God is great!

[Aston]

Lol I saw all the topics with negative things towards God!
so this one is about how great God is!
He is an amazing god and has done so much for me!

[Anza]

What has he done for you?
I think that God is awesome, but he must have a killer sense of humor; there's no doubt in my mind that he's looking down on us belly-laughing!

[Aston]

Lol for one he made the common english house spider
Apparently he gave it the most poisen ever BUT decided not to give it fangs lol

[Anza]

Lol. Nice...
He made my sister scared of spiders, and me not. Now, whenever she irritates me, all I need is a little jumping spider...

[Aston]

Lol nice ^^

[Anza]

He granted people Earth.

[Aston]

Yupp and He loves us!
I'm off to bed now
G'night
X

[AdoreroDio]

God is amazing and I love this thread! I've noticed the negative things to...
but the Bible says in Philippians to think on good things not the bad.

[aeroport]

Lol I saw all the topics with negative things towards God!
so this one is about how great God is!
He is an amazing god and has done so much for me!

I can only assume you're talking about the "God is Not Great?" thread, which is (nominally, at least) a discussion about a book by that title (minus question mark).

[Riesa]

You know what is really great??

Smiles. I just love them. They have paved my way through life with a glitter and a gleam. Yippee! :) oh, and I really have a special place in my elbow for ciabatta bread, and the HUMANS that invented it. probably because they lacked a something or other that god failed to provide that day. ;) as IF god needs a feel good thread. :lol:

[blazeofglory]

Lol I saw all the topics with negative things towards God!
so this one is about how great God is!
He is an amazing god and has done so much for me!

You are programmed or conditioned to believe in God.

[blazeofglory]

He granted people Earth.

Then why did he create line between the rich and the poor? Why did he not make everyone happy?

[NikolaiI]

I believe God is great-- rather, I believe God is infinity, and that it does exist. God is the infinite which is in everything, which everything is a part of, but is actually in the smallest parts of everything, too. God as an infinite in relation to our finite comprehending is thus also a mystery. It's not that he's intelligent, or complex, it's just that he's infinite, so we can't comprehend it. People have developed their intuitive powers to understand him as a friend, and I believe all over time people have developed all the way up to transportation, but probably could not get the power to completely conquer space. Time is conquered, however, that was an easy one-- it was conquered by writing things down and by our subjective memories.

God is the infinite, Blaze, and to your question of why He does not make things good on Earth, I cannot answer you. I do know that He does act through us. Kierkegaard saw God in everything that happened externally, and he lived so that he saw God in his own actions too. Anything is possible in God. We can grow beyond a speed which we could have previously imagined. If we ever came to a certain point, then we could go back in time and give ourselves peace. I think it's fairly obvious, if you really wish to understand, that it's a higher thing when we start to lose track of things, sometimes, I mean get disoriented so we think we are actually looking in the opposite direction. I mean if we forget where we are then we can travel throughout our lives, and then we will be looking in all the directions at once. :)

[dzebra]

You are programmed or conditioned to believe in God.

I hesitate to believe that you know the poster well enough to accurately make that claim. The only way you could feel that statement is true would be if you believe that everyone who believes in God is programmed or conditioned to think that. That could only be the case if there is absolutely no reasonable motivation to believe in God, so that no one could believe in God by his own will.

That just isn't so.

[Anza]

Then why did he create line between the rich and the poor? Why did he not make everyone happy?

Make a "god sucks" thread, please... don't contaminate Aston's with stuff that is Man's fault. God did not draw a line-- God made all people equal; it is men who drew a line for each other during life. But God makes all people equal again in death-- I've never seen a luggage rack on a hearse, have you?;)

[aeroport]

Make a "god sucks" thread, please... don't contaminate Aston's with stuff that is Man's fault. God did not draw a line-- God made all people equal; it is men who drew a line for each other during life. But God makes all people equal again in death...


That just isn't so.


I've never seen a luggage rack on a hearse, have you?;)
Only in Egypt... ;)

[Trillian]

God made Douglas Adams, coffee beans, and cats, so He is just Aces in my book!:D

[hellsapoppin]

`` Make a "god sucks" thread, please... ``


LOL!!

[blazeofglory]

God is something we named. And of course nothing remains of Him except a name.

[Renrut]

you ask, "why aren't the healings, and miracles taking place they did in the bible?" the answer is they are. God is healing, and performing miracles. they might not be exactly the same as in the Bible, because people today aren't the same As for raising people from the dead, try reading "90 minutes in heaven" a book about a man who was in a car accident, he was declared dead. no pulse. no breathing. the paramedics left him for dead. a pastor stopped and knowing he was dead started praying over him. 90 minutes later, he came back to life with stories of seeing heaven. if thats not a healing/miracle i don't know what is.

Jesus is the prince of peace, but that is referring to the time to come. when he comes back again. it also refers to peace in our hearts. i've know many people who go through hard times and yet have peace.
Bible prophecies say there will not be peace among nations on earth until the book of revelation comes to pass when all nations are under the Antichrist.

God is great: Because he brought my sister back from a life that was sure to end up unhappy. Because he saved me from a life of sin and eternity separated from Him. Because he loved me before i was born. Because his love is and forgiveness is infinite.


as a side note i think this thread was made not to debate whether God is great, but to talk about things that he has done that are great. but i could be wrong. so whatever.

[Rav Maji]

God is great.
God has taken every shape.
God is all figure receding.
Outdoing outdoes.
Whatever I seek
my mind will come to it
and call it God
and will not be wrong.
God is great.

[JoanS]

my grandma allways taught me god is the best, that he would always be close to me and in that part of my life i was just a coward unable to decide anything then i became atheist and started to love Nietzsche´s books, now iam feeling much better... but all is question of the personality

[Simao]

``nothing remains``

....

Why is it God's fault if there are ministers that behave the way you described? If God has interfered with everything then everyone will be good and there will be no evil and therefor everyone will go to heaven but what is the point of the Fallen Angel? We know that everyone isn't going to heaven that is for sure but you can't blame God for such things because it is ridiculous. It is just like saying "I am evil because God made me this way" it is absurd!!

[dzebra]

I could just as easily say that you are on my side whenever I do any actions, and that doesn't mean that you are. I could get 50 people to also say that you support me, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

You would deny it by what you say.

Likewise, God denies backing people who don't do his will. He tells the people that through the Bible.

[Rav Maji]

Death can be a miracle. Actually, anything can be a miracle in perspective. The universe doesn't end at our senses. It certainly doesn't move and change for our happiness. There is simply no knowing. All knowledge is "faith".

[NikolaiI]

God didn't authorize the bible; the bible authorizes the bible-- the bible says god does, but this is still the bible.


Rav-- yes, we can know things. It may be only impossible to describe what we know. I found an interesting parallel of my own searching with Nietzsche again, as I do so often; he spoke of "integrating knowledge." this is exactly what I'd discovered. I guess people say to keep a journal, my idea is a little different; just write. Define. Do you know things intellectually or can you integrate it? So on and so forth. Can you know something and then bring it to another level? In truth most people are doing this so much of the time. The only sadness comes when people try to negate others. For instance I can write about things I know. This helps me in my knowledge, helps to integrate; but if someone negates it, then I am all alone. And unfortunately hostility and negation is so darn attractive for some reason. It almost seems like there are two main things we can say to people: you're insane if you think people like you, or, "what, you really don't know how much love there is for you at every second???" so when you realize this; you don't doubt yourself anymore. Love is such an important part of it all. Anyway; it's quite simple, to write your knowledge and share it; and if people can learn from it, learn to know without doubt, and expand, and then it's doubled. when another person joins in, it is added their knowledge.

[hellsapoppin]

``God denies backing people who don't do his will.``

He sure failed to do that when the Christians were being thrown to the lions and Jews being sent to the ovens. How do you square these actions with the promises in the scriptures?

[NikolaiI]

``God denies backing people who don't do his will.``

He sure failed to do that when the Christians were being thrown to the lions and Jews being sent to the ovens. How do you square these actions with the promises in the scriptures?

True the statement wasn't entirely clear; but wasn't it "God doesn't back people who don't do his will"?

hells, can you explain what you're arguing?

[hellsapoppin]

I thought it was meant that in a roundabout way that this god aids those who serve him.

Therefore, according to scripture, he is supposed to help helpless Christians and Jews in those circumstances.

Still, history shows he took a prolonged vacation when those unhappy events were happening. And that certainly doesn't speak well for him.

[NikolaiI]

Okay. I can't say what he meant. :)

"God doesn't condone evil actions" is important. If we use this logically, it means it does matter if something's write or wrong. It means that if something is evil, then it is not what God wants. All this is saying, though, is that God does not do evil actions himself, or that he doesn't aid someone doing evil. The question you raise is another subject. Abstaining from evil and preventing it are not the same-- nor do I say this to invalidate your point, of course.

[hellsapoppin]

But again, why does this god create evil? {Isaiah 45:7}

It would not exist if he didn't create it!

[NikolaiI]

Well, the Hindu cosmology is that God created the universe; it is the material manifestation of his spiritual energies; and everything we can possibly know on Earth (or in the universe) is part of this material manifestation. Heaven is material, too, and if we attain heaven, we still have not attained the spiritual abode of Krishna. If we go to heaven but then stop wosrhipping Krishna, we will not attain him...and I'm not an expert on this. Also, the universe is destroyed and recreated over and over.

And....I realize this doesn't answer the why at all. It just is another cosmology other than the oh-so-popular Christian one...

But anyway, and while I know it's no comfort... it also says in the Gita that since we're unmanifest in our beginning, manifest in our interim state, and unmanifest in our end, there's no reason to mourn anyone's passing-- it's only a change of state. And I assume we are basically calling evil that which recreates pain and death (I hate those things!) and I know this is also not much consolation for pain caused by evil. We just have to deal with it.

The only thing is, if we want to know about God, and we have an idea that limits him...I don't know how to say this really. If we refused to believe because we think it's immoral for someone to allow evil to happen or to have created it in the first place, that's fine. He won't fit our definition- we won't allow him to exist. It doesn't matter. I mean it really doesn't matter if we believe in god or not. I agree that believing in god has basically nothing to do with whether or not you reflect god in any way-- that is, that atheists or an other e-ists, all play the field with the same opportunity and chances...

So it's good, at least, that we both make that separation. :) Now we can actually discuss "God."

And you should know that in my opinion, how can we know the difference between God or Gods? When I had an experience I later wrote down about feeling the presence of God, I identified it only as an infinite, and blessedness, perhaps, and how could I know if what was on the other side of this was plural or singular? It's absurd. So God or Gods is exactly the same. And anyone who, as you say, whinnies about their God, is wholly missing the point. Wholly. In fact, anyone who hasn't transcended the sense-gratifyingness of negating someone, because of their immature emotions, is also missing the point. They're probably playing the field with limited resources. Mm. what can you do.

[dzebra]

I was stating that God doesn't support those who don't do his will. The fact that people do things against his will doesn't mean he supports or condones it.

And the reference to Isaiah 45:7 is, I think, taken out of context. No translation other than the King James translates that word as "evil." The King James version uses a lot of words that have a slightly different meaning now than they used to. Other translations use the word "calamity"(esv,nkjv) or "disaster"(niv) or "bad times"(nlt) or "troubles"(ncv) or things like that. Seeing how that word is translated in more modern translations gives a better hint to the flavor of what was meant.

"Evil" is a moral thing. I'm convinced that the meaning of that word is more like a type of physical difficulty. Those are not morally evil, they are just bad times and difficulties that happen to people. Yes, God brings those about. God does not bring about immorality.

[hellsapoppin]

``how can we know the difference between God or Gods?``


I am not familiar with the Asian beliefs you are referring to so that I cannot give you an informed answer on that. Re Isaiah 45:7, it is perfectly clear to me. But if someone has a different spin on it, that's their right to believe as they wish.

[Rogers_68]

``God denies backing people who don't do his will.``

He sure failed to do that when the Christians were being thrown to the lions and Jews being sent to the ovens. How do you square these actions with the promises in the scriptures?

The Scriptures promise that faith in Jesus will be rewarded with an after life that is far, far superior to earthly life. There are people who die because they believe in God and are following Jesus but I guarantee that life in heaven will be much better than life on earth. If I was eaten by a lion or burned in a fire following Jesus that would be excellent because then I'd be in heaven sooner. Life on earth is fleeting and eternally it doesn't mean much. The promises of Scripture are that life after death for those who believe in Jesus is much better than life on earth.

You obviously disagree with the messages of the Scriptures but please check what they actually say before implying that something that God does doesn't line up with them. The Bible doesn't contradict God because it's from Him. I wouldn't send you a book about who I am so that you can know me and then do things that are completely out of line with that book. Thank you.

What Jesus has done for me:

-Made Himself known to me in 10th grade, even though I had grown up "going to church" and feeling pretty empty.
-Took all my anxiety and self-degradation (feeding on hopeless, miserable music and trying to find happiness in empty, purely physical relationships).
-Gave me hope that life here can be enjoyable and that life in heaven will be extraordinary.
-Gave me a wife/best friend to help me through life and to enjoy. He then gave us a freakin' awesome little boy to raise.
-Helped me avoid the terrible heredity curse of alcoholism that ripped apart my family growing up and many of my relatives' families in the past.
-Saved me from feeling me empty about the fact that life goes by fast, then you get old, then you die. (I used to worry about everything being meaningless).
-Kept me out of the rampant drug use that many of my friends growing up got into.
-He gave me peace because I know that He is in charge despite all of the evils of the human race and that nothing will change who He is and what He has done for us.
-Most of all, He's teaching me what love really is, how absolutely necessary it is, and how He will never, EVER stop loving me or anyone else (even those who despise Him) and that that love started before time did and will literally go on for eternity. If that's not great then I don't know what is.

[Scheherazade]

We know God is great because he says so himself.

[hellsapoppin]

Hitler said he was great but that sure as heck wasn't the case. ;)

``The promises of Scripture ... God doesn't line up with them``

Those same promises include, healings, miracles, raising the dead, feeding masses of people with only one basket of provisions, turning water into wine, and other niceties. All you need is to ''ask and ye shall receive''. Nobody knows those promises better than I do. But it never availed me anything.

You are going to heaven? OK, but remember that the future kingdom is here on earth.;)

[dzebra]

The kingdom on Earth is the Church, and it's already here. Heaven is still to come, and that's after the Earth has been destroyed.

[hellsapoppin]

Just another thought: the Bible speaks of many future ''antichrists''.

If this god is so great, why did he create a book that inspires the self creation of so many millennialists such as Napoleon, Miller, Hitler, Bush --- all of whom claim to be benevolent, and all of whom claim to have been divinely inspired, but whose words and deeds create such much destruction?

[hellsapoppin]

The kingdom on Earth is the Church, and it's already here. Heaven is still to come, and that's after the Earth has been destroyed.


Where is that new ''city of god'' as shown in Revelations?

[NikolaiI]

God is infinite love.
I could be wrong, but I don't I've heard infinite love speak, in any human lanuage, and I don't think it wrote the bible, either.

[Mona ..]

No doubt God is great.

and I want to say to Anza that Islam is the great religion & the real one .

Did you listen to the Holy Quran ??

It is great & has a great effect on our selves & can heal from most diseases .




listen to this & tell me what is your opinion ..

http://www.ansar1.com/sounds/quran/media.php?dir=alajami&play=047.rm


:thumbs_up

[dzebra]

Those same promises include, healings, miracles, raising the dead, feeding masses of people with only one basket of provisions, turning water into wine, and other niceties. All you need is to ''ask and ye shall receive''.


You have frequently made reference to John 14:12 and the surrounding verses.

12“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.

John has a specific term he uses when referring to miracles. He calls them "signs" 100% of the time throughout his book. The term "works" can include miracles and does sometimes in his book, but if John specifically meant miracles, he would have used the word signs. This brings up the question about what Jesus was talking about when he says this, then. What other things was Jesus doing besides miracles? Jesus was spreading the Gospel and bringing people to God and teaching and preaching and being kind and helping. And I argue that these are more important than healings and feeding people, because they are more spiritual in nature rather than physical, and giving people spiritual life and health is more important that giving them physical health.

Then how is it true that people are doing greater works that those? And why can they do greater things after Jesus has gone to the Father? As the Bible teaches, the Holy Spirit was sent to the Christians only after Jesus was gone. The Holy Spirit is what lets Christians do greater works than Jesus did while he was on the Earth. The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin and guilt and judgment, and it wasn't doing that when Jesus was here.

A way to rephrase the verse would be something like "When I go to the Father, the Holy Spirit will help you do greater things that I was doing.


13And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

If I do something in the name of someone, it's only truly in his name if it's something he wants me to do. The same goes with Jesus. In order to ask something in the name of Jesus, it must be something that is according to his will. Anything that is asked of Jesus that is according to his will is going to be done.

[Rogers_68]

God is infinite love.
I could be wrong, but I don't I've heard infinite love speak, in any human lanuage, and I don't think it wrote the bible, either.

I believe that part of the character of God is infinite love.

No offense intended but I'm not exactly sure what the rest of your statement means.

[hellsapoppin]

``Anything that is asked of Jesus that is according to his will is going to be done.``


And your proof is where???

[NikolaiI]

I believe that part of the character of God is infinite love.

No offense intended but I'm not exactly sure what the rest of your statement means.

God is great, but Christianity has absolutely no more claim to him than Hinduism. Krishna and Yahweh are the same, if they are accuratley described in their scriptures. What is holy is holy. And the path to what is holy, that is, by pure prayer, is universal.

Why do I believe the Gita is more likely to be true than the bible? I cannot say. It is not that I hold it in so much more esteem; it just calls me in a way that the bible does not. I am not closed to the idea that the Bible could be such a Holy Scripture. In the great words of souls I revere, Christian monks, well, they say, to pray simply, and all of that-- anyway, in their powerful words I see much truth. I'll begin to study it.

The thing is, you can never block anything out. If we begin to focus on that's which material, we'll forget the spiritual cause behind it. Truly, my friend, we are no longer speaking of God when we begin to speak of God, and if we question whether God wrote the Bible or not, or if it's inspired, we are stuck and blocked by this-- how can we see anything but that which occupies the whole of our vision?

So what I was saying is that God, infinite love, did not inspire the Bible. It was just a claim-- a claim I would have been killed for in centuries past. I believe God exists and perhaps could be revealed by study of the Bible-- but only as this study is used as education, like the education of prayer, and as these studies are used to increase our knowledge, to meditate upon the scriptures, to open us up to God's truth, which we see through the Bible, and further, through ourselves. This path is fine, but it is not the only path. Are we to arbitrarily assume that the West has got it right, while the East lives in sin and ignorance? Human nature is universal; there are peaceful and angry men in all cultures, ignornant and intelligent, hateful and loving-- all of these are universal. We can learn from any, the only important ingredient is that we are honest, sincere, devoted, and guided by true revelation.

[dzebra]

``Anything that is asked of Jesus that is according to his will is going to be done.``


And your proof is where???

I was just explaining what I am pretty sure that passage means.

I can't prove that Jesus does what is asked him according to his will, but I bet that if you ask the Christians here on this forum, they would say it's true in their experiences. I say it's true in mine. I have no proof, just personal testimony.

[NikolaiI]

I hope you don't mind my reply--

Yes, it is all new to me...
my mother wished me to be Christian but I didn't believe,
in my life I never did until recently, this year or the last,
but my knowledge is growing every day.
Faith isn't growing, but it's the water which keeps me afloat.
And so the name of Jesus Christ is new to me too,
I've only recently heard it spoken of like this-- before now,
I was thinking of things only in terms of god; now,
I must also reexamine the role of the Buddha in my life;
what brought me to God, in these last months, was not so much Christanity but Hinduism, not the Bible but the Gita, but I have great respect for the Christian faith, and I wish to study it further.
Recently I've become newly aware of...
nevermind. It doesn't matter.
It will only be lifted away in the future by revelation.
That's one thing that's constant, that there's always more, more truth, more light, more love.

[hellsapoppin]

``I have no proof, just personal testimony.``


Good for you. But the Bible indicates miracles are to happen openly.

[dzebra]

``I have no proof, just personal testimony.``


Good for you. But the Bible indicates miracles are to happen openly.

And miracles did happen openly. The apostles did them all the time.

[hellsapoppin]

... and they are supposed to be openly happening today because the biblical laws are immutable {in theory}.

[NikolaiI]

I don't believe in biblical laws at all, yet I believe in miracles whole-heartedly. In my meditations the one thing I find exists no matter what is sort of a hall of mirrors of meaning or possibility; just, the conception, so to speak, of moksha; which is the spiritual light, truth, god, whatever it may be, the infinite; it is reality. The one thing I am always aware of is that if I let go of ego, then I realize I'm not separate from reality; in fact I do not exist at all. In both Hinduism and in Buddhism this is treated; in Hinduism as Maya, and in Buddhism, in most of it, of particular import to me the Heart Sutra. Miracle is on the level of moksha, it is simply the definition of "mysterious," "unknown," "spiritual," "act of god;" and as it is mysterious, so do I only know it by the faintest of detection. My intellectual side will tell me, it is only a matter of definition; my educated mind tells me it is a distinction of education; education in varjrayana, for instance, would result in production and completion stages. In other words, I find this life to be good or evil, but these are relative terms; in relation to the absolute, none of this exists; only because of my conditioning to I consider something coarse or fine. If I don't see anything as coarse or fine, how can I prefer one to the other?

[dzebra]

... and they are supposed to be openly happening today because the biblical laws are immutable {in theory}.

You make two statements:

I agree that biblical laws are immutable.

There is no biblical law that I can recall that says miracles are supposed to be happening openly happening today. I'm assuming that you are only referring to the types of miracles that Jesus and the apostles did (healing lame people instantly, turning water to wine, walking on water, etc.) If miracles include any work of God, then I'd say that there are miracles today, because God has control of everything that happens. If by miracles, you are talking about amazing things that happen, then I'd say there are miracles today (childbirth, people surviving car wrecks that should have killed them, people in the hospital with tumors that all of a sudden get better and the tumor is gone, etc.) Then again, if by miracles you mean things like someone being in the depths of depression and suddenly finding hope and encouragement and changing his life around, or someone who has been apathetic about everything all through his life, then for no apparent reason starts caring about people and makes a big impact with his life, then I say that miracles do happen today.

[hellsapoppin]

If you read my earlier posts you would know that miracles in the Bible mean divine forgiveness of sin. No miracles, no forgiveness, which means no Messiah.

If the laws of the Bible are not meant to be valid today, then the Ten Commandments are equally worthless.

[blazeofglory]

If you read my earlier posts you would know that miracles in the Bible mean divine forgiveness of sin. No miracles, no forgiveness, which means no Messiah.

If the laws of the Bible are not meant to be valid today, then the Ten Commandments are equally worthless.

In point of fact truth not be known through scriptural knowldege. They mislead.

[hellsapoppin]

In point of fact truth not be known through scriptural knowldege. They mislead.


Perhaps this may be so in non-Abrahamic religions. But according to the Bible and historic Judeo-Christian teaching, knowledge precedes experience of miracles and all other forms of divine beneficence.

[dzebra]

If you read my earlier posts you would know that miracles in the Bible mean divine forgiveness of sin. No miracles, no forgiveness, which means no Messiah.

If the laws of the Bible are not meant to be valid today, then the Ten Commandments are equally worthless.

There certainly is divine forgiveness of sin in the present day. That happens constantly because of Jesus' love.

I don't see the point of that second comment. I believe that the laws of the Bible are valid today. The 10 commandments is a different debate, though, because that can get into Christians not being under the old law.

[Rogers_68]

I hope you don't mind my reply--

Yes, it is all new to me...
my mother wished me to be Christian but I didn't believe,
in my life I never did until recently, this year or the last,
but my knowledge is growing every day.

I personally don't mind at all. In fact I appreciate the honesty and openness. Most people who don't believe in Jesus/The Bible are much more hostile. It's cool that you're actually putting thought into all the claims of us crazy Jesus-followers.


And so the name of Jesus Christ is new to me too,
I've only recently heard it spoken of like this-- before now,
I was thinking of things only in terms of god;

Interesting. I thought that studying the Bible would automatically point the one doing the studying to Jesus but perhaps I take some things for granted. I grew up in church and hearing the teachings of the Bible but it wasn't until I personally met Jesus that any of it actually meant anything to me. He is the foundation of the Christian belief and without a personal encounter with Him Christianity means nothing.


I must also reexamine the role of the Buddha in my life;
what brought me to God, in these last months, was not so much Christanity but Hinduism, not the Bible but the Gita, but I have great respect for the Christian faith, and I wish to study it further.

I can't stress enough the importance of looking into Jesus if you're going to study Christianity further. Christianity is supposed to be centered around Him despite what people do or say. I don't mean to be pushy. I mean that He has shown me true love and I am convinced that He is different than most people think He is, perhaps because of humans giving a bad perception of Him.


Recently I've become newly aware of...
nevermind. It doesn't matter.

Sure it does. Expound if you want to.


That's one thing that's constant, that there's always more, more truth, more light, more love.

I say there is the same amount of truth and love but there's more revelation of it to be experienced.

I hope you don't mind my honesty and directness.

[NikolaiI]

I personally don't mind at all. In fact I appreciate the honesty and openness. Most people who don't believe in Jesus/The Bible are much more hostile. It's cool that you're actually putting thought into all the claims of us crazy Jesus-followers.

Interesting. I thought that studying the Bible would automatically point the one doing the studying to Jesus but perhaps I take some things for granted. I grew up in church and hearing the teachings of the Bible but it wasn't until I personally met Jesus that any of it actually meant anything to me. He is the foundation of the Christian belief and without a personal encounter with Him Christianity means nothing.

I can't stress enough the importance of looking into Jesus if you're going to study Christianity further. Christianity is supposed to be centered around Him despite what people do or say. I don't mean to be pushy. I mean that He has shown me true love and I am convinced that He is different than most people think He is, perhaps because of humans giving a bad perception of Him.

Sure it does. Expound if you want to.

I say there is the same amount of truth and love but there's more revelation of it to be experienced.

I hope you don't mind my honesty and directness.

Good luck in your own journey.

"I grew up in church and hearing the teachings of the Bible but it wasn't until I personally met Jesus that any of it actually meant anything to me."

Experience is important...it is vital. I can't say too much tonight...right now I'm not very able to express, please forgive me. Try not to take anything for granted. Don't worry about spreading the truth, in fact it could be best to wait for the right time. Pray every day.

[hellsapoppin]

``The 10 commandments is a different debate, though, because that can get into Christians not being under the old law.``


The Messiah overruled certain aspects of the Mosaic law. But he did not eliminate it completely. The key is that under the New law, it is the spirit of the law rather than the strict letter of the law that is paramount. This in regard to daily conduct.

Still, the effect of the law is to be witnessed every day. Therefore, we are supposed to have miracles out in the open just as was promised in the New Testament.

[blazeofglory]

virtuousness is what I choose in life. God? There are too many Gods. Too many faithers wrestling with one another. Even Hitler too was a faith holder. Today fundamentalism is looming on all.

If God is only a symbol of unity or harmony and cooperation I love that God But the God that divides you and me drawing a line of faith I abhor it.

God is you, and I believe in you, in your potentials for the impossible.

[NikolaiI]

"God is Love" is a refrain by which we could all live. Indeed the God that is the Lord of Love is the only true God. In the Bhagavad-Gita it says, "I will maintain everything that you have, and fulfill everything that you lack." So when we sacrifice and give to God, we don't lose anything. I read somewhere that the perfect realize this world as God Himself. I believe in God but I don't force this on anyone, just as dreadful as it would be to have someone force atheism on me.

[blazeofglory]

God is not great or small. God is not an attribute and above all these attributes of greatness or pettiness. God is beyond natural phenomena.

[NikolaiI]

Yes but I know God exists, he's with us at all times and in everyone's heart. :)

[Jane Zhou]

To be frank, I believe in myself instead of God.

[Amundsen]

Yes but I know God exists, he's with us at all times and in everyone's heart. :)

That's nice and I agree with you

[blazeofglory]

God is, if we try to understand, something that moves the world. I can not say exactly but I can feel the quivers of God everywhere, manifest in everything I see.

[kevinthediltz]

I love the idea of faith and envy those that have it, for I lost mine long ago. However, I think that modern religion is a dangerous, deviding, and somewhat brainwashing association. It puts all faith for answers, understanding, and truth into a figure that no one on earth has genuinely seen, heard, or felt. I just dont like the idea of putting all my trust into something so fictional in the literal sense. And i dont mean to offend. Just my views.:D

[blazeofglory]

I love the idea of faith and envy those that have it, for I lost mine long ago. However, I think that modern religion is a dangerous, deviding, and somewhat brainwashing association. It puts all faith for answers, understanding, and truth into a figure that no one on earth has genuinely seen, heard, or felt. I just dont like the idea of putting all my trust into something so fictional in the literal sense. And i dont mean to offend. Just my views.:D

You are right and of course your words reverberate mine too. I too believe that today what we call religious faiths are simply dividing factors and they are stirring acts of violence.

[kevinthediltz]

i also think it is even present in american churches. People are loyal to one church and ive seen examples of violent disagreement on which one is right. It doesnt matter what church, as long as you exibit righteousness and compassion to OTHERS your church should not matter.

[notleftbehind.7]

God is great and will always be. don't question him.

[hellsapoppin]

God is great and will always be. don't question him.



Some say the divinity is female. Here's an artist's rendition of the Goddess:


http://student.vfs.com/~3d59julianna/Goddess_painted.jpg

[NikolaiI]

i also think it is even present in american churches. People are loyal to one church and ive seen examples of violent disagreement on which one is right. It doesnt matter what church, as long as you exibit righteousness and compassion to OTHERS your church should not matter.

The basic point of serving and worshiping God is for self-realization or liberation. For oneself and others. If we are thinking of God when we die, then we go to Him. If we serve God as we are supposed to, then there is no question of church divisions, this sect or that sect. God is above all sects of religion. Self-realization is the point of human existence, and you do a great service if you pursue it.

Surrendering to God is the important thing, and we must be mindful and aware that we keep our practice pure from self-regarding ego.

[blazeofglory]

The basic point of serving and worshiping God is for self-realization or liberation. For oneself and others. If we are thinking of God when we die, then we go to Him. If we serve God as we are supposed to, then there is no question of church divisions, this sect or that sect. God is above all sects of religion. Self-realization is the point of human existence, and you do a great service if you pursue it.

Surrendering to God is the important thing, and we must be mindful and aware that we keep our practice pure from self-regarding ego.

Nikolai, you are a man of humility. I have read your writings and I really found most of them illuminating.

Now as to the question of serving God, if I put it differently, do you mind?

Serving people, and if really we can serving the disabled is more virtuous works.

If serve the poor it is indeed God' s people. Is not something worthwhile to do, in fact something more altruistic?

Maybe I am wrong. You may have a different notion of servitude. You may have a different frame of mind but the point I want to put across is serving people is much better than reading sacred books but not doing any charitable works in life.

I apologize for my terse words.

[NikolaiI]

No need to apologize. You are also very learned, I only worry about you since you began to doubt God. :)

God is so wonderful. What was God's last word? "I am." God's last word is Om, is the ultimate truth penetrating all paths, doctrines. Life is a journey and God is the center and unshakable truth. We live, we each have a body, all are different yet there are similar struggles and aspirations. God's presence in everything is the Good, the mysterious, hidden power...God's presence and word are his creation.

Serving disabled is a good work, praying is also a good work. If feeding the homeless takes away their temporary hunger, this might be good, it might not be, but if we restore their soul, it satisfies all their needs. And we shouldn't value how much we've done for people.

[blazeofglory]

To love God is to love his creation, and in fact all of us and everything around his creation. We are in God and God is in us and therefore if anything we see other than God is only an illusion and nothing else is there other than his own reflections.

Here I do not subscribe to mythological gods. God is consciousness. God is the source of all energies.

Therefore I feel if we serve poor people and live with humility, charity it is really prayer.

I see so many persons, so called Yogis who only live on the sweat of the poor and preach the poor all all the trash.

Indeed we can cleanse our minds of impurities by working for the poor

[Big Al]

"Thank God I'm still an atheist."
~Luis Bunuel

[Orpheus]

God is something we named. And of course nothing remains of Him except a name.

Words are the way in which man has always sought to understand and convey the thing in question. The word God is man's way of relating to the infinite, to that which is beyond our conscious selves; just as in music we have given names to tendancies that occur and to things that in reality to do not exist at all. There is in all actuality no such thing as a modulation, mode, scale, key, note, tone, timbre etc. These are merely words that we have instituted as a way of understanding what we experience. Even without the words, the thing (music) would still exist.

If it is possible that a thing such as music can exist beyond the words in which we have established to categorize it, is it not possible that God or some manifestation of the divine could exist as well? I have never heard an infant give a definition of what music is nor have I known many adults outside of musical study to convey any "real" understanding of music (at least in the way that we have come to understand) but I have witnessed both to share in the same experience of music.

[Big Al]

There is in all actuality no such thing as a modulation, mode, scale, key, note, tone, timbre etc. These are merely words that we have instituted as a way of understanding what we experience.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that they do not exist...Differences, similarities, fluctuations and changes in sound do not exist? Characteristic qualities of a sound are nonexistent?

[blazeofglory]

I wonder at times why people are so much obsessed with God. Why they want to live in pleasures or in heaven after death? Why they want God?

If God really exists we can not see his form. God will be not of any gender we associate him with. God is something that can not be matched with anything. God does not care whether you pray or do not pray, These are lower or baser attributes of human beings to crave fro praise or respect but God is above all these worldly attributes.

Therefore I think it is better to be a man of servitude or charity.

[Big Al]

I'm constantly amazed how people are so sure they know exactly what God is/wants/believes -- I say we let God speak for himself.

Oh wait...

[Orpheus]

I don't understand what you mean when you say that they do not exist...Differences, similarities, fluctuations and changes in sound do not exist? Characteristic qualities of a sound are nonexistent?

Surely they do exist if we are to understand them in the context of theory. But if you throw the paradigm of the western mindset out the window along with the terminology that we have devised to understand music then I could very well say that they do not exist, the word anyway; the thing would still exist. The words are only our way of understanding what we perceive.

I'm not sure that I can adequately explain what I mean. Theory, though it makes sense and has immense value for our understanding and composition of music, does not convey the experience of what music is. What our brain recognizes when it hears music, the imagery and emotion that it can create, can not be defined in the way that we would mathematics and science. All of the ways that we have devised to understand western music, for instance, go completely out the window when seeking to understand eastern music or atonal music.

[Big Al]

The words are only our way of understanding what we perceive.

Words are a way of understanding what we perceive? I don't agree at all. I would say that we use to words to describe or explain ideas or phenomena, but understanding of a concept doesn't simply arise once words are assigned to it -- to assign words to a concept, understanding must already exist.


I'm not sure that I can adequately explain what I mean. Theory, though it makes sense and has immense value for our understanding and composition of music, does not convey the experience of what music is. What our brain recognizes when it hears music, the imagery and emotion that it can create, can not be defined in the way that we would mathematics and science. All of the ways that we have devised to understand western music, for instance, go completely out the window when seeking to understand eastern music or atonal music.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say, and how this relates to God.

[Orpheus]

I wonder at times why people are so much obsessed with God. Why they want to live in pleasures or in heaven after death? Why they want God?

If God really exists we can not see his form. God will be not of any gender we associate him with. God is something that can not be matched with anything. God does not care whether you pray or do not pray, These are lower or baser attributes of human beings to crave fro praise or respect but God is above all these worldly attributes.

Therefore I think it is better to be a man of servitude or charity.

I've often wondered many of the same things. The answer that I would give is not one of my own but follows most closely with the philosophy of Daniel Quinn, whom I have been reading over the past few months. To put it rather bluntly, he says that 10,000 years ago a small group of the human population made a decision, perhaps even an unconscious one but most likely it was not. Can you think of something that happened 10,000 years ago that changed the entire course of history? Well I can't exactly wait for a reply so I'll answer myself. The Agricultural Revolution. But not just agriculture but a particular kind of agriculture. The term that Daniel Quinn uses is "Totalitarian Agriculture." You see, prior to this decision, agriculture was already in use. However, it had always been supplementary to the hunter/gather way of life. For something like three million years humans had lived sustainably upon this planet in a way that worked for humans. But the decision to pursue this new kind of agriculture, the kind that we still use today, did not allow for the tribal lifestyle, it did not allow for the the kind of constant aggression that was in use (prior to the agricultural revolution tribes maintained a kind of constant state of aggression as a means of telling the other tribes that they were there, that they were a strong tribe. They did not however prevent other tribes from attaining the means of survival).

The advent of totalitarian agriculture, which Daniel Quinn defines something like: the production of surplusses of food (no longer did the tribe take only what it needed) to be kept under lock and key forcing the people to work extremely hard for their food (something that they never had to do prior to this; it was always available). By this one act of placing the means of survival under lock and key, the newly formed class system (another innovation unique to this time) was able to force the tribe as well as the tribes around them to either live in the way that they were living or be exterminated. This was something completely new. The previous constant fighting that was understood among the tribes no longer applied to this group that decided to live by totalitarian agriculture.

Daniel Quinn offers the term "Takers" for this group and "Leavers" for those living outside of totalitarian agriculture. The term Takers was created in accordance with this groups rejection of the lifestyle to which humanity had lived for centuries past. They no longer wished to leave their fate within the hands of the gods but would from ever after take their fate into their own hands.

The leavers, as has been mentioned, represents humanity as it was meant to live, had lived, and continues to live on the edge of extinction in our present time, whose fate was left to the hands of the gods as is every other species upon this earth. Only this one group, in all of history, decided to reject the way that worked for themselves, the way that their species was supposed to live. And in so doing, have for the past 10,000 years lived by the destructive formula that has reeked the havoc upon the planet that we see today, all the time gobbling up the leaver cultures of the world to the point where less than 1% of the population exhists today. The Takers have lived from that time on by a few key principles: that the world was created for them to govern and rule, that it was their destiny to do so, and that they could do whatever they wanted with the earth because it is under their dominion.

It is this Taker culture that has devised the religions that have become so popular in today's world. To my understanding they offer more similarities than differences. For each was devised as a way to live within this Taker culture. Because of such, each offers a particular flavor of redemption. Some say that we must be saved because we are vile sinners, others that we must transcend humanity, that we must get rid of desire, that in another life, the afterlife, heaven or some alternative to the world we live in, we can expect paradise if only we live a certain way. Each of these religions, however, stems from the belief that we can make people better. All of the utopian ideals of this Taker culture: Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and every religion that exist, stems from the idea that we can make people better. And they would work too if people were better than they were. But incidentally they don't work. People seek after all of these ideals as a means of survival within the culture built upon a lie, upon a way of life that does not work for humanity.

Blaze, I agree with you completely that if God exists he will not be recognized by any of the means that we have sought to understand him or any of the faces that we have put upon that primordial energy that created all of existence. But, never-the-less, while God may not care whether we live, die, pray, or go stick our heads in the sand, I am under the impression that humanity, within its very design, has some level of a religious nature. A geneticist would cringe if I were to use the term "religious gene" but there is something in us that seeks out the devine. Even before the Revolution that brought the present religions, humanity had a religious nature. They were animists.

Well, I've rambled long enough. If anything that I have mentioned is of interest to you, check out Daniel Quinn.

[dzebra]

I'm constantly amazed how people are so sure they know exactly what God is/wants/believes -- I say we let God speak for himself.

Oh wait...

... he has. And that is how we can know what God wants.

[Big Al]

... he has. And that is how we can know what God wants.

Well I've never heard the guy say anything, and I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of complete strangers. If I were that stupid, then I might as well believe in aliens because the founder of Raelianism says that he was contacted by them.

[dzebra]

Well I've never heard the guy say anything, and I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of complete strangers.

So you don't believe anything in any textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, documentaries, doctors' reports, or historical authors' works? They are all the word of complete strangers. Or does that only apply to things that are hard to believe?

And you also have never heard me say anything, yet you still know what I am saying to you. I have communicated this message to you without speaking.

[blazeofglory]

Indeed we all crave for magic reality apropos God. We want to do the impossible and when we turn to ourselves, to our weaker beings we feel sad. Sad that we become delimited by time and space, diseases, aging, death, disabilities.

But we associate ourselves with some powers and feel better. We are sad at the fact that we die and are happy at the prospect of a new life or afterlife.

God is simply that imagination we associate ourselves with so that we can solace ourselves with.

[Big Al]

So you don't believe anything in any textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, documentaries, doctors' reports, or historical authors' works? They are all the word of complete strangers. Or does that only apply to things that are hard to believe?

What an intellectually dishonest argument. Textbooks, doctor's reports, encyclopedias, etc. are comprised of easily verifiable facts about the natural world, which I can see and experience and thus have no doubts about its existence. I don't often believe documentaries, as they are subjective and usually persuasive works which may distort or alter facts to make a point, and as far as historical documents go, it all depends on how accurately they coincide with other historical texts from the same time period.

Now, to get back on track, have you ever heard the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Well, if I read in an encyclopedia that Komodo Dragons are a species native to central Indonesia, I would not be skeptical of the fact's authenticity because I know that Komodo Dragons exist, having seen numerous pictures and videos of Komodo Dragons, having read accounts of scientists who study Komodo Dragons, and having seen Komodo Dragons in zoos, and the fact that they live in central Indonesia can be verified using other scientific sources regarding Komodo Dragons, or if I really felt that I needed convincing, I could travel to Indonesia myself and find them. The same goes for anything else that I would read in an encyclopedia, or a textbook, or any other scientific, peer-reviewed article or document.

Now how about this God of yours? If you can empirically verify God's existence, I'll be much more willing to listen to people claiming to have come into contact with him, but until then, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical, especially considering the vast number of gods belonging to a vast number of religions from a vast number of cultures, all of which have their own religious texts and stories and their own ideas of what God wants/has said.


And you also have never heard me say anything, yet you still know what I am saying to you. I have communicated this message to you without speaking.

No, you did it by typing, an act for which some sort of consciousness is necessary. If God wants to send me a message via the Internet, he's certainly welcome to, although he'll need to have some way of verifying that it's him.

[dzebra]

Textbooks, doctor's reports, encyclopedias, etc. are comprised of easily verifiable facts about the natural world, which I can see and experience and thus have no doubts about its existence.

Like the existence and behavior of atoms? That is not so easily verifiable. Maybe with a lot of money and a lot of effort and some guesswork. It doesn't even make sense on some level that we are composed of things that are composed mostly of nothing. What I can see is that I'm made up mostly of stuff.



No, you did it by typing, an act for which some sort of consciousness is necessary. If God wants to send me a message via the Internet, he's certainly welcome to, although he'll need to have some way of verifying that it's him.

I could tell your friend to tell you something. You would then hear what I wanted to tell you, but without hearing my voice and without knowing for a fact that I actually told your friend anything. Your friend could verify it's me by saying "Yeah, it was him. I can describe him in detail."

[Big Al]

Like the existence and behavior of atoms? That is not so easily verifiable. Maybe with a lot of money and a lot of effort and some guesswork. It doesn't even make sense on some level that we are composed of things that are composed mostly of nothing. What I can see is that I'm made up mostly of stuff.

The makeup of atoms is highly theoretical, and just about any scientist you ask would tell you this. However, your last statement makes it quite clear that you don't actually know very much about the subject, and I'm guessing that you're probably not very interested in knowing about it. Either way, I fail to see what your point is.


I could tell your friend to tell you something. You would then hear what I wanted to tell you, but without hearing my voice and without knowing for a fact that I actually told your friend anything. Your friend could verify it's me by saying "Yeah, it was him. I can describe him in detail."

Yes, there are many ways that people can communicate with one another. The difference in this situation is that I know my friend exists -- I can see my friend, speak with my friend, and generally verify his existence; I could theoretically do the same with you. However, there is no way for me to verify the existence of your god. These differences really aren't that hard to determine -- maybe you should think a little more about these points before you post.

Now you never responded to my central question: can you provide me with any empirical evidence for the existence of your god? Also, since you insinuated earlier that we can know what God wants because he has communicated with us, with whom he has communicated? And can you verify with some sort of evidence that they did indeed communicate with God? I would appreciate if you would answer the question instead of trying to dodge around it.

[dzebra]

Yes, there are many ways that people can communicate with one another. The difference in this situation is that I know my friend exists -- I can see my friend, speak with my friend, and generally verify his existence; I could theoretically do the same with you. However, there is no way for me to verify the existence of your god.

All I want to point out is that many people say things like this, but when faced with evidence, they do not act on this statement. Suppose I tell you that I'm God talking to you over the internet. Would you believe me? Maybe you'd ask for some sort of evidence. I would tell you that I gave evidence already, and it's recorded in an old book. I used to talk to people, but clearly people find reasons to not believe. I sent my own flesh and blood to talk to people, and he did everything that God does, but people have a way of staying ignorant. I've been giving evidence since then, it's called the universe. All of existence is empirical evidence. The fact that things exist and decay over time shows that they had a beginning. That there was a beginning means that there was an initial cause. God is that. The fact that people are changed by faith in God is evidence that God is real.




Now you never responded to my central question: can you provide me with any empirical evidence for the existence of your god? Also, since you insinuated earlier that we can know what God wants because he has communicated with us, with whom he has communicated? And can you verify with some sort of evidence that they did indeed communicate with God?

With the atoms, I was showing that a lot of people believe in a lot of things that they can't explain, and they find it less difficult than believing in God, who has just as much, if not more supporting evidence. Evidence of God can be seen by anyone, not just scientists, yet people are more willing to believe the opinions of others than make their own decisions.

God communicated directly through prophets, who foretold the future. God communicates to people now through the Holy Spirit and the Bible. The Bible has been preserved better than any book anywhere near its age. It has been confirmed by archeology, science, and other historical books. Its writings span several hundred years and many miles distance, with the authors not knowing each other, yet they all say the same things.

You have access to more evidence that God exists than you do that I exist.

[Big Al]

Oh boy...


All I want to point out is that many people say things like this, but when faced with evidence, they do not act on this statement. Suppose I tell you that I'm God talking to you over the internet. Would you believe me?

Nope.


Maybe you'd ask for some sort of evidence. I would tell you that I gave evidence already, and it's recorded in an old book.

Recorded in an old book, huh? The bible? The Quaran? The Torah? One of the written records of any of the thousands of religions that have existed throughout time?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're referring to the bible, in which case, how do you explain all of the contradictions and inaccuracies? Or all of the violence and other cruel injustices enacted by God? Or the fact that so much of the bible is suspiciously similar to myths and stories by earlier religions?


I've been giving evidence since then, it's called the universe. All of existence is empirical evidence. The fact that things exist and decay over time shows that they had a beginning. That there was a beginning means that there was an initial cause. God is that.

There are a couple -- well, several -- problems with the above paragraph. First of all, the fact that something exists neither necessitates a beginning nor a cause, otherwise your god would need creator. I'm assuming that you take the view that God has always existed, correct? Luckily, that same view can be taken toward the universe, a view which is supported by the law of conservation of mass and energy, which states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed -- in other words, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed. The big bang theory explains how matter became scattered and why the universe is expanding, and it is a common idea in the scientific world that once the universe reaches a certain point, it will collapse in on itself, inevitably leading to another big bang (in fact, due to the way that materials have been scattered throughout the universe, many scientists theorize that there have already been several big bangs).

Besides that, even if your argument about an initial cause were valid, proof that there was some initial cause is not proof for God -- it would be proof for an initial cause. I could say that the initial cause were something else entirely -- say, giant pink elephants -- and that opinion would be just as valid as yours. I doubt this will make much sense to you though, as the definition of "empirical evidence" seems to have completely escaped you.


The fact that people are changed by faith in God is evidence that God is real.

Do you know what Raelianism is? It's a religion founded by a man who claims to have come into contact with an alien lifeform which revealed the secrets of the universe to him. Raelianism has actually developed an incredibly large following over the past few decades, so by your "logic," the fact that people are changed by faith in Rael is evidence that aliens are real.


With the atoms, I was showing that a lot of people believe in a lot of things that they can't explain, and they find it less difficult than believing in God, who has just as much, if not more supporting evidence.

Things they can't explain? "Theoretical" doesn't mean "pulled it out of thin air." Scientists have spent two hundred years studying matter and developing the atomic theory -- not only do they know a great deal about atoms, most of their discoveries can be verified through scientific means. That's the difference between the religious and the rest of us -- we use science to understand mysteries of the universe, while you simply say "God did it." Early man had the same "God of the gaps" mentality, except he asked "what makes it rain" and "why do the crops grow?", which shows that as science advances, man has fewer and fewer places in which to plug "God."


Evidence of God can be seen by anyone, not just scientists, yet people are more willing to believe the opinions of others than make their own decisions.

There is no evidence of God, and vague, half-baked, inaccuracy-filled thoughts about the "beginning of the universe" are not evidence. I would suggest that you actually look up the term in a dictionary.


God communicated directly through prophets, who foretold the future.

Evidence? By the way, if you're referring to the writers of the Old Testament "prophesizing" the events of the New Testament, I hope you realize that nothing about Jesus written in the bible is supported by any contemporary historical accounts.


God communicates to people now through the Holy Spirit and the Bible. The Bible has been preserved better than any book anywhere near its age. It has been confirmed by archeology, science, and other historical books. Its writings span several hundred years and many miles distance, with the authors not knowing each other, yet they all say the same things.


The bible has been confirmed by archaeology? Well, it has confirmed that specific places in the bible existed, but that would be like saying Spider-Man exists because New York City exists. Science has confirmed the bible? How? It's my understanding that science does the exact opposite (the theory of evolution, the impossibility of the Noah's Ark story). Other historical writings? Which ones? And as far as all the writings in the bible saying the same things, how do you account for the hundreds of inaccuracies and contradictions it contains? And something else I've always wondered: given that the bible has been translated (and mis-translated) through so many languages into so many different editions, how could you possibly know for sure what God says? And why are so many stories in the bible direct rip-offs of earlier writings, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh?

[blp]

Lol I saw all the topics with negative things towards God!
so this one is about how great God is!
He is an amazing god and has done so much for me!

What religious text is this thread about?

[dzebra]

Besides that, even if your argument about an initial cause were valid, proof that there was some initial cause is not proof for God -- it would be proof for an initial cause. I could say that the initial cause were something else entirely -- say, giant pink elephants -- and that opinion would be just as valid as yours. I doubt this will make much sense to you though, as the definition of "empirical evidence" seems to have completely escaped you.


Empirical evidence means evidence that can be observed or experienced. Pink elephants didn't inspire a lot of people to write a book. Pink elephants didn't reveal themselves to people. Pink elephants didn't send anyone to give an account of who they are.




Raelianism has actually developed an incredibly large following over the past few decades, so by your "logic," the fact that people are changed by faith in Rael is evidence that aliens are real.


That is one piece of evidence. I have not heard any other evidence for Rael, though.



Scientists have spent two hundred years studying matter and developing the atomic theory


Humans have spent since they first existed learning about God.




There is no evidence of God, and vague, half-baked, inaccuracy-filled thoughts about the "beginning of the universe" are not evidence. I would suggest that you actually look up the term in a dictionary.


This just isn't so. The Bible, followers of God, existence, changed lives, miracles, etc.



Other historical writings? Which ones?


Josephus. There's another, but I can't remember the name of him.



It's my understanding that science does the exact opposite (the theory of evolution, the impossibility of the Noah's Ark story).


Science does not provide much evidence against creation. There is not compelling evidence for the theory of evolution.



And as far as all the writings in the bible saying the same things, how do you account for the hundreds of inaccuracies and contradictions it contains? And something else I've always wondered: given that the bible has been translated (and mis-translated) through so many languages into so many different editions, how could you possibly know for sure what God says? And why are so many stories in the bible direct rip-offs of earlier writings, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I don't think there are contradictions in the Bible. The closest I've seen are a few places where people couldn't figure out which word was originally used in certain places. Show me these contradictions and the context where they are used.

There are thousands of stories about a global flood. They are from every culture around the world. This acts as more evidence that it actually happened. Just because somebody may have written it down before Moses did doesn't mean that it's more true.

[Big Al]

Empirical evidence means evidence that can be observed or experienced. Pink elephants didn't inspire a lot of people to write a book. Pink elephants didn't reveal themselves to people. Pink elephants didn't send anyone to give an account of who they are.

Well the Native Americans believed in gods which were animals, and gods which were half-animal and half-man -- that's pretty close. Those gods inspired the Native Americans to create legends about them (most tribes didn't write, otherwise they surely would have written books), and they believed that the gods communicated with them, just as every other religion in history has believed. Why are all those religions less valid than Christianity?


That is one piece of evidence. I have not heard any other evidence for Rael, though.

It isn't evidence, just like it isn't evidence for your god. But do you actually know anything about Raelianism? Maybe you haven't heard any other evidence for Rael because you simply haven't looked? Do you suppose that's a possibility? Do you suppose that fact holds true for every other religion that you've failed to check out?


Humans have spent since they first existed learning about God.

Yes, because of his limited knowledge early man created the first god myths to explain then-unexplainable natural phenomena. But before people were learning about the Christian god, depending on what culture they were brought up in they were learning about the hundreds of other gods that existed before anyone conceived of your god. I wonder why the bible doesn't mention earlier religions that existed in other cultures? Hm...


This just isn't so. The Bible, followers of God, existence, changed lives, miracles, etc.

In that case, why aren't the Quaran, followers of Allah, existence, changed lives, miracles, etc. are all evidence for Islamic religious beliefs? They have holy books, they have people who were changed by faith in their god, they claim to have miracles (even though there is no such thing, all religions claim it). What you're saying applies to all religions that have ever existed. I'm still waiting to hear why Christianity is more valid than the others.


Josephus. There's another, but I can't remember the name of him.

There are plenty of historians who talk about Jesus: Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, Lucian, Justin Martyr...But if you'll note, I said "contemporary historical sources." The oldest of these historians is Josephus, and he wasn't even born until decades after Christ's alleged crucifixion, which means they had no firsthand knowledge, and thus his (and all the others') writings are based on hearsay accounts. Even the first of the gospels was not written until approximately 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ. The earliest surviving Christian writings are Paul's biblical letters, but there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Even more telling, the writers of the gospels (and remember that the gospels didn't come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century) never even claimed to have ever met an earthly Jesus.

It certainly seems strange to me that a miraculous man performing miracles and bringing people back to life didn't warrant any writings until 40 years after he had died. I wonder why he didn't leave any writings of his own? Surely the son of God would be capable.


Science does not provide much evidence against creation. There is not compelling evidence for the theory of evolution.

Science does not set out to disprove or provide evidence against ideas. The simple fact is that there exists no scientific evidence for creationism -- so far creationists have survived by simply attacking evolution and believing that weakening (or so they think) one idea somehow counts as evidence for another. Besides, only somebody who doesn't keep up with scientific findings and research (I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't) would think that about evolution.


I don't think there are contradictions in the Bible. The closest I've seen are a few places where people couldn't figure out which word was originally used in certain places. Show me these contradictions and the context where they are used.

Done:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html


There are thousands of stories about a global flood. They are from every culture around the world. This acts as more evidence that it actually happened. Just because somebody may have written it down before Moses did doesn't mean that it's more true.

It doesn't make it more true -- that's completely idiotic. The fact that each story has different people, happens in different places, is enacted by different gods, takes place during differing periods of time, etc. makes it less likely that it actually happened; all it really means is that Christianity stole stories and ideas from other religions, and there are plenty of other instances. Besides, there is really no chance that there was any kind of a global flood -- it isn't scientifically possible, and to believe in it is, quite frankly, to believe in childish fairy tales.

[teleios]

Hey all,
I just noticed the riveting discussion going on here, and thought I'd throw in my two cents...


Well the Native Americans believed in gods which were animals, and gods which were half-animal and half-man -- that's pretty close. Those gods inspired the Native Americans to create legends about them (most tribes didn't write, otherwise they surely would have written books), and they believed that the gods communicated with them, just as every other religion in history has believed. Why are all those religions less valid than Christianity?

Christianity cannot be proved wrong. Nor can it, or any other religion, be proven right. To do so would nullify the faith that is required to cleanse us.

Moving past that though... of the many, many religions out there, we can significantly narrow down the number that history supports. With the current knowledge we have in science, we can be pretty certain that the earth is not perched precariously on the back of a sea turtle. Likewise, with the records available to us of the early history of the USA, we can be pretty confident that the wars and battles recorded within the Mormon Holy Books aren't accurate.

The list of religions that cannot be invalidated beyond a doubt with the knowledge available to us today is very small. I would say this is part of the reason why there are only very few religions that have an extremely large following world-wide.

With all that said, my point is this: Nothing 'till the Second Coming will give the general population proof beyond a doubt that Christianity is the most valid religion. One cannot prove or disprove it.



Yes, because of his limited knowledge early man created the first god myths to explain then-unexplainable natural phenomena. But before people were learning about the Christian god, depending on what culture they were brought up in they were learning about the hundreds of other gods that existed before anyone conceived of your god. I wonder why the bible doesn't mention earlier religions that existed in other cultures? Hm...

Oh! I think we have a misunderstanding here...
Christianity, as a religion, goes back to the dawn of time. It starts with Adam and Eve, moves through to Noah, then to Abraham (here is was known by various phrases, such as 'Walking with the Lord'), and to Joseph (renamed Israel). From thereafter, it is known as Judaism, and they awaited a messiah. Approximately 2000 years ago this messiah came, and it was known as "The Way" for a little while, before it took on the name of Christianity.

Regarding the many other religions that popped up...
Romans 1:19-20
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made..."
Mankind has always had a very vivid imagination. Just as there are many that saw these attributes in nature for what they truly are, there are many that have seen them, and either intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpreted them.



There are plenty of historians who talk about Jesus: Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, Lucian, Justin Martyr...But if you'll note, I said "contemporary historical sources." The oldest of these historians is Josephus, and he wasn't even born until decades after Christ's alleged crucifixion, which means they had no firsthand knowledge, and thus his (and all the others') writings are based on hearsay accounts. Even the first of the gospels was not written until approximately 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ. The earliest surviving Christian writings are Paul's biblical letters, but there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Even more telling, the writers of the gospels (and remember that the gospels didn't come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century) never even claimed to have ever met an earthly Jesus.

It certainly seems strange to me that a miraculous man performing miracles and bringing people back to life didn't warrant any writings until 40 years after he had died. I wonder why he didn't leave any writings of his own? Surely the son of God would be capable.

I'm impressed by the depth of your knowledge here - not very many Christians can even claim to know such things about their very own religion. First, let me say that I think you may be a bit off on some of your dates. Just grasping at various facts I've stored away in my mind, I seem to recall that at least 2 of the gospels were dated sometime in the 50s or early 60s. This would put them at a mere 17-27 years after Jesus' death, not 40 (I note your use of the word approximate though). If necessary, I can look it up and get a specific timeline, but I don't think it should be necessary.
The writers of the gospels never claimed to have ever met an earthly Jesus? Just looking at the book of John... in the last few verses of the book, it identifies the author, who throughout the book made himself known as "The disciple whom Jesus loved". He claimed to know Jesus quite well. Perhaps I misunderstood your post?
And finally, your last statement in the above quote...
Surely the Son of God would be capable to get himself down from the cross. Certainly he would be capable to smite all those who persecuted Him and His followers. This "miraculous man" probably had some writing written during the years after he had died, but many didn't survive. Need I bring up the travesty that occurred in Jerusalem in 70 AD? Much got destroyed during those fires. Regardless though, the stories of Jesus were deemed so important that people did not just right them in a letter and send them off to their dear cousin in Asia, but rather sent the apostles, disciples, and others on missionary journeys all across that area of the world. Verbal communication between two people regarding such wonderful good news was cherished, especially considering the gravity of the gospel (The Son of God Himself came down to earth... the long awaited messiah!).



Science does not set out to disprove or provide evidence against ideas. The simple fact is that there exists no scientific evidence for creationism -- so far creationists have survived by simply attacking evolution and believing that weakening (or so they think) one idea somehow counts as evidence for another. Besides, only somebody who doesn't keep up with scientific findings and research (I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't) would think that about evolution.

I prefer to shy away from this topic, simply because of all the mud slinging that goes on. Neither side has it's proof, although we are getting closer as science progresses. I'll leave it at that.



Done:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I glanced through some of these, but in all honesty I have heard them all before. The truth is that many of them are easily explained, but when someone brings these up they typically won't listen to responses with an open mind. I've spent a few days of my life before responding to people who seemed to ask me genuine questions about these, but didn't really want a response. They just want to sling mud. There are plenty explanations you can find on google if interested.

[blazeofglory]

To say God is great is somethiing to think God is likened to the rest of beings. God is not great nor small. And if God really exists it is not something you believe conditioned by mythological descriptions.

Even some of the greatest texts like the Vedas and other great books mention about God' s nature as formless, nameless, and the like.

[NikolaiI]

God is very great and worshipping God is one of the absolute best services you can render for humanity, as it is the path to self-realization. God is endowed with inconceivable potences and infinite names, and all of His names are transcendental. We are created by God but we are not God. The position of God is already filled (by God). In fact the problems of society are all caused by people trying to be God in one sense or another. We kill because we think we have possessions. We think we possess the land, a fallacy, and all sorts of things we manufacture from its resources. We manufacture them, but only by God's grace. The land does not belong to us, nor does anything we manufacture, as we ourselves and everything we make rightfully belongs to God. Thus the absolutely correct position is complete surrender always to God. And in actuality, there is no sacrifice. The sacrifice is not surrendering, as we suffer inasmuch as we fight against the universe, against Fate. We should of course not be doing anything wrong-- that we should sacrifice, but it is actually a penance to do wrong things-- they hurt us.

God has infinite names and forms, and is full of wisdom, renunciation, bliss and peace.

Our lives are made up of everything we have done, think and act. So what is the difference between drifting aimlessly or progressing in spiritual knowledge? And what is the difference between one who has a quiet kind word, and one who most of the time is making a loud, scared noise? And what's the difference between saying God doesn't exist, and extoling his virtues and praising him in worship in a spiritual setting.

[JBI]

Honestly, Christian people seem to know nothing about the Old Testament. Jewish scholars, whose work on biblical commentary started even before Christ seem to not expect all words in the bible to be taken literally. The Mishnah, or oral law, and the Talmud have replaced many portions of the legal laws written in the Torah, better known to Christians as Pentateuch. Christian scholarship is rather mediocre in that a) it is not required by priests (I use this as an umbrella to include all clergy) to even know how to read it in the original. All the facts you think you know about the book can easily be mistranslations. Thou Shalt Not Kill doesn't even mean that, it actually means thou shalt not murder. Killing is actually required by many biblical laws, especially regarding the race of Amalech, which by Jewish law is supposed to be erased from the world, men, women, children, and animals.

Another note, is that god cannot be proven to have given anything to anybody. There is no evidence, and none you can gather. If you say that god gave you the strength to give up your addiction, or to get off your butt and go get a job, you are simply saying your belief in god caused such things. To say that god did anything is utter stupidity, since a) you cannot prove it, and b) usually it is just a logical fallacy one creates to justify actions. I know I cannot think of one case where god has done anything. If I say I prayed for something, and it happened, that doesn't mean god did anything, it simply means that the law of probabilities determined that such events would transpire. I am sure there are enough people who pray to god, and things go wrong. We don't insist that god had anything to do with the death of everyone who prayed to him.

God is great is an idiocy. If you believe in an infinite god, than infinity must include everything, and thereby include negative qualities. For example, god knows everything, and created the Devil, knowing of his evilness, simply for the fact of bringing evil into the world. If you can accept that, then you can accept that god brings rapists into the world, and brings murderers into the world, and invented cancer (and not only that, is cancer) and invented every other illness and ailment, and administers them on the population.

That being said, this is if you believe in god. As for me, I'm atheist, and a skeptic, and find such concepts as "God is great, seriously he helped me a lot" to be a laughing matter. Have you even read the Bible in the original? Do you know what you even believe in? No, I highly doubt it. The one thing that gives the church power in this world is the fact that they clergy keep everything hushed from the public. That's why catholicism is so popular, all the prayers are in Latin, so no one knows the idiocy they are actually praying.

Lets be honest, the Psalms of David show no evidence of god, and just seem to be written as mediocre "Oh I love you god, oh you are the best god, oh, you are the strongest god, oh, if you were a woman I would have sex with you god" poems that seem to offer nothing. And this is from someone who has read them in the original Hebrew, so you can take my word that I am not misinterpreting. I have read not only the Bible in Hebrew, but also 2200 years of biblical scholarship on the subject.

[dzebra]

The fact that each story has different people, happens in different places, is enacted by different gods, takes place during differing periods of time, etc. makes it less likely that it actually happened; all it really means is that Christianity stole stories and ideas from other religions, and there are plenty of other instances. Besides, there is really no chance that there was any kind of a global flood -- it isn't scientifically possible, and to believe in it is, quite frankly, to believe in childish fairy tales.

Teleios responded in the same spirit as I would so I'll only say this: You and I can see the same things and take them to be evidence of opposing theories. You say things are obviously true that I think are obviously wrong and vice versa. The difference between us is where we place our faith.

[Big Al]

Hey all,
I just noticed the riveting discussion going on here, and thought I'd throw in my two cents...

Feel free, I suppose -- I'll try not to be civil, although I see that I've been rude in my other posts (it happens when I get frustrated).


Moving past that though... of the many, many religions out there, we can significantly narrow down the number that history supports. With the current knowledge we have in science, we can be pretty certain that the earth is not perched precariously on the back of a sea turtle. Likewise, with the records available to us of the early history of the USA, we can be pretty confident that the wars and battles recorded within the Mormon Holy Books aren't accurate.

I would argue that the same goes for Christianity, that through science and history (or really the absence of historical documents supporting the gospels) we can establish that much of what is in the bible is completely false. As far as why certain religions exist in such vast numbers over others, I would say it has a lot to do with the fact that the supporters of those religions violently forced their beliefs onto other cultures, and wiped out entire belief systems (as with the Native Americans).


Christianity, as a religion, goes back to the dawn of time. It starts with Adam and Eve, moves through to Noah, then to Abraham (here is was known by various phrases, such as 'Walking with the Lord'), and to Joseph (renamed Israel). From thereafter, it is known as Judaism, and they awaited a messiah. Approximately 2000 years ago this messiah came, and it was known as "The Way" for a little while, before it took on the name of Christianity.

That's how it all works out if you take the word of the bible, but I definitely do not. First and foremost, there is simply no evidence to support the existence of these people as they are not mentioned anywhere outside of the gospels. Secondly, how does this idea take into account the vast diversity of cultures, races and religions that existed at the same time or even before Judaism? Also, if there were only two people at one point, and they had children, then to make more people their children would have to mate with each other; this would cause severe birth defects, genetic deficiencies and possible mental retardation in ensuing generations. And finally, if I may bring science into the picture, this idea is flatly contradicted by the fossil record -- scientists know when humans came into the picture, and it was from a gradual progression of less-developed primates. I would say that the Adam and Eve story is a complete fairytale, and it really boggles my mind that anybody takes it seriously.


Mankind has always had a very vivid imagination. Just as there are many that saw these attributes in nature for what they truly are, there are many that have seen them, and either intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpreted them.

We may have different ideas about what nature's attributes "truly are."


First, let me say that I think you may be a bit off on some of your dates. Just grasping at various facts I've stored away in my mind, I seem to recall that at least 2 of the gospels were dated sometime in the 50s or early 60s. This would put them at a mere 17-27 years after Jesus' death, not 40 (I note your use of the word approximate though). If necessary, I can look it up and get a specific timeline, but I don't think it should be necessary.

I looked up several just to make sure, but the problem is that the age varies depending on the source one is using. It's a difficult thing to establish for sure, although my original point about there being no writings existing during Jesus' life still stands.


The writers of the gospels never claimed to have ever met an earthly Jesus? Just looking at the book of John... in the last few verses of the book, it identifies the author, who throughout the book made himself known as "The disciple whom Jesus loved". He claimed to know Jesus quite well. Perhaps I misunderstood your post?

I didn't make my point very clear -- my mistake. What I meant was that there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus. Perhaps I am mistaken on this point, though.


Regardless though, the stories of Jesus were deemed so important that people did not just right them in a letter and send them off to their dear cousin in Asia, but rather sent the apostles, disciples, and others on missionary journeys all across that area of the world. Verbal communication between two people regarding such wonderful good news was cherished, especially considering the gravity of the gospel (The Son of God Himself came down to earth... the long awaited messiah!).

People having a fanatical belief in something doesn't give that belief validity.


I prefer to shy away from this topic, simply because of all the mud slinging that goes on. Neither side has it's proof, although we are getting closer as science progresses. I'll leave it at that.

As a scientist I once met liked to say, "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol." Science deals in evidence. But I digress.


I glanced through some of these, but in all honesty I have heard them all before. The truth is that many of them are easily explained, but when someone brings these up they typically won't listen to responses with an open mind. I've spent a few days of my life before responding to people who seemed to ask me genuine questions about these, but didn't really want a response. They just want to sling mud. There are plenty explanations you can find on google if interested.

If you can provide me with good explanations for all of them (there are well over four hundred, and there are other sources which list more), then I might concede the point. Besides, I have found most of the explanations I've read extremely laughable.

[NikolaiI]

Honestly, Christian people seem to know nothing about the Old Testament. Jewish scholars, whose work on biblical commentary started even before Christ seem to not expect all words in the bible to be taken literally. The Mishnah, or oral law, and the Talmud have replaced many portions of the legal laws written in the Torah, better known to Christians as Pentateuch. Christian scholarship is rather mediocre in that a) it is not required by priests (I use this as an umbrella to include all clergy) to even know how to read it in the original. All the facts you think you know about the book can easily be mistranslations. Thou Shalt Not Kill doesn't even mean that, it actually means thou shalt not murder. Killing is actually required by many biblical laws, especially regarding the race of Amalech, which by Jewish law is supposed to be erased from the world, men, women, children, and animals.

Another note, is that god cannot be proven to have given anything to anybody. There is no evidence, and none you can gather. If you say that god gave you the strength to give up your addiction, or to get off your butt and go get a job, you are simply saying your belief in god caused such things. To say that god did anything is utter stupidity, since a) you cannot prove it, and b) usually it is just a logical fallacy one creates to justify actions. I know I cannot think of one case where god has done anything. If I say I prayed for something, and it happened, that doesn't mean god did anything, it simply means that the law of probabilities determined that such events would transpire. I am sure there are enough people who pray to god, and things go wrong. We don't insist that god had anything to do with the death of everyone who prayed to him.

God is great is an idiocy. If you believe in an infinite god, than infinity must include everything, and thereby include negative qualities. For example, god knows everything, and created the Devil, knowing of his evilness, simply for the fact of bringing evil into the world. If you can accept that, then you can accept that god brings rapists into the world, and brings murderers into the world, and invented cancer (and not only that, is cancer) and invented every other illness and ailment, and administers them on the population.

That being said, this is if you believe in god. As for me, I'm atheist, and a skeptic, and find such concepts as "God is great, seriously he helped me a lot" to be a laughing matter. Have you even read the Bible in the original? Do you know what you even believe in? No, I highly doubt it. The one thing that gives the church power in this world is the fact that they clergy keep everything hushed from the public. That's why catholicism is so popular, all the prayers are in Latin, so no one knows the idiocy they are actually praying.

Lets be honest, the Psalms of David show no evidence of god, and just seem to be written as mediocre "Oh I love you god, oh you are the best god, oh, you are the strongest god, oh, if you were a woman I would have sex with you god" poems that seem to offer nothing. And this is from someone who has read them in the original Hebrew, so you can take my word that I am not misinterpreting. I have read not only the Bible in Hebrew, but also 2200 years of biblical scholarship on the subject.

I used to think like you. "God doesn't exist because I can't see him." But now I am less arrogant in the face of the unknowable.

And about God answering our prayers, God is not our slave, sir.

[Big Al]

Teleios responded in the same spirit as I would so I'll only say this: You and I can see the same things and take them to be evidence of opposing theories. You say things are obviously true that I think are obviously wrong and vice versa. The difference between us is where we place our faith.

I must have missed this post last night. Considering that you were unable to really answer any of the questions I posed to you (it seems as though you simply avoided half of them), this seems like a monumental cop-out.

Whatever.

[dzebra]

I must have missed this post last night. Considering that you were unable to really answer any of the questions I posed to you (it seems as though you simply avoided half of them), this seems like a monumental cop-out.

Whatever.

The fact is that I think your points are invalid or simply wrong and you think my points are invalid or wrong, so I think it's pointless to continue, so I will not continue.

[Big Al]

The fact is that I think your points are invalid or simply wrong and you think my points are invalid or wrong, so I think it's pointless to continue, so I will not continue.

Well I think the fact that you couldn't successfully argue for any of your points, and the fact that you demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge both about science, other cultures and the history of your own religion is very telling. In a debate it isn't about what you think -- it's about what you can support.

[JBI]

Wait, so there is no evidence, god doesn't answer prayers, why did you stop thinking like me? Did you chicken out, and run for heaven, and a prayer for salvation, as many do, or did you find something enlightening. Seriously, to me, religion is a coward's tool, and the more I learn about the world, the less I believe in anything.

[blazeofglory]

God is very great and worshipping God is one of the absolute best services you can render for humanity, as it is the path to self-realization. God is endowed with inconceivable potences and infinite names, and all of His names are transcendental. We are created by God but we are not God. The position of God is already filled (by God). In fact the problems of society are all caused by people trying to be God in one sense or another. We kill because we think we have possessions. We think we possess the land, a fallacy, and all sorts of things we manufacture from its resources. We manufacture them, but only by God's grace. The land does not belong to us, nor does anything we manufacture, as we ourselves and everything we make rightfully belongs to God. Thus the absolutely correct position is complete surrender always to God. And in actuality, there is no sacrifice. The sacrifice is not surrendering, as we suffer inasmuch as we fight against the universe, against Fate. We should of course not be doing anything wrong-- that we should sacrifice, but it is actually a penance to do wrong things-- they hurt us.

God has infinite names and forms, and is full of wisdom, renunciation, bliss and peace.

Our lives are made up of everything we have done, think and act. So what is the difference between drifting aimlessly or progressing in spiritual knowledge? And what is the difference between one who has a quiet kind word, and one who most of the time is making a loud, scared noise? And what's the difference between saying God doesn't exist, and extoling his virtues and praising him in worship in a spiritual setting.

Nikolai, in point of fact God is, if there is one, not an entitity that can be compared with anything we can make images of.

We normally think god or spin ideas of god through our conditioned minds. God is something different than projections we make of him.

I, though mythologically spun ideas of God can not fit into my domain, feel god is above our minds' fabrications.

[NikolaiI]

When we praise God, God is immediately with us. Sometimes we wish God would follow our orders, but this is missing the fact...how to say it...when we think of God he is with us, right there, even if we can't see him. God responds to us-- how? by His Presence. God reacts to us, filling us with his Presence. God, the master of the universe, responds to us, finite beings. Does it then matter what the response is? Is God's Presence not greater than anything else? God responds to us, yes: so does the Sun, so do God's angels, and on down-- each of us affects all of creation. God responds to us; God is the greatest power. The Earth also responds to us, and the Sun, and the Moon, all the planets and all the stars. All is connected and God is the power governing all.

[blazeofglory]

The Earth also responds to us, and the Sun, and the Moon, all the planets and all the stars. All is connected and God is the power governing all.

Yes this idea is appealing to me immesnely and of course at this point I agree with you wholly. This is exactly the one I believe in. Name it God, or un-god or power or anything. This connection is very powerful and I feel vividly even to the extent of feeling at one with you despite all differences.

[hellsapoppin]

"When we praise God, God is immediately with us."

Perhaps for you. But it would be nice if this was universally true.

[caesar]

I don't know much about God or his doing me any good. As an agnostic, I like to think, God is the universe and we all, including all other things, are like cells of his body. I think we are all pieces of God. I also like to think that at the molecular level we are all one as we are all made of the same elements. Someone once very exquisitely explained to me the oneness of all lifeforms by saying that life rises and falls like waves in the ocean of elements.

While going through the posts I read that someone had said that God created all men equal and man has created inequalities. I respectfully disagree and wish to say that all men were not created equal. Just like some wave are big and some are small. But it is the endeavour of humans to establish a society were all are treated equally. As a lawyer I have also been taught that the corollary of the principle of equality is that unequals must be treated unequally and it's unjust to treat unequals equally. And I salute this lofty spirit of humanity.

[blazeofglory]

In fact God is something we believe in, and the basis of our belief is conditioning. God is a projection resulted from mostly what we have been programmed. Imagine you are in a world wherein you have never been told about it, you will not know what the God thing is.