>> ^quantumushroom:

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.


Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.

In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.

also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.

Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.

Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

>> ^gwiz665:

In that sense it could be a blessing in disguise. DNS control should be decentralized. It just introduces a billion other problems.
The internet is essentially a libertarian paradise - no control, no centralized power. A free market of information. Heh. Now corporations are trying to reign it in, and I say boo.

Corporate control is what libertarian philosophy demands. It's not like the internet is some communal property that belongs to everyone, it belongs to the wealthy people who own the wires and the content, and we only get to use it with their explicit consent, according to the rules they demand, or we can go pound sand.

Or, there's a more sane view of the world, which takes into account that a lot of what's cool about human civilization runs entirely counter to libertarian principles.

In that sense it could be a blessing in disguise. DNS control should be decentralized. It just introduces a billion other problems.

The internet is essentially a libertarian paradise - no control, no centralized power. A free market of information. Heh. Now corporations are trying to reign it in, and I say boo.
>> ^dag:

I really don't think SOPA will pass, but if it does - I suspect it could have an effect on us - but honestly it seems to me that it would effect most sites on the Internet. If it does pass expect to see a fracturing of the Internet - with DNS control wrested from the US and other countries creating alternative paths to content.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Fenton's Pitch invasion:

Fenton vs Bison:

Fenton in bikini paradise:

Fenton of the Lost Bark:


Via Storyful.

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

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Huh, so you see a tunnel of light when you approach c, I find this intriguing.
Yeah, just like when you drive through an actual tunnel. Does that intrigue you too? Maybe the road to heaven leads under the Hudson River. Who knew Weehawken, NJ was Paradise?


More that certain studies of mind have shown a seeming quantum nature to thought, specifically conciseness. That mind could be an entanglement of many different, yet simultaneous locations in space and time. What that all means, fuck if I know, just find it interesting that traveling the speed of light approximates certain peoples near death experiences. Not saying it is significant, only interesting. Or as Spock would say "fascinating". My mind sorts information of "likes" first and "relevance" second.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Huh, so you see a tunnel of light when you approach c, I find this intriguing.
Yeah, just like when you drive through an actual tunnel. Does that intrigue you too? Maybe the road to heaven leads under the Hudson River. Who knew Weehawken, NJ was Paradise?

Wait a minute...how do you know? >> ^TheGenk:

blocked and borderline porn

No,

Come with me to my Urban Paradise. Where being a bitch is always rewarded with metal pipes and being a bro is rewarded with your own bitch plus a pipe to keep them in line.

Welcome to paradise my child!

>> ^sme4r:

I'm white and I woulda screamed, "hit the bitch!" or "would you like fries with that?" Should I go back to the suburbs?>> ^Darkhand:
This video makes me hate fucking white people.
STOOOOOOOOOP STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!!
CALL THE FUCKING COPS!!!
How about you just shut the fuck up, go back to the surburbs, and knit a fucking sock.
I don't know what happened to provoke these guys, but when not ONE but TWO people jump over a counter, run after the guy you're fair game. I'm not saying he should have kept whacking them with a pipe while they were down but jesus lady shut up screaming STOP isn't going to do anything. Why don't YOU call the fucking cops or stand in between them or something JUST STOP SCREAMING! I would've hit her with the pipe too just for good measure.
VIOLENCE HAPPENS and if all you can do is SCREAM you're SCREWED.

That's a most excellent answer and I agree with every word of it. Faith is a gift from God, and even the act of turning towards Christ is by the work of the Holy Spirit. I was urged by the Spirit to say what I did, so I assumed it was for a reason. I feel God blessed it, and that it was His will. You're right that it would be impossible for someone give their lives in totality without being reborn, however, I put that out there that that is what God wants, and even the intention of doing it is useful to God. He could use that and support it and make sure it happens. People do drop to their knees and give their lives to God every day, and whether it is from going to church or seeing a message like mine, whatever it is, I know it is all by the grace of the Spirit. So we're in full agreement, which is odd if you're not a Christian. How did that happen?

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.
And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."
...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."
...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."
...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"
And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).
I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.

And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."

...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."

...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."

...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"

And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)


So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).

I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.


>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?

For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.