Just out of curiousity...

[seanpont]

"Mockery is an important social tool for squelching stupidity. I

[Joshua-777]

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive?

You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this.

Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though.

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

Thanks tdrehfal, I didn't take it as a direct attack on me though it was an attack, I just saw it as imaturity in mocking without taking time to understand, been there done that, that comment about God being a jelly donout, I've actualy said that before I knew the grace and the mercy of the Lord. It just reminded me of how blind I was, and further encouraged me because The Lord has directed me to know him.

[tdrehfal]

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive?

You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this.

Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though.

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

Thanks tdrehfal, I didn't take it as a direct attack on me though it was an attack, I just saw it as imaturity in mocking without taking time to understand, been there done that, that comment about God being a jelly donout, I've actualy said that before I knew the grace and the mercy of the Lord. It just reminded me of how blind I was, and further encouraged me because The Lord has directed me to know him.

Well josh, I aspire to be what you are. Perhaps you are just smarter than I am, I don't know... I am humbled by your response. Thank you. I don't likie my Brothers being

attacked, however, and Jesus did say it would be better for someone to have millstone tied around their neck than to offend one of these little ones that believes. I'm sorry

I get a little upset when someone who is even > me is attacked.

[Joshua-777]

My patience is wearing thin. I'm usually courteous but attacking josh-13 as though he is stupid strikes a nerve. I wonder just how young of an idealist

this guy is? Probably 12.

I don't understand how you think that I could be attacking him. I'm having an honest debate with him. What exactly have I said that comes off as attacking or offensive?

You can't be meaning that I'm attacking him just because I am questioning his beliefs can you? If you are suggesting that then it could just as easily be seen that he is attacking me for my logic. I don't claim that he's attacking me at all, but I can't make any other sense of what you would mean by this.

Also, Josh13, I spent a good hour responding to your last post and some fluke on the site occured. Then I lost it from going back too many times and copying the wrong thing. So I'll get back to it later, but the strain of having wasted that time is too frustrating for me to go back to it right away. I will respond to your argument soon though.

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

Thanks tdrehfal, I didn't take it as a direct attack on me though it was an attack, I just saw it as imaturity in mocking without taking time to understand, been there done that, that comment about God being a jelly donout, I've actualy said that before I knew the grace and the mercy of the Lord. It just reminded me of how blind I was, and further encouraged me because The Lord has directed me to know him.

Well josh, I aspire to be what you are. Perhaps you are just smarter than I am, I don't know... I am humbled by your response. Thank you. I don't likie my Brothers being

attacked, however, and Jesus did say it would be better for someone to have millstone tied around their neck than to offend one of these little ones that believes. I'm sorry

I get a little upset when someone who is even > me is attacked.

Lol, you dont have to apoligize, I fully agree with what you said, and I don't think I'm smarter though, lol I seriously have been amazed at some of your posts, lol. I fully understand why that would make anyone offended, and I give you props for sticking up against that kind of stuff. What you said was very nessisary.

[tdrehfal]

Comparing our God to say, Homer Simpson would be a direct attack. Don't tell me you arent attacking, you are not having an intellectual debate when

using Homer Simpson as some kind of example. We do not beleive our God is a jelly donut or Homer Simpson. This is where it degrades into an

attack rather than debate. You must understand the we Christians actually believe what we are talking about, and you will not attack a brother in

Christ without my saying something about it. That was basically the first time ever i posted something like that out about 200 posts but do NOT

speak with a condscending or attacking tone to josh-13. Thank you. Please dont refer to Homer Simpson or jelly donuts like that's our belief.

You wouldn't do it to any buddhist or muslim you'd probably respect the belief, SO YOU

RESPECT OURS TOO. We consider God to be holy, so respect it while debating. enough said.

You are too quick to be offended.

First, I wasn't comparing the jelly doughnut to the christian God, I was comparing it to the lake of fire. Second, it wasn't used to insul, t any of you, it was to get your attention in following the logic. I wanted to go into more detail and build up to it, but since both of you are taking the comparison so harshly that you find it suiting to return premature insults at me then i'll explain on the point here and refur to the rest of Josh'd post when I get around to it.

Obviously, being afraid of a jelly doughnut is outlandish and it is not a truth I really claim to. Josh's point was that there was reason to believe and that reason was simply for the existence of belief itself or the fact that others are believing and that clues in life can guide you toward which nonprovable thing is the right thing to believe in. So i pointed out that in the extreme case of a Jelly doughnut that you don't see, it's clear that not only is it unlikely, but let's say that it turned out in the end to be true? If that were so then what morality is there to gauge from believing in it? For if it were the reality that God surounded or placed us in the center of a Jelly doughnut, or even so much as allowed this to be our fate due to some evil devil's actions, it would be a case of God mocking us. Therefore, why respect or care is such a God were real? If such a God were real then God wouldn't be taking us seriously or treating us fairly, and those of us with sound minds meant for logic would just wait, while enjoying life in other ways, till the time came when the jelly doughnut truth were revealed, and we'd have nothing left to worry about. We might all just laugh at Gods rediculousness.

I''m not saying that you wouldn't laugh too. I'm not even saying that this is what you blieve in. I'm only pointing out that it is as rationally logical as what you do believe in.

So let's say that doughnutism is far too outlandish for any God to expect us to believe in. Ok, then how about Paganism, witchcraft, egyptian pharoahs, greek gods, and tribal beliefs in small cultures that have not touched the benefits of industry yet. Are they also far too outlandish for our real god to expect us to believe in? Is it still the reasonability that makes a difference in christianity from these beliefs? OK, then what about Bhudism, hinduism, and islam? Are those beliefs also far too outlandish for a God to expect us to believe? can you still cling to christianity above these and accpet christianity as a fact, when these are also possibilities of what God might want us to believe in for our salvation? Fine, then what about Judeism? How can you know that God wants you to believe in christianity over judeism? How do you know that God isn't saying, "the jews are still my people and the christians are just gential people who blame all of my people over what a select few have done". My point wasn't to make a mockery of your religion, it was to point out that all of these religions have an unreasonable requirement of belief, which can by no means justify ones morality nor claim ones immorality. If anything, the only belief that is capable of causing one to act morally for having believed is one that is tested and questioned continuously to the bitter end, not one that is believed in as it's own justification.

So if you have no place in your religion to continuously question your beliefs, then I'm afraid that your faith means nothing more by any means than the faith of a doughnutist.

=

Thanks for your quote seanpont. It explains more clearly why I did have to use a jelly doughnut for an example, because if i put out another belief that people with reasonable minds believe in, it wouldnt have been noticed at all.

I am certainly not quick to be offended. This would be the first time ever i've been offended in these forrums and I have 200+ posts. What we believe is based

on testimony, not stupidity. I just said dont attack josh, and that's all... If you're not a Christian, you dont understand WHY I might get mad about that.

Try using a jelly doughnut for an example of allah in iraq.

When someone knows something is true, they know its true.

[followerofjesus]

Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.

[tdrehfal]

I am certainly not quick to be offended. This would be the first time ever i've been offended in these forrums and I have 200+ posts. What we believe is based

on testimony, not stupidity. I just said dont attack josh, and that's all... If you're not a Christian, you dont understand WHY I might get mad about that.

Try using a jelly doughnut for an example of allah in iraq.

When someone knows something is true, they know its true.

Ok, tdrefal. Does this mean that you are comparing your anger as it is justified by your own belief to the anger of a muslim as it is justified by his? Are you also admiting that both you and the muslim are equally certain about which faith is true, even though you both disagree? Where then does the real truth and justification for requiring people to believe in something one way or the other come from?

A muslim would have a right to be angry if you called allah jelly doughnut instead of simply witnessing, noone would expect otherwise. I do not believe, however, that the

muslim really knows exactly what he believes due to my study of Islam as a faith. The truth is they don't even know what they pray when they pray. I dont really think

the muslim is really "sure" like we are, no. My anger isn't the same thing as some muslim hatred (i certainly dont hate you or think you're the devil or whatever)... It stems

from an attack on a faithful brother in Christ and its very limited. It is not going to lead me to hate you or want to kill you or think you're an idiot. Those are the differences.

The real truth is based on the NT eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ.

And in case you didn't quite catch it, anger isnt hatred. What some of the muslims do is hatred, not anger. Being angry doesnt necessarily imply hatred.

Edited February 13, 2007 by tdrehfal

[tdrehfal]

"Mockery is an important social tool for squelching stupidity. I

[Joshua-777]

You are too quick to be offended.

First, I wasn't comparing the jelly doughnut to the christian God, I was comparing it to the lake of fire. Second, it wasn't used to insult any of you, it was to get your attention in following the logic. I wanted to go into more detail and build up to it, but since both of you are taking the comparison so harshly that you find it suiting to return premature insults at me then i'll explain on the point here and refur to the rest of Josh's post when I get around to it.

Obviously, being afraid of a jelly doughnut is outlandish and it is not a truth I really claim to. Josh's point was that there was reason to believe and that reason was simply for the existence of belief itself or the fact that others are believing and that clues in life can guide you toward which nonprovable thing is the right thing to believe in. So i pointed out that in the extreme case of a Jelly doughnut that you don't see, it's clear that not only is it unlikely, but let's say that it turned out in the end to be true? If that were so then what morality is there to gauge from believing in it? For if it were the reality that God surrounded or placed us in the center of a Jelly doughnut, or even so much as allowed this to be our fate due to some evil devil's actions, it would be a case of God mocking us. Therefore, why respect or care is such a God were real? If such a God were real then God wouldn't be taking us seriously or treating us fairly, and those of us with sound minds meant for logic would just wait, while enjoying life in other ways, till the time came when the jelly doughnut truth were revealed, and we'd have nothing left to worry about. We might all just laugh at God's rediculousness.

I'm not saying that you wouldn't laugh too. I'm not even saying that this is what you believe in. I'm only pointing out that it is as rationally logical as what you do believe in.

Actualy you mistook what I said, The reason to believe wasn't for the reason of beliefe it's self. It is foolish to believe that a jelly doughnut is hell, and comairing the two shows little respect for what you are talking about. If you truly wish to have a logical discussion, please use logical analogys, rather than mockery. Now to adress this, Your reason for believe that there is nothing is because you chose not to look at God with logic? You would rather chose to use rediculious metaphores, that relate nothing to the matter at hand. No God is not mocking us, and it apears as if you are mocking him, you got it twisted, but I guess common logic would be to mock what ever you don't understand. Now, a reality check, No there is not going to be a jelly doughnut, but fire yes, and it's going to scortch you for all eternity, because you chose to mock the fool, and you chose to not even try to understand, You chose to not look at the signs. No this metaphore isn't as rationaly logical as what we believe in, it's as rationaly logical as your own understanding. The only thing you are doing is pointing out your own contradiction why you chose not to believe rather than looking at what is being said. Now if you would go back and adress what I said in my last post to you, I would apreciate it, but going on about a jelly doughnut is ignorence, and will result in a lack of credibity.

So let's say that doughnutism is far too outlandish for any God to expect us to believe in. Ok, then how about Paganism, witchcraft, egyptian pharoahs, greek gods, scientology, and tribal beliefs in small cultures that have not touched the benefits of industry yet. Are they also far too outlandish for our real god to expect us to believe in? Is it still reasonability that makes a difference in christianity from these beliefs? OK, then what about Bhudism, hinduism, and islam? Are those beliefs also far too outlandish for a God to expect us to believe? can you still cling to christianity above these and accpet christianity as a fact, when these are also possibilities of what God might want us to believe in for our salvation? Fine, then what about Judeism? How can you know that God wants you to believe in christianity over judeism? How do you know that God isn't saying, "the jews are still my people and the christians are just a gential people who blame all of my people over what a select few have done". My point wasn't to make a mockery of your religion, it was to point out that all of these religions have an unreasonable requirement of belief, which can by no means justify ones morality nor claim ones immorality. If anything, the only belief that is capable of causing one to act morally for having believed in it is one that is tested and questioned continuously to the bitter end, not one that is believed in as it's own justification.

I have been into paganism, I have been into witchcraft, I have even been athiest, but couldn't hold that view because there is too much out there if you only chose to look at it. Wicca and paganism is mere forms of ancient satanism, worship of baal, and many false gods, which satan has power over them, but opens up a door way for demonic spirits. As far as what God wants us to believe in for our salvation, if you knew God personally he would direct you, and guide you, he gave us all we need to know him personally. And God does say the jews are still the chosen people, God provided them a way out through Jesus Christ, and salvation through Jesus Christ is for the gentile as well, Now, I have a question, is this discussion about these other religions? no, it's about Christianity, so please keep it on this discussion, Satan is a deciever, and he uses other religions as well as athiesm, which blinds you from spiritual truth, What you have not seen, you cannot say isnt real. Christians have an Unreasonable requirement for belief? Like what, believe, and accept salvation, it's actualy like someone saying here is salvation if you only take it, the morality and the law still stands in Christianity but God himself helps us, the Holy Spirit lives in us and dwells with us, and leads us closer to him, all God is saying is meet him half way, and thats unreasonable to you? whats unreasonable is looking at the complexity of all that is and saying, it's all by chance, There is so much you don't understand. You ask as if I blindly believe and follow, without taking into concideration of what I've been through or why do I believe. If you are interested about me, go look at my profile, I have my testimony on there, I feel if you read it, you would understand me, and the reasons I believe alot more.

So if you have no place in your religion to continuously question your beliefs, then I'm afraid that your faith means nothing more by any means than the faith of a doughnutist, exept for the act that very few believe in it now.

Stll yet, if you consider the fickleness of faithfull minds, you might realize that I could easily promote doughnutism and get a few believers out there in the great jelly doughnut

Thanks for your quote seanpont. It explains more clearly why I did have to use a jelly doughnut for an example, because if i put out another belief that people with reasonable minds believe in, it wouldnt have been noticed at all.

Yes I question by beliefs constantly, and I have been wrong many times, but the Lord corrects me, and leads me deeper in truth, I question what I believe every day, but God is the one thing in my life I don't question, I only question myself, I know there is a God, and I know he is real, there is no denieing that for me, and I will not even so much as think I may be wrong on that, why? Because I've been there already, I have tasted a life without God, and I have tasted a life with God, I now know him, and he works in my life, Ya see, I know how it is to be blind, and blindly believing, but I also know the grace of my Lord, and the reality of him, and about the great jelly doughnut, If you persue that, is it worth having your doughnut turn into a lake of fire? Now, I do find it disrespectful to concider Christians beliefes as that as a jelly doughnut, and mockery is not that way to win a conversation, because it's the pride that destorys and hardens hearts, and as that post said, no I do not fear being mocked, I just wish you had a little more sence, than ignorence in this matter. Mock me all you want, but I dont respond well to mockery, I respond to Logic. If you would really like to know, and understand, then please by all means use respect, and continue this conversation as a logical adult, rather than a selfish child. Please go back and respond to my last post, logicaly.

[Joshua-777]

Josh, I'm not an atheist. I do not deny the potential for the existence of a god. I am only refuting that any real God worth serving would not expect our belief in him to determine our place in morality. If i am correct in saying that, then such a statement disqualifies a christian God, nothing more.

You claimed that there is a lake of fire surrounding us and made no clear attempt to justify what evidence shows that there is a lake of fire at all. You point to signs that are not really evidence, only suggestions made by other people. That is why I made the comparisson of your claim that there is a lake of fire where I am going, comparable to someone expecting you to believe that you are in a jelly doughnut. It's not mockery of you or your intelligence, it's a reflection of how you appear to be expecting me to deny my own sense of reason to believe in your claim.

Good to know that your not an aithiest, have you ever met a real god? I can tell you I personaly know the REAL God, I never said the lake of fire was surrounding us, so therefore your whole jelly doughnut was pointless, I said the end, entrophy, which is the second law in thermo dianamics states that a system left alone goes from a state of order to disorder, There was a begining to this world, and there will be an end, theres no way around that, but Jesus provided us with a way of salvation, somthing as simple as believing in him, and allowing him to work in our life. You still don't understand, You think I believe without evidence? Trust me, God has provided me with too much evidence to ever believe different, but he is working activly in my life, somthing that you comprehend. Now I have a question, if you have a blindfold on can you see where your going? no you can't, Jesus takes the blindfold off.

I will go back and explain all of this when I have the time to.

Do you really not understand why I think that God expecting me to meet him halfway in logic is unreasonable? Half logic is not logic. Logic is foolproof and complete, always, or else it cannot be claimed to be logic. Evidence is nice. Fliping a coin to see if it can honestly answer yes/no questions for me is nice if it works, but unless it works more than 90% of the time consistantly after many trials, you are not really using something that is worth depending on. If you can't always depend on God in some form universally, then what is the point of believing? Consider the fact that it is reasonable to not believe that Christianity is correct. If most cases find answers that fit their own logical statistics anyway, then what says that we need to find an answer that requires our beliefs? IOW, what is there that is unreasonable about not believing in belief? Shouldn't God be able to meet someone halfway on that so long as it is reasonable? Well, then what exactly is an example of God meeting such a reasonable person half way? How about generating statistics that suggest christianity above a 75% possibility? I mean if the average is 50% and the reasonable skeptic wants 100% proof, then that sounds like it would be meeting halfway right? Ok, so where do we find our 75% statistic or better then?

lol you still don't understand, God expecting to meet you half way, meaning if you want to know him, he will draw you in, if you denie him, he will denie you. I can always depend on God in more that a universal form, and the point of believing? that is what you should find out. NOw you cannot put God to a statistic, lol Honestly, would you be willing to look at the evidence? and the skeptic wants 100% proof, no, the skeptic wants to denie any proof, and statistics lie, ya see, Satan is a master of deception, and he will feed you as many lies as you can swallow, he fears you with the Lord. TO tell you the truth, your life is in bondage right now, and Jesus wants to free you from that bondage, but if you chose not to take the blindfold off, then how can he lead you to the truth, and out of the cell?

Of course, there is the contradiction to consider while looking for a Christian God to meet the skeptic halfway, for the bible says we should not test God.

The skeptic half way, would be for the skeptic to put in a little faith and accept Jesus and allow him to work in his life.