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

you ever have the feeling that maybe there is a god but he just has a really ****ed up sense of humor and isn't too concerned about random suffering etc cause it's just part of the system?

Moved to the religion forum.

nope

i know there are coincidences but some days they stack up so neatly that i feel like somebody's got to be trolling me.

I'm really interested in how this might be answered. Good thread idea!

just hoping i can get something a little more engaging than a yes or no.

Same.
As a believer i cant speak for them obviously. But a yes or no answer seems kinda meh.

'have a feeling' is a little bit vague- it makes this pretty simple for genuine atheists. Their thoughts on this would likely be twofold:

1- Yes, they have almost certainly considered it but, as there is no discernible evidence for such a thing, there's no reason to think such a being exists so they stop thinking about it

2- If such a being does exist, there's nothing to be done about it so it does not materially affect how to behave.

Of course, 'atheist' is a bit vague here as well- if you are including, for example, Buddhists, then they may be atheists but they still have a belief system that pretty much makes the concept here irrelevant anyway.

-

The bottom line is, genuine atheism is fundamentally about God not existing either because it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of something that there is no evidence for or, if you have stronger views, the idea that the evidence available actively disproves the existence of a God or gods. It's not actually based around whether they think a theoretical God is a jerk or not; it's just that the more combative atheists like to take believers to task on that sort of thing- sometimes just to be jerks themselves, sometimes because it is part of a case they are making that there is no inherent moral superiority in religion.

Now that was a good read.

Oddly, this

Is my feeling on God, AS a believer.

Evidence not blind faith.
Why is it almost heresy to ask God to prove his own being, not just that we believe in him?

Why see so many people, especially children born into this world underprivileged then blame their parents, their culture for their suffering?

If God is real then everyone condemned to hell is an example that he has failed.

Failed by standards we invoke on him.
By his standards he may be doing just fine.
Even calling God a he is just us anthropomorphizing something we cant understand.
Same goes for proof. What makes us think we rate getting anything proven to us?
Atheists suffer from the same exact hubris as believers. Thinking that God owes us anything.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
'have a feeling' is a little bit vague- it makes this pretty simple for genuine atheists. Their thoughts on this would likely be twofold:

1- Yes, they have almost certainly considered it but, as there is no discernible evidence for such a thing, there's no reason to think such a being exists so they stop thinking about it

2- If such a being does exist, there's nothing to be done about it so it does not materially affect how to behave.

Of course, 'atheist' is a bit vague here as well- if you are including, for example, Buddhists, then they may be atheists but they still have a belief system that pretty much makes the concept here irrelevant anyway.

-

The bottom line is, genuine atheism is fundamentally about God not existing either because it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of something that there is no evidence for or, if you have stronger views, the idea that the evidence available actively disproves the existence of a God or gods. It's not actually based around whether they think a theoretical God is a jerk or not; it's just that the more combative atheists like to take believers to task on that sort of thing- sometimes just to be jerks themselves, sometimes because it is part of a case they are making that there is no inherent moral superiority in religion. i understand it was sort of a vague question, i was tired and a bit too lazy to explain the reasoning that went into it. basically i just had one of those days where i knew i needed to do well at work to preserve my job and yet the most random coincidences kept happening to make my day more difficult than it had to be again and again. and i am the type to take these sort of things as just that - coincidence. it was just the way they kept happening so consistently and relentlessly that i started to find it funny cause i was thinking if there was a god who really controls every event then he was trolling me for fun. i don't necessarily hold it against him if that were true cause i think if i was god i would be the type to do the same shit to people.

then i was thinking about the argument from evil/suffering and how many would say this sort of thing actually disproves a benevolent god etc. but then i was thinking that really we need pain and suffering as a mechanism to help us navigate this existence and how even if it were possible to create a painless world it would sort of render everything kind of meaningless to me. so really i couldn't even hold that against god either cause i would think instead of being benevolent he's just sort of amoral which is how i would expect him to be anyway. sort of how if you're a scientist who is breeding a culture in a petri dish or even just some kid with an ant farm you're not really going to be all that concerned/sympathetic with how the bacteria or ants feel.

not that any of this is enough to convince me to have faith in a god since i know logically it still amounts to nothing. it's just the sort of hypothetical thing i get to thinking about when i am bored.

Long/short, sometimes we perceive patterns and intent when there isn't any.

that's true, it was just amazing me how consistent it was cause it usually doesn't happen to me like that. plus i was bored and really attentive towards it too. but if every day was like that it might actually give me pause.

Originally posted by riv6672
Failed by standards we invoke on him.
By his standards he may be doing just fine.
Even calling God a he is just us anthropomorphizing something we cant understand.
Same goes for proof. What makes us think we rate getting anything proven to us?
Atheists suffer from the same exact hubris as believers. Thinking that God owes us anything.

If we are to invent our God, it is a good idea to have the strong Gods work for the weak humans.

After all that is the right thing to do. The strong have no need for the weak to work for or owe the strong. Right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

Originally posted by riv6672
Failed by standards we invoke on him.
By his standards he may be doing just fine.
Even calling God a he is just us anthropomorphizing something we cant understand.
Same goes for proof. What makes us think we rate getting anything proven to us?
Atheists suffer from the same exact hubris as believers. Thinking that God owes us anything.

Standards set by the bible that basically establishes all belief we have in him?
Sounds like double-standards then.

His standards?
Once again then that isn't fair...we're expected to worship & have faith but not exactly know by what standards we're being judged by?
Yet he's too omnipresent for us humans to grasp...thus we're meant to fail, no matter what.

So we rate nothing to "Him" that we can ask for proof?
Why does a He need naive sheep to worship him?

Who says he needs anything from us?
Or owes us anything?
My point was that, believers and atheists alike both think in terms of us mattering enough to rate an explanation. Hence why i said hubris.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Once again then that isn't fair...we're expected to worship & have faith but not exactly know by what standards we're being judged by?

We submit our children to the same kind of unexplained and imposed criterea of judgement.

Originally posted by riv6672
Failed by standards we invoke on him.
By his standards he may be doing just fine.
Even calling God a he is just us anthropomorphizing something we cant understand.
Same goes for proof. What makes us think we rate getting anything proven to us?
Atheists suffer from the same exact hubris as believers. Thinking that God owes us anything. I don't think that's accurate. It may seem that way because discussions of Religion cycle around the ones we have, as such thought experiments of atheists often extend the God that we are presented with in Christian mythology. So the hubris is not their own, but just taking the story presented at face value to perform deductions on.

No worries, thats just my take on it. I'm hardly a theologian.

Originally posted by Bentley
We submit our children to the same kind of unexplained and imposed criterea of judgement.
Thats better than the analogy i was going to use: the ant having no quarrel with the boot line from Avengers.

Originally posted by Bentley
We submit our children to the same kind of unexplained and imposed criterea of judgement.

Unexplained?
I can easily use logic & reasoning with my son to explain what my sense of right & wrong that I expect him to view the world & treat others around him.
Unlike religion, I don't impose my views with a "Because I told you so attitude."
I share my views based on my own mistakes in life but also with the understanding that he needs to make his own mistakes to hopefully learn from them.

You've Never told your kid "because i said so?" Ever?
Whoa.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Unexplained?
I can easily use logic & reasoning with my son to explain what my sense of right & wrong that I expect him to view the world & treat others around him.
Unlike religion, I don't impose my views with a "Because I told you so attitude."
I share my views based on my own mistakes in life but also with the understanding that he needs to make his own mistakes to hopefully learn from them.

Good for you? Most kids don't grow up knowing how the world works, they are limited to preconceived notions in their societies for the most part.

There is a point where your kid doesn't understand the reasons you give him though, then you don't just talk your kids ears off. I never said it was a matter of logic either, we have to teach our kids many things that are unreasonable for their sake's.

I see what you're getting at and agree.

Originally posted by Bentley
Good for you? Most kids don't grow up knowing how the world works, they are limited to preconceived notions in their societies for the most part.

There is a point where your kid doesn't understand the reasons you give him though, then you don't just talk your kids ears off. I never said it was a matter of logic either, we have to teach our kids many things that are unreasonable for their sake's.

If my assumption is wrong then I apologise in advance because I'm not a parent that tells another parent how to raise thier kids...

However I do get the feeling that you're not a father yourself by the generalised terms you use.

Once again I apologise for my assumption if you are in fact a father too.

I don't see why you would apologize because I don't see why me being a parent has to do with anything.

Parenthood was an example, you could've used the link between a dog and his master or a dog and his father, there are many other imposed beliefs like those in nature.

Originally posted by riv6672
Who says he needs anything from us?
Or owes us anything?
My point was that, believers and atheists alike both think in terms of us mattering enough to rate an explanation. Hence why i said hubris.

The fact that you would just lay down without a word to the one judging you shows how low your humanity and spirit has been beat by your religious beliefs.

You have become a pathetic example of a man who would take abuse without a word of complaint.

All you deserve is to be sheered and butchered.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bentley
We submit our children to the same kind of unexplained and imposed criterea of judgement.

If you chastise your children without correction then you are not much of a parent. That shows a lack of love.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Unexplained?
I can easily use logic & reasoning with my son to explain what my sense of right & wrong that I expect him to view the world & treat others around him.
Unlike religion, I don't impose my views with a "Because I told you so attitude."
I share my views based on my own mistakes in life but also with the understanding that he needs to make his own mistakes to hopefully learn from them.

+ 1

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you chastise your children without correction then you are not much of a parent. That shows a lack of love.

Regards
DL

Given that we are talking in context, what would be a proper correction?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The fact that you would just lay down without a word to the one judging you shows how low your humanity and spirit has been beat by your religious beliefs.

You have become a pathetic example of a man who would take abuse without a word of complaint.

All you deserve is to be sheered and butchered.

Regards
DL
Haha.
Such anger.

I'm living my life as i see fit, not caring what some entity i have no control over or true understanding of thinks about me.
And you..what?
Seek to please that entity, in a more "civilized" version of people on a volcanic island sacrificing their peers

to rumbles in the earth and belching smoke?
So really, who's laying down here?
Yeah, that would be you.

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't see why you would apologize because I don't see why me being a parent has to do with anything.

Parenthood was an example, you could've used the link between a dog and his master or a dog and his father, there are many other imposed beliefs like those in nature.

I'm talking from experience about being a father.
Yet in all my experience of being alive I have no experience or proof that God exists.

Originally posted by Bentley
Good for you? Most kids don't grow up knowing how the world works, they are limited to preconceived notions in their societies for the most part.

There is a point where your kid doesn't understand the reasons you give him though, then you don't just talk your kids ears off. I never said it was a matter of logic either, we have to teach our kids many things that are unreasonable for their sake's. sure, but then there's a point to us doing this. basically training them for living in this world as adults. it doesn't seem like there is much of a point to sending people to hell for eternity for being wrong about something. at least i can't imagine what that could possibly accomplish.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you ever have the feeling that maybe there is a god but he just has a really ****ed up sense of humor and isn't too concerned about random suffering etc cause it's just part of the system?

Well, yes and no. God does exist, but God is not a 'He' or a 'She'. Also, God doesn't need to be worshiped, or even believed in. God is without want or need.

i just use he cause that's what i'm used to. to me that's a pretty arbitrary objection. and i didn't say anything about worshiping him so not really sure where that one came from. if anything that would seem to agree with my hypothetical idea of god. i don't think he would care much what we think either. but he might still get a kick out of ****ing with us.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i just use he cause that's what i'm used to. to me that's a pretty arbitrary objection. and i didn't say anything about worshiping him so not really sure where that one came from. if anything that would seem to agree with my hypothetical idea of god. i don't think he would care much what we think either. but he might still get a kick out of ****ing with us.

I was making it clear that any personification is not talking about the same God.

I don't think God is f*cking with us. In a way that's a personification.

Let me put it in a different way, God is more like gravity then a person. Is gravity f*cking with you?

gravity is just a force though isn't it? god is supposed to have some sort of intelligence/will which would seem to give it some sort of persona. maybe not a human persona but some sort of intelligent entity at least.

Originally posted by red g jacks
gravity is just a force though isn't it? god is supposed to have some sort of intelligence/will which would seem to give it some sort of persona. maybe not a human persona but some sort of intelligent entity at least.

That's just man-made gods. I think that God is the force of life in the universe, with no persona or anything like that.

Kind of like the force from star wars, but there is no dark or light side.

i don't know what that means. the force of life?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't know what that means. the force of life?

I call it the Mystic Law. I was trying to draw a parallel, but how can we talk about something that we can never understand?

basically you mean that reality is god? like everything is god or whatever? cause i've heard people say that before but to me it's sorta just changing the meaning of a word to suit your purpose.

Originally posted by red g jacks
basically you mean that reality is god? like everything is god or whatever? cause i've heard people say that before but to me it's sorta just changing the meaning of a word to suit your purpose.

I use the word 'God' to communicate with you. I have to change its meaning in order to relate.

Mystic Law
(Chin miao-fa; Jpn myoho )

The ultimate law, principle, or truth of life and the universe in Nichiren's teachings; the Law of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. This term derives from Kumarajiva's Chinese translation of the Sanskrit word saddharma, from the title of the Sad-dharma-pundarika-sutra, or the Lotus Sutra. It has been translated into English also as Wonderful Law, Wonderful Dharma, Fine Dharma, etc. (In this dictionary, in accord with published translations, it is rendered as Wonderful Law when referring to the title of the Lotus Sutra, and as Mystic Law when referring to the underlying principle it represents in Nichiren's teaching.) See also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=1480

It has no connection to the god of the bible.

ok. and the law is basically everything right? the laws of physics and the way everything sort of unfolds through cause and effect, right? cause to me that obviously exists it's just not something i ever call god. basically i call that the universe.

Originally posted by red g jacks
ok. and the law is basically everything right? the laws of physics and the way everything sort of unfolds through cause and effect, right? cause to me that obviously exists it's just not something i ever call god. basically i call that the universe.

Yes, in a way. But it is unknown, so I cannot say for sure.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm talking from experience about being a father.
Yet in all my experience of being alive I have no experience or proof that God exists.

Which is fine and dandy, my analogy was just a way to nitpick the part of your argument that was about how informed we were about the motivations on a theoretical god. Authority just doesn't go explaining itself at every step.

Originally posted by red g jacks
sure, but then there's a point to us doing this. basically training them for living in this world as adults. it doesn't seem like there is much of a point to sending people to hell for eternity for being wrong about something. at least i can't imagine what that could possibly accomplish.

In the same vein life could be seen as an education, and you making poorly choices and being unadapted to life can be seen as having no point. I mean, life can be seen and meaningless and lots of people suffer from it, there is no proportion in how much suffering you get from a few mistakes.

I understand how hell can be seen essentially as a waste though.

Originally posted by Bentley
Which is fine and dandy, my analogy was just a way to nitpick the part of your argument that was about how informed we were about the motivations on a theoretical god. Authority just doesn't go explaining itself at every step.




I actually think we've all veered away from the actual question that was asked.

So business as usual, then.
This has been interesting reading.

Originally posted by Bentley
Given that we are talking in context, what would be a proper correction?

If you see a wrong statement then you give the right one.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I actually think we've all veered away from the actual question that was asked.

Well it happens



Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you see a wrong statement then you give the right one.

Regards
DL


It sounds like a pretty binary definition based in absolute good or bad concepts if you ask me

When it comes to good and bad, i'm of a Potter Stewart mind.

Originally posted by riv6672
When it comes to good and bad, i'm of a Potter Stewart mind.

http://www.printedclothing.com/shack/contents/media/pc691%20shit%20for%20brains.jpg

What Delph said on page 1 is my succinct answer to the OPs reasoning. For some elaboration, we're pattern-seeking individuals whose survival for literally thousands of years has depended on our ability to see patterns, often where there are none (see: research on false positives and how it affected survival chances in our hunter-gatherer stage). Now, extrapolate that tendency across a lifetime and literally every person in the world is going to experience, or perceive that they experience, a coincidence so unimaginably perfect that it MUST point to something larger than pure chance.

Except that's just the law of large numbers added to our pattern-seeking brains. There are millions of potential combinations in a given day for us to perceive such significance. It works doubly so for those who DO see a higher purpose in the patterns, because they're more likely to actively look for them (i.e. "God, send me a sign" and remember them.

Ush's page 1 reply also helps, because it covers the other part of this. It's the difference between what's possible and what's plausible, with the latter of which being the only one worth spending any thought or time on.

You need to post more often. Good thoughts.

Originally posted by riv6672
You need to post more often. Good thoughts.

Sadly enough, my history on this forum suggests otherwise. But I do love a good ego-stroke, so thanks.

fdog

Wait, what was i stroking?!?

Originally posted by riv6672
Wait, what was i stroking?!?

*innuendo that suggests the word penis*

*sarcastic emoticon*













































































*profit*

Why do i feel the need for a smoke?

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter though. I found for thought.

I'm going back to the original query.
Personally, I've never entertained the idea of gods and such outside of film, literature or gaming.
If I ran a library the religious texts would be in the 'fiction' section.

From an early age religion at first seemed a curiosity; something illogical and clearly flawed someway as 'zombies were fictional but somehow Jesus was bonafide having risen from a grave' - I was a small boy, so thats a basic way of seeing it, I know.
As I grew up I casually looked for sense in it and if it was truly without merit, but never once felt like there was anything to it other than stories in a book - attempted explanations of our being and world we lived in and borrowed or recycled common sense morals and ideals.
Morals and ideals were there already and just applied to texts and religious material.
Then came my understanding of Earth, space, biology and such over the years which made me even less sure of why Religion beyond being some mystical idol worship even had a place in the modern world.
Additionally, it was clear that there was no difference between worshipping a God or a Goose called Mother.
People call me atheist, but aside from that being a bit of a derogatory term for non-believers in ancient Greece, we don't need a tag and identifying believers as 'religious' is enough to 'differentiate'.

So, really, no that idea or though has never crossed my mind. I hope thats better than the 'yes and no' answers you dreaded getting.

Originally posted by Aquitaine

Morals and ideals were there already and just applied to texts and religious material.

I do not think that substitutionary atonement was well already there and that the text was just applied to it.

The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not think that substitutionary atonement was well already there and that the text was just applied to it.

The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.

Regards
DL

But that came from Egyptian religions, and made more sense in their original context.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that came from Egyptian religions, and made more sense in their original context.

Yes. Plagiarized myths that follow the original story line make more sense than when the moral of the story is reversed.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.

We all know that? I thought many people didn't even know God existed.

Originally posted by Bentley
We all know that? I thought many people didn't even know God existed.

That too and the tipping point of non-belief over belief is supposed to be around 2050.

I am not an atheist but if this is the best religions can do then they deserve death.

This stupid God dying B.S. is apart of what will do Christianity in.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not think that substitutionary atonement was well already there and that the text was just applied to it.

The idea of a God dying for his creation is just too stupid to contemplate as we all know that God cannot die.

Regards
DL

If you're going to spend your time trying to take a shit on Christianity, at least educate yourself on the basic tenants of the religion first.

"God" didn't die for humanity's sins. Jesus did, who is a facet/aspect of God.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
An immoral aspect that you like because it lets you walk away from your responsibilities.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?


I stopped reading there, since the basis for your rant is incorrect yet again. I am not a Christian; one need not be a Christian to know about Christianity.

Originally posted by Robtard
I stopped reading there, since the basis for your rant is incorrect yet again. I am not a Christian; one need not be a Christian to know about Christianity.

Correct but one needs to have poor morals to believe in their creed.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

The thing about that suffering is, he (or rather, He) volunteered to do that. He wanted to pay your unpayable debt. He may have been innocent but he was not uninformed.

The metaphor often used in Sunday School for primary aged children is one about debts. A man goes into debt for whatever reason (let's say to pay for a house to be built for his aging mother). The man gets fired and is unable to pay the debt back. He gets thrown in debtor prison after 6 months of delinquency. His best friend, who is the nicest guy ever and has tons of money, pays off his debts. Not only that, he pays for this man's legal fees and puts money in the bank for his best friend. The nice friend is Jesus and the man in debt is every single human, ever.

Sure, this nice guy never went into debt and he didn't deserve to have to pay for it. But he can afford it. He can take it. He's the BatChrist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The thing about that suffering is, he (or rather, He) volunteered to do that. He wanted to pay your unpayable debt. He may have been innocent but he was not uninformed.

The metaphor often used in Sunday School for primary aged children is one about debts. A man goes into debt for whatever reason (let's say to pay for a house to be built for his aging mother). The man gets fired and is unable to pay the debt back. He gets thrown in debtor prison after 6 months of delinquency. His best friend, who is the nicest guy ever and has tons of money, pays off his debts. Not only that, he pays for this man's legal fees and puts money in the bank for his best friend. The nice friend is Jesus and the man in debt is every single human, ever.

Sure, this nice guy never went into debt and he didn't deserve to have to pay for it. But he can afford it. He can take it. He's the BatChrist.

True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.

That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.

Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.

For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.

But Christians do both.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.

That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.

Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.

For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.

But Christians do both.

Regards
DL

clearly you don't know what you're talking about... giving contributions to Church MUST be voluntary (II Corinthians 9:7)... and yeah, God is eternal and immortal so God cannot die, but His Son Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it is His body that died, dude... read and understand the Bible before criticizing it...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
True that Christians often used debt to try to explain the immorality of vicarious redemption away.

That is much better than having people think of the taking of a life for a few bucks.

Be Jesus a voluntary act or not, for him to impose a fine that is intended to bankrupt the whole world is stupid beyond thought.

For people to believe a God can die is also quite ridiculous.

But Christians do both.

Regards
DL

What you don't realize is God didn't die.

And you call yourself Christian

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you don't realize is God didn't die.

And you call yourself Christian
He's a Gnostic Christian. He's religion is NOT like yours. Google it.

Christian SHOULD follow the teachings of Christ... if GIA himself is criticizing Christ, it's obvious that he's not a Christian...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He's a Gnostic Christian. He's religion is NOT like yours. Google it.

It's a false religion of Satan.

He is a poser. Nothing about him is associated with Christianity.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
It's a false religion of Satan.

He is a poser. Nothing about him is associated with Christianity.

Do you also believe that I am a member of a false religion of Satan? Man! You really hurt my feelings.

Originally posted by dyajeep
clearly you don't know what you're talking about... giving contributions to Church MUST be voluntary (II Corinthians 9:7)... and yeah, God is eternal and immortal so God cannot die, but His Son Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it is His body that died, dude... read and understand the Bible before criticizing it...

Read and understand hat dead men do not walk and a God who condemns mankind then turns about and dies to reverse his own judgement is stupid beyond words.

You may think that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a good moral tenet but that would be due to your religion corrupting our morals.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you don't realize is God didn't die.

And you call yourself Christian

Then there as no sacrifice and I would not insult myself by calling myself a Christian.

I am a Gnostic Christian and thus a cut above Christians from a moral POV.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that came from Egyptian religions, and made more sense in their original context.

Care to expand on this?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Care to expand on this?

Regards
DL

Well, I find there to be a lot of parallels between the death and resurrection of Jesus and Osiris. Although, the story of Osiris is far more elaborate, and is a better story, overall.

The idea of a god dieing and being resurrected comes from Egypt mythology.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I am a Gnostic Christian and thus a cut above Christians from a moral POV.

This is quickly slipping into egotism. You're aware that a person's morals are largely - perhaps entirely - dependent on the interpretation and application of their beliefs, not the beliefs themselves...right? A person's identified religion tells us nothing of their morality or lack thereof.

That you can't make this distinction is indicative of larger, darker prejudices that go beyond simply misinterpreting popular Christian beliefs. Because you've jumped from attacking the beliefs to attacking people, whose application of those beliefs are not uniform. You'd do well to examine peoples' beliefs, and their application, more closely. Once you do, it will be far more difficult to hurl such generalized accusations.

No, no.

Let them fight.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I find there to be a lot of parallels between the death and resurrection of Jesus and Osiris. Although, the story of Osiris is far more elaborate, and is a better story, overall.

The idea of a god dieing and being resurrected comes from Egypt mythology.

No argument. Jesus is associated with more than one Eastern tradition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Here is something you might consider and it and other anomalies may be why Joseph Campbell calls Jesus just another Hero of 1,000 Faces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLVpTQJqijU

Jesus may just be an archetypal good man that Christianity capitalized on.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
What Delph said on page 1 is my succinct answer to the OPs reasoning. For some elaboration, we're pattern-seeking individuals whose survival for literally thousands of years has depended on our ability to see patterns, often where there are none (see: research on false positives and how it affected survival chances in our hunter-gatherer stage). Now, extrapolate that tendency across a lifetime and literally every person in the world is going to experience, or perceive that they experience, a coincidence so unimaginably perfect that it MUST point to something larger than pure chance.

Except that's just the law of large numbers added to our pattern-seeking brains. There are millions of potential combinations in a given day for us to perceive such significance. It works doubly so for those who DO see a higher purpose in the patterns, because they're more likely to actively look for them (i.e. "God, send me a sign" and remember them.

Ush's page 1 reply also helps, because it covers the other part of this. It's the difference between what's possible and what's plausible, with the latter of which being the only one worth spending any thought or time on. yea i honestly agree and this thread wasn't really a serious attempt at postulating that these patterns do matter. as for what is 'worth spending any thought on' i guess i just get off to the idea of god trolling me so it's worth speculating about for amusement even if it's not really happening. stuff like this doesn't actually give me pause though.

the only thing that really does is that existence in general is baffling to me and it seems like the way our universe works, intelligence is embedded into to the system. so i see a general direction in that.. whether you wanna ascribe agency or not. but that's probably another topic altogether. but i honestly don't mind this thread being derailed since i'm the one who made it and it was just a sort of amusing thought i was having one day after work.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea i honestly agree and this thread wasn't really a serious attempt at postulating that these patterns do matter. as for what is 'worth spending any thought on' i guess i just get off to the idea of god trolling me so it's worth speculating about for amusement even if it's not really happening.

Sure. But what I said needs to be stated in many cases, because I can't tell you how many people I've met whose justification for the supernatural or divine comes down to a "perfect" coincidence like this.

And my response didn't even get into the deterministic rebuttal to such logic, which also invalidates the kind of divine intervention many people perceive in the patterns of life.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
No, no.

Let them fight.

Bah, shut yer hole!

But yeah, I know. I leave the interpretive and fact-based arguments alone with him, because it's much too frustrating. But I hadn't seen such stereotyping from him about people before, so I felt the urge to call it out. Differing interpretations is fine, healthy even. Drawing elitist conclusions from them, less so.

Originally posted by Digi
This is quickly slipping into egotism. You're aware that a person's morals are largely - perhaps entirely - dependent on the interpretation and application of their beliefs, not the beliefs themselves...right? A person's identified religion tells us nothing of their morality or lack thereof.

I like to sustain the unusual hypothesis that beliefs are the consequence of the morality of our actions and not the other way around. It's sort of true (in a family of statements that are never fully true and are better left described by brain chemistry), but most of all, it's less self-centered and I think more easy to communicate.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Read and understand hat dead men do not walk and a God who condemns mankind then turns about and dies to reverse his own judgement is stupid beyond words.

You may think that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a good moral tenet but that would be due to your religion corrupting our morals.

Regards
DL

i don't know where you came up with that stuff, man. can you please cite a verse that says God condemned mankind? if you really read the Bible, you will know that what you're saying is not true.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I criticize the Jesus you follow. I rather like the Jesus I follow.

His morals are quite good compared to the one you follow or will try to ride as your scapegoat into heaven.

Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

the Jesus i follow is the one written in the Bible... where's yours? your own interpretation?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?

Regards
DL

the Jesus i follow does not "demand" anyone to do something. He has set up laws, and it's up to you, He only gives recommendations...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If we are not condemned, then we would not need a savior nor would Jesus save to die to saves us. Right?

Regards
DL

so you cannot provide any Bible verse then? i wasn't surprised... your basis is only your twisted interpretation...

do you know the meaning of "condemned"?

in the Bible, if you are condemned, then you have no salvation... there's no need for Jesus to save you because you are already judged to go to hell... just like satan:

"Of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged."
John 16:11

satan is condemned, he'll definitely go to hell:

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;"
Matthew 25:41

but the people? nope... no one is predestined to go to hell... that's the reason why there is a Savior, because we can still be saved... we are not damned to hell...

Originally posted by dyajeep
so you cannot provide any Bible verse then? i wasn't surprised... your basis is only your twisted interpretation...

do you know the meaning of "condemned"?

in the Bible, if you are condemned, then you have no salvation... there's no need for Jesus to save you because you are already judged to go to hell... just like satan:

"Of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged."
John 16:11

satan is condemned, he'll definitely go to hell:

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;"
Matthew 25:41

but the people? nope... no one is predestined to go to hell... that's the reason why there is a Savior, because we can still be saved... we are not damned to hell...

You are without your savior which is just the hook that some church has in you.

Only a really stupid God would condemn you and then turn around and have to die to reverse that condemnation and become your savior.

Only a foo will disagree.

You may not want to believe me but this Bishop might talk some sense into your senseless and immoral thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1RuyPAIwK8

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Only a really stupid God would condemn you...

yadda yadda yadda... can you please cite a verse that says God condemned mankind?

no verse? still no proof...

Originally posted by dyajeep
yadda yadda yadda... can you please cite a verse that says God condemned mankind?

no verse? still no proof...

yadda yadda yadda

Good. Jesus died for nothing as man never needed a savior.

That is why only fools will believe in substitutionary atonement.

Regards
DL

God has a sense of humour...... Take Miley Cyrus for an example

What if god is a troll and that's why he doesn't talk to us.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
yadda yadda yadda

Good. Jesus died for nothing as man never needed a savior.

That is why only fools will believe in substitutionary atonement.

Regards
DL

dude, if it's not written that mankind is not condemned by God, then mankind is not condemned... you yourself cannot provide a verse... if you have one, you'd probably waving it like a flag right now...

but you have no sufficient evidence... what you're doing is just "accusing", dude...

Originally posted by Spawningpool
What if god is a troll and that's why he doesn't talk to us. There was some sort of Monty Python-esque film once. I can't recall its name, something like Erik the Viking perhaps. It had some of the MP team in it. I only laughed once during the whole film, however.

I bring it up because in the end the gods turn out to be little kids. Which explains why everything's so messed up!

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Jesus died for nothing as man never needed a savior.

Did the Bible ever said we needed a savior? The fact we got one wouldn't make it a necessity.

Originally posted by dyajeep
dude, if it's not written that mankind is not condemned by God, then mankind is not condemned... you yourself cannot provide a verse... if you have one, you'd probably waving it like a flag right now...

but you have no sufficient evidence... what you're doing is just "accusing", dude...

If so, what was God choosing Jesus for here?

Let me help you. It was to die. Now tell us why Jesus was being sacrificed.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

You might want to look up the apostles creed.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bentley
Did the Bible ever said we needed a savior? The fact we got one wouldn't make it a necessity.

Yes, scriptures are clear that man is fallen and needs Jesus' death to put thinks right.

Why do you think Christians fly the cross if it was not important to them?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If so, what was God choosing Jesus for here?

Let me help you. It was to die. Now tell us why Jesus was being sacrificed.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

You might want to look up the apostles creed.

Regards
DL

are you freakin' serious, GIA? really... why don't you just admit that you're wrong? or admit that you don't know anything about the book you're criticizing? your post nor the verse you provided never really "helped" anything... it only shows how desperate you are in maligning Christianity... the "apostles' creed" is made up by the catholics, FYI so that really doesn't count... if you weren't that stubborn, all you need to do is to read and understand the posts of those who are discussing with you...

first, the Father sent His Son to preach the Gospel, He didn't intend to kill His own Son, in fact, if you are knowledgeable in the Bible, in one of Jesus' parables, the Father's thinking is that the people will respect His Son:

"He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, They will respect my son."
Mark 12:6

it is the Jews who killed Jesus... but He is the Son of God, and if He never wanted to, they can never kill Him...

"When he said to them, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground."
John 18:6

if Jesus never sacrificed or offered Himself, they can never kill Him... by merely uttering some words, the band of soldiers drew back and fell to the ground... now, why did He offered Himself?

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Matthew 1:21

"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Hebrews 10:10

Jesus' mission is to save the people from their sins and be sanctified... is His death needed? of course!

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 6:23

the wages of sin is death... now, let us answer the question: is mankind condemned? you don't really know the meaning of "condemned", GIA?

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
Matthew 12:31

that's what's condemned, GIA... mankind is not condemned... in fact, there are two kinds of sin in the Bible:

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that."
I John 5:16
RSV

sin that is mortal and not mortal... in other words:

"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that."
NKJV

so there is a sin that leads to death (mortal) and another one that does not lead to death (not mortal)... so eventhough all people have sinned - as was written in Romans 5:12 - not all people are condemned... in fact, infants, children and even those people who are mentally challenged or disabled are of the kingdom of God!

"But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14

"And said, Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:3-4

mankind condemned? you don't know anything, GIA... really...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Yes, scriptures are clear that man is fallen and needs Jesus' death to put thinks right.

Why do you think Christians fly the cross if it was not important to them?

Regards
DL

Being important, being helpful may be a thing, it's same to say christians believe in general than Jesus died for something.

You go much further, you say it was a necessity.


Originally posted by dyajeep
the "apostles' creed" is made up by the catholics, FYI so that really doesn't count...

So is the current selection of books in most christian bibles. Just saying, you can't brand something as a "catholic invention" and assume it just "doesn't count".

Originally posted by Bentley
So is the current selection of books in most christian bibles. Just saying, you can't brand something as a "catholic invention" and assume it just "doesn't count".

in context, however, whatever GIA says about Christianity doesn't count...

Originally posted by Bentley
Being important, being helpful may be a thing, it's same to say christians believe in general than Jesus died for something.

You go much further, you say it was a necessity.



Not me. Barbaric human sacrifices are not a good way to forgive sins.

Listen to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkle6URiM4s

Did you notice that they say that Adam's sin was a necessary evil and a happy fault.

They had to see it that way from the stupid way they set up their myth.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by dyajeep
in context, however, whatever GIA says about Christianity doesn't count...

The Inquisition doesn't count. Ok.

Please do not promote it again though. That would be evil.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Not me. Barbaric human sacrifices are not a good way to forgive sins.

Listen to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkle6URiM4s

Did you notice that they say that Adam's sin was a necessary evil and a happy fault.

That last argument is an awful "we live in the best of worlds" kind of reasoning. But I've seen more outrageous claims in video that in my opinion just don't represent the thinking on mainstream christianity.

What if when we die this guy greets us by saying "hello my name is Jesusbuddahallahmuhhamed"

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The Inquisition doesn't count. Ok.

Please do not promote it again though. That would be evil.

Regards
DL

nobody in the planet promotes that... maybe only you as an exception...

Originally posted by Bentley
That last argument is an awful "we live in the best of worlds" kind of reasoning. But I've seen more outrageous claims in video that in my opinion just don't represent the thinking on mainstream christianity.

Ok. What they sing and write about is not what they believe. That is a good argument for anything Christian.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Spawningpool
What if when we die this guy greets us by saying "hello my name is Jesusbuddahallahmuhhamed"

I will know what to do with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oL4FWJjOuk

But seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho

Regards
DL

God Bless you all and may God Bless this thread and may souls be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by dyajeep
nobody in the planet promotes that... maybe only you as an exception...

Well, if I were to do to Christianity what it did to Gnostic Christianity, that would be fair play as reciprocity is fair play.

I would not as I do not advocate violence but the pope and many Christians do.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Ok. What they sing and write about is not what they believe. That is a good argument for anything Christian.

Regards
DL

Not every interpretation of an object can be the right interpretation. Their phrasing could be an exalted kind of speech and not to be taken literally for all I care.

Originally posted by Bentley
Not every interpretation of an object can be the right interpretation. Their phrasing could be an exalted kind of speech and not to be taken literally for all I care.

A literalist would disagree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A literalist would disagree.

With the second statement, they'd firmly agree with the first one.

Unless of course literalist are people unable to use language when it comes to their faith. I've seen people locked in terminology, which makes sense when they think words are divine Tools and not just conventional communication. Since those people don't speak an actual language when it comes to faith, I can't really reason about it.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I would not as I do not advocate violence but the pope and many Christians do.

the problem is, Catholics do not represent the whole Christianity... some of Catholic doctrines are not even in accordance with the Bible...

Originally posted by dyajeep
the problem is, Catholics do not represent the whole Christianity... some of Catholic doctrines are not even in accordance with the Bible...

Does anyone other than Christ represents the whole christianity?

Originally posted by Bentley
Does anyone other than Christ represents the whole christianity?

Even assuming correction for mistakes in the language construction here, the answer may be "No", but Dyajeep is right -- the Catholic Church is often EXTREMELY far off from what the Bible actually instructs followers.

Catholics dont even read or follow the bible. They pray more to Mary then Jesus or God the Father.

Originally posted by dyajeep
the problem is, Catholics do not represent the whole Christianity... some of Catholic doctrines are not even in accordance with the Bible...

This

Originally posted by Bentley
Does anyone other than Christ represents the whole christianity?

it should be Christ...

however, GIA is criticizing Catholicism, creating a big strawman fallacy that thought he already refuted and defeated the entire Christianity...

i don't know how to put this but maybe someone should tell him to understand Christianity first before criticizing it...

pet peeve... keeps on criticizing Christianity but his belief is named "Gnostic Christianity" which is a big misnomer...

Originally posted by dyajeep
the problem is, Catholics do not represent the whole Christianity... some of Catholic doctrines are not even in accordance with the Bible...

That can be said of every religion. Your point was?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Catholics dont even read or follow the bible. They pray more to Mary then Jesus or God the Father.

Seems like the right thing to do as Jesus is now man's judge and not God the Father.

Jesus sits at the right hand of God in their myth and theology and he is now the power as his Father is redundant and retired.

Remember that Jesus promoted the idea of the Divine Council.

He saw himself as one of many Gods.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Catholics dont even read or follow the bible.

That is a misleading statement, obviously some Catholics do read the Bible and at least some try following it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
They pray more to Mary then Jesus or God the Father.

This isn't an absolute either.

Maybe both those statements can be statistically true for most Catholics, I really don't care much about number crunching.

If we are going to shoot down GIA for making generalizations about Christianity we should criticize as well bold statements about Catholicism.

Originally posted by Bentley
That is a misleading statement, obviously some Catholics do read the Bible and at least some try following it...

His point of view is despicable. Where does he get the idea that he has the right to judge the majority of Christians in the world as non-Christian?

Originally posted by Bentley
If we are going to shoot down GIA for making generalizations about Christianity we should criticize as well bold statements about Catholicism.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
That can be said of every religion. Your point was?

Regards
DL

you attacked Catholicism, not Christianity...

Originally posted by dyajeep
you attacked Catholicism, not Christianity...

Both religions have their heads up a genocidal son murderer's God's ass and it is impossible to differentiate one from the other.

All who fly the cross ride use same scapegoat whipping boy.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Both religions have their heads up a genocidal son murderer's God's ass and it is impossible to differentiate one from the other.

All who fly the cross ride use same scapegoat whipping boy.

Regards
DL

Catholics are Christians, and not all Christians are butt-heads.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Catholics are Christians, and not all Christians are butt-heads.

All who fly the cross have shown their poor morals by embracing the notion that substitutionary atonement is somehow a moral practice.

All moral people know how immoral such a practice is.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
All who fly the cross have shown their poor morals by embracing the notion that substitutionary atonement is somehow a moral practice.

All moral people know how immoral such a practice is.

Regards
DL

Many people have no choice. They go along to get along. There are advantages in being a Christian in our society. Why blame them?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Many people have no choice. They go along to get along. There are advantages in being a Christian in our society. Why blame them?

You are correct. Most who follow a religion do so due to peer pressure from community and culture.

I think it is hard to be a free thinker under such pressure. It is hard to be a black sheep. I do not exactly blame such weak characters. They are to be pitied.

Then not rising above it is still a fault when the immorality of a creed can be shown. That I do blame them for.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
You are correct. Most who follow a religion do so due to peer pressure from community and culture.

I think it is hard to be a free thinker under such pressure. It is hard to be a black sheep. I do not exactly blame such weak characters. They are to be pitied.

Then not rising above it is still a fault when the immorality of a creed can be shown. That I do blame them for.

Regards
DL

Okay, but remember not to hate them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay, but remember not to hate them.

If the God of the scriptures can hate and send those who have a different belief to eternal torture and death then I can hate all I like, those who follow that God of hate.

If their God can hate even Esau who had yet to do good nor evil, then I am showing that I am more responsible than he is. I allow Christians to believe stupidly before hating them for doing it.

They cause death and separation with their beliefs and should be hated by all those who do love their fellow man when he deserves it.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If the God of the scriptures can hate and send those who have a different belief to eternal torture and death then I can hate all I like, those who follow that God of hate.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. You must hold yourself to a higher standard then a make believe god.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If their God can hate even Esau who had yet to do good nor evil, then I am showing that I am more responsible than he is. I allow Christians to believe stupidly before hating them for doing it.

But hate is like taking poison in spite of someone else.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
They cause death and separation with their beliefs and should be hated by all those who do love their fellow man when he deserves it.

Regards
DL

Fighting against evil is not the same thing as hate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. You must hold yourself to a higher standard then a make believe god.



But hate is like taking poison in spite of someone else.



Fighting against evil is not the same thing as hate.

The way Socrates put it, all people fall in two basic categories, Cows and dogs. Christians and other sheeple are cows. I am a dog. In his republic Socrates had dogs looking after and protecting the cows. Dogs are always leery of strangers while loyal to a fault to his friends.

That is not the same type of hate that I have for most who earn my hate by not looking at their morals and recognizing that they are poor after being shown how they are poor.

Intellectual and moral dissonance is what I hate and those who are so afflicted themselves and knowingly taking the moral low ground will feel my wrath.

Too bad, so sad.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The way Socrates put it, all people fall in two basic categories, Cows and dogs. Christians and other sheeple are cows. I am a dog. In his republic Socrates had dogs looking after and protecting the cows. Dogs are always leery of strangers while loyal to a fault to his friends.

That is not the same type of hate that I have for most who earn my hate by not looking at their morals and recognizing that they are poor after being shown how they are poor.

Intellectual and moral dissonance is what I hate and those who are so afflicted themselves and knowingly taking the moral low ground will feel my wrath.

Too bad, so sad.

Regards
DL

This is how we are different. I see everyone as sleeping Buddhas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is how we are different. I see everyone as sleeping Buddhas.

I see us all as potential Gods and that is why I have negative feelings for those who willfully refuse to step up to their potential.

They waste air and resources that could keep another alive who has not gone into intellectual and moral dissonance.

I also recognize that I am a hard hearted guy thanks to my lack of upbringing as a youth but also think that without honest people like me who reject political correct hypocrisy, the world would be way worse off.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Both religions have their heads up a genocidal son murderer's God's ass and it is impossible to differentiate one from the other.

All who fly the cross ride use same scapegoat whipping boy.

Regards
DL

"both religions"... are you now separating catholics from Christians? or just recklessly merging them?

Originally posted by dyajeep
"both religions"... are you now separating catholics from Christians? or just recklessly merging them?

My statement was quite clear.

Take your head out of where it is and read it.

Regards
DL

.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
My statement was quite clear.

Take your head out of where it is and read it.

Regards
DL

uhm, i was not actually asking... ever heard of a rhetorical question?