Really? - Sorry, I should say that louder: REALLY!


Turns out, since everything has an opposite - God exists. Really that's the proof?
Black > White
Dark > Light
Down > Up
Yup, I guess that's the definitive proof we've all been looking for.... and it was right there in front of us all along. (If God is in front of us, The devil must be behind us.)

Logical fallacy is a fallacy. Here's another one:

1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

Poof, god doesn't exist.

i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

right at the beginning he says that if there are objective moral values, there is a god. what on earth is the relation between the two?! moral values are and have been always SUBJECTIVE to the culture and place.

That's in itself a fallacy. Premise one is false because it doesn't autmatically follow that evil is impossible if a perfectly good God exists.

1 God is perfectly good
2 God created man
3 Man is capable of evil
4 Evil exists



>> ^KnivesOut:
Logical fallacy is a fallacy. Here's another one:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
Poof, god doesn't exist.

Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow

>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

Exactly, I'm glad you agree that WLC's original claim is a logical fallacy.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's in itself a fallacy. Premise one is false because it doesn't autmatically follow that evil is impossible if a perfectly good God exists.
1 God is perfectly good
2 God created man
3 Man is capable of evil
4 Evil exists

>> ^KnivesOut:
Logical fallacy is a fallacy. Here's another one:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
Poof, god doesn't exist.

Oh, but it does follow:

1. god created man
2. man created evil
3. god created evil
4. god is evil>> ^shinyblurry:

Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

I didnt, but if your arguments are so weak this is what you resort to, feel free to make a fool of yourself

>> ^KnivesOut:
Exactly, I'm glad you agree that WLC's original claim is a logical fallacy.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's in itself a fallacy. Premise one is false because it doesn't autmatically follow that evil is impossible if a perfectly good God exists.
1 God is perfectly good
2 God created man
3 Man is capable of evil
4 Evil exists
>> ^KnivesOut:
Logical fallacy is a fallacy. Here's another one:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
Poof, god doesn't exist.

Evil is just an opinion of an event. A lot of us agree on common elements of what makes something evil, but evil is a concept. It's not a tangible 'thing'. We see a murder, we say that's evil. It's really, in a way an opinion... on top of that, perhaps the person murdered would have eventualy had a child who would have went on to become a President who launches all the atomic bombs and wipes out the planet.

I guess then the act of murder was good in the long run...

Wrong for many reasons..evil is sin, and God has never sinned. Man is capable of good and evil, because He has a choice to follow Gods rules, or not. If He followed Gods rules there would be no evil. So, guilt by implication doesn't apply..the question wouldn't exist if man had no choice.


>> ^KnivesOut:
Oh, but it does follow:
1. god created man
2. man created evil
3. god created evil
4. god is evil>> ^shinyblurry:
Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

If god created man to sin, then god sinned.>> ^shinyblurry:

Wrong for many reasons..evil is sin, and God has never sinned. Man is capable of good and evil, because He has a choice to follow Gods rules, or not. If He followed Gods rules there would be no evil. So, guilt by implication doesn't apply..the question wouldn't exist if man had no choice.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Oh, but it does follow:
1. god created man
2. man created evil
3. god created evil
4. god is evil>> ^shinyblurry:
Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

Man doesn't have to sin, he chooses to. Having a choice isn't evil.

>> ^KnivesOut:
If god created man to sin, then god sinned.>> ^shinyblurry:
Wrong for many reasons..evil is sin, and God has never sinned. Man is capable of good and evil, because He has a choice to follow Gods rules, or not. If He followed Gods rules there would be no evil. So, guilt by implication doesn't apply..the question wouldn't exist if man had no choice.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Oh, but it does follow:
1. god created man
2. man created evil
3. god created evil
4. god is evil>> ^shinyblurry:
Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

But there is no choice. I wasn't given the choice not to sin. You already said it. Man sins. Therefore there was no choice. Therefore god decided that man would sin. Therefore god sinned.

I see Shinny's side of it. According to the fiction god gave us free choice. Along with the responsibility of free will he said, don't eat this apple (aka; don't do bad things). Therefore it's in our hands not to sin.

>> ^KnivesOut:

<div id="widget_405781030">

Woah.. that was like a secret message

That's not what I said..I stated man is naturally inclined to sin, not that he has to. And if he obeyed God, he wouldn't sin
>> ^KnivesOut:
But there is no choice. I wasn't given the choice not to sin. You already said it. Man sins. Therefore there was no choice. Therefore god decided that man would sin. Therefore god sinned.

Who made man that way?>> ^shinyblurry:

That's not what I said..I stated man is naturally inclined to sin, not that he has to. And if he obeyed God, he wouldn't sin
>> ^KnivesOut:
But there is no choice. I wasn't given the choice not to sin. You already said it. Man sins. Therefore there was no choice. Therefore god decided that man would sin. Therefore god sinned.

Shit .. I read the title wrong.

so it's not Elvis then?

Evil is relative. If everyone wasn't sinning and happy happy perfect land existed, putting your left shoe on the right foot would be evil EEEEEEVIL !!!!.

Sorry shinybllurry but there are nothing but reprobates at this site.
You are right and they are wrong.
GOD does exists. This site needs more people like you to chew the ear of these fools.

The fact that Super natural Evil (and events) exist in this world proves that there is something else out there. And If one can believe in that then how can one utterly dismiss the existence of GOD?


>> ^shinyblurry:

That's not what I said..I stated man is naturally inclined to sin, not that he has to. And if he obeyed God, he wouldn't sin
>> ^KnivesOut:
But there is no choice. I wasn't given the choice not to sin. You already said it. Man sins. Therefore there was no choice. Therefore god decided that man would sin. Therefore god sinned.

If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.

There is no free will if God is omniscient.

>> ^bobknight33:

Sorry shinybllurry but there are nothing but reprobates at this site.
You are right and they are wrong.
GOD does exists. This site needs more people like you to chew the ear of these fools.
The fact that Super natural Evil (and events) exist in this world proves that there is something else out there. And If one can believe in that then how can one utterly dismiss the existence of GOD?

>> ^shinyblurry:
That's not what I said..I stated man is naturally inclined to sin, not that he has to. And if he obeyed God, he wouldn't sin
>> ^KnivesOut:
But there is no choice. I wasn't given the choice not to sin. You already said it. Man sins. Therefore there was no choice. Therefore god decided that man would sin. Therefore god sinned.




Yeah, this site is full of foolish "reprobates" (nice word!). We need to teach them to be God fearing, homophobic, misogynistic rethuglicans.

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"

This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.

Genesis 2:15-17

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.

Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.

Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.

God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:

Matthew 8:13

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.

I think the word you are looking for here is "Educated"
>> ^bobknight33:

Sorry shinybllurry but there are nothing but reprobates at this site.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"
This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.
Genesis 2:15-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.
Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.
Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.
God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:
Matthew 8:13
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.



That's great, but if there's something that God doesn't know, even if he chooses not to know it, then by definition he is not omniscient.

That's just depressingly pedantic, rryjkyjdhu..

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Deliberately limiting Himself does not reduce that capacity. God is not the combination of every possible state of being. God is only good and not evil, for instance. God is not a combination of the two, he is just wholly good. Perfection is the overriding attribute here. Because it is more perfect to be wholly good instead of good and evil, He is just wholly good. Just as it is more perfect for God to limit Himself to give us free will than to not limit Himself and have puppets.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"
This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.
Genesis 2:15-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.
Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.
Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.
God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:
Matthew 8:13
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.


That's great, but if there's something that God doesn't know, even if he chooses not to know it, then by definition he is not omniscient.

Shiny, don't be a dick. Spell people's user-names correctly. It doesn't help your position in any way, and makes you look like more of a petulant child.

On topic, you're just making shit up. There's no point arguing with you the specific capabilities of your imaginary friend. Is he everything, or just what he wants to be? Is he purple? Is he an old man with a great bushy beard?

Seriously, don't care.
>> ^shinyblurry:

That's just depressingly pedantic, rryjkyjdhu..
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Deliberately limiting Himself does not reduce that capacity. God is not the combination of every possible state of being. God is only good and not evil, for instance. God is not a combination of the two, he is just wholly good. Perfection is the overriding attribute here. Because it is more perfect to be wholly good instead of good and evil, He is just wholly good. Just as it is more perfect for God to limit Himself to give us free will than to not limit Himself and have puppets.

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.

It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.

Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

Did *you* just tell *me* not to be a dick? hehe. Look, it's clear that your views aren't very sophisticated, and that you know virtually nothing about theology, philosophy, and are even startling ignorant about what you personally believe..but not everyone is that ignorant and realizes that these questions are a little bit deeper than the puddle you're playing in. mmkay?

>> ^KnivesOut:
Shiny, don't be a dick. Spell people's user-names correctly. It doesn't help your position in any way, and makes you look like more of a petulant child.
On topic, you're just making shit up. There's no point arguing with you the specific capabilities of your imaginary friend. Is he everything, or just what he wants to be? Is he purple? Is he an old man with a great bushy beard?
Seriously, don't care.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's just depressingly pedantic, rryjkyjdhu..
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Deliberately limiting Himself does not reduce that capacity. God is not the combination of every possible state of being. God is only good and not evil, for instance. God is not a combination of the two, he is just wholly good. Perfection is the overriding attribute here. Because it is more perfect to be wholly good instead of good and evil, He is just wholly good. Just as it is more perfect for God to limit Himself to give us free will than to not limit Himself and have puppets.

Wow you're certainly going to have to ask forgiveness for that.

Let that little light shine.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Did you just tell me not to be a dick? hehe. Look, it's clear that your views aren't very sophisticated, and that you know virtually nothing about theology, philosophy, and are even startling ignorant about what you personally believe..but not everyone is that ignorant and realizes that these questions are a little bit deeper than the puddle you're playing in. mmkay?

But God could change man, so there were no evil on earth - like there is in heaven. Why doesn't he make earth heaven too? If he's all powerful, he certainly could, but he chooses not to. That means he's letting us live in a world with evil, and evil he know about and that he could change if he wanted to - that makes him evil too.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

God does change man, but He doesn't force man to change. When you become a Christian, you receive the Holy Spirit and become a new creation, reborn in the spirit. That is what it means to be born again. So, we start over with a nature to do good rather than evil.

1 Corinthians 15:54

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

God prefers us to have the choice over eliminating evil by forcing us to obey Him. I think that if He did that in itself would be evil and immoral. I also believe this is because love is an act of will, and we will only obey God if we love Him. If He forced us to obey, it wouldn't be love.


>> ^gwiz665:
But God could change man, so there were no evil on earth - like there is in heaven. Why doesn't he make earth heaven too? If he's all powerful, he certainly could, but he chooses not to. That means he's letting us live in a world with evil, and evil he know about and that he could change if he wanted to - that makes him evil too.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Man is the cause of the evil so that doesn't follow
>> ^kir_mokum:
i would propose that if God exists and there is evil in the world then god is evil.

@Sagemind

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

Religion is a man made system that has been used for good and evil. We know God through faith alone.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

The early church was heavily persecuted by many different dictators. Believers were frequently martyred because they reufsed to worship other Gods. The expansion of the early church under these circumstances is one of the positive evidences for Gods existence as it is unlikely it could have happened in that climate of persecution. There was nothing to gain from being a Christian in those days except being an outcast.

Genocide is committed in the name of many things, and today the masses are no less controlled by secular Governments than they have been under religious ones. Bad behavior is not an exclusive to religion, it is the nature of man himself, who could corrupt anything beneficial. That people have acted badly in the name of Christianity isn't proof of anything except mans inherent corruption.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

The question of whether the Universe is random or deliberately created is not only credible, but utterly necessary and fundemental to understanding who man is and how he relates to the Universe. Perhaps you should try Contrary to popular belief, intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to explain the Universe just as evolution does. The question of God is central to philosophy and our most noted philosophers have debated this question of Gods existence throughout recorded history. The complexity of life is inadequately explained by materialistic processes, and many of these theories, such as evolution, are metaphysical to begin with.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

The most basic and fundemental questions of life have not been advanced one iota. There is a higher truth operating here: Man advances theories of life which convenience his own personal hypocripsy and enable him to do evil without consequence. This is a basic truth:

John 3:20

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

1 Corinthians 2:14

“The natural (unredeemed) man receiveth not the things of the (holy) Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I neither came to Christianity out of fear, or because I desired another life over this one. Nor was I indoctrinated or persuaded. Rather I was instructed in the spirit, and received personal revelation of the truth. I came to it independently and my convinctions rest solely on that. Your belief about an interdepedence due to a weakness of mind or character is wholly invalid.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

This imagined heirarchy of yours is a convenient strawman for your arguments about personal freedom, but it doesn't bear out. There is no conspiracy here. The body of Christ is so fractured at this time that a belief there is a heirarchy of control is simply ludicrous. Belief in God is about personal conviction and personal responsibility. Convinction because we are all sinners who have transgressed Gods laws. Responsibility because God is the moral authority who judicates our lives. You seem to think you're free, but anyone who sins is a slave to sin. You seem to think you're without a god, but you have something you worship. Whether its something in the world, or in the case of many secular humanists, yourself, there is something out there that you bow down and kiss every day of your life. Your freedom is just another box that you feel comfortable in. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

1 Corinthians 13:11-13

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?



Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.

And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

This is only a problem of definition. You're defining evil to be a universal attribute that applies to both God and man, but it doesn't. That is because evil itself is defined simply as disobedience towards God, and thus something only a man can do. God cannot disobey Himself. Nothing God does could ever be defined as evil because God isn't under His own authority. God is the source of the authority which defines for us what evil actually is. Gods omniscience is not violated because it not applicable to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?


Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.
And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

>> ^shinyblurry:
God cannot disobey Himself.

evil is subjective based on ones perception.
moral relativism.
a fundamentalist struggles with three basics:
1.original sin
2.creation as put forth in genesis
3.the resurrection

the fundamentalist does not struggle in the beliefs of these three things but rather they struggle to defend them,because all three are easily vivisected.
what most free-thinking people have a hard time comprehending (understandably so) is why a fundamentalist will continue to defend these three in particular when the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite.
put quite simply..they have to.
to accept even the remotest possibility that any of these tenants might be incorrect is tantamount to refuting god because to them the bible is the UN-ERRING word of god.
for example:to accept evolution is to say the book of genesis is wrong and to a fundamentalist these equates to saying god is wrong.so they are forced to defend a book that is in actuality a metaphorical representation of kabballah.genesis is about creation just not in the literal sense that fundamentalist comprehend it to represent.

christianity can be broken down in to three basic categories:
1.liberal=catholic,episcopalian,methodist etc etc
2.evangelical=pentacostal,baptist (not all baptist btw)
3.fundamentalist=southern baptist,church of the nazerene,7th day adventist

the liberal christian believes in jesus christ and the resurrection.they believe in heaven and hell (abstractly at least).they view such books as genesis as allegorical but not historical and view other biblical books as metaphor and glean what wisdom they can based on their own understandings.they will accept another as christian as long as that person beleieves jesus is christ and he died for their sins.

the evangelical is part fundamentalist and part liberal.they change their view in accord with the situation but the most important part of an evangelical christians life is to spread the word of salvation.to spread the word of christ to all who will listen.

the fundamentalist is an all-together different animal.the bible is the un-erring word of god..end of discussion.while they spread the word of god and the salvation and grace afforded us by the death and resurrection,they will also perceive any questioning in a negative manner of their belief in the infallible bible as a personal attack upon themselves and will respond in kind (wrapped in false humility).they are commanded to save your soul and they will engage in this venture with vigor and gusto but when met with resistance they will become agitated and confused.
to them they are sharing the word...they are offering you salvation and if questioned,mocked or refused they become baffled at first.
why would anybody refuse or question pure love and forgiveness?
refuse peace of mind and a calm,joyful heart?

philosophical musings concerning the nature of morality and good and evil aside,to a fundamentalist there is only black and white.either it came from god or the satan did it.now they may rationalize this in a many number of different ways but in the end it always comes down to that basic equation and for those of you who know religious history you understand the vast number who were slaughtered,maimed,tortured and outright murdered due to that infantile approach.that highly destructive approach is what helped usher in the christian reformation and is why people are no longer forced to accept the churches edicts or christians killing other christains for not being "the right kind of christian".the fundamentalist has no problem pointing to another christian and accusing him/her of being false (isnt that right shiny?)because the fundamentalist need only refer to the bible to exact his/her judgment of another.the fundamentalist will also retreat to the most intellectually ineffective place when faced with constant opposition:satan

so when engaging with a fundamentalist understand that your continued perceived attacks on that fundamentalists biblical understandings and your unwillingness to accept that jesus christ is lord and died for your sins...well..then you are damned and have been deluded by satan.you have been tricked by the most indominable trickster and while the fundamentalist may pray for you..to them you are damned to an eternity of punishment and sorrow.because that is the last and only place a fundamentalist can retreat to...satan did it and satan has corrupted you.may the lord have mercy on your soul.the bible is truth incarnate to them and everything else is a lie brought upon this earth by satan.

this is why i do not engage with a fundamentalist.for anything i postulate that may be construed as being in conflict with biblical teachings will immediately be rejected and despised and if i continue then it is ME that will be rejected and despised..as an agent of satan.(but they will pray for my soul..thank you for that mr fundamentalist).

this is the reason why we see so many fundamentalist attempting to disprove evolution or prove the truth of the bible being historically accurate.
they have to..to do otherwise would mean reject god.

i am not going to downvote this video but i refuse to upvote either.
good luck shinyblurry in your attempts to educate the masses on the truth.

lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary

–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power

often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>

Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs>> ^shinyblurry:

lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power
often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>
Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

So what you're really saying is that God isn't "all powerful" just omnipotent?

@enoch

evil is subjective based on ones perception.
moral relativism.

If what is bad can change, then what is truly bad? Todays outrage could be tomorrows acceptence. If evil is only what people agree is evil, then if everyone agreed the holocaust is good it would be. Again, this is an excellent benchmark. If your system of morality could ever define the holocaust as being good you can safely throw it away. The truth is that some things are absolutely wrong, and everyone knows it. We all have a God given conscience which convicts us for those things we know are inherently wrong.


a fundamentalist struggles with three basics:
1.original sin
2.creation as put forth in genesis
3.the resurrection

the fundamentalist does not struggle in the beliefs of these three things but rather they struggle to defend them,because all three are easily vivisected.

A, I categorically reject and dismiss your label of "fundementalist". It's a loaded term denoting a radicalism or extremism to someones viewpoint. It's not radical or extreme in the context of Christianity to believe in the bible. That is one of its primary tenants that scripture is the word of God. That people are liberal with it is called apostacy.

B. Those basics are easily doubted, or scoffed at..but vivisected? Hardly. Unbelievers and pagans have struggled for centuries to dismantle them, but have not made one iota of progress. I find most peoples objections to these are easily refuted and are based on systemic misunderstanding and personal prejudice.

what most free-thinking people have a hard time comprehending (understandably so) is why a fundamentalist will continue to defend these three in particular when the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite.

Gee, that's an objective statement. I love how you just deign to jump into the middle of a conversation and start throwing around this tripe, as if you're the arbitor of this discussion. Your intellectual prowess is not only unproven, it is very questionable..for example, the last statement you pronounced to everyone in one of my videos was an immature little diatribe about how little you thought of Christianity and me in particular..a shameless and unbalanced emotive rant showing your undeniable prejudice..and when I didn't take your bait, you got mad and searched through my personal que and downvoted my videos. lol.

blah blah blah blah blah

How about you join the discussion instead of venting your ignorance..you can start by addressing the first paragraph of my reply.

i love you too

>> ^rottenseed:
de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs>> ^shinyblurry:
lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power
often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>
Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

I am saying that your logical tautology of expecting God to obey an authority He isnt under doesn't undermine His omnipotence in any way. It's like saying God can't make a red blue.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
So what you're really saying is that God isn't "all powerful" just omnipotent?

^ downvote on the above comment for the original response.

it was a knee jerk reply

>> ^Drax:
^ downvote on the above comment for the original response.

@shinyblurry
1.you do not know me
2.i did not go through your pq and downvote all your videos.i downvoted two if i recall correctly and it was not via your que.
3.i am not prejudice against christianity.i am prejudice against religious fundamentalism..of any kind.this is not to imply that i am inherently against you..as a human being or person but i am against your rigid fundamentalist stance.i am totally ok with you being you..in fact i insist you be exactly who you are.i respect that.
4.my accusation of you was valid based solely on your judgement of another christian and solely based on YOUR comment to that other christian.
5.my comment was not directed towards you in particular but rather to the many who are following this thread and are not people of faith.to give them a modicum of understanding on why a religious person defends the bible as historically accurate and many other points that they may deem holy writ.it had nothing to do with you nor your conversations with others.i was attempting to give context and understanding.
6.i call you a fundamentalist because that is what you are,because by definition thats exactly how you behave.this was done not as a perjorative but more as a statement.you have stated more than once how you view biblical writings as the word of god.i am just basing my assertation on YOUR words.it is YOU who are projecting emotive feelings into my words but that was not my intent.you are a fundamentalist.if you wish to attach negative connotations to that word that is your choice and has nothing to do with me.
7.your opinion of me is irrelevant as well as your limited presumptions concerning me (but please dont stop assuming you know who i am...that shit is entertaining as all hell).
8.calling me names and behaving in such a passive aggressive manner only proves my points concerning you.
9.i have stated over and over i do not engage with fundamentalists.is this concept hard for you to understand? if you wish to talk about movies,sports or music i would happily engage with you but i refuse to engage with a fundamentalist anything concerning religion or faith.
10.and finally and most importantly:you do not know me.

1.you do not know me

I don't know you personally, no.

6.i call you a fundamentalist because that is what you are,because by definition thats exactly how you behave.this was done not as a perjorative but more as a statement.you have stated more than once how you view biblical writings as the word of god.i am just basing my assertation on YOUR words.it is YOU who are projecting emotive feelings into my words but that was not my intent.you are a fundamentalist.if you wish to attach negative connotations to that word that is your choice and has nothing to do with me.

Applying the term fundementalist to Christianity is used to donate a radical or extreme belief. Within the sphere of Christianity, it is neither radical or extreme to believe in scripture as the word of God. So therefore it is not applicable to me and I reject it out of hand.

7.your opinion of me is irrelevant as well as your limited presumptions concerning me (but please dont stop assuming you know who i am...that shit is entertaining as all hell).

The only thing I assume about you is that you're a pagan or some kind of new ager.

8.calling me names and behaving in such a passive aggressive manner only proves my points concerning you.

I apologize for anything negative I have said about you.

9.i have stated over and over i do not engage with fundamentalists.is this concept hard for you to understand? if you wish to talk about movies,sports or music i would happily engage with you but i refuse to engage with a fundamentalist anything concerning religion or faith.

Again, I am not a fundementalist, I am a Christian. The term fundementalist Christian is a pejorative and a misnomer. Also, if you don't want to engage with me then don't float into my threads and make a bunch of unwarrented assertions and unsubstatiated claims and float out again. It's just immature at best.

10.and finally and most importantly:you do not know me.

human nature is not a mystery, ie, you have patterns which can be deciphered and universally applied, and your behavior can be intellectually and spiritually discerned.

>> ^enoch:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
1.you do not know me
2.i did not go through your pq and downvote all your videos.i downvoted two if i recall correctly and it was not via your que.
3.i am not prejudice against christianity.i am prejudice against religious fundamentalism..of any kind.this is not to imply that i am inherently against you..as a human being or person but i am against your rigid fundamentalist stance.i am totally ok with you being you..in fact i insist you be exactly who you are.i respect that.
4.my accusation of you was valid based solely on your judgement of another christian and solely based on YOUR comment to that other christian.
5.my comment was not directed towards you in particular but rather to the many who are following this thread and are not people of faith.to give them a modicum of understanding on why a religious person defends the bible as historically accurate and many other points that they may deem holy writ.it had nothing to do with you nor your conversations with others.i was attempting to give context and understanding.
6.i call you a fundamentalist because that is what you are,because by definition thats exactly how you behave.this was done not as a perjorative but more as a statement.you have stated more than once how you view biblical writings as the word of god.i am just basing my assertation on YOUR words.it is YOU who are projecting emotive feelings into my words but that was not my intent.you are a fundamentalist.if you wish to attach negative connotations to that word that is your choice and has nothing to do with me.
7.your opinion of me is irrelevant as well as your limited presumptions concerning me (but please dont stop assuming you know who i am...that shit is entertaining as all hell).
8.calling me names and behaving in such a passive aggressive manner only proves my points concerning you.
9.i have stated over and over i do not engage with fundamentalists.is this concept hard for you to understand? if you wish to talk about movies,sports or music i would happily engage with you but i refuse to engage with a fundamentalist anything concerning religion or faith.
10.and finally and most importantly:you do not know me.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I am saying that your logical tautology of expecting God to obey an authority He isnt under doesn't undermine His omnipotence in any way. It's like saying God can't make a red blue.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
So what you're really saying is that God isn't "all powerful" just omnipotent?



God can't make purple? My kid can make purple and he's only five months old.

Applying the term fundementalist to Christianity is used to donate a radical or extreme belief. Within the sphere of Christianity, it is neither radical or extreme to believe in scripture as the word of God

From my perspective your belief that a book written a long time ago should be taken as literaly as you take it is very extreme.

It's as extreme to me as someone coming up to you and insisting that unicorns are real. Then persisting to try and get you to believe that they are real. Then pronouncing YOU insane for not believing that they are real. Then telling you your eternal soul is in danger if you don't believe in unicorns. Then declaring that your perception of reality is flawed for not believing in unicorns. Then putting you down, even mocking you for not believing in them.

You get the idea.

But to me, that's EXACTLY the same level of extreme that you're demonstrating from my perspective.. and I would take a guess it's true for the general audiance here as well. So yes, I think enoch's on the mark there with that one.

Understand, I go through life having fun, treating others well. I enjoy friends, I'm happy with my understanding of the world and always curious to learn more. How do you think you come across to me? Unicorn Man, that's how.

Why don't you just join our community; hold on to your views all you like.. maybe point them out when the topic becomes relevant, etc. Maybe even open your mind a little, I think that would be a good thing for you. Because as far as one of god's messengers goes.. I've seen you get frustrated and end up derogatory towards others (and not just this thread). In other words, you're just as flawed and human as the rest of us, so stop acting like you've got something you can hold over us. All you've got is yourself.

Someone stole my bike yesterday - true story.

Why does God let bad things happen?

Perhaps the person who stole the bike used it to help save a kitten. Bad is such a relative thing.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

>> ^Drax:

Perhaps the person who stole the bike used it to help save a kitten. Bad is such a relative thing.


but that kitten...oh that kitten grew up to kill a bunch of ducklings.

Those ducklings had it coming.

Try to understand what's being said here. According to the definition, a "fundamentalist Christian" would be someone who has extreme views as opposed to the general norm of Christianity. Yet, the general norm of Christianity is that scripture is the word of God. So therefore it doesn't apply. It's exactly opposite of the truth.

You're also living in some sort of fantasy world where 80 percent of the world doesn't believe in God, because it does. Approximately 1/3 of the human population of the world identifies themselves as Christian. Perhaps in your insular Universe I represent some sort of extreme, however, I am quite normal according to the true standard of human conduct and belief.

Comparing God and Unicorns is also completely ridiculous. Not only is the question of whether the Universe was created an entirely credible question, God is at the least a philosophical idea. However, I am talking about God who came to to Earth to live as one of us. This is a matter of history.

On your last note, Christians aren't perfect, no human being is. I'm also not holding anything over you. I don't see myself as better than anyone else. Dealing with a bunch of militant atheists who want to drag God through the mud on a constant basis does tend to wear at the nerves. However, just because I have occassionally played the fool doesn't mean that God hasn't improved my character. I actually do practice what I preach and I'm not holding any grudges against anyone here. As far as being alone goes, here is something true for everyone:


Matthew 5:45

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

James 1:17

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.


>> ^Drax:
Applying the term fundementalist to Christianity is used to donate a radical or extreme belief. Within the sphere of Christianity, it is neither radical or extreme to believe in scripture as the word of God
From my perspective your belief that a book written a long time ago should be taken as literaly as you take it is very extreme.
It's as extreme to me as someone coming up to you and insisting that unicorns are real. Then persisting to try and get you to believe that they are real. Then pronouncing YOU insane for not believing that they are real. Then telling you your eternal soul is in danger if you don't believe in unicorns. Then declaring that your perception of reality is flawed for not believing in unicorns. Then putting you down, even mocking you for not believing in them.
You get the idea.
But to me, that's EXACTLY the same level of extreme that you're demonstrating from my perspective.. and I would take a guess it's true for the general audiance here as well. So yes, I think enoch's on the mark there with that one.
Understand, I go through life having fun, treating others well. I enjoy friends, I'm happy with my understanding of the world and always curious to learn more. How do you think you come across to me? Unicorn Man, that's how.
Why don't you just join our community; hold on to your views all you like.. maybe point them out when the topic becomes relevant, etc. Maybe even open your mind a little, I think that would be a good thing for you. Because as far as one of god's messengers goes.. I've seen you get frustrated and end up derogatory towards others (and not just this thread). In other words, you're just as flawed and human as the rest of us, so stop acting like you've got something you can hold over us. All you've got is yourself.

Also, totally weak that someone killed the video..because you know a good conversation doesn't count for anything right

Ok well I've known plenty of christians. Some are friends, can't say I've dealt with too many who consider the bible to be a literal telling of past events. That's why I say you seem like an extreme to me, I mean how much more extreme to at least that angle can one get..?

I'm an avid PC gamer.. some would consider me extreme in that regard and I wouldn't dispute it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Also, totally weak that someone killed the video..because you know a good conversation doesn't count for anything right


The video was killed because it got enough downvotes. That's democracy for ya...

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.