Christianity...

[Godslayer Jillian]

Wether it's fiction or not, no one denies Homer was the composer of both.
There's no difference with this than with Abraham being the writer of the first four books of the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by Splintered

If you want to draw parallels to them, then you'd have to put them on the same basis, that they are both works of fiction, in which case that defeats your entire arguement right off the bat.

This swould be saying that we can only say a write is the legitimate author of his book if he's writing fiction, and this is not true.

Saying Moses is only the "supposedly" writer of the first four books is beating a dead horse.
There's no reason why we should think otherwise.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Wether it's fiction or not, no one denies Homer was the composer of both.
There's no difference with this than with Abraham being the writer of the first four books of the Old Testament.

I disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...perspective.29

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This swould be saying that we can only say a write is the legitimate author of his book if he's writing fiction, and this is not true.

Wrong. We've seen people write non-fiction accurately, all the time. With retestable data, no-less! Are they not the authors of their own books?

Saying Moses is only the "supposedly" writer of the first four books is beating a dead horse.
There's no reason why we should think otherwise.

Didn't you say Abraham wrote it?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Oh, shit, I did.
It's supposed to be Moses. Sorry about the Abraham mistake. (By the way, I loved the last link. I don't think even my proffessor may know what to say about this.)

[TOR Hershman]

Well, if'in ya wants the awful facts, just copy & paste at google

tor hershman the awful facts

it's moi's lill' mp3.

Some people seem to feel that it's a wee bit spooky.

I'd leave the URL for moi's Fan Club but this here dag-nabed board ain't
a-gonna allow moi to.

[TOR Hershman]

BTW, GodSlayer, moi is just
Fond To The Max
of you sig.

You may want to google

tor hershman jesus christ antichrist

for a hoot.

[Splintered]

Where did I hide my shotgun?

[Godslayer Jillian]

My new sig's courtesy of Splintered.
Anyways...
Who in hell are you and were you anywhere near radiation by any chance?

[Splintered]

Actually, it's courtesy of a board I was previously a member of, from another member, who found it on a board that they were a member of, who found it through Google.

So, once again, we praise Google and pay thanks to the Godlyness that they are.

Them and Wikipedia.

There's no reason why we should think otherwise.

'Cept that there are many similiarities of other stories in the bible, taken from other stories from other religions (The flood is a great example of this. There have been many flood myths in other cultures). That's why we should think otherwise.

[knightmare]

Hey Jillian, about your posts, The only way that God can be glorified was by people believing in His plan for redemption through their own free will. The use of punishment and death is a proper way of showing His people the truth, how else are men supposed to learn the seriousness of their sin? By taking what is most precious to them, life. Also, only with the presence of evil, can man's morals be tested. Also His creation could only be perfect if He gave people the free will to choose between good and evil because they are made in His image, and God has free will. Also, Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for man's vindication; God sacrificed the only perfect person in the world, Himself, as man's only salvation since all men are sinful. That is why in the OT, several sacrifices were used for individual sins, they were imperfect sacrifices, at best showing the immanent sacrifice of His Son. I hope this is reasonable, this is a difficult topic

[Splintered]

What would it matter if Jesus did have a wife? Would that invalidate his teachings?

What else weren't we told?
bible. This lilith and secret mark gospel is intriguing though. I'll have to read up.

Thing is the Bible would have us believe that God communicates w/ us all the time. In context of the debate, God talked with Noah whom then in turn warned everyone "Hey! All you! Yes you! If you don't start following my law, I am going to destroy you all!". In a general context, God communicates with us through our concience. "Hey you, don't do that. It's wrong." If God were to just show himself openly to everyone, then it would destroy the foundation of his system; which is faith. God requires faith as atonement for sin.

There is this hobo. We'll call him Joe. Joe runs around screaming that God talks to him, and the end is near. He's also building his bunker in the Rocky Mountains. Why do I listen to him?

There's this guy. We'll call him Noah. Noah runs around screaming that God talks to him, and a bigass flood is coming. He's also building his bigass arc to take two of every animal. Why do I listen to him?

God requires faith just seems stupid. I can't get around why a God would be so concerned with something so trivial. Such characteristics, in humans atleast, is called Narcissim.

If God sent Jesus previous to what he did, it wouldn't matter. Everything would still be based on faith. You would still have the choice to accept or deny. What's your point? To circumvent pain and suffering? That is unrelated to God as it came about as a result of sin. He did predict what these humans would do. That's why He already had a plan incase they did disobey.

Yes, but we wouldn't have all these ultimately superfluous rituals, now would we?

And last time I checked, circumventing pain and suffering, were both good things. Unless you're asserting God wants us to suffer. I'm not saying he doesn't, but still.

I like this analogy. How could God make his program better? We already have free will, the coice to accept or deny, right? What could be better than to be able to choose for ourselves our own fate?

To live in a constant increasing orgasm?

If God is omnipotent, he would then know every possible outcome to every choice ever presented to us in life. If He were a good programer, then He would design an overall governing outcome of good use to Him and all His creation.

And sending people to hell is a good outcome for his creation?

What's your point? That God loves? I'll agree. It goes back to the old parant analogy. If a child (human) disobeys (sin)/ obeys (righteousness) it's parent (God), the parent teaches and diciplines/ rewards the child according to its choices (life) till adulthood (death). According to the child's choices (free will), the parent decides what to do w/ the child: support (heaven) or deny (hell). If the parent is a good parent, at any point durning the childs life, regardless of previous choice, they would accept them as if nothing happened; if the child chooses to accept the parent as correct and follow their example (forgivance of all sins through faith and practice).

Problem. Say my parents tell me that killing someone is a good thing. And I've always been raised that way. Yet, most people would argue killing is a bad thing. Your arguement is then null.

As for the seemingly logical loop (God sacrificed God/ His Creation to Himself):
If God did not offer a way to be forgiven of sin (as it has conciquence according to God), how could they be able to appologize to be forgiven?

By not giving them a reason to sin in the first place?

If a friend does you wrong, how do you forgive them? You accept their appology right? What if they don't want to appologize nor to see you, but you still want to maintain contact? You'll need a mediator to speak for you. In this same manner God sent Jesus (wheather separate or not) as a mediator between humans and Himself because He wants to maintain contact with a creation that doesn't want Him around.

If I catch a friend with my girlfriend/fiancee/wife, whatever, there will be no forgiveness. There will be pure ass-kicking.

You see, here's the thing. God made the problem of sin in the first place (Logically, he created the Tree of Knowledge, and the snake that tempted them to eat it), so why should I be punished for God giving me the ability to screw up, and placing an Agent Provacateur (SP?) to make me do it?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Well, there are two things I see you're arguing.
Both of them I used to argue, until I found that the come back of christian intellectuals was solid enough.
Even if I didn't like their answer, it has enough weight to keep arguing about it.

One, that there are other religions that had similar stories. Then other religions did have a vague idea of the "true" religion. Those who had a forthcoming messiah (e.g. Zoroastrianism) had a grasp on what was to happen when Christ would come to this world.

Two; you don't agree with God's methods. Agree or not agree; if He exists, that doesn't matter.

[natharliak]

well why would some random in the, how ever long ago it was, just make up something called god and plus theres no everdence to say hes up there or hes a myth
againstGOD:god is not true cause there is no solid everdence to say he lives(or jesus who ever the fuk)
forGOD:god its true cause why would some one ages ago make up somethng for no proffit??

againstGOD:he would make it up cause maby he thought 'whats the meaning of life' and then said to people the meaning of life is to live for god
forGOD: maby that is true...

there is no everdence to say he ever egzisted or he did.
(i debate alot)

[Godslayer Jillian]

And I bet you lose a lot.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by natharliak

well why would some random in the, how ever long ago it was, just make up something called god and plus theres no everdence to say hes up there or hes a myth
againstGOD:god is not true cause there is no solid everdence to say he lives(or jesus who ever the fuk)
forGOD:god its true cause why would some one ages ago make up somethng for no proffit??

againstGOD:he would make it up cause maby he thought 'whats the meaning of life' and then said to people the meaning of life is to live for god
forGOD: maby that is true...

there is no everdence to say he ever egzisted or he did.
(i debate alot)

Cute, he says "I debate a lot" as if to say, "Yeah, I know, I totally blasted the hell out of all of your arguments because I t3h PWN0rs!!"

Isn't little spookygoth hubris adorable?

By the way, natharliak, that was a very clever code you used with the words "everdence", "fuk", "proffit", "maby" and "egzisted". So shrewd, using words that don't actually exist to send out a subliminal SOS. I've taken the liberty of decoding said SOS for the members of this forum.

The first letters of all non-existant words in the order in which they are read:

E.E.F.P.M.M.E.E.

Obviously, this translates to Everyone's Eyeliner Fails Periodically: Mine Must, Ergo Exasperation. This poor little spookygoth's eyeliner is failing him/her! This is a cry for help, people.

[Mr_Knuckles]

Originally Posted by Splintered

What else weren't we told?

If Jesus had a wife, would it invalidate his teachings? According to John, if everything were told, or written rather, there wouldn't be enough room on earth to contain the books. It just seems logical to summerize, to me anyway.

Originally Posted by Splintered

There is this hobo. We'll call him Joe. Joe runs around screaming that God talks to him, and the end is near. He's also building his bunker in the Rocky Mountains. Why do I listen to him?

There's this guy. We'll call him Noah. Noah runs around screaming that God talks to him, and a bigass flood is coming. He's also building his bigass arc to take two of every animal. Why do I listen to him?

Noah was a king. He was in an influential position. You think he built the ark himself?

Originally Posted by Splintered

God requires faith just seems stupid. I can't get around why a God would be so concerned with something so trivial. Such characteristics, in humans atleast, is called Narcissim.

Why is copyright infringment such a big issue? People want credit for their work. Why wouldn't God want credit for his work?

Originally Posted by Splintered

Yes, but we wouldn't have all these ultimately superfluous rituals, now would we?

And last time I checked, circumventing pain and suffering, were both good things. Unless you're asserting God wants us to suffer. I'm not saying he doesn't, but still.

I'll agree, biblical rituals were a bit superfluous, but the ritual itself was not the point. The point was to show or demonstrate faith.

Pain and suffering are an integral part of comfort and happyness. One could not exist without the other in our reality.

Originally Posted by Splintered

To live in a constant increasing orgasm?

haha! *thumbs up*

Originally Posted by Splintered

And sending people to hell is a good outcome for his creation?

When all their life all they wanted was seperation from God, in the end they get it. Sounds like it's in their best intrest.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Problem. Say my parents tell me that killing someone is a good thing. And I've always been raised that way. Yet, most people would argue killing is a bad thing. Your arguement is then null.

This is why a moral guide is necessary. Basis in the other moral extreem only strengthens my argument.

Hell is Hevean for the wicked. They want seperation from God, God lets them have it. I know the wicked thing is debateable, but being good alone doesn't justify getting to heaven "least any man should boast".

Originally Posted by Splintered

By not giving them a reason to sin in the first place?

What reason did God give? It was Adam and Eve's choice to believe a lie.

Would you rather God made us robots instead, not having choice? Even the angels, being in Gods presence have choice, which is exemplified in Lucifer.

Originally Posted by Splintered

If I catch a friend with my girlfriend/fiancee/wife, whatever, there will be no forgiveness. There will be pure ass-kicking.

You see, here's the thing. God made the problem of sin in the first place (Logically, he created the Tree of Knowledge, and the snake that tempted them to eat it), so why should I be punished for God giving me the ability to screw up, and placing an Agent Provacateur (SP?) to make me do it?

I don't blame you! I'd be kicking some toosh too, as would be my choice and his consequence of action. But if he offered sincere apology, if I were a good person, I would accept. Wheather I'm a good person or not is up to debate, but God (to the Chrisitan) is personification of good.

I won't argue the point that God created sin, because I agree, He indirectly created sin. By Him giving you free will, you get the ablity to choose to disobey Him. But I will argue that God did not make you, or anyone else, do anything.


In regard to punishment:

We all know there is consequence for doing what is decidedly bad (even if pleasure is involved). If there were no consequence, what's to stop you from continuance there in? Example: Eating. Eating in moderation is a good thing. It sustains life. No eating leads to death. Overeating (pleasurable to most) leads to being overweight, which is unhealthy and also leads to death (albeit slower, but you get the picture). Why should denying a creator not have consequence?

Hell is a holding place for the people who want seperation from God. God (as stated earlier) is personification of everything good and just. Naturally, seperation from everything good leaves only one other state of being.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also His creation could only be perfect if He gave people the free will to choose between good and evil because they are made in His image, and God has free will.

It can be argued that God does not have free will. If God chose to do evil that would make Him unworthy to judge His creation of their evil, and therefor flawed. Omnipotence calls for flawlessness right?

Originally Posted by natharliak

well why would some random in the, how ever long ago it was, just make up something called god and plus theres no everdence to say hes up there or hes a myth
againstGOD:god is not true cause there is no solid everdence to say he lives(or jesus who ever the fuk)
forGOD:god its true cause why would some one ages ago make up somethng for no proffit??

againstGOD:he would make it up cause maby he thought 'whats the meaning of life' and then said to people the meaning of life is to live for god
forGOD: maby that is true...

there is no everdence to say he ever egzisted or he did.
(i debate alot)

Wow. Could have fooled me, what with the lack of structure to your "argument". You need to work on your presentation if you want to be taken seriously.

[c130]

You sound pretty convinced that all non-believers will go to Hell. In what way are you sure Hell exists? I mean, considering it's an afterlife, you'd need to die to go there and experience it, and as far as I know, nobody has ever come back to life after dying in order to have gone through the basic requirement of experiencing the afterlife. If people claim to have visited Hell, the fact they're alive to tell the story of it makes their claim questionable at best.

I'm genuinely curious to hear what people's reasons for believing in Heaven and Hell, God and Satan, demons and angels are, because I've never sat down and really discussed it before.

[Mr_Knuckles]

c130, I'm mearly taking a stance.

You're asking for personal testimony which would be off topic, but I'd be happy to share elsewhere. My IM contacts are in my profile, add me if you want.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Why?
Because the Bible says so.
We could make a Religion thread, but this one is specifically for all the strict and inchangeable teachings of Christianity.
Wether Mr. Knuckles believes in Hell or not, he's speaking from a Christian's point of view.
The thread's not about beliefs, it's a siege and defending of a specific religion.

[c130]

Yes, and I think it's perfectly relevant for discussion of the nature, roots and extent of beliefs of an individual within said religion. So please don't dismiss my point.

[Mr_Knuckles]

Sorry for the double post. Is the 5 minute edit limit suppose to be like the 5 second rule for food?

The Christian believer would not have valid evidence for or against Heaven and Hell, God and Satan, Demons and Angels. Thats the reason faith is the defining factor, else it'd be called evidence.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But I did answer the question. The Bible says so, therefore it must exist.
There's no way to prove or disprove afterlife, so the way to disprove Christianity is if there's a flaw in the Bible when it speaks about this world.
Example: Jesus' Resurrection. Couldn't the apostles have just stolen the body and proclaimed him resurrected?

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Mr_Knuckles

If Jesus had a wife, would it invalidate his teachings? According to John, if everything were told, or written rather, there wouldn't be enough room on earth to contain the books. It just seems logical to summerize, to me anyway.

Whose to say that there was not an account of Jesus murdering someone? Or Lying? Or some other thing that altered his teachings? If I write up a medical report, yet I alter some of the data, the entire report is invalidated.

Noah was a king. He was in an influential position. You think he built the ark himself?

Sure, but that's not what I am pointing out. I'm pointing out that many people claim the apocalypse/global disaster is coming. Why would we listen to just this guy?

Why is copyright infringment such a big issue? People want credit for their work. Why wouldn't God want credit for his work?

Note the word people. Why do we attribute such a powerful being, as having the same problems that plague our society, such as desire?

I'll agree, biblical rituals were a bit superfluous, but the ritual itself was not the point. The point was to show or demonstrate faith.

And we couldn't do this by methods in the Christian bible?

Pain and suffering are an integral part of comfort and happyness. One could not exist without the other in our reality.

Not true. If I am simply in a state where I am having a constant pleasure being put through my body, then why would I need to have pain?

When all their life all they wanted was seperation from God, in the end they get it. Sounds like it's in their best intrest.

I disagree. Being in eternal torment, doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.

This is why a moral guide is necessary. Basis in the other moral extreem only strengthens my argument.

Hell is Hevean for the wicked. They want seperation from God, God lets them have it. I know the wicked thing is debateable, but being good alone doesn't justify getting to heaven "least any man should boast".

A moral guide can be relative. Once again, my father (God for comparison), dictated that killing someone was good.

You assume hell is heaven for the wicked. For all we know, it's simply where you experience constant pain, that is continually expanded until eternity.

What reason did God give? It was Adam and Eve's choice to believe a lie.

Would you rather God made us robots instead, not having choice? Even the angels, being in Gods presence have choice, which is exemplified in Lucifer.

It was their choice to believe a lie?
Knowing the consequences, and not having a being created by God to tempt them, and not having God stop this being, was their fault? That's like saying it's my fault because someone put the gun in my hand, and pulled the trigger to shoot someone, when I was ultimately powerless to stop them, and told by an agent of the law (Or God for comparison), that it was a good thing.

And yes, I would rather be a robot.

I don't blame you! I'd be kicking some toosh too, as would be my choice and his consequence of action. But if he offered sincere apology, if I were a good person, I would accept. Wheather I'm a good person or not is up to debate, but God (to the Chrisitan) is personification of good.

I won't argue the point that God created sin, because I agree, He indirectly created sin. By Him giving you free will, you get the ablity to choose to disobey Him. But I will argue that God did not make you, or anyone else, do anything.

If I give someone a gun, knowing they are going to shoot someone, am I not guilty as well?

In regard to punishment:

We all know there is consequence for doing what is decidedly bad (even if pleasure is involved). If there were no consequence, what's to stop you from continuance there in? Example: Eating. Eating in moderation is a good thing. It sustains life. No eating leads to death. Overeating (pleasurable to most) leads to being overweight, which is unhealthy and also leads to death (albeit slower, but you get the picture). Why should denying a creator not have consequence?

Because the Creator created the consequence in the first place. It'd be like saying that George Washington should have been executed for treason, because he rebelled to the King, because he felt that America would be better off without English rule.

Hell is a holding place for the people who want seperation from God. God (as stated earlier) is personification of everything good and just. Naturally, seperation from everything good leaves only one other state of being.

Who said they wanted seperation from God? Homosexuals are violating God's law (In Both the New and the Old Testament), yet they could be uber-Christians in other areas. They simply won't regret being Homosexual. What about them?

forGOD:god its true cause why would some one ages ago make up somethng for no proffit??

Catholic Church, anyone?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Example: Jesus' Resurrection. Couldn't the apostles have just stolen the body and proclaimed him resurrected?

If I remember correctly, Pontius Pilate was worried about this exact thing and stationed guards by the tomb. Whether or not that's true is impossible to prove and depends entirely on whether or not you believe the Bible stated that part of the story truthfully.

On the one hand, you could decide that due to recent evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls the Bible is true. With that belief you could choose to similarly believe that the Bible was portraying the story of Jesus' Resurrection as truthfully as the Apostles knew how. That would indicate that they were telling the truth about the guards in front of the tomb, which would negate the concept that the Apostles stole the body.

On the other hand, you could say that although recent evidence like the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Bible has basis in fact, that does not mean that every word is true. It is entirely possible, given that mentality, that the Apostles made up the story about the guards to cover their asses. I mean, that's a hell of an alibi, isn't it? There were guards! They witnessed it, and they weren't even on Jesus' side! Who wouldn't use an alibi like that?

[c130]

lol! Post lag.

But I did answer the question. The Bible says so, therefore it must exist.
There's no way to prove or disprove afterlife, so the way to disprove Christianity is if there's a flaw in the Bible when it speaks about this world.
Example: Jesus' Resurrection. Couldn't the apostles have just stolen the body and proclaimed him resurrected?

No, that's not really an answer to the question I asked.

I asked what makes an individual person believe that there are such things as Heaven and Hell? I don't think you'll find a single Christian answering the question honestly from their heart who'll answer with "it's in the Bible", and it's a believer's response I'm looking for. I don't want to pick apart your beliefs or tell you why I think you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested to hear your beliefs and why you believe what you do, as difficult to believe as that may be, coming from an atheist on a goth forum.

Most Christians believe in God because they say they feel his presence in their lives, be it a feeling of being watched over, a guiding spirit showing them the "right" way to lead their lives, or someone looking out for them to keep them out of harm. I'd like to hear someone's explanation for their personal belief in what's written in the Bible.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by c130

I asked what makes an individual person believe that there are such things as Heaven and Hell? I don't think you'll find a single Christian answering the question honestly from their heart who'll answer with "it's in the Bible", and it's a believer's response I'm looking for. Most Christians believe in God because they say they feel his presence in their lives, be it a feeling of being watched over, a guiding spirit showing them the "right" way to lead their lives, or someone looking out for them to keep them out of harm. I'd like to hear someone's explanation for their personal belief in what's written in the Bible.

You seem to have a specific answer to this in mind... However, I'll try to answer this, if I may. I'm not a Christian anymore, but once upon a time I was.

It just didn't seem realistic to me that all of this was a cosmic accident. I looked at all of the miraculous things around me and felt that such intricate beauty had to be intelligent design. I was raised as a Christian, so when I decided to research intelligent design, I was already a little biased.

Then I read all sorts of articles confirming time frames and small facts in the Bible. It seemed to me that if there is a God, which I felt I had established based on my intelligent design theories, it made logical sense that this God was the one that was written about in this book that had a proven basis on fact.

I had a bit of proof from the articles I had read, and for me that was enough to take the rest on faith.