You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

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

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

That's a funny joke.

>> ^quantumushroom: I dislike ... sacrificing truth for convenience.

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

>>> Adorable she may be, but she has far more to learn than to teach.

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo?

>>> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm "bothered" by this at all. I'm annoyed that Pops has no good answers for her. And the confusion that awaits in government indoc. Maybe Pops doesn't know that there are real biological differences between male and female brains and that even if there were no obvious physical differences between the brains, they are each "pickled" in different biochemical baths in male or female bodies.

I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little.

>>> I dislike moral relativism, the sacrificing truth for convenience. There will be days when the indoc center will assure her that "people are all the same" in areas of life where it's simply untrue. There will be other days when she'll be segregated and her differences highlighted, in order to wrongly gain from others (political correctness) or preyed upon by others (political correctness).

Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain?

>>> Why wait? Everything is political. Eveything. You really think the shrinks aren't "influenced" by who is paying for their research grants? Science--honest science--recognizes there are differences between boys and girls, men and women. Gender roles may be part societal, but AFAIC, it's 95% biological.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I should have been clearer. He's not apologising, rather acting as an apologist. Sorry.
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Weird to see Louis apologising for this sort of thing. I see no positive angle on Morgan's words, unfortunately.

He's not apologising for it. How did he apologise? He tried to explain it. He is trying to think where Tracy was coming from in saying that. He also said that it should have been a starting point for discussion, which is SO SHOULD have been (I missed this whole thing, but it certainly sounds like it should have)... having a non-accusatory, non-combative discussion about what led to him to make that joke, why he would have a problem with his son talking like that/ being that sort of gay person would have been great.
He never apologised, he just said it could have been handled better.



I agree. Because empathy, honesty, understanding and reason are approaches to conflict that need to be framed in more honest terms...as weakness.

Diplomacy is nothing more than surrendering to the opposition. The opposition that should be correctly labeled in dehumanizing terms, like "gay", "socialist", "terrorist".

Every conflict should be handled by busting down doors, guns blazing; shock and awe; give no ground to the enemy. Resolution only comes when the scapegoat is sacrificed and everyone walks away poliarized and with their pride in tact.

America! FUCK YEAH!!!

The area in which believers and non believers differ in so many ways is in regard to how far in the future one can perceive the concept of “no pain no gain”.
When I first heard this analogy, and when I read Job for the first time, I too was tempted to see Dan’s point of view and get angry with God for the terrible evil He allowed to happen to Job. (Make no mistake God is responsible for Job’s misery and the death of Job’s family). But what I see now and Dan does not is the difference between the killer and God: purpose. The killer did it for no reason and God did this for a great reason. God permitted this incident for the purpose of instruction, demonstration, and perception. The pain Job and his family sowed produced some of the greatest fruit mankind has ever known.

Allow me to explain:
Let’s say my eight year old recently started taking things that are not his. I am concerned for the welfare of my son for his whole life and not his welfare for the moment so I punish him; say I give him a time out. My son does not perceive the long term benefits I may be doing for him by teaching him stealing is wrong so he now calls me mean or evil. I am doing something mean and evil to him to a degree for the immediate moment, but I am doing this in hopes that there will be a long term benefit that will outweigh the immediate pain.

Assume for a moment that God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent: all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, all loving. He knows every possible future for mankind. He may do things beyond our comprehension that for us for the “moment, lifetime, century, etc.” might seem mean or evil but He sees the long term benefits.

This is in essence what a believer believes. God has a purpose for everything. We may not see it or comprehend it but He is working for a greater good. Our faith and trust is in this. The story of Job is a very rare occurrence where God directly and drastically interferes with our lives. I’m certain that if Dan as well as Job were given the choice of sacrificing themselves for the good of their children, let alone mankind, they probably would. God choose Job because he knew he wouldn’t be cross with Him. I choose the word cross on purpose because for those who want to know Job is a type to Jesus who sacrificed himself for us.

They seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if god blessed Job more in his latter life, what matters is that a kind and loving god felt the need to prove something to the devil by letting the devil destroy that man's life. Who cares if god was right, it is a jerk thing to do, and not the actions of a god who loves his children.

God wasn't proving anything to Satan, He was acting as a Judge. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in the court of God. Satan brought Job to trial by laying a false accusation against him, and Job was tested and tried and found innocent.

If that was a human dad who let some people in to destroy his children's lives they would condemn him, it is their dual standards. They let god get away with stuff they would find reprehensible in humans simply because some blokes thousands of years ago picked Jehovah out of a local pantheon and promoted him to the top spot. If they are young Earth creationists, they somehow ignore the part that says the Earth doesn't move and that the heavens move around it.

The problem with this analogy is that you're comparing God to a human being. God isn't like a human dad, he is God. He deals in matters of life and death, matters which extend to every human life. He is the sovereign King and Judge over this world. It is His job to bring judgement, and to decide the course of life. He is the only one who could.

I also see that you're misinterpreting I Chronicles 16:30. It's fairly clear it is saying that nothing is going to move the Earth off its course, not that it doesn't move.

Despite cultures being over 6,000 years old, trees being over 6,000 years old, not to mention stars billions of years away, somehow all that was put in place by God to full the wise and make the believers rely on faith... again a jerk move. It is like the dirty cop who plants evidence against an innocent man, but here it is god so it is okay.

This idea that God plants evidence is a myth, and the people who perpetrate it are the same kind of people who think that Satan rules in hell. No one has a handle on distant starlight; it is a problem with big bang cosmology, check out the "horizon problem". Tree ring dating, much like radiocarbon dating, is predicated on unprovable assumptions, such as a constant rate of growth. The specific trees you are talking about have been proven to grow multiple rings per year in drought conditions and in other circumstances. You say that there are cultures that go beyond 6000 years but its funny that written history only begins around 4000 years ago.

It is also funny that written history begins with advanced civilizations that suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. You would think if we had been around for 100k years after evolving, there would be 100k years of history, cities, civilizations, etc..but it isn't there. It is much like the cambrian explosion where every major animal body type suddenly sprang into existence into the fossil record. All the major families, orders, classes, and phyla can all be found there, which turns darwinian theory on its head. Which is why they came up with "punctuated equilibrium", which is theory that explains that the reason there is no evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record is because reptiles laid eggs that would sometimes hatch birds. This is also known as the hopeful monster theory.

They ignore the documented evidence of copy errors made in the Bible while it was a written piece, let alone the errors that would have cropped up while it was a verbal tradition. Who cares if the story of the woman at the well doesn't appear in any copies of John, or the commentaries on it, for hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the book, it is there now, which means god wanted it there.

There is greater manuscript witness for the New Testament than any other historical document. The accuracy and integrity of the copies is proven, with over 24000 manuscripts for the NT alone. We can see from the earliest to the latest there is very little discrepency. The same is proven for the OT, when the dead sea scrolls were found. There was virtually no difference in copies with over thousand years between them. In regards to the woman at the well, I have failed to find any controversy about it.

And the hundreds of other biblical texts that were existed when the books of the bible were picked were not discarded for the social/political reasons they appear to have been ignored, but because the books that are there now are the only ones god wanted, and those guys were divinely led to pick just those ones... of course the Catholics or the Protestants have it wrong since their versions don't match. Still, it many cases, save for the King James only crowd, it is okay to use newly found, more reliable texts in modern translations, but still ignore other texts found at the same time.

There isn't any conspiracy. The texts you are referring to were either written by pagans, the gnostics, or were always known to be heretical. Feel free to bring up any examples and I will show you works that have been thoroughly discredited from the outset.

I look at shame during my blind faith period. I would point out all the typical talking points, and get angry at those who challenged what I perceived as the truth. I was never a young earth creationist, but would still point out the stupid things even old earth creationists like pointing out, not caring that those points have been disproved over and over again. I went from Republican to Libertarian and would get mad at the lazy out of work people on welfare and the poor for believing the lies of the liberals and the Democrats, thinking if only they would educate themselves on the truth, they would see the Republicans and Libertarians were their best hope.

It sounds like you were raised in the faith and only believed because of what other people told you. Then, when your faith was challenged by the unbelieving secular world, you fell away because you had no foundation.

Then I did something, I opened my mind. I started watching the sources of information. They said in church and on right wing media that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" and that comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, true enough, but then they said that if you actually read that letter, you'll see that he was talking about keeping the government out of church affairs not the other way around. And I repeated that for years. Then, during my awakening, I actually read the letter in full context, I read the original drafts, and I realized they lied. He clearly was talking about keeping the church out of government. I also read the bible critically for the first time, not just accepting the traditional meaning. I saw Jesus as a man who hung out with the sinners, and cared about the poor and sick, and keeping what belonged to god just to god and what belonged to the government with the government.

Even the most unkind and biased analysis of the founders intentions will be forced to conclude that they intended to found this nation on biblical principles. Do you think our freedoms being based on unalienable rights granted by our Creator are just mere words? Or are they the foundation?

this nation was founded not by religionists, but by christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ

Patrick Henry

You are correct about one thing. The church is completely apostate, and has strayed far from the teachings of our Lord. You cannot frame Jesus as a mere man, however. He claimed to be God, the judge of the living and the dead, and the Savior of this world.

All things 100% opposite of what the church, the Republicans and Libertarians seemed to be promoting. I noticed how the bible in Genesis call god...well, god, and then in Psalms, the exact same word is suddenly translated as Angels, because it talks about how god lifted us up to be level with him, and that won't do, we are below god and with the angels... and more and more I noticed that while we are not Jesus, we are equal heirs, and equal children, which doesn't take away any of the majesty, but again pointed to deception on the part of the church leadership. I then noticed other biblical contradictions, and started studying the origins of Christianity and how similar it was to much older religions.

Perhaps you missed these passages?:

Romans 8:17

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

No, we are not Jesus, but we are co-heirs and sons. Again, there isn't any conspiracy. As far as the translation of Elohim, this has led to many errors. Check out http://www.gci.org/God/Elohim2

How the Israelites, while in captivity in Babylon, would have known about the Babylonian god of the harvest who sacrificed himself and resurrected... and boy this seems to be a reoccurring theme among ancient pre-Christian religions, a god, sometimes mono-theistic, sacrificing himself for mankind...

Sounds like you've seen Zeitgeist, which is filled with actual bald faced, blatant lies. For example, it makes a connection between Jesus and the various sun gods by drawing a parallel between the word "son" and "sun". The problem with this connection is that they are only similiar words in the English langauge, and not in the langauges of the time. The connection between Jesus and the so-called dying and rising gods in paganism has been thoroughly debunked. Watch:



I went to a pagan service with an open mind and had the same deep, spiritual, emotional connection that I had at the most charismatic of Christian churches... and things started clicking, this whole thing... is fake.

It's no wonder that you had the same spiritual experience in charismatic churches as you did at pagan rituals. That's because they're fueled by the same spirit, which is *not* from God:



I read more, became more educated, and realized the deep and purposeful misleading of the faithful, and my switch became complete. Now I get angry at the Republicans and Libertarians and the religious leaders who keep their flocks in ignorance, while making them think they are free thinking people by controlling the information and encouraging a wrong view of the information that is there..

Even if by some miracle I came to have faith in god again, I could never go back to church again. The lies and nonacceptance of potent truth is just too much. They don't even believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against

Friend, what you never realized is how true this verse is:

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Just as 2+2 has an innumerable number of wrong answers, there are uncountable lies and deceptions, half-truths and myths about Jesus Christ. They are in the church and they are outside the church. All you've done is just go to the other extreme but you still have no idea who Jesus really is.

What you've missed is that to know Jesus is God is to know Him personally. It isn't merely believe what the bible says, it is to invite Him into your heart, to mold you, to change you, and to accept His Lordship over your entire life.

You're right about one thing. To be restored to faith in God would be a miracle, because faith is a gift from God. If you want to know the truth, then ask Him. Pray to Jesus, invite Him into your life, and ask Him to show what the truth really is. Once you know He is everything that He claimed to be, the rest will sort itself out.

>> ^RFlagg:believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against.
</preaching to the choir time

Agreed, stuff like this can help the on the fence people, and as we can see from the religiously brainwashed masses chiming in already, it does nothing for them.

<Preaching to the choir time>

They seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if god blessed Job more in his latter life, what matters is that a kind and loving god felt the need to prove something to the devil by letting the devil destroy that man's life. Who cares if god was right, it is a jerk thing to do, and not the actions of a god who loves his children. If that was a human dad who let some people in to destroy his children's lives they would condemn him, it is their dual standards. They let god get away with stuff they would find reprehensible in humans simply because some blokes thousands of years ago picked Jehovah out of a local pantheon and promoted him to the top spot.

If they are young Earth creationists, they somehow ignore the part that says the Earth doesn't move and that the heavens move around it. Despite cultures being over 6,000 years old, trees being over 6,000 years old, not to mention stars billions of years away, somehow all that was put in place by God to full the wise and make the believers rely on faith... again a jerk move. It is like the dirty cop who plants evidence against an innocent man, but here it is god so it is okay.

They ignore the documented evidence of copy errors made in the Bible while it was a written piece, let alone the errors that would have cropped up while it was a verbal tradition. Who cares if the story of the woman at the well doesn't appear in any copies of John, or the commentaries on it, for hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the book, it is there now, which means god wanted it there. And the hundreds of other biblical texts that were existed when the books of the bible were picked were not discarded for the social/political reasons they appear to have been ignored, but because the books that are there now are the only ones god wanted, and those guys were divinely led to pick just those ones... of course the Catholics or the Protestants have it wrong since their versions don't match. Still, it many cases, save for the King James only crowd, it is okay to use newly found, more reliable texts in modern translations, but still ignore other texts found at the same time.

I look at shame during my blind faith period. I would point out all the typical talking points, and get angry at those who challenged what I perceived as the truth. I was never a young earth creationist, but would still point out the stupid things even old earth creationists like pointing out, not caring that those points have been disproved over and over again. I went from Republican to Libertarian and would get mad at the lazy out of work people on welfare and the poor for believing the lies of the liberals and the Democrats, thinking if only they would educate themselves on the truth, they would see the Republicans and Libertarians were their best hope. Then I did something, I opened my mind. I started watching the sources of information. They said in church and on right wing media that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" and that comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, true enough, but then they said that if you actually read that letter, you'll see that he was talking about keeping the government out of church affairs not the other way around. And I repeated that for years. Then, during my awakening, I actually read the letter in full context, I read the original drafts, and I realized they lied. He clearly was talking about keeping the church out of government. I also read the bible critically for the first time, not just accepting the traditional meaning. I saw Jesus as a man who hung out with the sinners, and cared about the poor and sick, and keeping what belonged to god just to god and what belonged to the government with the government. All things 100% opposite of what the church, the Republicans and Libertarians seemed to be promoting. I noticed how the bible in Genesis call god...well, god, and then in Psalms, the exact same word is suddenly translated as Angels, because it talks about how god lifted us up to be level with him, and that won't do, we are below god and with the angels... and more and more I noticed that while we are not Jesus, we are equal heirs, and equal children, which doesn't take away any of the majesty, but again pointed to deception on the part of the church leadership. I then noticed other biblical contradictions, and started studying the origins of Christianity and how similar it was to much older religions. How the Israelites, while in captivity in Babylon, would have known about the Babylonian god of the harvest who sacrificed himself and resurrected... and boy this seems to be a reoccurring theme among ancient pre-Christian religions, a god, sometimes mono-theistic, sacrificing himself for mankind... I went to a pagan service with an open mind and had the same deep, spiritual, emotional connection that I had at the most charismatic of Christian churches... and things started clicking, this whole thing... is fake. I read more, became more educated, and realized the deep and purposeful misleading of the faithful, and my switch became complete. Now I get angry at the Republicans and Libertarians and the religious leaders who keep their flocks in ignorance, while making them think they are free thinking people by controlling the information and encouraging a wrong view of the information that is there...

Even if by some miracle I came to have faith in god again, I could never go back to church again. The lies and nonacceptance of potent truth is just too much. They don't even believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against.

</preaching to the choir time>


>> ^hpqp:

Tsk tsk, let's not be so pessimitic, 'kay? Sure, the thoroughly convinced will make excuses, but the "on-the-fence" people just might have their moral compasses jarred into working properly.
>> ^A10anis:
Perfectly succinct. Sadly, those who understand it, need not listen, those who don't will not.

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

We Are The Many

Ye come here, gather 'round the stage
The time has come for us to voice our rage
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage
To steal from us the value of our wage

From underneath the vestiture of law
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

Our nation was built upon the right
Of every person to improve their plight
But laws of this Republic they rewrite
And now a few own everything in sight

They own it free of liability
They own, but they are not like you and me
Their influence dictates legality
And until they are stopped we are not free

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You enforce your monopolies with guns
While sacrificing our daughters and sons
But certain things belong to everyone
Your thievery has left the people none

So take heed of our notice to redress
We have little to lose, we must confess
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed
A growing number join us in protest

We occupy the streets
We occupy the courts
We occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You can't divide us into sides
And from our gaze, you cannot hide
Denial serves to amplify
And our allegiance you can't buy

Our government is not for sale
The banks do not deserve a bail
We will not reward those who fail
We will not move till we prevail

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We are the many
You are the few

Well, at least you're honest.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm very upset that I chose profit and performance-rewards when it came to my own employment path. I didn't choose to be a social worker, because everyone knows that's a shit job with shit pay. But now that all my free market bullshit is blowing up in my face, because I'm at the bottom of the pyramid that I bought into, I'm going to do the most pathetic cowardly thing that I can:

I'm going to advocate that anyone who chose to help their fellow man, and take the slow, plodding, mediocre route to success be publicly exposed for their shameful weakness. Then my friends and I are going to steal our future from them instead of working for it ourselves like we always said we were going to do. Here's the thing, I could have joined the public sector and sacrificed some pay for more security. But those people all smelled, and worked in dingy offices with people who had real problems. How was I supposed to know they were making the wise decision!?!?

Well not anymore. Even though social programs fix more problems than they cause, it's time for them to go. Sure, I could work against the culture that pays their elite 500 times more than the average person makes, but that would actually take innovation and intelligence. Besides, I'm willing to overlook those people, because they share my greedy, corporate, business-reptile mentality.

No, it's the people with master's degrees who make thirty-thousand dollars a year that I'm after. Anyone who's willing to accept punishment like that has already made themselves easy prey. And how! All we have to do is present enough "evidence" accumulated by bogus, business advocacy groups to convince the rest of the tired and desperate people out there that there's a really really easy solution to their problems that involves no hard work whatsoever! We just cut all the funding to anything that involves helping people besides ourselves and all of our problems will simply go away! Well... except for the hippies.

What WPP does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack.

Nope - I view the story from as many angles as possible, come to a conclusion, and then state my perspective from a position of informed certitude. I know this infuriates prog-libs, but I make no apologies for it.

Then that would clearly discredit all the protests worldwide

No - it would not discredit OWS. However, it would supply evidence that Mrs. McProtester was the kind of person Fox News said she was.

Who gives a &&&& what this woman is doing?

Her family, perhaps? A parent has responsibilities and obligations beyond their own selfish whims. If a person ditches thier responsibility without the family's explicit leave then others are not out of place for saying she lacks character. What is needed is more information - specifically the husband's side of the story. What cursory evidence we have seems to suggest that she left for OWS and her family was not exactly cool with it (IE reports that her husband is 'puzzled'). But without more data nothing definitive can be said.

The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these $$$holes are trying to stir up in the first place.

I've observed OWS and reached a reasoned conclusion that they're a bunch of prog-lib dupes and union astroturf who are mad at the wrong people. They have no plan, and many of them are attempting to agitate anger, resentment, and (in some cases) violence. I put it to you that it is more accurate to say that YOU are exactly the kind of drone that OWS is trying to stir up.

You are worrying about &&&& that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in.

Family solidarity and fidelity matters. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Her true character is as yet undetermined. I live what I believe in every day.

The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now.

I think that prog-libs are seeing things that don't exist with this crazy 'push their agenda' foolishness. This is Fox & Friends. It's a morning 'chatting idiots' show like Good Morning America. Look - just because someone on TV says something that is not flush with YOUR political perspective does not mean there is some sinister master agenda that seeks to undermine you.

There are multiple media studies that show the news media - as a whole - is far more slanted left than it is right - and that even FOX news isn't anywhere near as 'right wing' as prog-libs think it is. But even I don't think there the leftist slant is some 'agenda' the news media has. I think that the news media is simply populated by prog-libs who pick stories and portray them from a left-wing bias because that's how they think things are.

When a prob-lib journalist sees a bunch of prog-lib OWS protesters, they feel sympathy for them and report accordingly. When they see a bunch of conservative Tea-Party protestors, they despise them and report accordingly. And that's exactly how it all went down. The media mostly treats OWS with kid gloves and slobbers all over them because leftist like them. But the Tea Party was 'conservative', and so it got no such softshoe treatment. The TP has been entirely peaceful. Not one cop has been injured. Not once have they had to be tear gassed, or 'evicted', or otherwise cause trouble. But to the media they were a bunch of dangerous, evil, racist, thugs. But that isn't the media's 'agenda'. It is a result of thier perception bias.

For example - let's say you are a typical prog-lib. Compared to the national 'average', a prog-lib is way left of center. If we use a 100 point scale where 1 means "liberal" and 100 means "conservative" then a prog-lib is way down in the teens or twenties. So they see the world from that perspective, and their friend do too. So when they encounter an opinion that is actually "moderate" (say 50 on the scale) they see it as "right-wing" because it is so far to the right of themselves.

When you occupy a far-left opinion, pretty much ANYTHING you encounter other than similarly far-left opinions appears to be radical "neo-con" right-wing extremism. In reality, that is totally untrue, and most of the stuff they see as 'right-wing' is actually centrist. So when Fox & Friends expresses the rather centrist opinion that a woman who abandons her family is a bad person, prog-lib hackles go up because the woman is a fellow prog-lib and such a moralization is clearly some sort of 'right wing' agenda seeking to undermine the OWS group you empathize with.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"
The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these assholes are trying to stir up in the first place.



You are worrying about shit that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in. You aren't. She wins.

Lindsey Lohan hit her head on her garage door. Shouldn't you be on TMZ awaiting updates?

Nice selective quoting.

"The classical (Roman) writers affirm that they offered on great occasions human sacrifices; as for success in war or for relief from dangerous diseases. Cæsar has given a detailed account of the manner in which this was done. "They have images of immense size, the limbs of which are framed with twisted twigs and filled with living persons. These being set on fire, those within are encompassed by the flames." Many attempts have been made by Celtic writers to shake the testimony of the Roman historians to this fact, but without success."

We have no reason to doubt the testimony of their contemporaries. And if you want more evidence, how about national geographic:

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

It's actually far worse than I thought. Far from a quaint little holiday where people mourned the dead, it was sick pagan bloodbath.

What's clear is that you're more interested in a convenient truth;; you said it yourself, you skim over the evidence in apathy, and just want to believe what you want. Doesn't change the facts though; Halloween celebrates an evil day where a bunch of savages worshipped demons, sacrificed human beings and apparently ate their flesh. I'm sorry, but there is nothing there for Christians to celebrate. Pat Robertson is 100 percent correct.

>> ^pho3n1x:
Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.
Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.
Try harder.
--
Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.
--
Religion is like a penis.
It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

Egads, Mr. Robertson, from one Christian to another, knock it off already.... >_<

If we're to disregard Halloween as "evil" because of it's paganistic roots, then we'd have to throw out so much more. As many sifters have pointed out in the past, so many holidays that are held dear nowadays have their origin in paganism, such as Yule for Christmas, the feast of Ishtar for Easter, etc. THEN we should start disregarding the names of the days of the week, THEN we should go for months of the year!

The Bible even advocates partaking of "pagan holidays" to an extent. In 1Corinthians 8, it talks about how one can partake in other religions' celebrations, even to the extent of if the meat has been "sacrificed to idols." The only reason it says to NOT partake of said celebration is if you doing so causes a fellow believer to stumble.

...and seriously, Mr. Robertson. Knock it off. You're embarrassing the rest of us.