I think it's tough to use kids as an example as their brains are not fully developed. They simply don't function or think the same way an adult does.

But I don't agree with your assesment that morals can only be acquired through outside sources. Things like compassion and empathy are part of our biological makeup. We evolved as a species to have these elements in our bodies. I believe for the most part that regardless of our upbringing, we would feel sadness at a child suffering.

I believe that religion attributes to societies moral views, but isn't a necessary factor. If religion didn't exist, society would function just fine and create morals.

Clear, concise and absolutely correct.

But, being humans, people could have got that wrong.

You can have values and not be religious, just like you can be religious and have no values. I don't think religion has anything to do with it.

Well, Christians believe that the Bible is the divine word of God, so that part's not wrong (or, at least not muddied by humanity's "screwing stuff up", for lack of a better term).

Oh. I see. So, humans get some of this wrong, because we make errors. But there are some parts that we definitely did not get wrong. How do we know what is human error and what is divine word? There seems to be some dispute and I'm not sure what criteria is used to make that judgment.

I agree with you completely. I was attempting to say that but as usual something got lost in the posting. :)

Gotcha. Oh how many an argument has started between my wife and I over email or an IM because we can't hear the others tone of voice or one simple word was left out.

But you hear many (most?) Christians today who pick and choose pieces of the Bible to believe and follow.

For instance, we hear all the time about the verses in Leviticus that state:



But we don't hear so much about the ones that you musn't have sex with your wife on her period, or you will be put to death if you defy your parents, or the ones that encourage slavery, or say that you mustn't shave or eat shrimp or lobster or plant two types of crops together.

And all of these are from the same book of the bible, just a few verses apart. Why is this stuff not followed if it is the word of God?


It's stuff like this that makes us non-believers incredulous. Especially when the "lying with a man is an abomination" crap is trotted out there like it is some all-important tenet of the Christian faith.

My arguement to that is that every Christian picks and chooses interpretations of passages and indeed which passages to ignore totally.

This selection can be found in corporate church bodies from the Anglican view where they have openly gay priests to the catholic church where they freely pray to saints etc.

Both groups are considered 'Christians'.

Less radical to these are the various interpretations upon the passages in revelations, many churches in America seem to push the 'the time is now' message whereas back home its more seen as far off in the distance etc.

Its this schisming of Christianity into little sects each of which pretend to be friendly but actually behind each others backs they all seem to whisper along the lines of "we're the only ones who are really saved - chances are they'll burn/be left behind etc." ... its that sort of thing as much as anything which helps convince cynics that Christianity is bunk.

If Christians were generally more concerned about acting christlike (ie. loving, helpful, accepting etc.) and less obsessed with detail and obsessive analysis of obscure biblical passages then the world would be a much better place and indeed the church would be much closer to what was originally intended imho.

Everyone has a different view of the bible even if they read the same book - its a natural human thing that everyone hears it slightly differently and imho that might even be Gods intent that it gives a different message to each person (ie. I don't really get anyone pushes their interpretation or belief as being the ONLY real one - 1 + 1 = 2 but 0.5 + 1.5 = 2 also ... so long as you get the right answer thats the important thing as far as I see).

I've read about these myself actually - a couple of references:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html
Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidentally (and intruigingly) the wikipedia article interestingly also mentions a study what shows while SAT results show this correlation the church attendances actually demonstrate the opposite (ie. the more intelligent people tend to attend chuch, lesser intelligent don't) ...
In the US, religious behavior also increases with education level, according to raw data from the 2004 General Social Survey, which indicates that 30.4% of those with a graduate degree attend religious services weekly or more, a statistically significant proportion, higher than any lesser educated group.[12] Further the group with the highest percentage of “never attending” was composed by those with only a high school education or less.

I'm not taking sides on this matter though and I would like to point out however that this doesn't mean everyone who doesn't believe in God is smart or that people who believe in God aren't - I'd also mention that it in no way proves or disproves the existance of God.

PS - My best friend from my high school days is also the most intelligent man I've ever known, he studied a combined Physics and Maths honours degree at Cambridge university in England, his career today - he's a Christian clergyman.

One of the things I've considered (going philisophical for a minute) is that our perception of a 'Good God' is wrong - for instance he could be Good, but percieving mankind as a whole rather than an individual.

This might sound strange but consider that if you pan out into the universe then you'd see just planets rather than people upon them, it could be from Gods perspective that we are as a species a person and that by some of us dying horribly the species as a whole will eventually evolve and improve.

Think of it like teaching your child to ride a push bike - they might fall off and graze their knee, but you consider the lesson worth the damage to their knee's. This doesn't make you a bad parent just because you're looking to the long term gain for the child rather than the slight injury.

(please note this is simply idle conjecture on my behalf - meant to encourage thought and debate rather than being a stance dear to my heart)

I agree with this assessment completely, just for the record, but I disagree with the assessment that what I described was solely "To thine own self be true". I thought that in the context of my self-identification as a believer, it would be clear that what I was talking about was being true to myself as I interpreted my actions and responsibilities through the lens of my Christianity.

In other words, my faith informs my moral compass, but I accept those beliefs to the point that they become my compass and (in theory, at least) what I aspire to carrying out God's will in my life, at least to the extent that I understand it.

You realize that most religious folks don't sit around consciously trying to develop an agenda to do this, right?

That's what I do with the Masons on Thursday, not with the church folk on Sunday.

+1. If somebody can satisfactorily answer that question, I'd probably be a lot closer to being willing to consider Christianity. I grew up in a ridiculously right wing household going to church 4-5 times a week, and the hypocrisy of it all still makes me sick.

The closest I have ever come to an answer is that "the New Testament/Jesus made those passages irrevelent" I don't remember the part of the new testament where Jesus specifically rebutted those passages though. Maybe I was reading a different book.

Yes, I totally do realize that. It's the Illuminati that we all need to concern ourselves with in my opinion. :D

But, unfortunately, theres groups like the Discovery Institute, for example, with their Wedge Doctrine who have no qualms about picking up the torch of rightousness. Which you then end up with things like Dover v Kitzmiller. Or now in Louisiana (Louisiana Senate Bill 733), where they have successfully got the 'teach the controversy' garbage put in public schools down there in regards to evolution.

So, while many many church goers are not active in politics and there is no agenda of swaying legislation and enfluencing school boards, they are nevertheless, an accomplice by sitting by and doing nothing to stop it when it does happen. Prop 8, being one example, here in California.

So then you would agree that all Muslims are accomplices of terrorists and suicide bombers because they share the same religion but aren't actively doing anything to stop it?

That argument was pretty much set forth by the GOP in recent years. They basically said that any Islamic clerics who did not denounce Osama bin Laden are tacitly in agreement with him.

It's also hard. When there are some vocal presences towards a particular issue, it's tough not to believe the same. True Christians love Christ and the church and want to feel like they are being good Christians. And the thought process throughout church and christian society, mostly from those vocal minority is that to be a good Christian you should be against homosexual related ideas and have certain attitudes towards it. As a Christian, I do find this unfortunate, but I have a different perspective from some since I wasn't born or raised Christian in any way or form.

In my heart I believe in God and Christ and do my best to live my life through Jesus' teaching and the overall spirit of the bible. Other Christians do too. I think sometimes they get misguided

Keep in mind, I am not saying I believe gay marriage is necessarily "right", but I do know that in the book of John we are told to love your brother about 10 times more than homosexuality is mentioned in the whole bible.

Apparently not just the GOP. I don't think JediKooter would agree with it (and I certainly don't), but I just wanted to point out that it's easy to start sliding down that slippery slope when when we want to treat any group of people as though all of its members are responsible for the actions or excesses of a few.

From my limited understanding of Islam, I'd say the muslims less so, because if they speak out, they have a realistic chance of being killed for speaking out against it and trying to stop it. More so in the middle east than here. Where as a christian here in the US, it is not a matter of life or death if they speak out.

Islam is whole 'nother ball of wax though, in my opinion, and I would be bitching just as much (probably more) as I am now if muslims were trying to get shira laws legislated or put into public schools.

Don't get me wrong, there are muslims and christians that do speak out, but, their voices are so few, they get lost in the static of the squeaky wheels.

But see it kind of is. Not actual life or death, but spiritual life or death. If through the conditioning of society and the church from a young age it is taught that to be a good Christian and show your love for Christ you should not support certain issues, people can feel like they are losing their spiritual life if they go against that.

Again, I think most "Christians" who pick and choose pieces from the Bible to believe and follow are those who have an agenda. That should not be a strike against religion itself, but on the individual.


Much like how agnostics/athiests cannot agree; Christians cannot agree on the exact meaning of these passages.

Based on my knowledge from theology classes and my own personal beliefs, here is the best way I can explain these types of verses:

People have difficulty believe in a God because that God must be "perfect" and how would that be possible in this imperfect world?

However, what if perfect does not necessarily mean "good"? What if it means "balance"? Balance requires a comparison, between good and evil, light and dark, etc. In order to truly appreciate the "good" of Earth, humanism, afterlife, etc., we need to know of both worlds.

It's interesting the difference in tone and message between the Old Testament and New Testament, and could feed into this "balance" idea.

Similarly, there are various references to homosexuality and cursing your parents as being regarded as a "sin". In case you hadn't noticed, there are many sins forbidden in the Bible, those which Christians and non-Christians commit each and every single day.

Why is this? Because to sin is but human nature. We were created to sin and to see the suffering from sin so we can understand the wonder and beauty of everything else in this world and beyond.

This is what people have a hard time with. How can the sin of murder possibly be equal to "fuck my mother"? It's kinda like rain. Whether it's a few rain-drops or a thunderstorm, both can get you wet.

So, what do we do with verses like these cited. In short, we try our best. We try our best to be good humans and do the right thing with the understanding that there is no merit-based system to get into heaven.

Well said.

I'm sorry but, spiritual life or death is not on the same playing field as actual physical life or death, but, I do understand what you mean, just don't feel the same way. :)

For you maybe not, for others it is far worse.

This is what makes me question how much someone may actually believe in their religion. I have no doubt that people think they believe in it, but subconsciously do they?

As you mentioned, Christians sin all the time. Whether it be swearing, working on the Sabbath, or having premaritial sex. In fact, we don't give many of these "sins" a second thought. I'd imagine the average Christian doesn't keep track of all the times he sins in a day.

So if you truly believed in God, truly believe your eternal destiny is based on your actions in this life, you would have to be mentally insane to commit those sins. Why would anyone ever risk their eternal happiness for something as mundane as using a curse word? I guess what I'm saying is that if I was given a ticket to heaven along with a set of rules I had to obey, there is no way in hell I would break those rules.

I totally understand. I think it's sad, but I do understand.

For Christians eternal destiny is not based on the actions we take. It's actually the opposite. For Christians our eternal destiny is based upon the belief in Christ and the grace of God.

Late to the party, but congrats tarcone. You've found the way.

For me, I try and live this life the best I can in the way I believe is right. I don't really think or worry too much about an eternal life as that will take care of itself when it happens. I am here now. I do think some (like suicide bombers and some Christians) get far too caught up in eternal life.

So sinning doesn't matter as long as you believe in Christ and the grace of God? So as long as murderers and rapists have it, they are going to have a great afterlife.

See, the thing is with the true love and presence of Christ and God, an individual would not commit those acts.

But RedKingGold just said Christians sin all the time. Are you saying that with true love and presence of Christ and God you will not sin?

We are saved by grace through faith...but faith without works is dead.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying individuals who are socialized into Christianity alone or may call themselves Christian necessarily have that love. It's also possible for someone to lose it and gain it back, so I do believe in spiritual redemption. If someone commits those acts, they should be punished in this life whether they are spiritually redeemed or not. But spiritually, I think redemption is possible.

No, of course not. Sometimes things get overlooked, but it's not the intention to sin. Murder/Rape for a Christian takes a conscience intention to sin, a conscience opposition to Christianity and the grace of god.

A man could sin in all kinds of horrible ways before THEN seeing the light, and accepting the "presence of Christ and God", and get in to heaven.

Unless he commited blaspheme, which is the one sin out of all of them that won't be forgiven.

Doesn't everything take a conscience intention to sin? If you know that working on the sabbath is a sin, yet you do it, are you not just as guilty of taking an opposition to Christianity and the grace of God?

It just seems by what you're saying that if you know something is a sin, yet you do it, you are not really a Christian at heart. That is fine with me, but it goes against the beliefs of some that even Christians sin. Just seems like an impossible paradox.

Yeah and I believe that. The fact is, if born into the right circumstances we're all capable of doing those terrible things.

Hmm, in that moment I would agree with you. I think you can be a good Christian, but have moments where you block out the love of Christ perhaps unintentionally.

But it doesn't always take conscience intention to sin. If I have been brought up that cursing is alright and do so before I find Christ, it might be a battle to stop doing that as it might happen sometimes without even thinking about it.

And regarding the sabbath, Jesus taught against that in the New Testament which for Christians outrules the old testament

It always amazes me when people who I consider to be smart and logical, show a complete lack of any common sense when it comes to religion.

Oh well, what are you going to do? On your quest to find Christ, did you guys happen to run into Gandalf and Frodo?

I am a little surprised that the creator of life, the universe, and everything would leave all of this up to the interpretation of humans. How can each group be so sure they've got it right? They cannot all be correct, given that there can be contradictions between them. If this creator cannot be bothered to set the record straight, why would they bother creating heaven? Because, despite all the planets, stars, and galaxies out there, we are the lone entities that this creator truly loves, yet keeps us in the dark about all the details? It just doesn't add up for me.

Plus it's still a struggle. It's in our nature that we sin, so a Christian still struggles to not sin, but of course will still do so. And frankly sometimes it's really hard to uphold all actions that are ideal to Christians. For example, honor thy mother and father is a commandment, but what if to do so you need to commit a sin? This is why I believe in following the overall message of the bible, and picking and choosing individual passages is for someone to try and support their own bias.

What's the point of life if God appeared in the sky and told us everything? There needs to be choices, doubt, faith.

I think many atheists feel the same way about living their lives as best as they can. I know I do try. I have my jerk moments though, just like everyone else.

Yes, I agree that there are some that do get far too caught up in eternal life.

If you read my posts earlier, there is a difference between publicly professing your love for God and truly loving god (i.e. the difference between saying your sorry and really meaning it). I personally believe there is some sort of atonement, but it is not I to say who or what that is.


As said above, eternal destiny is not based on "actions in this life." In fact, that's the "opposite" that most Christians believe. Humans are simply prone to sin, nothing more nothing less. We try our best, but we inevitably fall short on our own.

I think you are implying there is black/white decision between "free license to do whatever the hell we want" and "trying to do absolutely nothing because we fear sinning."

In line with my balance argument above, can't is simply be both? Murderer's don't murder every day and I'm sure Mother Theresa had a choice word or two for God/Christ every now and again.

The Bible itself is litered with examples that people point to as "contradictions." In Genesis, we see God telling Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Yet, in other passages have Jesus being compassionate to those who many would consider, well, bad people. So which one is true? Why can't they both?

Perhaps the Bible is written the way it is because human beings are all individuals and all different. Tarcone, for example, needed to find his own path. This is why he called it "finding" Jesus or religion. Perhaps some people who make wrong choices need different forms of Scripture to reach them. While "fear" is considered to be a negative emotion, does it not also have positive effects? Perhaps this is God knowing us more than we really think.


Here's what I think is really going on here, and in this thread. There is a stereotype of Christians that we all hang around gay bars with signs pointing to individual choices leading to a path of everlasting destruction.

I would argue that, like most stereotypes, that is an inaccurate description of most in the Christian faith. It is no less incorrect as "all blacks are great at sports", or "all Muslims are terrorists".

Most Christians (at least those that I know), are generally good people at heart. They make mistakes, perhaps don't go to church all the time, perhaps good make better life-choices. However, using Christianity as a backbone, they try to do their best to make sense out of a world that, at times makes little sense at all.

Tell that to all the suckers who were born long before Christianity ever reached their shores (or after their own religion had long been established), and are now all burning in eternal hellfire because God relied on some desert herdsmen in an obscure part of the world to spread His word around the globe. Very. Very. Slowly.

The bible never addresses this, and my opinion is meaningless as only god knows, but I believe opportunity must be there. if someone never has the opportunity to accept Christ, they will not be judged.

Again, well said.

Christ didn't pick and choose which sins would be forgiven and which would not. Christ's death was forgiveness for ALL sins.


Still thinking in human terms. God/Christ does not know consicous v. unconscious sins. What beliefs does this go against?


No, but if I do, I'll let you know. :D


Free will. At once it is beautiful and a bitch, ain't it?

Not exactly.

What about people who lived and died before Christ?

Just seems like a waste though. If that's the case, why would he even bother to send his son to that one obscure spot on the globe, for the benefit of one group of people, while he left all the other peoples scattered around the globe in the dark. But they then get a chance to accept Christ anyway? Seems more logical to have sent several sons all over the globe, and far earlier than he did?

Honesty, I'm not sure, but I'd say where it ended up today seems to have worked out. Just enough for there to be that free will, that choice, that doubt, that need for faith.

Yeah, well, that says the Jews and folks who believed in the OT God are OK. But what about the Buddhists? The Animists? The Ancient Greeks? Egyptians? Etc. etc.

I would actually be curious as to why he just messed around for billions of years. The primordial sludge to dinosaurs to apes. Why take such an odd path to reaching the human species? And why mess around for billions of years before getting down to business?

Like I said, AFAIK, the bible never directly addresses those who do not have the opportunity or ability to believe. This goes for individuals with certain disabilities, and perhaps someone who seems perfectly normal, but was brought up in just the right circumstances that their mind blocks them from accepting Christ even though their soul might have his love anyway.

He sorta does:

"Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." -Mark 3:29

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." -Matthew 12:31

I'm off to bed, but I appreciate the manner in which everyone presented their viewpoints :).

An interesting question, indeed. Not sure I get the point of life if it is supposed to be spent guessing at what God wants me to do, when God couldn't be bothered to make it obvious. Any human who did such a piss poor job would eventually be fired.

Hmmm. Judging by the company I work for, I'm not so sure. ;)

Sounds more like bullshit. You've got to be one major asshole to do the things attributed to God in the Holy Bible to begin with, but to then say we should all jump through hoops to please "Him" and perhaps be murdered, tortured, raped, or just slowly killed by some terrible disease is going a bit too far.

Hey, don't worry about slowly dying from cancer and having all your life savings drained to pay for that morphine (Thanks for inventing that, God! It helps us get by while suffering from one of those terminal ailments you created to test us with!), you will eventually be off to a much better place once God is through giving you some tough love. Your small child is diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 2? Oh well. God won't bother explaining a damn thing to you, but he decided to make them go through all kinds of treatments, just to finally kill them by the time they are 4. Don't bother asking why God did this. I'm sure some jerk will say that toddler was tainted with original sin and had it coming to them. See, God doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. We're all rat bastards from the start, who are supposed to spend our lives hoping to please God just enough to maybe let us go off to Heaven.

Eternal happiness, of course, means never being able to contact those you left behind when you got ran over by a truck on the way to work. You get to be eternally happy about having absolutely no influence on the lives of those you left behind... If they don't jump through the right hoops, supposedly you will be waiting forever for them to show up, but at least you'll be happy about it?

Again, why distinguish? Why can't Christ reveal himself in a way to individuals who otherwise would not be able to see them due to cultural differences? What if Christ is more than just a man who lived on Earth 2,000 years ago, but could be our own culture's way of seeing Him?


Great things take time. Perhaps part of God's beauty is the scientific way we came about to be.


As both Scripture say/indicate, note how "all" blasphmy is included, and only blasphmy against the "Holy Spirit" is singled out.

References to the Holy Ghost as usually coined to as the "Spirit of God." The Spirit of God is usually meant to relate to the connection between Christ's death and being saved (ex: the dove) In essence, to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not to be denying God but be denying the forgiveness that Jesus supposedly granted.

For example, take the mass murderer who suddenly proclaims that he believes in Christ and shall be saved. He is a blasphmer unless he is true in heart (which only God/Christ, beyond our human knowledge) can know. Thus, this person 'cannot' be saved, because there is nothing to be saved. In a way, he has rejected God's forgiveness, no matter how much he pleads that he has not.

Similarly, the infirm who passes away but has never professed a belief in God/Christ can still be saved by the "Holy Spirit" because his true heart matches what the Holy Spirit has granted. Therefore, this person (whom some might seem to think as a "blasphmer" is not really a blasphmer against the Holy Spirit.


You're right. We should be fired.

These are tortures/pains related to our human condition. The promise of Christianity/Religion is that there is something more beyond the pain we suffer in this human realm (or theatan level). However, I believe that these pains/horrific realities are part of the choice created by the beauty of free will.


Well, if God doesn't exist, who are you going to take a number from to sit and wait to complain about these conditions of the human element?


In your view, they'd be dead and it wouldn't matter anyway. Right?

Good. I didn't expect an admission that humans created God to surface like this, but I accept it.

I thought it took 6 days.

Free will for your cells to turn on you? Free will to catch a virus that you did nothing wrong to contract? If that is what this is all about, I'm reminded once again why I won't play this silly game.


If there is a God, they can kiss my ass. I will go right on to Hell or wherever else this being wants to send me, because I will never forgive them for the evils allowed to exist here. Of course, I find it highly unlikely that I will ever have to worry about any of it since I doubt such a being exists, much less a heaven or hell.


Yep. On the remote chance I am wrong, it's a really horrible way to run things. The only way humans can be "eternally happy" in that situation would be for their memories to be erased. It's not likely that everyone they ever cared about and loved would meet the admission criteria, so if they remembered those who are missing they wouldn't be eternally happy.

I'm the opposite to Tarcone, a person who was raised as Christian, as everybody in Spain, where Christian Catholic religion is an assignature taught since you are 6 years old to the end of high school and that counts for your final grades, but that slowly was lossing the faith to end becoming an atheist a few years ago.

Over all those years i gave religion a lot of thought, had lots of unanswered questions, or better said, all with the same answer, "you must have faith" and ended realizing that the religion i was raised on was not very different from all the other sects. It could have some good ideas, but humans turn those good ideas into ways to become more powerful and to destroy those that do not think like them.

Just read what was made in the name of god both in Spain and South America by my ancestres, not really different from what fanatic muslims or fanatic jews do in the current century.

I have even reached the point of wondering how could i have been that blind for years, and feeling so angry against those persons that tried to wash my brain.

On the other hand, I'm happy for people like Tarcone, that find something in their lives that makes them happy, but at same time i can't avoid to wonder if they have really thought, researched and learned about religion and what it means or should mean for them or if they just "saw the light" and all the sudden they blindy believe in all that is told to them to not risk losing their new found happyness.


Exactly my thoughts, if God existed and he thought that killing my recent born baby was a good idea to make me a better person (or what his church tells me that is to be a good person), i would like to tell him that he was totally wrong, and that it was maybe the final step to turn me into a religions/sects hater.

As you said, unless he has the power to erase my memory, i would prefer to burn in hell than to to go to his "heaven", that would prove me that he exists and that he allowed a really loved recent born baby to die in pain, or that allows gottimd's wife to lose a baby, to get pregnant again and then to lose his husband before he had even a chance to know his son. Of course i better don't start to think about wars, ilness, pain, kills in god's name, etc.

If god exists, i can only see him as a terrible "person" playing sim city and having fun building a city and then sending tornadoes to see what will happen, or like a kid that pisses in the ants hole to see them run, a god that enjoys making people's lifes really miserable to end giving them ethernal happiness once they die.

At the end my religion is just to try to create my small heaven here in this life and to invite to it with my acts the people around me to enjoy it too. If a god exists and sends me to go to hell for doing that, i'll happilly go there instead to his brainwashed heaven were everybody is "happy" (i can't avoid to imagine a heaven full of people in drugs feeling so "happy" all the time).

+1

Same situation for me, being born and raised as a Roman Catholic like 90% of Filipinos. I'm more of an agnostic now, and pretty open to all sorts of religions and faiths.

Great discussion and I can't help but wondering: Why would God create a set of rules to follow that are contradictory, mis-interpreted, and impossible to follow without sinning...and yet if you sin, you can be forgiven? I mean, the Ten Commandments were pretty much clear cut, eh?

On the other hand, why would man create a set of rules to follow that are contradictory, need to be interpreted, and impossible to follow without sinning...and yet if you sin, man tells you you can be forgiven?

I tend to lean towards man explanation since it comes down to power over the people.

Days is a term of comparison. A day in "God's" time might be millions of millions of years.


That's fine. My attempts to respond in this thread were not to try and convert you, but rather to defend what I believe against some hurtful stereotypes that you guys have which are inconsistent with what most Christians truly believe. But I fully understand that what I personally believe is not many (any?) person's cup of tea.


This is a fair enough point. Personally, I do believe that you should make some attempt to understand the religion that you do or do not follow. I feel like participating in, observing, and learning about other religions has helped shaped my own personal beliefs.

What tarcone has done/is doing has basically gone to extremes. While I believe the "instant" transformation is possible, it's kinda of like crash dieting. If a 400 lb. man instantly cut his calories to 1200 per day, there is a chance that he might stick with it, drop 220 pounds, and stay at that weight for the rest of his life.

However, we also understand that that dude is very likely for a relapse and hasn't really changed at all. Similarly, I myself am critical of those who have "found Jesus", because people who I have come across who prosthelyze about an immediate turnaround often do so without full understanding of Christian faith.


I will not even come close of trying to put on your shoes. You have undergone one of the worst things I think someone on Earth could go through, and I would admit that going through a similar trial would cause doubts in what I believe in.


Again, as I said above, I don't think these are rules at all. Like life, I think lessons in the Bible exist to be sources of comparison for human individuals. As part of the consequence of free will, there must be knowledge of the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, if only to demonstrate potential consequences for our actions.

Let me ask a question.

Do you guys believe in alien life forms living on another planet in another solar system in this universe? If so, why?

Believe? Like place blind faith in it? No. Is it possible? Sure it is! The better question is whether "intelligent life" is likely to have evolved on other planets. This requires the planet to be hospitable for life for an extremely long time in order to arrive at the same evolutionary stage that we are part of. We showed up rather late in the game, if you look at it from a high level. Assuming there are planets that have managed to harbor life long enough...

Will we ever even know about them? Hard to say, but it seems a bit unlikely due to the huge distances involved (and therefore time that would have to be spent traveling or transmitting information). Even if we were to receive a single transmission from some other life form on another planet, so much time will have passed that it would be no indication of what life is currently like for them, and we might not even recognize it for what it really is until years later (if ever) as well. These other life forms may very well have given up on ever receiving communication from other places in the universe by the time we get around to a response. Even the closest planets that we know about, outside of our own solar system, are so far away that we aren't likely to ever get there.

Oh...and as for Why? Because the Universe is extremely large. We do not know everything there is to know about it. We know the planets in our solar system aren't the only ones out there. We don't know what is really happening on these distant planets, not to mention just how many might be out there that we do not know about. Going by the probabilities that I have read about, there is a likelihood that there could be life on as many as a few billion planets.

Yes since it's a matter of probabilities. Just like with the existence of God being improbable, the existence of aliens is probable.

The Drake Equation: Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the fear of being sentenced to "eternal torment" in "Hell" were removed, would people "believe" in the same numbers that they currently do? Is it possible that many people are scared/coerced into "faith" because the alternative they have been taught is so incredibly scary that they are unwilling to risk it? I've read and heard people, over the years, say things like, "It sure beats going to Hell" as a reason that they go to church the 2 or 3 times a year that they bother.

This is what I'm not getting. How can the existence of God be automatically decalared improbable whereas existence of aliens qualifies as probable. Is it because of a lack of scientific formula?

We can debate unlikely vs. likely and levels of probability, but to automatically go "black and white" and instantly conclude that there is no possibility any form or semblance of God exists cannot make sense when religion cannot be inherently proven or disproven (like alien life).


Hey, as said above. Fear is bad but is also a very powerful motivator and capable of causing human emotion and impact. Heck, "fear" is produced into our brain as self-preservation. Is fear really that negative of an emotion?

There is a reason that confessions to a crime are often not recognized if you can demonstrate that you were coerced/threatened to give it. Fear is definitely a strong motivator, but not exactly the best way to arrive at the truth.

We have no basis on which to judge the likelihood of God's existence. We know what kind of conditions led to life here on earth, and can extrapolate that based on the large number of solar systems in the universe, it is likely that another planet with similar enough conditions to our own exists. We can't do this with God, however, because we don't have anything to base any extrapolations on.

There is certainly the possibility of a semblance of God, but the probability of him being the God people worship is small based upon below...

Furthermore, isn't the likelihood of God's existence ultimately based upon faith? If so, then it becomes a circular argument that you believe so he is. Logically, it's a false argument at that point because it's not based on any type of credible proof. The probability (not possibility) becomes small enough to discount at that point.

Depends on your definition of "credible proof". By my own personal measure, that burden has been satisfied by the Bible and by my own perception of the world.

Further, if we're only talking about size of probabilities, by saying that the probability is of God existing is too small to be significant, you yourself have conceded that God existing is not improbable.

Again, we're talking about "best v. worst". That varies based on the individual. Part of Christ/God/Religion's message is the ability to try and reach individuals, who vary in terms of how they think and communicate, on a broader scale. Unfortunately, society is proven through our need of punitive treatment that some people need fear to guide their lives.

I think it's likely just because there are so many planets to begin with. They've just found traces of methane in the atmosphere of Mars, which suggests something is giving it off.

There is no basis for discussing the probability of God existing, really, other than the fact that he has left no tangible evidence of his existence. That doesn't prove he doesn't exist, but neither does it do anything to convince anyone that he does.

And so is my belief in Hobbits, based on The Lord of the Rings. The existence of something should be determined by more than a book claiming it to be so, shouldn't it? What evidence is there, beyond this book, that "proves" the existence of God?

It's about faith. So what if there being a God is improbable. You realize all of the tons of improbable things that had to happen for any of us to be here on a text sim message board discussing this? Fact is, while we all believe we know for sure, none of us actually know for sure.

And now we are back to the augment about the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

But we were talking about probability. It takes more than "faith" for there to be a probability that something exists. I can "believe" that I have a great chance at winning the Lottery, but that doesn't mean I actually do.

I think the bigger question is, if it's invisible, why do people care so much if it doesn't exist.

Do you stomp your feet and shout at the sky if you don't win the lottery?

Life itself.

If I get a Christmas gift, and have no idea who got it for me, that means Santa exists.

Hey, if you believe or don't believe in religion/God/unicorns/Santa, etc. that's your choice. Why harp and put down people who do? Simply because that belief is illogical?

Because those who believe in Santa keep trying to Santa-fy my country.

So, let's paint all those who believe in Santa with a broad brush and say they all must be eliminated or what they believe must be eradicated?

A Holocaust on Santa, post haste!

Excuse me?

It's like the knife-maker being sued because someone used a knife to stab someone. Are knives potentially dangerous weapons used to maim, kill, threaten? Of course. However, they are also tools of utility.

Similarly, religion can bring about negative effects based on individuals who use it to serve their own goals. But that, in and of itself, does not make religion evil. Those who are religious may receive positive benefits in their lives that might not be achieved without it.

Point being, there is no reason to criticize people for believing in something that does not exist unless it has some impact on you. I argue that religion only impact nonreligious people when individuals use religion to serve their own individual goals. This wrong is caused by the individual, not the religion itself. "Guns don't kill people, I kill people, etc. etc."

That's fine. I hope your religion makes you as fulfilled as possible.

Duly noted.