 |
| Hello, Rosa_McGee [ logout ] profile | register | faq | search | forum home (Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ) << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> Marilyn Manson BBS > Marilyn Manson > To all the openminded I say welcome. The great theology thread has returned! Author Message achroma-xolotl Member 226 Posts Member since: 04-29-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let us examine the concept of God and observe some of its striking implications for man's consciousness. To begin with, those who profess to believe in God are unable to identify or communicate intelligibly what it is that they believe in. What is the nature, the identity of God? What is the meaning of the concept? "God is 'something'" they say, "only I don't know what it is." They claim to believe in it nevertheless. No philosophy, theology or religion has ever given a rationally intelligible definition or even description of the nature of God, or any intelligible content to the concept "God." Observe that I said "intelligible." A great many descriptions have been offered and a great many attributes have been ascribed to God but they are of a kind that represent a negation and a mockery of man's consciousness as well as of everything known to him in reason about the nature of reality. For instance: "God" claim the mystics, "is infinite." What does it mean to be infinite? It means to possess no limits. To possess no specific determinate finite number of attributes--no specific particular identifiable qualities. It means to be nothing in particular. But to be nothing in particular is not to be. To assert that an infinite being exists is to assert that something can exist that possesses no identity. To accept the existence of a being who possesses no identity one has to reject the Law of Identity. But to reject the Law of Identity is to reject the total of one's grasp of reality. Thus the concept of an infinite God is the destruction of man's concept of existence, of being. "God" claim the mystics, "is pure spirit" or "pure consciousness." What do they mean by 'spirit'? Well, in rational terms the concept 'spirit' is intelligible and simply means man's consciousness. Consciousness, in rational terms, means the faculty of awareness possessed by a specific material living entity. But this is not what the mystics mean. By "pure spirit" they mean a non-material entity. And by "pure consciousness" they mean a faculty without any entity to which it belongs. What is a non-material entity? The mystics have no identification for it and no definition. No concept except the negation of man's concepts. Non-material means simply "non-anything you know." Spirit, in the mystics' terms, is not something specific or identifiable. Its nature is precisely that it cannot be identified. It is not to be grasped by man. It is not merely different from matter, it is the metaphysical opposite of matter. It is that which matter is not. To grasp it you must reject everything which you do grasp and replace it with the concept of "that which is not what I grasp." In terms of man's consciousness, to grasp means to understand, to identify. The definition of spirit offered by the mystics is in effect "that which is not to be identified by man." The same epistemological devastation is performed by the mystics' concept of pure consciousness. Man's concept of consciousness is a faculty belonging to a specific being who possesses specific means of awareness such as sense organs, nerves, a brain--which make it possible for him to be aware of reality in the form of sensations, perceptions, conceptions. But the mystics' concept of pure consciousness is a faculty without an entity. A faculty that exists by itself and is conscious without any specific means of awareness. An action without an entity that acts. The action of an unlimited entity--unlimited by any specific means. This is not only the destruction of the Law of Identity but also the acceptance of the one epistemological method that destroys a rational consciousness: the dropping of context. Logic, man's means of cognition, requires the preservation of the full context of every concept man forms. To accept the idea of a pure consciousness, man must drop the context, the meaning, the root of consciousness as he knows it and replace it with the idea of a consciousness which is "not what I know or mean or grasp." Thus the doctrine of "God is pure consciousness" is the destruction of the concept of consciousness. "God" claim the mystics, "is omnipotent." What does omnipotent mean? It means that God can do anything. Since the actions possible to an entity are determined by the nature of the entity that acts, for God to be unrestricted in action, he would have to be unrestricted in identity. And this would mean that he possesses no identity. If God is omnipotent, not only does he possess no identity but neither does anything else possess identity. Think about that. God can do anything to any entity and he can make any entity do anything, regardless of the entity's nature. Which is tantamount to saying that the entity has no nature. Anything goes. Anything is possible. If miracles can happen, reality is fluid, arbitrary, unpredictable, unknowable. A miracle is the rationally impossible. If God is omnipotent, contradictions have to be possible. This raises a number of questions the sole meaning of which is a mockery of man's reason. For example: it has been asked "Can God tie a knot that he cannot untie?" or "Can God create a mountain that he cannot climb over?" The answer given by the mystics is "You must not try to understand, you must believe." You must believe that that which is inconceivable to you is possible. And that that which you do conceive of, such as specific identifiable entities, can be negated and dissolved by miracle at any moment. Thus the concept that God is omnipotent destroys the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality. "God" claim the mystics, "is omniscient." To be omniscient means to know everything: past, present and future. Observe that the attribute of omniscience is necessitated by the attribute of omnipotence. In order for God to be able to do anything, he would have to know everything. But observe also that the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience contradict each other. In order for God to know everything, everything would have to be fated and predetermined. But if everything were fated and predetermined, it could not be changed. And if it could not be changed, this is a limitation on God's potency and he is not omnipotent. Here again the mystic will tell you "Don't think, don't examine, don't wonder, don't question--believe." The concept of omniscience is the secret wish-fulfillment of every mystic. To acquire one's knowledge, by a process of struggle and effort, is abhorrent to the mystic. But to know everything, to know it instantaneously and without effort, to know it causelessly without any specific means of knowing it, or acquiring one's knowledge, or holding one's knowledge, this is the mystics' passionate dream. The concept of omniscience is a psychological monument to the mystics' hatred of effort. Finally, the mystics claim that "God is all-good." This means that he is incapable of evil. This poses a number of problems. The first is, if he is incapable of evil, how can he be omnipotent? Another problem: consider what is meant by the concept "Good." The concept of good or evil can pertain only to a being who has the power of choice. Morality applies only to entities who have a choice of action. If a robot were constructed for a certain job which it would execute flawlessly because it was so designed by a scientist, you would not call it a virtuous robot. You would know that the robot has no power of choice and that it does only what it HAS to do. But if God is incapable of choosing evil, then he is as amoral as that robot. If God has no power to choose evil, if by nature he must always and automatically choose the good, then he is outside the concept of morality and his actions cannot be described as either good or evil. The doctrine of "God is all good" creates an enormous problem which the mystics have never been able to solve. It is known as the Problem of Evil, and it consists of the question "If God is omnipotent and all-good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?" The philosopher Epicurus expressed this problem thus: "Either God would remove evil out of this world and cannot, or he can and will not, or he has not the power nor will, or lastly he has both the power and will. If he has the will and not the power, this shows weakness, which is contrary to the nature of God. If he has the power and not the will, it is malignity, and this is no less contrary to his nature. And if he is neither able nor willing he is both impotent and malignant and consequently cannot be God. And if he is both willing and able, which alone is consonant with the nature of God, whence comes evil? Or why does he not prevent it?" Theologians have been painfully aware of this problem and they have offered a number of answers. The most common answer is that man's limited intellect cannot grasp the mystery. That god in fact works for good purposes, but the purposes are of a kind which man's reason cannot grasp. So, if we see innocents slaughtered by the millions, and the seemingly evil prosper, and if it seems to us that we are witnessing something evil, why it is only an illusion--it is not evil. By god's standards, it is good. If you see your loved ones being tortured and murdered, do not dare consider it evil, do not dare pass any moral judgment; it merely seems evil from your limited viewpoint. It serves a good end from god's viewpoint, which you cannot grasp and must not question. If god wills it to be so, who are you to call it evil or to protest? Thus the doctrine of "God is all good" is the destruction of morality. Observe that the mystics' answer to all the problems and contradictions in the concept of God is "Your mind cannot conceive of it. If your mind cannot conceive of the irrational, the contradictory, the senseless, the impossible, it is your mind that must take the blame." The ultimate brain-killer is the mystics' claim that God is unknowable. Do not confuse the concept of unknowable with the concept of unknown. Unknown merely means something not known at present or not known to you. But unknowable means that which can never be known. That which by its nature cannot be known. The most consistent theory of the mystics, pertaining to God as the unknowable, is that of a theological school known as negative theology. The negative theologians insist that one cannot possibly say what God is because to ascribe any attributes to him is to limit him, and this amounts to an impertinence. One must not say that God is finite--that would limit him. One must not say that God is infinite--that would limit him also, since it forbids him to be finite. One must not say that he is all-good because that implies that he cannot be bad. One must not say that he is good AND bad, because that forbids the possibility of his being exclusively one. One must not say that he is omniscient, because that forbids the possibility of his being fallible. One must not say that he is fallible because that forbids the possibility of his being omniscient. Well, here in this theory you can observe the full, open and explicit meaning and purpose of the mystics' advocacy of faith in God: the hatred of man's mind and the desire to destroy it. To destroy all the cardinal concepts of man's reason. To destroy the base of man's consciousness, the Law of Identity. And to leave man groveling on his belly, as an abject idiot, cringing in terror at a nightmare apparition which he dares not identify as either real or unreal, knowable or unknowable. posted 02-19-200110:25 PM achroma-xolotl Member 226 Posts Member since: 04-29-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have been an atheist since the age of twelve, because there are no rational grounds for believing in God. I thought, If God is needed to explain the existence of the universe, then what explains the existence of God? If God does exist, he's at least as marvelous and impressive as the universe---and no less in need of an explanation. But then who created whatever created God? Isn't it more reasonable to accept the existence of the universe as the starting point of everything? Whatever stages of development it may go through, whatever its forms at different points in time, in an ultimate sense the universe IS. We begin there. posted 02-19-200110:32 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Great Essay achroma-xolotl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fortunately, I'm not a mystic so these conceptions do not apply to me. However, I appreciate your input...freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-19-200110:32 PM achroma-xolotl Member 226 Posts Member since: 04-29-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I need to point out that God is supposed to be a sentient being, not a metaphor for reality. I am not arguing against personal interpretations; I'm arguing against the conception of this supposed entity. posted 02-19-200110:35 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks achroma-xolotl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't have time to respond to your essay. The only reason I would say that it does not apply to me is because we are Trinitarian. God was not only Spirit because He came down to earth in the form of human flesh. That would destroy your lack of identity argument. Please refer to my previous post on omniscience and omnipotenct to discuss the inaccurate deduction on the contradictory nature. Also, I would like to point out the difference between potential power and exercised power. God can choose to limit his own power by His character. That does not make Him less omnipotent but it does allow Him to be all-good. What I mean is this, if I said, "I could never hit a girl." Well, could I physically? Sure, nothing is limiting me from doing so. However, my character does. Unlike man, who can make these type of resolutions and never carry them through, God can make this type of resolution as saying, "I cannot lie" and be consistent in applying that to himself. Therefore, God has the potential power to do evil but he chooses not to exercise that power. The same can be said of the rock. God can make a rock and choose to limit his own power to push it. That is why I believe Jesus could take the form of a human. While on earth, Jesus chose to voluntarily limit his power to see what it was like to be human. Therefore, in all senses, the Christian God is powerful enough and able to overcome your alleged contradictions. I could go into more detail on these but I do not have time. I hope that clarifies my previous statement. Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-20-200108:36 AM achroma-xolotl Member 226 Posts Member since: 04-29-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Natural religion, in Hume's day, meant a religion that was supported by the natural sciences, as opposed to a "revealed" religion, which would depend on revelation---on mystical experience or some other uncheckable source of conviction. If your only grounds for your religious belief is "God told me so in a dream," your religion is not natural religion. The distinction would not have made much sense before the dawn of modern science in the seventeenth century, when science created a new, and competitive, standard of evidence for all belief. It opened up the question: Can you give us any SCIENTIFIC grounds for your religious beliefs? Many religious thinkers, appreciating that the prestige of scientific thought was---other things being equal---a worthy aspiration, took up the challenge. It is hard to see why anybody would want to shun scientific confirmation of one's creed, if it were there to be had. The overwhelming favorite among purportedly scientific arguments for religious conclusions then and now, was one version or another of the Argument from Design: among the effects we can objectively observe in the world, there are many that are not ( cannot be, for various reasons ) mere accidents; they must have been designed to be as they are, and there cannot be design without a Designer; therefore, a Designer, God, must exist ( or have existed ), as the source of all these wonderful effects. Such an argument can be seen as an attempt at an alternate route to Locke's conclusion, a route that will take us through somewhat more empirical detail instead of relying so bluntly and directly on what is deemed inconceivable. The actual features of the observed designs may be analyzed, for instance, to secure the grounds for our appreciation of the wisdom of the Designer, and our conviction that mere chance could not be responsible for these marvels. In Hume's _Dialogues_, three fictional characters pursue the debate with consummate wit and vigor. Cleanthes defends the Argument from Design, and it gives it one of its most eloquent expressions. Here is his opening statement of it: Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles, exactly, thought it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance---of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble, and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument A POSTERIORI, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity and his similarity to human mind and intelligence. Philo, a skeptical challenger to Cleanthes, elaborates the argument, setting up for demolition. Anticipating to Paley's famous example, Philo notes: "Throw several pieces of steel together, without shape or form; they will never arrange themselves so as to compose a watch." He goes on: "Stone, and mortar, and wood, without an architect, never erect a house. But the ideas in a human mind, we see, by an unknown inexplicable economy, arrange themselves so as to form the plan of a watch or house. Experience, therefore, proves, that there is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter". Note that the Argument from Design depends on an inductive inference: where there's smoke, there's fire; and where there's design, there's mind. But this is a dubious inference. Philo observes: human intelligence is no more than one of the springs and principles of the universe, as well as heat or cold, attraction or repulsion, and a hundred others, which fall under daily observation. . . . But can a conclusion, with any propriety, be transferred from parts to the whole? . . . From observing the growth of a hair, can we learn any thing concerning the generation of a man? . . . What peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call thought, that we must thus make it the model of the whole universe? . . . Admirable conclusion! Stone, wood, brick, iron, brass have not, at this time, in this minute globe of earth, an order of arrangement without human art and contrivance: Therefore the universe could not originally attain its order and arrangement, without something similar to human art. Besides, Philo observes, if we put mind as the first cause, with its "unknown inexplicable economy," this only postpones the problem: We are still obliged to mount higher, in order to find the cause of this cause, which you had assigned as satisfactory and conclusive. . . . How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that Being whom you suppose the Author of nature, or, according to your system of anthropomorphism, the ideal world, into which you trace the material? Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world into another ideal world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop, and go no farther; why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on IN INFINITUM? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Cleanthes has no satisfactory responses to these rhetorical questions, and there is worse to come. Cleanthes insists that God's mind is LIKE THE HUMAN---and agrees when Philo adds "the liker the better." But, then, Philo presses on, is God's mind perfect, "free from every error, mistake, or incoherence in his undertakings"? There is a rival hypothesis to rule out: And what surprise must we entertain, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: Much labour lost: Many fruitless trials made: And a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinie ages of world-making. When Philo presents this fanciful alternative, with its breathtaking anticipations of Darwin's insight, he doesn't take it seriously except as a debating foil to Cleanthe's vision of an all-wise Artificer. Hume uses it only to make a point about what he saw as the limitations on our knowledge: "In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability, lies; amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater number which may be imagined". Imagination runs riot, and, exploiting that fecundity, Philo ties Cleanthes up in knots, devising weird and comical variations on Cleanthes' own hypotheses, defying Cleanthes to show why his own version should be preferred. "Why may not several Deities combine in contriving and framing a world? . . . And why not become a perfect anthropomorphite? Why not assert the Deity or Deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, etc.?" At one point, Philo anticipates the Gaia hypothesis: the universe bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no disorder. . . . The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal, and the Deity is the SOUL of the world, actuating it and actuated by it. Or perhaps isn't the world really more like a vegetable than an animal? In like manner as a tree sheds its seed into the neighboring fields, and produces other trees; so the great vegetable, the world, or this planetary system, produces within itself certain seeds, which, being scattered into the surrounding chaos, vegetate into new worlds. A comet, for instance, is the seed of a world. . . . One more wild possibility for good measure: The Brahmins assert, that the world arose from an infinite spider, who spun this whole complicated mass from his bowels, and annihilates afterwards the whole or any part of it, by absorbing it again, and resolving it into his own essence. Here is a species of cosmogony, which appears to us ridiculous; because a spider is a little contemptible animal, whose operation we are never likely to take for a model of the whole universe. But still here is a new species of analogy, even in our globe. And were there a planet wholly inhabited by spiders ( which is very possible ), this inference would there appear as natural and irrefragable as that which in our planet ascribes the origin of all things to design and intelligence, as explains by Cleanthes. Why an orderly system may not be spun from the belly as well as from the brain, it will be difficult for him to give a satisfactory reason. Cleanthes resists these onslaughts gamely, but Philo shows fatal flaws in every version of the argument that Cleanthes can devise. At the very end of the _Dialogues_ however, Philo surprises us by agreeing with Cleanthes: . . . the legitimate conclusion is that . . . if we are not contented with calling the first and supreme cause a God or Deity, but desire to vary the expression, what can we call him but Mind or Thought to which he is justly supposed to bear a considerable resemblance? Philo is surely Hume's mouthpiece in _Dialogues_. Why did Hume cave in? Our of fear of reprisal from the establishment? No. Hume knew he had shown that the Argument from Design was an irreparably flawed bridge between science and religion, and he arranged to have his _Dialogues_ published after his death in 1776 precisely in order to save himself from persecution. He caved in because he JUST COULDN'T IMAGINE any other explanation of the origin of the manifest design in nature. Hume could not see how the "curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature" could be due to chance---and if not chance, what? What could possibly account for this high-quality design if not an intelligent God? Philo is one of the most ingenious and resourceful competitors in any philosophical debate, real or imaginary, and he makes some wonderful stabs in the dark, hunting for an alternative. In Part VIII, he dreams up more speculations that come tantalizingly close to scooping Darwin ( and some more recent Darwinian elaborations ) by nearly a century. Instead of supposing matter infinite, as Epicurus did, let us suppose it finite. A finite number of particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions: And it must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or position must be tried an infinite number of times. . . . Is there a system, an order, an economy of things, by which matter can preserve that perpetual agitation, which seems essential to it, and yet maintain a constancy in the forms, which it produces? There certainly is such an economy: For this is actually the case with the present world. The continual motion of matter, therefore, in less than infinite transpositions, must produce this economy or order; and by its very nature, that order, when once established, supports itself, for many ages, if not eternity. But wherever matter is so poised, arranged, and adjusted as to continue in perpetual motion, and yet preserve a constancy in the forms, its situation must, of necessity, have all the same appearance of art and contrivance which we observe at present . . . . A defect in any of these particulars destroys the form; and the matter, of which it is composed, is again set loose, and is thrown into irregular motions and fermentations, till it unite itself to some other regular form . . . . Suppose. . . that matter were thrown into any position, by a blind, unguided force; it is evident that this first position must in all probability be the most confused and most disorderly imaginable, without any resemblance to those works of human contrivance, which, along with a symmetry of parts, discover an adjustment of means to ends and a tendency to self-preservation. . . . Suppose, that the actuating force, whatever it be, still continues in matter. . . . Thus the universe goes on for many ages in a continued succession of chaos and disorder. But is it not possible that it may settle at last. . . ? May we not hope for such a position, or rather be assured of it, from the eternal revolutions of unguided matter, and may not this account fall for all the appearing wisdom and contrivance which is in the universe? Hmmm, it seems that something like this might work . . . But Hume couldn't quite take Philo's daring foray seriously. His final verdict: "A total suspense of judgment is here our only reasonable resource." A few years before him, Denis Diderot had also written some speculations that tantalizingly foreshadowed Darwin: "I can maintain you. . . that monsters annihilated one another in succession; that all the defective combinations of matter have disappeared, and that there have only survived those in which the organization did not involve any important contradiction, and which could subsist by themselves and perpetuate themselves". Cute ideas about evolution had been floating around for millenia, but, like most philosophical ideas, although they did seem to offer a solution of sorts to the problem at hand, they didn't promise to go any farther, to open up new investigations or generate surprising predictions that could be tested, or explain any facts they weren't expressly designed to explain. The evolution revolution had to wait until Charles Darwin saw how to weave an evolutionary hypothesis into an explanatory fabric composed of literally thousands of hard-won and often surprising facts about nature. Darwin neither invented the wonderful idea out of the whole cloth all by himself, no understood it in its entirety even when he had formulated it. But he did such a monumental job of clarifying the idea, and tying it down so it would never again float away, that he deserves the credit if anyone does. posted 02-20-200109:47 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 putthisinyourpipeandsmokeitibelievethattheendoftheworldiscloserthanmostpeoplethinkibelievetotalworldchaosisgoingtohappeninthenext100years itcouldbeglobalwarmingstarvationworldwarsreligiouswarsislamsmuslimsjewscatholicsoritcouldbeallofwhatijustwrote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe the huge world conflict expressed in the bible under the revelations is going to happen within the next 100 years.It could be caused by the greenhouse effect,religious wars,hunger,politics,or something else. It could be a combination of many things. I believe that human beings will be the cause of their own demise whatever it is.These intellectual self proclaimed know it all scientists make me want to spit in some of their faces. They are finding genes that could change the average age of death to well over 100.They have grown an ear out of tissue on a mouse.SOME OF YOU MAY THINK THAT IS BULLSHIT, BUT IT'S NOT! That's just what the earth needs..................THINK ABOUT IT!! The earth needs more people on it that can live way past 100 years.The population would consume us all. People say that we could invent other things to sustain the mass population. Really ???? Just like we can find a cure for aids ???? People think they are too smart for a GOD!!!! People start getting cocky and rebellious because they believe they can find the answer for anything in science. SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY ARE GOD. I LOOKED IN THE MIRROR AND FOUND GOD. This is a joke to me!!! Human beings thinking they are the most advanced of everything in this vast universe. Human beings thinking that this universe was just one big accident!!That life was also formed by accident. Don't you see that these humans that claim there is no god by giving examples of logic and science still can't explain the origin of life or universe???? They cop out and say it was a big bang. It was an accident. I also believe that anyone who thinks they have a great intelligent mind, would keep it open to all possibilities and not close it to certain ones because of logic. You can believe or not believe in whatever you want. You can write essay's 5 miles long. Whatever. Have you ever heard of the intelligent creation theory ???? I think Free Grace stated something about this. You need to copy and post it again FreeGrace. I'm thinking of changing my name to "STRETCH" what do you think?????? TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-20-200111:03 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You fucking philosophy majors or whatever have obviously spent (wasted) a lot of time on writing your papers(toilet)! You fucking come in here and post it then expect one person to keep up with all of it!!!!! I CAN'T AND DON'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF!!!!! SPEAKING FOR MYSELF!!!!!! FUCK OFF!!!!! TAKE YOUR FUCKING TOILET PAPER(ESSAY) AND PUT IT IN THE LOCAL TACO BELL RESTROOM WHERE IT CAN BE USED AS A BENEFIT FOR SOMEONE!!! TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-20-200111:15 AM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adolph, you are not openminded, nor are you capable of reasoned bebate. I find your continued presence in this thred somewhat curious. Me. V. Random Quote club 2001 - member No. 1 "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." *^*Co-founder and proud member of the blackjack appreciation society. She's tiny but she rules.*^* "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-21-200109:14 AM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .... i find the stretch somewhat annoying... - the most annoying thing about life is living, usually (marilyn manson) - posted 02-21-200109:26 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GOOD. THEN YOU DON'T COME IN ANY MORE OF MY THREADS RECTUM AND I WILL DO THE SAME FOR YOU. DEAL? TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-21-200110:49 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SORRY ROSA. I FIND PEOPLE WHO SPEND HOURS ON WRITING AN ESSAY, THEN COME IN HERE AND POST IT ALONG WITH 4 OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON WRITING SOMETHING,THEN DEMAND AN ANSWER PROMPTLY DISTURBING. IN FACT, I FIND A LOT OF THESE EGOCENTRIC ASSHOLES ANNOYING. OH,LOOK.....RECTUM CALLED ME CLOSE MINDED YOU SEEM TO FORGET THAT YOUR CRITICISM OF ME ONLY MAKES ME STRONGER IN WILL TO SHOW WHAT AN ASSHOLE YOU ARE...........MR. WESTERNER PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTRODUCING EVIL IN CERTAIN CULTURES! LMAO. AND RICTUS LIKES TO WRAP HIS LIPS AROUND COCK. I WILL DELETE THIS IF YOU AGREE NOT TO JUMP IN MY POSTS ANYMORE ...........I WILL DO THE SAME. YOU VENGEFUL FAGGOT. TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-21-200110:59 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OH,about the comment of me not being capable of reasonable debate. THAT'S JUST ANOTHER VENGEFUL FAG INTERPRETATION. I could debate for the sake of just ..........debating, but the assholes on this site have already made their conclusions and their minds up.Their minds are the ones that are closed.NOT MINE!! YOU FUCKWADS JUST POST THIS SHIT FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE!!!!!! I WON'T WASTE MY TIME!!!!! Once again , the open mouthed cocksucker tries to make me look like some uneducated moron.I might be outspoken, along with many other faults..... but you obviosly are obsessed with me. YOU FAGGOT LITTLE COCKSUCKER. YOU CAN'T HAVE ME I WOULD LIKE TO KICK YOUR ASS FOR THE WAY YOU TRY TO TALK DOWN TO ME. I GUESS THATS THE SOUTHERN REDNECK IN ME. YOU SEE, WHEN SOMEONE TALKS TO ME ......THE WAY YOU DO.......I KICK THEIR ASS ......THEN THEY DON'T TALK TO ME LIKE THAT ANYMORE JUST YOUR FAGGOT PICTURE DISGUSTS ME WHEN I SEE IT . SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO........... LEAVE ME ALONE FAGGOT. AND............ I WILL SHOW YOU THE SAME. SINCE I CAN'T KICK YOUR ASS ON THE NET. TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-21-200111:15 AM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ o.k.. deal... you remove the stretch & i'll ignore you in the future, never talk to you again... if that's what you want... nah - forget it, each to his own thread - that's too pathetic... as for obsession, you seem to be kinda obsessed with him, too, not to mention that obsession with sexuality-related insults - so what conclusions am i to draw from that ?! anyway, i'm not in the mood for any too rational discussion tonight... maybe you could just create a new thread for that feud of yours... and if someone could tell me why my signature is broken up, i'd appreciate that, too, btw.... - the most annoying thing about life is living, usually (marilyn manson) - posted 02-21-200111:58 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSA: I WASN'T EVEN TALKING TO YOU EXCEPT ABOUT THE STRETCH THING.RECTUM ASKED WHY I STILL COME TO THIS THREAD. I WAS ANSWERING......HE FUCKING COMES INTO MY THREADS WITH A VENGEFUL ATTITUDE FOLLOWING ME AROUND LIKE A LITTLE REVENGEFUL CHILD. I WILL DO THE SAME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ???? IF YOU FUCKING HATE ME SO MUCH........ THEN LEAVE ME ALONE ASSHOLE. IT MAKES NO SENSE. EXCEPT HE IS A VENGEFUL LIL HATE BASTARD FAGGOT LIKE MOST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS SITE. ONCE AGAIN. WE WILL SEE. I WILL STRETCH AND BRING DOWN EVERY POST HE MAKES (LIKE A VENGEFUL LITTLE FUCKWAD) IF HE KEEPS UP THE SAME SHIT. ALL I'M SAYING IS ........STOP. SHOW ME JUST A HINT OF RESPECT.........AND..... I WILL DO THE SAME. OR....... KEEP BEING AN ASSHOLE.....AND.....YAAAAAAAAAWN....so will I TRYING TO BE A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN posted 02-21-200112:46 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 achroma-xolotl and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------ achroma-xolotl...Thanks for your input. Is your name in nahuatl? I would recommend your reading the rest of this thread with regard to scientific proof (we began discussing on Page 2). Mike Sorrow and I debated the issue of intelligent design verses evolution/big bang for several weeks. I think you would find the discussion quite interesting. Mike did a great job of stating the case for science and I did my best to talk about theism. You will note from our discussions that I do not have the same scientific knowledge as Mike but I said most of what I knew. However, after a great deal of debate, we mutually decided to stop talking about this point. The main reason was that it was wiping us out. Keep in mind that I do not believe that faith in God is in contradiction with science, but science is not my primary source of validation for my belief. I readily admit that Christianity requires faith but I also point out that science requires a great deal of faith (especially evolution and big bang). You will also note Mike's comment that I have on the sig. It is a contrast of the two positions. Adolph, as always I love to see you here but I must admit that the stretching does make it hard to read. Thanks for your points about God. I do think you have a very open mind. I just hate to see that the arguments with Rictus and Rosa have started again. Hey Rictus and Rosa. I love y'all. Rictus, I'm looking forward to seeing your interpretation of Born Again. Rosa, any thoughts you or anyone else have would be appreciated. Love y'all, Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow [This message was edited by freegrace on 02-21-2001 at 09:51 PM.] posted 02-21-200109:37 PM Lord of the Nazgúl Member 1369 Posts Member since: 02-02-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't been keeping up with this thread, and 25 pages is a bit much to review right now, but I just want to say one of my strongest convictions about God. God gave man free will. Everything that has resulted from it has been man's doing. I'm taking a Holocaust class and hear things like "God abandoned his own people" fairly often. But God is not of this world. His place is in the next world. This - life - is man's, and God gave consequences. Whether or not one believs in these and what one does in the knowledge of these is up to him. The fact that God has not parted the clouds and intervened (for me) is strong proof that not only does He exist, but he is also loving. A good parent lets children make their own mistakes and suffer their own consequences based on their own decisions. This is how I see God. Sorry if this point had been brought up before, but I haven't waded through this thread yet... posted 02-21-200109:54 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 I understand ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Did I not see at one point that you confessed being of the Christian persuasion (I may be totally wrong...just asking)? How did God work in your life? What do you consider your purpose on the bbs to be? Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-21-200109:59 PM Grump Member 1967 Posts Member since: 01-11-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ what does a-g know about rictus's sexual practices? nothing. why is he himself so full of hate and vengeance and why does he try to justify it so often? why does he write all in caps? why do i care? that one i can answer: because sometimes he seems thoughtful and intelligent and not just a reactionary, and then other times.... i find it really curious. i wonder what compels him to think he's doing everyone a service by insulting them and "exposing" them. i don't think about him when i'm not on the BBS but when i am, it's almost impossible not to, because he makes his presence SO manifest... why does he feel the need to do this? what does he get out of it? will he grow out of it? will he learn some other way of interacting with people? why does he only see the bad in everything? why is he so quick to insult everyone rather than ever being charitable?Â? ## officially sick of sig files of all kinds##1 posted 02-21-200110:06 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 500 posts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's pretty amazing. Especially when you all consider that we had another one that got archived. Rictus, you should be proud of yourself. Everyone else too. I'm off to bed. I'm not a "post counter" but I think it is pretty amazing how many people have participated...freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-21-200110:17 PM All times are PST . << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> | Page:Next Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 |
| ha ! fixed that... lol |