Well that's clearly a lie.

According to the Bible there are many things that are impossible for God. It's impossible for God to forgive sins unless he has been appeased by a blood sacrifice for one thing.

Clearly it must have been impossible for God to have saved mankind without having to 'sacrifice' his son in an act of pure desperation!

That could have only been an act of desperation. God was clearly out of options, and it proves that the biblical God is grossly limited in what he can do.

In fact, the great flood is a contradiction to the idea that God is all powerful, or all-wise.

Here, just a mere moral man I can offer you a much better solution to the problem.

Instead of having Noah and his family built a floating zoo, I ask Noah and his family to build a huge day care center.

Then instead of causing an crude and messy flood to murder the sinners, I simply wave my all-powerful magick want and make them disappear, leaving all of their innocent babies and young children alive.

Then I have Noah and his family round up the children and babies and bring them into the day care center where they can raise them with good morals.

See, even as a mere mortal man I am far more wise than the stupid God that the Mediterraneans made up.

A God who can do ANYTHING yet chose to do the UTTERLY STUPID things that he Biblical God was said to have done would need to be an idiot.

Clearly the Biblical God is neither all-wise, nor all-powerful. The Biblical God is just as stupid as the authors who made him up.

Holding a public office, being a witness for/against a suspect, and serving ones country has nothing to do with God.

Why is it you feel your beliefs outweigh my rights?

You have a right to not believe. Folks who do believe have a right to not trust your motives.
You don't have a right to force them to trust you.

I NEVER said you were not following the forum rules. I told you to quit whining about being attacked when you clearly are not. We have EVERY right to post on this forum. I told you to stay in Christian Singles if you cant stand the slightest bit of contradictory viewpoint. That is not "bashing" or passing personal insult.



The OP is a man! Maybe you should stop being so insulting as to confuse a person's gender! The same people continually post pro-Christian threads also. So what!

How exactly, does not believing in your(or any) invisible sky-man make me untrustworthy?

Again I ask, Why is it you feel your beliefs outweigh my rights?

I didn't check the profile as I didn't consider it relevant to the topic, and still don't...
No offense intended to the Op.

And yeah...so what?

I have a right to vote in those I find acceptable because they share or honor my beliefs.

You do not have a right to hold public office or serve in the military. You have a priviledge, but no right to do so...

Im telling you to drop it.

I'm not sure why or how I'm bothering you so much. I also don't acknowledge you "telling" me anything in such a manner.

You're the one who quoted from me. I'm simply responding sincerely.

1. I never said it was a right.
2. You are correct that it is not a right to serve ones country, it is however, IMO, a moral obligation.

Again, answer me why your belief in god outweighs my rights, mainly freedom of(or From) religion?
and How does not believing in a God make me untrustworthy?

You were the one that came on thread with the "we are attacking the Christians" nonsense. If that is the case, report it.

Personally, I don't trust anyone who asks for that trust based soley on their own values and morals.

I never said that my right to believe outwieghs your right to not believe. It's a free country man...

Even the far far left Jesus seminar would never deny Christ existence.

You put your faith in the idea there is no God. In fact there is not a shred of evidence that God does not exist.

Yet, other then a book, there is nothing to say he did exist. . .

and a book, does not a strong case make.

He does not exist, your delusional.

No, I don't put my faith in the idea there is no god. I personally do not see a reason to have faith in anything.
Like the Scientist/Atheist Richard Dawkins, I look at scientific fact, and see that while science cannot prove/disprove the existence of a god, there is enough evidence out there that makes such a thing highly unlikely.

"Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

if there be a "free country", then it only be and come from "free people", and free people cannot exist seeing thru ALL OTHERS AS HOLY OR NOT HOLY ONES?

how can anything see something as a RIGHT, as how then is not each a slave to protecting it's own "right", which soon lead to the only death mankind brings to itself, the destruction of each other?

does not each human do what it most want, and wants seen to self as "rights", as going unto infinity for self, then MUST AS WELL GO UNTO INFINITY FOR IT'S NEIGHBOR?

when there are many peoples more than ONE, "rights" lead away from the simple truth, IF ALL HAVE IT'S OWN LIST OF "RIGHTS" AS A "RIGHT", then there be no compromise, and the illusion is created that COMPROMISE BE A MORAL OBLIGATION, AS SOME LAW OF WHAT IS GOOD, instead of compromise being as first acceptence of others, then only seen as privelage of all, that afford EACH the ability to live in happiness and peace and unity......

but indeed, if even compromise be made a LAW in the MIND, then it decieve unto hate....

if two men wish to strike one another, and NEITHER wish for intervention, THEN WHAT BE THE PROBLEM?

it is only begging and wishing for a BIG DADDY, a moral code to be enforced, to protect self interest in all it does, that soon imprison and dictate as a big daddy dictator to all?

which societies in PAST history sought to have "rights" protected by SOME POWER GREATER THAN ITSELF, were not destroyed by what first gave it protection?

RIGHTS DEMANDED bring imprisonment to all societies that have ever wished for such........

I refer back to my earlier post...