Do you believe in God?

[Vince_Fiero]

If there is a god, there's only one. And all of the religions are a complete non-sense. Let's take the most popular one - I refuse to believe in things that some high on wine drunktard ...

Some misinterpretations does not make them complete non-sense.
Some imaginary writing styles does not not make them complete non-sense.
You should read up on who wrote the Bible and when from what I see above.

I believe we can learn a lot from the wisdoms that were captured through thousands of years in the different religions and taking the best from them we will grow as persons. Where I agree is that they will not proof a lot about the existence of God.

 

[TankAss95]

Your entire body of "evidence" seems to stem from biblical accounts, or accounts that took place so soon after the occurance of the events in the bible that no real "bible" existed yet, as such. In the first case, you can't consider this to be evidence because the claim is essentialy reflexive: "Why is the bible an accurate and truthful document? Because it says it is".

No original manuscripts of the New Testament survive today. If what we possess , therefore, is the result of a centuries-long copying process, many people wonder how it bears any resemblance to the original text. This is a difficulty felt by many people who are not aware of how overwhelmingly strong the evidence is for the original text of the New Testament. There are 5,664 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament in the original Greek language that have been catalogued, and over 9000 in early translations into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and others. On top of this, there are 38,289 quotations from the New Testament by the early Church fathers, who wrote between the second and fourth centuries AD. If, then, we lost all the New Testament manuscripts, we could still reconstruct the entire New Testament from these quotations (except from 11 verses).
Compare this with other ancient works of literature, for instance, the Roman historian Tactuis wrote 'The Annuals of Imperial Rome' around AD 116. The first six books of the 'Annuals' survive only in one manuscript, which was copied in about AD 850. Books 11 to 16 are in another singular manuscript dated to the 11th century. In this example the manuscript evidence is very sparce. The point I am trying to make here's that scholars treat these documents as authentic representations of the originals, in spite of the fewness of the manuscripts and their late dates. In comparison, the New Testament is by far the best-attested manuscript from the ancient world.

I will provide more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament if you like on particular topics.

In the second case, far too much time passes and far too many people with political and personal motivations have access to the story for it to be considered truthful and undiluted - historians agree that the very earliest date that ANY of the four canonical gospels was written was 70 CE. Given life expentancy at that time, odds are VERY poor that even ONE gospel was actually WRITTEN by the apostle it's named for, and the other three are statistical impossibilities. Paul, who you cite as an important example of skeptical conversion, wrote his epistles in 60 CE and makes absolutely no discernable mention of ANY direct personal observation of the life or divinity of Christ. In fact, historians generally agree that he wrote only EIGHT of the thirteen epistles the bible attributes to him. James, likewise, given the time he wrote what the bible attributes to him, would have been born decades after the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. Could you claim that Jesus made "special encore appearances" to these two specifically, decades after his resurrection? I suppose you could (and the Mormons would agree with you), but the bible suggests nothing of the sort, and even if it did, you'd still hit the "reflexive" wall.

It's actually been said that Jesus was born around 4 BCE, and was executed in the year 30.

Beyond this, all the personal accounts you offer that are even close to contemporary to the time were written by people who, at the time of writing, were themselves believers. This implies extreme bias, and as such, cannot be considered evidence - let alone the fact that every single bit of this is classic "hearsay" - not evidence under any circumstances.

Believers of the first generation, yes.

Finally, and I think crucially, we must consider the SHOCKING number of "prophets" roaming the lands in those days - many of whom had followings much larger than Jesus did, and all of whom supposedly performed miracles suspiciously similar to his. This, combined with the equally suspicious anthropological similarities in "story structure" between Jesus and a huge number of historical religious figures the world over, casts serious aspersion on any claims of his unique divinity.

And this is exactly as the Bible predicted. Again look at how the life and death of Jesus was unique compared to anything else, and the reaction and records of is resurrection.

As I see it though, the crux of this is that ALL organized faiths have the same inherent problems. They can only be held to be true because they SAY they are true, and the historical basis for the specific claims of each are FAR too sketchy to be credited. In fact, we can make some interesting predictions based on religions whose origins AREN'T so remote. Let's consider Mormonism and Scientology. Both make some pretty farfetched claims, AND both are so contemporary to us that we can empirically disprove most, if not all, of their specific claims. It seems far more likely to me, then, given that ALL religions throughout history exist in a shrinking bubble of scientific tenability, that all would appear equally absurd if observed in the time of their foundation.

Curious about citations for, or examples of, anything I've described? Let me know, and they'll be forthcoming.

The Bible is like no other book in history for historical accuracy, incredible accuracy of the replication of documents over time and fulfilled prophesies. I would go into these, but it's hard to research and conduct such a case as this. Highlight any issues you find and I'll try to get back to you. 👍

 

[codingasm]

As for me, I should be safe since I refuse to believe as well as disbelieve. Booyah.

there were people/souls walking on two paths, one was a wide path and one was a small path. the ones on the wide path saw the people walking on the small path and said hey come on over, and some of them did. the rest continued on. one of them on the small path saw a fence in front of him and climbed onto it and sat there thinking which way to go. soon after the devil was walking by and saw him sitting on the fence and said, hey what are you doing on the fence, and he goes, well i can't decide which way to go. and the devil goes, but the fence is mine and takes him with the fence.

the bible also says if you aren't with me, you are against me


also john the baptist, after baptizing Jesus heard the voice from the sky, saying this is my beloved son, in him is my will. and also saw the Holy Spirit come down onto Jesus in a shape of a bird( i forgot how its called)

also later on peter and john etc heard that voice when they were with Jesus on the sacred/holy mountain

yes there were prophets before who could do similar things to what Jesus did, but Jesus was teaching them not like the others who said " this rabbi said this and that one said that" he was teaching them like he had the power, which he did.Jesus said if you don't believe me, believe the miracles i am doing, for it is not me who is doing them but my Father(God) who is with me

also its not about religion, its about getting to know God.

 

[dylansan]

there were people/souls walking on two paths, one was a wide path and one was a small path. the ones on the wide path saw the people walking on the small path and said hey come on over, and some of them did. the rest continued on. one of them on the small path saw a fence in front of him and climbed onto it and sat there thinking which way to go. soon after the devil was walking by and saw him sitting on the fence and said, hey what are you doing on the fence, and he goes, well i can't decide which way to go. and the devil goes, but the fence is mine and takes him with the fence.

There once was a man who believed in God. Then when he died, he didn't go to heaven, because it didn't exist. The end.


What are these stories are supposed to prove?

the bible also says if you aren't with me, you are against me

Well the bible's wrong. I don't believe a god exists, therefore I am not against anyone.

But the bible really likes false dichotomies like these.

also john the baptist, after baptizing Jesus heard the voice from the sky, saying this is my beloved son, in him is my will. and also saw the Holy Spirit come down onto Jesus in a shape of a bird( i forgot how its called)

also later on peter and john etc heard that voice when they were with Jesus on the sacred/holy mountain

yes there were prophets before who could do similar things to what Jesus did, but Jesus was teaching them not like the others who said " this rabbi said this and that one said that" he was teaching them like he had the power, which he did.Jesus said if you don't believe me, believe the miracles i am doing, for it is not me who is doing them but my Father(God) who is with me

[citation needed]

also its not about religion, its about getting to know God.

I could get to know God pretty easily if he decided to show me some evidence for his existence. That would be a good start, at least.

 

[Starfirebird]

you see a person that was christian and you see he died at 60, you see a non christian and he is alive and well at 90, you may think how can that be, but in reality it was time for the 60 year old and God is being Gracious and extending the life of the non faithful one giving him time to repent so that he could be saved and not be damned for eternity.

I'm not knocking religion in anyway,but this right here is a bunch of hogwash.

The guy who was 60 died at that age because of 3 things - genetics,Health,or accident.

The guy who is 90 and still living is because of genetics and how healthy they was when younger.

People die early and live long all the time and religion isn't why a person died too early or is still living.It's solely based on Genetics,how healthy/unhealthy that person stayed,whether the person lived dangerously or safely and a whole lot of other things,but religion isn't one of them.

 

[niky]

The Bible is like no other book in history for historical accuracy, incredible accuracy of the replication of documents over time and fulfilled prophesies. I would go into these, but it's hard to research and conduct such a case as this. Highlight any issues you find and I'll try to get back to you. 👍

The Bible is like no other book in history for its historical consistency. That's it. Its historical accuracy, on the other hand, is just as questionable as any document of the same age.

 

[Omnis]

God doesn't decide. God is the decision.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

No original manuscripts of the New Testament survive today. If what we possess , therefore, is the result of a centuries-long copying process, many people wonder how it bears any resemblance to the original text. This is a difficulty felt by many people who are not aware of how overwhelmingly strong the evidence is for the original text of the New Testament. There are 5,664 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament in the original Greek language that have been catalogued, and over 9000 in early translations into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and others. On top of this, there are 38,289 quotations from the New Testament by the early Church fathers, who wrote between the second and fourth centuries AD. If, then, we lost all the New Testament manuscripts, we could still reconstruct the entire New Testament from these quotations (except from 11 verses).

None of this changes the fact that there are no accounts of the life and events of Christ that were written contemporary to his life. Even if there were 900,000 copies rather than 9,000, it wouldn't matter. A stack of 900,000 copies of "Great Expectations" doesn't suggest it isn't a work of fiction, unless you have substantive specific evidence to the contrary.

Even the discovery of a truly contemporary manuscript would fail to qualify as evidence. Such a document, absent corroborating physical archaeological evidence, would still fall prey to the 'bias' and 'hearsay' problems.

Compare this with other ancient works of literature, for instance, the Roman historian Tactuis wrote 'The Annuals of Imperial Rome' around AD 116. The first six books of the 'Annuals' survive only in one manuscript, which was copied in about AD 850. Books 11 to 16 are in another singular manuscript dated to the 11th century. In this example the manuscript evidence is very sparce. The point I am trying to make here's that scholars treat these documents as authentic representations of the originals, in spite of the fewness of the manuscripts and their late dates. In comparison, the New Testament is by far the best-attested manuscript from the ancient world.

Tacitus' Annuals don't claim that a man-god, born divinely of no biological father, walked the earth repeatedly defying every known law of nature, then died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven. Secular works of historic record can be credited because archaeological evidence can support the likelihood of their veracity.

I will provide more some evidence for the reliability of the New Testament if you like on particular topics.

Please don't take offense to that, but do please look into what evidence IS, and what it ISN'T. Nothing you have offered yet is evidence.

It's actually been said that Jesus was born around 4 BCE, and was executed in the year 30.

I'm aware of that. My figures are based on that, though what substantive difference four years makes I'm not certain. In those days, a 30 year old man was lucky. A 40 year old man was a rarity.

Believers of the first generation, yes.

Again, this makes no difference - when they believed has no logical bearing on the truth of their claims. Many authors wrote about Buddha relatively close to the time of his purported life, wrote about it later, and write about it today. I have no doubt you don't think the authors more contemporary to him are any more correct about his divinity than modern authors are - you would reject all of them out of hand.

And this is exactly as the Bible predicted. Again look at how the life and death of Jesus was unique compared to anything else, and the reaction and records of is resurrection.

The fact that the Bible predicted a multitude of 'false prophets' still is not evidence for the divinity of Christ. There are those who claim divinity throughout history - all of which you'd be forced to call false prophets - those who predate Christ by hundreds of years, and those this very day.

Every story of a divine figure has its minor differences from other similar stories - the SIMILARITY is what we are able to use to make predictions about such claims, not the minute differences. The 'reaction and records', as you put it, I already examined above. If you still have difficulty with the point I'm trying to make, I'll provide an exhaustive list of historical figures claimed to be divine, and I'll highlight the disquieting similarities to the life and times of Christ as described in the Bible. Usefully for our purposes, most of these figures predate Christ.

The Bible is like no other book in history for historical accuracy, incredible accuracy of the replication of documents over time and fulfilled prophesies. I would go into these, but it's hard to research and conduct such a case as this. Highlight any issues you find and I'll try to get back to you. 👍

Once again, I must stress that the fact that there are a LOT of Bibles does not constitute evidence for its truthfulness. As for its historic accuracy, I still don't see any evidence of that, either. I feel I should repeat that you ought to learn what defines 'evidence' before you call something 'evidence'.

As for the bolded bit - the reason it's so hard is because it's not a tenable case.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Many authors wrote about Buddha relatively close to the time of his purported life, wrote about it later, and write about it today. I have no doubt you don't think the authors more contemporary to him are any more correct about his divinity than modern authors are - you would reject all of them out of hand.

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher. People that claim something else are inventing a religion.
I much see Mozes, Jesus, Muhammad, Ghandi, ... very similarly.

 

[Tesla]

I read something interesting and thought I'd share it with everyone here. I'm not too sure of the truthfulness of this statement, not knowing all the common beliefs of Christians (not the God/Jesus ones, but related to getting into heaven).

Is it true, that if someone has no knowledge of Christ, then they cannot consciously reject him and be accepted into heaven by default? If that is the case, would it not make sense to tell nobody about Christ, so that they can surely be saved? In fact, wouldn't the most sensible thing to do is to not have any knowledge of religion, and wipe out religion so that nobody could know about it?

So, could implicit (am I using the correct terminology here? Help me out) atheists actually be on the easiest path to heaven?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I read something interesting and thought I'd share it with everyone here. I'm not too sure of the truthfulness of this statement, not knowing all the common beliefs of Christians (not the God/Jesus ones, but related to getting into heaven).

Is it true, that if someone has no knowledge of Christ, then they cannot consciously reject him and be accepted into heaven by default? If that is the case, would it not make sense to tell nobody about Christ, so that they can surely be saved? In fact, wouldn't the most sensible thing to do is to not have any knowledge of religion, and wipe out religion so that nobody could know about it?

So, could implicit (am I using the correct terminology here? Help me out) atheists actually be on the easiest path to heaven?

Seem to me you are referring to Matthew 5:3:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You can have many interpretations, but the one above seems pushed a bit far. It does not say if you do not know about religion you can do anything. For me it states if you are innocent (meaning incapable of complex misleading thought) you are sure to go to heaven, even if you do not understand God or Jesus. On the other hand, I'm no expert on the Bible.

 

[Tesla]

If the innocent have no knowledge of Christianity then they cannot know of the ten commandments, which means they can't know if they are truly innocent.

If that makes sense

Also, wouldn't it make sense to kill babies at birth? It seem harsh, but because they are incapable of complex misleading thought, they are sure to go to heaven, even if you (for the act of murder) cannot.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If that makes sense

No it does not:

The innocent, will follow the 10 commandments, even if they do know them, since their actions come straight out of the heart and are right in intention.
The baby is innocent and will go to heaven.

The murderer is doing things for greed and other motives and will not go to heaven, a murderer is not innocent.

By the way: we are talking bible, I do not believe in Heaven or Paradise.

 

[Tesla]

Ok, but what if they do not follow all of the 10 commandments, like remembering the Sabbath. They don't know about it, and are unaware that they are breaking any commandment.

 

[PeterJB]

As far as I know it's people who openly reject God or become Satanists or whatever that don't go to Heaven. I'm not sure whether this means that atheists (as they don't believe He exists) don't go to Heaven or people who believe in God but reject Him don't.

 

[BobK]

No original manuscripts of the New Testament survive today. If what we possess , therefore, is the result of a centuries-long copying process, many people wonder how it bears any resemblance to the original text. This is a difficulty felt by many people who are not aware of how overwhelmingly strong the evidence is for the original text of the New Testament. There are 5,664 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament in the original Greek language that have been catalogued, and over 9000 in early translations into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and others. On top of this, there are 38,289 quotations from the New Testament by the early Church fathers, who wrote between the second and fourth centuries AD. If, then, we lost all the New Testament manuscripts, we could still reconstruct the entire New Testament from these quotations (except from 11 verses).
Compare this with other ancient works of literature, for instance, the Roman historian Tactuis wrote 'The Annuals of Imperial Rome' around AD 116. The first six books of the 'Annuals' survive only in one manuscript, which was copied in about AD 850. Books 11 to 16 are in another singular manuscript dated to the 11th century. In this example the manuscript evidence is very sparce. The point I am trying to make here's that scholars treat these documents as authentic representations of the originals, in spite of the fewness of the manuscripts and their late dates. In comparison, the New Testament is by far the best-attested manuscript from the ancient world.

This has far more to do with a thousand years of book-burning by the Christian churches than anything else. From the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria by Emperor/Saint Theodosius and Pope Theophilus through the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance, books were routinely destroyed unless they were religious works supporting the official Church line (no need for books except those which exalt the glory of God). An author could be (and some were) burned at the stake for writing anything which was critical of or disagreed with the Church.

That's the reason for the "remarkable consistency", the destruction of anything which disagreed.

 

[JasonK92]

he don't exist. Same as the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas.

build a bridge..and get over it.

 

[Jet Badger]

Okay, I understand why people believe in god. But I will never understand how they can believe in christianity and the church. I mean it's the same organisation that stopped the progress of technology and all of the other things for probably eleventy centuries, burned people for a made-up reason and said "give all your valuables to us, you'll still die someday". Yes, I'm reffering to some old events, but I'm 100% sure that if you gave them a chance, they would do the same again.
People say "all muslims are terrorists", but what could be said about christians? I'd say it would be even worse.

Oh, BTW if the church would rule the world like it did in middle ages, we would hardly have any computers, no smartphones or even wired phones, and the reason why we're all here - motorized vehicles. On your town's wall you would read that a guy, who discovered a steam engine was announced as No.1 enemy of the community.

I don't believe in any of the religions, but christianity is the one I really hate. Can't understand how people can blindly believe in things that were never proven and are as legit as "abibas" socks. Maybe someone has a such miserable life, that wants to believe that "it will get better when I die". Whatever. No religion = No problem.

 

[arora]

[citation needed]

It's still hard for me to believe this thread cannot turn away from religion but whatever....

I think this may be what your looking for but not sure:

Matthew 3:16 and around for Jesus baptism etc

John 5:19-21 maybe for the "gods works" deal

 

[dylansan]

It's still hard for me to believe this thread cannot turn away from religion but whatever....

I think this may be what your looking for but not sure:

Matthew 3:16 and around for Jesus baptism etc

John 5:19-21 maybe for the "gods works" deal

Thank you, but my point is that the only evidence for those things is the Bible, which is not proof of anything unless you're already a believer. He's trying to convince me that Christianity is true by referencing the Bible, which would only have any validity if I was already a Christian.

 

[arora]

I see, of course I can't provide another source as there probably is not one. Just linked what I thought relevent from my recolections of the book.

👍

 

[codingasm]

Bobk
Given that the religion fosters so much guilt on its practitioners,
I'd say that probably one third of the congregation was thinking the
same thing, so it would have been a pretty easy call to make.

how would anyone know if you have sinned or not, its your guilt that brings you to repentance and not just that
but also God being gracfull to you thus far and you understanding that and felling it in your heart

no it wouldn't because i repented before and believe me, when I did, I felt a weight lifted off my shoulders
humbly crying on your knees etc ( when was the last time you humbly cried out to the Lord ? )

later on sin came into play

so for that person to know that i was deep in sin, was highly unlikely because that person didn't know me any more or less than i know you

1st that person was not a religion fosters so she had no idea what sin or if i had any sin on me at that time
you repent to God infront of a witness (that witness can be the pastor or pastors helper)(she was neither)
unless you have gone to far, and the church gets involved

2nd it was a female prophet from a pentecostal church
3nd that person never knew me in person
4th they wouldn't know if you have sinned or not(unless God really spoke through them)
5th the guilt is there after you sin and only increases when someone tells you about it
6th i thought that i was too far in and by hearing God relieve me through this person, he gave me hope and reashured me that he was ready to help me
7th The Holy Spirit is in control of the Church
8th if a false prophet came into a church and started saying God said this or that, when God didn't say that, he/she would have been opened up
to the church by the Lord. in the Bible, it mentions that God wouldn't leave such a person unpunished

God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost(Holy Spirit)

The Holy Spirit of the Lord was on Elijah, as it is on those who ask God for it and are faithful to The Lord. you will be able to do the miracles he did and Jesus did, if you grow with it after receiving it(that is what Jesus was talking about, being born of the Holy Spirit)and to grow with it you need to pray with it and that's when you really start to believe in God.

it mentions in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is a miracle for the disbelievers but propheting is not for the disbelievers, but for the believers

Jesus also said, those who believe in me, the deeds/things/miracles that i do, they will do and more.

In the Book of Malachi, Elijah's return is prophesied "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord,"
In Christianity, the New Testament describes how both Jesus and John the Baptist are compared with Elijah, and on some occasions,
thought by some to be manifestations of Elijah, and Elijah appears with Moses during the Transfiguration of Jesus

Jesus said, but Elijah has come and they did with him as they wished, the same exact thing will happen to Son of God(refering to himself)

Also i would like to mention about Antichrist.

Then you ARE an atheist since you lack belief. Lack of belief in god = Atheist

in the Bible, it mentions in a few places who is the antichrist
one mentions that it is the End of Days and how you heard that the antichrist will come, and now there are many of them

so by the Bible and your definition quoted above, an Atheist is another word for Antichrist

and further on it says, who is a lire, if not the one who is denying that Jesus is Christ?
that is an antichrist, denying the Father and the Son.

any person denying the Son, doesn't have a Father



if you don't want to be responsible for your actions, then who is ?
Jesus took that responsibility upon him self once, and will come the second time not to die again but to take the ones who have been waiting for him and are ready

because its not the listener who will be justified, but the doer

don't want to double post, so ill add this

I see, of course I can't provide another source as there probably is not one. Just linked what I thought relevent from my recolections of the book.

the Holy Spirit that God gives gracefully, from the same spirit you receive different gifts

praying in tongues( that's when you know you have it)(growing to the point where you sing in your prayers)(and further on the Holy Spirit talks through you-propheting)

and the Holy Spirit listens to who has it, because God is not a God of disorganization but peace

not like the possessed, because those are not from God ( and don't tell me you don't believe in people being possessed, because you all know that there are people like that(which is sad)

but with the power of the Holy Ghost, you can free those people among other things
some can see visions, some can heal people, some can perform miracles,some can speak in different languages that they don't understand, others are prophets, and others understand different languages
( when you do your research etc, i recommend looking into the Pentecostal religion because i have seen other religions trying to look similar or even speak in tongues but you wonder what are they doing throwing snakes around and other unhealthy things that are bad for sane mind)

all with the same Holy Spirit.

just like making vases out of clay, some are in higher authority some in lower but all play a roll, just like our hands,feet,ears,eyes are all different parts of the body, but they make up one body

and also it says in the Bible if anyone says a curse or a bad word on the Son or the Father, they will be forgiven. but who ever shall say a curse or a bad word on the Holy Ghost/Spirit will never be forgiven, not in this lifetime, not in the next.

DK Repent for what?

1.The Lord said everyone turned from the path, no good to the last one

2. because God put everyone under sin so that through christ he can save them

3.for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God

4.Jesus came to save not the righteous but the sinners

5.Jesus said, if you won't believe in me then you will die in your sins

 

[huskeR32]

any person denying the Son, doesn't have a Father

Yes I do. His name is Larry. He's a good guy.

if you don't want to be responsible for your actions, then who is ?

If anything, I think atheists tend to be a little more responsible for their actions, because they don't believe that praying to god for forgiveness changes anything. Since we don't believe there's somebody in the sky that we can just unload all of our guilt on, we instead hold ourselves accountable for our actions, and realize that we'll always have to answer to them ourselves.

and also it says in the Bible if anyone says a curse or a bad word on the Son or the Father, they will be forgiven. but who ever shall say a curse or a bad word on the Holy Ghost/Spirit will never be forgiven, not in this lifetime, not in the next.

Aren't the Son/Father/Holy Ghost all the same person? So how could you curse one and not all three?

...

I appreciate your effort it posting here, this conversation only works if all views are presented. But I've got to say, I don't believe this post helps theism at all.

It's long, rambling and hard to follow. It doesn't help that you don't use any capital letters - it makes it hard to keep my bearings when wading through all of your thoughts. It's like your fingers just started producing your entire, unedited train of thought at the moment you were writing this. Take a minute to think about the points you want to make and organize those points in a coherent, easily understood way. My initial reaction to your post, and I really don't mean to offend here, but my initial thought was that it was a bunch of loony babbling.

A final thought, it might help to have a little more knowledge of your audience before posting things like this. If you had read any of this thread up until this point, you'd have realized that atheists are looking for evidence of god, not for one person's personal stories and experiences which are impossible to corroborate. To be frank, this kind of talk is exactly what makes many atheists skeptical of religion in the first place. I appreciate your intentions to contribute to this thread, but you won't make any headway in here with posts like that. Just my $.02.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yes I do. His name is Larry. He's a good guy.

Sorry I thought this was funny.

 

[nitrorocks]

Today at school I was with friends and somehow a conversation about church came up. Then some of my friends just blindly judge me by saying "I hate all church people, I can't stand them". I don't understand why they just classify all of us like that. One of the girls i talk a lot with said that, and I told her I was a "church person". So now she probably won't treat me as a person anymore. It's upsetting.

 

[dylansan]

Today at school I was with friends and somehow a conversation about church came up. Then some of my friends just blindly judge me by saying "I hate all church people, I can't stand them". I don't understand why they just classify all of us like that. One of the girls i talk a lot with said that, and I told her I was a "church person". So now she probably won't treat me as a person anymore. It's upsetting.

Those don't sound like very good friends.

I would never apply a blanket statement like that to all church-goers. However, I do quite dislike people who go to church only so they can say they go to church and feel superior to others. I know people like that, and they're disgusting. I do not think you are like that.

 

[nitrorocks]

Those don't sound like very good friends.

I would never apply a blanket statement like that to all church-goers. However, I do quite dislike people who go to church only so they can say they go to church and feel superior to others. I know people like that, and they're disgusting. I do not think you are like that.

Me? If I told those kids they would be extremely pissed at me. I don even try to talk to them they hate religion so much.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

This has far more to do with a thousand years of book-burning by the Christian churches than anything else. From the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria by Emperor/Saint Theodosius and Pope Theophilus through the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance, books were routinely destroyed unless they were religious works supporting the official Church line (no need for books except those which exalt the glory of God). An author could be (and some were) burned at the stake for writing anything which was critical of or disagreed with the Church.

That's the reason for the "remarkable consistency", the destruction of anything which disagreed.

This is a valid point.

It wasn't JUST the Christians who ravaged Alexandria - Islamic forces dealt the final deathblow to the Great Library - but the point stands. Organized religion, throughout history, has taken great pains to suppress opposing viewpoints. If that means attacking and eventually destroying the greatest repository of accumulated wisdom ever known to man, so be it.

I've said this in another threat at some point ... the destruction of the Library at Alexandria was the greatest tragedy ever wrought upon humankind.

 

[Encyclopedia]

if you don't want to be responsible for your actions, then who is ?
Jesus took that responsibility upon him self once, and will come the second time not to die again but to take the ones who have been waiting for him and are ready

because its not the listener who will be justified, but the doer

I am responsible for my actions. Only I can be. No one else, since it's my actions. The way you put it sounds like you don't want to take any responsibility for anything you do.

Also, you should know that bible quotes have little to no effect on someone who doesn't believe. So if you want to make a case for your belief you need to put a bit more effort in it and try to venture outside the bible.

 

[BobK]

how would anyone know if you have sinned or not

You answered the question yourself later on in your post:

3.for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God

Okay, let me try it this way. You're here on GT Planet, so I can safely assume you play Gran Turismo. Is it a miracle that I know that? No, it's just common sense; practically all of the people on this forum play the game, or played it at one time.

By the same token, so you're sitting in church, someone guesses that you're thinking about your sins and repenting them. Of course you are, no miracle involved here either.