^I'd just like to comment on that last bit, Adrian, and say that God is not an infintely complex being, but instead a very simple one.

EDIT: However, the rest of that was very logically sound, and my comment is not meant as a criticism. I just wanted to point that element out.

Quote:and you do need to understand love

You're going to make me puke with this 'love' bullshit, Watson.


Religion is about power.

I'm sorry love makes you puke, Min. That's very sad indeed. Perhaps you are angry because you have not yet encountered real love?

Oh, I agree with you btw. Religion is about power, although it is not meant to be. The church is meant to be about God. God, on the other hand, is not about power. But religion =/= God.

If I want "real love" the last place I'd go looking for it is in your fucking bible, laddie.

Quote:Deuteronomy 2:33-34 (King James Version)

33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Aaaaand did you completely bypass the pat where I said "religion=/=God," or were you just hoping that that part would go away if you ignored it? The Bible was a book written by men, and it is not the love that I am talking about. It is merely a demonstration of that love. Take those Bible passages in context, I want to see the full story that that passage represents.

There is NO GOD.

There is religion and historically it has been a terrible detriment to humanity.


I'm not hear to soothe your delusions for you.

---

Oh, and btw....which part of your 'loving god' being a murderous old bastard did you miss?

"There are people and historically they have been a terrible detriment to humanity."

Religion is not a person, Min. Get it through your head.

I'm not going to soothe your denial for you.

Oh and btw, which part of "God is not rsponsible for anything of the sort" did you miss? You're just idiotically taking the Bible literally and spewing bullshit because of it.

Even you can't be that dense.

(February 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote: You propose a eternal cosmos, in what ever form. its not possible.

Although Einstein's static universe is no longer a regarded as a viable model in the cosmological sense, then again matter cannot be created or destroyed. When you read up on the law of conservation of mass and energy it stands to reason that the universe has always existed in some form or other.

(February 28, 2010 at 11:44 am)Watson Wrote: "Invisible and transcendant." That's so contradictory I don't even know where to begin. Blasted foolishness.

None of us can comprehend the Invisible Pink Unicorn with our finite, depraved, sinful minds; it's as futile as the flea trying to understand the entire dog it's on, and how it works.

EDIT: WC, the only fleas who can't comprehend the dog they are on are the so-called 'disbelievers in Dog', who deny the dog and only believe in the hair trees growing around them because they can see them. Nice analogy, dood.

(February 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Even you can't be that dense.

I'm not, you're merely taking the Bible as equating to God. Guess what? The Bible is a fucking book, Min. It is not equal to God in the slightest, it is a book written by men about God as they understood him. The men of that time period had no clue how science or physics works, so they attributed the things which seemed to them completely random as God's work, and ths you get the supposedly 'bloodthirsty' God presented in the OT. Read up, Min.