Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him


Thoughts ?

I don't think God exists

God: You're now sent to Hell, FOREVER, despite you found a Cure for a severe disease, contributed millions to Charity, and stopped a Tyrannical Madman from killing Innocents

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him


Thoughts ? To be in god's favor (for once disgust) If there are billion people on the earth and lots of them are truly bad people, then he can't let them be in heaven because that would be rewarding them for doing evil, and he can't ressurect them just so they can wreak more havoc on his planet. It's like he's playing a gigantic game of sims except he can't control one particular person. He has to influence them all which is nigh impossible. What do you expect. Do you think that you could do any better. To finish my angry rant, I'll say that god loves us all like a parent. Even though he loves us, he must punish us if we do bad. (btw. I'm satanist and even I've got to admit god isn't that bad)

thoughts: there is no god, or at least none which idiots who believe in hell can comprehend.

Except that's not how God works, but I believe any explanation--no matter how complete--will prove to be completely futile in face of your very existence.

Originally posted by PVS
thoughts: there is no god, or at least none which idiots who believe in hell can comprehend.
Yeah, screw that Jesus guy and the other fella, too. We don't need none a' them "BIBLE" words for learnin'.

Ah, this must be the continuation of our earlier conversation in the resurrection thread.

I still maintain that God's main goal is to get us away from the torment.

But according to JIA, if you don't believe in him, you go to hell, no matter what

Well, last I checked we don't live in JIA world. I suppose his opinion might be correct, but assuming a loving God, I doubt it.

God does not love, we love.

wow......u guys.......have really different views then me. im a muslim btw. well, u should check out my reply to something else in another forum cause i dont feel like rewording it. its posted on my xanga. www.xanga.com/forumpassage also, there is another site with proof in pictures about islam, but its just a minor proof, as there are many other scientifical proofs and all. http://signofallah.tripod.com/index.html

read this: This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen. It's an explanation other people will understand.



A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.



Barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."



Why do you say that?" asked the customer "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."



The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.



The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbers shop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair & an un trimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber:



"You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."

"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point!

God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Well, well done for reducing God to being a service industry. Hardly all-loving, is it?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, screw that Jesus guy and the other fella, too. We don't need none a' them "BIBLE" words for learnin'.

i refuse to take the word of a book which has been translated over different languages and cultures by the rich and powerful. look at how our contemporary media, with so many sources to site, manages to take everything out of context and not get their facts straight. take away any research abilities and stretch that out over thousands of years. im sorry, but i think its foolish to blindly trust such a book. that has nothing to do with my thoughts on one who has faith, mind you. faith in god and blind trust in a book do not equate imho.

and on the topic of hell, i think its a ridiculous concept. an omnipotant father begats his beloved children and showers them with gifts and blessings, but if they dont follow a very strict yet cryptic set of rules to a tee, they will be cast into a lake of fire and suffer forever and ever. you'd think a loving parent might punish their child as a form of discipline and then....well....stop punishing them. however what is described in this apparant book of fact is a god of hate, spite, sadism, and vengeance. sorry to say, but i think anyone who would offer their unconditional love to that is a fool.

but it doesnt matter, because NOW people have managed to selectively ignore the bible to convince themselves that they will go to heaven and everyone else who doesnt conform to them will burn in hell. people like george bush and pat robertson think they can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, and the majority of the religious right seem to agree. the mentality seems to be to strip the self-damning elements of the bible and stick with whatever keeps one high and rightous. hell is nothing to fear anymore, but something to wish on others with glee and anticipation.

Originally posted by PVS
Long, ranty post.
You're still wrong.


Fit the pieces together.

Originally posted by PVS
i refuse to take the word of a book which has been translated over different languages and cultures by the rich and powerful. look at how our contemporary media, with so many sources to site, manages to take everything out of context and not get their facts straight. take away any research abilities and stretch that out over thousands of years. im sorry, but i think its foolish to blindly trust such a book. that has nothing to do with my thoughts on one who has faith, mind you. faith in god and blind trust in a book do not equate imho.

and on the topic of hell, i think its a ridiculous concept. an omnipotant father begats his beloved children and showers them with gifts and blessings, but if they dont follow a very strict yet cryptic set of rules to a tee, they will be cast into a lake of fire and suffer forever and ever. you'd think a loving parent might punish their child as a form of discipline and then....well....stop punishing them. however what is described in this apparant book of fact is a god of hate, spite, sadism, and vengeance. sorry to say, but i think anyone who would offer their unconditional love to that is a fool.

but it doesnt matter, because NOW people have managed to selectively ignore the bible to convince themselves that they will go to heaven and everyone else who doesnt conform to them will burn in hell. people like george bush and pat robertson think they can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, and the majority of the religious right seem to agree. the mentality seems to be to strip the self-damning elements of the bible and stick with whatever keeps one high and rightous. hell is nothing to fear anymore, but something to wish on others with glee and anticipation.

You are so right on the mark.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're still wrong.

congratulations
you just won at the internet

Originally posted by PVS
congratulations
you just won at the internet
I did, didn't I?

I mean, I considered detailing exactly why you are wrong, but I figured it didn't much matter.

My Lord people....

Well, I just don't see the point anymore of one person speaking to another about their religious beliefs or disbeliefs - because the other will always believe what they want to believe, etc.

Religious discussion seems to me pointless.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have found that belief can be discussed, but it is very difficult, just look at the world today. I just didn't understand why you said; . Now I do, thanks.

Sorry....
Forget my rather sporadic and philosophically-challenged posts today....I'm in a weird place right now....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
California?



I wish...
Nay, I've only been to the States a few times - and never that far south or west.

Originally posted by docb77
In general I tend to agree. There may be some room for discussion if we proceed from a single premise.

Take this forum for example.

Premise: God puts "bad people" in an unending Hell (fire, brimstone, pain, torment) from which they can never extricate themselves.

Now if everyone were to argue from that premise, whether they agree with it or not (I don't by the way), then we could carry on an intelligent discussion.

Based on that premise I'd say that either God couldn't really love the "bad people", or He isn't really all-powerful.

If you reverse the premise (ie: the premise is that God loves everyone), then I would think it would be logical that Hell couldn't be what was previously described.

Yes, see, that is essentially what I mean.

And I agree that since God condemns people to Hell, he can't really be seen to love them, (at least in my view)....

Originally posted by FeceMan
I did, didn't I?

I mean, I considered detailing exactly why you are wrong, but I figured it didn't much matter.

doesnt matter, you still won. can i adopt your cunning tactic in my next debate? i'll be sure to credit you.

Originally posted by docb77
Or He's actually not quite powerful enough to save everyone from it. He would have to pick and choose as it were.

Or hell doesn't exist and the Christian religion does not really understand God.

Originally posted by docb77
Or He's actually not quite powerful enough to save everyone from it. He would have to pick and choose as it were.

Well, that's a whole new ballgame, and would assume "Evil" has a far stronger power....

Originally posted by docb77
...I thought we were arguing based on the premise of the existence of hell.

If Hell, then...

Oh well, it's hard to argue over something that you believe does not exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh well, it's hard to argue over something that you believe does not exist.

Not really, because if you don't believe in it then you aren't emotionally attached. We could have a debate about what color the tooth fairy's dress is, or how Santa Clause gets down a chiminey. That's the beauty of logic. if you accept a premise, you can go on from there.

Originally posted by PVS
doesnt matter, you still won. can i adopt your cunning tactic in my next debate? i'll be sure to credit you.
I suppose that, if my opinions are based on erroneous beliefs, then, yes, that would be a valid tactic.

Originally posted by docb77
How about how Santa Claus knows if you've been naughty or nice?

I don't thnk Santa Clause would send you to Hell.

Just think of it this way: Hell can only exist because God created it....nothing can exist without it being introduced to existance, and since God is the Creator only he could have created it.

Don't give me some bullshit answer about how "we" created it....unless you wanna get literal and say we created the idea of Hell, then I'll agree...otherwise, be consistant.

No Loving Parent creates Hell for thier children. If your child committed murder, would you send your child to Hell ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't thnk Santa Clause would send you to Hell.

Just think of it this way: Hell can only exist because God created it....nothing can exist without it being introduced to existance, and since God is the Creator only he could have created it.

Don't give me some bullshit answer about how "we" created it....unless you wanna get literal and say we created the idea of Hell, then I'll agree...otherwise, be consistant.

No Loving Parent creates Hell for thier children. If your child committed murder, would you send your child to Hell ?

I'd say man created the idea of Hell as it is believed to exist by most Christians today.

Originally posted by Regret
I'd say man created the idea of Hell as it is believed to exist by most Christians today.

Either way...if your child didn't obey you to his or her fullest, even after knowing you truly exist .....would you banish him or her to an eternity of not being with you ? Would you sentence YOURSELF to an eternity of not being with them ?

A Loving God could not possibly banish his own children, the children HE LOVES, for disobeying him. Wouldn't it torture God to disallow himself from seeing his children EVER again ?

And BTW, the Bible mentions Fire, Brimstone, and Torment in Hell...how can you say that that's not what Hell is when that's what it says in the Bible ?

Accordions to Christian scripture.................god loves us sooooooooooo much to throw us into hell.......................Please tell me where this verse is??

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Either way...if your child didn't obey you to his or her fullest, even after knowing you truly exist .....would you banish him or her to an eternity of not being with you ? Would you sentence YOURSELF to an eternity of not being with them ?

A Loving God could not possibly banish his own children, the children HE LOVES, for disobeying him. Wouldn't it torture God to disallow himself from seeing his children EVER again ?

And BTW, the Bible mentions Fire, Brimstone, and Torment in Hell...how can you say that that's not what Hell is when that's what it says in the Bible ?

Your analogy of my son is off.

If my son went and was truant during school, was unable to enter college, after I'd told him that he needed to go to school to be able to get a decent job, and then he ended up only being able to get a job cleaning toilets with a toothbrush, I might be unable to ever help him get a better job.

This is a more accurate analogy of the situation from a Mormon view.

There are also statements describing the feeling of the Holy Spirit as a burning within. Is it literal? I would assume not. Descriptive language does not necessitate literal language.

Originally posted by Regret
Your analogy of my son is off.

If my son went and was truant during school, was unable to enter college, after I'd told him that he needed to go to school to be able to get a decent job, and then he ended up only being able to get a job cleaning toilets with a toothbrush, I might be unable to ever help him get a better job.

This is a more accurate analogy of the situation from a Mormon view.

There are also statements describing the feeling of the Holy Spirit as a burning within. Is it literal? I would assume not. Descriptive language does not necessitate literal language.


I LOVE how you keep changing your analogies lol

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I LOVE how you keep changing your analogies lol

I altered your's, I did not change mine. Your analogy did not fit the Mormon view of God, Us and hell. God doesn't banish people, they place themselves in the state they go to. God doesn't place man in hell.

Originally posted by Regret
I altered your's, I did not change mine. Your analogy did not fit the Mormon view of God, Us and hell. God doesn't banish people, they place themselves in the state they go to. God doesn't place man in hell.

No one sends themselves to Hell......when I die, I have no control over where my soul goes, or what happens to it.

I could THINK that I'm going to Heaven, but end up in Hell for whatever reason. YOU could thnk your going to Heaven, but end up in Hell for whatever reason.

Maybe there IS NO Heaven and Hell....point being we don't know what happens after we die, therefore we have NO CONTROL over where we are sent.

We don't volutarily WALK into Hell saying "oh let me try this out, eternal torment looks fun:"

If Hell DOES EXIST, it's because GOD created it....and only HE can send us there, we don't have the ability to send ourselves ANYWHERE outside the physical plane (discounting dreams).

If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it

Because the kind of god described in the bible does not exist. Life its self is enlightenment.

Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it

This is the central question posed in "The Brothers Karamazov" and the Book of Job. The role of and purpose behind human suffering is a fundamental question in all religious belief systems. Probably the simplest answer is that God allows suffering as a necessary consequence of creating creatures with free will. Christians believe that the world is fallen and morally flawed. Consequently, free will often leads to self-love and the cruelty men practice against their fellow man. There is no ultimate human answer to why there is this particular suffering. Why this particular hurt. Suffering is part of the world's fabric and it falls upon the shoulders of human beings to alleviate it where they can.

But it is also important to remember that some suffering serves a moral purpose as well. Suffering can be a door into greater insight and self-understanding. Suffering can lead to self-transcendence and great acts of heroism that would otherwise remain hidden. In some mysterious way, suffering might be tied into man's maturity into a fully realised moral being.

Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it

Because, if he were to take the actions that would prevent these things from happening people would complain that he was too controlling. The grass is always greener on the other side isn't it?

Prevent the bad things, but don't do anything that effects me.

And don't make the assumption that lower life forms do not deserve the same feedom you want to enjoy

I guess Regret gave up

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Hell DOES EXIST, it's because GOD created it....and only HE can send us there, we don't have the ability to send ourselves ANYWHERE outside the physical plane (discounting dreams).

If hell exists it's because it is the place where God is not and where the soul chooses to retire. You, for instance, have professed an avowed dislike of the Biblical God. Would you wish to spend eternity with him? If not, what would be your complaint if you were to remain eternally separate? You would get the very thing you wished for, would you not?

Most modern Christian reflections on hell interpret torment as the torment of separation from God and the ironic Dante-esque agonies of eternal self-gratification.

Hell, despite your protestations, is a manifestation of love and divine respect for free will. Though omnipresent and able to be in all places, God fashions a separate place to hide his face from those who consider his being an affront.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
If hell exists it's because it is the place where God is not and where the soul chooses to retire. You, for instance, have professed an avowed dislike of the Biblical God. Would you wish to spend eternity with him? If not, what would be your complaint if you were to remain eternally separate? You would get the very thing you wished for, would you not?

Most modern Christian reflections on hell interpret torment as the torment of separation from God and the ironic Dante-esque agonies of eternal self-gratification.

Hell, despite your protestations, is a manifestation of love and divine respect for free will. Though omnipresent and able to be in all places, God fashions a separate place to hide his face from those who consider his being an affront.

I have no interest in the "Christian God"...sorry.

I used to...don't get me wrong...I was devout Christian long ago. What happened? I grew up....The Church, and all representations of the Faith are filled with too many contradictions, too much conflict ,and too much bullshit.

According to your religion, God doesn't want me in Heaven, ANYWAY because I am bisexual. "Oh but if you choose to be straight you'll enter"

Nice Try

I can reject all the men that come by, but I will most likely always be attracted to both men and women. My attraction to men is even stronger, so there's no way I make myself change desire, much less WANT to change ne way....

So it all comes down to this: What would I rather have ?


1) A Happy Life, where I live honestly and happily, mind my own business and just do what I must to be happy as long as I am considerate not to harm another person ?

Or

2) Deny myself, deny my desires, deny my pleasures, and force myself to live a life I don't wanna live, for a God that I don't beleive in, and for an ABSURD social standard filled with hypocrisy and bullshit ? Just to avoid "Hell"....


I pick Choice 1. If your God really has a problem with me, even though I am not a "bad person", and would choose stupid rule over his own son, then I don't want that kind of God ne way .

My definition of Love is true love...not bullshit, conditional, judgemental, discriminatory, hypocritical, jealous love....

I think I'm better off without that kind of God ne way.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have no interest in the "Christian God"...sorry.

I used to...don't get me wrong...I was devout Christian long ago. What happened? I grew up....The Church, and all representations of the Faith are filled with too many contradictions, too much conflict ,and too much bullshit.

According to your religion, God doesn't want me in Heaven, ANYWAY because I am bisexual. "Oh but if you choose to be straight you'll enter"

Nice Try

I can reject all the men that come by, but I will most likely always be attracted to both men and women. My attraction to men is even stronger, so there's no way I make myself change desire, much less WANT to change ne way....

So it all comes down to this: What would I rather have ?


1) A Happy Life, where I live honestly and happily, mind my own business and just do what I must to be happy as long as I am considerate not to harm another person ?

Or

2) Deny myself, deny my desires, deny my pleasures, and force myself to live a life I don't wanna live, for a God that I don't beleive in, and for an ABSURD social standard filled with hypocrisy and bullshit ? Just to avoid "Hell"....


I pick Choice 1. If your God really has a problem with me, even though I am not a "bad person", and would choose stupid rule over his own son, then I don't want that kind of God ne way .

My definition of Love is true love...not bullshit, conditional, judgemental, discriminatory, hypocritical, jealous love....

I think I'm better off without that kind of God ne way.

Wow. You only have one set of bi-colored glasses from which to view the world, don't you? I've never seen someone so fixated on one issue. No one is casting aspersions on your bi-sexuality. You're the one who keeps bringing it up...ad nauseum.

*Yawns.*

Are we still under the assumption that God likes sending people to hell and that He's a huge bastard for sending His son to be humiliated, tortured, and crucified so that people wouldn't be sent to hell?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This is the central question posed in "The Brothers Karamazov" and the Book of Job. The role of and purpose behind human suffering is a fundamental question in all religious belief systems. Probably the simplest answer is that God allows suffering as a necessary consequence of creating creatures with free will. Christians believe that the world is fallen and morally flawed. Consequently, free will often leads to self-love and the cruelty men practice against their fellow man. There is no ultimate human answer to why there is this particular suffering. Why this particular hurt. Suffering is part of the world's fabric and it falls upon the shoulders of human beings to alleviate it where they can.

But it is also important to remember that some suffering serves a moral purpose as well. Suffering can be a door into greater insight and self-understanding. Suffering can lead to self-transcendence and great acts of heroism that would otherwise remain hidden. In some mysterious way, suffering might be tied into man's maturity into a fully realised moral being.

I could accept pain and suffering cause by the actions of man. Oh yes, I could accept us receiving what we reap - but it is hard to comprahend suffering that is totally beyond out control - that is things like disease, natural disasters etc. Things singularly not the responsibility of us. I can accept us having to overcome our own painful creations - but suffering things that aren't our fault? Hmmm. Seems a bit like going through an excruciating game show, and growing from it, and being on the way to collect you car, when suddenly a totally random meteorite crashes through the roof and crushes it. Not fair and not a damn thing you can do.

Likewise - people who don't deserve to suffer. People who have done nothing wrong, yet God, Allah, whoever be praised if they don't suffer with a frequency equal to or greater then the less good. Look at them, reaping what they haven't sowed! LOOK AT THEM, growing stronger as they suffer under the consequences of others actions. It is great, yes? Free will having nothing to do with this or the first - because it is not a person choice that leads to this - really just luck.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Likewise - people who don't deserve to suffer. People who have done nothing wrong, yet God, Allah, whoever be praised if they don't suffer with a frequency equal to or greater then the less good. Look at them, reaping what they haven't sowed! LOOK AT THEM, growing stronger as they suffer under the consequences of others actions. It is great, yes? Free will having nothing to do with this or the first - because it is not a person choice that leads to this - really just luck.

Believe it or not, some of the best people I've ever met, went through hell and came out the better person for it. Suffering can be, but is not necessarily, redemptive.

The kind of suffering you describe in this paragraph is caused by an abuse of free will by another person. We are all affected by one another's actions. Does this surprise you? This is a world that man has wrought for himself.

...

Originally posted by mahasattva
You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god as explained above is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.

No. Principles need beings with principles. The physical universe has no value system in and of itself. Either the bedrock of existence is nothing, in which case, all morality and principle is farce, or the bedrock is a transcendent personal existence to which morality and principles adhere.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No. Principles need beings with principles. The physical universe has no value system in and of itself. Either the bedrock of existence is nothing, in which case, all morality and principle is farce, or the bedrock is a transcendent personal existence to which morality and principles adhere.

Why do you have this black or white mentality about morality?

Originally posted by FeceMan
*Yawns.*

Are we still under the assumption that God likes sending people to hell and that He's a huge bastard for sending His son to be humiliated, tortured, and crucified so that people wouldn't be sent to hell?

problem is his SUPPOSED sun's sacrifice didnt change anything did it. people who dont believe in god=go to hell, people who do believe in god and additionally believe in jesus =go to heaven if anything the added belief in jesus stops many people who believe in god form entering heaven. so what did his great sacrifice really do huh? now if u were to say that sumhow through jesus's sacrifice god would let people who DIDNT BELIEVE INTO HEAVEN than maybe ud have a point. its all bull anyway since the sacrifice of jesus for keepin people OUT of heaven would require god to have HIS HANDS TIED by a higher athourity in the case of choosing who goes in heaven or hell. meaning he CANT send sum1 to heaven who according to the rules{which are higher than him} if they belong in hell and hence had to SACRIFICE his SON{which is self contradictory anyway} to let some of those people get INTO heaven and stay out of hell. and to top it off the apparent claim PRACTICALLY actually lessens the amount of people whol go to heaven. am i the only one who smells bull in this?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
problem is his SUPPOSED sun's sacrifice didnt change anything did it. people who dont believe in god=go to hell, people who do believe in god and additionally believe in jesus =go to heaven if anything the added belief in jesus stops many people who believe in god form entering heaven. so what did his great sacrifice really do huh? now if u were to say that sumhow through jesus's sacrifice god would let people who DIDNT BELIEVE INTO HEAVEN than maybe ud have a point. its all bull anyway since the sacrifice of jesus for keepin people OUT of heaven would require god to have HIS HANDS TIED by a higher athourity in the case of choosing who goes in heaven or hell. meaning he CANT send sum1 to heaven who according to the rules{which are higher than him} if they belong in hell and hence had to SACRIFICE his SON{which is self contradictory anyway} to let some of those people get INTO heaven and stay out of hell. and to top it off the apparent claim PRACTICALLY actually lessens the amount of people whol go to heaven. am i the only one who smells bull in this?


Ah, you seem to misunderstand actual Christian belief. Without Christ EVERYONE would go to hell. The sacrifice was to make it possible for anyone to go to heaven. See How it works now? No Christ = hell for everyone, Christ = heaven for anyone who believes. Of course it would take a bigger explanation, and a smarter person than me to explain the whole thing.

And what's wrong with believing that God has rules that He has to follow?

Originally posted by docb77
Ah, you seem to misunderstand actual Christian belief. Without Christ EVERYONE would go to hell. The sacrifice was to make it possible for anyone to go to heaven. See How it works now? No Christ = hell for everyone, Christ = heaven for anyone who believes. Of course it would take a bigger explanation, and a smarter person than me to explain the whole thing.

And what's wrong with believing that God has rules that He has to follow?

u just weakened ur own case. according to u every1 who lived before christ's time goes to hell by default. the good and the bad. also ur saying that from the day a baby is born he is EVIL and deserves HELL. so any baby whose had a miscarriage or dies before he can be old enough to accept ANY faith goes to hell. and the very idea of god adhering to RULES destroyes his omnipotence. i dont misunderstand anything. ur the one who does along with other believers of organised relegion.

See, I'm tempted to launch into my "the Law demands death and the Law must be obeyed" speech, but I figure it'd be a huge waste of energy. See the Narnia quote on the other page and put it together.

{btw i didnt mean the misunderstanding thing as an insult}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
u just weakened ur own case. according to u every1 who lived before christ's time goes to hell by default. the good and the bad. also ur saying that from the day a baby is born he is EVIL and deserves HELL. so any baby whose had a miscarriage or dies before he can be old enough to accept ANY faith goes to hell. and the very idea of god adhering to RULES destroyes his omnipotence. i dont misunderstand anything. ur the one who does along with other believers of organised relegion.

Sorry, but you do misunderstand. Christ's sacrifice was infinite. It goes both ways, forward in time and backwards. If you were Good before Christ that sacrifice does you as much good as being good after. What I'm saying isn't that Christ made it possible for certain people to be saved, but that He made it possible for EVERYONE to be saved.

Like I said, there's more to it than what I said in that small post, but I can give some examples.

My belief is that all little children are automatically covered. I also believe that everyone will get the chance to accept or reject the gift Christ offers, whether in this life or in the next.

As far as Rules destroying the omnipotence of God 2 things -

-How does that destroy power? Rules don't increase or decrease the power of the person following them, they just direct the use of such power.

-Who says that God has to be literally omnipotent? The scriptures use such phrases as All-powerful, or Lord of lords. In the poetic language of the ancient hebrews, that could just mean the most powerful being in all of creation.

so ur admitting to some things being beyond god's POWER? that takes away him being ALL POWERFUL. all mean ALL without fail. rules direct FINITE power INFINITE POWER is NOT bound by rules since it is BEYOND them and to CHANNEL it in one way and having other ways left wihout it makes it FINITE. and i get what your saying about people bing GOOD, but then again thats not what the BIBLE says is it. and the criteria for good has mostly nonsesnical expectation which any1 BEFORE christ{or even now} can not be expected to know. so really how do people before christ KNOW how to be good? u really need to see the bog picture.

Leonheartmm, is God good or evil?

many christians believe in GOOD things{things which have philanthropic/non selfish implications practical or otherwise} but if u actually read the bible and not try to interpret it in a non realistically good way{and even that doesnt work many times} ull find that those good ASSUMPTIONS have no CHRISTIANIC backing at all.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur admitting to some things being beyond god's POWER? that takes away him being ALL POWERFUL. all mean ALL without fail. rules direct FINITE power INFINITE POWER is NOT bound by rules since it is BEYOND them and to CHANNEL it in one way and having other ways left wihout it makes it FINITE. and i get what your saying about people bing GOOD, but then again thats not what the BIBLE says is it. and the criteria for good has mostly nonsesnical expectation which any1 BEFORE christ{or even now} can not be expected to know. so really how do people before christ KNOW how to be good? u really need to see the bog picture.

Ok, let's go back to the beginning. Adam and Eve. They just got evicted from the Garden and are now in the world. so the question is how do they, and their descendents, know what is good and what's not.

There are multiple ways here. One is that God tells them, same way he told them, "don't eat that fruit."

Another is that knowledge of good and evil is somehow inherent.

third, Christs sacrifice makes it possible for a person to be saved, so long as He lives to the best of his knowledge. Which would mean that a person who never heard of Christ wouldn't have to believe to get the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.

4th possibility - those who had an incomplete knowledge will have some sort of "overtime" in the next life. They will learn what they missed and get the chance to live it.

The all powerful thing - In our thinking all does indeed mean all without exception. The ancient Israelites thought a bit more poetically. An example is when Jesus said that the mustard seed was "the smallest of all seeds", now, we know that it isn't - grass seeds are certainly smaller. But using that kind of language helped to artistically make a point. Our western culture thinks like architects - precision, accuracy, etc - while the ancient eastern cultures tended to be more artistic in their speach and writings - broad strokes, symbolism, etc. The all in all-powerful could indeed just mean supremely powerful.

My personal belief (not sanctioned by christianity at large I suppose) is that God's power is derived from knowledge. God has a perfect knowledge of how the universe works. He uses that knowledge to do His work, from the creation, to now.

Originally posted by Regret
Leonheartmm, is God good or evil?


Leonheartmm is BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL!!!!!!

thats what id like to say but really im a pretty good guy and there isnt much at all about my actions or intentions that ways otherwise. heck im probably good even by a relegious point of view{well some of it} but i understand that the only REAL goodness is to be judged by logic and intentions of the individual. anything that BENEFITS others id good to me and not just benefit materialistically. emotionally.spiritually{if there is such a thing} etc. and being non selfish/humble is ....PLEASANT but one shouldnt belittle or blame oneself for ridiculous things like MEN ARE BORN EVIL/ORIGINAL SIN/THE ONLY WAY I CAN "ATONE" FOR BEING BORN A MAN IS A LIFE OF DEDICATION TO JESUS/ALLAH/YAHWEH. thats stupid and self deteriorating. believe u are good and make that a reality as best as u can with what uve got.

but pbvioulsy there are people, relegious people who think otherwise. in whose eyes logical goodness means nothing and illogical apparently claimed goodness written in old fake dogmatic books and ideologies/taboos means everything.

Doesn't answer the question though. If there is a God, is he good or evil?

Originally posted by Regret
Doesn't answer the question though. If there is a God, is he good or evil?

Both! But you would expect an answer like that from me.

{Ok, let's go back to the beginning. Adam and Eve. They just got evicted from the Garden and are now in the world. so the question is how do they, and their descendents, know what is good and what's not.}


{There are multiple ways here. One is that God tells them, same way he told them, "don't eat that fruit." }

are u talking about god speaking directly to humans? there is no proof or even evidence of this with normal individuals. there have always been people who claimed it/prohpets etc but most of them claimed of very different gods speaking to them. how does one tell which one is right{and we know today that most if not all of it was bs}

{Another is that knowledge of good and evil is somehow inherent.}

now this i dont understand. the OPPOSITE seems to be true, the only thing inherent is INSTINCTS and almost ALL of those lead you to sins according to the definition of a sin in the bible/christianity e.g lust,selfishness{desire for survival}, sexual urges with ALL women, cruelty, anger, hate. these are tools for biological survival,not to mention rape, murder etc}

{third, Christs sacrifice makes it possible for a person to be saved, so long as He lives to the best of his knowledge. Which would mean that a person who never heard of Christ wouldn't have to believe to get the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.}

i dont think there is any backing for that in the bible. reguardless many BAD people live to the BEST of their knowledge, including drug addicts, rapist, murderers not to mention people pf other relegion who to the BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE understand christianity to be wrong and false, what of them?

{4th possibility - those who had an incomplete knowledge will have some sort of "overtime" in the next life. They will learn what they missed and get the chance to live it.}

thats not what the bible says though is it? it fixes criteria for bad and further backs them, and tells of which kind of people will go to hell. not considering absolute mental cases{literally} ALL men have a REASON for doing what they do and its the best they can do with what theyve GOT{mentality, upbringing, enviornment, living conditions, ideologies etc}

{The all powerful thing - In our thinking all does indeed mean all without exception. The ancient Israelites thought a bit more poetically. An example is when Jesus said that the mustard seed was "the smallest of all seeds", now, we know that it isn't - grass seeds are certainly smaller. But using that kind of language helped to artistically make a point. Our western culture thinks like architects - precision, accuracy, etc - while the ancient eastern cultures tended to be more artistic in their speach and writings - broad strokes, symbolism, etc. The all in all-powerful could indeed just mean supremely powerful.}

yes but again u should be very clear YOURSELF about what u mean by that. and u ARE saying that god is more powerful than any1 else but still his power IS FINITE as opposed to being infinite. that goes in DIRECT opposition of the very fundamental idea of a single christian/muslim/jew god.

{My personal belief (not sanctioned by christianity at large I suppose) is that God's power is derived from knowledge. God has a perfect knowledge of how the universe works. He uses that knowledge to do His work, from the creation, to now. }

not going into the details of how PRACTICALLY that is opposed on solid ground by what is happening in the real world. it is YOUR view as u say and NOT supported by most christians and what else? its NOT supported by the bible itself, infact its opposed by it. thats a fact. one more reason for u to understand just how controlling and WRONG logically{and hence morally} the bible or any other abrahamic relegion really is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Both! But you would expect an answer like that from me.

Yeah I was curious as to Leonheart's stance on the subject. I do believe he's stated that he was atheist though or at least agnostic.

But, I don't need a response really.

Here is what I was going to get at:

If God is good and not evil, then he is limited by virtue of the distinction. If one believes that God is good, as well as unchanging, then he is unable to be evil. Therefore, he is limited in that he is not able to behave in an evil manner, not to mention that he is unable to change. Given this, all Bible based religions have to believe in a limited God.

Originally posted by Regret
Doesn't answer the question though. If there is a God, is he good or evil?

forgetting for a second which god exists or doesnt

christian god=evil
muslim god=evil
jewish god=evil
hindu god/s=evil
scientoligist god= MIND BENDINGLY EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Regret
Yeah I was curious as to Leonheart's stance on the subject. I do believe he's stated that he was atheist though or at least agnostic.

But, I don't need a response really.

Here is what I was going to get at:

If God is good and not evil, then he is limited by virtue of the distinction. If one believes that God is good, as well as unchanging, then he is unable to be evil. Therefore, he is limited in that he is not able to behave in an evil manner, not to mention that he is unable to change. Given this, all Bible based religions have to believe in a limited God.

I agree. Good and evil is something that we do. Also, change is something that we do. God is beyond these concepts in ways we can never fathom.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{Ok, let's go back to the beginning. Adam and Eve. They just got evicted from the Garden and are now in the world. so the question is how do they, and their descendents, know what is good and what's not.}


{There are multiple ways here. One is that God tells them, same way he told them, "don't eat that fruit." }

are u talking about god speaking directly to humans? there is no proof or even evidence of this with normal individuals. there have always been people who claimed it/prohpets etc but most of them claimed of very different gods speaking to them. how does one tell which one is right{and we know today that most if not all of it was bs}

{Another is that knowledge of good and evil is somehow inherent.}

now this i dont understand. the OPPOSITE seems to be true, the only thing inherent is INSTINCTS and almost ALL of those lead you to sins according to the definition of a sin in the bible/christianity e.g lust,selfishness{desire for survival}, sexual urges with ALL women, cruelty, anger, hate. these are tools for biological survival,not to mention rape, murder etc}

{third, Christs sacrifice makes it possible for a person to be saved, so long as He lives to the best of his knowledge. Which would mean that a person who never heard of Christ wouldn't have to believe to get the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.}

i dont think there is any backing for that in the bible. reguardless many BAD people live to the BEST of their knowledge, including drug addicts, rapist, murderers not to mention people pf other relegion who to the BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE understand christianity to be wrong and false, what of them?

{4th possibility - those who had an incomplete knowledge will have some sort of "overtime" in the next life. They will learn what they missed and get the chance to live it.}

thats not what the bible says though is it? it fixes criteria for bad and further backs them, and tells of which kind of people will go to hell. not considering absolute mental cases{literally} ALL men have a REASON for doing what they do and its the best they can do with what theyve GOT{mentality, upbringing, enviornment, living conditions, ideologies etc}

{The all powerful thing - In our thinking all does indeed mean all without exception. The ancient Israelites thought a bit more poetically. An example is when Jesus said that the mustard seed was "the smallest of all seeds", now, we know that it isn't - grass seeds are certainly smaller. But using that kind of language helped to artistically make a point. Our western culture thinks like architects - precision, accuracy, etc - while the ancient eastern cultures tended to be more artistic in their speach and writings - broad strokes, symbolism, etc. The all in all-powerful could indeed just mean supremely powerful.}

yes but again u should be very clear YOURSELF about what u mean by that. and u ARE saying that god is more powerful than any1 else but still his power IS FINITE as opposed to being infinite. that goes in DIRECT opposition of the very fundamental idea of a single christian/muslim/jew god.

{My personal belief (not sanctioned by christianity at large I suppose) is that God's power is derived from knowledge. God has a perfect knowledge of how the universe works. He uses that knowledge to do His work, from the creation, to now. }

not going into the details of how PRACTICALLY that is opposed on solid ground by what is happening in the real world. it is YOUR view as u say and NOT supported by most christians and what else? its NOT supported by the bible itself, infact its opposed by it. thats a fact. one more reason for u to understand just how controlling and WRONG logically{and hence morally} the bible or any other abrahamic relegion really is.

Would have been easier if you'd used the quote button.

Actually very few of the possibilities I raised are direct contradictions to anything in the bible. Inherent knowledge of good and evil for example, doesn't automatically equate to being inherently good. As far as God speaking to humans goes - There wouldn't be much proof would there? Just someone saying, "yeah, God was talking to me the other day..." It's up to the rest of humanity to know whether he's telling the truth or not. In Genesis, Adam conversed directly with God - before the fall if not after. Cain, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob area all supposed to have communicated with God, either directly or via messenger (the word translated as angel often means messenger).

Regarding the "best of their knowledge" hypothesis. You said that many bad people live to the best of their knowledge. I'd have to disagree. Most of them know that stealing, rape, murder, etc. is wrong. They just think something else is more important. That's hardly living to the best of your knowledge.

As far as whether or not God is finite or infinite - I don't know. The truth is the Bible could be read either way. I just point out the possibility that God is finite in a way (although if the universe is infinite, then God would still be infinite because a fraction of infinity is still infinity. )

As far as my belief that God's power is derived from knowledge - the bible never really states what the source of God's power is. It does say that it is inherent in Him, but that doesn't preclude it being knowledge. I don't understand what you mean by modern events contradicting it. Events have always shown that knowledge is power.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you have this black or white mentality about morality?

Because morality is about making choices. Either/or. Sometimes choices are between the lesser of two evils, but this still involves identifying one choice as relatively worse or better than the other. We can be conflicted about the choices we make, but we still make a choice nonetheless. I don't see everything in this world as black and white. I just see the necessity of making moral distinctions, however imperfect they may be, and choosing.

In regard to my response to mahasattva, I think the either/or principle is clear. He or she is making an argument that a universe of objective principles can be deduced without positing a personal God. I argue that it cannot. The universe, in and of itself, is impersonal and largely indifferent to human ends. It makes no sense to talk of morality or principles, or any such thing, if these things don't adhere to a transcendent being who gives these expressions meaning.

Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it

Because it comes to end.

God, really doesn't give a crap about our physical bodies if you ask me. Since we all die anyways, I think he is more concerned with our immortal soul.

But whatever...

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Laying aside the Karma stuff, I agree with virtually all of the first paragraph. I don't know why the law on unintentional cause and effect disallows a personal God or removes the human obligation to make moral choices in an imperfect world.

It doesn't... I was just trying to get you to not think of things so black or white.

We need to make moral choices because moral choices are often times Karmic Choice.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It doesn\'t... I was just trying to get you to not think of things so black or white.

We need to make moral choices because moral choices are often times Karmic Choice.

Black and whites do not exist in my reality, but they could exits in yours. Why would your truth override mine if no black and whites exist.
You no make sense.

Originally posted by ChancellorGohan
Black and whites do not exist in my reality, but they could exits in yours. Why would your truth override mine if no black and whites exist.
You no make sense.

Maybe I wasn't talking to you. Maybe you should read back a little.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It doesn't... I was just trying to get you to not think of things so black or white.

We need to make moral choices because moral choices are often times Karmic Choice.

OK. That's fine. I don't know if I completely agree but that's all right. If it makes you feel better, I don't view the human predicament in black and white terms. I know that we all find ourselves in the cross hairs of conflicting moral claims and at frequent cross-purposes with our own best intentions. The choices we make in life are oftentimes difficult to both see and make. But choose we must, or we betray the thing in us that makes us most heroic.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
OK. That's fine. I don't know if I completely agree but that's all right. If it makes you feel better, I don't view the human predicament in black and white terms. I know that we all find ourselves in the cross hairs of conflicting moral claims and at frequent cross-purposes with our own best intentions. The choices we make in life are oftentimes difficult to both see and make. But choose we must, or we betray the thing in us that makes us most heroic.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No. Principles need beings with principles. The physical universe has no value system in and of itself. Either the bedrock of existence is nothing, in which case, all morality and principle is farce, or the bedrock is a transcendent personal existence to which morality and principles adhere.

Sounds black or white to me.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Wow. You only have one set of bi-colored glasses from which to view the world, don't you? I've never seen someone so fixated on one issue. No one is casting aspersions on your bi-sexuality. You're the one who keeps bringing it up...ad nauseum.

You asked me a question and I answered it.

I don't see your problem, and your refusal to give an actual answer just shows me your inability to actually answer my statements truly.

You basically said that Hell is the separation from God, and I clearly stated that I would rather be seperated from your God, then be with him....I don't like your idea of God, and I already explained why.

If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Because morality is about making choices. Either/or. Sometimes choices are between the lesser of two evils, but this still involves identifying one choice as relatively worse or better than the other. We can be conflicted about the choices we make, but we still make a choice nonetheless. I don't see everything in this world as black and white. I just see the necessity of making moral distinctions, however imperfect they may be, and choosing.

In regard to my response to mahasattva, I think the either/or principle is clear. He or she is making an argument that a universe of objective principles can be deduced without positing a personal God. I argue that it cannot. The universe, in and of itself, is impersonal and largely indifferent to human ends. It makes no sense to talk of morality or principles, or any such thing, if these things don't adhere to a transcendent being who gives these expressions meaning.






The funny thing is you act like you KNOW so much about this Universe......

That's the biggest mistake any Christian, or ANY PERSON, makes for that matter...claiming to know the nature of this Universe, when we as a Human Race are so immature and helpless to our grander exterior.

As if the Bible describes anything extensive about this Universe...let alone our OWN EARTH....

The Bible POORLY poooorly represents our OWN WORLD in its factual reality, much less the mythological places such as Heaven and Hell....

So without ANY real knowledge of this Universe, you DARE claim to know anything about it ?

And you say that I'm full of myself

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You basically said that Hell is the separation from God, and I clearly stated that I would rather be seperated from your God, then be with him....I don't like your idea of God, and I already explained why.


Right. How astute of you to notice that. That was the whole point of my post. You don't like the Christian God. You've established that quite clearly. So my question to you is why do you care if you're separated from him after you die? Isn't that what you want? Assume for a moment that God and Hell are real. Why would God be cruel for essentially giving you what you want?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Right. How astute of you to notice that. That was the whole point of my post. You don't like the Christian God. You've established that quite clearly. So my question to you is why do you care if you're separated from him after you die? Isn't that what you want? Assume for a moment that God and Hell are real. Why would God be cruel for essentially giving you what you want?


If Hell is a place of Eternal Torment, then he is not giving me what I want...he is giving me what HE thinks I deserve, which in reality, no one deserves.

If Hell is simply separation from him, then that means I can still be AS HAPPY as I am today, and therefore..it's not really Hell.

So if Hell is JUST separation from your God, then I don't mind at all.

Sounds more like Heaven to me

Originally posted by Lord Urizen



The funny thing is you act like you KNOW so much about this Universe......

That's the biggest mistake any Christian, or ANY PERSON, makes for that matter...claiming to know the nature of this Universe, when we as a Human Race are so immature and helpless to our grander exterior.

As if the Bible describes anything extensive about this Universe...let alone our OWN EARTH....

The Bible POORLY poooorly represents our OWN WORLD in its factual reality, much less the mythological places such as Heaven and Hell....

So without ANY real knowledge of this Universe, you DARE claim to know anything about it ?

And you say that I'm full of myself

Yes, I do dare to say that you are full of yourself.

Framing arguments in the indicative case is a normal function of the English language and well within the protocols of debate.

I am making an argument for my understanding of the universe and the moral world we human beings inhabit. I presume, by your presence on this board, that you have an understanding as well. Am I not allowed to articulate my argument? Does it rankle you?

I do have real knowledge of the universe, just as any rational human being who has ever lived has real knowledge...through their experience, through their suffering, through their thoughts and, sometimes, through their prayers and willing sacrifices. Faulkner referred to this knowledge as "those eternal verities of heart."

You are so quick to point out the inadequacies of the Bible--I presume from its inability to match current scientific descriptions of the physical universe. However, to say that it poorly represents the human world demonstrates that you have either never read the text or have no appreciation of narrative. If anything, the Bible is eerie in its ability to describe human nature with brief narrative strokes and in its ability to transmit a haunting sense of the divine mystery lurking behind the veil of things. Your insensitivity to this power is presumptuous and, unfortunately, predictable.

Along with the Bible I guess we can also chuck the following ancient and, therefore, useless texts for their inability to stay current with current cosmological models.

1. The Iliad--Gods and heroes! Worthless!
2. Beowulf--A monster! Give me a break!
3. The Divine Comedy--Heaven and Hell! Conservative Propaganda!
4. The Epic of Gilgamesh--Crap!
5. The Aeneid--Imperialist rubbish!
6. The Lives of Plutarch--Yeah, real interesting, but did he understand quantum mechanics?!
7. Paradise Lost--Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, huh Lord U?
8. Oedipus Rex--Who says you can't kill your father and sleep with your mother?!
9. Hamlet--The ghosts of dead fathers never speak to the living!
10. A Midsummer's Night Dream--Never did man dream of such a folly!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So if Hell is JUST separation from your God, then I don't mind at all.

Sounds more like Heaven to me

You have it exactly.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You have it exactly.

Then there is nothing to fear. I take it you're Mormon...

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I do have real knowledge of the universe, just as any rational human being who has ever lived has real knowledge...through their experience, through their suffering, through their thoughts and, sometimes, through their prayers and willing sacrifices. Faulkner referred to this knowledge as "those eternal verities of heart."




Since the REST of your argument was pure RANT, let me address the only portion of it that promoted your Point...


You are clearly Deluded if you beleive you have real knowledge of this Universe.

Fact # 1 - Nobody sees this world for what it truly is.

Fact # 2- As a Human Race, collectively, none of us know enough about our own Universe to make any real judgements or conclusions of it.


We don't even know the full truths and realities of our OWN WORLD, much less this Universe.

Now you may figure that my argument is nothing more than a condemnation of your religious perspective, and only my own bias but take these things into account:

1) We only have FIVE senses...our senses are inferior to many of the sense capabilities that animals and insects possess.

2) Every Era, the Human Race has created myths and even came to scientific findings that have only proven false over later time.

3) We only live on EARTH, ONE WORLD in the vast Universe clusted with billions of Galaxies, with billions of thier own solar systems, each flooding with dozens of thier own stars and worlds.

For you to claim you truly KNOW the nature and reality of this Universe, when you don't even know enough about this Earth, is TRULY egotistic, absurd, unrealistic, and deserving of MUCH speculation.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So if Hell is JUST separation from your God, then I don\'t mind at all.

Sounds more like Heaven to me


Naw it more than that. You still at the mercy of God\'s love right now. Man, Demon, etc, etc, etc. Everyone at the mercy of God\'s love. When he takes it away from everyone, they be screwed. Or basically, they just screw themselves cause God is all loving, and they prove they a complete stupid ass for rejecting something thats all loving.

Originally posted by ChancellorGohan
Naw it more than that. You still at the mercy of God\'s love right now. Man, Demon, etc, etc, etc. Everyone at the mercy of God\'s love. When he takes it away from everyone, they be screwed. Or basically, they just screw themselves cause God is all loving, and they prove they a complete stupid ass for rejecting something thats all loving.

OH yes...only a "stupid ass" would reject a mythological character.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then there is nothing to fear. I take it you're Mormon...

No. Catholic.

Nothing, ultimately, to fear but yourself, Lord U.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
For you to claim you truly KNOW the nature and reality of this Universe, when you don't even know enough about this Earth, is TRULY egotistic, absurd, unrealistic, and deserving of MUCH speculation.

Really? Then how do you know enough about it to refute me?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Along with the Bible I guess we can also chuck the following ancient and, therefore, useless texts for their inability to stay current with current cosmological models.

1. The Iliad--Gods and heroes! Worthless!
2. Beowulf--A monster! Give me a break!
3. The Divine Comedy--Heaven and Hell! Conservative Propaganda!
4. The Epic of Gilgamesh--Crap!
5. The Aeneid--Imperialist rubbish!
6. The Lives of Plutarch--Yeah, real interesting, but did he understand quantum mechanics?!
7. Paradise Lost--Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, huh Lord U?
8. Oedipus Rex--Who says you can't kill your father and sleep with your mother?!
9. Hamlet--The ghosts of dead fathers never speak to the living!
10. A Midsummer's Night Dream--Never did man dream of such a folly!

Well, I like all of them for literature purposes. They are great reads. Likewise they have historical relevance. I'd put the Bible in that category - historical text with potential historical applications. A book can be complete fiction and still have relevance in the humanities. But there is a difference between them being used as Gospel and shoehorned into some governing code for all times, and simply being taken as what they are - historical texts fictional and/or dramatic and/or bibliographical and/or mythological and/or historical in nature.

As a side note I would point out historical text does not, in fact, give it a claim to being true. Historical fictions and mythology can be useful for many historical applications despite not being real - and that is where I would put the Bible. Historical text.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I like all of them for literature purposes. They are great reads. Likewise they have historical relevance. I'd put the Bible in that category - historical text with potential historical applications. A book can be complete fiction and still have relevance in the humanities. But there is a difference between them being used as Gospel and shoehorned into some governing code for all times, and simply being taken as what they are - historical texts fictional and/or dramatic and/or bibliographical and/or mythological and/or historical in nature.

As a side note I would point out historical text does not, in fact, give it a claim to being true. Historical fictions and mythology can be useful for many historical applications despite not being real - and that is where I would put the Bible. Historical text.

Yes. I am aware of this. However, Lord U's argument was that the Bible was meaningless because it couldn't describe the universe with the same observational precision as modern science. My list was meant as a reductio ad absurdum

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes. I am aware of this. However, Lord U's argument was that the Bible was meaningless because it couldn't describe the universe with the same observational precision as modern science. My list was meant as a reductio ad absurdum

*Taps side of nose* I'm with you now.

Hey Urizen, I have some friendly advice...

People usually don't mind debates, but your arrogant puffed up attitude of "I'm right your wrong" tends to rankle people. It's nothing that serious, but people can get rather annoying.

As Regret pointed out... "stop being a jackass".

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Really? Then how do you know enough about it to refute me?

Neither of us know enough about our own Universe to make any claims as to its "nature".

Unless you journeyed to the farthest reaches on this Universe, experienced duration on other worlds, and can come to an extensively educated conclusion as to its nature, don't pretend to know crap.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But I AM a Jackass.
Hence the word STOP. But you have the right to be a jackass if you want, its your choice. Rock on in the free world man.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Neither of us know enough about our own Universe to make any claims as to its "nature".

Unless you journeyed to the farthest reaches on this Universe, experienced duration on other worlds, and can come to an extensively educated conclusion as to its nature, don't pretend to know crap.

Well, again I ask you, if we can know nothing about our world or the universe, if we can deduce nothing from experience, if all is an illusion, a blind headlong rush after nothingness and the abyss thereafter, what are we wasting our time arguing over? The fact that you have as strong an opinion as you do about fairness, justice, compassion, the prospective unity of the human species, and so on... means you have deduced something about the nature of things. If you haven't, then what are you raving about? If the universe has no meaning, or if we aren't privy to its meaning in some way, why argue and wrestle over this irrelevant little thing we call "truth"? It's all atoms bumping into each other and quantum fluctuations, right? There is no such thing as justice in a world such as this.

If you believe your humanity means anything, Lord U, then you believe your existence tells you something important about the universe. If your humanity is nothing more than a cosmic aberration, then nothing matters anyway.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him


I've never understood the due process of the "Lord." An eternity in Hell, for commiting pride?!? Man, I would kill my attorney.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
I've never understood the due process of the "Lord." An eternity in Hell, for commiting pride?!? Man, I would kill my attorney.

Sorry dude, Biblically speaking your attorney already died to pay your fines. Sure he came back, but its all on you now.

Originally posted by docb77
Sorry dude, Biblically speaking your attorney already died to pay your fines. Sure he came back, but its all on you now.

Court expenses are a killer.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Well, again I ask you, if we can know nothing about our world or the universe, if we can deduce nothing from experience, if all is an illusion, a blind headlong rush after nothingness and the abyss thereafter, what are we wasting our time arguing over?


You can conclude a fair amount of truth from your knowledge of this world....and an aspect of truth of this Universe. But your knowledge, as well as my own is EXTREMELY limitted.

For you to make a claim that you understand the nature of the Universe is absurd....you don't know the nature of this Universe. No one does. Have you ever explored the outer Universe away from Earth ?

Speaking of Earth, have you ever explored all the other parts of the world other than your living room ?

If you have full knowledge of this Earth and Universe...if you already discovered all aspects of this entire Universe, and if you have omniscience of this world, then I apologize.

Otherwise, don't make such bullshit claims.


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
The fact that you have as strong an opinion as you do about fairness, justice, compassion, the prospective unity of the human species, and so on... means you have deduced something about the nature of things. If you haven't, then what are you raving about?


Yes, I am talking about Human Nature, and I always admit that's it's my own bias. I never claim my perspective as FACT, to the extant you do.

I am not discussing the Nature of the Universe, nor the nature of planet Earth.


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
If the universe has no meaning, or if we aren't privy to its meaning in some way, why argue and wrestle over this irrelevant little thing we call "truth"?


That question makes no sense. When did I say this universe has no meaning ? So if this Universe has no meaning that is consistant with your religion, than it has NO meaning at all?

God, you live in such a world of black and white.

It's like when a Conservative Christian says Freedom is only Freedom when your free to worship God....


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
It's all atoms bumping into each other and quantum fluctuations, right? There is no such thing as justice in a world such as this.


Justice is a human construct. There is no justice in the animal world, there is no justice in the microscopic world, and there is limitted justice in the human world.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
If you believe your humanity means anything, Lord U, then you believe your existence tells you something important about the universe. If your humanity is nothing more than a cosmic aberration, then nothing matters anyway.


I very much beleive Humanity means something. But Human Beings come from Earth. So far I have yet to see evidense that there are human beings in other reaches of this Universe.

Humanity is only an ASPECT of Earth life, and 1 trillionth the aspect of this Universe. I think you fail to realize how VAST this Universe is, as you seem to beleive in a Geo-centric model of reality.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I very much beleive Humanity means something. But Human Beings come from Earth. So far I have yet to see evidense that there are human beings in other reaches of this Universe.

Humanity is only an ASPECT of Earth life, and 1 trillionth the aspect of this Universe. I think you fail to realize how VAST this Universe is, as you seem to beleive in a Geo-centric model of reality.

Again, you've just reiterated my points, which are:

1. Humanity appears to be an anomaly in the known universe.

2. Things like justice and love are irrelevant to the universe at large, outside of a human context.

The point is that our humanity is either the meaning of everything and the key by which we can reach at least a partial understanding of God, its author, or it is nothing, a cosmic joke, a transient aberration that was never meant to happen and will someday fade back into the ice-cold void from which it came.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
...1. Humanity appears to be an anomaly in the known universe...

We have to know a lot more about the universe before we can make that assumption.

'He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him '

Wasn't that a joke? I mean an actual joke, I forget the comedian.

I don't believe in hell (personal choice).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We have to know a lot more about the universe before we can make that assumption.

It's not an assumption. So far, we are the anomaly. Even if this turns out not to be the case forever, anything resembling intelligent human life will still be a relative rarity in the otherwise indifferent universe. And the question to ponder will still be whether or not the fundamental principle of the universe is life or that which is not life. In other words, are self-aware beings the point of everything, or are they not? Are we the offspring of a creator being or cosmic accidents?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Again, you've just reiterated my points, which are:

1. Humanity appears to be an anomaly in the known universe.

2. Things like justice and love are irrelevant to the universe at large, outside of a human context.

The point is that our humanity is either the meaning of everything and the key by which we can reach at least a partial understanding of God, its author, or it is nothing, a cosmic joke, a transient aberration that was never meant to happen and will someday fade back into the ice-cold void from which it came.


Humanity is an aspect which takes up less than . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000001 % of this Universe's make up.



Why do you imagine that this Universe revolves around US ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Humanity is an aspect which takes up less than . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000001 % of this Universe's make up.



Why do you imagine that this Universe revolves around US ?

**Sigh**Urizen, you're obviously not grasping the question I'm posing.


So, we're an infinitesimal part of the universe. Right. I understand this fact. Are you throwing this number out to pull the rug out from underneath your own humanity? If the number was 10,000 x's smaller than this, it would still not remove the burden from you to decide whether your life was meaningful or not. In the overarching vastness of the universe are we an accident or not?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
**Sigh**Urizen, you're obviously not grasping the question I'm posing.


So, we're an infinitesimal part of the universe. Right. I understand this fact. Are you throwing this number out to pull the rug out from underneath your own humanity? If the number was 10,000 x's smaller than this, it would still not remove the burden from you to decide whether your life was meaningful or not. In the overarching vastness of the universe are we an accident or not?

Whether or not we are an accident is yet to be proven, nor do I imagine it will ever be proven.

But who cares? Why is it relevant ?

We are still worth a lot. We are still of value. WE don't need a reason, the simple fact that we EXIST means we have right to enjoy.

Technically, I was an accident. My mom had me very early, i was unexpected. She still loves me the same.


We don't need a God to be important. We don't need to be the "center of the universe" to be of value. We are of Absolute Value REGARDLESS of what part of the cosmos we derive, or no matter how we were made.

It's like saying that a Clone is of lesser value than a natural born person. AS long as you are ALIVE, you are worth very much. That's my take on it.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
It's not an assumption. So far, we are the anomaly. Even if this turns out not to be the case forever, anything resembling intelligent human life will still be a relative rarity in the otherwise indifferent universe. And the question to ponder will still be whether or not the fundamental principle of the universe is life or that which is not life. In other words, are self-aware beings the point of everything, or are they not? Are we the offspring of a creator being or cosmic accidents?

All I am saying is we don't know. The Drake equation sets it up quite nicely.

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

I hate that Drake equation...its like a two year old doing calculus.

I dont consider it accurate.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Whether or not we are an accident is yet to be proven, nor do I imagine it will ever be proven.

But who cares? Why is it relevant ?

We are still worth a lot. We are still of value. WE don't need a reason, the simple fact that we EXIST means we have right to enjoy.


You always talk in terms of proofs. In matters of philosophy and theology, we ask questions and pose answers. That is all. Every time I ask a question or suggest an answer, you generally respond by saying that "I can't prove my assertion." To my recollection, I've never tried to prove anything on this board. The proper way to respond to someone on this board would be to disagree either with their argument or the manner in which they pose a question. To tell me that I can't prove anything is a propos to nothing. A religion forum is naturally speculative. We wouldn't be speculating if we could prove anything right?

To your point about not needing a reason to have a right "to enjoy", I agree. You need no excuse or reason to be a hedonist. However, if you're going to argue on this board about principles of social justice and the like, I'm afraid you do. Because you see, if human beings are accidental in the grand scheme of things, and if the values we cling to don't adhere to a transcendent Other, then you're deluding yourself. Without God, life means nothing outside of your own enjoyment. That might be enough for you. So be it. But don't continue to make arguments about fairness and common decency. Because, if you are undecided about whether or not your humanity is real or not, what ground are you standing on to render any kind of moral judgment?


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
We are of Absolute Value REGARDLESS of what part of the cosmos we derive, or no matter how we were made.


Why are we of Absolute Value, if you don't have an opinion on how humanity fits into the grand scheme of things? Are you in fact arguing that we are significant? Could it be that you have discovered a meaning to things without traveling the length of the universe, as you suggested? And what's this "no matter how we were made" line? Are we slipping Lord U? I thought there was no Creator.

Originally posted by Alliance
I hate that Drake equation...its like a two year old doing calculus.

I dont consider it accurate.

I suppose it would be accurate... if we knew what values the various numbers were. Without that it is kind of pointless.

Yes. That is what I was referrring to

Originally posted by docb77
I suppose it would be accurate... if we knew what values the various numbers were. Without that it is kind of pointless.

The point is have a starting point. It gives you a good idea of how vast the possibilities are.

Yes....its really difficult to imagine that in a very large place...we might have happened more than once.

Reminds me of the Theorem in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that shows that we don't exist.

-There is an infinite amount of space in the universe, but there are only a finite number of people, and as anyone knows a finite number divided by an infinite number is so close to zero as makes no difference.

Plenty of inaccuracies in it, but it sounds smart.

Yes, i believe Shakya brought that up.

It doesnt really work.

Its kind of like predicting how many bacteria are in the world by staring at your hand.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You always talk in terms of proofs. In matters of philosophy and theology, we ask questions and pose answers. That is all. Every time I ask a question or suggest an answer, you generally respond by saying that "I can't prove my assertion."


1) Untrue. I want you to admit that you really have no proof. That is all.

2) I say that, because you act is if you have already proven it. Whenever I ask a Christian on this forum to provide some kind of background evidense for thier assertions, they give me Biblical Quotes, and they don't see how hilarious that is.

I have yet to see you post Biblical quotes as any sort of evidence, thank God, but you make statements as if they are fact.

Hey it's fine, no big deal, but when you go making claims about the Nature of the Universe, i know you're bullshitting then...no one knows the nature of this universe.

For you to project your own personal bias as the factual guidelines for this Universe is absurd.



Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
To my recollection, I've never tried to prove anything on this board. The proper way to respond to someone on this board would be to disagree either with their argument or the manner in which they pose a question.


So you admit you cannot prove it. Fair enough. But tell me why you think you fully know the Nature of this Universe ?

And understand that I have every right to challenge such a grand assertion. Don't get pissy because I don't agree.


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
To tell me that I can't prove anything is a propos to nothing. A religion forum is naturally speculative. We wouldn't be speculating if we could prove anything right?


So true. I do not EXPECT you to be able to prove anything. I am glad you admit you cannot.

Therefore, on the other hand, you cannot claim those Universe assertions as Fact. So please refrain from doing so.




Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
To your point about not needing a reason to have a right "to enjoy", I agree. You need no excuse or reason to be a hedonist. However, if you're going to argue on this board about principles of social justice and the like, I'm afraid you do.


The only one arguing about Justice here is you. All I am stating is that Justice is a human construct, and not enough to represent the Universe.

You do not know the nature of this Universe, nor do you know that Justice exists outside the realm of Humanity. Keep pretending you do, and I will continue to challenge your argument.



Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Because you see, if human beings are accidental in the grand scheme of things, and if the values we cling to don't adhere to a transcendent Other, then you're deluding yourself. Without God, life means nothing outside of your own enjoyment. That might be enough for you. So be it.


With or without God we are of ultamate value, simply because we exist and are.

You, like SO MANY other Christians beleive that without a diety we are worth nothing...such a sad, typical, and sickening philosphy.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
But don't continue to make arguments about fairness and common decency. Because, if you are undecided about whether or not your humanity is real or not, what ground are you standing on to render any kind of moral judgment?


1) Humanity is real. IT just doesn't represent the entire Universe like you claim it to.

2) Morality is subjective. It's just a word. Since when did I render any moral Judgement? That's something you Christians do all the time, it's nothing I like to take part in.




Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Why are we of Absolute Value, if you don't have an opinion on how humanity fits into the grand scheme of things? Are you in fact arguing that we are significant? Could it be that you have discovered a meaning to things without traveling the length of the universe, as you suggested? And what's this "no matter how we were made" line? Are we slipping Lord U? I thought there was no Creator.



Humanity does not NEED to fit into the grand scheme of ANYTHING. I couldn't care less if God made me, I couldn't care less if I was an accident, I couldn't care less If I died tomorrow and never existed again....I love myself, I love who i am, I love my family and freinds, and I love Life.

Can YOU say the same ? Or is your love for life conditional on whether or not a myth is true? If so...what a waste

I don't know if there is a Creator. I never said there wasn't. I just said I don't beleive in your God. Maybe we have a creator, maybe we don't. If we do, he or she could be ANYONE, not JUST the diety you choose to beleive in.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
For you to project your own personal bias as the factual guidelines for this Universe is absurd.

As in all matters of interpretation, we see the world through the lens of our own personal subjectivity. It is the nature of man qua man to be a projector. Man projects himself into the world to find himself. To some degree this makes universal agreement on hermeneutic questions impossible. However, it does not preclude vast agreement, because everyone's subjectivity is embodied in the same flesh and blood and largely partakes of the same common joy/sufferings. This is true in a historical sense as well. In all of our anxiety as Johnny-come-latelies to the historical scene, we imaginatively distance ourselves from our fore bearers and stake out impregnable no man's lands to protect our own immaculate origins. But, in many substantive ways, we are our fathers and mothers. We are our past and all of the experience that the past couples to itself. As the Book of Ecclesiastes so wisely proclaims, "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecc. 1:9)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you admit you cannot prove it. Fair enough. But tell me why you think you fully know the Nature of this Universe ?



I make assertions because it is formal nature of the faculty of judgment to frame categorical statements. We assert what we believe. You believe things, just as I do. And when you speak, you pronounce these beliefs as if they are fact. You are not wrong in doing so. Men cannot live in a vacuum of non-belief. All philosophies are built upon first principles that cannot be proven.

Speculation arises from the various visions of the world that logically precede from these first principles. If you believe that the world is based on nothing but chance and natural laws, then this implies a certain set of corollary principles. If you believe that the universe is based on a living will much like our own, but transcendent to it, the corollary principles will be different.

My belief that the world is kin to the latter view is such because I believe my humanity is philosophically significant and betokens something about the ultimate nature of things. That is, I believe my subjectivity calls out for another living, answering subjectivity. If this Other subjectivity doesn't exist, then everything I think I know about my humanity is wrong. And we are nothing more than cruel, clever apes.

I believe in God. I cannot prove it. But I infer it from my experience and the experience of my fore bearers. And I believe. I have not been alone in this. You perhaps believe something else. Fine.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The only one arguing about Justice here is you. All I am stating is that Justice is a human construct, and not enough to represent the Universe.

You do not know the nature of this Universe, nor do you know that Justice exists outside the realm of Humanity. Keep pretending you do, and I will continue to challenge your argument.


On numerous occasions, you have made arguments relying on appeals to justice and common fairness. Your major, recurring argument against Christianity is that it doesn't live up to the values it claims to espouse, and is thereby, in turns, cruel to gays and the like. You also argue that the idea of Christianity is bogus because the biblical God sends people to hell for, what seem to you, insignificant flaws. In other words, at the same time, you seem to argue for the fact that there is no transcendent foundation for morality and then turn around and make moral arguments based on a seemingly universal sense of fair play? If there is no God, there is no reason to adopt your arguments more than any other person's. If morality is completely socially constructed, it is arbitrary and, therefore, not binding in any sense.





Originally posted by Lord Urizen
With or without God we are of ultamate value, simply because we exist and are.

You, like SO MANY other Christians believe that without a Deity we are worth nothing...such a sad, typical, and sickening philosphy.

I beg to differ. If there is no God, our humanity means nothing because it is an illusion. We are just a collection of atoms bumping into each other, a set of preprogrammed biological impulses self-deluded into thinking there is such a thing as principled living. Without God, we are like Camus's Sisyphus eternally rolling his boulder to the top of the hill...only to have it roll back down again. Without God, man's moral dignity as a willing agent is reduced to the decision to roll the boulder back up again, despite the fact that we know it serves no purpose and will ultimately just come crashing down again. Without God, our free will is reduced to a choice to heroically persist in a knowing lie.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Humanity does not NEED to fit into the grand scheme of ANYTHING. I couldn't care less if God made me, I couldn't care less if I was an accident, I couldn't care less If I died tomorrow and never existed again....I love myself, I love who i am, I love my family and freinds, and I love Life.

Can YOU say the same ? Or is your love for life conditional on whether or not a myth is true? If so...what a waste

I love my life. That is why I cannot believe that the substance of it is an illusion and that my moral agency is a cosmic trick.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't know if there is a Creator. I never said there wasn't. I just said I don't believe in your God. Maybe we have a creator, maybe we don't. If we do, he or she could be ANYONE, not JUST the Deity you choose to believe in. Originally posted by Lord Urizen


LOL. Well, that's a start, Lord U.

This may be the most sensible thing I've ever heard you utter.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
As in all matters of interpretation, we see the world through the lens of our own personal subjectivity. It is the nature of man qua man to be a projector. Man projects himself into the world to find himself. To some degree this makes universal agreement on hermeneutic questions impossible. However, it does not preclude vast agreement, because everyone's subjectivity is embodied in the same flesh and blood and largely partakes of the same common joy/sufferings. This is true in a historical sense as well. In all of our anxiety as Johnny-come-latelies to the historical scene, we imaginatively distance ourselves from our fore bearers and stake out impregnable no man's lands to protect our own immaculate origins. But, in many substantive ways, we are our fathers and mothers. We are our past and all of the experience that the past couples to itself. As the Book of Ecclesiastes so wisely proclaims, "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecc. 1:9)

You did not actually counter my point. I already know that your projections of this universe are your opinion, and your right to have. However, you cannot claim them as Fact. That simple.

And for you to still argue that you know the Nature of this Universe, even when the entirely of humankind has a limitted knowledge of anything beyond our own world is absurd.

So much writing...so much more worthless semantics....for what ? You don't know enough about the Universe for your assertions to be taken seriously or factual.

End of Story.




Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I make assertions because it is formal nature of the faculty of judgment to frame categorical statements. We assert what we believe. You believe things, just as I do. And when you speak, you pronounce these beliefs as if they are fact. You are not wrong in doing so. Men cannot live in a vacuum of non-belief. All philosophies are built upon first principles that cannot be proven.


Yet you are quick to challenge and question the evidense behind my assertions in every thread. Likewise, I challenge yours.

Instead of challening your right to make these assertions, let me ask you the foundation for your beleifs that you present as fact.

If you say "The Bible" , I'm gonna piss in my pants laughing.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Speculation arises from the various visions of the world that logically precede from these first principles. If you believe that the world is based on nothing but chance and natural laws, then this implies a certain set of corollary principles. If you believe that the universe is based on a living will much like our own, but transcendent to it, the corollary principles will be different.


Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, And your point is ?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
My belief that the world is kin to the latter view is such because I believe my humanity is philosophically significant and betokens something about the ultimate nature of things. That is, I believe my subjectivity calls out for another living, answering subjectivity. If this Other subjectivity doesn't exist, then everything I think I know about my humanity is wrong. And we are nothing more than cruel, clever apes.


And I take it you think Apes are worthless? Or are of any lesser value than ourselves ?

And what if we are nothing more than the evolved state of apes? That renders us and our lives worthless?

Wow, boy, you really got a black and white, all or nothing, perspective on humanity don't you ?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I believe in God. I cannot prove it. But I infer it from my experience and the experience of my fore bearers. And I believe. I have not been alone in this. You perhaps believe something else. Fine.


Okey Dokey then. I just wanted you to admit you have no proof. My satisfaction is quenched, and from now on I will not take your points as fact...purely as opinion, and I will argue them as opinion, unless you can provide concrete evidense for some of your rather outrageous claims.



Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
On numerous occasions, you have made arguments relying on appeals to justice and common fairness. Your major, recurring argument against Christianity is that it doesn't live up to the values it claims to espouse, and is thereby, in turns, cruel to gays and the like. You also argue that the idea of Christianity is bogus because the biblical God sends people to hell for, what seem to you, insignificant flaws. In other words, at the same time, you seem to argue for the fact that there is no transcendent foundation for morality and then turn around and make moral arguments based on a seemingly universal sense of fair play? If there is no God, there is no reason to adopt your arguments more than any other person's. If morality is completely socially constructed, it is arbitrary and, therefore, not binding in any sense.


If you take a look at this world, and every culture that exists within it you will see that morality is not universal in its aspects. Every culture promotes a different moral standard, and every individual has a different sense of right or wrong.

Does that mean morality is all in our heads? Maybe...maybe not...even if it IS all in our heads, does that lessen it ? Not necessarily...I beleive the mental existances are equal to the physical ones as well. If something feels real to you, and you respond to it with your entire being...then it might as well be real, no ? What's the difference?

I beleive morality to be both subjective and intuitive. I think deep down inside we all know when something is bad or good. There may be a common confusion and grand conflict as to the guidelines of what is bad or good, or right and wrong, but no matter what we don't choose what we think is right or wrong...we just think it.

BTW, if Morality DOES exist independent of Human Definition, it does not automatically require a "God" to be the concrete distributor of right and wrong. There are many possibilities as to what is the foundation or spectrum of good and evil.

Deep down inside, I beleive good is something that promotes love, unity, tolerance, equality, and pleasure. I think evil is anything that promotes Hate, disunity, conflict, inequality, and pain. Are my beleifs any more right than your own?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Point is, I don't need a God to validify my beleifs, and i DONT need other people's approval to validify them either. You, apparently, DO require a God and a cult of like minded individuals to approve of your personal moral beleifs.





Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I beg to differ. If there is no God, our humanity means nothing because it is an illusion. We are just a collection of atoms bumping into each other, a set of preprogrammed biological impulses self-deluded into thinking there is such a thing as principled living. Without God, we are like Camus's Sisyphus eternally rolling his boulder to the top of the hill...only to have it roll back down again. Without God, man's moral dignity as a willing agent is reduced to the decision to roll the boulder back up again, despite the fact that we know it serves no purpose and will ultimately just come crashing down again. Without God, our free will is reduced to a choice to heroically persist in a knowing lie.



So basically you beleive Humanity is an illusion without God. How do you define Humanity any way ? I think that's what matters.

If you define Humanity as "being a human being" then that is independent of God or any religion.

So you are saying that if it just do happened that God does not exist, that that means Love is worthless ?

So If you found out that God didn't really exist, would you stop loving your mother? Would you stop loving your freinds and family ? Would you stop loving yourself ?

Is your happiness and security entirely dependent on the existance of GOD? Is your OWN existance entirely dependent on the existance of God ?

If that's the case, then I feel sorry for you. I don't beleive in God (note that I am open to the possibility of his existance), but over all I don't truly think he exists.

So what? I'm doing just fine. I love my family, I love myself, and I am enjoying the hell outta my life ! I still have a strong sense of morality, I still aim to only do what I percieve as Good.

If God didn't exist, we would still be worth just as much as we are now.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I love my life. That is why I cannot believe that the substance of it is an illusion and that my moral agency is a cosmic trick.


You don't have to. Why do you HAVE To know the Truth behind our origins to validify your love for yourself ?

I was an accident at Birth. My mother had me to early, and I wasn't planned. Does that mean my existance is worthless ? Should I go cry somewhere and go kill myself ?

Uhh...yeah okay....I'm a cocky mofo who loves what he is, and dont givva shit what's the story behind his birth. I exist now, I love what I am, and that's good enough for me.




Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This may be the most sensible thing I've ever heard you utter.

I utter a lot of bullshit. Sometimes you gotta read between the lines to find meaning in my rants.

Real proof that there is no God:

"He" puts people like Lord Urizen on earth.


Any questions ex-believers?

Oh and sorry for double post but....hahaha:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Real proof that there is no God:

"He" puts people like Lord Urizen on earth.


Any questions ex-believers?

It's hard to argue with that logic, Bardock...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh and sorry for double post but....hahaha:


Bardock, you need a life..serously.

Find a boyfreind, develop a sex life, develop a sense of humor...and then come back.

Otherwise, drown in your boredom.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
It's hard to argue with that logic, Bardock...

His logic actually makes more sense than your own

Thanks for NOT responding to the argument. Shows how little you have to say. Pity...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Bardock, you need a life..serously.

Find a boyfreind, develop a sex life, develop a sense of humor...and then come back.

Otherwise, drown in your boredom.

HEY.....the sense of humour thing hurt.

Originally posted by Bardock42
HEY.....the sense of humour thing hurt.

Sorry cry

Originally posted by Bardock42
Real proof that there is no God:

"He" puts people like Lord Urizen on earth.


Any questions ex-believers?

Actually wouldn't that be proof.... since God likes doing things like that to test the faith of his much loved children....

"Hmmm. What can I do today to test their faith.... Ah, I know! I have been wanting to try out this Lord Urizen soul, nows my chance. Down you go. Let the fun begin!"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You did not actually counter my point. I already know that your projections of this universe are your opinion, and your right to have. However, you cannot claim them as Fact. That simple.

And for you to still argue that you know the Nature of this Universe, even when the entirely of humankind has a limitted knowledge of anything beyond our own world is absurd.

We utter as fact what we believe to be true. As I said, it is the nature of our faculty of judgment to render categorical statements. You believe it is wrong for gays to be discriminated against and you utter statements to that affect as matters of moral fact. My point? All moral statements are uttered in the indicative mode. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to bear false witness, etc...Can you think of another way to make a moral statement without resorting to the indicative case? If so, please enlighten me. You may disagree with my particular statements, but you cannot argue against the categorical form of the statement itself, which you appear to be doing.

I can argue that I know the universe. Why? Because in matters that concern us, there are only two broad categories of knowledge--the physical universe and the human world. The physical universe is vast in scope, but governed by largely knowable laws. Most physicists will argue that although they cannot observe every physical phenomenon, they can reasonably assume that all physical laws function universally, and that, therefore, all unobserved phenomena will behave in similar fashion to the observed ones. This is called inductive reasoning. Kant called it "a priori synthetic judgment", the ability of the mind to synthesize a general law from particular circumstances. Do you deny this faculty exists? If you do, you are at odds with virtually every rational human being on the planet. What does our general knowledge of the universe tell us? How does the known, and by extrapolation, unknown physical universe behave? Indifferently, uniformly, without concern for man or his desires...Do you disagree with this?

The human world is a world we know by virtue of us living within it. Much like the physical universe, even though we each have limited experience, we can deduce that men and women are virtually the same everywhere in their fundamental desires, disappointments, joys, aspirations, and despair. Although cultural and social differences exist among different peoples, much more remains common to all than not. Again, I ask you, do you disagree with this? If so, you again will be in disagreement with virtually the entire rational world. Lord U is not a private, unfathomable, inscrutable universe all unto himself. He is a man in a universe of like men who have like natures.

What's more, there is history and literature from the past. So not only do we have our own experience to reason from, but those of countless others from the distant past who lived and breathed much like we do.

So, on the basis of these arguments, I say that, yes, I have a large, though not perfect, knowledge of the universe I inhabit. The physical universe that surrounds me is indifferent to human ends. The human world I inhabit and help shape is peculiar in that it professes values and meanings not native to the purposeless physical order of things. This observation makes me think that there is something either aberrant or special in the existence of men.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yet you are quick to challenge and question the evidense behind my assertions in every thread. Likewise, I challenge yours.

I don't challenge your assertions, although I think they are sometimes wrong. I do challenge your intellectual consistency, which if virtually non-existent. To borrow a popular phrase, "You want your cake and to eat it too." From my observation, you seem to be making two rationally inconsistent arguments. The first seems to be that you are an unapologetic hedonist, and that, by virtue of your physical existence, you have the right to indulge yourself in any way you see fit without being bothered by matters of conscience or decorum. This is fine, but making this kind of argument belies your other argument for moral stances on such things as fair treatment for gays and the like. What is it? Are you a hedonist arguing for the conventionality, and therefore, artificial nature, of all morality, or do you believe that a morality exists above social convention that we can know and point to at all times? Morality is either real or it isn't. If it's not real, than why should I be nice to anyone I don't like? What does it matter? Shouldn't I just indulge myself and all my whims, no matter what the consequence for others?

I will accept your position on either one of the other of these two stances, but not both at the same time. This is intellectually inconsistent. If you argue both, you must somehow explain how you do so without violating basic logic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Instead of challening your right to make these assertions, let me ask you the foundation for your beleifs that you present as fact.

If you say "The Bible" , I'm gonna piss in my pants laughing.


My foundation is as follows:
1. Personal experience.
2. My modest knowledge of the thousands year old tradition of liberal learning in the Western world, of which, the Bible is a large, influential part.
3. My relationships with other people.
4. Rational inference.
5. Intuition.

What is yours?

If you say, my own personal, uncorroborated feelings and the popular, current wisdom of the day, I'm gonna piss in my pants laughing...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okey Dokey then. I just wanted you to admit you have no proof. My satisfaction is quenched, and from now on I will not take your points as fact...purely as opinion, and I will argue them as opinion, unless you can provide concrete evidense for some of your rather outrageous claims.


Lord U, here you go again with this "proof" nonsense. There is no empirical proof for any of the things we're talking about. I thought we had already established this. Your problem is that you are not consistent with your arguments and simultaneously assert mutually contradictory premises.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you take a look at this world, and every culture that exists within it you will see that morality is not universal in its aspects. Every culture promotes a different moral standard, and every individual has a different sense of right or wrong.


This is not true. Most cultures agree on virtually all points of common morality. Murder, stealing, lying, being disrespectful...these are condemned in virtually every culture at every time. There will of course be differences in how these things are exactly defined, but almost everyone agrees in principle...except maybe Lord U.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
BTW, if Morality DOES exist independent of Human Definition, it does not automatically require a "God" to be the concrete distributor of right and wrong. There are many possibilities as to what is the foundation or spectrum of good and evil.

Like what?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So basically you beleive Humanity is an illusion without God. How do you define Humanity any way ? I think that's what matters.

If you define Humanity as "being a human being" then that is independent of God or any religion.


I probably define humanity in much the same way you do. And yes, I'm saying that without God, everything you philosophically seem to take for granted about us, is an illusion. If something like our humanity doesn't exist as a fundamental principle in the universe to confirm us in our strivings, our aspirations, our sufferings, and all our pretensions to principled living, then these things are a nullity. If love doesn't exist independently of us, then that means that exists only in human beings. It is certainly not found elsewhere in the physical universe. If there is no transcendent love, or Lover, then we can probably make the inference that we are deluding ourselves, and that what we think is love, is not that at all, but a bit of clever biological programming to help us perpetuate the species. If love is just that, it is not what we call love.

I don't think you appreciate how staggering are the claims we human beings make about ourselves. We claim to experience and want things that are completely foreign to the rest of the universe. From where does this uniqueness come? Certainly, not from anything we can observe yet.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't beleive in God (note that I am open to the possibility of his existance), but over all I don't truly think he exists.

But not how purely intellectual, cognitive belief rarely squares with how you actually live your life. If you affirm love's existence, you must at least wonder from whence this thing comes that has no other precedent in the physical universe? Is it a trick or is it real? If it's real, what is it's material causation?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You don't have to. Why do you HAVE To know the Truth behind our origins to validify your love for yourself ?

I was an accident at Birth. My mother had me to early, and I wasn't planned. Does that mean my existance is worthless ? Should I go cry somewhere and go kill myself ?


Ahh...so here's the explanation for the cockiness, or, at least, some of the explanation--anxiety over the circumstance of your birth. False bravado always covers up personal insecurity.

To answer, your question, no, the circumstances of your birth have nothing to do with your worth. (My circumstances were similar, by the way.) But you're talking apples and oranges here. Unintentional pregnancy may be an accident, but it is still the result of human agency. Whether the anomaly of human life in the otherwise lifeless universe is an accident or a miracle is a philosophical/theological question that pertains to the ultimate nature of things.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Uhh...yeah okay....I'm a cocky mofo who loves what he is, and dont givva shit what's the story behind his birth.

You clearly do.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I exist now, I love what I am, and that's good enough for me.

Good for you!

But if a life of comfortable non-reflection is your summum bonum, why are you arguing on this board? Don't these types of questions only interfere with your pursuit of pleasure and self-indulgence?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him


Thoughts ? I think the Romans have it off worse than any of us will.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
We utter as fact what we believe to be true. As I said, it is the nature of our faculty of judgment to render categorical statements. You believe it is wrong for gays to be discriminated against and you utter statements to that affect as matters of moral fact. My point? All moral statements are uttered in the indicative mode. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to bear false witness, etc...Can you think of another way to make a moral statement without resorting to the indicative case? If so, please enlighten me. You may disagree with my particular statements, but you cannot argue against the categorical form of the statement itself, which you appear to be doing.


Wrong...YOU UTTER as fact what you beleive to be true. The difference is that some of what you blab you can actually back up..while other bullshit you come up with, you can't back up.

Like your "Nature of the Universe" thoery. You can't back it up, and you have almost no basis to work on. Give it up already.

Morality is subjective...as far as we know. Does it make it any less real? No...just isn't absolute.....atleast not yet. I'm sure you and I share common aspects in our own moralities, but that doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I can argue that I know the universe. Why? Because in matters that concern us, there are only two broad categories of knowledge--the physical universe and the human world. The physical universe is vast in scope, but governed by largely knowable laws. Most physicists will argue that although they cannot observe every physical phenomenon, they can reasonably assume that all physical laws function universally, and that, therefore, all unobserved phenomena will behave in similar fashion to the observed ones. This is called inductive reasoning. Kant called it "a priori synthetic judgment", the ability of the mind to synthesize a general law from particular circumstances. Do you deny this faculty exists? If you do, you are at odds with virtually every rational human being on the planet. What does our general knowledge of the universe tell us? How does the known, and by extrapolation, unknown physical universe behave? Indifferently, uniformly, without concern for man or his desires...Do you disagree with this?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah...u done ?

Okay my turn.....yes, I am aware that Physicists have made basis of this Universe on experiments and observations from what we could work with, many of which are more likely true than false.

However, you made no such "physical" conclusion. At least a physicist has years and years of study, and access to such knowledge in detail that many of us cannot grasp.

What do you have? Personal experience and your Bible ?

Oh boy...watch out ! Dr. Zaius is LOADED !

Please....you are going to say that this Universe has "Justice" a human social construct that doesn't even exist in the animal world, so how the f*ck does it exist throughout the rest of our universe ?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
The human world is a world we know by virtue of us living within it. Much like the physical universe, even though we each have limited experience, we can deduce that men and women are virtually the same everywhere in their fundamental desires, disappointments, joys, aspirations, and despair. Although cultural and social differences exist among different peoples, much more remains common to all than not. Again, I ask you, do you disagree with this? If so, you again will be in disagreement with virtually the entire rational world. Lord U is not a private, unfathomable, inscrutable universe all unto himself. He is a man in a universe of like men who have like natures.


I agree with you that as human beings we have more in common than we do different. That I would definately agree with

However, in terms of morality, we do not all have a common morality. If we DID there would be no Wars, no conflict, and NO DEBATES....

As for you last statement, Lord Urizen is not a "man in a universe of like men". He is a Man is a world of like men"

We do not know that male and female exist outside of Earth, so don't project your opinion as fact again...please. It's a bad habit.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
What's more, there is history and literature from the past. So not only do we have our own experience to reason from, but those of countless others from the distant past who lived and breathed much like we do.


True, but all accounts are biased. Only the victors write history, and we only get thier points of view. There are tons of records that we are not aware of, that would most likely contradict whatever was told to us now.


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
So, on the basis of these arguments, I say that, yes, I have a large, though not perfect, knowledge of the universe I inhabit. The physical universe that surrounds me is indifferent to human ends. The human world I inhabit and help shape is peculiar in that it professes values and meanings not native to the purposeless physical order of things. This observation makes me think that there is something either aberrant or special in the existence of men.


No you don't. You don't even have enough knowledge of this EArth, so NO again you're DELUSIONAL . :yes


You do NOT have a large knowledge of this universe. Do you even know what a fkn Universe is ? You think reading things like the Bible, literature books, stories, comic books, and observing the animal world are enough to tell you of the nature of this universe ?

We never even met an Alien Civilization yet.....we know very little, if nothing, of the nature of this universe.

The only reason you think human beings are so special, is because you only know human beings, and you do not know any other life that exists in this Universe.....

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I don't challenge your assertions, although I think they are sometimes wrong. I do challenge your intellectual consistency, which if virtually non-existent. To borrow a popular phrase, "You want your cake and to eat it too." From my observation, you seem to be making two rationally inconsistent arguments. The first seems to be that you are an unapologetic hedonist, and that, by virtue of your physical existence, you have the right to indulge yourself in any way you see fit without being bothered by matters of conscience or decorum. This is fine, but making this kind of argument belies your other argument for moral stances on such things as fair treatment for gays and the like. What is it? Are you a hedonist arguing for the conventionality, and therefore, artificial nature, of all morality, or do you believe that a morality exists above social convention that we can know and point to at all times? Morality is either real or it isn't. If it's not real, than why should I be nice to anyone I don't like? What does it matter? Shouldn't I just indulge myself and all my whims, no matter what the consequence for others?



1) To think my assertions are wrong, ARE to challenge them.

2) Just because Morality is subjective or human-created doesn't mean it's not real. I already stated that.

You keep using the term "Hedonistic" as if all I care about is pleasure. Wow...you got me all figured out !

Whether morality is real or not..doesn't matter. It is as real as we beleive it to be...that is all that counts. I am simply challenging your morality, although you and I do not have THAT different a sense of morality.

However, our moralities DO NOT represent ANY majority....and if you think that I am the only person who thinks the way I do, then ur AGAIN fkn deluded...more deluded than when you claim you know the Nature of our Universe.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I will accept your position on either one of the other of these two stances, but not both at the same time. This is intellectually inconsistent. If you argue both, you must somehow explain how you do so without violating basic logic.

Argue what ? What is inconsistent ?



Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
My foundation is as follows:
1. Personal experience.
2. My modest knowledge of the thousands year old tradition of liberal learning in the Western world, of which, the Bible is a large, influential part.
3. My relationships with other people.
4. Rational inference.
5. Intuition.

What is yours?

If you say, my own personal, uncorroborated feelings and the popular, current wisdom of the day, I'm gonna piss in my pants laughing...

Foundation for what? I never claimed to know the nature of this Universe.....



Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Lord U, here you go again with this "proof" nonsense. There is no empirical proof for any of the things we're talking about. I thought we had already established this. Your problem is that you are not consistent with your arguments and simultaneously assert mutually contradictory premises.


No, we established this just now. The point is you have no proof..so you cannot claim your assertions as Fact. To do so is to bullshit everybody on this forum...though bullshit seems to be your speciality


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This is not true. Most cultures agree on virtually all points of common morality. Murder, stealing, lying, being disrespectful...these are condemned in virtually every culture at every time. There will of course be differences in how these things are exactly defined, but almost everyone agrees in principle...except maybe Lord U.

In Africa, it is acceptable among tribes to cut off the clitoris of a woman before she weds a man.

In India, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged, for a woman to be killed after she is raped. Her brother, father, or mother would initiate her death, and then erase all foundations of her memory.

In China it is acceptable to kill and torture any religious citizens, or citizens who practice anything the government disapproves of.

In Cuba it is acceptable to imprison and oppress people for being homosexual.

In many parts of the Arab/Muslim world, it is glorified to be a suicidal bomber and kill many innocent women and children.

In United States its over all acceptable for a woman to kill her foetus for her own convienence. It was just acceptable a couple of years back for a woman to have an abortion, even in her third trimester.

To some people, which we in U.S.A. label "sociapaths" there is nothing wrong with raping, torturing, murdering, or controlling another human being or animal.

Oh and speaking of animals, in Spain, and so many other parts of the world it is acceptable to torture animals for traditional ceremonies.

In many parts of Europe and Asia it is okay to hunt innocent animals for sport.

Your f*cking DELUDED if you think this world shares a common morality....


Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Like what?

Human nature ? Mother Nature ? A diety from another religion? Psychological reasons? Human mental evolution ?

Who knows....no one does...that's the point. There's infinite possibilities, many of which none of us could even imagine.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually wouldn't that be proof.... since God likes doing things like that to test the faith of his much loved children....

"Hmmm. What can I do today to test their faith.... Ah, I know! I have been wanting to try out this Lord Urizen soul, nows my chance. Down you go. Let the fun begin!"

Oh yes, this was just half the proof I posted obviously. You are right...since Lord Urizen without a doubt proofs that God exists God can not exist...reasoning goes as follows:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "Lord Urizens a dead giveaway isn't it? He must be on earth to test our faith. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He provides you a place of Eternal Torment of you disobey him


Thoughts ?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, this was just half the proof I posted obviously. You are right...since Lord Urizen without a doubt proofs that God exists God can not exist...reasoning goes as follows:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "Lord Urizens a dead giveaway isn't it? He must be on earth to test our faith. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

lmfao.

*claps*

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, this was just half the proof I posted obviously. You are right...since Lord Urizen without a doubt proofs that God exists God can not exist...reasoning goes as follows:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "Lord Urizens a dead giveaway isn't it? He must be on earth to test our faith. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.


You always talk about me . I feel so special

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, this was just half the proof I posted obviously. You are right...since Lord Urizen without a doubt proofs that God exists God can not exist...reasoning goes as follows:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "Lord Urizens a dead giveaway isn't it? He must be on earth to test our faith. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Oh that was wonderful. Kudos my good man.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You always talk about me . I feel so special

hes horny for you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Lord Urizens a dead giveaway isn't it? He must be on earth to test our faith.

my little brain is missing the significance of this statement, hence why the rest makes no sense.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You always talk about me . I feel so special

You are...you are.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh that was wonderful. Kudos my good man. Thank you...I stole it though.

Originally posted by Alliance
my little brain is missing the significance of this statement, hence why the rest makes no sense. Something does not need to be significant to be true.

For example...the USA are a Democracy. This is not significant. But it is undoubtedly true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Something does not need to be significant to be true.

For example...the USA are a Democracy. This is not significant. But it is undoubtedly true.

We know you have trouble with this one. Get a grip, its a constitutional REPUBLIC.

That passage was significant to the logicla flow of your statemente if that flow is broken you cant see the end from the beginning.

Making it confusing.

Originally posted by Alliance
We know you have trouble with this one. Get a grip, its a constitutional REPUBLIC.

That passage was significant to the logicla flow of your statemente if that flow is broken you cant see the end from the beginning.

Making it confusing.

Yeah, yeah..funny and stuff, but it's a Democracy. End of story.