Religion (God)

If I may attempt to troll someone (anyone) into continuing the debate, I will post this slightly-modified post that Solarflare made earlier in the thread:

Quote:I find it interesting that after my comprehensive explanation the arguments stopped. Perhaps out of wisdom, people realized their objections could, in fact, be reasonably answered. Perhaps they didn't want to take the time to do the research (which seems to be a consistent theme among the opposition), and decided to just drop it, believing what they wanted to believe without researching and discovering for themselves.

Or perhaps they just got fed up, realizing that arguing doesn't get anywhere without an openness to be wrong and learn. This cuts both ways, I was just making an observation that the diligence seems to side with the atheists on this one.

I don't know, I think that the argument can go somewhere, one simply has to get over their emotional attatchmets, and begin to think of religion in a logical manner.
My opinion, is that religion was simply formed our of early human's desperation to find something infinatly concrete in an unstable world. I mean, look at the history of religon, thoughout the centruies every culture has had a religion, with the same basic princibles, sometimes altered by their demographics, but the general idea being the same. Religion is what, the second grouping of social necessities?
this might seem a bit radical, but I have been harboring the idea of religion being more of a pyschological need than anything in real exsistance, human nature. Similar to the concepts of peer interaction, and idolization.
I am sorry, I have so much homework. I would love to elaborate, and discuss this further. Hopefully my mini explination made some sence. That is a problem of mine, everything makes sence in my head, but on paper is a mass of confusion and dissorder.
oh, I did read the entierty of the your forum, congrats on your discussion with solarflare. It was highly entertaining, I found the rampant sadist comments both ammusing, and perhapse truthful in a saterical manner.
paige.
oh, please don't mind my herendous spelling, I am typing fast.

There is either no god or more than one. I dont believe one god would make so many people believe so many different faiths. The alternative, sure, could be that Humans chose themseleves what to believe, but hey, who knows? [URL=http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal]http://www.fullmoon.nu/ar... is an intersting site about religion, even though it can easily be made up.

Armando wrote:My question(s) are:

If God does exist, and God is all powerful and what not, why doesn't he make it so everyone believes in him? Why would God not make everyone believe he exists and pray for him and praise him?

that would be like spiritiual rape (sorry, thats a lil blunt). Unrequited love is not God's love. true true love is a two way street. and if God's love were not a choice, would it still be a big deal? but despite the love and rejection from mandkind, he still puts His love out there for all to accept.

Armando wrote:The Bible WAS written by men... It's totally biased and it has been modified countless times.

It was written through men by God, not by men.

tallgeese wrote:i don't know about you, but the bible cannot be the most accurate book ever written. i totally doubt any scientist or historian has ever said that. maybe a theologist. because there is absolutely no positive evidence or proof of anything that has taken place in the bible. they are supposedly geographically correct, yet there are only theories on where the "great flood" took place during the time of Noah. They dont have proof of where Moses gathered the plates with the commandments. This is all in the old testament, and i highly doubt the old testament is teh most accurate book. the new testament could surely be however. Yet u still have to understand, translating can misshape sentences , even if it's not intended. translating the bible into different languages is ok, taht's how we got the english versions. if we keep phasing our bible, everyone can rewrite it themselves. tell me if there is something blashpemous in that. cuz i see there is. let's have 50 cent's version of the bible. let's have Rolling Stone's version of the bible. etc. why don't people try to read the most original copy they can get?
sure it's hard to understand, but it feels more reverent reading the words "thou" "thee". that's just my opinion tho.

Revelation 22:18: For i testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

although i'm contradicting my own beliefs cuz i think this verse and verse 19 pertain only to the book of Revelation, i still think it is wrong to modify the bible from its closest original version. it's already gone through too many twists.

I really dig that verse in revelations. but the funny thing is, the other major religions that clain\m to believe in God have additional books that are supposed to be like partner books with the bible. food 4 thought?
Also, in most major religions, there are recollections of a "great flood".

tallgeese wrote:unless you tell me you ahve done it yourself and seen it, i don't think i have to do it. :)

what's weird is...im not sure if this is true or not..my friend tells me taht the smithsonian's most accurate record they have is of Jesus' existence. wonder how? the bible is so biased towards Jesus. because the ones who wrote the new testaments were followers of Jesus themselves. of course they won't add in something that Jesus had done wrong (although of course he was considered perfect). but this topic is too continuous. i think i will resign from this argument...it's wayyyyyy too deep for me and it's too mind bogling.

dont worry about sounding like a jerk or anything...

but, ummm, as for Jesus in The Bible... thats the point!
please find me something where jesus does do something wrong.

ya know they do say that God's love is uncomprehendable ;)

Gwino wrote:that would be like spiritiual rape (sorry, thats a lil blunt).

While the more deterministic nature of human behaviour strongly indicates against a "spirit", the more relevant question that ought to be asked is: Why doesn't God do something obviously magical to convince us nonbelievers of his existence?

Quote: Unrequited love is not God's love.

Apparently omnibenevolence isn't a property of God, then.

Quote: would it still be a big deal?

Whether a thing is a "big deal" or not is a human concept.

Quote: but despite the love and rejection from mandkind, he still puts His love out there for all to accept.

Where?

Quote:It was written through men by God, not by men.

Prove it.

Quote:. but the funny thing is, the other major religions that clain\m to believe in God have additional books that are supposed to be like partner books with the bible. food 4 thought?

Are you trying to say something?

Quote:Also, in most major religions, there are recollections of a "great flood".

I'm not sure I see the point of this comment.

dont be so butthurt 'cause of our interracial/gay marriage bloggage
(and i know u dug my joke, haha)

Whoops, I didn't even see your post in that thread.