He believes in you!

6 10 2006

Warning!!This text is very, very, very long> Only comment on it if you read the whole article. Suggest to read it in parts as their won’t be more articles for a while, due to the HSC. Thanx
Believing in God is important, but what about God believing in us?

Believing that we can actually be the kind of people we were meant to be. People of love, compassion, peace, forgiveness, and hope. People who try to do the right thing all of the time. Who act on the endless opportunities around us every day for good, beauty, and truth. It’s easy for us to sometimes get down on ourselves. To feel “not good enough” or feel like we don’t have what it takes. But maybe if we had more insight into the culture that Jesus grew up in and some of the radical things he did, we’d understand the faith that God has in all of us.

I want to be the kind of person who does the right things, and I don’t mean the big things only but also the small things, the subtle ones and the ones that no one is watching, because it’s so easy to let those small things slip away and it’s those endless choices that we make everyday that shape us on who we are, but this started to change for me recently because I’ve started to believe things about myself. A friend gave me an insight about the story of Jesus and his disciples that I have heard before but it has taken a whole different meaning.

Let me just tell you a bit:

Jesus’s disciples are on a boat and it’s middle of a night and they are trying to cross get across a lake and the wind is blowing and its getting really choppy and Jesus comes walking out to them on the water. Now they think he’s a ghost, so they are like “Jesus it it you” and Jesus replies “Yes”. And one of them, Peter, gets out of the boat and starts walking on the water towards Jesus.

What is peter thinking? and Why does he, he believe that he can walk on water?

Now what I’ve come to realise is the story makes way more sense if you understand the background. Jesus is a Jewish rabbi with Jewish Disciples living a first century Jewish world. Now Jesus grew up in a region called the Gallalie and Jewish people in the Gallalie believed that god has spoken to Moses, one of their great historical leaders and given him the first five books of the Bible. They call these five books the TORA. Tora means like teaching or instructions or simply THE WAY. And so Tora was the center, the foundations of their lives and it was the focus of their educational system. And so, most Jewish boys and girls would go to the school for the first time to learn to learn the Tora, it probably be taught at the local Cynagog and be taught by a local Tora teacher who was a Rabbi.

The first level of education was called Baetsafear and lasted around until the kid is 10 years old. In Baetsafear most kid would MEMORISED the Tora and by the age of Ten would know the Tora by heart. Every single world. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Number and Deuteronomy. MEMORISED. Now, by the end of Baetsafear which would be around 10 years of age, most kid were no longer going to school, they were learning, they were apprenticing the family trade, learning the family business, learning how to manage a household but the BEST OF THE BEST would keep going. They would continue their education into the next level, which was called Baettaelmood.

In Baettaelmood, the best of the best who were still going on, the ones with most natural ability would MEMORISE the rest of the Hebrew scriptures. Genesis through Malachi. Memorise. Now by the end of Baettaelmood, say 14-15, most kids are gone, they are learning the family trade and apprentacing. But the BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST would continue on to the next level of education, which was called Baetmaidrashand they would go to a Rabbi any they would apply to the Rabbi to become of the rabbi’s disciples. Now we use the word ‘Disciple’ we often mean student,but we generally mean someone who know what the teacher knows. But a disciple was something far deeper, a disciple just doesn’t want to know what the rabbi knows, Oh! no, the disciple wants to be like the rabbi and wants to do what the rabbi does.

Now every rabbi had their own set of interpretations, this was called the rabbi’s yolk. So when you apply to be one of the disciples you wanted to take one of the yolks and take it upon yourself so you can be like the RABBI. so you go to a Rabbi and you go “Rabbi, I want to be one of your disciples”, the rabbi will then grill you, ask you question about the Tora, questions about the prophets, questions upon question upon question. Because the rabbi wants to know can this kid do what I do, can this kid speak what I speak, CAN THIS KID SPREAD MY YOLK.

Does this kid have what it takes.

And so the rabbi is firing all these question and the rabbi decides that yeah this kid loves god, and can follow him but isn’t the best of the best of the best he would say “You obviously love god but you don’t have what it takes to become one of my disciples”. And so the rabbi might say “Go and continue learning your family trade” BUT if rabbi thinks this kid’s got it, this kid has what it takes to spread my word he would say “Come, follow me”. And so you would leave as this disciple, as a 14,15 year old kid, you would leave your family, your friends, your Cynagog, your village and you would devote your entire LIFE to being like your rabbi. This is what it means to be a Disciple. So a rabbi comes down right, a powerful rabbi, and he’s got his pack of disciple who are doing what the rabbi does. So the saying that was developed among the wisemen:

“May you be covered in the dust of Rabbi”.

This is scene that everyone would have seen. And all of this has huge implication for Jesus and how we understand Jesus because most rabbi’s would begin their teaching around the age of 30, and around 30 in the bible, you have Jesus walking along the shores of Gallalie and he comes across Peter and Andrew and they are fishermen and Jesus says to them “Come, follow me”. Well if their fishermen and Jesus call them to be his disciples and then uh…they aren’t following another rabbi. And if they aren’t following another rabbi then they are not the best of the best of the best. They didn’t make the cut. And the test continues: It says that once they dropped their net and FOLLOWED him, which I thought was a bit strange. Isn’t a bit odd that they just drop ’em and go. Weird in the sense that here’s Jesus walking along the beach in his white bathrobe and light blue pageant sashay, and his hair is like perfect and blow dried and everything and he say come and these guys they like robots. They go.

If you understand it in it’s original context then it start making perfect sense, i mean the rabbi’s were the most honored, respected and revered people anywhere. And the best of the best of the best of the BEST only got to become rabbis’ and this powerful rabbi comes down the beach and says to YOU “Come follow me”. Well, what is he really saying? What he really is saying that is YOU CAN DO WHAT I DO. He’s saying you can be like me. I mean, of course you would drop your nets and follow him. And the text even continues, the text says the Jesus comes across James and John and they are fishing with their fathers Zebadi. now if they are fishing with their father that mean they are apprentices, they are learning the family trade. And if he calls them to be his Disciple then there aren’t disciple of any other rabbis’. So basically, James and John, they are not good enough. They didn’t make the cut either. They aren’t the best of the best of the best. And at 15, 16, 20 at max. and Jesus choses them because his movement is for everybody. It’s for the rich and the poor, the scholars and the peasants. It’s like the movement of anybodies and he calls them the JV team, the “B” team, the “not good enoughs”.

HE CALLS THEM TO BE HIS DISCIPLE AND THEY CHANGE THE COARSE OF HISTORY

So back to walking on the water thing, so you have a boat full of anybodies and the water is choppy and the wind is blowing and they are terrified because Jesus comes across the water to them and they think he’s a GHOST. And then peter says to Jesus “Then if it’s you tell me to come to you”. Why is this peter’s first response. Because he is a disciple, he has orientated his whole life around his Rabbi, Jesus. He has been taught to do what the Rabbi does. So what’s the first thing he does when he sees his Rabbi walking on water, I want to walk on water too. So he gets out of the boat and start WALKING towards Jesus, but halfway, he gets frightened, and he starts sinking right so he calls out “Jesus save me”. And then text reads that Jesus immediately caught him and said “You of little faith”, “Why did you doubt”. Now I always assumed that Peter doubts Jesus but Jesus ISN’T SINKING. Who does peter doubt?

He doubts himself. He loses faith in himself that he can actually be like his rabbi. I mean Jesus wouldn’t have called him if peter could be like him. He even reminds them at one point: “Wa..wa..Wait, You didn’t choose me, I chose you”. The Rabbi doesn’t choose you unless the rabbi knows that you can do what the rabbi does. All my life I’ve heard people taking about believing in God, all the time. BUT GOD BELIEVES IN US, IN YOU. I mean Faith in Jesus is important but what about Jesus…Faith in us. I mean he must have faith in us because he leaves us to spread his words, to spread his YOLK. I mean what’s the last thing Jesus says to them, “Go make more disciples”. He leaves it for the anybodies and THEY DO IT. THEY DO IT. I mean what if we can be like people the God created us to be?, What if he actually believes that? I mean what If we could be like Jesus. Jesus has faith in you that you can be like him and you can be what he wanted you to be like, He believes it.

May you believe in god. But may you come to see that God believes in you. May you have faith in Jesus. But may you come too see that Jesus has faith in you that you can be like him. A person of love and compassion and truth. A person of forgiveness, and peace, and grace and joy and hope. And may be covered in the dust of your Rabbi, Jesus.

(Congratulation, that was long, but may find the true meaning in my writing)

Advertisements

Actions

Information

120 responses

6 10 2006
Tom

To be like someone, one must have similar traits. Or literally;
LIKE:
“1. of the same form, appearance, kind, character, amount, etc.: I cannot remember a like instance.”
So if Jesus believes we can be like him, he believes that we can have the SAME from and character. If any of us can be like Jesus, then Jesus is not perfect, (as no human is, or ever will be, perfect). And if Jesus is not perfect, God is not perfect (as Jesus is God in the form of a human). So if Jesus believes that we can be like him, he is either wrong or imperfect. You decide. That is all.

T.

7 10 2006
strider1989

If you become someone’s apprentice, you want to be LIKE him right, you want to do what he does, how he does to learn tricks of the trade right. WE CHOOSE TO BE HIS APPRENTICE. Does that literally mean that we will be like him, we’ll still be you we are won’t we. JESUS CHOSE US to follow his ways just like THE APPRENTICE CHOOSES THE “OWNER’S” WAY.Jesus chose us so we can follow the way of Path, hope and LOVE. And also let’s say you are an apprentice, we follow the rules of APPRENTICESHIP don’t we. Did Jesus give us rules, all he did was he give us way to find the best possible life, “TO BE LIKE HIM”, those quotations are not because I’m quoting from my own article, but to point how that is similar to THE apprentice. Before you do write a rebuttal to this and If I know you well you’ve probably have thought of it already, Just like to point out that as I’ve written in your other comment, that no point arguing, it’s your interpretation.
Thanx tom, you been constantly reading my article
cya l8er

7 10 2006
Tom

Bitu, once again you created this arguement. I gave you my opinion and, again, you created the second side of the argument. So really, if you are going to say that there is no point arguing, stop creating the argument. If you really think there is no point arguing, you wouldn’t argue. It really is that simple.
As my previous statement explained, to be like someone is to be of the same form or character. That does not mean to be the same as that person. It means to have the same traits. So of course we will still be us and Jesus will still be Jesus, a different person entirely. But I consider perfection a trait. And you stated several times that Jesus believes we can be like him. So really, this is not just one choice of bad wording. This is the message you are giving us. But if no human is perfect, then none of us can be like Jesus. So really, Jesus’ beliefs are incorrect. And in reality, isn’t a tad naive to be following someone with beliefs that are incorrect? That is all.

T.

7 10 2006
Mad

Why did I read that? That was WAY to long.

You said you want to be a good person, then be one. You don’t have to be like Jesus to be a good person.

I believe in Jesus- as in an historical Jesus. He wasn’t the son of god and he couldn’t walk on water, BUT he had a lot of GOOD things to say about peace and love. So yeh, I would like to be more like that too.

HOWEVER he had some warped views aswell- things I disagree with. I’m sure some things you disagree with also- however you may deny and reject it because it is Un-christian to disagree with Jesus.

You spoke of Rabbi’s and their yolk. I great and beautiful aspect of Judaism is taht they continue in this tradition. Rabbi’s are encouraged to question, assess and interpret the Tora regularly.

Why did Christians stop with Jesus?

DON’T think “I want to be a good person, I more like Jesus”, think for yourself. What do YOU think is good, what do YOU think is sin, what do YOU think is acceptable. Learn from Jesus, and develop you own yolk

And don’t stop their. There are scores of great people in history that had a lot of good things to say. Listen to them to.

Don’t be like jesus, develop you own morals and live as YOU.

8 10 2006
strider1989

Couple of questions before I say anything back:
1. What are some of things that you think that I would disagree with. Can you tell me?
2. What do you mean when you say: WHY DID CHRISTIANS STOP WITH JESUS?
I don’t understand or know what you are saying there, so can clear that up please.

Now replying to some questions:
WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS GOOD?
Jesus/God
WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS SIN?
Pretending to follow God aka Meaningless rituals
WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS ACCEPTABLE?
don’t understand this question here, but LOVE AND JOY AND HOPE.

Normal reply to DEVELOP YOUR OWN YOLK AND LEARN FROM JESUS:
Madison from the rabbi’s story we have found out that to be a rabbi you have to be THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST, we didn’t , we didn’t make the cut. We were the “B” team, We didn’t have what it takes. Jesus chose us to show that everyone can be a disciple, everyone can be follow Jesus’s yolk, and If his yolk is PERFECT then I don’t need to make my own yolk. He chose me I didn’t have to choose him. I didn’t have to memorise the whole Old testament and the hebrew scriptures. I’m not going to say no to someone who says to me “Come, follow me”, “I’ll show the right path”. He chose us. What’s the point, he WANTS us to follow his yolk.
Cya mad.

8 10 2006
Mad

1. What are some of things that you think that I would disagree with.

I haven’t read the NT, so I can’t say directly. Although there are Christian moral is consider warped- and you should to. For example:

Do you think that someone who lived an charitable life, helped others, who was kind, giving, and empathic, who sacraficed money and time for less fortunate, who made a difference in this world, and who was Athiest, or Muslim, or Jewish, should go to hell?

I hope for your sake uyour answer is no.

2. What do you mean when you say: WHY DID CHRISTIANS STOP WITH JESUS?
Why did Christians stop in the tradition- ie Yolk.

WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS GOOD?
Jesus/God

Jesus and God are the ONLY good things in this world? to if you were to purge everything that isn’t realted to Jesus and God, killed all other beliefs, then there would be NO EVIL in the world?

THINK FOR YOUR SELF!!!! Christ!

WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS SIN?
Pretending to follow God aka Meaningless rituals

That is all? Serious. What about people Who DON’T follow God? And who are you to say that other peoples whorship of God is sin. Get over yourself- as if your the greatest scholar of Christianity. DON’T TELL PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE, AND HOW TO WHORSHIP. God doesn’t want you to be an presumptuious arrogant…..poo face….

I don’t believe in God- am I evil Bitu?

WHAT DO “YOU” THINK IS ACCEPTABLE?
don’t understand this question here, but LOVE AND JOY AND HOPE.

So love, joy and happiness are acceptabel, not got? The people of Earth can tolerate love, but it is my no means good?

What I meant was what do you find wrong on a personal level- yet agree with peoples right to disagree, and their right to do it?

Once again you marvel me with your blindness. open your eyes and your mind Bitu.

1. Who says we have to be the best of teh best of thes best to develop our own morals and beliefs? That almost sounds like Facsism!

2. How do you know that Jesus’s yolf is perfect? You wont understand this, but I’m going to tell you anyway:

The Yolk was an interpretation of beliefs. Jesus may have provided you with all the material, but his words are still open to interpretation. Failure to question something, to blindly accept it as undisputable truth that CANNOT and WILL NOT be wrong is idiocy.

That’s how the holocaust happen, that’s how WWII hapened, that’s how Stalin managed to purge 60 million people, that’s how Islamic extremists brain wash kids into killing themselves and others.

I’m not saying you should tell people to believe what you believe- just grow a brain and think for yourself about what YOU believe.

3.Bitu, you asked me to come on here knowing I don’t believe in all of this. Try to remember that. What I am to say is that when I ask you what you think is Good, “God/Jesus” it not a reasonable answer. A reasonable answer would be:

“What God and Jesus teach. I follow and agree with those teachings BECAUSE………”

If you can’t give that answer then you are no fifferent to Boxer on Animal Farm

8 10 2006
Jill

Oh man.

WOW.

Just…wow.

I HAVE SO MUCH TO SAY, BUT NO TIME, NO MOTIVATION. WHY WASTE WORDS ON DEAF EARS, CLOSED EYES, MINDS TOO SHUT TO HEAR? NOT EVEN LISTEN, HEAR. NOT EVEN CONSIDER, JUST HEAR.

WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF HEARING?

I can hear you answering that aloud madison.

I’ve just been on a Christian camp for a week and I’ve been saving up all my anger at the HYPOCRITICAL STUPIDITY and I come back and hop on here for a vent and….WOW. Where to start.

I hope no one was under the impression I’d be softened by a church camp (if you’re wondering why I went, it was a study camp with LETS CONVERT!!!!!! not so subtley mixed in. But i did study.)

I’m going to have to leave and never return to this place because really, I can not express the lengthy lengthy arguments that will arise if i stay a moment longer. They won’t be gentle either. Athiesm, Agnosticism – they are very different from apostosy, but this place – WOW, it has potential. Hell, i dont even believe in God and it has potential.

I can see some arguments are already underway. Tom, Madison, i entrust you to speak on my behalf, i admire your patience. I feel you are the only ones who will understand the pain i am going through right now, whether to tear this place & its arguments apart knowing the futility, or to go on in silent hatred of the ignorance, the nievity, the hypocrisy of the entire movement.

My final words to every Christian reading:

I hope dying, pain, badness is easier
I hope you’re never forced to think
I hope the questions never come
I hope you aren’t disappointed by your dreams
I hope you’re imagination never lets you down
I hope you find comfort in all you create

And if this isn’t so, well,
I hope you can accept it, can move on. I hope you can accept defeat, accept futility, accept not knowing.
I hope you can find the strength to stop fighting for something that deep down you know isn’t there. I hope you’re stronger than the millions who cant.

I hope one day you’ll realise, that all these dreams of comfort, consolation, purpose, unconditional love, they stole your money, individuality, time, mind. Those dreams, they stole your life from you.

I hope one day you can accept this. I hope you survive it too.

8 10 2006
strider1989

Not going to say anything anymore! Just right my articles and answer all question. No point arguing. Don’t call me a poo face MAD. Jill welcome back, and must’ve a “GOOD” camp. Just wanna say, if I wanted the well being of my site, I would delete every disagreeing comment possible, but no I want everyone’s opinion, so Jill please keep reading and posting your thoughts on, No matter how harsh they are. Unless there’s a question involved, I’m not going to rebuttal but the point is, having good friend’s(Yep, that’s rights guys. this guys are my good friends) opinion is good. So keep reading and writing.

And Jill I guess your aiming those harsh comments at the start at me! Well the thing is I’ve been listening to you. but YOU answer with facts and statistics and I’m answering on believe and faith and hope. Do not take this as a start n another argument, I’m just pointing it out. I mean, I knew that MAD was argonostic but still invited him so He put up his thoughts.

So basically too both mad and jill don’t stop reading and writing, PLEASE….
cya

8 10 2006
Mad

Questions fot Bitu:

1.Do you think that someone who lived an charitable life, helped others, who was kind, giving, and empathic, who sacraficed money and time for less fortunate, who made a difference in this world, and who was Athiest, or Muslim, or Jewish, should go to hell?

2.What is Good? Answer in the following format:

“What God and Jesus teach. I follow and agree with those teachings BECAUSE………”

3. I don’t believe in God- am I evil Bitu?

8 10 2006
strider1989

1. no
2. “What god and Jesus teach. I follow and agree with those teachings BECAUSE they are correct and they show me the RIGHT path. Jesus’s teachings tell us that LOVE is the important aspect of life. He also says to love me is equal to loving each other. Jesus doesn’t separate loving your friends and loving GOD. JESUS knows it’s a lie when we say “I LOVE YOU” to him but still hate everything around us. This is why MAD. this is why I agree and follow his teachings because he shows us that nothing is more important LOVE.
3. He loves everybody. He loves those who think that god loves them more than others, He loves those who don’t believe in god at all, he loves every aspect that there is. Those who against him and those who are with him. GOD DOES NOT PLAY FAVORITISM. The point is here MAD that Do we love him as much as he loves us, because if we do we find internal faith and hope, not only in him but also in us.

9 10 2006
Mitch

Hey guys… Hows every1 going?
Just got back from study camp and we had a talk on something that might apply to the whole “likeness” thing. So this is basically in reply to Tom.
Our talks were about the jerks of the bible and the jerk that applies here is Jesus the ‘perfect’ jerk. Sounds a bit funny calling Jesus a jerk as a christian but i’ll explain what i mean. We learnt that we (humans) are the complete jerk…full of sin. But from 2 Corrinthians 5:21 “For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” we learnt about the ‘greatest switcheroo’ of all time.
This verse basically explains how God made us perfect and Jesus a jerk. So Tom we are seen by God as Jesus was…perfect. We just have to accept the switch.
Anyway back 2 study…have a good 1 guys.

9 10 2006
strider1989

hey mitch, hope you liked the extremely long article. How was camp, sounds interesting from the response.
Anyway welcome back to the site and the conversation. Keep reading and I think I’ll be Producing another article very soon.
Cheers mate

9 10 2006
Mad

To Bitu:

1. You don’t? Well too bad they are. I am going to hell aslo. John Lennon, Ghandi and others will greet me. Sounds unjust right? Well I know you believe it’s unjust- you just said that a good non-Christian deserves to go to heaven. But they won’t. Have a problem with that?

Take it up with God- after he makes the rules.

2.”What god and Jesus teach. I follow and agree with those teachings BECAUSE they are correct and they show me the RIGHT path” –

So in essence what ur saying is:
“What I believe to be correct I believe to be correct because I believe it to be correct”

Hmmm…thankyou?

Got a good point on love though, although Jesus wasn’t and isn’t the only person who has said such things on love, so it isn’t a reason to follow him and him alone.

Additionally this statement:

“Jesus doesn’t separate loving your friends and loving GOD”

Is wrong. I am sorry to do this Bitu, it may hurt:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Straight from the horses mouth- or so to say. You just had your first “using the bible to debunk and highlight the hypocracy and blindess of Christianity” attack.

9 10 2006
strider1989

Madison you contradicting yourself here. You say you don’t believe in God. With believing in God comes the “Spiritual world” of heaven and hell. You don’t believe in God. Explain how you are going to hell along with John Lennon and Gandhi(correct spelling) when you don’t believe in God.
simple equation:
God exists = Heaven or Hell
God doesn’t exist = NO heaven or Hell
THEY DON’T EQUATE EACH OTHER
You have to believe in God to actually believe to go to heaven or hell
I do not remember what religion John Lennon was, but Gandhi was Hindu.
In Hinduism (Do not try to correct this because I was Hindu for a long time) you don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven, you have to do the RIGHT thing. In Hinduism, God him self said “You do the work, let me take care of the results” aka Don’t have to believe in God o got to heaven. And considering that except stealing 15 rupees or 50 cents (in those days that was worth a lot) when he was 8 years old, and then even asking forgiveness. Gandhi didn’t do anything wrong in his life. So basically you aren’t going to hell because you don’t believe in God and Gandhi isn’t going to hell, well, because he didn’t do anything wrong and according to his religion that’s enough to go to heaven.
And continuing on :
A good non-Christian should go to heaven. They should. Like Gandhi he believed in Hinduism. Mother Terrasa, she was Christian. Like Gautumn Buddha, Buddhism is very similar to Hinduism because Buddha himself was a Hindu until he found enlightenment. Why ‘m I raving about this? This guys have something in common. THEY BELIEVE IN GOD. To go to heaven you have to at least believe in HEAVEN and believing God. Atheists and Agonistics

9 10 2006
strider1989

(Sorry accidently pressed submit) yeah, Atheists and others don’t believe in God. Madison it’s a not a ONE WAY road here. If you believe in god then you believe in heaven. If you believe in Heaven or in your case Hell then you have to believe in God. It’s as simple as that Madison. so basically All I can see is two things here(Not trying to judge you here, just writing what I see):

_ You still remain Atheist or other NON-GOD believing religion therefore must stick to the fact that God doesn’t exist hence Heaven or Hell doesn’t exist. Basically saying your argument is Incorrect

-Second Option: You believe in the spiritual worlds of heaven or hell but with that comes the gruesome task for you to believe that GOD EXISTS. In that case all your arguments are flawed.

Basically to end I want to throw this statement in the that was said by Albert Einstein(he was a Christian): “Atheism or Other ‘NON-GOD existing’ religions are are hard task to live up to because to “KNOW” god doesn’t exist you must have every ounce knowledge there is to be known about this universe. Because if you don’t know every nano meter of this universe then you don’t know that God exists or doesn’t. And considering that scientists like Rutherford, Planck and myself haven’t discovered that God exists or doesn’t, What are the chances that these 0.3% (Back in Einsteinian time) people would”.
Basically saying that the 4.3% of you aka NON-GOD existing believers that exist in 2006, must be super smart because to claim that God doesn’t exist is hard to stick by.

9 10 2006
Jack

“MAD” just like to say that you have been cornered, you have been cut down and you have BURNT to the ground.

What’s up Bitu? Nice article again, LONG, very long but good.
cya mate have a good one

9 10 2006
strider1989

And also to every one: As mitch talked about ‘Greatest switeroo’
It reminded me off a great saying:

“TO LIVE IS CHRIST AND TO DIE IS A GAIN”
Philippians 1:21

10 10 2006
Tom

Hey Mitch, can I honestly say thank you for putting forth the CORRECT message. The reason that I posted what I did was because I believed that the message Bitu was putting forth was incorrect. Now, if Bitu had worded it differently, as you have done, the message would be totally different, and thus, much more agreeable. But Bitu didn’t, and managed to create an entirely different message because of this, which happened to be one that was considerably flawed. So I posted to point this out to him. Not to tell him he was wrong, but to say that I disagree. I tried to say to him that he has put forth the a message that does not make sense. So thank you Mitch for correcting this message. It needed correcting.
And Bitu, before you go about saying that is what you were saying, it isn’t. It is very different. You said we can be like Jesus, that is all. Mitch has stated that Jesus became like us, therefore becoming imperfect, allowing us to be like him through his downfall, not our ‘perfection’. And really, if you do go to try and say that this is what you were saying, you basically prove to everyone here that you weren’t thinking because of the vast difference in the message you put forth. But then again, I guess I could also say that you weren’t thinking anyway, because the message you put forth is seriously flawed. That is all.

T.

10 10 2006
Mad

Bitu and Jack,

You both are so incredably retard my eyes started to sting reading your bullshit. GOD-DAMMIT!! YOU COMPLETELY MISUDNERSTOOD ABSOLUTALLY EVERYTHING I SAID- STOP PUTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!

Ok Bitu!

1. I don’t believe in God, Heaven or Hell. I NEVER SAID I DID. You obvously misunderstood my rehetoric, sarcasm and mockery as literal- which it is not.

—>I was highlighting the Hypocracy of Christian beliefs. You asked me for an exapmle of something from the bible you would disagree with. I supplied one. Now you claim that I and others should not go to hell- I RESPECT THAT OPINION. However according to teh bible, according to Jesus and accoring to God I and those others I have mentioned will go to hell. I was merely highlighting this.

—> Ghandi being Hindu only condenms him to hell (in accordance with Christianity- the religion you follow). Once again I was using this as an example to hitghlight the moral conflicts in the Bible. Despite certain racial beliefs Ghandi is a good guy- yet the bible says taht he- as a non-believer in Jesus will go to hell.

Yes he believed in God- but according to Christian beliefs this will not get him to heaven- one must also accept Jesus. And the God(s) and beliefs in Hinduism and Bhuddhism are DIFFERENT to that of Christianity. Are you inplying that all religions believe in ONE god?

Once again I do not, nor did I ever say that I believe in God, heaven or hell. I respect the fact that you at least are not too blind to see that good people do not deserve eternal damnation. HOWEVER this beliefs conflicts with your belief in the Bible

Ok perhaps I was too harsh before. I will give you the benifit of the doubt- that my rhetoric, sarcasm, and mockery was misunderstood due to the lack of expression and tone that would usually make it more obvious were we talking in person.

I know from extensive arguements and debates online that they mostly just fall apart due to problems in communication and definition .

P.S Albert Einstein was NOT a christian. He was born a Jew and developed religious beliefs overtime. Some claim he was athiest, some say agnostic, some say thiest. Here is a quote from him on the topic of his beliefs:

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”

I

10 10 2006
Mad

P.S Now that we (hopefully) have that misunderstanding sorted out please address what I ACTULLY said in my post.

10 10 2006
cock

hey all,
i haven’t read anything, but colour scheme alone, i can conclude that you are all, in actual fact, homosexuals.

10 10 2006
Tom

Sorry to interrupt this conversation, but I do feel the need to point out to Bitu that it is not impossible to believe in Heaven or Hell and not believe in God. It is quite possible, in fact. Take my father for example. This is, in fact, what he believes. But he tends to call it ‘The Afterlife’. Now I have spoken in great depth with my father about this, and we came to the conclusion that he believes in both Heaven and Hell, but does not believe in God. Does that make him non-existant? Who knows Bitu, maybe someone is referring to a DIFFERENT Heaven and Hell, and not the exact same one you believe in. Who knows, MAYBE PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT TO YOU. You are asking for our opinion. Madison doesn’t believe in either, but maybe there is someone out there that does, and you can’t really judge them for their beliefs. Nor can you tell them their beliefs or opinions are wrong or impossible, because if someone actually believes them, they are quite obviously not impossible.
And on another note about Atheists, and Einsteins quote; I think it is a valid quote, but if you think about it, you KNOW God exists. And the quote works both ways. So really, you are just as wrong as Madison if that quote is true/valid and YOU have shown US that. Because you are blindly believing something without having any proof. At least Madison, Jill and I have thought about where we really stand. But in reality, the quote is not true/valid, because people have the capacity to possess FAITH. This is knowing something without having the ability or evidence to prove it. Or as it states in the dictionary: ‘belief that is not based on proof’. Now, have you ever thought that it is possible for Atheists to have faith that God DOESN’T exist? Because in reality, it is. Its is just as possible for Athiests to have faith that God doesn’t exist, as it is for you to have faith that He does exist. This isn’t actually a one-way road Bitu, open your eyes and start thinking. That is all.

T.

10 10 2006
strider1989

What do You stand for tom?
Jill and Madison are either no longer or never were (respectively) Christians. But you, Every other Christian that I’ve had asked this to look at my site, they have agreed with what my core point in my articles. But, I’m not judging you, you have disagreed with my thoughts and with respect to you opinion, when you kind of think, they are just basically my thoughts on and/or from the bible. And if you Disagree with me, and let me just point it out that you haven’t agreed with any of my article. I’m starting to question that what DO YOU stand for?
I’m asking you a relevant question here about your believes that corresponds with my article and the bible, hence Christianity, not passing a judgment. Because it’s more difficult to argue with a Christian disagrees with you(me) than an Atheist who disagrees.

And just to counter your points with dictionaries meanings:
The word Atheism comes from 5th century BC word of atheos: which means “WITHOUT GOD”. In English, the term atheism was adopted from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist in the sense of ‘one who denies god’s existence’. Atheists argue that their position is based on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The arguments against the existence of deities aim at showing that some particular conception of a god either is inherently meaningless, contradictory, or contradicts known scientific or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described DOES NOT EXIST. I.E what you are saying about Atheists and FAITH is incorrect because they base their religion not on their believes but on their facts.
But just for a second, let’s believe it is on faith.:
We come to this: Atheism is logically equivalent to all other religious positions, requiring faith in an unprovable assertion. If one possesses a box which cannot be opened, and whose contents cannot be examined in any way, claiming that there is nothing inside is no more rationally defensible than claiming that it contains a cat, or any other object or objects which might reasonably fit within.

This whole argument is leading to The biggest question of all: “DOES GOD EXIST”.

10 10 2006
strider1989

And continuing on from what you said tom: One can not be said to “know” something just because one believes it. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from belief by justification.
There were many arguments about god’s existence, Here are some, this is for both madison and tom to think about:

First the Metaphysical: Metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are arguments that seek to prove the logical necessity of a being with at least one attribute that only God could have.

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God, traditionally known as an “argument from universal causation,” an “argument from first cause,” and also as the “uncaused cause” argument.
Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every effect has a cause(s). (Newton’s third law)
2. Nothing can cause itself. (Law of conservation of energy)
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the “first cause” is taken to mean the same thing as “God.” Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation.
Consider some event in the universe. Whatever event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or more likely a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes would be the result of some other set of causes, which are in turn a result of yet other causes. Thus there is an enormous chain of events in the universe, with the earlier events causing the later events. And either this chain of events has a beginning, or it does not. And if it doesn’t have a beginning then……………….

Empirical Arguments:
n physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, even complex multicellular life, in at least one particular place and time, namely the Earth. Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology, is unexpected by any normal model of turbulence driven structuring that we have ever been able to derive. The anthropic principle is a convenient heading for physical and cosmological reasoning that takes into account the existence of a biosphere on Earth in an essential way.The observed values of the dimensionless parameters (such as the fine-structure constant) that govern the four forces of nature are finely balanced. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton and all the hydrogen in the early universe would have been converted to helium. There would be no water or the long-lived stable stars that are essential for the development of life. Similar relationships are evident in each of the four force strengths. If they are modified sufficiently the universe’s structure and capacity for life is greatly affected. This whole comment leads to few posts back when Jill and Madison questioned one of my science pieces. we are too perfect madison.

PS Madison I’m not replying about your argument because again there is no point. Our perspectives will always be different.

10 10 2006
Mad

Bitu it is not soley an issue of perspective.

You are avoiding reason and twisting my words. Please just answer and deall with the questions I put forward:

How can you believe that all good people go to heaven regardless of religion when the Bible clearly states that they will not?

How can you say that you (and that others should also) embrace Jesus’s ‘yolk’ and word without question, when you yourself have shown ideological and moral conflicts with his teachings?

What is you responce to the Bible verse I quoted?

11 10 2006
Tom

Bitu, you do realise that your ‘rebuttal’ you put forth, just proved my point? Because all you really siad was that Atheists believe some things. What you don’t seem to realise is that people still need faith to believe facts. So really, believing facts is still BELIEF. Therefore, Athiests still need faith to believe anything. as do Christians. So as a result of what you have just said, you managed to render the quote you gave Madison by Einstein obsolete by telling us that one can not ‘know’ anything, and proving me right because I have stated several times that one can not ‘know’ anything. So really your argument did nothing other than prove MY points to be more correct. Good work. Lets see, you gave me the definition of Athiest, which I already knew and is totally irrelevant to the point I was making, because I was using it as an opposing side to Christianity, so really, being without God is what I meant. Then you spoke about an unopened box, and not being able to tell what is inside, again you are just showing that Athiests can believe something and HAVE FAITH that it is true, so by saying this, you have again proved my point.
Because, realistically, the term faith does not ONLY apply to someones belief in God(s). It applies to ANYTHING that cannot be proven. And because, in this universe, it is impossible to prove anything, as one cannot be around from beginning to end, therefore no-one can KNOW that something is always true. EVERYONE simply has faith that it is. Because in reality, nothing is perfectly true, people just have faith it is.
What I believe is a long story, so I will post that in a different post at another time. But to make a comment on your theory about a first cause, the Big Bang theory is a perfectly good answer to that. Well, just as good an answer as God is. So that whole post is really just stating ONE theory out of the thousands there are. The Big Bang is another theory. But really, there is no point in me even rebutting, because you will jsut post another pointless argument that says nothing. So before you do that, PLEASE’ for your own sake, read and think about this;
Bitu, you need to think outside your sheltered religion and outside yourself. If you don’t you cannot possibly see where any of us are coming from. If you cannot see where any of us are coming from, you cannot possibly disagree with us, because if you do not know what we are saying, how can you know you disagree? If you don’t/can’t disagree with us, then it is really stupid of you to post rebuttals, because, as your rebuttals show, you can’t really disprove anything if you don’t know what it is. So Bitu, for your benefit, think about what we are saying. Think about our point of view. Think outside yourself and your religion, and even your beliefs, because ours are evidently quite different. That is all for now, because I have to go. Sorry, this post was a tad rushed.

T.

11 10 2006
strider1989

Alright Madison here it is, got my bible and I’m going to try to answer what you are saying and on the way answer tom(mind you all he say that I’m wrong so there is no real point).

This was your original question:
Do you think that someone who lived an charitable life, helped others, who was kind, giving, and empathic, who scraficed money and time for less fortunate, who made a difference in this world, and who was Atheist, or Muslim, or Jewish, should go to hell?

I answered No before but now that I’ve read through the bible and asked some people, I think it’s yes because you see, ok, God is perfect right and for me to go to heaven means that I have to live up to that standard. I’ve to be perfect. We are not perfect are we, not even Gandhi. So no one can live up to God’s standard INCLUDING CHRISTIANS, but the thing is god is also perfectly fair and just to revisit the meaning of fair, it’s not what you want, which IS what a lot of think it is, But it is what we DESERVE. None of us deserve to go to heaven. We don’t meet his standards. But Because god loves us and also on the other hand he’s also perfectly fair. So God couldn’t see all of us, his own creations go to hell, but he can’t, just can’t, just suddenly make us with out our sins because it’s been his own developed rules, If something goes wrong he must punish, but also he says that IF thou shall ask for forgiveness and and ACCEPT what you have done wrong, you will be forgiven. But that wasn’t the case. NO one accepted there own wrong, god offered forgiveness to everyone but no one took it up.

People didn’t know how to take forgiveness, but god still couldn’t stand the fact that we are all going to hell, so what does he do, he sends he’s own SON TO DIE FOR US. To lower the bench mark. to take our sins. None of us including the Christians deserved it. but in Christianity, God saved us via sending his own blood to die for us, to take our sins as his.

here are some quotes that will help you to understand what I’m saying. They are not their as proof but as a view point.:

Romans 10

1 Dear brothers and sisters,[a] the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the people of Israel to be saved. 2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal. 3 For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. 4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given.[b] As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.

14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent?

9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The one who rescues will come from Jerusalem,[h]
and he will turn Israel[i] away from ungodliness.
27 And this is my covenant with them,
that I will take away their sins.”[j]

1 And so, dear brothers and sisters,[a] I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him.[b] 2 Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

11 10 2006
strider1989

Now about your quote:
Let me just be a tad harsh not just on you: READ THE WHOLE MATTHEW TEN. you quotes from the bible only a part that reveals to humans as harsh, but let just say you haven’t have read it. Why is it that you only quote part of the bible that may be harshest of them but not place out the rest of 33 verses that actually hols why he’s doing that. here is the rest of teh verses:

Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to cast out evil[a] spirits and to heal every kind of disease and illness. 2 Here are the names of the twelve apostles:

first, Simon (also called Peter),
then Andrew (Peter’s brother),
James (son of Zebedee),
John (James’s brother),
3 Philip,
Bartholomew,
Thomas,
Matthew (the tax collector),
James (son of Alphaeus),
Thaddaeus,[b]
4 Simon (the zealot[c]),
Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed him).

5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, 6 but only to the people of Israel—God’s lost sheep. 7 Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.[d] 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received!

9 “Don’t take any money in your money belts—no gold, silver, or even copper coins. 10 Don’t carry a traveler’s bag with a change of clothes and sandals or even a walking stick. Don’t hesitate to accept hospitality, because those who work deserve to be fed.

11 “Whenever you enter a city or village, search for a worthy person and stay in his home until you leave town. 12 When you enter the home, give it your blessing. 13 If it turns out to be a worthy home, let your blessing stand; if it is not, take back the blessing. 14 If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave. 15 I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.

16 “Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. So be as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves. 17 But beware! For you will be handed over to the courts and will be flogged with whips in the synagogues. 18 You will stand trial before governors and kings because you are my followers. But this will be your opportunity to tell the rulers and other unbelievers about me.[e] 19 When you are arrested, don’t worry about how to respond or what to say. God will give you the right words at the right time. 20 For it is not you who will be speaking—it will be the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 “A brother will betray his brother to death, a father will betray his own child, and children will rebel against their parents and cause them to be killed. 22 And all nations will hate you because you are my followers.[f] But everyone who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man[g] will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel.

24 “Students[h] are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. 25 Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master. And since I, the master of the household, have been called the prince of demons,[i] the members of my household will be called by even worse names!

26 “But don’t be afraid of those who threaten you. For the time is coming when everything that is covered will be revealed, and all that is secret will be made known to all. 27 What I tell you now in the darkness, shout abroad when daybreak comes. What I whisper in your ear, shout from the housetops for all to hear!

28 “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.[j] 29 What is the price of two sparrows—one copper coin[k]? But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it. 30 And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.

32 “Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.

34 “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

35 ‘I have come to set a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
36 Your enemies will be right in your own household!’[l]

37 “If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. 38 If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. 39 If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it.

40 “Anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me receives the Father who sent me. 41 If you receive a prophet as one who speaks for God,[m] you will be given the same reward as a prophet. And if you receive righteous people because of their righteousness, you will be given a reward like theirs. 42 And if you give even a cup of cold water to one of the least of my followers, you will surely be rewarded.”

11 10 2006
strider1989

he ‘s saying that to the people who deny him, who are the evil one’s. Who again, don’t accept forgivness.

11 10 2006
James

Strider, i love your explanation about how God MUST exist….haha….just because we humans have not found a logical explanation about how the universe came to be, does not mean we can immediately classify it as a work of “God”….how ignorant is that?! The Big Bang didn’t happen, the String Theory didn’t happen, God didn’t happen…. they are all only THEORIES that have no proof….
everything else you talk about, you are pulling from the ‘Bible’, a book written by a bunch of rich romans….i must say though, they did quite a job in pulling off the biggest hoax in the history of mankind…but i guess it doesn’t take much effort to fool the likes of yourself. At the end of the day, God, nor christianity, nor any of the other religions is ‘real’….thats why they call it a ‘faith’…you choose what you want to believe. Others will choose what they want to believe.

11 10 2006
Mad

So I can’t quote the bible without writing half a page? I know Jesus said a butt load of other stuff, but I’m talking about that.

And non-believers in Christ are EVIL? Ur screwed in the head man.

No wait you just believe in a God and a man who are screwed in the head; my bad.

11 10 2006
strider1989

Madison, disappointed with you mate. Is that all you can come to say to my response. I gave you what the bible says. And I didn’t post the whole Matthew 10 book so can write what you said. I posted it so can realise that that quote is invalid unless you read the previous quotes. If my post actually fulfilled it’s task, meaning you read it, then you would realise that he’s doing that what he said in that quotes are for the “DEMONS”. According to the Christian point of view, Jesus sent the twelve apostles to cast out the demons as it is seen in the verse 1-5. Jesus says that in verse 30 that those who believe in him will freed from their sins. This doesn’t mean that Christians are not-evil infact it means we were evil, but Jesus came down to save us. He said if you believe then you will be saved, which emphasizing what I was saying in my response previously. DID U EVEN READ IT. I don’t know why Madison but when a great debatist like yourself comes down to saying what you are in the response, I feel I’ve won.

11 10 2006
Mitch

Hey guys… i don’t want 2 get involved in a heated argument so this is all i will say. Madison I think what Bittu is tryin 2 say is that the verses that you quoted send a completely different message when considered in the context of the verses around them. Which is in fact the way they are supposed to be read. Thats all i have…. not tryin 2 stir anything up but just wanted to clear up Bittu’s message.
Mitch.
p.s. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CHILL OUT!!!! it’s getting way too heated and someones goin 2 get hurt.

11 10 2006
strider1989

sup mitch, open argument buddy, get involved as much as you like. But personally I feel that Madison came out soft. That isn’t the madison I’ve known.
Oh! well that’s the end of that argument. NEXT.
cya buddy thanx for reading
p.s. NO one’s gonna get hut. If you look how me and tom are arguing you would you that we hated each other, we still are good.

12 10 2006
strider1989

This is for JAMES:
Hi james, thanx for reading the site but this post might come out a bit harsh so don’t take too much offence.
1. You are fool to think that just because the theories have not been proven the GOD doesn’t exist. It is just as credible to say using those theories to prove that god exists than God doesn’t exist. your argument is pointless because you saying that doesn’t exist is equally credible to me saying that he does if not less.
2. Saying that the whole thing was hoax is basically pointing that Jesus was an idiot because he died for no absolute reason according to you. Rich romans, there is nothing I hate more that people who don’t get their facts right and speak without knowledge. rest of people in the argument have legible facts and are good point. Saying that bible has been written by rich romans doesn’t prove anything but your knowledge about it. Let’s compare this to something you would understand. Microsoft is owned by the richest man in the world, Bill gates. Is Microsoft WRONG in anything it does.
3. What point are you trying to make saying they choose what they want to believe? They do that anyway. you are allowed to choose what ever you want. Is anyone harrasing to choose differently. We all have a spine james, we can speak our own mind, they point the god aka bible is making is that God can show the RIGHT WAY.

Sorry if this hard to swallow, please get your facts right. i hope you read this James and respond.
Thanx
strider

12 10 2006
strider1989

OH! yeah james, don’t try to rebuttals using Science because (1) as you said they haven’t been proven, so if you do you would be contradicting your self. an (2) I can lay down at least 100 facts that if not proof but will point a finger that god does exist.

Thanx
strider

12 10 2006
Tom

Well Bitu, I spoke to you on the net, one on one, and you STILL didn’t understand what I was saying, so I hardly think posting anything else will help. But DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE WON. You actually have not proved a single thing to me, instead, you have made me more against religion than I was before I started reading. Good effort. You are giving other christians a bad name because of your ignorance, your naivety, your lack of thinking, your lack of gramatic sense, your lack of common sense, and SEVERAL other contributing factors. Right now I really could not be bothered posting something that you aren’t going to understand, only to have you post something totally irrelevant back and try to tell me its proof that I’m wrong. YOU HAVE NEVER PROVED ME WRONG ON THIS SITE. AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT YOU EVER WILL. Everyone that has posted on this site other than yourself (and possibly Jack) is more intelligent than you. You never proved any of us wrong, you never corrected us, the only time you ever corrected anything was when you corrected your writing. Continuously changing your story. The only one you have ever corrected was yourself. Think about that, just for a second.
Do NOT post a reply to this, because it does not need one. You haven’t won and you never will. I don’t care what your opinion on this matter is, I never asked for it. So DO NOT give it to me. You utter stupidity leaves me, as well as Jill, and even Madison, totally speechless. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WIN, OR PROVE US WRONG, OR ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. All you have done is show your ignorance. Do not reply Bitu, there is no point. That is all…..for now.

T.

12 10 2006
strider1989

Calling me “Less smarter then you three” is showing your ignorance Tom. I’m going to say two things here: (1) I hack when i’m wrong, In your 30 line post previously, you were lining and saying about how I’m stupid and Ignorant. Why don’t you answer to the actually response. This drifting off target for both you and madison too saying I’m stupid (you) and My religion is stupid (Madison) has caused me to come to a conclusion I have. if you actually said something at least Even a line about what my response was, NO. You said opinions can’t be proven be wrong, therefore i can’t be proven wrong because they are my opinions. Discussing ideas is different to proving something wrong, which is what you are doing via the use of calling me and idiot and stupid, are you out of arguments, STICK TO THE POINT, the “DISCUSSION” .
(2) MItch is right tom, it’s heating up too much here. I didn’t expect one of my best friends to call me an idiot but still I’ll accept that, because it is your opinion. But at least know I think we should cease this argument. I don’t want any of us to hurt.

Thanx
strider

12 10 2006
Mad

You are right about one thing Bitu: I am a master bebater 😛

” I gave you what the bible says. And I didn’t post the whole Matthew 10 book so can write what you said. I posted it so can realise that that quote is invalid unless you read the previous quotes”

That’s what I wanted to hear you say. WHY did I want you to say that? Well you have just said that one quote in the bible counter-acts another, or renders it ‘invalid’. In other word I have gotten you to say openly that Bible contradicts itself.

Before you start amazing me still with further with your patented “I don’t get it, I’ll twist it to make it my way” approach, let me clarify:

If something invalid, it is:

not valid; without force or foundation; indefensible.

If one quote makes another invalid, that it takes it’s vadility, meaning it has no:

force, weight, or cogency; authoritative

Definitions from a dictionary 😉

So therefore one quote of divine absolutism, undermines another quote of divine absolutism. One says that others is wrong or invalid. One contradicts another.

Fin

12 10 2006
Sam

Hello, im inviting myself into this debate…….I cant be bothered readin the whole thing but ill just get involved from here on.

I’m sure this has been stated, but the idea that something as ridiculous as the BIble being true is highly unlikely (yes im being very general and unsophisticated), and the fact that you say something that unlikely has a 100% chance of being true, is ridiculous. You cant be 100% sure of anything , let alone the Bible. If I am accepted into this debate I shall proceed to back up my claims…

(Once again I note that I havnt actually read anything cos im a lazy bastard and im sure this has all been said many times, thank you)

12 10 2006
Mad

Sam? I say we exclude him from our fun and tell him to go away.

Bloody Canadians….They’re not even people!!!!

What’s all this aboot?

12 10 2006
Sam

Bitu, you say opinions cant be proved wrong. That is true in this case. However, I would not debate to prove you wrong, just that your opinion that the Bible is DEFINITALY correct, is foolish and idiotic. I think you should be willing to accept that there is a chance the Bible is wrong, jesus isnt the son of god and there is no God, and then the real debate about the value and morality of Chrisitnaity can begin.

12 10 2006
Tom

Bitu I said several times for you not to post back. You are a fool. That is all.

T.

12 10 2006
Tom

Bitu, I tried and tried and tried so very hard to make you understand where I was coming from, and if you actually read what i was saying you would see that I have made a comment on ALL of your comments. THIS IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. And I never said opinions cannot be proven wrong, I said opinions cannot be stated as wrong. An ENTIRELY different matter. Really, if I prove anything to you, it is changing your opinion. I don’t expect you to understand that Bitu, but for everyone out there reading, I’m sure you will agree.
On another matter, maybe I was starting a duscussion about your ignorance or stupididty, possibly talking to Madison, who previously brought up the topic. So who are you to say I wasn’t discussing anything? The reason I didn’t stick to the discussion we were having before was because it was going nowhere, because every time Madison or I would say something, you would miss the point and throw meaningless answers to questions we didn’t ask. So I stopped wasting my time. I’m quite happy to talk to you about this in person, say at touch footy, but really, if you don’t understand me then, there is no hope of you understanding me here.
And for the record, I was never heated or angry. Very frustrated, but never angry. I understand how you may have thought I was, but I wasn’t. That is all.

T.

12 10 2006
Sam

lol

12 10 2006
James

hahaha…
1. hold on a second….I am the FOOL for NOT BELIEVING in something that HAS NOT been proven? You can’t be serious.

2. Wow, you read my mind perfectly. People die for no reason everyday. More CRAZY people die for no reason everyday. Being a person that does not believe in God, I believe Jesus was just some attention starved nutter back in the day who would be seen as what society sees as an ’emo’ today. Too bad he had a big bunch of followers, like Good Charlotte.
The bible is a book. A book written by human beings who CLAIM to be the word of God. By using the analogy of Microsoft, you are making the comparison that Bill Gates is on the same level as God. Microsoft has done nothing wrong perhaps, but make it clear that Bill Gates is a VERY powerful man because of his wealth and status,, and that he COULD manipulate mankind on a large scale, the way he sees fit. Thankfully, hes not insane like
Hitler or the people who wrote the bible.

3. God is NOT proven….oh my god….(sorry that must be offensive to you)…..if it WERE proven, the ENTIRE human race would flock to christianity and everybody would go to a PROVEN heaven…I respect people who wish to believe in God and christianity. But i cannot stand it when people say that its a fact that God DOES exist.

When did I use science as a REBUTTAL? i’m merely comparing God to OTHER theories of universe creation. I never said God is incorrect. Hell it could all have been the work of God,, but i was merely stating that God, LIKE the string theory, and LIKE the big bang, is just another THEORY. I don’t want to hear your 100 ‘facts’ that will ‘point a finger’ towards Gods existence because you know what? There are also 100 ‘facts’ that ‘point a finger’ towards the existence of the string theory, or 100 ‘facts’ that ‘point a finger’ towards the existence of a Big Bang…..

why don’t YOU get YOUR facts right and accept that what YOU believe is NOT reality and is a FAITH

12 10 2006
John

HI strider, I was disappointed with your site a bit but not because of you but because so many fail to see what a beautiful message you are trying to say. I wanted to talk to some of some friends:

-Tom, you are like one of those massive rock that has been placed in a small creek. You, yourself don’t want to agree with anything he says but not only that, you are in the way of such a beautiful message this young man(I think) is passing. I mean, how can you even think of judging someone’s personal believe when you don’t seem to recognize your own. My question is this to you: HOW can you judge a Christian, no, a Good christian , when you are not a true Christian your self? Strider is absolutely correct when he says “Why is it that so few end up speaking for so many”. Tom, you are the ‘so many’ and he is the ‘so few’. Tom, as Pastor of a church, I can proudly say that strider isn’t a bad Christian in fact he’s a great Christian. Tom I’m at least twice your age if not more, I’ve seen your kind of people all the time. You give Christianity a bad name, because people like you are a Christian in the morning and an Atheist the next. I mean, are you blind, are you deaf, can you not see or hear or actually FEEL the beautiful message he’s trying to say to you. All he’s saying is that ‘Love god and Love others around you in the same way’. And he’s living it. He cares about all of you and he loves his god, our God. Why do you think he invited ‘MAD’ and ‘Jill’ and even you to this site when he knew that you would be against he’s thoughts. He cares about you. Jesus himself said “It takes time to find knowledge of God, It takes time to find knowledge of me, but LOVE is Instantaneous”. Tom, he has found Love in God. And nothing is more important, Nothing else matters. Because people like you, his best friend, say to him that you are ‘Fool’ and you are ‘an idiot’, he doesn’t care. You know why? Because he knows in his heart that God will always be there from him, even if his friends aren’t.
Finally Tom: I’m not trying to start a war with you, but I hope you two can find peace, I hope you two can have and find the friendship and love that Jesus wants you to have. I hope you can find forgiveness in each other But what’s more Is I hope you can find forgiveness in him up their in skies because he’s ready to forgive you. Tom, I’ll pray for both of you and Light a candle in my church tonight. Last but not least I would like to say to you that strider isn’t a bad Christian at all. It’s amazing to see such a young man finding love and concentrating his heart on God when other………………well you know what I mean.

Madison: At least you are not as rude but I still think you don’t understand when strider means when he say the Quote is to EXclusive when it’s out of it’s context. Take this for an e.g.:If I send you a blurb from a book you and ask you too judge the book using that part of the book, you would not be able too, I will be an idiot doing that. In the similar way, you are using the Quote to enforce your point to everyone that ‘Jesus is not kind and helpful’ and the ‘Bible is Contradictory’. Saying that the bible is contradictory is like saying GOD is contradictory. But God is perfect, he can’t contradict himeself. Contradiction is a sign of imperfection, something that we posses. God is perfect. Bible doesn’t show contradiction but infact emphasizes the point that God is perfect. God is ‘Perfectly fair’. It shows that God can not only give happiness but to those who did wrong, he can punish as well. It is his rule, God must follow his own built rule. And the point strider is making is that no one was perfect, no one was up to God’s ‘Standards’. but in the bible, in Christianity it is that if God wants to save us, to save us from ‘Burning in hell for eternity’ he has to sacrifice something. He can’t just let us off. These guys, these people , their sins weren’t for like being late to class or something small. But for Adultery and all sorts of other crimes. God recognized that these people didn’t deserve his forgiveness because not only do they continue doing wrong but they also seek God in a wrong way. They placed conditions and thing like “If you give food to me tonight, I’ll love you for eternity but instead they should be finding love in God and they WILL be full that night. But still God couldn’t stand this, he couldn’t stand the fact that his creations that he created with his own hands are going to Satan. that is why he sent Jesus, his own son, to die for us. to die for our sins. So we will be ‘free’ again. Tom do you understand what he meant in one of his articles when he said ‘Free’.
Madison I completely understand where you are coming from. I used to be an ‘OK!’ debatist myself. but leave the trick of using ‘the quotes from here and there to completely dazzle your opponent” at debating. It doesn’t work with God. Guys once again don’t post a reply to thank me, Tom, to making it clear what strider meant, because This is my first time at this blog and I understood what he said straight away.

Finally to Strider: GOOD STUFF, I think If Jesus would be proud of you.

Cheerio, JOHN
Pastor of Stockholm Church

13 10 2006
Tom

Well, I may be a bad christian, but thats possibly because I no longer call myself a christian. I have never had a problem with Bitu’s opinion, but I have a problem with the way he is saying it. I know Bitu, and I what he is TRYING to say. The problem is that that is not how it always comes out. Hence, when Mitch came and cleared one of the messages up, I was thankful. All I am trying to really do is help Bitu understand what he is doing wrong. I am simply putting forth my opinion. So how can I judge whether or not someone is a bad christian? The same way you can judge whether someone is a good one. Or that I am a bad one. This is my opinion, and I have always stated that opinion is opinion and not fact.
Really my biggest problem is that I don’t feel like Bitu is thinking about what people are telling him. And that means anyone, not just me, not even just people opposing him. I’m glad that Bitu has found something that makes him happy, but I’m trying to make sure he thinks about it, so it doesn’t just fall through in time. I do feel the need to ask, have you read any of my other posts? Because really, there are the 2 I have previously posted that are filled with frustration, but most of the others are not.
I feel like I do not know you, so I will not make a judgement about you, and I would appreciate it if you did not make such definate judgements about me with only this writing to go on. You do not, and can not know who I am or how I am as a person from reading this article. So there is no way you would know just how christitan I used to be. I (along with a select other few)showed Bitu christianity. I brought him to the Inter School Christian Fellowship we used to have. I have also done several week long courses on christianity and what it really means. I worked at a christian youth cafe (the very first person to work there and be under 18), and went for a 2 week journey with these people, training to become a youth worker at this christian centre. I was a very large part of the ‘Fusion’ team in Hornsby. And this in’t all, but there’s not enoguh time to go into it. If you don’t know what Fusion is, I will explain later. So, really, I have been christian. VERY christian. I know what that means to me. But I can’t really blame you for not knowing that, as you don’t know me. So please, before you pass judgement, at least consider how much there is that you do not know. That is all.

T.

13 10 2006
Jill

I know I said I’d never return, but there is nothing like TWO hypocritical Christians to get the blood boiling.

John,

You, as a pastor and as a Christian, should surely follow all the teachings of the Bible astutely. This is why I espescially love the way you judge people you’ve never even met. Thats completely fair, no doubt what Jesus would do, given you model yourself on him, no?

How, Oh HOW, did Christianity wind up with a bad name?

You do not know these people. You know what they write on this blog, not their personalities, not how they act, you can not guess at their tone of voice, nothing. Do not tell us what we are and what we aren’t. We know Strider, we know what his personality, and the difference between this and his words. You may think he is a good Christian. I do too, but for different reasons: anyone who blindly follows something would make a good Christian.

Many of us already know the message Bitu or ‘strider’ is trying to get across. Although i disagree with the message he is attempting and failing to convey, i disagree more with what he’s said because it makes no sense, contradicts itself, and seems to change every time we point it out. have you read this entire blog? have you read every comment? have you seen the undeniable pattern?

Also, read the old testament. Read the new Testament. I’ve read a lot of both. They contradict. theres rape & pillage & massacre of children, do not try and convince me this is the punishment of a just god. Do not try and tell me this is misinterpretation, there are plenty of direct quotes up my sleeve.

Why did I leave Christianity?
People who blindly followed and blindly judged, who wouldnt acknowledge, let alone answer questions. people who were hypocrites, two faced. People who refused to see further then that book, because they knew that if they did, the book wouldnt seem so incredibly indisputable. And a whole lot more. I can’t believe I wasted years in a church run most likely, by a Pastor who replies to opposition the way you do.

13 10 2006
John

HI Bitu, tom, and Jill and everyone else.
(If I’m a bit a weird it’s because it’s 10pm here at the moment)
OK! Lets get couple of things straight before we go on:
-I called Bitu ‘strider’, because that’s what he called himself here. I’ve know Bitu from primary school, I was his maths teacher and a local pastor and more importantly a good family friend. I moved to Stockholm, Sweden two year ago. Bitu asked me to read his Blog, Haven’t had time because of Church, but after a long I actually found time tonight, or I think afternoon there in Sydney. So I’ve Know Bitu for a while know as a friend and a pastor and of course a maths teacher
-Dear Tom, I understand what you mean when you say you are trying to help him, he’s your friend, but that can be done through Love and respect. Calling him an Idiot and a Fool, do you think it will work?Ok! I wasn’t passing judgment at all tom, look carefully at the words I’ve chosen to explain to you that Bitu isn’t a Bad Christian. There is a fine line between observation and Judgment. From what I read I don’t think you are in any position to tell Bitu that he’s wrong. Because I don’t think he’s wrong. I tell you this in the most humble way, you have it wrong when you say that it comes out wrong. because I showed some of his articles too my fellow colleges this evening at the church, They didn’t take it in the wrong way. You are assuming tom, that it’s coming out the wrong way, Have you asked any Christians that what they about it. I would think that they would agree.
-I don’t think Bitu isn’t understanding what you mean. Put yourself in his shoes tom, It’s hard even as a pastor that when someone goes against what you believe, to reply back to them in the most humble manner. I read all the comments and Bitu has tried to answer some of the most hardest question that you have put forth, some that even grown ups can undeceive about in the most humble and loving and respectful way and all you have returned him with is hatred. I’m not judging the fact that you two are not good friends but infact I pray that you are, I say this because what you are doing can be done in a more respectful way. Not because the site says so, not because other people get offended but because through Love alot of things can be resolved. And again the frustration you speak of can be resolved if everyone thought of it a bit more what to say to each other.
_Tom, It’s great to see you point bitu to Christianity, but he told me never say this but because you are his close friends I’ll say this. Bitu I’m sorry. Bitu has been or was until I left, was going to Church since Year 8, so trust me guys he’s not as foolish about Christianity as you think. He doesn’t follow it blindly. I’m the only guy that knows about this because well tell you the truth he wasn’t the most popular guy in primary school. Even his parents don’t know and I take it you guys don’t either but that is because his parents are very strict about their religion. And tom, I’ve been Bitu’s friend for a long time and trust me I know about you more than you think I do. It’s great to see being so close to Bitu, It really is, but please do not judge his knowledge about Christianity, it’s more abundant than you think. He’s a more Christian than you think he’s.
-It’s also great to see you getting involved in those activities but what I don’t understand, and please don’t take this offensively, did they continuously fulfill their task. Again you would say that I’m passing judgment but I speak from experience. I was a coordinator for a lot of those activities tom and I’ve seen way too many kids lose faith in him too quickly, I know from what Bitu has told me about you, he said that you were different (I’m so busted) but can I ask you a question, not a Pass judgment: did you find love in god?, Did you believe and not doubt god even for a second? Did you believe that God was GOOD? Because trust me I speak from knowledge of 30 year old pastor that Nothing else is important. Good for you that you re pointing Bitu in the right direction, But let me tell you Bitu has already taken the “DIRECTION”. I know tom, it’s probably a large shock. Jill I read some of your posts earlier saying that Bitu doesn’t know you well and all that stuff.Fair enough that’s between you two. But you also say that he doesn’t get the bigger picture and how you have done a lot of deep reading. Good on you. But I must tell you that I don’t know you well Jill, But Bitu got the ‘bigger picture’ a long time ago. Do me a favor, ask him about the time when all his friends in year 9 were playing football in the holidays and he was sneaking out from home and coming to church at 9:30 in the morning and trying to analyze and understand the some of the Hebrew scriptures that we had in the church. Jill, he also has done a lot of deep reading. I was rude before, and I realize that and I hope you can forgive me for that All I’m saying is that you think you know bitu, and you do, but some things he hasn’t told you, I hope you do not get mad at him. It was purely for the fact that he didn’t want his parent to know.

I’m going to go to bed so Jill I’ll answer some your question some later but do me a favor ask Bitu this question, he knows more than he shows, he only pretends to not know those questions.

Cheerio, John
Pastor of Stockholm Church

13 10 2006
Mad

John,

‘Jesus is not kind and helpful’ – I never said that, or anything like that. In fact I have said that Jesus was a good guy with a lot of good opinions on peace and love,- however also with other warped view.

I understand the point of context, but Bitu said one made the other invalid, and this goes beyond simple case of out of context. Additionally reading the verse amongst the others didn’t actually seem to me to change anything at all. Bitu said “Jesus doesn’t make you choose between love of friends and love of God”, that quote clearly states otherwise.

You said:

“Saying that the bible is contradictory is like saying GOD is contradictory. But God is perfect, he can’t contradict himeself. Contradiction is a sign of imperfection, something that we posses. God is perfect”

I should have stopped reading here, but I didn’t. There is no reasoning with that sort of thought. If you have time read this:

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

‘Cause this is what you guys sound like.

You don’t know what I feel like, ’cause I am logical. I can admitt that I can be wrong, even about beliefs that I am most passionate about. You already have the illogical perception of ‘God’ in your head so much I will make an analogy, similiar to the one in the link I poset earlier, do show you how frustrating it is to be me: -**This is an analogy, do not take this literally (Bitu)**

I believe in Stalin. Stalin is the greatest man that ever lived. He was the reincarnation of Hoyp, Hoyp is the supreme being, he his God.

Hoyp created Earth and the universe, but he only created the universe for the people of Earth.Hoyp was upset that his people weren’t recognising his plan, so he came to Earth as Stalin.

I know all of the because of the Tarn, the holy book written by Stalin and others before him. The Tarn says that Stalin is Hoyp, and taht Hoyp is perfect and always right.

I know that Stalin was not evil, becasue he is Hoyp, and Hoyp is perfect because the Tarn says so. Stalin did not kill millions of people like non-believers claim, because it says in the Tarn that Stalin is Hoyp and Hoyp is perfect. Therefore Stalin cannot commit evil, for he is the supreme Good. He is Hoyp. Some people also say that Stalin was wrong, and that the Tarn miss-spells 4579 words. However this is not true, because Hoyp created the Tarn, and the Tarn says that Hoyp is perfect, and therefore Hoyp cannot miss-spell anything.

Some say that there is no supreme being, and that Hoyp does not exist. I know this is wrong because the Tarn says so. Also the scientific does not proove to me satisfactorally that there is an answer for how the universe and life of Earth was created. This means that there MUST be a supreme God, because we can’t proove otherwise. Because we can’t proove otherwise, then Hoyp exists, and we don’t need to prove his existance because it say in the Tarn that he exists, and the Tarn is the word of Hoyp and therefore correct.

It says in the Fonk that Rark and his son Moa are alway right, and that Rark created the universe. It also say in the Roost that – before returing to his people in the 1950’s- J. Edgar Hoover created the world, and that his word is absolute. However, I know thay are wrong because the Tarn says so, and the Tarn is the word of Hoyp, and Hoyp is always correct, as stated in the Tarn. These other beliefs are obviously wrong because the Tarn says so. There MUST be a god, because there in no proof that there is not a god, and therefor Hoyp MUST be that god, as stated in the Tarn.

I know that was a waste of time, but there you have it.

14 10 2006
Jill

A lot of people on here are rude. I won’t apologise for it and neither should you. But realise should it occur, there will be many to point out the hypocrisy.

I wonder how much of this will sink in, be heard & achieve anything amongst you…

First things first: this is not meant to be a personal attack on Bitu at all. I am not having a go at him, or his actions it is simply rebuttling statements made (so many to do, so little time!). Please take examples involving Bitu as a general one, which in many ways could apply to almost anyone, hence dismissing the personal focus. So Bitu please, although much of this statement addresses you personally, please acknowledge that it is not necessarily aimed at you, but as John referred to you as an example on so many occasions, in order to clearly comment I feel I must do the same.

Knowing Bitu does not equate to knowing Tom (and to an even lesser extent me). Knowing Bitu’s opinions and observations of Tom does not equate to knowing Tom. Hell, I don’t really think knowing Bitu years ago equates to knowing Bitu. (I am no way claiming to ‘know’ Bitu, I am claiming to know his more recent actions)Anyone can be anything on the internet (there are numerous personalities here to prove it, not to mention all those ’16 year old boys’ in those fun online paedophilia chat room rings – wonder if any of them are Archbishops?)

Bitu’s been going to church since year 8? Good for him, I went from year 6 til year 11, so I know the value of years and I say again quite seriously, good for him. And for the record, I also denied a family to do it, an athiest one who told me I was brainwashed, a fool, a disappointment. Believe me, I didnt give into that. All those questions aimed at Tom, I can answer those all quite freely with yes, I thought I did. Now I know I didn’t, but I know that then I thought I did. It was a good, convincing group induced euphoria and it lasted some years.

Bitu got the bigger picture long ago, (I would dispute this, i dont think he has it now) well I got it too, only for me it meant leaving Christianity.

I think you are taking the big picture as understanding Christianity. This is not the bigger picture, maybe a figment, but not the entire bigger picture. Understanding ‘Gods love’ and ‘Gods purpose for your life,’ these are not understanding the bigger picture. Knowing the Bible & Gods teachings, this is not the bigger picture. Its what the Church hierarchy would like you to think is the bigger picture, but alas, it is not.

So Bitu told a little white lie (good christian morals right there, that whole respect thy mother & father thing’s still working a charm in the ole church I see, but hey, white lies in the name of Jesus – who cares!) and read the scriptures, the Bible, this is in no way what I meant by deep reading. I don’t know if you were trying to prove Bitu strong in his faith, or simply rambling in the hope that you’ll guilt trip me on out of here. Reading a book does not make you strong in your faith, I read & reference the Bible and am not a Christian. But far more to the point of this ongoing debate, reading the Bible does not prove Christianity ok. To be honest, Bitu (or absolutely anyone for that matter) sneaking out to read the Bible proves nothing to me, and therefore renders itself irrelevant. But nice try.

‘You are assuming tom, that it’s coming out the wrong way.’ How can you assume something is coming out wrong? It comes out exactly how it is, and then one assumes an interpretation, a meaning. Perhaps Tom is assuming the wrong meaning, but even here, the fault is largely the composers. One can only base a valid assumption on what has been written, and note that all readers will form assumed interpretations when reading, and it should therefore be presumed by the author that this will occur. Therefore if the composer creates an ambiguous text, he has one himself to blame for misinterpretations. Given Tom’s adequate arguments & interpretations of texts I think many will agree (including Bitu on past incidences) that the misinterpretation was at the fault of the composer, not the assumptions of the reader.

I know many a Christian who would be shamed by this Blog, largely by the misrepresentations and inability to answer/treatment of opposition. Admittedly, I do not know a single Christian who would be shamed by the intentions of this blog, for I think we will all agree they are noble. However, intentions are of little consequence when compared to actions & effects.
I know many a Christian who could answer my questions (rarily satisfactorily and never all of them), but this is not the point. The point is Bitu couldn’t (or wouldn’t) and this is why he is hacking criticism.

Why on earth would Bitu PRETEND not to know those questions. WHY? What purpose could this possibly serve? Help his friends live in a world of ignorance? He wants us to think ill of Christianity? I honestely don’t think so. I think Bitu’s intentions here were good, and had he not met such studious & largely unanswered opposition the blog may well have been a success.

But, should I be wrong and it is a Christian that withholds the answers to questions the rest of us can not fathom, then please Bitu, if you know – ENLIGHTEN US. I BESEECH YOU. You can answer ALL my questions to Christianity – many of which I am yet to even pose – and you have only being pretending incompetence so far? Firstly tell me why, if I am satisfied with this I will continue.

More addressed at John’s initial post:
Do not tell me to get out of the way, do not tell me I am obscuring a beautiful message for if anything, I am clarifying, purifying if you will, a blinded message. Stop opponent’s voices on here – who were INVITED to comment and when stated they would leave, were REQUESTED to rejoin – well it is possible: through sheer frustration.

That is all for now, I have little time to waste here. But rest assure, I could go on much, much longer. I’m glad Madison did some for me.

14 10 2006
Tom

Now, really, if ANYONE thought about it, IF Bitu had actually replied to any of my posts about what I was actually saying, humble or not, I wouldn’t have to continue posting the samme question/comment. Because it would be answered. But instead, he insists on missing the point entirely.
Please do not pretend you know anything about me. Bitu doesn’t know anything about me. Almost no-one does. So telling me you know anything about me at all, because you heard it from someone that thinks he knows me a lot better than he does is very, very ignorant. How about you get to know someone before telling them you do? Just a thought. And about the fine line between observation and judgement, well thats all well and good, but you crossed it. You started telling me who I was and telling me how I am. If you were to say ‘it seems to me’ or something along those lines it would be an observation, but otherwise it is a judgement. And I don’t really think its logical to tell me that I can’t really say Bitu is wrong, then go and tell me I am wrong. A tad hypocritical don’t you think? If you have any right to say that I am wrong, I have just as much right to say Bitu (and you) are. Just an observation.
As for you asking me abuot whether ‘they continuously fulfilled their task’, I do not pass that as a judgement. I consider it a question. But as an answer, yes. I was VERY christian, for a VERY long time. Did I put God at number one? Yes. Did I love him unconditionally? Yes. Did I give up when I didn’t get immediate results? No. Did I keep trying and trying? Yes. Did I find comfort in him? Yes. I was actually very involved with it. Almost to a consuming point, but thats another story. And please don’t think you know about anything I have said on this site until you read it.
And did I think God is good? I still do. I question his existance, but as a character, he is what I consider to be good. But this is also a long, complicated matter for me, and I really could not be bothered explaining everything right now.
I have almost given up on this site because I find it totally pointless. Whenever I say something, its like banging my head against a brick wall. I raise a question and it seems to be avoided. And not even subtley. It is a futile fight.
So please do not judge so easily, please do not think you know anything about me. Please do not think that I gave up on Christianity so easily. Please, please both Bitu and John. THINK about things. See what happens when you start questioning yourself. If God stays by you then good on you. But its worth trying. That is all

T.

15 10 2006
John

Hi guys (Sorry for the late response)

Madison
-Nice argument there with the Stalin part, but it seems to me that you are comparing it with the same context as God/Jesus. No. Oh yeah…I read the URL, as much as I would like to say it was rude and shameful, It was actually quiet funny.Thanx. “illogical” , uhh…that mean that 94% of Europe are Illogical, and 96% people in this world are illogical, WHY, because they think that God is perfect. What may not make any sense in this blog because of the emotionless conversation, but think about it, What would be the point of believing in a imperfect god. We take God as a Supreme being right. People, whoever they believe in God because they think, no, get a feeling of ‘WARMTH” and Love. I’m assuming you would probably say, why build the concept of God at the first place? Well, why have the emotions that you have linked with your parents? do you remember those days where you were in toy isle and suddenly you can’t find your parents, at the age 5-7, and out of no where comes you Dad like a hero and picks you up and your heart slowly goes a few beats down and you start wiping your face and he says to you “it’s all right buddy”. Well, Jesus is like our father. And for us at 5, Dad was like our savior, we knew that he pulled through, always. Just in same way, people get the same feeling when, when someone prays to God, that person needs to know that the guy that I’m praying to,. that I’m crying to, will fix it, he’s better than me and he’ll fix it. We believe when we are young that our Dad, well he’s almighty, there is nothing that our dad can’t do, why? Because at that stage he could do stuff that we couldn’t? God can do the things we can’t, ever. There may not be a God, as much as I would like to repeat to you over and over again, there might not be a God. But just think of those people who would lose faith not in God but in GOOD all together. There savior, there ‘DAD’ no longer exists. Believing in God brings faith and hope that if not tomorrow or the day after or the one after that, but definetly some day our dad will pull through. Now if these guys were to find out that Our God was no more than just a ‘GUY’ was you know no better than us, they would break.

15 10 2006
John

hi tom and Jill. I’ll reply to yours tomorow. It’s 12 pm here.

cheerio, John
Pastor of Stockholm church

16 10 2006
Mad

1. “illogical” , uhh…that mean that 94% of Europe are Illogical, and 96% people in this world are illogical, WHY, because they think that God is perfect.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20361761-29677,00.html
2.We take God as a Supreme being right. People, whoever they believe in God because they think, no, get a feeling of ‘WARMTH” and Love.
Yeh- exactly. It hurts not to believe in God- it’s scary. Now warmth and love are good, but religion- like nationality and ‘race’- is just another reason to look and someone and say “They are not like me”
3. I’m assuming you would probably say, why build the concept of God at the first place? Well, why have the emotions that you have linked with your parents? do you remember those days where you were in toy isle and suddenly you can’t find your parents, at the age 5-7, and out of no where comes you Dad like a hero and picks you up and your heart slowly goes a few beats down and you start wiping your face and he says to you “it’s all right buddy”. Well, Jesus is like our father.
Bad analogy. First our parents are real, we can talk to them and see them. The can hug us, kiss us and calm us. When we are lost dad does come and find us- lifts us up and say we are ok.
Now suppose God really was your dad:
First, he makes you. Then he leaves. You never see him….ever. You sometimes talk to him, but he never talks back. You ask him for things, 90% he won’t give it to you, 5% he will actually do something to make matters worst and 5% of the time you get what you asked for- or something close ENOUGH. You ask him to protect you- but doesn’t.
After all humanity is in reality a failure. We don’t see that because we are in the 1 billion people who are privileged enough not to live in a 3rd world country. If God is our father he is one lousy parent.
4. when someone prays to God, that person needs to know that the guy that I’m praying to,. that I’m crying to, will fix it, he’s better than me and he’ll fix it.
Again, this is what we NEED to feel. We don’t want to feel hopeless and alone. Mate all you are doing is showing me how weaknesses (not to say that humanity is weak- just not strong) in man CREATED God. What you are saying doesn’t PROOVE a god, it sounds more like you are trying to justify your belief in a God- however irrational.

There may not be a God, as much as I would like to repeat to you over and over again, there might not be a God. But just think of those people who would lose faith not in God but in GOOD all together.
It doesn’t need to be like that AT ALL. You have just admitted to me that you believe out of fear and ‘what if’. Additionally, why Christianity? Why not all of the other religions? Why not Buddhism? Hell- why not Deism?
Is it bad for people to feel like they are in charge of their own life? Is it bad for people to have one less reason to fight each other? Is it bad to feel like you have an understanding of the world? Is it bad for people to develop their own morals and beliefs? Is it bad for people to accept each other, now that they know there is no heaven and hell divide?
Is it bad for people to think?

16 10 2006
Mad

1. “illogical” , uhh…that mean that 94% of Europe are Illogical, and 96% people in this world are illogical, WHY, because they think that God is perfect.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20361761-29677,00.html

2.And yeh- exactly. It hurts not to believe in God- it’s scary. Now warmth and love are good, but religion- like nationality and ‘race’- is just another reason to look and someone and say “They are not like me”. Wouldn’t it be better to get that warmth and love from your fellow man- not from some non-Existent ‘God’?

3.Bad analogy. First our parents are real, we can talk to them and see them. The can hug us, kiss us and calm us. When we are lost dad does come and find us- lifts us up and say we are ok.

Now suppose God really was your dad:
First, he makes you. Then he leaves. You never see him….ever. You sometimes talk to him, but he never talks back. You ask him for things, 90% he won’t give it to you, 5% he will actually do something to make matters worst and 5% of the time you get what you asked for- or something close ENOUGH. You ask him to protect you- but doesn’t.

After all humanity is in reality a failure. We don’t see that because we are in the 1 billion people who are privileged enough not to live in a 3rd world country. If God is our father he is one lousy parent.

4. Again, this is what we NEED to feel. We don’t want to feel hopeless and alone. Mate all you are doing is showing me how weaknesses (not to say that humanity is weak- just not strong) in man CREATED God. What you are saying doesn’t PROOVE a god, it sounds more like you are trying to justify your belief in a God- however irrational.

5.It doesn’t need to be like that AT ALL- we dont have to abandon GOOD. You have just admitted to me that you believe out of fear and ‘what if’. Additionally, why Christianity? Why not all of the other religions? Why not Buddhism? Hell- why not Deism?

Is it bad for people to feel like they are in charge of their own life? Is it bad for people to have one less reason to fight each other? Is it bad for people to develop their own morals and beliefs? Is it bad for people to accept each other, now that they know there is no heaven and hell divide?

Is it bad for people to think?

16 10 2006
Mad

sorry double post, read teh second one

17 10 2006
Jill

“illogical” , uhh…that mean that 94% of Europe are Illogical, and 96% people in this world are illogical, WHY, because they think that God is perfect.’

By saying that 96% of people in the world ‘think that God is perfect.’ I am assuming you are saying that 96% of the worlds population are Christian. According to statistics from 2005, its closer to around 33% using an upper bound estimate.

If you are referring to all religions in general, as in ‘96% of people believe in a God, not necessarilly a Christian one,’ you are again wrong. Around 16% of the world’s population claim to be Non-religious, that brings all religions to a total 84% and includes indigenous/tribal religions, and state traditions. Even if half of this group (the non-religious category) was vaguely or remotely deistic, but not religious – note that deism does not necessarilly mean you believe in a Christian/religious view of God, eg that God is perfect – you would still be wrong.

The reason I use global statistics, and ignore those pertaining to a sole area eg Europe is because I believe these to be far more accurate. If I were to tally the Christian percentage of say, the middle east, or Southern America, or nearly anywhere other than EUrope, it would be significantly lower (assuming the percentage pertaining to Europe was correct) and we would be presented with a far different perspective of religious popularity than say in Europe, home of the Vatican and not surprisingly, the largest Catholic following.

There are many more inaccuracies but I have to go for now. I’ll be back.

18 10 2006
Sam

I’m still waiting for Bitu to show his supposed amazing ability to debate theology. And I’m still waiting for John to stop ignoring Jill’s points, especcially the ones about the morality of the Old Testment, and to stop avoiding questions that can’t be answered.

18 10 2006
Some Guy

Bicker and whine. Sledge and deface. The only thing true to us is the untruthful nature of our own perception. So go have a drink and do what you want, i know i do, YEJA!

18 10 2006
Random

I say we take over this blog and destory all feasable debating YEJA

18 10 2006
strider1989

Hi guys, it’s been ages. Haven’t been on the site for almost 8 days and many thanx to Jill and mad and tom the conversation is still going. and also so many other new guys. I’ll try to reply to as many posts as i can but because of the hsc it’s getting hard. Jill i can say to one of the post, that John is a pastor and he isn’t lieing about anything he says about himself. i have a bit of time tomorrow so i’ll try to answer all the major post and the others. Once again sorry for he late response.

Cya guys

18 10 2006
strider1989

oh! yeah i’ll answer these posts but I really think we should move on and hope u guys can read the current post THE CRAZY GUY and If already have then leave comments on that

18 10 2006
Jill

I never said he was lying. I said he was wrong.

18 10 2006
Ron

Hi bitu, it’s been ages. how are you doing buddy. Joscelin and Ty say Hi.

Firstly, just want to congratulate you on how well you have held back yourself. If it was me I would be swearing my ass off. This is to all the against guys, This place is going to be swamped by at least 60 guys that I’ve asked t read it who are and ARE NOT religious. Now I’ve not asked them to review it as their personal religious view but as a Global view. This Group includes at least 16 Atheist and 20 Agnostics. So as you can see I’m being fair. This is to prove to Jill and Tom only that it isn’t coming out wrong he has the right interpretations.
They’ll only say
-No for it doesn’t come out wrong and
-yes it does come out wrong.
So get ready to be burned. And trust me if you think these guys are my friends I only KNOW 15 of them.

1. Jill: Ok! that is an idiotic interpretation that you have made of what JOHN said. When he wrote those statistics down he meant every religion that believes that God is perfect. Here is a list first of of all religions to explain what the amount of religions actually believe in a God and more a Perfect God.: (please I beg of you do not try to correct this by looking at like wikipedia or Google because this is correct information.
-Acosmism: Denies all reality supplied from science of the Universe and say it must of started by a SUPREME BEING.
-You probably know what AGNOSTICISM is.
-Animism: Believes that all doctrines are of a spiritual being and is a branch of Panthesim.
-Atheism:Again you probably know it.
-Binitarianism is a theology of two in one God, which are believed to bring with them the beginning and the End. In many scriptures they have said that the God is super intelligent and is ‘NEVER WRONG’.
-Deism:You stated it so I’m taking it you know what it is.
-Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences of an unexplained supreme being.
-Duotheism is the in belief two deities, most commonly in a single god and a single goddess. A small branch of Animism.
-Esotericism: This is what Bitu’s scientific articles are. this religion was actually developed by scientist in late 1800’s to provide scientific ‘proof’ that God exists.
-Eutheism: believes that there is one God and he/she is JUST PERFECT.
-Gnosticism is a term created by modern scholars to describe a collection of religious groups, many of which thought of themselves as Christians, which were active in the first few centuries AD.
-Henotheism is devotion to a single perfect “God” while accepting the existence of other gods
-Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition.hooray 1 for Jill
Kathenotheism is a term coined by the philologist Max Müller to mean the worship of one god at a time.
Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essence, principle, substance or energy that was created from a supreme being.

jill I cam keep going. there is more religion that believe in a perfect God than one’s that don’t. Please don’t try to correct this Honey using shiti Google or the wikipedia.
Now about the statistics:

John was clearly stating the numbers for Europe and they are correct, search some where on the net. you’ll find it. But globally your statistics are correct but people in that percentage are wrong. 16% of the people you talk about includes theists and DEISM because desim is since 1978 has been counted as ‘Non-religious’ religion, if that makes sense. Again don’t use stupid logic or those sites to prove me wrong because I’m sitting at the very moment of this post in London’s biggest library looking at the newspaper article that said DEISM as NON-Religious. completely for sole and simple reason because it doesn’t believe in God.
About the African Tribes: Well, here we go, “African tribes believe in somewhat of Dueism religion that continues on believing in more than one intelligent God” Said President of Tunisia. As mad says Straight out of the Horses mouth.

-You tell me “You ‘know’ BITU” then you ask him why he would be pretending. great. Please ask him in person.

MAD-I know you make an analogy by saying that 90% of time…….and 5% of times………………..but I can’t just can’t look past the fact that this is coming from someone who doesn’t believe God exists, I’m confused. And if you are then you are assuming from an Atheist point of view which if you think about it will be wrong because seriously let the Christians decide hope and faith in God, does it or does it not lead to GOOD.

-He does calm us, he does kiss us. Again Atheist point of view would not work because you would continually will try to enforce that God doesn’t exist merely stating that you’ll not even fill the ‘Kiss’ and the ‘calm’ and even if you do because God said he loves everybody you would try to ignore it and/or your brain will try to follow what you want it to. this is Bad example Madison. As a Christian I can list hundreds of points in my life where I’ve ‘Felt’ the kiss. Except your parents kiss are ‘literal’ and you can see, his are on you heart and on your brain so you realise what is right and what is wrong.

-Again wrong use of the Analogy, don’t try to judge a Christian or the religion when you don’t know the rat’s ass about it. the thing is it seem to me that people like if you believed in god you would want everything on a platter handed down so everything would be so painless.

-Dude, Man tired of reading your post, This god that you think is lousy has to take care of 7 billion people let alone the undiscovered lives. you want to know what some of these guys ask: “Why did you kill my mother” and so on. Do you really that God would suddenly for a second defy his own built law of physics so these guys suddenly don’t die, I mean,let the bullets turn into feather and let the rock bottom floor turn into a bed of beautiful rose. You idiot. That means he would have to correct every single f*$#in thing there is.

_Protects you: Of course he protects you. How is it that every single morning you get up and Shave and don’t die. How is it that the core of the earth is so stable at the temperature of 200 million celcius when everything else in our solar system doesn’t seem to exceed the temp of 10000 celcius. How is it that our smallest bone in our body is lighter that 24 g and can hold a weight of 412 Kg. when the strongest thing we have built for a robot weighs a 6 kg. and holds only 70 kg. Great ratio compares there HEY!
-our weakness didn’t create god but Our lack of faith in God created our weakness.

– another dose of your own saying: IT”S F%#$ing ANALOGY. he is saying that god may not exist but due to the faith of god existing, people go through their normal living believing that everything is going to be oright, he’s there to care, i’m fine.

YES, it’s is bad. you may be smart enough to develop your ‘morals’ but for a lot it’s very misleading and teh wrong way.

Desim: The bloody religion is contradiction of itself. It has two parts. Critical, the one that you state to follow, which in reality are out of 100% Deists only 27% follow, and the Constructive. This is a basic meaning:

critical deism — the rejection of revealed religion.
constructive deism — the belief that Reason leads us to religious truths.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…………….
73% of Desist are constructive Deists. Please get your facts and then speak.

Sam I’ll answer the question of OT and NT but it’s late here and even though that was kind of fun, I’ll say good by

better luck next time. Buddy. and again don’t use google and wikipedia because one the articles in wiki are normally reasonablly accurate they don’t match me.
CYa bittu, Good site buddy, Release some more articles buddy.

18 10 2006
Geletin

No

18 10 2006
Ron

Oh! yeah when I say swampped that will be occuring your time morning so yeah don’t feel all wining becasue there isn’t any guys here

18 10 2006
Tom

I have only one comment to make (at the moment at least) and that is to Ron. And that is that if someone has a different perception of right and wrong, then there is no clear right and wrong. It is all perception. So please refrain from coming in here and saying other people will tell me if it is right or wrong, because my right and my wrong may be different. Now, before you go off on a tangent about why I kept saying it was wrong, let me clear up the fact that several times, BITU HIMSELF has said he worded things wrongly, and given people the wrong message. And not just once. I would be happy to show you these comments that support this statement. So, when your people rush in and make judgements, they are not really going to change anything. We will consider it as their judgement, but again, they can’t really say whether something is right or wrong. That is all.

T.

18 10 2006
Some Guy

Could someone update me on the current item of debate. Im gathering its gone past the broard debate of the existence of god/gods.

18 10 2006
Ron

OH! you are complete idiot. why do you people just say things you were disagreeing with couple of days ago and then turn around tell me the same thing. Millions of time has Bitu told you that it is Perception problem and you turn around tell him that it isn’t and yes I also can prove that, and now YOU TELL ME IT IS. what wrong with you. If bitu said that his wording is wrong then he’s wrong Just for the proving part, he only corrected himself, even though He shouldn’t have done it, onl once. Other times HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU ARE INTERPRETING AKA YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE ARTICLE IS DIFFERENT. Now meaning of Perception:

immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities of various articles. The perceiver cannot tell the percept that he is wrong because he is perceiving the percept’s material and will have differentialistic view in many senses.

Your perception may not be right or wrong according to you but according to the writer it will always be wrong because it’s YOUR perception. That is what Bitu has been trying to say to you.

About the swamping thing it will make a difference because what I come to observe is Tom, in every single article you don’t put a relevant argument forward. All you do is say that your wrong, there for your articles are flawed. Please read your posts and tell me if I’m wrong when I say that 80% of you posts are just bagging Bitu out on how wrong he’s without any relevant material. All you do is twist what he’s saying and reinforce it.

18 10 2006
Ron

Uhh Jill don’t change what you thought. You clearly said that anyone on the internet can be anyone, 16 year old guys in the kids forum can be ARCHBISHOPS. Remember that. Now ‘m just blind or do I see contradiction

18 10 2006
Ron

Oh! “some guy”, Please for the love of God do not start that argument. Bitu will burn you. What I’ve come to see from the comments that If that argument was started then …….well, Guys don’t start the argument of God existing or not. You will lose that one. I’m not being Ignorant TOM but realistic on the point that I can probably list at least dozen facts that point towards God existing. You there is a group here in London, ATHEIST DAILY something something, I don’t know but they put out articles on God not existing but when someone actually replies to them with scientific facts to point them to God existing, all they say is if your God is so ‘Nice’ then why is the OT a contradiction. That is what jill is doing at the very moment.

This is also for sam:
Ok! you say thhat they OT and NT contradict. Let’s compare, since you are historian Jill, to WW1 and WW2 and some of the recent attacks. Why did people complain so much America went to war against terror. I mean yes I hate American as well and Yes the war wouldn’t have been possible if previous measure had been made but imagine what would have happened if those measures wouldn’t have been made. Some things that our very own ‘lovable’ soldiers did were barbaric, do you think they have a choice. Because if they don’t take against them the terrorists would have probably done another 9/11.OT explains what our world was, How it has been degraded over the years and how people’s means to follow their own morals (MAD remember) leads to all those things. NT describes what God/Jesus is going to do to change it the world for the better. It doesn’t contradict at all infact it makes perfect sense. God creates us, we start breaking away from him living our own lives and not following what god asked us to do and live by. Oright you might think this is irrelevant but, you were a Christian so therefore you believed God existed, I mean now day there is so many copyright laws and all that Jazz, God created us, every creator has rights on it’s creation, don’t you think that he had right over us. I mean he gave us a spine, he asked what we wanted and we replied a ‘Good life’ and he gave it to us, but we didn’t except it. Isn’t that funny. Let’s look at it this way, You own a cat, the cat has it’s own rights of course but you as an owner can decide how he lives. He didn’t decide he gave us a choice, he asked us we replied and then he gave it to, he told us how to live your life the best possible way and we didn’t take it. We have this thing analyzing thing in our brain that told us ‘Oh sure he’s our god, but who cares, I mean going to take orders from him, I going to build my OWN MORALS’

About the ‘Bigger picture’ thing. It isn’t a pre-determined constant that will be same for all but infact it will different. I’m not judging that your bigger is wrong or right but how can judge his bigger is THE bigger picture and say that he hasn’t got.”PERCEPTION”. By the look of it he’s found enlightenment

That survey begin at 9:30 am your time.
cya bitu, when are you releasing your new articles. I’m hooked

18 10 2006
Joselin

NO

18 10 2006
Tash

NO

18 10 2006
Ty

NO way, what the………………c’mom guys. Open your eyes

18 10 2006
strider1989

woH!, Ron there is no need for the survey man, it’s going to take to much space and all it’s going to do is tell tom that he’s view is HIS view. so yeah no point.
Guys who were planning to leave: YESes and NOes please don’t. No point. You are still free to leave your view and enter the debate is also fine. so yeah: Ron thanx anyway mate. say hi to Jose and Ty

18 10 2006
Jill

a lot to say but dont have any time, wont be back on til after exams.

19 10 2006
Ron

Oh! Please C’mon , it would be fun as. Fine………they ‘ll still leave comments though

19 10 2006
Jill

Ron you are an absolute raging moron. You can not comprehend the great ringing laughter resounding. Really, I pity you and your arrogance.

Will come back and reply to everything you said some time after the 10th so dont leave a million bull shit replies of ‘oooo no- one replied, i win’ because we are all doing some extremly important exams, and are hardly going to sacrifice them for the likes of you.

19 10 2006
Ron

Hey bitu are you still thinking of joining the Airforce

19 10 2006
Ron

Jill, I feel sad, i thought we could be best friends after that. don’t worry I don’t say I’ve won until I’ve completely destroyed the other guy so don’t worry about the ‘oooo no- one replied, i win’ thing, it’ not going to happen. About you pitying me and my arrogant. You again contradict yourself, don’t judge me if you don’t know me. Jill better watch yo say from now on because as calm and innocent Bitu is, I can do the twisting of words myself. Have a good exams and that I say from my heart and I hope all of this doesn’t get between our relationship.

19 10 2006
Ron

Oh! yeah and Jill. Over the years that I’ve debated, pointing to the opponent that you pity him and his ignorance and arrogance is the first sign of Loss. Although i know you haven’t, try not to ‘Pity’ and ‘complement’ them on their dumbness, any good debatist can pick it off. Just a pointer.

19 10 2006
Tom

Well, if you actually read what I am saying in my posts, my argument has been that peoples views are always going to be different. I was telling BITU that. If you have read beyond this article, you would see that this is the case. But now you, instead of putting forth a valid argument, just say what I was saying, but are abusing me. So really, you have been totally hypocritical. But thats not the point.
I never posted debating the existence of God, I was merely here because Bitu asked for my opinion. Now, IN MY OPINION (which is what I have been saying all along), the way Bitu has been saying things has been misleading, ignorant and seemingly straight out of someone else’s mouth without thought. I have said that to him, as well as everyone else here. I even agree with some of the things he is trying to say, but when I read them, that is not what I read.
And Bitu doesn’t say my interpretation of an article is different, he says my interpretation is WRONG (again I can back this up if you would like). And that is not his place to judge. Now let me see if I can explain this to you;
Opinion does not only exist in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with an article, it exists everywhere. A lot like perception. In fact, the two (I think) are very similar. You form opinino based on perception and you perceive something a certain way based on your opinion. So if I perceive something to be wrong, it is based on my opinion. And I feel that my opinion can be proven to be flawed, but no-one can really say it is wrong. The same thing goes with perception. no-one can tell someone else their opinion/perception is wrong. Now I will admit that out of frustration I may have done this to Bitu once or twice, but generally (and you stated yourself) I point out the flaws in the article. I point out the flaws in his opinion and ask him simply to think about it. That is not meant to be thrown at him as an insult. But really, the only way I can point out flaws is by using what I have to go on, which just so happens to be his writing. Therefore, by pointing out flaws in Bitu’s writing and telling him to think about it, I am doing two things;
1. I am giving him my opinion (which he has asked for). And in giving my opinion, I am giving reasoning as to why I disagree with him.
2. I am trying to let him know that maybe, just maybe, his messages aren’t coming across the way they were intended to.
Beyond that, the only reason I post the same thing more than once is because it is an unanswered question. Right now, I have an HSC to attend to, so I will cut this post short and get back to it later. That is all for now.

T.

19 10 2006
Sam

I love to love, i love to be loved, i love love

that is all.

christian morons

19 10 2006
Ron

Sam: Sorry guys but uhhhhhhhhhh! You state what exactly by saying those words sam because Infact your contradicting your self. Do you even f%$#in know whose saying is it from. It’s from Mother Terrasa which means I love everyone around me, I love being so dearly loved by God and therefore I love Love. And again don’t state that Christian are morons.

Tom: I didn’t put any valid f%$#in argument because if you read what I said you don’t put ANY argument to oppose, You are 80% of the time, as you haven’t corrected this statement in your post I’m taking it as true, bagging Bitu out. Why DON’T you put out a valid argument and let me Oppose it. Again the existence of God thing was for sam’s reply not you.

And about the some one else’s straight out the mouth he wrote that, Tom, He has thought of it. That is why it’s color coded. The grey part is a quote and the black part is his part, THE……THE BIGGER PART….THE ONE THAT TAKES THE WHOLE SITE. YEAH THAT ONE.

You are continuously telling him to think, you tell someone to think before writing, when they are wrong, you can’t say he’s wrong. CAN’T you understand. C’mon.

#

Tom said,

October 4, 2006 at 9:50 am

Well Bitu, I hardlyy think it is your judgement that decides whether or not other peoples wounds are petty. Something that may mean nothing to you may mean the world to someone else. Who is anyone to say what is more important? The reality is that you can’t. No-one can because no-one will ever be able to see it from the other persons view. So yes, I agree that everyone has wounds, but how deep or petty they are is not up to you. I am interested to know what exactly you were referring to when you said “some are petty”. That is all.

T.
Tom you can’t say that because as you stated it’s his opinion. Stop waisting my time and going around in circles and put a relevant post out about the discussion like Jill, Aren’t you suppose to take his place.

Now let me just say that perception and opinion are “COMPLETELY DIFFERENT” said Ron in a very annoyed voice.

Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Perception: immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities of various articles. The perceiver cannot tell the percept that he is wrong because he is perceiving the percept’s material and will have differentialistic view in many senses.

Don’t say there is more than one meaning because this is THE meaning. I understand you say ‘I think’ but your thinking is wrong so therefore “Think before you say something” remember that, tad rude don’t you think.

Further explanation of opinion tom: opinion is made on facts that are available that makes the statement fall short of Absolution. You don’t make opinions based on perceptions, no matter how you think that is wrong. Sir James Muller, a french Philliopshist proved that opinions can be proven wrong. yes, as much as crooked this sounds it’s true, no one enforced it back then no one does now. He said that opinions are based upon facts and truth,prove the facts wrong, prove the Opinion wrong.It’s simple. And since your “Opinion” isn’t stating near the true ‘facts’ that lies in his article, your Opinion is IS wrong and therefore the flaws you are finding are not infact flaws because flaw means defect and since your opinion is wrong your defect that you have found is also wrong.
-Why do you keep stating that HE ASKED FOR IT. I mean he asked for your opinion, no one is stopping him to respond back to it if he thinks it’s wrong.
-the two maybes that you added in your argument ruined the whole post buddy, even if it’s an analogy, you are TO ME that you are not sure that your opinion is right which adds further doubt on your argument.

C’mon guys you can do better than this

19 10 2006
Ron

-the two maybes that you added in your argument ruined the whole post buddy, even if it’s an analogy, it makes it look like TO ME that you are not sure that your opinion is right which adds further doubt on your argument.

Fixing mistakes

19 10 2006
Sam

http://www.gotquestions.org/cussing-swearing.html

Firstly, you have sinned by swearing. And all sins are equal in God’s eyes. So in his eyes you may as well ahve committed mass genocide.

and I had no idea it was by Mother Theresa, I googled it, and her name, and her quotes, and I couldnt find anything, please link me, or give me some source.

and even if it is by her, I can’t see how I am contradicting myself for quoting a Christian. Although quite frankly, you are contradicting yourself by swearing. Not to mention the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, which I might bring up in this debate continues, and when I dont have a major exam in 12 hours

19 10 2006
Tom

Sarcasm is not your forte is it? And When someone PERCEIVES the terms opinion and perception to be similar, who can say they are wrong? When, in this world, there is nothing that is completely true, opinion cannot be based on facts. Because nothing is total fact.
Now, if I haven’t put forth an argument, why do I have so many unanswered questions? You may not understand me when I say I HAVE NOT BEEN ABUSING BITU 80% OF THE TIME. So let me rephrase this. There are other articles on this site that I have commented on that have not been abusive, or have not meant to be abusive at least. Now I don’t know whether or not you take someone disagreeing with you as abusive, but thats really all I was doing. And then, pointing out why I disagreed with valid reasoning.
When Bitu asked for my opinion, I gave it to him, and he argued back. I had no problem with that until he told ME to stop arguing. All I had done was give my opinion, as he asked, then HE created the second side of the argument by trying to prove me wrong. So its not the fact that he argued back, its more the fact that he told me not to argue after he did.
My thinking is wrong? You can straight out say that? You can just tell me I am incorrect? I don’t think that is even slightly possible. You may disagree, and you may THINK it is wrong, but your thinknig it is wrong is no more correct than my thinking you are wrong.
As for the petty wounds part, I was giving him MY OPINION on the matter, and asking what he considered to be petty wounds. And would you believe it, he agreed with me.
And with the quoting, sure Bitu’s site is partially colour coded, but not all of it is. Some of the writing in the black is not his and HE has told me this. So I think the colour coding is a good system but it needs to be consistant. But yes, not all of it is from someone else’s mouth, but I never said it all was. Most of the stuff that he hasn’t written explains things more clearly than he does.
With the bagging Bitu out 80% of the time, I’m actually shocked that you considered it true because I didn’t post about it immediately. Never mind the fact that I stated that I had to cut the post short because I had to attend to my HSC. So, I am quite confused as to how you consider your statement to be true.
But basically, we are never going to agree because I apparently see things a very different way than you do, and perceive things from a different point of view, so they will always be different. But thats my opinion, and you may disagree, but in doing so, you will only make my comment true. Again I HAVE TO CUT THIS POST SHORT (please take note of this). So that is all for now.

T.

20 10 2006
Ron

Can some one please shoot me? Can some one just point a glock right at my head and pull the trigger?
Stop waisting my time by posting response saying that my opinion is……….. and you can’t ……………………. I’M SICK OF IT. GIVE ME A PROPER AGAINST THE CORE DISCUSSION OR STOP TAKING. I don’t care , you are hypocritical idiot that doesn’t realise that he has lost, yes tom I’m not being ignorant but observant as your last 4 comments have not been anything but changing what you are trying to say the last time. The current post, what you end with is what Bitu always has been trying to say in all his post. All the time has he said that ‘your point of view is different’ and you reply him saying that NO it’s because your writing is wrong, HYPOCRACY TO MAXIMUM.

Uhhhhhhh…..the color coding system is working fine and it black IS HIS part and considering even if he did do the mistake, it’s not much of a problem because you disagree with it any way.
He agreed with you because he was under pressure of almost losing the conversation but that wasn’t the case anyway becasue there wasn’t A argument a first place, “Who are you to judge that some wounds are petty”, well who are you to judge that they are not, Again can’t fight opinion with opinion, it DOESN’T WORK.

yes tom your thinking is WRONG.. Unlike you I prove opinons wrong via the use of facts that are against them and I’ve clearly shown that.
Ok! because of you mate i had to read every comment on this site to find where, where has Bitu has said for you to stop arguing. Saying that there is no point arguing is exactly what you are doing at the end of your argument, DON”T BE HYPOCRITE. Bitu at the end of every comment, under pressure, has said that there is no point arguing. That is not asking someone to stop arguing.

-Why are you getting dunber by the second. Stop going around and around in circles and give a valid reason for your disagreement of the article. Now you are telling me that there is no FACTS in the world. here is a smart ass equation for you written by a English Philosopher, I’m not going to say the name because you probably don’t know him(no offense)

BINGO, gotcha:
“Sarcasm is not your forte is it? And When someone PERCEIVES the terms opinion and perception to be similar, who can say they are wrong? When, in this world, there is nothing that is completely true, opinion cannot be based on facts. Because nothing is total fact.”

WRONG: This is impossible and if possible it will be only possible if there are multi verses or parallel universes. As much as this topic as been played around in the movies the chances of a parallel universe is 1 in 6780000, this is based NASA facts. Taking in fact that there is a parallel universe, your quote will only be valid if the parallit (conjuctioned) universes were made of alternate matter aka Matter, Dark Matter, Matter, Dark Matter. Taking this further in the point if all of that is valid the Strong nuclear force has to reach 7 times it’s current percentage which then adds to the curiosity that human only can survive with up two time the current nuclear force. If for some magical reason we end up surviving the 500 million Newton forces of attraction then because our nuclear force is so high, the water molecules will disintegrate and the atom formation will undergo Nuclear fission and which then adds to the problem that even a small catalyst like a water molecule is underwent fission this will cause an attraction force large enough to collide the two universes and Anti-matter, at touch of matter will explode, using

E =M *(C squared) you can calculate the amount of energy exerted from that explosion. NOT POSSIBLE. Say AGAIN that all of this occurs that explosion will exert energy up to 500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Billion TIMES the amount of energy that was released in Hiroshima

Don’t use logic like that because as i said I use facts to prove “OPINIONS” wrong.

20 10 2006
Ron

you would be probably be wondering why I just gave a science lecture to you,well because the only reason to assume that the FACTS that we believe ARE NOT actually facts could be possible only if there are multiverses in the world which is why all of that Links. Please for the Love of God don’t reply unless you have a valid argument, because as u can see I CAN prove opinons wrong. So Release another valid argument for your disagreement or cease your argument ON THIS TOPIC.

P.S. sorry if I was bit abusive before it was clearly for the reason that people around here don’t get the msg straight up and they only have one shape in there head, CIRCLES. I’ll watch my mouth but still don’t persist using stupid logic

20 10 2006
Ron

Sam uhhhhhhhhhhhh man, Mad ur right, You are cut.

20 10 2006
Mad

I’m gone for 4 days and I return to 6,000 words (literally).

I will only adress what Ron said to me specifically, because I haven’t got time to read it all.

Ron- you first paragraph made no sense man.

Feeling Gods kiss and hugs? Hmm. You ever heard the story of a man locked in a fridge- the kind they use to transport perishable goods. Anyway they opened it up and found him dead. Only thing is it wasn’t on. What about the guy in an old jail? They told him he was going to be executed. He stuck his hands through a hole in the wall. They sliced his twists with a blunt razor which didn’t actually pierce his skin- and then they poured water on his wrist. He died.

The mind is very persuasive.

A better example would be one we can relate to. Remember when you were a kid, and you were in bed. It was dark. You’re imagination ran amok. Now you could have sworn you saw something, and felt in at your feet. But there was nothing there.

But who says these feelings are God? Maybe they are some energy we don’t know. Of an unknown nature. Maybe a spirit? Maybe someone else’s feelings have been projected on you?

It is religion, not Faith, I object to. Believe in God, quit the fan club.
If you’re tired of my posts don’t read them, simple. I don’t force you.
Ron- don’t call me an idiot. Keep it civil please. Furthermore you missed my point- perhaps I was too vague and I apologise. God DOESN’T have to grant every wish. He doesn’t have to keep everyone alive. That’s stupid. But on the whole humanity is in bad shape. I’m not talking miracles- I’m talking fairness.

I don’t die when I shave because I’m not a moron who can’t use a razor. I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say with that. Furthermore you might like to read some of my responses in ‘It’s our fault we can’t hear him’ blog.
Morals have nothing to do with intelligence mate, and Christianity does not = Moral.

I do not object to faith. I myself have a faith. However God (as in your understanding) and religion are different. They create an absolutism that requires no evidence or justification. Therefore anything (said to be) done in it’s name is unquestionable. And to be perfectly honest that SCARES the hell out of me!

You are confusing a lot of what I believe. Go here if you want to know. You don’t have to read it, but if you wish to address what I say I suggest you do.

http://blog.myspace.com/wait_im_thinking

20 10 2006
Nic

THIS IS MY ORIGINAL POST, THAT DISAPPEARED FOR SOME REASON, NOT QUITE SURE WHY!!!!

Off topic, even if i died and went to heaven. And i stood there in front of god as we chattered, maybe shared a meal and a few laughs, whatever, thats not really the point. There would still be no way of knowing if what i was experiencing was a reality, delusion, hallucination or even a simple dream. The truth is, the truth can never be known, or to put it one way it can not even be considered to be a practical idea, but more of a hypothetical theory that can only exist to its full potential in a hypothetical reality (one which can only and will only exist as a concept). This inability of our perception to ever be true has been mentioned before in this post, but i just thought i’d elaborate on it a bit more, because obviously i had higher expectations of what the human mind could process and analyse. I could see how this “unknown” (which can never be known, even when you have told all there is to know) could seem scary and completly terrifying, but i can’t grasp how people can delude themselves and on such a massive scale to the idea of creating such an elaborate story (Christianity for an example), one which only provides more holes in itself as it expands, and one which they would base their lives around it, some to the point of death. Some may see it as wise, honourable or divine, but as history has shown us today, the unknown has always been explained, as the idea of it has been uncomprehendable for human kind. It has been explained through folk lore, superstition, religion and of course science. And you would look back on a lot of these and laugh, how many civilisations mistook the fall of meteorites for mythological beasts such as dragons, for which fiction took and manipulated, the original which hunts of England and Early America and the many other superstitions and beliefs of cultures. In fact today religions mock each other, im not saying any of you do, nor would i say any religion would would officially, and i mean on such a huge scale, declare another to be wrong, stupid or whatever, as it would prove devastating for modern world politics. Not to say people wouldnt keep their opinions to themselves for this sake. But the fact that people could mock another belief when theirs is just as concoted, just as fictional, just as plain silly, beats me. This blind contradiciton would be considered to be complete faith to “their” god for some, such as christianity with the commandment “you shall have no other gods before me” but to me it just seems silly and disproving. So i guess to me it would seem that it comes down to either, were and from what family you were born, or which religion fits best or is more convinient for you. Much like a choice in career.

Talking about it in a more of a practical or physical, day to day way, there is contradiction of science and religion i find to be so evident today, which is simply rooted in the “creation” (if the universe or world was infact created). As science has provided us with many practical and logical explanations for our reality and the world we would “appear” to live in, it has also provided us with the theory of the creation of our world and the evolution which has taken place. This is a topic i have already debated with bitu at one point in which he used the his attendance of a year 11/12 science course to credit him in his theory that science had been created and sparked by a “god figure, in his case the christian god.(BTW Bitu if you feel i have omitted, lied or misinterpreted this theory, please feel free to remind me). His point was that he coulnt comprehend how “it could of all just started” something which pretty much every person would ponder over at some point in their life. SO obviously he subtituted this “unknown” with that of Christianity and its theory of creation which sounds a little like this

– 1:1 At the first God made the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was waste and without form; and it was dark on the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God was moving on the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God, looking on the light, saw that it was good: and God made a division between the light and the dark,
1:5 Naming the light, Day, and the dark, Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a solid arch stretching over the waters, parting the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the arch for a division between the waters which were under the arch and those which were over it: and it was so.
1:8 And God gave the arch the name of Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven come together in one place, and let the dry land be seen: and it was so.
1:10 And God gave the dry land the name of Earth; and the waters together in their place were named Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let grass come up on the earth, and plants producing seed, and fruit-trees giving fruit, in which is their seed, after their sort: and it was so.
1:12 And grass came up on the earth, and every plant producing seed of its sort, and every tree producing fruit, in which is its seed, of its sort: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the arch of heaven, for a division between the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for marking the changes of the year, and for days and for years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the arch of heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
1:17 And God put them in the arch of heaven, to give light on the earth;
1:18 To have rule over the day and the night, and for a division between the light and the dark: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters be full of living things, and let birds be in flight over the earth under the arch of heaven.
1:21 And God made great sea-beasts, and every sort of living and moving thing with which the waters were full, and every sort of winged bird: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God gave them his blessing, saying, Be fertile and have increase, making all the waters of the seas full, and let the birds be increased in the earth.
1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth give birth to all sorts of living things, cattle and all things moving on the earth, and beasts of the earth after their sort: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after its sort, and the cattle after their sort, and everything moving on the face of the earth after its sort: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, like us: and let him have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every living thing which goes flat on the earth.
1:27 And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.
1:28 And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.
1:29 And God said, See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit producing seed: they will be for your food:
1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the air and every living thing moving on the face of the earth I have given every green plant for food: and it was so.

So yeh it seems like a bit to discribe a process of which science has described would take billions of years, quite adequate for the kinder years.

Nows heres a scientific theory –

Actually i dont think i will post it, firstly, because it would take millions and millions of lines to detailing formulas, theories, scientists etc. And for me to post a small part of it would give an inaccurate and incomplete view of it. Now your saying “your contradicting yourself, you only posted a small part of genesis”, to that i reply, “i posted the part that described the initial creation” that of which would be equicvelant in scale to the large amounts of scientific evidence i could of posted that contradicts it.

Bitu is now thinking “yes i know, i do think it took billions of years to happen, but god created it, he/she made it happen”
WATCH OUT ITS CREATIONISM TIME http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-creation11feb11,0,1110748.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Eeew scary isnt it.

This is what we would call diverging from the text. This “pick and choosing” (something that is occuring more and more as relgion tries to keep up with science and evolving values) automatically causes numerous discrepancies in their beliefs and faith. Allowing and giving an example that anything from either of the testaments could have been changed/manipulated to suit an exterior (that being something outside the direct word of god/jesus/prophet) motive, i.e the control of people, or changes in values and science which contradict these texts as mentioned above.

And thats all ive got to say about that, havnt got time to proof read it. Please post your typo corrections…i mean “rebuttals”

21 10 2006
Ron

Hi mad, I’m taking it stands for Madison, I’m sorry that I was a bit abusive before but it was purely for the reason because people arguing on this blog, not precisely aimed at you, don’t know how to argue the straight forward argument.

Any way my response to your rebuttal (If I’m a bit abusive again don’t take by heart)
-like You I also don’t understand what you are trying to achieve with those two examples. Please make it clearer.
-I will try to clear what i meant, It might not made sense because I was in a rush and bad choice of words. Ok! my paragraph was to your argument stating that it was bad analogy to use that God as our father and that whole thing……., but I’m saying it is because Our parents are literal and we can see them but the thing he does Kiss and calm us and everything but what I’m trying to say I’m “ASSUMING’ that you have been Atheist or whatever for a while and what I was saying is that EVEN if GOD tries to “kiss” or “calm” you’ll not feel it because of your mind set, it’s just like me saying that everything good is of god and it is ACCORDING TO ME, that is what I’m saying. You will not be able to decide and, actually or more shouldn’t decide that he doesn’t do all those things. It won’t work. The Burden of proof lies always and will always lie on “YOU”(not you in particular but your religion as a whole).

Ok! your argument with ‘It could be the spirit or anything:
Atheism is logically equivalent to all other religious positions, requiring faith in an unprovable assertion. If one possesses a box which cannot be opened, and whose contents cannot be examined in any way madison, claiming that there is nothing inside is no more rationally defensible than claiming that it contains a cat, or any other object or objects which might reasonably fit within.
You claiming that God doesn’t exist is just as liable as me saying he does BUT While it might be theoretically possible to one day find reasonably persuasive evidence of the existence of a deity, it seems unlikely that atheism could ever find evidence of a “not-god” anywhere.

-Just as Christianity is seen by some-as needing to transcend “traditional” beliefs, likewise, madison, one might say that some forms of atheism could find a definition of themselves which is not beholden to old formats or, for that matter, dependent on religion. That is, that atheists could be so because that is the choice they have made based on their own initiative, not because they find a given god-concept to be unconvincing. In keeping with this reasoning, atheism as such would need to be a full rejection of the existence of a higher power, not simply a rejection of a theistic philosophy promulgated by a religious institution. Therefore meaning that you cannot reject the fact only that god doesn’t exist, you have to reject also that supernatural being are false.
-About the other arguments: Never joined a fan even if I live in a London, speaking my mind and spreading the word of religion is not a fan club, you are being rude. I’m talking fairness as well buddy, don’t take my criticisms by heart but all in all we are unknown of the nature of god but we believe he’s good because he created us. I mean how many people Upon being asked what God is, it is natural for some to answer: “I don’t know-no one knows. And that’s as it should be. God is totally beyond the comprehension of mere finite beings such as ourselves, and we should not go about pretending that we can know what God is.” There is something paradoxical about this position, namely, if one believes that the nature of God is totally unknown, but one nevertheless says that one believes that God exists, then one cannot even say what it is that one is believing in. Suppose someone tells you, “I believe that flibits exist, but I have absolutely no idea of what flibits are.” This appears to be only so much nonsense. But surely believers do not want to say that their talk of God is nonsense. At least some minimal conception, therefore, seems required. There is no point in arguing the nature of God because this has and will always be a cynical dissuasion.

I did read some posts on your blog but wasn’t able to respond to any but will do, I have Uni exams as well so yeah bit busy.

21 10 2006
Ron

Nic, first of all, never post any comment at one time please, that was ridiculous.
I’ll ask you again for the final as a Question do you want to start the argument for “EXISTENCE OF GOD” and what is real and what is not. I suggest if you do, do it after your exam because my responses will be long and hard.

Reply Yes and we will begin. And please, don’t hold back on the so called formulas because as much as there are “Liable” I’ll will be able to counter them as I’ve done in past. So go right ahead. So Go right ahead, Start a war, i’ll win.

21 10 2006
Ron

Oh! yeah I’ll just say something that I’ve already said “While it might be theoretically possible to one day find reasonably persuasive evidence of the existence of a deity, it seems unlikely that atheism could ever find evidence of a “not-god” anywhere.”

21 10 2006
Ron

The Burden of Proof is ON YOU

21 10 2006
Ron

Oh! just can’t wait. i’ll start this very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very uhhhhhh, very, very, very Long article.
Read it NICK c’mon (Since this is going to be proper debate, normal rules apply which includes no naming of opposition)
I’ll start with this.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. One can not be said to “know” something just because one believes it. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from belief by justification.Knowledge in the sense of “understanding of a fact or truth” can be divided in a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction, and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper. Much of the disagreement about “proofs” of God’s existence is due to different conceptions not only of the term “God” but also the terms “proof”, “truth” and “knowledge”. Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) falls in the second, a priori class of “knowledge”.

Argument 1: This argument is called the cosmological argument, you may of heard of it as Bitu(not opposition) himself has stated it before. cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God, traditionally known as an “argument from universal causation,” an “argument from first cause,” and also as the “uncaused cause” argument.
This is argument that Bitu has also stated before;
Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every effect has a cause(s).
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the “first cause” is taken to mean the same thing as “God.” Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation.
A basic explanation might go something like this: Consider some event in the universe. Whatever event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or more likely a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes would be the result of some other set of causes, which are in turn a result of yet other causes. Thus there is an enormous chain of events in the universe, with the earlier events causing the later events. And either this chain of events has a beginning, or it does not.

Currently, the theory of the cosmological history of the universe most widely accepted by astronomers and astrophysicists includes an apparent first event—the Big Bang—the expansion of all known matter and energy from a superdense, singular point at some finite time in the past. Though contemporary versions of the cosmological argument most typically assume that there was a beginning to the cosmic chain of physical, or natural causes, the early formulations of the argument did not have the benefit of this degree of theoretical insight into the apparent origins of the cosmos.

Plato’s demiurge and Aristotle’s Prime Mover each referred to a being who, they speculated, set in motion an already existing “stuff” of the cosmos. A millennium and a half later, Aquinas went on to argue that there is an Uncaused Cause which is just another name for God. And to Aquinas, it remained logically possible that the universe has already existed for an infinite amount of time, and will continue to exist for an infinite amount of time. In his classic Summa Theologiae, he posited that even if the universe has always existed, (a notion which he rejected on other grounds), there is still the question of cause, or even of “first cause.”

Argument 2 using the String theory:(I’ll speak in terms of Bitu’s Scientific terms as they might be known by you):In order to explain the fine-tuning of physical constants, some cosmologists proposed that the whole universe (bulk universe) may contain an astronomical number of sub-universes (braneworlds). Our braneworld just happened to have the right physical constants. The intelligent life (God) in this spirit world then created our braneworld. This scenario, however, raises a question: if God created us, who created God? how did the spirit world come to exist?

The spirit world we are referring to is an invisible world in the bulk universe (possibly having ten spatial dimensions). It should obey the physical laws that apply to the higher dimensional world. The spirit world should also be made up of matter. However, the properties of its matter are entirely different from ours. They cannot be seen by light or other electromagnetic waves (why? read Bitu’s Why can’t we see god). Its matter should also possess energy as given by the Einstein’s equation. Then, how could energy be created from vacuum? Would it violate the energy conservation law?

The matter could be created from vacuum without violating any physical law. The key is the graviton which possesses negative energy. Although our braneworld contains billions of stars with huge amount of positive matter energy, the total energy is much smaller (or even zero) because the negative gravitational energy may cancel the positive matter energy. According to the string theory, the graviton is a closed-string particle which may go anywhere in the bulk universe. Therefore, the spirit world must also have gravitons.

Even if the total energy is not zero, matter could still be created naturally – but only for a very short time. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we cannot determine energy and time precisely. Therefore, it is possible for a group of particles with non-zero total energy appear naturally and then disappear within a short time. The more the total energy is created, the shorter the lifetime. This process is known as the quantum fluctuation.

In the past several decades, cosmologists have been trying to explain the origin of our braneworld from vacuum. Since quantum fluctuation is the only natural process that may create energy from vacuum, all contemporary models for the origin of our braneworld involve quantum fluctuation. However, since our braneworld started with a gigantic Big Bang, it is necessary to assume the creation of a huge amount of energy that seems unlikely to arise from a natural quantum fluctuation.

We do not know the initial condition of the bulk universe. The most natural assumption is that it began with an empty space. That is, before any matter was created, the bulk universe contained only vacuum governed by physical laws. Then, quantum fluctuation would certainly produce some kind of particles with small energy. Although the lifetime of these particles is short, they may decay into other types of particles or interact with each other to form stable particles during their lifetime. The energy of the stable particles may come from their gravitational interaction carried by gravitons. As time proceeded, some structures equivalent to our atoms could be formed. Eventually, a habitable environment and life could be developed. Since the bulk universe is eternal, there was plenty of time for an intelligent life to evolve from tiny particles.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. The entropy is a measure of disorder. More order means less entropy. Then, where did the order come from? Does the evolution process violate the second law of thermodynamics?

The evolution is a process from a simple system to a more complex system with higher ordered structures. Where did the order come from? Does the second law of thermodynamics prevent the creation of order?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed (isolated) system can never decrease. The entropy is a parameter for disorder. More order means less entropy. However, it must be noted that the second law applies to a “closed” system. Although the entropy of a closed system never decreases, the entropy of a local system within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. Therefore, ordered structures can be created in a local system. For instance, water molecules may combine to form more ordered liquid water. If the second law prevents the formation of ordered structures, we would never have rain.

Ilya Prigogine was the first to elucidate the creation of order from a non-equilibrium system. In 1977, he was awarded a Nobel Prize for his contribution in this area. According to his works, order is most likely created from a closed system which is far from equilibrium. The reason is quite simple. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state. we assume that the spirit world began with an empty space which appears to be an equilibrium state. However, because of quantum fluctuation, it is actually not an equilibrium state. As mentioned above, the quantum fluctuation may create some kind of particles from the vacuum. The particle’s energy created from the vacuum is called the vacuum energy, which is the physical basis of the cosmological constant in Einstein’s cosmological equations. The vacuum energy will produce a negative pressure which shifts the system further from an equilibrium state. Although the attractive gravitational force among particles tends to contract the space, the negative pressure has an anti-gravity effect to push the space to expand. More space will create more vacuum energy and the whole universe may deviate further and further from the equilibrium state. The creation of the far-from-equilibrium state allows ordered structures to be formed.

The above model for the origin of the spirit world is quite similar to the currently popular inflation model for the origin of our braneworld. In the inflation model, the negative pressure plays a critical role for the spectacular Big Bang. The vacuum energy density was assumed to be very large, thereby exerting an enormous negative pressure. Thus, our braneworld began with a state which is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, our braneworld expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This can more than compensate for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on Earth.

In contrast to the gigantic Big Bang, the spirit world might begin with a whisper. Nothing spectacular had happened. No extremely large vacuum energy density was created, because quantum fluctuation can most likely create small vacuum energy density. As a result, the space expansion of the bulk universe should be a fairly slow process. The far-from-equilibrium state was gradually built up, due to accumulation of negative pressure as the space expanded. Therefore, the anti-gravity force of the negative pressure could be the ultimate source of all order.

Argument 3: Why are we so Perfect: Our braneworld is embedded in the higher dimensional bulk universe, similar to a computer screen in our house. If God is some intelligent life living in the bulk universe, He should be far more powerful than us, because He has more degrees of freedom. He can access our internal organs from other directions that are invisible to us. Therefore, He has the power to remove lung tumors without cutting the skin. He could influence our decision making by altering the neurotransmitter release at the junction (synapse) between neurons.

Although God could perform all kinds of miracles, it seems that He does not intend to do things that obviously break the physical laws of our braneworld. We never saw a chair fly by itself or a sofa suddenly disappear. If this happens, our scientific foundation would be in trouble. Then, what kind of miracles would God do?

Our physical laws do not fix all future courses. Many phenomena are probabilistic, rather than deterministic. For example, meteorologists can predict weather only with certain probability. The genes of a child cannot be completely determined from the genes of his or her parents. “To be or not to be” is determined by the neurotransmitter release which is also probabilistic.

God may perform miracles by manipulating the probability allowed by physical laws.

Many people became God’s believers after surviving from a serious illness or a severe car accident. Other God’s believers may encounter some kind of “coincidence” that saved their lives or made their lives better. They believed those rare events were the miracles from God, but atheists thought these people were just lucky.

Are we just lucky to have millions of goldilocks conditions that made life possible on the Earth? If the Earth is a little of bit closer or farther from the Sun, its surface temperature would be too hot or too cold for the existence of life. Its atmospheric gases also have the just-right combination so that they can block most harmful radiation from the Sun while allowing visible light to pass through. The location of our solar system in the Milky Way Galaxy is also just right. If it were close to the galactic center, it would expose to significant amount of harmful radiation from other stars. If too far away, the Sun would not have enough “metals” (defined by astronomers as the elements heavier than helium) for the creation of planets. Theists believe these fine-tunings are the intelligent design by God, but atheists think we are just lucky: our universe contains billions of stars and planets, each having different characteristics; our Sun and Earth just happened to possess all of the right characteristics.

Now, consider the fine-tuning of physical constants. If the electromagnetic force were 4 percent weaker, there would be no hydrogen atom. If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they could decay into neutrons and the atom would fall apart. The strong nuclear force must be tuned to within 1%, otherwise carbon cannot be formed. The weak nuclear force must also be tuned to a narrow range in order to produce heavy elements. To explain these fine-tunings, atheistic scientists assume that the whole universe (bulk universe) may contain almost infinite number of sub-universes (braneworlds), each having a different set of physical constants. Our braneworld just happened to have the right physical constants.

What a great coincidence!

21 10 2006
Mad

My examples meant exactly what I said- the mind is persuasive.
I believe you are making a major error. You are assuming that I am not respecting your opinion. True; I often reject peoples opinions- a fault I am trying to over-come- but in your case I am succeeding. If you admit that your faith is nothing more then an opinion open to interpretation- that would solve some great time. But you’re a Christian, and as such God, Jesus and all the tripe in the bible is NOT opinion. It is truth- incomprehensible. The very institution and ‘teachings’ of Christianity make it so, because not to follow your religion is to deny the one TRUTH- and this is reflected in the concept of hell. If Christians viewed Christianity as an opinion, then entry to Heaven would be much more liberal.

And why is the onus of proof on me? If I said that production of orange juice was destroying the ozone I would have to prove it. Skeptics of me would not. I am the skeptic here. I am not defending any religion- I have NO religion. You do. I have a Theology and am therefore not bound by rules. I am not defending anything, you are.

“Atheism is logically equivalent to all other religious positions, requiring faith in an unprovable assertion.”

Ok I know I complained about you calling me an idiot; but……..WHAT?!?!?!(I held back)

Atheism is NOT a religion- the word literally means NO RELIGION! Atheism is the rejection of faith. Atheism relies entirely on fact and evidence. They believe what it provable- neigh- what is PROVEN.
Yes god cannot be disproved- hence why I am an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

But once again man- ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION. I believe in certain supernatural elements because I am NOT an Atheist!!! True atheists do reject supernatural anyway!

Re-read my blog mate- ‘cause I don’t think you got most of it, because you are making assumptions and statements that relate to me having a theology I do not. I thought this might happen-hence why I gave you the link in the first place.

21 10 2006
Mad

And Ron- relating to what you said to Nic.

It is a “great coincidence”- but it is bound to happen. The universe is massive mate.

21 10 2006
Nic

Hey, Ron, i didn’t really get your viewpoint on the first part of my post (which i am really interested to hear), but as for your long and detailed post followed “What a great coincidence!”, i will give you something tom think about. Have you ever thought that it might seem to be perfect because your minds perception of it struggles to come to terms with how “original” and how unique and perfect it all is. Just because you couldnt begin to understand something that quite possibly could never be understood, dosn’t mean it has no possible chance of “existing” in or on some form of existence. Like a race of intellegent life forms that could live and survive under the sea, or an intellegent life that lives on the furthest reaches of a solar system. I couldn’t give you scientific facts of how these beings might exist, but i am certain in a Universe that does not exist as a hypothetical concept, that anything that can happen and which is possible in this un-hypothetical Universe will happen in any possible way.

So yes this does mean that some kind of God being may have created it all, but it also may mean that this God creature was a toad, who constantly turned inside out, liked a television show that would be created in the future by the life he created and ate rice whilst setting his neighbours dog on fire.

And as i said in my post, even if you do believe that it was all created and it was too perfect to just happen then why and how explain it with a specific religion. Most religions today provide their own definition of creation or some form of it, so why choose one specifically, especially one that when you examine has some of the most bizarre practices and theories that really supply no explanation apart from it being immoral, unholy or even rude even when they have no negative effects or at least no more than other aspects of humanity that arnt deemed to be “wrong”. So why subscribe to some faith that in many ways forces negative actions and feelings to other people. It’s not because it encourages love, peace and care which it also contradicts, because you can have and preech all of those without having to believe in respecting some guy holding a cross, or some commandment that perhaps applied or was helpful at the time of its fictional creation, but its because it’s one of the few things that as even more people feel comfortable with (follow) the more real, true, divine and true it must be (heard mentality).

So Ron i’d like your view point on a few of the things i have said their and in my first post (not about creation but about their being no way to ever be 100% correct, something that which faith and therefore religion requires).

21 10 2006
Tom

Ok, I hate to get myself involved again, but I have a question. If anyone, anyone at all, can answer this question for me, I will kindly thank them and move on. But if you don’t answer it sufficiently (or at all, for that matter), chances are quite good that I will totally ignore you. So let me advise you now, do not think you have answered the question (to me, at least) unless I let you know that you have. The question is as follows;

Almost everyone here has stated that something provided by people can not be 100% true. I’m quite sure we all agree on this. Anything that a person writes, says or even believes has been tainted by their own personal experiences and will never be the same as anyone elses perspective, therefore never completely true. So, if people wrote the Bible, why do most Christians take it as absolute truth? Even if you were to use the reasoning “It is God’s word”, why are there different perciptions of the same event (for example, the crucifiction of Christ)? Surely, God would only have one perception. So, as the same event is written from several different perceptions and comes out differently, one can only derive that this is because it comes from PEOPLES perspective. And if it is from peoples perspective, it CANNOT be absolute truth. So, my question is, How can you consider the Bible to be true? That is all.

T.

22 10 2006
Ron

Ok!, Firstly tom, good stuff, Finally a argument that is liable with the conversation. Ok! your post has reasonable grounds but there are some false ‘facts’ in it. There are couple of things that I would like to say before getting started. First we know through historical analysis and scientific experiments of details in the bible that bible has not been translated ANY amount of times since the time, about 10 years after Christ’s death. So it DEFENETLY doesn’t mean that it was a perception problem. Our “Teachings” let’s call it over the years, well mine anyway,, about religion, Christianity in pacific has been built through family believe, Church and MEDIA. Let’s take the movie “The passion of Christ” for example, you should of all heard of it, it was quiet a controversially made movie, but because IT WAS A MOVIE it had a sense of Glamor and Glow about it, The director had to do that to make it sell and by the time it was finished the basic factual were only true. This is not me speaking but the director ‘Mel Gibson’ himself. It’s like comparing the James Bond Movies with the real MI6, It’s off but includes some basic facts that are generally truth. Now about your question (I think this might help ‘Nic’)

How can you consider the Bible to be true?

Well first i would like to thank you because I have been wanting to research on this topic for a while now and I did so here is the answer and I hope It gives you a satisfied answer:

Oright for believing in any religion we need couple of things, singularly they provide only little like what you have now tom, but together they provide “GOOD” point to have your hold on.

They are
-Proof
-Faith

—-Proof: There is no proof that we can be directly link as to say that the Bible is the true. As we have said it;s definetly not a perception problem because the bible we have now IS the one that was there at 10-20 years at Christs death, So proof can be derived and CAN be indirectly linked. Couple of things: Luke in the bible, he wasn’t an apostle of Christ, He was a doctor. But when he wrote his Gospel in the bible, he went around the lands RESEARCHING EVERY SINGLE EVENT THAT HAS OCCURRED. Now he wasn’t a apostle, he was a true believer of the Lord, but unlike the apostles he wasn’t, what shall I say “Under pressure” of the Lord to Believe everything, he still believed he was correct but he wanted to research these events before writing his gospel.

Oright sorry guys i have to go somewhere. IT WILL BE GOOD IF U DONT PUT A RESPONSE AT THE MOMENT

22 10 2006
Nic

Ron hasn’t really made any serious attempt to comprehend what i said in my first point, either that or he is mind boggled by it and is avoiding comfronting it by posting things that i have already provided a theory to dissmiss as irellevant based on my first point in my intial post

22 10 2006
Tom

Ok, firstly Ron, please don’t patronise me. If you weren’t intending to, that is how it came out (your first comment). Secondly, I know I said I would ignore you if it didn’t sufficiently answer my question, but I feel like you have tried to answer a different question. What I am asking is how you consider that it is totally true when it is written only by people? People will always have a tainted view of things, even if it is only the way they write things. Even if someone is to write fact, it is only fact in the perception of the author, and whether the audience belive it is entirely based upon their perception. So, with this taint, nothing that a person writes about an event can be considered perfectly true. And there are moments within the Bible which this happens, and as it turns out, the events are recalled in different ways. This can only mean that people have viewed it in different ways, because they are different people. And as such, the Bible must be written by people. And if is written by people, surely it cannot be considered perfectly true. So again, if the Bible was written by people, how can it be considered perfectly true? That is all.

T.

23 10 2006
Ron

woH, I should have been more aggressive about it! Stop responding and judging an unfinished answer. I went so I can get someone who can answer your question better than me. Normally that’s better thing. TOM, YOU THE LIMIT OF IDIOCRACY MAN. When I actually start being nice to you, you turn around and throw it back it in my face. This is why Tom, this is why your arguments are so useless. When You actually came up something, I acknowledged that you FOOL. Uhh, what’s wrong with? Is it hard to take credit for something that simple. C’mon. Any way I’ve LEE next to me, he’s used to be crime reporter for Chicago Tribunals but came to London when he chose to change to an Archaeologist. I wanted him to talk to you because he wrote a book four years ago about this. Here he is …..

23 10 2006
Lee

Hi guys, just before I start I wanted to do a bit of an Intro.. of my self and then I’ll start. Remember this is my writing tom, nic, mad, it’s your choice at the end to be able to choose it to be liable. This will be a long talk so I beg PLEASE, even if you question something and think they might b wrong, hold that thought because the chance are It will talked about. Please if you are Involved in this conversation, please don’t write anymore because it will harder for me to stick to the original question, Than you, it will be greatly appreciated.

So i begin:

Now, when i graduated and started my internship at Chicago tribunals, I was an Atheist, a strong one on that matter. My thought attitude towards Go was that Intelligent people didn’t believe in him. All it took was a quick look at the evidence to know that Christianity was nothing but superstition and wishful thinking. But to be honest that all I did give it—-a quick look. I made a choice in the life but i can’t make your that’s your to do.

23 10 2006
Lee

Ok! what I’m going to do because this is going to be long I’m going to do it and send it Bitu so he can post it as an article. Hope you guys be patient and post comment after

23 10 2006
Tom

So, Ron, you continue to patronise me? Interesting. After all, it was you that said that calling someone an idiot or a fool is the first sign of loss. And it appears that you have just done that. I have never called you a fool, and I tried to make it clear that the way i interpreted it was that it was patronising, and if it wasn’t I was quite willing to accept that and move on. And it isn’t, so I’m leaving it alone. But you last comment is a tad interesting, considering you said ‘pointing to the opponent his ignorance is the first sign of loss’. Your words, not mine.
Thank you Lee for attempting to answer, and I will try not to make some kind of judgement beforehand. What you are doing is a good idea. Ron, do not EVER think that in any of this blog you have EVER proved me wrong or answered a question, or even provided me any kind of information. And I’m not the only one that thinks that. So I will no longer ask you questions because you seem to waste my time with irrelevant responses as you have always done. When I stopped posting before it was not because you told me or proved anything to me, it was because you kept wasting my time, and I really had better things to do than to listen to someone that apparenly thinks they know much more than they do. I ask questions because I don’t know something. I’m looking for an answer. You think you have them. You don’t. So I will ask you to just stop talking to me. If you try, I will ignore you.
Lee, I await your response. That is all.

T.

23 10 2006
Lee

oright, that was going to be bit weird. so I’m going to just answer it here: so here it is:

Depending on which sources you read, you could come away with very different pictures of the same person. Take elvis, for example: According to most sources, he died on August 16,1977, and is buried in Memphis, Tennessee. but if you could consult the National Enquirer, you’ll read that elvis was recently sen alive and well in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It only makes sense to figure that one of these reposts isn’t completely accurate. jesus’ oldest biographies are teh books of the NT of the bible called the gospels named after the writers: Matthew, john, Mark and luke. The main question here that I rasied was

“how many eyeballs?”

the term eyeballs stands for eyewitnesses. after years of reporting on court room trials, I know how convincing a eye witnessing testimony can be on how how an event happened. So i wanted to know, how many witnesses met this person named Jesus? how many heard his teachings? How many actually saw him after he supposedly returned from the dead? Are these accounts backed up by a credible witnesses, or are tehy tabloid thriller in the first century equivalent to Kalamazoo? Here are some cool thing I discovered guys:

-It turns out that there WASN”T a single eye witness. There were MANY. the historian mark recorded Peter;s firsthand account in what is now called the Gospel of mark. luke, a physician and sort of a first-century investigative reporter, wrote a biography of Jesus based on eyewitness testimony; i contains several writings by the eyewitness themselves. for instance, peter himself wrote two letters that re included in what is now the NT. Matthew, john and james were all eyewitnesses who wrote biographies or letters about James. peter insisted that he was accurately recording firsthand inforamation .
2 Peter 1:16 (New Living Translation)

16 For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes

23 10 2006
c-raig

you guys are crazy. does any1 else think that john is bitus alter ego. ??

23 10 2006
Mad

Ron- I hate you. Yo are an arrogant prick- who understands very little about this world. I wanted to keep it civil, but you continue to attack people for bringing up perfectly valid and reasonable points, yet YOU continuously ‘misunderstand’ them. I used quotations because you DON’T misunderstand them- its selective. What we are really saying is too difficult to rebutt.

Bitu- this will be my last post on here. It’s not good for my blood pressure. In my experience it is very rarely you find a christian who will actually listen to what you have to say without twisting your words or shoving their head in the sand. Here is no different. I once again find myself saying the phrase I always say when in this situation: argueing with a Christian is like argueing with a brick wall. I applaud you for inviting me to come here and give my contrary opinion- assuming you didn’t want to lure me in for conversion (which I asure you is impossible).

As for Lee’s research- there is not one article on this net relating to the historical accuracy of the Bible I have not seen. Remmeber i argue with Christians constantly online- who soemtimes post sources.

I leave with this. Christianity is but one religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof.

You do not have to justify logical and scientific gaps- because you have faith

As long as you lead a virtuous life- and let other people do the same- with or WITHOUT you personal faith, then nothing is wrong

If you do not attempt to legislate the Bible then nothing is wrong.

If you no not judge me and others for a lack of ‘Jesus’ then nothing is wrong.

And for the others who are staying:

For those who believe no evidence is neccessary; for those who don’t no evidence will suffice. Accept this and move on.

Feel free to reply to this post- but I won’t be reading it.

Peace guys- I mean it.

23 10 2006
Nic

i guess i dont exist…people still have not adressed the theory i first posted.

but i like made have decided to leave because im stupid and suck at trying to argue with the likes of you people. Lee one final thing, you giving us the example of u being athiest and saying thats what you thought “intelligent” people thought, is a completyly stupid and irellevant shot at trying to relate yourself to any of the people in this forum, a number of the people in this forum are atheist and trying to explain the theory that its not that god dosn’t exist, its that he may or may not, which therefore debunks christians and christianity and any other religion that believes and has 100% faith in their god being “real”.

23 10 2006
Lee

Ok! before I get started from where I left off, I wanted to say Nic I’m not trying to convince you to suddenly for Christianity but Instead I wanted to write down I found when I went on ‘the adventure’ on the route about finding some of the things about Christianity. Nic I’ll try to answer some of stuff a bit later. Be patient.

Ok! (where I left off): The NT biographies of Jesus aren’t just a second had information. They are based upon eyewitness accounts. But argument still stood because I thought that “Eyewitnesses can lie”. Take this as an example for a second:
-you may lie in a class to get yourself out of detention.
-You may lie to your friends to fit in. YOU GET THE POINT RIGHT.
But what striked me was, what was in it for the Disciples if they were lying about Jesus? Their claims that JESUS IS GOD got them Persecution, Criticisms, and ultimately death.

My question was: WOULD ALL THOSE EYEWITNESS RISK THEIR LIVES FOR A LIE

-See this came to another reasoning: The eyewitness who wrote about Jesus were preaching to people who lived at the same time and the same area as JESUS DID.
Take this as an example:
If i say that I was on top of the leader board for the no. of touch downs and I scored a touch down in the final seconds of our FINAL to win us our home game in the fourth quarter. While you might think that I was exaggerating, you couldn’t know for sure whether I was reporting it accurately or not. After all, you weren’t there. On the other hand, if I tried to tell you about YOUR football game and how YOU performed on the field, you’d have a better chance of spotting any inaccuracies or outright lies in my version.

This is important, because if the disciple were exaggerating or rewriting history, their audience would have known it and called them on it — in the same way you can catch my inaccuracies of YOUR game.

All of this leads something cool: Shortly after Jesus was killer, Peter spoke to a crowd in the same city where the crucifixion had taken place. Many of the people listening had probably seen Jesus put to death. Peter started out saying: (Acts 2:22)
22 “People of Israel, listen! God publicly endorsed Jesus the Nazarene[a] by doing powerful miracles, wonders, and signs through him, as you well know.

In other words, “C’mon, everybody — you know what Jesus did. YOU SAW those things for your self!” then he went on to say, (Acts 2:32)
32 “God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this.

The audiences reaction was very interesting. They didn’t say, “We don’t know what you are talking about!” or, “That’s not the way it really happened!” Instead, they panicked and wanted to know what they should do. On that day about 3000 people asked for forgiveness and many others followed — apparently because they knew peter was telling the truth.

I had to ask my self: “Would Christianity have taken root as quickly as it did if these disciples were saying things that their audience knew were exaggerated or False?”

I was becoming, slowly, confident over this thing NT’s eyewitness accounts but something got me thinking again: The eyewitnesses didn’t write down their accounts as the events happened. They were passed along verbally for a period of time. Some estimates suggest that the Gospel wasn’t written until hundred or more years after Jesus died. But what I discovered next was fascinating when I talked to Dr. William Albright, who used to direct the American school of Oriental research gave me this time line (well in short. he said a lot more)

A.D 30 : Jesus is Crucified
A.D.32 : The apostle Paul is converted on the road to Damascus. He goes to Damascus to meet with Christians and receive instructions
A.D 35 : Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James

Sometime during those visits with Christian Leader and his early training in Christian faith, Paul was taught a creed(not the band) — a statment of believe — that the Christian church was ALREADY USING to declare its believe in Christ’s resurrection. How do we Know? Paul tells us:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
Do you what that means ‘Tom’? By the time Paul got his lessons in Christianity 101 in Damascus and Jerusalem, the Christian church was already teaching that Christ died for sins, was buried and raised from the dead. THAT”S THE CREED PAUL ‘RECEIVED’ AND ‘PASSED’ ON. This wasn’t 100 years or 50 years or even 30 years after Jesus’ death; this was 2 to 5 years after JESUS’ DEATH. And experts say that far too fast for a legend to be developed and in the process wipe out the a core of historical truth. This was a major problem solved, but I wasn’t going to give up easily: When i hold a bible in my hand, what I’m really holding are copies of the ancient historical records. the orginal manuscripts of the biographies of Jesus — Matthew, Mark, John, Luke —and all other book of the OT AND NT. these copies were made b hand by a lot of people over a lot of years.

My way to see this objection was: I pictured it sort of like that game little kids play called “telephone”. One kid whispers something into another kid’d ears — like, “All cows eat grass” — and the second kid whispers to the third kid who whisper to the fourth kid and so on, mumbling and giggling the way people do when they are whispering, until what the kid at the end of the line hears is, “I have a lousy gas”

Actually though, that’s not an accurate analogy of bible got copied. A better one would be some thing like this: The starting the telephone game whispers something to two different kids. Each of those kids to two more kids. They, each, whisper to two more kids. And so it goes, until at then end of the line you have not one version but, but dozens of versions of the original statements. If one version is, “Jesus is bored”, another is, ” Pieces of board”, and a third is, ” Freeze us a gourd”, you have got a pretty good idea that the original message got distorted along the way. But what if all the final versions are the same? What if almost every kid at the end of evry line ends up with, ” Jesus is Lord”?
there are 5000 copies of NT manuscripts copied in Greek. And 8000 to 10000 in Latin. Eight thousand more in other languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. Throw in a few of miscellaneousness other manuscripts, there are 24000 NT manuscripts in all. the amazing thing was that they say the same thing!

NOT DONE YET. NIC I’ll Post you answer in half an hour. Cya

24 10 2006
Lee

(Where i left off): You’ll find some variations in spelling and stuff like that, but 99.5 percent of the manuscripts match up. Undoubtedly the people copying the NT made some mistakes as they wrote, but, unlike the telephone game, where half the fun is in making mistakes, these guys were serious about their work. After all, they considered these manuscripts to be sacred. (If you want to know some evidences for Christs outside of the bible then just ask and can give some info)

Ok! Nic, One of the major questions in your posts I notice that you ask is “Why choose Christianity over all other religions”, Now i can’t convince, or influence you to start thinking that Christianity is the right religion all of suddens.That will always remain your choice. But I can tell you how I went about choosing religion which may (or may not) give an insight on how some people DO choose Christianity. Before i start If this offends ANYONE, I apologies and it was not intended:
This is how started:

One of Jesus’ most outrageous claims is this: 6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) Of all the incredible statments Jesus made, this is the one that I found most offensive. If anyone else had said it, he’d be blasted as exclusive, intolerant, and narrow-minded. It’s one thing to claim to be A WAY — but they ONLY WAY to god? That sounds pretty judgemental

The world is full of religions. the U.S. Constitution even defends your right to believe any religion you choose (or to believe none at all). Legally, all religions (in US) are basically equal. A lot people will tell you that there are variety of paths people can take in their spiritual journey, and they all lead to the same god.
But as I looked into the claims of Christianity, I discovered one big difference between it and other religions. Other religions are based on people DOING SOMETHING TO EARN THE FAVOR OF GOD(trust me mate, I went at least to about 9 religious meeting (not meaning anything)) they must perform good deeds, chant the right words, use a tibetan prayer wheel, go through a series of incarnations, or faithfully follow other religious drills.
By contrast, I thought, Christianity is based on what, according to bible (whose credibility we talked about above), CHRIST HAS ALREADY DONE ON THE CROSS. According to the bible, nobody can do anything to earn God’s favor; rather Jesus offers forgiveness and eternal life as Gift.

I’ll tell you about an Interview I took of a friend of mine. His name was Louise (not giving the last name away). I decided to talk to his because He was in my position also earlier. Louise came from a Jewish family and for some with his heritage, the question of whether Jesus is the long-anticipated Messiah goes beyond theory. it’s intensely personal.
” My parents got divorced when I was seventeen,” Louise told me –and even after all these years I could still hear the hurt in his voice. ” that’s when i gave up whatever faith I had. I wondered, WHERE DOES GOD COME IN? WHY DIDN”T THEY GO TO A RABBI FOR COUNSELING? What good is a religion if it can’t help people in a practical way? It sure couldn’t keep my parents together. When they split up, part of me split as well.”
“on top of that, in Judaism I didn’t feel as if I had a personal relationship with God. I had a lot beautiful ceremonies and traditions, but our God was a distant God who said, ‘Here are the rules–you live by them, you’ll be OK; I’ll see you later.’ And there i was, an adolescent with raging hormones, wondering, Does God relate to my problems? Does he care about me as an individual? Well, not in any way I could see”
Not long after his parents’ divorce, Louise was drafted. By 1967 he found himself on the other side of the world in Vietnam.
Louise recalled, “I our orientation in Vietnam, they told us, ‘twenty percent of you will get killed, and the other 80 percent of you will probably get a sexual transmitted disease or become alcoholics or get hooked on drugs’. I thought, I don’t even have a 1 percent chance of coming our normal!”
he survived Vietnam, returning home with a taste of marijuana and an interest in Eastern religions. ” I went to Buddhist meetings, but that was empty,” he said. ” I went Scientology meetings, but they were to manipulative and controlling. Hinduism believed in a religion who was not understandable by the smartest of beings, I don’t know 1 billion actually follow it. But none of it was satisfying.”
One religion Louise refused to consider was Christianity. Whenever anyone would bring up the name of jesus, Louise would fend him with his stock answer. “I’m jewish,” he would say. “I can’t believe in jesus”. then one day a pastor challenged him. “Do you know of the prophecies about the messiah?” he asked. Louise was taken off guard. “Prophecies?” he said ” I’ve never heard of them”.
The minister startled Louise by referring to some of the OT predictions. WAIT A MINUTE! Louise thought THOSE ARE MY JEWISH SCRIPTURES HE”S QUOTING! HOW COULD JESUS BE IN THERE?
When the pastor offered him a bible, Louise was skeptical. “is the New testament in there” he asked. The pastor nodded. “Ok!, I’ll read the Old testament, but I’m not going to open up the other one,” Louse told him.
He was surprised by the minister’s response. “Fine,” said the pastor. “Just read the old testament and ask the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob –the God of Israel–to show you if the jesus is the Messiah. because he is your Messiah. He came to jewish first, and then did he become the savior of the world also”.
“Pretty soon,” Louise told me, ” I was reading the Old testament everyday and finding one prophecy after another”.
As Louise worked though he was astonished by one of the predictions in Isaiah 53:

3 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.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Here was the picture of the mesiah ho would suffer and die for the sins of Israel and the world — all written more than 700 years before Jesus walked on earth. He recognized that this was the Jesus of Nazareth! This discovery was so overbearing for Louise that he only could come one conclusion: it was a fraud! he believed that Christians had rewritten the OT and twisted Isaiah’s words to make it sound as if the prophet had been foreshadowing Jesus.
And if this was just a hoax, then he wanted to expose it. “I asked my stepmother to send me a Jewish bible so I could check it out myself”, he told me. “She did, and guess what? It said the same thing!” Spiritually I was conflicted. So Louise prayed to God, ” God, I’ve got to come to the end of this struggle. I have to know beyond the shadow of doubt that Jesus is the Messiah. I need to know that you, as the god of Israel, want me to believe this”.
As he told me the story, Louise hesitated, unsure how to put into words something that was a dreams and nothing more than the feeling. ” they best way I can describe what happened is that god spoke to my heart. he convinced me he exists. they were no lightning bolt or thunder, they were no sudden gust of wind with a sense that ‘he exists’, some people get a sense of rushing feeling when they do this, I didn’t get that either. But I knew that I’m going to change” he said ” And i did, I quit Marijuana in 3 weeks, experts say it takes a minimum of at least 3 months to go in the ‘crisis point’ period. I quit in 3 WEEKS”.

Nic I can’t do anything in this world to convince you that Christianity is better but I hope that helped you answer some questions. thank you. Please write back your response.

24 10 2006
Lee

Now after reading a lot of the comments on this blog, I’ve noticed that the people seem to come one of major weapons for Atheism “Contradictions in the bible”: This is one of the most difficult questions for Christians to answer.
The “problem of pain,” as the well-known Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, once called it, is atheism’s most potent weapon against the Christian faith. Don’t feel that you are the first to notice this.
All true science and history, if rightly understood, support the fact of God. This evidence is so strong that, as the Bible says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

So here are my thoughts:
Most atheists, therefore, without any objective evidence on which to base their faith in “no God”, must resort finally to philosophical objections. And this problem of suffering is the greatest of these.

That is, they say, how can a God of love permit such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent? Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering, or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it. In either case, the Biblical God who is supposedly one of both absolute power and perfect love becomes an impossible anachronism. Or so they claim! This is a real difficulty, but atheism is certainly not the answer, and neither is agnosticism. While there is much evil in the world, there is even more that is good. This is proved by the mere fact that people normally try to hang on to life as long as they can. Furthermore, everyone instinctively recognizes that “good” is a higher order of truth than “bad”.

We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).

“Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20).

We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.

Having settled this by faith, we are then free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life as well as the blessings. As we consider such matters, it is helpful to keep the following great truths continually in our minds.

-There is really no such thing as the “innocent” suffering.

Since “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God’s wrath on the basis of his own innocence.

As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.

-The world is now under God’s Curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man’s rebellion against God’s Word.

This “bondage of corruption,” with the “whole world groaning and travailing together in pain” (Romans 8:21, 22), is universal, affecting all men and women and children everywhere. God did not create the world this way, and one day will set all things right again. In that day, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Revelation 21:4).

-The Lord Jesus Christ, who was the only truly “innocent” and “righteous” man in all history, nevertheless has suffered more than anyone else who ever lived.

And this He did for us! “Christ died for our sins” (I Corinthians 15:3). He suffered and died, in order that ultimately He might deliver the world from the Curse, and that, even now, He can deliver from sin and its bondage anyone who will receive Him in faith as personal Lord and Savior. This great deliverance from the penalty of inherent sin, as well as of overt sins, very possibly also assures the salvation of those who have died before reaching an age of conscious choice of wrong over right.

– With our full faith in God’s goodness and in Christ’s redemption, we can recognize that our present sufferings can be turned to His glory and our good.

The sufferings of unsaved men are often used by the Holy Spirit to cause them to realize their needs of salvation and to turn to Christ in repentance and faith. The sufferings of Christians should always be the means of developing a stronger dependence on God and a more Christ-like character, if they are properly “exercised thereby” (Hebrews 12:11).

Thus, God is loving and merciful even when, “for the present,” He allows trials and sufferings to come in our lives.

“For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28)

24 10 2006
Lee

Here are some contradiction that have been explained:
1. God is satisfied with his works
“God saw all that he made, and it was very good.” [Gen 1:31]

God is dissatisfied with his works.

“The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” [Gen 6:6]
This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man’s volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved.

2. God dwells in chosen temples

“the LORD appeared to him at night and said: “I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices…..I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.” [2 Chr 7:12,16]
God dwells not in temples

“However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men.” [Acts 7:48]
I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that “my eyes and heart will always be there” appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen’s speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth – God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will.

3. God dwells in light
“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see.” [1 Tim 6:16]

God dwells in darkness

“Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness” [1 Kings 8:12]

“He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.” [Ps 18:11]

“Clouds and darkness are round about him.” [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing – simply that God is unapproachable.

One could also note that Paul’s account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!

Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.

4. God is seen and heard [Ex 33:23 / Ex 33:11 / Gen 3:9,10 / Gen 32:30 / Is 6:1 / Ex 24:9-11]

God is invisible and cannot be heard [John 1:18 / John 5:37 / Ex 33:20 / 1 Tim 6:16]

These “contradictions” are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction….

In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18:

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (KJV)
He notes:

“If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus’ time”.
How shall the Christian respond? Well, let’s consider the statement that “No man hath seen God.” Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT):

Sarai says “You are the God who sees me,” for she said,
“I have now seen the One who sees me” (Gen 16:13)

“So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” (Gen 32:30)

“Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel.” (Ex 24: 9-10)

“they saw God” (Ex 24:11)

“We have seen God!” (Judges 13:22) Now while this person’s logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?

Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let’s look again at John 1:18:

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, “No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known”. This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed.

So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let’s simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah “saw the Lord” (v 1). Seraphs were praising the “Lord Almighty” (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, “Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (v 5). Later, we read:

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (vs. 8).
Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach.

Now it’s time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.

“Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him”.
Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus’ glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father.

Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15) and “Our Father who art in heaven”! Those who see the Son can see the Father.

5. God is tired and rests

“In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” [Ex 31:17]
God is never tired and never rests

“The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary.” [Is 40:28]
According to Haley, and many others, the term “rested and was refreshed’ is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work.

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things [Prov 15:3 / Ps 139:7-10 / Job 34:22,21]
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things

“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” [Gen 3:8]

“But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building.” [Gen 11:5]

“The the LORD said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” [Gen 18:20-21] I accept the teaching that God is everywhere present and sees and knows all things. So let’s consider the instances in Genesis that are cited:

Gen 3:8 – “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”
Let’s also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: “But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?

First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God’s seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions:

“Where are you?….Who told you that you were naked?….Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?”
Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others?

“But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building.” [Gen 11:5]

“The the LORD said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” [Gen 18:20-21] These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that’s how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God’s transcendence. But it also demonstrates God’s interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn’t watch from afar. He gets right down into human history.

But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word ‘ascend’, when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word ‘descend’ implies turning one’s mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not “coming down” in a physical sense, but in a “mental” sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable.

Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established.

7. God knows the hearts of men [Acts 1:24 / Ps 139:2,3]

God tries men to find out what is in their heart

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God.” [Gen 22:12]

“Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your hearts.” [Deut 8:2]

“The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.” [Deut 13:3] We’ll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions.

Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, “I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens.” The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, “I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid.” Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them.

What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he relates. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God’s knowledge was true in light of the ‘test’ that he just went through.

In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can’t an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity?

8. God is all powerful [Jer 32:27 / Matt 19:26]

God is not all powerful

“The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.” [Judg 1:19]
This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is “reading the verse as saying that the LORD … he … could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley.” He adds: “This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The ‘he’ is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector.”

9. God is unchangeable [James 1:17 / Mal 3:6 / Ezek 24:14 / Num 23:19]

God is changeable [Gen 6:6 / Jonah 3:10 / 1 Sam 2:30,31 / 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6 / Ex 33:1,3,17,14]

Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God’s essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood.

For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us.

Let’s consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong.

In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God’s essence – it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God’s relationships with men (they don’t abstractly speak of God’s essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction.

10. God is just and impartial

“To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him.” [Ps 92:15]

“Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” [Gen 18:25]

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” [Deut 32:4]

“Yet you say, “The way of the LORD is not right.” Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?” [Ezek 18:25]

“For there is no partiality with God.” [Rom 2:11]

God is unjust and partial

“So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.” [Gen 9:25]

“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.” [Ex 20:5]

“for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Rom 9:11-13]

“For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him.” [Mt 13:12] The first set is as follows:

“To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him.” [Ps 92:15] = Basic Teaching (BT) — God is righteous

“Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” [Gen 18:25] = (BT) — God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked.

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” [Deut 32:4] = (BT) — God is righteous

“Yet you say, “The way of the LORD is not right.” Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?” [Ezek 18:25] = (BT) — God’s ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not.

“For there is no partiality with God.” [Rom 2:11] = (BT) — God is impartial. However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ’s atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don’t, we need only consider if God is unrighteous in any of them.

The second set is as follows:

“So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.” [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah’s curse would make God “unrighteous.”

“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.” [Ex 20:5] The following verse notes that loving-kindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God really unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visiting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as “unrighteous” is a function of their ethics, and thus the “contradiction” is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.)

MaryAnna responds to another related “contradiction” which is also relevant here:

Are children punished for the sins of the parents?

Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children.

Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction.

“for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness.

“For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him.” [Mt 13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (i.e., neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of unrighteousness.

11. God is the author of evil

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” [Lam 3:38]

“Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions.” [Jer 18:11]

“I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things.” [Is 45:7]

“I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by.” [Ez 20:25]

“When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6]

God is not the author of evil [1 Cor 14:33 / Deut 32:4 / James 1:13]

Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings – that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.

12. God gives freely to those who ask [James 1:5 / Luke 11:10]
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them [John 12:40 / Josh 11:20 / Is 63:17]

Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God “hardened the hearts” of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one’s heart, yet give to those who DO ask.

13. God is to be found by those who seek him [Matt 7:8 / Prov 8:17]

God is not to be found by those who seek him [Prov 1:28]

“Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me.” [Pr 1:28]

Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds – those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (i.e., “save my butt”). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction.

14. God is warlike [Ex 15:3 / Is 51:15]

God is peaceful [Rom 15:33 / 1 Cor 14:33]

“The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.” [Ex 15:3]

(Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war)

“The God of peace be with you all. Amen” [Rom 15:33]

“For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.” [1 Cor 14:33]

It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This “contradiction” is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense — a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations — they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here.

15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious [Jer 13:14 / Deut 7:16 / 1 Sam 15:2,3 / 1 Sam 6:19]

God is kind, merciful, and good [James 5:11 / Lam 3:33 / 1 Chron 16:34 / Ezek 18:32 / Ps 145:9 / 1 Tim 2:4 / 1 John 4:16 / Ps 25:8]

The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God’s judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious — that is His nature.

16. God’s anger is fierce and endures long [Num 32:13 / Num 25:4 / Jer 17:4]

God’s anger is slow and endures but for a minute [Ps 103:8 / Ps 30:5]

The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that “God’s anger is fierce and endures long.” This is the critic’s personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah’s great sin, God’s anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will “burn forever.” I view this as a hyperbole (like “walking a thousand miles”). Put simply, God’s anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God’s anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse.

So let’s focus on duration. Above, we saw that God’s anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let’s keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre – poetry. As such, it’s going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God’s anger lasts only a moment. And what is a ‘moment’ in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here.

17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Ex 29:36 / Lev 23:27 / Ex 29:18 / Lev 1:9]

God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Jer 7:22 / Jer 6:20 / Ps 50:13,4 / Is 1:13,11,12]

The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, “I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,” The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: ” but I gave them this command: “Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people.” This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, “I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices.” (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this.

18. God accepts human sacrifices [2 Sam 21:8,9,14 / Gen 22:2 / Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39]

God forbids human sacrifice [Deut 12:30,31]

The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a “human sacrifice.” It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a “human sacrifice” and if He did, there is no indication that God “accepted it.” No contradictions here.

19. God tempts men [Gen 22:1 / 2 Sam 24:1 / Jer 20:7 / Matt 6:13]

God tempts no man [James 1:13]

Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desperation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord’s prayer, “lead us not into temptation.” The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!). The only possible hope of a contradiction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let’s say God wants to test someone’s honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, “Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc.” No clear contradictions here.

20. God cannot lie [Heb 6:18]

God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive [2 Thes 2:11 / 1 Kings 22:23 / Ezek 14:9]

In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As “sending forth lying spirits” is not the same as actually lying yourself.

But, MaryAnna White notes:

1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit – Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man’s lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God – He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer – a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God’s sovereignty. –MAW

The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie.

IF YOU guys want some more then I can list them

25 02 2008
Hazrat Tuly

its too long plz short it in a review……………..

6 03 2008
strider1989

Hazrat Tuly….Hi…Sorry I would sumarise for you but I’m not a christian anymore…Still believe in god but not a christian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: