Christian questions

[Diuretic]

Faith, just as you place your faith in your ability to understand the creation of man and universe.

If I'm going to follow somebody blindly, I think I'd prefer to follow a perfect being, rather than irrational and innately evil men.

How could you tell the difference? The perfect being might not give a rat's about anyone else.

 

[Taomon]

How could you tell the difference? The perfect being might not give a rat's about anyone else.

Then that is not a perfect being.

 

[Diuretic]

Then that is not a perfect being.

Who's to say?

 

[frazzledgear]

Not sure how to word this, but I mean it to be discussed, not as a particular insult:

According to the Bible... does God have a case of self-loathing? Did he create Jesus to protect or 'save' people from himself? I hear about the damnation that awaits those who do not accept Jesus, but isn't that damnation directed FROM God? It seems like a bizarre dual-nature of a deity to at once condemn and pardon those he created...

"Self-loathing"? Try to see it in terms you can more easily understand. Humans created toasters for a specific purpose, right? To serve us, their creators -by making toast. That is their function and the reason we created them. My toaster may decide it isn't going to make toast for me ever again -but if it does, I intend to kick it in the garbage. The only way I would save it is if it started making my toast.

Or another one -we have all seen movies where some robot or computer with the artificial intelligence WE gave it -decided to use that artificial intelligence against human beings. They are OUR creations, created to serve us -yet turned against us. It is the stuff of some of the biggest and scariest horror movies -the idea that OUR creations would turn against us and try to destroy us! In that situation, would you expect ANYONE who had a chance to destroy it and save us all, decide to just let it continue to exist and continue killing people? No -instead we cheer when the hero OVERKILLS the malignant creation turned against us and turns it into a zillion smithereens. We cheer when we destroy OUR creations who turned against us -but expect a different reaction from God?

God created us for HIS purposes, for His pleasure -not ours. That is a really tough one for a lot of people to accept. And like a defective toaster, God will kick us to the garbage can if we fail in the purpose for which we were created.

Why would God save a person who, in spite of repeated warnings -during his entire life, denied His very existence and insisted that he -not God - represented the highest authority and not only encouraged others to also reject God, but demanded that those of religious belief be marginalized, ridiculed and even punished for it? Atheists are rarely satisifed with just their own rejection of God -they want company and lots of it. As if having more people risk damnation along with themselves -will somehow save them.

Unlike God, I have no intention of warning my toaster that I will throw it in the trash if it stops doing what I want. I have NO feelings for my toaster at all. I will keep it as long as it does what I expect it to do, and I will throw it away when it stops -period.

But because God loves us, He has warned us -many, many, many times of the consequences for failing to do the really rather SIMPLE function for which He created us. It would be an unloving, hateful and even self-loathing God to hit us at the end and only THEN tell us -"you rejected and hated me, you hurt each other and you hurt me without remorse, so you are going to hell". Now THAT would be a despicable act to sneak that one on us all out of nowhere, wouldn't it?

But God loves His creations and doesn't want to see ANY damned -even knowing that many will damn themselves anyway. God sent His son as the most powerful sign of His love -telling us all that we can avoid damnation and how EASY it is to do so. If you think about it, God isn't demanding much from us at all. If He didn't love us all, He would have put conditions on His love that were beyond most of us -but He didn't. Love and honor your Creator and His son -how easy is that? If, in spite of all that, someone rejects God -then they certainly can't claim they just never knew the consequences for doing so. It is a choice -one that God will not force on you because a loving God wouldn't do that. But God has gone out of His way to encourage each of us not to choose to self-destruct. Rejecting God is a choice and He has warned too many times, that rejection IS self-destruction.

It would be a lying, hateful and deceitful God if He said; "Go ahead and reject Me, hate Me, hate My Son, etc. -it will be just fine anyway." He didn't say that. He has done everything to make sure we know the consequences for doing so will be HORRIFIC -and exactly how to avoid it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Or maybe they should stop forcing their beliefs on those who aren't interested in them and go keep to whatever beliefs they want.

Atheists love to claim they are having religious beliefs FORCED on them simply because they hear others discussing their religious views or witness others praying -gasp. Yet I certainly don't claim atheists are forcing their views on me if I hear some atheist claim they KNOW the Bible is a lie, KNOW that God does not exist and insists that Christians are all bigoted, intolerant jerks. How is that not similar I wonder? Atheists certainly sound like their atheism IS their religion -they are discussing what they believe.

Being FORCED would be a law saying you must attend church, you must pray, you must adhere to the eccliastical laws of a church, you must go to confession, you must tithe to a church etc. But it sure isn't hearing someone pray and it isn't hearing someone discuss their religious views trying to convince you to share them. After all -you are certainly trying to convince others here that your atheist views are correct, right? But you only seem to understand exercising your free speech to tell someone what you believe isn't actually "forcing" others to your beliefs. Not the other way around. How odd.

You know I have no right to silence you just because I may disagree with you or don't want to hear it. But you fail to see that same right when it involves Christians doing the very same thing. Then you are suddenly being FORCED to their beliefs? That's your idea of free speech? It only exists for you but not a Christian? "Free speech" is only for those who think like you? My speech is no less protected than yours -whether I use that speech to address a human being or God.

Insisting kids can't read their Bible in a public school during their free time is atheists forcing their views on others. Insisting that Christians may not give a benediction prayer at a high school graduation is atheists forcing their views on others -remember there is NO right not to hear others exercise their free speech just because they use it to address God. You only have the right to walk out and not listen -not ban THEIR speech. Insisting that Christian public school teachers cannot gather before school, out of sight of all kids, totally voluntary, in order to share a prayer -is atheists forcing their views on others. Insisting every vestige of religiosity be stripped from the public square is forcing your views on others. Insisting on a re-write of history in order to downplay or totally omit the role religion played in the founding of the country, particular states and even cities -is atheists forcing their view on others.

Atheists sure understand that government telling anyone they MUST pray is a horrible violation. They got that one down pat alright. But oddly enough, seem so ignorant about the fact that government FORBIDDING someone from praying is absolutely no less horrible a violation of rights. One that is specifically banned in the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Notice it doesn't say "as long as its not on public property or as long it is silent, or as long as they keep it behind closed church doors."

Isn't it amazing that yet another atheist really can't tell who is actually forcing their views on others? I find atheists to generally be extremely intolerant and hostile, angry people -but primarily against Christianity and Christians, not all religions. I have a theory on why that is.

So how about you atheists quit the silly claim that you are having the religious beliefs of others FORCED on you when in actuality it is someone merely exercising their freedoms of speech and religion and you just don't like how they have chosen to do that. Get over it. There is no such thing as a "right" to not be offended. You have the absolute right to CHOOSE to be offended by anything you want. It is always a choice, which is why feelings do not have "rights". Rights only involve protecting certain acts, not feelings. Even if others exercise them in a way that you choose to feel offended by.

 

[Shogun]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUeoem1gR3s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUeoem1gR3s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[José]

Originally posted by frazzledgear
Insisting that Christians may not give a benediction prayer at a high school graduation is atheists forcing their views on others.

It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation with people who, intentionally or not, confuse the modern democratic, secular state with comunist states that openly profess Marxist atheism.

"Atheists forcing their views on others" would be churches, synagogues and mosques being closed down in the former Soviet Union and China.

"Insisting that Christians may not give a benediction prayer at a high school graduation" is secularists expecting modern secular democratic states to act like secular democratic states.

 

[frazzledgear]

It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation with people who, intentionally or not, confuse the modern democratic, secular state with comunist states that openly profess Marxist atheism.

"Atheists forcing their views on others" would be churches, synagogues and mosques being closed down in the former Soviet Union and China.

"Insisting that Christians may not give a benediction prayer at a high school graduation" is secularists expecting modern secular democratic states to act like secular democratic states.

Using the force of government takes far more forms that just closing down churches, synagogues and mosques -and you know it. I gave you numerous examples of how an atheist could (but isn't) have the religious views of others forced on them. Only one of which was actually being forced to attend a church. That means having the views of atheists forced on others can also include numerous examples that extend JUST beyond forcible closures of churches. And in MY examples, the views of atheists are being forced on others with the force of government and law. But you weren't complaining about government forcing religious beliefs on you because it isn't at all. You were simply whining about how INDIVIDUALS choose to exercise their free speech rights and freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. And sorry -but others exercising their free speech in a way you personally find offensive is not having religious views FORCED on you. If you discuss your atheist views with someone are you likewise FORCING your atheist views on that person?

You are right about it being impossible to have a meaningful conversation -how can anything meaningful be accomplished when one person thinks a private citizen exercising his free speech rights is having their religious beliefs FORCED on you - yet denies there is the very real use of force by government when it comes to restricting the rights of the religious which is in effect GOVERNMENT forcing the views of atheists on others?

Sorry, but that is NOT having their beliefs FORCED on you -it is hearing someone exercise their free speech in a way you merely find personally offensive. So what? I hear others exercise their free speech in ways I find offensive at times too. I'm not forced by government to remain to hear some vulgar comedy routine, for example - and government never forces you to remain to listen to someone else discuss their religious beliefs or pray.

On the other hand, the religious are being FORCED to stop practicing their faith when the government orders them to -which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law interfering with the free exercise of religion." And there are no exceptions to that statement regarding whether it is on public or government owned property, a public school or unless a citizen becomes employed by the government.

That Constitutional statement was specifically intended to forbid government from doing something -not the religious. So I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand the difference between a private citizen exercising the exact same rights YOU have -and a government that ORDERS, by force of law -the religious to STOP practicing their religion and to stop praying in spite of the Constitution specifically forbidding government from doing so.

The religious are also told - with the force of law and government - that their free speech rights no longer apply to THEIR speech if they choose to use it to address God instead of a human being when they are on public school grounds or if employed by the government even though on breaks. So in effect, government is BANNING me from certain acts that the Constitution says I have the right to engage in. And by doing so, government is actually interfering with TWO of my Constitutional rights -free speech and the free exercise of religion.

As for saying banning prayers at a high school graduation is "secularists expecting a modern, secular, democratic government" -what hogwash.

You, like so many other atheists (intentionally or not) confuse "secular" with "atheist" and they are not synonymous. "Secular" merely means "not associated with a specific religion or congregation". "Atheist" means "no belief in the existence of a deity." These are not one and the same thing.

The founders intended a secular government, one that was not associated with a particular religion -but NEVER an atheist one. They intended a government that remained neutral BETWEEN the religions -not one that remained neutral with atheism on one side and ALL religions on the other. That would elevate atheism to a religion when it is no religion of any kind and never intended by the founders to be declared one. And it would require a government that was more than just secular. It would require a government that was at ALL times indifferent to all religions, and at times, outright hostile to all religions and religious beliefs. Which was also never intended by the founders. They intended a government that respected the religious beliefs of its citizens and specifically tried to insure a government that could not turn against those of specific religious beliefs - by forbidding government from interfering with them.

If the founders had intended a government that was indifferent to all religions, they would have left it at just forbidding government from declaring and enforcing a state religion. But that would still have allowed government to ban all or some religionsl, as well as regulate or dictate how certain religions must be practiced. So they specifically forbid government from having any ability to do so.

You are mistaken in your assumption regarding the importance religion and the protection of those with religious beliefs had for the founders. Ever read The Federalist Papers? Written by the founders to explain in greater detail why they included specific sentences and paragraphs in the Constitution and what they intended by them. The founders intended a religious citizenry with a government that ENCOURAGED religious beliefs -without choosing a specific religion for its citizens. They ALL agreed that no society could long remain a moral and good society without the foundation of religious beliefs. Nearly every author of the Constitution wrote at length in both official and personal papers their views about the role of government with regard to religion and religious beliefs.

But while Benediction prayers at graduation are now banned, and teachers have been forced to stop voluntarily gathering to pray with other Christian teachers before class and out of sight of all kids, and even some Texas school going so far overboard they banned the use of red and green crayons by kindergartners at Christmastime on the grounds it somehow violated the Constitution to do otherwise -prayers are NOT banned from other activities of the government. Which is why Congress opens with a prayer, the US Supreme Court asks for God's blessings before hearing cases and the Inauguration of the President of the US is accompanied by public prayers -on government property. And have been since the founding of this country.

Certainly if the founders saw that government was NOT acting as they intended with regard to religion and the religious -they wouldn't have hesitated to include those misgivings in their writings because many wrote letters and papers critical of government in other areas all the time. But they believed with regard to the role government had regarding religion and the religious beliefs of its citizens, government WAS doing what they intended -not forcing its citizens to religious belief, but encouraging it.

I've noticed all the atheist founded websites that have littered the internet proclaiming the founders weren't Christians, that religion was no concern for the founders etc. They all back it up by taking certain quotes and phrases from some founders entirely out of context in order to back that up -as if all the other quotes directly dealing with what they actually intended and/or personally believed they made far more often all their lives both before and after that particular quote -have somehow been totally neutralized. Our founders were not Christians and their religious beliefs played no real role in the formation of our government? There are too many quotations from our founders to count -without exception - that prove that a total lie. Just a teensy sampling:

It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. Patrick Henry, May 1765

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of State of Virginia

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson, 1781

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people Noah Webster, 1828

...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. George Washington, Farewell Address

Christianity is part of the common law. James Wilson, signer Declaration of Independence

 

[frazzledgear]

It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation with people who, intentionally or not, confuse the modern democratic, secular state with comunist states that openly profess Marxist atheism.

"Atheists forcing their views on others" would be churches, synagogues and mosques being closed down in the former Soviet Union and China.

"Insisting that Christians may not give a benediction prayer at a high school graduation" is secularists expecting modern secular democratic states to act like secular democratic states.

Having addressed the above at length, it all deviates entirely from the original question. Which was not addressed to an atheist in the first place since an atheist denies the very premise of the question -that God exists.

But the simple answer to that original question is it is not "self loathing" on God's part in any way. Damnation is actually NOT by God's choosing and is not God's choice for anyone. It is by choice of the individual -always. God, because of His love for us, has simply warned us what a bad choice it would be and specifically how to avoid it -while trying to encourage us all to make the opposite decision and the wonderful consequences for doing so.

Do you consider government still allowing full grown adults to choose to make decisions for their own lives while requiring warning labels about the possible health hazards of drinking and smoking on alcohol bottles and cigarettes packs to be a sign of government's "self loathing"?

 

[frazzledgear]

And your beliefs are based on what? Not proof, not evidence...just your own fantasy.

Why not tell Professor Frank Tipler of Tulane University that it is just his fantasy? He claimed in 2007 to have proved the existence of God through physics and quantum mechanics and said he was forced to conclude by the science that God is the cosmological singularity. His formulas (which fill entire pages and can only possibly make sense to other physicists) and scientific conclusions were that the initial conditions of the universe and how it happened rule out it happening by chance and also proves the existence of a cosmological singularity. Since his formulas rule out random chance, he says it had to have happened by design.

He has been attacked after making his announcement of course -not because anyone has challenged or proven his formulas are wrong, or proven that his scientific approach was in the least bit wrong, not because his physics rule out random chance and not because his formulas prove there is indeed a cosmological singularity. He was attacked because he called that cosmological singularity "God". But as he says, if the science rules out random chance (which only leaves design) and proves the existence of a cosmological singularity -what else could you possibly call that?

Demanding science adhere to religious doctrine is wrong and bad science and we all know that. It is how people ended up believing in a flat earth. But demanding we reject where science leads us because it HAPPENS to fit in with religious doctrine is no less wrong -and no less bad science.

 

[Diuretic]

Professor Tipler sure made a big splash with that.

 

[Shogun]

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson






indeed, taken from his re-edited NON-miricle version of his bible no less!




christians make me laugh when they are so desperate as to ignore reality...



but, like gravity, heliocentrism and every other piece of evidence that doen't gel with their dogma junk...

 

[Shogun]

Assuming that achieving the Omega Point is physically possible, Tipler says this would be accomplished by "downloaded" human consciousness in tiny quantum computers that could exponentially explore space, many times faster than biological human beings. Tipler argues that the incredible expense of keeping humans alive in space implies that flesh-and-blood humans will never personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient uploads of human minds ("mind children" as Tipler calls them, they being the mental uploads of our descendants; the term is perhaps from a 1988 book of the same name by Hans Moravec) and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. This should start as early as 2100. Small spaceships under constant heavy acceleration could reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these intelligent von Neumann probes would have completely consumed the Milky Way galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster would be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these "mind children" as it approaches the point of maximum expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_(Tipler)


just another L. Ron Hubbard.