Atheists Want You to Have a Personal Relationship with “Reality”

Atheists are always trying to be clever but rarely are. Their new advertising campaign carries this line:

“Atheism: A Personal Relationship with Reality.”

What’s real in a materialistic, evolutionary, and amoral worldview? These atheists are begging the question. That is, they are assuming what they first must prove. They are assuming there is no God, that God is not real. Their idea of reality is godless. Knowing this, let’s force them to live consistently with it.

They are also assuming that there is a “personal” side to reality. The world’s most powerful computer is not a person. An atom is not a person. Two atoms do not make a person. A group of atoms is not a person. So how do trillions of atoms make a person? What is it about all these additional atoms that makes matter a person?

Some will say that it’s the human’s ability to reason that makes something (that’s what you are if you are an atheist) a person. How do atheists account for reason? All that a scientist can measure is electrical activity and the stimulation of parts of the brain. Where is the mind in all that matter? A pathologist can put a dead person’s brain in a pan, but no doctor has ever done the same with the mind. If the brain is the mind, then there is no guarantee that it’s actually thinking anymore than electricity going through the mother board on a computer is thinking. It’s simply processing 1s and 0s. That processing ability was put there by someone with a mind. Where is it?

How does an atheist account for the personhood of humans in a purely materialistic cosmos?

Debbie Allen, coordinator for the San Diego Coalition of Reason, said the following in a statement about the new campaign:

“We want to express how using intelligence to free oneself of the god idea can open the curtain to an inspiring new outlook. Atheism is positive and offers grounding in the real world.”

How do atheists account for intelligence given materialistic assumptions about the origin of what they call “reality”? Show me intelligence. Show me the mind. Show me the qualifications of intelligence based on a fixed materialistic standard. Remember, atheists are materialists. There is nothing above or beyond matter. Intelligence requires a mind. Electricity is not the mind.

There’s the larger problem of sorting out what’s positive and negative in this thing called reality. A thief, a designation that assumes morality, believes that not working for a living and stealing for a living are positives.

Adolf Hitler believed he was doing positive things for the German people and the German nation. Where in the material cosmos are there commands that say, “Thou shall not steal? . . .  Thou shall not murder”? I’ve never seen any. Are they imprinted on our DNA? Can we see them?  And even if they were, who says anybody has to obey them?”

If we go back many millennia and followed the claims of evolutionary theorists through the incremental ticks of time, we would see the strong taking advantage of the weak. Was this positive or negative? Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What we are today, what the atheist calls “reality,” got here by the strong killing then eating the weak. There were no moral judgments then, so why are there moral judgments now? By what standard? By what ultimate judge?

All atheists can say is “that’s reality.” Stuff happens. Embrace it with gusto! There are no fixed standards of judgment to say whether any action is good reality or bad reality. It just is.

Atheists can’t see in the future. Maybe Hitler was ahead of his time. He could have been what evolutionists call a “hopeful monster,” a surviving radical mutation that moves the evolutionary ladder up several rungs instead of painfully incremental steps. Who’s to say that what he did was bad? All an atheist can say is the end result is “reality.” It existed. It happened in a certain time and place. It was real. We have pictures and eye-witness accounts of what we call atrocities, but for the atheist, it was reality. Have a relationship with it.

There are Jews who survived the holocaust, the killing fields, and the Gulag. It was very real to them. So let’s take the new atheist campaign and substitute the word reality with real reality:

  • “Atheism: A Personal Relationship with the Holocaust.”
  • “Atheism: A Personal Relationship with the Killing Fields.”
  • “Atheism: A Personal Relationship with Slavery.”
  • “Atheism: A Personal Relationship with Rape.”

These were all reality to those who experienced them.

Comments

comments

  • martha chandler

    Great article. This country has turned it's back on God and we have lost his protection.

    • Screeminmeeme

      martha chandler.....Exactly...and until we return to Him corporately, as a Nation, we will remain captive to the evils of crime, drugs and violence.

      • Amy Lambert

        When the nation was founded -- a god fearing nation -- it condoned slavery. Slavery is widely considered to be evil today--just as evil as crime, drugs and violence. Now I love this country, and I would even entertain the argument that had the nation not been founded on slavery it could not have been founded at all--and thus slavery would have existed even longer than it did here--but I would also consider that it is the rules themselves brought down to us by religious men--the Judeo-Christian culture--that has protected us, when we obeyed these rules. We have no proof that it is in fact a god that protects us, as opposed to following logical, well thought out rules of morality and law that protected us.
        Again, I am no atheist, but I do try to think logically.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Amy Lambert...

          1. America was not FOUNDED on slavery. That some Americans owned slaves is true but the Constitution provided a way for abolitionists...mostly Christians.... to fight to have it outlawed.

          2. American jurisprudence was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic...on the ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH taught in Scripture and indeed, as the Bible teaches, when men....even unbelieving men....obey God's laws, there is greater peace and blessing in the land.

          Atheism acts on a naturalistic world-view which says that all that exists in the universe is physical, material matter. There is no soul... we are just a complex collection of neurons. There is no Creator.... there is evolution....millions of mindless molecules in motion... which says that experiences like pain, pleasure, beauty, and a sense of self do not really exist, but are merely physiological reactions and that there is no purpose to man's existence.

          Most would agree that to have any kind of peaceful co-existence as beings, we must be able to distinguish between right and wrong...good and bad... and we need some standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

          The atheistic world-view provides a cultural relativism that is arbitrary, variable and determined by vote....just conventions and opinions.

          Where does that leave atheists? Since on their relativistic world-view all systems have parity, they have no OBJECTIVE standard by which to judge the likes of Hitler or Manson. He cannot even rightly criticize his neighbor's lifestyle as ''depraved'' because the definition of depravity differs from person to person. He has no standard by which to judge what is or is not ''depraved''.

          3. Our Judeo-Christian foundation was not a bunch of ''logical, well-thought out rules'' made by men. Oh no. They are the ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE TRUTH that can come from God alone and whether or not you believe in Him is irrelevant........... His TRUTH is ETERNAL and undeterred by human whim.

          He blesses those who obey His Word....which is why America was blessed when its Founders...imperfect as men as they were....set about to build a Nation based on the recognition of a Creator God and HIs Holy tenets.

          And God is judging our Nation today because we have chosen to turn our backs on Him and go about our own way, convinced that we can do better.

        • Amy Lambert

          Yes, "American jurisprudence was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic" ...whether that is " the ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH" as taught in Scripture there can be no proof. I agree that when men....even unbelieving men....obey these laws, there is greater peace and blessing in the land." I am not convinced, however, that they are god's laws, as opposed to man's laws said to be in the name of god. Either way, though, they work very well.

          America was founded allowing slavery to exist at the time. As I have said, there was no other way, and i believe it was something that had to be done if there was to be an America, and I also believe that failing to found America, even with the stain of slavery, would have been terrible, and it would not have stopped slavery.

          As for atheism "which says that experiences like pain, pleasure, beauty, and a sense of self do not really exist, but are merely physiological reactions and that there is no purpose to man's existence" I don't know much about atheism other than that it denies the existence of God. I can see denying that there is absolute proof that there is a god, but I do not see how that has to mean that there is no such thing as pain, pleasure, beauty and a sense of self." Some atheists may believe that, but I do not think it necessarily follows from the notion that there is no absolute proof of god. In other words, the belief in a supreme being is not necessary, to my way of thinking, for people to experience these things. ( As it happens, I believe there is a god, even though there may be no absolute proof. I am just speaking logically here.)
          And as for the belief in god, do all religions which are founded on a belief in god agree upon the purpose of man's existence? What is that, by the way?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Amy Lambert....

          1. '' American jurisprudence was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic
          ...whether that is " the ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH" as taught in
          Scripture there can be no proof. I agree that when men....even
          unbelieving men....obey these laws, there is greater peace and blessing
          in the land." I am not convinced, however, that they are god's laws, as
          opposed to man's laws said to be in the name of god. Either way,
          though, they work very well.''

          You can prove what our Founders based our system of government on. All you have to do is read the Federalist Papers, their personal letters, journals and official documents they wrote. Oh...and yes....read the Declaration of Independence.

          2. Your comments about slavery are incoherent.

          3. My statement about pain, pleasure, beauty and a sense of self being physiological reactions was based on evolutionary teaching denying the existence of a ''soul/spirit''. The naturalist view is that everything that happens is a result of some physiological/biological/chemical reaction. In other words, our PERCEPTION of the world is nothing but a result of these phenomena occurring in the brain. Apart from God, man is left with nothing but desperate theories. Apart from God, man is without purpose or plan and is nothing more than so many mindless molecules in motion winding down to nothing.

          4. You asked about other religions. Let me make it easy for you. There are only two: That which acknowledges the Creator God...and all others which are empowered by the Devil, himself. He drives them throughout the earth in order to deceive people.

          5. I have no illusions about convincing you of anything. You have referred to how logical you are a number of times but I think you are deceiving yourself.

          BTW: The existence of ''logic'' is a God-given operation of the mind and is a strong point of evidence for His existence.

          You have asked a number of questions. If you are genuinely looking for answers, invest some time into reading the Bible yourself (which is a library of 66 books) and start with the Gospel of John. The Bible will answer most, if not all, of your questions.

          If the God of the Bible exists, then He does not play favorites and is quite willing and able to communicate to you the answers that you are looking for. And He will do it thru His Word, the Holy Scriptures, when you sincerely ask Him for truth.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

          You have an extraordinary order to your mind. Well put on every point. I think the point to which Amy was alluding concerning slavery was that, had the Founders attempted to prohibit slavery in the new nation, the South would not have joined the effort against the King and the new nation would not have been established. In that aspect of our founding she has a clear understanding of the tightwire the founders walked between conscience and pragmatism. The 3/5 designation for slaves was not to demean the humanity of blacks living as slaves in the south but was to dampen the influence of southern representation in the Legislature. They could count only 3 of every 5 slaves when determining the number of representatives they could elect to represent the southern states, thus making it less likely for the south to oppose abolitionist legislation.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Chris....Thanks for your kind comments. And thanks much for clarifying the points that Amy was making about slavery which went right over my head.

          Meeme >>>Duh. :)

        • Amy Lambert

          They went right over your head because I didn't clarify my thoughts nearly as well as Chrisopher did. His help is greatly appreciated, and next time I venture into this thicket I shall take his paragraph with me.

        • Amy Lambert

          Ah, thank you! It is always a pleasure to be well-understood. . .and even more so to be better-elucidated.

        • James White, M.D.

          Thanks for your wisdom and clarity on every point, my friend. I "revisited" late, and was happy to see you had things under control. Jim.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Thank you but I learned long ago that most things are beyond my control, including my bowel habits. ;)

          I thought your post above was particularly cogent and clear...and beyond the comprehension of the unbeliever, as some of the posts reveal. The god of this world has indeed blinded the minds of many. I pray God removes those blinders so that they can be reached...before it's too late. I pray that at least some of these posts on GP will have some part in revealing the truth to the lost.

        • John Dunmar

          "Thank you but I learned long ago that most things are beyond my control, including my bowel habits. ;)"

          TMI.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          "Apart from God, man is without purpose or plan and is nothing more than so many mindless molecules in motion winding down to nothing." Even you must believe in free will MeeMe, and it's free will that gives us the ability to decide our own purpose in the world. To have your purpose dictated is to be a slave.

        • Amy Lambert

          Will you share with us your purpose?

        • Uptite

          I agree with you wholeheartedly, Faith is Omnipotent...your reply was spot-on! IMHO..,Thanks!

        • Amy Lambert

          If faith were omnipotent would we all not have it?

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: "Your comments about slavery are incoherent." Why?

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "American jurisprudence was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic...on
          the ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH taught in Scripture and indeed, as the
          Bible teaches, when men....even unbelieving

          You say that reading the Federalist papers proves that American jurisprudence was founded on the Judeo Christian ethic--fine--AND that this is the "absolute objective truth taught in scripture" and I say that neither the federalist papers nor any other writing we have proves that the scriptures are absolute objective truth.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          'He has no standard by which to judge what is or is not ''depraved''.'

          MeeMe always neglects empathy in these anti-atheist rants. Apparently atheists aren't even humans, either that or MeeMe lacks empathy and can't comprehend knowing not to murder people without being told to by an ancient book.

        • Amy Lambert

          While I agree with you in general, I find the issue of morality very intriguing. What makes right and wrong? We are so infused from infancy with notions of "right" and "wrong" that do, indeed, come from the Bible and which are reflected in our culture and our laws that we often imagine we could tell right from wrong intuitively. I submit that is an open question, and that the men or gods or god who wrote the bible (depends on your viewpoint, obviously, given this discussion topic) realized that the morality they wished to have accepted must come from a very high authority, indeed, to be able to prevail over the existing morality or immoral state of being which preceded the bible--and which preceded other earlier moral codes as well.

        • Melia Sese

          Meemee - are you saying that people do not have the right to choose to not believe as you do? This sounds rather restrictive and closed-minded. I have yet to meet anyone who can claim omniscience, but plenty who claim to have some "divine" reason to tell others what to do and how to live. Time was, they could enforce it, but they cannot any more - at least in the US. I have one basic "objective standard", and that is man's life and right to exist. Care to refute it?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia....What is apparent is your consistent defense of your ''right'' to be. There is NO ONE HERE that I've read that challenges that right. I think you're being a little paranoid.

          You are tilting at windmills here. God himself has given you total freedom to live however you choose and I have not told you or anyone else what to do or how to live. I have been carrying on a conversation here about God, Christianity, the Bible, etc and answered questions to my best ability.

          It's your choice to accept or reject the Bible as truth. You are free to believe anything you want.

          The only standard for man is God's Word. Apart from that objective standard man is left to arbitrarily, subjectively, and by consensus, develop his own moral code....and that is significantly inadequate and leaves him no room to judge that genocidal maniac you mentioned.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          "The only standard for man is God's Word." The problem is that you consider yourself and other Christians (who agree with you) to be the arbiters of what is and isn't God's Word. The problem is that you extend a statement which is only true for yourself "The only standard for Screeminmeeme is God's Word." to apply to others. It isn't true.

        • Melia Sese

          Yes, your interpretation of God's Word. Have you ever considered there might be another? As for my right to exist, yes I do take that seriously. It is why I support the Second Amendment. Due to that, I had better exercise some "judgment" or I might cease to exist.

        • Amy Lambert

          "The only standard for man is God's Word"
          Which god? In which country and culture? In which timeframe?

        • Amy Lambert

          Well, we do have a legal system in the US, and that system, as much as anything else, tells others what NOT to do. . .or else. And that legal system derives in very large part from the old testament.

        • Melia Sese

          And if you examine how slavery was overturned - by those who came to understand that people are not property (regardless of what race they belong to) - we see that it was a rejection of various religious beliefs that were widely held. These beliefs included the notion that certain people were "savages" and thus not entitled to the same rights as others. And they didn't just stop in the 1800s either. The Afrikaners (and their Dutch Reformed Church) continued to see Black Africans as subhuman throughout most of the 1900s and some still do today.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "The Afrikaners (and their Dutch Reformed Church) continued to see Black
          Africans as subhuman throughout most of the 1900s and some still do
          today" as part of their religion? written in their scriptures?

        • Melia Sese

          This is an interesting sub-theme. I would refer you to Afrikaner Calvinism to better understand the philosophical underpinnings of what later came to be called Apartheid. They believed themselves preserved by God's own wisdom and Providence. The things they suffered, and the strong bonds between them that were formed through it all, seemed to confirm this idea at every turn. Their history as a people has a central place in forming the Boer religion. In this way, a distinctive folk character became attached to their Calvinistic beliefs.

          This folk religion was not articulated in a formal way. It was the experience of the Afrikaners, which they interpreted through their assurance that their absolutely sovereign Creator and Lord had shown special grace to them as a particular people. In 1806, the British Navy invaded the Cape of Good Hope on its own, and appointed British land administrators there, who were zealous propagators of the Enlightenment. They loosened the trade and labor regulations, speaking of the blacks as 'noble savages' whose untainted natural souls they professed to admire. The British Government outlawed slavery in the British Empire in 1835. They called the blacks equals, and gave them access to the courts in suit against white landowners. And, they professed to believe in their own autonomous Reason above all else.

          A more antithetical message could hardly be imagined, as the English Enlightenment found itself with the Afrikaners for the first time. From the Boer point of view, the Enlightenment invaded their shores, seized their properties, annexed their farms, imposed alien laws, liberated their slaves without compensation, justified these actions by appeal to Reason alone, and claimed in all of this to be more virtuous than their God. They were exposed to the Enlightenment, and it appeared to them to be a revolution against their God and way of life.

          So I would not say the Afrikaners had their "own scripture" but came to interpret biblical text in such a way that fit with their own sensibilities. For at least three centuries prior to the Boer War, the Afrikaners had dealt with the Bantu and came to see them as savages who were bent on exterminating them. From the Bantu point of view, it was easy to form a similar view of Dutch settlers who were also from an alien race in their minds.

          The struggle then became a battle between Whites of Dutch ancestry and the British who won the Boer War and attempted to impose a society on the Boers where Blacks would have rights (if not entirely equal). Apartheid was the conception of Hendrik Verwoerd who later became Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa - the government founded by the successors to the Boers.
          Apartheid became unworkable by the 1970s and mainstream Afrikaners such as Vorster, Botha and finally DeKlerk began to dismantle it and eventually moved South Africa to majority rule. Some were deeply opposed to this (see Eugene Terre-Blanche) and clung to their Calvinist roots and the heritage of the Great Trek (a time in the 1830s when the Dutch Settlers migrated to Transvaal to escape the British takeover of the Cape area). A few of these people still remain today, but it is easy to see they will become a minor fringe element in the years to come.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "And if you examine how slavery was overturned - by those who came to
          understand that people are not property (regardless of what race they
          belong to) - we see that it was a rejection of various religious beliefs
          that were widely held." But isn't it also true that "those who came to understand that people are not property" were mostly true Christians?

        • Melia Sese

          Yes that is true ... it was the foundation for what became the Abolitionist movement. However, this movement was concentrated in the Northeast US (originating with Thomas Paine) and was bitterly opposed in the southern slaveholding states. But some southern plantation owners (notably Thomas Jefferson, who realized the contradiction between "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and being a slaveholder) voluntarily freed their slaves.

          My point is the both the slaveholder and the abolitionist used religion to justify their positions, which is why I continue to return to the theme that religion is inherently subjective and may mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, which is why it always comes down to force in the end. In the US we fought a very bloody conflict from 1861-65 to attempt to resolve this question, and though one side lost on the battlefield, the attempts to oppress African-Americans would continue for another 100 years - yet still they would claim some religious justification for the oppression.

        • hpinnc

          Amy, with all due respect, do you have proof that in fact it is NOT God that protects us when we follow the rules.I kind of believe in it all.I do believe in scientific proven facts as well as having simple child-like faith in a loving God who is at the controls,running this universe the way He sees fit,whether we agree with it all or not.Maybe He knew we wouldn't be able to pick all that cotton without the black man's help, & he surely was not going to volunteer to leave his home to come pick cotton for the "masta".Maybe he also wanted to test the white man,to see if he would see the great error of slavery & see how long it would take him to end it.Again, I am a christian,but I try to think logically too, when I am thinking about human events, I try to think spiritually when I am thinking about Godly things.That's where faith separates itself from science.Is faith in God really true proof, I can't say,there again I have the faith to believe so. There are such things as "theory" in science. are they true, we don't know for a fact, that is why they are theories.

  • ICOYAR

    All atheists are good for are mass genocides. Since they abandoned God and denounced them, God abandoned and denounced them.

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      Abandoning and denouncing harmful fiction is a good thing. It doesn't even make sense to be abandoned and denounced by a fictional character.

      • ICOYAR

        Elaborate this then:

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

        All of these were commuted by atheists, doing communistic goals. Every single one of them.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          You, what, think this proves atheism is bad?

        • fliteking

          Yes. Again, right over your head. this time it was (again) clearly spelled out for you too.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Right over my head, which is why I knew what he was going at? You must not be very bright.

        • Amy Lambert

          You are missing the point AGAIN. The point is not that atheists may have committed evil; the point is that religious men have also done so.

        • Amy Lambert

          There is another point as well: your logic.

          All the rabies cases in town came from rabid dogs.
          Therefore all dogs in town are bad.

          Logical?

      • fliteking

        ICOYAR made a strong point, and you missed it completely.

        Even if you cannot recognize God, missing the history of Genocide brought on by Atheists is amazingly short-sighted.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Yeah, because no one's ever killed in the name of God.

        • fliteking

          You wear your hatred on your sleeve.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Uh-huh. So you can point out negative behaviors of atheists and that's a "strong point" but when I point out that religious people have behaved similarly, I'm wearing hatred on my sleeve?

          Nice double-standard you've got there.

        • Amy Lambert

          You have just changed the subject, rather than address his (or her?) point, which is that people have committed terrible atrocities in the name of God throughout history, just as those following atheistic governments or leaders have done so. Avoiding logic does not win your point.

        • fliteking

          The subject was clealy "All atheists are good for are mass genocides" . . . at which point the Godless in the room became uncomfortable.

        • Amy Lambert

          The subject was: "All atheists are good for are mass genocides." That implies that because some atheists committed mass genocide, all atheists are no good. Thats' like saying "one dog bit 100 men, therefore all dogs are good for is biting men."

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          The godless didn't become uncomfortable, they started laughing at you.

    • fliteking

      excellent.

    • Amy Lambert

      SURELY you must be aware of the atrocities committed throughout history -- also in the name of god.

    • Amy Lambert

      Are you suggesting that because some genocides have been committed by atheists, that proves that all atheists are no good? Wouldn't that be the same as arguing that if some mass murders here (say, shootings) were committed by Christians, then all Christians are no good?

      • fliteking

        Although I am not aware of any mass murdering "Christians" in the true sense of the words, the history of Atheists being murderous freaks in the name of eliminating religion is quite well established.

        True Christians are very good people, for you to suggest otherwise highlights one of the issues that dogs Atheists, that being intolerance.

        • Melia Sese

          And you decide what a "true Christian" is?

        • Amy Lambert

          Let me rephrase that: Are you suggesting that because some genocides have been committed by atheists, that proves that all atheists are no good? Wouldn't that be the same as arguing that if some mass murders (say shootings) were committed by people who believe in God, then all people who believe in god are no good?

  • LiveInTheRealWorld

    "That is, they are assuming what they first must prove." Someone can't think logically in the first place. If you make the claim (there is a god), you have to support it. People don't have to prove you wrong if you haven't proven yourself right.

    This is what we're talking about with having a relationship with reality. If you think we have to disprove the god you believe in, you're not living in the real world.

    • fliteking

      Must be difficult going through life with blinders on.

      • LiveInTheRealWorld

        I agree, which is why I'm opposed to religion.

        • fliteking

          You are either a dullard, which I doubt based on your posts, or you have never taken the time to look at the evidence of God . . . only the rhetoric / dogma of the atheists . . . you owe yourself more.

          .

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          I have looked at the "evidence", it's not sufficient.

        • Kit

          I've looked at the "evidence" for evolution. It's not sufficient either. From making whole skulls out of bone fragments to radiometric dating methods, it's pretty subjective.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Then submit your findings to Nature and claim your Nobel prize. Otherwise evolution is the best answer.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=752603954 Steve Johnson

          The second law of thermodynamics precludes that first cell of life ever coming into existence. That is reality.

        • fliteking

          Indeed. Mathematically impossible anyway.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          You've just demonstrated your own ignorance by endorsing Steve Johnson's ignorant statement.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          The problem here is that you're literate enough to parrot this line, but too ignorant to know why you're wrong. The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, we've got this thing called the Sun adding energy to it all the time.

        • fliteking

          LiveInDenial 's response have gone from that of having some sense of decency to that of an imbecile.

          Definitely struck a sore note with you, no girl? A quick turn in attitude is always an indicator one feels either wrong or badgered . . . and sense no one is badgering you . . .

          On a side note, if you are an adult you missed some key steps in the maturation process so perhaps once you master the same you might want to have a real look at God.

        • fliteking

          Agreed, Kit, agreed.

          LiveInTheRealWorld has not looked at any evidence, she is just being a rhetorical parrot of the atheist camp.

          In the end the cost is on her.

        • Cliffystones

          Google an image of a model of the hemoglobin molecule and explain how it was a cosmic accident. Or for that matter DNA. I'm not saying I know what or who created our existence, but I'll bet on some kind of cosmic designer over a "big bang" any day.

        • Amy Lambert

          Suppose there was a big bang. Why does that preclude a cosmic designer?

        • Cliffystones

          I didn't say it did. But there are people who do believe "evolution" exempts "creation".

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          You can bet on whatever nonsense you wish to bet on, that doesn't make it any more likely.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.coffey.908 Bob Coffey

    Reality is that GOD exists, He will judge, and atheists will spend eternity regretting that they were too stupid and deluded to understand reality.

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      Reality is that there is no proof whatsoever for such claims, making atheism the more reasonable position to take. Atheists may be stupid (as religious people may be), but they are certainly not delusional for not buying into baseless claims.

      • Amy Lambert

        If there is no proof on either side, logic would not dictate that one position is more reasonable to take than the other.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          You're conflating atheism with a statement that asserts a god does not exist; all atheism means is that one doesn't believe in any gods.

          This is a corollary to the idea that atheists don't have anything to prove - they also don't need any specific evidence against the idea to not believe in it. There simply isn't any evidence for it in the first place.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

          What is belief? Is it not your personal opinion, based on the evidence you have seen, becoming your viewpoint? Sure, the implication of the word belief is a tad less stringent than absolute knowledge, but the result in your thought process is the same. To disregard a possibility simply because you have not seen the particular evidence that would point to it is, in itself, illogical. How would one prove to a doctor that they have a headache? They can't prove it but, the doctor, acknowledges the patient's belief and orders his interactions with him, or her, accordingly. The headache may have no identifiable physical cause but the doctor would surely not say, "It's all in your head!" as is the response of many an atheist.

        • Amy Lambert

          In fact, many doctors do, indeed, say just that when they cannot find the evidence for the complained of problem.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          In no way does that substantiate the idea that it is just as logical that god is real as not real. It remains the more logical position to not believe in god.

        • Melia Sese

          "What is belief? Is it not your personal opinion ..."
          Exactly. So how do we determine whose is more valid? It usually comes down to force.

        • Amy Lambert

          I agree; one should accept both possibilities: that god may exist and that god may not exist.

        • Amy Lambert

          So you think there are people who believe that god exists but they don't "believe in that god"? What does that mean? What does it mean to "believe in a god" then?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

        According to your logic: A blind man, not being able to prove that sight exists, or doesn't exist, would be more reasonable to believe that the sighted person is "not living in the real world" and that sight does not exist.

        • Amy Lambert

          If by "you" you mean me, then , no, that is not my logic. My logic would be that the blind man would be most reasonable in believing that sight might exist, or might not.

      • RedMeatState

        actually, the burden of proof is on you!! You have absolutely nothing to support your view; go ahead try!! Show us proof of your version of materialism, evolution, etc. It is all dogma based on assumptions, supported by assumptions, postured and enforced by intimidation.
        We'll wait, genius. Go ahead!!

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          The burden of proof is not on me, you simply fail at basic logic.

        • Amy Lambert

          "It is all dogma based on assumptions" -- True for both sides.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bob.coffey.908 Bob Coffey

        Your reply indicates just how deluded you are.

        • Amy Lambert

          why?

  • Pastafarian

    I have a serious question, and I am not being snarky here. Whenever this topic is broached, the ten commandments are always brought up. The commandments have always confused me because they seem to be so vague. I have heard (forgive my lack of knowledge of the subject) that after Jesus came, some of the commandments were no longer valid. How many of the commandments are still followed by Christians?

    • Brabado

      Pastafarian.... All 10 Commendments are still on, today as they were then...
      Hope, your confusion has been cleared.. and that you will follow them, like a good and practicing Christian, till judgement day!

  • Brabado

    Yes, this is the 3rd. or 4rd. time I heard that Athaeists love to have relationships "with themselves"... Can't help it. It is in their DNA!

  • Amy Lambert

    I am no atheist, yet I find it misleading, if not irrational, to suggest that atheism --the disbelief in a God--guarantees amoral behavior. I believe it is quite possible to accept the religious moral teachings--say, for purposes of this discussion--those of the Judeo-Christian American culture and legal system, as perfectly logical and acceptable rules for living.
    One could also observe, from the Western religious perspective, that the teachings of some forms of other non-Western religions--religions followed by people who do, in fact, strongly believe in God--are, in fact, quite amoral from the Western religious and legal perspective.
    Thus it is not necessary to believe in god in order to lead a moral life, and it is possible to believe in god and lead an amoral life--and it is possible to believe that only one's own view of god and his rules is moral, while other peoples' views of their god and his rules are immoral.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Amy Lambert....I agree with you about ''moral'' atheists. I personally know of atheists who live moral lives by coincidentally conforming to God's standards and they could put some ''Christians'' to shame. And sadly, there are some professing ''Christians'' who give Jesus a bad name by their immoral behavior. One could question whether or not they were genuine for Christ taught that you could know who a Christian was by his deeds, and whether or not his actions reflected his profession.

      But what a travesty to live one's life as an atheist, holding to the teachings of Jesus Christ and yet denying and rejecting His sacrifice for them. He alone is the Giver of eternal life and it's our choice to accept or reject that gift.

      • Amy Lambert

        Why is that a travesty? What is the logical connection between living one's life holding to teachings that seem to make good, logical sense for conducting not only one's personal life, but the laws governing a good nation as well--and the notion that Christ sacrificed his life to save humanity? One has to do with how one lives one's life on earth, while the other also involves eternity.

        And what is the logical connection between one god's suffering and people being "saved" for eternity-- if and only if they believe in him? Indeed, where is the logic in a bad man who, on his deathbed, agrees that he believes, and is "saved" and the good man who on his deathbedd denies that he believes--he led a good and just life because he thought it wise, not because he believed that Christ died to save him--and he is denied eternity? And why did Christ have to suffer to save him? Where is the LOGICAL connection? Could god not save the just and good man, period?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

          Wow! Those are some weighty questions. There are definitive answers to all of them. It would take quite an amount of time to lay the foundations of theological principles that would make those answers plausible. You are clearly searching for Truth, but the overload of conflicting ideas and philosophies have made your search a bit daunting.

          There are two ways of coming to the Truth. One is logical and the other is so illogical that it requires personal experience and still makes no sense to the logical mind. The logical way is to systematically study all the available information with no preconceptions of the results. Many scientists and philosophers have come to the Truth this way. They study in their particular fields and come to dead ends in their pursuit. No answer can be found in the science or philosophy of the matter. But when they consider God in the equation, suddenly pieces start fitting, explanations begin to form. The more they study with this consideration, the more sense it all makes. This inevitably leads to study of the consideration itself and Truth unfolds.

          There is a saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes". Whether or not this is true, it illustrates the second avenue to Truth. When devastation comes to ones life, when all is lost and life itself hangs in the balance, there is something within all of us that will cause us to call out to that "God" we've heard about all our lives. When there is nothing more we can do, all but the most stubborn, will instinctively hope that He's real. He always answers. Even those who are calling out in desperation to some other god of their culture will be answered by Him.

          I would be glad to try to answer your questions. The reality of it is that theologians have grappled with these very questions for centuries. Some, because much learning has corrupted their understanding of first principles, and some out of a true desire to convey the Truth as purely as possible. But one thing is sure. If God is and He has a mind capable of designing and creating this incredible universe and all that's in it, there will be answers to questions that our mortal minds just won't be able to comprehend. So when He gives us that sort of answer we must take it by faith.

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: "When devastation comes to ones life, when all is lost and life itself
          hangs in the balance, there is something within all of us that will
          cause us to call out to that "God" we've heard about all our lives. When
          there is nothing more we can do, all but the most stubborn, will
          instinctively hope that He's real."

          Of course. If man did invent God (and who knows for sure?) he did so because it is quite scarey to be the ultimate authority--the parent, the "Father"--in a confusing and complicated world--a world in which the right path and the right answer--the best decision--is often hidden from us.

          Hence we have the Greeks climbing up to Delphi to ask the Oracle (a woman mumbling because of the gasses leaking from the rocks, whose mumblings are "interpreted" into riddles by the priests of their day. The priests cleverly covered their tails by using these riddles, which could be interpreted in multiple ways, so that after the fact, in hindsight, they would be seen to have been right after all. Great fortunes were carried up to Delphi in exchange for these riddles. . .these "answers" . . .these "truths". Life is scary, and God helps us through.

        • Amy Lambert

          "If God is and He has a mind capable of designing and creating this
          incredible universe and all that's in it, there will be answers to
          questions that our mortal minds just won't be able to comprehend." Why not? Why would such a god hide these truths from the intelligent beings he created?
          "So
          when He gives us that sort of answer we must take it by faith."

          Or we must assume that "faith" is simply religion's way of explaining away all those unexplainable things in such a way as not to lose the flock.

          Why is there suffering in the world if god is all powerful and all knowing and good? Well, you must have faith, my son.

      • Melia Sese

        I am curious about this construction: " ... (those) who live moral lives by coincidentally conforming to God's standards ." Are you saying that only those who agree with you are "moral?" And if somehow we behave as you would command but do not share fidelity with your belief set, it is basically a "coincidence." This is a difficult corner you are painting yourself into. Because apparently God is whatever you or anyone else claims Him to be and your claim is only more valid than mine because you have an army behind you. And this you call "moral?"

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia...Just found this post.

          I've expanded on the idea of morality in several other posts and my eyes are getting tired. You appear to have an obsession with referring constantly to me and my ''commanding how others are to behave''.

          This is just goofy and irritating to me. I have not held myself as an exemplar for anyone and I could care less what others do in their private lives. God has given every man free will and the liberty to live as he chooses, so he alone must answer to his Creator. No one answers to me. So, cut it out.

          My comments are based on Scripture, as I understand it, with occasional references to evolutionary thought and how it affects an atheist's moral code. Without God, there is neither plan nor purpose, and NO OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH upon which to base one's code of ethics. So, what is left is consensus, subjective opinion and an arbitrary declaration of what constitutes ''good'' and ''evil''.

          There are some who think that cannibalism is ''evil'' or '''wrong''. But one can find cultures which believe that killing and eating your neighbor is not only okay but ''good'' and ''right'' and beneficial.

          My question to you is this: on WHAT BASIS could you ever condemn their act of murder and cannibalism as wicked? Your relativistic ideology WILL NOT permit it, because on that view, all systems have parity. And anytime you criticize someone else as being ''wrong'', you are violating your own world-view. You have been criticizing Christians all day on this blog...and each time you did, you violated your own beliefs.

          It comes down to this: Apart from God, man is left with nothing but his own opinions which are neither objective or absolute, and often flawed.

          BTW: None of us have an army behind us. Before God we will all stand alone.

          Your arguments are not with me, but with HIM.

          I leave you with that.

        • Melia Sese

          Looks like I have soundly whipped you then. Your "logic" has become circular. I state that murder is immoral because man has a right to exist for his own sake, but you need to cite a political tome which is riddled with contradictions. I care not how many thumbs I get on this board (a simple matter of discerning the prevailing views and then parroting them) to determine that I have won. Your idea that "mans opinions are not objective and often flawed" is curious - are you suggesting you are some type of supreme being too? If not, then yours may be just as flawed.

          You are right about one thing - my arguments are not basically against you and other mystics here. You all seem harmless enough. But as for "Him" you are utterly unqualified to determine that. And hence my view of you as arrogant because you claim to know what motivates me.

          I am beginning to enjoy coming to these boards. Get used to seeing me here ... LOL ... it may be time to start teaching economics to the various deluded souls who spout the Austrian dogma.

        • Melia Sese

          "This is just goofy and irritating to me. I have not held myself as an exemplar for anyone and I could care less what others do in their private lives. God has given every man free will and the liberty to live as he chooses, so he alone must answer to his Creator. No one answers to me. So, cut it out."

          No I shall not. You are a perfect example of a "divine" hypocrite, and I intend to expose you for the fool you are - I can see this bothers you. Fine, well and good. How does it feel to have someone stand up to you?

          Thus far, I have soundly defeated you (and the rest of your equally mindless followers) but you keep returning to the same depravity. Not to worry, I know we shall tangle again, and I look forward to it, Madam.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "It comes down to this: Apart from God, man is left with nothing but his
          own opinions which are neither objective or absolute, and often flawed."

          But what if God is also just man's opinion?

          God could simply be man's way out of the dilemma you pose; God could simply be man's solution: create authority to bless these rules and call them moral; that way, each man will not be left with his own opinions which are neither objective nor absolute and are often flawed--he will be left with the opinions which wise men have determined should be called God's.

      • Amy Lambert

        re: "One could question whether or not they were genuine for Christ taught
        that you could know who a Christian was by his deeds, and whether or not
        his actions reflected his profession." But we are not talking specifically about Christians; we are talking about god fearing people. If we talk about Christians, then the rhetorical escape becomes "but if he did that he wasn't a true Christian". If we keep it to god believing vs god rejecting, then it clarifies the thoughts. There are therefore "some professing god fearing people who are immoral in their actions .

        As for your view that it is a travesty to live one's life as an atheist holding to the teachings of Jesus yet denying his sacrifice for them, one has little to do with the other in one way of looking at it--the non travesty way; in fact, if you do not consider the teachings of Jesus to make sense on every level, I would be surprised. They are good teachings; they make sense for how men should live well together in civil society. Jesus' sacrifice for mankind is not necessary for recognition of this. Sacrifice comes into the picture when you get into the way out of the religious consequences of sin, but an atheist may not even deal in the concept of "sin". I don't know; I'm not an atheist.

  • hongryhawg

    Atheists will know reality when those first hot coals roll down their throats.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773692362 Jansen Waddell

      Things the godly say.

    • Amy Lambert

      That'll teach 'em to dare to have beliefs different from yours, right?

      • hongryhawg

        Yeah, but it'll be too late. And don't minimize it. Their beliefs don't have to match mine. God only requires belief in him. He couldn't care less under which banner its done.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          I wonder, when did God anoint you to speak for him?

        • hongryhawg

          I am not speaking FOR him. I am relaying what my faith in Him has told me.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Indeed, you are relaying your opinion, not anything of a god.

          That you understand this is not clear from statements like "God only requires belief in him. He couldn't care less under which banner its done."

        • hongryhawg

          Read into it whatever you like. Your own faith will guide you.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          According to you, to hell. How nice of your opinion to send me to hell.

        • hongryhawg

          You give my opinion far too much credit. Your own will suffice.

        • Amy Lambert

          LOL

  • ConservaDave2

    "...Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble..." (James 2:18-20) Sad to say, but if these God haters and deniers don't repent and change their way of thinking there is coming a day after death where they will come face to face with Reality to their eternal shame. As this Scripture points out, eventually, all will believe, as there are no atheists in hell. Christopher Hitchens is now a believer.

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      I don't believe you when you say it's sad to say. Seems to me you enjoy the idea, since you're the one promoting it right now.

      • ConservaDave2

        So you can see what's in my heart? That's a rare gift. Hell is a reality to me, it seems to be a myth to you. We choose by the way we live where we end up in the afterlife, God doesn't send one to hell, He lets us choose. Believe me, hell is not a nice place, I wish no one to end up there, though to some it is more comfortable than the heavenly experience.

        • Amy Lambert

          " We choose by the way we live where we end up in the afterlife"
          And what if there is a god, but no afterlife?

        • ConservaDave2

          Abraham was chosen By God (who is both male and female[we are made in His likeness and image and are male and female]), and his descendants through Jacob were given God's Word which became the Bible. Whatever truth is found in other religions pales in comparison. "Holy Scriptures" are just that; "written" (as you point out) but by God through men. "In My Father's house are many mansions," said Jesus. There are Muslim heavens, Jewish heavens, Buddhist heavens, etc. (many mansions). There are different levels and locations in the heavens. Many Christians have misinterpreted a verse in Matthew to mean being a Christian is the only way to heaven; not so, the Scripture says that the only way to the Father (a distinct place in the heavenlies) is through Jesus, and "Father" is not synonomous with "heaven." Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life." There are some who don't know Jesus but follow His way, live His Truth and experience His life. There are "Christians" who deny Him by their disobedience to His way, Truth and life. As far as the achieving a heavenly "reward," yes, those fancy tombs are worthless.

        • Amy Lambert

          "Whatever truth is found in other religions pales in comparison." How can you be sure?

        • ConservaDave2

          "And as [Jesus] passed by He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow Me. And he arose and followed Him." (Mark 2:14) Levi heard Jesus' voice ("My sheep hear My voice" [John 10:27]), dropped what he was doing, left the security of his career and followed Him. Levi needed no "proof," something in his heart told him that this man Jesus was someone very special and he had to be with Him. If you can't hear His voice, it is almost impossible to tell you something to make you believe. Truth is at a premium today, hardly any believe in truth as an absolute, with culture, false science, the desires to live wrong that are found in the human heart, and the need to justify ourselves as being right rather than looking objectively at what we believe and what motivates us, all ruling the day. What is your inner foundation that guides you through life? If you are always wavering you will never find the truth. How can you be sure I am not right?

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          I'm just telling you that your concern is not convincing in the least. Keep pretending you're the good guy if you want to.

        • ConservaDave2

          Thank God that nothing in my life will change whether I convince you of anything or not. Like Paul Simon said, "A man hears just what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          It is indeed quite convenient that your concern must not be demonstrated, merely professed. Convenient enough that you may belittle whomever you wish, so long as you pretend to be sad for them.

        • ConservaDave2

          Goodness, you're awful touchy. How have I belittled you? Take it as constructive criticism. You have a closed mind; you are like a man with a bright light locked in a small room.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          How great for you that you may condemn people to hell, and then turn around and tell them they have a closed mind if they find your opinion objectionable.

          Good thing your faith will get you through all this.

    • RedMeatState

      There are no atheists, period!! They are misnamed, not "atheists", but ANTI-THEISTS. "Atheism" would denote neutrality, they just don't "believe"; but their actions speak louder than words! They actively work against all those who do believe and/or have a relationship with God. This is what they hate! They hate people, they hate God. Always looking for an excuse to dominate and control; exactly why marxists are so anti-religion and anti-God; they want to be the ones in control and they love power, murder, and death. History has proven this time and again, it may prove it still more.

      • LiveInTheRealWorld

        We simply dislike very unreasonable people like you, who insist that we hate something we don't even believe in.

    • Screeminmeeme

      ConservaDave...Yep...Hitchens knows now for sure...unless he committed Himself to Christ in his last moments of cognizance.

    • Amy Lambert

      Quoting scripture to prove the truth of scripture. Terrific.

      • ConservaDave2

        Should I quote some lie to prove the truth of scripture? There has to be a foundation to belief. If you cannot grasp the concept of absolute truth then whatever you believe will only end up being like that man who built his house on the sand rather than a rock (Matthew 7:25-27)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773692362 Jansen Waddell

    "That is, they are assuming what they first must prove."

    Surely you were talking about the religious, weren't you?

  • http://twitter.com/msmoommist Ms MoomMist

    "Our Father who art in Heaven Hallowed by the name.say it with me!

    • Amy Lambert

      Thy kingdom come.
      Thy will be done in earth,
      as it is in heaven.

  • RedMeatState

    Whose reality? Never met two atheists that shared the same reality. They're all locked up in their own little minds protected by big egos. They're "right", everyone else is wrong.

    • Amy Lambert

      And that is opposed to believers, who never think they are right and everyone else is wrong?

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      That's because atheists are reasonable enough to know that their beliefs are personal beliefs, and not reality. Some of the faithful lose this connection to reality and become convinced that their beliefs are as good as real.

  • RedMeatState

    The "reality" they speak of is this:
    God, who doesn't exist, is supposed to come down, present Himself to them, give them a personal tour of the universe, His Purpose and Cause and their place in it, and wow them.
    So until He does that, they'll "refuse to believe in Him".
    How childish. What atheists have a big problem with is First Cause; nothing happens without a First Cause. Here's the one they can't get past and they cannot fathom or face:
    "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth....."

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      Nothing happens without a first cause, except your "God"? How convenient.

    • Amy Lambert

      Re: ""God, who doesn't exist, is supposed to come down, present Himself to
      them, give them a personal tour of the universe, His Purpose and Cause
      and their place in it, and wow them.So until He does that, they'll "refuse to believe in Him".

      Refuse? Refuse to believe in him? It sounds as if you feel they have some nerve doing that. Refusing to accept your religious views. Is that right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

    I have a relationship with reality. I find it to be rather impersonal. It's much like a bully, steamrolling through my life not giving a rat's behind who I am. So glad evidence came along, that I could rationally and intelligently weigh, for the existence of a Real Person who was willing and able to help with the clean up after a particularly nasty encounter with said reality. Once I accepted the evidence, simply believing became a thing of the past and knowing with absolute certainty became the ever-present force that guides my life. Reality is just the backdrop for your journey. Jesus, the aforementioned Real Person, is the constant companion, guide and brother on that journey.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Chris....Creative way to present the truth. Appreciated it.

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      What you've done is rational and intelligent, in that you found something to comfort yourself in this harsh world. But that doesn't make it rational and intelligent to believe in any of the mythical or supernatural events described in the Bible in and of itself.

  • Cliffystones

    "Atheists can’t see in the future."
    Atheists can't really see their hand in front of their face. I had the unpleasant misfortune of being supervised by one. Their idiocy goes hand in hand with Liberalism. They are the most narcissistic, amoral, self-absorbed evil people I've ever had to encounter. And I'm not extremely religious. But those folks can't see and appreciate life for the true gift that it is.

    • Amy Lambert

      You knew one atheist and from your association with this one individual you assume that those characteristics about him which you did not like are shared by every single atheist and not one single religious person? Do you not see the illogic of your statement?

      • Susan

        There is lots of "faith" in Atheism---which is NEVER admitted because they are "liars" (there is no morality, of course) and they toss out all Reason----which created The Age of Reason because of St. Thomas Aquinas--- and Newton who led to Einstein. Here they claim "no God" when they have absolutely NO scientific proof--yet, everything is based on science (Illogical, perhaps?) They are frauds and so intellectually devoid of all Logic.

        They should take credit for all their atheist adherents who killed hundreds of millions of people---more than all other ideologies in the history of the world put together. They should "hide" when they claim such an evil, ugly "belief" system.

        They claim there are no Absolutes---which is an absolute. They are just really dumb people--and most are incredibly evil, if they do have any brains like Mao, because they don't adhere to a "Higher Power". They always think they are "god" and order every other person around.

        • robert m

          There can be no proof god doesnt exist. However there have been studies showing that prayer for people in hospitals are not effective even by Christian groups. So either god isnt affected by prayers or wants to make his existence difficult to proove. Take your pick.

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m.

          Actually that is false. Studies at Harvard and other University medical schools have shown that prayer involving all religious groups, was found to be helpful in healing people.

          God HAS made His existence abundantly and clearly evident...but atheists just don't like the idea of confrontation with their Creator.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          "Studies at Harvard and other University medical schools have shown that prayer involving all religious groups, was found to be helpful in healing people." Nonsense.

        • robert m

          Is this the study to which you refer? It says quite the opposite in fact.

          "Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery"
          http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

          "Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          Reality indeed. I don't fear a confrontation moreso I fear following a god that doesn't exist and whose laws are actually man created laws and just as subjective as anyone else's. We have law for a reason. The Christian Bible had no problem with allowing slavery and stoning adulterors in the past... today we have law that takes silly things that no longer make sense and change them to fit the times.

        • bubba2020

          Christians were the moving influence in the outlawing of slavery. Although slavery exists in the world, there are as many slaves now as ever, but they are 99.9% in non-Christian societies in the Middle East and their liked minded and allied shared cultures in parts of Southeast Asia. The book that their religious culture relies on has never abrogated slavery as an accepted practice. I am not saying the name of that "faith" but I am sure you will figure it out if you choose to research it.

        • robert m

          Interesting. But note that the Bible does not abrogate slavery at all in any way in any form. To the contrary, it supplies laws on how to deal with slaves. http://www.openbible.info/topics/slavery such as how much punishment can be applied to slaves who do not work. Many versus are available and sure, you can say that Jesus changed everything, but the Bible certainly referenced slavery a lot and not in a bad way. If that's your answer, then that means that slavery was okay until Christ. Which historically didn't change the Christian viewpoint or the fact that many Christian nations had slaves 1700 years after Jesus' death.

          Example:
          When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

        • bubba2020

          That was in the Old Testament. We have the New Testament.
          Christianity operates to the the degree that the heart of the individual person is changed by it on a basis of voluntary acceptance of its beliefs, which means that some people will never accept it. Their choice, its not mandatory. In fact it would be an invalid conversion if it was forced. Only when sufficient number believe will the changes that are needed in society happen. And it will never be across the board because there will always be people who won't accept its beliefs. Sorry, but true.

          Are you seriously arguing that there are Christians that are arguing that slavery should be legal? Seriously? Wow. I won't assume that you are but that is what your statements seem to say.

        • robert m

          So then why does any of the Old Testament matter? Slavery was okay until the New Testament was written? Except Ephesians 6:9 is part of the New Testament and spouts out some of the same old messages "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

          So yeah, one can use the Bible to push slavery if you want to or anti-homosexuality or a lot of things for that matter. I know pushing slavery is not the agenda of this century for Christians. Maybe next century.

        • bubba2020

          "I know pushing slavery is not the agenda of this century for Christians. Maybe next century."

          Interesting to know that you believe you know what other people think and can predict what people in the next century might do. Scary.

          Tell me what state you live in so that I can stay as far away as possible. You seem dangerous to me

        • robert m

          Oh jeeze. No one knows the future, but it only takes a quick look at the history books to see episodes like the Crusades or witch burnings in Salem which were directly caused by religion. If you think it's absolutely out of the realm of possibility-then you are just being short sighted. When you talk about 100 years, you really are talking about a good deal of time. Segregation happened 50 years ago for example.

        • bubba2020

          You brought up that you believe you can predict how people you don't even know will behave 100 years from now. Crusades: all responses to invasion. Ask the people of Spain, southern France or Austria if they would like to be occupied again. Witch burnings in Salem: the Devil can take the form of the accusers and I believe that is what happened there. Prove me wrong. Wherever you are, hope you don't live anywhere people I know, I would be worried for them if they had contact with you. But they are equipped to handle the verbal stuff. Have a nice day.

        • robert m

          In all seriousness, thanks for the discussion. I'm sorry if I have offended that was clearly not my goal but this topic is probably a bit closer to your heart than mine. Talking about important things like if there is a god is an important discussion and I think everyone should have it. And to answer your question-no, obviously I can't prove that the devil did not take the form of multiple women in Salem 400+ years ago. And you obviously cannot prove that the devil did take this form.

        • bubba2020

          No problem, it was interesting. Hope I did not offend you, but yes it is close to my heart. Neither of us can prove that the devil took that form but it is consistent with what he does. Super Bowl time!

        • Amy Lambert

          The crusades were caused by religion and were bad? The Crusades were actually atttempts to retake lands that were taken from Christians by Islamic armies. doa little wikipedia on islamic conquests. More religion, sure, but you can't act as if retaking lands is bad.

        • robert m

          @Amy Lambert. The Crusades were driven by religion not in an effort to "retake land." It was about taking back holy land. This is a pretty similar situation in Israel today. Many deaths, not because of just any old land... we're talking about holy land here. Which, if it really was holy land god wouldn't want us fighting over it. Would he?

        • Amy Lambert

          Of course, robert, but land, religion and culture have always gone together.
          Islam took those lands from CHRistians and Jews for religious reasons as well. Even today, some Islamic leaders proclaim that the world is divided between the Believer and the Infidel and that it is the duty of their followers to kill the infidel. The Crusades were an attempt by the Church to drive back the invading and ever expanding influence of islam. does that make it "Bad"? NOT in my book! that is because I am the infidel!

        • Amy Lambert

          quote?

        • Amy Lambert

          So none of the slaveholders in the american south were Christians? how about the Spanish christians condoning slavery in LATin America?

        • bubba2020

          I would classify them as self-labeled christians, if you don't behave like one, then you are not one. It's not a club, its a way of life.

        • Amy Lambert

          I believe that you may be using 21st century morality to judge Christians of another era, not to mention, in the case of Spain, another nation. Slave-holding Christians then were going to church every Sunday, I'm sure, and no one was preaching to them that they had to give up their property and way of life to be good Christians. They WERE good Christians, then and there, according to the preachers they supported .

        • bubba2020

          "They WERE good Christians, then and there, according to the preachers they supported ." How would you know that? And I wonder what God thought about those preachers.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "Only when sufficient number believe will the changes that are needed in society happen." In Europe, the totality of the population believed. What needed changes occurred, other than flight to America from the very totality of which you speak?

        • bubba2020

          There never has any society where the totality of the population anywhere unconditionally believed everything.
          Except in a scifi movie or something.

          We are all human after all with different reactions at different times. hmmmmm....don't quite know how to respond to that.

        • Screeminmeeme

          bubba...Right. Christian abolitionists were at the forefront in the fight against slavery.

          Muslims were responsible for most of the capture, selling, and transporting of African slaves to America and the Caribbean. Today, they are responsible for the enslavement, torture, persecution and murder of millions of Christians in a number of Islamic-ruled countries.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Yeah, and Christians were also at the forefront in the fight for slavery.

          "Muslims were responsible for most of the capture, selling, and transporting of African slaves to America" Yes, to Christians in America.

        • bubba2020

          and as many as 2 million European slaves were taken to North Africa in the Middle Ages. A few years ago, the History Channel had a show about it which, among other things featured two professors from a university in Morocco who said: But those people were treated well and lived better lives" Will never forget it. Sorry Akmed, not your choice to make for them.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Nice story. The Muslim people I know are very nice. Looks like religion has nothing to do with it.

        • bubba2020

          As are the ones that I know and have trained with. But religion does have something to do with it. Historical research and reading the Koran and the commentaries written by approved mullahs at the bottom of the pages . Probably in your library.

        • Amy Lambert

          That some muslims in Africa condone slavery does not mean that some other muslims are not very nice, in case that is the message you took from our historical/philosophical discussion.

        • Amy Lambert

          True. Muslims rounded them up in Africa and Christians bought them here. EVEN more intriguing are today's American black MUSLims, who, to the best of my knowledge, are uninformed concerning widespread and accepted slavery amongst MUslims in Africa today..

        • bubba2020

          to people who identified themselves as Christians, but who did not walk the walk. 180 degrees from the same thing.

        • Amy Lambert

          And the book that your religious culture relies on has abrogated slavery? quote?

        • Amy Lambert

          It is wonderful that Christians were the moving influence in outlawing slavery. But it does not prove or disprove the existence of god, which is the topic at hand.

        • bubba2020

          just following the thread started by robert m :-)

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m...
          Spoken like a true reprobate with a seared conscience.

          Hope things change.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          Is this some of that True Christian™ behavior I've heard so much about on this blog?

        • Guest

          posted twice. would like to delete.

        • Amy Lambert

          These studies were later shown to have been flawed (surprise!) as so many studies are.

        • Susan

          There is tons of proof that human beings have such limited knowledge that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand "what" is truly "good" for us. Only God knows and if he doesn't "answer" our prayers---maybe he is actually "answering" them. My sister committed suicide at 19 and I was angry at God. Looking back, it was one of the most illuminating events in my life which led to profound "Good" for many people. How can human beings "understand" God and his "actions" or "inaction" ? To think you can---is making yourself "god".

        • robert m

          Sorry for your loss. I still disagree that knowing right from wrong is necessarily godly. A lot of things are wrong that aren't specified in the Bible or anywhere else. Many things are established as wrong and these are eventually codified into law or conducted through civil liability. Other things are not written, but people know when they do not like it.

          In summation, if god wants kids in Africa to starve, be enslaved, and work in factories that burn down in fires... then I don't support god. In my mind that type of stuff should not happen. In other words, if there is a god, then he is wrong or incapable. Either way, I wouldn't follow him.

        • Susan

          You haven't read any apologetics of C.S. Lewis evidently. You should trying reading some of "thoughts" of geniuses over the last few thousands years....they figured out many things which you are trying to "rehash". Believe me---very "few" people have the intellect to deal with philosophical issues, but there is "Reason" which has been thrown out by Marxists who deny "Natural Laws" (Common Sense comes from the laws of nature---physics and such.). That spark--of "knowing" comes from God, BTW. It is proven by Lewis that all cultures in all times had a similar "sense" of "right and wrong" (universal Truth) about lying, cheating, killing, marriage between women and men only--in ALL societies that have ever existed no matter what "customs" evolved.

          It is only since Postmodernism/Modernism that skeptics have destroyed Reason and the ability to use Logic and present true argument.

          Governments are evil.....(Stated by all Founders). The idea that there is Original Sin is proven true, of course. Raising children I understand that their behavior and "empathy" is learned behavior and as Aristotle stated--Virtue has to be habituated in early childhood.

          Evil people "enslave" and destroy and burn and kill. God created Free Will and that "choice" that he gave to man, has got to be allowed if God is Just---which he truly is. Every evil---has been created by governments---from war to famines.....If there is a God--there has to be Satan.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          "The idea that there is Original Sin is proven true, of course." Could you elaborate on what you consider to be such proof?

        • Susan

          True to me, since I have studied child development and raised children.

          Rousseau's (atheist) idea that man is born "good" has been proven not true. The basic evil of human beings has been discussed since Socrates who stated that it is necessary to educate young children in Virtue to "have Virtue". Aristotle goes further and states that Virtue has to be "habituated" in young children---otherwise, they will not be virtuous and all free societies need a "virtuous" people for civil society. Founders stated the same--that without a Virtuous (and they added "religious") People, there can be no freedom. Republics have to promote Virtue (Justice is a Virtue, BTW). That is why morality is always included in Laws---or supposed to if they are "Just".

          This need to "form character" in young children is best explained by "Original Sin". They are not necessarily born "bad" but they are born "selfish" or "narcissistic" and definitely NOT "good". Young children are the most mean and cruel on the playground---and common behavior without supervision is illustrated perfectly in the "Lord of the Flies".

          Their selfishness is necessary for their survival, true---but it is interesting how if character is NOT formed in the very early years, they have none. The Ancient Greeks knew this. The nurturing and love is learned and habituated by having the behavior modeled. Children like Charles Manson--who was never taught "love" (he was illegitimate and never knew his father), remain evil. Their worldview formed in early childhood makes them "hate" human beings because they are so deprived of nurture and love. Most inmates in prison, gang members, homeless people had no loving father. Children need both parents' love to form good character and to have role models which have to include both sexes so they know how to interact with the opposite sex. All behavior is learned and it is embedded in the formative years. I find the best explanation is they are born with "Original Sin" because they surely aren't born "good".

        • robert m

          Sounds interesting, I might take a read. Still, religion, and Christianity in particular fails a lot of really simple tests that should be true if it were the answer. It doesn't take a philosopher to notice that no one is living in whales and if noah made an ark of the proportions described it would never stay afloat. Granted, each and every thing in the Bible can't be dis-proven by this logic. However, many individual items can.

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m.

          Lets try to hone in on what you are asking~~~~
          Like many of us, you have a problem with trying to reconcile the existence of a loving God with the prevalence of human pain and suffering.

          If a loving and powerful God really exists, why doesn't He DO something about all of the evil in the world?

          He has...He is...He will.

          First...He DID do something about it. After the fall of man in Genesis 3, man was doomed and hopelessly bound for hell because he had rebelled against his Creator, despite knowing full well that the penalty would be eternal separation from God....a sentence of death. A Holy God had given His Word and justice must be served. But God had a secret plan. He came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and took all of those death sentences upon Himself at the cross and in so doing, He paid-in-full your sindebt and mine. Justice was served.

          So now, we can, by choice, choose life over death. It's up to us.

          Second....Actually, He IS doing something about evil--not the least of which is being patient with you and I about OUR evil thoughts and deeds. Even though He gets a lot of criticism for not judging evil as quickly as we think He should, many of us appreciate the fact that in His longsuffering, He is withholding His judgment and giving us a chance to learn of Him and Christ's sacrifice so that we can get right with Him.

          Ever since the Fall of man in response to the temptation by Satan, wickedness of every sort has been the norm. Man's inhumanity to man is clearly evident in every corner of the world. And no matter how hard we try, we can't seem to get a handle on it and prevent it.

          And practically speaking, the world COULD BE a great deal more evil than it is but the Bible tells us that evil is being restrained by the Holy Spirit to some degree, for God's purposes.

          Anyway....If God decided right now to rid the world of ALL actual evil and ALL potential evil, every man, woman and child would have to be eliminated. So He mercifully and graciously gives us life and opportunity to come to Him. On every side God is saying...''Here I am''....''Come to me''.....but because of the hardened hearts of men, few respond.

          Sin is pleasurable for a season, and sinful man enjoys being the ''master of his fate and captain of his own soul''. He wants to be the god of his own universe and that ca be problematic in a civilized world with laws, and it can cause conflict when he keeps running into other men with the same desire. At that point, chaos reigns.

          I know personally that God IS dealing thoroughly with MY evil today--as His child. He has been working on reducing my moral failures over many years, increasing my sensitivity to the sin in my own life and creating in me a desire to see it gone. Many a time I have prayed that God would make me just willing to be willing to be willing to conform my will to His. He has answered that prayer.

          I am far from perfection but certainly better than I was. So, at least He is reducing potential evil in MY life.

          Third...At some future time, according to His own timetable, Jesus Christ will return to bring judgment and justice to this wicked, God-rejecting earth. Until then, God is all about drawing men to Himself.

        • robert m

          Okay. But there is a lot to be said and examined as to WHY a god would even allow original sin to happen. You say it is a choice. I personally did not get this choice. If we believe that two people made this decision why are we being tried because of what our forefathers did? If god was in control he could give us free will but also not create evil such that we would be consumed by it. I can still make choices between eating a hotdog and a hamburger without having to kill people. Hell, why couldn't we all live eternally here? Why couldn't we not get diseases or have suffering? Seems like an easy check in the box if you were creating humans. Sudden Infant Death syndrome - turn that feature off.

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m...All good questions and ones that no doubt have crossed all of our minds at one time or other. Especially the issue of pain and human suffering and why God doesn't end it. I answered this to the best of my ability in another post a while ago.

          Is it fair that we should be punished because of what Adam did? It isn't right that we should be punished for something we didn’t do. After all, we weren’t there in the Garden. We didn’t do anything. So..why are we going to be punished?

          Well, we all suffer the consequences of Adam's disobedience and have inherited a sinful nature from him (Rom. 5:12-23). The Bible states that "... as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.(Rom 5:12)

          Adam sinned. We didn’t. He was in the Garden of Eden. We were not.

          So...When we face God on the Day of Judgment, the Lord isn't going to say to us~~~'' Adam sinned and you're going to pay for it.". We are NOT responsible for Adam's sin..but we ARE responsible for our own.

          This is how we all have been affected by Adam's rebellion: Before the Fall, Adam was sinless, perfect, and good (Gen. 1:31). He had a ‘good’ nature. But, after the Fall, he became a sinner. His nature was changed from ‘good’ to ‘bad.’ Since every one of us on earth descended from him, as his children we inherited his sinful nature (Rom. 5:12). It's in our DNA. In this sense, we all suffer for what Adam did. This is called Original Sin. It means that we have inherited a sinful nature and that all of what we are as individuals (mind, body, soul, spirit, emotions, and thought) is touched by sin.

          In addition, all of Creation was also affected by the Fall. God had given dominion of the world to Adam but when he sinned, sin and death entered the "world" as it says in Romans 5:12. That means that along with death came disease, violence, pestilence, earthquakes, famine, etc. They all have their root in the Fall. That is why the Bible states that all of Creation groans awaiting redemption. (Rom. 8:18-22).

          I only know that my finite mind is incapable of comprehending the Infinite Mind of God. But what I DO know of Him.... having experienced His love, grace and mercy in my own life.....I am able to trust Him, by faith, with my life.

          Hope this helped.

        • Amy Lambert

          What do you think your religion would have been had you been born to Muslim parents?

        • Amy Lambert

          you don't "Support" god? Do you mean if there is a god, you disown him? What, then, do you see as his power over you== if any?

        • robert m

          I don't support or approve of god's actions (if he exists which he likely does not). You can't disown something that is not yours. It's like disowning the tooth fairy. I mean, I guess if it turns out the tooth fairy exists he/she would be a little upset that I didn't believe, but it's really not a lot to lose sleep over if you have unlimited money to exchange for teeth.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "I mean, I guess if it turns out the tooth fairy exists he/she would be a little upset that I didn't believe." Doesn't that presuppose that god a) has an oversized ego, and b) that god cannot exist unless he cares whether or not every intelligent being in this and every other universe believes in him? Isn't it possible that God exists, in how it all turns out, without be ing an interventionist? (of course this is not the preferred god belief, because man takes comfort in the concept that he is not alone in the universe.)

        • robert m

          It's not that far of a stretch to say that I didn't presuppose that god is ego-centric. I am only presupposing what Christians are-and that is that the bible is divinely inspired. So that being said, let me try putting it this way. Let's say you love ants. The little red things that are always showing up at picnics. And you found a way to communicate to them, but you could only give them 10 rules to follow. If you really wanted the best for them you might communicate how to store food for longer periods of times, types of animals be watch out for, or even explain some other practical ways to better their life (like avoid little ant diseases). Well, in the vast majority of beliefs, god gave 10 commandments to humans and he didn't do any of that. He gave 5 rules about general things not to do and 5 rules about worshiping him. If that's not a big ego-than I don't know what is.

          To point b-I don't believe that I implied god can't exist without full support of people believing him.

          Finally, and perhaps more to your second point, if there is "god" and he does not intervene-I'm fine with that answer. It's way more plausible than he did intervene 2000 years ago and then split town once people started getting video cameras and doing paternity tests. In short, I'm fine with a god that sits in the stands and watches us play ball. But if that's the case, one shouldn't worry too much about him or pray to him.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=752603954 Steve Johnson

          Take your pick. In 2006 studies appeared to show no effect by prayer for the ill. In 2012, a study showed there was definite improvement in the ill due to prayer.

        • robert m

          I took a look for the study but could not find it. Do you know who conducted or have a link? All I saw was studies in 2012 that linked prayer to meditation.

        • Amy Lambert

          how about prayer at football games? any studies there?

        • Melia Sese

          The one constant between "atheist" murderers and religious murderers is that neither one believed that you have a right to exist for your own sake. They essentially see you as a piece of meat to be used for their purposes, regardless of the sweet sounding diatribes they might issue.

        • robert m

          On second thought, I'm not sure of what you mean by your response. Who is a religious murderer and who is an atheist murderer?

        • Melia Sese

          It hardly matters, because both are violating someone's right to live (obviously, I do not include self-defense here). A religious murderer covers many of the Taliban and also those popes like the Borgias. Would you like more examples?

        • Susan

          Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.....Christian "murderer" is an oxymoron. You can call yourself something, but it is your actions that determine the Truth. Man is flawed....even "with" religion, they can not be perfect. We got a glimpse of what man is capable of "without" any religion or like pagan/occultists like the homosexual Nazis. (Pink Swastika). Obviously, some "ethics" are vastly superior than other "ethics" when we talk about the dignity and worth of ALL human life. History and study of civilizations prove this fact and you judge it by the amount of "freedom" people, including women, have to pursue their individual interests. Individuality comes from Christianity. Collective societies "collective salvation/pantheism/atheism" can eliminate human beings or groups of human beings, if it is for the "general welfare" or collective. People are a means to an end. Always evil. Can't use human beings as "means to an end". True Christianity doesn't allow it.

        • Melia Sese

          Ah, once again the references to "True" whatever. And who shall decide who is true and who is not? Because the history of Christianity shows us many who used others as a "means to an end", usually to exert power and control. So you would be stating that the Spanish Inquisition (ostensibly to punish and/or remove "heretics") was not "true" in your estimation? Or perhaps the Taliban ("students of God" in their not-so-humble estimation)? What is the "true" difference between Jehovah and Allah other than Hebrew or Arabic translation?

          Another interesting point you are trying to make is that no one is "individual" unless they believe in your ideas (which you refer to as "Christianity"). At one time, you might have been correct. Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Christian all seemed to believe in the welfare of the community (times were tough and societal cohesion ruled out "go your own way" thinking), but they also had their versions of "heaven" or "nirvanna". Today, it is unnecessary to participate in group activity (such as church attendance) in order to develop a unique set of beliefs and understandings. Indeed, it may be critical, because far too many get caught up in the concern of what others may think of them and thus are unable to explore the ideas they carry around with them.

          True growth occurs when we step outside what is comfortable and think more critically of ourselves. You and MeeMee are correct in one aspect - no one knows everything and thus is incapable of learning anything more. This hardly equates to being a "wretched sinner" from birth, unless we allow the "wise men" to "educate" us.

        • Amy Lambert

          "Christian "murderer" is an oxymoron. You can call yourself something, but it is your actions that determine the Truth." The issue is whether the murderer believed in God at the time he committed the murder, and not whether he was a true Christian at the time of the murder. Suppose, after the murder, he confessed and begged God's forgiveness, having realized the sinfulness of his ways? Wouldn't he then be a true Christian ?

        • Amy Lambert

          Susan, did you think this was a direct reply to my question about the logic of the original statement, or have you perhaps never studied formal logic and have no clue what I was talking about?

        • Susan

          No one used "argument" as well as St. Thomas Aquinas (or Logic) before or since his Summa. It is a lost "art" as our legal "scholars" and "justices" continually prove. John Dewey's socialized curricula is intentionally destroy knowledge and wisdom, as noted by Iserbyt.

          I did graduate from college, but as Dennis Prager has recently noted---the longer people are in "Higher Education" the "dumber" they become. The "Common Sense" is beat right out of them!

          But, yes, I have studied syllogism.

          True---I did NOT get a Ph.D. Maybe you did? I have read Thomas Sowell and agree with the "ignorance" of the "Intellectuals and Society" and their hubris. I know many people with post-graduate degrees--and the Stanford/Harvard/Yale grads have the most warped, irrational minds with a really sick worldview of "reality". (Prager is proven correct again). Actually, W.F.Buckley, jr. described this sick, godless worldview of intellectuals in his book, "Man and God at Yale" as long ago as 1951. Things have gotten much worse in academia which is forcing Marxism (atheism) today for ALL the "children".

          No Freedom of Thought or Speech is even allowed on campuses anymore as documented by Horowitz and many others.

        • Amy Lambert

          That's all very nice to know, but it still does not attend to the issue I raised, probably because my response came very far away from the original comment, which had to do with atheists, and generalizations about the many from the one.

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: "They should take credit for all their atheist adherents who killed
          hundreds of millions of people---more than all other ideologies in the
          history of the world put together. They should "hide" when they claim
          such an evil, ugly "belief" system." Whoa, there, Susan. An atheist is someone who believes that the existence of God has not been proven, as I understand atheism--and who concludes from that (and other things) that there is no God. You have taken that belief==there is no God--and turned it into something far more, which it is not. Just because there have been terrible things committed by some atheists does not make all atheists terrible, nor does it require them to "take credit for all their atheist adherents who killed hundreds of millions of people. . .". as you would most unfairly, and illogically, have them do. Why do you hate everyone who is unconvinced there is no God--even those who may lead exemplary lives themselves. . .even those who are just as appalled by the examples of cruelty and immorality you mention as you are?

          You generalize from the few to the many most unfairly, and in only one direction. When someone asks you whether you should also take credit for the misdeeds of other Christians, you claim they could not be true Christians. But they could be true believers in god. So I ask you this: Are you willing to take personal credit for all the immoral acts committed by those who believe in god-- just as you demand that those who do not believe in god should take credit for all the immoral acts committed by others who don't believe in god?

      • Cliffystones

        No, I only mentioned the one who was the most pathetic example. There are a lot of "Religous" folk who are just as sad.

        • Amy Lambert

          I wonder if you did. As I recall (could well be mistaken) you (or perhaps someone else?) slipped down the proverbial slope from the one disreputable atheist to all atheists, and not very nicely, either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=752603954 Steve Johnson

    Atheism is but one more religion. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined it as such even as SCOTUS has defined secular humanism as a religion. Atheists have their own churches and their own ordained ministers able to conduct marriage ceremonies and funeral services. It is, under the circumstances, rather humorous to hear them rant against religion. Their god is, of course, themselves. Each atheist retains the power to decide, as final arbiter, which laws , morals, etc. that they will obey and which they choose to ignore.

    • Amy Lambert

      "Each atheist retains the power to decide, as final arbiter, which laws , morals, etc. that they will obey and which they choose to ignore"--as if religiouspeople never have to go to confession.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=752603954 Steve Johnson

        "-as if religious people never have to go to confession."
        This is called accepting responsibility and owning up to one's sins. In court it is called pleading guilty.

        • Amy Lambert

          Thus is it also true of religious people, who "retain the power to decide, as final arbiter, which laws ,
          morals, etc. that they will obey and which they choose to ignore" -- and they accept the consequences after confession and after conviction.

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      It's sad that some of you don't even have a concept of what it's like to not be religious, so you just pretend that everyone's religious like you are. Yet another self-imposed delusion that offers a warped view of the real world.

    • Amy Lambert

      "Each atheist retains the power to decide, as final arbiter, which laws ,
      morals, etc. that they will obey and which they choose to ignore." In jail, do you mean?

      • Amy Lambert

        Or do you mean that it is better to accept, as final arbiter, which morals one will obey based upon which god one chooses to believe in, regardless of the laws of the land in which one lives?

  • James White, M.D.

    Using human intellect to discuss God's existence is like turning an AM radio up full volume, to try to get an FM broadcast: It's never going to happen. One must use the instrument of faith: there are no exceptions, and the choices are each an affair of the individual's heart. "Not to choose" is just as much a choice, as is any other, just as an army under attack can choose "not to fight." And suffer the consequences.

    The famous French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, wrote a one paragraph "wager" (I hereby urge those unacquainted to Google "Pascal's wager"), which ends with these words, after examining all possible alternatives: "therefore believe, if you can."

    Personally I find it ludicrous that the daily miracles that surround us are but coincidence in an empty and meaningless cosmos, just as I find ludicrous the idea that the "religion of science" can one day explain away the miracle of conception and birth, no matter how long the search goes on.

    After forty years of practicing medicine, it is my own "certainty" that God and his angels rule a glorious cosmos, in which all things are interconnected. Personally I have seen impossible things happen routinely, and have felt the voice of God in my heart. It is a very good and comforting feeling, knowing that I will spend eternity with Him. God granted humans the freedom of choice. Choose carefully, fellow humans. A meaningful eternity hangs in the balance. Dominus vobicsum.

    • Amy Lambert

      Does a belief that god exists always go along with the belief that one will spend an eternity "with him" -- in every religion? And, if so, doesn't the fear of not being conscious for all eternity, and in some sort of heaven, lend a hand in many people's desire to believe? In other words, suppose there were indeed a god, but also suppose that this supposition, in and of itself, had nothing to do with people "living" with "him" for all eternity.
      Do you suppose, then, that the issue of atheism vs religion would be as important to people as it is when it is combined with the promise of eternal life ? Isn't this promise what makes the belief so seductive?

      • Marees1963

        If you follow Protestantism, then you may have a point. Catholicism, true Catholicism, is to believe that it is not an easy endeavor to enter Heaven. I emphasize true Catholicism because much of the Church has been plagued with Protestant beliefs that have nothing to do with Catholicism or truth for that matter. In fact, very few of us will actually make it there directly. Saints are the only ones to achieve this as evidenced by their incorruptible bodies after death. One must be completely without sin to enter Heaven, that is a very large and tall order to achieve since we are sinners. It is not a matter of simply believing that gets one into Heaven, not at all and this is the danger of Protestantism that teaches, if you can get all the different sects to agree that is, if one is "saved" you cannot go to hell no matter what you do after having been "saved," which is a misnomer at best and leading many not on the path to Heaven.

        Our souls must be purified, either in this life by living a sinless life at the time of our earthly deaths, or through purification after the death of our bodies. And even then we may be blessed with purification IF our sins are not grave sins at the time of our deaths. The sacraments of the Church help us with this but it is no guarantee or "promise" of eternal life with the Father in Heaven.

        I do not fool myself for one minute into believing that I have a straight ticket to Heaven only that the possibility is there if I cooperate with God and what He demands of me. Again, a very tall order to achieve.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

          Read your Bible. Where did Catholics get the idea that saint is a classification of believer? If that's so, then most of the New Testament was written for just a few. If that's so, then God is a respecter of persons. You've taken Grace completely out of the picture. You've made the sacrifice, the whips, the torture, and the shed blood of The One Who Died For Me, of no affect. Read Galatians. Jesus paid the price because we can not.

          What about what Paul taught?

          Acts 16:31

          They answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

          Romans 10:9

          Because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

          Paul didn't say "Believe and you will gain the opportunity to work for your salvation if you live perfectly and get recognition from some Church leader."

          We work because we love God and to show our faith. We can't earn salvation. That's the point of the whole Bible. That was the point of the Law and that's the point of the Cross.

        • Marees1963

          Therein lies the problem with Bible "thumpers," You make things up as you go along according to how you or some tell you it says. "[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Mathew 7:13-15

          Notice it says FEW, which I'm sure your Bible has omitted that, considering if it's a Protestant Bible, like the KJV, has been rewritten by man. FYI the Bible was written down by and protected by the Catholic Church for almost 2 millennia. Don't try to tell a Catholic what the Bible says when you you have a man-made religion built from its inception to permit divorce.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963...Bible thumpers? Make things up??

          Wow. You need to confess all that animosity you hold for non-Catholics.

        • Marees1963

          I have no hatred whatsoever for anyone, perhaps you need to examine your conscious for assuming that I do? You were given no authority to interpret the Bible on your own, sir and that is what you are doing.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963...
          I understand that you believe that the RCC is the singular arbiter of truth, that God communicates to His Body only through the Magisterium and Pope, but the Word of God doesn't say that. He is no respecter of persons and lovingly ministers to each of His children individually, meeting their needs.

          1Jn 2:27~~ But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU but as the SAME ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU OF ALL THINGS, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

          Joh 16:13~~ Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH: for He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.

          Eph 5:9 ~~(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and TRUTH;)

          2Ti 2:15 ~~STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the WORD OF TRUTH.

          And the author of Hebrews tells us that anyone who eats the meat of the Word...not relying just on milk....is able to discern good and evil. (Heb.5:12-14) Only by knowing the Bible thoroughly can we recognize a counterfeit that comes along.

          And anyway, God wants us dependent on HIM and not on a system or organization or another person.

          Jesus said that the Holy Spirit, which indwells every believer, will lead us into all truth. Willing to spend time in prayerful study, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, by trusting the indwelling Holy Spirit to speak to us and illuminate His Word, each of us can know the truth. And while God gave the Church evangelists, pastors and teachers to edify the Body of Christ, even their words must line up with Scripture...or be rejected as error.

          God's word is not unreachable or unknowable because the Author indwells each believer and helps us to understand and apply it in our lives.

          I'm simple enough to just believe the words on the page and trust that my Lord can tell me what they mean...and He has.

        • robert m

          I'm confused. The Bible has already been translated many times. Every time you read something you must interpret it. For example: love means sex, it means familial love, it means passionate about, it means all these things. Even in context, certain things are not explained: "the dog ran around the vase and it fell down." Did the dog fall down or the vase? If you believe in any book you have to be able to interpret it for yourself which causes a lot of problems. If you allow someone else to interpret a book, then what are you to do when that person is silent on an issue?

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m.......

          A few rules about interpretation

          1. The Author of the Bible resides within every believer and He guides us into Truth and understanding about His Word. Even the unbeliever, though, will be taught about and convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit in His effort to enable that unbeliever to come to the knowledge of the truth and his need for salvation.

          2. The Bible interprets itself, so by comparing Scripture with Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, one can arrive at a correct interpretation.

          3. When examining any passage, you first want to determine TO WHOM the passage was written and then decide if YOU are a member of the group. If so, then the passage is applicable to you for obedience. If not, then it is instructive and helpful to you in understanding the historical accounts and doctrinal threads running from cover to cover.

          4. Context determines meaning.

          5. God blesses those who are truly seeking truth.

        • Marees1963

          The Church is NOT silent on the Bible, it is the living breathing Bible. You want to know what is meant by passages in the Bible, look to the Church, Catholic of course :)

        • http://twitter.com/eagle2758 George Washington

          The ONLY way to get to God is Through the Lord Jesus Christ, through His
          Grace and His Blood on the Cross. That is what you take on Faith, and read the
          Scriptures and hear them in a Bible-based church. Start with Proverbs in
          your reading. You will be very surprised.

        • hpinnc

          Chris, may God bless you dear brother in Christ.You are sooo right. I will be 75 next month.I spent over 1/2 my life believing what the devil was trying to convince me of.I had an ole Dad who was a true saint of God, my Mom too.I had harbored up in my mind that I was no christian because there was no way I was even 1/3 as good as my mom & dad.I even talked to my pastor about being baptised again.He told me,he could baptise me a dozen times buit it would not save me. In fact he told me I may never be as good as I perceived my mom & dad, but here's the good part,he told me I did not have to be,in fact he said "it ain't about you ------ & what you do,it's about Him & what He's already done for you Oh halleluhia, when I realized my debt had already been paid,my name was already written down in glory.He abides in my heart.I DO NOT have to measure up to Mom & Dad's standards,I have to measure up to His standards & I do that by believing in His work on Calvary.I can & am,made perfect through Him. I just wish I could get everyone to believe & accept that.I hear people say, well I would like to be a christian, but I could never be that "good". Well I guess I can tell you ,you don't have to be,you just believe & strive to live a life like His, & His grace will take up the slack.His grace is suffiecient for me & anyone else who will accept it. Amen!!!!!!!i

        • Screeminmeeme

          hpinnc...What a wonderful testimony. Thank you for sharing it.

          How wonderful to know God's love and mercy...and His grace is sufficient indeed.

          Bless you brother.

        • http://twitter.com/eagle2758 George Washington

          Thank you and God Bless you!

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963....Do you ever ponder what you are saying when you assert that 'simply believing' does not 'get one into heaven' ?

          Do you ever read your Bible...or do you just blindly accept everything the RCC tells you? Even the Apostle Paul, who wrote two thirds of the NT, was scrutinized and his words questioned by those believers at Berea. They listened to what he had to say and then searched the Scriptures to see if his words agreed with the Word of God. For them, the WORD was the final arbiter of truth.

          I don't know how long you've been a professing Christian, but it sounds like you don't know or understand what happens to a person when they are 'saved' (the term used by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and Jude)

          Paul tells us that we NOT justified works.....but by GRACE we are saved....NOT BY WORKS...and he goes on to tell us what motivates people to hold to a works based salvation~~ pride, so they can boast. Since the Fall, man has wanted to take credit for his own salvation and it is no different today.

          He tells us in many passages that when we trust in the PERFECT propitiary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are JUSTIFIED by faith, we are BAPTIZED by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (His Church), blessed with All spiritual blessings, ACCEPTED into the Beloved, INDWELT by the Holy Spirit and SEALED unto the day of redemption, IMPUTED with HIS righteousness of Christ, and COMPLETE in Him. And JESUS CHRIST ALONE gets ALL the praise and glory for it.

          I used caps for these words to emphasize that for the Christian, these are important words which God wanted us to know about. They are just some of the things that happen to a person who professes Christ as Savior, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can understand what they mean. But it's imperative that we understand that NONE of these things can be EARNED by what we do.

          The implication in your post is this: What Christ did on Calvary was insufficient, but it BEGAN your journey to salvation, and that YOU must WORK....''co-operate with God''...to complete the journey and get to heaven.

          This heresy robs Jesus of all the glory due Him alone and is an affront to God Himself and all that He suffered to pay the sindebt of mankind. The teaching...which can be found in Protestant denominations as well as in the RCC...is blasphemous and places an enormous burden of guilt and fear upon those being taught.

          I've heard many proponents of works salvation say that GRACE believers just want a license to sin. Well, Paul anticipated that argument saying, ''God forbid''. No credible grace teacher would ever teach such a thing. As history has shown, man has never needed a license to sin...he just does it naturally. Its in his DNA. As the writer of Psalm 14 says....there is none that doeth good...no...not one.

          So where do good works come in? The Bible clearly teaches that God has ordained good works to be performed by His children as a witness to a Christ-rejecting world and a testimony of the change that has been wrought in us when we were saved...and... they minister to the needs of suffering mankind. But those works neither earn or maintain our salvation.

          And when we sin (and we surely will) ...our Heavenly Father...like all good fathers...convicts and chastises us....and sometimes gives us a good spanking. But He always mercifully forgives because His Son, 2000 years ago, paid for that sin with His blood.

          The subject of IMPUTATION is at the heart, I think, of this false teaching of a probational or works salvation.

          Paul teaches that when we are saved, we are IMPUTED with Christ's righteousness......in effect, we get HIS report card. We didn't earn it....we don't deserve it...but by grace He offers it to us. He served your sentence of death and mine when He took the world's sins upon Himself and receiving that positional truth makes us 'righteous' in the eyes of God. From the point of our confession of faith in Christ on, God sees us only through the blood of His Son.

          Remember that on the cross, Christ cried out...Tetelestai!...IT IS FINISHED....PAID IN FULL. Either Christ paid for all of mankind's sins in total.....or He did not. And if He could not, He did not. What you are saying is that what Christ COULD NOT DO.....YOU CAN. He said it's finished...the you say it isn't. That's an astonishing position to hold.

          You said:
          ''I do not fool myself for one minute into believing that I have a straight ticket to Heaven only that the possibility is there if I cooperate with God and what He demands of me. Again, a very tall order to achieve.''

          I would say that it is an IMPOSSIBLE ORDER. No human being....given even thousands of years trying ...could ever become 'righteous enough' to earn heaven. CHRIST ALONE has made a way for sinful men to spend eternity with a Holy God by RECONCILING us to His FATHER, and making us NEW CREATURES IN HIM. HE made a way for us where there was NO WAY POSSIBLE.

          BTW: The Bible teaches that ALL Christians are called 'SAINTS'....not because they are perfect in word and deed....but because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. God sees all of His children as 'holy...pure...sacred...blameless...and consecrated'. Our position in Christ is a positionally sure one... but experientially we are still sinners with a propensity to sin. But as promised, God, the Holy Spirit, is conforming us to the image of His Son as we yield eschew sin and yield ourselves to Him.

          In all of these things we can with, great thanksgiving and comfort, praise God and rejoice.

          I exhort you.....Be ye reconciled to God and trust Christ alone for your salvation.

        • Melia Sese

          So are you saying that I can kill millions (like Mao Zedong did) and then, on my deathbed, I can "repent" and say I believe in Jesus (or whatever conception you are referring to) and all is forgiven and I thus enter the "kingdom of heaven?"

          Are there any practical limitations on this whatsoever ...?

          Are you also stating that Catholics are not Christian?

        • Cliffystones

          Look up Robert Heinlein's quote regarding this belief. I'm with him on that question.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia....

          1. God's grace extends to any and every human being. Christ's shed blood on Calvary atoned for every single sin of every single human being alive then and who would ever live. But that atonement will only be applied to a person's account IF he acknowledges it. Salvation is a gift offered to all and we must choose to receive that gift.

          We all have the free will to reject even our own Creator, if we want. So that genocidal maniac..wherever he is....who sincerely repents of his sins...can and will be saved. Much as we may consider it ''unfair'', Jesus taught this and the Bible is crystal clear on this issue. This is not to say that in this world there are not consequences to our actions and one of those consequences may be the electric chair or shooting squad.

          2. Grace is without limit. The arch-enemy of God, Saul (who is later called Paul) wrote that where sin abounds, grace all the more abounds.

          Again, a clear teaching of scripture and one which rubs many the wrong way.

          Actually Melia, in reading your post, I was reminded of the prophet Jonah....who, when called upon by God to go and preach repentance to the most brutal and feared of Israel's enemies, the Assyrians, refused to go and instead tried to run from God. The reason? He KNEW that God's mercy was everlasting and that He would do as He said...which was to spare His judgment of the barbarians if they repented.

          Like you, Jonah didn't like to think that God's mercy could be extended to such evil people, because after all, aren't there ''good'' people deserving of God's blessing and and ''bad'' people deserving of His judgment? Short answer....no. Scripture says that there is NO ONE who doeth good. The human heart is deceitful above all and desparately wicked. So...any ''good'' thing that we might do is often done out of a unrighteous motive.

          Well, the Bible says ...but Jonah learned the hard way that no man can place limits on God and His goodness. So, in the end, he did as he was told and the Ninevites indeed repented and were spared for 150+ years until they fell into the same barbaric practices again.

          3. I never said that a Catholic cannot be a Christian, but if they are, its in spite of the many false teachings within the RCC. And that can be said of many other churches also. If you closely read my post you see that I refer to Maree1963 as a Christian. I don't know her nor can I see her heart so I take her at her word.

          I believe that every church, including the RCC, likely has some Christians in them. Some think that by attending church, adhering to traditional rituals, attending prayer meetings, etc, one is saved...but that is not what Scripture teaches. It takes a profession of faith in the sacrificial death of Christ to be saved. It's a gift...freely given.

          Jesus warned us in the parable that in the church there would be Tares among the Wheat....phonies who would pose as Christians but who were planted there by the Adversary to mislead, deceive and otherwise stir things up. They look like the genuine article but Jesus says that they will be judged in the end.

          Trusting Christ for your salvation is the only thing needed to be saved. As I said in my post to Maree, God wants us to perform good works but not because they earn or maintain our salvation.

        • Melia Sese

          (It appears you need to look at more of what I have written here today, particularly the response to the author, one Bradlee Dean.)

          So there are no limitations. What then is the reason to live if we are all essentially pieces of meat, easy prey for those who don't have any such scruples? This degenerates quickly, because it becomes a matter of who shall decide who is "sincere." If you see everyone as equally evil then you can hardly face yourself in the mirror as this extends to you as well. I find this entire notion deeply troubling, and will never accept that I was born "evil."

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          This is the ultimate aspect of Christianity which makes it a pox on our world: telling people they are inherently evil and need Christianity to be good. No good parent would tell their children that they are inherently evil, and yet this is what all Christians do in passing on their faith to their children.

        • robert m

          @Melia. I think that for Christians one standard answer boils that is brought up often is that god knows who is "sincere" and who is not. Sort of like santa claus. Sociopaths and mentally defect are judged "by what they know" so there is an escape route for those individuals also. So, devils advocate-god knows-that's all that matters. Sort of seems like a cheap way out to explain the inconsistency noted, but thought I'd provide it as fodder.

        • Melia Sese

          Yeah - pretty much. I appreciate your honesty - which is far preferable to someone's "truth" which of course they make up as they go along.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia...By what standard can you claim to know whether or not someone is honest or that another's ''truth'' is contrived?

        • Melia Sese

          I think you've answered that pretty well, madam. Step outside yourself for just a second and perhaps you will see the meaning of "contrived."

        • Screeminmeeme

          robert m...

          The God of the Bible IS omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He indeed knows everything there is to know, including the thoughts and motives of everyone's heart. Doesn't the manufacturer know his product inside and out like no body else? Same with God, the Creator of us all.

          I personally believe that it is no coincidence that the Santa Claus character seems to be supernaturally quick if not omnipresent (delivers presents to the whole world in 8 hours), and is omniscient (knows if you've been bad or good, rewarding those who are good and punishing those who are bad.) It was a calculated effort to draw attention from the celebration of the birth of Christ...God Incarnate...but of course, I don't expect you to believe this.

        • Breezeyguy

          But you don't trust Christ. Christ was baptized. If you trusted Christ, you wouldn't dismiss baptism.

          The fact is, Jesus left us a Church which later wrote down a little of what He said and did, and that became the New Testament you are so fond of quoting. To try to put a wedge between the Church and the Scripture as you do, that is the Devil's work.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Breezeguy...

          I didn't dismiss baptism. I was quoting Scripture. Your argument is with God.

          Paul says this:

          1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

          So maybe we should listen to what he has to say:

          1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (Thus, baptism is not included in the Gospel and therefore not necessary for salvation)

          Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
          Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM

          So..what is that baptism? He tells us that its a baptism BY the Holy Spirit.

          1Co 12:13 For BY ONE SPIRIT WE ARE ALL BAPTIZED into ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

          According the Bible, the believer is ~~~~~~

          ~~immediately indwelt by the Holy Spirit and SEALED unto the day of redemption. (Eph 1:13, 4:30),
          ~~BAPTIZED into the Body of Christ, His Church (1 Co 12:13, Col 1:24)
          ~~blessed with ALL spiritual blessings (Eph 1:13),
          ~~been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18),
          ~~become a NEW CREATION IN CHRIST ( 2 Cor 5:17),
          ~~ACCEPTED into the Beloved (Eph 1:6),

          ~~received the Spirit of ADOPTION (Rom 8:15),
          ~~have the witness from the Holy Spirit that we ARE a CHILD OF GOD (Rom 8:16)
          ~~have been IMPUTED with Christ's righteousness (Rom 4:16-25)

          ~~JUSTIFIED by faith and have peace with God ( Rom 5:1)
          ~~and are COMPLETE IN HIM (Col 2:10).....and Christ alone gets all the glory.

          You betcha I'm fond of quoting the Bible. This is what Jesus said about it.
          Jesus prayed this prayer to His Father for all believers:

          Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.

          Jesus here catagorically proclaims the RULE or STANDARD by which ALL THINGS are to be measured.

          Christ is the LIVING WORD....the LOGOS....and WE, His Body-the CHURCH, can NEVER be SEPARATED from Him.

          Teaching people false doctrine to keep them in bondage to fear and guilt, making them spiritually dependent on some deceptive man-made system, thus robbing them of the peace, joy and liberty that can only be found alone in Christ....is the Devil's work.

        • Breezeyguy

          Paul was talking about his own calling. See, you don't believe on the Lord Jesus, who DID baptize and WAS baptized. You believe on Paul. But even then you're wrong. Paul was baptized. He also ensured his converts were baptized: Act 16:33 "And the jailer took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds and was baptized at once with all his family." So the man whom Paul told "Believe on the Lord Jesus" was baptized immediately, if not by Paul himself then by one of his assistants.

          The last Commandment of Jesus, whom I urge you to believe on, is "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

          The Devil is fond of quoting the Bible too. Quoting the Bible in support of an error is a sin.

          It's true the Church cannot be separated from Him. But individuals can be, including you and me. That fact is on almost every page of the Bible, but you miss it. You believe the man-made doctrine of "once saved always saved", and that you cannot be lost, don't you?

          Please read the whole Bible, and whole verses, and stop spewing quotes that you don't understand.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Breezeyguy........Acts is a transitional book.. Over a period of nearly 30 years, Paul received multiple revelations from the ascended Christ (2 Cor 12:7) who revealed the gospel of the grace of God to Him.(Acts 20:24) Pauls actions reflected that he was getting more and more new revelation. God's revelations throughout the Bible were progressive, in that Abraham knew more than Adam...Moses more that Abe....David more than Moses......Peter more than the prophets....and Paul more than the apostles.

          As for his calling, you miss the point.

          He says that God did not call him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. See the '''but'' in there? It is a preposition which introduces something that is contrasting with the prior sentence. If baptism were included in the Gospel, then God is wrongly preventing Paul from doing his job of baptizing new converts.

          Paul baptized converts until he received the revelation that baptism by water was no longer necessary...anymore than circumcision and adherence to Jewish law were. The Judaizers hated Paul because he preached that to be saved, a person only needed to trust Christ as Savior and not have to adhere to the Jewish ordinances. Those of us today who tell others that salvation is by grace and not by works, often receive that same degree of hatred and vilification.

          Only in Paul's epistles can you find information about the Church, being Christ's Body (Col 1:24)....about the reasons why God set aside Israel for a time (Rom 11)...about the Rapture (1 Thess 4: 13-18)....a list of fruit of the spirit and the works of the flesh ( Gal 5:19-23)....about the Bema seat of Christ ( 2Cor 5:10.11)...our new commission (2 Cor 5:14-20)...the fact that there is just ONE baptism (Eph 4:4,5)...and more.

          ''Quoting the Bible in support of an error is a sin.''

          Correct...so why does the RCC do it?

          ''It's true the Church cannot be separated from Him. But individuals can be, including you and me.''

          Wrong. WE ARE the CHURCH and we cannot be amputated from the Body of Christ. When the Bible speaks of the ''the church'', it is speaking of the Body of all believers....NOT the RCC or any other church, for that matter.

          John tells us in 1 John 2:19 that ''professing Christians'' (tares) deny Christ, it proves they were never saved in the first place.

          It is IMPOSSIBLE for any genuinely saved person to ''lose'' his salvation because an IRREVOCABLE change has taken place. We are new creatures in Christ and are SEALED by the Holy Spirit UNTIL the day of redemption. What do you think that means?

          Jesus says in John 10:28, " I give eternal life to them, and they shall NEVER perish.”

          Words have meaning...and NEVER means NEVER.
          Our Lord here makes a blanket promise. It takes into consideration all times, all circumstances, all events, all contingencies, and all possibilities.

          In John 10:28,29 Jesus flatly declares that NO ONE can pluck one of His children from His hand..or...from His Father's hand. We are safe in Christ.

          As for reading the whole Bible.

          I have been a serious Bible student for over 6 decades. I've read several versions of Scripture from cover to cover many times...usually twice a years.

          This I know:

          Gal 2:20~~ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

          I suggest you put down your Missal and pick up your Bible and prayerfully read it, in context, cover to cover, asking for understanding. God is no respecter of persons and He will answer every one who asks in sincerity. The Magisterium is not the appointed repository of the oracles of God, nor sole interpreters of His Word. You have been lied to.

          The fact that my quoting of Scripture is so intolerable to you is notable. Maybe you should ask yourself why.

        • Breezeyguy

          Wow dude. Your confusion shows indeed that "sola scriptura" does not work. You say Acts is "transitional", so then Paul trumps Jesus? Wow. Wrong, Jesus is Lord, and Paul is not. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Jesus is Lord!

        • Screeminmeeme

          Breezeguy.......
          Paul says this:
          1Co 14:37~~ If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE UNTO YOU ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.

          1Co 4:16 ~~ Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
          1Co 11:1~~ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
          Php 3:17~~ Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

          How could Paul...who wrote over 2/3rds of the NT....say such a thing?

          Well, first look at what Jesus said:
          Joh 13:20~~ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

          About his Damascus Road conversion experience, Paul recounts:

          Act 26:16~~ (Jesus speaking to Saul) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
          Act 26:17~~ Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, UNTO WHOM NOW I SEND THEE,

          Act 22:21~~ And he said unto me, Depart: for I WILL SEND THE far hence unto the Gentiles.

          By the Holy Spirit, Paul writes to Timothy about himself:
          1Ti 2:7~~ Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

          Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

          (Also..Gal 1:15,16, 2:8, 1 Tim 2:7, 2 Tim 1:11, Rom 15:16)

          Jesus sent Paul...and we are to receive him. If you reject Paul, it's the same as rejecting Christ.

        • Marees1963

          Again, proof that you do not know what you're talking about. There were already those soon after Christ's Ascension into Heaven who began preaching their own brand of the Gospel. This may be the church you belong to (the one Paul is speaking of), but it certainly is not the Catholic Church which was formed by Christ upon Saint Peter and has NEVER changed in Her Dogma of Faith. You seek to please man screeminmeeme, not God. Btw, I did not use nihilism wrong, you are confusing the secular definition of nihilism with Church teaching that I am referencing. Moral relevance (those deciding for themselves what is just and moral and what is not) leads to nihilism.

          Galatians 1:6-10 (D-R) "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a
          gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

        • Marees1963

          Yeah, I stopped reading after you misconstrued what I said with this: "Do you ever think about the implications of what you are saying when you assert that 'by simply believing' one does not get into heaven...and that there are some sins that are so 'grave' that forgiveness is impossible..."

          Here's a correction for you: "Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.[32] And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." [Matthew 12:31-32]

          One must die in a state of grace to get into Heaven, spotless soul. Now go and read an accurate Bible not edited by man with omissions and changing of words. I suggest the Douay-Rheims to start.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963...You bias and antipathy for Protestants is so integral to your thinking that you won't even read what I posted? Looks like the brainwashing has worked well.

          1. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a sin that no Christian can commit. I could post the reasons but since it's coming from a non-Catholic, you don't care.

          2. I have alot of translations/versions in my library including the Douay-Rheims, which was based on the corrupted Alexandrian text.

          3. It is clear that you do NOT comprehend the doctrine of imputation. As for grace...it's missing from the RCC which pounds away at the need for works and submission to the church....both of which are heretical.

          4. Read Matt 20:25-26 in your D-R version.
          In these verses Jesus Christ explicitly commanded that the chain of command in the church be not fashioned according to the Gentile powers. This was blatantly disobeyed by Irenaeus and Ignatius, both of whom favored a monarchial or ruling bishop as a safeguard against heretical doctrines then assailing the Church. This set the state for the hierarchical development in the RCC, where the ruling force became, ''my Lord Bishop'' instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

          The word hierarchy is freely used by Catholic apologists and the word, by definition means rule of the priests. The whole character and spirit of the RC hierarchy is disobedient to Christ.

        • Marees1963

          I have plenty of sympathy for Protestants, but little tolerance for error. Please do NOT attempt to tell me what my religion is, you clearly have no clue. Here again in case you missed it: THE BIBLE CAME FROM GOD THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHO IS ENTRUSTED WITH KEEPING IT FROM BEING PERVERTED BY MAN. A MAN came along and decided there were errors in the Holy Bible and made a different one. A king (MAN) came along and decided he should be able to divorce and invented a new religion. Yet another MAN comes along and decides to take a bit of the Bible and form his own religion (JW). Still another came along and invented the Mormon church, and on it goes. One thing in common, MAN in his arrogance decided he knows better than what Jesus Christ set forth for His Church.

          Please do explain how there is absolutely no agreement in the different sects of Protestantism? Which one is it? Because there are so many different branches they cannot be accurately counted. Let me guess, the one you belong to, right? Know who else decided he would be his own decision maker of his destiny? The devil.

          The Catholic Church has not changed Her teaching in nearly 2 millennia. Why not? Because MAN is not permitted to change what God has set forth. Not even the Pope can change what the Church teaches. For this reason the Catholic Church will never fail. There have been many who have tried, even from within, but it will never happen.

          "[16]Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." [Matthew 16:16-19]

          "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." For emphasis as this is the basis for succession of Popes, Bishops and Priests. Our Lord commanded it to be so and it is so. Peter, the first Pope of Christ's Church.

          You would have me and others believe that Jesus spoke important things in parables in such a way that they can be twisted by man without any earthly authority to watch over and keep these words sacred? By whose authority do you decide which Bible is correct? Where did your Bible come from?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963.... Your questions, assertions and accusations have opened up a year's worth of ongoing discussion and debate. The objections you have brought up have all been expounded upon and answered by Bible-believing scholars...though I have no doubt that given your bias, they would not satisfy you.

          You have made some preposterous statements which I'll speak to.

          1. You said:
          ''The Catholic Church has not changed Her teaching in nearly 2 millennia. Why not? Because MAN is not permitted to change what God has set forth. Not even the Pope can change what the Church teaches. For this reason the Catholic Church will never fail. There have been many who have tried, even from within, but it will never happen.''

          You're kidding, right? The RCC is replete with error, revision, reversed policy, competing Popes, and dissension in the ranks and because of it the Catholic church is in a constant mode of revising its history.

          I won't list the dates and the many doctrinal positions which have been changed over the centuries but those interested can find them on multiple sites on line. (ie doctrine of ''limbo'', eating fish on friday, first condemning to hell and then accepting any professing Christian as ''separated brethren'', etc)

          2.You said:
          ''You would have me and others believe that Jesus spoke important things in parables in such a way that they can be twisted by man without any earthly authority to watch over and keep these words sacred?''

          The Lord Himself PROMISED to preserve His Word unto all generations:

          Psa 12:6~~ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
          Psa 12:7~~ Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

          On what basis....other than the RCC says so..... can you assert that God ordained ANY earthly authority to 'watch over and keep'' His words? The true Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit, is at work preserving, quickening, and illuminating His Word to the church, the Body of Christ. NO MAN has been appointed that task....nor would he be able to fulfill it.

          3.You said:
          '' By whose authority do you decide which Bible is correct? Where did your Bible come from?''

          Time and time again you have posted that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. Untrue.

          The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century,
          A.D. and by the second century, some churches had all or most of the 27 books in their possession. It can be easily shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.

          The Apostle Paul wrote:
          2 Tim3:16~~ All scripture is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
          2 Tim 3:17~~That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works.

          The authoritative Scriptures completely equip us for service, teach us correct doctrine, and mature us in the faith.

          And from the Apostle Peter: :
          2 Pe 1:19~~We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
          2Pe 1:20~~ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
          2Pe 1:21~~ For the prophecy CAME NOT in old time BY THE WILL OF MAN: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

          This means that by the very nature of the inspired documents they carry power and authenticity in themselves. The imprimatur of ecclesiastical declaration is not necessary .

          Anyway...if the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church and its teaching? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order...or... auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images and many others rites and ceremonies of the RCC? Why demand celibacy in its Magisterium when the Bible says that a bishop should be married? (1 Tim 2:1-5)

          Ironically, many things in the New Testament do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it is now. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church.

          When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.

          4. Lastly... You said:
          '' 'And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in
          heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed
          also in heaven.' For emphasis as this is the basis for succession of
          Popes, Bishops and Priests. Our Lord commanded it to be so and it is
          so. Peter, the first Pope of Christ's Church.''

          Untrue. if indeed Jesus was establishing Peter as the first pope, it is incredible that neither Peter himself, nor Paul, nor any other apostle and not one of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament affirms the doctrine of the Papacy anywhere. Indeed, it is the absence of such a doctrine that is striking.

          If the Lord Jesus Christ had intended to establish the supreme authority of Peter, and to have that authority perpetuated in the bishops at Rome, then it is only reasonable to assume that He would have distinctly informed His followers. It would have been important for them to know.

          So important an office would surely have been mentioned in the clearest of terms. Other sacred offices are set forth in Holy Scripture, yet silence prevails with regard to a position that was supposedly the epitome of them all. There is not one jot or tittle, anywhere from Genesis to Revelation, about any man being a regal-sacerdotal king, who as the vicar of Christ rules over the visible Church upon the earth.

          Whatever Matthew 16:18-19 may or may not say about Peter, it says NOTHING at all about his successors, real or imagined. NOWHERE in the entire Bible do we find any basis for a doctrine of papal succession or bishop infallibility.

        • Marees1963

          Dear God in Heaven remove the blindness from this person. Amen.

          You are lying, the Catholic Church has always, ALWAYS had possession of the Bible and wrote down the new testament. I don't know where you get your information from, but they're lying to you and you're perpetuating that lie! It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church was the keeper of the Bible and still is. Jesus did distinctly tell his followers, that would be the first Hierarchy in the Catholic Church, you know, Peter, Paul, John, Mathew, etc. Just as they are the keeper of the Holy Relics through the centuries.

          Again, this is the problem with Protestants, you can ask any different 10 of them what a particular passage in the Bible says and they will give you 10 different answers. WHO IS RIGHT??? It makes NO logical sense, none! Tell me how many different sects are there all believing different forms of Christianity? I suppose the Waynesboro "church" is correct according to your illogical conclusions. Even the Devil can quote Scripture and pervert it for his own desires to mislead people.

          You clearly have no understanding of the "Deposit of Faith" within the Catholic Church...IT HAS NEVER CHANGED, it can only be refined for clarity at particular times through the ages to combat heresy. In fact, if a pope suddenly decides that he believes the Virgin Mary had other children and wants to change it, it CANNOT BE DONE! In fact he would likely be anathema if he did not correct his error! Any evil person within the Church cannot change the Deposit of Faith. Even the infiltration of the Protestant influence cannot do it, and believe me that has been plenty with liberals taking over much of the Churches in the U.S. and Europe since the 1960s. So these "nuns" on buses advocating all kinds of heresy, and that includes their idea of social justice, cannot change the Deposit of Faith. It is not a democracy like Protestantism appears to be. In fact, those "nuns" have been corrected by the Pope and they still go about their business, so they have effectively excommunicated themselves. No Catholic worth their salt would listen to them.

          Let's see, your assertion that Protestants came to being in the early days of the Catholic Church. That flies in the face of revisionist history! Here is a non-Catholic source: http://www.theopedia.com/Protestant_Reformation

          1600s is in the first century A.D.? I suppose to you it is.

        • Melia Sese

          I believe you were referring to Westboro Baptist in Topeka KS?
          Truly a perfect example of evil masquerading as "love."

        • Marees1963

          Yeah, that's the one. Truly a perfect example of what happens when one interprets the Bible and relies solely on the Bible and their interpretations for "salvation."

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963........
          1. You apparently think that there have only been two groups of Christians...Protestants and Catholics. Not true. The RCC wasn't founded until the 4th century and Protestants weren't around until 1517, (though many Bible-believing Christians often protested the false teaching of those at Rome), but there were genuine believers who passed around and copied the writings of the Apostles and their fellow-workers, and by the 2nd century, had compiled most, if not all, 27 books
          of the NT.

          Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire and Latin was then the language of the common people, so the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was translated for the Vaudois (the pre-Waldenses in northern Italy) not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza states that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. Allix, an outstanding early scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity.

          The Waldenses were foremost among the primitive Christians of Europe in their resistance to the Papacy and they sustained the weight of Rome's oppression.They were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures in their native tongue Hundreds of years before the Reformation. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution.

          The agents of the Papacy have done their utmost to defame and malign their character, to destroy the records of their noble past, and to leave no trace of the cruel persecution they underwent.

          The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term 'Vulgate' (Latin for 'common').

          It was so esteemed for its faithfulness to the deity of Christ and its accurate reproductions of the originals, that these early Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation (taken from the corrupted Alexandrian mss) sit on the shelf for nearly 1000 years after it was produced in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D.

          This is just a small piece of history suppressed by the RCC but supported by countless documents.

          2. As for worship on Sunday~~~~
          Luke recorded in Acts that the first Christians were Jews, and the earliest church is classifiable as a messianic sect within Judaism. The disciples are frequently found in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1-3; 5:21, 25, 42), and since they were held in high regard by the people (Acts 2:47; 5:13), it can be assumed that they continued to observe the law, circumcision, sabbath worship and the food laws. As more Gentiles entered the church, there was increasing conflict about the whether
          or not Christians ought to keep the Sabbath as a day of worship.

          By the second century, Sunday worship had become the norm, and fewer conflicts over the seventh-day sabbath are evident. Paul regarded the first day of the week , as he designated it in 1
          Cor. 16:2, as the day for the Corinthians to take up offerings for ministry to needy saints. (Rom 15:26, 2 Cor. 9:12)

          1Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:7 are the only places in the New Testament outside of the resurrection narratives (Mark 16:2; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19) where the term "the first day of the week" is used. The Corinthian church was aware (1 Cor. 15:1-8) that the Resurrection occurred on the third day which was the first day of the week ,and worshipping on Sunday was in memory of the Resurrection.

          Nevertheless....the Apostle Paul wrote that whatever day we choose to worship, we do it in the name of the Lord. (Rom 14). He also wrote:
          Col 2:16~~ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

          3. The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who speaking from the heart spoke against...."being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although
          Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5).

          The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In his Roman letter, Paul salutes 29 people, many fellow-workers and locals, and yet not one mention of Peter who was supposed to have been there at Rome for 16 years by that time.

          In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1).

          By Acts 15 when the Jerusalem council gathered i 50 AD to meet with Paul, James and not Peter had become the leader of the Apostles as he pronounced his verdict about the issues at hand and Peter was not recognized by anyone as Pope. And after the council there is no other
          word about Peter except for Paul's references to him in Galatians and his own two epistles. For one so important, he vanished off the scene quickly.

          There is no Scriptural support for a papal line of succession. None.

          4. Again...In spite of your insistence that the RCC defined the Canon, it was completed before the end of the 1st century and was recognized almost immediately by all Christians as the Word of God. This was long before the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.

          It was the Holy Spirit Who wrote Scripture and the fact that a Church Council recognized the same list does not make it their legislation. Correctly identifying a particular model of a car does not equate to having designed it. The model was designed by its Creator who then had it assembled according to His plan.

        • Marees1963

          You cannot see that your brand of Christianity is doing more harm than good to society. Your very belief system lends credence to and advocates nihilism, the ideology that no one will bow to authority and accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by proof. For in nihilism there is no absolute truth; truth is whatever each individual interprets it to be. This is the very definition of Protestantism. And people wonder why there are so many atheists and nutjob religious zealots out there? Keep spreading your brand of "truth" and soon very few will believe.

          I will pray for you that you one day come into the fullness of the Faith as God intended and that you stop perverting the Bible with your interpretations. Again, how many sects are there in Protestantism???? Too many to count each with their own set of beliefs that they have gotten from their perverted Bibles. The is ONE Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, one that contains the full Truth.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963.....
          You've consistently attacked what I've said as ''Protestantism'' making bizarre accusations...and now you've added nihilism to the list. My beliefs are the antithesis of that philosophy. My many posts to atheists have been almost exclusively about the absolute objective truth that is grounded in the Creator.

          Nihilism
          1.The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
          2.Extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in the world has a real existence.

          Instead of attacking me, why not refute what I've posted? I've relied on the Scriptures......the same ones available to you.......to support my views. Instead you call the Bible I use, 'perverted' (though I have said that I use many versions, including the Douay-Rheims, for study)

          You've referred to the existence of the many denominations in the world and wonder how anyone can know which one is right. Well, I can't and won't defend the fractures within the church, except to quote what Paul had to say about the same issue.

          1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
          1Co 11:19 For there must be also HERESIES among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

          However I will say this: First, Scripture lays out simply and clearly what is required....what articles of faith need to be believed..... to become a Christian.

          Rom 10:9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
          Rom 10:10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. (D-R Version)

          Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

          Anyone believing and doing this is saved and the recipient of God's grace and countless blessings...and there is no more condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..(Rom 8:1)

          So..I believe that in most assemblies, there are at least some who are genuine Christians and by brothers and sisters...sometimes in spite of any false teaching that might be preached there.

          In His high priestly prayer, Jesus prayed this:
          Joh 17:11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.
          Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. (D-R version)

          Because of His prayer, I believe that all genuine Christians...despite their disagreement on peripheral issues.....are in unanimity about the centrality of the Gospel, which is Christ. And...

          Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

          And because we all have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we bear witness, one with the other, that we ARE His children.

          We all need to keep in mind that at best, we ALL see through a glass darkly.... and recognize that our knowledge is imperfect and many things will remain a puzzle until we see HIM and know as we are known. So until then...we might agree to disagree, agreeably.

          Thank you for your prayers that I might know the truth as that has, all my life, been my heart's desire. I will pray the same for you also.

          As a dear brother in Christ often writes here on GP.......
          Pax noviscum

        • Marees1963

          I should trust you to tell me what Scripture says when you CANNOT even get what I say right? That's well, astounding. Read this slowly and use your logic...If a religion promotes that SELF is the determination of what is Truth based on what SELF thinks a particular passage says, it LEADS to nihilism; which is exactly the bad fruit we are seeing today in the world. The very definition, the living breathing, of nihilism today is Protestantism (any form of it whether Baptist, Methodist, etc.) you are rejecting the Church Jesus left us with, is still with us, to lead you to Heaven, in favor of your own brand of "truth."

          Prior to the 1960s, when Protestantism invaded the Church, society listened to what the Church had to say about morals, social justice, life in general whether they were a member or not. Hollywood listened as well, movies were moral, they were fun, they were wholesome for the most part, and the ones that weren't good for your soul you were warned about. Catholics and other Christians knew what books were healthy for their soul to read and which ones were a danger to the soul. Who shall Hollywood look to in Protestantism? Which of the many thousands of sects? Westboro? Davidians? The damage is done, but it can be undone. The Church was weakened by ecumenism, at least the type that liberals flooded the Church with that permitted input from Protestants. There is Truth and it is within the teachings of the Catholic Church.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963.........

          You are misapplying the term, nihilism and are being intellectually dishonest in setting up the logical fallacy of a strawman argument. You've misstated my position (and not for the first time either) as holding to a religion of 'self-determinism'...and that I have been espousing my ''own brand of truth''

          Protestants are an easy target for the RCC to blame for the moral decay of the American culture but I submit that the existence of the systemic child abuse within the RCC can be squarely laid at the feet of the Pope and Magisterium.

          Their centuries-old practice of protecting priests who are nothing more than degenerates, neglecting and sometimes even disparaging the victims, moving the pedophiles to other parishes so that they can continue to prey upon more children, and then lying about it all are the criminal acts of your beloved church.

          That Catholics around the world did little in protestation to the negligence and irresponsibility of the hierarchy, speaks volumes of the bondage of those adherents to a such a diabolical system.

          Only after the RCC takes the beam out of its own eye does it have a leg to stand on in telling non-Catholic believers how to take the mot out of theirs.

        • Marees1963
        • Marees1963

          Everyone should read the above link.

        • Melia Sese

          And this one is for you, my fellow Católica :
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEFkYtANVg

          Oh, and for anyone else who still claims to know "the way" ... about 8 minutes but well worth it, I can assure you.

        • Marees1963

          The way does matter Melia, whether you recognize it or not. Believing as you do is why the world is in such a mess. When people go around deciding what the Bible means to them personally and then spreading it to others, it spreads nihilism like a disease that puts many, many souls in jeopardy. I strongly suspect the reason you have lost the Faith is because of the many Protestant themes that have infiltrated the Catholic Churches in the U.S. Seek out a Latin Mass and traditional priest for council.

        • Breezeyguy

          What is the point of quoting scriptures that don't support your doctrine?

          What is the point of dismissing scriptures that oppose your doctrine?

          Are you TRYING to go to hell?

        • Marees1963

          Thank you. My point exactly.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Breezeyguy....
          1. What I've posted is not MY doctrine, but what is taught clearly in Scripture but there will always those who want to either ignore them or twist and explain them away.

          2. I dismiss no Scriptures, but I examine them IN CONTEXT. Every single passage in Scripture is NOT applicable to believers FOR OBEDIENCE because if it were, we should all be building an ark and offering sacrifices. There IS a dispensational aspect to interpretation and ignoring it causes confusion and results in misapplication of the text.

          3. The Holy Spirit witnesses with my spirit that I am a child of God.

          Rom 8:14 For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
          Rom 8:15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).
          Rom 8:16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God. ~~~~~Douay-Rheimes Version.

          One doesn't have to TRY to go to hell. Jesus said that everyone is condemned to it already at birth..and that the only hope is to be born again.

          (John 3: 16-21)

          I KNOW that I'm going to spend eternity with my heavenly Father...not because of anything that I do, but because of what Christ has done. I've been IMPUTED with HIS righteousness and HE purchased eternal life for me thru His sacrifice...and HE ALONE gets all the praise and glory for it.

        • hpinnc

          AMEN, AMEN, AMEN HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE IF WE NEGLECT SO GREAT A SALVATION. Thank God for His great plan of salvation. I feel like I have been to church just reading your post.May God bless you brother.I will see you one day on that bright eternal shore. Come Lord Jesus, & come quickly.

        • hpinnc

          Marees1963, apparently, you were raised Catholic,which is OK. I have some very dear catholic friends.I am protestant, all I can tell you is what I have read in his word for myself, instead of relying on some pastor to interpret for me,Mareess,it isn't what we have done or not done.It is what HE HAS DONE.He has prepared a way for us,He ubderstands that we are not capable of being "GOOD" enough.That's why it was necessary for Christ to come & die for us on a cross.If we could have been good enough within ourselves it would not have been neccessary for him to come,but His word says "our rightiosness is as filthy rags."Jesus was perfect so we are "made perfect" by believing in his "mercy & grace" & His perfection.Marees1963, believe it or not,God does not "demand" anything from you,He asks for you to believe,that is your free choice as to whether you do or not.You are not saved today & lost tomarrow.Look up Romans 4:21, Romans 8:38,39. also 2nd Timothy 1:12. Check the KJV if you have access to it. I believe our eternal destiny is sealed that very moment that we say yes to His Holy Spirit tugging at our heart's door.If we invite Him to come in then we strive to "follow" his teachings. The Holy Spirit will help us.Will we sin again? Surely, but He has said that if we confess our sins,He is faithfull & just to cleanse us from ALL unrightiosness.He says He will remove our transgressions as far as the east is from the west.Yes there is work to be done & we strive to serve Him, but we are mortal,He is immortal, He understands that.Marees1963 if you have truly believed & asked Jesus Christ to come into your heart,& been baptised then I am happy to tell you that you have your ticket in your hand my dear sister.& you are just waiting for your ride.He will do just what He says He will do.Read your bible, believe it,don't depend on your priest for everything,he knows only what he has been taught,he is human & might mis-interpret some things.Ask the Holy Spirirt to help you comprehend what you read. May God richly bless you.

        • Marees1963

          I am sorry, but you are incorrect. Jesus Christ gave us the keys to heaven, the Catholic Church. See my reply above.

      • Melia Sese

        Amy ... I also wonder just how some of these people can reconcile some of these contradictory ideas. It seems that unless one believes as they do, he/she is "damned for all eternity," but at the same time those people (the "infidels") are also "sinners just like we are and thus no better or no worse." There appears to be very little rationality at work here, and thus many are easily swept up by the good-sounding words of a would-be tyrant - religious-based or otherwise.

        I don't know about you, but I prefer a more objective form of evaluation. Otherwise, there is no purpose in living and the world quickly degenerates into a hell where no one's rights are protected.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia...With all due respect I think you are confused and not quite as objective and rational as you think you are. I say that because it's clear to me that you are misinterpreting and misstating the comments made by Christians here. I understand, though, the concepts of Christianity are not always easily understood, tho the Gospel itself is simple enough for even a babe to comprehend.

          The Bible teaches that we ALL are sinners..that there is no one who can refrain from sinning....either by omission or commission....overtly or covertly. God sees our hearts and knows that we are not worthy of eternal life. Instead we are deserving of hell for rebellion against our Creator.

          Yet, out of love, He obligated Himself to make a way for men to be saved. But since he has given us all volition, our eternal future is up to us. We send ourselves to hell. Don't go.

          Once a person trusts Christ as Saviour, many changes...obvious and hidden....happen. The person is POSITIONALLY seen by God as glorified, already...even tho in REALITY he will still sin to one degree or other. So how can a Holy God countenance that saved but still potentially sinful person? The Bible teaches that He sees His children thru the blood of Christ. When He looks at me, He sees His Son. This is NOT a claim to deity or any such thing. A perfect God has a perfect plan and that is to conform every believer to the image of His Son so that ultimately, positionally and experientially, we will be perfected and glorified...but we certainly do not become little ''gods'' or angels either.

          This is what God has chosen to do with His creation and His creatures...whether or not anyone accepts the idea.
          His world.....His rules. Like it or not.

          Also...If I have given anyone the impression that I believe that saved people are any better than anyone else, then I have not done a good job of presenting the Gospel.

        • Melia Sese

          It's not all that complicated. What I see on display here is mysticism - the belief in assertions that can never be proven, but somehow are valid excuses to violate others' rights. There are many veiled threats to those who disagree, which ultimately amount to an attempt to intimidate. This approach will not work any longer. If we don't agree with them (are you included?) then we are to be scorned and ridiculed. Are we only "saved" when we agree with you?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia......What you regard as mysticism, I regard as truth. Remember, just like you, I have a right to believe whatever I choose but that's no guarantee that others won't mock or ridicule me. At my age, I am unaffected by such things and know that I know that I know and don't care much what others think about it.

          You continue to subtly attack Christianity by claiming that we use veiled threats to intimidate. I find this paranoia reflective of insecurity and a need to have compliance with her views, something I run into often with atheists and agnostics.

          I'm fallible. People are certainly not saved by agreeing with me....I could be wrong. But what I have said IS verifiable. Just compare it with the Word of God and if my words disagree with God's, then by all means reject mine. The problem here is that you don't believe that the Bible is God's Word. Since the Christian faith rests firmly on the Word of God, then to reject the Bible is tantamount to rejecting Christ and His church.

          When God created you, He gave you a free will and the liberty to reject even Him and His Word. When you stand before Him you can never claim that you never heard the Gospel because I and others have told you...so you are without excuse.

          I assure you, though, that the Book that you hold so little regard for is not subtle in it's declarations about life and death. And it loudly proclaims that all who reject the crosswork of Christ are irrevecably lost and hell bound.

          Its your choice to believe that or not.

          The ball is squarely in your court.

        • LiveInTheRealWorld

          "The problem here is that you don't believe that the Bible is God's Word."

          This statement is awfully close to what the real problem is: that anyone thinks any book is "God's Word."

        • Amy Lambert

          But which book, which god,which time and which word?

        • Melia Sese

          YES - it surely is, so pay attention. My relationship with God, my family and anyone else is governed by my own preferences. I see the Bible is basically a quasi-historical document, with much of interest in the way of philosophy and the thinking of people from that era. But it in no way tells me how to live. For that, I keep my own counsel.

          Look, I cannot tell you what to do, but I'm not mocking it. I just have serious reservations about anyone who is so sure of themselves that she could think that her beliefs are in any way relevant to mine or of use to me. Of course I refuse to that I am "worthless", "hell-bound", "a wretch", or anything of the sort. I pity anyone who does believe that about him/herself. The problem with these people who pretend to know everything is that it inevitably becomes a cause to convert others to their way of thinking.

          Are Christians really as intolerant as many Muslims? Perhaps, although they may not be as violent as the Taliban, there is still an air of "you must follow my way" about them. In the past this led to many dead.

        • Amy Lambert

          So, just out of curiosity, which of the Ten Commandments do you have serious reservations about?

        • Melia Sese

          I never expressed reservations on them in particular - my problem is not with God or the supposed "word" but with the people who profess to speak for Him and thus know everything that is in the heart of others. Bottom line is there shall be no mortal who will tell me what to do. I can only wish others had the confidence to run their own lives. We spend a lot of time ragging on the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives (take your pick) for wanting to control people, when there seem to be many on the other side who wish to do the same.

          Amy - I take it you are familiar with Ayn Rand. She would describe one side as the "mystics of muscle" and the other as the "mystics of spirit". The first ("liberals") want to rule your body and the second want to rule your mind. I submit to no rulers who walk this Earth.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Melia....
          '' I see the Bible is basically a quasi-historical document, with much of
          interest in the way of philosophy and the thinking of people from that
          era. But it in no way tells me how to live. For that, I keep my own
          counsel.''

          " I see in you a profoundly arrogant attitude and despite your
          protestations to the contrary, an intolerance which borders on that of
          the Muslims....''

          So...In other words, holding to a progressive view, possessing a certain disdain for the old-fashioned, out dated opinions of past generations, with their tried and true traditions, and with an avant-garde, innovative approach to the philosophical imperatives we all feel, you've cleverly engineered your own religious system to suit your own needs and sentiments. And all the while arrogantly criticizing and judging everyone else.

          (As I said in prior posts, fallen man has always sought to be the god of his own world)

          Your cerebral nimbleness is to be admired.
          But how do you negotiate a doorway with a brain that huge?

          Much as you try to make it so, your problem is not with me, but with the Biblical truths that we have been discussing here all day. Your refusal to accept them doesn't change their significance one iota. His truth is eternal and inviolate.

          This may be the reason for your rejection of the God of Scripture:

          2Co 4:4 They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

        • Melia Sese

          OK, Madam, let us investigate some of these "truths" as you so label them ...
          Proverbs 26:4: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. (i.e. Don’t answer.)
          Proverbs 26:5: Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (i.e. Do answer.)
          Which is it?

          Mark 3:28-29: I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. (There is an unforgivable sin.)
          1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
          (Jesus forgives our sins. No exceptions mentioned.)
          Colossians 2:13: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. (He forgave us all our sins.)
          "All" of our sins are forgiven.

          Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you." (Part of the Ten Commandments.)
          Deuteronomy 5:16: Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Honor your parents.)
          Matthew 10:35-37: For I have come to turn ’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
          (What, exactly, happened to "Honor your father and mother?")
          Luke 12:51-53: Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
          (Division, parent against child.)

          Shall I go on? Try to tell us, madame, how this "scripture" informs anyone? It is merely a political document to be twisted by anyone, for any purpose suitable to the moment at hand. You refuse to understand that, having lost the ability to reason independently and become a captive of the manipulators. Nothing you (or anyone who professes to believe like you) can say has one iota of effect on Melia ... and no, she has a normal-sized head ... LOL ...
          I suppose I should be grateful. Not once have you referred to me as a "dried up old hag" or a "Flip" ... this is surely an improvement over the denizens of Yahoo or some other left-leaning sites.
          We shall have to agree to disagree - you shall be unsuccessful in swaying Melia and she shall be unsuccessful doing the same with you. No matter, I tend to concentrate on younger generations who have lost the ability to think critically, so as to better serve a future dictator.
          Is it really true that there is "nothing new under the sun?" Then fortunately the stubborn "clingers" will dwindle in number until they possess no more influence. For there is such a thing as progress - else how would any of you captives of the mystics even be able to use a computer? You see these weren't created on faith alone, they required actual scientific understanding about various things, among them electricity (moving electrons), and the principles of data storage and computing instructions based on hexadecimal code.
          Scorn and revile Melia if you will - it changes nothing. Anyone that regards him/herself as a piece of meat soon becomes a meal for someone else, figuratively or literally.

        • Marees1963

          I will not scorn you. He cannot answer your questions about the Bible and Its quotes that seemingly contradict Itself. He has no authority to do so. If you want answers, seek Catholicism and the proper Bible.

        • Amy Lambert

          I had the same reaction as you, come to think of it, in reading SOME of the comments here. One of the major problems Western thought has with Islamists is their intolerance for any divergent views, any different religious views. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the Christian bible is not allowed, period.

          Believe devoutly in your religion--go ahead, have no personal doubt that yours is the one true religion in the world, the one true religion throughout the entire history of the world--everyone else on the earth today is misguided, everyone else --every other god--who lived before your religion came into being was unfortunate, if not damned for all eternity. Gilgamesh, the greek gods, the roman gods, the egyptian gods, the asian gods, the hebrew god. . .That's your business.

          But when you attack others who do not hold your views--be they atheists, agnostics or god fearing people of other religions-- that becomes their business, whether they are atheists or god fearing people who hold other religious truths to be just as self evident as you hold yours to be. That is because they all, each and every one of them, including atheism, depend on faith, in the sense that these beliefs cannot be proven, one way or the other.

          The truth is that we almost all introduced into our belief systems at a very early age. We are Christians, or Muslims or Jews or Zoroastrians because our parents were, and had we been born into these other families, we would be believers in their religion, not in the one we now hold so dear and so true. Something to keep in mind. A little humility never hurt.

        • Melia Sese

          Thank you. When my children started coming, my husband and I agreed that we would introduce religious concepts to them as they grew older, but the choice of what they should do here would be entirely up to them. As a result, my five (now adult) children have widely varying views away from their parents' Catholicism (I was born in the Philippines and my late husband has an Irish ancestry, he came from the Northeast US) but our oldest daughter has followed in our footsteps. One of my sons has decided to explore Buddhism (my family name, Sese, has a Chinese origin, spelled Xie or Hsieh) and found it deeply satisfying.

        • Amy Lambert

          could you define "saved" for us so we are all on the same page here?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Amy....
          Salvation is deliverance from danger or suffering...to deliver from sin and death. The word carries the idea of victory, health, or preservation.

          Why does man need to be 'saved'?

          The rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden caused the curse of sin and death to fall on all of creation and every subsequent generation of mankind. From that point on, there was no man who could NOT, NOT sin.

          The penalty on Adam and Eve and subsequently on all mankind is eternal separation from God and eternal punishment.

          But God, knowing the absolute hopelessness of man, made a way by providing Himself a sacrifice...a perfect ''man'' (Jesus Christ, God Incarnate) who willingly served the sentences of death for all of the sins of all mankind. He died our deaths for us...so that we don't have to and because of His death and resurrection, we can have life in Him. But we must CHOOSE To recognize what Christ has done and acknowledge Him as our Savior.

          If we do not, then when we die, we will have to pay for our own sins.

          We have free will and the choice is up to us. We send ourselves to hell. My advice is, don't go.

        • Shermer

          "The rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden caused the curse of sin and
          death to fall on all of creation and every subsequent generation of
          mankind."

          Did your grandfather ever punish you for something your dad did before you were born?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Shermer.......GTCU.

          Of course he didn't. But then again, my grandfather, not being God, lacked the capacity to see the potential wickedness in my heart. Without the qualities of omniscience and omnipresence, he couldn't observe my sinful thoughts and deeds.

          Our ancestor, Adam, pretty much screwed it up for all of us. We inherited his propensity for sin and are condemned to death because of it. I'm just grateful that Jesus came along and did something about that.

          God's world.
          God's rules.

          Simple.

        • Shermer

          Condemned to death for turning out the way God knew we would? And still
          he let us all be born, even the ones he already knows he’s sending to
          hell? What a petty, vindictive jerk.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Shermer...........IF there is a Creator God who is Holy, Just and Good, then the argument could be made that He should have some obligation to that world that He set into motion....and certainly to rid it of all evil, right?

          So why didn't/doesn't He?

          1. God could change eveyone's personality so that they cannot sin, but that would mean no more free will. We could no longer choose but would be programmed to do right. That means that could be no meaningful voluntary relationship between Him and His Creation.

          2. God could just supernaturally intervene in everyone's evil actions. Stop a drunk driver...stop shoddy construction work...stop a domestic abuser... bankrobbers....highschool bullies....drug pushers ...rapists...pedophiles......murderers.......terrorists. Sounds good but where would He draw the line?

          Soon it might become problematic for us because eventually God would be infringing on things that we like to do, like committing adultery .....cheating on taxes.....using pornography or frequenting strip joints ...stealing pens and paper clips from work....taking money from the kid's piggy bank......all of which are things that many people consider ''lesser evil'' actions. Chances are good that we would resent His constant intervention into our lives.

          3. He could just judge and remove everyone who commits evil acts of any degree...but the problem is that no one would be left. If He were to remove actual evil and all POTENTIAL evil, He would have to eliminate us all. (The human heart is deceitful above all and desperately wicked..there is no one who is ''good''. Even our motives for acting ''good'' are ''bad''. )

          Since God is omniscient and knew before hand that His perfect Creation would be ruined by Adam's sin, He could have just not gone to the trouble of Creation and done something else. Instead, seeing the end from the beginning and knowing that fallen man would be doomed to eternal separation from Him forever, and desiring a relationship with him, BEFORE the world was created He had planned that Jesus Christ would die for the sins of fallen man and make a way possible for man to be reunited and reconciled with His Creator.

          He gave men the witness of conscience and nature which would point to Him. He gave the Law to teach them right from wrong, and provide man with a basis upon which to judge and punish evil. He ordained the concept of government to provide protection for the innocent and judge law breakers. He created a world in which real choices have real consequences. And....we would be living in a much more wicked world but for God restraining some acts of evil.

          Also, the obvious presence of evil in the world around us stands as a constant testimony against the secular humanists and almost every other religious system.

          Most religions and the secular humanists believe that deep down inside mankind is inherently good and that once it ''sheds the skin'' of religion, the world would flower into a perfect world of peace, properity, and love for our fellow man. But the record speaks for itself. That every day we observe, hear about, or commit evil acts of one degree or other ever reminds us of our fallen state.

          If, as the humanists say, mankind is good, then mankind would be perfecting itself and wars and political oppression and greed would come to an end. Yet we are sinners, and thus we stumble and fall into sin. Mankind is fallen and evil is a constant testimony to that fallenness.

          A final reason for God’s permission of evil in the world is that he uses evil to strengthen Christians in their faith. Facing evil, trials, and tribulations force us to draw closer to God and to rely on his strength and thus grow in our relationship to him.

          One last thing....God has already defeated Satan and evil at the cross, but is withholding His final judgment until the last of the elect is saved. Mankind has been given 2000 years already to know God and trust Christ....and in the end, all evil will be judged, eliminated and a new heaven and new earth will be created.

          I don't expect my answer to satisfy you, tho I'm sure you'll have a chuckle over it.

          Maybe when you meet Him in person, you could run those questions by Him.

        • Shermer

          Re: point 1 - We'd be oblivious to it anyway, we'd just think that was the way things were.

          point 2 - I don't know where he'd draw the line, but I can tell you I'd draw it at least above rapists, paedophiles and murderers. I guess that makes me more moral than him.

          point 3 - He tried that already, almost, with the flood. But why didn't he start again from scratch? Why continue with Noah's family, who were just as wicked as everyone else he'd wiped out?

          " He created a world in which real choices have real consequences.
          And....we would be living in a much more wicked world but for God
          restraining some acts of evil."

          So he does draw a line somewhere? Seeing as how he's been prepared to stand by and watch the Holocaust and kids starving by the millions in Africa, not to mention that old chestnut, abortion, I'd love to know what sort of evil he deems bad enough to restrain.

        • hpinnc

          Are Catholics the only people who can go to Heaven?

        • Amy Lambert

          How much time elapsed from this event in the Gardenof Eden and the resurrection of Christ? And what of all the souls inbetween?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Amy..
          1. I don't know.

          2. The Bible clearly teaches that apart from Christ and His Sacrifice, no one is saved. So what about those who lived before Calvary?

          From Adam on, God progressively revealed things about Himself and his plan for mankind and redemption. Abraham knew more than Adam, Moses knew more than Abe, David knew more than Moses, Isaiah know more that David, Paul knew more than David, etc.

          The revelation included information about a promised Deliverer....the Messiah...who would fulfill 300+ prophecies as proof of who He was, and deliver mankind from their sins by taking their punishment upon Himself, thus providing a way for them to be reconciled to their Creator.

          Before the cross, God judged people by the light that they had regarding Him and the future Redeemer. Just as we look back to the cross for salvation...the OT saints looked forward, by faith, to the cross and the promised Redeemer.

          3. Its important to understand that the God of the Bible is Holy, Just, and Good. He is FAIR...and it wouldn't be fair to judge ''innocent'' people who never heard of Jesus. But here's the thing:

          First..There are NO innocent people...no one who is sinless and therefore worthy of spending eternity with a Righteous God. We are ALL sinners.

          Second..The Holy, Just, and Good God has made Himself known to every single person....thru the WITNESSES of CONSCIENCE and NATURE.

          When a person does something wrong, and his gets little niggling pokes in his conscience telling him that it was wrong, it's a WITNESS to the individual to teach him that there IS a way that is ''right'' and a way that is ''wrong''. (Rom 2:15)

          And when that person beholds the unique, complex world around him, with all of it's variety of shapes and colors and living things....with all of it magnificant and intricate designs, he is WITNESSING the glory of GOD. And both of those witnesses point men to their Creator....so that we ALL are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)

          Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
          Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God IS MANIFEST in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
          Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

          4. Jesus said this:

          Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
          Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
          Joh 3:19 And THIS is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
          Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
          Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

          Hope this helped.

        • Marees1963

          "I'm fallible. People are certainly not saved by agreeing with me....I could be wrong. But what I have said IS verifiable. Just compare it with the Word of God and if my words disagree with God's, then by all means reject mine."

          Exactly! And yet you cannot see your own error. Your words are your interpretation, period. You have no authority to interpret the Bible as you see fit. Again, where did your Bible come from?

        • hpinnc

          Where did yours come from?

        • Marees1963

          The Catholic Church was living and breathing long before the Bible was written down by the Apostles, the first hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: "Much has been written that irrefutably proves the historicity and veracity of the Scriptures." Isn't this the whole point of this discussion, and, if so, couldn't we coax you to provide us with at least one of the orthodox Christian scholars who, if I understand you correctly, prove the point incontrovertibly?

        • Marees1963

          It's not a matter of agreeing with "man" but a cooperation with God in mapping out His rules for salvation.

        • Amy Lambert

          What if those rules just came from very wise men--would they be just as valid to live by?

        • Marees1963

          No, they would not. See my above reply to screemin. Our Lord did not just leave us flying in the wind to interpret the Bible any old way we see fit anymore than God left the Jews just flying in the wind with the Old Testament. Wise men can utter truths, but they have no authority given by God unless it coincides with that of the what the Catholic Church has taught for nearly 2 millennia.

        • Amy Lambert

          And why do you suppose he let all that time elapsed between the garden of eden and the bible?

        • Amy Lambert

          OK, suppose that the rules as given by the lord and as taught by the Catholic church for nearly 2 millenia were all there were--suppose those wonderful rules on how to live one's life and treat others were the sum and substance of it--great advice and laws, but no afterlife? Would you still be a follower of the Church under those conditions?

        • hpinnc

          Melia,Sccreemingmeme is not the one making the rules.He has presented the gospel pretty cllearly. I don't see anything unreasonable about God's requirements.If you feel intimidated, maybe Christianity is not for you.Go find some other belief system that has no rules for the game.Everyone doing as you please There are rules & consequences in just about anything we humans can come up with.Man sinned in the garden.God cannot or will not excuse sin when we stand before him on that great & final day to answer for what decisions we have made while here on earth.He has made a way to be "reconciled" so we can receive forgiveness for our sins, it is by his grace that we can receive this,If you want God to prove Himself to you by writing some great message in the sky to you,then forget it,it ain't gonna happen.You can't prove it by some scientific experiment.You accept it,through faith, or you can reject it,but there is a consequence,whether you & I like it or not.Melia, we are ALL included.We all have to come by "the way of the cross".When you analyze it,it is a pretty good deal.We can't work it out,it is a free gift God is willing to give us,if we are willing to accept,believe, & have faith in Him & what He did on the cross.I hope you make the right choice & choose Him,but that is a choice for you. I and sreemingmeme have made ours.Just child-like faith,Melia, if you try to figure it out ,you never will,
          It will never make sense to you.

        • Melia Sese

          It is not your concern what faith motivates Melia. But I shall remain free to call attention to defects in the thinking process, wherever I may find them. I knew from the start that this would be a "target rich environment" as there seem to be very few in America that can think for themselves any more. You perhaps are not one of them.

          No, Melia does not seek any "writing in the sky" for I am a believer in God - but not the false one that so many here want to push on others. FYI - that "ain't gonna happen" either, at least not with one who has the strength of character and intellect to proudly stand on her own two feet and proclaim, "I think, therefore I am." With no unearned guilt or other impediment thrust on me by dishonest manipulators who seek to gain control over my mind and body. That "ain't gonna happen" either.

        • Amy Lambert

          "You accept it,through faith, or you can reject it,but there is a consequence,whether you & I like it or not." And it is on faith, and faith alone, that you can say that about there being a consequence and believe it. There is no proof, no certainty, that anyone will be standing before God, or that there is a judgment day of any kind. But if you hear it often enough and read it often enough and wish to believe it hard enough, that's enough for you.

          Have you ever studied the history of religion?

        • hpinnc

          You have done a superb job.screemingmeme.Melia aparently was raised Catholic,& I certainly believe there are Catolic believers or Christians.I think she feels intimidated because we as protestants think you must believe the way we do.All I can say to Melia, is I have read everything Screemingmeme has written,& if I were Catholic,I would not feel intimidated.

        • Melia Sese

          And what makes you that anything written by that fool is intimidating to me? I am one who thinks for herself. I am successful and I am loved by my children and grandchildren. And do you know why? It's because God loves me and I love God. Think that one over for a second. There is not a thing you can say that will change it.

          I have lived my life according to basic decency and have never initiated force or fraud against anyone. Fortunately, God also saw fit to provide Melia with an excellent working mind, which enables me to sort through all of the clutter and confusion, otherwise I might not have attained what I have. I don't seek to convert anyone, but I do like to tear open holes into the hypocrisy and empty mysticism I see around me because I believe it is destructive to those who cling to it. Yeah I said that ...

          Only those who are as weak minded as Ms Meemee can find any logic in her windy diatribes. You don't agree with Melia? Not my problem.

        • Marees1963

          Actually, it was rational thought and logic that led me to the Catholic faith by choice. If one is to believe in Christ our Savior, it's logical to follow the trail back to His Words contained in the Bible. Christ founded the Catholic Church. Even Jewish recognize this fact. The Church's teachings, begun in tradition, Biblical in formation and carried on in tradition, makes very logical sense.

        • Amy Lambert

          "Christ founded the Catholic Church" He did? I thought the Church was founded many decades after his death and resurrection.

        • Marees1963

          see above reply to screemin. Christ founded the Church with Peter.

        • Amy Lambert

          Can you quote some scripture on this point?

        • Marees1963

          And you believe they just ran around in limbo not doing as Our Lord commanded prior to writing down the Bible??? The Church was in existence before the Bible.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Marees1963....Your account of the founding of the Church, the Body of Christ, is baloney.

        • Marees1963

          Now there is a thoughtful, logical answer...said no one ever. :)

        • Melia Sese

          And I came to Catholicism by way of my dear mother back in the Philippines. I still attend mass on a quasi-regular basis here in Florida. I also donate liberally to the Church (though not the 10%) in the high five-figure neighborhood annually, because I believe they do some good for people in the community who are not as fortunate as I have been.

        • Amy Lambert

          "otherwise there is no purpose in living"? help me out here. what is the purpose in living for religious people (if it is preparation for the afterlife, what is the purpose in living the afterlife? )
          why must life have "a purpose" at all ? why can't we must be here and enjoy this beautiful earth and all its wonders?

        • Melia Sese

          What I meant to say in that context was that some here seem to consider all of us equally depraved and that each of us is no different than Mao, Stalin,Hitler, etc. They even go so far as to say it is a waste to help other people as no "good works" allows one into their conception of "heaven" ... so therefore, why are we even alive if it doesn't matter what we do?

          This is possibly the most disgusting and insane idea I have ever come across. Is not the purpose of God to ensure we do "good" ... ah no, of course not because we are "wretches" who have no idea of what "good" is.

          I have spent enough time running down the ideas of the dishonest manipulators. My God tells me I have no right to initiate force or fraud on anyone else, period. If what you want to do with your life is "enjoy this beautiful earth, etc." that is certainly your privilege. I have done much of that over my 62 years on it, and I intend to be doing it for many more to come.

        • Marees1963

          And there you have the insanity of Protestantism. You just have to be "saved" and all is good. ;)

        • Amy Lambert

          RE: " If what you want to do with your life is "enjoy this beautiful earth, etc." that is certainly your privilege. I have done much of that over my 62 years on it, and I intend to be doing it for many more to come."

          Apparently, then, it is your privilege as well!

          In addition, I gather you have a purpose in living. What is it?

        • Melia Sese

          I have many ... but it boils down to these: (1) learn all I can about as much as possible (this of course includes those who do not necessarily agree with me, as I tend to learn more this way); (2) maintain my health as long as possible so that I will be able to take advantage of the exciting new developments in medicine that will greatly extend my life; and (3) to spend as much time as possible with my five children and nine (and counting!) grandchildren (which is why #2) so I can share my knowledge and experiences with them. I might even remarry - but there are no serious candidates as yet for the esteemed title of Mr Sese ... LOL

        • Breezeyguy

          The true purpose of living is loving, and to love rightly, and to love forever.

        • Amy Lambert

          I like that purpose. For those who have posted in terms of god's purpose for us, is this is, or is there more? You keep on about atheists having "no purpose in living" and I keep wondering: what is the purpose in living for those of you who are deeply religious?

        • Breezeyguy

          I believe all humans, per se, have this same purpose. But not all want it or are realizing it. The Bible says God is love. But the initial religious experience can be overwhelming and cause new converts to be overzealous to the point of grave insensitivity. Inevitably, to know and love God is also the purpose of those who are deeply religious, even if they will not admit this fact. The purpose of "man qua man" is not necessarily the espoused conscious purpose of every individual. Our task in this life is to align our conscious purpose with our true purpose.

      • hpinnc

        Amy, I can only speak to you from a Christian perspective, but that is WHY I am a christian,It is the promise of eternal life in Heaven,a new diminsion,God has said in his word, eye has not seen,ear has not heard,neither has it entered into the mind of man,the things that God has in store for those who believe in Him & are looking [expecting] for His return.What does atheism have to offer to a loved one at death's door?,communism? Islam [ 72 virgins? I don't need 72 virgins ] See my blog above that I posted to Robert. Good luck & I truly hope you find His true peace.

    • Gary Johnson

      YOU just PROVED YOU ARE PSYCHOTIC!!! IF you are an MD YOU SHOULD have YOUR License revoked!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Corrina-Lynn-Robinson/1409769955 Corrina Lynn Robinson

        Can you give me a logical explanation as to how he has proved himself psychotic????? I can deduce after your asinine comment that you are a retard, Gary. So, I'm pretty much sure you can't come up with a logical explanation. The only thing you can retort with is opinion

        • James White, M.D.

          Thank you, Corrina. I did not think his ranting deserved a "considered" reply.

    • Melia Sese

      Mr. Dean is on shaky ground here by attempting to claim that humans (and by extension, other animals) are something beyond a “group of atoms.” Further, he states there are no “fixed standards of judgment” unless you buy into his conception of God. And, most tellingly, he claims that burden of proof is on the denier rather than the one making a assertion that something exists. Where would this get you in courts of law, which presumably are governed by objective standard? If the state asserts you are guilty of something, they must prove it. You do not have to prove you are not guilty.

      So let’s examine the central assertion here. He seems to be saying that life in general is more than an arrangement of matter. OK, so then what would it be? Perhaps energy? Matter and energy have been shown to be equivalent by science, starting with Einstein. Perhaps a certain arrangement of matter and energy? Now we are simply talking about semantics. In Star Wars Part 5 (The Empire Strikes Back), the character Yoda espoused George Lucas’ philosophy when he stated “luminous
      beings are we, not this crude matter.” Is this the basis of Mr. Dean’s ideas?

      Melia (that’s me…) does believe in God, but at the same time, I also believe that He gave us the ability to reason and learn about the world we live in. Our word “science” comes from the Latin word meaning knowledge. It is body of knowledge that exists outside of a single individual’s mind and thus can be passed down through the centuries and used for human advancement. Would Mr. Dean care to refute Melia when I assert that life today is far better than it was 100 years ago, let alone in the time of brutal murderers like Tamerlane and Genghis Khan?

      However, I have no problem reconciling my personal faith (mine, no one else’s) in God with the sweep of human advancement through history. But I have a hard time taking the word of a heavy metal rock drummer as being anything definitive when it comes to understanding intelligence (human or otherwise). If those on the political Right insist on rejection of knowledge then they will not last beyond another few generations of existence. If you want to live as a 21st Century version of the Amish, that is your personal preference, but don’t expect many to join you.

      Finally, Mr. Dean offers that there are “no fixed standards of judgment” unless one believes in some form of a Supreme Being. OK, so whose belief are we going to go by? Muslim? Jewish? Or one of the many sub-sects of Christianity? Who shall decide? What it seems to amount to is just another version of “might makes right” (which Dean seems to oppose, but his reasoning is flawed). In other words, believe as we do, or we’ll kill you. This has been the operative procedure throughout most of human history.

      I think this question is exactly what the Founding Fathers were concerned about when they enshrined freedom of religion in the First Amendment. Their standard was “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which is another way of saying that man has a right to exist for his own sake and not that of any organized body. That would
      include the state, but it would also include the church (or temple, mosque, what have you). This is not the time to start undermining our basic rights just because someone is unhappy with how those rights are exercised.

    • robert m

      Well written and I respect your profession. However, I
      cannot understand how I must suffer consequences in your religion simply
      because I didn't "choose" your god. I didn't choose any god, and most
      certainly not the Christian god. If Christian God wanted me to like him,
      shouldn't he reach out to me? Do something to reach me? Am I the only one who
      sees the futility in this logic of an all powerful god who will not or cannot provide
      any tangible or meaningful proof of existence even when given an opportunity
      such as in numerous prayer studies. Truth is, we don’t understand everything.
      That doesn’t mean there is a god behind it. Certainly a lot of things happen
      that I can’t understand. But why throw your hands up and assume god is doing
      it? Even more troubling, is if your "miracles" were actually the devil doing all the things that you think are godly? I mean it was a "miracle" Hitler wasn't killed earlier with all the valid attempts on his life. It was a "miracle" that the hijackers were able to take control of the planes on the terrrible attack on September 11. I mean think of all the failures that had to occur to allow these dreaded things to happen. Certainly these are terrible things that should not have happened. Just because it should not have happened and it did does not mean that god is behind it. And before anyone reports me to the feds, I am refering to the definition of miracle that is an event which is extremely unlikely and not a welcomed event.

      • hpinnc

        Robert,you have raised some very good questions.I cannot & would not try to impose my beliefs on you,but you raised the question,"Why does the Christian God not reach out to me?" He has Robert.He sent his only Son,Jesus Christ to die for our sins on a cruel cross,to be crucified for our sins.We have to have faith,& believe.I know it probably does not make any sense to youif you were not schooled in some of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.Jesus is the true son of God, He says in the bible,"I am THE WAY,THE TRUTH, & the LIGHT.NO MAN CAN COME TO the HEAVENLY FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH & by ME" That is believing on Him as God's only begotten son.Robert,He also says in His Holy Scriptures to "seek & you shall find, knock, & it [ the door { way} to salvation, will be opened to you.You mentioned why does God allow bad things to happen to us? We live in an imperfect world, the devil has influences & certain powers in this present world.One day, when Jesus Christ comes back to this earth,he will be defeated & be cast into hell & destroyed.I hope you will keep an open mind on this subject.Ask God to personally make himself known to you.Don't try to analize it,or understand it scientifically.We have to have faith,read His word, & believe,or we can spend a lifetime searcging & never finding that eternal hope, that peace, that passes ALL UNDERSTANDING. Now I'll bet I have really shot you a curve, but I hope you will discuss this matter more with some Christian friends if you have some,or you can purchase yourself a New Testament,it is pretty self-explanatory.I know it may seem kinda of complicated, but really it's as simple as John 3:16.It really makes as much sense to me,as a lot of other religions I have read about.Just remember this, John. In all other religions,man is reaching out trying to find God, & some religions they actually do things to hurt or harm themselves trying to find him & appease him,Christianity is the only religion where God has reached out to humanity,& said I love you enough to send my son, to die for your sins,to pay the ultimate price for your sins on a cruel cross, all you have to do is BELIEVE IT & RECEIVE IT INTO YOUR HEART.If you do this I promise,you,you will find a new meaning to life,You will see & understand from a new diminsion.May God Bless you really good. .

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: [He did reach out for you]: "He has Robert.He sent his only Son,Jesus Christ to die for our sins on a cruel cross,to be crucified for our sins." Could you please clarify this for me? How does one die for other's sins? One dies, cruelly or otherwise. Suppose he had died uncruelly--the equivalent of a quick shot in the arm, the way American justice now administers capital punishment? Would that not have done it? Why not?
          What is the logical connection between Christ's cruel death and our sins? Could not an all powerful GOD simply have determined that our sins would be wiped out if we believed in him and followed his laws? He could have sent his son to teach these laws. What does his son's suffering logically have to do with expatiation of others' sins? LOgically, now. . .not just rote learning regurgitated.

        • http://twitter.com/eagle2758 George Washington

          The ONLY way to get to God is Through the Lord Jesus Christ, through His Blood on the Cross. That is what you take on Faith, and read the Scriptures and hear them in a Bible-based church. Start with Proverbs in your reading. You will be very surprised.

        • Marees1963

          Sweety, the Catholic Church is the original "Bible-based church."

        • jazzpast

          Sweety, the Catholic cult of MARY isn't a Christian church it's a cult! The Roman Catholic cult of Mary has it's own Bible. The papacy didn't give the world the New Testament Bible. In fact your Roman Catholic CULT suppressed all liberty and prohibited the circulation of the Bible, the Roman Catholic CULT even put untold thousands to death just for reading the Bible! Your Catholic CULT denounced liberty of worship, freedom of speech and freedom of the press! Your Catholic Church isn't a Church it's a political machine that assumed control and interposed itself between God and God's people. The Roman Catholic Church is the Kingdom of SATAN and Pope Benedict XVI RATZ is a NAZI Child molester! The DEVIL sits in the Vatican!

        • Melia Sese

          You are simply an anti-intellectual noisemaker, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing ...

        • jazzpast

          It's called Truth. The Word of God is mightier than the sword! And i'm going to tell the Truth to as many people as I can. I tremble for people like you when I consider the awesome justice of a vengeful God. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. That Melia Sese, is Truth. It is power and it is destiny.

        • Melia Sese

          You have no power that anyone should respect and you never will.

        • jazzpast

          Godless and atheist who would respect you? Ha, ha, ha!

        • Melia Sese

          Godless and atheist? Where, pray tell, do you draw tihs conclusion? Probably from what you sit on, Johnny. I find it amusing that you still want to tangle with me.

        • jazzpast

          Universities are full of atheist-smart people that reach stupid conclusions. Your nothing special. Over-educated idiots are a dime a dozen ha, ha, ha!

        • Melia Sese

          Silly fool, no one is "over-educated" - but nearly everyone is under-educated. Don't bother Melia until you are capable of putting at least three coherent sentences together ... I would like to think you are young and unsophisticated, but I somehow think you are not . I see elsewhere you have a tendency to go all-caps as if this somehow makes you more credible.

        • jazzpast

          Obsequious Buffoon, a good education doesn't guarantee common sense or good judgement. Educated idiots and blow hards are a dime a dozen.

        • Melia Sese

          Uh, when did this place degenerate into Yahoo …? Okay Johnny … I’ll see your “obsequious buffoon” and raise you one “depleted testosterone nancy boy.” Common sense? All right, let’s see it. What we’ve seen from you thus far is a whole bunch of supposed bravado but nothing behind it. And yet, you are proud to be stupid, aren’t you?

          Where does your “truth” come from, little man? Looks the same place as where you deposit your leftovers. You see, if you want respect, you need to have something worthy of it. Now who’s the inferior one? Looks like Melia got under your skin, Johnny, and your flagging manhood couldn’t handle it. Are there any original ideas in your head, son? We’re waiting …

          But if playing a game of who can deliver the bigger insult is your thing, let’s see whatcha got. Here we see a prima facie example of a “loving Christian.”

        • jazzpast

          You sound like a childish kindergartener

        • Melia Sese

          That's it? Pathetic. Now run along, little boy. And if you have no further use for your brain why don't you donate it to someone not so "fortunate." And don't ever come back. You hillbilly punks are all the same, afraid to stand up when you are challenged.

        • jazzpast

          Challenged by you? Ha, ha, ha! You have to be kidding.

        • Melia Sese

          OK, then, Johnny. Step up. Tell us all why you think you have the right to tell everyone how to live. Or just shut up ... I don't kid, fool.

        • jazzpast

          If nothing else your good entertainment. You can't silence or intimidate me. I'm a fundamental Bible-believing Christian with biblical beliefs of morality, marriage, family and Christianity. Marxist/Hitler socialist era types like yourself would love to ban Christianity and biblical values and standards from all public life, from all areas of influence in America. You liberal leftys have no values other than immorality. You would love to blot the name of Jesus Christ from the face of the earth. There is little hope that liberty and freedom will exist anywhere on this planet after we find ourselves suffering from the loss of it. So the atheist are taking over in America. Like George Orwell's futuristic vision or picture of the future. "The future," he said, "is a picture of a boot stomping on the face of a man forever." That's the future of a Godless America.
          "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'(II Corinthians 3:17)

        • Melia Sese

          Comparing Melia to Hitler, now you truly are amusing Johnny. Ban Christianity? Another mindless conclusion emanating from a zero mind.

          Liberal lefty? By what determination have you come up with this? It seems you really are a pitiful example of your side. Perhaps you ought to sit down and let Ms Meemee handle this. She is far more gracious and keeps a civil tongue in her head.

          Thus far, none of what you have written even approaches the "truth" you so audaciously proclaimed. It might go better for you if you were to recognize your basic ignorance and put yourself in learning mode, but until you recover from your hurt feelings it won't likely be possible ....

          So let's try again, Johnny. Please come up with actual things Melia has written that cause you to issue such petulant nonsense. I do believe, however, that the mindless right wingers (and left wingers) have little future in the world that is emerging. An inability to think critically in this age of specialized knowledge and mechanization spells the end for millions.

          Men are also in danger of becoming obsolete if they don't start studying harder in school, and this shall become a world governed by women and the men who service us. There is little need for mindless mysticism and it shall die out, little by little, bit by bit. I can sense the fear all over this board. Most of it comes from older people who cannot believe the world they are about to leave has come to this - but I'm certain this generation is really not all that unique. My parents and grandparents probably had similar fears when they passed as well.

        • jazzpast

          Sweety your a complete retard. For your information I'm very well off and far from obsolete. Doubt you will ever get the chance to live the way I do.

        • Melia Sese

          More name calling ... that's all you got, Johnny? I'm not sure what your idea of "very well off" is - perhaps a double-wide instead of a single ... "information" LOL, is that what you're calling it? Run back to your preacher and fetch us some more. Melia will still be here to swat you down, until you finally quit your ludicrous attempts.

          Of course you and the rest of the mystics are obsolete. Because you will die soon and there won't be anyone to miss you, and this goes for all the rest of your ilk. I'm not through with you yet, Johnny. It's almost fun watching your pitiful attempts. Oh and you might want to get one of your more brainier friends to proofread your stuff before you hit the "post" button ...

          Notice how the typical airheaded mystic operates. Someone like this is incapable of engaging in anything like an actual discussion about much of anything. Yet somehow this goofball has figured out how to use a computer ... and to anyone else who wants to take this idiot's side (I don't see anyone yet, though), observe how you will be dealt with.

        • jazzpast

          If you got a job and a life you wouldn't have to run your mouth so much.

        • Melia Sese

          I'm retired, genius. Read my profile ... at 62 I have plenty of time. I also continue to trade the futures and credit markets. If you learn how to play well with others, you might even find my advice elsewhere on the web, Johnny. Don't try to tell me you are working.

        • MrModerateAZ

          oh, I get it, a troll...

        • jazzpast

          You have a Superiority complex. It's a complex that develops when a person suffers from a Inferiority complex and decides to act superior to mask your Inferiority. People like you often claim to be better than, or more important than others. I think it's funny ha, ha, ha that your so insecure.. I'm positive God made us all the same way your no better than anyone else. You do need mental help though.

        • robert m

          *you're*

        • robert m

          Thank you for the well thought out response. I definitely have Christian friends and have not only read the Bible but several books that attempt to explain it. At the end of the day, the Bible is text written by people I don't know over 1500 years ago and it doesn't make sense with what I see on a day to day basis. So on that front, if god is trying to reach out to me, he has not been effective. The book has a lot of really compelling stories about love and someone dying on a cross for us. But at the end of the day, what am I to believe? That a guy was born of a virgin, the son of god, and died on a cross for me? I mean truth be told he didn't die on the cross for me, he died on the cross because the people in power were afraid of what he had to say. Right or wrong, many people have been killed for speaking out against the authority.

          Further, the books in the Bible aren't that great or even consistent and just because Jesus (if he existed) died, that doesn't mean it was for me or authorized by god to absolve our sins. Finally, if an ultimate creator wanted to do that why would he send his penultimate son down here to die? Doesn't that seem more like a story is Aesop's fables or any number of children's stories than reality with what you see on a daily basis? Yet people believe the story of Jonah and the whale, Jesus healing the sick by touch, and a rapture where god will wipe us from the face of the earth.

          For these reasons and more is why some atheists say things like "get a grip on reality". Because, it doesn't agree with what we've seen in our lifetimes or make sense when you read the texts alone or when people explain it.

        • jazzpast

          So your a Godless AntiChristian that thinks the KJV Bible is Aesops fables. Doesn't suprise me most of the people on Godfathers Politics are AntiChristian and proCULT! Kind of makes me SICK! The Old Testament deals with the descent of the people of God - through disobedience. Thats why the United States is now in decline going into slavery, bondage and tyrannous oppression. The major theme of the Bible is LIBERTY! And the Bible is a fable to you!

        • robert m

          Sorry-what cult do you suggest I am in favor of? I think major religions are all pretty whackado not just Christianity. Some have some good ideas, but they are spread among the fables and old ideas that no longer have business in guiding principles today. The old testament has god killing everyone on earth except for one family then allowing them to repopulate the earth through incest. In fact, even half of the 10 commandments are about how you have no freedom of religion. The other 5 are pretty good, but found in other religions also and are no more insightful than philosophers without god. So I would too challenge your statement that the Bible is about freedom. It is more about control, specifically used by Romans to gain support and control over the people. Today it is used on key issues where it fits the rationale of the individual. I have no god and I can be real with myself and where I find value. For example: abortion is probably closely linked to murder, but it's economically sustainable and actually probably is valuable long term. Homosexuality is okay-what do I care what people do in their own homes? Americans should have guns-that's our culture (I still don't mind background checks keeping them from whackadoos-however PTSD is sort of a tricky issue since we don't want to keep guns away from ex-vets they'd be the best posed to prevent future government tyranny you and I both fear as a distant future).

          So I hope you see I all these ideas that are my own and don't come from some god that you think gives freedoms. Religion restricts knowledge and freedom as you might tell from my personal view points I am free to agree with stuff where it makes sense and can disagree when I feel fit.

    • Breezeyguy

      I agree and disagree Doctor White. As the Apostle Pauls says, God's existence can be "known by the things He made". But to please God requires faith.

      Also, any knowledge require a certain amount of "faith" for example, even an atheist believes his senses.

      • Amy Lambert

        god made us as intelligent beings capable of logic. faith is the antithesis of logic. Why do you suppose that god would set things up in such a way as to require faith and not logic?

        • Breezeyguy

          Your statement is wrong, and illogical. Logic acts on premises. The first premise must be taken on faith, as an assumption. Natural faith precedes logic. A person believes their senses first, as an act of natural faith, and then they can act on them and verify them over the course of their lives, and come to the conclusion that "yes, it was right to believe my senses". (And you can still question your senses by the way, knowing that they can be fooled.)

          So no, faith is not the antithesis of logic. Rather logic cannot begin without faith.

        • Amy Lambert

          re: "Your statement is wrong". -- Which statement is wrong--that God made us as intelligent beings capable of logic? (the only statement I made--the rest was a query).

          I do not accept that natural faith precedes logic, and even were I to do so, that is not the point. The point is that if there were a god, why would he require "faith" in believing in him, as opposed to his simply providing proof?

          When we are children we believe in Santa Claus, just as we believe in god; we have faith that Santa exists because we are told so by our parents and because all around us we see evidence of Santa Claus's existence: stories, picture books, movies, stockings by the fireplace, even Santa sitting in department stores, with us on his lap. Later someone clues us in: there really isn't any Santa Claus. That was my first Descartes moment of confusion and uncertainty. If Santa existed, why would he require faith in believing in him? He didn't; the evidence was widespread--indeed, incontrovertible. And yet, there was no Santa after all.

        • Breezeyguy

          Hi Amy: I was referring to the statement "faith is the antithesis of logic".

          Faith is not the antithesis of logic, but its precedent. Logic acts on premises. Do you deny that? (Okay, maybe I can take precedents as the antithesis of logic. Yes, okay, premises are not logic, and could reasonably be asserted to be an antithesis of logic, except it's not really a fair characterization. You might as well say that logic is the antithesis of truths, because it connects truths but isn't itself true. Not really fair if you take "antithesis" as having negative connotations.)

          Proof is subjective, especially for created minds. I'm sorry your parents lied to you about Santa, and proved his existence to you. I always told my kids that Santa is a cute story but just a story. It's good to be skeptical, a healthy instinct, but not to the point of bitterness.

          Every hydrogen atom (which is really a proton and electron), taken individually or all together, is proof of the existence of God.

      • Amy Lambert

        Re: "God's existence can be "known by the things He made".--But how do we know they were made by Him? ( I certainly like to think so, but I accept that I cannot know for sure.)

        • Breezeyguy

          Hi Amy: We know they were made, because we appreciate them. You don't appreciate what isn't a gift.

          By Him, because He is the Maker.

          "For sure"? Leave that to the Angels and Descartes. You know it enough to begin to love. There is no knowledge in the mind of any human being that is "for sure". It is not a defect in the knowledge, but a defect (or a humility rather) of the created mind.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tncdel Tnc Del

      Religion evolved over the ages from primitive ignorance, as a way to explain what people didn't understand.

      But what sense does it make by asking a question, "Who created the Universe?" Then answering, "God created the Universe." Because then you must ask, "Well, then who created God." And the mystics cop out by saying, "No one created God, he just always was and always will be."

      [DUH!]

      Someone not afraid to question brainwashing activity, is not going to settle for such nonsense.

      Instead, they will see the obvious inference, in that, since it is a scientific fact that you cannot actually destroy matter, only change it's form [for example, if you burn a piece of paper, it isn't destroyed, it merely changes into gas, carbon, heat and light energy]. Therefore, if you trace the origin of the paper on back, to trees, then to a seed combined with soil, rain and sunlight, then you must keep on tracing back all the elements, and find NO beginning.

      Then common sense tells you it isn't any "god" that has always been and will always be, but MATTER that has always been and will always be.

      Those who preach religion fall into three general categories:

      1.) The brainwashed who feel a need to recruit others to their beliefs, in order to obtain approval and emotional support for it.

      And

      2.) Those who make money off of religion.

      And

      3.) Those whose power is derived from religion [like in Arab countries, or the Pope, or Pat Robertson, etc., etc.]

      Religion is a BLIGHT UPON HUMANITY.

      Responsible for countless wars, deaths, rapes, other crimes and misery beyond imagining.

      Muslims fighting Christians, Muslims fighting Jews, Muslims fighting Hindus, Buddhists and other Muslims. Catholics against Protestants. Protestants against other Protestants. Etc., Etc. Etc.

      John Lennon had it right, when he wrote his song, "IMAGINE [there's no heaven ...]."

      Religion is also an instrument of oppression and subjugation. Particularly in Muslim countries, to keep women under control.

      How many people would have been "persecuted for their beliefs" if NO ONE HAD ANY MYSTICAL BELIEFS WHATSOEVER?

      How would people be towards each other if there was no animosity caused by "religious differences?"

      And what if people did good deeds simply BECAUSE IT WAS A GOOD AND RIGHT THING TO DO?...

      Instead of because they feared hell if they didn't, or they thought they would earn another "golden brick" in their "Mansion in the Sky?"

      I have more respect for people who do good for no more reason than because they enjoy doing it.

      Someone who believes religious mysticism has been HYPNOTIZED. Some hypnotized themselves without realizing it. Others were mesmerized by a slick-talking preacher. But most simply had it forced upon them when they were too young to realize what was going on.

      For mysticism to take hold, delusion and illusion must occur.

      • Melia Sese

        "Someone not afraid to question brainwashing activity, is not going to settle for such nonsense."

        Someone such as I. But I had to find a way out of the conundrum - and settled on this: existence exists. It always has and always will.

      • Screeminmeeme

        Tnc Del.....

        ''Religion evolved over the ages from primitive ignorance, as a way to explain what people didn't understand.''

        Is that statement true? And if it is...how do you know?
        Thx.

      • robert m

        Mostly agree. I just would like to point out that everyone has trouble deciding "what came first." A powerful mindful being is just as likely as a ball of muck. I think the most important part though is that if there is something "in charge" it certainly doesn't appear to do much after people became literate and started recording history.

  • Ole Sarge

    Why do you decry a war on religion, but attack beliefs or
    lack of them in others? I am an atheist. It is my personal belief, one I came to after
    careful reflection. I do not impose my
    beliefs on others. If your beliefs help
    make you a better neighbor, I’m all for it, if it makes you a SOB I’m against it. I say Merry Christmas, wish people a Happy
    Easter, Hanukah or whatever is appropriate to their beliefs. As I do not impose my beliefs on others I require
    others not to impose theirs on me.

    I am also a strong believer in, and defender of the U.S.
    Constitution. I have served 24 years in
    the U.S. Military and have seen the best and the worst in people around the
    world. I have been and will ever remain
    ready to defend your beliefs to the death, will you do the same for me?

    • Screeminmeeme

      Ole Sarge...Thank you for your service to this nation.

      And yes....I would do the same for every fellow American. I have pledged as much.

      • Ole Sarge

        Thank you for the response. We are indeed Brothers.

        "Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway."
        SFC (Ret) Patrick D. Malley

    • Derek Schneider

      Thank you very much for your service...and sacrifice...to our great nation.
      I feel exactly the same as you do. If more people would look at each other as equals, instead of believing they have a superior morality to everyone around them ("holier-than-thou" fits this phenomenon) this world would be a much better place. Morality is not the sole property of religious followers, it is a human trait.

  • jinkyjoy

    I don't understand why they cannot just leave Christians alone and just "live". Why do they have time to worry about us. We make the world a better place to live, but still they can't leave it. I wonder why??

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Corrina-Lynn-Robinson/1409769955 Corrina Lynn Robinson

      Honestly, I think they are just trying to tempt us into doing the wrong thing, and they know it. I'm not calling atheists bad people, but I will go as far to say that they refuse to accept there is a God so they don't feel guilty and so they don't worry about the consequences of their actions. I've met Atheists, and they were some good people, but they also led some very bad lives and made horrible decisions. It is so much easier to pretend to yourself that you will not have to deal with the consequences of your action, rather than face it head on.

      • LiveInTheRealWorld

        "It is so much easier to pretend to yourself that you will not have to deal with the consequences of your action, rather than face it head on." This is an absolutely terrible appraisal of what it means to be an atheist. I could use similarly terrible logic and suggest that all Christians are doing is subscribing to a faith that will absolve them of any and all sins, which will allow them to avoid dealing with the consequences of their actions.

      • Amy Lambert

        re: "I will go as far to say that they refuse to accept there is a God" -- but they might say that YOU "refuse to accept" that there is no God. You may be finding it difficult to view the world from any perspective other than your own.

        . . ."so they don't feel guilty and so they don't worry about the consequences of their actions." This implies, wrongly, that guilt comes only from having a belief in god, as opposed to simply having a sense of right and wrong, which one can easily have in today's America without having a belief in God.

        "So they don't worry about the consequences of their actions" is nonsense. One can surely worry about consequences here on earth. We do have laws, you know. And even in personal matters, actions do have consequences, and people who do not believe in the existence of god still do worry about consequences of their actions. This is a common, but faulty, argument made by those who are irrationally threatened by the notion that there might not be a god. (Again, I happen to believe there is a god, but illogic offends my sense of right and wrong; there are also consequences to illogic, you see.)

    • LiveInTheRealWorld

      "We make the world a better place to live, but still they can't leave it" No, not all Christians do this. Many Christians make the world a worse place to live.

      • Amy Lambert

        . . .And, despite the tone and tenor of this discussion, not all people who believe in god are Christians. Do we count them, too? After all, this is a discussion, supposedly, about atheism, which is the disbelief in god, so one would assume that a belief in god would include all the non- christian believers.

        Is this really about a belief in your very own god vs atheism, or a belief in god in general vs not believing in god?

    • Melia Sese

      This might be acceptable, except for their endless meddling in things they cannot comprehend. I came to this particular thread of Bradlee Dean to show how ridiculous it was for an ex "heavy metal rock drummer" to attempt a "scientific" proof of the mysticism he indulges in, and thus demonstrate the pitfalls those who cannot think get themselves into. Along the way I found some obvious examples of ideas that cannot stand up to scrutiny, and took relish in poking away at them.

      • Amy Lambert

        "their endless meddling in things they cannot comprehend." Do you mean to say that they have no right to think other thoughts than yours?

        • Melia Sese

          Of course not ... it was more of an admittedly intemperate attempt of mine to hack away at something (I was rather in a hurry this morning as my daughters wanted me to take them boating). My original purpose was to dissect the author's (Mr Dean) ideas and thus show that attempting to "prove" God's existence by pseudo-scientific means was a fool's errand.

  • Gary Johnson

    The belief in God IS a BIZARRE DELUSION and Religion IS a PSYCHOSIS so NOTHING YOU MENTALLY SICK people have to say has ANYTHING to do with REALITY!!!

  • Susan

    There is lots of "faith" in Atheism---which is NEVER admitted because they are "liars" (there is no morality, of course) and they toss out all Reason----which created The Age of Reason and Newton and then, Einstein. Here they claim "no God" when they have absolutely NO scientific proof. They are frauds and so intellectually devoid of all Logic.

    They should take credit for all their atheist adherents who killed hundreds of millions of people---more than all other ideologies in the history of the world put together. They should "hide" when they claim such an evil, ugly "belief" system.

    • Amy Lambert

      Why would you conclude that morality requires a god belief? What IS morality in your view?

      • Susan

        Morality requires a belief in a "Higher Power"---yes. Because otherwise, there is no reason to "not" do anything other than arbitrary made up reasons with no Absolute "Right and Wrong"---which can "change" on an "urge" or "feeling". With no absolutes---you can get no unified civil society and trust won't exist. Cultures can not flourish without trust and Reason which comes from Natural Laws (which needs a Lawgiver). I do believe that Agnostics can be "moral", but only if they stick to the Laws of Nature and the idea of the Golden Rule which again comes from God--because it is counter-intuitive. So if atheists adopt Christian Ethics---yes, they can act "moral". But one of the "Virtues" is Wisdom---and I find they are severely lacking in Wisdom.

        There are degrees of morality---of course. Some atheists can be more humane than other atheists, but I find most are really ignorant and can't really process information with any Reason and Logic. Marxists, as Ayn Rand stated---are totally irrational and ideologues (they can't "think".)

        CS Lewis stated (and he studied all the Myths and religions and beliefs) that the reason Christianity was so "great" and more successful than any other belief systems in civilizations was because it was based on "Common Sense" (Natural Law Theory/St. Thomas Aquinas) which means that it is based on the Laws of Nature and God's Design of that Nature (Just like the USA). That is why Christianity led to the Age of Reason and the Renaissance---couldn't have happened in another culture which didn't value family and Truth (God)--and that search for Truth with the idea that we were designed in God's image--and because of that--with intellectual capacity which is limited---yes---but makes us separate from the base animal. That search for Truth (God) and the glorification of that God led to the most profound art and discoveries on earth. Communism (atheism) destroys and pollutes and steals and make slaves of humanity. They are nihilistic.

        • Melia Sese

          Ayn Rand also said that morality is not based on mysticism, otherwise we are governed by the whims of the mystics. Because then it just becomes a contest of who is willing to do the most killing to prove his/her point.

        • Susan

          True--Ayn Rand was an atheist BUT she recognized Natural Laws (Marx eliminates them)--"Laws of Nature" like embedded in the US Legal system and she didn't understand that St. Thomas Aquinas combined Natural Law Theory to Christianity with such extreme Common Sense. She loved Common Sense and Reason---but she failed to see her own flaw---that she stated there could be a set of Ethics---with no "Ethic-giver". She accepted the "Laws of Nature" without the Lawgiver. (It is NOT logical).

          She hadn't read the Summa which is the established the most Rational religion of all time. It eliminated all mysticism from Plato and the Eastern religions which had crept into Catholicism. St. Thomas "baptised" Aristotle who is the Father of Logic. That is why Christian Ethics worked perfectly with a government which recognized Natural Rights from God---because it is what St. Thomas taught and the dignity and worth of every single person. Rand loved the concept of America---and knew it was the only one capable (Free market Capitalism) to offer the closest thing to "utopia" on earth. She knew the Truth of collectivism and the ugly dehumanizing effects of totalitarianism which reduces all human beings to "cogs in a wheel" which no individuality or rights.

        • Melia Sese

          Actually I would state that Ayn Rand's (and many others) greatest flaw is to assume we already know everything there is to know about human organization and that the folks back in 1787 had everything correct. Monetary panics (usally every 10-15 years on average) proved there was still some serious work to do.

          As for the "lawgiver" she stated that as such:
          "Life is a process of self-sustaining andself-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies. It is only the concept of "life" that makes the concept of "value" possible - that which is required for the organism's survival." I believe this is referred to by her as "metaphysics." As a believer in God myself, Melia would likely be called a "mystic" by Rand, but I do not believe objective analysis of life and what it takes to survive preclude existence of a God.

          Indeed, as God has given us the power to observe our world and draw from our experience, I fully believe we are on a journey to a greater understanding of what we are. I do not shrink from this, I embrace it, along with the possibility of much greater extension of human lives via technology, to approach biological immortality itself. This does not, however, make any of us God-like, just endowed with greater capability to enjoy life - otherwise why even bother?

        • Susan

          Good comments! I admire much in the "thinking" of Ayn Rand, but my major disagreement comes from the fact that I am a mother and I understand the beauty of "self sacrifice" (and its necessity for human beings). Self-Sacrifice is something Rand detested--as much as the idea of Christ on the cross, "dying" for mankind. The beauty and exhilaration which emanates from "selflessness"--is not understood by many people who don't truly "Love" God. That "Joy" is written about by many Christian apologists--CS Lewis for one--and there is a great book by a professor called, "The Question of God", which contrasts atheism with Christianity using the words of Freud and Lewis. Happiness is desired by all men. True happiness was never reached by Rand....she limited herself because she could believe "life" could spontaneously exist with out a Creator. All Common Sense, all Natural Laws, say otherwise. Reason was her "god", yet, she failed to take it where it obviously led, using Reason. Her life was filled with affairs. All people hate liars and cheaters and disloyalty to a spouse. For Vice always destroys all positive relationships which is the only real source of "happiness" on earth.

        • Amy Lambert

          RE: There are degrees of morality---of course. Some atheists can be more
          humane than other atheists, but I find most are really ignorant and
          can't really process information with any Reason and Logic. Marxists,
          as Ayn Rand stated---are totally irrational and ideologues (they can't
          "think".)

          I would suggest to you that one could well substitute Christians or god fearing people for atheists and come up with the same conclusions. Some god fearing people can be more humane than other god fearing people, but I find most are really ignorant and can't really process information with any Reason and Logic. There now. Offended yet?

        • Susan

          Why should I be offended? True, many so-called Christians are just that and extremely ignorant. The homosexual invasion of the Catholic Church destroyed much of Catholic Theology and their schools and has greatly weakened the Catholic Church and the Protestant "churches" many are no different than Satanic occult rituals with the homosexual infiltration.

          St. Thomas Aquinas is the Father of Catholic Theology and his Common Sense and Reason has never been surpassed---either before him or after him. That understanding (theology) is what I am referring to --and there is no more "Just system" in existence---concerning any morality which gives dignity and worth to all human beings with an understanding of Human Nature. It is the most humanistic and perfect system which has created the most free and flourishing societies---using his standards--for Justice.

          Atheists lie---and say they have no "faith". Human beings all have "faith"--they can't "assume" anything without it. So, they are more irrational than someone who admits to "faith". Plus, WHOSE morality---if not Revelation---we had Ancient civilizations which believed sodomizing little boys is great (like today's Afghanis) and that bashing heads of first born sons on altars before their gods was good. What makes it bad if no "Lawgiver"?

        • Amy Lambert

          Re: "Morality requires a belief in a "Higher Power"---yes. Because
          otherwise, there is no reason to "not" do anything other than arbitrary
          made up reasons with no Absolute "Right and Wrong"---which can "change"
          on an "urge" or "feeling".

          Are you claiming that morality requires consequences from other than earthly beings or it cannot exist? Nonsense!

          "or there would be no reason to not do anything other than "arbitrary made up reasons?" How do you know that the reasons you attribute to Higher Power are really from that higher power as opposed to having been made up by very wise men after all? Just because they may have been made up by men does not make them automatically bad

          Men are quite capable of making up very good reasons to condone or reject certain behaviors. Isn't it possible that very wise men understood the need for law and order and morality in civil society, but noticed that no one paid them heed until someone claimed that these very same laws came from a superior being--a god--and then they were obeyed--so long as people believed that this god could deliver consequences? So long as people could be scared into compliance with tales of burning in hell for all eternity, for example? THAT sure gets one's attention.

          Surely, some men would be happy to comply with logical rules of behavior; it would be in their nature, while others would be unhappy to comply--it would be in their nature. And some of the former and some of the latter would be god fearing and others would not.

        • Susan

          You forget that Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (fact) People who gain power to make the law will be corrupt---the idea of a "Philosopher King" is utopian (impossible) and to think man can be perfected on earth is Marxist ideology. Revelation (Christianity) has proven (through men like Wilberforce and Lincoln and Adams and Madison) to be the most "perfect" ethical system ever---whether you "think" it is man-made--it still produced the most fair and free societies on earth. Evil will aways exist---and can only be fought with absolutes. Pagan/occult societies have child sacrifice, sodomy, women are chattel with no individual rights--they allow killing the weak. Natural Moral Law is Absolute also and was "Christianized" by St. Thomas Aquinas--which makes Christianity based on Reason and Logic and Science, unlike any other belief system. What man-made-up legal system was better than Common Law (a Christian invention) and the USA government (Christian invention)? Neither would have existed without Christian Ethics---Neither would slavery and abortion and pederasty have been made "evil" and the elevation of women possible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dale.netherton Dale Netherton

    The accusations against atheists in this article are unfounded and inaccurate. For instance, "Atheists are always trying to be clever but rarely are." or "Atheists can’t see in the future". Read the works of a famous atheist Ayn Rand and her predictions of America which are all around us today Clinging to faith is a fool's attempt to explain by way of myths.

  • Breezeyguy

    Great article. The early atheists couldn't make the jump from "what is" to "what should be". You have brought out clearly that there are realities that "should not be" that an theist cannot explain. Just becasue something is "real", like rape, slavery, or the holocaust, does not mean that we should accept it.

    A friend of mine once challenged rhetorically "you can't stand there for 5 minutes and not make a value judgement".

  • Seeking_Truth

    One of my God given freedoms is the freedom to choose my own reality. So go away and leave me alone, I'm busy praying for you.

  • Kathy Young

    Pray for them, and go on with your life. You won't be bothered by their presence in Heaven.

  • anniedawn

    Let's discuss this on Judgement Day? So, kiddies, get your arguments ready. Oh, by the way, Jesus will speak for the faithful.

  • Gary Johnson

    The Religionists want you to have a personal relation with a BIZARRE DELUSION!!! a PSYCHOSIS!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/tncdel Tnc Del

    That's cool. I have no problem with that. So too those into mysticism are trying to sell their wares similarly.

  • streetcat9

    If God doesn't exist, no one would have ever thought of Him. And if He doesn't exist, why do atheists waste their breaths cursing Him?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Johnny-Ward/100002466030200 Johnny Ward

    Pretrib Rapture Pride

    by Bruce Rockwell

    Pretrib rapture promoters like Thomas Ice give the impression they know
    more than the early Church Fathers, the Reformers, the greatest Greek
    New Testament scholars including those who produced the KJV Bible, the
    founders of their favorite Bible schools, and even their own mentors!

    Ice's mentor, Dallas Sem. president John Walvoord, couldn't find anyone
    holding to pretrib before 1830 - and Walvoord called John Darby and his
    Brethren followers "the early pretribulationists" (RQ, pp. 160-62). Ice
    belittles Walvoord and claims that several pre-1830 persons, including
    "Pseudo-Ephraem" and a "Rev. Morgan Edwards," taught a pretrib rapture.
    Even though the first one viewed Antichrist's arrival as the only
    "imminent" event, Ice (and Grant Jeffrey) audaciously claim he expected
    an "imminent" pretrib rapture! And Ice (and John Bray) have covered up
    Edwards' historicism which made a pretrib rapture impossible! Google
    historian Dave MacPherson's "Deceiving and Being Deceived" for
    documentation on these and similar historical distortions.
    The
    same pretrib defenders, when combing ancient books, deviously read
    "pretrib" into phrases like "before Armageddon," "before the final
    conflagration," and "escape all these things"!
    BTW, the KJV
    translators' other writings found in London's famed British Library
    (where MacPherson has researched) don't have even a hint of pretrib
    rapturism. Is it possible that Ice etc. have found pretrib "proof" in
    the KJV that its translators never found?
    Pretrib merchandisers
    like Ice claim that nothing is better pretrib proof than Rev. 3:10.
    They also cover up "Famous Rapture Watchers" (on Google) which shows how
    the greatest Greek NT scholars of all time interpreted it.

    Pretrib didn't flourish in America much before the 1909 Scofield Bible
    which has pretribby "explanatory notes" in its margins. Not seen in the
    margins was jailed forger Scofield's criminal record throughout his life
    that David Lutzweiler has documented in his recent book "The Praise of
    Folly" which is available online.
    Biola University's doctrinal
    statement says Christ's return is "premillennial" and "before the
    Tribulation." Although universities stand for "academic freedom," Biola
    has added these narrow, restrictive phrases - non-essentials the
    founders purposely didn't include in their original doctrinal statement
    when Biola was just a small Bible institute! And other Christian schools
    have also belittled their founders.
    Ice, BTW, has a "Ph.D"
    issued by a tiny Texas school that wasn't authorized to issue degrees!
    Ice now says that he's working on another "Ph.D" via the University of
    Wales in Britain. For light on the degrees of Ice's scholarliness,
    Google "Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of
    Wales," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "be careful in polemics - Peripatetic
    Learning," and "Walvoord Melts Ice." Also Google "Thomas Ice (Hired
    Gun)" - featured by media luminary Joe Ortiz on his Jan. 30, 2013 "End
    Times Passover" blog.
    Other fascinating Google articles include
    "The Unoriginal John Darby," "X-raying Margaret," "Edward Irving in
    Unnerving," "Pretrib Rapture Politics," "Pretrib Rapture Secrets,"
    "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," "Pretrib Rapture
    Secrecy," and "Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism" - most from the
    author of "The Rapture Plot," the most accurate documentation on pretrib
    rapture history.
    Can anyone guess who the last proud pretrib rapture holdout will be?
    (Postscript: For another jolt or two Google "The Background Obama Can't Cover Up.")

    / I saw the above think piece on the exciting web. /