01 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999I stand but what I said you are a moron and still couldn't read between the lines.
I have read between your lines and I think you are the moron. If he was referring to his kids he would have said " As a FATHER ...... ", and not "As a married man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read on can you see what i mean?
______________________________________________________________
Life in the simple line lane must be facenating, you seem to be stuck.
02 Aug 07
Originally posted by theprotectorsThe moron is the one that was wrong. ok ? understand ?
I stand but what I said you are a moron and still couldn't read between the lines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read on can you see what i mean?
______________________________________________________________
Life in the simple line lane must be facenating, you seem to be stuck.
Or are you from texas ?
02 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999He could read between the lines...
The moron is the one that was wrong. ok ? understand ?
Or are you from texas ?
Not bad for a a new bee.
Did you strain your self?
But Texas....
Sweden mate Sweden.
And forgive mee for calling you a morron, you are clearly not a moron. You have evalved into a normal Shmoe, with chutzba.
And the ther guy who wrote under you to your question Absolutly nada.
But this has:
_________________________________________________________________
Does it really matter in the end what your belife is.
We eill all stand before the ultimate judge and he will ask: Why should I let you in?
Did you even read what we said:
muslims-"Blow people upp and you get go to paradice".
99% of Muslims don't say that.
commite suicide is forbidden in Islam. And killing is forbidden is Islam.
It is so stupid to say something like that. Please go learn.
I know what name jews where using for the name of god, at the time of jesus and still are using "Eloheino"...
...[text shortened]... amaic. The name of GOD in Aramaic is "Allah".
Arabic and Aramiac have the same origin.
I said:wrong wrong
Its true its used to as word for god by muslims but you are forgeting your self. The muslim faith was not as it was to day at that time because it didnt exist...
And btw Jesus said abba that means father. in hebrew witch he use when he did his praise to the lord. get you facts strait.
And I think the guy didnt think strait because at that time thay di talk aramaic but did the praing in hebrew.
But what do we know who live in the year of 2007 buy some munks calander. or buy the yews 5667 or somethin or 1500 somthing from the muslim. Lets face it we actully dont know enough no one of us...exept may be if you are religius leader
02 Aug 07
I hate to butt in but if you look at the three main monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) they are all about the same God and they all think suicide is wrong. So along your lines Muslim Suicide bombers are going straight to Hell! Get over the petty difference of the three aforementioned faiths and see that God was giving us three books to study from the Original testament was written by men and is the word of God, i dont know what else the Jews read, maybe someone can enlighten me, the New Testament is the life of Jesus who was a Jew, and the Koran is basically the teachings and prophecies of one man Mohammed, can we really trust any thing other then the original teachings and the power of pray to see us through these troubled times
06 Aug 07
Quote from a school textbook used to impart simple philosophical concepts to primary school kids in the 1950s:
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Whether you are a believer (Jewish) or a believer (Muslim) or a believer (Hindu) or a believer (whatever label you care to put on it) you believe in something outside ourselves, to which some respect and attention should be given.
If you believe that God does not exist, or never existed, you are still a believer in the sense that your belief is not directly supported by evidence - you cannot believe a negative.
Why is it necessary to attempt to convince others that your choice of belief is "THE ONE" and "THE ONLY ONE"?
Why cannot we all agree to disagree on matters of belief and instead turn our attention to working towards a better life for all living beings?
The amount of wealth possessed by the world's religions could have abolished starvation, disease and suffering for everyone on earth if it had not been directed into competition for the "Only God" trophy.
My 20c worth.
06 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MissOleumNice post, but this is clearly false.
If you believe that God does not exist, or never existed, you are still a believer in the sense that your belief is not directly supported by evidence - you cannot believe a negative.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It may be one of the weakest forms of evidence, but it is, nonetheless, a very important one.
Carl Sagan mixed up evidence and proof. These are two different things.
Edit - Except for "unknowable" gods, which are meaningless ones (see Ignosticism).
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by MissOleumThere is plenty of very solid evidence that the entity that the word "God" is usually taken to be referring to - does not exist.
If you believe that God does not exist, or never existed, you are still a believer in the sense that your belief is not directly supported by evidence - you cannot believe a negative.
Why cannot we all agree to disagree on matters of belief and instead turn our attention to working towards a better life for all living beings?
Because it is those very beliefs that are stopping us from working towards a better life for all living beings.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaPersonally I agree with you, but I was trying to remain completely neutral here. From the point of view of any "believer" we atheists are unbelievers, I was trying to show that we simply follow a different set of beliefs. The statement - that we require hard evidence to support our set of beliefs - only goes to support the religious person's view that we are wrong-thinkers, not just different-thinkers.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It may be one of the weakest forms of evidence, but it is, nonetheless, a very important one.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by MissOleumWell, said. The important think is that we are all...thinkers. 🙂
Personally I agree with you, but I was trying to remain completely neutral here. From the point of view of any "believer" we atheists are unbelievers, I was trying to show that we simply follow a different set of beliefs. The statement - that we require hard evidence to support our set of beliefs - only goes to support the religious person's view that we are wrong-thinkers, not just different-thinkers.
06 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MissOleumFor the Christian, the battle is not based in the material world. For example, in the Bible, the last great battle of Armageddon occurs in and around the Holy Land. What do we see today? Does it not look as though this is unfolding? Is this not evidence? Make no mistake about it, that battle is just around the corner.
Quote from a school textbook used to impart simple philosophical concepts to primary school kids in the 1950s:
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Whether you are a believer (Jewish) or a believer (Muslim) or a believer (Hindu) or a believer (whatever label you care to put on it) you believe in something outside ourselves, if it had not been directed into competition for the "Only God" trophy.
My 20c worth.
As far as making this a better world, it is my belief that this can ONLY be done one heart at a time. Changing hearts is what is at the core of Christianity, not changing governments or nations. You can change laws, but you can't change a persons will or motivation. Many think that Christ came to simply save us from hell, however, he also said that he came to not only give us life but that we would have it more abundantly. My life today is worth much more to me than before my conversion because I am happier and I have more love for my fellow man. Also, one must ponder the reason we are all here. Make no mistake about it, we are all here for a very short time. Therefore, why focus merely on temperal matters if you believe there is more to life than this current life?
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhy not focus on temporal matters? Whether you believe there is more to life than this current life or not has nothing to do with world peace, freedom from hunger, freedom from fear and pain. What's so wrong with trying to improve the current life of everyone, whether they believe in X or Y or Z or whatever? Whether you feel good or bad because of your belief is as irrelevant as feeling good or bad because you had a meal today. It is possible to feel good, or bad, under almost any circumstances if a human being chooses to do so, feelings are not facts.
why focus merely on temperal matters if you believe there is more to life than this current life?
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by MissOleumDid I say to never focus on temperal matters? No. There is a balance. One can focus on eternal and temperal matters at the same time, no? Jesus even did the same. For example, he fed the multitude with a handful of food in the Bible via a miracle. Then they wanted to make him their king. However, Christ told them to seek the kingdom of God and the bread of life more than only where the next meal is coming from. He then withdrew himself from them. I suppose he could have stuck around and been their free meal ticket for the rest of their lives, however, there is more to this life than eating/drinking. As we can see, Christ adressed both issues but gave emphesis to eternal matters. What profits a man if he gain the whole world and loses his own soul?
Why not focus on temporal matters? Whether you believe there is more to life than this current life or not has nothing to do with world peace, freedom from hunger, freedom from fear and pain. What's so wrong with trying to improve the current life of everyone, whether they believe in X or Y or Z or whatever? Whether you feel good or bad because of your ...[text shortened]... bad, under almost any circumstances if a human being chooses to do so, feelings are not facts.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyI think you will find that it is a very long corner.
For the Christian, the battle is not based in the material world. For example, in the Bible, the last great battle of Armageddon occurs in and around the Holy Land. What do we see today? Does it not look as though this is unfolding? Is this not evidence? Make no mistake about it, that battle is just around the corner.
Are you willing to put a date range on that or will you just leave it open to interpretation? For example will you tell your children not to bother with a pension fund?
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by MissOleumI know this is way off topic but more money is not going to solve the starvation problem. Excluding the wealth of the religious groups, the world currently has enough food, enough technical know-how and financial resources to feed everyone. The problems are population distribution, food distribution, greed and politics. Capitalism is partly to blame for the greed part, but its also the reason for the bumper harvests.
The amount of wealth possessed by the world's religions could have abolished starvation, disease and suffering for everyone on earth .....................