the_atheists_challenge Third Party Analysts Hear ye, hear ye: The Athiests Challenge! If you successfully complete this challenge, You will be rich and famous. If you fail this challenge, you will just be rich. Are you interested? Here is the Challenge: Prove that Christianity is false and that there is no God! If you can do this successfully, you will make millions of dollars on the book deals alone. (Not to mention t-shirts, greeting cards, bumperstickers, flags, movies, interviews, endorsements, etc.) Thereby becoming Rich & Famous! (Plus, think of all those people you'll help to save 10% of their incomes from going to those "greedy" preachers. A nice thing that future historians could note.) HOWEVER, If you, like countless others who have gone before you, should fail... You will likely logically conclude by discovery that Jesus IS the Son of God, the Bible IS in fact true, and thereby all things written in said Bible are also true, including all those promises! Therefore Ye SHALL be RICH for the rest of your life on Earth after adherance to Biblical Principles, and LIVE FOREVER in Glorious Unity with the Creator of the Universe! (Either way, you can't lose.) First, The Rules: 1.) You must prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is NOT the Christ, and that the Bible is not true in order to win. 2.) You can use any resource, as long as it's reasonably accepted as factual, historical and accurate. 3.) You have 30 days before we will declare a winner. 4.) You must be civil, mature, unbiased and objective in your entries. 5.) Your entries must not contain in false statements. All violaters will be disqualified. Post_your_entries_here ARE YOU READY? Begin. 041106 ... Third Party Analysts Hear ye, hear ye: The Athiests Challenge! If you successfully complete this challenge, You will be rich and famous. If you fail this challenge, you will just be rich. Are you interested? Here is the Challenge: Prove that Christianity is false and that there is no God! If you can do this successfully, you will make millions of dollars on the book deals alone. (Not to mention t-shirts, greeting cards, bumperstickers, flags, movies, interviews, endorsements, etc.) Thereby becoming Rich & Famous! (Plus, think of all those people you'll help to save 10% of their incomes from going to those "greedy" preachers. A nice thing that future historians could note.) HOWEVER, If you, like countless others who have gone before you, should fail... You will likely logically conclude by discovery that Jesus IS the Son of God, the Bible IS in fact true, and thereby all things written in said Bible are also true, including all those promises! Therefore Ye SHALL be RICH for the rest of your life on Earth after adherance to Biblical Principles, and LIVE FOREVER in Glorious Unity with the Creator of the Universe! (Either way, you can't lose.) First, The Rules: 1.) You must prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is NOT the Christ, and that the Bible is not true in order to win. 2.) You can use any resource, as long as it's reasonably accepted as factual, historical and accurate. 3.) You have 30 days before we will declare a winner. 4.) You must be civil, mature, unbiased and objective in your entries. 5.) Your entries must not contain in false statements. All violaters will be disqualified. Post_your_entries_here ARE YOU READY? Begin. 041106 ... magicforest You are mistaking belief for knowledge. Don't be silly. 041106 ... ??????? "1.) You must prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is NOT the Christ, and that the Bible is not true in order to win." Really? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Is this a criminal court? Why not by a preponderance of the evidence? And also, why is the burden of proof on me? You are accusing athiests of falsly disbelieving the divinity of Christ, so the burden of proof is on you, the Christian, to prove that Jesus is God and that God exists. And although I shall plead in the alternative, I think the court will dispose of your claim if I include in my answer a defense based on statute of limitations, since in the 2000 plus years since Christ died, the case for his divinityy has only grown weaker. 041106 ... smurfus rex I have an issue with the second part of rule 1...Even serious contemporary Biblical scholars don't accept the entire Bible as historical fact. There are parts that are true, but there are plenty more parts that cannot be proven true. So this is really an unfair condition for this challenge. And if you use the argument that if even one thing in the Bible can be proven true, then the whole book must be accepted as true, then a similar argument could be made that if even one thing in the Bible can be proven false, then the whole book must be accepted as (at least) untrue. Oh, and are we talking about the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, or just the New Testament? 041106 ... smurfus rex Also, Rule 5 says that false statements in entries will disqualify contestants...if, in an entry, a statement is taken from the Bible that can be reasonably proven false and used as an example to prove that Christianity is false (another condition I have a problem with), wouldn't that necessarily automatically disqualify the entry? So really, what you're saying is that any statements that prove the falsehood of Christianity will be disregarded without consideration. You know, to be a proper "challenge", it should be winnable... 041106 ... smurfus rex Finally, as for the condition of the "challenge" being to prove that Christianity is false...Christianity is a belief system, and as such, has some exemption from factual proof. Christians believe that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, was born to a virgin mother, was an attractive and charismatic preacher in the Middle East, was betrayed by one of his own disciples, was tried and convicted for attempting to start a rebellion (okay, okay, *for the sins of the world*), was hung on a cross, died in one day, was resurrected three days later, and now sits in judgement at the right hand of God, Who is also coincidentally Himself... Let us imagine for a moment, that I have a belief system in which messages sent from Alpha Centauri are transmitted to my brain via an aluminum foil hat and cause me to involuntarily type ceaselessly until the message is over. My instructions are to immediately post the transmission to my weblog, my website, and my list of message boards so that the Message of the Ages is spread to the widest corners of the world. The messages began coming to me after I was hit by a car when I was 23 and will continue until further notice. Now, prove that my belief system is false. Or at least, more false than yours. See, it all comes down to an improper "challenge"... 041107 ... DannyH The older and grumpier I get, the more I feel christianity should be diagnosable as a mild form of mental illness. You know the sort of thing: symptoms - delusions of grandeur, paranoia, sociopathy. Orientation - passive aggressive. you should be able to have people sectioned for it. Faith is a wonderful thing. It's one of the many things that make human beings such miraculous creatures. To waste something so special on some bizarre middle eastern personality cult seems so tragic to me. Even more tragic is the way people manage to skip the hundreds of lines of wisdom, tolerance and understanding for your fellow man and zero in on the bit where it (sort of) says you're not allowed to stick your cock in another guy's arse. Bit like when we were kids and used dictionaries to look up rude words... 041107 ... Jeremy im an atheist. let's discuss. 412-951-9060 041107 ... ??????? Come on, Third Party Analysts, you've got several challenges here. I just want to take issue with your assertion that if one fails to disprove Christianity beyond all doubt (which in your mind suggests that one would, for inexplicable lack of choices in between, accept Christianity wholesale) one would "win." One does not become a "winner" individually by accepting Christianity, and I would argue that we all become collective losers when Christianity is popularly accepted (Christianity having been used historically and until this day to justify bigotry and immorality of all varieties). 041107 ... pete *yawns* 041107 ... Third Party Analysts First off, ??????, I, as the rule maker and initiator of this challenge reserve the right to make any rule I want to. If you want to whine and cry about rule structure and other irrelevancies, by all means have your own challenge and there you can complain all you want. You are not obligated to participate in any way. You are welcome to participate if and only if you are interested, hence the "ARE YOU INTERESTED?" qualifier in the invitation. If you are interested, post_your_entries_here. Otherwise, well, don't! I made up the rules in about 38 seconds. So please stop pretending that you are being unfairly abused. Ok? This is blather. Not some officiated World-Record Federation. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, quite simply! I on the other hand arguably have every right to design, conduct and operate the_atheists_challenge in any way I see fit. Do_I_not? If I so felt like it, I could exercise my authoritative power in this blathe to make you look desperate, angry and hostile. But that would be an exercise in redundancy. which brings me to the invocation of rule #6... Rule #6: No whining about the rules, either participate, or kindly exclude yourself from the challenge. Concerning winning: I hereby discredit you as any sort of competent commentator about winning when you have displayed nothing but losing characteristics. Go... become a winner, then proceed to try to lecture me on the intracacies of winning. 041107 ... () (in formal logic it is impossible to prove a negative) 041107 ... () (you have not given a clue about your first principles. a priori assumptions would be key in any proof that is subject to disqualification) 041107 ... The Heretic THE PASSAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH TO A "YOUNG WOMAN" WAS MISTRANSLATED INTO GREEK AS "VIRGIN". 041107 ... () (faith is not subject to proof. it is faith. bertrand russell famously ended just such an argument as this by pointing out that without shared first principles there was not even an argument in the formal sense. i see no value recapitulating in a shouting match which has been ongoing for thousands of years and is greater than the narrow definition of religion implied here.) 041107 ... Third Party Analysts OK, perhaps I should have left the_atheists_challenge at proving God did or did not exist, rather than Jesus. I'll address that a little later though... Logic (): If there are only two possiblities, (e.g. Either there is God, or there isn't God) and you disprove one, then you automatically prove the other (or vice versa). 041107 ... () Logical fallacy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid. The presence of a logical fallacy in an argument does not necessarily imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, but the argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises using the inference principles of the argument. By extension, an argument can have a logical fallacy even if the argument is not a purely logical one; for instance an argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to have a logical fallacy. Recognizing fallacies in practical arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. As we illustrate with various examples, fallacies may also exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence. A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disputed proposition. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy 041107 ... () (descartes in attempting to prove god's existence got caught in an infinite regress. it consisted of his valiant attempt to establish unquestionable first principles as a priori truths and proceed from there with an inferred proof of god. unfortunately he committed a logical fallacy on the way, generating a tautology.) 041107 ... () (i have always failed to imagine a third state when faced with the idea of god either existing or not. i am still trying to.) 041107 ... Third Party Analysts Well, good thing Rene Descartes isn't going to be participating in the_atheists_challenge then, because you only get 30 days. Infinity is too long. 041107 ... ??????? "First off, ??????, I, as the rule maker and initiator of this challenge reserve the right to make any rule I want to." Really? Even if those rules are silly and unfair? Then your challenge is pointless and you're not making a good case for the intelligence of theists. 041107 ... Jeca Third Party Analysts, i know you're angry, but i hate the way you shout in caps. it certainly doesn't make me want to agree with you. and why would we athiests want to convince you there is no god anyway? it's important enough to you that it is part of who you are. who has the right to try to change that?? personal beliefs are just those things--personal, and beliefs. yours have some truely wonderful things to them, but i don't happen to believe what you do. i'm okay with that. how can i claim i'm right and you're wrong or vice versa? we don't all have to look at the world the same way. i would, however, be interested in WHY you believe what you do. 041107 ... Tostada al Sadr I love it, the proponent of the Cloud Entity reserves the right to make or observe any rules he sees fit and therefore renders himself immune (in his own mind) to any logical argument. So then, QED, the earth is roughly only 6000 years old and Abraham had a pet dinosaur. BRILLIANT! No wonder 2 years of seminary school and 4 years of religious education in general turned me into an atheist. Although admittedly the religion i was attached to was eminently more willing to try and reconcile scientific truths with biblical teachings instead of simply declaring the word as it is written to be 100% literal. but nonetheless, it raised too many arguments in my own head that i couldn't reconcile, so i stopped. 041107 ... Third Party Analysts Jeca, I am not angry, and I have done no "shouting" in caps, I think you are thinking of The Heretic. I use caps minimaly and only for dramatic emphasis (See original post). To be considered "shouting", I feel I'd have to be writing in a rude, insulting, hostile context, flinging hurtful accusations and sounding quite frustrated, rather than in a cool, clear subtle rebuke that is mildly executed, but well deserved. I will however take your advice into consideration and try to accommodate accordingly. To answer your question, and to everyone's relief, (as I feel that my intentions were recognized and that's what illicited such a fearful reaction from all of the above) I proposed the Atheists Challenge in an attempt to coax people into questioning their atheistic beliefs enough to lower their defensiveness and review it from a purely objective standpoint. You see, I knew in advance that it is impossible to disprove God, and its_logical_to_believe_in_God. I also know of many others who were skeptics that engaged in enormous quests to disprove God, and especially Jesus Christ, but they all ended up believing instead. I based it on the bible verse that says, "Seek God, and you Will find Him." It's a promise from God, and therefore, logically, if one did seek God, and did not find Him, it would negate the validity of His promise, thereby negating the existence of God. I thought that it sounded rather enticing with the whole book deal offer, etc... 041107 ... ??????? "I proposed the Atheists Challenge in an attempt to coax people into questioning their atheistic beliefs..." Atheism is usually a belief arrived at after questioning the existence of God for years. That's the way it usually works, not the other way around. Have you questioned the existence of God? What about your interpretation of Jesus? Assuming that you believe Christianity is superior to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, ask yourself if your God is fair. That is, if Christianity is superior and probably the only way to get to heaven, then isn't it unfair for God to let someone be born where they're far less likely to be Christian (you know, one of those far away places with a lot of brown people)? 041107 ... Lila Pause Oh, fuck off. While there may be no evidence consclusively disputing the existance of some "higher being" (just as it has not yet been conclusively proven that aliens on other planets do not exist) there is no evidence to say that the bible with all its little moral fables is any more truthful or valid than "little red riding hood" or Walt Disney's "the little mermaid". 041107 ... magicforest This isn't blathering. 041107 ... ??????? "I also know of many others who were skeptics that engaged in enormous quests to disprove God, and especially Jesus Christ, but they all ended up believing instead. I based it on the bible verse that says, 'Seek God, and you Will find Him.' It's a promise from God, and therefore, logically, if one did seek God, and did not find Him, it would negate the validity of His promise, thereby negating the existence of God." I see, Third Party, you start with the premise that God exists. Understandably, you assume that God is infallible, therefore his promises are always kept. You further assume that the Bible is God's word, and every promise therein was made by him and not man. Therefore, anyone who tries to disprove God's existence, as per your interpretation of scripture, ends up a believer. Therefore, since everyone who inquires into the existence of God ends up a believer, God must exist. The only problem with that, Third Party, is that you might as well stop with the first premise. If your reasoning already assumes God's existence, what's the point of asking whether or not he exists? You're not really conducting an honest inquiry, Third Party. You can make up any rules you like if they satisfy you personally, but come on TPA, your belief system doesn't value onanism. It's strange when Christians say that atheists are the ones who are not willing to seek out the truth, because I think that with respect to Christian fundamentalism, the opposite is usually true. 041108 ... ??????? "If I so felt like it, I could exercise my authoritative power in this blathe to make you look desperate, angry and hostile." I just thought this part was pretty funny. 041108 ... ??????? "Rule #6: No whining about the rules, either participate, or kindly exclude yourself from the challenge." I think I'll whine about the rules AND participate. Look: I'm participating in violation of Rule #6! See how your options multiply when you reject dogma? 041108 ... ??????? "I made up the rules in about 38 seconds. So please stop pretending that you are being unfairly abused. Ok? This is blather. Not some officiated World-Record Federation. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, quite simply!" Some "officiated World-Record Federation"? I don't know what that is (I think maybe you meant World Wrestling Federation), but are you implying when you say "this is blather" and "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT" that Blather is a place where I have no rights, or that Blather is a place where you make up the rules? Megalomania is not a Christian virtue (as far as I know). 041108 ... ??????? Oh, but for rules made up in 38 seconds, I guess those were pretty good. 041108 ... Jeca third party, i think we all realized that. and i appreciate your trying to not appear to yell. but you didn't really answer my question. what made you decide so strongly that that's it, God is real and the bible is literal. what was the first time you decided this? i'd like to understand your point of view. 041108 ... magicforest I agree with Jeca. If we are going to argue the ageless and endless argument, let's do it blather-style. What in your life personally drew you to these conclusions? 041108 ... pete walking into the midst of a mist beneath the shattering lunar eclispe i gasp as the tears i cry try to be heard among the petty bickering of liars squabbling over the charred ashes of truth. the world has reason, it is set up in certain ways, just so, and these make it work, and these make circles round and sound sound and silence impossible. someone might argue god from design, which i can concede as long as the god is not an active one. the jump from 'hey this all has some sense to it' to 'jesus christ is a god' is silly, and has no basis in anything provable, but merely belief in the drivel of long dead mostly jewish or greek men. it has little to do with anything, and you can never convince me that your myth is more powerful than mine, not without taking me up on the lord's day so i can see him come down and the swords spout from his mouth. should i believe that nero walked again and domition was he, and the seven headed dragon lost one and then regained it, again? should i believe in the paschal line marked for sacrifice opening one seal at a time as catastrophes shake the world, bring life to a close? should i believe that humans were created twice, and the world came from water, that the world came from a dusty plane? should i believe that jesus was a decsendant of david through joseph's line if mary was truly a virgin, and he was born by the spirit of a god as a god who are all the same god but different though the same? should i ignore the parallels with dionysus, with krishna, with shiva, with osiris? should i ignore that isaac was almost sacrificed, wait i mean ishmael? should i ignore that i am who i am and i will be who i will be is infalliable, ominous, omniponent, all loving, jealous, and vengeful? if there is only one god then who is he jealous of? can i ignore the historical development of the yawhist religions? i take my first breathe after my coma and awake to slip into a sleep of waking dreams, lost in a sea of hateful words and confused stances by the hypocrites who hold a chalace to my lips and tell me to drink, it is only man's blood. 041108 ... magicforest pete, that was both irksome and beautiful 041108 ... smurfus rex a lot to think about in that one... 041108 ... stork daddy pascal at least knew it was a wager. 041108 ... () (by design this challenge is unwinnable. a negative can be proved only by proving a positive and inferring disproof of the opposite. there is no way to do this in this case. that does not mean that it is untrue, only unprovable. the test is a semantic house of cards. before you design another you should really look into formal proofs and symbolic logic. i am not suggesting that your thesis is wrong, that is entirely personal, only that you have not been rigorous in your thinking.) 041109 ... () (i have often wondered if there is a language that has a mechanism for nonexistence that is not evocative with a grafted denial. it is clumsy to call a thing into existence just to banish it again.) 041109 ... magicforest I agree about the semantic house of cards. 041109 ... () (as magicforest states above, you seem to have mistaken belief for knowledge. epistemology is the study of what can be known. there are many good resources on this subject. here is one: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html ) 041109 ... Third Party Analysts Well Jeca, to answer your question: Belief in God is something I've always felt. (maybe I have the Faith gene!)I Know God exists. It's not a matter of blind faith. I have absolute proof. Not just because I've seen the direct impact of prayer manifesting itself supernaturally. Not just because I've been given specific guidance from the Holy-Spirit which was superior to human wisdom that resulted in dramatic paradigm shifts and life changing courses of action. Not even because I've felt the tangible presence of God during worship. My "proof" (I await the multiple challenges to that statement) is in the Creation itself. The bible states in Romans 1:20 that... "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. " I have no excuse because God's fingerprints are left everywhere. The extraordinary design of the universe, The physics of space-time, The existence of life. Even if I did not have a relationship with God, I would still look up at stars and just know it wasn't an accident. As far as the bible's validity goes, I was raised reading the bible, so you would say that I am biased. But there was a time, after being spoon fed atheism by public educational institutions through high-school and college, that I converted to atheism. I didn't like feeling guilty for sins, so I decided that it was all made up by kings wanting to control the masses of archaic peasants. Well, I discovered after lots of bad stuff happened to me in a span of about three days and I ended up in the hospital, that deep down I still cried out to God when I was in danger. I realized that even if I wanted to be an unbeliever, I couldn't because I just naturally know that God answers those who cry out to him. Not in the way we want him to, always, but in the way He knows will best benefit us. You know, ( I was in a situation where I truly felt I was going to die!)if I had been facing death and said, "oh, I just need to recite positive affirmations right now!" then I may have continued down that path of unbelieving. But when I faced death, I, as most do, cried out" God, please help me, please God, please!" And everything changed in a matter of minutes. Especially me. But that lead me on a course to figure out if The Bible was truly for me. I studied a little about eastern religions, I examined options such as witchcraft, judaism, mormonism, catholocism, protestantism... but they all had the same flaw, besides being just not what I felt was truth, they all were mere doctrines invented by humans, when I was seeking God. I didn't want religion! I wanted a relationship! I sought after getting to know that God who'd always been there. I percieved the spiritual realm even though I couldn't see it. I needed to tap in. So I went back to my roots and did some research on the bible and found out some interesting things. It's never been proven wrong. There has never been an archaeological discovery that his disproved a Biblical reference. Time and again we have seen new discoveries uncovering historical truths in the Bible. It's been the source of freedom and enlightenment for all of western society. (Obligatory comment to all who will contest that statement: The dark ages ended when the "Light of the World" which is Jesus Christ, who is "The Word of God", began to be shed on the earth. When the gutenberg bible (the very first book printed and the reason the printing press was even invented) was printed, the dark ages soon ended and the Renaissance followed shortly after.) Science is another factor. Many things the Bible says about the earth and astronomy were not “discovered” by humans until thousands of years after the Bible was written. Some of these are the fact that earth is suspended in space and is not supported by any type of structure, descriptions of the earth’s hydrological cycle and the spherical shape of the earth. Fulfilled prophecy is also noteworthy. The Bible contains literally hundreds of prophecies that, after being written, came to pass. Some examples are the destruction of the city of Tyre which was prophesied over 250 years before Alexander the Great destroyed the city. Of greatest significance are the more than 300 prophecies which related to the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. All of these prophecies were fulfilled. Some people are so against believing the bible that they make up lies to try and discredit it. The Bible has withstood vicious attacks by it's enemies as no other book. Many have tried to burn it, destroy it and outlaw it, from the days of the Roman emperors to some present-day anti-Christ countries. Its very existence today and the fact that its teachings and Truths have been preserved despite the countless campaigns and tirades against it is in itself miraculous! But all those were just facts... And I sought the truth. I picked up the bible and started reading it with an open mind. Experience is a powerful proof. I personally can believe that the Bible is true because I have seen evidence in my life that it is true. I see that it was correct in what it said about my nature and my need for forgiveness. I have seen the benefits the Bible promises after receiving forgiveness. I have seen my life and the lives of many other people improved by believing and practicing what the Bible teaches. So there you have it. I have always steered clear from the "There is no truth" philosophies because they are groundless and unsubstantiated. I apologize to all of you for trying to challenge your beliefs... even though it may be good for some of us once in a while to see how solid our beliefs really are. But I've learned now that no amount of arguing will ever convince someone... Only God can convince people that He is there and that's only if you let Him. He would derive no enjoyment from creatures who were forced to love him, only the ones who choose by faith to love him without any concrete proof. 041110 ... pete and a response to me? 041110 ... Lemon_Soda The Bible is the word of God What makes you say that? Because the Bible says it is. Why should I believe the Bible? Because the bible is the word of God. ...think about it... 041110 ... <> Not to nitpick, but your Bible was written by human beings too...and if you say that your humans were divinely inspired, how do you know the humans from other religions weren't? And also, you've explained how your religious motivations came to be, but could you explain please how your motivation to convince everyone else of your religion (sometimes to the point of seeming to attack them) came to be? 041110 ... magicforest What works for you won't work for anyone. I'm not Christian, but I haven't found myself in a hole somewhere. In fact, I've discovered that I still feel guilt, compassion, love, pain, and all those human things. Also not to nitpick, but it seems that you want people to be Christian, not just believers in God. 041110 ... magicforest correction: everyone, not anyone 041110 ... () (recursive loops do not constitute proof. you cannot say that god exists because the bible says so and that the bible get's it's authority by being the word of god, and still call it a proof. that is an infinite regress also. faith is personal and cannot be proved by technical standards, by the way, which version of the bible is true? and within that one, which of the apostle's contradictory stories is true? do you know that none of the four authors knew jc and that three of them were born after his traditional death? what of the gnostic gospels which did not make the cut to most current versions? what of the dead sea scrolls which cause so much concern for being different? which of these words are god's own? respectfully, i believe you must ought to read more broadly on the subject.) 041110 ... (oops) (forgive the typos and syntax errors) 041110 ... Third Party Analysts typos and syntax errors are forgiven. But what about your comprehension? Sure you comprehend your Logic Studies textbook, but did you not comprehend the above writing? "My Proof is in the Creation itself" I exhaustively detailed the proof as not "just because the bible says so", but I listed several factors including scientific, logical (your fav.), archeaological, historical, prophetic, but most importantly experiential. However, at no time did I say that the proof was based on the fact that the bible says there is a God. Yet you constructed your whole argument on that which I did not say? Is that logical. Is that a fallacy? Is that a recursive loop? Do you think I am impressed by your study of logic? you must ought to go read it again for the first time... 041110 ... magicforest I think that the Third Party Analysts are starting to sound very biased, very judgemental, and very very very very contemptuous. Not like a good objective Third Party ought to be. Maybe the Third Party Analysts should consider being respectful, not merely civil. 041110 ... Hypocrite patrol "Don't be silly." Is that respectful? 041110 ... Third Party Analysts Pete - hmmm, I don't have a natural response to you but I'll give you one since you requested it... Well, I like the way you write. You're very creative. I have answers to each of your questions. But I won't answer any of them here or now. Sorry. Stay tuned, help_is_on_the_way! Lemon Soda - Why do I say that the Bible is The Word? is_the_Bible_The_Word_of_GOD? I believe so. My stance is: If the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it. I'll explain later... 041110 ... bill hicks and then the path of disciples was blocked by a brontosaurus. that's a huge fucking lizard said matthew. i'm not sure what i saw said thomas it was a huge fucking lizard said james. i'm sure going to put that in my book said john... well i'm sure going to put that in my book said luke. 041110 ... ??????? "Do you think I am impressed by your study of logic?" It's a lot more impressive than anything you've done. I mean, come on, you think Jesus put you in the hospital because you dabbled in atheism. 041110 ... Third Party Analysts No. I voluntarily made myself vulnerable to attacks_from_the_enemy. By abandoning God, I took off my protective armor, so to speak, and I was certainly attacked. I cannot blame God for my own choices. Too many of us try to blame God for things that Satan does to us. Jesus Loves me. He sits at The Father's right hand and intercedes on my behalf. If God wanted to he could erase me. He loves me though. He allowed certain strife to come my way and I am very thankful for it! God disciplines those whom he loves. Not out of spite or revenge or cruelty, but out of love. If I wanted to I could be bitter about it all. But that's not the right attitude. What would I ever gain by holding a grudge against God? 041110 ... magicforest Dear Hypocrite Patrol, I can be as ridiculous as I want: I did not claim to be a third party when I was actually a fully involved party. Don't claim to be objective when you have admitted to taking a stance on the topic at hand. You are not objective. Nobody here is. Including me. And that is the problem. 041110 ... gatsby So when God lets thousands of little children die of AIDS, it's out of love, right? Or maybe just to teach whatever higher power is controlling the situation by sacrificing a thousand lives? Or maybe it's humans who do it, not God. Maybe God gave us the free will to fuck things up and show us what happens. Or maybe you don't even exist. And neither do I. Why fight? 041110 ... ??????? OK. But you cite the supposed prophecy of the destruction of Tyre as objective proof of the Bible's truth. So what about this: "Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today. A curious thing about this prophecy against Tyre is that Isaiah also predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, but, whereas Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be permanently destroyed and "nevermore have any being," Isaiah prophesied that it would be made desolate only for a period of 70 years. A comparison of these two prophecies is an easy way to show the silliness of claiming that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible. "As noted in my exchanges with Matthew Hogan on Ezekiel's tirade against Tyre (September/October 1997; November/December 1997), Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock and a place for spreading nets, and would be built no more forever (26:7-14, 21; 27:28; 28:19). As Ezekiel did, Isaiah in his prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel also predicted the overthrow of Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl, you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continued in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, but beginning in verse 13, Isaiah indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent: "Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh. "So Ezekiel predicted a permanent destruction of Tyre that would last forever, but Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. Matthew Hogan was objective enough in his consideration of the evidence to admit later that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre had failed ("From the Mailbag," TSR, March/ April 1997, p. 12), but regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of them had to fail, and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain. If the Bible was really inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why would he have directed one prophet to predict a temporary destruction of Tyre and then later direct another prophet to predict that Tyre would be destroyed forever and never be rebuilt? A likely answer is that neither prophet was divinely inspired; they both simply blustered in the exaggerated rhetoric typical of biblical prophets and, working independently, contradicted each other." http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/3/983front.html So what about that? 041110 ... ??????? "By abandoning God, I took off my protective armor, so to speak, and I was certainly attacked." Why would Satan want to attack you? If he just left you alone, you'd have never seen the error of your temporary godlessness and thus "the enemy" would have gotten your eternal soul when you died. By attacking you and putting you in the hospital, the Devil reminded you that you needed God in your life and actually saved your soul. So is Satan stupid or is he really a nice guy? 041110 ... smurfus rex *raises hand* also not to nitpick, but the Gutenberg Bible was not solely responsible for pulling Europe out of the Dark Ages. and let us also remember that Christianity was not unknown in Europe before the Renaissance...in fact, it had a stranglehold on the society of the time, which brought about the Dark Ages. this was the time when it was believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, the Earth was flat, the vast majority of the population did not bathe regularly and could not read or write or count, and the Pope could mobilize armies whose numbers would rival modern militaries. The contemporary Islamic population, particularly in Spain, enjoyed an unparalleled level of education, knowledge, and literacy compared to that of Europe at that same time. The effects of their discoveries in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and architecture still resonate into the present day. Their level of advancement far outpaced that of Christian Europe, and only when the Great Library at Alexandria burned to the ground and when the Muslim population began to fracture and turn in on itself did Christian Europe begin to catch up. Point? If any religion can be said to have shined a light on Western Civilization and chased away the Dark Ages, then credit should be given to Islam first, and Christianity second. As for the argument that the proof of God's existence is in the design of the universe: this is sometimes the avenue by which scientists can profess a belief in a higher power without subscribing to a religion. As such, it is not a new argument, nor is it exclusively Christian. But it is also susceptible to the semantic and academic argument over whether "nature" or "physics" is just another name for God or if they are separate concepts independent of a singular figurehead representing Divinity. Finally, an "atheist" is one who does not believe in an anthropomorphic God figure. An atheist can accept and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and believe he really existed 2000 years ago in the context of philosophy and ethical conduct. An atheist will almost certainly deny that Jesus was divine, however. For the atheist, then, the Holy Bible is another book that describes the history of the Jewish people in the first part, and the history and evolution of the teachings of Jesus Christ in the second. It would not be the word of God, however. So, let us accept that this challenge was doomed from the beginning, in that the real target audience was not so much atheists as anti-Christians (and no, "secular humanists" is not another way of saying anti-Christians). The existence of God has been debated and argued and "proved" ad nauseum since Man began communicating. The result? Some believe, some don't, some are still researching. Leave it at that. The authenticity of the Christian religion has also been debated and argued from within the religion and from without. The result? Some believe, some don't, some are still researching. Leave it at that, also. No one is going to win any prizes for the most converts, or the most arguments won, or the most discussions initiated, or the most witnessing instances. Instead of announcing some futile contest that is designed to force your desired outcome no matter how it is played out, when you encounter someone who reveals their beliefs to you (which is already an intensely personal thing to do) and you believe differently, simply make yourself available for any questions that they may have about your beliefs, so that they may understand you better as a person, and ask them about their beliefs *only* to understand them better as a person, not to challenge or convert them. Show interest in them and a desire to see from their point of view, and you'll make a friend instead of an enemy. 041110 ... Third Party Analysts Well said, smurfus. Does_God_exist? 041110 ... Jeca thanks for answering my question, and i think i can understand how you feel. i especially appreciate that you adopted the beliefs you now have after some real thought, as opposed to merely repeating what you had always been taught. to me, that is the most important thing-- that what you believe is not just something you've been told. i was born into a marriage between a christian and an athiest, so i have a rather different view on religion, tolerance, etc. my parents are still sickeningly in love with each other and i have never in my lifetime seen them fight. i don't even really know how-- our family never does. i have also been on the brink of death (pneumonia, the summer before last-- i was farther from home and family than i'd ever been before, and i was living alone as a museum intern when i called 911, unable to breathe. i was scared out of my mind-- i'm sure your experience was equally frightening. i'm still not over it) and, though i don't happen to believe it was designed, i agree that this world is an amazing place and i'd like to teach about it someday with a museum. what about the rest of us here? rainforest? whether the bible is literally true or not, no matter what you do or don't believe in, what made you decide? 041110 ... Jeca oh cuss. sorry, magicforest. 041110 ... megan God exists in quiet ways does He shout His names from the mountains? no, that is our calling and if we don't, it's said the rocks will actually cry out to Him does he get on the net and blather about himself? no, He understands that when people are ready to hear the truth, and need to hear the truth, they will find Him Third Party Analyst... your fervorous faith is meant well. but you have forgotten how to be like Christ... the most important lesson all of us need to learn Christ did not shout angry words at Mary Magdalene when he found her, as a whore, as a society castaway He presented Himself to her and then Loved her He did not want to kill Judas for betraying Him and He does not smite on earth those people that blaspheme His name and even don't acknowledge His presence we are to do the same present what you know as truth and leave it you've planted a seed if they are ready in their life if they wish to know more they will ask and still don't push or shove or act like we're in grade school again this is the very reason i don't post here much anymore we have forgotten how to be kind, loving, mature adults please, for the last time, stop the nonsense 041110 ... Jeca i can't believe rainforest isn't a blather word yet 041110 ... () "If you, like countless others who have gone before you, should fail... You will likely logically conclude by discovery that Jesus IS the Son of God, the Bible IS in fact true, and thereby all things written in said Bible are also true, including all those promises!" tpa 41106 (this passage is what i have been confused by. how does failing to prove god's non-existence prove his existence? where is the principle of necessary connection expressed in this "proof"? it seems to rely on a presupposition that he exists unless proven otherwise. that is not proof, but faith. this is what i was referring to in my above statement about recursive loops. in the absence of another connection, this passage relys on an irrational jump that, to me, seems circular. as to the argument from design, describing the universe in terms of design is a form of anthropomorphism. we seek order everywhere. it seems to be a pre-requisite for cognition. differentiation is the object of perception. pattern recognition is the order we impose on the raw stuff of stimulus. finding similarity between patterns is a way of symbolically reducing complexity. meaning is the way we classify patterns. meaning in turn helps us to recognize and predict temporal patterns. evidence of design in the natural world cannot be proven, because we cannot distinguish the order imposed by a supposed creator from the order imposed by cognition itself. this is not to say that the argument from design is untrue, rather it is simply not provable. i think semantics are at issue here. we are using the word proof to mean something different. i believe you are using it to mean "indications that my faith is right", whereas i am using it in a more formal sense. once again, i am not arguing that you are wrong, only that you have not "proven anything.") 041111 ... () (oh yeah, i almost forgot: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) 041111 ... whitechocolatewalrus i enjoyed reading this 041111 ... iNsEcUrE_GoTh_GiRl *laughs herself silly at this blathe* ah...... this has amused me. 041111 ... Lemon_Soda *blinks* I wish smurfus would say more. I've never liked the idea of someone whose been dead for longer than I've been alive telling me what to dowithout even knowing who I am...as if one set of rules would be enough for us ALL to get along like one big family. Sure, it'd be nice, but unrealistic in my opinion. Most religions have proven by action to me that in the realm of "I am this" or "not" nobody is entirely sure of themselves. Third Party, witch sect of the worship of God is the right one? The one God wants us to follow? Is "God" the only name he/she/it has? What if he started more than one church, more than one religion? Doesn't god mean love? Or is he a supernatural deity? And if one can exist can others? What if this all or nothing attitude of "his" is standard for any divine being and "he" just got more press(bible) earlier than everyone else? I honostly don't know the answers... Can anyone put this stuff down in a way I'll understand? Its not that I'm trying to prove anyone wrong, it just seems nobody can honostly be proven right... 041111 ... () (here here) 041111 ... smurfus rex Nobody can be honestly proven right by someone else. Nobody can be honestly proven wrong by someone else. Only you can prove yourself right, because the beliefs you hold for yourself are true for you alone. The beliefs that others hold for themselves are true for them alone. When you find yourself about to dive into another argument/discussion/debate about religion, take a cue from Bruce Lee. Instead of saying, "My Jeet Kune Do is not the same as your Jeet Kune Do", say, "My Christianity is not the same as your Christianity". Using this approach with other revealed and developed religious systems eventually reduces to one universal theme: My spiritual beliefs are not the same as your spiritual beliefs. Bruce Lee did not teach a "standard" form of Jeet Kune Do because he believed that each fighter was a product of different experiences, interests, and abilities, and he encouraged each of them to develop their "own" Jeet Kune Do style. Spiritual beliefs are no different. People are products of their experiences, plain and simple, and those experiences have led them to choose and retain specific beliefs about the universe, the world, and their fellow human beings. They're not wrong, because their beliefs are true *for them*, they're just different *from you*, because their belief style is not the same as your belief style. For example: Christianity vs. Satanism = Spiritual emphasis vs. Material emphasis Christianity vs. Wicca = Bachelor God vs. Couple God and Goddess Christianity vs. Islam = Service vs. Submission (kinda the same tho) Christianity vs. Paganism = Monotheism vs. Pantheism Christianity vs. Buddhism = God in Heaven vs. God in Everyone Christianity vs. Atheism = God's Divine Plan vs. Man's Personal Choice So much more could be said on these examples, and on others, but that will be saved for future blathes. But as for this one, think of the eyes that have been opened to exploration because of this blathe, the seekers that have embarked on a new journey because of this discussion, even if they did not contribute to the topic at hand. Some will separate from their current belief system and enter into a new one. Some will be strengthened in their current belief system and more resistent to future incursions. Seeds have been planted, which I think was the underlying point to begin with. What kind of blossoms will come from those seeds, none of us can foresee or control. 041111 ... () (a proof which relys on the prophesies you refer to also relys on the veracity of the description of said miracles. as far as i know, the only source material for biblical prophesies is the bible which was written in each case long after the events it describes. using the text of the bible as proof of events past is just not good scholarship. to my knowledge, there is no second source, for nearly all of the content. josephus, is the exception that comes to mind for a tiny percentage of the new testament. i think he also referenced masada. i have read the old and new testaments cover to cover in several versions each in english. i have also read a whole host of other religious texts from many cultures. i have found the similarities more compelling than the differences. what makes jc different than zeus, mithras or loki? are these religious traditions "truths" less true than your own? what makes them wrong? i do not see why this mythos is true while others are false. for me it is not self evident.) 041111 ... () (a loose anthropological definition of superstition is somebody else's religion) 041111 ... from now on . 041111 ... anne-girl 30 days 041206 ... Satan the Prince of Lies You win this round, Christ. But I shall return! 041206 ... . After reading over this blathe it comes to mind that people are not half as gentle as they ought to be with eachother. It's shameful. 041206 ... 42 usc 1983 I don't value being gentle above all else. This is of course my opinion, but then, that should be obvious. 041206 ... . I wasn't telling you to value being gentle above all else. In fact, I wasn't telling you anything. I wasn't attacking you, there is no need to defend. And please, don't come up arguments and proofs to this because I don't want a debate, so please don't try to start one. I don't want one. Some people do, obviously you have found many, but I don't. Not every statement requires a response. Some can just be left be. Some people can just be left be. Not everything needs dissection. What I really want is for you to leave me alone, and not talk to me, or at me, anymore. Just read this, come up with your response, but say nothing. Let your pride suffer. Mine has. I'm too afraid to put my real identity because I think you'll come and get me if I run. Maybe you won't. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't care to know which. So don't tell me. It doesn't matter who I am anyway, all I bring to blather anymore is emptiness. Here is my heart, here. You see desperation, fear. A little madness. A person behind these words. I've left myself open to you. Go ahead and destroy me then, I'm done. Pick me apart. Refute. Tear me to shreds. But know that as you do it, you aren't tearing apart words, you aren't tearing apart an argument, you aren't tearing apart an opinion, you are tearing apart a human being. You are tearing apart me. 041207 ... 42 usc 1983 "Not every statement requires a response." Maybe my response was the statement that required no response. Why do the rules only apply to me? I didn't mean to hurt you. I just wanted to let you know that your statement about gentleness, no matter how innocuous and self evidently true it seemed, was a value judgment for which there existed a response. You don't like my style of argument, and that's fine, but I fail to see how casual drive-by moralizing is any better. 041207 ... andru235 can anything be ever proven? prove to me that hooves are cloven prove to me that you exist proof disappears, into the mist why the need to prove atheism? will it shed light, as a prism? it seems the aim of futile angers to care at all about old mangers that those who believe do oppress i know; i've lived with much duress but what's the point with proving this? the proof will never bring you bliss 041227 ... Third Party Analysts I already apologized and repented of my actions, why then have you agonized, unaccepted my retractions? I sought only to enlighten And encourage freer thinkings I just got sick of fightin' These regurgitated speakings When you see a man in chains Wrapped up in his misery Do you not feel some his pains? Do not you promote delivery? What I wished you had uncovered Through that which I was speaking That proof can only be discovered Through the processes of seeking Oppression from believers, true But never from The Father The same who were deceivers of you Are also here on blather Just as you are truly a human And not really a rhyming cyborg The Truth can be found and illumined but you won't find any on atheists.org 050114 ... anne-girl i think the problem with christianity vs atheism debates is that christians and atheists tend to start with different fundamental assumptions (logic vs faith, say) and nobody's going to give any ground, both sides are trying to prove they're right instead of trying to get at the truth not all the time, but often it's really quite depressing 050714 ... satan satan satan and on a previous remarks to this blathe TPA: You people give me too much credit. I did this to you I did that to you "The devil made me do it" Bullshit on all of that also, if Belial wants to come around pretending to be me, i will sicc the gerbils on him... I concede nothing 050714 ... andru235 to the rhymer's post before (a post i just could not ignore) your sentiment, though i adore reminds me of my endless chore i say this because that you needn't retract something that you regard as a fact i'd nothing to do with an earlier pact. warning: i am no master of tact. the father? you think *he* gave birth? a holy mother seems t'have more worth; of birthing fathers, there's a dearth; (except seahorses off the coast of Perth) in the realms where i came from, completely unrelated to christendom; there we do not beat the drum and march 'neath pretenses of monotheis-um for in the endless endlessness the only goddess is Infini-Tess or call it 'god', or call it chess would a deity care what we call it? guess. the most avoided possibility is that no one's damned, you see not the buddhist, manichae, atheist nor cult enlistee. aren't those who do greatest wrongs those most in need of 'gods' love songs? only that will make them strong so that we all can get along indeed, we all need divine love we seek supplication from above! not all hands can fit each glove (obvious when 'majority' you are not of) it's great that jesus saves you, *yawn* but i must account to tszyclomentrokhan about this we could argue till dawn sitting out on a chemicalized lawn don't you find the names quite silly? like the rose, or like the lily? the fire warms those who are chilly; even if they call it 'billy' surely, a point you can't refute grander souls demand not tribute it is a small mind that gives the boot to one who won't an authority's horn toot i, too, tire of the fight but it won't end 'till both are right! the moralist claims, "day or night!" creating for dawn and dusk a plight you say that atheists.org lacks truth why, you must be quite the sleuth! a surer aim than john wilkes booth! frankly, that claim is most uncouth for truth is found in everything, in every sphere and every ring. you and i both have found it annoying when truth's evasive, or worse: cloying. like you, science i cannot marry but your creed bars me from fucking Larry perhaps in this zone your sect don't tarry, but it's in the bible...aren't you wary? yet also, isn't love the key? i note with tragic irony a father, son, and spirit holy... three men, sacred union? don't you see?!? (and a sign of pederasty?!?) my goal with that is only to show that any belief has critics in tow a monopoly on truth, you claim to know? you're righteous, but so am i, my fellow! as thus, the only safe conclusion is that heresy is an illusion. humankind needs a spiritual infusion; but not in the form of a conformist delusion. one last thing, before i move on: an atheist is not a devil's spawn many atheists have spiritual braun! they reach their own heavens when from earth they've gone. 050714 ... blatherskites ::[ERUPT IN APPLAUSE]:: 050715 ... DannyH BRAVO! 050715 ... e yo 050718 ... Tirade Tirades_of_blather 060119 ... - - 061011 ... Christ without the cross That was beautiful andru. I believe every one on this page is right. God is truth. God is everything. Everything is truth. I know this is circular reasoning but isn't everything in life. How the world turns and resolves and water moves and how life changes. These are all circles. God is not in logic or in insanity. Why can't he be in both? Why restrict him to one thing and not another. God loves everybody the same but if we were to do that we would be sluts wouldn't we. Or is a 'slut' a construction made by us. God's love is not exclusive. Thats what they say. So why do we exclude. Why do we want to possess one another? Why do we wish to control? Why do we shout at the top of our lungs to declare our truth over another. Why do we fight and condemn when the message of all religions is to love. Unity not separateness and intolerance. Look at the world, people. Obviously what we have been doing has not brought about peace and love. It has done more to start wars and rain down judgment that to unite people. We have been supressed to prevent us from giving into evil, yet evil springs from suppression. It has not changed the way things are. we have only become more dishonest. We have told more lies. We hide instead of coming out in the open. Why design such a thing to keep people in suffering. Why must people be ashamed. Why must a gay man fear being shunned by his own father because he feels for one of God's children. Why do we limit ourselves and then try to limit God, that which created everything and is perfect. Why do we wish to call his creations imperfect. Perfection creates perfection. Logic. What does logic prove? Can it prove that it is impossible to walk on water or float in air? Can it prove that a thing is an illusion? What can science prove when there are exceptions to every rule? God does not need to prove himself. What for?is he unsure of who he is? I can see why we would need to. We are insecure and to prove our thoughts or ideas or beliefs to be true would certainly make us great. or would it? Would it if it caused another to fall. This is not love. Here is a challenge: Judge not. make no judgment on anything created by God because there are many things in heaven and earth and the depths of hell that you will not know in this lifetime. Curse not the darkness because from the darkness you can be light. "I am the light and the darkness. I have created them both."(Isiaah, cant remember the verse). Curse not evil because from evil you can come to know yourself as good. Curse not hate because hate provides a contrast in which you can be LOVE. Curse nothing because nothing is here by accident. Curse not nor condemn nor judge. That is a challenge for all of you. But if this challenge is impossible for you just be free and live YOUR life. Do what you want. Nothing you do will make you less perfect in the eyes of GOD 061012 ... hyena even decapitating herds of puppies? 061012 ... Christ without the cross Especially that homie. especially that. 061012 ... Wasandru Right on, Cw/otC! 061012 ... Ubiquitous Flattery Good work, (a)theists! 061012 ... mr song CHALLLENGE: CAN YOU PROVE THAT CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH ? 070618 ... mr song see: witch 070618 ... photophobe What I find hilarious: Not only are people thought controlled into believing this shit, but people outside of the influence of the control still engage in argument with those within. Free thinkers: Believers are lost to us. Anyone who espouses a belief in god is already infected with this insidious evil. Its is such a huge thing to break free of this control - it is something that must come from within... with wit and real philosophical thought. Logic cannot solve hysteria. 080208 what's it to you? who go blather from