ANOTHER GOD QUESTION


>
> No, that term should be reserved for people who... I don't know... think
> the earth is only 6,000 years old, believe evolution doesn't happen, or
> claim the moon landing was faked.

Straw Man argument... Only one tiny slice of the Christian World are
fundementalists..The historic Church, both the Eastern Orthodox Church
and the Roman Catholic Church dont believe in your characterization at
all.

It's like calling all Atheists Communists...Care to defend the
Gulag..and Mass Murder by the Stalinists..? The USSR was Officially
Athiest you know.
 
Scott Richter wrote:
> Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
>
> >> Hardly - There is no such thing as an "Athiest World View".
> >
> > There is! It's a world without God. Isn't that true?
>
> Yes it is. Now, if we can only convince all the deluded religionists of
> this simple fact, we might be able to avoid global religious warfare.


Hmmmmm..Seems to me that the USSR was officially an Atheist State...

But thanks for playing.... There will be a lovely parting gift for you
at the door.
 

> >
> > Yes but it is also important to remember what kind of Christian you are
> > speaking about. In the East, the physical world is not looked at like
> > something to be discarded or a fake covering for the reality of
> > spiritual existence. The created world also reveals God so what we
> > learn about it matters to a certain extent.
> >
> You cite no evidence for your assertion, <<

That the material world reveals God? Geee.... Er...Blue Sky...Birds in
flight... Um Ocean crashing....Birth....etc.... Seems obvious and the
revelation of God through matter is in fact a long held tenant of the
Church.


and I disagree. Eastern
> philosophy is based on maya, meaning illusion. <<

You misunderstand.. I meant Eastern Christiainity



Religion deals with
> qualities, such as attitudes, opinion, judgment regarding good and evil
> actions etc. not with creation itself.<<


That's correct...I undersand that about Buddhism etc. but that was not
my reference as I just wrote above.


> >>
> >> For all we know for certain, we and the entire cosmos might well be
> >> as
> >> substantial as a dream in the mind of God. See below
> >
> > This is why personal interpretation is not a good idea.
> >
> Whose non-personal interpretation do you prefer?<<<


The Church


> >
> > You can simply
> > conclude that anything is possible and stop caring.
> >
> What does Christ say about that? Let me quote: Jesus in Mk:10:27: And
> Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God:
> for with God all things are possible.
> Why would "all things are possible" produce apathy?<<

You can slip into Nilism when you speculate based on your own personal
interpretations of scripture.

"It could all be a God's dream" is an example of such a danger.... I
would not take such musings seriously because in the 2000 year history
of the Church, no Saint, Scholar or Council of the Church had that
interpretation.

You only have to look at cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses
to see folks who have fallen waaaaaaaaaaaay off the trolley to see the
danger.


> > That is why we
> > should look to the 2000 year Tradition of the Church itself which has
> > already chewed over all these questions and possibilities.
> >
> You are RC, are you not? <<

Nope, not RCC.. I'm Orthodox

www.ourlifeinchrist.com

us sola scriptura fundamentalist protestants
> only God's Holy and inerrant Word, as per scripture is decisive and is the
> ONLY permissible reference for our beliefs, all else is speculation, often
> inspired by God perhaps, but still subservient to scripture.<<<

The Scriptures are a part of Holy Tradition but don't stand alone.
Every heresy invented has argued their case directly from
scripture..Pope Alone is wrong and Bible Alone is wrong too. Both ideas
are cut from the same cloth.
 
On 20 Oct 2006 12:44:43 -0700, "marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>> >
>> > Yes but it is also important to remember what kind of Christian you are
>> > speaking about. In the East, the physical world is not looked at like
>> > something to be discarded or a fake covering for the reality of
>> > spiritual existence. The created world also reveals God so what we
>> > learn about it matters to a certain extent.
>> >
>> You cite no evidence for your assertion, <<
>
>That the material world reveals God? Geee.... Er...Blue Sky...Birds in
>flight... Um Ocean crashing....Birth....etc.... Seems obvious and the
>revelation of God through matter is in fact a long held tenant of the
>Church.

And how is that vidence? It's merely what some people out of touch
with reality think, who can't grasp that only people inside their
religion will think that.

>
>and I disagree. Eastern
>> philosophy is based on maya, meaning illusion. <<
>
>You misunderstand.. I meant Eastern Christiainity
>
>
>
>Religion deals with
>> qualities, such as attitudes, opinion, judgment regarding good and evil
>> actions etc. not with creation itself.<<
>
>
>That's correct...I undersand that about Buddhism etc. but that was not
>my reference as I just wrote above.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> For all we know for certain, we and the entire cosmos might well be
>> >> as
>> >> substantial as a dream in the mind of God. See below
>> >
>> > This is why personal interpretation is not a good idea.
>> >
>> Whose non-personal interpretation do you prefer?<<<
>
>
>The Church
>
>
>> >
>> > You can simply
>> > conclude that anything is possible and stop caring.
>> >
>> What does Christ say about that? Let me quote: Jesus in Mk:10:27: And
>> Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God:
>> for with God all things are possible.
>> Why would "all things are possible" produce apathy?<<
>
>You can slip into Nilism when you speculate based on your own personal
>interpretations of scripture.
>
>"It could all be a God's dream" is an example of such a danger.... I
>would not take such musings seriously because in the 2000 year history
>of the Church, no Saint, Scholar or Council of the Church had that
>interpretation.
>
>You only have to look at cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses
>to see folks who have fallen waaaaaaaaaaaay off the trolley to see the
>danger.
>
>
>> > That is why we
>> > should look to the 2000 year Tradition of the Church itself which has
>> > already chewed over all these questions and possibilities.
>> >
>> You are RC, are you not? <<
>
>Nope, not RCC.. I'm Orthodox
>
>www.ourlifeinchrist.com
>
> us sola scriptura fundamentalist protestants
>> only God's Holy and inerrant Word, as per scripture is decisive and is the
>> ONLY permissible reference for our beliefs, all else is speculation, often
>> inspired by God perhaps, but still subservient to scripture.<<<
>
>The Scriptures are a part of Holy Tradition but don't stand alone.
>Every heresy invented has argued their case directly from
>scripture..Pope Alone is wrong and Bible Alone is wrong too. Both ideas
>are cut from the same cloth.
 
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:c7jhj21i0f93k8n9urnpq6f1r2onqp3g0u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:02:41 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>"marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1161273978.472236.48760@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So? Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. It's not a
>>>> philosophy and it's not a world view.
>>>
>>> I think you are confusing Nilism with Atheism...
>>
>>Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Deal with it.
>
> I have never understood why these assholes feel qualified to lecture
> us on what our own POV "really" is, tell us we're confused etc. When
> it's obvious they don't have the most basic idea. It's arrogantly rude
> to the point of nastiness.
>
The need to screech insults and abuse is atheists dogma, and can be
safely ignored.
 
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4prvfkFk1la8U1@individual.net...
> "marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161273978.472236.48760@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> So? Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. It's not a
>>> philosophy and it's not a world view.
>>
>> I think you are confusing Nilism with Atheism...
>
> Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Deal with it.
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> #1557
You keep forgetting to finish your sentence, Poo. The above should read.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, whatever the word might mean.
In fact you might as well admit, that you haven't any idea what you
disbelieve in, but just chant atheist mantras you learned from others
similarly clueless.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> God who is now in hell

Very GOOD! You're catching onto this blasphemy thing
like an old pro!
 
marcinmd wrote:
>>===>Gods can exist by accident, but universes must be created. ;-) -- L.
>
>
> The better way to say that is "God Exists"..There is no origin or
> causality ( accident)..."Always existing and ever the same"

===>NONSENSE.
Change is the basic law of existence.
NOTHING is "ever the same", hence, your "God" is NOTHING.

>
> The Material Universe is different. It had a beginning and will
> eventually have an end.

===>The universal substance could not have appeared out of nothing,
nor can it ever become nothing. That is the basic LAW OF CONSERVATION.
Hence, unlike your nothing "God", the universal substance is SOMETHING
and ETERNAL. -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1161298847.248587.327090@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > marcinmd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Stroll about with a "kick me" sign on your back, you're
> >> > gonna get kicked.
> >>
> >> Sir, I have been "kicked" by no one, I assure you... The only damage ad
> >> hominem attacks do are to the people who employ the tactic.
> >
> > Flamed on usenet, kicked in the ass by half the school, including
> > the janitor, big difference.
> >
> Who "kicks" whom and who's left standing is a big thing in atheist
> circles.

Checked the back of your shirt lately?
 
Gordon wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 17:17:06 -0700, chiron613@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, this does nothing to explain the question. It just shows
>>that God has been doing this for millennia - something we already knew.
>>
>>WHY did God allow Satan to torment Job? Why, in fact, did God create
>>Satan, and why (if Satan just "went bad", as some claim) doesn't God
>>get rid of Satan?
>>
>>Did you ever see the movie, "Old Yeller"? It's about a great dog. But
>>the dog gets rabies, and they have to shoot it at the end. That's what
>>you do with rabid dogs - you shoot them, because they're in misery, and
>>they can be extremely dangerous.
>>
>>The Bible doesn't really explain much of this. It just tells us that
>>God does things like this - letting Satan wreak havoc on people, even
>>good people.
>>
>
> My perception on this matter is that we, as mortals, are in the
> process of learning enough about sin and rebellion to assure God
> that we will NEVER, EVER want to go back and tinker with it
> again, after we have been granted absolute sovereignty and
> immortality. It is indeed a rough training session, but it lasts
> only a few decades, then it is all over and done with. How
> significant are these 3 score and 10 years, more or less,
> compared to eternity? Will any of us look back, 1 million years
> from now, and resent having had to spend a few decades of rough
> times, learning about sin and rebellion?
>
> Gordon

===>Your "perception" is based on imagination.
What the Bible REALLY tells us are the ideas, opinions,
speculations and fantasies of a few MEN, which were selected,
edited and compiled into that book by MEN of the Church.
THAT'S ALL! -- L.
 
Father Haskell wrote:
> marcinmd wrote:
>
>>Albert Einstein was hardly an "idiot" and he believe in God as the
>>root source of creation..
>
>
> Bullshit.

===>Right. How ignorant!
Anyone who thinks that, knows nothing about Einstein.
And to attempt top justify one's fantasy idol with such
inane statements only shows how shaky the beliefs of
certain individuals such as "marcinmd" really are. -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
> news:45345279.3000409@nothingbutthe.truth...
>
>>===>Can't you guys see how idiotic it is to believe a FAIRY TALE
>>that all this happened because a man, sculpted by an alien named
>>YHWH, dared to eat a fruit?
>>It is incredible how stupid human beings can be! -- L.
>>
>
> Yep!!! You wouldn't so stupid as to "eat a fruit", would you now,
> Libertine? But then, you are glad not be a "human bean" like us religious
> morons, isn't that true?

===>You still suffer from reading comprehension, "pastor" Fake!
The stupidity is NOT in the eating of a fruit, but in attributing
all the evils on this planet to that simple, innocent act, which,
even by the admission of the alien YHWH, resulted in the consequences
promised by Talking Snake.

Even though you know enough to admit you are a "religious moron", as you
said, it is still obvious that little by little you are losing it, poor
"pastor", sheepherder with no sheep!

Is there an insane asylum near you in Canada? If yes, make a
reservation. ;-) -- L.
 
marcinmd wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
>
>>marcinmd wrote:
>>
>>>Albert Einstein was hardly an "idiot" and he believe in God as the
>>>root source of creation..
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
> --------------------
> Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
> by Rich Deem
>
> I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote on the
> homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be
> good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote,
> since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein
> himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:
>
> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
> a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
> personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it
> clearly."
>
> So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe
> in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that
> conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized
> that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a
> beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought
> one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he
> added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of
> the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.
> Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was
> expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein
> became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

===>You appear to understand neither what a "Deist" is, nor what Albert
Einstein was talking about!

>
> "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
> of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
> actions of human beings."
>
> It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein
> rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the
> remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those
> characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human
> existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that
> exists on earth?

===>You are implying that Albert did not understand what Baruch was
talking about when he equated "God" with "Nature". But it is clear from
his writings that he did, and he was no "Deist"!

>
> Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of
> his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His
> ultimate perfect creation.

===>as I said, you haven't the slightest undretanding of either EInstein
or Deism, or Spinoza, in fact you don't even understand your own
religion! Your statements are sheer nonsense!

The rest of your ramblings are clear proof of that! -- L.

Einstein could not get past the moral
> problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists
> do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good
> morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the
> purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but
> to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or
> reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or
> reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be
> possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices
> are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand
> that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist.
> It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a
> simple logical principle.
>
> These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only
> reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of
> God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal
> for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the
> universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator
> God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of
> the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of
> human life and why evil must exist in this world.
 
Robibnikoff wrote:
> "marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161198024.178524.216190@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>===>Gods can exist by accident, but universes must be created. ;-) -- L.
>>
>>The better way to say that is "God Exists"..
>
>
> Why? There's no evidence a god exists.

===>It does as an idea in a believer's head. -- L.
 
marcinmd wrote:
>>So? Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. It's not a
>>philosophy and it's not a world view.
>>--
>>Robyn
>>Resident Witchypoo
>
>
> I think you are confusing Nilism with Atheism...

===>Did you mean HIHILism?
Perhaps a "nilist" would be one who worships the river Nile? ;-) -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:

[SNIPALOT]
>>
>
> For all we know for certain, we and the entire cosmos might well be as
> substantial as a dream in the mind of God.

===>So, now you claim that "love" has a "mind"??? -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4pku2lFj0q9kU1@individual.net...
>
>>"marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1161113232.234965.165540@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Can't you see how unlikely it is that the Universe and all that is in
>>>it is an accident?
>>
>>Sure, but that still doesn't prove that a god exists.
>>Robyn
>>Resident Witchypoo #1557
>
> No "proof" of any "god" of YOUR definition, that's for sure. You make
> sure that your definition of the word "god" is sufficiently ludicrous to
> preclude the existence of any such construct.
> However if you insist on existing gods, I have a whole drawer full of
> existing gods for sale, all in good shape and not any worse for wear. Since
> I got to know Jesus, I don't need nor care for them anymore.

===>What a LIAR!
All you "got to know" are some stories in a book, and an image you
formed on that basis in your mind!
Even if the "Jesus" of those stories existed, you would be too young
to have known the guy. -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:p4tcj2hjebnm5ultt69n99fv7fa1h1he79@4ax.com...
>
>>On 18 Oct 2006 11:01:26 -0700, "marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Hardly - There is no such thing as an "Athiest World View".
>>>
>>>Of course there is..Every philosphy and religion has a point of view
>>>about how they look at the world......
>>
>>And there's also reality, moron.
>>What makes you think atheism is a philosopy or religion, in-your-face
>>moron?
>>Is not-believing-in-Santa-Claus a philosophy or religion on your
>>planet?
>>
>
> No. But calling everyone you disagree with "moron" is an important tenet
> of atheist doctrine.

===>Funny.
I just read a message in which you called YOURSELF
a religious moron! ;-) -- L.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "marcinmd" <marcinmd@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161198024.178524.216190@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>===>Gods can exist by accident, but universes must be created. ;-) -- L.
>>
>>The better way to say that is "God Exists"..There is no origin or
>>causality ( accident)..."Always existing and ever the same"
>>The Material Universe is different. It had a beginning and will
>>eventually have an end.
>>
>
> Careful Libertine!!! If you get in too deep, you may fail to come up in
> time for air. "by accident" indeed!!!!

===>Trying to be cute, "pastor" Fake?
How else do YOU think gods exist if not by accident?
I say they are created by human minds.
What do YOU say? Accident? ;-) -- L.
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
M
  • Poll
The Beast Revelation
Replies
2
Views
724
michae1
M
O
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts,
Replies
1
Views
337
arorounda
A
V
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts,
Replies
0
Views
190
voll
V
B
EVIDENCE OF GOD
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
94
bob young
B
Back
Top