God does exist... (page 22)

donkey

LittleToe,

Quit being nice to me or agreeing with me or I will have to start liking you.

LittleToe

Donkey:I found it disconcerting, too, but my fingers wouldn't stop typing

How about if I call you a b*st*rd?
Better now?

wasasister

I have many holes in my understanding, but cannot deny that which I have experienced

Beautifully stated. Thank you for your clarity.

If more Christians believed as you do, I might be more inclined to give their world-view credence. However, in my experience, the vast majority behave as Love_Truth or Rick Warren (A Purpose Driven Life). That is, they believe that God only responds to humans who hold a certain set of beliefs.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I was taught that God would only accept worship/prayers from those who used the name "Jehovah", believed in the interpretation of scripture given by a collection of geriatric racists in Brooklyn, attended a Kingdom Hall, and preached the docterines of Jehovah's Witnesses every chance they got. Anyone else was unacceptable.

Rick Warren believes that only people who accept Jesus Christ as the God-Son and Savior are able to have a realtionship with God.

Radical Islamics believe only those who follow the strict teachings of the Koran can find favor with God.

My point in entering this (already thoroughly discussed) issue was simply to put into perspective what Czar purported to be absolute proof of the existence of a personal God, ie: the answer to his prayers. I found his logic to be vastly flawed, especially given the circumstances with which he believes he received help.

The irony is....my world view allows for you and other Christians to practice your faith, as long as it does not restrict my freedom not to. If your belief system makes you a happy and functional person, I'm thrilled for you. Conversely, in the view of fundementalists, such as my previous religion, I am viewed as doomed and without purpose. I find that offensive.

On that note, I leave this discussion. Along with Ros, I view your type of Christianity to be the least offensive. Oh that you were in the majority!

Wasa

donkey

ahh...much better LT.

Thanks - I hate being taken outside my comfort zone.

Farkel

my dear donkey,

: Since it is the believers who are stating that they have "faith", it is for them to define what they meaan by that, not the atheists.

: In other words: my imaginary friend is real and you cannot see him without the 3d specs and I am not going to tell you what 3d specs to use..

Yep. As you've heard me say many times, religious arguments among believers boils down to this simple argument: "My imaginary friend is superior to YOUR imaginary friend." That's about it, yet people have slaughtered hundreds of millions of people over this specious argument, and the victors and the vanquished all believed THEY were right whether they won or lost a war. If a victor in one war lost the next war, they shut up and said it was "God's Will" because they had somehow "sinned." If they won the NEXT war, they said "God" was back on their side again. It's all bullshit and God doesn't given a shit on least on THIS side of of the living experience. If he did, he would take time out of His busy schedule and give a 5 minute commercial which would be heard simultaneously across this planet and tell people what to do. He hasn't. He only "talks" to nutballs and even psychos. If God likes nutballs and psychos more than he likes average people, then God is a nutball. Even a psycho, maybe. Or, God doesn't given a shit. Any other explanation for his selective dealings with people can be easily demolished, and I challenge anyone to bring it up, because I WILL demolish those explanations. Farkel

gumby

Any other explanation for his selective dealings with people can be easily demolished, and I challenge anyone to bring it up, because I WILL demolish those explanations. Farkel

OK then.....I CHALLENGE thee!!!!

( this is just a test to prove ol' farkel will never see this.......just watch and see)

Gumby

Farkel

:Next, you talk about a theoretically ?historically inaccurate book?, the Bible. It has not been proven historically inaccurate.

Sure it has. Countless times. How do you reconcile the fact that the alleged writer of Genesis, namely Moses, could list some Kings of Israel in that same book that were to reign some 350 fifty years AFTER he was buried?

I've got many more anachronisms from the Bible. Just answer to people's satisfaction the problem with this one and then challenge me some more. I will make your head spin and show you just how NOT historically accurate the Bible has been.

Farkel

Farkel

Gumby,

: ( this is just a test to prove ol' farkel will never see this.......just watch and see)

Hide and watch!

Farkel

wasasister

Sheesh! 'Bout time you showed up, Big Guy. What kept you?

acsot

Little Toe:

If you don't have that relationship in the first place, how can you expect to get "stuff"???

How can you have a relationship in the first place with someone/something who never speaks to you, answers you, or manifests him/her/itself in any way to you?

It's like saying to someone "I'll help you if you're my friend, but I'll never talk to you or in any way make it possible for you to be my friend." Hmm, I don't think so.

God does exist...

Share this