Do you believe in God?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think you've seen the sheer amount of "my wife won't have sex with me or talk about it anymore and we've been celibate for 10 years now, i'm miserable" threads in PI, have you? Or the cheating in marriages ones?

I have no doubt that marriages can become strained, and I have no doubt that marriages need work. That is for partners to discuss, and indeed they should discuss it. Marriage is an opportunity for man and wife to share themselves intimately with one another. As man and woman become one under God, it should be an opportunity to share the compassion they have for one another through sexual intimacy.

If that isn't happening in individual cases, that's unfortunate and it is something they need to work out before long. I wouldn't think that understanding is helpful.

Marriages in general tend to be a lot less loose than relationships. However, most likely in cases where married couples cheat on each other, they will not have agreed to wait until marriage beforehand. I haven't the slightest doubt about that.

bluewolf wrote: »

There is NO difference. If you don't have open communication with your partner in the first place, a piece of paper isn't going to make a difference, and if you do, well that's down to a good relationship, not aforementioned piece of paper.

It depends what thinking you have behind "relationship" or "marriage". My thinking is clearly much more conservative than yours, and I understand that. Who said abstaining before marriage discourages open communication by the way?

KnifeWRENCH

When this topic came up about a year ago I said yeah, that I didn't follow any organised religion but did believe in some sort of God.

Recently, I've doubted it more and more and am now at the point where I honestly don't care. I'm not an atheist but I'm not really a theist now either: I guess "apathetic agnostic" would be the best description.

Oh, and militant atheists annoy me just as much as fundamentalist religious people.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriages in general tend to be a lot less loose than relationships.

Again with the generalities.
If God loves us individually, know us individually and is omnipotent, why would he not make a judgment in each specific case based on each specific relationship? God has absolutley no need for generalities.
Rather than make up a bunch of non-flexible rules.
Doesnt that sound more like the rules that man would make up?

Nihilist21

No, I've never believed in any deity.

goosey gander

genericguy wrote: »

nope, i believe in logic, science and the pursuit of knowledge. I do not believe in blindly accepting that there's some beardy bloke in the sky that hates gheys and needs money.

Although if said beardy bloke comes and visits me, I'll kiss mary harney.

I have a strong belief in science, ive been studying it for four years but it does not replace my belief in god nor do i ever think it will!

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Surely if it was to protect us from hurt, he should encourage no-one to get married as a broken marriage is far more detrimental than a broken non-marriage elationship.

A marriage can work with effort. I would hold the view that abstaining before marriage encourages discussion and ensures that both get to know eachother as much as possible before sharing something as intimate as sex with their partner. I would have thought that would make sense, but apparently not. If people are giving undue preference to the sexual part of their relationship, than well, the relationship part of the relationship, a solid relationship isn't as likely to form.

drkpower wrote: »

But more importantly, you provide general reasons for God favouring marriage. And you say, that for every case of pre/non-marital sex, one will have fallen short of Gods standard.

Yes, marriage is the point where a man and a woman becomes one under God in a Christian context. Becoming one physically before that point would seem to diminish it's importance in a spiritual sense as well as in a purely pragmatic sense.

drkpower wrote: »

But doesnt God love us as individuals? Therefore surely he would judge us as individuals? And if two people are in a perfectly committed long term relationship (perhaps with children) why would God look disapprovingly on those people? Surely he would look at the individuals on a case-by-case basis. Why should we look at him on a "general" basis. He is omnipotent. Why the need for these general rules.

God can love people as individuals, without loving what they do at times. Just as a parent can love their child, without loving what they do at times. God loves all those people in that relationship, and wants them to come to repentance and accept Him and let Him be present in their lives. You seem to view God's desire to repent to be something of scorn. However, Jesus describes the point of repentance and acceptance of God's will to be something celebrated by all the angels of heaven.

There is a need for general rules, because humans do not act as they should towards one another, and in respect to God. They are as means of defining the social value of marriage for Christians as well. Bear in mind, when I am discussing marriage, I am talking about how Christians understand marriage. I expect that you will disagree with my viewpoint.

drkpower wrote: »

Im afraid you need to consider more closely who God is; because the one you seem to believe in is oncredibly inconsistent and irrational.

I don't think so. It makes sense in a Christian context. I quite expect that if people want their sins to be justified, it is likely that they will deem something that goes against their viewpoint to be "irrational".

When I read the Bible first, and when I read it still, I am challenged by what it said. Some of the things I read, convicted me of my sin, I had a choice to make. Will I accept that I have done wrong, or will I not? I have chosen the former, you have chosen the latter.

Turtwig

Nope don't believe in ANY God.
Don't know what to believe to be honest because quite simply I do not understand anything! That doesn't mean I should believe in something though.

In short I believe in nothing. Of course, many people debate what 'nothing' actually is. Arghhh I hate this bloody God question.

Anyways, people argue that we should all respect each other's beliefs (or lack of them). Ideally this is good, in reality though it's nearly impossible. How do you expect me to respect fundamentalist views on say homosexuality, anti-feminism???
That's like saying I respect your religion therefore I think because you're religion says so that you should be allowed to X even though I wholly disagree with and think it a disgusting and vile thing to do.

I believe in discussions with reason minded people. Respect works both ways:
If a person doesn't respect another person's viewpoint then they're no point in discussion. However, this of course has limits? Would you respect the views of Stalin/Hitler???

We

Jakkass wrote: »

I condemn the Crusades, the Inquisition, and all these detestable acts in the same way I condemn Stalin's pogroms in Russia of people of religious conviction, and in the same way I condemn North Korea's continued mistreatment of people of faith to this very day. Humans all have the ability to corrupt, but the corruption is rarely what the religion advocates. In the case of Christianity it is true, I can scarcely compare the teachings of Jesus to the corruption of people who have used His name for atrocious acts.

You can try argue this all you want but your defence is totally reliant on your own beliefs for it to hold up.
You believe that your religion is the word of god, and thus is not accountable for the crimes of his followers as they were not acting on his teachings or his behalf.. For athiests or those who dont believe the same things you do, we see it as a bunch of PEOPLE who created this religion. THEY make the rules.
A book of vague scriptures can be interpreted whatever way people want to interpret it and you can't try to relinquish the church's/religion's responsability with such a cowardly defence..

We wrote: »

IMHO, until the religions of the world can somehow reimburse their tragic impact by saving lives to the point where they are breakeven on the amount they have killed/saved

Jakkass wrote: »

We already have. Religion is a visible force for good in this world, unfortunately a minority speak the loudest.

LOL.. Well I'm glad we cleared that up... :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote: »

Would you mind telling me how atheists are making up for the deaths of 100 million people by their brethren in the last century? No doubt you will say that atheists aren't responsible for this, in the same way I say that modern Christians, and Jesus Christ are not responsible for the corruption of Christianity in the past. We can look back and commit ourselves to say, never again.

Of course I'm going to say atheism or the atheist population of the world isn't responsible, because it isn't..

Unfortunately for you the same argument can't be applied to Atheism as is it to Religions.
We don't have a set of rules that we believe to supersede law or a divine spirit who's name we act on behalf of, or who's beliefs we follow.
Atheism is essentially the rejection of your beliefs, we don't have beliefs of our own that we all agree on. Stalin wasn't acting in the name of atheism, nor was Hitler, nor was Pol Pot. What your trying to do here is attribute atheism as a cause for the actions of these nutjobs, which is about as justifiable as saying its because they were all left handed..

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Again with the generalities.
If God loves us individually, know us individually and is omnipotent, why would he not make a judgment in each specific case based on each specific relationship? God has absolutley no need for generalities.
Rather than make up a bunch of non-flexible rules.
Doesnt that sound more like the rules that man would make up?

No not particularly.

God's rules are aimed in protecting people and enabling them to live their lives as best as possible, in a social, moral, and spiritual sense while they are alive on this earth.

I find your post curious, because you aren't understanding, God's standard, not your standard. It is something that many people have a problem with when they come to Christianity. They are not willing to accept that they will be judged, by God's standard at the end of time, not their own.

Christianity promotes a repentance, and a conforming to God's will over time, I don't think I'm even there yet, but I am trying. If you want to live according to your own standard that is fine, I happen to think that God is a better guide over my life than I will ever be.

Turtwig

Ok even if Stalin was atheist what are the odds of all his soldiers being atheists??
Now ask yourself what are the odds of fundamentalist religious group allowing atheists to fight by their side??
(Especially when atheism is to be shunned by all religions.)

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a need for general rules, because humans do not act as they should towards one another, and in respect to God. They are as means of defining the social value of marriage for Christians as well. Bear in mind, when I am discussing marriage, I am talking about how Christians understand marriage. I expect that you will disagree with my viewpoint.

I dont think you understand.

You are of the view that anyone who has non-marital sex no matter how committed their relationship is, are falling short of God's standard. Whether it be two teenagers who never met, or two people in a long term relationship and who are getting married the next day (and who spend the next 50 years in a faithful idyllic marriage). Either way, they are falling short of Gods standard. Correct?

And you say that God needs to make general rules because, amongst other reasons, marriage is more secure.

But why does God need to make general rules. He is omnipotent. He is looking at me and my girlfriend right now. Can he not make a judgment on what and who we are right now? Why do we have to fit into a general inflexible rule? If God were omnipotent, there would be absilutely no need for such general rules.

If there is a God, and if he is omnipotent, it seems illogical to believe he would act in the way you suggest. The rule-based approach is one taken by man. Unfortunately rather than thinking for yourself about what God wants, you have allowed the teaching of men to influence your thoughts. Go back to basics, figure out who God is, ignore what men say, and then you may end up with a more accurate view of what God would want rather than what men, over the centuries, have interpreted God as wanting, for often their own means.

philologos

We wrote: »

You can try argue this all you want but your defence is totally reliant on your own beliefs for it to hold up.
You believe that your religion is the word of god, and thus is not accountable for the crimes of his followers as they were not acting on his teachings or his behalf.. For athiests or those who dont believe the same things you do, we see it as a bunch of PEOPLE who created this religion. THEY make the rules.
A book of vague scriptures can be interpreted whatever way people want to interpret it and you can't try to relinquish the church's/religion's responsability with such a cowardly defence..

Yes, they are reliant on the Christianity I have accepted, the Christianity I have come to understand.

I believe that Jesus is the Word of God, not my religion. What was Jesus' standard for assessing whether something was good or not? Look to it's fruits. That is what Jesus of Nazareth said in Matthew 7:15-18. A Christian should assess whether actions bear good or bad fruits. If they are glorifying God or reaching out to our fellow neighbours, it is something we should consider. If it isn't it's something we can reject.

You can accuse the church all you will, infact you can accuse me all you want if you feel I am responsible, but Jesus of Nazareth's word remains as true as the day that He spoke it.

We wrote: »

Of course I'm going to say atheism or the atheist population of the world isn't responsible, because it isn't..

I don't think they are any more responsible, than Christianity is responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades, the Inquisition and so on. However to remain your stance you are being hypocritical.

We wrote: »

Unfortunately for you the same argument can't be applied to Atheism as is it to Religions.

I don't aim to apply it to atheism, I aim to use it to point out to you that it is the corruption of mankind that is guilty, not Christianity or Jesus Christ. If you are to claim that it isn't true of this, you are marking yourself out as hypocritical.

We wrote: »

We don't have a set of rules that we believe to supersede law or a divine spirit who's name we act on behalf of, or who's beliefs we follow.
Atheism is essentially the rejection of your beliefs, we don't have beliefs of our own that we all agree on. Stalin wasn't acting in the name of atheism, nor was Hitler, nor was Pol Pot. What your trying to do here is attribute atheism as a cause for the actions of these nutjobs, which is about as justifiable as saying its because they were all left handed..

Funny you mention that Christianity encourages people to supersede law, where did you get that from. Christianity encourages people to be obedient to the law with the exception of prohibitions of worshipping and meeting together.

Seriously, read the New Testament instead of making judgements from what you think Christianity is.

Just curious, do you think I am guilty for believing in God? Do you believe what I am doing is wrong?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity promotes a repentance, and a conforming to God's will over time, I don't think I'm even there yet, but I am trying. If you want to live according to your own standard that is fine, I happen to think that God is a better guide over my life than I will ever be.

Jakkass this saddens me,

Why do you devote so much time into trying to be a better person under the guidance of a supernatural entity -You can be better person without God.
Why do you believe that you cannot guide yourself any better? Why do you perceive yourself as being flawed when you clearly are not?

This is my main gripe with religion:
All humans beings are flawed - through God we can achieve perfection?
Why do we want to be perfect?
I'm happy just the way I am.
Perfection is a romantic idealism.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

You are of the view that anyone who has non-marital sex no matter how committed their relationship is, are falling short of God's standard. Whether it be two teenagers who never met, or two people in a long term relationship and who are getting married the next day (and who spend the next 50 years in a faithful idyllic marriage). Either way, they are falling short of Gods standard. Correct?

If people are committed in a relationship with each other, they should be married in a Christian context. There is a difference between how Christians understand relationships from how non-Christians understand relationships.

drkpower wrote: »

And you say that God needs to make general rules because, amongst other reasons, marriage is more secure.

God makes rules for us to follow, because God knows what is best for mankind.

Simple reasoning from my perspective.

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient and knows everything about the world He has created.
3. Therefore God knows best how to live in it

drkpower wrote: »

But why does God need to make general rules. He is omnipotent. He is looking at me and my girlfriend right now. Can he not make a judgment on what and who we are right now? Why do we have to fit into a general inflexible rule? If God were omnipotent, there would be absilutely no need for such general rules.

I think there is strong reasoning for marriage being the point at which one can become sexually active:

1. In marriages, there is more security, less likelihood of people getting hurt. People have made a formal commitment to one another, in a Christian context, before God.

2. In marriages, it is more likely that people will be able to deal with an unexpected pregnancy than those who are unmarried. (Less likelihood of abortions)

3. In marriages, there is a secure context to begin a family. It isn't likely that the father will leave the mother in the lurch or vice versa. In pre-marital relationships this is more likely.

4. In waiting until marriage, both partners know how they value sex, both partners can be assured that they view sex as something special and something to be shared in a monogamous manner.

5. There is less likelihood of contracting an STD if both partners haven't had any sexual partners before their marriage.

There are strong reasons for why God has made His decision. I don't know if this is exactly the reasoning that God has for the condition to abstain from pre-marital sex but it is reasonable to me upon assessing it.

drkpower wrote: »

If there is a God, and if he is omnipotent, it seems illogical to believe he would act in the way you suggest. The rule-based approach is one taken by man. Unfortunately rather than thinking for yourself about what God wants, you have allowed the teaching of men to influence your thoughts. Go back to basics, figure out who God is, ignore what men say, and then you may end up with a more accurate view of what God would want rather than what men, over the centuries, have interpreted God as wanting, for often their own means.

Not particularly. If God is revealing His laws to people to tell more than one person, it is highly unlikely in a codified work of divine guidance that God is going to say look, this section is for drkpower only. Read this. I personally consider all forms of premarital sex to be wrong, and that it is best to stay away from it until people are fully ready for the potential consequences. The best situation for that is within a marriage.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass this saddens me

It shouldn't. Things are going pretty good with this model.

Malty_T wrote: »

Why do you devote so much time into trying to be a better person under the guidance of a supernatural entity -You can be better person without God.

God is a reality for me. He's been there for me, and He has rung true in my life. If he hadn't I'd most likely be in the same agnostic thinking I was in before this.

I've come to respect God from reading about His interaction with people throughout the Biblical record from Adam to the Apostles.

I believe that God can guide me better in my life, because I've seen how He has been working in my life. Quite simply, an impressive encounter.

Malty_T wrote: »

Why do you believe that you cannot guide yourself any better? Why do you perceive yourself as being flawed when you clearly are not?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course I'm flawed. I've screwed up many a time, I seek God's guidance to help me grow and walk with Him on a daily basis. I consider His guidance to be superior to the guidance of men.

Malty_T wrote: »

This is my main gripe with religion:
All humans beings are flawed - through God we can achieve perfection?
Why do we want to be perfect?
I'm happy just the way I am.
Perfection is a romantic idealism.

No, through God we can be the most socially responsible beings we can if we commit ourselves enough to His word. I can't imagine myself being perfect in this existence, if I were I'd be God.

I don't want to be perfect, I just want to know about my Creator, and I want to know about the amazing role He can have in our lives.

An Fear Aniar

Jakkass wrote: »

I've come to respect God from reading about His interaction with people throughout the Biblical record from Adam to the Apostles.

:rolleyes:

.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Not particularly. If God is revealing His laws to people to tell more than one person, it is highly unlikely in a codified work of divine guidance that God is going to say look, this section is for drkpower only. Read this. I personally consider all forms of premarital sex to be wrong, and that it is best to stay away from it until people are fully ready for the potential consequences. The best situation for that is within a marriage.

In your 1-5 list above, its all about likelihoods...... generalities. But if God is omnipotent, he will know that I, in a commmitted relationship, tick all the boxes above without being married. If those five reasons are the reasons behoind him favouring marriage, if I haver satisfied them wothoput marriage, why would he care? It makes no sense but you just cant get this.

Dont we all have a personal relationship with God? Doesnt he judge me individually? Why would he codify all of this? You have just taken what men/religons have said and you follow that.

You say best; but that is not what you believe God says - you believe he says "only", in the sense that he believes that the only place for sex is within marriage. Pre-marital sex = sin; Marital sex = fine. There is no middle ground. God is this ridiculously black and white charachter who would paint me a sinner even if I follow every one of his other laws. It makes no actual sense. But you cant help simply folllowing the dogma that men/religons have created rather than thinking for yourself.

If God does exist, I'd imagine he would hate that kind of thing. At least Jesus was a free-thinker who diodnt follow the status quo. How about taking a few lessons from him rather than from the generations of clerics who have interpreted him!!

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Ok all I'll say is what I believe :

An optimist is someone who believes that if somethings goes awry there is also something THEY can do to make it go better. In my honest opinion anyone who believes that they need to rely upon something else to change things can never truly be optimistic.
People who thing positively are more likely to be happy.

You may indeed be flawed ( I know I am too) but that doesn't mean I think I need help to fix them. To fix them I need to understand them and why I have them, asking God to guide you only slows you down.
[Meditation helps alot:)]

Note : By 'flaws' I am referring to mental traits/habits that undermine our good nature.

God is the idealogy of perfection. Perfection is a concept of the human being. Our biology ensures that we can never be perfect but we can always work towards being better.:)

Edit why is this thread tagged with phrases such as:
Atheists are Mickeys?
Dreary Jesus Guff

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Dont we all have a personal relationship with God? Doesnt he judge me individually? Why would he codify all of this? You have just taken what men/religons have said and you follow that.

Yes, we do. However, God's laws remain the same for all of us. God will use us for different purposes within the Christian body. I'm still trying to find my role, but I'm confident that He will lead me to it before long.

You will be judged one to one certainly, but premarital sex is sinful according to the Biblical text and if one is to live a Christian lifestyle, as opposed to a secular lifestyle, one would need to turn away from this sin. If you are married, you already have, but you still would need to understand your sin prior to marriage.

drkpower wrote: »

You say best; but that is not what you believe God says - you believe he says "only", in the sense that he believes that the only place for sex is within marriage. Pre-marital sex = sin; Marital sex = fine. There is no middle ground. God is this ridiculously black and white charachter who would paint me a sinner even if I follow every one of his other laws. It makes no actual sense. But you cant help simply folllowing the dogma that men/religons have created rather than thinking for yourself.

If one is to believe in Christianity this is the case yes. I personally believe that marriage is the only context for sex. One might disagree with God's standard, but that is what it is a disagreement.

According to both the Christian texts and the Jewish texts this is a sin. In the Jewish text it says that if one has premarital sex it is best to be married as soon as is possible.

drkpower wrote: »

If God does exist, I'd imagine he would hate that kind of thing. At least Jesus was a free-thinker who diodnt follow the status quo. How about taking a few lessons from him rather than from the generations of clerics who have interpreted him!!

God would hate me aiming to follow his guidance?

As for Jesus, He held to many Jewish precepts in His thinking.

Nevyn

Wow there is a many Gods option in the poll, how cool, didn't expect that

God is the idealogy of perfection.

That depends on the god and ideology, I don't expect my Gods to be perfect or flawless indeed it is their more 'human' qualities which appeal to me.

procure11

Absolutely ..without any reservations whatsoever..and I am not ashamed of my belief either!! and it doesn't make me less intelligent or inferior to non-believers(in this context)

Riddle101

Yeah I believe that there is a god

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

I've come to respect God from reading about His interaction with people throughout the Biblical record from Adam to the Apostles.

Funny I've read the same thing and came to the conclusion that your god is a bit of a dick tbh.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, through God we can be the most socially responsible beings we can if we commit ourselves enough to His word.

That's a load of ****, sorry but it is possible to be a good moral person who contributes to society in a positive way and be an athiest. Those who follow the various judeochristain faiths are not the only one who can be

the most socially responsible beings

Jakkass wrote: »

I just want to know about my Creator, and I want to know about the amazing role He can have in our lives.

Surely that would be your parents.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Funny I've read the same thing and came to the conclusion I don't like your God.

Fixed your post. Whether or not you like God is your prerogative.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense, sorry but it is possible to be a good moral person who contributes to society in a positive way and be an athiest. Those who follow the various judeochristain faiths are not the only one who can be

Fixed your post again.

I believe the Christian moral path to be the best way to lead ones life. That's my point of view. It depends what version of "good" you accept, a religious or a secular version. Indeed in a secular POV people can be "good" in their own sight, in Judeo-Christianity, all humans have fallen short of God's standard and need to atone of their sins. Having been forgiven one can put themselves right with God in the final days.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Surely that would be your parents.

My parents didn't create me. They started the biological process by which I was formed. To beget someone is rather different to creating someone.

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe that marriage is the only context for sex. One might disagree with God's standard, but that is what it is a disagreement.

Marriage in the eyes of your church... so only those recognised by your church should be able to procreate, according to that belief?


That's a cleansing thought

mloc

I think the closest thing I will come to a god in my life is myself. I have the most control, foresight, knowledge and spiritual closeness to myself... more than any other being.

I am God, as far as I'm concerned at least. And as someone once said, gods make their own importance.

Tar.Aldarion

lol no

philologos

My name is URL wrote: »

Marriage in the eyes of your church... so only those recognised by your church should be able to procreate, according to that belief?


That's a cleansing thought

This is a Christian understanding of sexuality. It doesn't particularly matter what church it is. I'm not really speaking based on what view X church has on issue Y, but rather what my opinion is on the Biblical take on marriage from a Christian perspective.

So obviously, I think that people outside my particular church could pro-create. Ireland would be in big trouble replacement rate wise if that were the case :pac:

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

You will be judged one to one certainly, but premarital sex is sinful according to the Biblical text and if one is to live a Christian lifestyle, as opposed to a secular lifestyle, one would need to turn away from this sin. If you are married, you already have, but you still would need to understand your sin prior to marriage.

Well, if God does exist, it would be utterly depressing if he judges me on the basis of a technicality (marriage) despite me being the most worthy individual other than that.

Of course, it would be ludicrous to think that any God would be so short-sighted. But I dont think any of my veiws will make much difference to you. You have chosen to believe the intepretations of clerics through the ages rather than your own.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Fixed your post. Whether or not you like God is your prerogative.

I never said I didn't like your god, I said I find he can be a bit of dick.

I'd never deny the existence of your god and when ever I have been in one of his temples I acknowledge his presence and never do anything to offend the sensibilities of his follower there, it's like thinking your uncle is a twat cos he has an issue with shirtlifters but there's no point arguing with him on it,
you can still like someone but think they can be a twat about some things or a bit of a dick form time to time.

Pretty much how I consider the Judaic christain god, I like him but he can be a twat about certian things and a bit of a dick form time to time.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the Christian moral path to be the best way to lead ones life.

Fair enough the best way, but do you really think it is the only way?

Jakkass wrote: »

That's my point of view. It depends what version of "good" you accept, a religious or a secular version.

There are many religious versions.

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed in a secular POV people can be "good" in their own sight, in Judeo-Christianity, all humans have fallen short of God's standard and need to atone of their sins. Having been forgiven one can put themselves right with God in the final days.

That has to be sucky cos you say your god created you to be flaws and you have to then try fix that, talk about loaded dice.

ah the final days, so eat drink be merry, make the act of contriction on the death bed and Ta Daaa your sorted. Personally I think what a bleedign cop out.

Jakkass wrote: »

My parents didn't create me. They started the biological process by which I was formed. To beget someone is rather different to creating someone.

But if you are you are his creation then you are created and that means the process is finished and there for you can never achieve that elusive perfection.

Personally I think people are works of art, it depends on how much time and effort we put into ourselves and works of art are never finished merely abandoned but some of us carry that work forward into our next lives.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Well, if God does exist, it would be utterly depressing if he judges me on the basis of a technicality (marriage) despite me being the most worthy individual other than that.

I'm guilty of sin myself. It isn't like people have a squeaky clean record. Are you really the most worthy individual? Although, disbelief at it's very core is regarded as sinful in the Christian faith, as that falls short of God's standard. You know that Christians hold the view that none of us our worthy of salvation on our own merits, as all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. This is why Jesus Christ served as bridge between man and God. (Sin separates mankind from God)

Anyhow drkpower, I'm not going to discuss your pre-marital sex situation anymore. I merely pointed out, that in Christian understanding it is a sin before God. Christians have different views of sexuality than other people do.

The question does come down to whether or not you accept 1) God's existence, and 2) God's authority.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, it would be ludicrous to think that any God would be so short-sighted. But I dont think any of my veiws will make much difference to you. You have chosen to believe the intepretations of clerics through the ages rather than your own.

I don't particularly think so. God has given us a structure for us to live fulfilling lives, we can choose to accept it or reject it. People often may make mistakes and may fall short of that standard. As a person of faith if one commits sin, repentance, and a firm resolve not to commit such a sin is enough. It isn't blubbering in your sinfulness, it is an acceptance of mercy.

I believe in God, so I will accept His authority on this issue. I wasn't expecting a whole side discussion on the issue, and I personally don't feel any need to be involved in a discussion about your personal life.

enry

YES

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

The question does come down to whether or not you accept 1) God's existence, and 2) God's authority.

And 3) What you believe God wants of us.

You have chosen to believe what the Christian church has told you. That is what I find most disappointing.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never said I didn't like your god, I said I find he can be a bit of dick.

I'd never deny the existence of your god and when ever I have been in one of his temples I acknowledge his presence and never do anything to offend the sensibilities of his follower there, it's like thinking your uncle is a twat cos he has an issue with shirtlifters but there's no point arguing with him on it,
you can still like someone but think they can be a twat about some things or a bit of a dick form time to time.

Pretty much how I consider the Judaic christain god, I like him but he can be a twat about certian things and a bit of a dick form time to time.

I can't share that view of God.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Fair enough the best way, but do you really think it is the only way?

The only way to live life? If it were everyone on this forum would be Christian.

The only way to salvation? Yes.

Thaedydal wrote: »

There are many religious versions.

Apologies, I should have said Christian.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That has to be sucky cos you say your god created you to be flaws and you have to then try fix that, talk about loaded dice.

I can't fix everything.

Thaedydal wrote: »

ah the final days, so eat drink be merry, make the act of contriction on the death bed and Ta Daaa your sorted. Personally I think what a bleedign cop out.

I think people are missing out if they do not experience God in their lives before the point of death.

I believe God can examine hearts and minds, if ones acceptance isn't genuine, I don't think that will pass God some how. If it is sincere, I can only welcome that person to the Christian fold irrespective of how long that person believed. People don't get brownie points for believing longer. We are all on the same level.

I don't consider myself superior to anyone, nor should I, it would separate me from God.

Thaedydal wrote: »

But if you are you are his creation then you are created and that means the process is finished and there for you can never achieve that elusive perfection.

I just want to try live as God would want me to as best as I can. I don't think I'm looking for perfection. Just for God to work through me.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Personally I think people are works of art, it depends on how much time and effort we put into ourselves and works of art are never finished merely abandoned but some of us carry that work forward into our next lives.

I agree . It's kind of a Parable of the Sower mindset you have going on there.

Dave!

No, not at all ...

dyl10

No.

I don't have an issue with a sound minded adult deciding to take a leap of faith and follow a religion.
I do however, have a major issue with said adults bringing up their children in this religion and imposing a falsity on their kids, while obscuring their view of the truth.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

The only way to live life? If it were everyone on this forum would be Christian.

The only way to salvation? Yes.

But then by your reckoning only christains need to be saved cos thier god made them flawed?

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies, I should have said Christian.

Accepted.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think people are missing out if they do not experience God in their lives before the point of death.

I disagree but then again as I said I found that god to be disappointing and a bit of dick, it's not that I didn't try.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe God can examine hearts and minds, if ones acceptance isn't genuine, I don't think that will pass God some how. If it is sincere, I can only welcome that person to the Christian fold irrespective of how long that person believed.

So you think an Act of Contrition with hours of death is enough?

Jakkass wrote: »

People don't get brownie points for believing longer. We are all on the same level.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider myself superior to anyone, nor should I, it would separate me from God.

Fair enough if you say so but at times that certainly doesn't seem to be the case via your posts.

Jakkass wrote: »

I just want to try live as God would want me to as best as I can. I don't think I'm looking for perfection. Just for God to work through me.

I would be of the same but I don't always agree with how some of my gods would want me to live, they are just not practical and we argue and negotiate but at times and for the most part they do work through me some times very literally.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree .

That the work continues as we reincarnate?

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

But then by your reckoning only christains need to be saved cos thier god made them flawed?

All people need to be saved. There are many paths which lead people in different directions. The Christian path leads to salvation. Jesus paid the price for our sins, without His ransom, we have no hope of salvation. That's what I believe.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I disagree but then again as I said I found that god to be disappointing and a bit of dick, it's not that I didn't try.

God pulled through for me. I can't account for your experience and I don't claim to be able to.

Thaedydal wrote: »

So you think an Act of Contrition with hours of death is enough?

Yes. If it is sincere. Jesus in the Parable of the Labourers discusses workers, some of whom had worked from the beginning of the day, and others who had joined a few hours before the end. When all were being paid, the master of the vineyard gave them all the same wage. At this the workers who had started at the beginning of the day were outraged as the people who came later had been paid the same amount as those who had worked from the start of the day.

I believe we benefit from having faith though. As I say I feel people miss out from not having a relationship with God.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way.

Indeed. I personally don't feel I am a pinnacle of human behaviour, I've made my mistakes but I don't dwell in them either. I don't think any human is the pinnacle of morality. This is why I feel that I should let God guide me along through this thing we call life.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Fair enough if you say so but at times that certainly doesn't seem to be the case via your posts.

I feel I may come across too strongly in text than I would be if I were discussing with people face to face. I don't think I'm "sin-free", and I feel I have a lot of work to do. However, when people strawman Christian views, it's very hard not to want to make some form of a defence.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I would be of the same but I don't always agree with how some of my gods would want me to live, they are just not practical and we argue and negotiate but at times and for the most part they do work through me some times very literally.

I think you'll find that many Christians have argued with God before accepting His plan for them. Kinda like Jonah except for the whale bit

Thaedydal wrote: »

That the work continues as we reincarnate?

I believe that we receive a new body after death.

dyl10

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that we receive a new body after death.

Why can't I keep this one?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

God pulled through for me. I can't account for your experience and I don't claim to be able to.

Ok, I know I might be stretching out on a limb here but would you mind telling us how?
If it's too personal or you just don't want to, then by all means don't.

dyl10

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, I know I might be stretching out on a limb here but would you mind telling us how?
If it's too personal or you just don't want to, then by all means don't.

If he doesn't tell us, he's just making a baseless argument.
This isn't personal issues

genericguy

if i invoke godwin's law will it kill this thread?

Turtwig

genericguy wrote: »

if i invoke godwin's law will it kill this thread?

Well, Hitler has already being mentioned:P
And many others things:)

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm guilty of sin myself. It isn't like people have a squeaky clean record. Are you really the most worthy individual? Although, disbelief at it's very core is regarded as sinful in the Christian faith, as that falls short of God's standard. You know that Christians hold the view that none of us our worthy of salvation on our own merits, as all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. This is why Jesus Christ served as bridge between man and God. (Sin separates mankind from God)

Anyhow drkpower, I'm not going to discuss your pre-marital sex situation anymore. I merely pointed out, that in Christian understanding it is a sin before God. Christians have different views of sexuality than other people do.

The question does come down to whether or not you accept 1) God's existence, and 2) God's authority.



I don't particularly think so. God has given us a structure for us to live fulfilling lives, we can choose to accept it or reject it. People often may make mistakes and may fall short of that standard. As a person of faith if one commits sin, repentance, and a firm resolve not to commit such a sin is enough. It isn't blubbering in your sinfulness, it is an acceptance of mercy.

I believe in God, so I will accept His authority on this issue. I wasn't expecting a whole side discussion on the issue, and I personally don't feel any need to be involved in a discussion about your personal life.

Oh...here we go again....

DigiGal

I hope there is an afterlife for all the people who are wasting so much of this one arguing about God on the internet....

Overblood

No, I think he's a right wanker altogether. He murdered countless children. That is unforgivable.

Then he sends an army of priests to commit paedophile holocaust across Ireland.

He left rape out of the Ten Commandments, on purpose. Bitches ain't shit to god.

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians chapter 14

And what sort of sick game is he playing with the Middle East nowadays? It's like his own version of GTA. What a twat.

Thank fcuk he doesn't exist.

Going to hell for having a ****? Feck off.

Total Death toll of God?

2,400,000 [Source]

Overblood

DigiGal wrote: »

I hope there is an afterlife for all the people who are wasting so much of this one arguing about God on the internet....

That's a relatively harmless belief, fair play to you. Stay away from that god character.

procure11

DigiGal wrote: »

Oh...here we go again....

Thanks ,thanks ,thanks ,thanks...if that would make you happy.

DigiGal

Overblood wrote: »

No, I think he's a right wanker altogether. He murdered countless children. That is unforgivable.

Then he sends an army of priests to commit paedophile holocaust across Ireland.

He left rape out of the Ten Commandments, on purpose. Bitches ain't shit to god.



And what sort of sick game is he playing with the Middle East nowadays? It's like his own version of GTA. What a twat.

Thank fcuk he doesn't exist.

Going to hell for having a ****? Feck off.

Total Death toll of God?

2,400,000 [Source]

In fairness the Bible is Mans word not Gods...

he was just silly enough to create a bunch of brainless zombies who take it word for word...

DigiGal

procure11 wrote: »

Thanks ,thanks ,thanks ,thanks...if that would make you happy.

Ce?