Religionists of the world unite!
- Thread starter mrgrumpy
- Start date
The premise of the OP is wrong. Gods are not real. They are human inventions. Primitive man used them to explain natural phenomena. Ancient and medieval man used them as object lessons and embodiments of history, ore and ethics. Modern man uses them as tools to help focus on positive and desirable charcteristics.
Sometimes I think the atheists believe in god more than the monotheists.
Sometimes I think the atheists believe in god more than the monotheists.
I think you've fastened on something important there, without quite nailing it down. I'd put it this way: a lot of atheists think the question is far more important than most monotheists do. The latter largely take it as an obvious fact of life that doesn't need discussion, so they're often ill-equipped to argue in support of the proposition that god exists. The former, myself included, like to argue the point so we've done a lot of research and analysis of it, because it seems crucial to everything that follows from anyone's position on it.
And the real truth is that neither side is ever going to convince the other, because the argument is fundamentally not about reason and evidence. So why do I keep engaging in it? Because it's fun.
Alright!!!!!! Wait one damn minute!!!! (pun intended):angryfire:
My thread about religion being a disease got moved to the cat box (or whatever it's called) but this thread, which is much worse than mine, is left unmolested!!!!!!!! :angry3:
BTW, good rant mrgrumpy :lol:
I agree.
I've just started writing a book that set out to disprove god and may very well have made an argument for him/her/it. Go figure :lol:
I still think religion is man made and a mental illness even if it turns out there is a god.
Last edited:
It was a reply to your OP that got it moved, if it had been your OP it would have been moved before there was a page2. Read the last few posts before it was moved, it's easy to spot the one that got it moved.
Does God exist and where is the physical proof? Pick up a Bible, don't even open it, just hold it. Is it a physical object?
That is more proof than you can provide that says God doesn't exist.
Reading it isn't a measure of proof, but it does tell you not to even bother looking because you won't find any. A collection of writings is it.
It's only fun for you because you think you have it all figure out. You don't, not even close. From our limited discussion on the actual texts you are just parroting what others have said before you. You probably would also have parrot type answers for any topic that comes up.
How long is the tribulation before Christ returns?
How long does it take Christ 'clean things up'?
Who is the Beast from the Pit that kills the two witnesses?
When does the False Prophet first make his appearance?
What time is given to each of the 3 'woes' and who do they affect?
When is the 'rapture' (going to Heaven in a glorified body)?
Who are the 'armies of Heaven' that come behind Christ?
How many children are born during the thousand year reign?
When are the fallen angels sent to the fiery lake?
How do the ones sent to hell treat Satan when he gets sent there?
Feel free to list your supporting verses for any answer to any of the above questions.
And clearly you think you do. You have no solid justification for thinking you're any closer than I am, all you've got is a bunch of arguments from the presumed authority of texts thousands of years old.
The real reason I've said things that others have said is because they're fairly obvious conclusions and interpretations to make from the texts, so it should hardly be a surprise that different people come up with the same ones repeatedly. Moreover, when I do encounter a particular conclusion or interpretation, I don't merely accept it or reject it, I study and think about it and decide whether it makes good sense to me or not in the context of other things I know or can find out about, and if it does I'll use it. You've just accused me of not thinking for myself. Not only is that wrong, as should be obvious if you've read much of anything else I've posted at CC, it's insulting and offensive.
Those are the same texts that any form of doctrine is based on, even yours.
When I have something about what some Scripture means to me I'm pretty careful to have some Scripture that says the very same thing. I even post the verses to allow for the different wording in the various translations. It isn't a substitute for you going and reading even more than I post, if I post a verse the passage should be read to confirm the context. If a passage is posted then the chapter that it comes from should be read as a way of confirmation. Is that tedious, sure, is it necessarily, if you want the full version of what Scripture is saying it does need to be done.
There is a difference if two people come to the same conclusion from reading Scripture all on their own than if one has reached a conclusion and the other one reads it and comes to the conclusion that the person was right. How many people took the last route compared to the first?
I don't know if this fits you view or not so it is just an example. Quite a few promote that an anti-christ comes on the scene in the final years, his appearance is promoted as the start of tribulation.
(I know there is no anti-christ mentioned in Revelation, he is the False Prophet). Other verses say that this person only makes his appearance after Satan has made his appearance.
2Th:2:3:
Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed,
the son of perdition;
2Th:2:9:
Even him,
whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Which would seem to be correct? Think it makes any difference to those who believe 'he' is the event that starts the trib, it doesn't.
It can't be true because the ones who gave them that 'knowledge' would be wrong.
More or less that is just what I did. Why would it be obvious to me, I know you as well as reading what topics we have covered allows. I certainly have no desire to go and read all the posts of everybody I might strike up a conversation with. If you have some links where you have already covered the topics I brought up I would be more than happy to go and read them.
Are you thin-skinned? I could be more gentle with you. From what I do know about you the feeling insulted and offended is a tactic being used to avoid covering any of those listed topics.
I thought you found these topics 'fun'????
Religion is man made. If it was not then bog created us for purely selfish reasons. It is not a mental illness. It is a coping tool.
The problem with these discussions is that our dear Christian friends keep resorting to quoting Scripture to "prove" their points.
I say scripture is entirely man's creative writing and proves nothing. The entire bible, holy books, Koran, are are an artificial creation; the creative imagination of goat herders and mystics.
They are self-serving, self-fulfiiling stories that only cite themselves as legitimate and anything outside their jurisdiction is deemed heresy.
Can our dear Christain friends make any supportable arguments without using invented stories?
Logic and reason perhaps?
I say scripture is entirely man's creative writing and proves nothing. The entire bible, holy books, Koran, are are an artificial creation; the creative imagination of goat herders and mystics.
They are self-serving, self-fulfiiling stories that only cite themselves as legitimate and anything outside their jurisdiction is deemed heresy.
Can our dear Christain friends make any supportable arguments without using invented stories?
Logic and reason perhaps?
You're aren't alone in that opinion, but isn't proof somewhat different than opinion? Our original role was to be care-takes of a garden, His garden so it might be seen as selfish as we weren't created as guests with no duties. What ailment has plagued mankind as long as religion has been talked about?
What is inside the two covers has nothing to do with 'proof', unless you want to go and try and find the remains of some long ago event. It is a book about a sequence of events that cover the past present and future. The odd twist is that the events that are in the past were written about before they took place, admittedly in a form not easily understood by those who read them before they actually transpired.
Pretty hard to misunderstand some though, God telling Israel to get back to the original instruction or they will not remain on that certain piece of land.
Logic and reason for what, exploring if God is real? Those two traits can certainly be used to understand the sequence of events that is given, with all the 5 W's explained to various degrees. Depending how well you can put those things together means you either see the Bible as a patch-work of various unrelated stories or a single picture that has had various artists contribute when they were acting more independent of each other than in collusion. One director with many helpers.
I was really of two minds about dignifying that smear by responding to it. I presume you're referring to the list of questions you presented in a previous post. I didn't answer them for two reasons. First, you can extract that data from Revelation just as readily as I can, and you've obviously done so. Second, the answers don't mean anything because the book is not about our own times or our future. The first sentence of Revelation says its about things that must shortly come to pass, and the third verse says the time is at hand. It could hardly be clearer than that: John expected the events he describes to happen very soon. It's about the political situation that existed at the time it was written, which is most likely the Emperor Domitian's widespread persecutions. You have to read more than Scripture to understand Scripture, you need history and philosophy as well, and some understanding of human psychology. See AJ's "Identify the Beast" thread in the Christian Discussion forum.
That's true, shortly is used just as you say. When John was giving those words that were to be written down He himself didn't know the date of His return. The time-line should have well expired for everything except the last two chapters (being as they are eternal). So what were His options, say nothing or start at the point where He can give us information about events that are coming. There are only a few years before His return that Revelation deals with.
Nobody has eternal life, not one person has risen from the grave, sinners are abundant, and the list goes on.
Does this verse indicate to the ones (some of them) that would have had a chance to read Revelation a warning not to get excited when they hear the Day of the Lord is near?
2Th:2:1:
Now we beseech you,
brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th:2:2:
That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled,
neither by spirit,
nor by word,
nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Has Israel's blindness about Jesus being the Messiah been lifted? The few times I have chatted with them would seem that there are many who still do not believe it.
Ro:11:25:
For I would not,
brethren,
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro:11:26:
And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Ro:11:27:
For this is my covenant unto them,
when I shall take away their sins.
Now this could be made much longer if all the words written about that specific covenant were also included. This is the summary.
Heb:8:10:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
saith the Lord;
I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts:
and I will be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people:
Minus a few verses this is a rehash of a specific point we have already covered a bit.
Should my replies to your link go in this thread or the other thread?
How do you figure that? Chapter 20 begins with Satan being bound for 1000 years, then loosed again for the final battle, which of course he loses, then the last two chapters describe a second and perfect creation replacing the old one immediately following that. Revelation was written around the year 95 according to all the sources I've seen, and described events that were to happen almost immediately, so Satan being loosed again should have happened some time in the 11th century, and the second creation should have happened by now. Revelation's final chapter talks about all these things that will shortly be done, 22:7: "Behold, I come quickly..." and the promises are still unfulfilled after almost 2000 years. The time line's run out on all of it.
Really though, offering long biblical citations and asking me what I think they mean is beside the point, which is why I often don't respond to them. My point is, and has been from the beginning, that the Bible is not reliable as history or science or prophecy, it is not inerrant and in fact nowhere claims to be, though there is a passage somewhere, in Timothy I think it is, that says it's worth studying (which is certainly true), and to take it literally is to completely misunderstand both it and the reality around you.
You answered your own question. The last two chapters of Revelation are 21 & 22 (a verse of which you quoted), Ch:20 is the 3rd last chapter.
Since none of those things has happened you just invented something to change the original meaning, you don't allow any time for the Gospel to be spread, you yourself say the ink was just dry in 95AD yet everybody who it was meant for was supposed to read it before shortly expired. Shortly means the end of prophecy, all things fulfilled. Ever read Matthew 24, look at that list of things that had to pass before shortly could even start.
I've never asked you what something means, those long posts are my rebuttals disputing what you claim Scripture is saying, if you are closed to questions why post anything at all about any Scripture.
I read it literally and there is no misunderstanding what He is saying and I'm not sure how it affected your reality, it only made me a little more tolerant of some people, for a little while. I probably get as disgusted as you do over the way some Christians spread their message, like the bull**** artists of most 'send me your money' shows. I turned off one such show that happened to come on after the show I was watching (just so you don't think I tune them in on purpose) and they started asking for silverware ("If you don't have any money send us some silverware"), seriously what kind of fuktard would you have to be to stoop that low.
Since none of those things has happened you just invented something to change the original meaning, you don't allow any time for the Gospel to be spread, you yourself say the ink was just dry in 95AD yet everybody who it was meant for was supposed to read it before shortly expired. Shortly means the end of prophecy, all things fulfilled. Ever read Matthew 24, look at that list of things that had to pass before shortly could even start.
I've never asked you what something means, those long posts are my rebuttals disputing what you claim Scripture is saying, if you are closed to questions why post anything at all about any Scripture.
Nice opinion but it is still wrong, what you see as a 'flaw in God' is a flaw in your understanding of what you have read.
I read it literally and there is no misunderstanding what He is saying and I'm not sure how it affected your reality, it only made me a little more tolerant of some people, for a little while. I probably get as disgusted as you do over the way some Christians spread their message, like the bull**** artists of most 'send me your money' shows. I turned off one such show that happened to come on after the show I was watching (just so you don't think I tune them in on purpose) and they started asking for silverware ("If you don't have any money send us some silverware"), seriously what kind of fuktard would you have to be to stoop that low.
"I've just started writing a book that set out to disprove god "
It is unessasary to disprove that which has not been proven.
It is unessasary to disprove that which has not been proven.