Yep. One of the keys for me too. What good is He if the only thing He provides is salvation from the Hell He created to punish us for not loving Him to His satisfaction? What else have You done for me, or anyone else I know, in this present day life on Earth God? Nada, and sure some would say God saved so and so from an accident... then but then millions of good Christians die every year from accidents... it's almost like it's random who He helps or not... In fact, He indeed doesn't help any more than any other god does... He at one point had a better army, which allowed Him to spread around to Europe and force them to convert or integrate their holidays into His to make it seem better to those forced to convert.

Okay He created Hell for Lucifer and the angels who chose not to praise Him for a moment... which proves that angels do have free will... which goes against the teaching He created us to love Him of our own free will as the angels had no choice... so either He forced Lucifer and the third of all the angels to rebel, or they have free will. Then we get all those people in Asia, Africa and the Americas and all over the glove who are going to Hell before they heard about the gospel of Jesus as they never had a chance... but wait many Christians say, they won't go to Hell because they didn't know, they'll be judged on if they lived morally... which begs the question, if you are basically fully guaranteed of life in Heaven without the knowledge of Jesus, then why spread the message? Oh, the Great Commission... that command they apparently listen to, while the people like this ignore His command to Love and treat others as you'd have them treat you. How He hung around sinners and tax collectors and talked badly about those who were showing off how holy they were and prayed openly, trying to shame those who didn't do as they did. How He told the crowd who was about to stone a woman at the well "let those without sin toss the first stone" and then importantly doesn't toss any stones Himself, not because He's sinned, but because He's operating on a new covenant. Yet they love to toss stones of discrimination and hate towards those who sin differently than them. He commands us to heal the sick, and yet it is the Christians of this Nation that oppose guaranteeing everyone a minimum degree of universal health insurance, preferring only people with good jobs have affordable health care. And on and on...

And the Jesus is coming soon folks... Seriously I've head from family that even if Climate Change is real, the real damage doesn't come for hundred years or more, and Jesus will have come by then. Just look at the world, gay people can get married now. Clearly Jesus is coming soon. I had another family member note how after the election of Obama the first time that just means Jesus will come sooner now... as if the Bible doesn't say there's an appointed time, let alone that He appoints the leaders...

And then the whole help help we're being repressed attitude... when basically they are being denied special rights and privileges and just coming to equal legal ground with others. Basically they are coming into the situation that forced the Pilgrims to leave a Christian Nation to move to what would become America because they couldn't persecute others as they wanted to, as the theocracy that ruled that Nation didn't agree to go that far.

I could go on for ages. I covered the topic a billion times though... well not a billion...

Not sure about the accuracy of those numbers either, seeing as there were more than 17 comics (close to 30), more than one novel (closer to 10) and arguably more than 4 movies (if you include the released-to-DVD "Salvation" machinima and the the "T2 Battle Across Time" tour/rides ;-)

reminds me a bit of the "motorcycle" chase scene from Terminator Salvation.

Some neat ideas, and might be a cool movie when it's done, but I wouldn't back a kickstarter (or similar) for it because it's just 1 guy.

I upvoted just to say "welcome" to cyberpunk amidst his attempted banination.

You're assuming that people enter into hell through no fault of their own, that it is only due to their imperfect reasoning skills. It says in Romans 1:18-21 that men won't have any excuse on the day of judgment, which means that God gives everyone sufficient grace for salvation. He enables them to make a clear choice, and He honors both the yes and the no. You can't have the possibility of choosing for something unless you also have the opportunity to choose against something.

People mostly cooperate with the devil, they aren't really being fooled by him as such; they are actually willfully deceiving themselves. He is just giving them what they really want and they go right along with it. You couldn't actually blame the devil for a single sin that man has ever committed. Gods judgment on mankind is just, but He has made a way that anyone could avoid hell if they simply were willing to repent of their sins and receive the Savior. People go to hell for what they do know and reject, not for what they don't know.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Matthew 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Jesus said that the majority would willingly choose hell; that is the sad reality of the human race. It would be like a murderer standing before a judge, and the judge tells the murderer that he is willing to release him if he won't commit murder again. The murderer says, I reject your pardon and I will continue to murder if you release me. I am not sorry for anything I have done. This is the man the world would like God to set free, those who willingly reject His pardon and are unrepentant in their sin. If God released them He would be a corrupt judge. Since He is a just judge, all sin will be punished and accounted for; either by the blood of Jesus Christ or by those who want to stand in front of God without Him.

"Many men of all religions have been raised from the dead...it happens in hospitals every single day."

After three days?

"We've been over the 'paid for our sins' fallacy, if he 'took our punishment of eternity in hell', who was that being 'raised from the dead', not Jesus. If he didn't spend eternity in hell, he didn't take the punishment prescribed for sinning, so certainly didn't even take the punishment for a single sinner."

I think this is a good explanation of why it is not a fallacy:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-paid-penalty.html

"What? Your soul is your enemy trying to destroy you?! What the hell? When did that happen...did you just become a Scientologist?"

The enemy of our souls is the devil.

If I find that I'm wrong on the day that I die and I stand in front of God, exposed as the person that I am...then I want to stand in front of God as the person that I am.

I don't want my sins forgiven by the sacrifice of another. I don't need my slate wiped clean by ritualistic confession and contrite acts. I am human; flawed and broken and wonderful. I will stand in front of your God for all my actions, thoughts and intentions.

In my life I have callously hurt others, I have taken what wasn't mine, I have dispensed wrath and sought vengeance. Because I am weak and selfish and scared.
But I also endeavor to heal more than I injure, give more than I take and provide comfort to others when things seem darkest. Plus....I always smile and ask how you are. That's important.

As a thoughtful, empathetic human being, I know that the positive actions of other humans is the only balance against the entropy that surrounds us. We are our own hope and salvation against a random universe that has our destruction built into the very laws that compel it.
I don't do good things because I fear judgement. I don't do them because I'm commanded to. I do good things because I'm one small part of a community that extends as far as humanity can reach. The effect of my actions, positive and negative, ripples out, rebounds and reflects infinitely. I do good things because it's good to do them.

If I'm wrong, I'll be judged by your God and if I'm found lacking in my actions then I'll own my sins and the consequences. But if the balance of my life has been positive and I am found unacceptable only because I could not believe in the existence of a Creator...if the sum total of my affect on others matters less than my ability to accept illogical supernatural conclusions....then your God is Evil.

Besides, if your god is omniscient, then he knew how he would judge me when he created the universe. So I had no real power over my actions. If he did, in fact, give me free will such that he did not know how I would live my life, then he's not omniscient. In which case, upon our meeting, he will disappear in a puff of logic.

Sounds like a lie to me....to paraphrase how I see it going.....

God -Abraham, I now require you to sacrifice your son to me if you are to be granted my favor and receive salvation.
Abraham -Weren't my servants, and flocks, and crops enough, Damn it?
God -You dare question my wishes, do as I say or be damned for eternity.
Abraham -OK, fine...I'll do it.
God -Just kidding, it was only a test and you passed. Sorry for the whole 'destroying your entire life' thing.
Abraham -Great. Thanks loads, god. You're a true friend for not making me destroy the single last thing you had left me in life and only making me believe I had to.

Since he did not HAVE to sacrifice his son, god lied to him, tricked him, and ultimately totally fucked him. When ever I discuss this with religious people, they insist you not look at it from Abraham's viewpoint, and ignore the apparent hatred and distain god showed this pious man. I refuse.

What atheists don't believe, but what I believe, is that His word is the power of God unto salvation for those who will believe:

Hebrews 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

Hey Enoch,

No I am getting married soon and I don't think my fiance would appreciate that. As far as posting scripture is concerned, faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. You may believe that they are merely words in a book, but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. I understand where you're coming from Enoch. Sometimes I feel like you are trying to pat me on the head, but it's not that I don't understand your gnostic beliefs. It is that I did understand it, fully embraced them, and rejected it all on the basis of divine revelation. I had gnostic beliefs, mixed with hindu, buddhist and new age ideas, among other things, before I became a Christian. I rejected those beliefs and embraced the word of God as the truth because the Lord directly revealed Himself to me as the Messiah. It wasn't that I read the bible and thought it sounded reasonable, it is because I had direct revelation it is the absolute truth. That's why I am a Christian.

I don't know if you hold the belief that the body is the problem as some gnostics do, but it is sin which is the problem. That is why mankind is separated from God and that is why we need a Savior. Jesus made the way for us to be reborn and be reconciled to God; not as the gnostics teach, that He brought secret knowledge, but that He paid the penalty for sin in our place.

I know you're a big ole troll, shiny, about as christian as my left shoe, but to indulge you for a moment, those two quotes in particular, if you are an -actual- Christian who believes that Jesus -was- in fact God, then you know that the passage from John has no particularly stronger meaning than being with the deity is important to your life's salvation. That's nothing particularly unique to Christianity.

With regards to that other out of context Luke quote, who the heck knows what you mean by quoting it, other than Jesus wanted you to feel bad for doing bad things. Not exactly exclusivist. Pretty sure that thought has been around since the first inkling of empathy happened in the great apes..

There is something to be said for 'prosperity-gospel'. It ends this way: you have all the glittery stuff you want, and you still feel empty. The only peace to be had is through (in Islam: submission) (in Christianity: salvation) (in Buddhism: satori).

Of course, 'Prosperity gospel' doesn't teach you that, but you end up there yourself.

I wasn't raised in a religious home so I never had that aspect in my life of seeking comfort from the idea of God. I believed that we were products of random chance, although the real love and connection I felt to people and this reality did not feel that way. Essentially, though, I had resigned myself to the fact of my future death, and that eventually no one would ever remember or care that I even existed.

I was an agnostic towards the idea of God at that point. Atheism to me was the other extreme from theism, and I believed that the rational standpoint was agnosticism. If you did not have equal skepticism towards either side, I felt you were being intellectually dishonest. You could sum it up in a simple statement, that everything, including the fact that anything exists at all, is equally unlikely. To try to get that fact to point towards or away from a God in my opinion just showed bias.

I changed my mind when I began to have supernatural experiences. This didn't make me a theist, but it did open my eyes to the idea that there was a spiritual reality. It was in pursuing that spirituality that I received revelation that an all powerful, benevolent God does exist. After this, I became a Christian and was born again, and transformed into a new person.

So, what I would say is, there is no evidence of God beyond personal revelation by God. This is by design because God requires us to seek Him by faith. He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. If you want to know whether there is a God or not, you must seek Him with all of your heart. Seek Him while it is still called today, because today is the day of salvation.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

Let's look at the scripture in a little more detail:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

This scripture is at the tail end of a conversation Jesus had with a young rich man. The young man had inquired of the Lord how he could have eternal life. The answer Jesus gave was simple, "sell your possesions and follow me." In the rest of the scripture we see that the only requirements for salvation is a confession of Jesus as Lord and a belief that He was raised from the dead. So, why did the Lord give the additional requirement to the rich young man of selling all of his possessions? We see why in the next verse:

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

This man, even knowing that Jesus could instruct him on how to attain eternal life, could not follow after the Lord because he loved his wealth more than God. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

His riches were the stumbling block preventing him from following the Lord, and that is why the Lord dealt with it there. The Lord knew He was a slave to his wealth and could not bear to be parted from it, even at the expense of his eternal life. This is a reason why the Lord warned us in Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Which is to say, that if someone laid all the wealth of the world at your feet, and you traded your soul for it, you would have made an unprofitable deal. The wealth of this world is perishing and will pass away, and we along with it, but those who do the will abide with Him forever. So, let's look on to what Jesus said to His disciples after the young rich man parted:

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You'll notice that Jesus only said it was impossible for men, but with God all things are possible. The problem with the young rich man was not his wealth but his heart condition before God. He wanted the gift more than he wanted the giver of the gift. When Jesus put his loyalties to the test, the true condition of his heart was exposed. There is nothing inherently bad about money, but there is something inherently bad about putting it before God. That is the sin of idolatry, and that is what Jesus is condemning, not money itself. Take Joseph of Arimethea for example:

Matthew 27:57-60 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Joseph was a disciple of Jesus yet He did not require Joseph to sell all of his possessions. Indeed, if he had Joseph would not have been able to provide the tomb that Jesus was buried in, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 53:9.

So, to conclude, what God is most concerned about is the heart. If your love for your possesions is what is keeping you from the Lord, He may ultimately require you to sacrifice them. I think is especially difficult for the rich man to realize his need for salvation because he is so self-sufficient. He believes he is in control of his life because his money insulates him from many of the cares of this world. He does not realize that his very breath rests in the hands of the Lord. He may not confess, as Job did, that his riches are all blessings from on High, and at the disposal of the Almighty to do with them what He may.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."