bennychico11

TGHusker, You are all over the place. I really can't respond to all of that without some sort of road map. You seem to be responding to several weeks worth of posts without quoting anyone, so I have no clue where to start. I will say, that I don't agree with you in saying that C.S. Lewis was an Atheist. I don't know why Christians insist on saying certain people were an atheist before conversion...as if that gives them credibility....but Lewis was an admitted "atheist" when he was 15 years old. And most of what is refuted as his reason for being atheist doesn't really make sense to me. At least, if a random person today said some of the similar statements he did....it wouldn't make me assume he was atheist (disbelieving in a god). Is the number of people a person influences worthy enough of respect of that person? Hitler? Jim Jones? Just saying. There is "truth"...and there is truth. There has to be a way to determine between the two. And the number of good deeds a person does, does NOT determine whether or not what they say has TRUTH behind it.

The number of people witnessing an event doesn't equal evidence of truth. 500+ people see a tiger vanish on a stage in Las Vegas every night and then reappear elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the tiger literally teleported. At the most you could say those people saw something that would defy what we know to be natural. Then you investigate it. You don't jump to the conclusion "god did it!" Now it's a conspiracy theory? All the US government needs to do is show us the body of Bin Laden! All the US government needs to do is show us the documents of 9/11! All Obama needs to do is show us his birth certificate...otherwise I'm just going to believe what I believe to be true! That's not how you arrive at truth.

The same reason why so many weaker people stand up to the mighty all the time. We have examples all throughout history of people risking their lives for what they believe in. America was founded on that principal. A group of people have a belief they hold so strongly that they are willing to die for it. But those beliefs aren't always true just because someone fights to the death for them. Every religion has had people who believe things strongly and would in turn die for those beliefs. But we can't just assume that because a person strongly holds a belief, that that belief is in fact true. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about extraordinary claims. Should we also assume Scientology, Islamic, Hindu, etc. claims are all true just as well? We have to have a way to determine what is true and what isn't. Otherwise, you just go on believing everything you're told. More of a reason for me NOT to believe their claims. We have groups of uneducated farmers who swear they were abducted by aliens...but I don't tend to believe them either. I'm not calling it a lie or a joke. Mythological stories evolve over time. These uneducated men probably did believe in this stuff. Just as much as the Romans believed in their own gods at the time too. I just think over the many years people wanted it to be true so much and loved the stories, fables, myths that they slowly grew into what Christianity is today. ALL religions have had a similar path. It's how my 6" blue gill I caught last spring became a 55lb Northern pike by the time winter rolled around. And what about Matthew 27:52-53? Why is there no extra-biblical mention of the thousands of resurrected saints who also rose from the dead and walked right into town. To me, it's just that I don't believe in magic. I've never had ANY reason to EVER believe people could rise from the dead, perform supernatural miracles, etc. I can't just accept something because it was written down thousands of years ago in a book. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Period. You believe it on faith...and I don't know why faith would ever be a good thing to believe something on.

Believe what is real? I think that's what we're trying to get at. The OP never really clarified "what" the topic is. Funny you should use that term when trying to compare the natural world with a supernatural belief

Yeah, season finale kind of disappointed me. Although I "wowed" at Carl basically cold-killing that kid.

Most people would agree with you. Christians, non-christians...atheists, theists...etc. Honestly, I'll disagree with you all day long on your beliefs if we talk about them one on one...but really, I'm not going to make a judgement on you as a person because of them. I have tons and tons of friends/families who believe the exact same thing you do. I think they're just as crazy I still love them just the same. But you are welcome to believe what you want. But when it comes to legislating your belief on to those of us who don't hold the same...that's where I tend to have the problem. And I think most in my position would agree to the same (although I don't claim to speak for them). Many MANY people in the same boat as you say "just let me believe what I want to!"...but then push for Christian inclusion into our laws. They advocate against planned parenthood, equal marriage rights, teaching classroom evolutionary theory, against removing prayer from school, etc...and claim the United States is a Christian nation and is god's chosen country. These are the peoples I have issues with...just as you and many of your own Christians should as well. Back to Atbone- What exactly was brought up about Easter in your church? What is it that you think we believe as fake? Likewise, what do you believe about it...and why do you believe it?

To start off, I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal attack on you. That was never my intention. I was not calling you personally a bad parent and I apologize if I made you think that. It was just a response to you using the parent analogy to explain god's actions and why I think that would be a terrible example of a parent. I had a whole response typed out to your other points...but I think I'll just end it here so things don't escalate further.

Says you? How do we know you have the true interpretation of the message of Christianity or the Bible? I would assume the grandfather or father of Walks' family thought they had the true interpretation...right? I bet the people who told them that message thought they had the true message too? Why is your understanding of the message more true than someone from the Westboro Baptist Church? There must be some way of determining how true this message from the Bible is, correct? I mean, this is from an all knowing god. Why would he create a message that he wants his children to fully know and believe, and then go about and make a cryptic book by anonymous authors that is written in languages that die off so that we must rely on translations of copies of copies? Then rely on priest or other human beings (who you say are fallible...so why would I believe them in first place?) Again, referring to my questions above...that makes you a terrible parent for not trying to reassert what you meant. If your child took your message, then went astray because he didn't understand what you meant fully...or because he's a fallible human. And you did nothing to correct or reaffirm what you meant. What did you expect? That you tell him once and say "welp, it's on you now! I told you once in a book written hundreds of years ago. Now it's torture in hell for eternity for you!" I pray (pun intended) then that you don't have children...or at least you aren't that cruel.

Except humans don't have the 'religion' excuse anymore. And they don't have the religious influence anymore. Some of the wrongs might still be committed, but for a reason other than a magical being or some book told them to. It would be a naturalistic explanation, such as "I think all black people are inferior to me for no reason other than I'm of a different race." And hopefully we'd get to a point where the human race says "You're f'ing stupid." I personally, think that instance like these might be minimized if religion wasn't involved. You forget that religion has a amazingly strong influence on politics and societal beliefs. As well as both psychologically and culturally. And has so for thousands and thousands of years. To save 100,000 Jews from dying in a concentration camp.....or to save one child from being molested because a priest took advantage of him. I think is worth it.

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument. Neither does your evidence from authority How do you know that Satan is the bad guy and God is the good guy of the Bible? Ever done a body count after reading through it?

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2) "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29) And not to mention the many Jewish laws about rape or when it's okay to murder. And do you see this as something that is moral? I'm not judging the situation by today's standards...I'm judging the situation on what is morally just and what isn't. And a parent killing a child or chaining them up in the basement and torturing them FOREVER, is NOT morally right. In ANY century. Just like slavery was morally wrong 100 years ago as it is today. People may have been too stupid to accept it, but what century it is doesn't matter to how a human being is treated. That's like saying it's okay that children are forced to work in sweat shops today in Asia...'cause that's just how it is over there. Or, genital mutilation has been around for centuries, who are you to say Middle Eastern cultures can't practice it. Yes, I can judge actions to be moral! And you are well within your right to say they're not moral either!

Would your parents have it within their right to kill their child, then? How about locking that child in their basement and torturing them for eternity? I'm fine with anyone believing in the god of the Bible, but don't ignore all the stories of him commanding armies to slaughter, pillage and rape his children by comparing it to teaching a child a lesson for breaking a window. It's just insane how you can logically be against a human harming another...but god has it within his right if you make him mad!

Can I ask, what does that passage mean to you? Am I not allowed to ask for prosecution of pedophiles because I've done some lesser "sins" in my life too? But, yes...I have no problem refusing to follow or believe in that advice, however poetic it may seem out of context.

Would the BBC work? http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3157859.stm ---edit--- my favorite is the last paragraph

Yeah . . . I noticed that too. I don't think that it's at all likely that it was just cosmetic abnormalities . . . I'd like to know the rest of the story. Of course, it's an obiviously biased article. It also states "The Washington Post reported yesterday that both the medical examiner and Montgomery County Police Department are conducting an investigation"...but goes ahead and labels the article as Carhart's victims identified. As if he's already guilty. I also love how the source of most of the information for the article is "sidewalk counselors"