Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[Drich]

I think you might need to be willing to do more than just allow us to mutilate your thought droppings..if there's some objective you have in mind.  You're going to have to find the wherewithal to modify those failed propositions you've so kindly graced us with.  If, for no other reason..than to meet that objective of yours.  Or, I suppose we could simply continue with the pretense that there's some integrity in what you do here, that you actually have an objective or are doing anything to achieve it.

If my 'objective' is unknown to you then how can you possible assess what needs to be done to achieve it?

[drfuzzy]

I've said this 3 times now so pay attention:

Again in some cases the religion May indeed be older, BUT THERE ARE NO SURVIVING DOCUMENTS OF THOSE RELIGION OLDER THAN THE BIBLE!!!!

---

Do you not understand what that means? For instance in the Case of Zoro-ism Their oldest complete manuscript dates all the way back to the 17th century. Their oldest incomplete document (a few pages of their book) is from the 10th century AD.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroast...cripts.htm

Do you not see what you are claiming of Christianity is most likely true of the religions you said Christianity 'borrows from?'

---

---

It doesn't really matter if the writing were newer than the bible or not, though there are things like the cod of Hammurabi. The fact is that older religions existed that had gods that supposedly created the universe, and people who could work miracles.

And even if there wasn't that, there are other reasons to not believe your god exists. It is becoming clear to me that our thought processes are very different from each other, and we're very unlikely to come to a mutual consensus here.

---

Just how . . . ignorant ARE you, Dripshit?  Are you actually incapable of doing the basic research that would occur to any 12-year-old before screaming out your brainless lies?  Just a few easily-discovered actual facts about sacred texts:

*  The first Egyptian hieroglyphs regarding their gods dates back to approximately 3000 BC. 
*  Chinese oracle bone script that tells about gods and creation myths date to 1200 BC.
*  Around 700 BC, the poet Hesiod’s Theogony offered the first written cosmogony, or origin story, of Greek mythology.
*  The first Hindu texts date to 700 BC, and the Bhagavad Gita was composed 400 BC. (I'm surprised Little Rik didn't yammer at you about this one first.)
*  The Roman Gnaeus Naevius, during the 3rd century BC, composed an epic poem (about the first Punic War) that referenced his Roman Gods and thanked them for their aid.

[Drich]

Ahhh, No.. It's not up for Debate.
Jesus Himself Identifies God's 2 Greatest Commands:
Mat 22:34 The Pharisees learned that Jesus had made the Sadducees look so foolish that they stopped trying to argue with him. So the Pharisees had a meeting. 35 Then one of them, an expert in the Law of Moses, asked Jesus a question to test him. 36 He said, “Teacher, which command in the law is the most important?”

37 Jesus answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and most important command. 39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor[d] the same as you love yourself.’[e] 40 All of the law and the writings of the prophets take their meaning from these two commands.”

If you Love God with all your being then you would not blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Two, the Holy Spirit is not the church. WE Are the church. If you are going to a Jesus Christ centered Church and believe this church will help you full fill those two commands then it doesn't matter who's name is on the building.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is uniquely a nonredeemable sin. 

If God can grant forgiveness for all other sins, it behooves you to take His prohibition against blaspheming the Holy Spirit uniquely seriously, over and above all other transgressions.

Misconstruing blaspheming the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against  the Holy Spirit.

But again According to Christ, if you love God with all that you are how then could one possibly Blaspheme the Holy Spirit?

[Drich]

Are you opposed to non religious indoctrination?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. My son is being raised attending her Methodist church by his Christian mother, but is under no pressure to join or be baptized, just yet. Also, both of us teach him science and how it works, as well as telling him to be skeptical of what he is told by anyone, to find out the facts, and how to do so. We want him to be a healthy thinker, and his religion be his own choice, freely made when he is old enough to truly understand to what it is he is pledging allegiance (or not). I am careful never to tell my son I don't think there's a God, even when we talk about religious things, because I don't honestly think he's ready to handle those kinds of thoughts, yet, without being influenced one way or the other.

I think you will find that very few atheists tell their children they should/must be atheists.

You do know what Non religious means right?

[The Grand Nudger]

If my 'objective' is unknown to you then how can you possible assess what needs to be done to achieve it?

Oh, I apologize..this isn't your ministry..and you aren't here to convince us of anything.   Like I said, we can continue with pretense or you can do what needs to be done to achieve your goal. Let's use a wonderful example. This ASK bullshit. How convincing was it the first time you foisted it? -Not at all. It hasn't become more convincing since. That's on you, you could have done work, you could have improved your delivery. You still could. Seems like you'd rather do something else.

It shouldn't surprise you, then, to find that people remain unconvinced. It certainly doesn't have to do with -their- laziness or excuses...now does it?

[Losty]

There now that that's over. I wish I had some cool interesting thing but I don't know anything convincing. My only convincing thing is a lack of convincing reasons to believe in god.

What would be a convincing reason?

I don't know...it's hard to say.

I suppose some sort of scientific evidence.

Also if all the people of the earth had believed all throughout history that, though it doesn't actually prove anything probably would have convinced me.

[Drich]

---

It doesn't really matter if the writing were newer than the bible or not, though there are things like the cod of Hammurabi. The fact is that older religions existed that had gods that supposedly created the universe, and people who could work miracles.

And even if there wasn't that, there are other reasons to not believe your god exists. It is becoming clear to me that our thought processes are very different from each other, and we're very unlikely to come to a mutual consensus here.

---

Just how . . . ignorant ARE you, Dripshit?  Are you actually incapable of doing the basic research that would occur to any 12-year-old before screaming out your brainless lies?  Just a few easily-discovered actual facts about sacred texts:

*  The first Egyptian hieroglyphs regarding their gods dates back to approximately 3000 BC. 
*  Chinese oracle bone script that tells about gods and creation myths date to 1200 BC.
*  Around 700 BC, the poet Hesiod’s Theogony offered the first written cosmogony, or origin story, of Greek mythology.
*  The first Hindu texts date to 700 BC, and the Bhagavad Gita was composed 400 BC. (I'm surprised Little Rik didn't yammer at you about this one first.)
*  The Roman Gnaeus Naevius, during the 3rd century BC, composed an epic poem (about the first Punic War) that referenced his Roman Gods and thanked them for their aid.

Now before I kick you in your teeth with a obvious point your missed, and dismount you from your 'high horse' do you want to go back and reread what my argument actual says. Hint: I did NOT say Christianity is the oldest recorded religion.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. My son is being raised attending her Methodist church by his Christian mother, but is under no pressure to join or be baptized, just yet. Also, both of us teach him science and how it works, as well as telling him to be skeptical of what he is told by anyone, to find out the facts, and how to do so. We want him to be a healthy thinker, and his religion be his own choice, freely made when he is old enough to truly understand to what it is he is pledging allegiance (or not). I am careful never to tell my son I don't think there's a God, even when we talk about religious things, because I don't honestly think he's ready to handle those kinds of thoughts, yet, without being influenced one way or the other.

I think you will find that very few atheists tell their children they should/must be atheists.

You do know what Non religious means right?

Yes. However, like most things, I have no idea what you mean when you  say it!

Are you seriously trying to suggest that teaching him how to reason, to use science, and not pressuring a child to adopt a religion before they're of an age to truly understand what they're doing, is indoctrination?

But to answer the question in the most generic form possible, I am against indoctrinating children with anything other than demonstrable facts, and for teaching them how to make up their own minds with critical thinking skills.

[Drich]

If my 'objective' is unknown to you then how can you possible assess what needs to be done to achieve it?

Oh, I apologize..this isn't your ministry..and you aren't here to convince us of anything.   Like I said, we can continue with pretense or you can do what needs to be done to achieve your goal. Let's use a wonderful example.  This ASK bullshit.  How convincing was it the first time you foisted it?  -Not at all.  It hasn't become more convincing since.  That's on you, you could have done work, you could have improved your delivery.  You still could.  Seems like you'd rather do something else.  

It shouldn't surprise you, then, to find that people remain unconvinced.  It certainly doesn't have to do with -their- laziness or excuses...now does it?

My point exactly.

It is my ministry, but where you seem confused is I make no effort to convince anyone of anything. As per my very first post here. I am here to provide clarity about biblicaly based Christianity and answer questions concerning it.

My involvement here in this thread was based in large part as a measure to provide a more accurate picture of who God is according to the bible. Most of what I answered to were 'disbelief' posts based on a corrupt version or an inaccurate idea of who or what God is.

That is the reason I answered those that I did, while refraining from other posts. If I was here to convince people I would be approaching you all like a sales man. (Identifying want or need in all posts and up selling specific aspects of God to full fill your needs while down playing the bad.) Rather I think I do the opposite. I offer truth whether it hurts or helps my argument. I don't try and make things seem nice at the expense of the truth.

That's why I did not make an effort to soften my approach to nympho. He/she needed truth not sympathy.

Truth and a accurate picture of God is what I offer. You all decide after that. I am not here to 'save' anyone. I am here to provide you with the information one can use to make an informed decision, what you do with that opportunity will be between you and God.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In reluctant fairness to GC, I've always considered the "God must intervene" argument to be a terrible one.

Along the same lines, I find the idea of an interventionist God who needed to "stick His almighty fingers in the pie", so to speak, in order to create the earth and the life on it, to be equally diminishing of the idea of a deity.