I recently read a book by Susan Ray Schmidt His Favorite Wife. My interest in the mormon church and its history, continues to be one of MY favorite things. As I finished the book I was left wanting more so off on a search to find something I have not read.
I found an article on About.com that reviews a book by Martha Beck who is the daughter of Dr. Hugh Nibley, professor emeritus of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and "arguably the leading living authority on Mormon teaching." She is also the author of a new book where she reveals being sexually abused by her father and explains why she left Mormonism.
Although the article was posted in 2005 it seems timely today. With the rise in reported molesting by "men of the cloth" I become more frustrated by religion every day. What is it about these men that makes them such a despicable, evil characters? Is it religion and the belief that they are working for god?
If so I am certainly glad god is imaginary.
46 comments:
I do not agree with the guys and how they hurt women and kids, but just because they do this stuff does not mean God does not exist. Many athiests have commited crimes and pulled stupid stunts, what does that prove? Nothing. Like I keep saying, just because most who post here deny God that does not mean he is not real, once you die you will find out how real he is and how much you will wish you did not reject him. Rick b
Rick If I thought that there was any way that what you say is true, I would be worried. However, There is no way I can imagine that there is any kind of afterlife. It just makes no sense.
A lot of atheists pulling off stupid stunts?
Go to your prisons and check it out rick. Most of them are born again Christians.
Beast
They get born again while in their, but that does not mean they should walk free. Also just as so called Christians do terrible things, so do many Atheists, I know.
Before I was born again I was a Atheist that tried to kill a couple of people, have a police record and had a restraining order put on me from a pastor of a church. Rick b
Rick:
Please do not use the "not true Christian" argument. This is one of the lamest arguments ever, and frankly I will not respond in kind by saying that atheists who commit crimes (which really are fewer in number) are not "real atheists".
Oh, so you tried to murder your pastor when you were an atheist? Did the devil make you do it, or maybe, just maybe, you needed a psychiatrist to deal with your murderous tendencies?
Beast
It was not my pastor, and I simply hated the world. As to the true verse false Christian thing, you can believe what ever you want. You believe lies as it is you it would not be much of a stretch to believe what ever you choose now. Rick b
Rick
For me, I don't place much emphasis on belief: You can believe in anything under the sun and it still doesn't prove squat. The thing is that you need to justify your beliefs with evidence and logic.
Beast
Beast, their is so much evidence for the truth of the Bible it is not funny, but even with all of the evidence people still reject truth.
But this also applies in other areas of life. Like I said, many people believe the earth is flat and deny the holocaust. These are not the bible, but it is still rejecting truth despite evidence.
Check out this link for the Flat earth society
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//
their is so much evidence for the truth of the Bible it is not funny, but even with all of the evidence people still reject truth.
There is so much evidence for the fallacy of the BIBLE it is not funny, but even with all that evidence people still reject truth.
Sorry, Rick but the "truth" & the Bible are NOT the same thing.
Rick
Go over to my blog, and see how many of these "truths" can be debunked with a healthy dose of rationality and science.
I don't know exactly how Americans are schooled, but the religious ones over there seem at tad dull on the edges, if you know what I mean.
Beast
Beast and Larro,
I have a question for you guys, you probably have heard this asked before, but it is an honest question from me that I would like your thoughts on.
If God is not real, who decides truth and right from wrong.
Here is 2 examples.
1. I have heard many times in my life, people say, truth is relative, your truth is not my truth type of thinking. So if a guy rapes a women, she does not want to be raped and will try to stop it and maybe even say, rape is wrong, but her truth is not the rapist truth. So who decides who is correct and rape is either good or bad.
2. If we evolved as many believe, and it started out with 2 people, one man and one women, then they had kids, at some point in times some of those kids started to lie, cheat, steal, even kill. Some people say this is wrong, but those who do these things seem to feel it is fine, so who decides what is right or wrong. Thanks for any replys, and replys are welcome from others also. Rick b
We live in an incredibly complex universe on an earth teeming with life, all of which science has been studying and attempting to explain for centuries. We are told that no scientist believes in God anymore. Yet the brilliant men who laid the foundation for modern science (Bacon, Boyle, Dalton, Descarte, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, et al.) were theists, who saw the hand of God in His orderly creation making science possible. Newton, regarded as the most original and influential thinker in the history of science, "wrote and published more works on interpretation of the Bible than on mathematics and physics."1 Only lately have atheists aggressively taken the position of spokespersons for science.
Even Stephen Hawking admitted, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God." "Fritz" Schaefer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, third most quoted chemist today, has said:
The significance and joy in my science comes in the...moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, "So that's how God did it!" My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.2
A significant number of Christians are among top scientists and modern Nobel laureates. William D. Phillips, for example, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, "once quipped that so many of his colleagues were Christians that he couldn't walk across his church's fellowship hall without 'tripping over a dozen physicists....'" Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists."3 But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the hand of God in the universe is very high.
The atheist must explain everything without God, which science cannot do. Everything is made of energy, but science cannot tell us what energy is or how or why it came into existence. Stephen Hawking asks, "Why does the universe go to all the trouble of bothering to exist?" Why is a question that atheism cannot answer. Matter simply exists; it contains no explanation of why. The maker's purpose provides the meaning for anything that is made. Unless there is a Creator, the universe and all in it, including mankind, has no purpose or meaning. Atheists confess this fact.
Today's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, boasts of the consequences of atheism: "There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by...natural selection."4 No evolutionist could argue with this repugnant statement.
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, as an atheist and evolutionist, begins his best-known book with this statement: "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."5 The average person would reject such nonsense. He knows that he is not just a bag of molecules but a thinking person, who carefully weighs choices, experiences joys, sorrows, hopes, fears, remorse, and regrets. Crick's atheism traps him in a net of meaninglessness.
Attempting to describe the physical world, science provides names and categories but can't tell us what anything really is. Energy, electron, gravity, space, time, life, and death-what do they mean? What is life; what is its source? How is it imparted to lifeless matter-and why does it depart so quickly? As Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger said, "[Science] is ghastly silent about all...that really matters to us....It knows nothing of...good or bad, God and eternity....Whence came I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question....Science has no answer to it."6
Atheism "explains" that the universe began with a sudden, almost infinite, burst of energy called the "Big Bang." But science can't tell us where this energy came from, why it got together and exploded at that particular moment-nor how out of a giant explosion the orderly arrangement, from molecules to galaxies, occurred.
Furthermore, atheism faces dozens of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" conundrums that stop evolution before it can even start. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes protein, yet DNA is itself made of protein. So, which came first: the DNA that makes protein or the protein out of which DNA is made?
There is no life without DNA, but DNA itself has life. What came first, the DNA that is essential for life or the life that is essential for DNA? Living cells are made up of incredibly complex nano-chemical machinery, and some of this machinery synthesizes DNA. So, which came first, the DNA without which there could be no cell or the cell without which there could be no DNA?
The problem of "origins" is one of the major questions for which science has no answer. The most amazing thing in the universe is life, but science neither knows from whence life comes nor what it is. There is no life without enzymes, although they themselves are not living things. And there are no enzymes without life because it takes life to produce them. Which came first-the enzymes without which there can be no life or the life without which there can be no enzymes? The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine contain histidine. Which came first-the histidine or the enzymes that manufacture it, which themselves contain histidine?
Many different enzymes are required to translate the genetic information encoded on the DNA. Yet the enzymes are themselves encoded by DNA. Thus, the genetic code cannot be translated except by products of translation. This is a vicious circle that allows for only one conclusion: the molecules that encode the information and those that decode it existed simultaneously from the beginning. That fact cannot be explained by any gradual natural process.
It requires an act of creation by God. Yet the major motive of Darwin (who knew nothing of DNA) was to prove that God was not needed to explain life and the universe.
As noted, the incredible nano-chemical machinery in the cell is responsible for synthesizing DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the code that constructs and operates the cellular machinery. Which came first, the DNA that carries the information for producing each cell or the machinery in the cell produced by DNA, which must first make the DNA? Obviously, both had to exist simultaneously from the very beginning or neither would exist. That fact requires a creative act of God.
The genetic code has vital editing machinery, which is itself encoded in the DNA. What came first, the machinery that edits DNA or the DNA that produces the editing machinery?
Again, the DNA molecule is made of protein; but it is the DNA by which alone protein is produced. DNA cannot function without at least 75 pre-existing proteins-but only DNA can produce these 75 proteins. The machinery to convert the DNA information into the protein is itself made of the protein it alone can produce. There is only one sensible answer to the classic question, "Which came first?" Obviously, God.
The Law of Biogenesis, which Pasteur proved, states, "Life only comes from life." That ended the superstition of "spontaneous generation." The alleged Big Bang would have sterilized everything a trillion times over, making it impossible for any life to exist thereafter.
How could life come out of death? Of Jesus Christ, one with the Father, who created everything, the Bible says, "In him was life" (Jn 1:4).
any answers to these tough questions? i guess not.
Rick B;
Late to this conversation.
Your two examples do not lay out a proof for the existence of a god.
Who decides what is right and wrong depends on the society in which you find yourself and the civil and criminal laws that govern the society.
As much as many like to think that our country is ruled by a moral code divined by their god I choose to differ with them. Because not all citizens of this country ascribe to the Christian god. Unless of course you feel as George H W Bush feels. That atheists are considered second-class citizens; then I suppose that one is justified in believing that this country is governed by a moral code handed down by the Christian god. By asserting that our constitution is crafted in this way I guess I'm pretty much dog shit.
Sorry to get off-topic, Interested. And sorry for the profanity.
Larro, no appology needed. I have been absent fo a while so I will try to catch up tomorrow. Been in the middle of an ice storm with no power.
Larro said Your two examples do not lay out a proof for the existence of a god.
I did not say my 2 examples prove God is real. I said, if God did not or does not exist, then who decides what is truth or right or wrong.
Since you said Who decides what is right and wrong depends on the society in which you find yourself and the civil and criminal laws that govern the society.
To me it does not matter who makes up the society, who has the right to impose laws over another? Just because you have 10 people who say murder is wrong, and 2 people who think it is ok, the majority does not prove truth.
If majority proved truth, then all the religions combined believe in a God or Gods, so this makes your believe wrong. But as you will say, that proves nothing. I could be wrong here, but either you do not fully understand what I am asking, or you do, and cannot answer my question, I am not sure which it is. Rick b
Rick B;
I do understand what you are saying. You didn't say your two examples prove the existence of your god. But your premise hinges on the issue of morality and where our morality comes from though. I make the assumption that you believe it is a divine gift of sorts. Because you said "If God is not real, who decides truth and right from wrong."
You also said: "To me it does not matter who makes up the society, who has the right to impose laws over another? Just because you have 10 people who say murder is wrong, and 2 people who think it is ok, the majority does not prove truth."
What is this "truth" you speak of? If something is true then it means it is not false. I don't see how this applies to morality (to a certain degree maybe, but only in an abstract sense).
If the two individuals believe that murder is okay. While the majority believe otherwise; then it is the will of the majority to impose punishment for violating majority consensus.
Our society doesn't exist in a bubble (I'll assume you understand that). Different rules, customs and laws sometimes differ vastly from culture to culture; society to society. The powers that be in any given culture assign rules for it's populace to live by in order that it's subjects/citizens remain just that.
Okay, I get it.
Imagine that the role of the majority and minority of religious and non-religious we're turned on it's head and you found yourself amidst a 90% of people not believing in a god. One out of ten people you knew shared your belief in Jesus and the Christian god.
Would this make YOUR beliefs "wrong"? Wouldn't you hope that you would not be derided, jeered at or publicly denounced as a rightful citizen of this country?
I understand what your saying, and my point is, truth cannot simply be truth because people agree or disagree on it, and then I was asking, who decides truth or right from wrong if God does not exist. I am not saying this proves or denys God, I am wanting an honest opinion from atheists who believe with great passion that God is not real. Rick b
Rick
Truth has no part of a conversation on morals.
Why don't you just come out and say that human beings couldn't possibly know right from wrong if god does not exist. Quit beating around the bush.
I,m not beating around the bush. I wanted an honest answer from a Athiest who claims God does not exist.
Seems the answer is not so simple. I figure if God is real, He said do not murder and if we do murder then it is wrong. But if God does not exist, why can someone tell me murder is wrong, your not a god above me or no better than me, so why can I tell you what is right or wrong and expect you to believe it. Rick b
Murdered for being an Atheist
I suppose Arthur Shelton (as well as his family) got his moral compass from the tooth fairy?
If murder is wrong under any circumstance ("Thou shalt not kill" does not say "...well, only in these instances"), then why do many States support the death penalty?
You can tell me what is right and wrong in a civil society and I believe it so long as there is a consensus affirming it. It's that simple.
I know you wont agree and thats fine, but that guy that said he was a Christian does not know what the Bible says. The Bible says we are all wicked and no good, me you, him, everyone, so he should have killed himself I guess. Then the devil cannot make anyone do anything, that is a lame excuse to avoid personal responsibility.
Then I know you will not agree with this and again I do not really care, but the Bible tells us that their will be people who kill and think they do God a favor. So just because someone claims they follow God does not make it so.
The Bible also tells us that not everyone that says they are followers of Christ are. Then when you quote, thou shalt not murder, you should remember, God said that if any man kills another he shall pay with his own life in return. God gave the death penalty and has never revoked it to this day.
And the death penatly only applies in cases of one person killing another and he must pay with his life in return. Seems you have no answer for my question and I really doubt any honest Athiest can ever really answer that question. Your reply about majorty rule is a sad lame reply.
Like I said if majorty rules, then God does exist, since you claim that cannot be, then I can also claim, since majority says murder is wrong simply does not make it so. Rick b
Here we go with the "he wasn't a REAL Christian argument". Whatever dude! Where the FUCK did he learn to be a Christian? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Tolkien's The Hobbit? How about American Idol?
The bible says we are all wicked and no good? That's gotta look good on a resume if you want to work for a suicide hotline.
"Then the devil cannot make anyone do anything, that is a lame excuse to avoid personal responsibility."
What about your god? Is there room for free-will there? If he can't make you do anything I suppose that's a lame ass excuse too.
"...just because someone claims they follow God does not make it so."
Your child bad-mouths you. Do you stone them to death? No. Then you're not a true Christian either.
"if any man kills another he shall pay with his own life in return."
That statement is ambiguous. How shall he pay with his life? What is the punishment? You did not state that he or she should die as punishment. Is there no room for redemption?
Okay: "the death penatly only applies in cases of one person killing another and he must pay with his life in return."
Still no guidelines for how the payment should be meted out (ambiguous).
In this case how about abortion? Do you believe abortion is murder? If so then the doctors should be strapped to the chair, huh?
How about the mother and/or the father? Have them walk those thirteen steps to the noose?
If we as a people were to invoke scripture for moral direction in application to civil law then we would have no fucking clue as to where to start. EVERYBODY has their own take on what the bible means to themselves. It would be utter chaos.
Who's interpretation do you suggest we follow? Your next door neighbors? How about the guy down the street pumping out loud heavy metal from his basement window (but he goes to church every Sunday)? Or the guy in the next State who happens to be a Buddhist? He also happens to run a homeless shelter and soup kitchen.
If a god is responsible for morality then where do we start in applying this to our civil laws?
Well I guess when you die and burn in hell you will know I was correct, if you dont agree then thats fine, just because you cannot read and understand the bible does not make it false. Your ignorent so that means God cannot exist, I dont think so. Rick b
Rick, don't you think that being a Christian as you say you are, that being so intolerant is a bit unchristian? It would be more advantageous to show the the "good, loving" side of your faith as opposed to damning all of us to hell.
I seriously believe that you have many doubts and that you are trying hard to convince yourself. Be fair to yourself: investigate and decide on a balance of information.
You are young and I have a special place for you in my heart...but I do not believe that you are sure of you feelings.
Interested, Its like this. I believe the Bible, the Bible says that ALL, What does All mean? All who deny or reject Jesus will end up in hell. So for me to say to a person that says, I deny, reject or simply do not believe in Jesus, your Going to hell is what the Bible teaches. If you want I can provide verses to back this up, I know you will reject them, but still the Bible is very clear in what it says.
Also for people like you to say I am not Christ like because of what I say, I guess you could Argue that Jesus was not Christ like for what he said and taught, He spoke more about Hell and the torment to come than he did about heaven.
Then, To many people only give one side of the Gospel, that is Jesus loves you and died for you, while that is true, keeping it one sided like that gives people this false Idea that everyone will be saved. That ignores clear teaching about those who reject or deny Jesus. Rick b
Okay, I suppose I'll join this fray...
Here we go with the "he wasn't a REAL Christian argument". Whatever dude! Where the [expletive] did he learn to be a Christian? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Tolkien's The Hobbit? How about American Idol?
There are plenty of churches that ignore the main message of the Bible, the Gospel, and give folks a false impression of what being a Christian means.
The bible says we are all wicked and no good? That's gotta look good on a resume if you want to work for a suicide hotline.
I think that resume would also have to mention that those who recognize this wickedness in themselves, repent and believe in Christ receive everlasting, abundant life, and forgiveness.
What about your god? Is there room for free-will there? If he can't make you do anything I suppose that's a lame ass excuse too.
That question is a more complex one, with a fair amount of disagreement among Christians. I think Calvinists would say that God pre-destines His children, through irresistable persuasion. Perhaps you are one of the pre-destined ones? You might not think so now, but people can change. God can bring people and circumstances into your life to persuade you.
Your child bad-mouths you. Do you stone them to death? No. Then you're not a true Christian either.
I presume you are referring here to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, a portion of the Bible which describes God's LAW. This passage also refers to profligacy and drunkenness, so it is clearly talking about an adult son in continuous rebellion against authority, not little Johnny who refuses to clean up his toys.
But besides all these laws which condemn us, there's another side to God, which is His MERCY. See the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15 for an illustration of how God deals with us, despite our rebelliousness.
If a god is responsible for morality then where do we start in applying this to our civil laws?
There is a difference between civic morality (laws) and personal morality. The Bible does instruct us to respect and obey the state (Romans 13), although civil disobedience may be required in some situations (e.g. Paul and Peter told by authorities not to preach Christ).
"Well I guess when you die and burn in hell you will know I was correct, if you dont agree then thats fine, just because you cannot read and understand the bible does not make it false. Your ignorent so that means God cannot exist, I dont think so. Rick b"
Holy crap!!!!!!
DAMN! I'VE NEVER, EVER READ SOMETHING SO POIGNANT!!! OF SUCH DEPTH!!!
I'm so excited to read what comes next...
Honestly though, I've heard this spouted often enough to make me want to puke. This is the only retort I ever get from fundies. I'm sure it took a lot of thought.
I feel so cozy inside when I get threatened with damnation. Sorry to disappoint but I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in an afterlife. How is the threat of damnation supposed to convince me to fear it?
I also believe there was NO Jesus at all.
As far as the apologist...
Mr. Chucky, I see you have a conundrum with the "real Christian" argument. There is only one bible that is inerrant, right? At least there is supposed to be. It states in Revelations that whosoever alters these words (blah, blah, blah) shall also suffer eternal damnation or other some such nonsense.
There is only one "Word" of god! Any one of you assholes can tell me what is the "right" way to interpret it.
Larro said DAMN! I'VE NEVER, EVER READ SOMETHING SO POIGNANT!!! OF SUCH DEPTH!!!
I'm so excited to read what comes next...
Then larro goes on to say, Whatever dude! Where the FUCK
And Any one of you assholes
So my reply to Larro is,
DAMN! I'VE NEVER, EVER READ SOMETHING SO POIGNANT!!! OF SUCH DEPTH!!!
I'm so excited to read what comes next...
Which such a small brain comes a lack of words and small words at that. Since you clearly evolved and did not come from God, it shows your not fully evolved as of yet. Rick b
Lrt's put this one to bed.
I don't think there's any point in having a big ad hominem shouting match. That seems to be where this discussion is going.
Any one of you [persons designated by their excretory openings] can tell me what is the "right" way to interpret it.
Agreed. This argument applies to anything written. Charles Manson interpreted the Beatles' "Blackbird" to mean that he should kill a bunch of people and try to start a race war. I think most of us would say his interpretation was pretty whacked.
The point is, there are good, systematic methods to interpret textual material. These methods will still result in some open questions, but will generally indicate a clear message. Debasing the method of interpretation to get the message that you would like to have (e.g. by not considering context) is dishonest.
I don't care to continue with what seems to be turning into a piss-off contest, so I'll leave it at that.
If any of you are truly open-minded, try actually reading some apologetics material and thinking through the arguments instead of just running to your favourite atheist/skeptic websites.
And Rick, just remember that answering ad-hominem with ad-hominem doesn't help. You may not view your reply that way because you're not using expletives, but telling someone that they are going to hell is pretty much the same thing. It adds nothing to the discussion, and just creates more bad feelings. Besides, only God knows who is going to hell.
Sorry interested, I had started my comment before your termination comment was published.
Hey Everyone,
I am Christian.
With that said, I would also like to add that I do not hold to any particular brand of conventional theology per se, nor am I affiliated with any one denomination in particular. I am simply Christian.
I say this to thwart my being associated with any group/groups who have labeled themselves Christian while at the same time committed godless acts against individuals or humanity in general. I view those who do such things the same way that you do, as immoral, or whatever term you want to call it.
In other words, please do not confuse me, or automatically lump me in with any preconceived ideas any might have about Christianity or with what is generally accepted or recognized as "Christianity" today, or the past in many cases. If it is Biblical then I own up to it, if it is not then I deny it.
Also, I don't care in the least what popes and Billy Grahams have to say. Romanists and Calvinists alike are altogether heretics and corrupters of God's Word.
If you have a question about my personal faith, then please ask me personally and I will do my utmost to answer it. Please do not just assume anything about me.
I say this because, even though some here don't like this idea it is nevertheless true, there are in fact counterfeit groups (i.e. not real Christians) which claim the name of Christ when in reality they have little to nothing to do with the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. To deny this, is, simply put, to deny the truth of the matter.
You might as well deny the truth of the fact that there is counterfeit money.
To deny something is to at least concede that the thing denied exists in concept. Therefore the question is, are you denying a lie or a truth?
The same can be said of the God you deny. Are you denying a myth or the truth?
Nevertheless, I am new to this blog and therefore obviously coming in late to the argument.
But although that is the case, I have read through this "Men of the Cloth" thread thoroughly and I must ask a couple of questions, the first of which is this:
Those of you who make the claim that "there is no God", how do you know this, how did you come by such knowledge?
I hear the claim, but it is unsubstantiated by everyone here who is denying the existence of God. "larro", has the opinion. as he says, "I also believe there was NO Jesus at all."
With all due respect, but with statements like that, how can anyone even take him seriously? I mean, if one denies plain and simple facts of history, from numerous sacred and secular sources, then how can you reasonably discuss a topic with such a one? Larro, how did you come by such knowledge; what has led you to this conclusion saying, "I also believe there was NO Jesus at all"?
And "Interested", you make this claim; "Truth has no part of a conversation on morals." What is truth Interested?
I have not read, with all due respect, one intelligent argument from anyone here who denies the existence of God, or Jesus for that matter, that one could even consider reasonable and therefore think as true. All I'm reading is a lot of empty words with no substance, i.e. unsubstantiated claims.
Furthermore, to know of a certainty, which, across the board none of you do, that "there is no God" then one would have to know all things, everywhere in the universe, is this not true? In other words, one would have to be omnipotent wouldn't one, to know for certain that there is no God?
Certainly you all would agree that to make claims is one thing, to prove such is another.
So, I ask, which of you claim such omnipotence?
Now then, if none of you has been endowed with such omnipotence, which I believe I am safe in assuming, then, not to be redundant, but how is it then that you can claim in truth "there is no God?" You cannot, this is a knowable and known fact.
This being without a doubt the case, that you, none of you, do not really know, then the best, in truth, anyone can be who claims that there is no God, is an agnostic, not an atheist, is this not true?
Thank you in advance for your time gentlemen.
A Christian,
Timothy
This is one such example: Zeitgeist the Movie
"In other words, one would have to be omnipotent wouldn't one, to know for certain that there is no God?"
The same could be said of a certainty of the existence of a god.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC. It has gone far astray and has become redundant.
Funny how atheists can say and do what they want, but they want Christians to follow the rules.
Interested said:
"PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC. It has gone far astray and has become redundant."
I will honor that, for it is not my blog. But, I must ask, does everyone feel this way, no on else is interested?
And with that said, let me say this.
So much for the search for the meaning of life eh? With all due respect Interested, but you can't be that "interested" if the search is only on your terms.
And, no larro, one would not have to be omnipotent to know there is a God, for to acknowledge is not the same as denial. All one need do is look at the evidence, with an unbiased mind, and the reality of God would become quite evident.
One need not know everything to know that God exists, not by any means. All one needs to know is Him.
I don't need to know everything to know that you exist. All I need to know is you. In fact, I do not even have to see you to know that you exist. All I need to do is look at the evidence. You have a name, you are writing here, etc., and all though I have never seen you, touched you, smelled you, heard you or tasted you, you do in fact exist. Generally speaking, it is the same sort of thing with God.
Like I said in my previous post, I have not read one intelligent argument here against the existence of God. All I have seen, sadly, is a group of people, at least it seems to me, who are angry at a God that they claim does not exist.
It would seem to me that anyone who had a sincere desire for truth and is searching for the meaning of life would be willing to go wherever the search and evidence leads them. Is this not what a true seeker of truth does?
But, I guess we're not allowed to talk about this anymore. So, in closing out here, let me just say this.
Since I have clearly shown that all, and not just people here but in the entire world, who deny the existence of God, in truth can only be agnostics. This then being without a doubt the case, then why not have an open mind and admit that the possibility of God existing may quite possibly be in knowledge that you have yet come to know?
God loves each and everyone of you, Christ was crucified and resurrected for your sins and mine that we might have forgiveness for our sins and receive eternal life and He is trying to reveal Himself to all of you here and now on this thread. Why not give Him a chance?
A Christian,
Timothy
Tim you said: "I have not read one intelligent argument here against the existence of God".
I am not here to prove the non-existence of god. Go back and read some of my earlier posts.
I am "Interested" in a lot of things to do with religion, god, mormons, etc. My purpose her is to explore new ideas not rehash the bible and god of the bible.
You comments are welcome as long as they add to the conversation but if you are out to convert me, give up.
Timothy, it's like you said and the Bible says, they really do not care and do not want to know. Since they do not care and really do not want the truth, when they die and find out Hell is real, they will have to live for ever with the fact these choose hell.
And just like the Bible says, they would rather love lies and darkness than come to the truth. And no I am not angery, I just tell it like it is. Rick b
I'm not trying to convert you Interested, but the God you deny is.
Let me ask you friend, exactly why do you say there is no God, give it to me staight up, what is your number one reason? The ole "end all" arguments in your mind, know what I'm saying?
A Christian,
Timothy
Hey interested, I know you said before your stuck in the ice storm, so I am wondering, are you busy because of that? Or are you simply ignoring Timothy's question? Rick b
Tim/Rick
My answer to your question is no answer. I cannot prove a negative. YOU must prove there is a god. When I SEE, HEAR, TASTE...am able to reproduce results...that's proof. But come on, you can't do it. It takes more than a "FEELING" to provide proof.
Please no more on this topic. It is far too long.
I'll have a new topic soon and you can continue your rants.
Post a Comment