Science and religion

[Ryantology]

If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell. And I will be happy that you burn, because you are a liar, and you know that you are lying, and you deserve it.

Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Do I go to hell three times? You can't possibly imagine how little that threat frightens me. Jesus Christ, your lord and savior, can lick the sweat off my well-used nutsack.

[jstrodel]

Now. Go tell it straight to a starving indian, african, or south african orphans' face that you've given up everything to follow Jesus Christ.

You are arguing that because I am spending my time on an atheist message board trying to win converts, I am have not left everything because I am trying to win converts from atheists instead of helping Indians? Why would God want me to give up my computer? Then I wouldn't be able to share the gospel and the truth with atheists. Do you believe there is something inherently more spiritual with sharing material items with people than sharing wisdom? Why is this?

That's all we're saying, sir. No one claims to know how everything began. And I don't know about anyone else but duh as to science being constantly updating itself.

You've gotta be kidding me. Atheists equate believing in God with believing in the tooth fairy. Atheists make statements like if you have had spiritual experience, that means you are delusional, not just that you have similar symptoms to delusional people, but that, in fact, you are actually clinically diagnosable as being schizophrenic or delusional because you are having these experiences.

It is dishonest to suggest that atheists are agnostics. Atheists are about as far away from agnosticism as you can get. Someone that legitimately did not know whether God exists would not reduce all religious experience to a mental health disorder. In fact, this is the only legitimate position. No one can resolve the issue of disproving God's existence. It cannot be done. Atheists don't care about that, they would prefer to mock and ridicule religion and use psuedo arguments against religious claims to advance their culture war.

We're not the one's claiming we know with no proof what happened. No where in athiesm does it state that we know what happened for sure. You know why? Because as things are now, it's impossible to know. We're still waiting on the math and science study of our universe to tell us it's story--not the other way around.

Then why shouldn't this be reflected in the way that atheists communicate? Why shouldn't atheists reprimand members that deviate from this and make claims that they can't substantiate?

(Matthew 5:17-18).
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

Read the book of Romans or Galatians. The two covenants are very different. When was the last time you met a Christian that didn't drive a car on Sunday or that didn't eat pork? In fact, it explicitly rejects the dietary laws in the book of Acts.

When Jesus fulfills the law, that does not mean that the law remains in effect in exactly the same way. Romans 10:14 says "Christ is the end of the law, so that there may be righteous for everyone who believes". Jesus is the end of the law, people believe in Jesus and they are grafted into the will of God, Jesus is the law, that is why the law is fulfilled in Him.

If you want to be an atheist, for your own sake, please try and understand what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not require Christians to literally follow all the details of the mosaic law.

I propose the Bible as proof for his non-existance. The god of the bible is susceptible to anger, wrath, hatred, jealousy, spite. These characteristics directly contradict his Just and wise attributes. He is not omnipotent. He is merely a man-made man written character in a book.

Where is the contradiction? Why should we not suppose that the God who made man in God's image should look down and graft into man the same qualities that he has. God's just and wise attributes are related to his anger and wrath, because God is just, and wise, God recognize the reality and pain that sin causes. Anger is not a weakness, imagine a mother who was not angry if something happened to her child. You would consider that person to be morally deficient. Anger is a sign of the authenticity of God's just will. Hatred means simply that God is displeased with sin, and spite fails to explain God's character, God loves people and that is why God crucified God's own son to save people.

Why is it wrong for God to punish sin severely? Name one society on earth that has not had a set of laws to limit behavior along a complex set of criteria.

God is no more judgmental than any government in history. All governments use violence to achieve peace and stability. If they didn't there would be anarchy.

[Silver]

I am spending my time on an atheist message board trying to win converts.

A futile endeavor.

[Kayenneh]

Oh, I see that I have missed a lot of fun. Going bonkers over here too, Joe?

[Tonus]

There is proof of God's existence, for those who are skillful enough to obtain it.
The unskillful, the slow, and the foolish and the gullible do not obtain it, they obtain a black and white atheist apologetic world in which propositions are either "100% PROVEN" or they are "TOTAL CRAP".

I find that at some point, nearly every theist will fall back to this point, that each of us could prove god for ourselves if we simply knew how. I consider it a euphemism for "no, I can't prove it."

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

44.

[Mystical]

You are arguing that because I am spending my time on an atheist message board trying to win converts, I am have not left everything because I am trying to win converts from atheists instead of helping Indians? Why would God want me to give up my computer? Then I wouldn't be able to share the gospel and the truth with atheists. Do you believe there is something inherently more spiritual with sharing material items with people than sharing wisdom? Why is this?

I'm arguing that if you said that to a starving orphan, they'd think you're delusional because you're the richest man alive in their eyes. I also argue that your bible says to give up all of yourself to the poor, and none of you do--then you tell us we're sinners for not paying tithe to your churches so you can go to weekend retreats and fuck around with the kids. Oh and then you get the government to subsidize your churches with our taxes.

If you want to be an atheist, for your own sake, please try and understand what the Bible teaches

Note that I did not say that you are required to follow Mosaic law. That's up to the Christian who reads the book, isn't it? Yes. Just ask all the millions of radicalists out there who say You are wrong. No, I'm saying that God does not change. From then to now to tomorrow he will be who he is, and who he is is not a god I'd be willing to lay my life down for. I read the the bible, regularly. I also grew up going to a christian church. They seemed to leave out all the spiteful hatred stuff and taught that the only reason god gets angry is because he chastises us like a father would children. Well, anyone would say that if a father ripped the baby out of his daughters womb because her husband was on the wrong side of history: they'd call for his persecution.
When I'd ask about God's attributes in the OT, they pushed it off as 'that was a different time' sorta thing. Problem is, he's not a different god now as he was then. He's unchanging according to his own word. And he's a murderer.

Anger is not a weakness, imagine a mother who was not angry if something happened to her child. You would consider that person to be morally deficient. Anger is a sign of the authenticity of God's just will.

Seems like you say the same thing as they do. Here's the thing though. God is not a mother or a father, he is GOD. If he is the Ultimate Justice of existance and non-existance: he cannot be susceptible to such character flaws. And I call them FLAWS. A real mother would not be angry at her child, she'd know what factors are leading to those decisions and adjust her punishment to teach a lesson--not eternally DAMN them to HELL.

God loves people and that is why God crucified God's own son to save people.

God loves his people soooo much, that he put a tree of life and a tree of death. Then he told adam and eve (who knew not of death) that they would die if they ate of its fruit. When they did eat it (even though he created humanity to have curiousity), he banished them and their offspring for who knows how long--to suffer on this earth and in the life afterwards. Then he sent his son down to 'save' us if we get on our knees to him, and his son died but was raised again and given a God's throne in Heaven.

Totally seein the love.

God is no more judgmental than any government in history. All governments use violence to achieve peace and stability. If they didn't there would be anarchy.

I so disagree with you. Peace can be achieved in a non-violent way. The fact that you and your god don't have this foresight further proves my point.

[Tonus]

At the same time, the atheist is someone who is quick to ridicule the much more modest use of the argument from authority,

Most atheists just ridicule the belief in something that the believer cannot prove exists, even though he considers it the most important thing in his life. Ridicule of anything that springs from that is just natural, really.

[Ryantology]

God is no more judgmental than any government in history. All governments use violence to achieve peace and stability. If they didn't there would be anarchy.

Once more, your only recourse is to justify your god's flaws by equivocating him with allegedly inferior humans.

The Bible does not require Christians to literally follow all the details of the mosaic law.

Yes, it does. Let's revisit Matthew 5, so you understand that, if your God is real, he's going to be very unhappy with your half-assed devotion.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

The law still holds.

“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Earth is still here, and the events in Revelation are supposed to happen in the future. All is not yet accomplished.

“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

All those weak-kneed Christians who lack the stomach to murder disobedient children, or tells others it is wrong to murder disobedient children, have a lot of explaining to do when they meet the Psychopath-in-Chief face-to-whatever.

Why would Jesus even bother saying any of this if it didn't actually apply to his followers after a year or two?

[Mystical]

I propose that Jstrodel does not love us if he's down with watching us burn in hell.

Hands?

We're just lost sheep leading his sheep away from the slaughter and he's gotta actually level down eye to eye to talk to us if he wants
us to stop.

[Tonus]

I propose that Jstrodel does not love us if he's down with watching us burn in hell.

Him laying down the hellish justice is what I like the most about him. It's the only time he doesn't sound like he's nine eggs short of a dozen.