I can't believe how stupid people and the LAW have become.

[Willow]

Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no proof otherwise.  They ask for proof, none ever appears, so they simply work on that premise.  If proof can be provided, they will change their opinion.
...

What you describe is, by definition, not atheists but agnostics.

No, no, atheist.
...
Atheists do not believe, agnostics say they simply don't know.  ...

On the other hand, there is no rule saying that agnostics can't believe, they are simply unable to know definitively.

And that, my friend, is why it is so frustrating for some of us to try to carry on a logical discussion with some folks.  You have simply restated what I already said.  An atheist is one who does not believe.  an agnostic is one who simply does not see the proof to believe one way or the other.  You simply put the "because" attached to the wrong person.  Why the atheist does not believe does not change what he is or isn't.  On the other hand it does mean something for the agnostic because the agnostic simply acknowledges that he has not been presented with and accepted proof.  The honest agnostic would probably confess that it's possible the proof exists but that he hasn't seen or accepted it.  To not do so would make him an atheist.

As to whether an agnostic could believe, he could not.  Anyone can change his position but if an agnostic begins to believe he ceases to be an agnostic.

Call yourself whatever you choose.  Definitions of terms are definitions.  People who know will use the terms as the definitions indicate until a sufficient number of believable authorities change the definition.  Language is, of course, constantly changing.  Someone is always ahead of the curve.  You, my snake friend, are ahead of the curve.   

[Serk]

Language is, of course, constantly changing.  Someone is always ahead of the curve.  You, my snake friend, are ahead of the curve.   

Found it interesting that just after I read Willow's wise words, stumbled upon this rather prescient article: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/22/how-democrats-win-debates-by-corrupting

[dinosnake]

dino quote:
"Then [he] is not god.  Either he created everything - and since when is evil and hell not part of "everything"?

Allowing and creating are very different things.

So you, an athiest, acknowledge hell?

Well, if everything in our mortal lives is "good" why should we even attempt to make choices?  Might as well do anything you want, it's all good.  Why even try to live a life worthy of God's approval?  If there is no consequence, just please yourself.

Both allowing and creating are exactly the same thing when we discuss whole entity sets and subsets.  In order to "allow" (a subset of behaviors) it must first be present in order to be a choice the first place (the entirety).  If the god is all-powerful, and created all, then by definition all that is, including evil, hell and everything including war and hatred, must have been present and known as a possible outcome of the combinations created.  It is a mathematical absolute.

If, in even in very smallest area, it is said that essentially god was not ultimately responsible for some action or occurrence, then by definition it is not an all-powerful "god" because something exists within the master set, the universe, that it did not create.  Therefore, it cannot "all powerful" as some other entity had equal power to alter the contents of the master set.  "All" is an absolute, it is either everything or it is invalid.

 So, just for example:

Logically, god created the tree of knowledge for the express reason of tempting Adam, as the god of Abraham supposedly is all powerful so do why would it need a "tree of knowledge" nearby?  It already has all knowledge naturally, why bother keeping it around as a avatar?

 Therefore, god created the serpent.  For what purpose?  To guard the tree of knowledge?  From what or whom?  Just not have the tree around at all if it was a risk to Adam.  But the god kept it.  So was the serpent's reason for being the temptation of visitors, that being Adam as he was the only thing existing besides the god?

Then why limit and punish for using or not avoid the tree, if the god of Abraham did not need the tree itself?  Why have it there at all, if the god existed alone before creating Adam?  If the location was "Eden", then why create something that contains "evil", a creation that could destroy "Eden", and then punish those who actually partake in it as, existing in "Eden", it should automatically be OK?

It is ridiculous, conflicting hypocritical things like this that make atheists deny it all.  It's all just a bunch of ridiculous stories, created as moral plays, that people take as wrote and a silly truth.

[Valkorado]

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, dino.   

[98valk]

dino quote:
"Then [he] is not god.  Either he created everything - and since when is evil and hell not part of "everything"?

Allowing and creating are very different things.

So you, an athiest, acknowledge hell?

Well, if everything in our mortal lives is "good" why should we even attempt to make choices?  Might as well do anything you want, it's all good.  Why even try to live a life worthy of God's approval?  If there is no consequence, just please yourself.

Both allowing and creating are exactly the same thing when we discuss whole entity sets and subsets.  In order to "allow" (a subset of behaviors) it must first be present in order to be a choice the first place (the entirety).  If the god is all-powerful, and created all, then by definition all that is, including evil, hell and everything including war and hatred, must have been present and known as a possible outcome of the combinations created.  It is a mathematical absolute.

If, in even in very smallest area, it is said that essentially god was not ultimately responsible for some action or occurrence, then by definition it is not an all-powerful "god" because something exists within the master set, the universe, that it did not create.  Therefore, it cannot "all powerful" as some other entity had equal power to alter the contents of the master set.  "All" is an absolute, it is either everything or it is invalid.

 So, just for example:

Logically, god created the tree of knowledge for the express reason of tempting Adam, as the god of Abraham supposedly is all powerful so do why would it need a "tree of knowledge" nearby?  It already has all knowledge naturally, why bother keeping it around as a avatar?

 Therefore, god created the serpent.  For what purpose?  To guard the tree of knowledge?  From what or whom?  Just not have the tree around at all if it was a risk to Adam.  But the god kept it.  So was the serpent's reason for being the temptation of visitors, that being Adam as he was the only thing existing besides the god?

Then why limit and punish for using or not avoid the tree, if the god of Abraham did not need the tree itself?  Why have it there at all, if the god existed alone before creating Adam?  If the location was "Eden", then why create something that contains "evil", a creation that could destroy "Eden", and then punish those who actually partake in it as, existing in "Eden", it should automatically be OK?

It is ridiculous, conflicting hypocritical things like this that make atheists deny it all.  It's all just a bunch of ridiculous stories, created as moral plays, that people take as wrote and a silly truth.

I can tell u have never Really read the bible. u have a lot of things jumbled up and incorrect. Sounds like u are just repeating what others have said from their lack of knowledge.

It's important to understand why things work. If you don't understand, then you can't think for yourself, and all you can do is repeat the mistakes of your teachers, who were repeating what they learned in a book from other people who just were repeating what they heard...  Dr. J. Bookspan

[Gryphon Rider]

Before I respond to individual points below, let me state my understanding:
1.  In the beginning, God created, including creating other intelligent beings that were capable of making moral decisions, capable of creative thought, and capable of creating secondary things from that which was initially created and subsequently sustained by God.
2.  After the initial "in the beginning" creation, there is relatively very little that God either created from nothing, or created outside of the natural processes that He created.  Those rare exceptions fit into the category of miracles.
3.  God is sovereign, and everything happens according to His purpose.  God has revealed some of His purpose to us progressively over hundreds of years, through various men, as recorded in Scripture, and He has concealed some of His purpose from us.  We who trust Him seek to understand and obey that which is revealed, and trust that He will cause His unrevealed purpose to be fulfilled regardless of our finite understanding.
4.  Part of His purpose was our creation as volitional creatures with the ability to act against His commands, knowing in advance what that would lead to.  Evil happens, created by us, against His command, according to His purpose.
5.  According to Scripture, Evil is temporary, and will be defeated by Him, according to His purpose.

Both allowing and creating are exactly the same thing when we discuss whole entity sets and subsets.  In order to "allow" (a subset of behaviors) it must first be present in order to be a choice the first place (the entirety).  If the god is all-powerful, and created all, then by definition all that is, including evil, hell and everything including war and hatred, must have been present and known as a possible outcome of the combinations created.  It is a mathematical absolute.

Creation and allowance are not the same thing.  I didn't create the picture my son drew.  I knew that he likes to draw, and might have paid for the material he used, and allowed him to sit down and draw after he has his daily chores done.  I permitted the creation of the drawing, but I didn't draw it myself.  Sometimes I permit circumstances that allow him to make a decision between what I know to be the right way of doing something, and the wrong way of doing something, which he thinks is a better way of doing it.  Sometimes he follows my recommendation, and sometimes he doesn't.  When he doesn't, sometimes there are undesired consequences.  Those consequences serve my purpose of having him learn something about life, and sometimes if brings me more pleasure to see him understand through his error than if he had simply done it my way and not learned anything.

If, in even in very smallest area, it is said that essentially god was not ultimately responsible for some action or occurrence, then by definition it is not an all-powerful "god" because something exists within the master set, the universe, that it did not create.  Therefore, it cannot "all powerful" as some other entity had equal power to alter the contents of the master set.  "All" is an absolute, it is either everything or it is invalid.

 So, just for example:

Logically, god created the tree of knowledge for the express reason of tempting Adam, as the god of Abraham supposedly is all powerful so do why would it need a "tree of knowledge" nearby?  It already has all knowledge naturally, why bother keeping it around as a avatar?

 Therefore, god created the serpent.  For what purpose?  To guard the tree of knowledge?  From what or whom?  Just not have the tree around at all if it was a risk to Adam.  But the god kept it.  So was the serpent's reason for being the temptation of visitors, that being Adam as he was the only thing existing besides the god?

Then why limit and punish for using or not avoid the tree, if the god of Abraham did not need the tree itself?  Why have it there at all, if the god existed alone before creating Adam?  If the location was "Eden", then why create something that contains "evil", a creation that could destroy "Eden", and then punish those who actually partake in it as, existing in "Eden", it should automatically be OK?

It is ridiculous, conflicting hypocritical things like this that make atheists deny it all.  It's all just a bunch of ridiculous stories, created as moral plays, that people take as wrote and a silly truth.

Just because we don't see the big picture or understand God's purpose doesn't mean there isn't a big picture created according to His purpose.  To say that just because you don't understand something, that it is ridiculous, says more about you than about that which you are ridiculing.

I used to teach motorcycle riding.  With a simple understanding of cause and effect, some of my students would think it's ridiculous that in order to go right, you need to turn the handlebars to the left.  Without a sophisticated understanding of centre of mass, centrifugal and centripetal forces, etc., the idea IS ridiculous...until they put their understanding to the test.  Then they realized that they had to make adjustments to their understanding and/or action.  Some made the effort to understand the more sophisticated physics of push-steering, others didn't seek to understand but just trusted that it was so, and others refused to change their understanding or have that trust, and found they couldn't make the motorcycle swerve as quickly or as widely as they wanted to.

[dinosnake]

I can tell u have never Really read the bible. u have a lot of things jumbled up and incorrect. Sounds like u are just repeating what others have said from their lack of knowledge.

Actually, I understand fine, what I don't accept is the contradiction of the story and how we are just supposed to accept it all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-stories/chapter-3-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

et al.

It's important to understand why things work. If you don't understand, then you can't think for yourself, and all you can do is repeat the mistakes of your teachers, who were repeating what they learned in a book from other people who just were repeating what they heard...  Dr. J. Bookspan

That's the thing: there is no "work".  The "work" is to believe what is written and then make illogical jumps of conclusions, or rationalizations of appearance, to simply make things "work" in the mind.

[dinosnake]

Creation and allowance are not the same thing.  I didn't create the picture my son drew.  I knew that he likes to draw, and might have paid for the material he used, and allowed him to sit down and draw after he has his daily chores done.  I permitted the creation of the drawing, but I didn't draw it myself.  Sometimes I permit circumstances that allow him to make a decision between what I know to be the right way of doing something, and the wrong way of doing something, which he thinks is a better way of doing it.  Sometimes he follows my recommendation, and sometimes he doesn't.  When he doesn't, sometimes there are undesired consequences.  Those consequences serve my purpose of having him learn something about life, and sometimes if brings me more pleasure to see him understand through his error than if he had simply done it my way and not learned anything.

Again, your comparison is regretfully quite invalid.  The comparison is that you are not in total control of everything existing, or the reason that they exist at all, in your son's being.  You did not create the universe, the solar system, the planet, the air, the land, the materials the house is constructed from nor the paper he writes on.  You "allowed" as a synonym for "gave permission"; the god of Abraham's "allowed" in terms of religious interpretation is "created the entire universe, which contains all the possibilities and necessary parts where as the action is even possible".

Very different level of "allowed" here, and that is what believers don't understand.

For god to say "I allowed drawing", it really means "I created first the universe, then the heavens, then the solar system, then the planet, then the atmosphere, then humanity, then other life, then plants, of which contained trees, then iron, then fire, then earlier life which decomposed into coal, then the idea that some of this could be combined into forms such as steel, which could make machines, which could harvest trees, and the steel could make machines such as millers, which could be created to make trees into paper..."

And it goes on and on.  In order to be "omnipotent" and "all powerful", it means that god must forsee all possible outcomes, past, present and future.  Sorry, but that's what "omnipotent" means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

If god fails in even one small part of the equation, if you want to say that god did not create a single part of the list needed for your son to create a drawing...then it isn't omnipotent.  And that means it is not a god.  That's the way logic and math works - you don't get 1+2=4 just because you believe it should be that way.  See: omnipotent paradox.

[98valk]

I can tell u have never Really read the bible. u have a lot of things jumbled up and incorrect. Sounds like u are just repeating what others have said from their lack of knowledge.

Actually, I understand fine, what I don't accept is the contradiction of the story and how we are just supposed to accept it all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-stories/chapter-3-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

et al.

It's important to understand why things work. If you don't understand, then you can't think for yourself, and all you can do is repeat the mistakes of your teachers, who were repeating what they learned in a book from other people who just were repeating what they heard...  Dr. J. Bookspan

That's the thing: there is no "work".  The "work" is to believe what is written and then make illogical jumps of conclusions, or rationalizations of appearance, to simply make things "work" in the mind.

the lds link leaves things out.

again u need to get your self a study bible one that u like.

read books by http://www.leestrobel.com/
He was an atheist who set out to disprove God and Jesus. and found that he could not based on all of the evidence out there and could do noting else but believe the Truth of God.
one last thing, if u search and u will find that there is about 20% evidence to prove there is no god, but there is 80% evidence to prove there is a God. non-believers focus on the 20%.

[dinosnake]

I can tell u have never Really read the bible. u have a lot of things jumbled up and incorrect. Sounds like u are just repeating what others have said from their lack of knowledge.

Actually, I understand fine, what I don't accept is the contradiction of the story and how we are just supposed to accept it all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-stories/chapter-3-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

et al.

It's important to understand why things work. If you don't understand, then you can't think for yourself, and all you can do is repeat the mistakes of your teachers, who were repeating what they learned in a book from other people who just were repeating what they heard...  Dr. J. Bookspan

That's the thing: there is no "work".  The "work" is to believe what is written and then make illogical jumps of conclusions, or rationalizations of appearance, to simply make things "work" in the mind.

the lds link leaves things out.

again u need to get your self a study bible one that u like.

read books by http://www.leestrobel.com/
He was an atheist who set out to disprove God and Jesus. and found that he could not based on all of the evidence out there and could do noting else but believe the Truth of God.
one last thing, if u search and u will find that there is about 20% evidence to prove there is no god, but there is 80% evidence to prove there is a God. non-believers focus on the 20%.

But not to other atheists.  To HIM, he believed he found enough "evidence" to convince himself.  For the rest of us, sorry, that ain't gonna happen.  PLUS: he believe he found "evidence" to convince himself about the "god" of Abraham.  And what happens if his "evidence" was actually the god of Shangdi?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Did his studies work to prove which god, out of all the gods that humans have created during civilization, is actually at "work"?  Maybe it was still Zeus, reborn as the god of Abraham.

But back to the point: I (hope) most atheists have no problem with other people having religious beliefs.  We are very happy that personal religious beliefs makes a person happy.  All we want is for you to keep that PRIVATE, you know, the way we were promised in the Constitution for the rest of us who do not share the exact same beliefs.  We really do not want to get in the way of your believing but, when believers decide to act out in public based upon those beliefs, we are forced to intervene and state that no, you can't do that, because we count too (regardless of the fact that a lot of believers wish we didn't! )

[Robert]

  All we want is for you to keep that PRIVATE, you know, the way we were promised in the Constitution for the rest of us who do not share the exact same beliefs.  We really do not want to get in the way of your believing but, when believers decide to act out in public based upon those beliefs, we are forced to intervene and state that no, you can't do that, because we count too (regardless of the fact that a lot of believers wish we didn't! )

I would like you to point out where this is please in the Constitution.

You have no idea of what the Bible says actually, words misinterpreted and no understanding that make for not knowing the Bible.

[98valk]

  "We are very happy that personal religious beliefs makes a person happy. "

atheism is a religion, the belief of no god.

 Atheism IS a religion.

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html

hey have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.

They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

[Willow]

...  In order to be "omnipotent" and "all powerful", it means that god must forsee all possible outcomes, past, present and future.  Sorry, but that's what "omnipotent" means
...  

Whoops.  Your use of the language and logic doesn't bear well for your ability to assess the ridiculousness of the Christian belief.  Omnipotent and all powerful mean the same thing so the use of and between them is both redundant and repetitious.      Omnipotent and foreseeing all possible outcomes are not the same.  That would be Omniscient.  It's not a big mistake, though, as Christians do hold that God is both.  By the way, no one can foresee the past.

A lot of the logic that you attempt to apply is what are more or less linguistic efforts to express what we as human beings cannot truly comprehend.  Much of we we say also fits into that category.  That's okay with me.  We do the best we can and it does fall short.  That I can't understand something is evidence that it doesn't exist?  I choose to say no.  The only attribute that would cause that to be true for me would be omniscience.  I'm not omniscient.  If I were I would be God.  

I think I may have already expressed that I would not try to convince you.  Folks who have simply decided that their mind is made up are not really convinceable, at least not by me.

I read in one of your posts that your desire is that Christians keep their beliefs private.  I'm not entirely certain what that means but does that apply to agnostics (and atheists) keeping their beliefs private as well?  Is everything Christians believe unacceptable or only select beliefs?  Is it okay to believe in loving one's neighbor, treating others as one would like to be treated, or not murdering?  Where is the line of acceptability?

My father was a strong believer.  He wasn't raised that way but he became a believer sometime in his twenties.  He's gone now.  When I was a young person he told me that his personal was certainly that God, the Jesus of Christianity, does exist but that even if the atheists were right and He did not that, even then, following His teachings and obeying His directions were still the best way and most rewarding way to live one's life.  I don't disagree with him.    

[dinosnake]

...  In order to be "omnipotent" and "all powerful", it means that god must forsee all possible outcomes, past, present and future.  Sorry, but that's what "omnipotent" means
...  

Whoops.  Your use of the language and logic doesn't bear well for your ability to assess the ridiculousness of the Christian belief.  Omnipotent and all powerful mean the same thing so the use of and between them is both redundant and repetitious.      Omnipotent and foreseeing all possible outcomes are not the same.  That would be Omniscient.  It's not a big mistake, though, as Christians do hold that God is both.  By the way, no one can foresee the past.

A lot of the logic that you attempt to apply is what are more or less linguistic efforts to express what we as human beings cannot truly comprehend.  Much of we we say also fits into that category.  That's okay with me.  We do the best we can and it does fall short.  That I can't understand something is evidence that it doesn't exist?  I choose to say no.  The only attribute that would cause that to be true for me would be omniscience.  I'm not omniscient.  If I were I would be God.  

I think I may have already expressed that I would not try to convince you.  Folks who have simply decided that their mind is made up are not really convinceable, at least not by me.

I read in one of your posts that your desire is that Christians keep their beliefs private.  I'm not entirely certain what that means but does that apply to agnostics (and atheists) keeping their beliefs private as well?  Is everything Christians believe unacceptable or only select beliefs?  Is it okay to believe in loving one's neighbor, treating others as one would like to be treated, or not murdering?  Where is the line of acceptability?

My father was a strong believer.  He wasn't raised that way but he became a believer sometime in his twenties.  He's gone now.  When I was a young person he told me that his personal was certainly that God, the Jesus of Christianity, does exist but that even if the atheists were right and He did not that, even then, following His teachings and obeying His directions were still the best way and most rewarding way to live one's life.  I don't disagree with him.    

I've jumped the end for great simplicity.

In the terms of religion, IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE ENTRIES FOR THINGS LIKE OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX, "all powerful" and "omnipotent" are NOT the same thing.  God had been limited by a statement that it can do "all in [his] nature", and that is NOT omnipotent because it has a self-regulating reality.  True omnipotence means nothing is restricted, but that kicks in the paradox.  All powerful implies action, omnipotence implies knowledge - kings of the past have been described as "all powerful" if he can decide life or death, but he is not "omnipotent", please get your understand the historic usage of the language correct.

And here we go: the believers so certain their righteousness that they can't bear that someone doesn't believe. Acc they are therefore wrong.  I'm not trying to change you all, but you all are certainly trying to to convince me.  Like I said, have faith, it doesn't bother in the slightest.  But do not expect me to live my life based on your beliefs and certainly don't expect me to believe because you feel you are so fundamentally correct it.

I've stated my reasoning for refusing to believe.  I'm sorry, deal with it.  I'm not going anywhere and certainly not changing.  If that hurts, well it's not your life, I guess you'd better get used to having try another unbeliever around.

[Willow]

...  In order to be "omnipotent" and "all powerful", it means that god must forsee all possible outcomes, past, present and future.  Sorry, but that's what "omnipotent" means
...  

Whoops.  Your use of the language and logic doesn't bear well for your ability to assess the ridiculousness of the Christian belief.  Omnipotent and all powerful mean the same thing so the use of and between them is both redundant and repetitious.      Omnipotent and foreseeing all possible outcomes are not the same.  That would be Omniscient.  It's not a big mistake, though, as Christians do hold that God is both.  By the way, no one can foresee the past.

A lot of the logic that you attempt to apply is what are more or less linguistic efforts to express what we as human beings cannot truly comprehend.  Much of we we say also fits into that category.  That's okay with me.  We do the best we can and it does fall short.  That I can't understand something is evidence that it doesn't exist?  I choose to say no.  The only attribute that would cause that to be true for me would be omniscience.  I'm not omniscient.  If I were I would be God.  

I think I may have already expressed that I would not try to convince you.  Folks who have simply decided that their mind is made up are not really convinceable, at least not by me.

I read in one of your posts that your desire is that Christians keep their beliefs private.  I'm not entirely certain what that means but does that apply to agnostics (and atheists) keeping their beliefs private as well?  Is everything Christians believe unacceptable or only select beliefs?  Is it okay to believe in loving one's neighbor, treating others as one would like to be treated, or not murdering?  Where is the line of acceptability?

My father was a strong believer.  He wasn't raised that way but he became a believer sometime in his twenties.  He's gone now.  When I was a young person he told me that his personal was certainly that God, the Jesus of Christianity, does exist but that even if the atheists were right and He did not that, even then, following His teachings and obeying His directions were still the best way and most rewarding way to live one's life.  I don't disagree with him.    

I've jumped the end for great simplicity.

In the terms of religion, IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE ENTRIES FOR THINGS LIKE OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX, "all powerful" and "omnipotent" are NOT the same thing.  God had been limited by a statement that it can do "all in [his] nature", and that is NOT omnipotent because it has a self-regulating reality.  True omnipotence means nothing is restricted, but that kicks in the paradox.  All powerful implies action, omnipotence implies knowledge - kings of the past have been described as "all powerful" if he can decide life or death, but he is not "omnipotent", please get your understand the historic usage of the language correct.

And here we go: the believers so certain their righteousness that they can't bear that someone doesn't believe. Acc they are therefore wrong.  I'm not trying to change you all, but you all are certainly trying to to convince me.  Like I said, have faith, it doesn't bother in the slightest.  But do not expect me to live my life based on your beliefs and certainly don't expect me to believe because you feel you are so fundamentally correct it.

I've stated my reasoning for refusing to believe.  I'm sorry, deal with it.  I'm not going anywhere and certainly not changing.  If that hurts, well it's not your life, I guess you'd better get used to having try another unbeliever around.

Wow!  Buy yourself a dictionary.   

I guess you didn't want to answer the questions I asked.  That's okay I wasn't really expecting answers.   

We're good.  It does hurt me that you don't believe but it's not simply because of a need i have for you to agree with me.  I do accept your lack of belief and I don't feel it's my job to change you but it is my job to openly express my beliefs.

I've stated my reasons, or at least some of them, for my belief.  I'm not sorry.  Learn to live with it.    

[Gryphon Rider]

For god to say "I allowed drawing", it really means "I created first the universe, then the heavens, then the solar system, then the planet, then the atmosphere, then humanity, then other life, then plants, of which contained trees, then iron, then fire, then earlier life which decomposed into coal, then the idea that some of this could be combined into forms such as steel, which could make machines, which could harvest trees, and the steel could make machines such as millers, which could be created to make trees into paper..."

And it goes on and on.  In order to be "omnipotent" and "all powerful", it means that god must forsee all possible outcomes, past, present and future.  Sorry, but that's what "omnipotent" means

If god fails in even one small part of the equation, if you want to say that god did not create a single part of the list needed for your son to create a drawing...then it isn't omnipotent.  And that means it is not a god.  That's the way logic and math works - you don't get 1+2=4 just because you believe it should be that way.  See: omnipotent paradox.

Okay, so you have a very tight definition for "allow".  My understanding is that you are defining it as, "creating and controlling all the material and circumstances that make something possible to happen."  I was using the word according to the more common understanding of it, as synonymous with "permit".  I suppose I do create some (not all) of the circumstances that needed to be in place for my son to be able to draw, and ultimately, God ordained all of them.

What it comes down to is that God, in His mercy, and according to His plan for me conceived before the creation of the world, made me alive to Him, made me able to hear and understand the gospel, which by His grace allowed (your definition) me to repent and believe, which are His requirements for salvation.  So I agree with you; the all-powerful (omnipotent for everyone except dinosnake), omniscient God did everything for me; I contributed nothing to my salvation.

I also know I can't convince you of my point of view.  In case you're interested, here is a part of Scripture that describes what happened to me, and to everyone else that Christ claims as His, likely even Willow.

Ephesians 1:4,5 (ESV)
...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will...

Ephesians 2:1-10 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

[Robert]

Please don't mistake correction for conversion, you have a choice for your life just make sure you are correct in what you know. We can deal with it because we see it everyday. Pretty much what this thread is about. 

[Willow]

... likely even Willow.

So I don't mislead you, GR, I've lead a very evil life.  I was raised in a Christian family but departed that sometime in my teens.  Even after I grew up and began raising children I was still not a "good" person.  I had returned to the church but my life did not reflect the values I claimed to hold.  I was arrested for a crime more despicable than you can imagine.  God has been good to me not only in preserving my human life unreasonably on at least two occasions but on the application of grace to my spiritual life.

I am quite serious when I tell someone that I hope we never get down to what we deserve.   

[Gavin_Sons]

Hey wait, I haven't had my chance to try to change his mimd. Guess I have better things to do.   

[Gryphon Rider]

... likely even Willow.

So I don't mislead you, GR, I've lead a very evil life.  I was raised in a Christian family but departed that sometime in my teens.  Even after I grew up and began raising children I was still not a "good" person.  I had returned to the church but my life did not reflect the values I claimed to hold.  I was arrested for a crime more despicable than you can imagine.  God has been good to me not only in preserving my human life unreasonably on at least two occasions but on the application of grace to my spiritual life.

I am quite serious when I tell someone that I hope we never get down to what we deserve.   

I said that with an implied wink, and I hope you knew that.  I also know Christ often takes the worst of us to make His own.  It sounds like you relate very strongly to the Ephesians 2 passage.

[Robert]

I have this over my desk

Religion and the world says shame on you

Jesus says SHAME OFF YOU!

You are my son the one I have chosen.

I delight in you and know the hairs on your head.

I knew you before you were formed in your mother's womb.

I gave you life.

Come to me and I will give you rest.

I find as I get older that God uses the experiences we go through both good and bad to help others. It takes a certain man built a certain way with certain experiences surrendered to God to reach certain people. He said come as you are because maybe you are just the right man for the job. I often think He came to me before I knew Him and I accepted Him, in my worst condition, He came. He called me I answered and since then I have been a work in progress. When I get discouraged I always think,

                                                    IF He can use an ass, He can use me.

[Lyn-Del]

As a final cap on things, I saw something here at the apartments the other day that had me shaking my head and then smiling.

I looked out the window and saw a lady resident pushing a very small baby carriage down our street.
I looked closer and noticed that it was covered in mosquito netting.........OK
  I did wonder why the buggy was so small. Gotta stop here and mention that I saw a lot of those carriages (baby buggies) when I was younger.

I went up to her and looked into the buggy.  It was a doggie buggy.  Inside was a Yorkie pawing at the netting.  I guess that the buggy was made for taking the Yorkie for its daily exercise?

I wonder if this'll catch on. .Maybe with a Great Dane or a Pit Bull dolled up in a bow?

Funny to me, but this whole world is turning funny.  

I have one of those.  Haven't used it yet, but carry it when I travel with the dogs.  There have been places I've felt my 6 pound Chihuahua and 4.5 pound Chi mix aren't safe on the ground.   This will help me get them from the vehicle to a hotel room alive.  There are too many folks out there that are pround of their dogs wanting to attack all other dogs. 

Funny, I used to think I'd never put my dog in  a stroller.  Like they say, "Never say Never."

[Gavin_Sons]

Last summer we stopped in Cherokee NC and saw a lady with one of those pet strollers. She got closer and noticed a parrot was in it. I don't think my 120 pound black lab will fit in one of those, but I bet he would try and would love it.

[solo1]

Lyndel, I can see the logic in it for small dogs.

However, it sure wouldn't work if i had my choice in dogs............a Bajenji.

Those dogs would tear the heck out of a stroller in short order and take off running never to be seen again.  I like the breed but it's too late for me to put up with one.

As for the other topic on this post....... Jesus said to  shake off the dust from your shoes and leave.
Since I don't have the vernacular or the vocabulary to compete. I'll take His Advice.

[dinosnake]

Please don't mistake correction for conversion, you have a choice for your life just make sure you are correct in what you know. We can deal with it because we see it everyday. Pretty much what this thread is about. 

Exactly, very much so.

It is very sad that a previous reply requested an answer to

All we want is for you to keep that PRIVATE, you know, the way we were promised in the Constitution for the rest of us who do not share the exact same beliefs.

I would like you to point out where this is please in the Constitution.

To honor the First Amendment for yourself, to expect the respect of your own religion, and yet to question the obviousness of applying the same right to others, is truly misguided.  In the worst-case scenario, the very next reply states the belief that atheism is itself a religion...which makes the protections the First Amendment even stronger, not weaker, if this statement is to be believed (it is of course wrong, the lack of something does not make it that very thing, another great logical fallacy).

Anyway, as I stated I certainly have no problem with personal religious beliefs.  My gripe is when people use that personal religious belief to create laws that reflect their singular viewpoint, thereby violating the constitutional rights of people to exercise other options when they do not believe the same thing.  Eg: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.  If you don't like women's private health choices, then don't go get the procedure.  Simple.

[Valkorado]

Please don't mistake correction for conversion, you have a choice for your life just make sure you are correct in what you know. We can deal with it because we see it everyday. Pretty much what this thread is about. 

Exactly, very much so.

It is very sad that a previous reply requested an answer to

All we want is for you to keep that PRIVATE, you know, the way we were promised in the Constitution for the rest of us who do not share the exact same beliefs.

I would like you to point out where this is please in the Constitution.

To honor the First Amendment for yourself, to expect the respect of your own religion, and yet to question the obviousness of applying the same right to others, is truly misguided.  In the worst-case scenario, the very next reply states the belief that atheism is itself a religion...which makes the protections the First Amendment even stronger, not weaker, if this statement is to be believed (it is of course wrong, the lack of something does not make it that very thing, another great logical fallacy).

Anyway, as I stated I certainly have no problem with personal religious beliefs.  My gripe is when people use that personal religious belief to create laws that reflect their singular viewpoint, thereby violating the constitutional rights of people to exercise other options when they do not believe the same thing.  Eg: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.  If you don't like women's private health choices, then don't go get the procedure.  Simple.

No American Christian I know is for limiting anyone's right to follow their choice of religion, or to follow none at all.  Quit acting like all American laws are all based on Christian beliefs.  Lawmakers are a cross section of our society, they are not all Christian.  Laws change, and you cite two examples where law has shifted in ways that seem to meet your approval.

Christians I know don't have a big beef with the laws of men.  Give Caesar what is Caesar's. 

Responding to your last statement.  If you don't believe in Christianity, don't  practice it.  Your American citizenship doesn't force you to. 

Simple.

[Skinhead]

 Eg: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.  If you don't like women's private health choices, then don't go get the procedure.  Simple.

If I follow what you are saying, I (personally) don't have an issue with the 2 subjects you brought up, and I entirely support a persons freedom (not right) to make a choice with regard to these subjects, even though I may not agree with that choice.  What I do have an issue with, is the government saying one group's freedom is more important than the other group's i.e. gay marriage and wanting a christian or other that doesn't agree with that choice) baker to supply their wedding cake.  Or taxpayers paying for the women's private health choices.  

Funny how that logic doesn't carry over to gun rights, if you don't want gun, don't buy one.  Instead, it's I don't like guns, take them away from everyone, or make people pay for a license to exercise their constitutional right, RIGHT, not freedom.

Or better yet, gay marriage law forced on all 50 states, but gun ownership/carry laws determined on a state by state basis.

[Bighead]

From one Head to another ( ) I couldn't agree more with your statements

[dinosnake]

No American Christian I know is for limiting anyone's right to follow their choice of religion, or to follow none at all.  Quit acting like all American laws are all based on Christian beliefs.  Lawmakers are a cross section of our society, they are not all Christian.  Laws change, and you cite two examples where law has shifted in ways that seem to meet your approval.

Christians I know don't have a big beef with the laws of men.  Give Caesar what is Caesar's.  

Responding to your last statement.  If you don't believe in Christianity, don't  practice it.  Your American citizenship doesn't force you to.  

Simple.

Sadly it is not quite so.  As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia, plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas proved, religious-founded laws regarding private activities were quite rampant in America.  Some are still being fought against.

The most recent controversy was, of course, gay marriage.  Christians wanted to usurp the definition of "marriage" to themselves - yes, that is exactly what they wanted - for as http://nation.time.com/2013/11/01/a-gay-marriage-loophole-for-native-americans/ shows, Native Americans have never had much of a problem with it.  Indeed, if you bother to research you will come across the word "winkte"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

and discover that Native America had gay marriage before white Europeans even set foot on the land

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.gen.004

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=winkte+native+american+marriage&t=ffsb

So for Christians to declare that homosexuals, by seeking legal acknowledgement of a marriage in modern times, is "redefining marriage", is utter hogwash - it is the Christians who wanted the right to declare what "marriage" is for everyone else, based upon their sole interpretation of the term.

We can also discuss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law, which as noted have a religious basis, as only Christians hold Sunday as a sabbath (they could not claim it being Judaeo-Christian as Saturday is the proper sabbath for Jews).  If you do not practice a religion, don't bother going to Bergen County N.J. on a Sunday to get an errand done; over half of the entire county is closed.

There are many instances where the same situation still reigns - the viewpoints of a single religion being used as a basis for laws that affect everyone, regardless if that person is not a practitioner of that religion, or any religion for that matter.  When you live around people like yourself, you don't notice these things.  When you work and live around many different people, with different backgrounds and experiences, you see how these rules and penalties affect their lives and question why this is so, in a country that seems to constantly give lectures on how it treats everyone the same.  But, sadly, that is not true, we still have a lot of work to do.

[Bighead]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

[dinosnake]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making it a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

[98valk]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making is a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

u have now gone off the deep end! they are animals doing an instinct, they are not homosexuals.  so I guess when a dog humps your leg, the dog is into bestiality?
what u posted is just gay people trying to find anything to justify what they are doing. Because deep down inside they are convicted by God that they are doing wrong.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
the bible foretold that the end days, which we are now in will be like the days of noah.

[dinosnake]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making is a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

u have now gone off the deep end! they are animals doing an instinct, they are not homosexuals.  so I guess when a dog humps your leg, the dog is into bestiality?
what u posted is just gay people trying to find anything to justify what they are doing. Because deep down inside they are convicted by God that they are doing wrong.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
the bible foretold that the end days, which we are now in will be like the days of noah.

Utterly and COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.  I knew a few of you would do this: hold on to your personal belief so strongly, read from a book with no reality versus actual proof.

I guess things like this never really happened, then?

https://youtu.be/EpHd-T4r-E8

(note: NSFW content)

Nope, why bother accepting reality when you can quote a 2,000 year old BOOK? Justification?  You want justification?  Placing your own personal biases so high that they interfere with another person's life?  Even though you claim the right to live your own life without interference?

[Jess from VA]

Snake, a problem (with your analysis) is that Judaeo-Christian values/laws, coupled with English common law do form the solid nucleus of US (and all Western world) criminal law.  Don't kill (murder), don't commit adultery (or covet thy neighbor's wife) (now mostly decriminalized), don't covet other peoples possessions, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't bear false witness against your neighbor.  Of course these values are secular enough in nature, they easily stand alone without a bible/torah to support them.  But they come from the bible/torah, and have been around so long they are part of our western civilization as a matter of secular law, and tradition.  And I think most would agree that trying to avoid the seven deadly sins of (excessive) pride, greed, lust, malicious envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth, are also good rules of conduct to live by (though not part of criminal law, they nearly always supply the actual motivations for all criminal conduct).  

[Of course marriage is one of the holy sacraments. (gay/lgtb marriage/rights and abortion, and the thousand other issues that tag along with them, will never stop being widely and hotly disputed)]

My point is that these traditional Judaeo-Christian values not only form the basis of our criminal law, but also the best possible guides for living a good and decent life (by any fair and objective measure), thereby achieving a (hopefully) cohesive and good society of men (or country).  (maybe with a few exceptions)  You (and all those who seem to enjoy throwing rocks at Christians these days) must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  So much of what is written in the good books, IS GOOD (much more than is disputed).

I would concur that blue laws and some other small inconveniences went too far......at least for my liking, but if a clear majority of folks who lived under them liked them (and voted for the politicians who passed them), then isn't that democracy in action?  

Many years ago it was once pointed out to me that some of my neighbors might not appreciate me mowing my lawn (and other vigorous tree/yard work) on Sunday.  I considered doing it another day because I try not to irritate my neighbors on purpose for any reason, but at the time it was the only day I had off.  I asked him to please pass that on, and I never heard anything about it again.  

[Gavin_Sons]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making it a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

Really? 10% of the animal population is gay? I believe 10% of the human race choose to be gay. Animals sole porpose of life is to breed and populate. When 2 male dogs are caught humping it is bacause of dominance.  I don't thing 2 male humans humping is a dominance thing.  ???

[Bighead]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making it a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

Really? 10% of the animal population is gay? I believe 10% of the human race choose to be gay. Animals sole porpose of life is to breed and populate. When 2 male dogs are caught humping it is bacause of dominance.  I don't thing 2 male humans humping is a dominance thing.  ???

Well one may be
Dino you my polluted minded friend have some serious issues. Just sayin.

[dinosnake]

One question as to your Homosexual marriage bit, how would you be here if your two fathers or Mothers didn't envolve the opposite sex? That alone tells me a man and a woman not a man and a man or woman and woman would work

That is completely irrelevant, not the point, and a strawman argument.  It is estimated that 10% of the natural animal population is homosexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

making it a natural variation of behavioral types in the natural world.  To deny that it exists and then deny rights to individuals who exhibit these traits is illogical and, fundamentally, unjust.  There are plenty of opposite-sex pair couples making children, it is unnecessary and facetious to try to place a negative burden on a gay couple for not making children when there are also plenty of opposite-sex couples in the same situation.

Really? 10% of the animal population is gay? I believe 10% of the human race choose to be gay. Animals sole porpose of life is to breed and populate. When 2 male dogs are caught humping it is bacause of dominance.  I don't thing 2 male humans humping is a dominance thing.  ???

Well one may be
Dino you my polluted minded friend have some serious issues. Just sayin.

Actually, the VERY serious issue is with the closed minds of the strict fundamentalists.  What they are directly guilty of is blasphemy against god.

The facts are indisputable, we have studied the reality around us and even share these studies with one another as proof of the way nature works

http://youtu.be/oYdcvRe7ox8

These things were created by god and are, therefore, undeniable.  Yet the fundamentalist people put the writing of a book, written by humans who believed that they understood and spoke for god, ahead off the undeniable work of god himself.  They therefore blasphemize the hand of god, refusing to accept how he made the universe work around them.

400 years ago it was believed that the universe revolved around the planet Earth, and through scientific examinations that was proven to be false.  We no longer believe that old way, we accept that the facts speak for themselves...and adjusted ourselves to the fact that we now understood the true nature of the universe god created, that it was OUR prior understanding that was in error, we misinterpreted the hand of god.

So now we have the same thing, proof that, simply, our interpretation is wrong, for god's nature works differently than we have been telling ourselves.  No shame in that - as we grow up, mature as god's creation, we grow to better understand his work.

But that is NOT what these people want.  They want you to deny god's truth, the universe around you, and accept the writings of interpreters of god as law.  Even though, through proof, the interpreters got it wrong.

[Valkorado]

Snake speaks with a forked tongue.  Sin is a human thing.  Fido doesn't sin.

[dinosnake]

Snake speaks with a forked tongue.  Sin is a human thing.  Fido doesn't sin.

Again, incorrect.  If god created all, sin is part of the all.  It is humans thatchoose the option of sin, for god created the option but left it to freedom of choice as to whether or not the humans would use it

[Valkorado]

Snake speaks with a forked tongue.  Sin is a human thing.  Fido doesn't sin.

Again, incorrect.  If god created all, sin is part of the all.  It is humans thatchoose the option of sin, for god created the option but left it to freedom of choice as to whether or not the humans would use it

You managed to contradict yourself in one sentence.  You are a living, breathing contradiction.
Animals do not read or comprehend law, nor do they comprehend sin.