If you aren't willing to accept opposing views, you should not have posted in the General Religion forum.

That being said, Epicurus sums it up pretty well:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

That is a pretty funny statement for someone who continually states that "you can't blame the religion for the actions of those who abuse it"

Isn't that exactly what you are doing there?

Now let's take a "walk" through History.
The Crusades- Wars fought, by order of the Pope, to get the Holy Land back under Christian rule. Purely, a religious fight, and deaths in the name of "my god".

The Spanish Inquisition- People punished by others taking a literal translation to the bible.

The Witch Trails- Again, People punished by others taking a literal translation to the bible.

So that you don't complain about only Christianity being picked on:
Today's modern Jihad against all non-Muslims: Pretty simple, if you aren't one of them, they want you dead.

Hell, just look in that "good book" of yours. God kills many more than Satan does...

Eljay,

I concede it's possible you _might_ be correct about this statement, in light of the statistic that 60% of the people who ever lived are alive today. I think it's far from a given, though.

However, what would you say is the minimum acceptable death toll below which it is morally acceptable to kill in the defense of/advancing the causes of religion?

Elsewhere in this thread I mentioned the recent court decision Kitzmiller v. Dover Area High School, which some have called 'The Scopes Monkey Trial II'. The judge in that case was a pretty conservative fellow who found himself needing round-the-clock protection from anonymous militant Christians making death threats.

I don't think I've ever heard of atheists making similar threats when court cases haven't gone their way. Shouldn't the moral compass the OP claims Christianity imparts yield better results than what is able to be documented?


-Kerry O.

Then in that case, God is not the loving god that Christians make him out to be, Since he spent the OT killing people.
Also, if his word remains the same too, then all those parts of the bible that talk about stoning people to death, for various reasons, aren't just stories, they are what you are supposed to do.

I would like to hear a logical explanation for that one from a Christian who is still waiting for Jesus to come back and get them. Seriously.

WOW 'Eljay'!!!

Given your 'theatrical' background, and given the incredibly staged nature of this latest post, I suspect it could only be an attempt on your part to offer us a masterful parody, short of his signature punch-line, of our most beloved and missed PHILOSOPHER-KING 'George Carlin'.

If not an inspired 'theatrical parody', than I would be left with absolute confusion and disbelief in the statements that you have been posting of late.

Please confirm my 'theatrical parody' suspicion! Please '... TELL ME IT IS SO!!!'.

Well if that's an unforgivable Sin then I guess all Christians are doomed.

If the "Holy Spirit's testimony of Jesus is through the gospels then LISTEN UP!

Because this is what the Gospels SAY!

Matt.24
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Mark.13
[30] Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.


Luke.21
31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
[32] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


There we have it. To believe that Jesus did not return within the very generation to which he preached would be to reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit! The word of God!

So there you go. All Christians seem to be rejecting this, so they have committed an unforgivable sin.

But it doesn't seem to matter anyway because the rapture would have already taken place, and Jesus must have already returned and grabbed all the people he wanted during that rapture (which clearly occurred within that same generation of the people he had spoken to, if we can trust his words to be true).

So we have already been doomed long ago. Evidently we're just the descendents of the rejects of God. The people who were left behind after the rapture.

So we're doomed anyway. It doesn't really matter what we believe at this stage. It's a done deal, we're descendents of the unchosen people.

To believe otherwise would be to reject the Holy Bible and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

That's what you're stuck with if you want to accept that the Bible is literally true.

And of course, if it can't be taken literally then what good is it? It's just a book of literature (a book of words). If the words can't be trusted, there's nothing left to consider. What good are "God's words" if the words can't be taken as literal truth?

The Christians claim one thing, but the Bible claims another.

The rapture is over according to the Gospels, it took place before that current generation passed. That's clearly what it states in no uncertain terms.

Christians keep preaching that we need to READ the Bible and so I do. What I find is that the Bible doesn't back up their religion.

To say all Atheists are not immoral is like saying not all Christians are good, or for that matter Christlike. In the last 2,000 years more wars have been fought and more people killed in the name of Christ. All religions claim to be the word of god and all others are false, so by that token all are true and false concurrently. When someone converts, all of a sudden what they once sincerely believed is now untrue. They may well be a creator of some kind somewhere up the spiritual food chain, but it’s highly doubtful it would be a capricious deity who demands loyalty from its creations. What tickles me is believers feel they have to do the work of god. Here was someone who supposedly created the heavens and the earth in 6 daze. Did god retire, or simply get lazy and decided its creations could carry the load. When are you going to start the construction of your new planet?

You may have discovered by now I am one of the noble 16% of nonbelievers. Then there was the bit about a reward in heaven. That was how they suckered the poor, illiterate masses to go off and fight and die in the Crusades. The powers that be will use any means possible to get cannon fodder for their wars of conquest, almost invariably over some natural resource. Islam has the 77 virgin thing, but that was essentially to get poor schleps to fight the invading infidel who believed god was on his side and his reward was forthcoming. I have no idea where they got 77, but perhaps the idea of a harem was popular in those daze.

Religions get started to try and explain who and why we are, but after a while, those in charge get a bit power drunk and that gives them the idea they can tell everybody what to think, feel and believe. All religions start out as a cult and Christianity is no exception. Romans were either Urbus or Pagus (sp?), city dwellers and those who farmed and ranched, known as the Pagans. The city dwellers were the first to accept a monotheistic religion since all that worship cut into the time they could be making money, but the Pagans believed in the gods and were appalled at the thought of a single deity and they insisted on no less than three, which was where the holy ghost originated. Another thing the Romans did when they conquered a culture was allow them to go through the motions of their beliefs, but they made up other reasons for why they did what they did and expected them to forget over several generations and say it was always that way. Someone remembered and passed it along by word of mouth for future generations.

Did Jesus eat the ears off his chocolate bunny rabbits at easter? There is no supporting documentation to prove anything in anybody’s religious texts, so there is no way to prove they were written by who they claim to be. When science supports religion, science is good, but when it doesn’t support religion, the same science is evil. When you insult those for not believing what you believe, that makes you just as big a fool as you call them.

elijay, my words need no interpreter but what the hearer of each access them as, and if your profound insight, see contradiction, then this damn well should be pointed out, if you are choosing to to be responsible for how they are to be defined???

put your money where your mouth is, and speak out the contradiction???

if you speak for me, i shall speak for you???

that fair???

that equal???

i do not say what you mean to another, as this would be but childish on my part, and most even audacious, and if you deem so fit to do, then so be it, but if i speak for you, giving you back the equal you have given me, then my sting will have a more insideous effect, and sting from the inside out.

do we have a clear understanding, as equals, as to our positions???

do not do unto me, what you do not wish to come back to yourself???

that pretty fair???

what more does a professed christian and scholar as yourself practice anyhow???

as indeed, this be the very essence of what was written, that you heard not one word of.

peace

I have a question for anyone that wants to answer it.



How can you believe in science without believing in evolution? I have Charles Darwins book and I have read it with my own eyes. He used the scientific method. And I will say it again. He used the scientific method. How can a person dispute that?

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. How many pictures are these words worth?

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

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NASB)

Well there is no such thing as hell, so no.

The way I interpret the scripture is that Jesus = LOVE.

The term "Jesus" means the same as Love. There is no difference. Jesus represents Love. He is not a man or a savior. The savior is Love itself.

Live in love and you are saved. They only salvation is Love. Its very simple for me.

does it not say, "ALL ARE BORN OF SIN, BORN INTO THE WORLD SPEAKING LIE'S"???

this indeed, could easily give way to the pretext of original sin, less one see only speaking a lie, is not yet knowing everything???

How so eljay. What about Romans 5:12

Who dares to bash my spiritual brother?

If that is all you are doing then that's okay by me. Question away. But if you are really curious about it, you may want to study it a little and then you would be more prepared to debate the issues.

You might want to read everything before you respond. The article isn't just some scientist's opinion on what they observed. Before a scientific article is written and published, the experiment undergoes a peer review. Before the article was written, other scientists tried to disprove the results, and couldn't.
I will always trust the scientists that are actually working on trying to understand the world around us, more then someone who uses a book that is approaching 2000 yrs. old simply has a weapon against learning, and reason.

I never said how long it takes. But you can see there are differences between these chimps compared to other chimps. Did you not read the descriptions?

I don't study the scientific theory of evolution. I know very little about it. I know that it is just science. I am not threatened by it. It does not shake my spiritual life or my foundations of faith like it obviously seems to do to some some people who worship the Bible.

It is the Bible you are defending Eljay, not God. Why don't you realize that?

Besides, people have posted plenty of evidence, you just don't read it.

The thing is Elijay, we have posted evidence after evidence, and each time you just brush it off, without actually looking at it.

For instance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Also, the big difference between Religion and Science(and Evolution) is that religion is set-up for "just take my word for it"(i.e. Papal Infallibility, in layman's terms, if the Pope says god told him, you have to take it on faith as being true) In Science, you have peer review. Basically, you come up with a (testable) theory, it has to stand up to people trying to disprove it. Also, you have to keep in mind the Scientific definition of the word "theory", which, is basically, an idea that ties a group of facts together.

Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong.