Christians in Gaia

[wicked_fire]

Funkmasta-Zeph

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

x-Starberry-chan-x

You can't convert an athiest just b telling to them to pray and read the book. Its a lot harder than that and anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong.

I'm not athiest but i've heard conversion stories about athiests converting to the mormon or other faiths and it sometimes takes months or years. Athiests are just as strong in my opinion in what the y believe in.

The reason that Athiests and wicans and satanists convert to mormon more often if they convert at all if because mormonism is a little white lie of satans. He uses the book of mormon and redoes many of the main values in the Bible that God has set down. I could show some examples of this but again, I dont have the time right now.

Wait, where are your figures on an increased rate of conversion to Mormonism? Do note that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity, if the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" hasn't tipped you off enough.

i know that they claim to be christians but i am telling you that they are not. if you want stats and what not read Lucifer Dethroned & Wicca satans little white lie Both by William and Sharon Schnoebelen.

Cite or concede.
Mentioning books is not valid proof on an online debate.

oh but metioning other people posts is? In those books they have many cited references that I'd have to type mot of the book up in order to mention them all.

[wicked_fire]

MercuryChaos

Riviera de la Mancha

I have proof, but it is not the kind that can make you believe

No, you don't have proof at all. What you have is faith, and that's something else entirely - that is, believing something without proof. I find it funny that religious people say that they are people of faith - essentially, that their beliefs are so strong that they don't feel they need any proof - but then when someone comes along and questions the validity of those beliefs, suddenly the religious texts have become proof. The fact is that theists cannot prove that there is a god any more than atheists can prove that there isn't.

I'm not saying that having faith is a bad thing, but please don't point at your faith and say it's proof - it isn't.

The proof we have is the Bible and if thats not good enough for you then I pray that you dont die soon becaus you'd be going to hell.

[Lord Setar]

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

x-Starberry-chan-x

You can't convert an athiest just b telling to them to pray and read the book. Its a lot harder than that and anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong.

I'm not athiest but i've heard conversion stories about athiests converting to the mormon or other faiths and it sometimes takes months or years. Athiests are just as strong in my opinion in what the y believe in.

The reason that Athiests and wicans and satanists convert to mormon more often if they convert at all if because mormonism is a little white lie of satans. He uses the book of mormon and redoes many of the main values in the Bible that God has set down. I could show some examples of this but again, I dont have the time right now.

Wait, where are your figures on an increased rate of conversion to Mormonism? Do note that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity, if the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" hasn't tipped you off enough.

i know that they claim to be christians but i am telling you that they are not. if you want stats and what not read Lucifer Dethroned & Wicca satans little white lie Both by William and Sharon Schnoebelen.

It sounds like the authors don't even know what Wicca is, or its origins, and are just trying to badmouth it. Can you cite passages from the books, please?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Funkmasta-Zeph

Riviera de la Mancha

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Incorrect. I have proof, but it is not the kind that can make you believe.

It would he as if you had a lover and I asked you to prove to me 100% to such a degree that I had to believe he or she loved you. Any act, any deed, any word you could bring up is not capable of accomplishing this, for any act of love can easily be an act of deception, malice, or veiled hatred. Not a single act of love makes someone epistemically culpable to recognize your love you share with your partner. Does this invalidate your love? No, of course it doesnt, because love, like many things, is not such that it allows for epistemic culpability in the same fashion as many would expect other things to be. Love is something that only exists in your reality. I can recognize it, but that is my own free will, not me being made to agree it is in fact love you share with some person.

Thats why I find it so odd you would ask for proof in that sense.

Subjective proof=/=objective proof. Some subjective claims of emotional abstraction require subjective proof (e.g. 'I am in love'), objective claims require universal and objective proof (e.g. 'God exists').

I never claimed my proof was objective.

God was never intended to be an objective proof, so I too am often baffled by those who seem to think it is. The Bible is full of God doing one chief thing; affording people a change to believe, not forcing them. Even if you view the whole text as a work of fiction, one theme that runs through it is the idea that He does not want to make you do anything. He always uses a human form that chose to see and follow Him.

Would an unbeliever be sent to hell?

Not quite sure. I am not God, so I do not ultimately know what His requirements for Heaven are down to a T. I do however dont see what the problem is of going to hell.

If you still refuse to believe upon seeing Him, then Hell, as a place most distant from Him and His total goodness, is really the only thing anyone can reasonably ask for. There are people I have met who, no matter what they say or do for me, will not redeem themselves in my eyes. If they are at a place, I leave that location, regardless of who is there, even if its other people I love. It is the only think I can do within reason, because I so dislike this singular person that I refuse him or her entirely. If a non-believer still refuses to acknowledge God, then it is not a loving being that would ignore their free will and force them to be with Him, much like it would be wrong of anyone to force me to being around someone I so loathe.

[crystal_pepzi]

wicked_fire

crystal_pepzi

Riviera de la Mancha

xLady-Missiex

wicked_fire

I do understand this and my only answer that I can give to people like that is to read the Bible, all the answers are there.

Funny. The more I read of the Bible the stronger my assertions that it's just a story thus making me a bigger atheist. Maybe you should read the whole thing and see how confused you are.

I have read it many times and it has yet to confuse me in any serious way.

It has always been a source of truth for me. The fact that is confuses you means nothing to me. I happen to be a terrible math student, so if I told you, "This algebra makes no sense. Read the whole thing and you will see how confusing you get!", would that make any sense to you? No, because you could be a great math student, look at it and tell me, "Your really dont get this? Its quite easy for me." My own personal confusion over it has nothing to do with the actual state of the subject I observe, nor does it mandate that you wont get it .

So you've never wondered how a loving god would order genocide? Or why they'd ask their servant to kill his child? Or why god would order men to kill babies, rape women and tear their wombs apart?

Because that's rather confusing to me.

The answers to your questions are in the Bible, as I have told you before. Your thoughts are also worped by what other people have told you as I showed you with the rapeing of the virgin girls.

No honey. I've read the bible, many, many ******** times and all I ever found was violence, hate and contradiction. Even the one supposed 'divine' act of love was nothing more than murder. I asked everyone I knew including our pastor to explain how this was justified by god and none of their answers were good enough. Just as yours aren't.

My mind hasn't been warped by anyone. If anything turned me against your god, it was your book.

[wicked_fire]

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Of course it is the only true God. She bases her view like mine as I see and experience reality. Our God that we share in faith is the only one that is true as life has shown us. I do not intend to prove to you here and now in the sense to make you epistemically culpable to see our God as the one and only one because it is a perspective ultimately you must see to agree with. God has no interest in forcing you to do anything, and that includes believing in Him if you really dont want to do so. In proper form then, it is odd for you to demand proof for a religious belief like you would for th conclusion that 2 + 2= 4. Faith is by design ultimately incapable of creating this effect, for it is far too humanistic.

2+2=4 is an axiom, or automatic principle; 'God exists' is not an axiom or automatic principle, and is a matter of fact claim, thus requiring some form of proof to be knowledge or some type of logical justification to be believed in.

Ok how about this. You see the computer right in front of you, the walls of the house you are in, and so on. You know they exist because you can see them so thus you know they had a creater, a builder or an engineer. If you look down, or in the mirrior, you would see yourself you know that you exist thus you must have a creater.

False analogy. You're comparing naturally made structures (humans) with man-made structures.

So who made man? you think a lil fishy suddunly grew legs and started walking and talking?

[New Thought Queen]

Riviera de la Mancha

Funkmasta-Zeph

Riviera de la Mancha

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Incorrect. I have proof, but it is not the kind that can make you believe.

It would he as if you had a lover and I asked you to prove to me 100% to such a degree that I had to believe he or she loved you. Any act, any deed, any word you could bring up is not capable of accomplishing this, for any act of love can easily be an act of deception, malice, or veiled hatred. Not a single act of love makes someone epistemically culpable to recognize your love you share with your partner. Does this invalidate your love? No, of course it doesnt, because love, like many things, is not such that it allows for epistemic culpability in the same fashion as many would expect other things to be. Love is something that only exists in your reality. I can recognize it, but that is my own free will, not me being made to agree it is in fact love you share with some person.

Thats why I find it so odd you would ask for proof in that sense.

Subjective proof=/=objective proof. Some subjective claims of emotional abstraction require subjective proof (e.g. 'I am in love'), objective claims require universal and objective proof (e.g. 'God exists').

I never claimed my proof was objective.

God was never intended to be an objective proof, so I too am often baffled by those who seem to think it is. The Bible is full of God doing one chief thing; affording people a change to believe, not forcing them. Even if you view the whole text as a work of fiction, one theme that runs through it is the idea that He does not want to make you do anything. He always uses a human form that chose to see and follow Him.

Would an unbeliever be sent to hell?

Not quite sure. I am not God, so I do not ultimately know what His requirements for Heaven are down to a T. I do however dont see what the problem is of going to hell.

If you still refuse to believe upon seeing Him, then Hell, as a place most distant from Him and His total goodness, is really the only thing anyone can reasonably ask for. There are people I have met who, no matter what they say or do for me, will not redeem themselves in my eyes. If they are at a place, I leave that location, regardless of who is there, even if its other people I love. It is the only think I can do within reason, because I so dislike this singular person that I refuse him or her entirely. If a non-believer still refuses to acknowledge God, then it is not a loving being that would ignore their free will and force them to be with Him, much like it would be wrong of anyone to force me to being around someone I so loathe.

So instead they are sent to endless torment.
Right.

What a wonderful dichtomy god has set up.

[crystal_pepzi]

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Of course it is the only true God. She bases her view like mine as I see and experience reality. Our God that we share in faith is the only one that is true as life has shown us. I do not intend to prove to you here and now in the sense to make you epistemically culpable to see our God as the one and only one because it is a perspective ultimately you must see to agree with. God has no interest in forcing you to do anything, and that includes believing in Him if you really dont want to do so. In proper form then, it is odd for you to demand proof for a religious belief like you would for th conclusion that 2 + 2= 4. Faith is by design ultimately incapable of creating this effect, for it is far too humanistic.

2+2=4 is an axiom, or automatic principle; 'God exists' is not an axiom or automatic principle, and is a matter of fact claim, thus requiring some form of proof to be knowledge or some type of logical justification to be believed in.

Ok how about this. You see the computer right in front of you, the walls of the house you are in, and so on. You know they exist because you can see them so thus you know they had a creater, a builder or an engineer. If you look down, or in the mirrior, you would see yourself you know that you exist thus you must have a creater.

False analogy. You're comparing naturally made structures (humans) with man-made structures.

So who made man? you think a lil fishy suddunly grew legs and started walking and talking?

No, actually there were bacteria before fishes were ever around. Honey, have your parents even enrolled you in school because this is simple stuff I learned in seventh grade.

[Lord Setar]

Awaiting a response to this, by the way...

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

I am not saying that homosexuality is a "moral" law at all, im saying its a sin.

Chapter and verse. Please check against this thread first so that I do not have to bring it up again. If you wish to contest Loki, do it in that thread.

wicked_fire

Its not your argument, its someone elses that you are quoteing therefore how can I discuss with you their thoughts if you aren't them, so get your own thoughts.

Tu quoque, my friend, tu quoque.

wicked_fire

God used humans to write the Bible but it was still his words. Its like talking about a deaf person and saying that their interperter said such and such and that the deaf person had nothing to do with what the interperter said.

And your evidence for this is...?

wicked_fire

Ghandhi may have been an over all good person but he still sinned against THE God and as far as I know did not repent and ask Jesus Chrsit into his heart.

Which seems to matter more than that he was an overall good person. Consider that Stalin ordered the deaths of up to fifty million during his regime. This doesn't seem to be based on what kind of person you are, it's "did you believe or not"? Which is your god simply being an attention whore.

wicked_fire

And as far as Im concerned God as the right to be an "atention whore" he created you and me and deserves every second of our lives devoted to him.

I was not created by some deity. My body was created by biological and chemical processes, and I was created as a result of my genetics and the environment surrounding me. So according to you, we should all devote every second of our lives to science.

[xLady-Missiex]

wicked_fire

If you truly knew the Bible an ddidn't just pick and chose at what other people tell you then you would know that God said that killing in Battle was justified. So all the killing in wars and battles God commanded did not go against the 10 commandments at all.

Moses never says rape the lil girls. He says to take them as their own, as in wives. Rape is never condoned in the Bible. And moses said NOT to murder the virgins...

show me once where I said Jesus refuted the Laws of the old testament. I would appreciate if you, and others, would stop putting words into my mouth.

This is just amazing. It really is. So the next time I look at the 10 Commandments will I see the little * after "Thou shall not kill" and read at the bottom "Unless in battle for God."? If there where reasons to kill then why would the all powerful God make a rule so vague?

Oh so to kill a little girl's entire town and take her as a wife is not seen as rape? I highly doubt she would agree to have sex with her killers. Even he Moses said not to kill the virgins. What about the others? Even God himself proudly said to kill people.

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

Granted you didn't say Jesus himself refuted the old laws but you did say "Laws of the New Testament override some of the laws of the Old." Jesus was against that and showed that he was angry that the Jews didn't follow the old laws correctly.

Quote:

christians dont claim to beleive in something that isn't there either.

Really now? You believe in God don't you? I don't see a God. Oh right I forgot he wants me to throw out the intellect that he so "gave" me and follow one book so blindly that I lose all touch with how reality works. No I'm not doing that for a so called "God." Fine let him throw me in the "fire lake". It'll only show how much more of an abusive d**k he really is.

"I will give no concrete proof of my special powers that can be seen to even the more hardcore disbelievers. Then when they die I will let them all burn in some magical fire lake for using the intellect I gave them."

Yea that's someone I want to worship. rolleyes

[Riviera de la Mancha]

MercuryChaos

Riviera de la Mancha

I have proof, but it is not the kind that can make you believe

No, you don't have proof at all. What you have is faith, and that's something else entirely - that is, believing something without proof. I find it funny that religious people say that they are people of faith - essentially, that their beliefs are so strong that they don't feel they need any proof - but then when someone comes along and questions the validity of those beliefs, suddenly the religious texts have become proof. The fact is that theists cannot prove that there is a god any more than atheists can prove that there isn't.

I'm not saying that having faith is a bad thing, but please don't point at your faith and say it's proof - it isn't.

Faith inherently demands proof.

If I asked you how sure you are of waking up tomorrow, most people would be fairly certain of that conclusion. I can then ask for proof of their faith in their being alive tomorrow, and they would of course give me all kinds of reasoned proofs; they are in good health, they dont live in a bad location where crime is a ready concern, they went to bed in the same state yesterday and woke up just fine, etc. All of these are fair and reasoned kinds of proofs we all apply on a day to day basis to form our faith in things. Now, imagine if I had horrible health, lived in a community where crime was readily about, I went to bed yesterday and almost died then, etc.,any person would reasonably conclude that my faith in waking up tomorrow is poorly placed.

[New Thought Queen]

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Of course it is the only true God. She bases her view like mine as I see and experience reality. Our God that we share in faith is the only one that is true as life has shown us. I do not intend to prove to you here and now in the sense to make you epistemically culpable to see our God as the one and only one because it is a perspective ultimately you must see to agree with. God has no interest in forcing you to do anything, and that includes believing in Him if you really dont want to do so. In proper form then, it is odd for you to demand proof for a religious belief like you would for th conclusion that 2 + 2= 4. Faith is by design ultimately incapable of creating this effect, for it is far too humanistic.

2+2=4 is an axiom, or automatic principle; 'God exists' is not an axiom or automatic principle, and is a matter of fact claim, thus requiring some form of proof to be knowledge or some type of logical justification to be believed in.

Ok how about this. You see the computer right in front of you, the walls of the house you are in, and so on. You know they exist because you can see them so thus you know they had a creater, a builder or an engineer. If you look down, or in the mirrior, you would see yourself you know that you exist thus you must have a creater.

False analogy. You're comparing naturally made structures (humans) with man-made structures.

So who made man? you think a lil fishy suddunly grew legs and started walking and talking?

1. We don't know. That doesn't mean we should fill in the blank with whatever we feel like. And we shouldn't assume a being created things.
2. You obviously don't understand evolution. Research things before talking about them.

[dawnofthelight]

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

dawnofthelight

Riviera de la Mancha

Of course it is the only true God. She bases her view like mine as I see and experience reality. Our God that we share in faith is the only one that is true as life has shown us. I do not intend to prove to you here and now in the sense to make you epistemically culpable to see our God as the one and only one because it is a perspective ultimately you must see to agree with. God has no interest in forcing you to do anything, and that includes believing in Him if you really dont want to do so. In proper form then, it is odd for you to demand proof for a religious belief like you would for th conclusion that 2 + 2= 4. Faith is by design ultimately incapable of creating this effect, for it is far too humanistic.

2+2=4 is an axiom, or automatic principle; 'God exists' is not an axiom or automatic principle, and is a matter of fact claim, thus requiring some form of proof to be knowledge or some type of logical justification to be believed in.

Ok how about this. You see the computer right in front of you, the walls of the house you are in, and so on. You know they exist because you can see them so thus you know they had a creater, a builder or an engineer. If you look down, or in the mirrior, you would see yourself you know that you exist thus you must have a creater.

False analogy. You're comparing naturally made structures (humans) with man-made structures.

So who made man? you think a lil fishy suddunly grew legs and started walking and talking?

Oh, oh. I smell a creationist! Have you been watching too much propaganda? And, yes; it has tons of evidence and proof supporting it, unlike creationism/ID. It's not as simple a you put it, though. Also, the question "who made man?" does not necessarily have an answer, because man may not have a creator. You're still basing yourself on the assumption someone made man, in the first place. Circular reasoning. You cannot proof God with one of the premises needing his existence as a creator to work.

[wicked_fire]

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

Lord Setar

wicked_fire

x-Starberry-chan-x

You can't convert an athiest just b telling to them to pray and read the book. Its a lot harder than that and anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong.

I'm not athiest but i've heard conversion stories about athiests converting to the mormon or other faiths and it sometimes takes months or years. Athiests are just as strong in my opinion in what the y believe in.

The reason that Athiests and wicans and satanists convert to mormon more often if they convert at all if because mormonism is a little white lie of satans. He uses the book of mormon and redoes many of the main values in the Bible that God has set down. I could show some examples of this but again, I dont have the time right now.

Wait, where are your figures on an increased rate of conversion to Mormonism? Do note that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity, if the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" hasn't tipped you off enough.

i know that they claim to be christians but i am telling you that they are not. if you want stats and what not read Lucifer Dethroned & Wicca satans little white lie Both by William and Sharon Schnoebelen.

It sounds like the authors don't even know what Wicca is, or its origins, and are just trying to badmouth it. Can you cite passages from the books, please?

The authors are former wiccans who turned momon then christian. Im looking through the book right now and I dont really know what to cite, they explain hard qustions such as why aren't the victims of satanist rituals found. They explain the calendar of satanists and how they use triggers in order to get their victims, also the levels of stanism... I dont know what you want. they also have a book called Blood on the Doorposts i forgot about.