My 2 fav subjects- Starwars and Religion

gen 4:25

begat seth


gen 5:4

begat sons and daughters


king james version

 

Another prediction of the Bible that came true was in Ezekiel. Alexander the Great's rise and fall was predicted long before he was born. It also explained how after his death his empire would be split among 4 generals, this came true as well.

 

OKAY! It's taken me a long time to follow this discuss through over onehundred and fifty posts, and I greatly enjoy religious discussions. And I'm jumping in here to make one point.

I will not yet reveal what I believe, because doing so will simply cause all of you to make an immediate judgement and reduce anything I say to "typical so-and-so explanations for such-and-such." Not that I am ashamed of what I believe, Quite the opposite, in fact, but I will propose a point and see if in ignorance of my beliefs you can better evaluate your own.

Knowing myself, had the situation been reversed, probably not, but here it goes.

Jastermereel,

You claim to be an athiest. And for many of the reasons that other friends of mine make. And I will try to present this to you in writing the way I've done to them in voice.

As an athiest you say, without question, that there is no god. You know this for certain and anyone who says differently is obviously wrong. Is this not an incredibly arrogant position to take? By saying that you know that god does not exist, you in essence say that you know that billions of people who believe in a god of some form are wrong and that you are right. Yet you have no proof of such, just as your fellow Star Wars fans have no proof that their god, or the Force, or Zen exists.

Is there not a possibility that you do not know everything and that perhaps there is a god? To say no is to deny your own fallibility, the thing that makes you human. If you say yes, you are no longer an athiest, you are an agnositic. Either way, your belief system is still defined by your unseeing trust in a concept that you have defined by your world view: faith, my friend.

Now, take a step back and observe yourself. You are a human, made up of cells. But the complexity of a single cell is well beyond my, ,our, or anyone's comprehension. The immense complexity of a single DNA strand, of which we have trillions, is untraceable. The way the eye works, or and single system of the bidy, such as the circulatory, or nervous system, are amazing. They function with an efficiciency we only wish we could simulate in our machines, but we cannot. Our brain is still a big question mark as to its limits and it's inner workings. An amazing and complex system you are, jastermereel.

You do not know the innerworkings of even your own body, so how do you propose to know for certain whether of not a god far higher and more complex than you exists of does not exist? Were you there when such a being wove this universe together? Were you a witness of the big bang? No. Neither was I, nor was anyone. Thus any belief in god or to the contrary is by definition a belief by faith in an unseen unknown event.

Now, know now that I believe in God, the God of Chrisitanity. You may not, and that is fine, but know that your position of athieism is not one of reason, but one that is founded on your faith, the very thing you have been criticizing.

I doubt this forum will exist much longer, but if it does I'll be around. If not, I am willing to accept a friendly PM. Farewell and thank you for hearing me out.

Orion_Star

 

Orion_Star......being an Atheist is no more arrogant than any other position, asside from Agnostic...any religion takes a stance and yet you call me arrogant because i do not take the "humble" position of declaring there to definately be a god...

Wildwookiee...You said "STD's ARE punishment for immoral lifesyle. Nature itself has rules, that we as humans attempt to break all the time. Last thing, Athiesm is the "belief in the non existence of God"...now, that statement there is proof of Gods existence. It is just saying that you refuse to consider it. Tell me somthing, is there anything that I could possibly say, that would convence you in the existence of God?"............i have a few questions for you.........first of all...what exactly do you mean by "immoral lifestyle"?...choose your words carefully on that one.........second...what do you mean by nature having rules that we try to break? i'm not saying i disagree...nor am i saying that i agree...but...i'm curious as to what you mean by that......and third (parts A and B)...what were you smoking when you declared that Athiesm proves the existence of a god by not beliving in it!? and what does it say about those who do belive in god that they(or at least you) belive in the validity of such an illogical phrase?...by refusing to consider your belief true, i somehow prove that that which i refuse to consider is true?......lets say that a man buys an ordinary bag of dried beans...on the way home he sees a man and tells him that the bag of beans really a bag of magic beans capeable of wonders beyond his wildest dreams......the other man tells him that he refuses to belive that they are magic beans.........by your logic the man currently holding the bag should be overjoyed, because with that simple phrase his groceries suddenly gained magical powers.........refusing to belive that a falsehood is true does not make the falsehood any more true......likewise, not accepting an unsatisfactoraly supported idea as true does not make that idea have any more weight to it or make it any more true...it merely shows an opposing viewpoint......Do you refuse to belive in my being right?...if so, unless you are truly hypocritical, would have to belive by your own logic that i am truly right anyway............By the way...in answer to your question...No...there is nothing you, or any other person could say that could make me change my mind in this debate......

P.S. i would like to apologize for my occasional rudeness in this post however twisted logic being touted as proof irritates me greatly...

 

He's right about immoral liefestyle, a good portion of the std's came from bestiality.

 

He's not right. STDs aren't punishment for anything any more than lung cancer is punishment for the immoral behavior of smoking. Cause and effect does not imply intent by an intelligent decision-maker. Justice is not meted out in the universe with germs and viruses, and if that's how you'd punish someone who engaged in behavior you didn't approve of, it doesn't say much about your sense of mercy and fair play, especially since people with all kinds of behavior are vulnerable.

 

I wasn't agreeing about punishment, but ALL diseases came about because of sin. Starting with adam and eve. Back in the day, sailors had some fun on long voyages with sheep and other animals and some communicable diseases that had only been in animals came over to humans.

 

to start with...i would like to apologize for my almost rabid responce...that style was uncalled for......


you seem to keep stating that disease is a result of sin......and then you go and, most often, use AIDS as an example.........what about the common cold?...or the Flu?...Asthma?...Chronic heartburn?...Seasonal Alergies?...how about infections?...or diareaha?...is it now immoral to have spicey mexican food?............it is rather interesting, this judgement of what is and isn't immoral.........many many civilizations ago...well before this so called savior appeared...there was a different standard to what was and wasn't immoral...some civilizations in the past, quite acomplished ones at that, were not opposed to canabolism or human sacrifice...and yet we object to that now on moral grounds...others, some in relatively recent history, were not opposed to bestiality, or other more mild forms of sexual experimentation......and while i myself don't support bestiality, i realize that some, if not most, of my own objection to the practice may lie in the fact that i was raised in a time when christianity controls most of the "moral" judgments around me.........

Take a moment and think about this: Are there any moral absolutes or simply morals of the present culture?

For that matter...who are you to judge what is and isn't immoral simply based off of your interpritation (or your reciting somebody elses interpritation) of some arcane novel?

 

Jastermereel: I, too, am an athiest and agree with most of the points you made. However, I found it amusing that you requested that Tahiri_2 use better spelling, etc., yet you (if I remember correctly) haven't ended a single sentence in any of your posts. You just keep doing those three litle dots. I just found it amusing.

EDIT : Sorry, I just noticed that you occasionally end sentences with question marks instead of the three little dots.

 

How can you say that all the pain you get form diseases isn't a punishment? Why would god make a good person suffer like that? And don't say its a test of faith! If God is all powerful and all knowing than his followers do not need to be tested. Also if god can control everything he wouldn't torture that person and their loved ones.

 

I love the dots of ellipsis...

I havn't seen aids used as an example yet. My point was that the original sin brought all kinds of pain intot he world. Pain in childbearing being one specific.
Anyways, you hit the nail on the head regarding morality. If we're animals anything goes. I can kill whoever I want.

I'm not going into what's a sin and what's not, but disease or sickness is not judgement most of the time. It's just the effect of living in an imperfect world.

I hate when someone says don't judge me. That's so ridiculous, no one's perfect so if only perfect people can judge, life's a free for all.

If something has negative effects on you and others around you, it might not be something good to do.

arcane novel indeed, you can't stand the fact that it's the most read book of all-time can you? lol



edit-tahiri, why can't you see that he's not a player moving game pieces. Things happen as a result of us doing things affecting someone else etc. The angels are his gamepieces, we have free will and mostly free reign on this planet. what's that law about everything breaking down, you know, that one that flies in the face of evolution? our bodies mess up, they're corruptible, some worse, some sooner. dwelling on that makes for a very sad existence.

 

i dunno y everyone has such a problem with religion. if u dont want to hear it, then u dont have to. i think that u should at least TRY to respect this person's views, and the fact that u r not i think is increadibly rude. u dont HAVE to share the same views, just try to be respectful. and if u dont want a god to exist, He doesnt have to ok? people disgust me with their rudeness.

 

suncrusherX...i'm sorry...indeed AIDS wasn't directly refered to......my mind must have extrapolated from the sailors and bestiality comment.........but what exactly did you mean by that "If we're animals anything goes. I can kill whoever I want." comment...i'm not sure i fully understand what you meant.........btw...about that "I hate when someone says don't judge me. That's so ridiculous, no one's perfect so if only perfect people can judge, life's a free for all."...isn't that against the whole thing in the new testament about...he who is without sin throw the first stone...or something to that effect?.........also...were you refering to the morality dispute when you said "If something has negative effects on you and others around you, it might not be something good to do."?......if so...doesn't that comment about the sailors and the immorality of bestiality sort of not make full sence in that...it wouldn't have negative effects on the person in question or those around that person if it weren't for the claimed, deity deemed immorality of it?...basicaly...if it hadn't been considered immoral by your god then it wouldn't have negative effects......so...its immoral because it had negative effects, but it only has the negative effects because it was deemed immoral by this deity and not by any universal moral standard.........sorry about the incoherancy there...its past 12:30AM here............and no...its not that i can't stand that it is the most read book of all time...i call it arcane because of its age and because so little of it applies in any real sence to today...and i call it a novel because it is a work of fiction...

Tahiri_2......i'm curious...after reading your post...i must ask...do you know the story of Job?...the guy that, should my memory hold true, the biblical god tormented heavily, on a simple bet with the devil......in essence, not in the details, wasn't that what the story was about? you said: "Also if god can control everything he wouldn't torture that person and their loved ones."...but thats exactly what he did...according to the text in question...

Ghent42...finaly an ally in this effort...i was getting ready to yell out for one...thank bob you're here...(ever read Mostly Harmless?...the fifth book in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy trilogy...if not...then just skim over that bob comment)......i use the "..." to seperate my thoughts as opposed to standard sentance structure...so far, no one has complained of having it be dificult to understand...presently i don't recal exactly why i requested the spelling alterations and its way too late at night to scan back through the logs to find out......btw...i occasionaly end in exclamation points too! not just ellipsises and question marks...

And finaly...marajade91...not to be disrespectful...but i'm just curious why the existence of a deity is the default in your post: "...if u dont want a god to exist, He doesnt have to ok?"

 

jastermereel- wut do u mean? i saw some kinda rude posts about how they dont beleive in got, etc. and if THEY dont want god to exist, to them, He doesnt. but to the rest of us, let us think wut we want. i didnt mean to offend anyone

 

you didn't offend anyone......i was just sort of nit picking by...eh...nevermind...disregard that comment in the previous post...twas pointless...

 

AHHHHHHH! I never have any problem backing up in my browser. But I just lost my whole reply!

Killing is wrong. But you're right, if there's no God then what's the hold up? Look how bad atheist countries have ended up. No morality is not a fun place to live. The first stone thing was basicall Jesus eliminating the death penalty and the pharisees other extrapolated commandments. He's move society from the Old testament to the new. Sex with animals had negative effects. It allowed viruses to jump the species gap harming all mankind. Even sin in private affects someone somehow sometime. I like to believe everyone, even atheists, have an internal moral compass. It naturally feels to good to do right and help others. And guilty to do wrong. It's not just cause society teaches us that, even toddlers no when they've done run and they look around for their parents to catch them.

I don't see how the bible is old and outdated. People who never even read it say that all the time because they've been told that. A map can be out of date. A recipe requiring a dodo bird is useless. Instructions on how to enbalm a corpse are nothing more than a historical curiosity.
But the bible has the history of mankind, things to come, things that were to come and were written before they came to pass, guide to moral living, action, adventure, romance, mystery. Sure it's a bit boring, but what is it that makes it outdated?

Not fun being ganged up on is it?

 

How can the Bible be out of date when so many prophecies have been fulfilled in recent times even? Here are some prophecies of Israel that have been fulfilled recently: "The mountains shall once again yield trees and fruit, as they shoot forth their branches (Ezek. 38:8)"-Israel has started a re-forestation program which has resulted in millions of trees being planted on the mountains and slopes.
"The wilderness shall be a pool of water and rivers in the desert (Is. 41:18 and 43:19,20"--A vast irrigation system has turned the once much of the once desert into garden.
"The greatest part of modern Israel's land has been purchased from former Arab owners of Syria, Turkey, etc. Not only was Israel given given this land by divine promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but they have also obtained the land through legal means. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied 2500 years before that when Israel would return to the land - Jer. 32:42-44" -Israel's Destiny
The Mediterranean-Dead Sea Canal project was also predicted in Ezekiel 47:8-12 and Zechariah 14.

 

jedi master yoda 7: you shouldt take the bible so literally, especially the old-testament. very few things are meant to be that literall. the bible uses metaphors all the way up to the new testament. then it becomes more a question of interpretation. jesus didnt use metaphors like that all the time. i think what those excerpts meant was this: many people lived in the desert then, right? so god promised them that one day they would no longer have to search for food or water, as the mountains would become fertile and rivers would flow through the barren deserts. could this be a referal to the kindom of heaven? i think so. ANOTHER edit: remember how god told moses at the burning bush that his ancestors would live in a place "flowing with milk and honey"? it didnt literally mean that their would be rivers of milk and honey, but when moses freed the jewish slaves they crossed the river jordan into the promised land. milk and honey were probably very nice to have, so it was compared to the promised land bc it was o nice. i know that wasnt worded right but ive been sitting here for five minutes and cant get my thoughts in order. but im sure u know wut i mean. sry that i used shorthand in this!

 

marajade-the bible IS meant to be taken literally for the most part. critics have said otherwise for year with no basis for their argument. word of mouth has made many people believe this and doubt the bible for no reason.

jedimaster-right on, there's been even more than that. They want to rebuild the temple now. That's one of the last signs.

 

i still have to disagree. i beleive that god created the universe and everything in it but u cant think that he just said let there be grass and it appeared. he came up with all the little things like photosynthesis, and nuclear physics for the stars, everything. it doesnt say that in the bible though bc it was meant for human interpretation at that time.

 

what?! He can create it but he's bound to rules he started? what? the bible teaches a God bang theory. He said let there be grass nad bang, there it was.

 

yes, hes bound to the rules he started. have YOU seen him magically save a, say, skydiver whos parachute wont open, by defying gravity and gently setting him down? no. i think that god built rules that the univers had to follow--FOREVER--and let it go form there. why he thought earth was so special is another subject entirely but if anyone wants to know wut i think ill post it later.
OH, and, hes bound to OUR rules. heaven, hell and whatever unearthly type things that fit in-between are first of all beyond comprehension and probably follow entirely different rules. if god so chooses to save a life i beleive he can do so when it is needed. but the only person in earth history to magically break the rules, so to speak was jesus. healing lepors, bringing pple back from the dead, etc.

 

anyone care--or dare ;-) --to differ?

 

i take that as a no?

 

The Bible is very real. the land flowing with milk and honey meant that God was leading the Isrealites to a land that is plentifull. There are many things in the Bible that are not symbolic...such as the miracles that Elijah and many other prophets performed. The Bible is written with the insperation and the will of God, nothing in it can be untrue. The Bible usually states when it is being literal, or symbolic. If you believe in God, then you must believe in the Bible.

Respecting others beliefs doesn't mean agreeing with them, or not bringing up your true beliefs with the fear of "offending" (i hate that word) others. If I don't talk truthfully to people who disagree with me, then I disrespect them more at that time than I would if I just conceed a point I don't really believe.

J.M- My comment the other night was written late, and I feel that I need to clean it up somewhat...God, simply put, is one who is the most supreme in all the universe. If you agree with that statement, then you agree that you are somewhere on the spectrum between supremacy and infeariority. If you say you don't believe in a supreme being, you are truly saying that you don't believe in somthing greater than yourself (man) thereby giving yourself (man) the title of supreme being of the Universe. Your statement of Athiesm can not stand up under that, because you leave no room for the possiblility of somthing out there being greater than yourself, (so you are now the supreme being) and you confess that you believe that there is no supreme being, you are saying that you don't believe in yourself either. Even if you say that somthing else is greater, than you are elevating a god over you...either way, you cant get away with saying "there is no supreme being".