Rosie, you would probably be surprised to learn that on any given day, unless someone else decides to bring up the subject of religion, my beliefs are not shared with anyone. I have no interest in turning anyone away from their chosen religions and have no interest in having anyone try to turn me to theirs, not that I have a problem with a purely philosophical discussion of the subject. If you want to quietly pray for me that is your affair, just don’t tell me about it because I don’t want to know. Many people in my life have told me that they were going to pray for me but I suspect they only told me that to underscore just how much of a sinner they thought I was. If they actually bothered with the praying I do not see where it helped.

You actually said something that if you look at it objectively has the potential to show you exactly what it is that we as non-christians are concerned about; “Why should other people’s beliefs get “imposed” on me?”. Other people’s beliefs should never be imposed on anyone and that is why the separation of church and state is so important, so laws are not made based on the beliefs of others. What current beliefs of others are currently being imposed on you? Tax laws, driving regulations, school milage? Is it that we do not want you to impose your beliefs on us that constitute our imposing our beliefs on you? You obviously did not give much consideration to my Bokononist argument above or you would see that what you see as us thwarting your rights is us defending our freedom. It is usually the minority that is most acutely aware of the axiom that ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’, it is more than jingoism to us.

You may be referring to the sodomy laws being repealed or the possibility that gay marriage will pass in many states, and from a religious standpoint I can see what upsets you about that...they are sins in the eyes of the church. But the state CANNOT make the same determination based only on the religious beliefs of some of its constituents, we are a melting pot my dear and there are a LOT of beliefs and opinions that need to be considered. Nobody is asking you to marry a woman or put anything in any orifice you find objectionable, I for one won’t be participating in any same sex marriage myself (don’t swing that way). However to tell someone else that the state, which is to make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, to whom they pay taxes, judges their union to be invalid is flat out wrong. The church can take that position but not our elected officials, they need to be bigger than the doctrine of their faith or what good are they as law makers? The free exercise of your religion does not extend into the legislative arena where you can impose a belief system on others, the constitution was drafted to protect us all from that sort of meddling.

I do not expect you will agree with me but try to see things from a different vantage point for a few minutes. Nobody is saying that you do not have the right to pray, just not to force a classroom full of children into a moment of reflection. Nobody is saying that you can’t follow the ten commandments just not post them in a public building where people of all faiths congregate (and pay taxes for their upkeep). Your right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins...the same is true of your bible.

That’s nonesense, Eric. Every law in America is an expression of morals. Societies work because the group acknowledges certain behavior as normal. Some of that we pass into laws, some as social standards. If the majority rules, and the majority is Christian, then the rest will just have to deal. If you’d like to debate the correctness of giving gay marraige the same priveledge as straight, I don’t even need to open my Bible to defeat that.

Unfortunately, although we have this wonderful statistic, 85% of the America is not Christian. 85% calls themselves Christian. There is a huge difference. It’s a broad lable applied to many religions that bear little in common with Christianity taught in the Bible. In turn this enables you to make all kinds of accusations about Christians. How about defining your terms a bit? 99.8%? Any other numbers you’d like to pull out of thin air?

I strongly doubt more than 25% of America is actually Christian. Because it is indeed a narrow and difficult road. One only has to look at China to get a feel for what happens to Christians in Non-Christian nations. Likewise, to get a feel for what Godless belief systems lead to.

Love your Vonnegut quote. Indeed, consider why. If I could create a universe, and I was perfectly moral, would I make a bunch of automons that were basically slaves, or would I give them free will to make their own choices? Now, if they were given free will, but I wanted to have a relationship with them, what are my options? If I reveal to them everything about who I am, will they truly have a choice about how they feel about me (remember, I am in every way perfect)? How do I make it so that each of these creatures have an opportunity to make their own choice about their association with me? Some sort of process by which I was gradually but never fully revealed (until after they’d made their choice) to each individual would be needed. And in order to make sure they were given a fair chance, and make sure we have a common framework, some underlying sense of right and wrong would have to be available to all of them, as well as some basic evidence of my existence. When I look at this universe, this is exactly what I see.

And surely, given the will to do so, some would make extrodinairly bad choices, like killing a doctor then blaming it on me.

Les, truth is not relative, perception may be. We already covered that ground. And You said nothing of my first argument. I don’t agree that you or those websites successfully refute my second argument. In fact, my original rebuttal to these argument stands above unchallenged. I again point out that your arguments rely on defeating the end of an argument (the qualities of God) that hasn’t been presented, and ignore the establishing point (there is a god).

Using Einstein’s and Sagan’s own words against them is fair play. Much as I would use anyone’s words against them, but more so. These guys should have seen it, but their own egos prevented it. Certainly you’re not saying that I can only use the words of believers to prove my points – then you’d say my supporting experts presuppose my point! I don’t think much of Sagan, but Einstein was a pretty sharp cookie. What he is saying in almost all of your quotes is that he does not believe in the supernatural – that once set in motion, this existence cannot be messed with, it is too well ordered and too well balanced. That, to me, belies his own conclusion. And while I accept that he was brilliant and knew more about physics than I could ever hope to know, his personal philosophy about the nature of existence was flawed. I’d love to have had the opportunity to debate it with him. Even though my overall take on his religious beliefs is that he was a Deist, not an atheist.

I wrote responses to those quotes, but then cut them. I don’t wish to deminish anyone in your eyes. But instead I would that you saw the beauty of one who created the art that Einstein revealed in and by his greater works.

Oh please, 32.7% of all people know that 76.2% of all statistics are garbage In case you missed the joke I am admitting that the 99.8% figure was based on opinion only, do YOU know of any studies where people identify themselves as self righteous? Since it is not a term of endearment but mostly of derision, I would doubt it very much.

You almost had it regarding the laws but you just had to plant the christian flag to show us how superior you are. Not EVERY law in America is an expression of morals...however they are based on norms. Are some laws based on morals? Of course, maybe even most (especially the really old ones). Now for me to launch into a long list of “moral” laws and their absurdity and/or downright mean spiritedness would be a huge waste of time since you also say “If the majority rules, and the majority is christian, then the rest will just have to deal.”. You see I would be making the mistake of assuming I was responding to someone with an open mind instead of yet another self-assured religious zealot. On behalf of the rest let me assure you that just dealing is the last thing most of us plan on doing. Maybe you are used to being lulled into sleep by your Shepard’s but most of the rest of us have a backbone and have learned how to use that cognitive organ perched behind our eyes. Just deal? No thanks, I think I would rather work against the church’s vile machinations.

Everyone is picking on christians because we are lumping the “false” christians in with the “true” christians. So you think that YOUR version of christianity is the TRUE one eh? Get in line son, every religion seems to think that they have the one and only TRUE interpretation of the Bible, Quran, Torah etc. To another sect of christians you are the infidel, well meaning I am sure, but unfortunately you have it just a little wrong. But to illustrate what I mean about interpretation take the Vonnegut quotation; you seem to think that it supports your contention that god exists...and silly me I fell right into your trap. However, having read every Vonnegut book published to date, most of his plays, collected short stories, speeches, and essays including a copious amount of biographical and auto-biographical information, I interpret it as saying ‘even in the face of contradiction by their creator, man will not be able to believe that we are all not here for a reason’. In the quote god did not have a reason for creating everything, man however required one (even though one was clearly not required), and god lets him go off on his frivolous pursuit of ‘truth’. Why is a reason needed? Does it matter if there is no truth?

Now does my familiarity with Vonnegut necessarily make me right? The difference between you and me is that I am willing to say ‘I don’t know’.

More importantly in my mind is how supremely arrogant is anyone who thinks that they know the truth, and how incredibly wrong. God has never been proven so how is it that you came by this truth of yours, and why are you hiding it from the rest of humanity? Without proof you would seek to impose your ‘morals’ as laws on the rest of the country...if not the world. How lucky you are to be so blindly faithful that you would tell someone else that you know best. It certainly must be wonderful to have never been wrong once in your life.

Don’t worry about diminishing anyone in my eyes. I find it highly unlikely that you could.

If the majority rules, and the majority is Christian, then the rest will just have to deal.

Hmmm. Guess it’s a good thing America is a Representative Republic where the Majority doesn’t always get what it wants. The Bill of Rights, after all, was set down to ensure that the “Majority” would not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of the minority. Damn those clever Fore Fathers!

Unfortunately, although we have this wonderful statistic, 85% of the America is not Christian. 85% calls themselves Christian. There is a huge difference. It’s a broad lable applied to many religions that bear little in common with Christianity taught in the Bible. In turn this enables you to make all kinds of accusations about Christians. How about defining your terms a bit? 99.8%? Any other numbers you’d like to pull out of thin air?

I strongly doubt more than 25% of America is actually Christian. Because it is indeed a narrow and difficult road. One only has to look at China to get a feel for what happens to Christians in Non-Christian nations. Likewise, to get a feel for what Godless belief systems lead to.

Well, if you’re going to base what a “Christian” is on what the Bible says a Christian is then I’d say there’s less than 1% of the population currently that are “True Christians” as you seem to be implying. After all, have you put anyone to death (EX 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 34:21, 35:1-3) for working on the Sabbath lately? No? Hmmm. Must not be a very good Christian then. I always love it when people like to pull the old “well, they’re not REAL Christians” line-of-defense. Funny how so many Christians have their own variation on what it means to be a Christian and each one seems to think he or she’s the expert on the matter. Why should we accept your definition of what it means to be a Christian over someone else’s?

Love your Vonnegut quote. Indeed, consider why. If I could create a universe, and I was perfectly moral, would I make a bunch of automons that were basically slaves, or would I give them free will to make their own choices? Now, if they were given free will, but I wanted to have a relationship with them, what are my options? If I reveal to them everything about who I am, will they truly have a choice about how they feel about me (remember, I am in every way perfect)? How do I make it so that each of these creatures have an opportunity to make their own choice about their association with me? Some sort of process by which I was gradually but never fully revealed (until after they’d made their choice) to each individual would be needed. And in order to make sure they were given a fair chance, and make sure we have a common framework, some underlying sense of right and wrong would have to be available to all of them, as well as some basic evidence of my existence. When I look at this universe, this is exactly what I see.

Based on the definition of perfect I’m most familiar with, if I were a truly perfect God there would be no need for me to make a universe and populate it with beings for my amusement. If God is perfect then he is without want so why would he “want” to have a relationship with anything? Wanting is a human failing and should be beyond a perfect being such as God. The God you seem to be seeing when you look at the universe is a God that seems to have some very human failings. Almost as if he were built in your image rather than the other way around.

And surely, given the will to do so, some would make extrodinairly bad choices, like killing a doctor then blaming it on me.

Well, according to the Bible at least, it’s not like God didn’t do enough murdering on his own or order others to do it for him on occasion. Besides, how do you know God didn’t tell him to kill the abortion doctor? Are you privy to every conversation God has with his followers? I thought that was the Pope’s job.

Les, truth is not relative, perception may be. We already covered that ground. And You said nothing of my first argument.

Indeed, I did not. It was a good start and I was ready to listen to the rest of what you had to say before making any major comments. Then you launched into the old Argument from Design and I lost all interest because it was clear you didn’t really have anything new to offer. That kind of makes going back and addressing the first argument pointless.

I don’t agree that you or those websites successfully refute my second argument. In fact, my original rebuttal to these argument stands above unchallenged.

I don’t really give a shit, to be honest, if you don’t feel I or those websites successfully refute your second argument. I feel that the Argument from Design has been pretty well refuted already. So unless you have some new take on it that hasn’t been covered previously, and what you wrote definitely wasn’t anything new as every single point therein has been covered in length elsewhere, then there’s no real point in going any further. You’re certainly welcome to continue posting your proof if you wish to do so, but I’m telling you now that I won’t be paying it much attention. I was betting you’d get at least half-way in before tripping up on old arguments that have already been done to death, but that appears to have been overly optimistic on my part.

I again point out that your arguments rely on defeating the end of an argument (the qualities of God) that hasn’t been presented, and ignore the establishing point (there is a god).

That’s mainly due to the nature of the comments I’ve been responding to. Most folks who come here and start making claims are working on the assumption that God exists and they use his qualities as arguments in why people should believe in him. I’m just responding to those points as raised. My reasons for determining that he does not exist is not something I’ve gone into great depth here so far. Most folks don’t seem to really care why I don’t think he exists and are quite happy with the simple explanation that I often use of “based on my experiences and the evidence I am aware of, I have no rational basis to conclude a God or Gods exist.” Considering that by definition God is an unprovable concept in any scientific way that makes any opinions on his qualities pure speculation regardless of whether or not he actually exists.

Using Einstein’s and Sagan’s own words against them is fair play. Much as I would use anyone’s words against them, but more so. These guys should have seen it, but their own egos prevented it. Certainly you’re not saying that I can only use the words of believers to prove my points – then you’d say my supporting experts presuppose my point!

I feel it’s dishonest to cite Einstein and Sagan as though the statements in question were made in support of your argument when they were not. It implies legitimacy through false endorsement to those people not familiar with these scientist’s true thoughts on the matter. You took a partial quote from Einstein and used to imply that he believed the only possible conclusion when looking at the Universe was that it had to have a Creator when the full quote says nothing of the sort and, in fact, rebuffs the idea of a anthropomorphic God. Misrepresentation does nothing to bolster your credibility.

I don’t think much of Sagan, but Einstein was a pretty sharp cookie. What he is saying in almost all of your quotes is that he does not believe in the supernatural – that once set in motion, this existence cannot be messed with, it is too well ordered and too well balanced. That, to me, belies his own conclusion. And while I accept that he was brilliant and knew more about physics than I could ever hope to know, his personal philosophy about the nature of existence was flawed. I’d love to have had the opportunity to debate it with him. Even though my overall take on his religious beliefs is that he was a Deist, not an atheist.

One could possibly make an argument that Einstein was a Deist based on his comments, but it seems clear his claim of Spinoza’s God was made more out of expediency than resolute faith.

In 1954 or 1955 Einstein received a letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:

The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word “mystical.” I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

A Chicago Rabbi, preparing a lecture on “The Religious Implications of the Theory of Relativity,” wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 20 December 1939 to ask some questions on the topic. Einstein replied as follows:

I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can be comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure.

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.—Excerpts from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

Deism as a belief still has an anthropomorphic God as Creator, albeit one who got things started and then left things to run on their own. Einstein makes it clear from numerous writings that he doesn’t buy into that concept. At best, Einstein was a Deist out of convenience because it was enough to get believers off his back without being so much a distortion of the truth as to be dishonest.

I wrote responses to those quotes, but then cut them. I don’t wish to deminish anyone in your eyes.

I think you would be hard pressed to diminish Einstein in my eyes with anything you might have to say.

But instead I would that you saw the beauty of one who created the art that Einstein revealed in and by his greater works.

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

I’ve done a little research, and what I’ve discovered should make anyone think twice....

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a “gateway” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into
a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

Just thought we could use a little levity here, and I thought it was apropos. Of course, I knew you made that up, but I was pointing out that your other statistic was just as meaningful. You can’t just ask people if they are Christian and expect to get a meaningful statistic. Do I think I know what true Christianity is? Not exactly. I have a simple definition that I think works. But I think you’d be hard pressed to say that many religions calling themselves Christian follow the precepts the book they call most holy describes. If we’re not going to use the Bible as the measure of what is Christian and what is not, just what will we use? Besides, they almost all claim that it’s their final authority. Let us judge them, then, on their own grounds. Despite Les’s interpretation, Christians are under the new covenant, Judaism, however, should be out there slaying those Sabbath lawbreakers. I am not alone in my idea that many whole religions are off the mark, One does not have to look far to see obvious problems. Martin Luther had a few things to say about the Roman Catholic Church. He pointed out the Catholics were not following scriptures they claimed to follow and the response was: no we’re not, we hold to tradition and Papal authority as well as scripture. That was hundreds of years ago. Yet somehow Catholics are still considered Christian, when it is established that Papist’s would be a better description. So you see, I’m not saying I have all the answers, but we’ve known for centuries that even major religions that call themselves Christian and claim to follow the Bible aren’t and don’t. Actually, you’d find that I’m extremely open about who I accept as a Christian brother.

Oh, and another word on how meaningless that stat is: Almost every stat concerning activities is the same inside the church as out. Take for instance divorce. It’s about 50% among those who are not churched and about 50% among people who attend church. However, the divorce rate among couples who regularly pray together: less than one in one thousand. Lots of folks claim Christianity, many even attend a church. But actually being a Christian is a different thing. I’m not trying to tell you who isn’t or who is, just that there is a difference. And there are many of the former, and relatively few of the later.

I would like to see one example of a law that is not based on morality. Even traffic law has at it’s base morality. And re-read my post: I said IF the majority is Christian and then followed that by saying that it’s doubtful that they are. Indeed I think Les is closer than I (at 1%), but hope springs eternal. Wow Les, I almost never get reminded that I live in a republic. You are correct, but our government is still based in the idea of majority rule.

Also, I take exception to being portrayed as self-righteous. I am often wrong. In fact, one of the primary reasons I post and read this board is to learn more about what others believe and try to better understand what I believe. When I hear about my beliefs through your most critical eyes, it makes me consider carefully why I believe what I believe and what faults I need to address in my system of belief. I do enjoy how in one sentence you call me arrogant and in the next you say I’m spineless. If submission to a clearly superior being is spineless, then such am I. Does that make me a weakling or coward? I don’t think so. I seem to stand up to you and Les on you’re own turf OK.

It seems I was in the midst of a proof of God, when Les (who owns the place) asked me to stop. God is proven: every breath you and I take proves to me his mercy and his existence. Seems both Eric and Les have totally ducked my first argument concerning the existence of God. Again I ask, if there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing? Let’s examine what we do know and see what conclusions follow. Then we will know the most truth we can know. From where I sit, I see my unanswered rebuttals to your statements throughout this thread. Maybe you’re bored, maybe you don’t know. I sure don’t know everything, and I’m definitely not in possession of all the truth, but I’m not ashamed of the truth I do know or my pursuit of as much as I can grab hold of.

Les, I don’t really want to get in a “yes I did - no you didn’t” match here. I wrote an argument, you pointed out your objections, I rebutted, then you had nothing further to add to that line. Just how else am I supposed to interpret that, I don’t think I’ve been refuted. And of course I’ve used and will continue to use, tried and true arguments. No matter how old it gets, Pythagoras’s Theorem will still work. You can say it doesn’t till you’re blue in the face, but you won’t change my mind until you come up with an actual argument. Truth does not change over time.

Perfect being’s don’t want anything? Maybe they don’t NEED anything. Let’s see your definition of perfect. If you never wanted anything, why would you ever do anything? Sounds like it’d be pretty dull being perfect. Wait, that wouldn’t be perfect, would it? And while we’re at it, where does your concept of what God should be like come from? Why does it share so much in common with mine, despite our differences about his existence?

I admit that I only used the part of the quote from Albert that supported my point. That may have been somewhat less than fully honest. But two things must be considered: 1) I cannot give a full history of each person I quote, and everything they ever said, each time I make a quote. I assume the reader is responsible for that. I thought everyone knew Albert was not a Christian, so I was not trying to be deceptive in that way. 2) When I quote someone who is generally contrary to my opinion when trying to prove my own point, I think it’s only natural that I would choose to quote the part that I agree with. My whole point is that his conclusions were wrong, but that many of his comments contradict his conclusions. I personally find this odd for a man who was so obviously intelligent. Perhaps like many such people, common sense and the obvious escaped him.

“What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

How can I explain this any clearer? I feel so much the same way. Yet my conclusion from this evidence, that a man so intimately familiar with the complexity of the universe should be awed by it’s design, is so different. In fact how can he then say, “The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious.” Indeed? No, it’s exactly that same awe. According to scripture, God is Love, but he is also perfectly rational. So many miss that point, because many are only attracted to the emotional wow. I am so much more enthralled by the additional intellectual awe. And this is what I meant by that last sentence. Albert revealed and personally experienced much of the truly amazing rational beauty of the universe. I see this as the art, and God the artist. What I want you to see is the artist behind the art that Albert revealed. Albert described the painting, I’m interested in introducing you to the painter.

I don’t have much time to get into this so I’m going to skip over quite a bit to get to a couple of points I’d like to address.

It seems I was in the midst of a proof of God, when Les (who owns the place) asked me to stop. God is proven: every breath you and I take proves to me his mercy and his existence.

That may be enough proof for you, but I disagree. Every time you make statements like that you just look more and more like the other folks who show up and spew the same tired old sentences at us over and over again. Our existence is little proof of anything other than we exist.

Seems both Eric and Les have totally ducked my first argument concerning the existence of God. Again I ask, if there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there has always been something. Already covered that. Energy cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. You’re the one claiming there was “nothing” before the Big Bang. All science has said is that after tracing time backward beyond a certain point the currently known laws of physics and mathematics breaks down so they can’t say with any certainty what things were like prior to that point. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything at all, just the current rules can’t be used to describe it.

Les, I don’t really want to get in a “yes I did - no you didn’t” match here. I wrote an argument, you pointed out your objections, I rebutted, then you had nothing further to add to that line. Just how else am I supposed to interpret that, I don’t think I’ve been refuted.

You can interpret it however you wish. You will anyway. That whole subjective thing once again. You’re right that I haven’t really responded much to the first argument, but it has nothing to do with being ashamed of not knowing. It’s never bothered me to admit when I don’t know something. I’ll repeat my statement from my last response in which I said that I was content to let you get through the proof before making any major comments until you threw out the Argument from Design.

Your explanation of the Argument from Design offered nothing new. It was pretty much exactly the same argument as has been covered by much better debaters than myself on more than one occasion and documented at various websites including Infidels.org. It had all the same flaws and it brought no new twists to the concept. You may not feel that any of those people have managed to successfully refute the Argument from Design and I, very obviously, disagree with you. I’ve already repeated some of the problems inherent in that argument on this website in the past. I don’t see much point in repeating them now. If your proof is dependent on that argument as one of its founding points then your proof will not satisfy me as much of a proof. If we can already determine that now then there is no point in carrying it any further.

I’ve used and will continue to use, tried and true arguments. No matter how old it gets, Pythagoras’s Theorem will still work. You can say it doesn’t till you’re blue in the face, but you won’t change my mind until you come up with an actual argument. Truth does not change over time.

Tried? Yes. True? Not from where I’m standing.

As for Pythagoras’ Theorem, I don’t believe it was in question in this discussion. Besides, unlike the Argument from Design, you can actually experiment with Pythagoras’ Theorem to determine it’s validity. That whole “comparing apples and oranges” thing again.

Perfect being’s don’t want anything? Maybe they don’t NEED anything. Let’s see your definition of perfect.

per·fect
adj.
1] Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2] Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3] Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4] Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5 a] Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
5 b]Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6] Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7] Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8] Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
9] Botany. Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
10] Grammar. Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
11] Music. Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

I believe the first two definitions most directly apply. Now let’s look at the definition for “want.”

want
v. want·ed, want·ing, wants
v. tr.
1 a] To desire greatly; wish for: They want to leave. She wants a glass of water. See Synonyms at desire.
1 b] To desire (someone to do something): I want you to clean your room.
2 a] To request the presence or assistance of: You are wanted by your office.
2 b]To seek with intent to capture: The fugitive is wanted by the police.
3] To have an inclination toward; like: Say what you want, but be tactful.
4] Informal. To be obliged (to do something): You want to be careful on the ice.
5] To be without; lack. See Synonyms at lack.
6] To be in need of; require: “‘Your hair wants cutting,’ said the Hatter” (Lewis Carroll).

Seems to me that a “perfect” God would not “want” for anything.

If you never wanted anything, why would you ever do anything?

Good question. A question I’ve asked many times. I’m sure you’ve got a good answer.

Sounds like it’d be pretty dull being perfect. Wait, that wouldn’t be perfect, would it?

You’re a quick study. A God that is perfect is without needs, wants or desires because he is already complete. Needing, wanting or desiring is an indication of lacking, or at least a self-perception of lacking. Many people find such a being hard to imagine. A lot of us find him impossible to believe.

And while we’re at it, where does your concept of what God should be like come from? Why does it share so much in common with mine, despite our differences about his existence?

Because it’s your concept of God that we’re arguing here. Would you rather I argue for the non-existence of Vishnu? Or perhaps I should be arguing from the concept of Odin? I can imagine all manner of Gods and I can even propose what I would consider a worthwhile God to be. I can do the same thing with unicorns and garden fairies as well.

I’m going to have to stop for the moment. I am out of time for now.

OK, there’s some confusion here. When I wrote that you’ve not answered my rebuttal, I’m referring to the form/design argument. The first time I used it, I went and read the web site, read your points, rebutted them, and then never got an answer on that rebuttal. So no, I don’t see how you or anyone else could interpret that differently, but I’m trying. My first argument of a theistic god, the world based argument, continues to be left just plain unanswered. Although now you make reference to the idea that the universe always was. As I previously pointed out, that does not fly, even a little. But instead of refuting my points, you just say the math breaks down, our understanding is not yet great enough. And you accuse me of using Christianese? HA! You sound just like a believer.

When I began the proof, there were sure to be some arguments you’d heard before. As soon as we get to the first one, instead of refuting it, you point to a couple of web-sites and say my whole proof is wrong. Because one sub-point can be debated? I even answered the points raised by the site! You and I obviously disagree over the outcome of that debate. But that hardly invalidates the proof, particularly when the bar we agreed to was that it would be reasonable, not beyond all doubt. So you raise a little doubt and say “been there, done that”. Pah, thought there was more to you, Les.

Fine, let us say I am completely defeated. Are you saying that your whole explanation is that the universe has always been here? I’ve already made several points that completely invalidate that idea – not just raise doubts. So do we stare at each other and say, “We both don’t know”? Or do we accept the explanation that takes into account the most facts?

BTW, my point that you spend the last half of your post breaking into bits too small to leave the whole recognizable, is that if your definition of perfection leads to a something that is less than perfect, then it’s not a good definition of perfection. I thought you’d get that via the Socratic method, but again I was disappointed. So let me make it simple for you. If a perfect being had no wants, then it’s existence would be less than perfect, therefore having no wants cannot be part of the definition of a perfect being. While having no wants (which would be more accurately rendered “lacking in nothing” not “wanting no thing”) might make a good partial definition of perfect for many things, it cannot be applied to a self-aware being for that reason. This does not disprove the existence of a perfect being, it merely means that your *definition* of perfect, when applied to a personality, is, well, less than perfect (read: wrong).

Egads, how depressing, I never thought anyone could just simply lack the intelligence to have faith. I keep seeing you reach for a website or other source to do your thinking for you. If this is all you’ve got, and you can’t articulate your own defense of beliefs you claim to posses, then I find this rather pointless. Why converse with you (i.e. experiment with ideas concerning reality just as I might experiment with math)? I could just read the book. Hmm, if I was thereby without wants, would I then be perfect? Or just a giant gooey bread pudding person?

Egads, how depressing, I never thought anyone could just simply lack the intelligence to have faith. I keep seeing you reach for a website or other source to do your thinking for you. If this is all you’ve got, and you can’t articulate your own defense of beliefs you claim to posses, then I find this rather pointless.

I told you this had grown pointless awhile ago.

First I’d like to apologise for resurrecting this thread, but after reading through most of it (yes I fully admit to not trawling through some of the lengthier replies once I got their gist.) I would just like to add something.

I was brought up in a very strict christian environment, and have read and studied the bible for a number of years. For a long time I counted myself a ‘believer’ in creation, in the bible, and in the god of christianity.

Over the years I began to notice something, it was like an itch at the back of my mind, and it unsettled me. What I was noticing was the way I was replacing the things that I personally believed, and exchanging them for what I was being taught to believe. How as I became indoctrinated I began accepting things unquestioningly, even though I had a suspicion deep down that they didn’t entirely make sense. You may assume what you will about me for this, but I do not consider myself to be unintelligent or gullible, I just wanted to believe. I can remember how certain accounts of Gods apparent cruelty didn’t mesh with the portrayal of God by Christ. Other things such as scriptures showing god to be infallible, and with a divine plan, proved that he actually wanted us to fall into sin and suffer, by the very reasoning used to prove that he didn’t. I won’t quote the scriptures here, because in all honesty I think they are irrelevant to my point, which I will get to shortly.

To the people who hold up Christianity as the way, and say that it if we were all christians then the world would be a lovely place etc. I can only say this, hasn’t christianity been around long enough to prove itself to be the way? If it were the answer don’t you think perhaps there would be at least some evidence of it doing good on a large scale? I have to say that from my personal perspective at least the opposite would appear to be true. With that same brush I am going to tar all other religions, because I am tired of hearing about how wonderful they are, and how they alone have the way etc, when not a single one has come up with any of their bold sweeping claims in reality, I think evidence of the conflict and suffering caused by religions is far more evident in this world. I see all religions in the same light as I view the ‘wonder drug’ Thalidomide, do I need to elaborate?

So I have in a stroke condemned all major religions, but from what perspective? From my own personal perspective that is all, I am saying that in my personal world, there is no room nor will there ever be for any religion or it’s beliefs. You see I like every other human being have the right to do that, what I do not have the right to do however is presume to dictate what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for someone else. It’s this inherent trait in humanity that seems to be the cause of so many problems, we seem unable to accept that someone can live in the same world and have a different worldview, it seems to make us insecure, and yet if you look you will see that in fact we all vary in our opinions about even the most trivial subjects. If we didn’t then we would all be driving the same car, doing the same job, wearing the same clothes and eating the same food, wouldn’t we?

I can only conclude that for myself, there is no readily available belief system that can substitute for my own. So I choose to believe in things I have personal experience of, and everything else I view as possible…

They killed their friend and then group-hugged. bUT they aknowledged that it was “pretty sick”.

Morals without ethics have their dangers.

Religion is the crutch for a world full of cripples. If you don’t need one, then please don’t take someone elses’

I want to hear their parents’ comment on this topic.

The death penalty is not a deterrent; it is simply the fastest way to keep someone from doing something we (legally) agree is unacceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Always hope you have some say in that authority…

and my last random thought…

why the heck am I posting to a thread this old?!

Funny how this argument turned to religion.
Religion sucks.
If christianity was the way then those people would be following the bible. Not comming up with stupid slogans, or freaking out about damn things they see and think they look like some religious shit.

However I can’t say how we are here isnt baffling either.
How about the law of entropy?

But anyway thats beside the point.
I in no way condone killing people.
However it does seem that people are becoming less tolerant of things that happened to them.
It could possibly be that the person in question was killed because of something they did to disturb the persons in question.
Course then again in history many people had actual reasons for killing people.

Serai –
I think what you’re saying here is that instead of believing in yourself (pride) you began to believe in God and accept His way instead of your way. Someone more knowledgeable than I may feel free to correct me, but isn’t that what Christianity is all about. I mean isn’t that the main point? So you rejected God. Ultimately, that answers your second point (not understanding how a loving God allows bad things to happen). You have free will, you can reject, and do what is right in your own mind (like killing your personal acquaintances) or you can follow the way. Nowhere in the Bible does God promise heaven on earth, in fact I can’t find where it says everything will be perfect in heaven. Where did you get the idea that Christianity was supposed to make this world a better place? And by what standard (or rather who’s) would you judge better or worse?  I would say rather, that Christianity makes believers better people, and eventually, slowly, turns them into closer-to-perfect people, not clones. And unfortunately for this world the Bible says that perfection will not be achieved on earth.

Christ himself said that he did not come to cause peace, rather that he would set brother against brother, father against child, children against parents. You have picked a goal for Christianity that cannot be found in it’s writings and then claim Christianity has failed because it hasn’t achieved your imagined goal. This fits nicely with why you rejected Christianity to start with. You have decided for yourself what is good, and you reject anyone else’s idea of that, particularly God’s.

There, now you have personally experienced my faith. So now you believe God exists, no?

Your comment about free will reminds me of one of the hilarious paradoxes of most christians I have talked to on the subject. They say we all have free will, and this is why bad things happen, but they also believe god has a plan for us, and they believe in praying for god’s assistance. The problem with these beliefs is their interference with the notion of free will. If god has a plan for you, then you don’t really have free will, the future is already planned for you. Praying also interferes with the notion of free will. Ir you can pray for god to assist to protect you in a time of danger, then he may have to interfere with the free will of someone else to acheive this (and if he doesn’t have to, then your prayer served no purpose as you weren’t in danger).

Not being based on reason or logic most people of faith are immune from the paradoxes their definitions of God tend to cause. I’ve had more than one person try to argue that it’s possible for both God to know the future before it happens yet I am somehow still responsible for decisions I cannot change because I supposedly made them of my own free will.

I always love to point out that if God knows before we’re born everything that we will do in life then what’s the point in bothering with the experience? He could save time by tossing all the damned souls straight to hell and collecting the pure souls for his own trophy case and be done with it in a matter of moments. No one’s come up with a good answer to that one yet.

Not only would it seem pointless for god, but it also would seem pointless for us. If god has my life already planned, then what have I been working all my life for. If god’s plan is to be carried out anyway, I may as well sit on the couch and let him do the work then

Sorry David but I really must correct you on a few points, it sort of irritates me when people try and put meaning into my words that isn’t there. Then again that seems to be a trait of Christianity as a whole so I can hardly expect much else now can I?

I think what you’re saying here is that instead of believing in yourself (pride) you began to believe in God and accept His way instead of your way.

Actually no I didn’t, you use the term ‘God’ to refer to the creator mentioned in the bible if I am correct? If that’s the case then emphatically no, I do not believe in the God of the bible, I believe there is something higher than us in a spiritual sense, but that’s as far as I will discuss my beliefs with you.

...do what is right in your own mind (like killing your personal acquaintances) or you can follow the way.

Right I see so follow my own conscience and stand or fall on my own merits, or follow the ‘way’? What way? You mean the way of the bible, a book that I seriously think too many people put way too much faith in? Sorry but no, basing your ‘way’ on a book that contradicts itself is not the way for me thank you. Personally if God exists he didn’t expect us to sit around reading a book written by men, he expects us to use the things we were born with, our brains!!!

Personally if it comes to being a sheep or being a goat I know I am not a sheep, sheep follow blindly without reason, and for what? To be fleeced of course! No thank you.

Christ himself said that he did not come to cause peace, rather that he would set brother against brother, father against child, children against parents.

Yes I’ve heard more than enough bible quotes to last me a lifetime, and it’s people taking literally what the bible says, such as the above that really proves to me how pointless it is to follow, especially when we have a brain that is perfectly capable of reasoning the ‘way’ for ourselves.

There, now you have personally experienced my faith. So now you believe God exists, no?

No all I believe now is that you believe in God, for myself nothing has changed, I will not preach nor will I be preached to, I know my way and I will follow it right or wrong, and yes I have very good reasons for that, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions in life. Please stop trying to ‘convert’ or ‘assimilate’ me because it will not work, all you will do is reinforce my belief that Christians think they know better than anyone else about matters of faith, which is why I got out when I had the chance.

Very well said Serai!! Whatever will David (and others like him) do if he can’t convert others to his faith. That’s going to take all the fun out of the religion for him. It’ll be like a job with no pay or commission. I can understand one wanting to share one’s experiences with others, but when those experiences are built out of air and light it’s rather difficult for someone else to feel and touch them. But if one truly believes in something, they shouldn’t need others to validate that belief anyway.

Oh dear this has started me off on a little nostalgia trip, which I thought I might share to offer an insight into being a JW which I hasten to add I am not anymore.

I was brought up from the age of six as a Jehovah’s witness, do any of you remember Charlie Brown, and what his teacher sounded like? Well that’s pretty much all I remember of my early childhood sat on uncomfortable seats for two hours at a time listening to the same ‘Waah wa waa WAAA wa wa wa WA WA!!’ It made completetly no sense whatsoever to a six year old child, I used to crush my hands in the flip up chair seat to relieve the boredom.

As I got older it started to make a little more sense in a weird sort of way, but even then I was starting to see the glaring discrepancy between what was said and what was done in reality.

Funniest thing was when out knocking on peoples doors, my main thought was ‘What on Earth am I doing here surely if people wanted to know what I believe they would ask?’ As with any of the religions that follow the way(TM) there was an overwhelming attitude of ‘We are right they are all wrong, let’s go and save them from their ignorance...’ In the course of my ministry, I began to notice that a lot of these ‘ignorant’ people actually had a better understanding of their personal beliefs than I did.­­
Anyway another major factor in judging your own spirituality was not how close you felt to God personally, but it was all about how many hours you did in the ministry, or how many people you had ‘converted’. To me this was focusing on the external, it was judging spirituality based on what could be percieved by others, in other words it was shallow and pretentious.

So my advice to people who want to preach to me? Go home and analyse your own beliefs first before you come here assuming that I haven’t analysed my own…

So my advice to people who want to preach to me? Go home and analyse your own beliefs first before you come here assuming that I haven’t analysed my own…

I’ve said that very same thing to a few people in my time.

Please explain to me why this is a paradox. Not all Christians agree to what I’m about to propose, indeed I see it as only one of many possible explanations: God is outside of time. He created the universe, and one of the attributes he gave it was time. Since He views the whole thing as a completed work, He knows all that will happen in it. That knowledge does not limit your decisions, He just knows what you’ll chose, which is vastly different than choosing for you. From God’s point of view, you would then already be damned (or not). He’s not waiting around for the outcome, we are.

I have many plans for my children. I do my best to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those plans. I know full well that not all those plans will work out. Occasionally my kids will make bad decisions that require modifying the original plan if the desired goals are to be reached. So, I have a plan, but I do not control their decisions. Since we see similar situations throughout our lives, it leads me to believe that you must be either inexplicably stupid, or deliberately avoiding the truth.

Again you seem to avoid having a point of reference in your danger illustration. In what way could I be in danger that could be in God’s will that could possibly satisfy the other conditions of your example? You mean if some other Christian wanted to kill me? You’re going to have to ponder that one a bit longer, or as someone else said,” So my advice to people who want to preach to me? Go home and analyse [sic] your own beliefs first before you come here assuming that I haven’t analysed [sic] my own…”

And Serai, I must point out that I preface my remark just as you quoted: “I think what you’re saying here is...”. I am trying to reach an understanding of what you are believe, not telling you what you believe. I didn’t begin “You obviously believe that...”. If people did not try to put meaning to your words, why would we read them? And of course, you must know that most Christians don’t accept JW as a Christian religion. They kind of fail the point of believing Christ is God, hence Christian is not an appropriate label.

But didn’t you write “What I was noticing was the way I was replacing the things that I personally believed, and exchanging them for what I was being taught to believe.” I know you do not believe in God now, but it sounds an awful lot like “instead of believing in yourself (pride) you began to believe in God and accept His way instead of your way.” At least I think you could see how I might interpret it that way.

Perhaps the special JW version of the Bible (yes, they have their very own “translation”) contradicts itself. But I challenge you to find a single contradiction in any of the commonly used translations in use by evangelical churches (i.e. NIV, YLT, NAS, KJV, NASV, etc.). I hear that line all the time, never has anyone been able to back it up with an actual example. It leads me to believe that someone is just repeating something they heard that they find comforting to their point of view, without ever having seen it themselves. Oh, isn’t that what you’re busy accusing me of?

Is it such a mystery to you all why Christians seek converts? How sad. No Christian has ever told you? I find that difficult to believe. Again I must think you are deliberately avoiding the truth. The truth is: we love you. Not because we want to, but because we must. The whole world will never turn aside from pride and seek Christ, but should such a day happen I don’t think I’ll find myself “out of work”. I’ve plenty of things to tend to about my own spiritual improvement. But I let mine wait in deference to you. Before us sits a table laden with food, how could I eat and drink my fill while you have not yet even found your seat?

I think it’s interesting that when you see a house, you assume that there are rooms inside, furniture, and likely a family going about it’s daily routine. But you see my faith and you assume that there is nothing behind it. Now, maybe there is nothing behind your beliefs, perhaps they are a facade, but don’t be so arrogant as to assume the same is true of mine. When you see my faith, know that it has a foundation. In fact, assuming I am not just lying to you for my own personal gain or a complete loon, it would stand to reason that where there is faith, there is a foundation for that faith, i.e. God. 

And lastly Les, come now, “not based on logic”? I suppose when you cannot defeat an argument by reason, you must resort to this, which is essentially name-calling. BTW, it finally occurred to me that if you put that book I offered you on your wish list I could buy it for you. Having taken a recent look through yours I was impressed. Red Dwarf! Perhaps we yet have more in common than we think.

Please explain to me why this is a paradox. Not all Christians agree to what I’m about to propose, indeed I see it as only one of many possible explanations: God is outside of time. He created the universe, and one of the attributes he gave it was time. Since He views the whole thing as a completed work, He knows all that will happen in it. That knowledge does not limit your decisions, He just knows what you’ll chose, which is vastly different than choosing for you. From God’s point of view, you would then already be damned (or not). He’s not waiting around for the outcome, we are.

Which just reinforces my point: If God already knows what the outcome will be then what is the point in our going through the motions? If he already knows who’ll end up saved and who’ll end up damned then waiting around for the outcome is pointless. He could just separate us into the two groups and be done with it in a matter of moments. If he already knows everything I will do before I’m even born then how do we have free will? I have to live my life to the outcome God expects or God would be wrong and thus, not all-knowing. If my life is already predetermined, which it must be if God is to know ahead of time what the outcome will be, then I cannot have free will. Having free will and a God that can know the outcome ahead of time is a paradox.

I have many plans for my children. I do my best to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those plans. I know full well that not all those plans will work out. Occasionally my kids will make bad decisions that require modifying the original plan if the desired goals are to be reached. So, I have a plan, but I do not control their decisions. Since we see similar situations throughout our lives, it leads me to believe that you must be either inexplicably stupid, or deliberately avoiding the truth.

One key distinction: You’re not all-knowing as God supposedly is. Thus in your case there is no paradox.

Another distinction is the fact that, eventually, your kids grow up and become adults and are expected to go off and stand on their own two feet. They may make decisions you do not agree with, but it will be their right to do so as adults. “God’s” children never get that chance. Nice slam there at the end, though.

Perhaps the special JW version of the Bible (yes, they have their very own “translation”) contradicts itself. But I challenge you to find a single contradiction in any of the commonly used translations in use by evangelical churches (i.e. NIV, YLT, NAS, KJV, NASV, etc.). I hear that line all the time, never has anyone been able to back it up with an actual example. It leads me to believe that someone is just repeating something they heard that they find comforting to their point of view, without ever having seen it themselves. Oh, isn’t that what you’re busy accusing me of?

It’s been done already, which you should already know about as you claim to have spent time reading the various articles available at Infidels.org at which there are several that deal with Biblical errancy. All of which, no doubt, you will dismiss as “taking things out of context” as that is the typical response to the listings found therein.

Is it such a mystery to you all why Christians seek converts? How sad. No Christian has ever told you? I find that difficult to believe. Again I must think you are deliberately avoiding the truth. The truth is: we love you. Not because we want to, but because we must.

The irony in the above statement is amazing. If you “must” love us then how is that love at all? Love is something given freely, not coerced by threat of punishment. Not that such a statement is surprising from someone who follows a Savior that claims to love its creations, but will toss them into eternal fire if that love is not returned. If your child were to stop loving you, would you toss them into a fiery furnace?

The whole world will never turn aside from pride and seek Christ, but should such a day happen I don’t think I’ll find myself “out of work”. I’ve plenty of things to tend to about my own spiritual improvement. But I let mine wait in deference to you. Before us sits a table laden with food, how could I eat and drink my fill while you have not yet even found your seat?

Perhaps we would all be a bit better off if you stopped waiting for the rest of us and started tending toward your own spiritual improvement now. If we should get “hungry” for the “food” you’re offering I’m sure we’ll let you know.

And, once again, that’s part of the problem. Christians such as you have a hard time with the concept of “no thanks” and insist on trying to shove your “food” down our throats regardless of whether we want it or not.

I think it’s interesting that when you see a house, you assume that there are rooms inside, furniture, and likely a family going about it’s daily routine. But you see my faith and you assume that there is nothing behind it. Now, maybe there is nothing behind your beliefs, perhaps they are a facade, but don’t be so arrogant as to assume the same is true of mine. When you see my faith, know that it has a foundation. In fact, assuming I am not just lying to you for my own personal gain or a complete loon, it would stand to reason that where there is faith, there is a foundation for that faith, i.e. God.

I think it’s interesting that you assume to know what any one of us will assume when we see a house. How do you know that I don’t assume a house is empty unless I see some signs of occupation? You like to make use of similes that rely on your assumptions of how others think and feel.

Your faith may have its foundation in the idea of God, but that doesn’t prove God’s existence as you seem to like to imply. I know a lot of people who have faith in the idea of aliens that have visited the planet, but that doesn’t mean aliens actually have visited the planet. A lot of people have faith in a lot of things that aren’t real. For awhile, my daughter had faith that someday she’d meet and befriend a unicorn. I’ll let you know if it should come to pass anytime soon.

And lastly Les, come now, “not based on logic”? I suppose when you cannot defeat an argument by reason, you must resort to this, which is essentially name-calling.

Name calling? No, just stating the truth as I see it. I suppose telling someone that they must be “inexplicably stupid” is some form of high compliment on your part? Pot. Kettle. You know the rest.

BTW, it finally occurred to me that if you put that book I offered you on your wish list I could buy it for you. Having taken a recent look through yours I was impressed. Red Dwarf! Perhaps we yet have more in common than we think.

It hadn’t occurred to me to put the book on my wish list. I need to update it as it stands so that would be a good opportunity.

As for having more in common than we think, what makes you assume that I didn’t think we had anything in common? In my experience I share a lot of common interests with all manner of people. It doesn’t surprise me at all to learn someone I disagree with on some issues shares my interest in some other topics. I’m more surprised by meeting people that I have nothing in common with than I am by meeting people that I share at least some interests with.

David, I don’t think any of us are saying you cannot decorate your house with any accoutrement you like, just to avoid trying to redecorate ours.

“I’ve plenty of things to tend to about my own spiritual improvement. But I let mine wait in deference to you.”

This is a most transparent self-serving, prideful thing to undertake. I at least will not believe for one moment that your desire for my, or anyone’s soul’s safety, is the reason for you “talking” here. Plain and simple, you want to be perceived as wise, as patient, as reasonable and as “saved” as a person could hope to be. You want to magnify your own worth, as it were. That has been glaringly obvious in most everything you have written here. Though you talk of pride as though it is evil, your words suggest you have much pride in your own intellect and deeds. While pride in one’s self is not a bad thing, denial of another’s rights to have pride in his or her accomplishments and reasoning ability is.

“The truth is: we love you. Not because we want to, but because we must.”

You completely negate the value of love with this statement. You turn a compassionate, considerate, highly meaningful gift one offers into a grudgingly mechanical, forced, uninspired and uninspiring sentiment. You convert a noble choice into a baseless acquiescence.

I was searching the net the other day and ran across this page for a company called Double Blessing Productions, which sells varied services and goods relating to Christianity. Their pitch reads:
“Double Blessing Productions is a ministry-minded, Spirit-filled, cutting-edge, Word-based kingdom business raised up in this hour to help blaze a trail for the five-fold ministry to perfect the saints and bring unity to the Body of Christ.
We believe wholeheartedly in seeking first the kingdom of God to see His righteousness fulfilled throughout the Earth.We have been called by God to raise up a standard of excellence in the quality of design, content, outreach, and ministry.
A worldwide distribution network is continually being developed to bring the cutting-edge, Word-based revelation into the hearts of people of all ages.
If you are ready to take the next step in raising the standard in your world—whether it be publishing a book, setting up a new bookstore, designing a new church logo, new shirts, and caps for your ministry or church, producing and distributing your message on video and CDs as well as cassette tape—whatever your dream, just give us a call, drop us a line, or e-mail us the form below. We’re here to help you raise the standard. We believe that the body of Christ is called and designed by God to work together (each joint having it’s own unique “supply”). Please take the time to fill out the form below to let us know your needs AND your strengths (your area of supply). We will get back in touch with you to begin the process of combining resources to reach the common goal of raising the standard of excellence in the body of Christ.”
The illustrations on the page are a large picture of a Mercedes Benz sitting proudly beside a much smaller picture of a VW Beetle.
Guess who is hoping to own the Mercedes, and guess who thinks you should covet the Mercedes too?
I included this representation of blatant commercialization to point out desires I believe many sheeple of the Christian denomination hold near and dear. To possess excessive material wealth while maintaining they are giving support and providing innocent loving service to others. It isn’t the best example of Christian marketing available, but maybe it is adequate. Some sell religious goods to achieve their materialistic goals, some create or come to websites and push various beliefs which may or may not be justified, to illustrate their superior ability to master difficult religious concepts. Unlike most of us, you seem to have figured out the ultimate meaning of life. Way to go enlightened one! 
If you can see any parallels in the above example of Christian method and your own writings and apparent beliefs, I commend you. If not then I’ll just say to you what you said to readers”...it leads me to believe that you must be either inexplicably stupid, or deliberately avoiding the truth.”

“Where did you get the idea that Christianity was supposed to make this world a better place?”

That is precisely what advocates, who wish to force the display of the Ten Commandments in government lobbies, believe it will help engender. Why shouldn’t Serai, given every Christian ideal she’s likely been exposed to, come to expect that?

“You have decided for yourself what is good, and you reject anyone else’s idea of that, particularly God’s.”

Until we achieve a coadunate mind state, all of us lowly humans will do something akin to this, including you. And isn’t it fortuitous that you know for certain what God thinks is uniquely good, while the rest of us struggle constantly to represent goodness, commonly doubting our ability to measure up. You place yourself far above many by minimizing someone else’s right to seek a personal understanding of good, whether it be defined by God, one’s parents or others or one’s self. I speak back to you not because I understand better what is ultimately right, but because you represent everything I hate about the search for higher awareness. You have the answers, the book and the “creator of all” on your team. You certainly can’t blame us for having a speck of doubt concerning your right to “lord” it over others.
As for there being no contradictions (at least in) the King James Bible, perhaps you’d better read it again, only this time pay attention. I suspect you have already been shown some of them but refuse to accept them as such.

When I posted the above, Les’ latest post was not on the page yet. I think it’s interesting to see some of the same statements we both took issue with. Then again those statements by David would inspire many who read them to discredit them.

David I don’t care to chip away at your beliefs, and I also don’t care to share mine with you, suffice to say I am not Christian and never will be.

I have read many versions of the bible, and the New World Translation isn’t so drastically different to others that the reasons for me shunning the bible become invalid.

The God of the bible to me cannot be real, or if he was real as portrayed in the bible then I would not wish to know him, either way the God of the bible loses. The God of the bible commanded humans not to kill, and then proceeded to set them on a course of nothing short of genocide, I refer of course to the ancient Israelites and their God sanctioned slaughter of the Canaanites and others. I could add more evidence to support my disbelief in the bible, but it really comes down to this.

You choose to believe in the bible, and I do not, neither of us is a fool, we both have looked at the available material and have reached different conclusions. I respect your right to make your conclusions, and I am sure you feel happy with them in your life.

You may assume that I am not a spiritual person because I do not base my beliefs on the bible, well you couldn’t be more wrong. I have had many experiences in my life that I cannot explain without accepting that there is a spirit realm, either that or I am mentally ill, I don’t think I am mentally ill but I take into account that it’s possible.

I am always willing to analyse things without setting my beliefs in stone, always ready to adjust my views. I never work on the assumption that I am right, I just work on the basis that right or wrong I must stand on my own understanding of things, not someone elses. That isn’t ‘pride’ it’s just personal accountability, if I am to live or die on the choices I make in life then I am going to make damn sure they are my choices and not someone elses.

Les, your first 2 arguments are so weak you must not be getting enough sleep. Or maybe you don’t get the idea of being totally outside of time versus being affected by time. But the point is that God knows the outcome and isn’t waiting for you decide, but He is giving YOU time to decide. He’s giving you plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. And in the second situation: it doesn’t matter one wit if I’m omniscient or not. If my kids can choose, then they will make some bad choices, no matter what my hopes and plans are.  And yes, the idea is that in the end you will stand by the choice you make.

I never claimed to spend a lot of time at infidels.org, just long enough to read the material you referenced. And I’m not trotting over there to read any of this material this time. The question isn’t whether someone else thinks there is a contradiction. It’s whether you here, the people I’m conversing with think there is. It’s interesting that you already realize that most of that stuff can probably be said to be out of context. They have an agenda at infidels.org, I believe that each of us is much more interested in the truth. Although I’m beginning to question that.

I will say that the Biblical teaching against murder is often confused with the idea that the Bible teaches against killing. This is blatantly wrong. The Bible teaches that societies have the right to defend themselves by both killing people of other societies and by killing their own citizens as a punishment for crimes. It is also clear that in the Bible, God instructed His people to commit genocide to remove all people from the land of Israel. And it wasn’t just genocide, he instructed them to kill everything, even the livestock, and raze the buildings and destroy the belongings of those people. Unlike Islam, He did not instruct his people to do this whenever they wanted to expand the religion, just to clear that one particular place one particular time. Literally, He meant for them to “kill them all and let God sort them out”.

You guys caught me, it’s true. I’m human. Sometimes I use sarcasm, sometimes I attempt to bait you. I don’t mind that you hold me to a standard, but I never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven. I certainly don’t think any of you are inexplicably stupid… avoiding the truth, maybe. And it’s true, I think pride is the root of all sin. Even from a secular viewpoint, I think I could make that argument stick. And yes, I’m far from free of pride. But I am certainly not posting here out of a sense of superiority. I already have stated my motives, which is far more than any of you have done, so I resent the accusation. Someone needs to tell me what the word spiritual means. If you mean a searching out of the truth about the nature of our existence, I would say that anyone who’s not thought about it should. And each person needs to examine their own life in light of the truth they discover. I don’t think most people do enough of that. But I couldn’t say that about anyone who’s taken the time to read this thread.

“The irony in the above statement is amazing. If you “must” love us then how is that love at all? Love is something given freely, not coerced by threat of punishment. Not that such a statement is surprising from someone who follows a Savior that claims to love its creations, but will toss them into eternal fire if that love is not returned. If your child were to stop loving you, would you toss them into a fiery furnace?”

“You completely negate the value of love with this statement. You turn a compassionate, considerate, highly meaningful gift one offers into a grudgingly mechanical, forced, uninspired and uninspiring sentiment. You convert a noble choice into a baseless acquiescence.”

This is more ironic than you may think. I use that argument all the time against predestination types. I’m going to try to explain something that I’m pretty sure you won’t understand. Not because I’m superior, but because if you’ve never experienced it, it’s not that easy to understand. Suppose you went to a Dentist and found out you needed a root canal. You get the work done, and your mouth is better, in fact your overall health is better from not having all that poison from infections in your body. If you didn’t know the outcome would be good, you’d never let someone yank a nerve out of your mouth. And you couldn’t do it at all without the dentist. It’s the same way with loving others for me. Basically, I got into computers because I don’t like people. But when I follow the command to love you, I feel better, indeed I AM better. But I’d never do it on my own, in fact I know I could not do it on my own. Yes, sometimes, in the beginning, it’s mechanical, but with a little perseverance, it quickly becomes heartfelt. So it’s not because I want to, it’s because I must. I guess in a sense, it is self-serving, but that is hardly the motivation. And even if it was, is that a bad thing? I mean, if someone just does things for you and cares for you and loves you -–but their original intent was that they would derive some pleasure from doing that, is that bad? In fact wouldn’t that describe your relationship with your significant other?

More ironic still, a fiery furnace is exactly what the worshipers of Baal did give to their children. But the Bible does not say any of us will go to a fiery furnace, that punishment is written for Satan and his angels. The punishment for men that do not choose God is permanent and complete separation from Him. Isn’t that what they want anyway? And isn’t that pretty much what you would do with a child that never loved you? Eventually, after decades of trying to bring them to a relationship with yourself, you’d sever your ties with them. And it’s not clear that even after death you cannot yet chose to accept Christ. Try reading “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis, he does a very interesting work on that topic.

I want to know how waiting on others before waiting on yourself is prideful. It seems to defy the very definition. I think it’s closer to the truth that you just don’t believe that anyone would think of someone else before themselves, and you figure I must have some hidden agenda. To the contrary, I’ve been ever forthright in my agenda. Again, I cannot say the same for any of you.

“[Bunch of snakeoil-sales-ad]
“Where did you get the idea that Christianity was supposed to make this world a better place?”
That is precisely what advocates, who wish to force the display of the Ten Commandments in government lobbies, believe it will help engender. Why shouldn’t Serai, given every Christian ideal she’s likely been exposed to, come to expect that?”

I’ve never lumped all non-Christian belief together. I’ve taken you each at your word, in fact, I’ve rather insisted on that point, not letting you just quote others. Why must you insist that I stand for and represent everyone who ever claimed they were Christian? I do not. You want to attack the Bible, I’ll defend that. But the stuff you quote here offends me a great deal more than it could possibly offend you. As far as I know, the guy on that web-site likely is an atheist that’s trying to give people a reason to hate Christianity. 

“Until we achieve a coadunate mind state, all of us lowly humans will do something akin to this, including you. And isn’t it fortuitous that you know for certain what God thinks is uniquely good, while the rest of us struggle constantly to represent goodness, commonly doubting our ability to measure up. You place yourself far above many by minimizing someone else’s right to seek a personal understanding of good, whether it be defined by God, one’s parents or others or one’s self. I speak back to you not because I understand better what is ultimately right, but because you represent everything I hate about the search for higher awareness. You have the answers, the book and the “creator of all” on your team. You certainly can’t blame us for having a speck of doubt concerning your right to “lord” it over others.
As for there being no contradictions (at least in) the King James Bible, perhaps you’d better read it again, only this time pay attention. I suspect you have already been shown some of them but refuse to accept them as such.”

I do not know all that God thinks, I do accept the Bible as a guide to things He’d like me to know. I practice what I know the best I can. So yes, I agree, it is good to have the creator-of-all, and the book He provided on “my side”. Pretty sure it’s the other way around, though. And, just like you, I think I’ve got the right answer. The big difference I see is that I extend my hand to you and say “let us look at the answers we have found and discuss them together rationally”. But you begin by saying “I hate everything you stand for” before you even know me. You’re the one making assumptions about me, not the other way around. Again, come up with a specific contradiction, and let’s discuss it. Since they are so obvious, and there are so many of them, this should be a slam-dunk for you.

“I am always willing to analyse things without setting my beliefs in stone, always ready to adjust my views. I never work on the assumption that I am right, I just work on the basis that right or wrong I must stand on my own understanding of things, not someone elses. That isn’t ‘pride’ it’s just personal accountability, if I am to live or die on the choices I make in life then I am going to make damn sure they are my choices and not someone elses.”

I agree completely, I could have written this myself, except, I believe that for all practical purposes, standing on your own understanding amounts to believing that you are right. It’s just that as soon as I say that I am Christian, tons of assumptions are made about who I am and what that means. Unfortunately, many have false ideas of what that means, or what it should mean. There are many religions like the JWs and the Catholics that claim to be Christian, and are patently not, which confuses the issue even further. The point about pride in this has more to do with saying that you are the final arbiter of right and wrong. When you get to that point, then you have put yourself in the place of God. I’d call that prideful. The atheist must do this, as he believes there is no higher authority than himself. Put into practice, this is anarchy, which I would call a bad thing any standard.

Sorry for the long post, but there is a lot of meat in all this. Many of these areas deserve more depth of discussion, and I hope they get it. BTW, Les, Checked your wish list, did you update it? Wish I knew how ya’ll do that nifty blue box quote thingy.