So, what do you believe?

Originally posted by Robtard
Back to my 'head in the sand and ass in the air' statement. Which is fine, you have faith, kudos.

I can't tell if that is intended as an Islamic prayer position reference or not. If my answer is unsatisfactory, maybe you should rephrase your question?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm always awed at how the more religious a person is, the less likely they're willing to question the tenets of their chosen religion.

lol

I'm the one that chose the religion. Doesn't that imply that it answered my questions? You are the one seeking answers in this regard.

Originally posted by MRasheed
It's a matter of faith. You want to use modern, materialistic scientific methods to prove a concept that is not related to material? Is that logical?

It seems like you are questioning a concept you didn't have a good grasp on to begn with. If you sin, God gives you a way to cleanse yourself and get in His good graces. What's so hard to understand about that?

And you having faith is fine. I questioned how you can say someone else's life is worthless, unless they believe in what you believe or at least God. That's egocentric, if anything.

I understand the concept, as it's simple. It's just insanity, good and bad actions not really mattering in the end; it all boiling down to a "yes, I believe."

I am lds, or "Mormon"

Originally posted by MRasheed
I can't tell if that is intended as an Islamic prayer position reference or not. If my answer is unsatisfactory, maybe you should rephrase your question?

lol

I'm the one that chose the religion. Doesn't that imply that it answered my questions? You are the one seeking answers in this regard.

No, the "sand" aspect had nothing to do with Islam. As I said, you have faith; that's fine.

Odd that you purposely left out the "Not necessarily pointing this at you, just in the general sense from my experiences." out of my quote.

Originally posted by Robtard
And you having faith is fine. I questioned how you can say someone else's life is worthless, unless they believe in what you believe or at least God. That's egocentric, if anything.

Me? I didn't invent the concept, Robtard. Those are the rules of the Game. I'm simply explaining the rules of my faith and how they function in the context of the thread's questions based on my own understanding of such. Why would that be egocentrism?

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand the concept, as it's simple. It's just insanity, good and bad actions not really mattering in the end; it all boiling down to a "yes, I believe."

"...the sinner will not get into heaven until he lives his life like one who accepts belief in God with all that that implies?"

No, the deathbed conversion after a lifetime of sin will not work. Your good deeds MUST outweigh your bad deeds if you wish to get into heaven. This is true of Christians too within their own faith. Simply believing Jesus died for your sins will not be enough. "Faith without works is dead" just as works without faith is dead. You must have both to be saved.

Originally posted by Robtard
Odd that you purposely left out the "Not necessarily pointing this at you, just in the general sense from my experiences." out of my quote.

It's not odd. I already assumed that you weren't being personal since we don't know each other at all, Mr. or Miss gender unspecified. 😄

Originally posted by MRasheed
Me? I didn't invent the concept, Robtard. Those are the rules of the Game. I'm simply explaining the rules of my faith and how they function in the context of the thread's questions based on my own understanding of such. Why would that be egocentrism?

"...the sinner will not get into heaven until he lives his life like one who accepts belief in God with all that that implies?"

No, the deathbed conversion after a lifetime of sin will not work. Your good deeds MUST outweigh your bad deeds if you wish to get into heaven. This is true of Christians too within their own faith. Simply believing Jesus died for your sins will not be enough. "Faith without works is dead" just as works without faith is dead. You must have both to be saved.

Faith by definition is 'believing in something that there is no proof of', you're telling other people that their lives are meaningless unless they believe in what you believe, which also happens to be something that isn't supported with a shred of proof. You're focused solely on your point of view it would seem, as children often are. But as I said, "bordering", I don't know you well enough to make such a solid claim.

That passage doesn't denote a length of time required, it denotes accepting God or not accepting. So the "deathbed conversion" as you call it, seems in play. You know, according to Christian faith, believing in Jesus as 'the one true savior' is all that's really needed. IIRC, the rational is that one will follow the other.

Originally posted by MRasheed
It's not odd. I already assumed that you weren't being personal since we don't know each other at all, Mr. or Miss gender unspecified. 😄

If you pay me (I accept all major credit cards and paypal), I can which ever you need me to be.

Originally posted by Robtard
Faith by definition is 'believing in something that there is no proof of', you're telling other people that their lives are meaningless unless they believe in what you believe, which also happens to be something that isn't supported with a shred of proof.

So... you acknowledge that faith doesn't require proof but you are complaining that faith is being provided without proof? Is that logical?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're focused solely on your point of view it would seem, as children often are.

Out of curiosity, what point of view are you supposed to be focusing on in this discussion, Robtard, since you consider mine infantile? What superior focus are you engaged in?

If you only believe in an earthly existence with no concept of God or the afterlife, your good deeds are worthless. Since I subscribe to an Abrahamic faith, that is indeed my focus on the issue. Why would I use a different one that I don't believe in? Please explain. Or is the "as children often are" line only meant as an insult?

Originally posted by Robtard
That passage doesn't denote a length of time required...

Sure it does. You just dont understand it.

Originally posted by Robtard
...it denotes accepting God or not accepting. So the "deathbed conversion" as you call it, seems in play. You know, according to Christian faith, believing in Jesus as 'the one true savior' is all that's really needed. IIRC, the rational is that one will follow the other.

Accepting God involves obedience, doing what He says. "Faith without works is dead" as James said, and the deathbed conversion only makes sense to those ignorant of the religion and scripture but are probably hoping to sqeak by in the end. They are wrong and are hellbound.

Looks like by these stats, like an awful lot of the faithful are hellbound too: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Looks like by these stats, like an awful lot of the faithful are hellbound too:

Doesn't matter. It's an individual thing. What matters is what YOU are doing based on your understanding.

Originally posted by MRasheed
So... you acknowledge that faith doesn't require proof but you are complaining that faith is being provided without proof? Is that logical?

Out of curiosity, what point of view are you supposed to be focusing on in this discussion, Robtard, since you consider mine infantile? What superior focus are you engaged in?

If you only believe in an earthly existence with no concept of God or the afterlife, your good deeds are worthless. Since I subscribe to an Abrahamic faith, that is indeed my focus on the issue. Why would I use a different one that I don't believe in? Please explain. Or is the "as children often are" line only meant as an insult?

Sure it does. You just dont understand it.

Accepting God involves obedience, doing what He says. "Faith without works is dead" as James said, and the deathbed conversion only makes sense to those ignorant of the religion and scripture but are probably hoping to sqeak by in the end. They are wrong and are hellbound.

Yeah, did you notice that I said "proof?"; you said "faith" and I said, "ok, that's fine"? One came before the other.

Nothing in particular now. As you're basing your claims on the worth of other people's lives on faith. I did find your comment about "ego" being worthless to be funny considering your [faith based] views. But as I said above, one came before he other.

Not sure why you're selectively quoting parts of that I say, I clearly implied it wasn't an insult.

It actually doesn't denote a needed length of time in that sentence, so arguing to the contrary is lunacy, you're simply taking it and trying to force it to your needed view: "...the sinner will not get into heaven until he lives his life like one who accepts belief in God with all that that implies?"

"lives his life" could be as low as the final seconds of "his" life and logic dictates that it certainly doesn't imply a 'birth to death' length of time in belief, as noted, sinners can be forgiven. Maybe use another passage?

And John 14:5-8 has Jesus saying that believing/knowing in him is the [only] way to God/the Father, seems like Christianity is a believing based system, more so than action based. Which brings us back full circle, the "good" atheist still gets a ticket to hell according to Christian dogma, despite his/her "good" actions in life.

Out of curiosity, if you're a Muslim, why use Bible passage?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, did you notice that I said "proof?"; you said "faith" and I said, "ok, that's fine"? One came before the other.

Whatever that means. The point is the fact that you were going on and on about a lack of proof for something that doesn't need proof.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing in particular now.

Well, what was it before?

Originally posted by Robtard
As you're basing your claims on the worth of other people's lives on faith.

*shrug*

Originally posted by Robtard
I did find your comment about "ego" being worthless to be funny considering your [faith based] views. But as I said above, one came before he other.

ego = faith-based? There is no one more egocentric than the atheist who believes he created himself or whatever.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure why you're selectively quoting parts of that I say, I clearly implied it wasn't an insult.

What was it then? What was the point of the comment and why even say it?

Originally posted by Robtard
It actually doesn't denote a needed length of time in that sentence, so arguing to the contrary is lunacy, you're simply taking it and trying to force it to your needed view:

Nah. Lunacy is you arguing for what the message of the scriptures actually are when you don't have a clue. You believe that it means "deathbed coversions are legit" when it absolutely does not and misses the entire point of the message. It is clearly Robtard trying to shoe horn things into his twisted and wrongheaded understanding.

Originally posted by Robtard
"...the sinner will not get into heaven until he lives his life like one who accepts belief in God with all that that implies?"

"lives his life" could be as low as the final seconds of "his" life and logic dictates that it certainly doesn't imply a 'birth to death' length of time in belief, as noted, sinners can be forgiven. Maybe use another passage?

It's not a passage. It was a quote from me from further up.

Originally posted by Robtard
And John 14:5-8 has Jesus saying that believing/knowing in him is the [only] way to God/the Father, seems like Christianity is a believing based system, more so than action based. Which brings us back full circle, the "good" atheist still gets a ticket to hell according to Christian dogma, despite his/her "good" actions in life.

Nope. The job of prophets of God on earth was to show us how to walk out the Message. We can't do it ourselves without following their way. That's what they are for. It's impossible to get to heaven unless you live Christ-like or Abraham-like or Muhammad-like. That's what jesus was talking about.

Originally posted by Robtard
[B]Out of curiosity, if you're a Muslim, why use Bible passage?

I figured you would be more familiar with "Faith without works is dead" from James than an exotic Qur'anic passage that you could just as easily dismiss depending on your background.

An athiest's position would be that we evolved.
Science also proves it.
We clearly didn't "Create ourselves or whatever".
Cause and effect did.

Egocentricity is arguably personified, however by someone who believes that God created the universe for them to revolve around them, as it were, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that their belief in this person make him superior to those that dont..
Would you not agree with that, at least?

Originally posted by MRasheed
Whatever that means. The point is the fact that you were going on and on about a lack of proof for something that doesn't need proof.

Well, what was it before?

*shrug*

ego = faith-based? There is no one more egocentric than the atheist who believes he created himself or whatever.

What was it then? What was the point of the comment and why even say it?

Nah. Lunacy is you arguing for what the message of the scriptures actually are when you don't have a clue. You believe that it means "deathbed coversions are legit" when it absolutely does not and misses the entire point of the message. It is clearly Robtard trying to shoe horn things into his twisted and wrongheaded understanding.

It's not a passage. It was a quote from me from further up.

Nope. The job of prophets of God on earth was to show us how to walk out the Message. We can't do it ourselves without following their way. That's what they are for. It's impossible to get to heaven unless you live Christ-like or Abraham-like or Muhammad-like. That's what jesus was talking about.

I figured you would be more familiar with "Faith without works is dead" from James than an exotic Qur'anic passage that you could just as easily dismiss depending on your background.

It means exactly what it said. Until you specified "faith", I asked what you were basing your claim on. Not hard to follow.

See above.

No. Atheism is not believing in God. Not sure what you're going on about.

Wasn't an insult, as I've said twice now. Relax, guy.

Strawman much? I never said "it means this and nothing else", I implied it could mean, as much of the Bible is based on varying interpretation, which like most religious people (if you are), believe their interpretation is the one and only. Hence the increasing demeaning attitude from you, which is amusing.

Then quote actual scripture and not yourself. K?

Oh my. Interpretations again. Also, pretty sure Jesus wouldn't reference a 'living Muhammad-like', considering Islam didn't hit the world until 600-odd years later.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
An athiest's position would be that we evolved.
Science also proves it.
We clearly didn't "Create ourselves or whatever".
Cause and effect did.

Atheists often reflect a great pride in modern societal achievements that they ascribe to the continuous evolving species. Their arrogance and egocentrism shows strongest within this belief whenever they discuss peoples, races or cultures they consider "less evolved." Instead of upholding the forces of 'cause and effect' acting within their favor as you implied, they instead give every impression that they are doing it themselves.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Egocentricity is arguably personified, however by someone who believes that God created the universe for them to revolve around them, as it were, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that their belief in this person make him superior to those that dont..
Would you not agree with that, at least?

Nope, it's personified with the above post I wrote. The believer understands that all they have comes from God, and would not dare to demonstate egocentism as they understand that pride is a sin.

That's not my quote, chief.

Originally posted by Robtard
Strawman much? I never said "it means this and nothing else", I implied it could mean, as much of the Bible is based on varying interpretation...

You're rewriting your argument. Back track much?

Originally posted by Robtard
...which like most religious people (if you are), believe their interpretation is the one and only.

The text is pretty plain in important and basic matters like this. "Differing interpretations" pop up from folk trying to find a loophole for something they want to get away with.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hence the increasing demeaning attitude from you, which is amusing.

The demeaning attitude came from the two times it looked like you were insulting me. It STILL looks like that to me, but since you say it wasn't I'm going to just let it go.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then quote actual scripture and not yourself. K?

Try to keep up. Pay attention.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my. Interpretations again. Also, pretty sure Jesus wouldn't reference a 'living Muhammad-like', considering Islam didn't hit the world until 600-odd years later.

"The Comforter" figure Jesus predicted was Muhammad. He knew he was coming.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's not my quote, chief.

My bad. I still had you on speed dial. lol

Originally posted by MRasheed
You're rewriting your argument. Back track much?

The text is pretty plain in important and basic matters like this. "Differing interpretations" pop up from folk trying to find a loophole for something they want to get away with.

The demeaning attitude came from the two times it looked like you were insulting me. It STILL looks like that to me, but since you say it wasn't I'm going to just let it go.

Try to keep up. Pay attention.

"The Comforter" figure Jesus predicted was Muhammad. He knew he was coming.

Yeah, no. I said "seems in play", denoting a possibility, not as fact.

LoL, kettle/black.

Yet it continues. Funny, guy.

Yeah, that's the problem.

See: Interpretation.