11 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiAs far as denying the existence of God and Satan - to do so can only be done so on faith. There is plenty of evidence for both, but no one can prove or disprove the existence if the supernatural. Recognizing that any position one take on the issue is essential a matter of faith is the most honest thing you can do.
I've never heard of any Biblical support for the "devil made me do it" excuse. If anything, one could say that opposite, God made me do it. Either was, you are held responsible for you actions so neither plead will excuse you deeds.
As far as denying the existence of God and Satan - to do so can only be done so on faith. There is plenty of evidence ...[text shortened]... ne should take ownership of the good and evil they do if by that you mean assume responsibility.
i am not sure what evidence you are referring to, but i like this post immensely.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloMe too but as for having a need for faith, I have my doubts. I don't believe in reincarnation and have seen too many of the faithful killed in tragic accidents and horrific crimes to believe. I enjoy people that have faith, they are usually brighter and happier in their outlook and actively care for people.
[b]As far as denying the existence of God and Satan - to do so can only be done so on faith. There is plenty of evidence for both, but no one can prove or disprove the existence if the supernatural. Recognizing that any position one take on the issue is essential a matter of faith is the most honest thing you can do.
i am not sure what evidence you are referring to, but i like this post immensely.[/b]
I guess I retain faith in good..
ps who is Flip Wilson was he a bad 70's comedian? think I saw him once...whats the relevance.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree with you the Bible is a good read even if you are an atheist .I have found along with Bible Ramayana, Mahabharatha, The Gita to be good thought provoking books which have a lot of good ideas and noble truths in illustrative form. If you just seek to ignore the super-natural implications in them they are an enjoyable read .
[b]as your an atheist the bible holds no ground with you
speaking for myself (a weak atheist), i don't understand why you would automatically draw this conclusion. i think the bible is a good read. i also think it has a lot of useful ideas on how one should live one's life. for example, the whole 'do unto others as you would have others do un ...[text shortened]... makes me contemplate the necessity of the bible in any capacity. still, it's a pleasant read.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by Daemon SinPerhaps you should read this whole thread!
Do you have any idea how obnoxious and arrogant you sound?! Who are you to go around playing judge and jury on people's beliefs?!
You're criticising peoples understanding of God on what basis? The basis that YOU understand God and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is wrong? That's the way it's coming across to people reading this thread you know!
To justify myself let me reiterate that the entity of God, (that i am thinking of) is established christian teaching that many fail to realise. Poeple dispute a seven- foot high wizard aloft a golden throne sutrrounded by angels some one hundred meters above our heads. However the christian churches perceives God to be Love. Not in substance. But actual love. I speculate that that atheists do not know what God is, because they refute a fundamental existence inherent to humans. This is a theological argument developed in Paul's letter to the Romanans and Corintians. I didn't criticise. Do you know the way what your saying is coming across to other poeple reading this thread?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by Conrau KI think he meant that it would have come across better had you stated this earlier... I wasn't sure what you meant. I accept that God is Love but you must accept that athiests can understand and live by love without believing in a deity creator.
Perhaps you should read this whole thread!
To justify myself let me reiterate that the entity of God, (that i am thinking of) is established christian teaching that many fail to realise. Poeple dispute a seven- foot high wizard aloft a golden throne sutrrounded by angels some one hundred meters above our heads. However the christian churches perceives God ...[text shortened]... cise. Do you know the way what your saying is coming across to other poeple reading this thread?
I selectively hold on to many Christian principals yet hold them by the reins and pull them up by saying that I feel a better person for realising my beliefs. I don't believe the God I've been told of all my life would be offended by what I've said and believe and I believe if Jesus were alive today reading this he'd say cheers and drink to it agreeing that it is the good... or the love if you like that matters most.
That love must be the common fundiment of any peace and unity in this world.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kugh...i don't really understand why some people think they can employ any old definitions they want in a debate.
Perhaps you should read this whole thread!
To justify myself let me reiterate that the entity of God, (that i am thinking of) is established christian teaching that many fail to realise. Poeple dispute a seven- foot high wizard aloft a g ...[text shortened]... your saying is coming across to other poeple reading this thread?
despite what you say, the christian bible actively propones god as a supernatural being. yes, it says that 'god is love' -- it says a lot of such nondescriptive nonsense. if you want to redefine 'god' to be 'love', then i am no longer an atheist within your cryptic framework. i would anticipate that nearly everyone else you blow smoke at is no longer an atheist either. so where is your beef? you have just actively defined all your problems away. if only it were that simple.
of course, i am an atheist, and i am still here, which means you have failed to define me out of existence. which also means that your definition is esoteric and incoherent. i am not a mindless troll here to stamp out love -- love is a good thing and we need more of it. i am a natural being here to debate your belief in a supernatural being.
I speculate that that atheists do not know what God is
perhaps in some mental constructs like your cryptic definitions-don't-matter world.
Do you know the way what your saying is coming across to other poeple reading this thread?
what DS was saying made perfect sense to me.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloAre you an atheist or do you say you are an atheist?
ugh...i don't really understand why some people think they can employ any old definitions they want in a debate.
despite what you say, the christian bible actively propones god as a supernatural being. yes, it says that 'god is love' -- it says a lot of such nondescriptive nonsense. if you want to redefine 'god' to be 'love', then i am no lo ...[text shortened]... across to other poeple reading this thread?
what DS was saying made perfect sense to me.[/b]
The idea of love makes the trinity concept make sense. Jesus is love incarnated in flesh (if that is how you take it). I have read the entire bible, i have read theological manucripts. So far I have not discovered nonsense in the bible that cannot be interpreted amidst the entire bible. Some of it I understand has been fabricated, inserted and changed. But even in Hebrew scriptues we see evidence of an opnion that God is love. What is more important is what love means to you? Is is romatic, platonic, is it the love by which Jesus died on the cross or a universal force that guides us to commit actions of love (St. Pauls holds that human nature is inherently evil, and can only do right by God through the body of Christ).
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by Conrau KAthiests refer to Genesis the creation. The sciences of chemistry geology and biology hold the answers to the creation not theology. For me the idea that a deity created the world and light, one man and one woman is wrong. If you are modernising a new version of genesis to say Love created the world.. as in old world + love = new world then a lot may rethink... please explain your standpoint on Love and the creation.
Are you an atheist or do you say you are an atheist?
The idea of love makes the trinity concept make sense. Jesus is love incarnated in flesh (if that is how you take it). I have read the entire bible, i have read theological manucripts. So far I have not discovered nonsense in the bible that cannot be interpreted amidst the entire bible. Some of it I und ...[text shortened]... that human nature is inherently evil, and can only do right by God through the body of Christ).
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by Conrau KAre you an atheist or do you say you are an atheist?
Are you an atheist or do you say you are an atheist?
The idea of love makes the trinity concept make sense. Jesus is love incarnated in flesh (if that is how you take it). I have read the entire bible, i have read theological manucripts. So far I have not discovered nonsense in the bible that cannot be interpreted amidst the entire bible. Some of it I und ...[text shortened]... that human nature is inherently evil, and can only do right by God through the body of Christ).
both.
The idea of love makes the trinity concept make sense. Jesus is love incarnated in flesh...(etcetera)...
i really don't care what liberties you take with your faith to make it more appealing or more comfortable in your own estimation. the fact of the matter is that christianity, like many other theistic belief systems, believes in a god that happens to be a supernatural being (as in, above and beyond the knowable, natural world). regardless of what other attributes or labels you stick on him, this is the substance of my atheism. therefore, you can only remove my atheism (with respect to your belief system) if your definition of god maintains that god is wholly a natural, or knowable, being (generally, love has nothing to do with this dicussion); of course, if you do this, you still won't necessarily convince me that you are right (for example, your god might be your pet cat named Love); moreover, your definition would explicitly conflict with the bible, and thus you would be rejecting your own faith.
translation: you cannot have it both ways -- you cannot define me out or your little world and still find your little world inhabitable for your own beliefs. so if you keep informing me that i don't exist, i'll have reason to believe that neither do you. that's the silliest sentence i have ever conceived, so just please stop informing me that i don't exist.