Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

dizzywizlw

Dáil Eireann would have also sufficed.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You don't breath murder. You murder. I certainly think that Paul was involved in some fashion with at least one murder - that of Stephen (more here). He was part of the crowd. More than that the text doesn't say.

But lets say you are correct and Paul was not simply a rather nasty henchman. Let's say that Paul was a murder. This makes his subsequent conversion and acceptance by the early followers of Christ remarkable. This would hardly be the first person that God used despite their unsavoury acts. Moses throttled a man to death. David had a man killed so he could sleep with his wife. All of these men where redeemed despite their crimes.

I agree that if Paul converted then it was indeed remarkable but conversions of one sort or another are actually quite commonplace.

Some good men are corrupted while some evil men do come good.

The problem I have is that all the accounts of Paul that we can study came from Paul himself.

48% of the New Testament is attributable, arguably, to Paul. Now, all that I'm saying is that the phrase, 'You can trust me' says nothing about trustworthiness at all.

I wonder, would you accept that Paul had to be 'diplomatic' in his dealings with the Jews?

I ask this because when Paul addresses the Jewish priests he affirms Jewish law. I feel he has to in order not to end up as Jesus did and so he endorses the law of circumcision.

Paul pleaded that not only did he uphold Jewish law but that the Jesus phenomena was very much a part of Jewish prophecy saying something along the lines of,

"It is written that a descendant of the house of David will be sent by God for the sake of the 'chosen ones.'"

It seems to me from his letter that he was having to constantly confirm his Jewishness.

Do you accept this as being fairly obvious?

lmaopml

Masteroid wrote: »

Where did you get your information about Paul?

For instance, and I think Fanny Cradock deliberately avoided this, how do you know that Paul was executed and martyred?

You might as well ask how any kind of history is plausable at all? How do you 'know' that Michael Faraday and not somebody else discovered the elecron beam....yay!!

Apart from what Paul himself has told you about himself and what people have told you about what Paul told them, what information do we have of Paul outside of the 48% of the New Testament allegedly written by Paul?

Well we certainly have cause and effect....that's for sure

- and despite this rather modern notion that all these people don't contribute, or only tear people down, whether it's Michael Faraday, or Paul the Apostle - one thing is for sure, they're not old. Anybody who thinks they are, is either too childish, or not mature enough.

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

Yes Paul murdered before He repented and turned to Jesus. Your point?

Christians don't believe we are self-righteous but only-because-of-the-saving-death-of-Jesus-righteous.

When you understand what that means it will change your life forever.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense.

And you can only speak for yourself. Is J C not self righteous? Is that because he is a Christian?

My point is that Paul was attempting to destroy the church. He was responsible for the deaths of many human beings.

Then he wrote books about himself that portray him as the hero, the thirteenth disciple.

There is a story where Paul rebukes Peter showing him up as a hypocrite in front of some influential people. I think that that would undermine Peter in the eyes of his peers and would strenthen Paul's political position within the organisation.

My point is that it is entirely reasonable to consider a scenario where Paul hadn't converted at all but pretended to have converted in order to infiltrate the Christian leadership.

We know from his own writings that he intercepted mail from prisoners which helped to identify family and friends of his victims and make them victims too so we can tell he was sophisticated in his efforts against the church.

Is 'going undercover' so impossible for such a man?

Also, think of the advantages for the Jews if they can get the Gentiles to behave piously.

Christianity was designed by those who were commissioned to destroy it.

It is not unreasonable for an unbiassed reader of Christian texts to see things that faith blinds the faithful to.

That's my point.

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

You might as well ask how any kind of history is plausable at all?

But I didn't. I asked you how you know that Paul was martyred and you failed to ask even yourself and avoided the question entirely.

Typical.

As usual, zero contribution from you.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well we certainly have cause and effect....that's for sure

- and despite this rather modern notion that all these people don't contribute, or only tear people down, whether it's Michael Faraday, or Paul the Apostle - one thing is for sure, they're not old. Anybody who thinks they are, is either too childish, or not mature enough.

I'm not sure what question it is that you think you are not answering here but...

zero.

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

I agree that if Paul converted then it was indeed remarkable but conversions of one sort or another are actually quite commonplace.

Some good men are corrupted while some evil men do come good.

The problem I have is that all the accounts of Paul that we can study came from Paul himself.

48% of the New Testament is attributable, arguably, to Paul. Now, all that I'm saying is that the phrase, 'You can trust me' says nothing about trustworthiness at all.

I wonder, would you accept that Paul had to be 'diplomatic' in his dealings with the Jews?

I ask this because when Paul addresses the Jewish priests he affirms Jewish law. I feel he has to in order not to end up as Jesus did and so he endorses the law of circumcision.

Paul pleaded that not only did he uphold Jewish law but that the Jesus phenomena was very much a part of Jewish prophecy saying something along the lines of,

"It is written that a descendant of the house of David will be sent by God for the sake of the 'chosen ones.'"

It seems to me from his letter that he was having to constantly confirm his Jewishness.

Do you accept this as being fairly obvious?

I've no idea why you preface your opening sentence with an "if". However, I would have thought that you can't say that Paul's conversion was remarkable and then say it is common place.

Aside from this, I'm not sure quite sure I understand what you are getting at. Paul was a zealously observant Jew. Then something happened and he wasn't the same man. Afterwards in Corinthians 9 he says that he adopted customs in order to win people over to Christ. If you are asking how Paul, a man brought up under the shadow of 1st Temple Judaism, would have fitted a crucified messiah into his theology then it's really a story of two halves. This is the Saul/ Paul divide that I mentioned earlier.

Tom Wright always has something interesting to say on Paul. I'll be listening to this tomorrow.Ben Witherington is currently running a series entitle Paul and the heritage of Israel that might be of interest.

philologos

Masteroid wrote: »

That doesn't even make grammatical sense.

It's a combo-word that I've neologised for the purpose of this discussion.

Biblical Christianity holds that there isn't anything about a Christian that makes themselves righteous. Righteousness is imputed to them if they repent and believe as a result of the saving death of Jesus and His resurrection 3 days later.

Masteroid wrote: »

And you can only speak for yourself. Is J C not self righteous? Is that because he is a Christian?

Which J C? Jesus Christ, or the loveable J C who commonly posts here?

If it is the latter, J C isn't self-righteous he's only-by-the-saving-death-of-Jesus-righteous. That's the only way anyone can become truly righteous because we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Masteroid wrote: »

My point is that Paul was attempting to destroy the church. He was responsible for the deaths of many human beings.

Yes, and? Paul was a sinner, he even calls himself the chief of all sinners. You've missed something huge if you think that I think that Paul was righteous in and of Himself. Of course He wasn't. I amn't either, and neither are you.

Paul was only-by-the-saving-blood-of-Jesus-righteous. Until you understand what Biblical Christianity presents about justification then you won't understand why I object to you saying that because Paul was a sinner (like I am) that he shouldn't have a place in the church.

Paul was transformed by Christ, he put His trust in Jesus. Jesus paid for his sin in full as He stood on the cross at Calvary, and Paul was born again by the resurrection of Jesus. His former self died with Jesus at the cross, and he was brought to new life three days later according to Christian theology.

So by that paradigm why would Christians exclude Paul from consideration? Christianity is about mercy, not about judgementalism.

Masteroid wrote: »

Then he wrote books about himself that portray him as the hero, the thirteenth disciple.

Quote me a passage that says that he was the hero, because I've read all of his New Testament letters and they all say that Jesus was the hero.

Masteroid wrote: »

There is a story where Paul rebukes Peter showing him up as a hypocrite in front of some influential people. I think that that would undermine Peter in the eyes of his peers and would strenthen Paul's political position within the organisation.

There's a story. You mean that Paul rebuked Peter once as recorded in Galatians.

Well considering that Peter still regarded Paul's letters as Scripture according to 2 Peter 3:15-16 it seems like his rebuke was valid. Moreover if you look to Acts 15 you'll see how this was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem. Even before this point you'll see in Acts 10 that Peter was convicted before this dispute that Gentiles had a place in the church, and indeed Jesus went to Gentiles in Mark 5, and said to go into the whole world in Matthew 28

Masteroid wrote: »

My point is that it is entirely reasonable to consider a scenario where Paul hadn't converted at all but pretended to have converted in order to infiltrate the Christian leadership.

Yes, but that is a conspiracy theory with no evidence and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Masteroid wrote: »

We know from his own writings that he intercepted mail from prisoners which helped to identify family and friends of his victims and make them victims too so we can tell he was sophisticated in his efforts against the church.

What? Passages please.

Masteroid wrote: »

Is 'going undercover' so impossible for such a man?
Also, think of the advantages for the Jews if they can get the Gentiles to behave piously.

See above.

Masteroid wrote: »

Christianity was designed by those who were commissioned to destroy it.

What? - Present me some good reason from Scripture to think what you do.

Masteroid wrote: »

It is not unreasonable for an unbiassed reader of Christian texts to see things that faith blinds the faithful to.

That's my point.

You're not unbiased. You're a conspiracy theorist.

Benny_Cake

Masteroid wrote: »

Christianity was designed by those who were commissioned to destroy it.

It is not unreasonable for an unbiassed reader of Christian texts to see things that faith blinds the faithful to.

That's my point.

Do you have any source, scriptural or otherwise, for any of this? If Paul was commissioned to destroy the church, then it must be concluded that he did a pretty lousy job of it.

Levito

409 pages, 6129 posts, and (most likely) not even 1 conversion to Christ. I hope you all see this textual realm, is the very place where philosophies are erected and come into play, and so it is the least likely place for a change of heart, and thus an honest seeking of God - from the heart.

I would say, let the professional theologians do what they do best, let atheists go and read their books, and let others get on with action and not just playful words. This thread is a huge waste of time for Christians.

evangelist

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Do you have any source, scriptural or otherwise, for any of this?
If Paul was commissioned to destroy the church,
then it must be concluded that he did a pretty lousy job of it.

Yes, thou art right ... thou hast concluded correctly.

Paul had absolutely nothing to do with destroying the church.
That was taken care of by Satan and the church leadership
... who changed the church from Spirit-led to man-led.
With just a tad bit of wisdom and imagination, this should be understood by all.

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

Brian doesn't seem to want to ask the obvious questions. Where did the laws if physics come from? Why would a creator God be bound by laws that He created?

That's not even good logic.

Perhaps, as a logician, you can explain the logic behind creating free-willed being and then giving them a set of instructions to live by.

Why not dispense with free-will and the book of instructions and create a being that operates according to God's will?

lmaopml

“The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”



''The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.''



Couldn't help myself quoting Chesterton in the face of such a self proclaimed logic.

tommy2bad

Masteroid wrote: »

Perhaps, as a logician, you can explain the logic behind creating free-willed being and then giving them a set of instructions to live by.

Why not dispense with free-will and the book of instructions and create a being that operates according to God's will?

Why not?

Because it wouldn't be the same

Masteroid

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why not?

Because it wouldn't be the same

So, to keep it logical then, a world in which all humans acted according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots?

God wants us to choose to behave like robots?

Fascinating.

tommy2bad

Masteroid wrote: »

So, to keep it logical then, a world in which all humans acted according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots?

God wants us to choose to behave like robots?

Fascinating.

:rolleyes:
Riiiiight, Not quit the logic the rest of us use but knock your self out!

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

“The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”



''The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.''



Couldn't help myself quoting Chesterton in the face of such a self proclaimed logic.

Well, if yer man had observed that there is only one mouth and one anus then he might not have made such a stupid deduction at all.

What you are doing here is using logic to prove the idiocy of moon-people.

You are not showing logic to be idiotic but are instead demonstrating that logic can be applied idiotically.

If you wish to demonstrate my idiocy through logic then feel free to do so but in terms that actually relate to what I've said.

So, the question was 'How do you know that Paul was martyred?' not 'Can you present prose that does nothing to address the issue?'

You don't have to answer but if you do then please feel free to tell me how you know that Paul was martyred.

Did you get it from Eusebius?

Masteroid

tommy2bad wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Riiiiight, Not quit the logic the rest of us use but knock your self out!

I'm getting that but I am here to help.

Unless of course you are of the opinion that God wants some of us to be evil.

And anyway, how would removing the capacity to hate from humanity result in robots?

lmaopml

Masteroid wrote: »

You are not showing logic to be idiotic but are instead demonstrating that logic can be applied idiotically.

Bingo.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I would have thought that you can't say that Paul's conversion was remarkable and then say it is common place.

Where did I say that?

Am I to take it that 'That shalt not bear false witness' doesn't apply to Christians who are talking to non-Christians?

Is it necessary to lie to people in order to get them to enter the kingdom of God?

Or to lie about people in order to turn others away from them?

Little wonder that the words of the bible mean something other than what they actually say.

Scandalous.:(

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

Bingo.

You claimed that Paul was martyred - How do you know?

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

Where did I say that?

When you said the following -

"I agree that if Paul converted then it was indeed remarkable but conversions of one sort or another are actually quite commonplace."

Masteroid wrote: »

Am I to take it that 'That shalt not bear false witness' doesn't apply to Christians who are talking to non-Christians?

Is it necessary to lie to people in order to get them to enter the kingdom of God?

Or to lie about people in order to turn others away from them?

Little wonder that the words of the bible mean something other than what they actually say.

Scandalous.:(

Given that PAul never mentions anything about lying shall I assume that these are not questions you are putting to me?

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no idea why you preface your opening sentence with an "if".

I did allude to the reason.

What if his conversion was faked?

Let's have a little honesty here. It is conceivable that one day someone might make a film about the life of Paul the hero and someone else might make a film about the life of Paul the villain.

I'm not talking about one film being pre-conversion and the other post-conversion - each film depicts the entire life of Paul.

The Paul the Hero film tells the story of Paul pretty much as you and lmaopml do and remains faithful to the text in the bible and makes many references to that text. It's a real 'bad boy turned good story' and let us say that you endorse it as being both entertaining and educational.

Okay?

However, Paul the Villain tells a very different story. In this film, Paul is a zealot who is attacking Christianity at the Jewish authorities' request. The film tells a story of how the Jesus phenomenon was a device designed by the Jews in order to civilize the Gentiles. It is a story of politics and intrigue. The plan was to turn the Gentiles into Christians and then turn the Romans into anti-Christians.

To do this, the Jews had to vilify Christianity in the eyes of the Romans and the Jews but they had to keep it alive. So much was riding on it.

Paul came in as a bounty hunter and popularised Christian persecution and right at the point where Christians, burying their families who are victims of persecution, are wondering if this is all worth it, Paul defects.

This is phase three of the plan. The priests have asked Paul to promote Christianity among the gentiles but not to teach them the law as Peter was doing.

Frequent arrests of Paul reduced suspicion and he was able to inveigle himself with the leadership.

The Jews set fire to Rome and leave a Gideon's bible at the scene to implicate the Christians.

Etc., etc., etc.

The point is that this story could be told without contradicting the text of the bible and while referring to that text as much as the other film.

But both films require a little artistic license in order to present a coherent narrative. Paul's death, for instance, could be portrayed in two different ways - he could be beheaded at Rome or he could have lived happily ever after as a rich man in Spain.

My question is - Why, considering your mortal soul depends on it, do you accept one narrative over the other without question?

Both narratives are supported by the bible so what is it that made you choose one over the other?

I suspect that you were primed and prepared, pre-indoctrinated and you simply never questioned the motives, or sources, of your teacher and so it never occurred to you to consider Paul's story in any other terms.

If Paul the Villain can be dismissed out of hand then Paul the Hero can be dismissed out of hand and for the same reasons.

I honestly think that God, if He exists, would like us to apply logic, reason and common-sense when we consider whose hands we commend His precious souls into.

Don't you?

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

Quote me a passage that says that he was the hero, because I've read all of his New Testament letters and they all say that Jesus was the hero.

Okay.

philologos wrote: »

There's a story. You mean that Paul rebuked Peter once as recorded in Galatians.

That one will do fine.

The Bible wrote:

Galatians 2:11-16

11 Now when PeterURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29093a"][COLOR=#0066cc]a[/COLOR][/URL had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do youURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29096b"][COLOR=#0066cc]b[/COLOR][/URL compel Gentiles to live as Jews?URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29096c"][COLOR=#0066cc]c[/COLOR][/URL 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

This whole section is nothing more than a boast.

It is not enough to embarass Peter in front of the staff but Paul has to record the incident and let everyone know that Peter and his crew are hypocrites.

'Look at me. I'm Paul. I took Peter down a peg or two.'

Way to support the leadership, Paul.

Worse than simply being boastful though, the fact that he didn't refer to Peter in the third person and accused him directly of hypocrisy and failing to correctly teach the Gospel of Jesus identifies a political agenda that Jesus would have approved of even less.

Can you see how the above passage is boastful?

Can you see how the fact that he directly referred to Peter as a hypocrite is a political statement?

And what did Paul say about boasting? Doesn't that make him an even bigger hypocrite?

You may have read lots of bible stories but you can't have absorbed very much meaning wearing those rose-tinted spectacles.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

When you said the following -

"I agree that if Paul converted then it was indeed remarkable but conversions of one sort or another are actually quite commonplace."

Fine, we'll play your stupid game.

Anyone whose first language is English would understand what I said to mean that Paul's conversion, if it happened was remarkable. I qualified this by pointing out that conversions are quite commonplace.

Are Christians typically obtuse or is it just you?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that PAul never mentions anything about lying shall I assume that these are not questions you are putting to me?

Given your deliberate misrepresentation I should have thought it obvious that the questions are directed at you.


*n.b. There are clues in my grammar.

philologos

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post too Masteroid?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Kick out the bishops, cardinals, popes and a signifcant number of priests, nuns and monks then.

It is they who mock and deride the church, not us.

They don't mock or deride anything, they hold our tradition and are dedicated to the Lord.

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

Fine, we'll play your stupid game.

If all you can do is spit venom I have no interest in read your post or taking this conversation further. I wasn't paying a game. Have a good day, Masteroid.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Masteroid
So, to keep it logical then, a world in which all humans acted according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots?

God wants us to choose to behave like robots?

Fascinating.

A world in which all humans had no choice but to act according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots.

Our God-given free will is what makes us Human and not robots or animals.

We are free to do great good ... or great evil ... to love ... or to hate.

... and, as the song says, that's just the way it is.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made ... and our free will has significant 'downsides' ... but it also has very significant 'upsides' ... and I, for one wouldn't have it any other way.

... and God seems to agree with me !!!

Lantus

J C wrote: »

A world in which all humans had no choice but to act according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots.

Our God-given free will is what makes us Human and not robots or animals.

We are free to do great good ... or great evil ... to love ... or to hate.

... and, as the song says, that's just the way it is.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made ... and our free will has significant 'downsides' ... but it also has very significant 'upsides' ... and I, for one wouldn't have it any other way.

... and God seems to agree with me !!!

God might of given us free will but he also gave us a whole range of awful emotions and made us quite stupid. Generally a parent wants its children to exceed it in terms of intelligence and ability. In this case the parent went out of its way to make us dumb and violent. Thats not divine intelligence, its criminally insane.

The god in the bible committed crimes that today would result in life time jail sentences through commiting mass murder, often of innocent children and hideous contradictions like the idea that Jesus somehow made a sacrifice, but then sprung back to life a few days later. Where was the sacrifice? How can an immortal being (the SON of god) even have any real fear of death. Its a totally false premise.

A few thousand years ago ideas like this served society well in keeping a few people at the top while the uneducated majority toiled away and suffered led on by the promise that they would get their reward AFTER they died. The ultimate IOU.

People need to focus on what we can measure and quantify if we are to make society better. It is technology and engineering and human innovation that has made our lives better, not study of the bible or any other religous text. Science is not a set of facts but instead a way of thinking to which we can achieve our goals.

The pope or anyone else can 'pray' that things wil get better. That is compassion for another human. If we truly loved them then we would develop working and tangible solutions to make their lives better.

Lets stop twisting the words of an ancient book around the room and get on with the job of making the world we live in the best we can in our time.

All of the worlds problems from violence to greed to lust and hunger CAN be solved if we educate each other and use our technology towards a better goal.

It is not a question as to whether there is or is not a god but what is useful information in achieving tangible goals in making the lives of humans better.

lmaopml

Lantus wrote: »

God might of given us free will but he also gave us a whole range of awful emotions and made us quite stupid. Generally a parent wants its children to exceed it in terms of intelligence and ability. In this case the parent went out of its way to make us dumb and violent. Thats not divine intelligence, its criminally insane.

The god in the bible committed crimes that today would result in life time jail sentences through commiting mass murder, often of innocent children and hideous contradictions like the idea that Jesus somehow made a sacrifice, but then sprung back to life a few days later. Where was the sacrifice? How can an immortal being (the SON of god) even have any real fear of death. Its a totally false premise.

A few thousand years ago ideas like this served society well in keeping a few people at the top while the uneducated majority toiled away and suffered led on by the promise that they would get their reward AFTER they died. The ultimate IOU.

People need to focus on what we can measure and quantify if we are to make society better. It is technology and engineering and human innovation that has made our lives better, not study of the bible or any other religous text. Science is not a set of facts but instead a way of thinking to which we can achieve our goals.

The pope or anyone else can 'pray' that things wil get better. That is compassion for another human. If we truly loved them then we would develop working and tangible solutions to make their lives better.

Lets stop twisting the words of an ancient book around the room and get on with the job of making the world we live in the best we can in our time.

All of the worlds problems from violence to greed to lust and hunger CAN be solved if we educate each other and use our technology towards a better goal.

It is not a question as to whether there is or is not a god but what is useful information in achieving tangible goals in making the lives of humans better.

So, very simply lets leave God behind folks in this enlightened era. We can do it all on our own - we can agree that we are animals, albeit exceptionally gifted ones with the ability to view the cosmos, explore it and understand it, see beauty, but what is that only a fiction, it's our chemicals doing what they do best - let's get out the calculator..

- at the end of the day let's just be reasonable, and as such we can permit anything form abortion to euthanasia - because we're worth it. Life is a pain after all, and choices are painful.

That's what we can do best. We kill pain, we kill everything that involves pain, even the patient because it's kind of ugly dealing with that stuff, and we're not equipped to do anything more than make it go away - there is absolutely no character building in any kind of pain, and provide inoculation to the general public in the form of our rationality, our reasoning and knowing the price of everything, and simultaneously knowing the value of nothing.


..and amazingly enough you wonder why you don't make sense to some people with this brand new world.

No thanks.