God

[Oligo 1]

Duke:

"Why cant yall just see that Jesus loves you? I am not trying to judge yall, but help yall. I want you al to go to Heaven and not hell."

Not everybody wants to go to heaven or hell. Some people do not believe such things exist, thus they are not frightened/comforted by the concepts.

"Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you??? Jesus died to save us from eternal death and our sins."

Nobody has died personally for just me, but I know a lot of males from a couple of generations back who died in wars to secure an independent state for my generation. So technically they died for me and the others. Also, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are alive only because somebody saved them with the cost of their own life. Thus, what Jesus supposedly did is nothing special at all.

"You may ask what is the meaning of life, well the meaning of life is to do God's will, which is to accept Him and to obey Him, please ask God into your life, not for me, but for your own good."

It might be your ultimate high to submit yourself to an authority figure, but again, not everybody finds this to be a bliss. Some people like to be in charge of their own life. These people do not want to be sheep, who baa to the tune of some authority figure.

These are the reasons I'm not touched by your sermons. My landscape of thought is just so different from yours. What works for you, does not work for me.

[Longinius 1]

"Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you???"

If selfsacrifice is enough to warrant worship, we have plenty of people to bow down to. Just like Oligo said, many men and women have died for humanity so that we (their descendants) may live free lives. I believe in selfsacrifice for the greater good. Personally, I have no problems with putting my life on the line to save others. That does not make me a savior however and the same goes for Jesus.

"You may ask what is the meaning of life, well the meaning of life is to do God's will, which is to accept Him and to obey Him, please ask God into your life, not for me, but for your own good."

I believe in some kind of god or higher power. I don't know what it is, but I think it exists. I would obey if a god spoke to me, but I wont obey a book written by men thousands of years ago, nor will I obey humans putting on robes, claiming to be representatives of a mute god.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 04 2002,05:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahh, but thats the thing. I never said anything about people being perfect. I just was talking about people who would always do the right thing in regards to their fellow man. Lemme tell ya, you can count those people and not have to take off your shoes. Now, I laid out a scenario that is not only a plausible future scenario, it is a FACTUAL historical scenario. What I ran down is basically Cliff's Note's of Europian geopolitical and religious conflicts from the Dark Ages through Mary Tudor. And that, my friend, is why homogenized religion is not only an impossibility, but it is also a very distasteful scenario.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why cant yall just see that Jesus loves you? I am not trying to judge yall, but help yall. I want you al to go to Heaven and not hell. Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you??? Jesus died to save us from eternal death and our sins. You may ask what is the meaning of life, well the meaning of life is to do God's will, which is to accept Him and to obey Him, please ask God into your life, not for me, but for your own good. <span id='postcolor'>

LAMAO. This reminds me of a scene from Full Metal Jacket:

DoR: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?!

Tex: No, sir.

DoR: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you!

Tex: Yes, sir.

DoR: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.

Tex: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.

DoR: The what?

Tex: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.

DoR: Whose side are you on, son?

Tex: Our side, sir.

DoR: Don't you love your country?

Tex: Yes, sir.

DoR: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

Tex: Yes, sir!

DoR: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.

Tex: Aye-aye, sir.

[Oligo 1]

Denoir, you said it. The similarities are astounding.

[ale2999 0]

well when we r discussing and he exposes its points its kind of hard not evangelizing. Jesus died for every1 and if some1 believes in him he would have eternal life, I guess every1 got tha by now. That is the standpoint of us believers. What is the conversation good for if you guys are not even willing to read. We read all your crap about God inexistance even thoe I know that he exists so u should read the post of believers without whining . Jesus is awesome, and I tell you again I will pray for all of you to know the truth, the real truth as I dont have the power to help in ur conversion or anything, the only thing we can do is pray.

[Oligo 1]

Oh, I've read your posts, every single one. Even when they look like copies of each other.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Call me a dumbass hillbilly Denoir, but I dont get it. ALthough that is an awesome scene, and btw, the script refers to the Colonel as 'Pogue Colonel'.

So, care to explain it to us simpletons?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Wait, hold on, I think I got it now. Yeah, that is pretty interesting

[Guest]

LOL. Ok, perhaps I could have been more clear on that. This part was my primary focus:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pvt. Joker : The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.

Pause

Pogue Colonel : Whose side are you on, son?

<span id='postcolor'>

And here it was:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Tex: What I ran down is basically Cliff's Note's of Europian geopolitical and religious conflicts from the Dark Ages through Mary Tudor. And that, my friend, is why homogenized religion is not only an impossibility, but it is also a very distasteful scenario.

Pause

DoR: Why cant yall just see that Jesus loves you?

<span id='postcolor'>

It was just a reference to him responding with a platitude to an intelligent statement that he didn't understand.

Edit: Bwah, my English is not very good this morning

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Yeah, I finally got it. Ya gotta give the old 486 processor in my head a little time to work these things out

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

nothing like a bit of the ole' FMJ

however

"Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you???"

"It was just a reference to him responding with a platitude to an intelligent statement"

But this presupposes that your position is correct and his is wrong and based on non existant events(youmust surely concede that if Jesus christ actually died on the cross for the sake of our immortal souls it would not be a platitude)

the burden may lie with the religionist to provide proof, but >you< cannot provide concrete proof that Jesus did not die on the cross for all of us, and indeed if that was/is the case then 'Dukes' argument would be both profound in the depth of it meaning and beautiful in its simplicity.

You are presuming automatically that you are completly right and he is completly wrong, based on what? a hunch.... that Jesus did not die on the cross for our immortal souls?

the bible can be interpreted from any number of perspectives but that is apparently not 'Dukes' interest. He has a firm perspective on the bible and holds certain truths to be self evident. That there is a God. That the son of God is 'Jesus', and that this Jesus fellow died on the cross 'for us'.

Can you >prove< any of these beliefs in and of themselves to be wrong?

However its clear that Duke has selective reading abilities not only in the bible (which apparently encourages debate) , but also in this thread. he obviously saw the GOD part of the title but failed to observe the 'good ol theological debate' part

making the same blank statements in reply to all enquiries does not constitute a valuable contribution to a debate.

Duke has made his particular opinions known on the matters of Jesus resurrection ,his general hippy style love for all of us

(even the ugly ones) and the wholesomeness of his God and his version of christianity

and unless he has a new point or a change of perspective i suggest he desists from restating them on every page.

Self evidently this will not convert anyone and only serve to give people a negative perception of christians

(whom it must be said he is only 1 in 2 billionth of)

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ July 04 2002,126)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nothing like a bit of the ole' FMJ  

however

"Jesus died for you! Who else has done so much for you???"

"It was just a reference to him responding with a platitude to an intelligent statement"

But this presupposes that your position is correct and his is wrong and based on non existant events(youmust surely concede that if Jesus christ actually died on the cross for the sake of our immortal souls it would not be a platitude)<span id='postcolor'>

Not at all:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

plat·i·tude   Pronunciation Key  (plt-td, -tyd)

n.

1. A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant. See Synonyms at cliché.

2. Lack of originality; triteness.

<span id='postcolor'>

A platitude can be 100% true. I was just commenting that Tex made an as usual intelligent debating point and Duke of Ray replied (as usual too) with a banality. For all I know Duke might be right, but it was still a banality

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ July 04 2002,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But this presupposes that your position is correct and his is wrong and based on non existant events(youmust surely concede that if Jesus christ actually died on the cross for the sake of our immortal souls it would not be a platitude)

the burden may lie with the religionist to provide proof, but >you< cannot provide concrete proof that Jesus did not die on the cross for all of us, and indeed if that was/is the case then 'Dukes' argument would be both profound in the depth of it meaning and beautiful in its simplicity.

You are presuming automatically that you are completly right and he is completly wrong, based on what? a hunch.... that Jesus did not die on the cross for our immortal souls?

the bible can be interpreted from any number of perspectives but that is apparently not 'Dukes' interest. He has a firm perspective on the bible and holds certain truths to be self evident. That there is a God. That the son of God is 'Jesus', and that this Jesus fellow died on the cross 'for us'.

Can you >prove< any of these beliefs in and of themselves to be wrong?<span id='postcolor'>

The burden of proof lays with the one who claims that something, like God or Jesus, exists (or existed). This is not only a scientific principle, it is also a principle of common sense. An example of this:

Somebody comes to you and says: "I saw a unicorn in my garden and I have here a book describing various activities by unicorns (a fairy tale book), so unicorns exist." Now is it your responsibility to prove him wrong or is it his resposibility to provide more evidence, before the existence of unicorns accepted as a fact? Both scientific principle and common sense dictate it is his job to provide more bang for his claims.

Same works for religion. The burden of proof is definitely on the side of those who claim gods and whatnot exist. The only reason people use such ridiculous statements as "can you prove god does not exist?" is that the hypothesis of god's existence has been around so long that people treat it as a special case. Common sense no longer applies, which is incidentally how people act when they are doing something in the name of religion.

[Paratrooper 0]

Its not a matter of proof, its a matter of an experience of God, one can not pass on experience. Intelectual arguments on the subject of religion collapse due to this, as I believe we have seen here.

[Oligo 1]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 04 2002,148)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its not a matter of proof, its a matter of an experience of God, one can not pass on experience. Intelectual arguments on the subject of religion collapse due to this, as I believe we have seen here.<span id='postcolor'>

Look, intellectual arguments only collapse, because the religious side fails to follow the rules of intellectual debate. Instead, they turn to preaching.

I guess I'll have to put it really bluntly. People use a variety of means to get through life happily, some more succesfull than others. Some people booze, some people do drugs, some people jerk off, some people believe in god, etc... I wish the believers would be like those who masturbate for kicks: Not cramming their "kick" down the throats of others, who do not want to hear it.

So believe all you want. I do not care. But when you're in an intellectual debate, you have to follow the rules. You have to provide concrete evidence. Comments like: "Last time I did LSD I experienced the presence of John Lennon and he is like the god and is like alive and stuff. I believe it since I experienced it" do not fit into an intellectual debate, unless you can provide more proof than your "experience".

SUMMARY:

Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself. Others do not want to hear your beliefs no more than they want to hear you're jerking off everyday wearing a bra and a pogostick crammed up your arse.

In an intellectual debate, you have to follow the rules of logic. If you want to involve your beliefs, you have to provide evidence.

[Guest]

Very well said Oligo. Your two latest posts represent my point of view 100%.

[Paratrooper 0]

When you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what religion is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">follow the rules of logic<span id='postcolor'> Logic is misplaced in a discussion about religion, why enter a religious debate and then expect it to be logical?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 04 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what religion is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">follow the rules of logic<span id='postcolor'> Logic is misplaced in a discussion about religion, why enter a religious debate and then expect it to be logical?<span id='postcolor'>

Since on an internet forum the only way we can convey our thoughts and beliefs is through intellectal arguments. Jumping up and down screaming "I'm right" leads nowhere.

The logic comes in also because religion has a tendency to intrude in earthly matters. If you want to believe what you want, that's just fine. If you are trying to pursuade people to adapt a certain view on the world then you have to show some evidence to convince them.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 04 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what religion is.<span id='postcolor'>

I just saw a (american) documentary of people, who fuck animals. They lived with dogs and horses and whatnot and fucked the animals. They said they loved the animals and that sex (with animals) is a normal manifestation of love.

Notice I wrote "they said". Because these people were indeed in a documentary, broadcasting to the entire world that they fuck animals and it is ok. So I guess when you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what bestiality is.

But a newsflash: Nobody wants to know what it is that you do for kicks! Believe in gods or unicorns, do drugs, booze, jerk off, do yoga, bang your head against a wall, pretend you're Peter Pan, fuck animals, but SHUT UP ABOUT IT. You make other people uncomfortable or sick.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 04 2002,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to believe what you want, that's just fine. If you are trying to pursuade people to adapt a certain view on the world then you have to show some evidence to convince them.<span id='postcolor'>

Or you can also kill all the non-believers, because "idolatry is worse than carnage".

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I guess when you have faith it is important to communicate it, that is what bestiality is.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not a fanatic, but that is one of the most offencive things I have ever heard. How dare you compare Christianity to bestiality!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

First off, I did not join this thread to debate about God. Infact I did not want to join this thread at all, but when I saw ale standing up for Christ, I then joined. I do not like these things, I have been part of other God threads before, but now I have reliazed that I do need to get involved in these threads no matter what. Jesus loves you all, and that what I will leave ya with.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Okay Duke, heres your big chance to get this topic back on track. This topic went off the rails when I rebutted your statement that the World would be a better place if all people were Christians, and you failed to respond to my argument, instead choosing to resort to a canned statement. Now, Im not arguing the existence of a superior being, hell, he may be out there. But I am arguing, from a standpoint of historical events, that if the only religion in the world was Christianity, -(regardless of whether or not it is a religion based on a God that actually exists, or just a set of organised fairy tales and superstitions)- the world would NOT be a better place. Based on the actions of REAL christians in REAL situations, I have made an argument. You may now argue it, and if anywhere in your response you tell me how much Jesus loves me, you will have lost your chance. Now go on, do it. Argue!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Wow, that post was so good that the forum gave me another star lol

[Oligo 1]

Paratrooper:

"I'm not a fanatic, but that is one of the most offencive things I have ever heard. How dare you compare Christianity to bestiality!"

I just love these modern times of ours. Just say the magic word "offended" and everybody is supposed to yield before your offended might. And I didn't even try to "offend" you.

<sigh> I'm not so much comparing as I am pointing out that these both are among the many different things that people rely on to live through another day. People do some weird stuff for kicks.

Also, each of these many things are often important merely to the particular person who relies on the particular thing to boost him through his days. Now when the person in question starts to enlighten other people of the thing that he does, these other people often feel bored/enraged/disgusted/tired to hear all this preaching which is mere crap to them.