Only Christians can worship a God that had to create a loophole in the "perfect" rules he created by impregnating a 'virgin' with himself and had himself killed which supposedly allows you to do whatever crazy nonsense you want so long as you repent before you die...
This theory is a bit more plausible
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Funny, but the points you made to support your argument are invalid.
Firstly, Mary wasn't the mother of God. She was simply the mother of the flesh that God indwelt.
There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan.
When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Repenting alone is not enough to get you to heaven, I suppose that's what they told you in your old church.
Read the Bible, don't rely on other people to save you.
Asatro is the only god religion. All other religions will die.
Jesus was a weakling foreigner. I'm glad he died.
In svartalvaheim will be smit the strongest sword in the world, an with it we will carve out the eyes of jesus!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Firstly, Mary wasn't the mother of God. She was simply the mother of the flesh that God indwelt.
Oh sorry, that makes your world view seem less insane, obviously my cliff notes on the subject were the only completely ridiculous and unverifiable nonsense spewed into the arena /sarcasm
Even with that said, it's much more plausible to infer that Mary had simply slept with someone and would rather make up a story than to risk being killed/outcast for telling the truth.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Repenting alone is not enough to get you to heaven, I suppose that's what they told you in your old church. Read the Bible, don't rely on other people to save you.
There are thousands of different sects within the church that disagree on this subject, and there are many Christians who believe this is exactly the case, (some also add in that you need to be baptized or accept Jesus, but some also insist that in order to repent correctly you need to have already accepted Jesus). And yes, I have read the bible several times, there is no point in claiming that I haven't.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Funny, but the points you made to support your argument are invalid.
You're following an extremely unreliable source (which has plagiarized elements of former religions) that requires faith to accept as a basis for your entire argument so, if anyone has an invalid argument, it'd be you.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
I don't think you get to mention this free will thing and suddenly discredit that entire part of his argument. Why? Because the free will argument has been debated by philosophers for quite some time (that is, whether or not one could truly have free will if they were not allowed to make a certain kind of decision). I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding what you mean by saying that by that logic all plans are doomed to fail. He didn't state any logic. He just said that it was known that humans would fail. A statement of what He knew, not some sort of logic. By what he said, the plan did anything but fail (to fail the humans could not have).
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
I don't think you get to mention this free will thing and suddenly discredit that entire part of his argument. Why? Because the free will argument has been debated by philosophers for quite some time (that is, whether or not one could truly have free will if they were not allowed to make a certain kind of decision). I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding what you mean by saying that by that logic all plans are doomed to fail. He didn't state any logic. He just said that it was known that humans would fail. A statement of what He knew, not some sort of logic. By what he said, the plan did anything but fail (to fail the humans could not have).
Also, didn't MasterM get his answer already?
I don't think you understood what I said.
Because, just because someone is free to choose what they want to doesn't mean that they will fail, which is exactly what he just said "When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail." Which implied that simply because we have free will, we will fail to follow God. This is a ridiculous argument which goes back to the fact that if it is a supreme perfect being, evidence for his existence should be the easiest thing. If a God did not want us to fail at following him, he would provide solid evidence, much better than A) a 2000 year old book of questionable character, and B)"trust me, I know what I'm talking about". A perfect all knowing God would know exactly what would convince me of his existence, and whether or not I pay attention to it or not has nothing to do with it (that whole argument that Christians like to use "god is speaking to you, you just don't want to accept it nonsense"), once again, an all powerful all loving all knowing god would know how to capture my attention and shouldn't have to resort to signs and riddles and televangelists.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I don't care how many sects disagree or not. If they are in direct opposition of the Bible they're not true Christains anyway.
Of course, everyone is wrong but you. How do you know they're in direct opposition to the bible? (as it is a book written from word of mouth stories at least a decade after the events happened, edited, translated, edited again, translated, picked up by a king to be re-edited, rinse and repeat). Has God attempted to correct them? No. Has God attempted to correct you? No. You'd think that if there were so many people running around skewing his name, he might you know, do something about it, since, you know, he 'cares' about us and all. I guess he doesn't care enough to make sure we follow his outrageously strict rules that if we happen to stray slightly from we get tortured for an eternity, or he just likes to watch us burn. (of course, I'm more inclined to think that the stories are just stories, and if there is a God, it's not the mythological nightmare that are the Abraham religions, and probably something better.)
On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
That's when you need to view it in its context (applies to all religions)
Stoning children sounds harsh, if you read it as an instruction, however it can also be viewed as a way to scare children into submission (behave or daddy will have to stone you to death!) Still not very nice, but consider that these books are written over 3000 years ago. (for comparison, in Scandinavia, people told stories of trolls kidnapping children to keep children from running off alone in the woods)
Another example, in the quran it says that a female heir should inherit 50% of what a male heir would.
Now, in a modern context this sounds quite misogynous. However, if you view it in a historical context, when women wouldn't inherit anything, it actually enforces the womens rights to inherit.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
It's not genocide when they are already dead on the inside
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
That's when you need to view it in its context (applies to all religions)
Stoning children sounds harsh, if you read it as an instruction, however it can also be viewed as a way to scare children into submission (behave or daddy will have to stone you to death!) Still not very nice, but consider that these books are written over 3000 years ago. (for comparison, in Scandinavia, people told stories of trolls kidnapping children to keep children from running off alone in the woods)
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
My point by bringing this up is that UrbanMonk stated that any Christian that does not follow his interpretation exactly is not a real Christian.
Besides saying "I'm going to kill you" is a lot different than making up some type of supernatural force that would kill you. You'd think a God could come up with something more effective than scare tactics, and regardless of the time period in which it was written (I thought God didn't subscribe to the concept of time? Oh well.), he could have foreseen that his writings would be less effective now as they were during the time they were written.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
It's not genocide when they are already dead on the inside
LOL
Edited by HorrendousGames
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
The problem arises when you get a conservative Christian who either believes God wrote it in it's entirety or the more common God wrote the bible through men, thus you get insane nut cases that believe they are doing Gods work by burning people or taking their rights away, and of course the thousands of different sects of Christianity that argue over minuscule details.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Silveraura Unfortunately? So you're supporting their abnoxious behavior? Why aren't people allowed to believe what they want without a Christian insulting them every chance they get?
I don't support any particular behavior, but I am glad that you live among people that have at least have some sort of Christian belief.
Trust me, annoying people will be annoying no matter what religion they are.
I have a feeling that you're blowing things way out of proportion in your own mind because you happen to have a different beliefs than them.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Not so much its belief, but for the horrible idea that no one else could possibly be right and that everyone needs to conform to morals set in place entirely off their own belief.
And I suppose you think you're right about this.
Originally Posted by Silveraura It's the ugly superiority complex Christians have, that really gets to me the most.
Don't let it get to you. There are people like this in every type of belief. You're stereotyping.
No, stereotyping is saying all black men are poor, all Mexicans are dirty, all guys are players, all girls steal money from their boyfriends.
Making a statement about how many Christians feel it's their obligation to convert anyone they feel needs saved, is not a stereotype. That's a generalized statement. To call that stereotyping would be like saying I'm stereotyping Christianity because they all believe in Jesus. Is that stereotyping? I've yet to meet a Christian whose heard about my faith and pulled this little number on me: "I care about you, and I don't want you to go to hell."
Even if I just met them earlier that day. I mean wtf? Is there something in the bible that I'm missing? Christianity is just one religion amounst so many other types of faith and to declare your religion the only right one is flat out arrogant. Even just the way you speak about it here, you act like you're absolutely right about this all.
Sure, you're probably more informed than most of us about different events that happened in history that lead you to believe you're right, but the fact that you stand before all of us all and speak as though every word from your mouth is indisputable fact. The way you word things is would be indistinguishable from someone describing real world physics. At no point do you state "I believe" or "It's generally believed by most Christians". No, you're always right. And honestly, that kind of attitude makes me want to skip every effort to try to distinguish whether or not I can believe you and just dismiss every word you say from now on - whether it's fact or not. Because I don't like listening to people who make me feel like I need to constantly be on guard for when they transition from fact to faith. It's absurd. There's a big leap there and you don't even acknowledge it.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by alastair john jack
