...of yesterday and today's events in these forums.

1) Yesterday I saw a post which basically said that it's ok for people to have beliefs as long as these beliefs are not publicly expressed. Furthermore, if for any reason these beliefs are expressed people who express them must be ready to show with reason why those beliefs should be truth.

My answer:
First of all, and just from a simple basic natural law. If I'm being forced not to express my beliefs this just go against my basic right of self expression which is just wrong.
Second of all, if I'm an atheist and if I'm walking down the street and I pass by a church ofcourse I won't get in. The same applies in this forum. All of us know who is who. So if I'm an atheist and I see TLW who is crazy fanatic posting something ofcourse I'm not even going to read.
Third of all, how am I going to give a reasonable explanation with regard of my beliefs if certain nonbeliever does not have the open mind to read and respect my explanations rather he/she always is in a defensive mode trying to diminish every single reason I gave about what I believe.
Therefore, let's not claim innocense if inherently we are attacking other's beliefs (not just christianity.)

2) Today, a thread claiming that the debates held in this forum are not being held in an adult manner.

My answer:
It works both ways. Believers and nonbelievers are guilty in the same amount.
I don't say more about this because each one knows each one.

A final conclusion:
As long as the dialogue is just exchange of ideas why I think a belief system is correct or not I will debate.
However, I have stated too many times (and I won't get tired) whenever I see a derogatory or a ridicule agenda I will say something.

TLW

Like love how is a man to prove that God is real. I KNOW that God is real, but I can't prove it to you. (not yet anyways)

TLW, I can relate to that.

There is no way to prove or deny that what was written was the word of God. Several other religions openly admit that their text is not the word of God, and that it is only a prescribed behavior or a philosophy of life (e.g. Buddhism, Scientology). Most non fiction is a discussion of science and life, of things that can be observed, quantified and readily challenged for its truth and authenticity. But not religion. Any religion put to scrutiny is merely words on paper, with no ability to confirm its authenticity. The Jedi church makes no denial that its name and terminology originates from a fictitious past, but the concepts and ideals that are identified by Jedi followers are known for their innate truth. The sun existed before it was given a name, and it could be revered as a God, however, when the sun finally had a human name, it could be written about and communicated with others. The Jedi religion is just like the Sun, it existed before a popular movie gave it a name, and now that it has a name, people all over the world can share their experiences of the Jedi religion, here in the Jedi Church

any man that tells me god is not real i will believe if he can at least make one single blade of grass himself....until then i cannot believe that everything NOT man made was by happenstance

cool

I want to see if backlashes can be prevented.

then I will believe that good will is the flavor of the day.

backlashes are the turning of the abused onto the abuser when the abuser relents.

That goes both ways.

I played what is called the devil's advocate and was crticized for it and even in e-mails from some asked if it is a wise thing to do.

Others still, understood.

Some expressed that God wasn't in what I was doing.

For them, I am certain God wasn't in it for them to do what I did.

now, there seems to be a nervous peace in here.

better than no peace.

now reason is speaking up from many different views and there is a consensus for some common ground.

we will get to the sweet spot, my friends.

together

or mutual respect and dignity is a myth. NOT

I would like to respond to this thought with genuine sincerity. PLEASE, understand that this is not meant to offend anyone. It is simply the truth as I believe it to be from my perspective, and the response is most certainly not being directed toward anyone personally. I’ve quoted the thought that I would like to respond to. But I am not necessarily directing my response to the person who originally posed this thought. I’m merely responding to the idea for the sake of public discussion in a public forum.

Having given this disclaimer, I will now attempt to make my point,….

The idea is that we supposedly can’t prove (or disprove) the existence of a God.

I will absolutely agree with this in the most abstract philosophical sense. It is most certainly true in that sense because given total philosophical freedom we can imagine God in anyway we choose.

However, when this premises is applied to specific pictures of God that have been basically carved in stone in the form of dogma (or religious doctrine if you prefer), then things change dramatically.

Can it be proven that specific dogmatic pictures of God are logically inconsistent and self-contradictory?

I believe the answer to this question is yes, certain dogmatic pictures of God can be shown to be self-inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Greek mythology is certainly one of these. The Greek Gods were said to reside on the top of Mt. Olympus. People in olden days didn’t have the ability to scour the mountains for Gods. Especially if those Gods didn’t want to be found. However, today with modern technology we can be pretty certain that no deities are living on that mountain.

Christianity has certainly escaped this problem by placing all of its deities, and devils, in an invisible spirit world that man cannot access. Therefore there doesn’t appear to be any definitive way of deciding whether this spirit world actually exists or not. This is certainly true.

However, there are other tests that this dogma (or doctrine if you prefer) can be subjected to, to see whether or not it is logically consistent.

It is my personal belief, and conviction, that such logical flaws not only exist but are extremely easy to see.

This doctrine (the biblical picture), proclaims that its God is all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing, all-loving, perfect, and with this God all things are possible.

That’s a pretty powerful God. In fact this God is said to be “Perfect”.

However, does the doctrine stand up to this claim? Does this all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God behave in a manner consistent with these attributes that it is supposed to have?

Well, let’s think about this. (please,… this is not intended to insult anyone)

We’re are merely going to think about this question. I promise it is not meant to harm or bash anything. It’s merely an intellectual question. An adult intellectual question.

Ok, how does this religion start out? Well, supposedly this God creates a Perfect heaven with angels.

So what happens in this Perfect Heaven?

Well, supposedly 33% of the angels don’t agree that it’s perfect, and so they rebel against this Perfect creator in this Perfect heaven.

So this Perfect God, solves the problem by creating a hellish place to cast these rebellious angels.

Already we have several problems with this doctrine.

First off, why do these angels not feel that this perfect Heaven is the Perfect place?

Already we are forced to believe that the very notion of perfection is subjective and not absolute. Clearly these angles do not view this Heaven as being perfect. So this is our first logical inconsistency.

What is the next logical inconsistency still keeping with this same picture.

Well, how does God solve the problem?

Does this all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God find a way to diplomatically solve this problem to make it so that all angles can be happy?

No, he doesn’t. He solves the problem by creating a terrible nasty place called hell, and then he casts out these unhappy angels into this hellish place.

So this supposedly all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God is already solving problems using violence as a solution.

We haven’t even gotten to the creation of mankind yet and this picture is already in logical trouble.

Either this God isn’t all-wise, all-powerful, and all-perfect, or this doctrine is wrong.

We are already faced with a choice.

We can either keep the doctrine alive by accepting that this God is not all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving, and perfect.

Or we can toss it aside and see if we can find a better picture of God that is logically consistent.

I prefer to do the latter. And I’ve done just that.

We may not be able to prove or disprove God on a purely abstract level. However, we can certainly disprove doctrines that have been carved in stone with precise claims of what God must be like.

I thank you for your mature adult attention in reading this sincere post. I sincerly apologize to anyone who may have found anything in this post to be disturbing in any way.

Answer to Abra's post (which btw, was handled in a very mature fashion...PROUD of you, Abra!! )

God did NOT create ROBOTS...but wants all to come to Him....WILLINGLY .

God Knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end.

God in His PLAN for Creation and His Created Beings,KNOWS what He is Doing ....

God ALLOWS FREEDOM OF CHOICE....again...God did NOT create Robots.

God also.....KNOWS the END RESULT.

now....gotta grab some sleep...
nite...zzzzzzzz

perhaps we have only heard the story of the bible thru ears of fear, and interpreted all as the minds picture would display, AND DID NOT LOOK WITHIN THE BOOK ITSELF FOR THE ANSWERS, BUT RAN IN FEAR......you see that indeed it CAN be proven if the truth be known, and that time is at hand as spoken by all mankind that has come before......

SCIENCE AND RELIGION TO LAY DOWN TOGETHER, AS THE LION AND THE LAMB......THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT ABOLISHED, GOOD AND BAD TO LAY DOWN TOGHETHER........THEY BEAT THEIR PLOWSHEARS MONEY INTO SWORDS OF TRUTH......WHEN THE TRUTH IS READY TO BE KNOWN IT SHALL BE KNOWN BY ALL.....ALL THAT DO NOT WISH FOR A CLEAN SLATE FOR ALL SHOULD REALLY LOOK INSIDE AND SEE WHAT THEY REALLY WANT, AND NOT WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE FROM WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MANY TEACHERS OF HALF-TRUTH THAT WERE NEEDED TO CREATE THE PLAY..............is night better than the day?

jeez, I don't know how to use the quotations
so frustrating

I’m not going to elaborate on this in depth here right now, but the idea that Free Will makes this necessary does not hold logical water.

The Pantheist picture of God also contains genuine Free Will yet there is no need for evil in that picture.

The Pantheistic picture of God has this concept covered without any need for any logical inconsistencies.

In fact, the Pantheistic picture of God explains precisely how God created Free Will and bestowed us with this wonderful attribute.

Okay, let's assume that's true. Does that make it any better? And honestly, I don't think it's true. If I posted an attack on another members religion, you and wouldee would be right there to put me in my place. But if someone were to post an attack on Christian beliefs...well, the outcome would be completely different.

And remember, no gratuitous assertions people! I didn't say that Christianity cannot be discussed, but shotgun arguments, ignoring rebuttals and other childish tactics aren't discussing. And saying "I cannot believe in a egomanical evil god who watches everything we do waiting for us to screw up so that he can send us to hell" isn't discussing, it's insulting to everyone who holds that belief. A discussion would be one person presenting an issue "Why did God do X in the Bible" and others responding. The first person could then reply to the response, etc. That's how you discuss. Here is an example of what a discussion looks like in these forums:

"If god is so good, why did he kill all those people in the flood!"

"Well, those people were evil. If you read the account in the Bible, every person was bent to doing evil. The world was a terrible place with people commiting acts of violence and nobody could grow up in that world without being changed by it. So God had Noah take his family far from civilization and build a boat, so that humanity wouldn't be destroyed when God destroyed the evil corrupt societies of the world."

"Yeah, well I don't buy that. Everybody wasn't evil, so god is! And oh yeah, the Bible says it's okay to sell your daughter as a slave and that rape is okay and that murder is okay, as long as you are god's choosen people!"

That's not a discussion that adults would have. I don't care who I offend with this, that's not an adult conversation. That's childish in mentality. The logical fallacies should be clear to anyone reading the conversation.

Send me your personal email address and I'll write my instructions that might help you.

I believe that the Universe is expanding. That means that God is expanding.

New life forms are in the process of manifesting in all corners of the seven universes and new creators are being trained and new worlds are constantly being explored and created.

I believe that this is the plan. To grow and expand and create new forms of life.

I believe in the incarnation of light beings into these new worlds is done to experience all forms of existence from individual perspectives, and to learn new things for the purpose of continued growth and expansion of the universes. All this information is taken back to the prime creator and made available to anyone who knows how to access it.

The planet earth is a life experiment and light beings are allowed to incarnate here and take bodies. The planet itself is inhabited by a higher self who manages the animal and plant kingdoms. This means that the planet is conscious and alive.

JB

Scroll down to the bottom and type below them.

I have taken college science courses. I have a born-again Aunt.
She was concerned that I would get too involved with the sciences and become a non-believer.

When I was taking Anatomy and Physiology I and II, I learned how the body manufactures urine, etc. It is all so very complicated.

My faith became stronger. It is amazing how the body works. It is a true miracle. And it is no accident.

Somebody, God to me, designed us.

God does not kill people because they are evil.

This world operates within certain laws. They are the laws of cause and effect. They are not laws that are enforced by sentient beings who make judgments, they are laws of physics.

There are beings who live on this earth who attempt to control populations, bloodlines, wars etc. There is a battle going on for control of the earth and has been for centuries.

Genocide is one of the methods that these people use to control populations and bloodlines. God is not behind any of this.

JB

I find some sort of reason in this statement

On a deeply philosophical level this doesn’t hold water Miguel, this implies that the angels created something that did not have its origin in God. That notion, in and of itself, is actually quite troublesome on a purely philosophical as well as logical level.



I fully understand this Miguel, but this doesn’t change the fact that spirits are being tormented. What sense does it make to talk about Hell as being an undesirable place if there is not some form of anguish associated with being in that state?

I’m not concerned with physical ‘locations’. If a soul (or spirit) is in a state of angst then that’s what it is experiencing. Does it really matter ‘where’ that take place is in terms of geography or geometry?



I understand this notion perfectly Miguel. However it is extremely problematic.

As I’ve already stated, I’m in total agreement that the concept of ‘location’ is totally irrelevant in terms of geometry or geography. However to be ‘removed’ from the presence of God, implies ‘removal’ from God’s presence. That implies being in a ‘place’ (or state of existence) where God has no ‘presence’.



This flies in the face of the idea that Hell is an undesirable place. Why would anyone choose to go to an undesirable place when they supposedly already residing in a perfect heaven?

Moreover, the story implies that “God cast Satan and his band of angels out of Heaven”. It doesn’t say that they gladly and freely chose to leave on their own.



With all due respect to you Miguel I do not believe that I am making any mistake here whatsoever.

I have been thinking about this for decades Miguel. To try to pin the blame on Satan and his followers for the imperfections of a world created by an all-perfect being is fully of logical contradictions and inconsistencies that are beyond reasonable.

And more to the point,… Why do we need to defend this clearly archaic story that is almost an exact parallel of all other manmade myths?

It is riddled with these kinds of logical problems and inconsistencies the whole way through. They just become more and more complex in there logical absurdities as the story unfolds.

Why are we so determined to force this story to be true when in fact there is no tangible proof that it is true. All we have to test it with is reason. And it fails the test of reason miserably.

Moreover, the Pantheistic view of God is passing these very same tests with flying colors completely untainted by logical inconsistencies. Not only does it pass these tests without a hitch, but in doing so it also yields the answers to all of these questions.

Surely it must be true! Or at the very least, it is much more likely to be true than this very archaic notion of angels rebelling against a perfect God because the angles were not in agreement that God is perfect.

(note to Miguel: I appologize for chopping your post into bit-sized quotes. I did this solely for the sake of clarity in addressing each point directly, and for no other ulterior motive.)

I can do you one better. My ancestors made your God.