A Loving God Would Not Allow Hell

[MARAB0D]

But you believe that they are dependable until proven not to be? That would be a belief, which you just said you do not have.

No! I KNOW they are dependable until proven not to be. Belief is something which requires NO PROOF - and all these models have their logical proofs, but the experimental data is growing and from time to time these logical proofs are revised. Completely different thing from "belief"

[MARAB0D]

As an agnostic I take exception to your claim.

I do not rely on the reasoning of those who may already have investigated such claims, but would rather make up my own mind than have it made up by the opinion of someone long dust. Thus I examine all claims that might impact my agnosticism.

That I have reached the same conclusions as those others is no reason to suppose the next claim I investigate will not provide me an answer different to theirs.

What you appear to be suggesting is that the agnostic should be as dogmatic as the blind believer (in fact, that an agnostic should become, in a sense, a blind believer). I abhor dogma.

Leonardo, I am simply an agnostic-veteran, soon hitting 52 - would you think Bluef and his argumentation was the first such case in my life? Moreover, even a younger agnostic is not born such, but becomes an agnostic after careful evaluation of all other options. Religion for an agnostic is the same as "back to the caves" slogan.

[Beckys_Mom]

Hey BM, I understand your position. But I think you took the thread the wrong way. The thread was based on the assumption that a loving God would not create a place like Hell.

Tim Keller then goes through to show that the Hell we think that God is eager throw us in is really the Hell we create in ourselves.

There is more to his post that I didn't quote, and perhaps it will help you understand his perspective on the topic of Hell:

"In short, hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.

We see this process "writ small" in addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, and pornography. First there is disintegration, because as time goes on you need more and more of the addictive substance to get an equal kick, which leads to less and less satisfaction. Second, there is the isolation, as increasingly you blame others and circumstances in order to justify your behavior. "No one understands! Everyone is against me!" is muttered in greater and greater self-pity and self-absorption. When we build our lives on anything but God, that thing---though a good thing---becomes an enslaving addiction, something we have to have to be happy. Personal disintegration happens on a broader scale. In eternity, this disintegration goes on forever. There is increasing isolation, denial, delusion, and self-absorption. When you lose all you humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven seems to them a shame."

What he's saying is that God doesn't send us to hell as is traditionally thought. The Bible presents hell as our own personal disintegration for all eternity, apart from any joy or love that comes being in God's immediate presence. Those that go to hell don't ask to leave. They think heaven is a sham.

It's still preachy.........saying god doesnt need to send us to hell......god still created hell for a reason....and that reason is to taunt you all in to making ONE choice...and that is to follow him ....If you chose NOT to and just wish to be left alone and do your own thing ........god will throw you in hell to punish you <-------making god out to be now lower than a dictator

[Beckys_Mom]

I'm sure that's the easier thing to believe. Like I said, opinions vary.

No it is far eaiser to just BELIEVE in it all and say nothing..........it takes more guts and brains to admit you know there is no real proof and admit you can think from OUTSIDE the box

I am smart and not easy to brainwash.......If you can admit that you know for a fact, that what you have is just a belief and there is NO PROOF........it differs from actual facts in life .then and only then you will have used your guts and honesty

To be able to see the BIG difference in what is FAITH and REAL ACTUAL FACTS <---do you suppose you could?

BTW personal experiences are not real proof...if they were, they would be called REAL LIFE EVIDENCE

So far I doubt you have bothered, hence your posts that are not making sense to me

Edited July 11, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[+Sherapy]

Seems rational to say, that is if empirical proof is not the only means of proof. That being said, throwing up the proof argument shuts down any objective faith statement without examining it further.

But you believe that they are dependable until proven not to be? That would be a belief, which you just said you do not have.

This is an honest statement and I appreciate your explanation much more now.

But this itself is a belief held particularly to you based on no objective proof itself. It's just something that you find reasonable to believe. It works for you.

blue how are you gonna prove something that is dependent on your point of view to experience it?

therein lies the crux of marabond's point...

[Lt_Ripley]

blue how are you gonna prove something that is dependent on your point of view to experience it?

therein lies the crux of marabond's point...

[Beckys_Mom]

And what exactly is objective faith? There is nothing irrational about my faith, and a lot more people will agree with me than you,

What like more christians? that is stating the plain in your face - OBVIOUS lol...but thats it

which shows that your claim needs more examination than you give it. All claims deserve examination.

If all claims deserve examination...can you say you have fully examined your own claims?

You challenge everyone else's beliefs but insist that yours cannot be challenged. Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

His cannot be challenged....for he isnt making wild claims of things that are spiritual and calling the FACTS.....you do, he doesnt...

[She-ra]

Well, if there is a God, some of the things I've heard He's done is not so nice ...

[Bluefinger]

What like more christians? that is stating the plain in your face - OBVIOUS lol...but thats it

Hi Geri, What I was trying to point out is that if someone is going to attack the verifiability of the Christian faith, my question would be, "Why should I assume that your methodology is the correct one? It is what you believe to be the correct way, right? If so, then there are a multitude of people who disagree. As I stated, the beliefs should be examined in and of themselves. Attacking the verifiability of a belief is just changing topic and avoiding a sensible discussion.

If all claims deserve examination...can you say you have fully examined your own claims?

Well, I take them as they come. I can't examine something I don't know. As for the divinity of Jesus, infallibility of the Scriptures, and the new life found through the atoning work of Jesus, yes I have examined them and will continue to examine them.

His cannot be challenged....for he isnt making wild claims of things that are spiritual and calling the FACTS.....you do, he doesnt...

There is a flaw in your statement, BM. Your statement is made from a position that states that your methodology is correct. You are saying that he isn't making wild claims of things, but if he were in any other country than the U.S., there is a good chance that his claims would be considered wild. This puts all beliefs in the same area, deserving each to be examined by its tenets, not its appeal. Remember, only a minority hold to the 'empirical' claim, and the majority of that minority rests in North America and Europe. This means that we have no reason to assume that the minority is correct and everyone is false when it comes to 'spiritual things.' They should be thoroughly examined, not pushed aside and scoffed at.

[Lt_Ripley]

And what exactly is objective faith? There is nothing irrational about my faith, and a lot more people will agree with me than you,

just because you have more people who would agree with you doesn't make you correct or true. Most people have no real clue what they believe or why they believe it other than that's what they were told growing up.

your beliefs are very irrational !!

How many contradictions exist in the NT alone ?

[Bluefinger]

just because you have more people who would agree with you doesn't make you correct or true. Most people have no real clue what they believe or why they believe it other than that's what they were told growing up.

My point is that the same could be said about you. So who are you to accuse other beliefs of arrogance when you assert your own belief on them?

your beliefs are very irrational !!

I don't think so. But then again, it didn't make sense to me until I actually realized that Jesus is God.

I'd like to quote Tim Keller on this:

"He (Richard Dawkins) and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.

Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian argumetns by what some have called "strong rationalism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience. What is meant by the word, "proved"? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so strong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.

Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosophers doin so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How coudl you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of experiences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Last Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go one way or the other.

I am talking of...the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true....It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God: I don't want the universe to be like that....I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God---anyone who, whatever his actual belief about the matter, doesn't particularly want either one of the answers to be correct. "

How many contradictions exist in the NT alone ?

Notice that the primary reason for the Gospels is not convince everyone (or else there wouldn't seem to be contradictions!) The primary reason of the Gospels is to introduce us to Jesus Christ.

How many reasons are you going to come up with for dodging the real question: If Jesus is God, then what does that mean for you?

[Lt_Ripley]

My point is that the same could be said about you. So who are you to accuse other beliefs of arrogance when you assert your own belief on them?

I don't think so. But then again, it didn't make sense to me until I actually realized that Jesus is God.

I'd like to quote Tim Keller on this:

"He (Richard Dawkins) and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.

Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian argumetns by what some have called "strong rationalism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience. What is meant by the word, "proved"? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so strong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.

Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosophers doin so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How coudl you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of experiences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Last Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go one way or the other.

I am talking of...the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true....It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God: I don't want the universe to be like that....I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God---anyone who, whatever his actual belief about the matter, doesn't particularly want either one of the answers to be correct. "

Notice that the primary reason for the Gospels is not convince everyone (or else there wouldn't seem to be contradictions!) The primary reason of the Gospels is to introduce us to Jesus Christ.

How many reasons are you going to come up with for dodging the real question: If Jesus is God, then what does that mean for you?

arrogance ? I'm not the one who thinks my beliefs are true ... that's you . I've always said I have my beliefs but am honest enough to admit there is no proof of God irregardless of my spiritual experiences.

Keller means squat to me ... why ? because I already 'get ' God. and there is no proof of God so the argument is moot. God could be nothing more than a feel good chemical reaction of the brain akin to chocolate , carbs and sex. people get addicted to feel good chemicals. With study that could be the proof .

Or God could reveal it's self to everyone at the same time... or heal an amputee... yet God never does. I guess God can't ?? Going by how pro active God is in the bible that should be no problem. Why would God be so reachable then and disappear now ? Makes no sense. But it does if you realize it's just stories , myths , man made opinions .

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. get it ?

I am not an atheist .. you seem to forget this !! I'm just being rational . logical.

I am not in fear of religion. I just don't want religious beliefs trying to run my life !! And they do. try to . pass laws affecting me. that's my start point. I also don't care for any religion that says it's 'the ' way. only way , right way. That is arrogance , pettiness , selfish pride , limited thinking , disrespectful of God by assuming you know Gods will . No one does.

God never said one needed Jesus to get to him. man did. God never said anyone needed religion. man did. God can speak to each of us for Gods' self. God doesn't need a mouth piece.

Jesus is no more God than you or I.

[Bluefinger]

arrogance ? I'm not the one who thinks my beliefs are true

Then why are you insisting that others are wrong? If you don't even believe your own beliefs are true, then why are you trying to prove other beliefs wrong?

... that's you . I've always said I have my beliefs but am honest enough to admit there is no proof of God irregardless of my spiritual experiences.

Either you have had your experience with God or not. No proof needs to be given here.

Keller means squat to me ... why ? because I already 'get ' God. and there is no proof of God so the argument is moot. God could be nothing more than a feel good chemical reaction of the brain akin to chocolate , carbs and sex. people get addicted to feel good chemicals. With study that could be the proof .

First you start off by saying that you 'get' God, but then you start listing a things that he could be? You don't seem so sure about your experience at all....

Or God could reveal it's self to everyone at the same time... or heal an amputee... yet God never does. I guess God can't ?? Going by how pro active God is in the bible that should be no problem. Why would God be so reachable then and disappear now ? Makes no sense. But it does if you realize it's just stories , myths , man made opinions .

Miracles happen all the time, just not in the land of skepticism. Why would God waste His time convincing you with a miracle if you're just going to write it off as a natural phenomenon?

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. get it ?

Of course I get it. That wasn't my point. My point was that your entire approach to religion was based on the very fact that you applied that reasoning to everyone but yourself. Once you do, you find that your approach to religion was to antagonistic and not sincerely concerned what others had to say. It's obvious rooted in your deep resentment for Christianity, and it fuels your reasoning.

I am not an atheist .. you seem to forget this !! I'm just being rational . logical.

Using the rationale and logic that atheists use to combat Christianity makes it seem so. You can't believe in a God that you have no proof of for others, but then insist that others show you proof.

I am not in fear of religion. I just don't want religious beliefs trying to run my life !! And they do. try to . pass laws affecting me.

But, lets reverse that. Are you not trying to pass laws that will affect religious people? What's offensive to you is perfectly alright with them. And what is perfectly alright with you is offensive to them.

that's my start point. I also don't care for any religion that says it's 'the ' way. only way , right way. That is arrogance , pettiness , selfish pride , limited thinking , disrespectful of God by assuming you know Gods will . No one does.

But you see here, you just stated what you believe. You just did the same thing you accused religion of doing. Is that not arrogant to do so? I'm not attacking you or your faith. What I'm doing is showing how smug your attitude toward other beliefs are while you hypocritically possess the same qualities.

God never said one needed Jesus to get to him. man did. God never said anyone needed religion. man did. God can speak to each of us for Gods' self. God doesn't need a mouth piece.

That is just stubborn futility. I understand your reasoning. If one spoke as though one religion was right, then it would seem arrogant to assume so. But isn't it also arrogant to assume that we can all make our own God up? Either there is one God, or no God. You can't have multiples....because a God is all-powerful. There can only be one 'all' powerful.

Jesus is no more God than you or I.

Why is this such a tough issue with you? You have all the access to God's grace, but yet you reject Him, insisting that you have no need for it. Is that really true?

[Beckys_Mom]

Why is this such a tough issue with you? You have all the access to God's grace, but yet you reject Him, insisting that you have no need for it. Is that really true?

Why is it such an issue for you blue? to preach back at her like this...as if she should accept your faith and follow your ideas, all because you make a choice

Why cant you just get to grips with the simple fact that not all of us believe jesus is god and wont believe it either....<---somehow, you ail to take this in

But, lets reverse that. Are you not trying to pass laws that will affect religious people? What's offensive to you is perfectly alright with them. And what is perfectly alright with you is offensive to them.

So what you are saying is...if they are IE - dead against her having a different sexuality then them, she may get offended, but its not offensive to the, BUT as she is ok with being who she is and being against the idea of her way of life being wrong, <---this offends them?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[Beckys_Mom]

There is a flaw in your statement, BM. Your statement is made from a position that states that your methodology is correct. You are saying that he isn't making wild claims of things, but if he were in any other country than the U.S., there is a good chance that his claims would be considered wild. This puts all beliefs in the same area, deserving each to be examined by its tenets, not its appeal. Remember, only a minority hold to the 'empirical' claim, and the majority of that minority rests in North America and Europe. This means that we have no reason to assume that the minority is correct and everyone is false when it comes to 'spiritual things.' They should be thoroughly examined, not pushed aside and scoffed at.

How can his claims be considered wild? If he state - there is no way you can prove god <----not a wild claim, its a FACT

But see we all know what christians thought of - Galileo's so called WILD claims..and what they did to him....hmmm?

[Bluefinger]

How can his claims be considered wild? If he state - there is no way you can prove god <----not a wild claim, its a FACT

Oh, no. The claim that we need to prove God is a wild claim. There's no need to prove such a thing, because there is no proof that we need to need proof. We come up with holy wars and fanatics, but every belief has those. In the end, we have no proof that what we believe is provable. We take our beliefs on faith, even those who claim we need proof.

But see we all know what christians thought of - Galileo's so called WILD claims..and what they did to him....hmmm?

Galileo was a Christian himself. This proves not that Christians are opposed to wild claims, but that Christianity is self-critiquing. Some Christians do right, some do wrong. That's the point of Christianity, that none of us can merit God's favor. It is an act of grace.

[Beckys_Mom]

Oh, no. The claim that we need to prove God is a wild claim. There's no need to prove such a thing, because there is no proof that we need to need proof. We come up with holy wars and fanatics, but every belief has those. In the end, we have no proof that what we believe is provable. We take our beliefs on faith, even those who claim we need proof.

Galileo was a Christian himself. This proves not that Christians are opposed to wild claims, but that Christianity is self-critiquing. Some Christians do right, some do wrong. That's the point of Christianity, that none of us can merit God's favor. It is an act of grace.

Why is there no need to prove him? if that is the case.........why bother preaching to claim he even exists? I mean if there is no need? How else can you convince anyone god exists.....IF there is no need to prove god?

Let me tell you something, if there was an actual way to prove your faith was the right one for REAL ...as in actual fact real.......you would be all over it

[Bluefinger]

Why is it such an issue for you blue? to preach back at her like this...as if she should accept your faith and follow your ideas, all because you make a choice

I just find it odd that, even though it is clear in the Bible, many attempt to state it isn't. What is the angle for such denial?

Why cant you just get to grips with the simple fact that not all of us believe jesus is god and wont believe it either....<---somehow, you ail to take this in

I do, because the issue isn't being addressed. The Bible makes it clear that God came in the flesh and redeemed us. Why are people trying to make it seem as if it wasn't so? It doesn't make sense. Why the stubborn futility?

So what you are saying is...if they are IE - dead against her having a different sexuality then them, she may get offended, but its not offensive to the, BUT as she is ok with being who she is and being against the idea of her way of life being wrong, <---this offends them?

I think I understand your answer.? The Christians of old would be offended that such things as divorce, promiscuity, homosexual marriages, abortions, ect. become okay, when, for their entire lifetime, such a thing was unheard of. 50 years from now, people from this age will look at that age and be offended with their beliefs. That's all I'm saying.

[Bluefinger]

Why is there no need to prove him? if that is the case.........why bother preaching to claim he even exists? I mean if there is no need? How else can you convince anyone god exists.....IF there is no need to prove god?

Well, the way the Church did it when Jesus commissioned the apostles: They went out and preached. If people took interest, they told them more. If people didn't, they went on their way. It wasn't a matter of proof. There was power in the mere experience of understanding and believing in who Jesus was. That was proof enough.

Let me tell you something, if there was an actual way to prove your faith was the right one for REAL ...as in actual fact real.......you would be all over it

If I could prove it, it wouldn't be called faith.

[Leonardo]

My point is that the same could be said about you. So who are you to accuse other beliefs of arrogance when you assert your own belief on them?

I don't think so. But then again, it didn't make sense to me until I actually realized that Jesus is God.

I'd like to quote Tim Keller on this:

"He (Richard Dawkins) and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.

Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian argumetns by what some have called "strong rationalism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience.

The verification principle is, it seems, much misused. It does not state a proposition can only be believed unless it can be logically or empirically verified, but it attempts to define what can be known about a proposition. (Quite aside from the fact that the principle was proposed by a British Empiricist by the name of Alfred Ayer in 1936 and is not a product of Strong Rationalism.)

For example, the proposition "There is a God" is, according to the verification principle, true in the virtue of its meaning (i.e. the proposer believes there is a God). However, because we cannot logically or empirically verify the proposition, we can know neither the truth of what it proposes nor anything about the subject of the proposition (God).

Thus, Dawkins and his fellow skeptics are quite correct in their use of the verification principle, as they do not propose there is a God therefore expressing no belief in the subject. For them, the truth of the subject must be derived from an examination of the proposition and verification with logical reasoning or empirical evidence. Mr Keller is incorrect in his application of the principle, in that he assumes it denies belief. It does not.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Leonardo

[Beckys_Mom]

I just find it odd that, even though it is clear in the Bible, many attempt to state it isn't. What is the angle for such denial?

Too much of the bible does not add up.and no porrof of this jeus ever existing..and the facts that point out that christianity is a rip off faith........I could list you.......I cant ever allow myself to step inside the box again and just believe mans word on somehting that doesnt make sense or have any evidence...............A book that is full of holes and so flawed, can't have ever been written or inspired by an all knowing perfect being like god.......no way

Nothing you could say would make me think like wise........I will remain in DENIAL...because it just not logial enough for me to want to go back to what I was once taught

I do, because the issue isn't being addressed. The Bible makes it clear that God came in the flesh and redeemed us. Why are people trying to make it seem as if it wasn't so? It doesn't make sense. Why the stubborn futility?

It's only stubborn to you blue, because I think from outside the box.......and i don’t make the same choices as you......and I don’t allow myself to believe in the word of man because they said so

No one dictates to me how to follow god...........my faith is PERSONAL to me...and I take no directions for others

Have you any idea how man men have claimed that god speaks through them and they have to pass on messages? like god needs a middle man? god can't do this himself?.............Have you any idea how many men have in fact done this over the years? <-------------------------and I should just take it on board and not bother using my own brains to find my own way?

Nuts to that..I have a brain..and I will use it...........I do not need man to dictate how I should or should NOT follow god...........if I have been doing rather fine with my own path, and feel I have my own relationship with god, and god helps me <---------------I ask myself, why would god help me out so often, if I was NOT following him the right way?

[Beckys_Mom]

Well, the way the Church did it when Jesus commissioned the apostles: They went out and preached. If people took interest, they told them more. If people didn't, they went on their way. It wasn't a matter of proof. There was power in the mere experience of understanding and believing in who Jesus was. That was proof enough.

To sum that all up - Just go ahead and take some strangers word for it.........I say No thanks

[Lt_Ripley]

Then why are you insisting that others are wrong? If you don't even believe your own beliefs are true, then why are you trying to prove other beliefs wrong?

Either you have had your experience with God or not. No proof needs to be given here.

First you start off by saying that you 'get' God, but then you start listing a things that he could be? You don't seem so sure about your experience at all....

Miracles happen all the time, just not in the land of skepticism. Why would God waste His time convincing you with a miracle if you're just going to write it off as a natural phenomenon?

Of course I get it. That wasn't my point. My point was that your entire approach to religion was based on the very fact that you applied that reasoning to everyone but yourself. Once you do, you find that your approach to religion was to antagonistic and not sincerely concerned what others had to say. It's obvious rooted in your deep resentment for Christianity, and it fuels your reasoning.

Using the rationale and logic that atheists use to combat Christianity makes it seem so. You can't believe in a God that you have no proof of for others, but then insist that others show you proof.

But, lets reverse that. Are you not trying to pass laws that will affect religious people? What's offensive to you is perfectly alright with them. And what is perfectly alright with you is offensive to them.

But you see here, you just stated what you believe. You just did the same thing you accused religion of doing. Is that not arrogant to do so? I'm not attacking you or your faith. What I'm doing is showing how smug your attitude toward other beliefs are while you hypocritically possess the same qualities.

That is just stubborn futility. I understand your reasoning. If one spoke as though one religion was right, then it would seem arrogant to assume so. But isn't it also arrogant to assume that we can all make our own God up? Either there is one God, or no God. You can't have multiples....because a God is all-powerful. There can only be one 'all' powerful.

Why is this such a tough issue with you? You have all the access to God's grace, but yet you reject Him, insisting that you have no need for it. Is that really true?

I insist others are wrong when facts show they are.

There are no beliefs that can be true as in factual. they are just opinions .. all of them. including mine and yours.

I have had a couple experiences . but there is no proof . that is honest. I am as sure about my experience as anyone can be.... if honest ... there is no proof.

Miracles happen all the time, just not in the land of skepticism. Why would God waste His time convincing you with a miracle if you're just going to write it off as a natural phenomenon?

there is no proof miracles happen . that is a belief. not a fact. Just because things like cancer spontaneously heal does not mean it's a miracle. come back when an amputee regains their limb. now that would be a miracle.

Why shouldn't one expect more from God ?? if it can be written off as natural than that's exactly what it is.

Of course I get it. That wasn't my point. My point was that your entire approach to religion was based on the very fact that you applied that reasoning to everyone but yourself. Once you do, you find that your approach to religion was to antagonistic and not sincerely concerned what others had to say. It's obvious rooted in your deep resentment for Christianity, and it fuels your reasoning.

oh no ! I apply that very same reasoning to myself. that's why I can be honest and say God may not exist . that it's all opinion ... including mine. no fact or proof. means nothing more than opinion.

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not terrified my idea of God will change . I'm not terrified of looking at facts or that what I believe is ' attacked ' by those facts . I'm not stuck into one opinion man made about God so deep that when reason shows I can't look at it from another angle and even change my mind in what I believe ! My belief is fluid so it can grow. stagnation is surely death in one's beliefs because times change . we don't know the nature or mind of God if such a God exists. So if you can't change ? eventually you or that religion falls to the wayside , becomes bitter and angry that your beliefs are being attacked .............. just like your doing.

ridged buildings don't do well in earthquakes. neither does thinking that refuses to see facts.

you see antagonistic ... I see logical. I've heard what you have to say. you believe that your beliefs are fact and they are not. period. call it antagonistic call it reality.doesn't matter to me.

My resentment for christianity ( and other man made religions ) is their stupidity and ignorance. And since living in the US ... my focus is on christianity. since it is the one that most affects my life uninvited.

My point is you refuse to apply logic and reason at all. nor do you wish anyone too that is what has you on the defensive and angry.

Using the rationale and logic that atheists use to combat Christianity makes it seem so. You can't believe in a God that you have no proof of for others, but then insist that others show you proof.

this isn't just atheists that use reason and logic .. and I only ask for proof from those who ... claim they can prove it or have proof... and claim what they believe is fact.

Are you not trying to pass laws that will affect religious people? What's offensive to you is perfectly alright with them. And what is perfectly alright with you is offensive to them.

no. your ignorant on the matter. Laws will be passed to ensure equal rights . don't think people should have equal rights ? you can move. Equal rights is what this country is supposed to be about ... sadly of late it hasn't been. but that ignorant group will like anything negative and uneducated will fade away to a pesky weak minority . not unlike the KKK.

Difference ... I'm not taking anyone's equal rights away or denying them. Get it ?? yet ??

the only one trying to be smug is you . I'm just stating the obvious and the logical. your trying to win an argument you can't ever win. you have no facts. no proof. Like I said before I don't think my spiritual beliefs are facts ...... I have no proof. so I'm not being hypocritical.

That is just stubborn futility. I understand your reasoning. If one spoke as though one religion was right, then it would seem arrogant to assume so. But isn't it also arrogant to assume that we can all make our own God up? Either there is one God, or no God. You can't have multiples....because a God is all-powerful. There can only be one 'all' powerful.

you have no reason in your thinking here. at all. the only one who is futile is your stance. If one speaks as though their religion is right above others then yes that is arrogance. pure and simple.

we do as humans make up our own God all the time. no two thoughts or beliefs even in the same faith are exactly alike. like snowflakes. no one thinks exactly like you and no one thinks exactly like me. that isn't arrogant that's reasonable , logical.

Why can't there be multiple Gods ? you limit God already with your own thinking. How many sides to your personality do you have ? One ? or many. Could God wear many hats ?? or are you going to decide for God that God can't ?? you limit God.

I agree God is all powerful ... and all knowing and all loving. but even that is just my opinion. just like EVERYTHING about God that man thinks is ... just an opinion. nothing more.

The whole idea of God is made up. from earliest man on till now since we have no proof of God at all. SO IT'S ALL MADE UP BY MAN. and if according to the bible that you preach if indeed the kingdom of God is in all of us ( and I agree with a similar sentiment ) then not only can we devise our own idea of God but in effect we are God. . no arrogance at all. Only those who want people to think like they do would find it arrogant. so I take it you find it so.

Why is this such a tough issue with you? You have all the access to God's grace, but yet you reject Him, insisting that you have no need for it. Is that really true?

why is this such a tough issue for you ?? HMMMM fear. fear that what you believe is in fact just opinion. You've banked so much on it and the dice are turning up craps.

I have no need for Jesus or any religion. and God is ok with that .. God doesn't mind.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[Godsnmbr1]

why is this such a tough issue for you ?? HMMMM fear. fear that what you believe is in fact just opinion. You've banked so much on it and the dice are turning up craps.

While you've never taken a stand for any of your beliefs. How nice. You're just like a little walking breathing switzerland, aren't you? Enjoy the view from the sidelines.

[Lt_Ripley]

While you've never taken a stand for any of your beliefs. How nice. You're just like a little walking breathing switzerland, aren't you? Enjoy the view from the sidelines.

now your just being a small man.

my stance is being honest. we have no proof. no one does. yet I believe. that in it's self is a stand. It's just not the one you wish it to be. I've had to defend my position from many .