What happens if you die?(part 1)

[Corvus of the Black Night]

...why would God want to punish us for believing in different interpretations of Him, though? Pretty much every single theory we've come up with to explain the universe, from ancient stories to science has some kind of "force" that pushes it through...

I think God's like a good parent that marvels our existence and only wants the best for us, which is why He (or She, or It) would wave the stick at us back in line. I think it's this kind of squabbling of which a God would detest rather than believing in different religions.

Think about it - we're so proud that we'll claim that we're right about whatever created the universe, telling all the others they're wrong, sometimes even producing hatred and wars because of it... out of our own pride. Maybe this is what religious texts really mean, rather than something to be taken literally.

Of course, this is just an opinion. I have no intention in changing anyone else's thoughts.

 

[Luck]

He sent His only son *because* he is infinitely benevolent. Rather than requiring burned offerings and sacrifices to be continually made, Christ served as the final and ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins. And you focus way too much on the sacrifice aspect. The crucifixion is not the main focus of the faith; the resurrection is the main highlight of Christianity.

Yet they have so much detail on the death. Tell me, why did the people see different things when they come to the grave?

Magic is the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc. When you actually make fish and bread out of thin air, that's called a miracle. So no, He's not a magician; He's the Lord.

Wrong definition. Look at definition 2. But if you want, I would call it sorcery, or even witchcraft, just to avoid confusion.

Actually it was. You're on mark in that it does have symbolism and literary writings in. However the Bible was always intended to be a historical record. The entire book of Genesis is basically the genealogy of Adam to Joseph. Exodus, freedom from Egypt. Leviticus, the laws of the Hebrews. Numbers, the growth and creation of the Jewish armies. Deuteronomy, the sermons and death of Moses. Joshua, the expansion of Israel and conquering of its enemies. Judges, the filling of leadership roles. And it goes on and on. The entirety of the Bible, save for some exemptions, is intended to portray the history of man, especially the nation of Israel and the family tree of Adam.

Yet we don't see any evidence for any of those supernatural events outside of religious books.

As for historical recognition of Christ, the Lord-

• The eyewitnesses that willingly endured torture and death at the hands of the Romans for refusing to retract their testimony of the resurrection
• The Apostle Matthew
• Mark the Evangelist
• Apostle Simon Peter
• The Apostle Paul, then Saul of Tarsus
• The companion of the Apostle Paul, Luke
• The Apostle John
• The Apostle James
• The court historian for Emperor Vespasian, Flavius Josephus
• The first-century Roman historian, Tacitus
• The historian, Thallus
• Julius Africanus
• Clement, elder of Rome
• Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger
• Emperor Trajan
• Mara Bar-Serapion of Syria
• The chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas
• The second century Greek writer, Lucian
• The bishop of Antioch, Ignatius
• Quadratus of Athens
• Justin Martyr
• Saint Barnabas

That's a short list. I'm not even including the historical life and times of Christ and countless writings about him. Jesus Christ is well-documented, more so than many other well-accepted historical figures of that time.

Damn it, you actually used Josephus. He was a Christian, but that isn't all. He was born AFTER the death of Jesus, as well as Tacitus, Quadratus of Athens, Ignatius, Pliny, and Mara Bar Serapion. Julius Africanus was a Christian historian of the late second century to early 3rd century.I didn't even check the others, since I just find it funny that you actually used the apostles as evidence, when they were only found in the Bible. Saint Clemens has an unknown date of birth, so I really can't comment on that. Thallus doesn't have an accurate record of when he wrote, so I suggest you get a real scholar to talk about this. And please tell me just how Philo could miss all of the events of Jesus, when he lived in his timeline, AND he wrote extensively about the Jews. FYI, the eyewitness was in the Bible. Use an outside source. Before you copy and paste these 'records', please check before doing so. Thanks.

It's more like "we can go to any coffee shop, but all of them except Starbucks are selling poison." The outcome of your choices is on you, not God. He warns you, and you decide whether to listen.

Yet he does nothing to possibly change your thoughts. And he knows everything, so he should know exactly what I choose before I die.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

...That's their opinion, however, there's no need to rip on them for that. They use their books evidence, you use science. What's the point in fighting if you cannot agree on a single, reliable source? It seems stupid, but if you guys can't get on level ground then what's the point in proving yourself? You'll just be arguing how right you are and how wrong the other guy is, not actually proving anything.

:p

Although I do approve of your last ripping. Kudos. lol

 

[Luck]

...That's their opinion, however, there's no need to rip on them for that. They use their books evidence, you use science. What's the point in fighting if you cannot agree on a single, reliable source?

:p

It isn't opinion. This is whether or not something is true, opinion is purely subjective. His mentioning of Christian Historians supporting Christian 'history' is laughable at best. Of course Christians would support Christianity. I won't deny that Jesus did exist, but not in the Christian viewpoint.
And thanks :3

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It isn't opinion. This is whether or not something is true, opinion is purely subjective. His mentioning of Christian Historians supporting Christian 'history' is laughable at best. Of course Christians would support Christianity. I won't deny that Jesus did exist, but not in the Christian viewpoint.
And thanks :3

If you feel it's true that they're a fool, let them wallow in their own stupidity.

Although arguing over something as vague as God or life after death is laughable in of itself. We do know for a fact that life ceases to function after what we call "death", in fact, this is a main way of how its defined. What happens to the "soul" (or whether it even exists or not) is completely subjective and is kind of pointless to debate without substantial evidence proving one side is wrong or not. You can easily say the same evidence for such matter proves or disproves the existence of a soul, or God, or heaven, or whatever. It's a matter of interpretation of what we have presented in front of us, and since we have so little to base it off of, we cannot draw any fully valid conclusions, which is what I call a belief.

This thread seems best as simply a "this is what I think" thread rather than a debate, simply because we just don't have enough information to prove or disprove the ideas.

 

[Feign]

*hugs Charon*

I do indeed love diplomacy when indeed no obvious outcome can be made. :)

It's interesting though, how each of our own view might permeate our own actions...

While the majority of people (both atheistic and theistic) would attempt to live a morally sound life, it is interesting to speculate the outcome of this (when a person dies). It's kind of like the Priest child abuser vs. the atheist. Like if God had to chose one to go to heaven or hell, which one would it be? XD

Also I mention the majority because there are some psychopaths out there (etc) that don't have a moral compass. Of course there are people like me, that believe morality is a human condition, wherein our actions (aside from the mortal world) will not be condemned. That is not to say it is now okay to do whatever we want... I mean as kids we are taught what and what not to do, and if you agree or disagree with that, that is fine. I really believe that mortality is an experience, the likes of which can take any direction, leaving us to all end up in the same place in the end... A sort of mutual understanding if you will.

Lol... On a side note, while typing this up, I keep watching your digimon sig go up and down. XD

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

lol distraction

I personally feel that if there was a deity (or deities) that have an emotional bonding with us, that he (or she, or it) is upset over how we fight over our beliefs and interpretations of him. We're in essence fighting over the same thing, just picking at the details. Why is it that we as a species must point at each other and tell them they're wrong over something we do not, and cannot, understand ourselves?

To me, death is the point we simply do not know what lies beyond it. I personally don't think much of it - there could be a heaven, there could be reincarnation, there could just be nothing. I take life to the fullest and live it, rather than worrying about what will happen to me when I die.

 

[Feign]

Hmmm in death, would that constitute as a certain direction to heaven or hell?

Which reminds me of an episode of south park, where it was mentioned that only mormons got to go to Heaven. XD (and among other people in hell were Ghandi and Steve Irwin) XD

Lol :P You just happened to delete your post when I posted mine, so it made a merger post XD

 

[txteclipse]

Yet he does nothing to possibly change your thoughts. And he knows everything, so he should know exactly what I choose before I die.

Actually, he does plenty to try and change your mind. Doesn't mean you have to acknowledge that fact, which again is your choice.

And yes, he does know exactly what you're going to choose.

Anyway, in response to Feign and Charon, I've seen threads like this get to hundreds of pages. So yeah, the debate aspect usually doesn't get much of anywhere. Then again, what is progress in the grand scheme of all that can be known?

 

[Feign]

Actually, he does plenty to try and change your mind. Doesn't mean you have to acknowledge that fact, which again is your choice.

ie the "mysterious way" way XD

And yes, he does know exactly what you're going to choose.

As in the ultimate best educated guess? Or just because he already knew? (fate anotherwords)

Anyway, in response to Feign and Charon, I've seen threads like this get to hundreds of pages. So yeah, the debate aspect usually doesn't get much of anywhere. Then again, what is progress in the grand scheme of all that can be known?

Lol indeed... Though assuming somehow or rather that lets say we do go to Heaven when we die (proved in whatever way imaginable), would humanity act any differently?

 

[Luck]

Actually, he does plenty to try and change your mind. Doesn't mean you have to acknowledge that fact, which again is your choice.

And yes, he does know exactly what you're going to choose.

Then it really can't be free will. I don't know about you, but to me, you give decisions when you aren't sure of the outcome. I wouldn't ask you if you like A or B when I know you like A, but I'm pretty sure that my decision is clearly inferior since I am only a human.

And it is pretty immature that he never tries to change my mind by just coming to me personally. I think there would be much less religions in the world if god just went to an area with a high nonreligious population and showed the miracles. The only thing he did have to change our minds is an inaccurate book filled with literal and metaphorical interpretations, where almost all text can be taken metaphorically or taken 'out of context' even though there is nothing even hinting at it being in a different context than the literal interpretation. Sloppy work much?

If you feel it's true that they're a fool, let them wallow in their own stupidity.

I'm pretty sure that you know stupidity is an easily curable disease when you have the knowledge.

Although arguing over something as vague as God or life after death is laughable in of itself. We do know for a fact that life ceases to function after what we call "death", in fact, this is a main way of how its defined. What happens to the "soul" (or whether it even exists or not) is completely subjective and is kind of pointless to debate without substantial evidence proving one side is wrong or not. You can easily say the same evidence for such matter proves or disproves the existence of a soul, or God, or heaven, or whatever. It's a matter of interpretation of what we have presented in front of us, and since we have so little to base it off of, we cannot draw any fully valid conclusions, which is what I call a belief.

Humans in general or only a certain group? Because I know many gnostics that 'know' their god is the right one. As for me, I don't believe there is a god because I haven't seen any evidence. Complexity doesn't count.

This thread seems best as simply a "this is what I think" thread rather than a debate, simply because we just don't have enough information to prove or disprove the ideas.

Philosophy isn't just 'what I think', it is more complex than that.

 

[txteclipse]

ie the "mysterious way" way XD

And it is pretty immature that he never tries to change my mind by just coming to me personally.

I'm going to answer these simultaneously. As a Christian, I find the evidence for God's existence absolutely staggering. The human mind. Life. Love. Math in nature. The fact that the universe is so beautifully diverse instead of providing the absolute basics of humanity's needs in every shade of the color gray. My personal relationship with God, and what He's done in my life. In my opinion, we're practically drowning in proof for His existence.

However, not everyone recognizes these things as evidence. Again, it comes down to a choice. My question is, "how much evidence do you need before you're convinced?" I'd wager that even if God Himself came down and stood right in front of certain people and even jabbed them in the chest with a finger, they'd put it off as some insane daydream or momentary psychosis.

As in the ultimate best educated guess? Or just because he already knew? (fate anotherwords)

As in He already knew. And it's not fate, per se: He knows what you're going to pick, but you still have to pick. If it was fate, He'd just make a bunch of people and put some of them in Heaven and some of them in Hell. The choices are still there, He simply knows which way you'll choose. In that regard, you're deciding your future, not Him.

Lol indeed... Though assuming somehow or rather that lets say we do go to Heaven when we die (proved in whatever way imaginable), would humanity act any differently?

When we die, the veil of humanity will be pulled away, which is what causes us to be imperfect. So basically we will become perfect when we enter Heaven, or in other words without sin.

 

[Feign]

I'm going to answer these simultaneously. As a Christian, I find the evidence for God's existence absolutely staggering. The human mind. Life. Love. Math in nature. The fact that the universe is so beautifully diverse instead of providing the absolute basics of humanity's needs in every shade of the color gray. My personal relationship with God, and what He's done in my life. In my opinion, we're practically drowning in proof for His existence.

Reminds me of the girl (who dies) in Bridge to Terrebithia, she points out that God isn't all vengeful (in reference to the main character's sister saying that she doesn't believe in the Bible or whatever it was meant she was going to hell), because he was to busy making all this (she points around to the natures in the world). It is indeed a nice semblance, but on the retrospect as you mention of course won't give some people a peace of mind. :S

But this too comes from experience... Not just faith... Let's say a child who comes from a family who believes in God, and the child believes in God too, suddenly the child's parents die. While an adult may take this as a part of life etc. The child may believe that this was more or less done on purpose and feel themselves to blame etc. Perhaps this guilt leads to Atheism (of course there are worse outcomes but we understand what that could mean), needless to say this is probably part of the reason why there are lots of Atheists these days, because of the fear tactics that Churches seem to place... It is not like it is difficult to deal with The Truth (as in what the Christians might believe), but rather that it may just seem so backwards to them). Of course being learned of religion as a child vs. an adult is two different things... That's why I don't wholly like the idea of introducing religion to a child at a young age... This doesn't mean that they will become deviants of course... because you can teach them morals found in the Bible that are relevant of course.

However, not everyone recognizes these things as evidence. Again, it comes down to a choice. My question is, "how much evidence do you need before you're convinced?" I'd wager that even if God Himself came down and stood right in front of certain people and even jabbed them in the chest with a finger, they'd put it off as some insane daydream or momentary psychosis.

I believe that God merely got the ball rolling, so perhaps he knew for example he was going to create trees and everything else, he just did it with one event (such as the theory of the big bang), it's like adding precise ingredients. What about that show 'Touched by an Angel'? XD To prove evidence they had that Heavenly light, which in itself was kind of cheesy but I guess still proved evidence enough. XD

As in He already knew. And it's not fate, per se: He knows what you're going to pick, but you still have to pick. If it was fate, He'd just make a bunch of people and put some of them in Heaven and some of them in Hell. The choices are still there, He simply knows which way you'll choose. In that regard, you're deciding your future, not Him.

Ah yeah, that is what I had addressed in my thoughts before, namely that he already knew it, we just didn't know that he knew it or rather that it was fated that we were supposed to do it.

Fate is an interesting thing though... I mean, if I were fated to kill someone, would it be right for me to go to hell? Even if it was (more or less) against my will?

When we die, the veil of humanity will be pulled away, which is what causes us to be imperfect. So basically we will become perfect when we enter Heaven, or in other words without sin.

I wouldn't call human nature so much as imperfect, more of an "experience" but I essentially agree with you there. That all of us will end up in the same place, with the same understanding and same semblance (but regardless of what was done in the mortal plane).

OOoo there is also the debate of innocense and experience in terms of death. What if a child who was born of a satanic family, beaten everyday, and yet believes in the satanic figure (or equivalent) because the child had been indoctrinated at a young age; would that child go to Heaven or Hell?

All in all, I know where both sides are coming from, and as a result have found my own values and faiths. :)

 

[Luck]

I'm going to answer these simultaneously. As a Christian, I find the evidence for God's existence absolutely staggering. The human mind. Life. Love. Math in nature. The fact that the universe is so beautifully diverse instead of providing the absolute basics of humanity's needs in every shade of the color gray. My personal relationship with God, and what He's done in my life. In my opinion, we're practically drowning in proof for His existence.

But that is the problem. The very thing you mentioned can be also applied to Allah, Zeus, Horus, Ra, Krishna, and basically any other god. The fact that you believe that your god is the correct one doesn't make you correct. Existence is based on the facts, not on perspectives. Personal relationships don't work for me either, because it just always turns out that other people of other religions have seen different gods, although there should only be one, considering that the monotheistic religion is true and accurate and all that jazz.

However, not everyone recognizes these things as evidence. Again, it comes down to a choice. My question is, "how much evidence do you need before you're convinced?"

When there is real evidence. Looking at something and seeing the complexity doesn't make me a man of faith(as it shouldn't work if a Muslim tells you about all of those, except with Allah instead), and I do hope you won't use something similar to the watchmaker argument against me for this.

I'd wager that even if God Himself came down and stood right in front of certain people and even jabbed them in the chest with a finger, they'd put it off as some insane daydream or momentary psychosis.

You can't blame them. It isn't every day that they are stabbed by a supernatural being.
And there are a few people that had their first experience while using cocaine.

As in He already knew. And it's not fate, per se: He knows what you're going to pick, but you still have to pick. If it was fate, He'd just make a bunch of people and put some of them in Heaven and some of them in Hell. The choices are still there, He simply knows which way you'll choose. In that regard, you're deciding your future, not Him.

But the fact of the matter remains that you make decisions when you don't know something. If someone has knowledge of everything that will happen, and it cannot be changed, then why is it not fate to an extent? But if the decision can in fact be changed, then He made an error. Kinda weird, considering the supreme ruler of existence makes an error.

When we die, the veil of humanity will be pulled away, which is what causes us to be imperfect. So basically we will become perfect when we enter Heaven, or in other words without sin.

But of course, we are born in sin thanks to Eve, and there begins serious sexism because of the act of one person, supposedly of course. Tell me, would you blame your grandchildren for something your child would do?

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I'm pretty sure that you know stupidity is an easily curable disease when you have the knowledge.

But... it's fun to watch... :x

Humans in general or only a certain group? Because I know many gnostics that 'know' their god is the right one. As for me, I don't believe there is a god because I haven't seen any evidence. Complexity doesn't count.

Well, if you think about it, humanity as a whole wants answers. That's what brought forth God. Unfortunately, some people think that this is the only answer, which is where the conflict comes from. A lot of the explanations are very similar in their heart, but they diverge, and it's the puny little details that people fight over, the ones we can't prove nor disprove. What's the point of fighting over something like that?

Philosophy isn't just 'what I think', it is more complex than that.

Well... it's not philosophy... is it. It's just a general discussion over what people think happens after death.

But that is the problem. The very thing you mentioned can be also applied to Allah, Zeus, Horus, Ra, Krishna, and basically any other god. The fact that you believe that your god is the correct one doesn't make you correct. Existence is based on the facts, not on perspectives. Personal relationships don't work for me either, because it just always turns out that other people of other religions have seen different gods, although there should only be one, considering that the monotheistic religion is true and accurate and all that jazz.

It's strange, isn't it? How similar the beings really are. In their roots they are an explanation for things we do not understand, for things we cannot explain. To me, God may have an emotional feeling to me, but overall He serves as a buffer for what I do not understand. He is more like infinity than any feasible thing we understand, and that's why I compare Him to the mathematical limit - we can ask as many whys as we want, but we won't ever know everything. For the things at the moment we cannot explain, God serves as an explanation. As we discover more and more, He symbolizes less and less... but since the path to full understanding is infinite, there's no point in which He (to me) means nothing.

Of course, there are those who do not accept the idea of God because they have no evidence to prove He exists (which is perfectly fine, because what constitutes as valid evidence changes from person to person), and simply leave the unknown to the unknown, which is perfectly fine as well.

When there is real evidence. Looking at something and seeing the complexity doesn't make me a man of faith(as it shouldn't work if a Muslim tells you about all of those, except with Allah instead), and I do hope you won't use something similar to the watchmaker argument against me for this.

I fully agree - the complexity of something does not simply mean some being created it - we are currently communicating on extremely complicated pieces of machinery we produced as a society, so why can't evolution create something as marvelous as ourselves, or all the life that surrounds us today?

Of course, this does not prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

You can't blame them. It isn't every day that they are stabbed by a supernatural being.
And there are a few people that had their first experience while using cocaine.

Many people feel that God is a very aggressive being, but why is this? I think that the reason a very strict deity developed through the Church, not the people. It was a control mechanism to give the Church it's money, power and overall fortune. It's rather unfortunate for someone like me, who defines her beliefs with herself rather than what someone tells me, because I am always told I am wrong, and I will go to hell, and yadda yadda yadda.

It's a form of segregation that was formed by the Church, and is prolonged by the people who follow them. It's terrible to see a huge mass of people, unwilling to think for themselves, to develop their own theories, ideas, based on what they have in front of them rather than what some old book tells them.

But the fact of the matter remains that you make decisions when you don't know something. If someone has knowledge of everything that will happen, and it cannot be changed, then why is it not fate to an extent? But if the decision can in fact be changed, then He made an error. Kinda weird, considering the supreme ruler of existence makes an error.

This is exactly why I feel that God is a dormant force, a force that works behind the curtain, rather than take center-stage. To me, it makes more sense to combine free will with a set of systems in place rather than a God that knows and controls everything. To me, God isn't a guy who knows everything, does everything. Heck, to me, God doesn't know anything - He's a force that is similar to gravity, or nuclear forces, or whatever. He is the force of moving forward, and He, until proven otherwise, is what generated the systems that built the universe, rather than doing it directly Himself.

But of course, we are born in sin thanks to Eve, and there begins serious sexism because of the act of one person, supposedly of course. Tell me, would you blame your grandchildren for something your child would do?

The Bible was written by man, and because power is important to us as a species, man will do whatever it takes to be superior, even if its only to the opposite gender. Hideous, isn't it.

The story of Adam and Eve is, again, symbolic (to put it simply - listen to God because He warns you - but whether this story has worth is up to the reader) but it's unfortunate how people take it fully as literal truth and continue to segregate women because of it. Jesus didn't help much either, CONSIDERING HE WAS A MAN. It's pretty stupid how people use the same logic when confronted with black people in the US - for some reason, because of the colour of my skin, I 'm supposed to feel guilty for enslaving them, something I never did, nor did my ancestors do, heck, something that a considerable chunk of the black population's ancestors never had to deal with. Why is this? This faulty logic has prevailed through the ages and is quite sickening.

>_>

Of course, these are strictly my beliefs, and I do not wish to push them on anyone else. I am simply explaining myself, not telling anyone else what to do. =)

 

[Luck]

Well, if you think about it, humanity as a whole wants answers. That's what brought forth God. Unfortunately, some people think that this is the only answer, which is where the conflict comes from. A lot of the explanations are very similar in their heart, but they diverge, and it's the puny little details that people fight over, the ones we can't prove nor disprove. What's the point of fighting over something like that?

When you get an answer, it affects the search for knowledge, something I wholeheartedly respect. Face it, when people have an answer, they are less likely to check in the subject for themselves.

Well... it's not philosophy... is it. It's just a general discussion over what people think happens after death.

Damn. There can be philosophy and mature discussion, as long as people keep their calm.

It's strange, isn't it? How similar the beings really are. In their roots they are an explanation for things we do not understand, for things we cannot explain. To me, God may have an emotional feeling to me, but overall He serves as a buffer for what I do not understand. He is more like infinity than any feasible thing we understand, and that's why I compare Him to the mathematical limit - we can ask as many whys as we want, but we won't ever know everything. For the things at the moment we cannot explain, God serves as an explanation. As we discover more and more, He symbolizes less and less... but since the path to full understanding is infinite, there's no point in which He (to me) means nothing.

I don't see the problem in just saying 'I don't know.' When you use a much easier path to solve a problem instead of doing what you should, then the Church would still have complete rule over the masses.

I fully agree - the complexity of something does not simply mean some being created it - we are currently communicating on extremely complicated pieces of machinery we produced as a society, so why can't evolution create something as marvelous as ourselves, or all the life that surrounds us today?

Not create, but develop and change, but I'm sure you know that.

Of course, this does not prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

But it does make their role in life smaller for people who demand answers fed to them instead of honestly searching it themselves.

The story of Adam and Eve is, again, symbolic,

And thus shows the problem with text like this. Like I said before, almost anything can be taken into a different context. There is even debate inside Christianity on whether certain parts of the Bible should be taken literally or not. I'd give an honorable mention to Islam too, but I don't actually remember a person who questioned the Qu'ran in Saudi Arabia and lived to tell about it.

but it's unfortunate how people take it fully as literal truth and continue to segregate women because of it. Jesus didn't help much either, CONSIDERING HE WAS A MAN.

]Not necessarily. Just because models were of a different gender, doesn't mean that it is sexist or doesn't help(ex. men voted for civil rights and women suffrage.) Jesus still preached messages of love, and it wouldn't matter what ethnicity or gender you were, as long as people heard it.

 

[txteclipse]

But that is the problem. The very thing you mentioned can be also applied to Allah, Zeus, Horus, Ra, Krishna, and basically any other god. The fact that you believe that your god is the correct one doesn't make you correct. Existence is based on the facts, not on perspectives. Personal relationships don't work for me either, because it just always turns out that other people of other religions have seen different gods, although there should only be one, considering that the monotheistic religion is true and accurate and all that jazz.

Right then I was debating the existence of a creator versus none, but if you want to now assume that there is a creator and go into which religion is correct, I will gladly oblige you.

When there is real evidence. Looking at something and seeing the complexity doesn't make me a man of faith(as it shouldn't work if a Muslim tells you about all of those, except with Allah instead), and I do hope you won't use something similar to the watchmaker argument against me for this.

You missed the point of my statement. Complexity is real evidence of a creator, to me. Personal experience is evidence to me. The existence of life and emotions and the mind and everything in general is evidence to me. Again, all of this comes down to how an individual chooses to interpret things. In that regard, I can't irrevocably "prove" anything to you or "make you a man of faith," because you may interpret things differently. Taking that a step further, God won't force you to believe in Him because that would mean you don't have free will. Your ability to interpret and choose would be gone.

But the fact of the matter remains that you make decisions when you don't know something. If someone has knowledge of everything that will happen, and it cannot be changed, then why is it not fate to an extent? But if the decision can in fact be changed, then He made an error. Kinda weird, considering the supreme ruler of existence makes an error.

All I can say is that God knows what will happen, but He doesn't force us to do things. So it's sort of different from fate in that our actions aren't determined for us, if that makes sense.

But of course, we are born in sin thanks to Eve, and there begins serious sexism because of the act of one person, supposedly of course. Tell me, would you blame your grandchildren for something your child would do?

Adam ate the fruit too, so he was just as guilty. Anyway, Adam and Eve introduced sin into humanity at that point. Having a sinful nature became a characteristic of being human. We were, as a race, fundamentally changed to be imperfect.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

When you get an answer, it affects the search for knowledge, something I wholeheartedly respect. Face it, when people have an answer, they are less likely to check in the subject for themselves.

Unfortunately, it's up to the people to accept such an answer. Thus, comes the people who still deem Evolution as a lie.

I don't see the problem in just saying 'I don't know.' When you use a much easier path to solve a problem instead of doing what you should, then the Church would still have complete rule over the masses.

There is none. I am actually separate from a church and am happy because of it, but I use God as a buffer, while you do not use any buffer. There isn't anything wrong with that...

Not create, but develop and change, but I'm sure you know that.

Well, it did create people, but through development and change, but now we're just arguing over something stupid XD

But it does make their role in life smaller for people who demand answers fed to them instead of honestly searching it themselves.

I don't know, to be honest. I never had my answers fed to me, I've always looked at everything and scrutinized it before accepting it. :p

And thus shows the problem with text like this. Like I said before, almost anything can be taken into a different context. There is even debate inside Christianity on whether certain parts of the Bible should be taken literally or not. I'd give an honorable mention to Islam too, but I don't actually remember a person who questioned the Qu'ran in Saudi Arabia and lived to tell about it.

It's a problem, isn't it? But everyone's interpretation is unique, which makes it even harder to set up a legitimate argument with, or against, a devout member of those religions. Of course, with the Qu'ran, you wouldn't go telling people your unique views of it in Saudi Arabia, because nine times out of ten you still want your head in the morning XD

]Not necessarily. Just because models were of a different gender, doesn't mean that it is sexist or doesn't help(ex. men voted for civil rights and women suffrage.) Jesus still preached messages of love, and it wouldn't matter what ethnicity or gender you were, as long as people heard it.

The problem with Jesus though was since he was a man, it strengthened the belief that God was also a man and made it so that women became sort of second class. It's silly how even the most religious tend to overlook Mary's importance in the story though lol

Jesus's preachings have been twisted in so many ways though...

 

[Luck]

Right then I was debating the existence of a creator versus none, but if you want to now assume that there is a creator and go into which religion is correct, I will gladly oblige you.

Fine then, if there is any true religion, it is the one that tells you to be peaceful. Janism is up there, since I(to an extent) believe that religion was meant to create peace, but was in fact corrupted and abused. but that is the human nature. Any system that can be abused, will be abused.

You missed the point of my statement. Complexity is real evidence of a creator, to me. Personal experience is evidence to me. The existence of life and emotions and the mind and everything in general is evidence to me. Again, all of this comes down to how an individual chooses to interpret things. In that regard, I can't irrevocably "prove" anything to you or "make you a man of faith," because you may interpret things differently. Taking that a step further, God won't force you to believe in Him because that would mean you don't have free will. Your ability to interpret and choose would be gone.

Yet He warns me with something He created that I didn't even do. Like I said before, would you blame the child of George Bush for something George Bush did? No, and any moral being wouldn't either.
And I fail to see how personal stories and looking at something will be evidence. It can be attributed to any god. You are basically saying that you believe in any god that claimed creation, since there is just that apparent evidence known as perception.
Tell you what. If you went to the insane asylum and someone said there was a flying two horned pig with bat wings and a snake for a nose, and every other patient did, would you believe it? No, because personal experience doesn't work when discussing the existence of a supernatural being.

All I can say is that God knows what will happen, but He doesn't force us to do things. So it's sort of different from fate in that our actions aren't determined for us, if that makes sense.

I really can't respond to this, and I don't know why I wrote a comment.
But fate is a predetermined future. Isn't it essentially fate when you know what will happen? Especially when the future is supposed to not be known.

Adam ate the fruit too, so he was just as guilty. Anyway, Adam and Eve introduced sin into humanity at that point. Having a sinful nature became a characteristic of being human. We were, as a race, fundamentally changed to be imperfect.

I'm pretty sure that Eve made Adam eat the apple because God created Satan in the form of a snake. Super work.
We were made in His image, and we disobeyed Him even though He knew that He could make us better as a species. And He knew that all of us would live forever(which is a curse in of itself) burning(which just adds to the pain.) Sloppy work.

Now tell me. Would you create a self conscious race just so they could kiss your ass forever, while giving them the option to disobey you, but threatening them if they choose the wrong choice? Does that sound moral?
It boggles the mind how you can believe that something like that is actually good. One of the only good things He did was send most people to hell instead of everyone.

There is none. I am actually separate from a church and am happy because of it, but I use God as a buffer, while you do not use any buffer. There isn't anything wrong with that...

Not in your case, but like I said before, people usually use it as an excuse not to look for it themselves. And to be frank, you are just being dishonest when you want to label something as 'answered' even though your answer won't work. But maybe that is just me. Maybe I am indeed to naturalist to understand.

It's silly how even the most religious tend to overlook Mary's importance in the story though lol

What I want to know is why it required a woman.
I'm pretty sure that if you can conjure the universe out of nothing, then you can do a simple task like asexually creating a baby.

 

[Feign]

Now tell me. Would you create a self conscious race just so they could kiss your ass forever, while giving them the option to disobey you, but threatening them if they choose the wrong choice? Does that sound moral?
It boggles the mind how you can believe that something like that is actually good. One of the only good things He did was send most people to hell instead of everyone.

I wanted to add to this. This was one of my thoughts/questions... I mean, why create humanity [in Eden], just so that they could honour and worship you? Sure God might have his reasons, and even though I am humanly attributing my thoughts to it, it seems mundane... Then again, I am not a Sims fan XD

I could understand the death part of it too (reuniting with God), but if we were to live x amount of years just to worship God, nothing more, we'd seem no different from an animal...

I can't recall off the top of my head, but did it mention that Adam and Eve ate anything (aside from the fruit)?

But there are two creation stories, so that in itself is confusing...

You'd think there would be two death stories too XD (there is only one though, and that is revelations). Death of humanity, but salvation instead would be prevalent.