[koogz]

Well, do you hate God?

[Krusty]

Is that you, God ? Are you talking to me ?

Somewhere out there is a 13 year old boy with whom you will become friends for life.

[Scientist]

Odin sucks. I hate him. Ouch, my eyes hurt!

Cheers,
Loki

[Dakar]

What a ridiculous thread...

...let's see how it unfolds!

[Zimphire]

A better question would be "Who here hates the concept of God"

Because most of the people who hate him don't believe in him.

Isn't that silly?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A better question would be "Who here hates the concept of God"

Because most of the people who hate him don't believe in him.

Isn't that silly?

If you say organized religion, you got me (Though hate would still be a rather strong term). But god, no I don't hate the concept of a god.

[koogz]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A better question would be "Who here hates the concept of God"

Because most of the people who hate him don't believe in him.

Isn't that silly?

You were the only one to get the reasoning behind my thread.

How can they hate what they don't believe in?

[BRussell]

I hate the God portrayed by some Christians. He gives us the ability to reason, and then he sends us to burn in eternal agony unless we suspend that reason. He tortures us forever unless we worship him. If that God exists, I hate him. If he's like some Christians portray him, he's not unlike Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il. He tortures dissidents.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
and then he sends us to burn in eternal agony unless we suspend that reason. He tortures us forever unless we worship him.

He doesn't send anyone to hell.

He didn't make hell for us.

We send ourselves.

[xenu]

How can you hate something that doesn't exist?

You can certainly hate what people do in his/her/its name.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He doesn't send anyone to hell.

He didn't make hell for us.

We send ourselves.

Doesn't he set the rules though? How is that any different from telling tortured dissidents in a dictatorship that they send themselves?

[itai195]

Originally posted by koogz:
You were the only one to get the reasoning behind my thread.

There's a reasoning to this thread?

I don't hate God. I hate how some (eg conservative Christians) portray God, and I hate what some do in the name of God.

[iLikebeer]

If I could, I'd send a Thunderbolt right back at Zeus, but I don't think he cares. We have a mutual relationship.

Now if I were god, I wouldn't worry about people hating me, because I'm god. They can burn in hell for all I care. I'd just be pissed that my followers were so dumb that they forgot my name and gave me the generic name "god". Top of my "god"forsaken "to do" list would be to send a prophet to give me a cool ass name.

Sorry, got lost in the moment, and it has been a crappy month.

[badidea]

Can threads here get any more retarded??

[Millennium]

There are a lot of people who hate the Judeo-Christian concept of God. This doesn't actually come as much of a surprise, given how some of the more powerful Christian sects have twisted that concept to the point where God appears to act in an arbitrary and often cruel manner. I'd probably hate God too, if I believed what those sects to be telling the whole story.

It's difficult to get past that, though, and see everything that was going on. As far as aesthetics go, the Bible is minimalist; there's nothing wrong with that, but it means that it only tells you the bare minimum, such that you can build out the rest with logic and reasoning. That takes more of a mind than most people are willing to use nowadays; people want to be spoon-fed this sort of thing. They see any type of mental exercise concerning the words of the Bible as twisting it around, with the fundamentalists and skeptics being the two groups most guilty of this (consider the Skeptics' Annotated Bible, which is often even more literalist than most fundamentalists). They see the Bible as a cage to constrain thought, rather than a seed from which to grow it.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He doesn't send anyone to hell.
He didn't make hell for us.
We send ourselves.

Total B.S., Nowhere is an eternal Hell mentioned, totally misunderstood scriptures.

In the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written, four words are translated "hell" in English. The four words convey three different meanings.

The Hebrew word sheol, used in the Old Testament, has the same meaning as hades, one of the Greek words translated "hell" in the New Testament.

The Greek word Hades ... is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated 'hell' in English versions of the New Testament. It refers to the place of the dead... The old Hebrew concept of the place of the dead, most often called Sheol ... is usually translated as Hades, and the Greek term was naturally and commonly used by Jews writing in Greek

Both sheol and hades refer to the grave. A comparison of an Old Testament and a New Testament scripture confirm this. Psalm 16:10 says, "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." In Acts 2:27 the apostle Peter quotes this verse and shows that it is a reference to Christ. Here the Greek word hades is substituted for the Hebrew sheol.

Where did Christ go when He died? He went to the grave. His body was placed in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The two passages, in Psalms and Acts, tell us Jesus' flesh did not decay in the grave because God resurrected Him.

The majority of scriptures that use the term hell are simply talking about the grave, the place where everyone, whether good or evil, goes at death. The Hebrew word sheol is used in the Old Testament 65 times. In the King James Version it is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times and "pit" three times.

The Greek hades is used 11 times in the New Testament. In the King James translation in all instances but one the term hades is translated "hell." The one exception is 1 Corinthians 15:55, where it is translated "grave." In the New King James Version, the translators simply used the original Greek word hades in all 11 instances.

Two other Greek words are translated "hell" in the New Testament. One of these is tartaroo, used only once in the Bible (2 Peter 2:4), where it refers to the place where the fallen angels, or demons, are restrained awaiting their judgment. The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words explains that tartaroo means "to confine in tartaros" and that Tartaros was the Greek name for the mythological abyss where rebellious gods were confined

Why is it the ones who are the most religious the least knowledgeable about scripture?

p.s. I know what verses you are going to post, go ahead and I will debunk them, but I would check the meanings out first (surely you have a concordance, etc.?)

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He doesn't send anyone to hell.

He didn't make hell for us.

We send ourselves.

And how do we send ourselves, per se?

[Athens]

Originally posted by koogz:
Well, do you hate God?

In order to hate god, one must believe in god. And if one believes in god to hate at least they believe in god. Even the most religious person at some point in time will resent or hate the god they believe in when a tragedy hits their life. What counts is what they believe in during death.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by koogz:
Well, do you hate God?

i love god.

[just not yours]

/can't believe i even posted in this thread...got..to...resist...

[Athens]

Originally posted by badidea:
Can threads here get any more retarded??

Yes, I am sure they can, time will tell though

[spacefreak]

Many people don't like the concept of God because they don't like moral judgements being made about their actions and behaviors. The concept of God pretty much requires accepting that there are things and behaviors that are right, and behaviors that are wrong. Some people just don't want to be judged, or can't handle the idea of possibly being judged.

I'm not religious, and I wasn't raised as a practitioner. But the presence of a God who looked over me was definitely conveyed to me during my upbringing. Morally wrong behaviors were pointed out to me, and the presence of God always keeping an eye on me, even when I was away from adult supervision, helped keep me on the straight and narrow.

Looking back, the Santa finding out "who's naughty or nice" influenced me a bit, too, especially during the later parts of the years. That is, until my bad-influence neighbor (4 years older than me) told me the truth when I was 5.

[ebuddy]

Two other Greek words are translated "hell" in the New Testament. One of these is tartaroo, used only once in the Bible (2 Peter 2:4), where it refers to the place where the fallen angels, or demons, are restrained awaiting their judgment.

What is their judgement? Life with God, or Death in absence of God, wisdom, knowledge, etc...What I'm asking is, what of the difference? What exactly are you trying to say? Is death not a bad state for someone created for eternal life? Death, is essentially and Biblically the absence of Life and absence of God. Life being a good thing, Death a bad right?

The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words explains that tartaroo means "to confine in tartaros" and that Tartaros was the Greek name for the mythological abyss where rebellious gods were confined

So, a kind of prison no? Why would something asleep be in need of confinement? Why are they to be separated from that which is not asleep. If I were awake or 'alive' and my antagonist brother asleep or 'dead'-what threat is he to me in his state of slumber that I'd need to confine him? I find it interesting that 2 definitions of 'restrain' are;
- to deprive of freedom and liberty
- to limit or restrict
I show 3 definitions of 'confine' and they are;
- To keep within bounds; restrict
- To shut or keep in, especially to imprison.
- To restrict in movement
and 2 definitions of 'torment' are;
- Great physical pain or mental anguish
- A source of harrassment, pain, or annoyance
I find it very reasonable for one to conclude that 'confinement' and 'restrain' would beget torment as defined and that something in a state of complete dormancy need not be confined nor restrained. Either way, could one assume that eternal separation from God is bad enough to be viewed punitive?

Why is it the ones who are the most religious the least knowledgeable about scripture?

Very good point. Satan also proved to have great knowledge of scripture. Thankfully, knowledge of scripture is not the end-all, rather knowledge of God and the weightier matters; justice, mercy, and faith.

Are you saying many hate God because they feel they have fallen short of the Law and as such will be caste into the abyss? They hate a God that would uphold any principle for purpose? Are you saying it's possible that many hate God because they may feel convicted of short-comings? To appease, should we conclude there is no judgement, no reason to reconcile, and no consequence for denial of God? I'm just trying to get at the heart of what it is you're exactly trying to say.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Are you saying many hate God because they feel they have fallen short of the Law and as such will be caste into the abyss? They hate a God that would uphold any principle for purpose? Are you saying it's possible that many hate God because they may feel convicted of short-comings? To appease, should we conclude there is no judgement, no reason to reconcile, and no consequence for denial of God? I'm just trying to get at the heart of what it is you're exactly trying to say.

I wasn't trying to say anything about the main subject. I find it silly people would hate a God unless it was in a tragic circumstance and then probably only for the instant.

Hating the actions of a God or hating the actions of a people who believe their God is guiding them is another story... My God is "more right" than your God just seems silly.

Some people believe the unjust will be punished forever in eternal damnation. Some people believe they must punish the unjust NOW as they see fit. Some believe this is the will of their God with all their being and all their life. is it right to hate them?

[chris v]

I am a screen printer. Murphy is my G*d. I f*cking hate Murphy.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So, a kind of prison no?

No, according to cross-referenced scriptures it would be more like a grave, a final resting place. The mythological meaning does not equal what the word meant in the context of the scriptures.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I find it very reasonable for one to conclude that 'confinement' and 'restrain' would beget torment as defined and that something in a state of complete dormancy need not be confined nor restrained.

I don't agree, i think that is a bit of a stretch, especially when we try using other bible text to back it up, it fails.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What is their judgement? Life with God, or Death in absence of God, wisdom, knowledge, etc...What I'm asking is, what of the difference?

The Bible doesn't go much into describing death, but it does make one interesting point: the idea that when a person dies their thoughts cease. Without thought, there is no experience, so the idea of "sheol" is essentially oblivion, both in the classical sense of forgetfulness and the modern sense of ceasing to be.

What exactly are you trying to say? Is death not a bad state for someone created for eternal life? Death, is essentially and Biblically the absence of Life and absence of God. Life being a good thing, Death a bad right?

Death isn't a good or bad thing, because it is not. A state of not-being cannot be rightly called good, because one doesn't experience good, but neither can it be called bad, because one doesn't experience bad.

So, a kind of prison no?

Sort of, I suppose. In literary terms you're assigning the attributes of a place to a state of being (or not-being, as the case may be), but this is what the Hebrews did too, so you're actually on exactly the right track.

Why would something asleep be in need of confinement?

Sleep is a kind of confinement, particularly when it is enforced. Think about it: when you confine something, you prevent it from experiencing things outside the bounds of its confinement. Therefore, can a state of not experiencing be anything but the ultimate confinement?

Why are they to be separated from that which is not asleep. If I were awake or 'alive' and my antagonist brother asleep or 'dead'-what threat is he to me in his state of slumber that I'd need to confine him?

There's no need for (or, for that matter, point to) further confinement, because your brother's sleep is itself the confinement.

I find it interesting that 2 definitions of 'restrain' are;
- to deprive of freedom and liberty
- to limit or restrict

Indeed. No argument here.

I show 3 definitions of 'confine' and they are;
- To keep within bounds; restrict
- To shut or keep in, especially to imprison.
- To restrict in movement

Likewise, no argument.

and 2 definitions of 'torment' are;
- Great physical pain or mental anguish
- A source of harrassment, pain, or annoyance

Still no argument here, but with a caveat: torment requires experience. A person cannot be in pain, physical or mental, nor can he be harrassed or annoyed, unless he can experience these things.

I find it very reasonable for one to conclude that 'confinement' and 'restrain' would beget torment as defined and that something in a state of complete dormancy need not be confined nor restrained.

Unless, as I've pointed out, the state of dormancy is itself the confinement. In a case like this, torment does not occur and cannot occur, since the requisite experience is not present.

But just because there is no torment, is there truly no punishment? A state of nonexperience may be peaceful, but it is a sad peace, for while there is no torment neither is there joy nor pleasure nor hope. Not that the ones so punished would experience any sadness either, but it is left for those remaining to contemplate. Is that not punishment enough?

Either way, could one assume that eternal separation from God is bad enough to be viewed punitive?

Indeed, it would be an awful thing, but once again, if one cannot experience this separation then the point is moot, even if true.

Are you saying many hate God because they feel they have fallen short of the Law and as such will be caste into the abyss?

That's a fairly common reason. People don't tend to like God-concepts which don't agree with the way that they live their lives. When we add to this a God-concept which would condemn people to eternal suffering for major and minor infractions alike, it's only natural to hate such arbitrary cruelty.

They hate a God that would uphold any principle for purpose? Are you saying it's possible that many hate God because they may feel convicted of short-comings?

Not because they feel convicted of shortcomings, per se. It's important to understand that many people don't recognize most of their own shortcomings; either they're completely unaware of them or don't understand them as such. The end result is that they see a God-concept which condemns them for sins they don't believe they have, either because they don't realize they do them or because they do realize they do them but don't believe them to be sins.

To appease, should we conclude there is no judgement, no reason to reconcile, and no consequence for denial of God?

Not at all; just arguing that the judgment and consequences are of a different nature than you believe they are.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Millennium:
People don't tend to like God-concepts which don't agree with the way that they live their lives.

That's a fairly good point. Twice as interesting when you consider that many people consider themselves Christian or Muslim, etc. when they're actions are often-times unacceptable by their own religions' standards.

[ebuddy]

Not at all; just arguing that the judgment and consequences are of a different nature than you believe they are.

I agree with all of Mikellanes' and Milleniums' points with exception to this very last statement. I believe simply that Hell is the absence of God. What all the implications of that 'absence' are, I am not 100% sure. I simply view it as bad and punitive and as such would continue to desire growth. This is not to say I will attain absolute righteousness, but someone or something that is not growing is dying. If one continues to 'grow' (that is to say, satisfy the requirement of growth to successful living with faith in that person's Godly terms) they will maintain life. Those that do not may (according to the Scripture) attain death.

While presumptuous, to understand some concepts- I find putting myself into the Creator's shoes is enlightening and supports much of what you both are saying. That is, we are created FOR something. Some purpose for which we may not understand as yet. For a crude example; if I were making a tent that was designed for the purpose of housing my wife and children through the winter, I'd want to make sure it was capable of a few things. It would need to stand up to much weight, it would need to be waterproof, and it would need to withstand all other aspects of a wintery element including wind, etc...How to know if this tent is worthy of it's purpose if not to allow it to be exposed to these elements? The tents that did not 'make the cut' would simply be thrown away. I would not feel it necessary to stomp on it, burn it, make it's poles shiver in fear and agony. I would simply not use it. It would fulfill no purpose for me and as such would be 'away from my purpose.' It would not be used for which it was designed. I sometimes fear death not because of the process of it (though I can imagine some pretty bad ways to go), but moreso because I would not have life here. I would not be subject to the joys of walks in the park, joking, laughing, (yes, drinking occasionally ) etc...To ultimitely not have life is punitive enough. In that I agree. There is in all this, it seems; accountability. Someone who is viewed as unwavering, unrelenting, and unable to view their own 'mistakes' is generally viewed as stubborn and difficult to deal with. They are in essence, not ultimitely productive, antagonistic, in many ways counter-productive. A very simple example might be one who believes it's okay to kill their wife in order to have freedom. They find themselves lacking freedom in the ultimate sense when caught in the deed. We remove this counter-productive individual and place them in a kind of isolation away from all else. It is not necessary to burn them with rods, or beat them, or make them eternally gnash teeth-it is to simply throw them away from that which is 'known'. This is all very deep.

I see a growing level of Christianaphobia in which the hypocritical Christian is lumped in with the more dominant in number, the quiet Christian. I find it unfortunate for both the quiet Christian and the Christianaphobe. In other words, don't cast the baby out with it's bathwater. I find many latch full-throttle to the statements made and behaviors of hypocritical Christians and attribute their hate also to the God these hypocrites use. This is unfortunate.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I see a growing level of Christianaphobia in which the hypocritical Christian is lumped in with the more dominant in number, the quiet Christian.

Do you really see it growing? I have been lumped in with wacko's many times in my life, from "ultra conservatives" to "environmentalists nuts" because of some of my positions.

This has been going on forever. Wasn't it you who call me an "Evolutionist" or some such?

One old saying is "some ruin it for the rest" That may be true but it can be overcome, sure there will be preconceived stereotypes but that is the stereotypers problem. When most of them got to know me they find I am quite different from what they thought. I don't know whether good or bad, that was unclear

[Secret__Police]

I do not hate God, I just don't believe in her. Or Hell for that matter.
God, Jesus etc is not at all bad it just some of those stupid ****s in the fan club that really suck.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Total B.S., Nowhere is an eternal Hell mentioned, totally misunderstood scriptures.

In the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written, four words are translated "hell" in English. The four words convey three different meanings.

The Hebrew word sheol, used in the Old Testament, has the same meaning as hades, one of the Greek words translated "hell" in the New Testament.

The Greek word Hades ... is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated 'hell' in English versions of the New Testament. It refers to the place of the dead... The old Hebrew concept of the place of the dead, most often called Sheol ... is usually translated as Hades, and the Greek term was naturally and commonly used by Jews writing in Greek

Both sheol and hades refer to the grave. A comparison of an Old Testament and a New Testament scripture confirm this. Psalm 16:10 says, "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." In Acts 2:27 the apostle Peter quotes this verse and shows that it is a reference to Christ. Here the Greek word hades is substituted for the Hebrew sheol.

Where did Christ go when He died? He went to the grave. His body was placed in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The two passages, in Psalms and Acts, tell us Jesus' flesh did not decay in the grave because God resurrected Him.

The majority of scriptures that use the term hell are simply talking about the grave, the place where everyone, whether good or evil, goes at death. The Hebrew word sheol is used in the Old Testament 65 times. In the King James Version it is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times and "pit" three times.

The Greek hades is used 11 times in the New Testament. In the King James translation in all instances but one the term hades is translated "hell." The one exception is 1 Corinthians 15:55, where it is translated "grave." In the New King James Version, the translators simply used the original Greek word hades in all 11 instances.

Two other Greek words are translated "hell" in the New Testament. One of these is tartaroo, used only once in the Bible (2 Peter 2:4), where it refers to the place where the fallen angels, or demons, are restrained awaiting their judgment. The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words explains that tartaroo means "to confine in tartaros" and that Tartaros was the Greek name for the mythological abyss where rebellious gods were confined

Why is it the ones who are the most religious the least knowledgeable about scripture?

p.s. I know what verses you are going to post, go ahead and I will debunk them, but I would check the meanings out first (surely you have a concordance, etc.?)

This is pure rubbish. Do a search in here.

It's been debunked time and time again.

[SimpleLife]

Question is:

Who does God hate, and how do you know?

[Joshua]

This is like PowerbookDude, but with more Jesus.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is pure rubbish. Do a search in here.
It's been debunked time and time again.

Typical response...

I did a search and it keeps failing, any specific recomendations?

[ebuddy]

Do you really see it growing?

Absolutely. Without a doubt.

I have been lumped in with wacko's many times in my life, from "ultra conservatives" to "environmentalists nuts" because of some of my positions.

Political positions are one thing, while some might like to remove aspects of mere 'thought', it is impossible to do so. Religion is another thing. 10, 15, 20 years ago-there wouldn't be an uproar over The Grinch Who Stole Christmas signs in a school. You wouldn't have seen the need to replace the baby Jesus in a nativity scene with Little Red Riding Hood. Entities like the ACLU that seem bent on removing only Christian symbolism. An example might be the three tiny crosses on the Los Angeles City flag. There's a giant goddess in the center of the flag, but three tiny little barely visible crosses to her right on the flag. What did this entity focus on? Of course, the three tiny little barely visible crosses. This kind of thing is going on all over the country.

This has been going on forever. Wasn't it you who call me an "Evolutionist" or some such?

I'm aware that name-calling and labeling have been going on forever, but when it comes to practicing Christianity, there are those who react like a vampire touched by a crucifix. I wasn't aware that "evolutionist" was a derogatory term or that I necessarily called you one. If I did and the term was offensive I apologize. However, Christian-Rightwing zealot most certainly is and I've been called many of these things by many different people. Not taking any accounts of where my ideals may differ from the Right, but just making bold assertions with the intent to enflame. I see claims like this constantly here. Likewise, I express a few problems with science regarding evolution and how some present data and all of a sudden I'm a Young Earth Creationist, Christian-Rightwing nut, zealot and an absolute moron. Many times regardless of whether or not I've even mentioned God, the Bible, or the age of the earth. Often times there's such vitriol in those statements you are left wondering if somehow you've offended their god.

One old saying is "some ruin it for the rest" That may be true but it can be overcome.

Some ruin it for the rest, now has become 'the loud ones ruin it for the rest.' As we continue to offer media outlets that give 'some' a voice, they're voice becomes louder. In a free society, you cannot expect to simply shut them down. While I might find someone being offended by the Grinch Who Stole Christmas to be absurd, they are claiming in fact to be offended. The quiet one does not need the word "Christmas" to be faithful so, in the interest of peaceful co-existance removes the insignia. This is happening with increasing regularity. You may say; "what's wrong with that?" and I guess all I could say is; "watch and see." I believe this nation is blessed and was endowed with certain traits other societies were not, not because of it's leadership necessarily, but because of it's collective inhabitants. I believe we may possibly be divorcing ourselves of our blessings and our culture. This is certainly debateable, but I personally and quietly watch our future in America anxiously. That is, with some level of anxiety.

[DBursey]

Who here hates God?

Which god? Personally, I have issues with both Thor and Isis.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Sniped

Good Reply. I personally don't think "evolutionist" is a particularly flattering term, it implies an almost religious like belief in evolution. Its like saying Darwinist or some such nonsense. Like you need to believe IN darwin or worship him or some crap. His theory and the theory of evolution are not dogmatic in nature, they are presented with great vigil and should they prove to need updating that will happen. People do take things too far and develop a faith around things that do not require faith and the term "evolutionist" helps perpetrate that.

Anyway, I have always found MOST of your posts and views pretty well thought out, whether or not I agree or can even understand some of your reasoning is, I think, irrelevant to the point.

To the topic at hand... I still don't think there is an increasing "Christianaphobia" at least not solely. there is an increasing problem within this country that is for sure.

Everything is being taken to the extreme, look at the censoring of television and radio and now they are talking about censoring satellite radio, that you pay for, is HBO or other pay services next? We have had standard for YEARS and now they are changing them, adding more words to what we can't say, more themes to what we can't do. Why change this now?

Look at what the religious are pushing in the classroom. Warning stickers for science books, now the teaching of creation in some science classes.
Are they doing this because they want all views presented? What about other creation stories? What about other modern creation theories. Why change this all now?

Look at West Palm Beach, last year they had to add a menorah to the usual christmas scene in the downtown area because a Jewish person complained. Why change it now, after all the years of the same scene?

My local coupon magazine company (you know you get the coupons in the mail) They used to say "Merry Christmas" on them with a tree a santa, etc. Now everything says happy holidays and includes everything from a tree to Kwanzaa decorations.
It just gets more and more generic each year.

I will have to agree with the apparent agenda of the ACLU if that is what they are doing. Personally I think crosses are silly in the first place, I wouldn't wear a mini electric chair around my neck if thats they way Jesus died. But I see no reason to remove the crosses from a state flag while there is a representation of a Goddess or whatever on the flag.

Perhaps everyone is pushing for these changes because they have been pushed and now want to push back? Because now, it seems, they can make changes happen?

[Dakar]

I wonder if Christianity would be as large as it today if it weren't so aggressive in attitude versus perceived threats.

[Sherwin]

God rocks.

They make you use Windows in Hell, you know.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Very good point. Satan also proved to have great knowledge of scripture. [/B]

Can I just say, I love that section of the Bible more than any other? It was very thoughtful of the authors to put that little trap door in there. "Ooh, even if you know more than me about my own religion and can show that it's self-contradictory, well SO CAN SATAN, and God warned me about you."

On a related note: most protestants believe in salvation through grace and the acceptance of Christ into one's life. Technically, then, it is possible for someone to accept Christ and be saved, and then fall away from Christian living -- but still be saved. But in practice (speaking from personal experience here) people will say "well he was never REALLY a Christian!"

If God exists, he has a great sense of humor.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I wonder if Christianity would be as large as it today if it weren't so aggressive in attitude versus perceived threats.

Absolutely not. "Survival of the fittest" applies to religions and other memes just as well as it does to individual survival.

[ebuddy]

originally posted by strictlyplaid; Can I just say, I love that section of the Bible more than any other? It was very thoughtful of the authors to put that little trap door in there. "Ooh, even if you know more than me about my own religion and can show that it's self-contradictory, well SO CAN SATAN, and God warned me about you."

How incredibly pessimistic and antagonistic of you strictlyplaid. Actually, it may also say that knowledge of Scripture means nothing if the scholar knows nothing of God. I can't really expect you to see that however. While we're at it, are you able to show any 'self-contradictions'? Be careful, a thorough reading and understanding of Scripture requires you to be able to connect thoughts from one statement to the next...(I'll give you a hint; context).

Okay, carry on...

[ebuddy]

orginally posted by Mikellanes; I wouldn't wear a mini electric chair around my neck if thats they way Jesus died

Yeah, I read that statement somewhere also, but with all due respect; this misses the point of the cross. I don't have to illustrate that to you Mikellanes, I'm sure you already know.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Which god? Personally, I have issues with both Thor and Isis.

Problems with Isis?!? What in the hell could she have possibly done to piss off anyone? All in all, she's by far one of my favorites.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How incredibly pessimistic and antagonistic of you strictlyplaid. Actually, it may also say that knowledge of Scripture means nothing if the scholar knows nothing of God. I can't really expect you to see that however. While we're at it, are you able to show any 'self-contradictions'? Be careful, a thorough reading and understanding of Scripture requires you to be able to connect thoughts from one statement to the next...(I'll give you a hint; context).

As tempting as it is to get embroiled in a peeing contest on the Internet with someone for whom the term "self-righteous" is a compliment, I'm gonna go ahead and pass. Besides, I can't really be expected to understand Scripture unless I "know God" -- I assume that means "am a Christian" -- so I doubt we'd get anywhere. One parting shot though - any system of belief that requires you to be a part of it to understand and prove it is suspect in my book.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yeah, I read that statement somewhere also, but with all due respect; this misses the point of the cross. I don't have to illustrate that to you Mikellanes, I'm sure you already know.

I understand the point, still seems silly. Worship the man not the image of his suffering, isn't there a rule about idol worship, seems most wear the cross as a statement meant to say "yeah im religious" instead of wearing the message in thier hearts and letting THAT shine through. WHo really thinks jesus would want you to wear a stupid cross or put a fish on your car, a fish what an awesome symbol. Im gettin hungry not thinking of how I can better myself or what I can do for others.

Crosses and Fish and seems like Yellow Ribbons are the Idols people HAVE to HAVE today...

In fact it seems to me in my county (Martin County, FL) it's fish, yellow ribbons, some born again sticker, a yellow pro-birth license plate and a W sticker that makes you really christain.

[zigzag]

If refusing to buy into superstitious nonsense makes me a "God hater," then so be it - you can make me a poster boy for God haters, I don't mind.

Just don't call me a secular humanist - I don't think humans are particularly important in the overall scheme of things.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A better question would be "Who here hates the concept of God"

Because most of the people who hate him don't believe in him.

Isn't that silly?

I don't hate the concept of God. I hate having dictated to me what I must believe and worship in order not to spend eternity in hell.

[ebuddy]

all orginally posted by strictlyplaid; As tempting as it is to get embroiled in a peeing contest on the Internet with someone for whom the term "self-righteous" is a compliment, I'm gonna go ahead and pass.

I thought you might. You seemed more interested in the usual "hit and run" tactic of someone who has no clue what they're talking about, but can't squelch the desire to see their words on the internet. Oh yeah...welcome to the Political War Lounge.

Besides, I can't really be expected to understand Scripture unless I "know God" -- I assume that means "am a Christian" -- so I doubt we'd get anywhere.

That's entirely incorrect. Those who don't believe are welcome to read the Bible. In fact, many have come to know God by simply reading the Bible. The part you claim to love so much about Satan also knowing Scripture is to illustrate that 'knowledge' alone will not attain you the promises of the Word. It's not a 'trap-door' as you like to say.

One parting shot though

You mean, "one more parting shot."?

- any system of belief that requires you to be a part of it to understand and prove it is suspect in my book

So be it. You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. It's one thing to know a matter and come to a conclusion. A conclusion that may differ from mine as you may come to disbelieve, that's none of my business. It's another thing entirely to simply have an attitude and come to a conclusion based on ignorance. In that you're correct, it's possible any discussion with you would be fruitless, but that's not my fault.

[ebuddy]

by Wiskedjak; I don't hate the concept of God. I hate having dictated to me what I must believe and worship in order not to spend eternity in hell.

A successful businessman will tell you that decisions, right or wrong; have consequences. This is the way it works in the natural, why not the supernatural? He would tell you not to focus on what can go wrong or all the negatives, but what can go right. A pessimist may spend the lion-share of his focus on hell, when Scripture does not. I believe there is not one single righteous man on earth yet "through the offense of one many be dead, MUCH MORE the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Rom. 5:14-15)

My point is not to preach, but to illustrate that Scripture is not about condemning people to hell and death and all the negatives that follow, but more in offering hope of a better life, an eternal life, and all the positives that follow. You can read account after account of Jesus' disciples and how each struggled with their faith. Scripture is not about condemning those that lack faith from time to time, it's about Grace for those that struggle to maintain it the best they can. In other words, Scripture is much more forgiving than it's being given credit for.