What if God..

[Elenai]

Which one? <.< there are quite a few.

EDIT: Upon seeing it I take you back to this.

1+1=2

1+1=3

1+1=4

1+1=0

1+1= numbers don't exist they are illusions created by man to quantify amount

It doesn't matter, if you were raised to believe 1+1=3, or if you decided that numbers are illusions. It doesn't matter if I by some sheer random guess pick 1+1=4, or even if you did the research and some how managed to get 1+1=0...in the end one of these has to be the most logical, and correct answer.

 

[Pyritie]

It doesn't matter, if you were raised to believe 1+1=3, or if you decided that numbers are illusions. It doesn't matter if I by some sheer random guess pick 1+1=4, or even if you did the research and some how managed to get 1+1=0...in the end one of these has to be the most logical, and correct answer.

If someone believes that 1 + 1 = 3 then their meaning of "3" is different from its normal meaning.

 

[PurplePoot]

Which one? <.< there are quite a few.

EDIT: Upon seeing it I take you back to this.

And yet you're implying you are the only possible one with consequences - you completely missed the point.

 

[Elenai]

If someone believes that 1 + 1 = 3 then their meaning of "3" is different from its normal meaning.

Or they could simply be awful at math.

And yet you're implying you are the only possible one with consequences - you completely missed the point.

Wrong.

 

[PurplePoot]

Wrong.

Then how do you have everything to win and nothing to lose?

 

[Elenai]

Then how do you have everything to win and nothing to lose?

You said that I imply that I am the only possible solution with consequences.

I did not ever give the solution. It is only 'present' for people to see.

I did not miss the point, because in the end there is to my assured belief, only one solution, the rest of which are logically false. The point of which, is what if you are wrong and pick the wrong answer? Simply put you then are 'wrong' there is no subjective 'other' that you can use as an excuse.

If God exists and you pick Desgag the Picklelord instead, after having the answers put in front of you...then you are 'wrong' and you fail the test, and get your bad grade. And that is that.

He failed to answer that point. He failed to pick A, B, C, D, etc. The questions asked in the response had no answers to choose from, the question therefore becomes irrelevant to the point the girl was trying to make when she asked 'what if you are wrong'.

There is a point, when life gives you a question, and you have to answer it. If you don't answer correctly...then there isn't anything you can do about it at that point, and you'll have to face the F grade in the end. Choose right and you'll get an A.

There are no grey answers when the black and white question of "stay in the collapsing building, or get out" comes your way. There is no alternative choice when you are dangling off a really slippery cliff and a man reaches his hand down. You either grab it, or fall to your death. If you are lucky you might hit a branch, or outcrop...but the point is that you can't stay on the outcrop forever. You'll eventually have to climb up and grab the man's hand, fall off, or die of exposure.

If there is a pink unicorn that will throw me into a vat of acid for not believing in him, then it is only thus because by his fault he did not make his answer choices apparent on the test. I cannot be wrong on a test, if the answer booklet is blank.

God did not give such an easy luxury when you or I sat down in the classroom of life.

 

[Aschy]

You said that I imply that I am the only possible solution with consequences.

I did not ever give the solution. It is only 'present' for people to see.

I did not miss the point, because in the end there is to my assured belief, only one solution, the rest of which are logically false. The point of which, is what if you are wrong and pick the wrong answer? Simply put you then are 'wrong' there is no subjective 'other' that you can use as an excuse.

If God exists and you pick Desgag the Picklelord instead, after having the answers put in front of you...then you are 'wrong' and you fail the test, and get your bad grade. And that is that.

He failed to answer that point. He failed to pick A, B, C, D, etc. The questions asked in the response had no answers to choose from, the question therefore becomes irrelevant to the point the girl was trying to make when she asked 'what if you are wrong'.

I thought your solution was Christianity, Elenia?

Yes Poot there is more than one religion that believes If you believe, or have had God's word explained enough to you for you to teach it someone else, and you still fuck around with immoral activity's that your gonna die.

I also think trying to prove that your belief is the most correct to others who don't believe it is the most absolutely retarded thing ever! Unless you use "actual" (none of that maybe shit) fact from written sources you can't prove shit to anyone else. Especially if your some of your proof that you maybe correct, is a question in which asks everyone the same question "What if your wrong" its completely counter productive, you want to prove that your belief is true so, research it.

I haven't watched the responses to that video is it even worth it or do they all just bash each other?


Edit:

If there is a pink unicorn that will throw me into a vat of acid for not believing in him, then it is only thus because by his fault he did not make his answer choices apparent on the test. I cannot be wrong on a test, if the answer booklet is blank.

You just blew my fucking mind

 

[Elenai]

I thought your solution was Christianity, Elenia?

It is, but I did not name which of the 1+1's are Christianity, and will never name which one it may be, since I didn't even put a faith behind any of the 1+1's as Purplepoot is saying that I did/am.

My point is that the idea that any of them are any faith is moot, and void.

The metaphor is merely to illustrate that only one answer can be logically correct, that you need to pick the right answer logically, or perhaps you pick it by random luck, and that if you choose wrong you are wrong, not 'possibly right, possibly wrong', it doesn't matter what other factors go into your choice.

 

[PurplePoot]

I'm referring specifically to the response mentioned in the video description.

It is, but I did not name which of the 1+1's are Christianity, and will never name which one it may be, since I didn't even put a faith behind any of the 1+1's as Purplepoot is saying that I did/am.

I'm talking about the afterlife thing, not the 1+1 thing.

 

[Elenai]

I'm talking about the afterlife thing, not the 1+1 thing.

Well...If there is indeed a God as I believe, then I have everything to gain by seeking him. And those who choose not to seek him have everything to lose, being therefore left outside of his presence.

If the other faiths be right, what is their offer?

In wicca I would simply go to the summerland, and be reborn later.

In the eastern faiths, I would simply reincarnate.

In the pagan faiths I would go to whatever halls my ancestors went to to either revel in the glory of my deeds, or fall to my misdeeds.

The problem is, these faiths do not answer the questions I asked, and are not logically fit.

The eastern religions are too cyclictic, and will last only as long as the universe. Offering no stable answers.

Wicca was created by a man in the 60's/70's as a mishmash of neo-pagan new age beliefs. And the pagan faiths do not carry over to the current generation.

Wicca being neo-pagan with many gods, and the old pagan faiths likewise having many gods, these gods being essentially 'over hyped humans'...well...they just don't seem mature enough to make a stable universe. And multiple gods having not the ability to work together would destroy it inevitably, or split it.

The Old Pagan faiths were focused on the yearly cycle of the seasonal harvests, and protecting the village, their gods specifically purposed for making sure they stayed alive for their brief passage in time, and then their spirits would go to the halls of their fathers.

And the afterlives of the Old Pagan faiths is simply too earthly to be of divine origins.

The Wiccan afterlife falls under the same category as the eastern ones. Too cyclictic.

The consequences are not of much concern in these faiths, since you merely have to 'live' and not be 'horrible' in the eyes of other people.

The consequences of the Abrahamic faiths however hinges upon the dire ledge of choice. "God or me". Likewise, they answer more of my questions than do the others. It makes more sense, thus...I pick it. So logically I would say "this is right".

 

[PurplePoot]

Well...If there is indeed a God as I believe, then I have everything to gain by seeking him. And those who choose not to seek him have everything to lose, being therefore left outside of his presence.

No one is asking "what if you're right", because everyone knows the answer.

The problem is, these faiths do not answer the questions I asked, and are not logically fit.

Because of course, christianity is logical.

Wicca was created by a man in the 60's/70's as a mishmash of neo-pagan new age beliefs. And the pagan faiths do not carry over to the current generation.

Nor do the 2000 year old beliefs. You say so yourself when you discount the OT, which is the fundamental basis of what you believe.

And multiple gods having not the ability to work together would destroy it inevitably, or split it.

"God works in mysterious ways" (or something...?)

The Old Pagan faiths were focused on the yearly cycle of the seasonal harvests, and protecting the village, their gods specifically purposed for making sure they stayed alive for their brief passage in time, and then their spirits would go to the halls of their fathers.

Sounds like they were actually not completely delusional.

And the afterlives of the Old Pagan faiths is simply too earthly to be of divine origins.

And you of course would know.

The Wiccan afterlife falls under the same category as the eastern ones. Too cyclictic.

For? Can I deny the christian afterlife simply because I don't like it?

The consequences are not of much concern in these faiths, since you merely have to 'live' and not be 'horrible' in the eyes of other people.

The consequences of the Abrahamic faiths however hinges upon the dire ledge of choice. "God or me". Likewise, they answer more of my questions than do the others. It makes more sense, thus...I pick it. So logically I would say "this is right".

So basically, not being filled with manipulative pricks makes the religion a bad one?

 

[Gausslander]

-only my faith answers all of the questions, blah blah blah-

All you're doing is filling gaps that you do not understand using religion. It's like playing duck, duck, goose and knowing but one word; it's pointless and unintelligent.

 

[Aschy]

It is, but I did not name which of the 1+1's are Christianity, and will never name which one it may be, since I didn't even put a faith behind any of the 1+1's as Purplepoot is saying that I did/am.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, I'm just a fucking retard that's all. I didn't see the "but I did not name which of the 1+1's are Christianity" for some reason. And sorry to Poot if I sounded like an ass in the one paragraph about other religions believing in consequences also.

It's just the second you put blind faith into any aspect of religion it becomes a new religion totally in my view I don't give a shit if you believe in the same "God" so there defiantly is many religions that believe this.

Well...If there is indeed a God as I believe, then I have everything to gain by seeking him. And those who choose not to seek him have everything to lose, being therefore left outside of his presence.

If the other faiths be right, what is their offer?

In wicca I would simply go to the summerland, and be reborn later.

In the eastern faiths, I would simply reincarnate.

In the pagan faiths I would go to whatever halls my ancestors went to to either revel in the glory of my deeds, or fall to my misdeeds.

The problem is, these faiths do not answer the questions I asked, and are not logically fit.

The eastern religions are too cyclictic, and will last only as long as the universe. Offering no stable answers.

Wicca was created by a man in the 60's/70's as a mishmash of neo-pagan new age beliefs. And the pagan faiths do not carry over to the current generation.

Wicca being neo-pagan with many gods, and the old pagan faiths likewise having many gods, these gods being essentially 'over hyped humans'...well...they just don't seem mature enough to make a stable universe. And multiple gods having not the ability to work together would destroy it inevitably, or split it.

The Old Pagan faiths were focused on the yearly cycle of the seasonal harvests, and protecting the village, their gods specifically purposed for making sure they stayed alive for their brief passage in time, and then their spirits would go to the halls of their fathers.

And the afterlives of the Old Pagan faiths is simply too earthly to be of divine origins.

The Wiccan afterlife falls under the same category as the eastern ones. Too cyclictic.

The consequences are not of much concern in these faiths, since you merely have to 'live' and not be 'horrible' in the eyes of other people.

The consequences of the Abrahamic faiths however hinges upon the dire ledge of choice. "God or me". Likewise, they answer more of my questions than do the others. It makes more sense, thus...I pick it. So logically I would say "this is right".

Thanks for clearing that up I had many questions about these man made religions.

But I'm very, very, very, very curious to how many people believe the same as me when I say. "All western celebrations have some aspect in them derived from Pagan traditions, other than the Pass over which is passed on through the Bible from the Jesus at the last supper."

Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

I'm also happy to say that this is the first year that I will partake in this tradition of the passover, since I have come to the belief of God's existence.

"God works in mysterious ways" (or something...?)

Quoting that when you are atheist is kina weird :/ , it is meant to show you how quickly and accurately God's prophecy's will become.

It doesn't mean that all God's share this mysterious power, it never says "Gods work in mysterious ways"

 

[Elenai]

No one is asking "what if you're right", because everyone knows the answer.

You asked a question about the afterlife, I thus gave one.

Of which I also provided answers for if I was wrong.

Because of course, christianity is logical.

It is.

Nor do the 2000 year old beliefs. You say so yourself when you discount the OT, which is the fundamental basis of what you believe.

Casting runes and sacrificing a pig to a fertility god to predict whether or not the frost will lift a few weeks earlier because you are running out of food stores doesn't carry over to our culture the same way that the various psalms, proverbs, or perhaps the tale of David's affair with Uriah's wife will.

"God works in mysterious ways" (or something...?)

Yes he does. But God is a singular mind manifest in three forms working towards the same goal.

The god Re, and Set would not be able to create the universe as a stable existence due to their fighting natures.

Sounds like they were actually not completely delusional.

Their faith wasn't entirely delusional, but the mythology of their gods were.

And you of course would know.

I would, if their afterlives are anything like they describe. Egyptian afterlives were quite literally 'life after death', basically the same place just transfigured to the spirit world. Elysium is a similar thing. And the afterlife of the Norse would be something rather odd...being full of fighting and feasting, and nothing really else other than that.

For? Can I deny the christian afterlife simply because I don't like it?

It isn't that I don't like it, it is in that it is indeed 'too cyclictic.'

Immortal souls cannot be bound to the cycles of a temporal universe.

So basically, not being filled with manipulative pricks makes the religion a bad one?

Rude, and no.

These humanistic faiths have humanistic sight. Their outlook is flawed from what is inevitably true. That mankind isn't 'basically good', being capable of all kinds of evil, and enacting many of these daily.

___

On a personal note...Was Jesus a manipulative prick? What about Mother Theresa? What about Saint Nicholas, or that old Christian lady down the street that gives hot food and warm clothing to homeless people? What about other people who exemplify and live the Christian life as it should be? These people that embody the Christian spirit as it is intended, are they pricks?

Just because there are a few weeds in the garden doesn't mean the whole yard is ugly.

All you're doing is filling gaps that you do not understand using religion. It's like playing duck, duck, goose and knowing but one word; it's pointless and unintelligent.

It is easy to say something without putting any backbone into your posts isn't it?

 

[Gausslander]

It is easy to say something without putting any backbone into your posts isn't it?

Or shorter because I have a lacking disposal of time. Great way to avoid the statement, isn't it?

 

[Elenai]

Or shorter because I have a lacking disposal of time. Great way to avoid the statement, isn't it?

You clearly didn't have a question. And your statement has no meat to it so...looks like it isn't hard to avoid something that is about the width of a spider web afterall.

 

[PurplePoot]

Casting runes and sacrificing a pig to a fertility god to predict whether or not the frost will lift a few weeks earlier because you are running out of food stores doesn't carry over to our culture the same way that the various psalms, proverbs, or perhaps the tale of David's affair with Uriah's wife will.

Nor does it have anything to do with sacrificing goats, I imagine?

Yes he does. But God is a singular mind manifest in three forms working towards the same goal.

The god Re, and Set would not be able to create the universe as a stable existence due to their fighting natures.

So you believe, I love how religious people can easily and rationally point out why other religions are so stupid, but completely brainwash themselves when it comes to theirs.

Their faith wasn't entirely delusional, but the mythology of their gods were.

And what makes you think that?

I would, if their afterlives are anything like they describe. Egyptian afterlives were quite literally 'life after death', basically the same place just transfigured to the spirit world. Elysium is a similar thing. And the afterlife of the Norse would be something rather odd...being full of fighting and feasting, and nothing really else other than that.

And why is that incompatible with religion?

It isn't that I don't like it, it is in that it is indeed 'too cyclictic.'

Immortal souls cannot be bound to the cycles of a temporal universe.

For what if not your taste? And why not? How would you know?

<rude and such>

You're assuming that religions have to be christian to be religions. Therefore, the only religion is christianity! Surprise!

Just because there are a few weeds in the garden doesn't mean the whole yard is ugly.

The bad with the good. If you want to take credit at all, you have to take credit for both sides.

 

[Elenai]

Nor does it have anything to do with sacrificing goats, I imagine?

Sacrifice was different for Pagans than for Judeo-Christians.

Sacrifice appeased God/gods in both yes, but the ultimate purpose was 'an illustration' for the sacrifice of Christ.

So you believe, I love how religious people can easily and rationally point out why other religions are so stupid, but completely brainwash themselves when it comes to theirs.

Likewise how atheists perceive the world so rationally material...and yet purposefully blind themselves of the very spiritual world around them.

And what makes you think that?

Have you read some of the creation accounts of the pagan faiths?

And why is that incompatible with religion?

I didn't say it was incompatible.

For what if not your taste? And why not? How would you know?

My taste has nothing to do with how a spirit works, and how the universe works.

In the eastern faiths a soul's afterlife is bound to that of the universe, a universe that will eventually die all together. A spirit is immortal, it thus cannot be bound to a universe forever, if the universe will not thus be 'forever'.

I know because it is logically thus.

You're assuming that religions have to be christian to be religions. Therefore, the only religion is christianity! Surprise!

I assume first of all that these were religions of humanistic origin since they inherently based on human minds.

Where as the Abrahamic faiths seem to be of a much higher branch, Christianity (imo) being the highest of these, since it speaks of salvation as a gift, eternal purity and resolution that cannot be earned. Divine love at its fullest, as something that mortal hands cannot achieve, and an inheritance that is divinely described, a new creation, glorified bodies, and eternity unlimited.

Surprise surprise...that I would have come to the conclusion that Christianity IS the only 'true' religion. Since of all the faiths it is the most logical, the most divine, and answers most best the questions I gave it. I have put it to the test, and it has not failed me. I've prayed, I've been answered, I've gone through the ordeals, and I've set my hypothesis into a theory by these experiences.

The bad with the good. If you want to take credit at all, you have to take credit for both sides.

Why should the gardener have to take credit for the fault of the weeds, when he planted the flowers to do as he intended, the flowers thus doing as he ordained them to do?

The weeds will be removed in time. But the gardener has no obligation to answer for the weeds, if the flowers were his tools.

Remember however, that at one point all flowers were weeds, until the gardener decided to grow them to his purposes, and 'made them flowers'.

"Who decided that dandelions were weeds? Not I, I shall grow them, and make them beautiful."

If a program is designed to compress a file, and it works, do you not deserve credit for the program, or the compression of the file, if indeed that is what your intended design and purpose was for?

Should you get the blame then...if someone messes up your program, and turns it against what your purpose for the program was indeed? No..it is the fault of the hacker, and the program then.

But if you should creatively alter that hack into an awesome addition, then it is your credit for altering the hack from a bug, into a feature, and it is not the credit of the hacker because the feature then goes against the purpose the hacker put the bug in the program for.

Good job (A) you made this.

Good job (B) you broke (A)'s creation, and it has messed up (C)'s project.

Good job (A) you fixed it, and now it is also helping (C)'s project too. Again good job (A).

 

[Japut3h]

Why should the gardener have to take credit for the fault of the weeds, when he planted the flowers to do as he intended, the flowers thus doing as he ordained them to do?

The weeds will be removed in time. But the gardener has no obligation to answer for the weeds, if the flowers were his tools.

It is, after all, his garden, and he can't just go around pretending that the weed isn't there. And dealing with the weed is just as important as growing flowers.

If you refuse to take responsibility for something growing in your garden, then you're not much of a gardener.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Maybe God just doesn't like gardening. It'd explain why he likes blowing shit up in space though.

 

[PurplePoot]

Sacrifice was different for Pagans than for Judeo-Christians.

Sacrifice appeased God/gods in both yes, but the ultimate purpose was 'an illustration' for the sacrifice of Christ.

Last time I checked, the OT has nothing to do with jesus.

Likewise how atheists perceive the world so rationally material...and yet purposefully blind themselves of the very spiritual world around them.

Hmm?

• You're confusing spiritual and religious.
• You're confusing "I think, therefore it is" with reality.
• You're forgetting the fact that every other religion is also convinced of its truth.

Have you read some of the creation accounts of the pagan faiths?

Yes. Have you read the creation account of your faith?

I didn't say it was incompatible.

You're saying it doesn't work.

My taste has nothing to do with how a spirit works, and how the universe works.

In the eastern faiths a soul's afterlife is bound to that of the universe, a universe that will eventually die all together. A spirit is immortal, it thus cannot be bound to a universe forever, if the universe will not thus be 'forever'.

I know because it is logically thus.

Then perhaps immortal is relative to the universe? Or perhaps in such a faith the universe cannot end?

I assume first of all that these were religions of humanistic origin since they inherently based on human minds.

Like, I don't know, christianity...

Where as the Abrahamic faiths seem to be of a much higher branch, Christianity (imo) being the highest of these, since it speaks of salvation as a gift, eternal purity and resolution that cannot be earned. Divine love at its fullest, as something that mortal hands cannot achieve, and an inheritance that is divinely described, a new creation, glorified bodies, and eternity unlimited.

How does it exist if you can't get it?

Surprise surprise...that I would have come to the conclusion that Christianity IS the only 'true' religion. Since of all the faiths it is the most logical, the most divine, and answers most best the questions I gave it. I have put it to the test, and it has not failed me. I've prayed, I've been answered, I've gone through the ordeals, and I've set my hypothesis into a theory by these experiences.

It is only the most logical because you associate logic with adherence to christian faith.

Why should the gardener have to take credit for the fault of the weeds, when he planted the flowers to do as he intended, the flowers thus doing as he ordained them to do?

Because the gardener you speak of planted all the weeds too, and said "do what you want".

The weeds will be removed in time. But the gardener has no obligation to answer for the weeds, if the flowers were his tools.

But the weeds are too.

Remember however, that at one point all flowers were weeds, until the gardener decided to grow them to his purposes, and 'made them flowers'.

If your claim your god made them, then how did they exist beforehand?

If a program is designed to compress a file, and it works, do you not deserve credit for the program, or the compression of the file, if indeed that is what your intended design and purpose was for?

Should you get the blame then...if someone messes up your program, and turns it against what your purpose for the program was indeed? No..it is the fault of the hacker, and the program then.

But if you make the program have a 50% chance to corrupt the file, that's your fault.

 

[Aschy]

And why is that incompatible with religion?

I didn't say it was incompatible.

I thought you believed in Heaven and Hell

I think its incompatible because I think you just die, like a plant... Dead

Off Topic - wtf is the meaning of life

Maybe God just doesn't like gardening. It'd explain why he likes blowing shit up in space though.

I got thinking about this on the way to my friends house today. I left for my friends before WILL posted, which is what makes this kind of funny.

Maybe God doesn't like gardening I'm serious. Sometimes you gotta think why the fuck did he put us here, was it for something to watch grow? Something to get love from in return? A project that God cooked up in his free God time? What ever it was it has to have a purpose, I'm saying what if it's because he wanted to make something that he could not make by himself. Whats the only thing God cannot do with himself? Something without him, which is impossible. So he made the Garden of Eden and put Adam and Eve there, told them it was cool to swim in the water, eat all the fruit but from one tree, make shelter for yourselves, but all you gotta do is make the earth look like this Garden, a paradise.

 

[GrandEnder]

By the way, is this thread for anything about God, or just the three questions originally stated?

 

[leet.firefox]

By the way, is this thread for anything about God, or just the three questions originally stated?

By the looks of it, it is free game.

 

[GrandEnder]

In that case, any ideas on the matter of god? Like, the atoms god is composed of?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I'm going to start doing this in srs dscssnz in OT that go off-topic.

 

[PurplePoot]

Epic image.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

And it works since they were getting back on-topic.

 

[GrandEnder]

The only problem is were talking about gardens. If your relying on a metaphor, new people can't join.

 

[Elenai]

It is, after all, his garden, and he can't just go around pretending that the weed isn't there. And dealing with the weed is just as important as growing flowers.

If you refuse to take responsibility for something growing in your garden, then you're not much of a gardener.

The gardener is still going to deal with the weeds.

But note: the garden wasn't the only allegorical piece I provided. See the case of A, and B, and C.

Last time I checked, the OT has nothing to do with jesus.

The Bible is a lengthy and consistent work all following the same narrativic road towards Christ's ultimate fulfillment of its pages.

Isaiah 9:6-7 [6] For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. ...

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Isaiah 9:1-2 [1] Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan -- [2] The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.

Isaiah 49:6 he [the Lord] says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."

Isaiah 29:18 In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.

Isaiah 35:5-6a [5] Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. [6a] Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

Zechariah 11:12-13 [12] I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. [13] And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Isaiah 53:3-7, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

These are from Isaiah, an old testament prophet from approx 700 BC. There are many more, but these are the more well known.

* You're confusing spiritual and religious.
* You're confusing "I think, therefore it is" with reality.
* You're forgetting the fact that every other religion is also convinced of its truth.

-Atheists deny anything of a supernatural nature.

-I am not.

-Everyone is convinced their answer is correct, in the end...there has to be one of them that is 'correct'. I believe mine is, and I have since then logically deduced, tested, and then clung to it.

Time to see if I pass the test with an A, or if I am simply reincarnated as a sheep.

Then perhaps immortal is relative to the universe? Or perhaps in such a faith the universe cannot end?

We both know that inevitably the universe will not be able to expand itself much further and that eventually it will have to end, and probably be destroyed, collapsing in on itself being the most well known hypothesis.

Like, I don't know, christianity...

Christianity is not something achievable by the human mind, infact the idea of salvation being a gift you merely have to ask for is completely alien to most people.

There is no one who would look at a murderer and tell him he can be free of his burden to be judged...with but a simple prayer.

How does it exist if you can't get it?

You can never earn Heaven, forgiveness, or salvation. You have to be given it as a gift.

You ask God for it, and he drops the fruit from the highest branches where he is sitting.

Because the gardener you speak of planted all the weeds too, and said "do what you want".

See the case of ABC.

But the weeds are too.

See the case of ABC.

If your claim your god made them, then how did they exist beforehand?

In a garden there are roses. In a garden there are two kinds of weeds. One has rather pretty flowers, even if they are a nuiscance. So the gardener decides "You shall be a flower, serve my purposes." Then you have the other weed, which is a nuisance and produces little pods that shower everything with a poisonous dust. The gardener says, "You shall be removed, you serve no purpose in my garden. But I shall remove you during the fall season, since you have already rooted yourself into the garden, and removing you prematurely would harm the garden, and delay my purpose."

Thus there are flowers that exist, and then there are weeds that become flowers. And then there are just weeds that will be dealt with, after their free existence has expired.

Quite frankly I think you once again missed the point.

There are flowers that serve a purpose, weeds that do bad things that are turned into blessings, and then there are weeds which are removed.

But if you make the program have a 50% chance to corrupt the file, that's your fault.

The programmer didn't make it have a 50% chance to corrupt the file. A hacker came in and messed it up. Which is of no fault to the programmer.

You can't sue a company that makes bottled water, when your relative gets sick because someone slipped something poisonous into a persons daily bottle of water.

I thought you believed in Heaven and Hell

I think its incompatible because I think you just die, like a plant... Dead

I do believe in Heaven and Hell. Purplepoot simply said that I said religion was incompatible...with something, and I never said anything of the sort, and don't even know what he is talking about quite frankly.

 

[GrandEnder]

Sometimes the programer didn't bother setting up any password systems.

 

[Elenai]

Think of it as open source then.

 

[GrandEnder]

I hate all these metaphors... Anyways, if God's all-knowing and such, wouldn't he have known that adam and eve would eat the fruit of that bad tree and whatnot?

 

[Elenai]

Of course. Just like your parents know you are going to fall and get hurt at some point in your life. They still have you though.

 

[GrandEnder]

But if your parents knew you would get struck in the brain, and be mentally impeeded for your life, would they give birth to you?

Remember, we were cursed down from that state of bliss in eden for eternity, not for a few moments.

 

[Elenai]

But if your parents knew you would get struck in the brain, and be mentally impeeded for your life, would they give birth to you?

Remember, we were cursed down from that state of bliss in eden for eternity, not for a few moments.

We fell. But God gave us a bandaid. All we have to do is put it on.

 

[GrandEnder]

What time to do you think you humanity will experience the second coming of Jesus, and the judgement of everyone?

 

[leet.firefox]

And yet us, in our 'infinite wisdom' do not think the wound is worh mending. And so we let it alone. And it festers and sores. Turning from a minor scape into a mortal infliction.

What time to do you think you humanity will experience the second coming of Jesus, and the judgement of everyone?

When he is ready.

 

[GrandEnder]

The only problem about 'when he is ready' is that we'll all be dead by then.

 

[Elenai]

What time to do you think you humanity will experience the second coming of Jesus, and the judgement of everyone?

Simply put...I don't know.

But good things come to those who wait it is said, so I wait.

 

[Japut3h]

But note: the garden wasn't the only allegorical piece I provided. See the case of A, and B, and C.

Yeah, I saw it. You could put it that way. Or you could put it this way:

"Waiter, there's a dead mouse in my soup."

"Whatever, I didn't put it there, shut up and eat."

And there's also a major difference between what we're talking about and someone completely unrelated altering something you shared with the world already (as in your A,B and C case).

 

[Elenai]

"Waiter, there's a dead mouse in my soup."

"Whatever, I didn't put it there, shut up and eat."

And?

And there's also a major difference between what we're talking about and someone completely unrelated altering something you shared with the world already (as in your A,B and C case).

Explain.

 

[Japut3h]

And?

The management of a, let's say restaurant, can't pride itself on good service if their food has dead spiders, flies, rodents etc. in it. Someone already said it before, the good with the bad, if you're going to take credit, take credit for both. If the above metaphor was an event that happened in actuality, the restaurant would get sued, and the waiter would get fired, with a pretty good damn reason too.

Explain.

The garden is your responsibility, your space, and your pride. If someone broke into it and violently altered it while you weren't looking (which is almost the equivalent of the program case), it would be a completely different thing from willingly ignoring something right below your nose, (like the metaphorical weed, which wouldn't be there in the first place if you at least tried to do your job).

 

[PurplePoot]

The Bible is a lengthy and consistent work all following the same narrativic road towards Christ's ultimate fulfillment of its pages.

Say that to a jewish person. It also really isn't consistent. If you really believe it is, just say the word and I'll give you a link.

-Atheists deny anything of a supernatural nature.

Because you know more about us than we do, right?

-I am not.

You're acting as if you are definitely right.

-Everyone is convinced their answer is correct, in the end...there has to be one of them that is 'correct'. I believe mine is, and I have since then logically deduced, tested, and then clung to it.

Confirmation bias.

We both know that inevitably the universe will not be able to expand itself much further and that eventually it will have to end, and probably be destroyed, collapsing in on itself being the most well known hypothesis.

And why would it not be able to expand farther?

Christianity is not something achievable by the human mind, infact the idea of salvation being a gift you merely have to ask for is completely alien to most people.

There is no one who would look at a murderer and tell him he can be free of his burden to be judged...with but a simple prayer.

Because most people aren't crazy, I hope.

See the case of ABC.

That doesn't answer the question.

In a garden there are roses. In a garden there are two kinds of weeds. One has rather pretty flowers, even if they are a nuiscance. So the gardener decides "You shall be a flower, serve my purposes." Then you have the other weed, which is a nuisance and produces little pods that shower everything with a poisonous dust. The gardener says, "You shall be removed, you serve no purpose in my garden. But I shall remove you during the fall season, since you have already rooted yourself into the garden, and removing you prematurely would harm the garden, and delay my purpose."

That makes no sense.

A) You can't use cause and effect in an analogy, since situations change.
B) Have you ever gardened?

Thus there are flowers that exist, and then there are weeds that become flowers. And then there are just weeds that will be dealt with, after their free existence has expired.

Quite frankly I think you once again missed the point.

There are flowers that serve a purpose, weeds that do bad things that are turned into blessings, and then there are weeds which are removed.

And if your god plays russian roulette, he is responsible for the consequences.

The programmer didn't make it have a 50% chance to corrupt the file. A hacker came in and messed it up. Which is of no fault to the programmer.

You can't sue a company that makes bottled water, when your relative gets sick because someone slipped something poisonous into a persons daily bottle of water.

Your god is apparently all-powerful and created everything, so no.

I do believe in Heaven and Hell. Purplepoot simply said that I said religion was incompatible...with something, and I never said anything of the sort, and don't even know what he is talking about quite frankly.

You are illogically ruling out everyones' beliefs but your own.

---

After reading parts of the OT I find it hard to take you guys seriously. God is like "I could let you guys go, or I could make them be a total asshole, then crush them (screwing them over when they didn't do shit) to show off how awesome I am.

And then you guys are all like GOD IS GREAT!

So god does it again. Etc.

 

[Elenai]

The management of a, let's say restaurant, can't pride itself on good service if their food has dead spiders, flies, rodents etc. in it. Someone already said it before, the good with the bad, if you're going to take credit, take credit for both. If the above metaphor was an event that happened in actuality, the restaurant would get sued, and the waiter would get fired, with a pretty good damn reason too.

If the bad isn't your fault, don't take credit for it.

If the good is, then do so.

God didn't invent evil, it happened by the abuse of free will. God did invent good.

The garden is your responsibility, your space, and your pride. If someone broke into it and violently altered it while you weren't looking (which is almost the equivalent of the program case), it would be a completely different thing from willingly ignoring something right below your nose, (like the metaphorical weed, which wouldn't be there in the first place if you at least tried to do your job).

Who says God is ignoring the problem?

Say that to a jewish person. It also really isn't consistent. If you really believe it is, just say the word and I'll give you a link.

It is consistent, I don't see anywhere that that primary message of the bible 'flip flops'.

Because you know more about us than we do, right?

I guess I do, unless the definition for an atheist has completely altered within the past two seconds.

You're acting as if you are definitely right.

You are acting as if I am definitely wrong.

Confirmation bias.

Of course it would be biased for someone who said "hmmn...fire looks hot, I shall stick my hand in it. Oh it burns, I guess I was right it is hot. I must be therefore biased to say "it burns" when someone says "no it doesn't."

And why would it not be able to expand farther?

Things can only spread so thin, before they snap back or else break. (rubber band)

Because most people aren't crazy, I hope.

Because Salvation is insane right? Sure...giving medicine to the sick is crazy...it should never be done.

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes it did.

That makes no sense.

A) You can't use cause and effect in an analogy, since situations change.
B) Have you ever gardened?

I can use what ever I want in a metaphor. You are not the determiner of literary devices.

And yes I have. It was a story to illustrate a point, not an article in home&garden.

And if your god plays russian roulette, he is responsible for the consequences.

He isn't playing Russian roulette. He is letting mankind make the choice to chose him or not, and act as they will. In the end he isn't responsible for what people do as an abuse of their free will because that is not the purpose he gave to them. He is credited for the good, since the world was made by him and people also to be 'good', when we do good we are doing as we were programmed. Unfortunately we have fallen natures, we have spawned bugs in our programing, bugs placed there by our own abuse of free will, or by the abuse of another upon us.

"the hacker"

Your god is apparently all-powerful and created everything, so no.

Just because it happened, and he saw it does not mean that God is ignoring it, and sitting idly by while the world crumbles around him. It is not his fault for the hacker, but he is and did offer a patch. It is your fault if you don't download it. But he does get credit for having produced the unbugged program in the first place, and for the patch that comes thus, and in turn gets credit when the program does what it was intended to do. He is not blamed for the fault of another person.

You are illogically ruling out everyones' beliefs but your own.

Wrong, I have logically ruled them out as unfit, and lacking in answering the questions I pose.

"You are illogically ruling out the other answers because you believe "that answer <insert letter> is correct"

"No, I am ruling them out because <insert letter> is the best answer, and I want to pass the test."

After reading parts of the OT I find it hard to take you guys seriously. God is like "I could let you guys go, or I could make them be a total asshole, then crush them (screwing them over when they didn't do shit) to show off how awesome I am.

"You have sinned, repent"

"no"

"Alright..but I'll send this nation to punish you."

"But they are just as bad!"

"Yes...and I'll deal with them later, but you take priority. So will you repent?"

"No."

"Alright..*sends the nation*"

"FORGIVE US LORD! And punish our wicked captors, of whom where wicked before they even came to punish us."

"You are forgiven, and restored. And they are punished for their iniquities. None escape judgement, unless they ask forgiveness, not even those whom I use in my plans."

And then you guys are all like GOD IS GREAT!

God is great. It is sad that you can't see it.

So god does it again. Etc.

When we deserve it, again, and again, and again, and again...

 

[greasontim]

1. He would look dead LOL (sad i know)
2. total Hotty i hope (god is a male though Mary was a virgin she had a babyso if god is male or female we'll never know)
3. God He/She would come down and show us that God is real or starts running from blooddancer b4 the timer hits 0 and we all die

 

[Pyritie]

If the bad isn't your fault, don't take credit for it.

If the good is, then do so.

God didn't invent evil, it happened by the abuse of free will. God did invent good.

If god supposedly created everything, then he must've created evil as well.

He is credited for the good, since the world was made by him and people also to be 'good', when we do good we are doing as we were programmed. Unfortunately we have fallen natures, we have spawned bugs in our programing, bugs placed there by our own abuse of free will, or by the abuse of another upon us.

"the hacker"

Just because it happened, and he saw it does not mean that God is ignoring it, and sitting idly by while the world crumbles around him. It is not his fault for the hacker, but he is and did offer a patch. It is your fault if you don't download it. But he does get credit for having produced the unbugged program in the first place, and for the patch that comes thus, and in turn gets credit when the program does what it was intended to do. He is not blamed for the fault of another person.

That was a really bad metaphor. Really, it helps if you actually understand the metaphor you're using before you ahead and use it.

 

[PurplePoot]

If the bad isn't your fault, don't take credit for it.

If the good is, then do so.

God didn't invent evil, it happened by the abuse of free will. God did invent good.

But he is all-powerful, no? In which case he did, since he caused everything.

Read the OT.

Who says God is ignoring the problem?

Because the people are still there.

It is consistent, I don't see anywhere that that primary message of the bible 'flip flops'.

The details do. Do you want that link?

I guess I do, unless the definition for an atheist has completely altered within the past two seconds.

No, it hasn't, and no, you don't.

You are acting as if I am definitely wrong.

I'm acting as if your metaphors definitely don't work and you are most likely wrong.

Of course it would be biased for someone who said "hmmn...fire looks hot, I shall stick my hand in it. Oh it burns, I guess I was right it is hot. I must be therefore biased to say "it burns" when someone says "no it doesn't."

That has nothing to do with confirmation bias. It is also a horribly biased metaphor; you assume you already know the answer.

It would be like seeing something you have never seen before and then guessing at how to react.

Things can only spread so thin, before they snap back or else break. (rubber band)

Last time I checked, the universe is not a rubber band.

Because Salvation is insane right? Sure...giving medicine to the sick is crazy...it should never be done.

You're assuming your irrational ramblings are right. Every second I talk to you you convince me more that you are completely deluded as to your own faith.

Yes it did.

Elaborate.

I can use what ever I want in a metaphor. You are not the determiner of literary devices.

Yes, and I can say they suck when they make no sense.

And yes I have. It was a story to illustrate a point, not an article in home&garden.

A story which makes no sense because it's wrong.

He isn't playing Russian roulette. He is letting mankind make the choice to chose him or not, and act as they will. In the end he isn't responsible for what people do as an abuse of their free will because that is not the purpose he gave to them. He is credited for the good, since the world was made by him and people also to be 'good', when we do good we are doing as we were programmed. Unfortunately we have fallen natures, we have spawned bugs in our programing, bugs placed there by our own abuse of free will, or by the abuse of another upon us.

If you are all-powerful, you are doing everything.

Just because it happened, and he saw it does not mean that God is ignoring it, and sitting idly by while the world crumbles around him. It is not his fault for the hacker, but he is and did offer a patch. It is your fault if you don't download it. But he does get credit for having produced the unbugged program in the first place, and for the patch that comes thus, and in turn gets credit when the program does what it was intended to do. He is not blamed for the fault of another person.

A patch which no one knows how to download because they have a bunch of nutjobs ranting contradictory stories at them and are brainwashed at birth.

Wrong, I have logically ruled them out as unfit, and lacking in answering the questions I pose.

"You are illogically ruling out the other answers because you believe "that answer <insert letter> is correct"

"No, I am ruling them out because <insert letter> is the best answer, and I want to pass the test."

And you haven't actually done the calculations, just put your finger on a random field out of tens of thousands of choices and assumed it looked cool so it must be right.

<OT>

Ever read exodus?

God is great. It is sad that you can't see it.

If I need to make myself into an ignorant fool to see god, then I'll gladly decline your offer.

When we deserve it, again, and again, and again, and again...

He makes you evil so you deserve the punishment?

That was a really bad metaphor. Really, it helps if you actually understand the metaphor you're using before you ahead and use it.

QFT'd.

 

[Elenai]

If god supposedly created everything, then he must've created evil as well.

Evil isn't the polar opposite of good.

Darkness is the absence of light. Dark is not a created thing.

That was a really bad metaphor. Really, it helps if you actually understand the metaphor you're using before you ahead and use it.

It is easy to post something without a backbone. Words are cheap.

 

[PurplePoot]

Evil isn't the polar opposite of good.

Darkness is the absence of light. Dark is not a created thing.

And if you are responsible for creating everything and omit light in half the places, you are responsible for the fact that it's dark.