did use some other system?

So many questions.

Yeah, that may be too, but the main reason was that they grew divergencies with the Catholic Church and the Inquisition had a 'peculiar' way of solving them (torture or even death, if the so called sinners didn't confess'em).
As for Englands Monarcs differences with the Chuch, I'll requote myself on how they mainly begun.

That religion was the Anglican one, btw.

Now the free-thinkers bit... those inquisitions mainly happened in the heavilly colonized areas by Spain n' Portugal. And as you prob'ly know, that was mainly from Central America downwards. Those colonists weren't dumb enough to the point of escaping it in Europe only to throw themselves into the colonies Inquisition's arms. The eventual countries that would rise up above it, where much lesser time under Spanish grasp, if none. The last colonizing potencies, in N.America (England and France), of the future countries weren't such pencilneck pushovers as Spain n' my country were at the time (religiously zealoted by their monarcs, who obviously layed down the guiding rules for the rest to follow. 'Righteous oriented' by the Pope, obviously).
Only as a fact clearer... My country had Inquisition n' I'm ashamed of those religious racisms from that time. (Now were receiving and acceptin'em as we should. Within certain law parameters, of course. ) From the Pombal Marquise (around 1755-60) onwards it ended and perhaps the closest thing to it were only the remaining missionairies that tried to convert the American natives to our faith. Curiously enough, as soon we began with the Inquisition practices in our country, we lost the edge of being an maritim power (n' so did Spain). Many of'em escaped to England n' the Netherlands and as you already know those were the following colonizing powers. Somewhat amazing, isn't it? The jews that we drove off with these perssecutory tactics where many times the ones responsible for many developments (with their cuning), in the naval field n' colonizing related, such as the shape of sails for better aerodynamical performances n' other amazing finds (shape of vessels, for example). *Sighs at the racism stupidity of those times*

can someone answer this question:
Why does god let us be evil if he wants everyone to go to heaven?
If your answer to this is: "If he made us all be good, then we would be slaves for Him" god told us to spread his word to everyone and make everyone believe in him. I say that is an order from a master
so give me an answer that makes sense and to-the-point

I'll explain it to you that way - imagian that you are god in our world, you're a programmer, you can create lite, and program life! you can teach your creations codes and add a little random factor to make your program be more interesting.
Than, you watch your great creation for a while, but it gets boring, so you delete everything other than your basic layout and start over with the better knowledge of programming you now have.
The new program you've created substains much more sophisticated sysyems, they keep running and evolving, touching every part of information in your computer, getting out of the limits of their small exe and enter the desktop - a huge place with spaces and yet more exe files, but they get deleted on the way and decide that it's safer to stay.
You, watch your systems running, and it all get's boring, you're sick of fixing any bug they cause and repairing every program they delete, so you create newer programs to stop them from doing bugs.
Yet it only divides them to parts and cause ever more bugs.
You try again, yet fail miserbly.
Now, you decide to create a new program, this time - make it all perfect from the beggining, you get a new computer and start working, leaving the other computer with the bug-full program to run slowly and get nowhere.

Get my point? if there is a god, he doesn't care of Earth anymore, he probably left after mohamad, and creatign new life forms on some distant planet, he doesn't care if we belive in him or not so you won't see him and will never get a proof he exists.

Here's an biased opinion if I ever saw one. Mohamed!?! Why not Jesus? I'm disappointed with ya.
He/She/It left the planet, if ever was here in the 1st place, to evolve by itself. Maybe since the Big-Bang, the primordial soup, whatever.

Kyuu, the point is that we haven't got a straight proven answer so far. All it's proven so far is that evolution exists, not from where n' when it started. The rest circles around faith n' what you chose to believe in.

I said mohamad because he was later, basicly the last massiah.
First god created Jews, they sucked, than he created christians, they sucked as well, than he created muslim, they sucked too, than he just gave up and went to somewhere else.

-OR-

a much more logical explenation - there is no god.

God.

Scientists can't explain how the universe came to be, or even life for that matter.

Their big bang theory says that some little amount of particles exploded (Or something like that), but then where did those particles come to exist?

About life they try to explain it through the Heterotroph Hypothesis (The theory that heterotrophs came about through anearobic respiration on the primitive Earth). Stanly Miller tried to recreate it but that didn't work.