Christ

[The Real Picard]

Who cares bout god anyway.

 

 

I believe in GOD, through my faith I believe he IS and always WAS. I believe Jesus Christ was and is GOD in the flesh. I believe HIS Holy Spirit is bred within everyone of us, that we HE gave us the choice to believe in HIM, though faith, enabling us to feed HIS Spirit within us thereby allowing it go grow and help us grow. I pray every morning, during the day, and before falling asleep... always have and I'm 49 years old now. GOD is real, not because I say so, but because he is.

 

Sad thing is so many just don't get it. And in the end it will be too late. I estimate that probably less than 10% of humanity 'truly' know God. Yes, that means that 90% of you are probably going to !@#$%^&* when the time comes. But what do I know? Of course, if I'm wrong big deal, we're all dead and gone, however if I'm right... where will that leave you?

 

Peace to all!

TRP

[Falcoknight]

TRP, you tell us to do research to disprove your own beliefs, yet all you did to disprove any opposing beliefs was say "I believe this, I believe this, I believe this, etc" Sorry if I don't take your word as that of a credible source.

 

Also, you said in your first post

I won't be suprised at how many of you who do this with an open mind are converted and truly find your way, through faith, to where you should be.

Yet you are here telling many of us that our beliefs are wrong and yours are right. So much for an open mind, huh?

 

You're just as bad as knightmare. Actually, no, you're worse. At least he just spews his crap and tells everone they should believe it without being a frigging hypocrite about it.

[Dr Brain]

Brain:

There is plenty of evidence over the years. You just choose to ignore it, or p!@#$%^&* it off as the ravings of lunacy.

What evidence? (this is traditionally the point where the Christian makes a quick exit from the argument).

 

Rather than do research, I'll pick one from my memory. Lourdes. 68 do!@#$%^&*ented, scientifically unexplained miracles. I'm not holding this up as proof that everything in the bible is true, but rather as proof that science can't explain everything. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_at_Lourdes for specific details (I don't want to be accused of not citing my sources: I originally saw this on the history channel). There are countless other do!@#$%^&*ented incidents of divine intervention. The bible has accounts of most of the ancient ones. I'm honestly not a good source for modern ones.

 

I say God created the big bang. That's my hypothesis, in the language of science.

That's certainly possible. So how do you need to interpret the Bible now?

 

Don't understand your question.

 

Some people in this thread did. I wasn't talking to you.

Actually no-one in this thread has claimed to be an atheist, so please, stop making excuses.

 

Which mistake? The atheist one? Refer to my comment above. Looks like you made a mistake, but since it's in your nature I'll forgive it.

And being a hypocrite, a liar and a re!@#$%^&* is obviously in your nature. Case closed. Actually come to think of it, you've re-interpreted this thread to make it read the way you need it to read to make your re!@#$%^&*ed !@#$%^&*umption factual, something that should be very familiar to a Christian... ROFL

 

Some people in that posted in this thread have claimed to be atheists in other venues. I'm sorry to be vague.

 

To use your line, I've not actually claimed to be Christian. You've just re-interpreted what I've said to make your re!@#$%^&*ed !@#$%^&*umption factual. Something that should be very familiar to an atheist. Now can we stop with the generalizations? Or must it continue?

[JDS]

there is no way for anyone to know if there is a god , as for me, il live my life beliving there is no god, and you can live your life beliving there IS a god, and we will both die, congratulations we are all essentialy the same, lets not discriminate or try to convert each other to justify what we personaly believe in.

 

all for freedom

all for personal rights

all for tollerance

[sil]

The thing I always find strange is when person A says they believe in God, person B will claim that since person A believes is God, he/she must not believe in anything scientific. Which just baffles me. I mean really, if God is an all knowing all powerful being, don't you think he could create these laws of science and nature to keep us busy or to just keep things running?

[Keiver]

I don't believe in God, Jesus, Religion, or anything pertaining to it.

[Drake7707]

Rather than do research, I'll pick one from my memory. Lourdes. 68 do!@#$%^&*ented, scientifically unexplained miracles. I'm not holding this up as proof that everything in the bible is true, but rather as proof that science can't explain everything. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_at_Lourdes for specific details (I don't want to be accused of not citing my sources: I originally saw this on the history channel). There are countless other do!@#$%^&*ented incidents of divine intervention. The bible has accounts of most of the ancient ones. I'm honestly not a good source for modern ones.

 

that was 150 years ago o_O" , if people saw ridiculous signs they always thought it was a sign of god because they were much more religious back then than now, so that isn't really 'proof' or anything.

 

There are also a lot of unexplainable scientific things, but that isn't proof for anything. Unexplainable things can be because of missing or wrong information and that information could have been anything, but religious people seem to like that insecurity and jump on it like flies on !@#$%^&*.

[SeVeR]

Rather than do research, I'll pick one from my memory. Lourdes. 68 do!@#$%^&*ented, scientifically unexplained miracles. I'm not holding this up as proof that everything in the bible is true, but rather as proof that science can't explain everything. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_at_Lourdes for specific details (I don't want to be accused of not citing my sources: I originally saw this on the history channel). There are countless other do!@#$%^&*ented incidents of divine intervention. The bible has accounts of most of the ancient ones. I'm honestly not a good source for modern ones

If science could explain everything then there wouldn't be science. What you've done is take this event, for which the cause is unknown, and given it a cause. This is obviously not evidence to support the existence of God or the validity of the Bible, try again. You said you had evidence, not unknown events. You could just as well say the presence of uranium is evidence for a God since we don't have an astrophysical site (yet) to explain its creation.

 

Don't understand your question

It's simple. If God created the Big Bang, then how do you explain the story in Genesis? Or is the Earth somehow special, and wasn't created through the post-Big-Bang natural course of events. Before you start, i have a wealth of evidence for the natural creation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago.

 

Some people in that posted in this thread have claimed to be atheists in other venues. I'm sorry to be vague.

Right.... and i suppose you expect me to have read these "other venues", that are not quoted, and leave the question open to what venues you are talking about. Please, stop clutching at straws here and admit you made a mistake. The way you originally put it really does appear to be referring to this thread.

 

Something that should be very familiar to an atheist.

I've already told you i'm not an atheist! LOL! You tell me you've never claimed to be a Christian. So are you Christian? If you are then my original guess was correct.

[SeVeR]

Hmm Picard's post needs a translation:

 

I believe in GOD, through my faith

I believe in God, and don't need a shred of evidence.

I believe he IS and always WAS.

I believe in the use of capital letters!

I believe Jesus Christ was and is GOD in the flesh.

I believe a man-god because that gives me an example of perfection to emulate, thus making the path of my life clear and rewarding.

I believe HIS Holy Spirit is bred within everyone of us,

I have no evidence to support his Holy Spirit being within us but i state it as a fact all the same. All i need is faith (ignorance of any evidence, logic and reason) and a God to have faith in (something that makes anything possible).

that we HE gave us the choice to believe in HIM, though faith,

I've read the Bible, and believe every word in it to be true. Even though it was written by men, they must have had GOD working through them.

enabling us to feed HIS Spirit within us thereby allowing it go grow and help us grow.

I like the idea of God being within me, it makes me feel good.

I pray every morning, during the day, and before falling asleep... always have and I'm 49 years old now.

I butt-kiss Gods !@#$%^&* because the Church has always told me i need to worship him. My Church has gold crucifixes and candlesticks...

GOD is real, not because I say so, but because he is.

GOD is real, not because i say so, but because i say so.

Sad thing is so many just don't get it. And in the end it will be too late. I estimate that probably less than 10% of humanity 'truly' know God.

I'm so special. I'm in the 10% of the population who are ever so special because we're close to God and closer to perfection. I'd hate it if the rest of you took away my thunder.

Yes, that means that 90% of you are probably going to !@#$%^&* when the time comes.

You're all going to !@#$%^&*, convert to my religion out of your fear! I'm going to heaven when i die, so i don't need to fear death anymore, isn't that convenient?

But what do I know?

Yes... what do i know?

Of course, if I'm wrong big deal, we're all dead and gone, however if I'm right... where will that leave you?

Here is my threat to you: Believe in my God or spend eternity in !@#$%^&*.

Peace to all!

Add fuel to the fire of ignorance, and !@#$%^&* us all to !@#$%^&* on Earth.

[NBVegita]

Also just a note, I do believe it is the vatican that decides what is cons!@#$%^&*uted as a miracle. In fact they just "crowned" another saint, this one is mexico, as he was giving away placebo's with rice in them, having scriptures engraved on the sides, and the pope credited the healing "effects" of these placebo's miracles. Being a miracle is declared so by the church, not a credible source of evidence.

[Guest Knightflame]

Also just a note, I do believe it is the vatican that decides what is cons!@#$%^&*uted as a miracle. In fact they just "crowned" another saint, this one is mexico, as he was giving away placebo's with rice in them, having scriptures engraved on the sides, and the pope credited the healing "effects" of these placebo's miracles. Being a miracle is declared so by the church, not a credible source of evidence.

 

 

I am a christian not a catholic, I respect the Pope but i do not share their beliefs.

[NBVegita]

Yet you praise and worship the man jesus, but none of his teachings or ideals.

[Guest Knightflame]

Yet you praise and worship the man jesus, but none of his teachings or ideals.

 

Yes but most catholics(correct me if im wrong)worship mary as the holy one.

[Dav]

Yet you praise and worship the man jesus, but none of his teachings or ideals.

 

Yes but most catholics(correct me if im wrong)worship mary as the holy one.

 

Am I right in saying that you don't follow their interpretation rather then their beliefs?

 

The religious denominations are fundamentally built on the same core beliefs common to all Christians but much of the bible being interpretable in many ways gives rise to many distinct groups within the religion.

[rootbear75]

i totally agree with that version sever

[Falcoknight]

I'll never understand how can people use the argument that an unexplained event can possibly be evidence that there is a God or something of the sort.

 

Science is the pursuit of knowledge to understand the things around us.

If we already knew how to explain everything, we wouldn't need science.

 

It really would be a pretty safe bet to say that in 1000 years, much of the things we think are impossible or can't explain, we'll find to be perfectly possible and perfectly explainable. How? The development of science, just like how it's been developing and helping to explain the mechanics behind once unknown occurences for a long, long time now.

[JDS]

Yet you praise and worship the man jesus, but none of his teachings or ideals.

 

Yes but most catholics(correct me if im wrong)worship mary as the holy one.

 

Alright , il correct you, YOU ARE WRONG, catholics dont worship mary, they hold her in high respect, your ignorant

[Dr Brain]

What the !@#$%^&* is your problem, Sever? I talked about atheists in general, and you tell me that you've never claimed to be an atheist. I say that I wasn't talking about you, and you tell me that no one else has claimed it either. I say that I know some posters are, and you tell me they're still not atheists. I say that I've heard them claim it, and you tell me that you can't be expected to know that they were. I was only talking about them IN GENERAL. I will not continue talking to you, since you'll probably start going off about how I lied to you somehow.

[Gravitron]

Atheist = Heretic, absolute denier of supreme beings.

Agnostic = Neither doesn't believe nor do believe, but simply apathetic and not caring to commit eitherway.

 

Don't be sad Brain, many make that mistake, it's common ignorance.

[Hakaku]

Alright , il correct you, YOU ARE WRONG, catholics dont worship mary, they hold her in high respect, your ignorant

I was gonna write "thank god someone has sense..." but then realized the irony.

 

Yes, the Virgin Mary is held in high regards, and is probably the most known woman figure. HOWEVER, if Mary and/or Jesus are so called 'worshipped', then so are all the other woman and important figures in the Bible, and so would Saints and such be 'worshipped'. But it's not the character themself or the image, but the symbolism they represent, the actions they did, and their teachings, that are so called 'worshipped'.

 

It also fascinates me that Mary is the only female mentioned in the Coran.

 

--------------------

Anyhow, at the core of any religion, is faith. Believe what cannot be seen, touched, smelled, heard, or tasted (- lol... Flying Spaghetti Monster).

 

Even if you don't believe, it's not going to do you any good to waste your time bashing ignorant people who do. Ironically, you might seem like a hypocrit yourself.

 

And the science vs. god debate... drop it. Is it so impossible to say that they might both coincide with each other? Science can't prove or unprove god no matter how much you try. Only your opinion and change/unchange towards the existance of (a) god(s).

 

And to be flat out honest, I couldn't care less for religion, but the principal ideas of which nearly every religion is built upon, I agree with.

[sil]

I'd like to point out that all you atheists believe in the lack of God without any sort of proof to back it up. If you were really the open minded, scientific people you claim to be, you'd be agnostic.

 

The big bang theory is pretty funny, truth be told. "Yeah, so there's like this big surge of energy from no where, but there can't possibly be a God that caused it"

 

 

Atheist = Heretic, absolute denier of supreme beings.

Agnostic = Neither doesn't believe nor do believe, but simply apathetic and not caring to commit eitherway.

 

Don't be sad Brain, many make that mistake, it's common ignorance.

 

Just cause I cannot tell Grav, where you trying to say Brain didn't know those definitions or that someone else didn't?

[BDwinsAlt]

I believe. It's scientifically impossible (the odds are) for the Big Bang to have happened without any intervention by some Divine force. Once you've seen the dark side of religion, I think you will believe. It's not all Angels and Jesus. There are other things out there that might show up in your life one day. I know this atheist kid at school whose parents are scientist. He believes anything that science says is true no matter how ridiculous it is. Know what carbon dating is based on? !@#$%^&*umptions by scientists. They believe that the world is millions of years old when there is actually a lot of evidence that it is very young. Global warming got a slap in the face when scientist said, "I thought you said the world had six times as much carbon dioxide in the air 100 million years ago? Why was the earth colder and not hotter?" They then changed their theory to say it gets colder too. Most people are starting to conclude that carbon dioxide has no affect on the temperatures because most of the evidence is false and based on scare stories. Ok sorry for going off like that. I just wanted to keep the Internet Creator (AL Gore) from screwing up your minds.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention, "A zebra never changes its spots" - Al Gore

Edited June 19, 2007 by BDwinsAlt

[Drake7707]

thats the other extrema

 

the scale:

[extreme believers in religion, reject everything else ----------------- normal believer ------------ just don't care ------------- believes in science ------------------------------------ extreme believers in science = truth, reject everything else]

[SeVeR]

Science is the acknowledgement of doubt and the analysis of probability; so it's impossible to be an extreme believer in science. If that "atheist kid" was a scientist then he wouldn't be !@#$%^&*erting truth onto unproven theories. In a way he has made science his religion, and in doing so he is no longer a scientist.

 

Just cause I cannot tell Grav, where you trying to say Brain didn't know those definitions or that someone else didn't?

It's just some argument i was having with brain. He made a comment about "all you atheists", and i pointed out that no-one on this thread had claimed to be an atheist (at least up until he made his post about it). It's pretty clear he was confusing atheist with agnostic in an attempt to make us all look like a bunch of presumptious idiots for !@#$%^&*erting that God categorically does not exist. No-one had made that !@#$%^&*umption and i consider the matter closed.

 

Know what carbon dating is based on? !@#$%^&*umptions by scientists. They believe that the world is millions of years old when there is actually a lot of evidence that it is very young. Global warming got a slap in the face when scientist said, "I thought you said the world had six times as much carbon dioxide in the air 100 million years ago? Why was the earth colder and not hotter?" They then changed their theory to say it gets colder too. Most people are starting to conclude that carbon dioxide has no affect on the temperatures because most of the evidence is false and based on scare stories.

I don't want to get this thread turned onto global warming but i must clear up a few of these points you've made; being a scientist myself.

 

1. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth is 6000 years old. There is plenty of evidence from radiometric dating to suggest the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Fossilisation for one requires much longer than 6000 years. Rock cross-sections, ice-cores, and even the remains of creatures long since extinct are evidence for an Earth more than 6000 years old.

2. The correlation between CO2 and temperature throughout all historical records is very close. The world has adapted to past changes, as these changes have taken place over millions of years.

3. What is worrying is the rate of the current changes. These changes also correlate well with CO2 levels.

4. Natural CO2 accounts for about 97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. This is why we're not freezing to death right now, as the Earth would be about 60 degrees colder without it, based on calculations of the Earth's albedo. The extra CO2 is the problem as it upsets the equilibrium and adds a couple of degrees of heat to our environment, resulting in worsening weather conditions and rising sea levels.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a publicist, and he doesn't represent the scientific community's view on global warming.

[sil]

It's just some argument i was having with brain. He made a comment about "all you atheists", and i pointed out that no-one on this thread had claimed to be an atheist (at least up until he made his post about it). It's pretty clear he was confusing atheist with agnostic in an attempt to make us all look like a bunch of presumptious idiots for !@#$%^&*erting that God categorically does not exist. No-one had made that !@#$%^&*umption and i consider the matter closed.

 

Not to butt heads here, but from Brains post I did not think he was confusing those terms at all. As an atheist denies the existance of supreme beings. But if said person claims to be a scientific person, how can they claim that no being exists with no proof of such lack of existence. Then he says they should be agnostic instead and neither believe nor disbeleive as there is not solid, sound evidence either way. Which is just a paraphrased version of what he said with Grav's definitions used and also why I posted those two together.

 

Beyond that, I really agree with what Hakaku said and thought t was well put.