Jump to content

Photo

iHateUSA horrible profanity vs 11 Sept 2001


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#51 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 04:39 PM

It makes no sense anymore. We have entered a cycle where I say yes and you say no(talking about freemasons). And yes, it is not relevant, you know exactly how we arrived here so I wont write it again.

Since we both agree it isn't relevant, then I guess we can agree to disagree. It is bit ironic though that we would need to do so on a fact that is historically verifiable.

So lets get back to the nub of the matter then.

"Why don't you just give a me a quote? If it is so clear, don't fight me on this simple point. Just give me the quote in the bible that you base that assessment on."

I still assert that you are basing your faith in fables instead of knowledge. You have not given me any indication of having anything to say that counters that assessment. The fact that you manage to base your view of religion on a single concept in the new testament and manage to completely ignore the rest of this quite lengthy book, is quite surprising in itself. The fact that you then don't even manage to specify which piece of the bible you DO accept as the sole base of your belief, reaffirms _my_ "belief" that you haven't read any of it and are relying totally on hearsay. Tell me, where is the thinking in that?

P.S.: I was not just saying yes/no, I was giving historic arguments and facts... but whatever...

Edited by HardBall, 15 April 2011 - 04:59 PM.


#52 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 05:47 PM

"Why don't you just give a me a quote? If it is so clear, don't fight me on this simple point. Just give me the quote in the bible that you base that assessment on."


Assuming that your question is to relate Jesus with "the right way is the love ", there are some passages of Gospel of Matthew:
5:1-11; 21; 38-39; 41-44
6:2-3; 14
7:1; 7-11; 23-24; 28
10:42
11:28-30

The fact that you manage to base your view of religion on a single concept in the new testament and manage to completely ignore the rest of this quite lengthy book, is quite surprising in itself. The fact that you then don't even manage to specify which piece of the bible you DO accept as the sole base of your belief, reaffirms _my_ "belief" that you haven't read any of it and are relying totally on hearsay. Tell me, where is the thinking in that?


I have not said I ignore rest of the Bible, you must read the Bible as all of its content was directed to you, otherwise many passages would contradict, like the passages u quoted before would contradict with these: Num 23:19; Is 55:8; Luc 11:10-13, 1John 4:8.

Besides, The Bible was written by men and it is likely to contain errors despite the church disagrees with it.

And I dont base my faith on the Bible, history, science, but yes in life experience.
History will tell me there was a historical Jesus.
Science will convice me God exists.

Edited by SauLLL, 15 April 2011 - 05:55 PM.


#53 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 05:54 PM

Assuming that your question is to relate Jesus with "the right way is the love ", there are some passages of Gospel of Matthew:
5:1-11; 21; 38-39; 41-44
6:2-3; 14
7:1; 7-11; 23-24; 28
10:42
11:28-30

OK, I'll read these and get back to that later...

Besides, The Bible was written by men and it is likely to contain errors despite the church disagrees with it.

This now is very puzzling... Please tell me, how do you know which part of the bible is an error and which is true?

You already accepted that the stories contradict each other, so how do you pick which ones to follow?

#54 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:00 PM

You already accepted that the stories contradict each other, so how do you pick which ones to follow?


You are concluding things that I didnt say, I didnt say they contradict but I said depends on how you interpret they would contradict.

#55 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:15 PM

You are concluding things that I didnt say, I didnt say they contradict but I said depends on how you interpret they would contradict.

And you are avoiding answering the question. You said:"Besides, The Bible was written by men and it is likely to contain errors despite the church disagrees with it." YOUR words. So you agree that it contains errors. Now please answer the initial question without the blatant evasion.

How do you know which part of the bible is an error and which is true?

P.S. we'll get to the numerous contradiction later if you like, but again, not the essence right now.

Edited by HardBall, 15 April 2011 - 06:16 PM.


#56 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:25 PM

How do you know which part of the bible is an error and which is true?

I simply dont know but (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;".

Jesus himself overturned some parts of the ancient scriptures, that's why I guess there are still errors in it.

Edited by SauLLL, 15 April 2011 - 06:25 PM.


#57 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:44 PM

Assuming that your question is to relate Jesus with "the right way is the love ", there are some passages of Gospel of Matthew:
5:1-11; 21; 38-39; 41-44
6:2-3; 14
7:1; 7-11; 23-24; 28
10:42
11:28-30

You may think you put a lot of passages here, but you really didn't. You could have just said "sermon on the mount". And OK, I'll admit that he mostly talks about things that many could consider good, although it also instills a very clear message of reciprocity. "Show mercy so that others will show you mercy." etc... Ok, not the most innovative idea either, really. Many other doctrines and philosophies as far back as the Greeks have said much the same thing. Never does it mention love though... Just to be nitpicking, but rightfully an example of mostly pacifistic advice. And you are right that this is the cornerstone of the perception of jesus that you are trying to convey.

BUT as I said you almost have to _ignore_ pretty much the rest of the book. So answer me this then, how do you explain Luke: 14:26 and Luke 22:35-38. Where the words hate and the mention of violent weapons is quite clear. Also I don't get the "loving thy enemy" bit when I read this instead: Mt 3:7 23:33 and Luke 3:7

Now, before we start comparing verses, know this.
For me, one good deed amongst a mountain of evil is not proof of a good person. But one case of a really bad deed can destroy a man's right to freedom. Ex1: A generous and humble man, commits one murder = proof of evil. Ex2: A serial murderer saves one child from starvation through charity. Still not a good person.

Your move.

I simply dont know

Then how do you know you are doing god will? Perhaps you should be doing the exact opposite.

Jesus himself overturned some parts of the ancient scriptures, that's why I guess there are still errors in it.

Or maybe that WAS the error?

What if I were to say that the entire genesis story, and the apocalypse were errors in the bible. Would you have reasons to doubt me?

Edited by HardBall, 15 April 2011 - 07:03 PM.


#58 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 07:53 PM

BUT as I said you almost have to _ignore_ pretty much the rest of the book. So answer me this then, how do you explain Luke: 14:26 and Luke 22:35-38. Where the words hate and the mention of violent weapons is quite clear. Also I don't get the "loving thy enemy" bit when I read this instead: Mt 3:7 23:33 and Luke 3:7


I dont see any problem with Luke 14:26, could you be more specifiable?

About Luke 22:35-38 you intepreted the way convenient for you, indeed, Jesus made an analogy between mission and sword, if your interpretation was correct the end of his history would be different.

"Mt 3:7 23:33 and Luke 3:7" He was calling attention not exactly hating enemies.

Now, before we start comparing verses, know this.
For me, one good deed amongst a mountain of evil is not proof of a good person. But one case of a really bad deed can destroy a man's right to freedom. Ex1: A generous and humble man, commits one murder = proof of evil. Ex2: A serial murderer saves one child from starvation through charity. Still not a good person.


You are being very utopian in your examples, but I'm not God to judge it. ;)

Or maybe that WAS the error?

What if I were to say that the entire genesis story, and the apocalypse were errors in the bible. Would you have reasons to doubt me?


This argument is ilogic once I told you this is my reference to accept errors in the Bible.

Edited by SauLLL, 15 April 2011 - 07:56 PM.


#59 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 08:18 PM

I dont see any problem with Luke 14:26, could you be more specifiable?

You don't see a problem with the fact that jesus commends that only once you hate your entire family, you can be his disciple?

"Mt 3:7 23:33 and Luke 3:7" He was calling attention not exactly hating enemies.

Ah come on! "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" The least you can say is that he doesn't "love" his enemy.

You are being very utopian in your examples, but I'm not God to judge it. ;)

You miss my point. I'm saying that one example of evil trump any example of good. I'm setting a baseline to ensure we agree when we end up evaluating the biblical references (which is by the way are the only references) on jesus.

This argument is ilogic once I told you this is my reference to accept errors in the Bible.

It is by NO MEANS illogical. It is a death of your argument. Which is why you oppose it. Once you state that there are errors but you don't know which you can not trust anything in it. If you do, then you must in the end admit that you are just picking and choosing from a large number of conflicting stories, and therefore there is no guarantee that anyone else has the same belief even if they accept the same basis of faith. And if 2 people believe different things, by definition one of them of wrong. If 5 billion people believe different things you can start to do the math on the likelihood that your interpretation is the correct one. Then start multiplying that with the generations of man that ever existed and you will get to astronomical odds against you being even remotely right about any interpretation you decide is the right on no other basis that your own feeling about it. All the different religions and all the different interpretation through the millennia. And for some reason you still think yours is right?

You say science hasn't explained where the universe comes from? Well hundreds of religions have! I happen to think all of them are wrong, but even you must admit that all but one at least have to be wrong.

So why believe what you believe instead of the gods of the Greeks, the Hindu gods, or any other? Not to mention the fact that there are more than 40.000 different registered denominations in christianity alone. How arrogant can you be to say that only you know what god meant even if the writing is flawed.

#60 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 08:43 PM

Our conversation became really boring, it is a waste of time because(and it rly is, i went to bed late yesterday cause it) you wont change my mind and I wont change urs either. I commited a great mistake when I joined it, so I give up you won. I just dont care about it anymore.

Edited by SauLLL, 15 April 2011 - 08:43 PM.


#61 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 15 April 2011 - 09:51 PM

Our conversation became really boring, it is a waste of time because(and it rly is, i went to bed late yesterday cause it) you wont change my mind and I wont change urs either. I commited a great mistake when I joined it, so I give up you won. I just dont care about it anymore.

Well, not a complete waste of time... At least you learned something.. right?

And I leave you with this though:"An atheist and a monotheist have a lot in common. Both denounce hundreds of gods that are and have been invented. The atheist only denounces one more."

Edited by HardBall, 15 April 2011 - 09:59 PM.


#62 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:06 AM

Well, not a complete waste of time... At least you learned something.. right?


What did I learn exactly? I keep my opinion, I'm just giving up it because it became poitless for me.

#63 Insurgen

Insurgen

    Korea

  • XWIS Buddies
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts
  • XWIS Name: iFv

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:10 AM

What did I learn exactly? I keep my opinion, I'm just giving up it because it became poitless for me.


it became pointless because every religious arguement always ends with the religious guy in defence mode, knowing his wrong, but still arguing a lost cause that they relish on the sake of it, read my post i talked about science in the bible which cleary is also a lie, read up :)

Edited by Insurgen, 16 April 2011 - 12:10 AM.


#64 AaSoVGoD

AaSoVGoD

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4289 posts
  • Location:New York, New York, USA
  • XWIS Name: AaSoVGoD

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:31 AM

Creeds cannot heal humanity or solve problems, but consciousness and love can. Creeds are doctrines and precepts. They cannot save humanity. Since ancient times nearly all religions have had their creeds, some of them well-considered and elaborate. Have they succeeded in perfecting the world? Your holy book is a code of morals and standards to live by. Religions should teach the miracle of the universe, which cannot be explained by mere logic.

Take responsibility for your life and be free of Earth superstitions and Earth belief systems that have killed millions of people. Don't be addicted to other control organization on earth. Keep your focus on love and friendliness. Erase hatred, arrogance, ego, envy, greed, and evil behavior.
All you need is in your Heart.-- It is called LOVE.
-- Jesus and many other spiritual teachers are telling this since thousands of years.

#65 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 16 April 2011 - 08:51 AM

What did I learn exactly?

Give it a minute... You'll figure it out.

As I said earlier:"And when reading that book, most "believers" are stricken by shock and disbelief and usually go into a state of deep denial."

You have been confronted with arguments that shake the foundation of your belief. You won't be ready to allow that to change anything for some time. Your phase of denial has to pass first. I've seen this literally dozens of times. I have converted 4 people from deism to atheism and 2 people from theism to deism in the last 2 years. I've seen it before. You are what I call a level three theist. Your next step is to accept that your religion does not have any more validity than any other religion, while still accepting the concept of god. This evolution is done is tiny steps and is very personal, which is why a forum is not the ideal channel. xaudiTT for instance is a level 2 theists, with a stronger affinity for the bible than you. It needs a different approach. I've got this down to a science you see.

Edited by HardBall, 16 April 2011 - 09:18 AM.


#66 IngMonkey

IngMonkey

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 08:56 AM

lol although this is what has been going around. it wasnt the oil companies that raise the prices of oil. its the mineral owners. (saudi arabia, iraq, kuwait) and russia. but oil companies only gain more profit because at higher oil prices there is more optainable oil to gather. reason being there is more oil is because now what wasnt profitable at 50$ a barrel to drill. is now profitable to drill at 125$ a barrel to drill. oil companies dont set the oil prices though. we dont have any power over that. the main reason we went to war was because of terroist threats. period! oil was a side note and the only reason ppl think that we went to war for oil was because of high gas prices and the thought that oil companies magically make more money when that happens. oil copanies make more yes but only cause we drill more. once everyone drills more prices go down. and sometimes thats when companies go out of buisness. its just a cycle. war's will always make prices of things go up. oil is just one that gets hit hard. and when we go to war with the countries that supply oil it hurts even worse. all and all we didnt go to war for oil. media just wants to believe it.

You guys from US might not like what i am gonna say, but Iraqi war was just 1 in many. As in all others - Oil was the reason, war industry was the reason, pharma sales was the reason, rebuilding postwar territories was the reason, privatising state owned wealth was the reason. U.S. is country, which is keeping its life standard by sucking out other countries like a vampire. Iraq might be small country against US, but it still holds significant ammount of wealth, which can be redistributed to US companies. Europe tolerates this behavior because EU companies also take part in this dirty business. The corruption in US is president level high, just check out Ex-prez Bush backround and companies which his family owns.. US needs to be in war constantly for all that reasons. And you don't go to strike country which is strong or has strong ally. Why there was no war against Cuba, why there is no war against North korea, Iran and middle - african nations ? Because they all are backed up either by russia or china. US always picks up small lonely country who doesnt have strong allies. Thats what you learned in vietnam war. But you always remain same. I don't mean you folks who drive cars and play games, but your evil political leaders.

#67 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 16 April 2011 - 09:01 AM

You guys from US might not like what i am gonna say, but Iraqi war was just 1 in many. As in all others - Oil was the reason, war industry was the reason, pharma sales was the reason, rebuilding postwar territories was the reason, privatising state owned wealth was the reason. U.S. is country, which is keeping its life standard by sucking out other countries like a vampire. Iraq might be small country against US, but it still holds significant ammount of wealth, which can be redistributed to US companies. Europe tolerates this behavior because EU companies also take part in this dirty business. The corruption in US is president level high, just check out Ex-prez Bush backround and companies which his family owns.. US needs to be in war constantly for all that reasons. And you don't go to strike country which is strong or has strong ally. Why there was no war against Cuba, why there is no war against North korea, Iran and middle - african nations ? Because they all are backed up either by russia or china. US always picks up small lonely country who doesnt have strong allies. Thats what you learned in vietnam war. But you always remain same. I don't mean you folks who drive cars and play games, but your evil political leaders.

Right... [<-sarcasm]
I've got one word for you. Haiti. [<- And I'm talking about the military intervention, not the earthquake.]

What was the reason there? Oil? pharma sales?

And as for the "no war against cuba" idiocy in your argument, I have 3 words for you: "bay if pigs"

Edited by HardBall, 16 April 2011 - 09:04 AM.


#68 IngMonkey

IngMonkey

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 09:33 AM

Right... [<-sarcasm]
I've got one word for you. Haiti. [<- And I'm talking about the military intervention, not the earthquake.]

What was the reason there? Oil? pharma sales?

And as for the "no war against cuba" idiocy in your argument, I have 3 words for you: "bay if pigs"

Bay of pigs is just pathetic example of something, what is hard to call invasion, how you can even compare it to what happened in iraq. By your logic we can easily call 9/11 'afganistan war against US'. You might want to explain that haity further, because i don't know which intervention you mean. Sending humanitarian help also can be called military intervention, but thats not a war.

You are picking just a phrases from what i said and oposing the phrases(which are meanwhile not important). Cuba was not a point of what i was saying, neither statement about how US picks its victims. Important is, that US lives from sucking out autonomous countries and is not afraid of using weapons to do so.

Edited by IngMonkey, 16 April 2011 - 09:34 AM.


#69 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 16 April 2011 - 10:15 AM

You might want to explain that haity further, because i don't know which intervention you mean. Sending humanitarian help also can be called military intervention, but thats not a war.

No... I'm not your history teacher. All I'll say is that both events are a few years apart, so not related. You proved that you don't know what you are talking about. That's enough for me right now.

Edited by HardBall, 16 April 2011 - 10:18 AM.


#70 IngMonkey

IngMonkey

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:03 PM

No... I'm not your history teacher. All I'll say is that both events are a few years apart, so not related. You proved that you don't know what you are talking about. That's enough for me right now.

I don't thing there was a reason to get mean... I did't ask you to tell me details of haiti intervention(honestly, i can read it same way you did, whatever you read on wikipedia) but which intervention you mean, there were several interventions in haiti in past 100 years. Now you proved me wrong similar way to this:
'- President is ****'
'- which president do you mean'
'- I am not your history teacher, you proved you don't know what you are talking about'.

Which is ofcourse, funny :) .

If you want to address matter which i addressed, please get to the point and don't shed this feces about minor incidents from before 50 years as they are hardly related to what i was talking about.

#71 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:37 PM

Which is ofcourse, funny :) .

Thx...

If you want to address matter which i addressed.

I don't really. It isn't interesting. Your arguments are too thin and a dime a dozen. I can go to any street-corner and get the same level of intellectual challenge. "OOh the US is the big bad wolf, bwee bwee bwee..." really dude... Try to get some nuance and some real politics behind your reasoning. You criticize the US for not intervening where the USSR has/had influence? So you criticize their political wisdom of not wanting to start WW3? Come on... Think before you write.

#72 IngMonkey

IngMonkey

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 02:23 PM

I don't really. It isn't interesting. Your arguments are too thin and a dime a dozen. I can go to any street-corner and get the same level of intellectual challenge. "OOh the US is the big bad wolf, bwee bwee bwee..." really dude... Try to get some nuance and some real politics behind your reasoning. You criticize the US for not intervening where the USSR has/had influence? So you criticize their political wisdom of not wanting to start WW3? Come on... Think before you write.

That ' Think before you write.' is what i just wanted to write to you. I was not saying US is big bad wolf. Things i said are not really pub talk. Pub talk is all around oil, 9/11 inside job and similar. I know things from my own business because i've been selling things to US company which is doing nothing else, just rebuilding postwar territories. I know concrete people who wen't to do business in Iraq just after US made the dirty job, it was big and easy bucks for those who know people and can afford. Its just evil economic game we all are part of - you take advantage of it or you suck. I am not complaining, its just a way it is. Now its lybia. In the name of democracy we go there destroy and kill, so we can afterwards rebuild, privatize, gather. You are from belgium, you know nothing about big revolutions and what they do to the nation. And in normal life, does democracy really matter ?

From what you say, you are that type of guy, who probably believes all what media and books feed us with. You've been reading some wikipedia and watching CNN and now you think you are smart ****. Last 2 of your questions... Thats only your implications and also not a point. Ofcourse its good they don't risk WW3 in what they do. But that doesnt change the true reason, which is behind these wars. I recommend you to take trip to china sometimes. What you will see will be way different from what you read in newspapers and see in CNN. And the same you would see in tripoli before these revolutions started.

#73 HardBall

HardBall

    Captain

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1752 posts
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • XWIS Name: FairPlyr

Posted 16 April 2011 - 03:27 PM

is what i just wanted to write to you

lol

i've been selling things to US company which is doing nothing else

Then I guess you're part of the problem ej... lol

seriously you don't think you may have a distorted one sided view?


Now its lybia.

LOL wut? The US can't get out of that quick enough...

You are from belgium, you know nothing about big revolutions and what they do to the nation.

ROFL, wow you really know your history ej... WTF!

You've been reading some wikipedia and watching CNN

LOL, shows what you know... pfft... Me thinks you are projecting... look that up.. rofl...

But that doesnt change the true reason, which is behind these wars.

Yeah, like kosovo right? FAIL! For all the oil and economic fortune the US got there they could have bought 2 for the price of 1 at the 99cent store... you muppet..

I recommend you to take trip to china sometimes. What you will see will be way different from what you read in newspapers and see in CNN.

ROFL ROFL ROFL... I can not get enough of this sentence... REALLY WTF!! Yeah, lets all go to china to get some real news! HAHAHAHA... Try looking up ""tiananmen massacre"" in china you puts!

LOL, the fact you get your news from china explains a lot of your distorted world view my friend... Oh well, I can't be bothered to educate 1 billion+ people... Bye now...

Edited by HardBall, 16 April 2011 - 03:31 PM.


#74 marsh1

marsh1

    X==|(DX)

  • Warning
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4576 posts
  • XWIS Name: uub

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:10 AM

china is a communist country, their news is edited along with their internet, so whatever the chinese government don't want their citizens to know, they probably will not find out.

#75 SauLLL

SauLLL

    Seal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:23 AM

You have been confronted with arguments that shake the foundation of your belief. You won't be ready to allow that to change anything for some time. Your phase of denial has to pass first. I've seen this literally dozens of times. I have converted 4 people from deism to atheism and 2 people from theism to deism in the last 2 years. I've seen it before. You are what I call a level three theist. Your next step is to accept that your religion does not have any more validity than any other religion, while still accepting the concept of god. This evolution is done is tiny steps and is very personal, which is why a forum is not the ideal channel. xaudiTT for instance is a level 2 theists, with a stronger affinity for the bible than you. It needs a different approach. I've got this down to a science you see.


I dont want to extend it still more. But no man, you cant proove God exists or not, I can see a God through magnificent things on the nature, while you disbelive in god because you dont see repair to the humanity(like a god that allows happiness for some and sadness for others).

I've been sarcastic, we always learn about conversations like that, and I like to discuss things that each 1 has his own opinion. I gave up it because I'm not a specialist in the bible, I cant explain each metaphor you bring to me, but I know there are people with knowledge enough to beat your arguments, btw my faith didnt come from bible or history or science. Weird things happened next to me, these things came from an orthodox priest using the name of Jesus, so I started to see the things another way, I was in the max deist and now Im catholic.

I wont finish it saying again "I hope you find God" to avoid extending it, so I hope we find the right way :). Still Im catholic I'm always reading both sides of the coin. Seeking the truth is a smart way to live and I admire your wisdom.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users