if god exists, hes kinda *not very nice*

[thalbergmad]

Where did all the dirt go if it was made by the Colorado River?

Berween your ears.

Or perhaps carried out into the ocean millions of years ago.

I don;t know really to be honest, but either or my answers are more probable than your 6,000 year old Earth bollocks and your geological theorems worked out using your absurd book.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Tompilk, I think you're right.  That not all sufferring comes from the same place and no two people suffer exactly the same.  I mean, the reason for the sufferring in Darfur?  Crazy lunatic terrorists.  Did G-d stop them?  Same thing for the holocaust.  G-d didn't stop it - therefore there is no G-d?  That's the belief of some and I didn't live through it so I can't say how I would react.  As I see it though, it is Satan's way of saying - 'see, I can give you enough pain to make you forsake your G-d.' 

But, Satan doesn't have control over death.  He wishes that he did, probably, but he doesn't.  And, He doesn't have control over our eternal destiny.  Until we realize it - how can we say for sure that 'there are pleasures forever more.'  What kind of pleasures could possibly be better than the ones while we're alive?  And, of course, we wonder - ok - if there are better pleasures - then what about the pain.  But, G-d says when death is gone - pain will also be gone.

A different plane of existence in the Spirit, I guess.  I believe there will not be any ability of the natural world to affect the spiritual.  Right now, i suppose that we are under the 'rule of death.'  What if we pass this (as with a race) and go to the finish line and then beyond it.  What is beyond the finish line.  That is what will determine whether you or i are right and if we really want the reward that is said to await us.  Jesus Christ said 'I go to prepare a place for you - and where I go you cannot - but I will return....'

Also, there is mention of a day of judgement.  That is not scary if you don't believe in G-d.  However the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a mite worrisome if you think about the ramifications of waiting in line for a 'lake of fire' - and i've never seen a person live through being burned up.  I mean, it would be like Moses burning bush if a person went in and came out.  They'd be eternal already and it wouldn't be a gift to have eternal life.  So...if you think about the slight chance that there IS a G-d, and you have any inkling of wanting to find out more about Him, you're more likely to find out about Him personally from Himself if you obey His word.

Otherwise, there's a slim chance in hell that you'll ever actually get to know Him.  I mean - He'll arrive.  Say, 'who's with me?'  Take the ones that are.   And, leave the rest to Satan.  Satan will say 'yoo hoo, follow me.'  And, he'll be laughing all the way. 

Dante's 'Inferno' - is an unlikely scenario actually.   It was probably a combo of fiction with biblical ideas added.  People always want to know the worst that is coming - but G-d is and was the same forever.  He is Himself called 'the Way and the Life.'  If He is not the way and the life - He would be a liar.  He doesn't concern Himself with death!  Since He is just, he allows us to judge ourselves according to His natural law and the biblical law combined.  The natural law seems to be if you kill someone- you're likely to get killed.  It's actually probably G-d backing up His own law.  He has a powerful army of angels and isn't scared to use them.  But, His means of peace are like a Shepherd with nothing but a staff.  He uses different methods for his sheep than the wolves.

oh.  I forgot to answer Thal.  What was the question?  The ridiculous book.  Hmmm.  As i see it, unless you can disprove some part of it - it's not ridiculous at all.  The three rivers that flowed out of Eden included the Tigris and Euphrates.  They're still here today.  That's a mite strange if it's all a story.  Who came up with the river names?  Probably Adam.  Well, that's all for now.

[mrba1979]

I don't see how suffering is man-caused. Tectonic plates is the traditional argument - I would say that it's sick and twisted (VERY unChristianly) to say that 100000's of people's deaths are due to sin...

First tectonic plates is the traditonal arugument??  Sorry, you will have to explain what you mean.  Secondly you brought sin into the argument and therefore by your own doing you have decreed yourself unchristian. Though this is something I am sure you would agree with.  I have purposly kept my spirtual affliations mute for the purposes of this discussion.  It is my visible oberservation that pain is what causes suffering whether physical and or emotional.  Man/Woman can directly cause suffering to another through pain.  Again a direct observation.  However we also weep for loved ones who have died, for those who have been hurt by others, or even by natural forces.  Do we not suffer becuase of these instances, but here the context of suffering differs into what can be considered a healthy form of suffering.  In all types of suffering though its a direct action of man/woman either by reaction to painfull situations or experienceing pain in a primary situation.

[/quote]The alternative interpretation is if you mean that suffering is just a result of human consciousness, then I'd argue that this is what makes us able to believe and worship a god. A circular argument, no?[/quote]

I do not reject this premise, but I am not sure how it is an argument.  If we did not have this consciousness then our converstaion would be more like this, "EEk!  Ek!,  EEEEEK!"  In case you wondering it supposed to sound like a monkey wanting to meet at the bannana tree.

Pianistimo my goal is to have a discussion in both directions.  The argument goes back and forth between believers believing and non believers not believing.  For the most part it is a one sided conversation.  I simply want to change focus.  If you are an athiest or in contemplation of such ideology vs theology what exactly does this entail?  What does it mean to lead a good life?  I am trying to develop a genuine discussion on the subject.

[tompilk]

mrba: by tectonic plates, i meant that earthquakes cause huge amounts of suffering on innocent people. If god is omnipotent, why would he let satan do that? pianistmo has already said that god rules over satan... and it's the very structure of the earth we are talking about... inbuilt instability.
pianistmo brought sin into the conversation, actually. I think i'm missing a technicality - how am I declaring myself "unchristian" when I mention sin? and saying that suffering is a reaction to experiencing pain is true, but i don't see how this answers the question of how god allows this, if he exists. My other statement was just to cover the other possibility because your initial statement about the causes of suffering were ambiguous.
The other point is that we don't have the freedom of other animals, which are not able to "do wrong" morally. Surely this is better?

Pianistmo: why would satan want to make non-christians forsake their non-god? for instance, any atheist or person who has not been exposed to a religion who dies in a natural disaster? your point about satan making people forsake god also is so wrong, I believe, because that is from the view point of the observer, not the people killed in the event. To me, it seems deeply disturbing for someone to believe that millions of people have died to encourage us to believe in a god that lets this happen...
I agree that the divine comedy is a work of fiction... i don't think many people disagree with that.
I don't understand why he doesn't reveal himself to us all, and solve this mess once and for all...

[mrba1979]

"I don't see how suffering is man-caused. Tectonic plates is the traditional argument - I would say that it's sick and twisted (VERY unChristianly) to say that 100000's of people's deaths are due to sin..."~tompilk

 I was only pointing out, based on your atheistic comments, you have a preconceived notion of Christianity having some moral ground.  Perhaps I was a little over dramatic for the sake of entertainment, but I was under the assumption you where directing this comment to me when I have tried not to drag religion into this.  Basically I was just returning the favor.

   
   

[tompilk]

sorry, i was just putting forward my view of the first post in the thread. i didn't mean to direct it at anyone specifically...

[lostinidlewonder]

Not all Christians believe that if you die it is because of sin. The bible is clear that it is possible to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or suffer unfortunate circumstance, just look at the boy who fell asleep, toppling out the high window and dying when Jesus was talking late into the night. Sure Christ saved him, but this shows that even the innocent die unfortunately! It is not as if God forsakes us, however non believers, who have no reverence for God in the first place, take delight in using this information to disprove or add weight against the existence of God.

God is the clockmaker, he has set everything in motion and sits back and watches us. God is not in action in our world today, but he is in action through his servants.

[mrba1979]

sorry, i was just putting forward my view of the first post in the thread. i didn't mean to direct it at anyone specifically...

No need to apologize, I was not offended.  I am just responding to what you alleged since this is a debate. I have another question.  Is this topic of suffering paramount to whether you believe in God or not?  I am not just addressing this to tompilk. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Is this topic of suffering paramount to whether you believe in God or not?

I think suffering is a constant in all lives. Thus it is important for the believer and non believer to deal with. The non believer deals with suffering on their own term, the believer "enjoys" the suffering because they can relate to the suffering of Christ. Shall we not sip the cup of suffering God has given us?

[timothy42b]

Not all Christians believe that if you die it is because of sin.

Quite true. 

There is however a substantial and very vocal minority who believes physical death did not exist for man, plants, or animals until Adam's fall.  The majority of Christians think that is silly and that the death brought about by sin is metaphorical and/or in an after life, but I'm not sure how large that majority is.  Logically it would seem hard to support that position, because then Christ's salvation should have reversed the process and ended physical death, and that doesn't seem to have happened.  I would guess pianistimo falls within the vocal minority segment. 

There is also a substantial and vocal minority who proclaim publically that disasters are God's punishment for our sinfullness.  You see them on television every time there's a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, etc.  This seems a little silly to me as well, as there seems little point in punishing so many of the innocent along with the guilty, but these people feel strongly about it. 

[timothy42b]

Dante's 'Inferno' - is an unlikely scenario actually.   It was probably a combo of fiction with biblical ideas added. 

Correct, fiction based on the book of Enoch. 

By the way, if I could suggest something?  This is a religious thread so your postings here should be welcome by all.  But most of us can only read so many words before glazing over, so if you really want to get your point across, shorter is better. 

[pianistimo]

Ok.  Shorter!  Even though Lostinindlewonder and I disagree on a few points - the main points that he makes I heartily agree with and our disagreements may be minor to G-d. Lostinidle mentioned that we are 'servants' of G-d if we put ourselves in submission of His will.  Sometimes, his will is that we suffer for a time.  Joseph, Daniel, Jesus Christ (to name a few) all sufferred willingly and received a 'reward.'  The highest reward given was to Jesus Christ who died once for all - so that all can live.  He is now our King and High Priest and has proven himself 'worthy.'  If G-d isn't very nice - it certainly isn't because he made provision so that 'all can live.'  There is a bible verse that says 'the soul that sins shall die' - but, I think what Lostinidlewonder may be saying is that:  sure, sin makes us die in this life - but not the next.  If Jesus Christ redeemed us - we aren't really going to die!!  We have been 'redeemed.'  So...if we die in an earthquake, by a heart attack, even by a murder - we are still awaiting a ressurrection of the dead.

The test of G-d to see if people have faith is sometimes adversity.  That way He knows we don't worship Him only because he has 'the goods' - but because we honestly love Him.

On the other hand, there is a certain element of truth, too - when a baby dies or a child who is disabled and has not known the laws of G-d to decide whether he/she would choose to follow them or not.  Or, someone who never knew.  G-d is always fair.  There are places in Isaiah that say that in the ressurrection babies and children will play freely and even the wild animals will be tame.  Now, this seems far-fetched - but it is through the Holy Spirit that the words of the bible were given.  For inspiration, doctrine, for reproof and instruction in 'righteousness.'

[pianistimo]

In Mitchner's 'Chesapeake' - the Great God is called 'Manitou' by the werowance.  They say "Manitou gave this river everything, and then one thing more, the crab.  Well, when that was done He said, 'Now I will keep men from becoming arrogant,' and He threw in the mosquito.  Why?  To remind us that He can do anything He pleases, and we have to like it."

I suppose that we could add in things like grizzly bears, lions, snakes, spiders.  We could do without them easily - but they are there like some sort of obstacle to be overcome in this life or to move out of their territory.  It is likely that the bear will take over the city of Anchorage soon.

Since at the beginning of time, man was told he was 'in charge.'  Now things change and in Colorado and Alaska many policies favor the wolves and bears over humans.  This seems strange.  But, then again - maybe G-d is in favor of gun ownership after all?  Or at least tranquilizer guns. 

You know tranquilizers might even work on terrorists.  We could put them together with the wild animals and call it a day.  Of course, that in itself is a terrorist action - so i suppose it wouldn't be very nice.  How about just penning them near each other? 

[thalbergmad]

Do tranquilizers work on you?

I bet you get through a lot of them during the week.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Yeah - i use hard tranquilizers all the time.  It's my drug of choice.

Actually, I'm waiting for my hubby to come home and make a marguerita with contreau and lime.

[thalbergmad]

Interesting, i thought that you were addicted to some form of drugs.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Addicted to drugs?  Not in a million years.  I have enough problems at times.  Why add to them?  I mean - can you imagine if i were?  Do you think I'm hard to take now?  What if i were on drugs.  I could hardly vouch for your safe passage here in PA. 

Thal, prick your finger again and see if your blood sugar is low.  I think you take it out on people when you're insulin deprived.

[thalbergmad]

Thal, prick your finger again and see if your blood sugar is low.  I think you take it out on people when you're insulin deprived.

I take it you are "on the blob" to come out with such a post.

Perhaps i should keep a diary of your menstrual cycles, so as to warn me when best not to answer your posts.

Thal

[pianistimo]

I think it is you that is *not very nice*

Tell me, what do you do to make yourself happy?  What happened to all those dreams of yours.  You know - climbing mt. blanc, etc.  OK If i was your psychologist (thank G-d I'm not) - I'd tell you to quit haranguing on other people and go do something productive.

[morningstar]

At least arguing is more productive than what was happening earlier...lol. BTW I'm thinking arguing with people IS what makes sir Thal happy.

[mrba1979]

and saying that suffering is a reaction to experiencing pain is true, but i don't see how this answers the question of how god allows this, if he exists.

Your question then is actually two different questions.  First question.  Why does God allow suffering?  Second question.  If he does not exist then who or what is to blame for suffering?

The second question you answered yourself or at least agreed with me in part.  See above quote.

The first question well that is a whole different post and there has been much literature written on it.  I suggest if you haven't already seek out the answer. 

Both questions lead to my original point which is suffering is not a litmus test for or against God's existence.

O.K. I have exhausted this particular argument so I will let you have the last rebuttal.

The other point is that we don't have the freedom of other animals, which are not able to "do wrong" morally. Surely this is better?

This is why I was interested in discussing life from an atheists point of view. 
It is not a question of being better, but whether this is true.  Now I will fully confess I do believe in God. I won't however endorse a religion. I agree with you that scripture/theology is for those who believe.  However I was atheistic at one time, and spent a great amount of time soul searching through research.  Since this lead is about God's existence I feel it is appropriate to share some of my observations.

I read many good arguments by several authors which I did not have an answer for at the time as to why God does not exist.  However if it was an article and or a book a portion of it was often dedicated to this idea of secular spiritualism.  At first I thought this was a bit hypocritical.  How in one hand can I be convinced God does not exist, and yet speak of any type of spirituality.  In order to have spirituality one must initially believe in a spirit.  What I started to realize though that it was not necessarily hypocrisy, but perhaps an unseen truth. After all had been stripped away I could see what could not be seen.  I think we see this in ourselves whether we are aware of it or not.  Example:  Gyzzzmo you mentioned earlier something about living a good life and then being worm/plant food. If you lived a bad life and became worm food would it matter?

OK very tired now and will finish later if anyone is still interested.


 

[mrba1979]

Opps! Sorry for incorrectly posting with an insert quote.  Hope it is not to confusing.

[mrba1979]

Opps! Sorry for incorrectly posting with an insert quote.  Hope it not to confusing.

Never mind I figured out how to modify my post sorry if this was confusing.  Very tired going to bed now.

[timothy42b]

Now I will fully confess I do believe in God. I won't however endorse a religion. I agree with you that scripture/theology is for those who believe.  However I was atheistic at one time, and spent a great amount of time soul searching through research.  Since this lead is about God's existence I feel it is appropriate to share some of my observations.

You asked if anybody was interested.
  Yes. 
This is an intriguing comment.  You may or may not be aware but the "atheist converts to Christianity after researching the evidence" theme is a constant one among the more conservative Christian evangelists.  Actually it's second only to "atheist converts to fundamentalist Christianity after attempting to disprove God and failing." 

While I'm not sure where you fall in these categories, it would be interesting if you could discuss this further.  You see, we haven't actually been able to verify a single atheistic conversion.  All of the public cases are suspect.  They involve people who'd been involved in evangelistic fundamentalistic Christian congregations their entire lives, and when they'd somehow become more serious equated that to being converted atheists.  There are classic examples:  CS Lewis, who'd been a cradle Anglican/Episcopalian, changed from lukewarm to fervent believer later in life and is widely declared to be an atheist conversion;  Josh McDowell, the famous apologist, who attended Bible college and graduated from seminary prior to his conversion.  Neither is a clean example for the case, obviously. 

Hope you don't mind my asking. 

[gyzzzmo]

I think we see this in ourselves whether we are aware of it or not.  Example:  Gyzzzmo you mentioned earlier something about living a good life and then being worm/plant food. If you lived a bad life and became worm food would it matter?

I dont think it would matter. If i thought it WOULD matter then i would be thinking that there was a 'higher something' that could judge us. But i dont.

But i'm trying to live a good life because that lets me feel good. And that is because how i was raised, thus a psychological reason, no heavenly one.

Btw, Spiritualism and true Atheism do go together. After all, both groups believe in something that cannot be proven. I dont believe in a god, but i do realise that i can never know 100%. That makes me a liberal heathen i suppose .  But your searching to the unknonwn (religion) doesnt have to be spiritualism either, i would call that plain curiousity. But what kind of religious people did you become? you feel attracted to christianity, or something else?

[thalbergmad]

I think it is you that is *not very nice*

Tell me, what do you do to make yourself happy?  What happened to all those dreams of yours.  You know - climbing mt. blanc, etc.  OK If i was your psychologist (thank G-d I'm not) - I'd tell you to quit haranguing on other people and go do something productive.

I am not very nice when confronted with blinkered fanatics like you and yes haranguing you is not productive and does not make me happy.

Many things make me happy, but i would guess that only 2 things make you happy.

1. Writing deluded sh*t on forums.
2. Going to church.

You are the worst example of just what religion can do to a person once it takes a grip on their every existing minute.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Suzan, you have the same way of mindlessly following a religion as any terrorist. Also your posts about religion lack all ways of reasoning wich makes you scary and annoying. That's what make people pissed.

Gyzzzmo

[thalbergmad]

She would make a very good terrorist as i think her innocent face would not be suspected as one about to set off a bomb.

With her reasoning, i do not think she is that far removed from someone who would extinguish the lifes of others in the name of their God.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

She would make a very good terrorist as i think her innocent face would not be suspected as one about to set off a bomb.

With her reasoning, i do not think she is that far removed from someone who would extinguish the lifes of others in the name of their God.

Thal

It is actually very likely that if Pianistimo would have been born in Iraq or w/e, she would have blown herself up for the cause of Allah.

PS for Pianistimo: We dont think you are a terrorist  , but it is your mindless way of following things what drives terrorists to blow themselves up for the 'holy cause'.

[lostinidlewonder]

PS for Pianistimo: We dont think you are a terrorist  , but it is your mindless way of following things what drives terrorists to blow themselves up for the 'holy cause'.

I don't think that Pianistimo represents an extremist perspective. Those type of people are perhaps the ones who drink the poisonous sports drink in hope to catch that comet that is flying past.

[timothy42b]

I don't think that Pianistimo represents an extremist perspective. Those type of people are perhaps the ones who drink the poisonous sports drink in hope to catch that comet that is flying past.

Whether it is extremist is a matter of definition, surely.  What is factual is that the religious views she has expressed here are standard mainstream views in any of the more conservative fundamentalist Christian denominations, like the SBC or any of the independent "Bible" churches.  They would differ of course from more standard mainstream views of typical groups like Lutherans, Methodists, Presby's, etc.  And they are far short of the more fundagelic groups like Rev Phelps, or the snake handlers, etc. 

The fact that her posts tend towards extreme lengths with large logic gaps is mostly due to personality factors, not extreme beliefs.  It is easy to confuse the two. 

[mrba1979]

You asked if anybody was interested.
  Yes. 
This is an intriguing comment.  You may or may not be aware but the "atheist converts to Christianity after researching the evidence" theme is a constant one among the more conservative Christian evangelists.  Actually it's second only to "atheist converts to fundamentalist Christianity after attempting to disprove God and failing." 

While I'm not sure where you fall in these categories, it would be interesting if you could discuss this further.  You see, we haven't actually been able to verify a single atheistic conversion.  All of the public cases are suspect.  They involve people who'd been involved in evangelistic fundamentalistic Christian congregations their entire lives, and when they'd somehow become more serious equated that to being converted atheists.  There are classic examples:  CS Lewis, who'd been a cradle Anglican/Episcopalian, changed from lukewarm to fervent believer later in life and is widely declared to be an atheist conversion;  Josh McDowell, the famous apologist, who attended Bible college and graduated from seminary prior to his conversion.  Neither is a clean example for the case, obviously. 

Hope you don't mind my asking. 

I do not mind, and nothing different to offer as far as having a religious back round.  If it helps I am not a fundamentalist (This is not an admonishment to the fundamentalists.  I simply never was one, but answers Tim's question)   Also I used the term atheistic because I did not want to claim full atheism.  It was a daily struggle between the two ideologies for a long time. However I would prefer to keep my personal religion to myself and or the community I live with in because this discussion is relevant to all back rounds.  Also religion itself is a whole different forum.  In fact I do not view this discussion as debate between God existing and not existing.  I also have nothing to write which can establish God's existence to anyone.  I am quite sure that no one will change there opinion of anything after reading this.  What I am trying to point out is that atheism requires a certain amount of belief as well and not entirely based on pure observation.

After all, both groups believe in something that cannot be proven. I dont believe in a god, but i do realise that i can never know 100%.

Illustrates my point.

Btw, Spiritualism and true Atheism do go together.

Actually this leads well into my next point.  When I said I thought it was at first a hypocrisy to say this I was leaning further towards being atheistic.  I wish I could remember the book I read, but it was a well known university physicist using physic applications to demonstrate how God was a technical impossibility.  Very well written (Plus I love physics.  Wish I had more time for it).  However at the end he devotes a chapter to secular spirituality.  I understand that he was addressing a spirituality not in terms related to an actual spirit with in us, but trying to give meaning to our consciousness.  This was on odd idea, actually it made me frustrated.  How can he as an atheist (or other works I have read) give any significance to our consciousness other than it was a necessary biological process to our survival which most of his work was trying to set up.  I am sorry but to me that is a contradiction.

Often atheism is argued from the perspective that life is a chance happening, and perhaps even reproducible elsewhere in the universe.  I think this even came up earlier in this lead.  In my line of questioning this would mean that life arouse out of nothingness, randomness, or perhaps chaos if you will.  It would also mean that secular spiritualism, atheistic morality, religious morality is all from randomness and chaos.  Then what we do in life actually has no significance at all, and our consciousness accounts for nothing.  I was o.k. with this for awhile.  In fact it was a relief.  As again gyzzzmo points out:

"But i'm trying to live a good life because that lets me feel good......If i thought it WOULD matter then i would be thinking that there was a 'higher something' that could judge us."

Also note I have never mentioned anything about a divine judge.  You brought that yourself into our discussion.  I know it is based on your concept of what you know of religions, but it was interesting how you put it in context with "if I thought it would matter."

What I eventually came to realize however is if our actions mean nothing then they really mean nothing.  I need to preface my next thought with saying actions are not equal in the way they impact our lives and environment.  What I am saying is there is no difference in how to perceive our actions.  Forgive me for being vulgar but the rape and murder of a woman would be of no different significance than the rehabilitation center who compassionately tries to cater their wounds.  I picked an extreme point but this also applies to our own mundane actions. 

Gyzzzmo sorry to pick on you some more but you started a lead comparing Bush to Hitler.  Again I am not interested in that debate, but you were making moral judgments.  Good!  I am glad you can do that, you understand that certain actions are unacceptable.  You do see the unseen.  How though does this fit into:

"But i'm trying to live a good life because that lets me feel good. And that is because how i was raised, thus a psychological reason, no heavenly one."

Are not both Bush and Hitlers reasons psychological.  Were they and are they not trying to live a good life in their eyes.

To all of you who have delineated to Christianity and its violent history(though not the only religion with violent history).  Good!  Again I say you are able to see the same in which I see.  Do I dare say evil?  This is what I saw and therefore could never fully embrace atheism and also demonstrates my original point atheism is a belief as well.  Therefore I had to find or if you will rediscover a belief which rings truth for me.

Again I apologize for the length of my post.  I hope everyone's eyes do not glaze over. 

[lostinidlewonder]

The fact that her posts tend towards extreme lengths with large logic gaps is mostly due to personality factors, not extreme beliefs.  It is easy to confuse the two. 

And a reason why I thought it going too far to consider if she was a Muslim that she would go around blowing herself up.

[pianistimo]

Which brand of Christianity is violent?  Jesus Christ put the ear back on the soldier whom his disciple had whacked off - and told him to pipe down.  All the disciples were either murdered or put in jail. The remaining ones had to flee to other countries and seek refuge.  It is thought that pretty much all the disciples that were left were forced to go 'underground.'  Yes.  Even inhabit areas that were reserved as 'catecombs.'

All through time, Christians are persecuted.  They are being persecuted for holding fast to what is true and disproving what is false.  That they are not 'soldiers for christ' in the sense of killing others.  They are soldiers by holding fast to a 'gospel of the kingdom.'  That this world isn't the end-all of governments and that a kingdom will be set up that is everlasting.

Now, there is another Church that believes it is already here - and has made that claim down through the ages.  That peace on earth can be accomplished without Jesus Christ.  They have literally changed the 'line of David' by asking the Ireland antiquities to erase Jesus Christ from the lineage of kings - which before the Irish kings was part of the lineage that Solomon set up.  Guess that popes and kings don't really get along - especially when Jesus Christ is both King AND priest.  Something a pope will never be in the 'real world' to come.

Let me say it to you straight.  The Christianity that brought the invasions of the Muslim world were Catholic.  OK.  Plain and simple. 

PS speaking of catecombs - can you imagine of the purpose of the music of mussorgksy's 'pictures at an exhibition' were combined with the reign of Jesus Christ and the walking through the gate were the welcoming of Jesus Christ to the temple!?!

[G.W.K]

Please pianistimo, give it a rest. If anyone wants to talk to you about this: surely they can do it in a Personal Message? You have probably offended every single person here at some point, even indirectly.

Please listen to this, instead of completely ignoring it because you cannot think of a decent reply. I'm not trying to be evil or satanic, I'm trying to cater for all interests.

(Plus I'm sick of hearing about this. There is loopholes all the way through it, just be open-minded and you'll see them!)

You have voiced your opinion many times. Everyone is allowed "free speech" correct? Well, listen to us for a change...instead of constantly dismissing anything non-believers or people you disagree with say.

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

Let them be offended.  That's the right we have to free speech.  I have been offended numerous times by the start of threads that say 'if G-d exists, he's not very nice.'  How nice is that to say?

Let me tell it to you straight again.  The Pope has no right to Address the UN on behalf of ALL christians.  We don't accept his message.  At least the part of us that are PROTESTANT.  Our basis is not according to the pope's law.  They actually have a judicial system within the Vatican - YES because it is a STATE.  An OFFICIAL STATE.

Now, where is the PROTESTANT STATE?  NOWHERE!  THis is an offence and anathama.

Also, secular religion focuses on the rights of FREE SPEECH in that if anyone speaks against 'the beast' (the government) they are stymied by internet laws that are beginning to pop up at a very fast pace.  Here is an article that explains this lack of free speech for christians: https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83156

[thalbergmad]

Which brand of Christianity is violent?  

The brand that Bush & Blair belong to.

Your problem is that you cannot see any fault in your own back yard.

Thal

[G.W.K]

Let them be offended.  That's the right we have to free speech.  I have been offended numerous times by the start of threads that say 'if G-d exists, he's not very nice.'  How nice is that to say?

Let me tell it to you straight again.  The Pope has no right to Address the UN on behalf of ALL christians.  We don't accept his message.  At least the part of us that are PROTESTANT.  Our basis is not according to the pope's law.  They actually have a judicial system within the Vatican - YES because it is a STATE.  An OFFICIAL STATE.

Now, where is the PROTESTANT STATE?  NOWHERE!  THis is an offence and anathama.

Also, secular religion focuses on the rights of FREE SPEECH in that if anyone speaks against 'the beast' (the government) they are stymied by internet laws that are beginning to pop up at a very fast pace.  Here is an article that explains this lack of free speech for christians: https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83156

So, I assume you are a Protestant? Don't Catholic's have the right to say their views also? You are SO close-minded! You want to mingle with other protestants? Go to Northern Ireland. Join the UDA and fight for Protestant rights, if it'll bloody please you.

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

We don't accept his message. 

And i don't accept yours, albeit you don't exactly have a meaningful message amongst the pages of garbage that you have infested this forum with.

Who exactly are "we". Are you a church leader or someone of importance?.

No, you are just a feeble minded middleaged house wife living a plain and boring existance who has lost the ability to think and reason.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Gyzzzmo sorry to pick on you some more but you started a lead comparing Bush to Hitler.  Again I am not interested in that debate, but you were making moral judgments.  Good!  I am glad you can do that, you understand that certain actions are unacceptable.  You do see the unseen.  How though does this fit into:
Are not both Bush and Hitlers reasons psychological.  Were they and are they not trying to live a good life in their eyes.

ill get a short answer
I actually wasnt really making a moral judgement. It is more that i wanted to show that everybody sees dictators (like hitler for example) like the big bad men of history, but that Bush his actions had alot of simularities (but then a modern variant), although Bush can get away with it, wich is strange.

About moral...
I do believe that we all have no purpose and that doesnt really matter what we do, we all die eventually.
But doing the 'right' thing (the thing you call 'moral') is actually only a way of fitting in. That way you could call 'moral' even Darwinistic since in general the people who fit in the system better, have a bigger chance to survive (and create more offspring).
So to my humble opinion theres nothing spiritual about moral. Moral is the logical thing to do if you want to have better survival chances.

Gyzzzmo

[mrba1979]

ill get a short answer
I actually wasnt really making a moral judgement. It is more that i wanted to show that everybody sees dictators (like hitler for example) like the big bad men of history, but that Bush his actions had alot of simularities (but then a modern variant), although Bush can get away with it, wich is strange.

So then you personally don't care that they are the "big bad men of history", but are only trying to draw similarities so Bush wont get away with it?

[gyzzzmo]

So then you personally don't care that they are the "big bad men of history", but are only trying to draw similarities so Bush wont get away with it?

I just find it strange.

[mrba1979]

OK?

This has been an interesting discussion.  Thank You

[G.W.K]

This has been an interesting discussion.  Thank You

Glad someone found this interesting.

G.W.K

[gyzzzmo]

OK?

This has been an interesting discussion.  Thank You

That you find this strange is exactly the reason why you're religious and i'm the heathen :p

[pianistimo]

I wish to clarify my position so that there can be no doubt as to the general term Protestant and the many Protestant doctrines and religions that buy into the Catholic system.  Before AD 351 - Christians all kept the Seventh Day Sabbath.  There was no 'blue law' excepting after AD 351 when the Catholic Church declared Sunday to be 'the day of the Lord.

Now, despite accepting this 'day of the Lord' from the Catholics - the Protestants did not accept the idea of the Pope, Indulgences, worship of Mary, etc.  Some of the Quakers and Seventh Day Baptists in our early American Colonies, however, did keep the original seventh day Sabbath that Jesus Christ and the apostles kept.

So...to clarify - there are protestants that simply 'protest' that the Catholic Church speaks for them.  And, interestingly there has been an acknowledgement by John Shea (a high ranking catholic priest) that the Sunday Laws belong soley to the Catholic Church.  This is an interesting admission.

He writes:  'That Sunday, as a day of the week set apart for the obligatory worhip of the Almighty G-d.... is purely a creation of the Catholic Church....It is not the Jewish Sabbath and it is in fact entirely distanced from it and not governed by the enactments of the Mosaic law.' 

So...we have in our country supposedly separation of Church and State - UNLIKE Vatican State which is now soul and spirit or Church and State together and bound by secular law!  What will keep this secular and spiritual law from creating more 'blue laws' as are already kept in places in the USA!  https://www.worldincrisis.org/NSLC/NSLC-9.htm

The idea behind the Catholic Church merging is to have world influence in politics https://www.vatican.va/vatican_city_state/legislation/index.htm  However, i don't see a way that they can possibly say that it should be introduced in the USA (unless all become Catholic) because the Constitution gives us all a right to freedom of religion.

Now, this freedom of religion is obviously not part of Vatican State.  In fact, the laws are bound by Italian law and somehow made more justifiable by having 71 embassies for foreigners and 'representing' 175 countries that are likely as not to be entirely CATHOLIC.  How fair is that?  Well, according to the US Constitution, it does not represent any sort of minorities in thinking - however, it claims to bring justice to minorities and poor.

The poor are granted indulgences for BECOMING CATHOLIC.  Now, if i was poor and uneducated I would probably go for an indulgence over killing someone in the Muslim faith to have 7 virgins meet me in heaven.  After all, i am not THAT scatterbrained.  However, indulgences have changed now in that you can simply do something for the church and be granted them.  They are easier to get now.  I daresay that if you cover up a homosexual relationship between a priest and a parishoner - you might get a sizeable indulgence.

Well, that's enough for now.  Hope that you all have a nice day. And, don't forget!!! Today is the REAL Sabbath day.  The one Jesus kept.

[ahinton]

Which brand of Christianity is violent?

You answer this yourself later in your own post when you opine
Let me say it to you straight.  The Christianity that brought the invasions of the Muslim world were Catholic.  OK.  Plain and simple.
I rest my case - or rather yours - or at least I would if your case actually was a case...

Jesus Christ put the ear back on the soldier whom his disciple had whacked off - and told him to pipe down.

So Jesus Christ had the medical expertise to sew this ear back on, did He? He must have had immense prescience to be able to predict how present-day surgeons might do this, but what He didn't have was the kind of hospital facilities and equipment that would have enabled Him to do anything of the kind. I do wish that you would therefore desist from insulting Jesus Christ in this cavalier manner.

All the disciples were either murdered or put in jail. The remaining ones had to flee to other countries and seek refuge.  It is thought that pretty much all the disciples that were left were forced to go 'underground.'  Yes.  Even inhabit areas that were reserved as 'catecombs.'

"Catacombs", Susan - your spelling might be leading you to confuse these with "catechisms". OK - so even if what you say is correct, what is the point that you might make here? This happened - if indeed it actually did - many centuries ago and, whilst that fact does not necessarily of itself render it unimportant, you should tell us why you are writing about it here and then try to draw a persuasive and meaningfully (as distinct from merely fancifully) constructed conclusion therefrom.

All through time, Christians are persecuted.  They are being persecuted for holding fast to what is true and disproving what is false.  That they are not 'soldiers for christ' in the sense of killing others.  They are soldiers by holding fast to a 'gospel of the kingdom.'  That this world isn't the end-all of governments and that a kingdom will be set up that is everlasting.

Christians have obviously, by definition, been persecuted only since the death of Christ. Not all Christians have been so persecuted in any case. Furthermore, as I have told you previously, Christians have no exclusive rights to claims to having been victims of persecution. Please remember that and let it temper what you write (some hopes!)...

Now, there is another Church that believes it is already here - and has made that claim down through the ages.  That peace on earth can be accomplished without Jesus Christ.  They have literally changed the 'line of David' by asking the Ireland antiquities to erase Jesus Christ from the lineage of kings - which before the Irish kings was part of the lineage that Solomon set up.  Guess that popes and kings don't really get along - especially when Jesus Christ is both King AND priest.  Something a pope will never be in the 'real world' to come.

Here you reveal some of your specific Christian particularity - and it, rather than God, strikes me as "not very nice"...

Let me say it to you straight.  The Christianity that brought the invasions of the Muslim world were Catholic.  OK.  Plain and simple. 

I have dealt with this already; you have here declared your bigoted anti-Catholic allegiances just about as effectively as you can, thereby insulting many genuine devout practising Christians who love Jesus Christ and his example and just happen to follow the Roman Catholic sector of that faith. Who do you think you are to do this? I presume that there is a moratorium on the performance of any of Messiaen's piano music in your home...

Susan, I have no patience with people who are rude to you for what you do here, but at the same time I have to tell you that, in all too much of your posting here, you dismay me.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I wish to clarify my position

I fear that you have done this already in graphic detail...

Well, that's enough for now.

Far more than that, I would say.

Hope that you all have a nice day.

Thank you for your moment of grace here.

And, don't forget!!! Today is the REAL Sabbath day.  The one Jesus kept.

We are NOT, repeat - N O T - all Christians here, Susan - still less your particular type of Protestant Christian - so PLEASE (mon Dieu, I'm using your capitals!) stop writing as though we either are or should be. You keep your Sabbath. Let others keep theirs or, as in my case, watch others keeping theirs if I just so happen to be looking in an appropriate direction at the time. To be more serious, any time of day or night when one is conscious can in some way be sacred, surely?

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Which brand of Christianity is violent?  

Uh, pianistimo, YOUR brand.  You have publically supported the war in Iraq here many, many times, as well as the administration that brought it about.  There has never been a hint of regret. 

Sorry to pick on you, but the more conservative the brand of Christianity, the more bloodthirsty.  Give me the Catholics anyday. 

[pianistimo]

Supported the war in iraq?  How.  I didn't vote for it.  It was a unilateral decision done before any of the American public even knew about it.  However, once your country decides an important decision like this - you have to think 'what knowledge did they have to make them act in haste?'

The only thing I can come up with is that thousands of Kurds had recently been killed by Chemical warfare.  The same kind that Iraq could STILL have if Saddam Hussein was in power.  Remember - he was moving his missles all over the place.

Now, Israel is important strategically to the USA.  And, visa-versa.  Some think we went in for oil.  if that was truly the case - why would we be paying so much for gas this summer that practically all of us are homeless?  It WASN't OIL.  We value the land of Israel.  Our father is also Abraham and we can prove it by DNA.

You can all carp about nothing.  But, do you really want the 'old days' of Saddam Hussein's braggardy when he chopped off heads of Americans on TV.  He is thankfully not running Iraq and hasn't overrun Israel.

Say 'no' to terrorists.  That's my motto.  Civilians should have a better life without them.  And, that includes Iraqi women!  Something Saddam never cared about.  NOR WILL THE UN.  A Homosexual agenda doesn't include women.  In fact, that makes the UN much scarier than Iraq.  In Iraq they have the death penalty for homsexuality.  That is what makes people love Islam so much?  I don't really get it - for liberals to like the exact religion where homosexuality is banned.