Begging for response.

[Columcille]

Well GiGi, I guess we will have to continue here.

The only certain thing of which Christian ministries (with Scriptural and orthodox basis) outreaching to ****sexuals clearly would state is that ****sexual acts are sinful and should not be done.

Catholic Courage, Exodus International, etc. on down the line to sister groups outreaching to even dysfunctional families I think would be in agreement with this concept. There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions. I am not talking about these ministries, but to give you an example would be First Baptist Church of Seattle. I remember hearing about them when the Southern Baptist Convention redirected its funding from the Baptist World Alliance to their own international ministries due to the the BWA's allowance of other Baptist organizations that allow affirmation of the ****sexual within the body of Christ... of which it was specifically stated that the Evergreen Baptist ***ociation, with First Baptist Church of Seattle and another church belonged. http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2133&Itemid=117. Anyways, this is fairly old news.


Now in regards to you not being a Christian, I am sure you have some thoughts on the subject, but which clearly you have no personal claim. If you belonged to a church, it would be a different matter. The question is for me, what sort of secular claim can you make in regards to such Christian orthodox ministries? Has those Christian ministries that make the ****sexual feel safe in their ****sexual acts brought you into a church? Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?

[BrotherBrian]

There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions.

And there are yet other ministries that are Christians who do retain the authority of Scripture, even when it flies in the face of tradition, that encourages gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender to identify as the "born eunuchs" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 19:11-12, but that the Church refuses to teach on. There are also eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:1-8 where God says that eunuchs will be accepted in His congregation, yet many congregations not only refuse to acknowledge that it is an unfulfilled prophecy. Could it be that the church is opposed to ****sexuality only because they fail to recognize the eunuchs of the Scriptures?

Just saying......

[GiGi]

Well GiGi, I guess we will have to continue here.

The only certain thing of which Christian ministries (with Scriptural and orthodox basis) outreaching to ****sexuals clearly would state is that ****sexual acts are sinful and should not be done.

Catholic Courage, Exodus International, etc. on down the line to sister groups outreaching to even dysfunctional families I think would be in agreement with this concept. There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions. I am not talking about these ministries, but to give you an example would be First Baptist Church of Seattle. I remember hearing about them when the Southern Baptist Convention redirected its funding from the Baptist World Alliance to their own international ministries due to the the BWA's allowance of other Baptist organizations that allow affirmation of the ****sexual within the body of Christ... of which it was specifically stated that the Evergreen Baptist ***ociation, with First Baptist Church of Seattle and another church belonged. http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2133&Itemid=117. Anyways, this is fairly old news.


Now in regards to you not being a Christian, I am sure you have some thoughts on the subject, but which clearly you have no personal claim. If you belonged to a church, it would be a different matter. The question is for me, what sort of secular claim can you make in regards to such Christian orthodox ministries? Has those Christian ministries that make the ****sexual feel safe in their ****sexual acts brought you into a church? Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?

Christian ministries, like the ones you mentioned, do more than simply state their belief that ****sexuality is sin. Many offer programs designed to "cure". Even that wouldn't be so bad in developed countries. I object to ALL foriegn missions whose primary objective is to 'spread the word'.
As I said, I'm not a Christian. There's not much to say about it. I have never believed in anything supernatural.
"Sin" is religious terminology. Mr. Bush would happily strip me of my US citizenship, and my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many will agree with him. If the conservative position is as influenced by Christianity as it appears to be, it is a dangerous thing.

[GiGi]

Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?
No. The only thing that would change my mind would be evidence, any evidence, that god exists.

[Columcille]

No. The only thing that would change my mind would be evidence, any evidence, that god exists.

First of all, what kind of evidence do you suggest? Some sort of tangibleness? God in a celestial body?

Secondly, even if one does present you the evidence, who says you will understand it unless you taste and see that it is good?

[Columcille]

Christian ministries, like the ones you mentioned, do more than simply state their belief that ****sexuality is sin. Many offer programs designed to "cure". Even that wouldn't be so bad in developed countries. I object to ALL foriegn missions whose primary objective is to 'spread the word'.
As I said, I'm not a Christian. There's not much to say about it. I have never believed in anything supernatural.
"Sin" is religious terminology. Mr. Bush would happily strip me of my US citizenship, and my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many will agree with him. If the conservative position is as influenced by Christianity as it appears to be, it is a dangerous thing.

So be it, what concern is it to you? Oh, I see, you want to say Catholics, who believe in the sanc***y of life, and other Christians that hold the same, are some type of war monger gun totting vigilantes. No. I think your fears are ill founded and a little bit embellished. If you are going to make such a connection, I would like to see offical primary publications from Exodus International instead of from ****sexual word of mouth, where verbal quotes can be taken out of context. Mr. Bush is "moderate" in some of his policies, especially immigration and most political conservatives would rather see a Mr. Reagan--but secular politics should have nothing to interfer with any type of religious ministry.

[Columcille]

And there are yet other ministries that are Christians who do retain the authority of Scripture, even when it flies in the face of tradition, that encourages gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender to identify as the "born eunuchs" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 19:11-12, but that the Church refuses to teach on. There are also eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:1-8 where God says that eunuchs will be accepted in His congregation, yet many congregations not only refuse to acknowledge that it is an unfulfilled prophecy. Could it be that the church is opposed to ****sexuality only because they fail to recognize the eunuchs of the Scriptures?

Just saying......

Please expound or restate this. "Eunuchs" are physically incapable of sexual intercourse. If a person decides to remain celibate, like Paul encourages in 1 Cor. 7, it is a better stance on a life of chas***y than the four groupings you just identified acting on their same sex attractions, with exception to the transgender due to being born with an abnormal condition, and even the so called "bi-sexual" which would be offensive to the sanc***y of marriage between male and female. I could give you clear reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are infering the Catholic Church. I could even point to Early Church Fathers, some Reformers, and other types of documentation based on a particular church tradition... Methodists should take head to Wesley, Lutheran to Luther, Reformed to Calvin, etc.. However, I do not not really know where you are coming from. What particular church do you affiliate with?

[GiGi]

First of all, what kind of evidence do you suggest? Some sort of tangibleness? God in a celestial body?

Secondly, even if one does present you the evidence, who says you will understand it unless you taste and see that it is good?

Something tangible would be nice.

[GiGi]

So be it, what concern is it to you? Oh, I see, you want to say Catholics, who believe in the sanc***y of life, and other Christians that hold the same, are some type of war monger gun totting vigilantes. No. I think your fears are ill founded and a little bit embellished. If you are going to make such a connection, I would like to see offical primary publications from Exodus International instead of from ****sexual word of mouth, where verbal quotes can be taken out of context. Mr. Bush is "moderate" in some of his policies, especially immigration and most political conservatives would rather see a Mr. Reagan--but secular politics should have nothing to interfer with any type of religious ministry.
1. You have asked, and answered a question. Seems you've decided my position for me.
2. Mr. Bush said, "No. I do not know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." One must ***ume that Mr. Bush believes that the sacrifices and contributions atheists have made for America are of a lesser value than those of religious citizens. What is your opinion?
3. Secular politics do not interfere with with religious ministries, to my knowledge.

[GiGi]

Please expound or restate this. "Eunuchs" are physically incapable of sexual intercourse. If a person decides to remain celibate, like Paul encourages in 1 Cor. 7, it is a better stance on a life of chas***y than the four groupings you just identified acting on their same sex attractions, with exception to the transgender due to being born with an abnormal condition, and even the so called "bi-sexual" which would be offensive to the sanc***y of marriage between male and female. I could give you clear reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are infering the Catholic Church. I could even point to Early Church Fathers, some Reformers, and other types of documentation based on a particular church tradition... Methodists should take head to Wesley, Lutheran to Luther, Reformed to Calvin, etc.. However, I do not not really know where you are coming from. What particular church do you affiliate with?

I can not answer for Brother Brian, but I'd just like to interject re one part of your post. The so-called sanc***y of marriage is not at risk. Many couples are married in civil ceromonies. I was. My marriage may not be recognized by the church, but it is legal. My marriage has no effect on your church, your religion, or you. Those who fight to lift state bans on same-sex marriage ask only for the same rights I possess. Witholding those rights and priveledges benefits no one.

[ActRaiser]

The so-called sanc***y of marriage is not at risk.

The mere fact that you use the word so-called before marriage means that it is. If ****sexuals can marry other ****sexuals then that means less people will be likely to believe in the uniqueness or holiness of marriage to begin with, Christian or not.

[GiGi]

The mere fact that you use the word so-called before marriage means that it is. If ****sexuals can marry other ****sexuals then that means less people will be likely to believe in the uniqueness or holiness of marriage to begin with, Christian or not.


I emphasize the word 'sanc***y'. If you believe that marriage outside of a church means less people will believe in the 'holiness' of marriage, then civil marriages for ****sexuals will have no greater impact than any other.
Words like 'sanc***y and 'holiness' should be reserved for religious ceromonies. Churches frequently refuse to marry divorcees, members of other faiths, as well as same-sex couples. That won't change.

[Columcille]

Something tangible would be nice.

Can a finite immortal man ever hold the world in the palm of their hands? Did you create yourself? Is love just a chemical reaction, our whole being just a long string of events solely based on "tangibleness?" If you could get tangible, it would no longer necessarily be worthy of consideration. My questions above are merely rhetorical questions, I am not really looking for you to answer them. The purpose of the questions is try and gather what you mean by "tangible." God as a corporeal being?

[GiGi]

Can a finite immortal man ever hold the world in the palm of their hands? Did you create yourself? Is love just a chemical reaction, our whole being just a long string of events solely based on "tangibleness?" If you could get tangible, it would no longer necessarily be worthy of consideration. My questions above are merely rhetorical questions, I am not really looking for you to answer them. The purpose of the questions is try and gather what you mean by "tangible." God as a corporeal being?

We both know what 'tangible' means.
No, I don't think god is corporeal, no more so than devils, ghosts, sprits, and some of the other stuff people believe in.

[Columcille]

1. You have asked, and answered a question. Seems you've decided my position for me.
2. Mr. Bush said, "No. I do not know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." One must ***ume that Mr. Bush believes that the sacrifices and contributions atheists have made for America are of a lesser value than those of religious citizens. What is your opinion?
3. Secular politics do not interfere with with religious ministries, to my knowledge.

1. Do not feel it necessary to expound, as it will lead to an unproductive ***-for-tat.
2. I had to run your quote through Google. I thought Mr. Bush was the last one, but it seems you mean President Bush Senior. One term president who let the UN keep Saddam in power after his invading the soveriegn country of Kuwait. Weak kneed, not a true Reagan conservative, even though he was his VP. President Bush Senior is not my bishop, and typically I find athiesm to rather a hopeless religious system. Not sure what sort of "sacrifices or contributions atheist have made for America" except in advancing their own freedoms and limiting the rest of everyone elses. I find the statement there are no such things as athiests in foxholes rather a trueful statement. While I see athiests in the military, and they may be in Iraq with me sacrificing their time, I have heard their remarks when in a smalls arms fire or just following an IED blast when they are not preferencing their remarks... God is ever on their mind, they just don't like him.
3. You know how the Vatican became its own soveriegn state? It was because Italy's government in the 1870s thought that if they controled the Catholic Church that they can force the Church to help their own cause.
Secular politics in America has within its cons***ution certain rights of its citizens to practice their religion. If it could be possible, I have no doubt that many of the ****sexual caucus in the secular government would love to dictate to the Christian ministries and churches by strong arming them into submission to become tolerant of ****sexual lifestyles. This strong arming may be done in various ways, from attempts to take away tax-free exemption, from even electing Harry Knox as head of the faith based initiatives, and many other means. That fact that you are even talking about it shows that even you want to attempt this sort of change in the religious arena. If you get the highest court in the land to rule in favor of ****sexual marriages, the civil rights movement will undoubtably take this to the churches that deny marriage and press charges for discrimination. Hey, it worked with the Mormons twice... they even had to have two official declarations that God changes his mind to allow blacks into ministry and Mormons could no longer have more than one wife. At any rate, it already seems that some once conservative denominations in America have already folded, the ECUSA was once more high Anglican than it is today. Luther is probably already rolling in his grave over the ELCA.

[Columcille]

We both know what 'tangible' means.
No, I don't think god is corporeal, no more so than devils, ghosts, sprits, and some of the other stuff people believe in.

I see. Do you believe in devils, ghosts, spirits, and other stuff?

[GiGi]

I see. Do you believe in devils, ghosts, spirits, and other stuff? Of course not.

[GiGi]

1. Do not feel it necessary to expound, as it will lead to an unproductive ***-for-tat.
2. I had to run your quote through Google. I thought Mr. Bush was the last one, but it seems you mean President Bush Senior. One term president who let the UN keep Saddam in power after his invading the soveriegn country of Kuwait. Weak kneed, not a true Reagan conservative, even though he was his VP. President Bush Senior is not my bishop, and typically I find athiesm to rather a hopeless religious system. Not sure what sort of "sacrifices or contributions atheist have made for America" except in advancing their own freedoms and limiting the rest of everyone elses. I find the statement there are no such things as athiests in foxholes rather a trueful statement. While I see athiests in the military, and they may be in Iraq with me sacrificing their time, I have heard their remarks when in a smalls arms fire or just following an IED blast when they are not preferencing their remarks... God is ever on their mind, they just don't like him.
3. You know how the Vatican became its own soveriegn state? It was because Italy's government in the 1870s thought that if they controled the Catholic Church that they can force the Church to help their own cause.
Secular politics in America has within its cons***ution certain rights of its citizens to practice their religion. If it could be possible, I have no doubt that many of the ****sexual caucus in the secular government would love to dictate to the Christian ministries and churches by strong arming them into submission to become tolerant of ****sexual lifestyles. This strong arming may be done in various ways, from attempts to take away tax-free exemption, from even electing Harry Knox as head of the faith based initiatives, and many other means. That fact that you are even talking about it shows that even you want to attempt this sort of change in the religious arena. If you get the highest court in the land to rule in favor of ****sexual marriages, the civil rights movement will undoubtably take this to the churches that deny marriage and press charges for discrimination. Hey, it worked with the Mormons twice... they even had to have two official declarations that God changes his mind to allow blacks into ministry and Mormons could no longer have more than one wife. At any rate, it already seems that some once conservative denominations in America have already folded, the ECUSA was once more high Anglican than it is today. Luther is probably already rolling in his grave over the ELCA.
This entire discussion has deteriorated into an unproductive *** for tat.
I hoped we could do better.
I'm perfectly capable of addressing each point you've made, predictible cliche's, deliberate misrepresentations, government conspiracies, but I feel it would be a waste of time.
If I were you, I wouldn't whine about any mistreatment of the Vatican in Rome in 1870. Someone might come along and ask you what catholicism was up to in Ireland that same decade.
I realize I'm being rather abrupt. I'm tired of finding a christian that might explain their world-view, only to be disappointed yet again.

[Columcille]

If I were you, I wouldn't whine about any mistreatment of the Vatican in Rome in 1870. Someone might come along and ask you what catholicism was up to in Ireland that same decade.
.

I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.

[GiGi]

I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.

Like I said, I'm just about done in.
Oh, and p.s. Catholicism should clean its own house. The atrocities I refered to are the innumerable abuses of children in reform schools and orphanges before, during, and after the 1870s. Its a little too convenient to say, 'but they aren't REAL catholics'. In fact, I often see people struggle to define their faith. Every denomination makes the same appology. There are as many definitions of christianity as there are christians. One would think you guys could get it together in 2000+ years.

[Columcille]

GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.

[GiGi]

GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.

Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.

[Columcille]

Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.

Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.

[GiGi]

Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.
I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.

[Columcille]

I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.

I am not saying that they do not sacrifice or even contribute to our society. I am only saying that their contribution is eternally meaningless.

As far as Pascal's Wager, if you can pick up the "Pensees" by Penguin Cl***ics, its entry is numbered 418. Section 2, Series 2. Page 121-125. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. My edition was printed in 1995.

You can find it online in another translation http://www.cl***icallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm
under #233.

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation. I cannot really imagine any other supers***ion that would supercede the idea of Hell. As a matter of practibility, I would rather accept the God of Pascal to prevent an eternity of Hell over rejecting Buddha or other religions whose ideas of the afterlife are of a lesser punishment and of which lacks decernment on just how Karma or final justice is obtained. If there is a worse punishment explained by another religion, I would like to hear about it.

[GiGi]

I am not saying that they do not sacrifice or even contribute to our society. I am only saying that their contribution is eternally meaningless.

As far as Pascal's Wager, if you can pick up the "Pensees" by Penguin Cl***ics, its entry is numbered 418. Section 2, Series 2. Page 121-125. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. My edition was printed in 1995.

You can find it online in another translation http://www.cl***icallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm
under #233.

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation. I cannot really imagine any other supers***ion that would supercede the idea of Hell. As a matter of practibility, I would rather accept the God of Pascal to prevent an eternity of Hell over rejecting Buddha or other religions whose ideas of the afterlife are of a lesser punishment and of which lacks decernment on just how Karma or final justice is obtained. If there is a worse punishment explained by another religion, I would like to hear about it.

Now you're being silly. The contributions of any man to society is eternally meaningless for the christian.

Your explanation of Pascal's wager encourages god-shopping. You argue that I should pick your god because the myth includes the threat of hell-fire.

[Columcille]

Now you're being silly. The contributions of any man to society is eternally meaningless for the christian.

Your explanation of Pascal's wager encourages god-shopping. You argue that I should pick your god because the myth includes the threat of hell-fire.

Sure, go god shopping by all means.

No, I am not being silly. There is no soul for the athiest, nor is there divine retribution or justice. A man who is abusive to slaves and lives to be 110 years and dies in peace is no different than a child who dies by accident at age 10. All contributions to human society are lost when the person dies, and we know eventually that the sun will burn out and the human race will eventually die off, maybe not in a billion years, maybe in only a few decades if you believe in global warming. It matters not how much time you place on it, the living reality of an athiest is only in the present. Any contributions he makes is temporal and not of eternal consequence.

[GiGi]

Sure, go god shopping by all means.

No, I am not being silly. There is no soul for the athiest, nor is there divine retribution or justice. A man who is abusive to slaves and lives to be 110 years and dies in peace is no different than a child who dies by accident at age 10. All contributions to human society are lost when the person dies, and we know eventually that the sun will burn out and the human race will eventually die off, maybe not in a billion years, maybe in only a few decades if you believe in global warming. It matters not how much time you place on it, the living reality of an athiest is only in the present. Any contributions he makes is temporal and not of eternal consequence.

No thanks. God-shopping is for people that are able to choose a religious belief. That is something I can't do, anymore than I can choose to believe that a black cat is bad luck, or that the 'evil-eye' can hurt me.
There is no soul for the atheist, or the theist. There is no divine retribution. What happens here stays here.
Every action has long reaching consequences. That defiant child that you are kind to today, may become tomorrows peacemaker as a result of your kindness. The drunk driver that takes the life of the 10 year old you mentioned may have delayed the discovery of a cure for AIDS by robbing us of the life of a man who would make that contribution. Perhaps the planet will explode, or drift away from the sun. In the meantime, we would do well to remember that our actions, our words, every breath we take will have a lasting effect.

[asdf]

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation.

Nah, the stakes are highest with Cthulhu.

In any case, whose "hell" should I hedge my bets against? The Muslims'? The Mormons'? The Baptists'? The Catholics'?

O Lord!
If I worship You from fear of Hell, cast me into Hell
If I worship You from desire for Paradise, deny me Paradise
but if I worship You for Your own sake,
then withhold not from me Your Eternal Beauty
-Rabi'a al-Basri

[Columcille]

No thanks. God-shopping is for people that are able to choose a religious belief. That is something I can't do, anymore than I can choose to believe that a black cat is bad luck, or that the 'evil-eye' can hurt me.
There is no soul for the atheist, or the theist. There is no divine retribution. What happens here stays here.
Every action has long reaching consequences. That defiant child that you are kind to today, may become tomorrows peacemaker as a result of your kindness. The drunk driver that takes the life of the 10 year old you mentioned may have delayed the discovery of a cure for AIDS by robbing us of the life of a man who would make that contribution. Perhaps the planet will explode, or drift away from the sun. In the meantime, we would do well to remember that our actions, our words, every breath we take will have a lasting effect.

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.

[Columcille]

Nah, the stakes are highest with Cthulhu.

In any case, whose "hell" should I hedge my bets against? The Muslims'? The Mormons'? The Baptists'? The Catholics'?



Cthulhu. Mmm. Don't know him. Enlighten us. What requirements does Cthulhu have for a worse fate than hell, and what is Cthulhu's requirements for peace?

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same. Mormons have different levels of heaven, and as far as the worst fate of Hell in mormonism, it is reserved for those Mormons that have left the faith. Not sure about the eternal fate as taught by Islam. It could be that they do not have a Hell, but like the athiests, people's souls just cease to exist. You would have to educate me more on that one. Ceasing to exist is not as bad as continuing to exist in a state of seperation from God, so pragmatically speaking, I still find Christianity, especially Catholicism, to be more safer. Besides, when comparing the religious idea of eternal ****ation, it should be compariable to the efforts by the same God to prevent it. In this case, Christ's crucifixion is accessible to all.

[Austin Canes]

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.

We SHOULD see something less than 'perfect' consistency in ANY human being (surely including ourselves). Why? Because we ARE HUMAN.

If I went back ANYWHERE and decided that I was here to find some inconsistency/conflict in what you've said or said you believed... I most likely could do it.

And not that you would not "defend" what you believe (as well as others), but that the value (in my belief/opinion) is found in how we handle others, where we see what is human.

You see, we only touch-upon or glance off of 'perfection' (outside of Christ's grace and mercy); we are SURELY NOT the source of any particular perfect thing(s), we are merely a conduit for such perfection. Love is the most perfect component of Christ's love... which we are capable of transmitting or conveying; but it is the most powerful eternal gift we've been afforded (despite religion itself). It's not always easy and it is not merely a feeling; living with it as a 'purpose' proves that to you, as well as motivates you in the same.

The problem with many and how they promote their beliefs, is that they believe and or think religious rules/law are "love". No, love is a VERB not sets of beliefs or words which we place beside 'religion', like some people place items on a shelf (often to collect dust and ultimately become meaningless.

Love is ALIVE and does not exist on a page in a book; and that is why actions speak consistently louder than mere words. You see, a lot of Christians (throughout time) have measure themselves and others using 'religion' (rules, regulations, words)... when all the while (in reality), God and other people have measure their actions and the "effects" of the words they use. That is how the world is affected and actualized overall.

The Bible and other religious books/writings are awesome; but in the hands/mind of various "humans"... they can either be very good or incredibly terrible. For many who are about 'religion'... "LOVE" (1Corintinans 13) certainly is lacking or missing altogether; and I for one, am not drawn to anything like that (it is so often fear, abuse and hatred just waiting to be unleashed). :(

[Austin Canes]

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same...

It is of no matter. When someone is seeking "truth", love nevertheless ministers and prevails.

I've seen it countless times; in the face of others-oriented love, religion is WEAK or often meaningless (by comparison).

No, it is not just about love, but love is the GREATEST thing (for me the foundation of any religion I pursue at all). When I lost "faith" in 'religion'... I reached out with hands from my heart, to find something that had meaning that I could connect to. And I'm not ashamed to tell anyone, that it was NOT "Christianity" (the 'religion'), but what I grasped more than ever at that point, was Jesus Christ, the essence of the love which I speak of and endeavor to live by accordingly.

THE most disconcerting thing I face daily, are religious people who by 'force' or social influence of their 'beliefs', think they MUST impose their beliefs in some way(s) upon other human beings. I so often wonder what would happen, if those many hundreds of thousands or millions of people would simply MEET A NEED in another person's life/heart... and then kept that up for a lifetime (within reason and to the best of their ability)... I am almost certain that life for many or most on (even this planet) earth, would improve.

But instead, what is truly "good", has to SLOG its way through the religion which so very often impedes it. I think that Jesus was trying to say that, with His very LIFE. And it was via LOVE, that we even have the opportunity to find religion... and mess that up in His name. Nevertheless, I personally, socially, morally and spiritually have found love to be the most REAL and POWERFUL thing in my life and the live of those I've been graced to touch.

Peace, grace and love to you all, in Christ.

[asdf]

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same.

Perhaps. But how to avoid it may be completely different.


Mormons have different levels of heaven, and as far as the worst fate of Hell in mormonism, it is reserved for those Mormons that have left the faith.

Again, the point is not so much what that version of hell is like, but what are the requirements for avoiding that version of hell.


Not sure about the eternal fate as taught by Islam. It could be that they do not have a Hell, but like the athiests, people's souls just cease to exist. You would have to educate me more on that one.

My understanding is that there is a postmortem state of torment for the wicked, just as in some Christianities. But I could be wrong. Again, though, the point is what must be done to avoid a negative state and gain a positive one. With so many mutually conflicting versions, choosing one based on the desirability of the positive outcome, or the un-desirability of the negative, is dishonest.


Ceasing to exist is not as bad as continuing to exist in a state of seperation from God, so pragmatically speaking, I still find Christianity, especially Catholicism, to be more safer.

It's not safer unless it's true. Pascal's wager falls infinitely flat. Manipulation via fear is not at what I see when I look at Jesus or his earliest followers.


Besides, when comparing the religious idea of eternal ****ation, it should be compariable to the efforts by the same God to prevent it. In this case, Christ's crucifixion is accessible to all.

Why would it take so much "efforts" for an all-powerful creator and sustainer of life and all existence to prevent eternal torture at his own hands?

If it were just a matter of what conception of deity I like better, I certainly wouldn't choose one that could conceive of unending torture for those [he] doesn't like.


Cthulhu. Mmm. Don't know him. Enlighten us. What requirements does Cthulhu have for a worse fate than hell, and what is Cthulhu's requirements for peace?

Cthulhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu) is a fictional cosmic en***y created by horror author H. P. Lovecraft in 1926, first appearing in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu" when it was published in Weird Tales in 1928.


Cthulhu is one of the central Great Old Ones of the Lovecraft Mythos. It is often cited for the extreme descriptions given of its hideous appearance, its gargantuan size, and the abject terror that it evokes.

--

Cthulhu is depicted as having a worldwide doomsday cult centered in Arabia, with followers in regions as far-flung as Greenland and Louisiana. (...)The cult is noted for chanting its horrid phrase or ritual: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn," which translates as "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."
I've never read Lovecraft - have only read a bit about him and Cthulhu, but my impression is that he's an utterly malevolent being who, when he "wakes", will wreak utter havoc on the planet. Those "fortunate" ones, the ones who are part of the cult, have the honor of being killed first, to avoid the fate infinitely worse than death. As for requirements for peace, there is no peace. Only doom, destruction, despair...

--

Of course it's all just a bit of fun. It just goes to show, though, the absurdity of claiming that the horrors described for non-prac***ioners nor the blessings for followers are somehow arguments in favor of following a religious schema.

[Columcille]

Perhaps. But how to avoid it may be completely different.

Of course it's all just a bit of fun. It just goes to show, though, the absurdity of claiming that the horrors described for non-prac***ioners nor the blessings for followers are somehow arguments in favor of following a religious schema.


Well, Cthulhu is not a very well defined religion at this stage. So as far as pragmatic is concerned, I'd dismiss it for lack of a genuine religious development.

As far as other doctrinal stances of Hell, like the Mormon one, it is better not to become Mormon to avoid their version of Hell. Hence, I gamble no real loss if I do accept their premise.

I am beginning to read St. Bonaventura's "The Mind's Road to God." The introduction talks about three hierarchies of the Neo-Platonism consisting of "logical cl***es," "values," and "reality." In general, this philosophy I think serves a better purpose in our discussion. The reason I am beginning to discuss this here is that the idea of three fusions of heirarchies demonstrates the cl***ification of a being to be greater when it reaches the more ideal or general cl***ification I think can be applied to Pascal's Wager in a modified sense.

Pascal states, "Unity added to infinity does not increase it at all, any more than a foot added to an infinite measurement: The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite and becomes pure nothingness. So it is with our mind before God, with our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and God's as between unity and infinity."

Now, in looking through the nonrational observations of the Franciscan Bonaventura, I would state that in our "god-shopping" that it is best to consider both the gamble of the wager in light of that particular god's revealed plan. This type of natural theology is easily accessible to the simple man as much as to the most learned scholar. If it is too complicated for even the simple, than its only real worth is for the elite and does not retain its usefulness. So I think in consideration that it is best not to discuss the particulars of any one cult within the larger cl***ifications. Islam has enough general characteristics within itself that we have no need to distinguish Sunni from Shia; or in Christianity from all the various Protestant sects in its "mere" or "base" form. So Hell and Heaven in Christianity is the same in for both Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Mormonism is a relatively new religion on the scene of events and its impact in the last 150 years, while impressive to some degree, is not a major religion from which I would consider necessary for the wager that Pascal is talking about.

[GiGi]

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.
If you've seen contradictions, I'm sure you would have pointed them out.
I spoke of personal responsibility, human kindness, long term consequences in the real world, without personal, post-mortem reward or punishment.

[GiGi]

Bottom line; choose the god-myth that promises the best reward and/or the worst punishment.
So far I've seen no evidence that any of them actually exist.
If a person requires a threat (hell) to behave well, if he believes he is 'nothing' unless he identifies with one god or another, if his best argument for his faith is 'what-if'; its time to step back and re-evaluate. Surely you can see that.

[Columcille]

Bottom line; choose the god-myth that promises the best reward and/or the worst punishment.
So far I've seen no evidence that any of them actually exist.
If a person requires a threat (hell) to behave well, if he believes he is 'nothing' unless he identifies with one god or another, if his best argument for his faith is 'what-if'; its time to step back and re-evaluate. Surely you can see that.

The point of the wager is not to establish its existence, only a matter of looking at the problem from a practical standpoint. He even says so...

"Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your p***ions."

You have stated
personal responsibility, human kindness, long term consequences in the real world, without personal, post-mortem reward or punishment

There is no real justice in the real world, only the might makes right concept of social darwinism, with occasionally sprinkling philanthropy while still attempting to monopolize gain, station, or other p***ions. Carnagie might have been a philanthropist, but he was still a person who owned and operated a monopoly. St. Francis of ***isi, Mother Teresa, and other such people are much more noble, and much more closer to everyday people. At any rate, the moral athiest's ideals of personal responsibility, human kindness, or long-term consequences may be socially in-tune with the world religions that espouse the same thing, but it cannot change the real world in bringing about justice. As such, it is only a temporary ideal in the life of that individual athiest, he benefits nothing from it from the grave. All his work is lost and eventually forgotten. And when our race becomes exstinct from a dying world, everyone's contributions would be utterly meaningless. The awe of life suggests to my mind, not in a rational way, but a nonrational one, of a divine imprint. When I reduce my p***ions as Pascal says, and follow the mind's road to God by natural theology of St. Bonaventura, it leads to a fuller purposefulness. If you don't accept it, it is not my skin on line. I've placed my wager already.

[GiGi]

The point of the wager is not to establish its existence, only a matter of looking at the problem from a practical standpoint. He even says so...

"Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your p***ions."

You have stated

There is no real justice in the real world, only the might makes right concept of social darwinism, with occasionally sprinkling philanthropy while still attempting to monopolize gain, station, or other p***ions. Carnagie might have been a philanthropist, but he was still a person who owned and operated a monopoly. St. Francis of ***isi, Mother Teresa, and other such people are much more noble, and much more closer to everyday people. At any rate, the moral athiest's ideals of personal responsibility, human kindness, or long-term consequences may be socially in-tune with the world religions that espouse the same thing, but it cannot change the real world in bringing about justice. As such, it is only a temporary ideal in the life of that individual athiest, he benefits nothing from it from the grave. All his work is lost and eventually forgotten. And when our race becomes exstinct from a dying world, everyone's contributions would be utterly meaningless. The awe of life suggests to my mind, not in a rational way, but a nonrational one, of a divine imprint. When I reduce my p***ions as Pascal says, and follow the mind's road to God by natural theology of St. Bonaventura, it leads to a fuller purposefulness. If you don't accept it, it is not my skin on line. I've placed my wager already.

Clearly Pascal doesn't attempt to prove god. The 'problem' it addresses is, as I said before, god shopping. Its a foolish occupation, and a foolish wager.

I've noticed a common thread among believers. They tend to have a very shallow and negative view of humanity.
In my lifetime (54 years and counting), I've seen the first man on the moon, enormous progress toward racial equality, advances in technology: communication, medicine; the list goes on!
I don't over or under value my potential for good (or ill). I know I'm one person, here for a little while, and then gone. I don't understand why religious people can't accept that fact. If anything, that knowledge motivates me to do my part, small as it may be, while I'm here. If I do the right thing, its because I believe its right, and not because I expect reward or fear punishment.

[Columcille]

Clearly Pascal doesn't attempt to prove god. The 'problem' it addresses is, as I said before, god shopping. Its a foolish occupation, and a foolish wager.

I've noticed a common thread among believers. They tend to have a very shallow and negative view of humanity.
In my lifetime (54 years and counting), I've seen the first man on the moon, enormous progress toward racial equality, advances in technology: communication, medicine; the list goes on!
I don't over or under value my potential for good (or ill). I know I'm one person, here for a little while, and then gone. I don't understand why religious people can't accept that fact. If anything, that knowledge motivates me to do my part, small as it may be, while I'm here. If I do the right thing, its because I believe its right, and not because I expect reward or fear punishment.

Whether you consider it foolish or not, your gamble is to not participate in god shopping and in not-participating you gamble still. If you feel content in that, you feel content in it. I cannot say you do not. Your wager is what it is.

Yet you lack awe.

[Austin Canes]

If one is to be reached by the message of Jesus, it will take more than 'intellect'.

The heart is touched/affected primarily through love. In the case of many who wish to communicate the very message of Christ, love is the component they 'lack', and the affect they seek or expect is fleeting.

[Columcille]

If one is to be reached by the message of Jesus, it will take more than 'intellect'.

The heart is touched/affected primarily through love. In the case of many who wish to communicate the very message of Christ, love is the component they 'lack', and the affect they seek or expect is fleeting.

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

[awediot]

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

You have it backwards...Those things without love gain you nothing, not love without those things, as you wrote...


1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

[Austin Canes]

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

Awediot has it correct; and yes, I'm talking about 'agape' (primarily).

And yes, you have reason to doubt me, but that is why I would point to Christ in ANY case; I'm not THE perfect example of love that Jesus surely was/is.

I'm so close to putting 'religion' behind me, the essence of Jesus is all that I can see, and make real sense of. Indeed, that was painful... it wasn't something I 'sought', it is mainly something that came about... where I believe I was led.

And sure, there are many definitions of "love", but I know that the love which Jesus showed as an living-example, is so much more worth emulating than mere 'religion'. Even so, I respect that we are not ALL in the same place, nor are we the same person; we are individual human beings. Grace is required from one to the other, and I'm motivated to afford others that grace, because I've received it abundantly from Jesus Christ.

I cannot and would not say that God condones sin, but I know that we need to be about the qualities/character of the Spirit of God (Gal. 5). And humbly I contend, that much too often religion is inserted by many as a replacement or subs***ute for the effect of Jesus on The Cross; it has imprisoned and injured MANY people throughout history and is doing so in and about the Church even today.

Many want to come to Christ, but the rightly 'feel' that those who are religious have prohibited them from doing so. Still, I know for a fact, that NO HUMAN can keep one from the mercy, grace and love of God. Many will not meet sinners where/as they are, but Jesus surely can/will. That is the difference between many followers or the religious, and Christ Himself; and I always hope and pray that many realize it in their lifetime.

Yes, I'm talking about a love that religion cannot and never has matched.

[Columcille]

Now apply that to ****sexual "love." How does it mimic the creator's intent? The other loves in their proper natural state are images of the divine "agape" love, but they are not "agape." They can and have been perverted.

[GiGi]

Whether you consider it foolish or not, your gamble is to not participate in god shopping and in not-participating you gamble still. If you feel content in that, you feel content in it. I cannot say you do not. Your wager is what it is.

Yet you lack awe.
If I am to believe in, worship, dedicate my life to, make sacrifices for, love, or fear someone, or something, I must know that it exists. God is not a philosophy, according to believers, but an en***y.
I am not from Missouri, but show me, anyway.

[Columcille]

GiGi, if you are postmodern, I cannot show you through Thomism. It is better for you to contemplate through St. Francis of ***isi. Awe is something that is not rationally expounded, it is lived.

[GiGi]

GiGi, if you are postmodern, I cannot show you through Thomism. It is better for you to contemplate through St. Francis of ***isi. Awe is something that is not rationally expounded, it is lived.

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.

[Columcille]

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.

[GiGi]

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.
This gamble you refer to is not a gamble at all, but it is a game.
You are quick to compare your religion with others, and you find that you prefer christianity. While you carefully examine the various afterlife scenerios, you never once ask yourself if any are, in fact, true. To do so would require that you expose christian mythology to the same scrutiny.
In a previous post, you liken christian denominations to clubs that only want to expand their membership. I will extend that statement to include all religions. Their methods may vary, and some are more exclusive than others, but they are basically the same.
The reality of god is not debated by christians, even amongst themselves. That is a question that would lead to reduced membership. So they point to the bible, Pascal, and other philosophers, popes, and bishops, ministers, preachers and the like, as evidence that the religion they were born into, or chose for themselves is the right one, even though none of the claims have been substantiated.
If your god is real, and if your bible is factual, these can surely be proven.

[GiGi]

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.

One more thing. If real evidence were presented, I'd worship god. I'd do it without any expectation of reward or fear of punishment. Pascal can kiss my foot!

[Columcille]

I am sure you have already heard the arguments from teleology, cosmology, moral, perhaps as fun the ontological, and maybe even "the humble argument." All such evidences you have ignored as a whole. It does you no good to argue with me or on this website, if you refuse to drink from the water. I am sure you have been dragged enough to the waterhole, but it is not my duty now.

[GiGi]

I am sure you have already heard the arguments from teleology, cosmology, moral, perhaps as fun the ontological, and maybe even "the humble argument." All such evidences you have ignored as a whole. It does you no good to argue with me or on this website, if you refuse to drink from the water. I am sure you have been dragged enough to the waterhole, but it is not my duty now.
I've heard/read the arguments. None answers the questions I've presented to you over the last few days. None are evidence, just what-if scenerios, and theories based solely on the imagination of the author.
You believe because you want to. Is that about it?

[Columcille]

I've heard/read the arguments. None answers the questions I've presented to you over the last few days. None are evidence, just what-if scenerios, and theories based solely on the imagination of the author.
You believe because you want to. Is that about it?

I figured as much. I am compelled to believe in those arguments when they are combined. Alternative views for God's (or gods) non-existence tends to be a negation of the above arguments and from the abductive approach of curiousity and awe of the world from a child, I believe some people "grow up" to loose such awe by their mentors and by their lusts (wether it be the error of spirituality like the Stoics--where temptations are within the soul, pride, dispair, and distrust as opposites of the theological virtues--or of the Epicureans who followed the whims of fleshly desire).

[GiGi]

I figured as much. I am compelled to believe in those arguments when they are combined. Alternative views for God's (or gods) non-existence tends to be a negation of the above arguments and from the abductive approach of curiousity and awe of the world from a child, I believe some people "grow up" to loose such awe by their mentors and by their lusts (wether it be the error of spirituality like the Stoics--where temptations are within the soul, pride, dispair, and distrust as opposites of the theological virtues--or of the Epicureans who followed the whims of fleshly desire).
I am careful never to say, 'there is no god'. I prefer that the burden of proof remain with the christian (or whatever), which is where it belongs.
By putting all the theories together, the sum is still equal to its parts. Mix it anyway you want to, but without evidence its just wishful thinking.

[Columcille]

I am careful never to say, 'there is no god'. I prefer that the burden of proof remain with the christian (or whatever), which is where it belongs.
By putting all the theories together, the sum is still equal to its parts. Mix it anyway you want to, but without evidence its just wishful thinking.

Your argument does not compell me. I see causality every day, and in thinking of infinite regression of causality, I have many options to pick from. Regardless if nature is cyclic, temporal, or what have you, the mystery of life, the mystery of the universe is simply greater than your own postulating. You have a closed universe of "evidence" where you cannot see past the obvious to the mysterious.

[GiGi]

Your argument does not compell me. I see causality every day, and in thinking of infinite regression of causality, I have many options to pick from. Regardless if nature is cyclic, temporal, or what have you, the mystery of life, the mystery of the universe is simply greater than your own postulating. You have a closed universe of "evidence" where you cannot see past the obvious to the mysterious.
I don't want to compel you to do anything except show me that your god exists; not because somebody said so, not because you can't think of another explanation, and not because you really, really, really wish it to be, but because its true.
The mystery of the universe is indeed great, and much more deserving of exploration than a simple 'goddidit'.

[Columcille]

I don't want to compel you to do anything except show me that your god exists; not because somebody said so, not because you can't think of another explanation, and not because you really, really, really wish it to be, but because its true.
The mystery of the universe is indeed great, and much more deserving of exploration than a simple 'goddidit'.

As an upper grade elementary student I could not but help to look at the expanse of the stars and be amazed not only to what I saw, but the very fact that I could. I realized early on that I was my own person, that I just did not create myself. That my circumstances of my own existence could have very well landed me in another culture or another time, and that we are all alike. Thoughts on leading a good life were idealistic, but I was just floating through whatever the circumstances my corner of the world just happened to experience. If you didn't have such thoughts, I must deduce the worst. I am sorry. It is not my duty to clean the mirror of your soul, if you don't accept God, it is not my duty to save you. His imprint is seen in his creation. Call it an abduction, call it an epiphany, call it what you want... You have enough before you, without me even going to read the existence of God p***ages of Aquinas in his Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles, or St. Anslem's works, or even of St. Bonaventura. You can ask what I believe and why I believe it, but I cannot do the work of the Holy Spirit in cooperation with your own soul.

[GiGi]

As an upper grade elementary student I could not but help to look at the expanse of the stars and be amazed not only to what I saw, but the very fact that I could. I realized early on that I was my own person, that I just did not create myself. That my circumstances of my own existence could have very well landed me in another culture or another time, and that we are all alike. Thoughts on leading a good life were idealistic, but I was just floating through whatever the circumstances my corner of the world just happened to experience. If you didn't have such thoughts, I must deduce the worst. I am sorry. It is not my duty to clean the mirror of your soul, if you don't accept God, it is not my duty to save you. His imprint is seen in his creation. Call it an abduction, call it an epiphany, call it what you want... You have enough before you, without me even going to read the existence of God p***ages of Aquinas in his Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles, or St. Anslem's works, or even of St. Bonaventura. You can ask what I believe and why I believe it, but I cannot do the work of the Holy Spirit in cooperation with your own soul.

At 10, you realized that you didn't create yourself, you are fortunate to live in a free country, the sky is big, and people are all pretty much the same. Oh, and more suggested reading.
I think we are through here. Thanks.

[Columcille]

You are right, I think we are through. As far as my suggested readings, since most are translated from Latin, they tend to be a little more difficult to read. But in truth, I think the principles that they espouse run similiar to what my own natural thoughts inquired regarding my purposefulness, my honoring of, though not necessarily my practice of, virtue. To tell you the truth, I almost ditched Christianity for Buddhism when I was in the Marine Corps. Two things prevented me... Clive Staples Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and also a friend's living example, though we lost contact during that time. My rationale to almost ditch Christianity was that its idealism was too perfect to attain holiness. If it was just only one of them, Lewis's logic or the practical example of my friend, I would have ditched Christ and denied him. If by logic alone, its perfection is unattainable. If by the example of my friend alone, it sensibility would be no different than the moral righteousness of the Thai Buddhist monks I observed. The thing is, you have to connect the dots of all the evidences combined, instead of focusing on one dot and isolating it. You cannot get the big picture if you are too close to the subject to realize that you are yourself a part of the picture.

[asdf]

Nah, the stakes are highest with Cthulhu.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n254/Yermaw_01/CthulhuChickTract.jpg

[TRiG]

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.
Can't rep this (yet).

[TRiG]

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n254/Yermaw_01/CthulhuChickTract.jpgNor this.

Must find other intelligent people to give rep points to.

TRiG.:)

[GiGi]

Nor this.

Must find other intelligent people to give rep points to.

TRiG.:)

I haven't figured out how that works either.

[alanmolstad]

my parents saw this in the Anglican church first-hand.
The leadership of the church said that in order to increase membership many old fashion ideas would be updated...one of these ideas was to allow gays to be fully members of the church.

it did not happen all at once, but that was the plan from the beginning....

"You bring in gays, you allow gays to be fully part of the church, and the membership of the church goes up"


So now in many Anglican churches you can be openly gay and be in leadership.





and the result?.....the church is dieing....membership is dropping like a stone.....