not a history of abuse, more like a history of swearing in general. being offensive is just something i picked up on my own, do you like it?

Sure it was enlightening ;-)

"Just because you want to associate real-world impulses with this concept of "love" does not mean that love is something tangible that exists in the physical world. Love is an abstraction. The concept of love is subjective. As is the concept of God. It's merely a way of describing something, and not, in itself, something that exists. The Ontological Argument ignores this fact."

-stupidity abounds, THAT we associate certain impulses (which we apparently acknowledge definitely existing) with the idea of love DOES mean the love exists - by definition. ie we specifically identify what love is, describe it's atributes and show it's effects in the real world - it's sitll a concept (and based largely on evolutionary mechanics which makes families possible - and thus our societies function - more or less)

In the same way i associate the concept of God with the Universe - the Universe is by definition all that exists. If it exists God must therefore be part of everything, in those circumstance it is hard to comtemplate any God which is part of the Universe but less than the whole.

Also we can know that the Universe exists and still not have a full description of it. However I don't know how anyone can think we mere humans are capable of grasping even a fraction of what it means to be 'God' whether God exists or not isn't really that important because humans are limited, how we should treat each other (as described in, oh lets say the message of Jesus of Nazereth) is a much more important question than whether God exists...

@ Orathaic

Agreed again the message of Christ and our treatment of others is more important than arguing the inarguable. The question about whether God exists is inarguable, and invariably wanders off to other related topics out of sheer frustration.

that might raise the question - 'how do we teach Jesus's message without teaching about God' - but i feel it is a very important question to answer considering there are a number of atheists in our society - and secular freedoms gives us the right to raise our children a members of any religion or none.

The message of Christ has been spread successfully for two millenia as part of teaching about God. Indeed to my way of thinking that sounds a bit like "Let's teach God's message without teaching about God". The message is central to Christianity. I do not think that one need be a Chrisitian to embrace it, but I also do not think that it can be entirely separated from it without weakening both to some degree.

new thread!

@ Orthaic, so... You've already dismissed other religions by saying "how do we teach Jesus' message..."
Why do you believe that Christianity is the true religion then?

no, i'm not dismissing anyone, i'm asking a question, and you happen to be taking offence, you might claim that i should include everyone, but i'm being specific in my question because it is easier to answer a specific question.

If you think a question regarding the teaching of other messages is valuable maybe you should bloody well ask it youself and stop taking offence at what other people are doing.

I never said Christianity was the True religion, I am not a Christian, I just happened to be raised one.

Re: orathaic,

You assume when people are telling you something you don't want to hear, they are 'believing because they want to believe'. I do agree Jesus' followers have loved Him much and perhaps wanted to preserve his teachings. However, if you look at the Bible, at the Gospel and Acts, some things are striking:

* It is said the disciples didn't understand Jesus' message until after his dead. He spoke of his death and his duty, but it is written that the disciples didn't understand much of it. Even when accepting he was the awaited Messiah, they thought he would restore Isreal by driving the Romans back into the sea. EVEN AFTER HIS RESSURECTION, some of his disciples doubted if it was truly Him (Matthew 28:17) and didn't believe it at first (Mark 16:9-20) or demanded proof (John 20:25).


If they 'wanted' to believe He was resurrected, why did they and others (Luke, Mark) write down their doubt and unbelief? They should have been the new great leaders of the christian sect, but what images do we get from the Gospels? Uneducated Galilean fishermen, frauds, quarreling about their position in the 'Kingdom of God', and worst of all: betraying Jesus on the night He was trialed. Considering their position they are very unpretentious.

About Jesus' teachings. I agree a non-believer can value His teachings too. But why neglect the context of those teachings? Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God. He didn't say: 'do this and you will be happy' but 'don't worry because your Father in Heaven will care for you'. He said 'blessed be the mourning and poor of spirit, for they will see the Kingdom of God'. With loosening His teachings from his work and identity, you lose the center of His message.

That's a good point Ursa, it's particularly difficult to separate the beatitudes from God especially the ones in Matthew. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God" is particularly difficult.

Wait while I run that last one by the Department of Redundancy Department.


Ye'p, they re-checked it again.

bump

bump.

bump..

bump

This thread is so full of derka-der it's incredible. Stop bumping it. Just let it die. This argument has been done over and over again.

Welcome to the site, superman98.

No, I'm a raptor and in my version of history that makes me god. So if you believe that velociraptors are actually what run your government and petty civilizations you can call me god.

Superman- why are you bumping every 2 mins????

Are you trying to hide that thread where u are called Bearnstein?
Or incredibly lonely, with no concept of time?

Mel, why the hell are you so mean to him? He was bumping because he wants people to reply.

One bump is enough. 3 or 4 in a row????

TROLLING

Cause it kept falling down the chain of threads, dumbass. Any other questions, Ass Clown?