Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

...Famine's identity confirmed: he's a Lich!!! Run for your lives!!

Are you interested in participating in the discussion or do you just want to keep throwing in pointless posts to troll everyone?

 

[JKgo]

Are you interested in participating in the discussion or do you just want to keep throwing in pointless posts to troll everyone?

...??

Alright fine then - since you claim...

Being dead is being dead, which means we have evidence of what being dead is like...

...your leap of logic escapes me here. Sure being dead is dead, but how does that morph into "evidence"? You're simply stating it's current condition, nothing more and nothing less. How can that be evidence?

That alien example was as flawed as it can get, since you have to assume the ET must be aware of the previous existence of the planet and its inhabitants, which you can't guarantee.
And even if that has been provided, then still there's no way of us knowing the said alien's cultural background allow such sentiments.

How 'bout this one:
There's a piece of grassland, it's unoccupied, and I plan to start a dairy farm there. I draw up the plans, pay all the relevant fees, and are ready to buy the cattle.
But, before that happens, there's no cows on the land yet. Does that make them... "dead", since they are not there? Or simply, they are "not there yet"?

The way I see it, your usage of word "dead" is nothing more than splitting of hairs here. It may not seem clear in hindsight, but my original post was about that - using "dead" to describe the condition of "un-existence" sure as hell feels misguided.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...your leap of logic escapes me here. Sure being dead is dead, but how does that morph into "evidence"? You're simply stating it's current condition, nothing more and nothing less. How can that be evidence?

What do you recall of the time before you were an energised zygote?

How 'bout this one:
There's a piece of grassland, it's unoccupied, and I plan to start a dairy farm there. I draw up the plans, pay all the relevant fees, and are ready to buy the cattle.
But, before that happens, there's no cows on the land yet. Does that make them... "dead", since they are not there? Or simply, they are "not there yet"?

That's easy - at the point you make a contract to buy them, are they alive? If not, guess what?

The way I see it, your usage of word "dead" is nothing more than splitting of hairs here. It may not seem clear in hindsight, but my original post was about that - using "dead" to describe the condition of "un-existence" sure as hell feels misguided.

It seems to me that you're pushing a single definition of "dead" while continuing to ignore other definitions in language.

 

[Famine]

How 'bout this one:
There's a piece of grassland, it's unoccupied, and I plan to start a dairy farm there. I draw up the plans, pay all the relevant fees, and are ready to buy the cattle.
But, before that happens, there's no cows on the land yet. Does that make them... "dead", since they are not there? Or simply, they are "not there yet"?

This hypothetical does not deal with whether something is dead through not being alive yet or through having died. It deals with whether something is not there through not being there yet or through having been there but not any longer. So it makes them "not there".

However, what is the practical difference between them being "not there" because they haven't yet arrived and being "not there" because they have been there and have since moved on elsewhere or died?

That is still the point:

Differentiate death from pre-birth for me in a meaningful way.

Give me a break with this stuff, differentiate not being alive before you were born from not being alive after being alive in a meaningful way.

So can you? Can you show any meaningful difference to you between not yet being alive and having died? Is there any way you can show that what to you happens after your life is different to what happens before your life?

The way I see it, your usage of word "dead" is nothing more than splitting of hairs here. It may not seem clear in hindsight, but my original post was about that - using "dead" to describe the condition of "un-existence" sure as hell feels misguided.

Dead is an antonym of live/alive. It may also mean "exact" (as in 'dead reckoning'), though that's not especially useful here.

That antonym can apply to batteries, drinks glasses, objects in motion and beings. It merely means the inert state, not an immutable end state - after all, dead batteries can be recharged, dead glasses can be refilled and non-moving objects can be made to move again. There's no reason to cling to "dead" to mean "what happens after being alive".

 

[JKgo]

So can you? Can you show any meaningful difference to you between not yet being alive and having died? Is there any way you can show that what to you happens after your life is different to what happens before your life?

...How can I? This is an impossible question to answer without digging one's own grave, and you know it. Even if you argue otherwise, it is still nothing more than assumption.

So since you're saying dairy farm example isn't cop, then how about this: not yet being alive means there's an ample chance you will be alive in future, but when you've died, well, unless you're a Necromancer or a Lich, you are a worm food.

Dead is an antonym of live/alive. It may also mean "exact" (as in 'dead reckoning'), though that's not especially useful here.

That antonym can apply to batteries, drinks glasses, objects in motion and beings. It merely means the inert state, not an immutable end state - after all, dead batteries can be recharged, dead glasses can be refilled and non-moving objects can be made to move again. There's no reason to cling to "dead" to mean "what happens after being alive".

I do understand your point, but do you of mine? I did say it feels misguided to use the word dead, when surely there must be better alternatives out there?
I mean, there are (exaggerations!!) thousands upon thousands of words in English that surely, surely fit the condition far more than a word that has deeper association with "state after death"?

What do you recall of the time before you were an energised zygote?

... Forgive me, dunno what a zygote is, let alone an energized one...

Edit: thanks to Google, now I know what it is. So that's what it was, eh. Interesting...

 

[Famine]

...How can I?

That's the point - but religion often sells that there is a meaningful difference.

I'm not sure how they've come up with one, but there is precious little reason to suggest that what happens to your ability to perceive when your body no longer exists is any different from what your ability to perceive was when your body didn't exist yet. The fact that you were incapable of perception without your body existing yet is evidence that you are likely to be incapable of perception when your body no longer exists.

So since you're saying dairy farm example isn't cop, then how about this: not yet being alive means there's an ample chance you will be alive in future, but when you've died, well, unless you're a Necromancer or a Lich, you are a worm food.

That rather sounds like futures trading.

I do understand your point, but do you of mine? I did say it feels misguided to use the word dead, when surely there must be better alternatives out there?
I mean, there are (exaggerations!!) thousands upon thousands of words in English that surely, surely fit the condition far more than a word that has deeper association with "state after death"?

Whether it feels misguided or not, it's right.

Take the Moon. It's often described as a cold, dead rock (though you wouldn't exactly stick with 'cold' if you were on the day side of it). It's "dead", never having had lifeforms on it - except a few transients, of course.

You can use "death" to mean the cessation of life. You can use "dying" to mean the process through which life (or other processes - this time of year fires are slowly dying, after all) ends. "Dead" is just the absence of life (or battery charge, or beer), whether it's before life or after it.

 

[JKgo]

That's the point - but religion often sells that there is a meaningful difference.

I'm not sure how they've come up with one, but there is precious little reason to suggest that what happens to your ability to perceive when your body no longer exists is any different from what your ability to perceive was when your body didn't exist yet. The fact that you were incapable of perception without your body existing yet is evidence that you are likely to be incapable of perception when your body no longer exists.

...I don't believe in any of the organized religions so I can't speak for those who do, but the concept of spiritual plains of existence is an admittedly attractive one. Take for instance, idea of reincarnation - do ton of good deeds, and you get a second chance plus with added benefits; who wouldn't go for that if your life's been full of BS?

Anyways...

It feels wrong to me to describe the state of un-existence as a dead one. Yeah yeah, it's just me, I get it. It's the way I've been brought up. So sue me.

And futures trading isn't illegal, y'know.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...I don't believe in any of the organized religions so I can't speak for those who do, but the concept of spiritual plains of existence is an admittedly attractive one. Take for instance, idea of reincarnation - do ton of good deeds, and you get a second chance plus with added benefits; who wouldn't go for that if your life's been full of BS?

How do you know you're not re-incarnated? As far as I'm aware there's no suggestion that consciousness transfers.

Other than that there's a possibility for each of us that we contain bits and pieces that were once bits and pieces in other people.

 

[Famine]

...I don't believe in any of the organized religions so I can't speak for those who do

That neither adds nor removes anything from the point...

The point is that there is no measurable difference between being not alive and not being alive. You have no evidence for pre-life perception, no evidence for post-life perception and no reason* to suppose there is a difference between the two. You seem to concur with this assessment.

With that in mind, the fact you had no perception prior to your body existing is evidence that your body is prerequisite for perception and its demise will render you just as unable to perceive in post-life deadness as you were in pre-life deadness.

but the concept of spiritual plains of existence is an admittedly attractive one. Take for instance, idea of reincarnation - do ton of good deeds, and you get a second chance plus with added benefits; who wouldn't go for that if your life's been full of BS?

There is as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for a single life followed by an afterlife - and less than there is for a single life.

To me "You'll get a second chance" is a free pass not to get your first chance right. With reincarnation you get many more chances thereafter - and one does wonder how you can get life as a ladybird so badly wrong that you get demoted - and so many more chances to say that the current chance doesn't matter, you'll get it on the next pass.

It is still mildly shocking that mainstream religion is so fatalistic. I'm not completely convinced that "If I die having done what my God says about being nice to people, I'll be rewarded in heaven" is more than a mild shuffle away from "If I die having done what my God says about being nice to people except gays and abortionists, I'll be rewarded in heaven" or too many steps away from "If I die having done what my God says about killing the nonbelievers, I'll be rewarded in heaven".

How about just getting through this life without being unnecessarily cockish towards other people who are trying to do the same thing, rather than concerning yourself about how awesome it'll be when, just like happened before you were born and you couldn't perceive anything, your body doesn't exist to perceive things?


*Unless "God told me according to the representative in my town's reading of his preferred version of an English translation of a Latin translation of a cherry-picked anthology of books written in Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Sanksrit by people who God conveniently spoke to a couple thousand years ago despite being surprisingly mum recently - unless you count those people who say God speaks to them, but they're crazy people" counts as 'reason'.

 

[Imari]

There is as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for a single life followed by an afterlife - and less than there is for a single life.

If anything, reincarnation throws up a bunch more questions than anything else.

Say that right now there's 7 billion people on earth. At some point in the distant past, there would have been a point at which all the humans who had ever lived up to that point would have numbered less than 7 billion. So a "new" soul has had to to come from somewhere at some point to be able to fill out the number of simultaneously existing souls in our time. Even if the souls are extended to animals and anything else, that just inflates the numbers without solving the problem.

So there ends up being this weird hybrid scheme, where souls are reincarnated but there are also new souls coming from somewhere. If anything single life + afterlife is a lot simpler, although there's really nothing substantial going for either of them.

 

[JKgo]

How do you know you're not re-incarnated? As far as I'm aware there's no suggestion that consciousness transfers.

...I can tell you that I'm not reincarnated, evidenced by my less-than-rosy life. Wait, unless I was a dictator, a mass murderer or something in the past life, then... Hmm.

Other than that there's a possibility for each of us that we contain bits and pieces that were once bits and pieces in other people.

That sounds more like ideals of past generations being passed down through education.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...I can tell you that I'm not reincarnated, evidenced by my less-than-rosy life. Wait, unless I was a dictator, a mass murderer or something in the past life, then... Hmm.

That sounds more like ideals of past generations being passed down through education.

I was talking about your specific atoms. There is no (or very little) new water or carbon on the planet. There is no new energy in the universe.

 

[Famine]

I was talking about your specific atoms. There is no (or very little) new water or carbon on the planet. There is no new energy in the universe.

Or a more sinister version of "He has his father's eyes"?

 

[useauget]

life on earth would be much more advanced if it were not destroyed over and over being struck by astroids.educate yourself,don't rely on a book that was rewritten again in a time when religion dominated politics.again I say man made god

 

[Famine]

life on earth would be much more advanced if it were not destroyed over and over being struck by astroids.educate yourself,don't rely on a book that was rewritten again in a time when religion dominated politics.again I say man made god

Speaking of educating yourself, please re-read this.

 

[JKgo]

I was talking about your specific atoms. There is no (or very little) new water or carbon on the planet. There is no new energy in the universe.

...Atoms?

💡

Well, what about recycling? Our bodies are made up of, uh, chemical stuff, which technically can be broken down and reused for other purposes, so wouldn't that be a form of reincarnation, albeit one without a soul carry-over or whatever?

"Bits and pieces"... genetics?

 

[TenEightyOne]

...Atoms?

Well, what about recycling? Our bodies are made up of, uh, chemical stuff, which technically can be broken down and reused for other purposes, so wouldn't that be a form of reincarnation, albeit one without a soul carry-over or whatever?

"Bits and pieces"... genetics?

Reincarnation literally means "to make flesh again". The bits that make you (all the elements and the mixtures/compounds thereof) come from base materials that have been around since the universe began (and technically 'before'). Your body regenerates much of that from the substances you intake, after your conception and before your birth that intake was garnered from your parent human (a female). She in turn developed through that process. Material that isn't kept, used, converted to energy for use by the human is excreted and becomes part of water or earth. That's effectively the cycle of life. There are no new elements being imported into the cycle.

So yes, potentially each of us contains elements that have at one time been part of another living thing.

 

[BobK]

So yes, potentially each of us contains elements that have at one time been part of another living thing.

No "potentially" about it. Everything I have eaten came from another living thing. Even the air that I breathe, or the oxygen in it anyway, was once part of another living organism.

However I don't believe that's what most people mean by "reincarnation". To quote Wikipedia:

Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, can begin a new life in a new body.

 

[Danoff]

The second amendment reads as follows, in totality and has only to do with "a well regulated militia". Being "well regulated" is in fact what other countries do with guns, and enjoy a much lower incidence of gun deaths. Australia for example.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Read the majority opinion in D.C. vs. Heller for a very thoroughly researched and well articulated explanation of why you're completely wrong.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No "potentially" about it. Everything I have eaten came from another living thing. Even the air that I breathe, or the oxygen in it anyway, was once part of another living organism.

I stopped short of the absolute claim, but yes.

However I don't believe that's what most people mean by "reincarnation". To quote Wikipedia:

I was aware of that, I was pointing out that literally we are all flesh-made-again, ie reincarnations. However, as I said earlier, I don't believe that there is any transfer of "consciousness" in reincarnation (I think Hinduism is the only religion where that view is mainstream).

 

[GBO Possum]

I stopped short of the absolute claim, but yes.



I was aware of that, I was pointing out that literally we are all flesh-made-again, ie reincarnations. However, as I said earlier, I don't believe that there is any transfer of "consciousness" in reincarnation (I think Hinduism is the only religion where that view is mainstream).

Not the only one. There are many which are based on wishful thinking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

 

[DCP]

So you're saying that anybody without god is immoral and will kill, rape and steal because they don't have book to tell them otherwise? Well I'm happy to say that you are factually wrong. If every nonbeliever is not bound by a religious moral standard then why aren't all atheist, or any one that isn't following your branch of scifi, out there killing at will or raping everyone they meet?
You're saying that without your morals given to you by god you would be out there killing and raping too and that your faith is the only think keeping you from that? Bitch, please.

How dare you mention my "family and friends" like you know anything about me. The ignorance you possess and the nonsense you spout is retarded.

Again, "high standards of god", dude, read your bible. Your god is evil and has persecuted the very people he supposedly created. Your god has pulled more dick moves than most of humanity has ever managed. Slavery, genocide, outright xenophobia; your god is not of high standards. I've got to the point now where I won't even bother capitalising the word as a show of my dislike for you god.

You also fail, again, to understand that to those of us who don't believe in your god we don't give two ****s about salvation because it is irrelevant. You don't believe in Scientology, do you? So it's irrelevant to you that their (scientologists) idea that earth was built by aliens and you would consider it BS. Well that's how I feel about you fantasy stories.

I'm glad you cropped up just now since it award voting time and I think there's one award with your name on it.

High standards as in committing adultery in your heart, or hating or being angry at someone is as good as killing them.
Those high standards that humans dismiss, yet practice them all the time.
Also, by God allowing evil to be removed from this world, I don't see how that is evil. It's fitting as in the last days, people will call good evil, and evil good, so good job there mate.

Oh, I didn't say anyone without God will still kill and rape etc. You just did.

Anyway, you don't have to admit anything to me, as God judges your heart, and you will be the first to acknowledge your sinful ways on that day. Nothing to be scared of. It's just your free will to prefer wickedness and sin. As you mentioned, throughout the OT, God removed the wicked with their sins. I'd expect nothing less from a Perfect and Just Holy Being who says over and over that sin separates us from Him, even though He has made a way to reconcile with Him through His Son, who came as a Servant. no other god has done this, but rather, do what gods do. Sit high on their thrones.

Why should I ask to be forgiven for the sins of my forefathers? They're not my sinful ways. I can desire all I want for my forefathers to change their sinful ways, but they're dead and gone.

God, if he exists, has already had his merry way with them, so why is he still persecuting me for their crimes?

Who said that? You can only ask for forgiveness for your own sins against God. A start would be to forgive yourself, forgive and release others that may have hurt you, and then ask God to forgive you.

 

[Imari]

Who said that? You can only ask for forgiveness for your own sins against God. A start would be to forgive yourself, forgive and release others that may have hurt you, and then ask God to forgive you.

I see that you've lost the thread of the conversation after so long.

Thank God for cancer, tape worms, elephantiasis, Ebola, and so on right through to the common cold. And for tsunamis, earthquakes, avalanches, droughts and floods. And all of those things insurance companies call Acts of God.

Yep, all "good". The good god made them all. Thanks.

You can thank you parents for that.

...

You guys shouldn't be making up these pointless excuses, but instead question why the first two humans disobeyed their Creator, and how you, as an individual, can avoid ending up like them.

You said that.

You said that all these bad things in the world are because of our parents and presumably their parents and so on, all the way back to Adam and Eve. These things existed in the world long before I became being, so they can't be because of anything that I did, yet I have them inflicted on me.

That seems just.

If these things are punishments for sins of my parents and those before them, then why are they inflicted on me? As I said, my parents and forefathers have been tried and punished in God's eyes. Why are the results of their sins still hanging around to punish everyone else?

A baby that has just been born has committed no sin to justify being crushed in an earthquake, or dying of measles or malaria. They have no agency and they're barely aware. Babies are little squishy lumps that are concerned with two things, eating and pooing, and neither of those are sins. However their parents have presumably committed sins, and you've already specified that the parents are the reason the world has earthquakes and measles and malaria.

If a baby can inherit the sins of their parents in this way, then we all inherit all of the sins of all our ancestors. We all have to put up with earthquakes and measles and malaria, regardless of whether it kills us or not. Which explains an awful lot about the violent and vengeful manner in which your God treats the world and the people in it.

By your own logic we all inherit the sins of our ancestors. You just haven't put two and two together because it doesn't suit the image of your God that you'd like to hold.

 

[W3H5]

@DCP, I don't know why you crop up from time to time to spout absolute bollocks and tell us all how bad we all are but I refuse to argue with somebody who is possibly mentally unstable and should probably be in a special home filled with other lunatics.

 

[DCP]

I see that you've lost the thread of the conversation after so long.





You said that.

You said that all these bad things in the world are because of our parents and presumably their parents and so on, all the way back to Adam and Eve. These things existed in the world long before I became being, so they can't be because of anything that I did, yet I have them inflicted on me.

That seems just.

If these things are punishments for sins of my parents and those before them, then why are they inflicted on me? As I said, my parents and forefathers have been tried and punished in God's eyes. Why are the results of their sins still hanging around to punish everyone else?

A baby that has just been born has committed no sin to justify being crushed in an earthquake, or dying of measles or malaria. They have no agency and they're barely aware. Babies are little squishy lumps that are concerned with two things, eating and pooing, and neither of those are sins. However their parents have presumably committed sins, and you've already specified that the parents are the reason the world has earthquakes and measles and malaria.

If a baby can inherit the sins of their parents in this way, then we all inherit all of the sins of all our ancestors. We all have to put up with earthquakes and measles and malaria, regardless of whether it kills us or not. Which explains an awful lot about the violent and vengeful manner in which your God treats the world and the people in it.

By your own logic we all inherit the sins of our ancestors. You just haven't put two and two together because it doesn't suit the image of your God that you'd like to hold.

Yes that is correct. We inherit the sinful nature of our parents. If not for Christ, we would have perished a long time ago. If you want to prove God wrong, then stop sinning, but you and I both know that this is impossible.
Your, and my first parents, chose the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, as you enjoy every bit of good that has come to you, logically you must accept every bit of bad that comes to you. You can't have the best of the good only, else God is not Perfect, true and just to His word, and therefore cannot be God.

Now the difference, you don't have to fall like your ancestors, why, because you have Christ to look to. He paid your price, but if you reject Him, by simply using your free will in not believing in Him and accepting Him, you are prone to your sins, and as you know by now, the wages of sin is death, as sin separates us from God.

 

[Imari]

Yes that is correct. We inherit the sinful nature of our parents.

So I ask again, why am I having to beg forgiveness for the sins of my ancestors?

If you want to prove God wrong, then stop sinning, but you and I both know that this is impossible.

I found this letter addressed to you. It says "Go 🤬 yourself".

Your, and my first parents, chose the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, as you enjoy every bit of good that has come to you, logically you must accept every bit of bad that comes to you. You can't have the best of the good only, else God is not Perfect, true and just to His word, and therefore cannot be God.

Wait, what? God wouldn't be perfect unless he also makes sure that all the horrible things in the world happen?

Is this what you do to your children? They didn't listen to you when you said "if you touch the heater you're going to get burned", so you take it upon yourself to also burn your grandchildren, and great grandchildren and so on as well. Because you said you would. Because their parents didn't listen, so the children should pay the same price.

You disgust me.

Now the difference, you don't have to fall like your ancestors, why, because you have Christ to look to. He paid your price, but if you reject Him, by simply using your free will in not believing in Him and accepting Him, you are prone to your sins, and as you know by now, the wages of sin is death, as sin separates us from God.

God sounds pretty sinful to me. He kills. He forbids worship of other gods. He considers himself above all. For all we know he also commits every other sin, we're not able to watch him all the time like he is us.

I see no separation there. Apart from your arbitrary distinction that God doesn't sin, so if God does it then it must be OK for Him.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@DCP, I don't know why you crop up from time to time to spout absolute bollocks and tell us all how bad we all are but I refuse to argue with somebody who is possibly mentally unstable and should probably be in a special home filled with other lunatics.

So I ask again, why am I having to beg forgiveness for the sins of my ancestors?



I found this letter addressed to you. It says "Go 🤬 yourself".



Wait, what? God wouldn't be perfect unless he also makes sure that all the horrible things in the world happen?

Is this what you do to your children? They didn't listen to you when you said "if you touch the heater you're going to get burned", so you take it upon yourself to also burn your grandchildren, and great grandchildren and so on as well. Because you said you would. Because their parents didn't listen, so the children should pay the same price.

You disgust me.



God sounds pretty sinful to me. He kills. He forbids worship of other gods. He considers himself above all. For all we know he also commits every other sin, we're not able to watch him all the time like he is us.

I see no separation there. Apart from your arbitrary distinction that God doesn't sin, so if God does it then it must be OK for Him.

View media item 461

 

[DCP]

So I ask again, why am I having to beg forgiveness for the sins of my ancestors?



I found this letter addressed to you. It says "Go 🤬 yourself".



Wait, what? God wouldn't be perfect unless he also makes sure that all the horrible things in the world happen?

Is this what you do to your children? They didn't listen to you when you said "if you touch the heater you're going to get burned", so you take it upon yourself to also burn your grandchildren, and great grandchildren and so on as well. Because you said you would. Because their parents didn't listen, so the children should pay the same price.

You disgust me.



God sounds pretty sinful to me. He kills. He forbids worship of other gods. He considers himself above all. For all we know he also commits every other sin, we're not able to watch him all the time like he is us.

I see no separation there. Apart from your arbitrary distinction that God doesn't sin, so if God does it then it must be OK for Him.

Yes, if He told you that you would bring upon a curse to this world including your children if you ate from the tree of knowledge, would you still do it? Don't answer, it's better that way. Hope you get the point though.
So yeah, if it were me now, I would obey God the first time, knowing He created everything seen and unseen.
So, like your parents made a choice, you also make the choice for yourself as well.
I asked you before, if you parents sinned (Adam and Eve), then why would you continue that sin?

I'm sorry if speaking the truth makes me disgusting to you. I forgive you bud.
Perhaps be as intelligent as most of the other guys here and take no interest in a thread talking about Christ that you reject or say never existed, including His Father. You make it worse trying to paint your own picture over Him.
Perhaps read His word and ask yourself why He says you should pray for those that persecute you.

 

[Exorcet]

High standards as in committing adultery in your heart, or hating or being angry at someone is as good as killing them.

What happens when you think negatively about someone = nothing.

What happens when you hurt someone = you hurt someone.

No, they are not the same. You're not promoting high standards, but nonsense.

 

[Imari]

Yes, if He told you that you would bring upon a curse to this world including your children if you ate from the tree of knowledge, would you still do it?

But I didn't.

If he wants to make that promise, he sounds like a real :censored:hole.

So, like your parents made a choice, you also make the choice for yourself as well.

No. They point is I don't get a choice. Whatever I do, I have to live with the punishments inflicted upon me for things that I didn't do. Things that were done before I was born.

I asked you before, if you parents sinned (Adam and Eve), then why would you continue that sin?

I don't. Do you see me consuming any forbidden knowledge? I can't continue their sins even if I wanted, because the option isn't available to me.

I'm sorry if speaking the truth makes me disgusting to you. I forgive you bud.

There's nothing to forgive. Finding your treatment of others to be disgusting is not a sin. Feeling sick that you would punish a child for something that their parent does is not a sin. It means that I'm a compassionate human.

Try it, it's nice.

Perhaps be as intelligent as most of the other guys here and take no interest in a thread talking about Christ that you reject or say never existed, including His Father.

Ah, abuse.

This is not a thread about Christ. It's about belief, and one of the options is "no, I don't believe". Which means that people who don't believe are just as welcome to take part as those who do.

GTFO is not a reasonable response to an argument that you find difficult.

You make it worse trying to paint your own picture over Him. Perhaps read His word and ask yourself why He says you should pray for those that persecute you.

I'm not painting any picture, I'm merely looking at what He's painted himself. But unlike you, I don't restrict myself to only what I want to see. If all of the universe is God's creation, then all of it reflects upon Him. I don't look at all the great stuff and say "Oh, what a nice guy" while ignoring all the death, destruction and suffering. It's all together.


What's this about persecution? I'm not being persecuted. Unless you're trying to persecute me, in which case you're doing a terrible job because I didn't notice.