Christians vs. Atheists.

[GhostTrainer]

Okay, let's start up :)
And I would like to add, that, no hard feelings, okay?

Why do you refuse to accept others' beliefs but bash those who refuse to accepts yours?

Personally, when I see an Atheist, I just smile, and try to persuade him/her that Jesus Christ is true, quoting some verses...., but when I can't, I just think,
Okay, you don't believe in Jesus Christ, that's fine by me.
And just be friendly with him/her.

Do you think that Atheists are immoral due to their lack of faith in God?

No...

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you agree that, we, that is handsome/beautiful are from apes?
Are you an ape?

Would homosexuals still end up in Hell even if they were devoted Christians during their lifetime on Earth?

If they're Christians, they won't end up homosexuals.

Atheist incoming
1st Bold: I'm sorry, but to me I see that as shoving religion down someone's throat. Which is something that I can't stand. It's nice for you to have your faith, good for you on that, but what ever you do don't try to convert somebody. How would you feel if someone tried to convert you to Islam or Buddhism? I bet you wouldn't like it.


2nd Bold: Thats quite narrow minded. It's not that we come from apes, its that we share a common ancestor. Which is a different thing all together.

3rd Bold: Thats an ignorant statement to say the least. There are plenty of LGBT Christians in the world. Granted, not a lot but it's not unheard of.













Anyway, I don't believe in God.
I find the idea of Heaven and Hell to be preposterous, considering that God is supposed to be omniscient, which would mean that he knows every outcome of a person's life. So he knows before a person is born where they'll end up. So in terms of religion, it would make life really pointless.
I also find it laughable how Satan is labeled as the bad guy in the bible, where he maybe killed 10 people at most, but God is considered good and merciful, but killed tens of thousands of people in the bible. But everyone is like "Watch out guys, Satan is evil!"
I can't find the concept of Adam and Eve to be believable either, in terms of their grandchildren. Supposedly there wasn't any other women besides Eve and some un-named daughters, so her male children only had her and the daughters to have sex with, and I'm sure we all know what happens to children born from incest.
Also if God is the one and true God, why is he jealous of other Gods? If he really is the one and only, then he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

This is one of those things I never understood about Christianity. So if Jesus's death paid for all the sins that have ever and will ever happen, why bother following Christianity? Why bother avoiding committing sins if any sin you commit is automatically paid off by this one guy's death ~2000 years ago? Why would people still go to hell if this the case?

Because this atonement, or justification, is lost every time a person commits a "mortal sin". Good works, the sacraments, etc. repair the estranged bond with God.

Does religion really provide the correct answers for the "why" questions though - no one knows, so what's the point of asking those "why" questions in the first place? I know science we have discovered so far provides correct "how" answers because they are based on empirical research and evidence, not by faith.

It provides hope. It doesn't matter whether you think that hope is false or not, because for the believer that hope is everything.

Let me ask you something - If you're born parts of the world where it's currently impossible for Christianity to flourish (e.g. Middle East), are you doomed for eternity because they can't accept a Judeo-Christian God? It seems messed up that many people are doomed to be burned and tortured in hell from the get-go.

Lumen Gentium:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Gaudium Et Spes:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

And what if someone dies as an infant (not that I wish this on anyone in the future), who are yet mentally incapable of accepting Jesus their hearts? Are they given no chance before they are told they need to go to hell because they didn't accept Jesus?

They are. Matthew 19:14: "Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to people like these."

 

[Nah]

Why would people still go to hell?
You can't just give everyone a free pass. Building off of the above again.
This is why the acceptance of Jesus into your heart is such a prominent thing. By accepting him into our hearts he is able to share with you that eternal life in Heaven. Without us accepting him into our hearts, his dying for our sins would be pointless.

Because this atonement, or justification, is lost every time a person commits a "mortal sin". Good works, the sacraments, etc. repair the estranged bond with God.

Ah, I think I get it now, thanks for clearing that up. Though maybe they should've made it a bit more clear that while it gives you a clean slate to start with, it doesn't give you license to do whatever the **** you want. Though I suppose that was bound to happen in something that is a translation of a translation of a translation of a book made by guys that didn't collaborate well. {XD}

 

[Aeroblast]

It provides hope. It doesn't matter whether you think that hope is false or not, because for the believer that hope is everything.

True, hope might bring comfort to desperate people who need purpose in life. On a scientific level, though, hoping something to be true is useless, because no amount of hoping something will be true will make it true.

Lumen Gentium:

Gaudium Et Spes:

Thanks for letting me know of those principles. But I don't know (in other words, doubt) if God looks back to those man-made rules (which do, in fairness, address the issue I was talking about) to add them to his own pre-determined rules set in the Bible for letting people in to heaven.

They are. Matthew 19:14: "Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to people like these."

It's another contradiction, then. In one verse God says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," and in another verse children have the divine right to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. Which one is it?

 

[Deleted member 211486]

True, hope might bring comfort to desperate people who need purpose in life. On a scientific level, though, hoping something to be true is useless, because no amount of hoping something will be true will make it true.

If it's true for that person and he/she is happy because of it (and doesn't end up joining an extremist group that aims to behead people and rule the world), then faith and hope are truly useful, not because they make something true, but because they turn someone good.

Thanks for letting me know of those principles. But I don't know (in other words, doubt) if God looks back to those man-made rules (which do, in fairness, address the issue I was talking about) to add them to his own pre-determined rules set in the Bible for letting people in to heaven.

Those doctrines didn't come out of nowhere; they're interpretations of the Bible. They're completely consistent with the scriptures:

"If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin..." (John 15:22)

It's another contradiction, then. In one verse God says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," and in another verse children have the divine right to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. Which one is it?

There is no contradiction. Unbaptized infants still retain original sin, but it is God's unmerited grace that ultimately saves them.

 

[Lucky#13]

Anyway, I don't believe in God.
I find the idea of Heaven and Hell to be preposterous, considering that God is supposed to be omniscient, which would mean that he knows every outcome of a person's life. So he knows before a person is born where they'll end up. So in terms of religion, it would make life really pointless.

The topic I have been waiting for. Will discuss later, but for now, currently Christianity is gravitating away from the "all knowing of omniscience" and going to the "all seeing of omnipotence" both of which I have issues with.

I also find it laughable how Satan is labeled as the bad guy in the bible, where he maybe killed 10 people at most, but God is considered good and merciful, but killed tens of thousands of people in the bible. But everyone is like "Watch out guys, Satan is evil!"

He was originally considered evil because of his jealousy and pride. He was cast out because he wanted to be God's equal (or superior). He wasn't satisfied with serving God, and believed he was better than God. He and his supporters, now called demons or Lucifer's angels, were cast out of Heaven and thrown into a pit that is known as Hell. A place of torment and unending agony. The true reason that he is considered evil is because he wants revenge against God for casting him out. His way of doing so is "corrupting" God's creation, man. (Turning his own creation against him.) Whether this is in any way justified or which side is right or wrong is not really the point.

I can't find the concept of Adam and Eve to be believable either, in terms of their grandchildren. Supposedly there wasn't any other women besides Eve and some un-named daughters, so her male children only had her and the daughters to have sex with, and I'm sure we all know what happens to children born from incest.

I still struggle with this one myself. And it isn't like this is the only time it happens either. (In the flood Noah had only 2 of each animal.)
It is hard to interpret these sections. While I'm not sure that it is entirely literal, as most of the bible's old testament isn't, but I don't really know. That is a question better suited for someone better qualified to answer. A leader of a church. (preferably one that belongs to a denomination that isn't constantly in the media for stupid things) Maybe even ask multiple. You'll probably get different responses from them. Most denominations don't agree with each other on these kinds of things. That is partially why denominations exist. Each one represents slightly different, or vastly different, interpretations.

Also if God is the one and true God, why is he jealous of other Gods? If he really is the one and only, then he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

Some are embracing the idea that there are other Gods. I believe it is plausible.

@Aero

I see. I am not in a position to say whether you would or not. God determines that. According to what I believe, yes. (My belief may be wrong, but who knows? My personal belief changes over time.) There are, however, a few denominations that believe that accepting Jesus into your heart is not required. Just acting as Jesus would ( with care, love, and compassion) would suffice. In those views the answer would be, not necessarily. Lately I've started to waver between the two different ideas.

Which one is it?

I'm not seeing the contradiction. They are two separate ideas, but I would say both are correct.


This has been an interesting discussion. I am going on tour with my university's Men's Chorus tomorrow in the morning until late Tuesday night. I will not have access to the internet during that time, but I will return after.

 

[GhostTrainer]

The topic I have been waiting for. Will discuss later, but for now, currently Christianity is gravitating away from the "all knowing of omniscience" and going to the "all seeing of omnipotence" both of which I have issues with.

I would assume that his omnipotence would also allow him to be omnipotent. I couldn't imagine a divine being allowing them self to be only one.

He was originally considered evil because of his jealousy and pride. He was cast out because he wanted to be God's equal (or superior). He wasn't satisfied with serving God, and believed he was better than God. He and his supporters, now called demons or Lucifer's angels, were cast out of Heaven and thrown into a pit that is known as Hell. A place of torment and unending agony. The true reason that he is considered evil is because he wants revenge against God for casting him out. His way of doing so is "corrupting" God's creation, man. (Turning his own creation against him.) Whether this is in any way justified or which side is right or wrong is not really the point.

I knew this already since I used to be a Christian. When I used to read the bible I interpreted that Lucifer wanted to be God's equal, and I honestly don't see anything bad about that(although that was my interpretation, and yours and others can vary). I do find that him corrupting man and turning them against their God as dastardly, but certainly it pales in comparison to God killing thousands of people.

I still struggle with this one myself. And it isn't like this is the only time it happens either. (In the flood Noah had only 2 of each animal.)
It is hard to interpret these sections. While I'm not sure that it is entirely literal, as most of the bible's old testament isn't, but I don't really know. That is a question better suited for someone better qualified to answer. A leader of a church. (preferably one that belongs to a denomination that isn't constantly in the media for stupid things) Maybe even ask multiple. You'll probably get different responses from them. Most denominations don't agree with each other on these kinds of things. That is partially why denominations exist. Each one represents slightly different, or vastly different, interpretations.

I would like to ask multiple denominations in my area(only ones are Baptists and Methodist), but the thing with them is, is that most of them believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. They also don't believe that the dinosaurs various other pre-human creatures existed, even though we have proof that they infact did exist. So I'm sure you can see where I would find difficulty in finding an intelligent answer for this situation.



Anyway have fun on your trip

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I understand where you're coming from, I actually used to thought about this at some point, but to me it just boils down to performing mental gymnastics to make sense of coexistence of science and religion, and ultimately results in reverse engineering passages that don't fit their scientific purposes, often completely changing their original meaning.

I suppose that's your opinion on things, but I believe that it is completely possible to interpret a text that holds very different meanings to different people to be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways - many of such possibilities being completely compatible with science. There is no reason why something so versatile cannot be reconciled with scientific understanding bar an individuals incapability to imagine such possibilities.

As for the bolded part, that's the premise of religion - making these stories interesting, as you call it, by filling with scientific impossibilities like the Parting of the Red Sea to try to persuade the readers of god's "greatness" and get them to have faith to believe in it.

So it is. Is that saying that it holds no value whatsoever? Lord of the Rings holds tremendous value to fans of the series, some even trying to understand the philosophical meaning of the text, despite being completely fictional. Most fictional stories hold at least some truth - an indirect truth - that must be explored by

Perhaps what I'm meaning to say is that theology may traditionally have been rooted in explaining how the universe works on a natural level, but as cultures learned over the last 4000 years the laws and inner workings of nature through science and understanding, religion has taken a different role, in understanding this deeper meaning in things. Religion is essentially a literary analysis on life.

In addition, any religious text holds tremendous historical value, not in a literal sense, but gives an important glimpse on many aspects of that religion's culture. But that's slightly irrelevant.

Again, it's a good effort to try to persue their scientific and religious endeavors, and convince themselves to believe in both principles, but I believe inherently science and religion are like water and oil - they do not mix. I do respect the scientists who believe in both principles, I merely disagree with their belief.

Respectful enough, I guess. A belief is a belief, after all, and as long as you stand by your word of respect I really can't argue, and can only agree to disagree.

 

[Aeroblast]

If it's true for that person and he/she is happy because of it (and doesn't end up joining an extremist group that aims to behead people and rule the world), then faith and hope are truly useful, not because they make something true, but because they turn someone good.

Since our original discussion was about why religion doesn't answer the "why" questions in science, I'm merely stating that no amount of hoping that god is behind our scientific endeavors means that god is behind our scientific endeavors.

Those doctrines didn't come out of nowhere; they're interpretations of the Bible. They're completely consistent with the scriptures:

These verses seem to say the opposite, saying that everyone is a sinner, no matter which religion you believe in, part of which I actually quoted earlier.

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." (Romans 3:9-10)

"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:22-23)

There is no contradiction. Unbaptized infants still retain original sin, but it is God's unmerited grace that ultimately saves them.

I'll refer again back to the above verses I quoted to show you why I think those verses are contradictory - according to those verses all (by all, I mean everyone, including infants, because infants are also humans) is born sinner, which you agree with, and come short of the glory of God, which I assume is not being admitted to heaven because the ultimate goal of Christianity is being admitted to heaven, kingdom of god, for eternity. So the verses above is effectively saying that because everyone was born a sinner, everyone is doomed to hell for eternity until, of course, they admit the existence of God and Jesus.

As an aside, I also don't think a graceful God would promote slavery, homophobia, and misogyny in parts of his holy scripture, but that's besides the point.

@Aero

I see. I am not in a position to say whether you would or not. God determines that. According to what I believe, yes. (My belief may be wrong, but who knows? My personal belief changes over time.) There are, however, a few denominations that believe that accepting Jesus into your heart is not required. Just acting as Jesus would ( with care, love, and compassion) would suffice. In those views the answer would be, not necessarily. Lately I've started to waver between the two different ideas.

I'm not seeing the contradiction. They are two separate ideas, but I would say both are correct.

I've touched upon this above to The Void, but it's my explanation of why I think those verses are contradictory.

This has been an interesting discussion. I am going on tour with my university's Men's Chorus tomorrow in the morning until late Tuesday night. I will not have access to the internet during that time, but I will return after.

This is really off topic, but I do like the fact that I'm having a discussion on a topic as sensitive as religion against other people in here without having to listen to mindless name calling from those are disagreeing with me, which I would even argue that some atheists do, too.

Also, have fun.

 

[BadPokemon]

So if a serial killer that killed 200 people but goes to church for every week of my life, prays for forgiveness in his deathbed, he'll be saved, because according to what you said Jesus died to forgive our sins and if you believe that, you will be saved.

But if you're some child, living in some remote African town where no one has a chance of knowing Jesus, tells one lie (which every human being does at some point), he or she is doomed to eternity?

As I've said before, if all sins are of equal gravity, you can commit all sorts of atrocities like rape, murder, and it'll be equivalent to something as petty as a lie. I don't buy that. No one should.



I'd like to see some examples of that. I've seen your Battle of Jericho example but that really doesn't have anything to do with science, more along the lines of history. And even then it could've easily been just some real life event that was shoehorned into the Bible after it happened.

I'd like to ask you this question, something that you probably heard before... do you believe that Earth is 6000 years old?



I'd like to see some examples of the said prophecies happening. If doomsday begins and God comes down from wherever he is and I see him with my own eyes I will believe in God, but until that happens I'm not buying it.

Im not exactly a Biblical scholar lol, but ill answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

That man who murdered all those people can be saved if he repents and believes. God shows everyone, somehow, that He exists. That kid in africa can be saved. While I'm not God and don't know the right answer, i believe that God shows mercy on babies and such. I know my God is merciful, but I think that kid can be saved somehow.

Im not saying that rape is equivalent to a little lie, i am saying they are equal in the sense that both will prevent you from getting into heaven. It is physically impossible for the walls of Jericho to fall in such fashion, and it must be an act of God. The Bible predicted everything about Jesus (and the chances of Jesus not being Jesus is astronomical), and the fate of Tyre (a coastal city of Pheonicia in the Fertile Crescent of ancient times). There are probably others, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. I believe the earth is not millions or billions of years old. I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Im sorry I got back a little late- Ive been busy with schoolwork. I hope I answered your questions. :)

 

[Aeroblast]

I suppose that's your opinion on things, but I believe that it is completely possible to interpret a text that holds very different meanings to different people to be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways - many of such possibilities being completely compatible with science. There is no reason why something so versatile cannot be reconciled with scientific understanding bar an individuals incapability to imagine such possibilities.

I've made my point and you've made yours, but unfortunately I don't think we'll get anywhere with this. But if someone is smart enough not to let their religious beliefs interfere with any of their scientific endeavors that's good enough for me.

So it is. Is that saying that it holds no value whatsoever?

I didn't say that it has no value whatsoever, and you have a good example to back up your point.

Perhaps what I'm meaning to say is that theology may traditionally have been rooted in explaining how the universe works on a natural level, but as cultures learned over the last 4000 years the laws and inner workings of nature through science and understanding, religion has taken a different role, in understanding this deeper meaning in things. Religion is essentially a literary analysis on life.

I do wish that what you were saying is true, and people are smart enough to come to that conclusion, appreciate Bible not by blind faith but by its literary value, and not be stuck in the bronze ages. Unfortunately in America, Bible was already used to justify slavery in the past and now in some parts of country it's still being used to justify laws that restrict the rights of homosexuals. I can't speak for every atheist out there, but I believe things like this is why some atheists are vehemently against the idea of religion even though they claim they don't care about the existence of God.

In addition, any religious text holds tremendous historical value, not in a literal sense, but gives an important glimpse on many aspects of that religion's culture. But that's slightly irrelevant.

I believe you've already said that, and I don't disagree. (maybe tremendous is going a bit far but that's me being nitpicky)

 

[Lucky#13]

I would assume that his omnipotence would also allow him to be omnipotent. I couldn't imagine a divine being allowing them self to be only one.

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure.

I knew this already since I used to be a Christian. When I used to read the bible I interpreted that Lucifer wanted to be God's equal, and I honestly don't see anything bad about that(although that was my interpretation, and yours and others can vary). I do find that him corrupting man and turning them against their God as dastardly, but certainly it pales in comparison to God killing thousands of people.

Understood. It comes down to a "because I said so" mentality that is rather difficult to swallow.

I would like to ask multiple denominations in my area(only ones are Baptists and Methodist), but the thing with them is, is that most of them believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. They also don't believe that the dinosaurs various other pre-human creatures existed, even though we have proof that they infact did exist. So I'm sure you can see where I would find difficulty in finding an intelligent answer for this situation.

I see the dilemma. Methodists I have little experience with, but I've heard some very unpleasant things. Baptists in general I try to avoid listening to.

Anyway have fun on your trip

Thanks

@Aero

These verses seem to say the opposite.

We've established that everyone is sinful regardless of age/religion. Sinful nature is passed down, and everyone has it and is guilty of sin. God bypasses all of that and saves those that could not possibly have made a choice one way or the other, or could not comprehend that kind of a choice one way or the other. (children and mentally handicapped, maybe even those who have not heard the gospel) He doesn't do this with people that could do so, simply because they could have done so.


And yes, it is really nice to have this type of discussion without the intolerance that most people are accustomed to when talking about such a sensitive subject.

 

[GhostTrainer]

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure.

Oops I said Omnipotence/Omnipotent twice. What I meant to say is:
I assume that his Omnipotence would also allow him to be omniscient as well.

 

[Nakasu]

Why do you refuse to accept other beliefs yet bash those who do not accept yours?
Honestly I despise people like this. You have no right to force your opinion onto a person. Let them believe what they want. Keep your opinions to yourself. Don't start endless arguments that lead to each of them hating each other. I especially hated this when I came to the US. I saw each of them forcing their religious beliefs and their Science on each other. Even fighting for the stupidest things like turning Christmas into X-Mas which sounds horrible. You have the freedom of religion that others don't. In my country you'd possibly be killed for being a Christian.

Do you think that atheists are immoral?
Of course not. Like Lucky#13 said "Morality is a social construct that often differs between people and or groups"

Do you believe in evolution?
The only evolution I refuse to believe in is Monkey to Man. All the others are fine with me.

Would homosexuals go to Hell if they were devoted Christians?
Well, to my I think they would. Since homosexuality is a sin. You could be devoted all you want but you've committed a sin you haven't repented for. BUT no one really knows. There is no proof. The only was is to die and even after you die no one else will be able to find out. Meaning that The World Will Never Know....

 

[J9794]

Do you believe in evolution?
The only evolution I refuse to believe in is Monkey to Man. All the others are fine with me.

Just for the record, there's no such thing as "Monkey to man", monkeys, or apes (I'm not even sure how was that in my language but hope you'll get the idea) share a common ancestor. It's like, a long, long time ago, there was a species, which group separated and evolved independently from each other. A part from that original group evolved after a lot of generations into apes, others into humans, etc.
By the way, do you believe in the evolution from simple and diminute forms of life to complex beings? (like from
unicellular to the animals we see everyday).

 

[Kanzler]

Do you believe in evolution?
The only evolution I refuse to believe in is Monkey to Man. All the others are fine with me.

Why not?

And furthermore, how does one "choose" or "refuse" to believe in something? For example, I don't "choose" to believe that I am typing on a keyboard at the moment - given the evidence before me I cannot say otherwise.

 

[J9794]

Why not?

And furthermore, how does one "choose" or "refuse" to believe in something? For example, I don't "choose" to believe that I am typing on a keyboard at the moment - given the evidence before me I cannot say otherwise.

You can choose to believe or refuse to believe in something (not in the meaning of just forcing you to believe in something different than what you believed before) related to facts actually. For example, in the field of maths, one guy once thought that the best geometric shape to cover the area of a plane region were the hexagons. Some scientists agreed with that (believed in that) and others didn't think that was right. The fact is that hexagons actually were the best geometric shape, but we had to wait more than 1000 years until somebody was able to actually prove that. However, this is a special case, because in maths once something is proven, it's true. Empirical science doesn't work like that, the proposed models by it never are 100% right, but as long as they are able to explain stuff in a satifactory way, we keep them. That science's property of not being perfect but perfectible, summed up to the ignorance most people have about specific science related stuff like evolution (I've learned about it in school but I can't recall many details) makes some doubt about some theories, particularly when they think those theories are in conflict with their faith.

 

[Kanzler]

You can choose to believe or refuse to believe in something (not in the meaning of just forcing you to believe in something different than what you believed before) related to facts actually. For example, in the field of maths, one guy once thought that the best geometric shape to cover the area of a plane region were the hexagons. Some scientists agreed with that (believed in that) and others didn't think that was right. The fact is that hexagons actually were the best geometric shape, but we had to wait more than 1000 years until somebody was able to actually prove that. However, this is a special case, because in maths once something is proven, it's true. Empirical science doesn't work like that, the proposed models by it never are 100% right, but as long as they are able to explain stuff in a satifactory way, we keep them. That science's property of not being perfect but perfectible, summed up to the ignorance most people have about specific science related stuff like evolution (I've learned about it in school but I can't recall many details) makes some doubt about some theories, particularly when they think those theories are in conflict with their faith.

I think belief in science is never a 100% free choice, in that one does not simply just choose to believe this or that. It's always within some kind of context or with some kind of evidence, like you mentioned. "Choosing" to believe something in relation to the facts is different from choosing to believe something without some kind of argument.

 

[Aeroblast]

That man who murdered all those people can be saved if he repents and believes.

I'm sorry, but I think that's ****ed up. But not too surprising, considering god himself killed millions because he didn't like some things.

Do you think in real life, a judge would let a serial killer go free because he is sincerely repenting for what he has done? No. That doesn't happen.

God shows everyone, somehow, that He exists.

Feel free to tell that to those people that are dead already - After they were dead, they were probably told they didn't believe in God so they are doomed to hell where they will be tortured and burned for eternity. Poor people.

That kid in africa can be saved.

Not according to God.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

While I'm not God and don't know the right answer, i believe that God shows mercy on babies and such.

I've quoted this before, but Bible makes it clear that everyone comes short of the glory of god, unless they accept God and Jesus Christ, as said in John 3:16, you even have that quoted in your signature so I don't have to search for it, thank God. *wink*

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)

I know my God is merciful

If slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and unwarranted violence qualify as being "merciful," I think that you have a weird sense of morals, no offense.

Im not saying that rape is equivalent to a little lie, i am saying they are equal in the sense that both will prevent you from getting into heaven.

Sorry, I made a mistake - rape in certain circumstances is okay (which sounds ludicrous in itself) but lying is not in the eyes of God; Bible, the supposed "divine word of God," actually says raping a virgin and marrying her is okay as long as you pay her father some money.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

And also, isn't "both will prevent you from getting into heaven" just another way of saying it was a sin?

It is physically impossible for the walls of Jericho to fall in such fashion, and it must be an act of God.

Maybe there's a chance (i.e. probably) that that wasn't what... actually happened, and the story was exaggerated?

The Bible predicted everything about Jesus (and the chances of Jesus not being Jesus is astronomical)

I've yet to see any evidence that proves the existence of Jesus. If there was a concrete evidence I'm sure we'll all know it by now.

and the fate of Tyre (a coastal city of Pheonicia in the Fertile Crescent of ancient times).

It's still... there? Look it up in Google Maps.

I believe the earth is not millions or billions of years old. I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

There are plenty of evidences that suggest otherwise, and that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, if not at least 4.4 billion years old (https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/oldest-earth-fragment/). Not by some ancient book that people wrote, but by factual evidence and scientific analysis of those factual evidences by radioactive dating.

We've established that everyone is sinful regardless of age/religion. Sinful nature is passed down, and everyone has it and is guilty of sin. God bypasses all of that and saves those that could not possibly have made a choice one way or the other, or could not comprehend that kind of a choice one way or the other. (children and mentally handicapped, maybe even those who have not heard the gospel) He doesn't do this with people that could do so, simply because they could have done so.

If there is a verse in the Bible that specifically discredits certain section of the very same book and says something entirely different I'd love to hear it.

 

[BadPokemon]

I'm sorry, but I think that's ****ed up. But not too surprising, considering god himself killed millions because he didn't like some things.

Do you think in real life, a judge would let a serial killer go free because he is sincerely repenting for what he has done? No. That doesn't happen.


Feel free to tell that to those people that are dead already - After they were dead, they were probably told they didn't believe in God so they are doomed to hell where they will be tortured and burned for eternity. Poor people.


Not according to God.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)


I've quoted this before, but Bible makes it clear that everyone comes short of the glory of god, unless they accept God and Jesus Christ, as said in John 3:16, you even have that quoted in your signature so I don't have to search for it, thank God. *wink*

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)


If slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and unwarranted violence qualify as being "merciful," I think that you have a weird sense of morals, no offense.


Sorry, I made a mistake - rape in certain circumstances is okay (which sounds ludicrous in itself) but lying is not in the eyes of God; Bible, the supposed "divine word of God," actually says raping a virgin and marrying her is okay as long as you pay her father some money.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

And also, isn't "both will prevent you from getting into heaven" just another way of saying it was a sin?


Maybe there's a chance (i.e. probably) that that wasn't what... actually happened, and the story was exaggerated?


I've yet to see any evidence that proves the existence of Jesus. If there was a concrete evidence I'm sure we'll all know it by now.


It's still... there? Look it up in Google Maps.


There are plenty of evidences that suggest otherwise, and that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, if not at least 4.4 billion years old (https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/oldest-earth-fragment/). Not by some ancient book that people wrote, but by factual evidence and scientific analysis of those factual evidences by radioactive dating.



If there is a verse in the Bible that specifically discredits certain section of the very same book and says something entirely different I'd love to hear it.

So your saying that its messed up to give someone a second chance? To those who died prior to the coming of Jesus- they had to believe that God was sending Jesus down to earth to save them and put their faith in God. The laws in Deuteronomy don't have to followed after the coming of Jesus (he tells people not to stone a prostitute, Peter's dream, etc) because the times have changed. The archeological evidence proves that the story was real, I don't see how it could be exaggerated. Most Atheists (and people of other faiths) believe Jesus existed- just that he wasn't God. The Bible is proven to be historically accurate. My non-religiously affiliated textbook in History class uses the Bible. Radioactive dating is inaccurate- petrified trees and lack of stress marks in the Grand Canyon prove the Earth is not 4 billion years old.