i say yes. what does lifer think?

What is this 'evist' you speak of?

Ziegenbartami wrote:

What is this 'evist' you speak of?

i just noticed that

Tree Rot wrote:

i say yes. what does lifer think?

"God dwells within us all."

What's ironic about this phrase is that its as true for Christianity as it is for Satanism.

i think there are 5 gods:

1: jesus
2: jewish god
3: allah
4: Tom Cruise
5: Satan (Oxymoron)

I'd like to believe so.

"Reason can never prove the existence of God."
"The wish to talk to God is absurd. We cannot talk to one we cannot comprehend — and we cannot comprehend God; we can only believe in Him. The uses of prayer are thus only subjective."
- Immanuel Kant

Ziegenbartami wrote:

I'd like to believe so.

"Reason can never prove the existence of God."
"The wish to talk to God is absurd. We cannot talk to one we cannot comprehend — and we cannot comprehend God; we can only believe in Him. The uses of prayer are thus only subjective."
- Immanuel Kant

amen brother

The blind men and the Elephant.

Im gonna go with no. Why?

1) Absence of proof. Sure, bitch about it, there isn't any at the end of the day.
2) Hypocrisy of many who follow it. (Confessionals, The Crusades, "Catholic School Girl" syndrome, "Thou shalt not worship me in any building of wood or stone," etc, etc.)
3) Logical impossibilities and contradictions from Holy Doctrine (If God was omnipotent, could he create a rock so large that even he couldn't lift it? Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

The last one is probably the simplest though; I find far more solace in the belief that my fate is not already pre-ordained, and that I have the free will to make my own decisions.

Rosalind wrote:

1) Absence of proof. Sure, bitch about it, there isn't any at the end of the day.

the only problem with your no proof argument is that some scientific theorys dont have proof either. how do you explain that?

Rosalind wrote:

Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

Where in the Bible does God say the earth is flat?
Nor does it mention that man is the first creation of the earth (in fact, man's creation is one of the last things he does in the Creation story).

1. That's the point, you're supposed to have faith.

2. What does that have to do with God? That's like saying you hate all heavy metal because the vast majority of its fans are fucking stupid. And they are.

3. Fair enough in concept, but Man was never, ever referred to as the "first creation", and the earth was never claimed to be flat.

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

Where in the Bible does God say the earth is flat?
Nor does it mention that man is the first creation of the earth (in fact, man's creation is one of the last things he does in the Creation story).

Of all the animals I meant. Yeah, light was first, and then planets yada yada. My point is that it contradicts every fossil ever discovered of pre-man existence, which is pretty much claiming everything in the natural history museum a hoax.

Looked up the flat thing, looks like I was wrong on that one. Still, lots of smaller inconsistencies to ponder.

Nautilus wrote:

1. That's the point, you're supposed to have faith.

2. What does that have to do with God? That's like saying you hate all heavy metal because the vast majority of its fans are fucking stupid. And they are.

3. Fair enough in concept, but Man was never, ever referred to as the "first creation", and the earth was never claimed to be flat.

I have faith. Just in Occams Razor, Logic and science, not in God.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Read that.

As for religion as a whole, I can agree with many of the morals told - most should be common sense imo - but feel no reason to praise someone to tell me stealing is wrong and so forth.

Rosalind wrote:

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

Where in the Bible does God say the earth is flat?
Nor does it mention that man is the first creation of the earth (in fact, man's creation is one of the last things he does in the Creation story).

Of all the animals I meant. Yeah, light was first, and then planets yada yada. My point is that it contradicts every fossil ever discovered of pre-man existence, which is pretty much claiming everything in the natural history museum a hoax.

Looked up the flat thing, looks like I was wrong on that one. Still, lots of smaller inconsistencies to ponder.

Actually, man was the last of the animals that God created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Creation_story

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

Where in the Bible does God say the earth is flat?
Nor does it mention that man is the first creation of the earth (in fact, man's creation is one of the last things he does in the Creation story).

Of all the animals I meant. Yeah, light was first, and then planets yada yada. My point is that it contradicts every fossil ever discovered of pre-man existence, which is pretty much claiming everything in the natural history museum a hoax.

Looked up the flat thing, looks like I was wrong on that one. Still, lots of smaller inconsistencies to ponder.

Actually, man was the last of the animals that God created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Creation_story

So it took him millions of years to get it right?

Rosalind wrote:

So it took him millions of years to get it right?

What are you implying here?

For those inconsistencies, remember a lot of them are based on letters by multiple authors, which were accepted as canon by the Church, but still doesn't really disprove anything other than that people had differing opinions. Also remember in Genesis there are two "accounts" of creation, here's one.

Quote :

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So it goes fish, birds, land animals, cattle, and THEN humans.

Rosalind wrote:

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Not to mention referring to the earth as flat, referring to man as the first creation of the earth, etc, etc).

Where in the Bible does God say the earth is flat?
Nor does it mention that man is the first creation of the earth (in fact, man's creation is one of the last things he does in the Creation story).

Of all the animals I meant. Yeah, light was first, and then planets yada yada. My point is that it contradicts every fossil ever discovered of pre-man existence, which is pretty much claiming everything in the natural history museum a hoax.

Looked up the flat thing, looks like I was wrong on that one. Still, lots of smaller inconsistencies to ponder.

Actually, man was the last of the animals that God created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Creation_story

So it took him millions of years to get it right?

Maybe.

Rosalind wrote:

Nautilus wrote:

1. That's the point, you're supposed to have faith.

2. What does that have to do with God? That's like saying you hate all heavy metal because the vast majority of its fans are fucking stupid. And they are.

3. Fair enough in concept, but Man was never, ever referred to as the "first creation", and the earth was never claimed to be flat.

I have faith. Just in Occams Razor, Logic and science, not in God.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Read that.

As for religion as a whole, I can agree with many of the morals told - most should be common sense imo - but feel no reason to praise someone to tell me stealing is wrong and so forth.

I've read similar. But that doesn't matter, that's not the point I was making. Why does the blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of so many Christians matter? It doesn't and shouldn't. I hate those kinds of Christians, but that's no reflection on God. You can't just DISBELIEVE something because the people who do believe are stupid.

Im implying that someone outside of our scope of time should be able to work quicker, and if he made a mistake surely that betrays the notion of the principles of his existence? And if there are contradictions and hypocrisy amongst every religion I've encountered, how does that reflect on the notion of a divine being?

I cannot disprove his existence any more than you can prove it. The end answer is which result is the most self-gratifying, blind faith or denial?

Like I said, read that 'Dragon in the Garage' story.

Also, some of those "contradictions" are really just nitpicking. I mean -

LK 22:3-23 Satan entered Judas before the supper.
JN 13:27 It was during the supper.

MT 28:19 Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize.
1CO 1:17 Although he considers himself a disciple of Jesus, Paul says that he has not been sent to baptize.

MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived.
MK 16:2 It was after sunrise.
LK 24:1 It was at early dawn.
JN 20:1 It was still dark.

MT 26:34, LK 22:34, JN 13:38 Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed.
MK 14:30 Before the cock crowed twice.
MK 14:66-72 The cock crows after both the first and second denials.
(Note: These discrepancies have been "translated out" in some Bible versions.)

MT 27:37 The inscription on the cross read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."
MK 15:26 "The King of the Jews."
LK 23:38 "This is the King of the Jews."
JN 19:19 "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

MT 27:54 The centurion says: "Truly this was the son of God."
MK 15:39 He says: "Truly this man was the son of God!"
LK 23:47 He says: "Truly this man was innocent" (or "righteous").

MT 10:22, 24:13, MK 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
MK 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
JN 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
AC 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
AC 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
RO 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.
1JN 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)

Seriously? Those last few are fucking ridiculous. So the wording's not the EXACT same, but they all mean roughly close to the same thing.

MK 16:1-2 The women came to the tomb to anoint the body.
JN 19:39-40 The body had already been anointed and wrapped in linen cloth.

^ This one is true. They came to the tomb to anoint the body, but found it'd already been anointed.

MT 16:18 Jesus founds his church on Peter and will give him the keys of the kingdom.
MT 16:23 Jesus calls Peter [a] "Satan" and "a hindrance," and accuses him of being on the side of men rather than that of God.

He was rebuking him for lack of faith at that time. The same way a parent might say "I love you" to a child, but if he does something bad, they'll still punish him.

MT 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
EP 4:26 Anger is not necessarily a sin.

Baseless, violent anger is a sin, but RIGHTEOUS anger, anger at the unjust or wicked is not a sin. Anger itself is not necessarily a sin, but BY itself is a sin.

EZ 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose of horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord.
RO 7:12, 1TI 1:8 The law is good.

Different laws, different countries, different CENTURIES.

This is a really really bad article.

Rosalind wrote:

Im implying that someone outside of our scope of time should be able to work quicker, and if he made a mistake surely that betrays the notion of the principles of his existence? And if there are contradictions and hypocrisy amongst every religion I've encountered, how does that reflect on the notion of a divine being?

I don't see how the length of time from the universe's creation to the development of man is relevant to whether God exists or not--for all we know, He could have set the Big Bang in motion, and let the universe take over from that point, much like the Deists' view of God as a sort of divine clockmaker.
As for contradictions and hypocrisy amongst religion--humans are fallible, and there will be contradictions and fallacies in damn near every man-made idea or conception, whether it be religion, politics, or whatever else. As I see it, the contradictions lie with the practitioners, not the religions themselves.