Discussion On Being Gay & Christian (Compiled)

[Guest Passingthru]

Christianity can lead a gay person to be a non-practising homosexual who is unlikely to create online forums like blowingwind.org.

Christianity plays a part but isn't the sole much less whole reason I'm unlikely to create said forum.  This absolute linkage/conclusion is incorrect.

[Guest Passingthru]

Isn't that what I meant?

......as in "highly unlikely", ie , close to "never".

[Guest Passingthru]

Christianity plays a part but isn't the sole much less whole reason I'm unlikely to create said forum.  This absolute linkage/conclusion is incorrect.

Ditto my being non practising.

[sliceboy]

Christianity plays a part but isn't the sole much less whole reason I'm unlikely to create said forum.  This absolute linkage/conclusion is incorrect.

 

You have shown that Christianity poses a threat to Singapore gays. What if the majority of the Singapore gays think like you?

 

Do you consider your participation on this forum as practice or non-practice?

[Guest Passingthru]

You have shown that Christianity poses a threat to Singapore gays. What if the majority of the Singapore gays think like you?

 

Do you consider your participation on this forum as practice or non-practice?

Perhaps I'm really dense but how have I demonstrated that Christianity poses a threat to Singapore gays?  Those who feel threatened may have had poor experiences with the Christians they've encountered but I have proven nothing of that sort here in this thread/forum using myself as an example.  If you mean the creation vs evolution thingy, I don't see how differences of opinions are deemed a threat.

 

If the majority of local gays think like me, there'll be less drama.  In fact, life may be quite boring.

 

I've participated in all sorts of online forums.  Does that mean I'm practising each and every one of those community inclinations?

 

Making a wild guess here but has "non-practising" gotten under your skin so much and formed an itch you simply need to continually scratch?  If you're hunting for hypocrites, you are advised to re-adjust your radar because it's aimed wrongly, ie, an exercise in futility.  In other words, while I'm not exactly the driven snow, I'm certainly not the hypocrite one relishes to burn on a pyre doused with several million year old animal juice .

[GachiMuchi]

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Blows Pastor's Mind With Powerful Defense of Gay Marriage

(澳洲總理陸克文霸氣回應反同性戀牧師.... 中字 )

 

 

Preacher Phil Snider gives interesting gay rights speech

(牧師對同性戀條列的一段話 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgnTXPKNmnw

[sliceboy]

I am a homosexual but I'm a non-practising one.

I am Chinese but I'm a non-practising one.

I am a human being but I'm a non-practising one.

 

Am I dense? Have I become Ah Q?

Edited November 8, 2013 by sliceboy

[sliceboy]

All you do is claim and guess.

 

The Bible is not the infallible word of the Christian God. A simple search on the Internet will show many websites which debunk Christianity and explain the errors, contradictions, ambiguities in the Bible.

 

The Christian God has a communication problem. There are numerous interpretations of the Bible and thus the numerous denominations. Even you have your own way to "explain away the gay." Why can't an almighty God communicate clearly?

 

In addition, we don't know who wrote the books of the Bible and we cannot trace the identities of the authors.

 

How do you know that all religions lead to the same God? Why do you choose only Christianity? Why don't you choose one or more of the other religions? Are you doing your own interpretation? Isn't Jesus the only way to God?

 

It is likelier that humans create god(s) than god(s) create humans.

 

There is insufficient evidence to prove that Christianity is true.

 

"Immaculate conception" is a Catholic term that refers to Mary being born without Original Sin. The birth of Jesus is the "virgin birth" and the Bible does not say that Jesus was conceived via cloning or in vitro fertilization. Neither does the Bible say that miracles are undiscovered technology (your own interpretation again?).

 

 

Hence the reason why the Bible will never be seen as serious and worthy no matter how well it gets positively proven because the basic disregard for it is already 'set in stone'.  The question is what is the real reason behind such decided contempt for it?  My guess is that the adamance against it is so deep and strong that even should the whole book be proven true and God himself appeared to seal the deal, it would still not be convincing enough.  There will be something to explain away the phenomena.  When one doesn't believe, then anything and everything else would be preferable and a relief.

[Guest jung]

Yes I agree with sliceboy. There are ambiguities and different interpretations of christian bible. Jesus did not write the bible himself. No one can be sure and prove there is only one god. All are claims and faith. Group pressure can reinforce claims and faith.

[Steve5380]

Hence the reason why the Bible will never be seen as serious and worthy no matter how well it gets positively proven because the basic disregard for it is already 'set in stone'.  The question is what is the real reason behind such decided contempt for it?  My guess is that the adamance against it is so deep and strong that even should the whole book be proven true and God himself appeared to seal the deal, it would still not be convincing enough.  There will be something to explain away the phenomena.  When one doesn't believe, then anything and everything else would be preferable and a relief.

 

Passingthru,  you don't see clearly because of your ideology forces you into a defensive position that is not justified.

 

I am an agnostic,  former Catholic.  There is no "basic disregard" or "contempt".  Many of us love the New Testament.  It is such a nice story.  The four gospels have much more weight than what an homophobic Paul may have written about gays elsewhere in the Bible.  This guy was not a good person anyway,  even if he fell from his horse and had a "vision". 

 

The problem with the Bible is not disregard or contempt for it,  but lack of credibility.  I would be the happiest person if what is written in the Bible were THE TRUTH.   It would be so easy...  you follow some simple rules and you earn an eternity in heaven.  Heaven is such a good deal that to give up on gay sex is trivial!

 

You dwell on an utopia of having the Bible "positively proven".  Nobody has been able to do it in 2000 years,  and it seems that as more time passes and more we learn about our world through science,  the hope of finding any proof is getting each time less probable.

 

Isn't there more reality in the complement of what you wrote:  the faith some people have in the Bible is so strong and deep that even the most logical and rational reasons to doubt about its reality cannot get through the barrier these people build against logic and reason,  caused by organized religions washing their brains with this slick indoctrination that to doubt is SIN,  and to have blind faith is VIRTUE. 

Edited November 8, 2013 by Steve5380

[Guest Guest]

Jesus was a Buddhist monk (BBC documentary)

[Guest Passingthru]

 

The Christian God has a communication problem. There are numerous interpretations of the Bible and thus the numerous denominations. Even you have your own way to "explain away the gay." Why can't an almighty God communicate clearly?

-  How have I explained away the gay?  I've only described myself.  As for communication,  the converse also holds true, ie, the listeners/readers may have an understanding problem.

 

In addition, we don't know who wrote the books of the Bible and we cannot trace the identities of the authors.

-  http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/2/  Persoally, I'm satisfied that it's the inspired word of God, regardless of authorship.  Others are free to believe otherwise and/or choose to reject it.

 

How do you know that all religions lead to the same God? Why do you choose only Christianity? Why don't you choose one or more of the other religions? Are you doing your own interpretation? Isn't Jesus the only way to God?

-  I'm sharing my beliefs.  I've always maintained that it's based on faith.  Ditto my choices.

 

It is likelier that humans create god(s) than god(s) create humans.

-  That could well be true but meanwhile, I personally believe otherwise.

 

There is insufficient evidence to prove that Christianity is true.

-  Hence the need for faith.  A big leap of it.

 

"Immaculate conception" is a Catholic term that refers to Mary being born without Original Sin. The birth of Jesus is the "virgin birth" and the Bible does not say that Jesus was conceived via cloning or in vitro fertilization. Neither does the Bible say that miracles are undiscovered technology (your own interpretation again?).

-  You're right about the wrong terminology but you understood what I meant anyway.  Of course the Bible doesn't use terms like IVF, cloning and technology .  Would it be wrong if I explained "Let there be light" as "bringing about immediate illumination"?

 

[Guest Passingthru]

You dwell on an utopia of having the Bible "positively proven".  Nobody has been able to do it in 2000 years,  and it seems that as more time passes and more we learn about our world through science,  the hope of finding any proof is getting each time less probable.

-  Sorry, but I'm not the one clamouring for proof.  I've emphasised "faith" right from the start.  I'm of the opinion that aspects of the Bible are getting clearer and being proven with the passing of time as well as through archaeological findings.  I don't see how this is construed as dwelling.  Did I not consistently mention "journey"?

 

Isn't there more reality in the complement of what you wrote:  the faith some people have in the Bible is so strong and deep that even the most logical and rational reasons to doubt about its reality cannot get through the barrier these people build against logic and reason,  caused by organized religions washing their brains with this slick indoctrination that to doubt is SIN,  and to have blind faith is VIRTUE. 

-  I don't know about others but I'm not part of any organisation or organised religion (neither was Jesus) so my brains haven't been "washed" so to speak.  I'm a follower and believer of Christ, plain and simple.  Doubting per se is not a sin, neither is having uncertainties about the existence of God and His will for me/us.  However, to let those doubts fester to a point of total rejection of any possibility of His existence and therefore His provisions, now that to me, is a sin/blasphemy.

[Steve5380]

-  I don't know about others but I'm not part of any organisation or organised religion (neither was Jesus) so my brains haven't been "washed" so to speak.  I'm a follower and believer of Christ, plain and simple.  Doubting per se is not a sin, neither is having uncertainties about the existence of God and His will for me/us.  However, to let those doubts fester to a point of total rejection of any possibility of His existence and therefore His provisions, now that to me, is a sin/blasphemy.

 

 

You must be one of the few believers in the deity of Jesus Christ who is not a follower of some Christian organized religion.

 

Are the festering doubts to a point of total rejection of any possibility of a moon in the universe being made of blue cheese,  any similar to festering doubts to a point of total rejection of any possibility that Christ is a god?   And is not believing in a moon made of blue cheese also a sin/blasphemy?

[Steve5380]

 

-  Hence the need for faith.  A big leap of it.

 

A NEED for faith?  This is true.  In our regular life we MUST have faith.  We must believe that each day will come to an end and a new one will start.  We must believe that we need to eat and drink to survive.  We must believe, in every step we take,  that there is a solid floor under our feet.

 

But there is absolutely no need for RELIGIOUS faith.  We agnostics are in perfect peace with ourselves.  We don't need to know about the mysteries of our existence.  We can live a righteous and happy life in total ignorance of the supernatural.   

 

You should give it a try and verify that this is true.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Steve5380

[slut]

A NEED for faith?  This is true.  In our regular life we MUST have faith.  We must believe that each day will come to an end and a new one will start.  We must believe that we need to eat and drink to survive.  We must believe, in every step we take,  that there is a solid floor under our feet.

 

But there is absolutely no need for RELIGIOUS faith.  We agnostics are in perfect peace with ourselves.  We don't need to know about the mysteries of our existence.  We can live a righteous and happy life in total ignorance of the supernatural.   

 

You should give it a try and verify that this is true.

 

I really hate to be entering this melee again but I must say this:

No present need does not mean no future need. At the end of their life, an agnostic must certainly confront a sense of dire and total uncertainty that could have otherwise been remedied through religion.

Like I've said before, you don't lose anything by adopting a religion, but you may lose everything by not adopting one. That prospect should be frightening enough to all but the densest of people, hence why I think agnosticism is just dumb.

[Steve5380]

I really hate to be entering this melee again but I must say this:

No present need does not mean no future need. At the end of their life, an agnostic must certainly confront a sense of dire and total uncertainty that could have otherwise been remedied through religion.

Like I've said before, you don't lose anything by adopting a religion, but you may lose everything by not adopting one. That prospect should be frightening enough to all but the densest of people, hence why I think agnosticism is just dumb.

 

Why would this discussion be seen as a melee?  We seem to be rational and civil.  Nobody is getting upset, no insults fly around.

 

Why should a future need be different from a present need?  If we are experienced adult people we should have the certitude that "end of life" can happen at any instant.  I know that my life can end today,  yet I'm not running to a church to confess my sins and prepare my soul for eternal life.   I have a member of my family who is 93 years old.  The man is an agnostic,  and strongly opinionated about religion in the same way he has always been.  If someone should be concerned or frightened by death, he is the one.  But he is not.   He is confident that nothing worse will happen to him than to any of the believers who kiss the butt of their god.  And he is not dumb.

 

Agnosticism may be dumb for you,  but it is not something one chooses.  If you are sincere,  you will not force yourself to believe what your reason tells you is not believable.  It is a little like being a homosexual.  Some think that homosexuality is dumb, but we know that it is not a choice.

 

Churches like to paint this scenario:   "the agnostic, atheist rejects God throughout his life, but then on his dead bead, he is possessed by a tremendous fear of what comes next,  and in his panic he will remember the teachings of his good church,  and he will try to amend his relation with God."   What a nice fairy tale!   I doubt that one gets an attack of panic at the moment of death.   Instead, it can be a moment of curious expectation.  Will see one day!

 

In any case,  if your God is worth anything,  he will be smart enough to recognize that you adopt religion for convenience, and won't give you any credit for that. 

Edited November 8, 2013 by Steve5380

[slut]

Why should a future need be different from a present need?  If we are experienced adult people we should have the certitude that "end of life" can happen at any instant.  I know that my life can end today,  yet I'm not running to a church to confess my sins and prepare my soul for eternal life.   I have a member of my family who is 93 years old.  The man is an agnostic,  and strongly opinionated about religion in the same way he has always been.  If someone should be concerned or frightened by death, he is the one.  But he is not.   He is confident that nothing worse will happen to him than to any of the believers who kiss the butt of their god.  And he is not dumb.

 

You're not running to a church to confess your sins because, despite of your awareness that death can happen at any moment, you nonetheless are living in the 'present'. When we discuss about the 'future', we are discussing about the very moment that you are forced to confront death. We're not talking about anything else.

 

Unless you are fearless in the face of death, then in that case, yes ok you have no need for religion. But don't forget, you better be equally fearless in the face of judgment should there be one.

 

Agnosticism may be dumb for you,  but it is not something one chooses.  If you are sincere,  you will not force yourself to believe what your reason tells you is not believable.  It is a little like being a homosexual.  Some think that homosexuality is dumb, but we know that it is not a choice.

 

Ok, maybe. Maybe some people are more naturally inclined to adopting an agnostic stance. In that case, I revise my opinion - it isn't dumb, just slightly unfortunate.

 

 

 

In any case,  if your God is worth anything,  he will be smart enough to recognize that you adopt religion for convenience, and won't give you any credit for that. 

 

Oh no no, this isnt adopting religion out of convenience. I am a believer because I choose to believe in the Truth and to me this is the Truth. The fact that God will save me from hell comes as part of accepting the Truth, and isn't the 'be all and end all' like you believe.

[Guest Passingthru]

You must be one of the few believers in the deity of Jesus Christ who is not a follower of some Christian organized religion.

 

Are the festering doubts to a point of total rejection of any possibility of a moon in the universe being made of blue cheese,  any similar to festering doubts to a point of total rejection of any possibility that Christ is a god?   And is not believing in a moon made of blue cheese also a sin/blasphemy?

Speaking of poor/laughable analogies!      A blue cheese moon is as possible as human hair being made of gold.  You don't require faith since both are  obviously not and proven through various means and measures. 

A better comparative example would be to ask of the possibilities of hidden resources like precious metals, gem stones, fuel...etc on the moon.  Then festering doubts about that to the point of total rejection would be considered as having a closed, arrogant mind, ie, a SIN.  No healthy scepticism, no "reasonable intellect", no compromise;  just a plain, outright, blinkered, extremist rejection mentality.  And when the possibilities and potential of the moon are expounded, derided as "flimsy".

[Guest Passingthru]

A NEED for faith?  This is true.  In our regular life we MUST have faith.  We must believe that each day will come to an end and a new one will start.  We must believe that we need to eat and drink to survive.  We must believe, in every step we take,  that there is a solid floor under our feet.

-  Likewise in our spiritual journey.  We must believe that in every move we make, God has a plan for us and a reason for allowing certain things to happen both to us and around us.

 

But there is absolutely no need for RELIGIOUS faith.  We agnostics are in perfect peace with ourselves.  We don't need to know about the mysteries of our existence.  We can live a righteous and happy life in total ignorance of the supernatural.   

-  But there is absolutely no need to deny the possibility of a Creator.  We, believers in God, are in perfect peace with our faith which is bolstered both experientially/spiritually and through anecdotal evidence of the amazing engineering of nature and the universe.

 

You should give it a try and verify that this is true.

-  You too, minus the baggage of religiousity.

[Guest Guest]

I was a practicing catholic for most of my life. I was born in a catholic family.

I observed all the rules, rituals, commandments set by the church as much as I can since young.

In the process of personal development and the urging need of finding meaning of life ten years ago, I started to realize, the church might not hv the best interest for her followers.

The most startling evidence is how the church tries to cover up child abuse scandals by the priests for the sake of the institution. My reasoning would be, if they can be so untruthful about this, what other lies they are capable of committing to preserve the interest of the church.They since then have lost my faith in them as an organization that claims to proclaim the Truth of god.

Referring to children as "little ones," Jesus warns, "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6). The church herself is not following the teaching of Christ.

If you read the history of the church, religion was used as a political tool to gain wealth and control people by instilling fear. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Roman_Catholic_Church_in_1500.htm

How easy it is to make people fearful of something that no one can prove and yet will determine where you will be for eternity. Even more so the church doctrines developed since two thousand years ago. People even made to pay for their sins to be forgiven. How many people were educated enough back then to think for themselves and challenge the authority. Even today in christian churches, people are believing when they are promised the returns of wealth.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

What the church and most religions today emphasize is the ritual, practices, do and donts. They have created a false sense of security and contentment among the believers that by just performing certain actions they can gain eternal life.

That's why there are so many religious hypocrites thinking that by performing some actions, they are reserved a place in heaven, feel more superior than those who don't. That's why Jesus said, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

It doesn't mean that I don't believe in God or a higher power now. But my concepts of God is different from what the church teaches.

God is love. That is what I believe in and also mentioned numerous of times in the bible. Jesus even mentioned love is the greatest commandment. When we are in doubt, just ask ourselves whether we are doing it out of love, or fear. Love and fear is the opposite, fear is the lack of love. All negative emotions and thoughts are originated from fear.

We should instead look inward. When we examine our intentions and transform our inner thoughts to be more loving, it will show through our actions. We will naturally be more charitable. And we will realize we don't need a religion or church rules to make you a better person. "You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion."

Once we gain the inner peace, love and joy, we will experience heaven on earth. And we will not fear death or hell. Because our inner states of mind is pure and burden-less.

"Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language" http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm

If we believe in God because of fear of hell, it might not be a right motivation. As long as we are motivated by fear, we won't experience heaven.

Having said that, I believe the purpose of life is returning to God ie. to be a better person ie. leading a happier life.

And everyone is on his/ her own unique path. No right or wrong journey, because they all leads to the same destination. We just need to go through what we need to go through to grow.

I am still thankful for christianity that has inspired with the life of Jesus in the new testament. I see positive changes now led by the new pope. Hopefully, the church will soon reflect the true teaching of Christ for the best of humanity.

[sliceboy]

Ah, Pascal's Wager. It doesn't work for multiple religions - how do you know which one(s) is the Truth? Believe in the monotheistic,  polytheistic, or other types? And hopefully, accepting of gays, too.

Edited November 9, 2013 by sliceboy

[Steve5380]

Speaking of poor/laughable analogies!      A blue cheese moon is as possible as human hair being made of gold.  You don't require faith since both are  obviously not and proven through various means and measures. 

 

 

You are right that the probability of a moon being made of blue cheese is practically zero.

 

I am right in that the analogy fits perfectly.   It is impossible for a dead body to resurrect.  It is impossible for a body of some weight to walk on water.  It is impossible to multiply breads and fish.   Neither of these events can be made to happen even with countless experiments.  Their probability is practically zero.

 

What makes you think that we should reject outright the idea of a blue cheese moon,  but accept that 'miracles' are possible?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Steve5380

[Marineboy]

The greatest man to ever lived would be Jesus....the outreach is un real....even the years are counted with reference to him...BC/AD

What shocked me is that its possible that the greatest man who ever lived never lived at all and he could be the creation of the Roman Empire....emperor Titus

Those in power can indeed re write history or even try to change it.

Some Japanese even tried to say the massacre of Nanjing never existed. Some others say the holocaust never happened.

 

More evidence will appear in the future as more studies are made about the bible n other holy books.

Its the way its put together that is highly questionable...how can anyone say its the truth and nothing but the truth or that its the word of God...

 

Honestly I have tried speaking to God...all I asked was or him to make me normal...like women n have a family like many others.

I was a Catholic and I understand that Satan could be testing me n driving me away from God

Many years later..i realised the prayers don't work...I am certainly not satanic at all. Why would I be condemn to hell.

I accepted myself and try to live a meaningful life with my partner. I feel so free not being shackled by religion for many years,

 

I invite religious people to try it....Don't kid or fool  yourselves...it liberating. really

I never felt happier and have lts more free time on sundays too.

 

I still harbour the hope that Jesus might decide to reveal himself to me one day...I will change my views if that happens and tell it all here

Edited November 9, 2013 by Marineboy

[Gray]

Speaking of poor/laughable analogies!      A blue cheese moon is as possible as human hair being made of gold.  You don't require faith since both are  obviously not and proven through various means and measures. 

A better comparative example would be to ask of the possibilities of hidden resources like precious metals, gem stones, fuel...etc on the moon.  Then festering doubts about that to the point of total rejection would be considered as having a closed, arrogant mind, ie, a SIN.  No healthy scepticism, no "reasonable intellect", no compromise;  just a plain, outright, blinkered, extremist rejection mentality.  And when the possibilities and potential of the moon are expounded, derided as "flimsy".

 

 

Very ironic and arrogant for someone like you to be using those words. Having read your posts in this thread, I find that you have all your thought processes backward. A lot of your arguments here are actually supporting the atheist side, but you don't seem to realise it. If you are going to argue for your side, at least don't bring up examples that make you shoot your own foot while you're at it.

 

Let me ask you: How do you know the moon is not made out of blue cheese? How do you know human hair can't be made out of gold? Why is it so obvious to everyone that it can't be true?

 

And since you have the audacity to imply that rejecting god is having a closed arrogant mind, I want to say now that my mind is very open to new possibilities. I challenge you to show me EVIDENCE that there is a god. Show us why we lack the "healthy scepticism, no reasonable intellect, no compromise" as you claim we do when in fact we show more of any of these qualities compared to someone like you.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gray

[Guest Guest]

Steve, u people can save your breathe. They will use all sorts of bad logic and poor reasoning to argue until they win. If reasonable people argue with people who abandons reasoning, can u win?

 

Don't believe u wait and see what sort of amazingly unbelievable and ridiculous things they can come out with to counter your argument. 

 

They've been saying somebody who had died and resurrected and flown to sky will descend to earth for a second time. For one century already, that did not materialise

[Guest Guest]

Gray, save your breathe la. We live in reality in 2013. We don't like in fairy tale world in a self deceiving fantasy manner. In this century, evidence is everything.

 

So far, no human being has been able to be resurrected after death, and not only that, fly to sky somemore. Even healthy living people are not able to fly.

[Guest Passingthru]

You are right that the probability of a moon being made of blue cheese is practically zero.

 

I am right in that the analogy fits perfectly.   It is impossible for a dead body to resurrect.  It is impossible for a body of some weight to walk on water.  It is impossible to multiply breads and fish.   Neither of these events can be made to happen even with countless experiments.  Their probability is practically zero.

 

What makes you think that we should reject outright the idea of a blue cheese moon,  but accept that 'miracles' are possible?

No, your analogy is severely flawed because you're using something proven/measured.  There is no probability involved.  Therefore, it is safe to reject a blue cheese moon. Use an example which isn't proven and still holds some probability - like what I suggested, for eg.  Having said that, if God wanted to create a blue cheese moon, I believe He could. Such an occurence/action, however, would greatly prove His existence and therefore renders moot all other points and arguments. But it's not absolute proof, you might argue.  Sure it isn't.  The blue cheese moon could have come about by the Big Bang.  I'll put my faith in the former, all the same and if it was a Big Bang which did it, I would believe that was God's action/"kang hu".

A dead person can come back to life.  This is where we get all those NDE cases.  It may not be THE resurrection but it shows the possibility of revival after clinical death.

 

While not the way you mean, of course, but the possibility of walking on water is there:  http://www.livescience.com/32639-how-do-animals-walk-on-water.html  Ditto people flying.  While we can't fly on our own, we can get ourselves airborne.

If yeast and other micro organisms can multiply rapidly, some day we might discover how to multiply complex masses.

"Yet to be discovered" = miracles and supernatural.  Believing in them requires faith and the entertaining of possibilities.  "Discovered" (eg, the moon's material) = fact and natural.  Believing otherwise is being in denial and nothing to do with faith.  For eg, there are some people who still insist that the earth is flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).  This is anything except faith.

PS:  Whoever may be tempted, please spare me the argument that the moon landing was a hoax and therefore the blue cheese moon remains a distinct possibilty!  PLEASE, hor!  Please try to understand and focus on the points and underlying principles of the argument and not the actual examples and analogies.

 

[Gray]

Wanted to save my breath one. But for someone like him to call other people closed and arrogant when he hasn't given anyone any reason to believe is just very ridiculous and offensive!

 

It's like me saying:

 

There could be blue cheese deep within the moon what, how you know don't have? Got evidence not? No? Aha~! You are closed minded and arrogant!

 

My great grandfather is the forgotten king of Singapore. He wasn't mentioned in the singapore history books in school these days because of government plotting against us and they want to kill us all. But Santa Claus appeared in my dreams last night and told me that my family will rule over Singapore and even the whole world in maybe.. 10 years time. Definitely within next 50 years.

 

What? You don't believe me?? Got evidence to prove that what I'm saying is not true not? No? Aha~!! You are closed minded and arrogant for not believing me!

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gray

[Gray]

No, your analogy is severely flawed because you're using something proven/measured.  There is no probability involved.  Therefore, it is safe to reject a blue cheese moon. Use an example which isn't proven and still holds some probability - like what I suggested, for eg.  Having said that, if God wanted to create a blue cheese moon, I believe He could. Such an occurence/action, however, would greatly prove His existence and therefore renders moot all other points and arguments. But it's not absolute proof, you might argue.  Sure it isn't.  The blue cheese moon could have come about by the Big Bang.  I'll put my faith in the former, all the same and if it was a Big Bang which did it, I would believe that was God's action/"kang hu".

A dead person can come back to life.  This is where we get all those NDE cases.  It may not be THE resurrection but it shows the possibility of revival after clinical death.

 

While not the way you mean, of course, but the possibility of walking on water is there:  http://www.livescience.com/32639-how-do-animals-walk-on-water.html  Ditto people flying.  While we can't fly on our own, we can get ourselves airborne.

If yeast and other micro organisms can multiply rapidly, some day we might discover how to multiply complex masses.

"Yet to be discovered" = miracles and supernatural.  Believing in them requires faith and the entertaining of possibilities.  "Discovered" (eg, the moon's material) = fact and natural.  Believing otherwise is being in denial and nothing to do with faith.  For eg, there are some people who still insist that the earth is flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).  This is anything except faith.

PS:  Whoever may be tempted, please spare me the argument that the moon landing was a hoax and therefore the blue cheese moon remains a distinct possibilty!  PLEASE, hor!  Please try to understand and focus on the points and underlying principles of the argument and not the actual examples and analogies.

 

 

How do you know that it is proven and measured? Where did you get your evidence from? Could there be blue cheese hidden deep within the moon's crust? How do you know that it is not possible and where is your evidence for that?

 

Please show us the healthy level of scepticism, reasonable amount of intellect and ability to compromise that you should be having by answering these questions and telling me why it can't be true.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gray

[Gray]

Please Mr passingthru... I don't want to be closed minded and arrogant anymore. I want to be open minded and humble like you. Please guide me to become like you by showing me just ONE proof supporting the possibility of the existence of the christian god. If it is a likely probability, there should be at least ONE proof supporting it right? Please please please enlighten all of us?

[Guest Passingthru]

 

Very ironic and arrogant for someone like you to be using those words. Having read your posts in this thread, I find that you have all your thought processes backward. A lot of your arguments here are actually supporting the atheist side, but you don't seem to realise it. If you are going to argue for your side, at least don't bring up examples that make you shoot your own foot while you're at it.

-  The atheist side rejects the premise of a creator because there's no absolute proof.  The creationist/God camp rejects the premise of the world and universe beginning on their own accord without supernatural input because there's no absolute proof.  Do you see how both camps share something in common?  In between both camps, there are overlaps and common ground and when I delve into these, I look as if I'm supporting the atheist side.  While I reject atheism, I cannot in all fairness, outrightly reject some of their arguments (eg, no one has seen God.)  However, just like how science has not given you 100% proof but you prefer it, likewise, spiritual/supernatural belief cannot give me 100% proof but I'm leaning on it based on faith.  The atheist sees faith as something flimsy while the God camp sees the total rejection of a creator as closed minded and a sin.  We are both on the same scale but on opposite ends.  What's in between the two sides are the overlaps.  It is these overlaps which are contentious because each camp interprets them according to their respective biases.  Is such an explanation not considered "reasonable intellect"?  I do see the irony when I'm trying to broach the current subject using some of these overlaps and common ground.  I don't  think I'm shooting my foot though, and while it wasn't exactly olive branch behaviour, it isn't arrogant either if I may say so.  If it's construed as such for whatever reason, then I apologise unreservedly.

 

Let me ask you: How do you know the moon is not made out of blue cheese? How do you know human hair can't be made out of gold? Why is it so obvious to everyone that it can't be true?

-  You'll have to ask the astronauts who landed on the moon for the answer.  My guess is that they'll tell you it isn't blue cheese.  Gold has never ever been reproduced by man from any substance.  It's obvious because the probability is nil based on hard evidence.  However, if they did turn into those things, then they'll be deemed miracles and get shifted into the spiritual realm.  Should it be clear that science was responsible for such phenomena, then it becomes technology.  I have nothing against science and technology.  Do people have something against miracles?  I suppose they do, since miracles compare poorly to that which can be measured and studied.  And if I want to use the medium of "measured and studied", I should avoid belief, right?  Well, what I try to do instead is to see where science can corroborate faith which is the belief in things unseen. 

 

And since you have the audacity to imply that rejecting god is having a closed arrogant mind, I want to say now that my mind is very open to new possibilities. I challenge you to show me EVIDENCE that there is a god. Show us why we lack the "healthy scepticism, no reasonable intellect, no compromise" as you claim we do when in fact we show more of any of these qualities compared to someone like you.

-  A healthy sceptism that science and the theories derived from it with regards to the beginnings of the universe and life are the be all and end all.  Resonable intellect to question if they are so.  No compromise refers to the total rejection of anything faith based.  I understand that the same can be said of faith and God.  Hence, being on the "opposite sides on the same scale"

I see 'evidence', most of it anecdotal.  This may not be acceptable, hence, the inverted commas.  Do google the few youtubes pertaining to the "evidence of God".  Some of the videos are too long and trying but the shorter ones are also good.  Those speakers are far more eloquent than me and hopefully can convey the same message but in a far better way.

[Guest Passingthru]

How do you know that it is proven and measured? Where did you get your evidence from?

-  I don't know how acceptable is a google search for such but please do one.

Could there be blue cheese hidden deep within the moon's crust? How do you know that it is not possible and where is your evidence for that?

-  Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Steve meant the moon in general.  However, I'm open to the possibility that there might be blue cheese within until proven otherwise.  Who knows how it got there though.  Nevertheless, I remain sceptical because as far as I know, blue cheese is a manufactured product of animal origin and needs the appropriate/particular mold.  I doubt if animals and flora as we know them can survive on or within the moon.  Thus, the in situ manufacture of it is impossible without the provision of the right conditions.

 

Please show us the healthy level of scepticism, reasonable amount of intellect and ability to compromise that you should be having by answering these questions and telling me why it can't be true.

-  As above.

[Guest Guest]

Wanted to save my breath one. But for someone like him to call other people closed and arrogant when he hasn't given anyone any reason to believe is just very ridiculous and offensive!

 

 me!

U see, i told u already right, don't believe. U will never never win no matter how strong your reasoning is. 

 

Now u see all sorts of nonsense come out. Walking on water etc. Planes and space trips definitely fly faster and higher than a human that existed hundreds of years ago. Human already gone up all the way to space and moon, but no one has seen or met the creator. How much higher do we have to fly to meet them? All these analogies and explanations are totally unconvincing and base on flimsy proofs.Make no sense at all. 

[Steve5380]

-  Likewise in our spiritual journey.  We must believe that in every move we make, God has a plan for us and a reason for allowing certain things to happen both to us and around us.

 

-  But there is absolutely no need to deny the possibility of a Creator.  We, believers in God, are in perfect peace with our faith which is bolstered both experientially/spiritually and through anecdotal evidence of the amazing engineering of nature and the universe.

 

 

Why should we believe that "in every move we make God has a plan for us" ??  This smells of anthropomorphism, and it belittles a god by suggesting that God has to plan every move of insignificant creatures like us.  There is a similar say:  "not a leave falls from the tree without the specific will of God".  Imagine that!  Quite a busy God that would be!   Even if there was a creation,  it would be perfectly possible that the creator is now away, at galactic distances from little planet earth, busy with other things.

 

" But there is absolutely no need to deny the possibility of a Creator."   This is something an atheist may challenge.  But for us agnostics, the denial of a god, a creator is not our concern.  We don't deny anything.  Everything has a probability, although infinitely small in some cases.   Our position is:  "I don't know",  and further "No human knows either, because we don't have the capacity to know".   This philosophy immediately shuts down all the "religious noise"  which resounds throughout the world, created by personal interests and agendas to fill the void of our ignorance.

[Steve5380]

No, your analogy is severely flawed because you're using something proven/measured.  There is no probability involved.  Therefore, it is safe to reject a blue cheese moon. Use an example which isn't proven and still holds some probability - like what I suggested, for eg.  Having said that, if God wanted to create a blue cheese moon, I believe He could. Such an occurence/action, however, would greatly prove His existence and therefore renders moot all other points and arguments. But it's not absolute proof, you might argue.  Sure it isn't.  The blue cheese moon could have come about by the Big Bang.  I'll put my faith in the former, all the same and if it was a Big Bang which did it, I would believe that was God's action/"kang hu".

A dead person can come back to life.  This is where we get all those NDE cases.  It may not be THE resurrection but it shows the possibility of revival after clinical death.

 

We agnostics think in terms of probabilities.  My examples involved probability, which can be defined as "frequency of occurrence"  = number of occurrences divided by number of experiments.  These 'miracles'  you can try with countless experiments, and they will never happen.  With the billions of humans that ever existed, not ONE case of resurrection has been proven.

 

A body can come back to life if it suffered an APPARENT death.  In a REAL death, irreversible processes happen.  It's like turning off you computer and its volatile memory gets erased, never to come back again.  Maybe one day a new body can be cloned from a dead one, but it will form different memories, i.e., will be a different person. 

[Steve5380]

Wanted to save my breath one. But for someone like him to call other people closed and arrogant when he hasn't given anyone any reason to believe is just very ridiculous and offensive!

 

It's like me saying:

 

There could be blue cheese deep within the moon what, how you know don't have? Got evidence not? No? Aha~! You are closed minded and arrogant!

 

My great grandfather is the forgotten king of Singapore. He wasn't mentioned in the singapore history books in school these days because of government plotting against us and they want to kill us all. But Santa Claus appeared in my dreams last night and told me that my family will rule over Singapore and even the whole world in maybe.. 10 years time. Definitely within next 50 years.

 

What? You don't believe me?? Got evidence to prove that what I'm saying is not true not? No? Aha~!! You are closed minded and arrogant for not believing me!

 

Gray,  thank you for the chuckle!  BTW,  when your family rules again in Singapore, hopefully sooner than in 10 years, pleas tell them to do away with 377A.  Ah, and also do away with those abominable charismatic churches and their homophobic pastors.

[Steve5380]

Steve, u people can save your breathe. They will use all sorts of bad logic and poor reasoning to argue until they win. If reasonable people argue with people who abandons reasoning, can u win?

 

Don't believe u wait and see what sort of amazingly unbelievable and ridiculous things they can come out with to counter your argument. 

 

They've been saying somebody who had died and resurrected and flown to sky will descend to earth for a second time. For one century already, that did not materialise

 

Thank you, Guest.  I have plenty of energy to type.  The best discussions are those where one is not interested in winning, but in clarifying one's own thinking.  I argue for my own benefit, to get my ideas straight and occasionally to discover new ones.  

[Steve5380]

Oh no no, this isnt adopting religion out of convenience. I am a believer because I choose to believe in the Truth and to me this is the Truth. The fact that God will save me from hell comes as part of accepting the Truth, and isn't the 'be all and end all' like you believe.

 

All right,  I withdraw any assumption of a belief for convenience.  You follow your Truth.  This is not so different from what an atheist or agnostic does.  To follow our conscience, with an inclination towards righteousness.  The only difference is the belief in a God, His adoration, worship.   Given our insignificance in comparison to this God who is and has everything, would he mind? Would he get mad at atheists and agnostics and send us to eternal hell?

[Gray]

Anyway, I apologise if I might sound a bit too passionate or my tone is a little heavy. Please don't take offense at my enthusiastic replies.

 

The atheist side rejects the premise of a creator because there's no absolute proof.  The creationist/God camp rejects the premise of the world and universe beginning on their own accord without supernatural input because there's no absolute proof.  Do you see how both camps share something in common?  In between both camps, there are overlaps and common ground and when I delve into these, I look as if I'm supporting the atheist side.  While I reject atheism, I cannot in all fairness, outrightly reject some of their arguments (eg, no one has seen God.)  However, just like how science has not given you 100% proof but you prefer it, likewise, spiritual/supernatural belief cannot give me 100% proof but I'm leaning on it based on faith.  The atheist sees faith as something flimsy while the God camp sees the total rejection of a creator as closed minded and a sin.  We are both on the same scale but on opposite ends.  What's in between the two sides are the overlaps.  It is these overlaps which are contentious because each camp interprets them according to their respective biases.  Is such an explanation not considered "reasonable intellect"?  I do see the irony when I'm trying to broach the current subject using some of these overlaps and common ground.  I don't  think I'm shooting my foot though, and while it wasn't exactly olive branch behaviour, it isn't arrogant either if I may say so.  If it's construed as such for whatever reason, then I apologise unreservedly.

 

Your logic fails because its not the onus of the atheist camp to prove that there is a god. Take for example: I can claim wholeheartedly and say that Santa Claus exists. Without any evidence given to support my claims. You think that he doesn't. There is no absolute proof either way. So by default, since there is no proof for Santa Claus whatsoever, does Santa claus exist? Nope. Ditto God.

 

You say that believing in god takes a great leap of faith since there is no proof for it whatsoever since there is insufficient evidence to make it even a plausible theory. So what makes the creationist theory that much different than the blue cheese moon theory, or the Santa claus theory? You realise that they all share a single defining point of implausible theories: No supporting evidence behind it whatsoever. So you see, linking god with blue cheese moon isn't really that absurd.

 

Let me reiterate it again: We are not closed to the idea that there is a God. But show us concrete proof, just one proof, that it can even be classified as a plausible theory. Otherwise, it is no different from my Grandfather is King of Singapore theory.

 

 

  You'll have to ask the astronauts who landed on the moon for the answer.  My guess is that they'll tell you it isn't blue cheese.  Gold has never ever been reproduced by man from any substance.  It's obvious because the probability is nil based on hard evidence.  However, if they did turn into those things, then they'll be deemed miracles and get shifted into the spiritual realm.  Should it be clear that science was responsible for such phenomena, then it becomes technology.  I have nothing against science and technology.  Do people have something against miracles?  I suppose they do, since miracles compare poorly to that which can be measured and studied.  And if I want to use the medium of "measured and studied", I should avoid belief, right?  Well, what I try to do instead is to see where science can corroborate faith which is the belief in things unseen. 

 

 

Ok good. Then let me ask you something. Say you lived 500 years ago, in an age where astronauts had not landed on the moon yet. Could you say for certain then that the moon is not made of blue cheese? Did scientific research that led to humans going to the moon and educate all of us on the moon tell u this? Or did your bible tell you this? If you are so ready to rely on scientific facts and evidence when it comes to the moon, why do you reject it when it contradicts your religious teachings? Which is more likely to be wrong, Science or Bible? Why do you take all the technology we have today thanks to human research and applications of scientific principles for granted as common sense, then throw that common sense away and suspect science of being faulty when it comes to evolution and other things that contradict your bible?

 

Religion encourages ignorance. Science sheds light on the nonsense that the bible perpetuates! Only simple minds immediately attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural and the divine. If everyone thought like this, do you think that we would know that the moon is not made out of blue cheese today? If things did get turn into gold (highly unlikely), there would be thousands of scientists researching the phenomena and working to reproduce the process, not purely deem it to be a miracle and that's it. Many "miracles" of the past has been debunked by human research and knowledge over the years.

 

Let me ask you this: IF it can be explained and reproduced by humans, were these "miracles" ever miracles to begin with? And if they are NOT miracles, should we say for certain that any "miraculous" phenomena that happens today cannot be explained in the future and debunked as a "miracle"? And IF miracles can be debunked and there is even a reason to doubt whether they are true miracles or not, then is it responsible for us to simply turn off our brains and link it to the supernatural when it was never such a case? Do miracles even exist?? Or are they simply stupid people not bothering to even know how and why something happened and leave it to the scientists to find out for them, only to take their education for granted and doubt science again when they encounter something else they can't explain. Let me put it to you that you have nothing against science and technology only when you can use it without thinking about where it came from and when it doesn't contradict what you believe in. Because if science was really that untrustworthy, 1) please distrust facts about the moon 2) Please don't go to the doctor when you're sick (Medicine came from science/evolution theory) 3) Please stop using all your computer, mobile phones, tablets, etc cos all these came from science and who knows if these things will work properly cos humans are wrong right? Only God is right, so please only use a computer created by god.

 

 

 

A healthy sceptism that science and the theories derived from it with regards to the beginnings of the universe and life are the be all and end all.  Resonable intellect to question if they are so.  No compromise refers to the total rejection of anything faith based. 

 

 

Yup I get it, healthy scepticism only applies when scientific facts contradicts my belief. That's why healthy scepticism conveniently disappears when it comes to common sense things about the moon. Ok I get it.

Don't you see that you just did all of the "no healthy level of scepticism, and total rejection of anything faith based" when you rejected my theory on the blue cheese moon?

 

Believing in God with no scientific facts ---> A great leap of faith

Believing in Blue cheese moon with no scientific facts ---> A great leap of faith

 

Believing in God with faith ---> Being open minded, healthy level of scepticism, reasonable intellect, being compromising

Believing in Blue cheese moon with faith ---> Just being Silly. Go google scientific facts please.

 

You see the irony and the double standards being applied here?

 

 

I understand that the same can be said of faith and God.  Hence, being on the "opposite sides on the same scale"
I see 'evidence', most of it anecdotal.  This may not be acceptable, hence, the inverted commas.  Do google the few youtubes pertaining to the "evidence of God".  Some of the videos are too long and trying but the shorter ones are also good.  Those speakers are far more eloquent than me and hopefully can convey the same message but in a far better way.

 

 

 

I have come across some attempts to prove god before but the evidence against god's existence is far more extensive than the ones for god's existence. And they usually make a lot more sense too. Let me ask you this: Say there is really a divine being in this universe. What makes you so certain that it is the christian god and not the dozens of other gods that you are atheist to? Because there is a lot of proof to show that the christian god does not exist, so you don't wanna be making the mistake of choosing the wrong god.

 

Let me just list out two:

 

1) Try praying

 

In Matthew 21:21:

• I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

 

Mark 11:24:

• Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

You just have to ask yourself if prayer has a 100% chance of success. If no, then the bible has lied to you. If the bible has lied to you, the christian god is false.

 

Even theologians and religious leaders state that prayer has no actual effect. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11lawrence.html?ex=1302408000&en=643ff6eac0f51086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

 

2) God ignores millions of people dying

 

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

• Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Let's say you are a child in famine ridden, war torn, Africa/Middle East. You pray to God for food. Does god give you food? Why do millions of people die of starvation each year while the relatively well off people like us have the luxury to type on our computers here and believe in god? Does god even exist for these people? Is god's plan to create millions of people each year only to doom them to a hell on earth and die a miserable death? If god is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. god knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, god knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Gray

[Guest Guest]

Thank you, Guest.  I have plenty of energy to type.  The best discussions are those where one is not interested in winning, but in clarifying one's own thinking.  I argue for my own benefit, to get my ideas straight and occasionally to discover new ones.  

What for fight a losing battle. Use the extra energy and to figure out and discover where are the cuties and how to seduce good looking tapors. What for argue with people till face turn green. 

[sliceboy]

According to you, all religions lead to the same God.

 

According to the Gospel of John 14:6, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

 

You have contradicted Jesus. And you say that you are a follower of Jesus.

 

In your first post, you said,

"4.  Atheism, environmentalism, political correctness, darwinism, LBGT along with a whole host of other "isms" and groups have in themselves become religions in various states/levels of organisation complete with beliefs, dogma, idols, leaders, literature...etc.  If you think you're a free thinker or without a religion, better think twice."

 

All "isms" have become religions.

All religions lead to the same God.

Therefore, all "isms" lead to the same God.

 

So, why must free thinkers and those without a religion think twice?

 

Who should I believe is right? You or Jesus?

 

Are you sure or not? You sabo other people, you also go to hell.

 

 

How do you know that all religions lead to the same God? Why do you choose only Christianity? Why don't you choose one or more of the other religions? Are you doing your own interpretation? Isn't Jesus the only way to God?

-  I'm sharing my beliefs.  I've always maintained that it's based on faith.  Ditto my choices.

[sliceboy]

Motorbikes, neon lights, computers, and now, the invention of this helmet proves that Disney sci-fi Tron is the true religion!

 

Swedes Develop Invisible Bike Helmet

[Guest Christ consciousness]

According to you, all religions lead to the same God.

According to the Gospel of John 14:6, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

You have contradicted Jesus. And you say that you are a follower of Jesus.

As a Christian, it blew my mind when I came across an interpretation of 'I AM'. It started to join the dots and everything starts to make sense. All religions teach (point to) the same thing in different ways.

Let me try to explain what I can grasp...

When Jesus said "I Am" in the bible, he wasnt really referring to himself alone. He refers to the 'I AM ' in everyone of us.

'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' everyone of us according to the Christian bible is made of the image of God - divinity presents within us. We don't look for God externally in religions, but within ourselves. You might see it as the 'creative' (of a creator), or some might say the intuitive, part of us. This is called the Christ consciousness.

------

"I believe that you are an individuation of Divinity. That is, you and God are the same stuff, with the only difference being one of degree. In other words, it is the same as the difference between a drop of water and the ocean. The ocean is larger, but the drop of water is the same essence --- not different from the ocean itself, except as to size." https://www.facebook.com/NealeDonaldWalsch/posts/10151723179222344

"Christ Consciousness is the direct line to the Divine, the Holy Spirit. Whether it be God, Jesus Christ, Buddha, and many more Masters that have walked this Earth, they all have the same thing in common, they wished for, studied, and walked in Peace. They accepted, demonstrated and became enlightenment on their journeys. And, regardless of whether you want it or not, we all have the energy of Christ within us. Jesus taught this as he walked the Earth. "These things that I do, you can do also." His message was LOVE. Love yourself. Love another. Walk in love and do not fear. Live in a loving way. When you achieve this, then you are your own Master, you have achieved enlightenment, you have a direct line to the Glory of ONENESS. This ONENESS is the highest vibrational energy available to you! Why would you not want this in your life?"

http://connectwithspirit.com.au/news/christ-consciousness/

"The “Christ” itself refers to the Light that we are – the Self, the Atman, the Buddha nature, the Child of God, pearl of great price, treasure buried in a field, measure of meal that leavened the whole loaf, or mustard seed that grew into a great tree.

The “Christ” is the “particle” of the Formless that is placed in the womb of Shakti, the Holy Spirit, who is the Divine Mother, mater, matter. (Note the Trinity here of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Brahman, Atman, and Shakti – or, for that matter, Osiris, Isis and Horus.)"

http://goldenageofgaia.com/spiritual-essays/cross-cultural-spirituality/what-is-christ-consciousness/

Jesus as "Pattern" of Wholeness

http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/spiritualGrowth.aspx?id=3253

[Guest fook chong]

Don't waste time on these endless debates that have no answers. All based on faith. There are many important things to do, to achieve in our lives. Channel energy to those instead of these debates. You will not have a real answer to these afterlife supernatural stuff unless you die and experience personally. Very often our mind our brains do a lot of imagination and select what to believe or dwell in. Live for the present, be present, attend to our needs and wants in life here. If there really are spirits up there, if u live life as a good man, conscience clear, I am sure u will be in their good books, if they exist.

[Steve5380]

Let's say you are a child in famine ridden, war torn, Africa/Middle East. You pray to God for food. Does god give you food? Why do millions of people die of starvation each year while the relatively well off people like us have the luxury to type on our computers here and believe in god? Does god even exist for these people? Is god's plan to create millions of people each year only to doom them to a hell on earth and die a miserable death? If god is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. god knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, god knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.

 

Gray,  you make it quite hard for anybody to be a believer.  Good work!

[sliceboy]

It isn't a waste of time. As you know, gays who want to believe in Christianity too literally may have problems and lead unfulfilled lives. I think we should share more perspectives, including secular thinking.

 

Don't waste time on these endless debates that have no answers. All based on faith. There are many important things to do, to achieve in our lives. Channel energy to those instead of these debates. You will not have a real answer to these afterlife supernatural stuff unless you die and experience personally. Very often our mind our brains do a lot of imagination and select what to believe or dwell in. Live for the present, be present, attend to our needs and wants in life here. If there really are spirits up there, if u live life as a good man, conscience clear, I am sure u will be in their good books, if they exist.

[Guest Passingthru]

Your logic fails because its not the onus of the atheist camp to prove that there is a god.

-  Can I say, instead, that the onus is on the atheist camp to disprove absolutely that there is no God?  If it can't be done with absolute certainty, then by default, there is a possibility of a God/Creator.

 

You realise that they all share a single defining point of implausible theories: No supporting evidence behind it whatsoever.

-  The theory of a Creator is plausible based on anecdotal evidence. The chances of how the universe and nature work with such complexity being a spontaneous occurrence without any "engineer", IMO, is almost nil.  To me, that, is the implausible theory.

 

Let me reiterate it again: We are not closed to the idea that there is a God. But show us concrete proof, just one proof,.......

-  If I had concrete proof, I wouldn't require faith.  Science, discoveries, anecdotal evidence...etc can only corroborate my belief but at the end of the day, these will remain "unconvincing" simply because they can never be the "concrete" you are loking for.

 

Ok good. Then let me ask you something. Say you lived 500 years ago, in an age where astronauts had not landed on the moon yet. Could you say for certain then that the moon is not made of blue cheese? Did scientific research that led to humans going to the moon and educate all of us on the moon tell u this? Or did your bible tell you this? If you are so ready to rely on scientific facts and evidence when it comes to the moon, why do you reject it when it contradicts your religious teachings? Which is more likely to be wrong, Science or Bible? Why do you take all the technology we have today thanks to human research and applications of scientific principles for granted as common sense, then throw that common sense away and suspect science of being faulty when it comes to evolution and other things that contradict your bible?

-  How is the Big Bang or other simillar spontaneity considered common sense?  Wouldn't they be closer to magic and if so, therefore not scientific?

 

Religion encourages ignorance. Science sheds light on the nonsense that the bible perpetuates! Only simple minds immediately attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural and the divine. If everyone thought like this, do you think that we would know that the moon is not made out of blue cheese today? If things did get turn into gold (highly unlikely), there would be thousands of scientists researching the phenomena and working to reproduce the process, not purely deem it to be a miracle and that's it. Many "miracles" of the past has been debunked by human research and knowledge over the years.

- Religion as in dogma and ritual encourage ignorance.  On the contrary, a search for one's Creator and having a relationship (ie, the "journey") with Him, IMO, is the beginning of wisdom.  This wisdom encourages investigation and study, not a closed mind. Ironically, the Big Bang was proposed by someone "religious":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre 

 

Let me ask you this: IF it can be explained and reproduced by humans, were these "miracles" ever miracles to begin with? And if they are NOT miracles, should we say for certain that any "miraculous" phenomena that happens today cannot be explained in the future and debunked as a "miracle"? And IF miracles can be debunked and there is even a reason to doubt whether they are true miracles or not, then is it responsible for us to simply turn off our brains and link it to the supernatural when it was never such a case? Do miracles even exist?? Or are they simply stupid people not bothering to even know how and why something happened and leave it to the scientists to find out for them, only to take their education for granted and doubt science again when they encounter something else they can't explain. Let me put it to you that you have nothing against science and technology only when you can use it without thinking about where it came from and when it doesn't contradict what you believe in. Because if science was really that untrustworthy, 1) please distrust facts about the moon 2) Please don't go to the doctor when you're sick (Medicine came from science/evolution theory) 3) Please stop using all your computer, mobile phones, tablets, etc cos all these came from science and who knows if these things will work properly cos humans are wrong right? Only God is right, so please only use a computer created by god.

-  Science is not untrustworthy.  It is ongoing.  However, it is not absolute.  I see no contradiction between science and God.  In fact, I'm of the opinion that science plays catch up to God.  I may be mistaken but I suspect a lot of the angst against people like me is due to the fact that we are seen as intrusive into domains we supposedly don't belong to (due to our core beliefs) and that we should not even be seeking any overlaps or common grounds with other camps.  If so, is this not dogmatic/religious behaviour?

 

Yup I get it, healthy scepticism only applies when scientific facts contradicts my belief. That's why healthy scepticism conveniently disappears when it comes to common sense things about the moon. Ok I get it.

Don't you see that you just did all of the "no healthy level of scepticism, and total rejection of anything faith based" when you rejected my theory on the blue cheese moon?

 

Believing in God with no scientific facts ---> A great leap of faith

Believing in Blue cheese moon with no scientific facts ---> A great leap of faith

 

Believing in God with faith ---> Being open minded, healthy level of scepticism, reasonable intellect, being compromising

Believing in Blue cheese moon with faith ---> Just being Silly. Go google scientific facts please.

 

You see the irony and the double standards being applied here?

-  The major difference here is that unlike God, the moon is seen and has been traversed upon.  Faith only applies to things unseen/unknown.

 

Say there is really a divine being in this universe. What makes you so certain that it is the christian god and not the dozens of other gods that you are atheist to? Because there is a lot of proof to show that the christian god does not exist, so you don't wanna be making the mistake of choosing the wrong god.

-  My certainty comes from faith.  I'm a believer and follower of Christ and He is everyones God whether recognised as such or otherwise.

 

Even theologians and religious leaders state that prayer has no actual effect. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11lawrence.html?ex=1302408000&en=643ff6eac0f51086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

-  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candy-gunther-brown-phd/testing-prayer-science-of-healing_b_1299915.html  tries to measure prayer empirically to mixed results.  Meanwhile, I don't know if such reports like http://nstarzone.com/faithhealing.html  can be corroborated.

 

God ignores millions of people dying

-  The lack of divine intervention does not disprove His existence.  If I knew the whys and hows, I'd already be Divine.

 

My faith and personal experiences may not be shared by everyone and indeed they shouldn't be adopted without "counting the cost" as Christ warned.  It is, as I've always maintained, my personal "journey" which from time to time (such as in this thread) I express.  It is not an effort to disprove the atheist, condemn the agnostic or prove with absolute certainty the Divine.  What everyone has in common is that all will be revealed at death's door.  Until then, the "journey" continues.

 

[Guest Passingthru]

.....continued.....

Meanwhile, I don't know if such reports like http://nstarzone.com/faithhealing.html  can be corroborated.

 

God ignores millions of people dying

-  The lack of divine intervention does not disprove His existence.  If I knew the whys and hows, I'd already be Divine.

 

My faith and personal experiences may not be shared by everyone and indeed they shouldn't be adopted without "counting the cost" as Christ warned.  It is, as I've always maintained, my personal "journey" which from time to time (such as in this thread) I express.  It is not an effort to disprove the atheist, condemn the agnostic or prove with absolute certainty the Divine.  What everyone has in common is that all will be revealed at death's door.  Until then, the "journey" continues.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you, Guest. I have plenty of energy to type. The best discussions are those where one is not interested in winning, but in clarifying one's own thinking. I argue for my own benefit, to get my ideas straight and occasionally to discover new ones.

Yes I agree! Me too enjoy this kind of discussion, sort of a philosophical debate that we don't normally get else where..stimulates me intellectually.

Not so much to prove one is right or wrong. Just like my ideas to be challenged.

It humbles me when I realize there is so much more out there that I am not aware of..

It keeps me open minded to accept new ideas and see myself grow and expand as my perceptions on things change over time.