luke07930

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people? It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers. If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group? If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture. 'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)' Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question? If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic" ''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.'' Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness?? No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate. When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well. Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater. Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else. no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith. If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition. As you requested, I will ask you a question................... if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged. Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY'' If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes: Romans 1:18-23 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy. But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture. Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate. That there is no truth in it what so ever. Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it. But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them. You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you. I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist. Luke, I'm not going to waste hours on this, my answers are in differant color, if you can't see that, then there we have it. I stated that there were 514 witnesses, do you really delude yourself to think that of the 500 witnesses, they were all believers already? But even if they were, how does that make a difference to the fact that it happened? Are you in the legal profession? You obviously aren't if you think that someone must be neutral to the facts to be credible. I stated that Josephus, the premier Jewish historian of the day, who isn't a believer, didn't discredit the claims that were made about the miracles. I already stated that the pharisees, who were Jesus' enemy, didn't discredit his miracles. So.....what say ye to that? But i notice you haven't answered the questions I pose to you., Don't waste time by posting an answer about text color and/or your inability to read it comfortably instead of responding to the "debate" you seemed to ask for. If you are a debator, then act. If not then we can let the thread die quietly. I'm back for a while and seeing that you cant be bothered to seperate youre text from mine it seems like its me who will have waste hours sifting through the txt. from what I think you are trying to say is that the New Testament verifies all of old testament prophecies and these 514 witnesses you talk of cant all be wrong. Well the New Testament doesnt do anything of the sort and how can one piece of fiction prove another to be true this twisted logic only works if you are a believer and endow these books with the outrageous claim that they come from the creator of the universe. And as for these witnesses they are may not all be Christian but they are still superstitous iron age people. Infact you state one of these so called witnesses as being a Jew as if this proves that even non believers realised the truth of Christianity. I would hardly call a religious Jew a non believer, a religious Jew of the iron age would not be using an open mind, logic and reason to come to his conclusions. He was obviously coming to his conclusion with his already ingrained and eroneous beleif that we are governed by a jealous, proud,vengefull creator. As for youre claims of proof, Iam currently reading the bible, old and new testaments and the koran. So far I have found nothing that is conclusive proof that would convince anyone who wasnt of the faith in the truth of these books. In fact if there was proof I would become a Christian and so would all the Muslims of the world that hasnt happened so youre proof is obviously very flimsy and wouldnt stand up to cross examination in court. This stands for all monotheistic faith, if you had proof you wouldnt need faith at all, obviously all this talk of hellfire for non believers is just a way of crushing people who insist on using logic and the inquiring mind to question youre religion, its a way of coercing people to obey their elders and the scripture. The Old Testament is a vile and cruel fantasy of hatred and jealous rage if we are to take youre god at his word we should Kill adulterers, kill people from other religions, kill non believers, kill people who work on the sabath, kill homosexuals, kill lesbians, kill wizards, kill a bride if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night. kill youre children if they are disobedient, kill mediums, kill fornicaters. The list goes on. The Christan Teaching that all humans are nasty, cruel, evil, sexualy deranged creatures that only a belief in Christ can save from their disgusting primal urges is just a sick premise to live youre life by, I base my ideas about human nature as being kind and compassionate from experience. I have travelled the world and know people from Africa to America and the majority of people at there base are good generous and loving. If they where so evil and nasty I'm sure I would have been, robbed, raped and murdered many times over, but most people just offer to share their food with me. Where all the war comes from is a lack of resourses, land and ideologies about racial purity or religious purity, yep thats right religion is just like Stalinism and Nazism because it demands total submission to dogma, This kind of belief structure can cause war, Christianity included. Anyway I take extreme offence at the Christian view that humans without Christ are vile sinners, how dare you talk about my mum like that, not to mention the billions of people who arent christian and the billions who have died without a belief in youre jealous god. Its ok for you to use the bible as a resourse in a debate but to use it as some sort of empirical proof cuts no ice intelectualy. It proves nothing, zilch..... As for the virtue of the Buddha I would say to you I cant prove to you anything because all we have is some old scriptures but I would say is his teachings are unique, wise and conductive to an enquiring mind. His teachings predominantly dont contradict science and in many cases are backed up by science and his virtue has nothing to do with whether his teachings work to free you from self inflicted anguish or not. I dont need to know if my mechanic is virtous in order for him to fix my car. As for you flinging the racism word in to the mix again, its youre god who chose only to speak to the middle east and slowly let his urgent message spread creapingly slowly while all those northern European souls, African souls, Aboriginal souls, Chinese souls, Japanese souls, Indian souls etc etc he tortured for all eternity for not being Christian. How does that make me racist unless you are implying that I'm god. Absolutely the fact that you believe the Old Testaments murdering sadists are in heaven kind of muddies the waters, all it prove is that youre religious certanties are very uncertain. And as for Abraham and his behavior the man who almost slit his sons throat and burnt him alive being virtious I think not. If he was real (which I doubt) he was a child abuser not a rightous man but a religious maniac of the first order. And if he was real and all of youre contradictory books are right then god is a twisted being and heaven is full of some very nasty people. To wrap up all of the scrpiture you quote at the end bring nothing to the debate apart from proving my point about religions manipulative nature. Any religion that fears logical thinking so much that it has to resort to saying that god declares that anyone who doesnt agree with this religion and uses logic to combat it is nothing but a creeping beast with a dark heart only fit for the fires of hell is obviously is terrified of the inquiring mind and so it should be... Laters''Its good to be back PS;That was difficult to do next time please seperate youre txt from mine or I wont answer

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. There is no wisdom in the passages written above, these are obviosley devices for getting people to obey and not question, they prove nothing and have no validity in this debate, just read them. One of them even says in a roundabout way that if you try to question Christianity even as a believer you will become vain and youre heart will darken. Wow the manipulative nature of it is obvious and beyond the pale.. All these passages do is back up my premise that god and hell are just tools that the church uses to get people to obey, I say again it has no place in logical debate between two men if one man says to the other my debate is right because it has the authority of god and god trumps everything, then adds that according to my religion man is vile and un christ like so his argument no matter how logical is flawed. I say youre religion is flawed because it needs the blind faith of believers. Anything that needs you to switch youre brain to mono and and say things are true because you believe they are true will always fall short in the face of the enquiring mind of man..

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people? It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers. If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group? If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture. 'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)' Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question? If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic" ''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.'' Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness?? No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate. When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well. Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater. Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else. no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith. If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition. As you requested, I will ask you a question................... if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged. Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY'' If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes: Romans 1:18-23 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy. But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture. Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate. That there is no truth in it what so ever. Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it. But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them. You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you. I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist.

As I have said you believers push Christianity into the public domain, this affects all of us. It must be questioned.................................

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers. If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesnt explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that youre rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesnt clarify anything. Not a thing. If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture. 'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)' Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question? If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada says ''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.'' Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness?? No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate. When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well. Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith. Use proof, evidence, logic. If you dont do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else. no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith. If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition. As you requested, I will ask you a question................... if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries??? Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY'' If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture. Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! That there is no truth in it what so ever.

[

Heh. If a westerner is a Zen, then chances are they are being trendy. But Gautama was certainly inspirational in his abandoning of his worldly riches. WAY before Jesus, this formerly rich young man understood that one's possessions could easily "own" the person. Jesus came along later to try to make the point that enlightenment is personal and the most valuable commodity. I like to watch Christian Evangelists who tell people that God wants them to be rich, because they, themselves are. They like to say that God will grant them x10 whatever they give them in cash. Talk about missing the point!! k (Edit) I feel so trendy Edited per TOS: The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. Do not post sexually explicit, vulgar or offensive website addresses (URL's) to the forum. (Eph. 4: 29)

I will point out that many Christians (as you may know) believe we are predestined to either heaven or hell. We can't do anything about it. So with this kind of doctrine, the Christian God creates people with every intention of torturing them for all eternity. [quote} Also if God is all knowing he knows the future before it happens, then he really does create beings so he can torture them, nice chap this god bloke.

Woah! The Wikipedia entries on Buddhism talk about the 4 Noble Truths and the 8fold Path. Renewed Existance is pretty well tied into the 2nd truth. You replied earlier in this thread that reincarnation isn't an essential part of Buddhism. Looks to me like it is. Looks like a bunch of stuff you have to do, rules you have to follow, and unverifyable metaphysical stuff like the circle of life. I don't like it. I like you tho' Regards Stew Hello Stew, yes there is much debate about reincarnation in the Buddhist world but The buddha didnt talk about reincarnation, he spoke of rebirth. If you look at a picture of youreself as a baby you say ''thats me'' but it is not, all the cells in youre body have been replaced thousands of times over and you look nothing like that child. Everything that defines you is different. The only thing that is with you throughout youre life is youre cocsciousness and memories. Youre memory is notoriously inconsistant. As you can see the reality of YOU is not as solid as we like to think. In short you are reborn many times throughout youre life (this works on two levels, first it is the truth you change and nothing about you is permanent, also this insight helps you to let go of the self and all the grasping that goes with it, me me me) No other life, this is the only one no reincarnation, make the most of it. Most definitions of Buddhism will be of the kind that have reincarnation in them. I think this is because its human nature to want to believe that it'll be alright and you wont die really. But the Buddha taught everything is impermanent, everything. As for the 4 noble truths these are used as a refereance point for youre practice (you are not supposed to believe them until you have investigated them and experienced the truth in them) and the 8 fold path, they are not rules or commandments they are a system. The Buddha taught that if you want to free youre self from suffering and feel the truth of how you are interconnected with everything then you should medititate and use these teachings. If you dont follow the 8 fold path there is no punishment its just you dont get the benefits. Kind of like not taking youre medicine I suppose.

Dont preach or quote scripture, debate!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise I can fire a quote from the Pali Cannon at you and you can fire a biblical qoute at me and we can play scripture tennis. Forget the debate. Scripture tennis. Maybe we could get it into the Olyimpics?

Ah, when you cannot respond to someone, build a straw man, misrepresent what they say, and then marginalize them so you don't have to deal with what has been said. This is an Ad Hominem attack and one that lacks any rational. If you'll read, I said that though non-Christians can show good, it means nothing in light that they have comitted the biggest immoral act known in the universe of rejecting Christ. In fact, I said: Though they may perform good, the truth is they are not good because they have comitted the greatest immoral action one can comitt. No, but you do need to have some criteria for your belief. As an athiest, how can you place any emphasis upon the goodness of man when, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, "goodness" is merely a construct of the mind? Listen I can only debate with you if what you say makes sense, of course kindness, compasion and wholsome goodness can exist without Christianity. The Buddha was born 560 yrs before Jesus. And feeling undonditional love for all sentient beings is not a construct of the mind. Belief in the unproved and the supernatural is the construct of the mind. The love I have for life is real and all the biblical refrencing and certanties of youre faith dont change that.

Hi Luke and welcome. You have a good name Luke..Luke means "to walk in the light." Luke, what makes you think these people are kind, peaceful and loving..? and what makes you think a "cruel, selfish" believer is truly repentant at all...? Why do you equate UNbelievers with being Kind, loving and peaceful and yet see believers as cruel and selfish...? Surely there are UNbelievers who are cruel and selfish, as there are also believers who are kind, loving and peaceful.. If it were up to YOU Luke to decide what constitutes "goodness" and "Kindness", then I guess the standard would be set on the foundation of what YOU think or in your opinion it IS to be "good" or "Kind." So what does it mean to be good or kind then...? Is it who helps the most people in time of need..? Is it the one who pours the most money into charity...??? Is it the soldier who takes a bullet to save his buddy...? Is it the mom who gets up every morning with three kids and gets them all ready for school and looks after the house all day while hubby is at work...? Is it Mother Theresa...? Is it the pope...? How do we define "good..??" Surely you can see that in order for us to be good, then there MUST be a standard that defines what it IS to be good. Have you heard the story Jesus told about the "good Samaritan." Jesus teaches that what this man did was a Good and right, but he is also quite clear in his teachings that there is NONE who is good. So what then of the "good Samaritan..?" He did a charitable thing but was he saved by his act of goodness or did he still need to repent of his sins in order to be saved..? You see, while the Samaritan did what was admirable, clearly this is NOT what God means by "good." Good in mans eyes, YES..!! But in Gods sight, clearly there is another standard of "goodness". Otherwise he wouldn't call ALL people everywhere to repent. It is easy to look good in the sight of men Luke, but how does one look when God himself is the standard...? You see Luke, while you feel free to determine for yourself who IS and ISNT good, you make yourself the standard. In effect the statement you make is this. "The world would be a much better place to live if people were more like ME." While this may be a nice thought to have, and you may even think it to be true, there is something I want you to know about Christians...Followers of Christ do NOT think the world would be a better place if people were more like THEM. They believe the world would be a better place if people were more like CHRIST. Christians recognize the power of sin and damaging effects it can have on peoples lives. They also recognize that they themselves have fallen well short of the standard of God. Christians know that they are not "good" Luke...They may do good things and on many occasions do bad things too, but Luke, being good is about a whole lot more than "Not being Bad." Its not always about the things that you Did do, it can often be about the things that didnt do which you should have. We dont measure goodness Luke...God has already given us the standard..He IS the standard. If you want to see the plumbline that God has put in place to measure goodness, then look to the 10 Commandments. Judge yourself according to THEM...Test yourself..See how good you look in the sight of God. Let me ask you a question Luke...From the heart think about the answer..No need to respond Luke, just think about it.... If God were right now this very instant to remove from the world all poverty, illness and disease, famine, drought, pestillence and war....How long do you think it would stay that way..?? If you are going to ask questions about God Luke, then they must begin on a right premise...There is nothing wrong with God. It is we who are slaves to sin and our own self indulgences. We need to look at ourselves, not others...We need to realise that no one elses sins are ever going to justify or excuse our own. We need to look to Christ, not Christianity. Your question about heaven and hell is a good one, but to put a really simple answer in place for you I would say this... God has shown us that there are two absolute kingdoms at work here....and he has done it for a very good reason...To reveal to ALL that there is NO neutral ground or fence to sit on...There is a Kingdom of Light and there is a Kingdom of Darkness. In this lifetime you will choose to serve one or the other. Luke, one more thing....In this lifetime you will also choose which one of these are to be your eternal dwelling place. You do not have to believe this is true of course, but NOT believing wont alter anything...Nothing has the power to alter truth. Not even UNbelief. You see, when you choose to NOT believe, your choice is a conscious choice. When you choose not to go ONE way, you are actually choosing to go the other. Think about these things. Regards, Ben. Hello Ben, and thankyou for youre warm welcome. And please I know my name, dont wear it out bro! First let me clarify something that you guys seem to be missunderstanding. I dont know why you guys are missinterpreting what I said. But I didnt say that non believers were all loving and believers were all bad, my experience is that most people are compassionate. Without love and compassion, (which by the way are not exclusive qualities of the Christians) the human race couldnt survive, so most people Christians, Muslims and Atheists alike are kind and compassionate. As for what defines good it is all about intentions. Act with greed, ignorace or murderous intent I think we can all agree that this is bad. Act with love, compassion and kindness in youre heart, I think we all agree that is good. It is not about doing amazing works for charity, gangsters give money to charity that says nothing about you heart. When I buy my paper I have a genuine affection and empathy for the newsagent, I smile and take the time to talk to the newsagent. You see if you live youre life with a feeling of connection and compassion with the world around you and the people you come into contact with, this is without a doubt an ethical and good way to lead youre life. You should live like this because you actually love the people you meet not because god told you to be good it should come from youre heart. As long as you try to lead youre life like this with love in youre heart refrain from violence, lying, stealing or using sex as a weapon or tool you will have lived a wholesome life. As for the rest of what you say about me thinking that the world we be a better place if everyone thought like me. When did I say that?? That is not what I think! and the world would without a doubt be a duller place if everyone was the same. Anyway the whole idea is absurd, reality is far to complex for everyone to be the same it is an imposibility a total fantasy. But saying that, isnt that the aim of Christianity? To convert every man woman and chid into the faith? This is not my wish and please dont atribute things I didnt say to me. Also I didnt say that I was some kind of judge or baromator for who was good and who was bad, only you youreself can know what youre intentions are soo please stop putting statements in my mouth that I didnt say. As for the ten commandments. Wasnt it Moses that god gave them to? Is that the same Moses that was incensed by the Isrealites mercifull restraint towards the conquerd medianite people. And gave orders to kill all male prisoners and older women. ''BUT ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN WHO DO NOT KNOW MAN BY LYING WITH HIM, KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURESELVES'' You see all this talk of god and how everyone should be Christian or fry in the lake of fire is not only contradictory and illogical, the only authority Christians have to back their claims up is scripture, the passage of time and their imovable, blind faith. Even if on the off chance there is a creator god, what are chances that the rules and customs in the bible would really be its will, this creator who created billions of galaxies with billions of stars and billions of planets would of had himself incarnated as a man to be tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a Adam who seeing as we have discovered dinosuar bones almost surely didnt exist. Why would such a powerfull creator use such an inefficiant way of getting his message accross? Surely such an important message as OBEY,BELIEVE OR BURN. Should have been comunicated to every man woman and child on the planet. Not just the people who where lucky enought to be born in the geographical area as Jesus. Why would he have left such an important message open to logical critisism. Why would he hide dinosuar bones??? Is he a prankster, is he trying to trip us up??? If he wont reveal himself to us and he wants us to believe in him through faith, why then give us enquiring minds????? Why give us teachings about the cosmos that are totally wrong?? The sun does not revolve around the earth, why tell us that?????? As for youre question about how long the earth would remain without hunger, poverty and war if a supreme being removed poverty, hunger and war..?? Well that is simple. If he didnt change the way plants grew, humans tribal nature and the size of the population, not very long. But what has that got to do with anything??? So until Christianity or Islam can bring tangible proof of god and then prove that the rules in youre particulr book is actually the will of god then we should question god and all of the claims that Christians and Muslims make. As for the idea that something with such complexity as life and the universe can be divided into such a simple predictability as good and evil is crazy. Life is far more amazing and complex than that. Peace

This assumes that every non-believer is loving. The fact that they have rejected Christ, God's gift to man, shows that no matter what good they do they have still comitted the ultimate immoral action. By rejecting Christ they have said, "I can be good on my own and without God." Though they may bring about some good works, the fact remains they have comitted the greatest evil imaginable and therefore are not moral, loving, peaceful, or kind. They are at war with God by rejecting His sacrifice, they are cruel by rejecting the One Who died for them, and they are unloving because they refuse the gift of absolute love. A Christian, one who truly accepts Christ, will not be a tyrant. If someone claims Christ but acts like a tyrant, he most likely is not a Christian. The reason is that Christ changes who we are, not in our physical sense but in our intellectual and spiritual sense. Furthermore, if one accepts Christ on his death bed then yes, he has become a Christian. This is fair and moral because: 1) He has just acknowledged that everything he did was absolutely wrong in life 2) He has just acknowledged that he was in desperate need of someone to save him from himself 3) He has just acknowledged that he has been wrong for how he lived and instead wants Christ to help him in his last hours As for a question to you, how can you be both? If you are an atheist I would ask for you to provide reasoning for how you can follow Buddha's teachings when there is no purpose to life. So you are saying that kindness, love, peace and goodness is only possible in Christian people????. It is an exclusive quality of people who believe in the story of Jesus and everyone else is just pretending to be kind but are really bad in their hearts. This is quite plainly an extremist view (edited by moderator). I'm glad not all Christians think like you. And I dont think that anyone with such an (edited by moderator) skewed view of the world and other people can really enter into a logical debate, because quite obviously you are so stuck in youre own world view that nothing and nobody else matters to you apart from youre fellow believers and what you believe in. So let me get this right, My mother is a bad person even though she does aid work (infact she is just pretending to be a kind loving person, she doesnt really mean it), the Dalai Lama is a bad person even though he preaches peace and kindness to all sentient beings, Torquemada is good because he was a believer. (Edited by moderator) As for me being a buddhist you obviously have no idea about buddhism if you think that god has anything to do with it. Buddhists dont believe in god and we have a deep love and compassion for others. There is so much meaning to life we dont need the supernatural to give life meaning. (edited by moderator) So you are saying that kindness, love, peace and goodness is only possible in Christian people????. (edited by moderator) Note: If you can't address issues without personal attack, your posts will be removed - The mod team

Some do, but the Buddha never talked about reincarnation. The Buddha taught about impermanance, impermanance of pleasure, impermance of pain, impermanance of life, impermanance of everything. impermanance is a law of nature. If everything is impermanant as the Buddha taught how can there be reincarnation?? Many buddhists do believe in reincarnation but they are always ready to change their beliefs if they can be proved wrong. The Buddha taught not to believe anything on faith, authority or through scripture. If the Budda gave a teaching he always said 'dont believe what I say! only believe when you have tried it and found it to be true for youreself'. So reincarnation is a belief a faith that comes from the Hindu religion that was carried through to buddhism in later years and not strictly a teaching of the Buddha. I myself have no belief in reincarnation. I hope this clears up any confusion

Hello friends. I'am an atheist and a Buddhist. I have been debating on some Islamic websites and found them suprisingly welcoming, and even more suprisingly open to the critisism and my logical aproach to disbeliief. Although many of my arguments are just ignored when I point out that scripture is not proof. But on the whole I have found my experience on the Islamic boards very constructive. I'm here to open a debate about the claims of the monotheistic religions, I want to talk about Christianities claims and Islam. Anything you would like to know about Buddhism feel free to ask. So let me start by saying Hello to everyone and hoping you all find peace and happiness. My first question is why would god burn peacefull, kind, loving non believers and forgive a cruel, selfish believer as long as he repents and asks for forgiveness on his deathbed?? Surely this undermines Christianities claim to be the moral basis in our society. If a cruel, tyranical Christian can get away with it and be forgiven. What are heaven and hell for if they are not the celestial carrot and stick to stop us from being evil. Or is heaven and hell just a way of ensuring belief in god???????????