Heraclitus Nietzsche

Powerfull Voices:

None of the books of the Bible were written by Jesus's "friends". The narration style of the Bible (a universal "god-like" point of view) makes me suspicious of the intentions of the writers. Their writing style provides evidence that they fabricated stuff to write about. If the Bible is supposed to be an actual account (i.e. historical document) then the writers would have gave complete credit to who told them what to write. If they had done this, what would have ended up being written down would have been a third person narration style not a "Gods-eye" narration. I guess they wanted readers to believe that God actually wrote the Bible. (?)...(!)

Yes, a trick of the writers - on you. Maybe it was their pride that made them fictionalize the resurrection. Jesus's followers thought he was God, so when he was killed, they simply couldn't accept it, so they wrote he was raised from the dead because they thought that was something they believed he had the ability to do. None of the disciples ever saw Jesus alive again after he died. He kept them waiting then just like he's keeping you waiting now for his "second coming". You still think he's alive don't you? But he didn't come back for you yet, nor for 2,000 year's worth of your hopeful ancestors. You'll be waiting for him until your death. I've often wondered how long this "second-coming" expectation is going to continue? Another 2000 years? What's Jesus waiting for? It's not like he has very much to do that would delay him up there in heaven sitting at the right-hand of his father. Haven't you asked yourself why he ascended back up to heaven in the first place after he appeared to the disciples after the "resurrection"? What could he possibly have up there to do? Sit around and keep his people waiting thousands of years for his return? There's only one answer: the resurrection was a lie. The writers of the Bible had to make Jesus leave the earth (by a symbolic "ascension") or else everyone would notice that he isn't around anymore.

What makes you think the disciples chose to die for what they believed? What makes you think they wouldn't have been killed anyway even if they did renounce Jesus? Maybe they kept saying Jesus was still alive to prevent their deaths (as if Jesus would avenge them). Well Jesus didn't avenge them. Why not? Because he couldn't - he's as dead as a doorknob.
The account of the resurrection is a lie. That's how they resurrected him - by lying about it.

No and no. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus's resurrection except in the Bible. There may be accounts of the disciples claiming he was resurrected before they were killed, but that's not a first-hand account now is it? Jesus didn't appear to anyone after he was killed, not even to his lying disciples or to the lying writers of the Bible. If a person truly re-appeared all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in any public arena after they were officially pronounced dead, I would think anyone who called himself a "historian" would have penned a first-hand account documentation of the event. Those men who wrote the Gospels weren't historians. What else have they written about other than a brief self-serving exposition?

"God knows what he's doing" is a common rationalization of believers because they vainly will not admit God has abandoned them. A similar thing happens in prayer. For example, let's say a loved one of yours contracts a fatal illness. You pray for God to heal them. If the loved one makes a full recovery, you'll say God answered prayer and healed them. All hail the power of prayer! But if the loved one instead ends up dying, you'll say God, in his infinite wisdom, knows what he's doing and decided it best to let your loved one die. Therefore, any outcome of prayer is okay and confirms God's existence. Prayer is another shining example that provides supportive evidence that religious people are not in reality. They're mentally ill. Religion makes them mentally ill.
I agree with your statement: "We believe what we believe". Any walk through an insane asylum will convince you of the sincerity of belief of its inhabitants. I know full well that some beliefs are incurable depending upon the believing individual's psychology.

Don't worry, my feelings don't get hurt too easily. Please be as visceral as you possibly can regarding philosophy. Just remember to attack the ideas, not the person (to prevent an "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy). Rotten ideas should always be attacked viciously and left out in the cold, bleeding, to die. Anyway, here again is your statement:
This seemed to me, at first, like it was a genuine "argumentum ad numerum" fallacy, but you're not really saying that the Bible is true because 80% of Americans believe it is true are you? Regardless, I do have a problem with your statement. I don't think America is 80% Christian because they believe the Bible is true. A lot of the so-called Christians became so because of culture, which includes their parents raising them as Christians (at least this is true for almost all of the Christians I know). Therefore, they inherited Christianity first, then accepted the Bible as being true purely out of default because Christians are supposed to believe the Bible is true. I know you disagree with this, and it might not be your case, but I simply haven't met too many Christians whose parents have raised them completely apart from any influence of Christianity. I think any clear-minded person, who wasn't affected by religious influence, would read the Bible and think it was preposterous, much less be converted by it! I think it would seem strange to them that so many people actually believed it to be true. They would think everyone was crazy for believing it! This of course sounds like nonsense because where could I find a person like this? Mind you, I think there are many people around who have reached the same conclusion (that the Bible is not true), but where are the people who have not been affected by religious influence? I, and everyone I know has been affected. Even some close friends of mine whose parents were atheists and raised them to be atheist are affected by religious influence because the country, the hemisphere, the world we live in is saturated with religious influence. I know a guy who doesn't believe God exists or any religious text is true, but still believes there is a grand design and order of the universe. This belief, this common human trait of questioning and inquiry into the meaning of it all, this projection of our human consciousness out into the cosmos (as if the universe was made for us, and is to be perceived correctly in its entirety by us), is a direct product of ancient religious influence. Somehow mankind must shake itself like a dog removing its bathwater and let the errors of its distant ancestors die.

Have you ever heard of the works of St.Augustine and Thomas Aquinas? They were both two Catholics whose interpretations of the Bible were quite different. What about John Calvin or Martin Luther? The Bible was changed through interpretation. It is continually being re-interpretated even now. A changeless Bible should have one interpretation and only one, but it doesn't. You think, as you read each page of the Bible nowadays, that what you interpret it to mean is what the original writers interpreted it to mean? Mankind's mind has changed significantly in the past 2000 years through its evolution of knowledge. You cannot possibly read the Bible nowadays with the exact same mindframe as the primitive people who wrote it possessed. Oh, but you may say the message in it is eternal, but the vast amount of contradictory interpretive texts that have been written about the Bible bear testiment to the falsehood of its eternal message.
So what you're really saying is that your interpretation of the Bible is eternal. But you're not eternal, so your interpretation is not eternal. In 2000 years from now (hopefully less) no one will interpret the Bible as you do now.

Anyone who has a will to believe something will believe it regardless of if whether it is real.

Atheists believe there is no God because they have no use for one. Theists believe there is a God because they have a use for one. "Never really knowing" is beside the point. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Religious texts, people's behavior, or logical reasoning cannot produce an invisible God, nor can lack of evidence or the invalidation of theistic logical arguments prove God's non-existence (but they can wreak havoc on religion, which is essentially man's relationship to his god). It all boils down to belief. We simply do not believe that which we have no use for.

Your life is the only real material possession you have. Ending it (the same as wishing it away in hopes of a sooner afterlife) gives you joy? That's where you and I differ.

One of my hobbies is writing. I enjoy philosophy because there is so much to write about. The stuff I'm writing down here is nothing I haven't thought about before and have written down in further detail in larger texts. Don't make the vain mistake of thinking I'm writing all this here for your benefit alone (I admittedly don't have the time to write extensively in private one-on-one emails). But this is an open posting forum for all to read, so I'm taking the time to write this for all to read it. Curiously enough, you made your statement (that I have too much time on my hands) after my exposition on Jesus's ascent into heaven. You don't spend enough time thinking about such things. If you did, you might find yourself not having such a strong need to throw your life away so carelessly.

All of them. Stay away from all of them. They may make you feel better by making you feel like you're on a winning team, but any reinforcement of illusion only perpetuates the illusion. You only have one life to live - live it productively as a member of, and for, the human race.

Then it would be interesting to compare your interpretation of the Bible to theirs. Once again it boils down to use. What use should any of us have for religious texts? They have done nothing but infected human minds with death and destruction in some vain effort for revenge. Our very sense of justice has been infected by the same age-old religious revenge. No one I know who believes in hell thinks they're going to end up there. Hell is always given to the fate of others.

Any structure built upon a base will fall if said base is removed. Those who rely on logical reasoning as a base on which their belief in God stands will lose their theistic belief if that base is removed. I don't think logical reasoning can prove God's existence (as I've said above), so it is an inadequate base that is vulnerable for destruction. Of course, I think many theists enjoy using logical reasoning to reinforce their belief, because they establish their belief first (out of use), then later produce a logical defense to deny what it was that birthed their belief in the first place (i.e. the birth of all beliefs is "use"). The problem is, some people who aren't theists might come across a theistic apologist like William Lane Craig and begin their belief based solely on his logical reinforcement. Then, when they realize their logical reasoning base for their belief has errors in it, they abandon the belief possibly never to return to it again. It is in this way that theistic apologists do their students a great dis-service. But, I am not of the belief that the theistic apologist is involved in apologetics out of public service anyway. They are merely servicing themselves by providing reinforcement for their own beliefs. So naturally, what care they about the harm they could do to the public? They don't even allow themselves to be conscious of their threat. Also, some of their students who are newbies to logical reasoning, but who have a use for a defender of a belief that is identical to their own, might learn (adopt) the logical technique of the apologist thereby taking such a flawed logical technique into any other problem they are confronted with, which may lead to disasterous results. It might damage their ability to descern truth from falsehood and victimize them because of it.

If you want me to provide an example of how a person can lose their religious belief through theistic apologetics, though, there was a good one provided by "crocodile deathroll" within this very thread:
You are thinking "correctly" (i.e. ability to reason correctly) if the practical use of it is beneficial to you and your role as a productive member of humanity. Like my ex-schoolmate I wrote about above, his poor decision making meant he was reasoning incorrectly. My intent here is to narrow in on practical logical technique. I'll state it again: the conclusion one has as to whether God exists or not is not based upon logical technique because any logical technique cannot prove or disprove God's existence (by "God" I mean the raw concept of a higher consciousness that created the universe. I don't think that religions are exempt from being proved false through logical means; all religions can, and have, been proven false). The concept of God is outside of logic. Some consider this to mean the concept of God is illogical, but I prefer to say the concept of God is a-logical.

My concern, as a productive member of the human race, is with the betterment of humanity in general. My philosophy is that ideas have the ability to harm people, therefore we must wage all-out war against those ideas that harm humanity. Religion (man's relationship to his god) and the existence of an afterlife are examples of harming ideas. So many wars and bloodshed occur because one group thinks it is "doing God's will". You yourself said you would lay down your life in an attempt to feel better about yourself. You believe this because you think there is a blissful afterlife that you will gain by willful subjuctation to your God. Your life is your only possession. Don't throw it away on an afterlife that will never come. I understand the afterlife makes you feel better in this life by appealing towards your sense of greed for pleasure (heaven: thinking your duties to an invisible God will give you equity that will one day be cashed in) and your sense of justice (hell: thinking that all those "evil ones" that have done you wrong will end up in everlasting torment), but belief in the afterlife can only foster your denial of your only possession, your existence, your life. Don't throw your life away; Be a productive member of the human race.

The words I've written in this post may evaporate like dust onto your dead eyes and ears, Powerfull Voices, but since this is a public forum, perhaps there is someone out there who has an ability to see, an ability to hear, and an ability to think.

Beoran

Heraclius Nietzsche, I must say I slightly disagree with you here:


First of all, not all religious texts are as "dangerous" as the bible or the quran. The Tao Te Ching comes to mind. In that religio-philosophic work, use of weapons and violence is strongly advised against. Secondly, even the bible has some use. As a worlk of fiction. Most books are nononsense, burt I do like the Apocalyps, just for the grandiose imagry of it. And the Song of Salomon is one of the better erotic works in western society. It never fails to arouse me.

More on topic of this thread: even if a ressurection really occurred, then why is it not possible to these days for other people to be ressurected? If the laws of nature alow for ressurection of one, they should allow for ressurection of all. If we lived in an "Dungeons and Dragons" style world, where ressurection occurred on a regular basis, we would have some reason to believe in life after death. But a single unconfirmed incident remains unconvincing.

Heraclitus Nietzsche

Beoran wrote:
I see your point. I agree that "use" can be defined as strictly "entertainment" as in the reading of fiction.
I also agree in your descriptions of "religious texts" that include the Tao Te Ching. The Analects of Confucius would also be one of those (as would be the original writings of Buddha), but I've always considered them more to be philosophical texts rather than religious because they prescribe an ethical way of living in accordance with their description of reality. I think they're commonly categorically lumped together as "religious texts" because there is an obvious overlap with the Bible and Quran of what code of ethics is prescribed (the "Golden Rule" comes to mind).

I think where the danger lies in such undeniable religious texts as the Bible and Quran is that the will of YHWH, Jesus, and Allah is given as a code that far out-measures one's attitude towards one's self and one's fellow man. The "Will of God" is distinct from anything else including life itself (a grave error). Therefore, what a sane life-loving person would deem a "horrific crime" (such as the Sept.11th terrorist tragedy, the murders of children by Israel and Palestine {because God's and Allah's people have been slighted by gentiles and infidels}, and Christianity's glorification of suicidal martyrdom, Inquisitional murder, and wishing that others will be everlastingly tortured) is permissible as long as it is in accordance with the diety's Will.

I agree with you there. Jesus's resurrection is undeniably a single unconfirmed incident.
But Christianity provides a loophole that says Jesus could do it because he is God and no other human is. The laws of nature were bent for him alone (thus the term "super-natural"). Jesus is also supposed to eventually resurrect all his followers some day, presumably when he makes his second coming (i.e. never).

Powerfull Voices

If they had done this, what would have ended up being written down would have been a third person narration style not a "Gods-eye" narration. I guess they wanted readers to believe that God actually wrote the Bible. (?)...(!)
That's absurd but I do think God inspired these men so as to provide an accurate account of Himself and unless you start giving me reasons why we can't trust the Bible I have no reason to doubt it.

Yes, a trick of the writers - on you. Maybe it was their pride that made them fictionalize the resurrection. Jesus's followers thought he was God, so when he was killed, they simply couldn't accept it, so they wrote he was raised from the dead because they thought that was something they believed he had the ability to do.
Don't you think it's strange that this belief arose in the very city where Jesus was crucified? Why coulden't the Pharisees simply produce the body if he didn't rise from the dead and crush this faith right there?
None of the disciples ever saw Jesus alive again after he died. He kept them waiting then just like he's keeping you waiting now for his "second coming". You still think he's alive don't you? But he didn't come back for you yet, nor for 2,000 year's worth of your hopeful ancestors. You'll be waiting for him until your death. I've often wondered how long this "second-coming" expectation is going to continue? Another 2000 years? What's Jesus waiting for? It's not like he has very much to do that would delay him up there in heaven sitting at the right-hand of his father. Haven't you asked yourself why he ascended back up to heaven in the first place after he appeared to the disciples after the "resurrection"? What could he possibly have up there to do? Sit around and keep his people waiting thousands of years for his return? There's only one answer: the resurrection was a lie. The writers of the Bible had to make Jesus leave the earth (by a symbolic "ascension") or else everyone would notice that he isn't around anymore.
Your waxing bold here but to put it simply yes I do belive Jesus is comeing back. You hit a good point I think we should all realize. It is appointed unto man ones to die. When you breath your last this becomes a reality so the secound comeing for you and I will be very soon regardless of His timeing for the whole of humanity.

No and no. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus's resurrection except in the Bible. There may be accounts of the disciples claiming he was resurrected before they were killed, but that's not a first-hand account now is it?

Sure those are first hand accounts and why should we doubt them except for you argueing from silence approach.
Jesus didn't appear to anyone after he was killed, not even to his lying disciples or to the lying writers of the Bible. If a person truly re-appeared all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in any public arena after they were officially pronounced dead, I would think anyone who called himself a "historian" would have penned a first-hand account documentation of the event. Those men who wrote the Gospels weren't historians. What else have they written about other than a brief self-serving exposition?
The Bible does say that Jesus appeard to more than 500 people and then to Paul and John last in a glorified body. Thats the one you and I will see and I promise you we will fall to our knees! Oh ya and you've given me no reason to doubt that.
"God knows what he's doing" is a common rationalization of believers because they vainly will not admit God has abandoned them. A similar thing happens in prayer. For example, let's say a loved one of yours contracts a fatal illness. You pray for God to heal them. If the loved one makes a full recovery, you'll say God answered prayer and healed them. All hail the power of prayer! But if the loved one instead ends up dying, you'll say God, in his infinite wisdom, knows what he's doing and decided it best to let your loved one die. Therefore, any outcome of prayer is okay and confirms God's existence. Prayer is another shining example that provides supportive evidence that religious people are not in reality. They're mentally ill. Religion makes them mentally ill.
That's like what's his names' gardener story. I really do see your point on this one but let me just say that it does not prove anything especially that Christians are mentaly ill. A study just recently came out that says religious people, people who have a conversion experience are reported to be healthier, and have more confidence in themselves resulting in better grades and a sense of piece. So if that's true and you hold to your statement with insufficient proof to the contrary then I say horray for the mentaly ill.
I agree with your statement: "We believe what we believe". Any walk through an insane asylum will convince you of the sincerity of belief of its inhabitants. I know full well that some beliefs are incurable depending upon the believing individual's psychology.
Ya, you and I are good examples.
Don't worry, my feelings don't get hurt too easily. Please be as visceral as you possibly can regarding philosophy. Just remember to attack the ideas, not the person (to prevent an "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy). Rotten ideas should always be attacked viciously and left out in the cold, bleeding, to die. Anyway, here again is your statement:
Ouch, I do know about the argumentum ad hominem fallacy though.
This seemed to me, at first, like it was a genuine "argumentum ad numerum" fallacy, but you're not really saying that the Bible is true because 80% of Americans believe it is true are you?
Nope

Regardless, I do have a problem with your statement. I don't think America is 80% Christian because they believe the Bible is true. A lot of the so-called Christians became so because of culture, which includes their parents raising them as Christians (at least this is true for almost all of the Christians I know). Therefore, they inherited Christianity first, then accepted the Bible as being true purely out of default because Christians are supposed to believe the Bible is true. I know you disagree with this, and it might not be your case, but I simply haven't met too many Christians whose parents have raised them completely apart from any influence of Christianity.
I know what you mean. But the opposite is also true. Many who are spoon fed Christianity later reject it but I think a lot also accept it afterward with a new understanding of it. There's probably some people reading this that have done that. I wasn't raised completely apart from Christianity, that would be nearly impossible in the US, but I certainly didn't accept it because of my parents.
I think any clear-minded person, who wasn't affected by religious influence, would read the Bible and think it was preposterous, much less be converted by it!
Like you say everyone has some religious influence but again "clear-minded" means something different to you then it does to me obviously sice we come to such radicly different concusions which we certainly didn't invent.

This belief, this common human trait of questioning and inquiry into the meaning of it all, this projection of our human consciousness out into the cosmos (as if the universe was made for us, and is to be perceived correctly in its entirety by us), is a direct product of ancient religious influence. Somehow mankind must shake itself like a dog removing its bathwater and let the errors of its distant ancestors die.
That's you opinion and I respect it but of course don't agree with it. Perhaps that "ancient religious influence" is there because it was always there. That is my take on it and it goes back to our presuppositions.
Have you ever heard of the works of St.Augustine and Thomas Aquinas? They were both two Catholics whose interpretations of the Bible were quite different. What about John Calvin or Martin Luther? The Bible was changed through interpretation.
Everything you will ever know will be open for interpretation. The fundamental beliefs of these men were not different in fact deduct them and you will have the Christian faith in it's simplest form even this Jesus Christ died for your sins and is ready and willing to recieve you as a son when you call on His name.

It is continually being re-interpretated even now. A changeless Bible should have one interpretation and only one, but it doesn't. You think, as you read each page of the Bible nowadays, that what you interpret it to mean is what the original writers interpreted it to mean? Mankind's mind has changed significantly in the past 2000 years through its evolution of knowledge.
Time change and interpretation is neccessary but this in no way proves the evolution of anything.

You cannot possibly read the Bible nowadays with the exact same mindframe as the primitive people who wrote it possessed. Oh, but you may say the message in it is eternal, but the vast amount of contradictory interpretive texts that have been written about the Bible bear testiment to the falsehood of its eternal message.

Nope just different interpretations fundamentaly the same.

So what you're really saying is that your interpretation of the Bible is eternal. But you're not eternal, so your interpretation is not eternal. In 2000 years from now (hopefully less) no one will interpret the Bible as you do now.

Assumeing He gives us another 2000 years! Hopefully they will still get enough out of it to make a saveing commitment to Jesus Christ .

Anyone who has a will to believe something will believe it regardless of if whether it is real.
Agreed!

"Never really knowing" is beside the point. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. Religious texts, people's behavior, or logical reasoning cannot produce an invisible God, nor can lack of evidence or the invalidation of theistic logical arguments prove God's non-existence

Then why be an Atheist why not an Agnostic? Atheism is clearly self defeating.

Your life is the only real material possession you have. Ending it (the same as wishing it away in hopes of a sooner afterlife) gives you joy? That's where you and I differ.

I think the Pascalian wager should answer that. If I find joy and purpose in this faith who are you to say I have waisted it or "wished it away". Maybe I think you are waisting your life not giving glory to the God that made you but rather seeking esteem among those who will never realy care.

One of my hobbies is writing. I enjoy philosophy because there is so much to write about. The stuff I'm writing down here is nothing I haven't thought about before and have written down in further detail in larger texts. Don't make the vain mistake of thinking I'm writing all this here for your benefit alone (I admittedly don't have the time to write extensively in private one-on-one emails). But this is an open posting forum for all to read, so I'm taking the time to write this for all to read it. Curiously enough, you made your statement (that I have too much time on my hands) after my exposition on Jesus's ascent into heaven. You don't spend enough time thinking about such things. If you did, you might find yourself not having such a strong need to throw your life away so carelessly.

Again I do not belive I am throwing my life away and that may very well be the clearest ad hominem argument you have made thus far. You simply do not know me if you did you might be very sorry for saying that.
I would value this exchange just as much if it were private because it is truth I am after not making a show.

All of them. Stay away from all of them. They may make you feel better by making you feel like you're on a winning team, but any reinforcement of illusion only perpetuates the illusion. You only have one life to live - live it productively as a member of, and for, the human race.
So you'd rather I just quite following him instead of view with a little more scepticism? That seems to be pretty close minded don't you think. Maybe I'm just really dense but I don't feel you've given me any reason to believe it to be illusion. I want some personal examples of your last statement just so I know your not blowing hot air.

Then it would be interesting to compare your interpretation of the Bible to theirs. Once again it boils down to use. What use should any of us have for religious texts? They have done nothing but infected human minds with death and destruction in some vain effort for revenge. Our very sense of justice has been infected by the same age-old religious revenge. No one I know who believes in hell thinks they're going to end up there. Hell is always given to the fate of others.

Your probably going to hit me with another argumentum la la la but do you have any idea what the world would be like without the influence of Jesus? Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity ext...Tune into the PAX network Christmas day at 9:00pm EST for the What if Jesus had never been born? You might be surprised.

[b]Any structure built upon a base will fall if said base is removed. Those who rely on logical reasoning as a base on which their belief in God stands will lose their theistic belief if that base is removed. I don't think logical reasoning can prove God's existence (as I've said above), so it is an inadequate base that is vulnerable for destruction. Of course, I think many theists enjoy using logical reasoning to reinforce their belief, because they establish their belief first (out of use), then later produce a logical defense to deny what it was that birthed their belief in the first place (i.e. the birth of all beliefs is "use").

How is Evolution different in this respect?

The problem is, some people who aren't theists might come across a theistic apologist like William Lane Craig and begin their belief based solely on his logical reinforcement. Then, when they realize their logical reasoning base for their belief has errors in it, they abandon the belief possibly never to return to it again. It is in this way that theistic apologists do their students a great dis-service. But, I am not of the belief that the theistic apologist is involved in apologetics out of public service anyway. They are merely servicing themselves by providing reinforcement for their own beliefs. So naturally, what care they about the harm they could do to the public? They don't even allow themselves to be conscious of their threat. Also, some of their students who are newbies to logical reasoning, but who have a use for a defender of a belief that is identical to their own, might learn (adopt) the logical technique of the apologist thereby taking such a flawed logical technique into any other problem they are confronted with, which may lead to disasterous results. It might damage their ability to descern truth from falsehood and victimize them because of it.

So why did Willaim Lane Craig kick Atkins butt? Is there objective truth without God what about moral values?

If you want me to provide an example of how a person can lose their religious belief through theistic apologetics, though, there was a good one provided by "crocodile deathroll" within this very thread:

I don't think that's what I wanted an example of but at any rate our dear friend "mr deathroll" may very well come back to the faith, you may too, one of these days as atheists have been known to do when the angel of death comes knocking. Hopefully earlier though!

b] I don't think that religions are exempt from being proved false through logical means; all religions can, and have, been proven false). The concept of God is outside of logic. Some consider this to mean the concept of God is illogical, but I prefer to say the concept of God is a-logical.

That defines you Atheism dosen't it. I don't see God therefore God does not exist. I ask you how you know God does not exist, perhaps he exist outside of this universe. What do you reply? No God exists outside of this universe. You reason in a circle using the scientific method. I had a real conversion experience does your scientific method disprove that? I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying it can't explain everything.

My concern, as a productive member of the human race, is with the betterment of humanity in general. My philosophy is that ideas have the ability to harm people, therefore we must wage all-out war against those ideas that harm humanity. Religion (man's relationship to his god) and the existence of an afterlife are examples of harming ideas. So many wars and bloodshed occur because one group thinks it is "doing God's will".

Let's not forget the bloodshed caused by Atheism.

You yourself said you would lay down your life in an attempt to feel better about yourself. You believe this because you think there is a blissful afterlife that you will gain by willful subjuctation to your God.

Ya, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. Remember the Pascalian wager.

Your life is your only possession. Don't throw it away on an afterlife that will never come. I understand the afterlife makes you feel better in this life by appealing towards your sense of greed for pleasure (heaven: thinking your duties to an invisible God will give you equity that will one day be cashed in) and your sense of justice (hell: thinking that all those "evil ones" that have done you wrong will end up in everlasting torment), but belief in the afterlife can only foster your denial of your only possession, your existence, your life. Don't throw your life away; Be a productive member of the human race.

You would have to know what Jesus means to me personaly. You would have to know where I came from and where I'm going to make such a statement meaningfull. I am saddened at the thought of Hell but it is our choice I would never wish it apon anyone and neither would my persucuted brothers and sisters who suffer mightily in many countries. You know how I feel about the rest of your statement.

The words I've written in this post may evaporate like dust onto your dead eyes and ears, Powerfull Voices, but since this is a public forum, perhaps there is someone out there who has an ability to see, an ability to hear, and an ability to think.

Then my prayer is that they will benefit from your obvious knowledge but taste for themselves a love that far excels mear philosophical debate.

I will work on it each day but with the letters getting so long and my days being as full as they are it may take me a while to respond to your next letter. Have a wonderfull night and I look forward to hearing from you.

crocodile deathroll

God dammed religious nuts trying to convert us heathens again!

Sr. Zonules

Hi all.

Is there an afterlife? No. Well, maybe, but knowledge of the future is quite out of the reach of humans (at least today). Blah blah blah, I know that the Xian bible says "sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell" and other crap like that, but the bible is JUST A BOOK. Just one of millions upon millions of books. Written by men. To add insult to injury, the bible has been translated a zillion times (Go to the book section at Wal*Mart and see the DOZENS of versions there.) into greek, into latin, into hebrew, out of hebrew back into latin, from latin to german. from german to a lower german dialect, from high german to middle english, revised standard version, NEW revised standard version, gideon version, english version, NEW english version............ and so on the list is probably as long as the damn (no pun intended) book.

I'd like to ask Powerful Voices just one question:
How is it that you get into this afterlife of yours?

That's it. If you take anything from this post, please, just read the question.

Beoran

Powerful Voices, I disagree with you on many accounts, but I must say that I disagree with what you seem to be implying here:



Christianity has set back mankind a thousand years. Yes, in it's beginning, christianity was vibrant and yet promoted some advances. But it was decadent, and soon it was dogmatized, and taken up as a tool for power by the ruling classes. As christianity gained weight upon civilisation, it started to strangle and petryfy advance, and even undid some of it.

The same can be said for many religions. Islam, hinduism, and even confucianism had a similar effect on their resective societies. In the beginning, they were powerful incentives, but as they became dogmatized, they stifeled the advance of civilisation.

Powerfull Voices

Mr. Zonules

bible is JUST A BOOK. Just one of millions upon millions of books. Written by men. To add insult to injury, the bible has been translated a zillion times (Go to the book section at Wal*Mart and see the DOZENS of versions there.) into greek, into latin, into hebrew, out of hebrew back into latin, from latin to german. from german to a lower german dialect, from high german to middle english, revised standard version, NEW revised standard version, gideon version, english version, NEW english version............ and so on the list is probably as long as the damn (no pun intended) book.

I'm not sure your not making the mistake that the Bible is a translation of a translation...Is it not the case that each of these Bibles was translated from the original Greek? There is only one Bible but languages differ and the dialectic and parapharased versions are not different Bibles.

I'd like to ask Powerful Voices just one question:
How is it that you get into this afterlife of yours?

Mine? Yes I guess it is mine but it can be yours too. You simply put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Ask Him to come into your life ask Him to wash away your sins and make them white as snow. If you think I'm not being truthfull with you study His word for yourself, pray that He might reveal Himself to you. I will be praying with you. Read John 8 verses 1-12. May it become yours!!!

Beoran

Christianity has set back mankind a thousand years. Yes, in it's beginning, christianity was vibrant and yet promoted some advances. But it was decadent, and soon it was dogmatized, and taken up as a tool for power by the ruling classes. As christianity gained weight upon civilisation, it started to strangle and petryfy advance, and even undid some of it.

I certainly do not agree with your first point. Was not science itself heavily reliant upon men of this faith? Indeed "thinking God's thoughts after Him". Evil has been done in the name of Christ who denies that but if I put on you favorite suit and went out and murdered someone would you be guilty of that murder? How is what your saying any different from that scenerio?

The same can be said for many religions. Islam, hinduism, and even confucianism had a similar effect on their resective societies. In the beginning, they were powerful incentives, but as they became dogmatized, they stifeled the advance of civilisation.

No comment just didn't want to leave it out.

Thanks for writting guys!

Sr. Zonules

The translation thing is just one of the examples of why it is OK (and quite necessary) to think of the Bible as NOT INFALLABLE. i.e. if you believe that man is not perfect (not God) then you think that all of men's work is also not perfect. The Bible is quite incomplete and just plain wrong, so don't base your life upon that.

About getting into heaven, all I have to do is to have FAITH in GOD.

Well, what if God existed?? Provably and completely. That doesn't change a lot of things for you, but it poses one problem.

If God god actually exists, how can you have faith in him? I don't need to have faith in godel's incompleteness theorem, for example, because it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. To have faith in something is to believe in it WITHOUT any evidence of it. This is just one of the reasons why at least one of the following is wrong: 1. God doesn't exist. 2. The Bible is wrong and misleading 3. There is no afterlife.

I can only have faith in things that I cannot know.

Beoran