Your Vote, Your Reasons

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I do not let popular sensationalized "exposes" on the Bible affect me, because I understand that there is money to be made in finding "proof" that Christianity is not true.

Seriously? You discount data on this basis? Because it could be used to generate income?

[101A]

101,

You mention that your god isn't above punishment which is one of the fundamental flaws with me. I have extreme trouble rationalizing an all knowing omnipotent being need to punish. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean this in a condescending way and I just assume you have a different perspective which allows you to understand things, but I just can't come to terms with how that works.

Its one of many fundamental issues I have. Punishment is an imperfect method of persuasion and I don't understand why an omnipotent being would use an imperfect method.

Frankly, I struggle with this exact issue. God loves us as we love our children - got it; I would never punish my children for eternity; nor would I punish them for something that couldn't do anymore, anyway.

However, God does not MAKE anyone choose him; we have free-will, and they can turn away. I guess "punish" might be the wrong word. Maybe "allow them, ultimately, to lie in the bed they have made for themselves" would be more appropriate. What that means? I have no clue. The concept of eternal damnation in certainly has a certain crowd control ring to it, and I am not uncynical enough not to recognize that.

Phenomanu is hanging around some; he could help with this, and maybe ES will chime in again.

[101A]

Cause teh Jesus is like a service pack upgrade. What's funny is that most "Christians" adhere to Old Testament morality and ignore the moral implications of Jesus' teachings.

Eye for an Eye? None I know.

Just funnin.

You have a point.

[Findog]

Eye for an Eye? None I know.

Just funnin.

You have a point.

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.

[Trainwreck2100]

LOL, nice attempt at dodging the question.
Answer the question.
I'll even promise to entertain your crackpot theories about god knowing the answer too later on. Do you know the answer to my question? If you do, then what is the answer?

It;s a loaded question in which even the right answer could be wrong because the only one who knows the truth is you. So the only way to win this game would be to not play

[101A]

is this what you're talking about:

yeah, here's the entire post; not sure it covers EXACTLY what your point is; I might be coming from such a different angle as you it doesn't make sense:

The Christian faith is an extension of Judaism. Jews are God's chosen people - from Abraham on. God made a covenant with them, that if they would obey the Ten Commandments, and follow the law set up in the old testament, they could earn his good favor. I believe that covenant still exists, and a Jew that can live up to that very high standard, does indeed earn God's favor. Many Christians believe that covenant no longer exists. My God isn't an indian-giver.

Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "New Covenant". He was born a Jew - and was a practicing one. Almost his ENTIRE message was that the original covenant, or set of instructions, had gotten too complicated, and weren't working out - we had screwed them all up. Jesus came to Earth as a man, led a sin-free life, and was killed for no good reason AT ALL. Jews at the time gave sacrifices to God for their sins - as instructed in the old Testament; Jesus was the ULTIMATE sacrifice - he lived a perfect life, and was sacrificed for the sins of our ENTIRE RACE - fulfilling the pact of the old covenant with God for ALL of us.

[Shastafarian]

No I get it I think. Does Jesus saying the old covenant had become too complicated give Christians reason to totally ignore old testament laws? Because it seems the majority do.

[LnGrrrR]

I know that Jesus said to ignore some of the sillier Ten Commandments. Honestly, Jesus was pretty much a hippie. Honor thy mother and father, don't lie, don't steal... you know, the basic preconditional law necessary for a successful society.

[romad_20]

The Bible cannot be true as it constantly contradicts itself. Yet it might be an inspiration to good morals and proper conduct. So let us see what the Bible says about goodness, justice, kindness, morality and respect for family, friend and neighbor.

Let us look at some of the sexual morals that are in the Bible. I will begin with Genesis 19. As I read the story, two "angels" are guests in Lot's house when "the men of the city" come to the house and Genesis 19:5-8 reads: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) and Lot went out the door unto them and shut the door after him: (7) and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing, for therefore they came under the shadow of my roof."

Naturally, I cannot know what that says to anyone else, but to me it seems to say: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes;"

What kind of father would offer his children to a mob to be used as they see fit? I will be honest with you, if you were a guest in my house, I would protect you with all my might, but if it came to the point of it being either you or my children, it would be you. And I would expect the same, if it were your choice between your children or me. If it were God himself, if there is a God, he would go before my children. I am not a Christian. I am very pro- family, my innocent children come first.

But that is not the end of the story, it goes on and gets worse. In Genesis 19:31-32, Lot's daughters are talking: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our Father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come unto us after the manner of all the earth: (32) come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

There are many stories in the Christian Bible that I believe are immoral, pure filth. but that one will serve as an example for the rest. After all, we are considering the Bible as "the word of God," we need only one "bad" story, only one contradiction, only one untruth or injustice, to prove the Bible is not "the word of God."

Let us consider God's justice as recorded in the Bible.

King David obtained one of his many wives through kidnap, rape and murder. The story is in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11, and verse 4 reads: "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him and he lay with her . . ." I hope you will forgive me for repeating such filthy stories, but that is what the Bible says. The story goes on and Bathsheba is pregnant. David has her husband, Uriah, killed and in verse 26 and 27 we read: "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. (27) And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."

Good! Now we will have a chance to see God's justice in action. How did God punish David for those most awful crimes? How do you think such a terrible man should be punished? Well, God's punishment for David's crimes can be read in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11: verse 15, it reads: "And the Lord struck the child, that Unah's wife bore unto David, and it was very sick." and verse 18 reads: "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." Believe it or not; God's idea of justice for the murder of Bathsheba's husband, was for God himself to murder Bathsheba's innocent baby. That is God's justice according to the Christian Bible.

I don't know what that story says to a believing Christian, but if what I understand the Bible to say, is what it says, it would take a very deprived mind to believe the Bible is "the word of God."

Excellent post.

I remember reading the illustrated version of the bible as a young child and being confused as to why God did these types of things to punish people. When I actually read the KJV at a later age the stories of death and wiping out entire cities (livestock, children etc.) in the name of god was scary. The story of Lot was always one that frighten me. To think God would basically have a contest with Satan and ruin a life (and many other lives) to prove a point just didn't sit right with my concepts of right and wrong.

I'm curious to hear the discussion about your post.

[101A]

No I get it I think. Does Jesus saying the old covenant had become too complicated give Christians reason to totally ignore old testament laws? Because it seems the majority do.

Jesus had many teachings on what a virtuous life would look like.

He was a model to live your life by - he is the also the reason the "laws" became irrelevant.

Here's the Reader's Digest Version

God is Perfect
Sin is imperfect
Sin cannot be near God
If you have Sin YOU cannot be near God

Jews had/have a series of laws that taught them what was sin (still in effect); and things YOU had to do to absolve yourself of those sins. Diet restrictions, sacrifices, gifts, etc...I should know more about this, but since I'm a closed-minded Christian I don't

Jesus is the answer to all of that - if you sin; and ask for forgiveness, it is forgiven through Jesus; you can be near God.

Many Christians stop RIGHT THERE

However, the Bible has MUCH to say about Hypocricy - actions speaking louder than words and all of that.

Bottom line, people were all caught up in obeying laws, doing this on Friday, not doing this on Sunday, eating this, slaughtering that, the concept of being "good" and "loving your fellow man" was completely lost.

Jesus came said, O,k. - forget all of that law stuff; act this way - first of all "Love God, your neighbor and yourself"; "I've got a deal with the old man, I'll take care of the rest."

[DarkReign]

DR.

As a Christian, I, for one, have never assumed our ability to know Jesus would be limited to our time as walking, talking Humans. My God isn't an asshole - he is all forgiving, all merciful, and all loving. He loves ALL of us; literally like a parent loves his children. You know how you go 1, 2, 2 and a half, 2 and three quarters.......etc. with your kids, because, ultimately you WANT them to do what you want them to do, but you can't make them, and damned if you're not going to get to 2 and 9944/10,000 before you ever say "THREE!" and have to ACTUALLY punish them. Not that God isn't above punishment - but he doesn't want to; he's full of second, third, etc...chances. Again, I never beleived those chances were limited to THIS life. Of course, like a parent, I also think he sets different levels of expectation: to him who much is given, much is expected, Camel through the eye of a needle, and all of that.

While I appreciate the good analogy, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith.

Also, MUCH of the bible (the New Testament) is the thoughts of disciples and the apostle Paul - that are not actually the words of Jesus.

Again, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith with that sort of interpretation.

It is brilliantly assembled, and gives an outstanding model to live your life by. It certainly allows some people, on both sides of this argument, to pick and choose verses, out of context, to support an argument, or a flawed belief. Is it all "Divinely Inspired?"; Jesus did not say so, so that is, frankly, up for debate. Jesus NEVER mentions the New Testament (because it didn't exist). However, as a Christian, it is what I have - so, although I study the entire text; some of it I take as kind of preaching (James, for instance), but the Gospels, the stories of Jesus, and specifically his words; I take as, well, Gospel. They are a great starting point to find out what he was about, what his message is - and why he has so many followers today.

By the way, as a Christian, I have learned to, "Test Everything. Hold on to the good". 1 Thessolonians 5:21. That is what I do. I cannot be put into a box as to what I believe, because my Christianity is different than anyone elses.

You are right about many Christians: they are exclusionary, Christianity, and more specifically, Jesus Christ, are not.

Then I'll ask you, according to the church you adhere to, and the scripture you have read, and the populist interpretation as you understand it, by the preacher/priest/pastor who you listen to...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

All humans have no excuses on this matter, either. None. You are either with Him or you are without, regardless of your ability to actually know of the Bible. If the Bible is to be taken literally, anyway.

If its not, and its just a moral anecdote, then that is an acceptable statement.

Anyway, its a matter of personal faith, and its a hump I can personally never get over. I just cant make the leap of logic and faith that it takes to be so damn bigoted to people who are not my faith. Sure, anyone can tolerate anyone, even for a lifetime. But you'll always know youre a Christian and they were not, I have salvation, they do not.

I will never understand that mentality. Its brutally divisive, its like the ultimate " you".

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't require faith at all. And if you're a scientist as you claim, you're being entirely intellectually dishonest. It requires more research and scrutiny based on sound science. There's no faith involved in that process at all.

To believe it as fact at this point in time requires faith. The fact that it requires further study means that the theory as currently constructed has a major flaw... actual evidence supporting the primary claim!!!

But no, that hasn't stopped people from teaching abiological origins as irrefutable scientific fact; which suits the audience just fine because most people simply don't care enough, or aren't informed enough to get involved with all of the derailing details. And unfortunately pointing them out is cause for scorn (ask Ben Stein).

But we do create life from scratch. That we have not yet found how that process could have happened outside a lab doesn't invalidate the fact that creation of life is not an exclusive act of the supernatural.

As scientists we have to offer valid processes that can substantiate our claims. If the chief claim of this theory is that life can begin from a chemical broth of methane, ammonia, and water (among other species), we not only have to show that the chemical process is possible, but that the process could actually occur naturally - that is to say without having to radically alter the enviroment in which the products are created. Those factors, after all must be fully* representive of earth's early environment (*whatever that may have been from the model of your choosing)... And while earth's early environment was certainly volatile... I don't know of any place in the natural order where the pH levels can swing from basic to acidic then back again within microseconds, all while the pressure changes from subatmospheric pressures to 4 atmospheres, and while the temperatures rapidly change from 40 degrees to 142 degrees. Catch my drift.

The ends do not justify the means... this is not Machiavellian chemistry....

For example, the desk I'm sitting at is very real. It has fixed dimensions, intrinsic properties, a function and purpose. I'm sure there are countless of other desks out there just like it. If you wanted me to believe that it came out of the tree in this configuration it would require faith on my part to believe it. The fact that it exists, doesn't negate the fact that a factory or a worker was required to put it together. The laborer is just as essential to the desk's existence as the wood itself...

Likewise, I make all sorts of chemical products where I work. They don't naturally exist... am I to believe that given enough time certain polymers would arise on their own? Not likely. Sure, the reactancts are pre-existing chemicals... nevertheless the creation of the final product requires several reaction steps, and successive changes to the environment. For one, we have to concentrate the reactants to unnatural concentrations. How would nature counteract diffusion?

Further still, would you expect a 50 piece LEGO set to build itself if you placed all the pieces in a bag and shook it on end?... after all all the necessary pieces are present? This scenario is not likely either. And guess what? The DNA molecule is far more complex.

The fact that we did create life in a lab, is actually another nail in the coffin for the belief in the supernatural.

Not quite. See above. The supernatural just happens to be one more theory; but one that isn't any less substantiated.

I would even dare to say that when you attempt to include the supernatural into science, you're being intellectually lazy. It's a lot easier to chalk up the unexplained to the supernatural, and be done with it. That's not science at all. Real science takes a lot of work to formulate a rational theory based on previous science, and then it takes a lot of work to scrutinize it and test it. It's actually the opposite of intellectually lazy.

You keep fooling yourself into thinking that this is what I'm doing. Or that this is my mindset.

Could you have engineered and built something like the empire state building based solely on faith?

No... but thanks for the great set-up that explains what I've been trying to say. The Empire State Building required thousands of workers, several million lbs of steel and concrete, thousands of man-hours and most importantly a plan (or funding depending on who you ask). If you wanted me to believe that it came into being from a natural process... that my friend, would require a great deal of faith.

Listen, I don't have the time to sit here and argue this with you. You believe what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. Besides, I have to work.

[dg7md]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.

[Trainwreck2100]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.

That's great

[101A]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

My reading of the words of Jesus are that I am going through him to get to Heaven.

What does that mean?

Does it say "No one comes to the Father without accepting me as their Lord and Savior".

No, it doesn't.

It says "Through" it doesn't say anything about anything I might do - just a path everybody going to God will take. It also doesn't say when I will go "through" him.

Salvation is a gift, not a reward.

Regarding being in the minority; you are right, in my post I am the ONLY Christian, probably, who believes exactly like I do; and, in my reading, it's supposed to be that way.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.

my faith was shooken up when i used to play for WV Grant's church. i think i've told this before on here. i saw many things that i didn't like and it really tested my faith. up until we took an offering one time and the guest pastor looked at the collection plate and said that "God wasn't speaking loud enough to everyone's hearts"......................................sent me on a tailspin for a while, but i realized it was the people that were whoring out God's word.

[romad_20]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.

Back to voting, I tried reading up on some of the lower races, such as Chief Justice and certain propositions and ended up being more confused than before I read anything. I'm not sure how you would be able to cast a real informed vote unless you followed these people's political career constantly, not to mention, trying to figure out what any proposition really means.

[ElNono]

It's a loaded question in which even the right answer could be wrong because the only one who knows the truth is you. So the only way to win this game would be to not play

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Thank you!!! Thank you so much!!!!
This is exactly the irrationality I was talking about. You just made my case while at the same time making a fool of yourself.

And now I will tell rascal, that entertained a theory of the count being at least 1 finger, that his theory is correct, and to save him the testing part, I'll tell him the correct answer was 5 fingers. Well done rascal.

And you know what Trainwreck, everybody except you knows that it was a trivial question, that you did not know the answer, and that you're unable to be humble enough to just say 'I don't know'. That's just how silly you are.

[101A]

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.

I agree with you; it is sad. The actual message gets clouded and obscured in nearly the exact same way it was obscured when Jesus came to clear things up. Some churches are better than others; there are many I cannot stomach.

[101A]

Back to voting, I tried reading up on some of the lower races, such as Chief Justice and certain propositions and ended up being more confused than before I read anything. I'm not sure how you would be able to cast a real informed vote unless you followed these people's political career constantly, not to mention, trying to figure out what any proposition really means.

On Chief Justice, Fromwaydowntown said to vote for the current, Republican one - said he was top-notch. FWDT is NOT a conservative Republican, but he is a lawyer - his endorsement should considered a +

[LnGrrrR]

101A,

As an atheist, I'd like to say that I wish more Christians felt the same way about faith as you do. I am all for freedom of religious belief and tolerance.

[JoeChalupa]

It is those who push religion on to others that give it a bad name. I pray and worship but don't push my religion on anyone else. If you believe, great, if not, that is great too. To each his own. All this blah, blah, blah going back and forth just cracks me up.

[101A]

While I appreciate the good analogy, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith.



Again, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith with that sort of interpretation.




Then I'll ask you, according to the church you adhere to, and the scripture you have read, and the populist interpretation as you understand it, by the preacher/priest/pastor who you listen to...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

All humans have no excuses on this matter, either. None. You are either with Him or you are without, regardless of your ability to actually know of the Bible. If the Bible is to be taken literally, anyway.

If its not, and its just a moral anecdote, then that is an acceptable statement.

Anyway, its a matter of personal faith, and its a hump I can personally never get over. I just cant make the leap of logic and faith that it takes to be so damn bigoted to people who are not my faith. Sure, anyone can tolerate anyone, even for a lifetime. But you'll always know youre a Christian and they were not, I have salvation, they do not.

I will never understand that mentality. Its brutally divisive, its like the ultimate " you".

Also, DR, Christianity today is probably not what Jesus intended; but that is no reason to not study on what he DID teach. The new translations are an easy read - and are enlightening. It's what happened to me, frankly. I was raised Catholic; stopped going to church while in college, then at one point picked up a NIV bible and started reading at Mathew - had never seen a modern translation before. As I read, I felt like I had been screwed by what OTHER people had told me was in that book. I was a Christian before I started attending church again.

[Trainwreck2100]

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Thank you!!! Thank you so much!!!!
This is exactly the irrationality I was talking about. You just made my case while at the same time making a fool of yourself.

You're original question
€

LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.

;2843626]How do you know whether I did or did not use my toes?

Then you answer that there is a possibility fingers weren't used,henceforth it's a loaded question. I would have gladly answered if you stuck to your own criteria. you acknowledged that fingers may not have been used. Instead of discounting the possibility of outside variables that were introduced. And while i doubt you typed with your toes dictation was always a possibility.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Phenomanul it's hard to figure out if you're just having fun, or being intentionally misleading.

There is a difference between "facts" that are established based on logic, years of experiments and trials and "facts" that are based on mythology. You want to say that nothing can 100% be proven as a fact. Yes. But when the average person uses the word "fact" we all know what they mean. You can technobabble all you want about DNA, but you're overloading the issue without any purpose.

The intelligent design agenda is so sinister in this very way because it attempts to undermine the advancement of real science by equating the validity of one theory against another. The scientific argument for evolution is based on centuries of observation, theory, exploration, discovery. The scientific argument for intelligent design is based on "you can't prove it's not true" and mythology.

Comparing scientific temporary assumptions that are used in order to craft theorems to the faith required of religion is disingenuous. It's this kind of sloppy two-step that gives zealots the comfort of not having to examine anything beyond the "facts" that back up their base.

Science: "If X, then Y."
Religion: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

If you don't see the difference between these two statements and understand that one requires blind faith in something that can never be proven, and one simply requires the suspension of disbelief long enough to assume X in order to examine possibilities of Y, then you're either trying to be deliberately deceiving, or you've formulated your world view to fit preconceived notions in such a way that there is no reasoning with you.

In the scientific community, nothing is above re-examination. Everything can be questioned, challenged, debated, and must be supported by the best means at our disposal. Religion? Not so much...

Scientific nut: "There is a black hole in my closet."
Scientific community: "Prove it."

Religious nut: "Mary's image just appeared in my grilled cheese sandwich."
Religious community: "It's a miracle!"

Or worse:

Religous nut: "I think that woman is a witch and a demon."
Religous community: "Burn her."