Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Do you believe in "God"? Options · View
Ian
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:15:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 2/12/2010
Posts: 89
i know adam and eve weren't made in a field of papers and pencils so how does the story of their creation and god get carried on to the days of the bible when we can't get through a game of telephone without "nice shoes" becoming "kobe bryant raped that white girl, i know it!"

just saying... no i don't believe in it... probably shoulda just said that? lol
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:41:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
Quote:
What is Satanism about? I'm vaguely familiar with Anton Levay, but I'm sure he wasn't the first to use the term about himself. I do know that there have been examples of teenagers who claimed to be Satanists, read up on the subject and "sacrificed" animals. Anyway, I don't think anyone is an "idiot" for believing that it is about worshipping the devil and doing satanic rituals because that is what the name implies. Satan is the term used for the personification of evil in the dominant religious belief system in our culture. Surely someone who didn't want people to think they were worshipping what Christians and Muslims consider to be evil would not call themselves a Satanist. They would come up with a name that wouldn't be so readily misunderstood.


I've acually read the satanist bible and found it to be in interesting read. I do agree with some points you've made though. Using the term "satanism" seems to have been a marketing ploy to gain credibility among teenage girls that like to dye their hair black and cut themselves. The book and the associated philosophy is not at all about satan, but seems to be a biologically humanistic driven philosophy that places importance on the natural urges of the human condition. It all seems lost, however, behind the black ominous cover and pink pentagram that graces it.



Quote:
I think the same thing about people who make a big song and dance about their atheism. To simply not believe because you can't see the evidence makes sense, but to make a cause of it suggests that "the lady doth protest too much".


This is a good point and is the stance taken by the majority of the millions of atheists in the world. This is probably the reason why, although atheists outnumber many other minority groups, they have never developed any successful lobbying groups in the US or any other country. Here are the findings of a study done by the sociology department at the University of Minnesota.

Quote:
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.


Maybe its time the atheists started to come "out of the closet" and exert their rights in government and social issues...We all know that a political figure publicly stating their non-belief would be tantamount to political suicide. While the political right in North America is dragging us back into the dark ages of ignorance and intolerance, maybe we should look to the more progressive and dare I say it....atheistic societies of Northern Europe and Japan as ideals to live up to.

Quote:
Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews



I'll stand up and fight for that kind of world in a hearbeat. Will you?

Now I'll wipe that lonely tear from my eye, step down on off my soap box and write another story about ass fucking since that seems to garner much less controversy.

icon_smile
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:29:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
DamonX wrote:

Quote:
What is Satanism about? I'm vaguely familiar with Anton Levay, but I'm sure he wasn't the first to use the term about himself. I do know that there have been examples of teenagers who claimed to be Satanists, read up on the subject and "sacrificed" animals. Anyway, I don't think anyone is an "idiot" for believing that it is about worshipping the devil and doing satanic rituals because that is what the name implies. Satan is the term used for the personification of evil in the dominant religious belief system in our culture. Surely someone who didn't want people to think they were worshipping what Christians and Muslims consider to be evil would not call themselves a Satanist. They would come up with a name that wouldn't be so readily misunderstood.


I've acually read the satanist bible and found it to be in interesting read. I do agree with some points you've made though. Using the term "satanism" seems to have been a marketing ploy to gain credibility among teenage girls that like to dye their hair black and cut themselves. The book and the associated philosophy is not at all about satan, but seems to be a biologically humanistic driven philosophy that places importance on the natural urges of the human condition. It all seems lost, however, behind the black ominous cover and pink pentagram that graces it.



Quote:
I think the same thing about people who make a big song and dance about their atheism. To simply not believe because you can't see the evidence makes sense, but to make a cause of it suggests that "the lady doth protest too much".


This is a good point and is the stance taken by the majority of the millions of atheists in the world. This is probably the reason why, although atheists outnumber many other minority groups, they have never developed any successful lobbying groups in the US or any other country. Here are the findings of a study done by the sociology department at the University of Minnesota.

Quote:
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.


Maybe its time the atheists started to come "out of the closet" and exert their rights in government and social issues...We all know that a political person publicly stating their non-belief would be tantamount to political suicide. While the political right in North America is dragging us back into the dark ages of ignorance and intolerance, maybe we should look to the more progressive and dare I say it....atheistic societies of Northern Europe and Japan as ideals to live up to.

Quote:
Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews



I'll stand up and fight for that kind of world in a hearbeat. Will you?

Now I'll wipe that lonely tear from my eye, step down on off my soap box and write another story about ass fucking since that seems to garner much less controversy.

icon_smile



Made me laugh with that man lol
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:42:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
Throughout history more horror and terror has been caused in the name of God than for any other cause, yet the concept of a universal word of God is flawed.

Consider the following; I will use the Christian Bible as an example as this is the book I am most familiar with but I believe the points I make are just as valid for any other religious document.

The Bible is the source document for Christianity, the world’s largest singular religion. However Christianity only represents about a third of the worlds’ known religions which means at least two thirds of the world’s population (4 billion people) do not follow the Bible. From this we can conclude that whoever follows the teachings of the Bible (or any other book) is in fact a minority.

The first mass printed Bible was by Guttenberg in 1455, which means that prior to that, the Bible only existed as hand written documents. Before Guttenberg’s printing press any book that required duplication had to be ordered years in advance from a college or monastery which would painstakingly reproduce the new document by hand. Hence only the extremely wealthy owned Bible’s. From this we can conclude that up until 500 years ago most of the Christian world had never even seen a bible let alone read one.

The first Bible comprising of both the Old Testament and New Testament was drafted somewhere between 200 & 400 AD. Over these 200 years a number of Church’s were tasked with unifying the many manuscripts available at the time into a single document. However many ideological differences existed and so it took about 200 years to get a single draft agreed. Much controversy and debate still exists amongst theologists as to exactly who approved the contents of the first consolidated bible, why certain manuscripts were excluded and how much content has been amended in the 600 years since. From this we can conclude that the modern Bible was not formalised by God in a single divine act, but rather drafted over about 800 years of human debate and editing.

Up until about 400AD both the Old and New Testament manuscripts were written and translated numerous times between Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Latin. It is estimated that for as much as 3000 years the Old Testament manuscripts were re-written many times so as to favour the views of the then ruling empire. There is also much historical evidence of new empires burning all religious transcripts of previous empires so as to re-affirm their own beliefs. From this we can conclude that the Old Testament manuscripts contained within the modern Bible have been altered many times from their original form.

The oldest known Christian manuscripts are about 3000 years old, whereas man is believed to be at least 10 000 years old. From this we can conclude that for at least 7 000 years all Old Testament beliefs were passed down from one generation to another via word of mouth. Now we all played that game “broken telephone” as children, so imagine how influential the broken telephone effect must be over thousands of years of repeated story telling.

By now I am hoping one can see that the Bible is a not a definitive, un-questionable document. It is in fact highly subjective and the stories contained within are probably far removed from the truth. Even the world’s foremost theologists cannot agree on how it came to be nor the validity of the content within so what chance do you and I have?

Furthermore 2 out of 3 of God’s children (aka the world population) do not follow the teachings of the Bible? If the Bible is in fact the universal word of God how could this be?

So the next time you feel compelled to convert someone to your way of belief or even feel it necessary to condemn someone who doesn’t believe as you do, remember this; one way or another the book you base your own personal beliefs on is potentially flawed and has only a minority following.

That is not to say God doesn’t exist nor the Bible has no truth to it, but rather only God knows what is truth and what is legend. Hence to discriminate or condemn those who do not share your personal interpretations of religion is wrong and quite frankly un-God-like.
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:22:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
too long to quote, but reference is to the post above, along with much previous discourse.

First off, the first bible was an "agreed" upon doctrine during ruler constantine's reign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

There were many "books", which were basically pieced together accounts of "what happened" when jesus was doing his thing. Several available books were excluded including any to do with women. Mary Magdalene where art thou? To this day, I don't get why women actually believe in this, but tis another tale. Harlot did not mean whore.

Roman empire falls, dark ages, and the only ones to transcribe "the holy word" were......monks, priests, those already in the loop with whatever king was doing his thing.

Don't confuse the whole timeline of the word. It is for each to judge for himself and how he/she finds him, odd?

I don't believe in one creator, I do believe in my fellow human beings, and all the wonders we are capable of, including creative writing, in most cases.



Guest
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:32:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419


By the way, this is the one song that constantly creeps into my brain while going through this discussion.
Butterfly
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:46:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/21/2008
Posts: 1,238
Location: fluttering about , United States
eiotis123 wrote:
too long to quote, but reference is to the post above, along with much previous discourse.

First off, the first bible was an "agreed" upon doctrine during ruler constantine's reign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

There were many "books", which were basically pieced together accounts of "what happened" when jesus was doing his thing. Several available books were excluded including any to do with women. Mary Magdalene where art thou? To this day, I don't get why women actually believe in this, but tis another tale. Harlot did not mean whore.

Roman empire falls, dark ages, and the only ones to transcribe "the holy word" were......monks, priests, those already in the loop with whatever king was doing his thing.

Don't confuse the whole timeline of the word. It is for each to judge for himself and how he/she finds him, odd?

I don't believe in one creator, I do believe in my fellow human beings, and all the wonders we are capable of, including creative writing, in most cases.





Kudos to you on your thoughts ^^...exactly my main point in the post I made previously. Why were there mostly only male accounts of said incidents and occurances anyway!? Well, nevermind...we won't get into the whole women's lib thing lmao, that wasn't even a sparkle in most men's eyes back then I'm guessing.

Women were basically held as subordinates in that day and age, and no, I'm not meaning that in any derogatory way as far as how women led their lives back then. I was a stay at home mom/homemaker for a number of years until our youngest of four kiddos started school just 2 years ago and I was quite happy to be just that.

I'm just saying, I find it interesting, to say the least, that women were looked at in that fashion by most in society back then when 'Jesus Christ' himself was reported to consider women of equal importance and treated them with just as high of a regard as he would any King or important man/men.

I have just always felt and thought, since I was a teenager anyway, why should I be told I need to believe or have to or must believe and adhere to a bunch of what I have come to consider, 'stories'...cause really, who's to say they are all true and factual accounts??

It, to me, is a book. I've read it, and other than the whole of all the so and so begat so and so and so forth, I enjoyed reading this book as well as any other book I decided to read...I took it in and considered what was contained in it and have made up my own mind as to how I perceive it all.

To each his/her own...ones own thoughts are theirs to have about whatever subject, in my opinion.

Anyway, /end thought. Carry on folks :).
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 6:42:36 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
I totally support Perseus's post.
And, I would like to add something else to the discussion.
How many times have we heard and read about Jesus of Nazareth?
Guess what ... he wasn't from Nazareth and could not have been, because the village of Nazareth, as geologists have irrefutably determined, didn't exist before the third century CE ...
The confusion about that comes from a bad translation of Aramaic texts. What is in those texts means Jesus the Nazarene (a branch of Judaism, in case you were wondering), not Jesus of Nazareth.
Just sayin' ...
aussiescribbler
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:13:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 52
Location: Adelaide
I think it is possible to not believe in a supernatural god, and yet to believe in the validity of the words of Jesus. We have to remember that in a pre-scientific age the only way to describe aspects of deep psychology was through myth. Where I live in Australia it might be aboriginal stories about the Dreamtime. In ancient Greece it was tales of Promethus, Oedipus and Medusa. As psychiatrists such as Freud and Jung discovered, these are not just stories, their cultural tenacity lies in the fact that they describe in symbolic form aspects of common personal psychological experience. The myths of the Bible, such as Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Noah and the Ark, speak of aspects of our history as a species. They are clearly not a factual history, but a race memory handed down in the form of stories. No story that we create is entirely fiction. When we use our imagination we express truths about our psyche, often without realising, and the stories which take hold and acquire the kind of cultural value that leads to them being passed down from generation to generation are those which speak most helpfully to our unconscious.

I think that all that Jesus was was an exceptionally unneurotic, unrepressed, psychologically naked, individual. The history of the human condition has been one in which we have all had to learn to conform to society's expectations, most of our aggressive feelings and much of our sexuality has had to be repressed, because, if we didn't accept repression we would be ostracised and, if noone accepted repression, society would collapse. But the price we pay is that repression puts us at war with ourselves and leaves us with a fragile, insecure ego. The feelings of insecurity make defensive feelings of aggression more likely, which means more repression, etc., etc. But, if someone has an exceptionally untraumatic childhood, so that their ego is very secure and not obsessed with self-justification, then their aggressive feelings would not be so great as to need repressing, and they would feel comfortable enough with their sexuality not to feel compelled to act upon their sexual desires if doing so would conflict with what they were trying to achieve, and thus sexual repression would not be necessary either. I believe that what lies at the heart of the human psyche is an instinctive orientation to unconditional love. All that separates us from that instinct is that backlog of aggressive and sexual feelings which we repress, and the insecurity of our ego, which fears that which we have repressed, and also fears the inevitability of its own death, by which I don't mean necessarily physical death, but the dissolution of the ego that seems to be threatened by the love instinct's desire for unity with all of our kind.

Jesus talked as a poet talks expressing ideas in parables and symbols. God means many things to many people, but I think that to Jesus God was the love instinct. It needn't have been just something internal. I don't understand synchronicity (Jung's term for the phenomena where an external event coincides meaningfully with a profoundly meaningful internal thought), but I've experienced it quite a few times. I still don't believe in the supernatural. All I can think is that patterns exist in nature (think of a snowflake) so why not on a larger scale that we only glimpse occasionally. While I refuse to believe in a supernatural god, the experience of synchronistic events which seemed to be giving me a comforting message in a time of crisis, have sometimes made it seem like God was looking out for me. So it seems quite likely to me that Jesus experience of God was probably external as well as internal, but something natural, not supernatural. To me, Jesus was the ultimate psychiatrist. Not blinded by neurosis like the rest of us, he could see us for who we really are, what troubles us and why we are always fighting with each other and judging each other and more concerned with ourselves than with others. And he wanted to set us free by explaining that we were all in the same boat and that honesty, forgiveness and sharing would provide the social climate in which we could rediscover our inner instinct for love, and thus "never have to die", because it is only the ego that dies, the instinct for love, being the same in all of us will last as long as the human race.

The problem is that few seem to have understood what Jesus was on about. When he talked about life after death, they thought he was talking about a life for the ego after physical death, something which is clearly impossible. And, as the story was passed on, people turned ordinary events into "miracles". To drink water with a man as loving as Jesus would be like drinking wine with anyone else, but pass that on a few times and suddenly he's turning water magically into wine. The problem is that recognising Jesus for what he was would mean acknowledging that they were seriously neurotic (or "sinful" to use the language of the time). The only other way to explain what made him different was to believe he was something magical. I'm sure he would have been very sad to see how things turned out after he died. He clearly didn't want to be worshipped. The only people who want to be worshipped are those who are extremely egotistical (i.e. insecure).

While some (like the gnostic Christians) tried to discover the real meaning of Jesus words, the organised Christian churches all-to-often became a travesty of his vision. They crucified him a second time by associating his name with intolerance, torture, warfare, greed, pomposity and meaningless rituals which mocked the simple sense of his advice. But I think Christianity is a bit like a time bomb. The churches may pervert Jesus message, but they preserve his words. They carry at their heart the seeds of their own destruction. Not so long ago, unquestioning religious conformity was the norm. Today, with books like "The Divinci Code" and "Jesus the Man" reaching millions and an increasingly strong athiest movement, religious dogma is being put to the test. To hold firm when you are actually living by the words of your prophet is one thing, but when you can easily be shown to be a hypocrite it's not so easy. Especially if the fruits of love begin to sprout amongst the "sinners" in a way they never have amongst the "believers".

In general, Christianity has become a force for repression rather than for liberation of the soul (our deepest instinct for love). Improvisation teacher Keith Johnstone, in his book "Impro : Improvisation and the Theatre" (Eyre Methuen, 1981) says this about repression :

"Grotesque and frightening things are released as soon as people begin to work with spontaneity. Even if a class works on improvisation every day for only a week or so, then they start producing very ‘sick' scenes : they become cannibals pretending to eat each other, and so on. But when you give the student permission to explore this material he very soon uncovers layers of unsuspected gentleness and tenderness. It is no longer sexual feelings and violence that are deeply repressed in this culture now, whatever it may have been like in fin-de-siecle Vienna. We repress our benevolence and tenderness."

Some look at the internet with its proliferation of porn of various kinds, hate literature and all things gruesome and grotesque and see this as a sign of terminal moral decay. I see it as a global improvisation. Dark and troubling things are bound to surface from a couple of million years of repression, but by allowing ourselves to freely explore this material we will discover what lies beneath - our capacity for "benevolence and tenderness" - our soul.

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 “Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 “So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." Matthew 24:37

Clearly the idea, popular with Christian churches, that Jesus is going to return as an individual is contrary to his own words. But what he says here is completely in keeping with what I've described. The rising of the loving instinct and the world it makes possible (whether called the Son of Man or the Kingdom of Heaven) is not centred in any one individual but would be able to be seen all over the world. The last sentence is a reference to fundamentalism. That which is "dead", i.e. inflexible and unforgiving and thus least capable of the spontaneity that characterises love, attracts those who are most needy and self-obsessed. This is not to be judgemental though, it is just an acknowledgement that those of us who most need love, may be the last ones to be able to receive it.
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 6:30:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
Applause Bravo.
Butterfly
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:28:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/21/2008
Posts: 1,238
Location: fluttering about , United States
@ aussiescribbler

Man, now that is some food for thought! :).
nicola
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 5:57:35 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,802
Location: United Kingdom
This wasn't supposed to go off on a tangent about Jesus (who is supposed to have been the son of (a) god after all).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Quote:
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, in contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.


My god that page could certainly do with an edit, it's a shambles laughing9
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 6:44:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
Wow... Nic must be God. She managed to bring THIS thread back from the dead well enough... Whistle
nicola
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:20:32 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,802
Location: United Kingdom
I am the master of resurrection my son.

Well, it was getting a little quiet in the tank laughing6
DamonX
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:50:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
nicola wrote:
I am the master of resurrection my son.

Well, it was getting a little quiet in the tank laughing6


Might be time to spice things up again.... icon_smile
DamonX
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:51:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
Double post :(
nicola
Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:42:21 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,802
Location: United Kingdom
You're the man for the job Damon!
mercianknight
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:24:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,027
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
nicola wrote:
I am the master of resurrection my son.

Well, it was getting a little quiet in the tank laughing6


Darn it Nic, if I had known about your powers to 'resurrect' I would have called you in to help me with a 'problem' I had on the week-end. evil4

Not to worry though, I put some porn on and it fixed me right up!!!!

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:47:06 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,532
Location: Cakeland, United States
mercianknight wrote:
nicola wrote:
I am the master of resurrection my son.

Well, it was getting a little quiet in the tank laughing6


Darn it Nic, if I had known about your powers to 'resurrect' I would have called you in to help me with a 'problem' I had on the week-end. evil4

Not to worry though, I put some porn on and it fixed me right up!!!!


It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature.





Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:50:06 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,532
Location: Cakeland, United States


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:08:10 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
Try not to worry too much God's keeping an eye on things.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:20:32 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
deadlogger wrote:
Try not to worry too much God's keeping an eye on things.


Sometimes, I really envy those who can believe that.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:11:12 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
LadyX wrote:
deadlogger wrote:
Try not to worry too much God's keeping an eye on things.


Sometimes, I really envy those who can believe that.


Remember what you believe depends on your background its not my fault or yours.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:25:48 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 700,419
LadyX wrote:
deadlogger wrote:
Try not to worry too much God's keeping an eye on things.


Sometimes, I really envy those who can believe that.



Gotta agree with ya there at times as I said part of me wants to believe but most of me don't.
XSakuraX
Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 6:28:25 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 3
I personally believe in no higher power. I am what you could call an overly logical person. If it cant be proven or at least theorized, eh, I really don't care.

If I were to say I have a religion, I would say that I'm a believer of Durdenism.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:13:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
I just read something that interested me greatly. Something that I quite identified with.


Quote:
My faith and science are not incompatible. Science is the "how", faith is the "why".
sprite
Posted: Saturday, November 06, 2010 12:28:18 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,971
Location: My Tower, United States
i think that this is appropriate here, just in case things get heated up again. :)

http://dudeism.com

Live, love, laugh.
stuart1975
Posted: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:37:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 1,012
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Personally it's very hard to believe in someone or something I have never seen or talked to myself. Now I believe we all have the right to choose weather god exsists or not but judging by the decrease in people going to church nowadays my guess is there are less and less people that beleive in the concept of god. Just my opinion though.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:03:09 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,971
Location: My Tower, United States
stuart1975 wrote:
Personally it's very hard to believe in someone or something I have never seen or talked to myself. Now I believe we all have the right to choose weather god exsists or not but judging by the decrease in people going to church nowadays my guess is there are less and less people that beleive in the concept of god. Just my opinion though.


well, considering what the present day Catholic church holds as doctrine - homosexuality is evil, women are lesser creatures, anti-birthcontrol, anti-abortion, and the cover up of abuse, i think that more and more people are disgusted with the church, rather then disbelieving in the concept of God? just a thought.

Live, love, laugh.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:45:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
well, considering what the present day Catholic church holds as doctrine - homosexuality is evil, women are lesser creatures, anti-birthcontrol, anti-abortion, and the cover up of abuse, i think that more and more people are disgusted with the church, rather then disbelieving in the concept of God? just a thought.


I believe in God. This is immutable, a given. I tout myself a Christian, because I believe in the idea of a Christ - not only for Biblical reasons, but for various non-Biblical reasons as well. I believe because God has shown Himself to me on several different occasions, and in different ways. I don't identify myself with any particular sect of Christianity for a couple reasons. First, I think it's better to keep your faith to yourself and not wear it around on your sleeve shouting, "See how holy I am!" Second, there's no specific sect that I'm familiar with that holds the values and beliefs that I do.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, then either I'll never know it (as my soul is snuffed out when I die) or I'll pay the price as I'm punished for my transgressions here on Earth. Either way, I can't be any other way than God has created me.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.