The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness.

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

 

[buggz05]

God is everything, God is all. That is what I believe.

To me, God represents suffering, hatred and evil. But he also represents love, wisdom and truth. "Men were made in the image of God." If you can figure out what Man IS instead of what he isn't, then you can do the same for God.

Einstein knew this. All of the greats figured it out in different forms.

 

[buggz05]

God is everything, God is all. That is what I believe.

To me, God represents suffering, hatred and evil. But he also represents love, wisdom and truth. "Men were made in the image of God." If you can figure out what Man IS instead of what he isn't, then you can do the same for God.

Einstein knew this. All of the greats figured it out in different forms.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Writing something down, get it right, writing something down. That would serve a dual purpose. One, it would prove that this deity actually exists. Secondly, it would prove that the universe was actually created for us to exist in. We would not need religion, if proof of this supreme deity actually existed. That is because the presence would be acknowledged without anyone worrying about how to please, or worship this so called supreme deity.  

Now I am not going to try and insult you as you did me, by suggesting what you have in the bolded type.

In that statement, you've shown how limited you are in your ability to use proper judgement and reason.

Perhaps you are not as enlightened as you think you are.  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Denials?  What the hell am I denying?  My initial comment was intended to illicit SELF-REFLECTION which it seems like some of you refuse to do or are simply incapable of.  Acting like a martyr?  Talk about hyperbole

.

I never argued that the organized religions of the world do not act hypocritically.  I agree with you that they do.  I never said it was hypocritical for anyone to state their beliefs or voice their opinions.  I said that the way that you, OP, Lobotomy Beats, etc. often do so is hypocritical for the reasons outlined above in this post, my initial response, and my other posts in this thread.

Of course I have an "agenda."  Everyone does... even if that "agenda" is that they are just curious and interested in learning different perspectives, beliefs, etc.  My "position" is one of learning and reflection and the encouragement of learning and reflection among others.

My own personal beliefs and religious and spiritual background I don't often speak on (on the internet) because it only serves as a way for others to "pigeonhole" me... it has nothing to do with "fear."  The same way you and others criticize religion (rightfully so) for so often dividing instead of uniting, will be the way such information will be used "against" me as I see happen so often on this board.  The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

I'm not opposed to your freedom to speak out as you see fit.  I just think that the way you and some others so often go about doing so does not encourage real dialogue and is ultimately not very useful.  However, it is obviously up to everyone how they choose to communicate.

I am only going to address this point, as it seems that this is why you've suggested that I am being hypocritical, in my vehement responses toward those who claim that I am going to "hell", for not believing in the boogey man.

Unity cannot happen with those who demand that you see things their way, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as a persons so called faith, It is closely link to emotions, which in turn throws logic and reason out of the window. They say "god exists", I say I want proof. They say have "faith", I ask why? They say without faith, I will not "understand". In that, there is no logic, no reason.

 Pimps use the same tactic while recruiting %%#*%%. It is a way of brainwashing, getting someone throw away common sense, then putting their "faith" in something other than themselves. The first right of every human being is self preservation. As soon as someone relinquishes that right, they are then controlled by whomever, or whatever is calling the shots. For pimps, drugs or alcohol is introduced, as that will be the carrot at the end of the stick. For the church and their pastors and preachers, it is the PIE IN THE SKY theory, which is nothing but a con. Live your life for those greater than yourself, then you are going to go to heaven. For the *@@++, "heaven" is making her pimp happy.  

So as soon as someone, like those on this very thread suggests, "why can't you see it the other way?"

Well, it is because that way is filled with false promises, that's why.

I am all for humanity, as this is where I share my connection with the human family. However, when someone comes at me with their religion first instead of their humanity, this is where we are going to have a problem, as I can smell the con coming a mile away.

Now on the flip side, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe in a higher power. It is tough out here, right?

But then again, it lends a whole lot of creedence to what Brother Einstien has written, doesn't it?

I'm suggesting that you (and others) are being hypocritical for the reason you underlined as well as a number of other reasons, many of which I also stated in my last post in response to Its That Dude:

Originally Posted by red mpls

However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Writing something down, get it right, writing something down. That would serve a dual purpose. One, it would prove that this deity actually exists. Secondly, it would prove that the universe was actually created for us to exist in. We would not need religion, if proof of this supreme deity actually existed. That is because the presence would be acknowledged without anyone worrying about how to please, or worship this so called supreme deity.  

Now I am not going to try and insult you as you did me, by suggesting what you have in the bolded type.

In that statement, you've shown how limited you are in your ability to use proper judgement and reason.

Perhaps you are not as enlightened as you think you are.  

 

[nat turner]

[h1]Religion[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 24 August 2010.

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a general set of beliefs about life, purpose, etc. For other uses, see Religion (disambiguation).

"Religious" redirects here. For a member of a Catholic religious order, see Religious (Catholicism).
[table][tr][th=""]Religions by country[/th][/tr][tr][td]
North America[show]

[table][tr][td][/td][td]Canada · United States · Mexico
Cuba · Haiti · Dominican Republic
Trinidad and Tobago · Nicaragua[/td][/tr][/table]

South America[show]

[table][tr][td]
Argentina · Chile · Colombia · Peru
Bolivia · Brazil · Paraguay
[/td][/tr][/table]

Europe[show]

[table][tr][td]
Iceland · Ireland · United Kingdom
Portugal · Spain · Italy · France
Netherlands · Belgium · Germany
Switzerland · Luxembourg · Austria
Denmark · Sweden · Norway · Finland
Poland · Lithuania · Moldova · Russia
Albania · Serbia · Montenegro
Bulgaria · Romania · Greece · Cyprus · Malta Turkey
[/td][/tr][/table]

Middle East[show]

[table][tr][td]
Egypt · Israel · Lebanon
Jordan · Armenia · Azerbaijan
Iran · Iraq · Syria · Cyprus · Turkey
[/td][/tr][/table]

Africa[show]

[table][tr][td]
Algeria · Nigeria · Sudan · Ethiopia · Seychelles
Uganda · Zambia · Kenya · South Africa
[/td][/tr][/table]

Asia[show]

[table][tr][td]
Afghanistan · Pakistan · India
Nepal · Sri Lanka · Vietnam
China · Hong Kong · Macau · Taiwan
North Korea · South Korea · Japan
Malaysia · Singapore · Philippines
[/td][/tr][/table]

Oceania[show]

[table][tr][td]
Indonesia · Papua New Guinea
Australia · New Zealand · Fiji
[/td][/tr][/table]

Religion Portal   v • d • e 
[/td][/tr][/table]
http:// 
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Religious symbols, from left to right:
row 1: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism
row 2: Islam, Buddhism, Shinto
row 3: Sikhism, Bahai, Jainism

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...00px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Major denominations and religions of the world

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.[sup][1][/sup] It is often described[sup][by whom?][/sup] as communal belief in a supernatural, sacred or divine being. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but it is more than private belief and has a public aspect. Most religions have organised behaviors, congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places and scriptures.


_









_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If there is a higher power, it would clear all of this crap up if the deity decided to write something down, just show up even, in order to prove that it exists!

No more religion, where people are trying to coax good luck and fortune from some higher power, just because they "pray" properly. No more con artists claiming to know, or even being the REAL "god", no more misunderstandings as to why we are actually here!

 

[nat turner]

[h1]Religion[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 24 August 2010.

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a general set of beliefs about life, purpose, etc. For other uses, see Religion (disambiguation).

"Religious" redirects here. For a member of a Catholic religious order, see Religious (Catholicism).
[table][tr][th=""]Religions by country[/th][/tr][tr][td]
North America[show]

[table][tr][td][/td][td]Canada · United States · Mexico
Cuba · Haiti · Dominican Republic
Trinidad and Tobago · Nicaragua[/td][/tr][/table]

South America[show]

[table][tr][td]
Argentina · Chile · Colombia · Peru
Bolivia · Brazil · Paraguay
[/td][/tr][/table]

Europe[show]

[table][tr][td]
Iceland · Ireland · United Kingdom
Portugal · Spain · Italy · France
Netherlands · Belgium · Germany
Switzerland · Luxembourg · Austria
Denmark · Sweden · Norway · Finland
Poland · Lithuania · Moldova · Russia
Albania · Serbia · Montenegro
Bulgaria · Romania · Greece · Cyprus · Malta Turkey
[/td][/tr][/table]

Middle East[show]

[table][tr][td]
Egypt · Israel · Lebanon
Jordan · Armenia · Azerbaijan
Iran · Iraq · Syria · Cyprus · Turkey
[/td][/tr][/table]

Africa[show]

[table][tr][td]
Algeria · Nigeria · Sudan · Ethiopia · Seychelles
Uganda · Zambia · Kenya · South Africa
[/td][/tr][/table]

Asia[show]

[table][tr][td]
Afghanistan · Pakistan · India
Nepal · Sri Lanka · Vietnam
China · Hong Kong · Macau · Taiwan
North Korea · South Korea · Japan
Malaysia · Singapore · Philippines
[/td][/tr][/table]

Oceania[show]

[table][tr][td]
Indonesia · Papua New Guinea
Australia · New Zealand · Fiji
[/td][/tr][/table]

Religion Portal   v • d • e 
[/td][/tr][/table]
http:// 
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Religious symbols, from left to right:
row 1: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism
row 2: Islam, Buddhism, Shinto
row 3: Sikhism, Bahai, Jainism

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...00px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Major denominations and religions of the world

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.[sup][1][/sup] It is often described[sup][by whom?][/sup] as communal belief in a supernatural, sacred or divine being. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but it is more than private belief and has a public aspect. Most religions have organised behaviors, congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places and scriptures.


_









_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If there is a higher power, it would clear all of this crap up if the deity decided to write something down, just show up even, in order to prove that it exists!

No more religion, where people are trying to coax good luck and fortune from some higher power, just because they "pray" properly. No more con artists claiming to know, or even being the REAL "god", no more misunderstandings as to why we are actually here!

 

[DCAllAfrican]

So you are saying that if God really existed, he should have cleared all of this up by now?

For those that believe in God, why do you think he hasn't cleared any of this up?

If God is like us (man) than he should be about self-preservation as well, right? Well why won't he clear his name up since it comes out of so many "different" people's mouthes in so many different ways. They all say he is doing different things and they say he looks 100 different ways. Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

So you are saying that if God really existed, he should have cleared all of this up by now?

For those that believe in God, why do you think he hasn't cleared any of this up?

If God is like us (man) than he should be about self-preservation as well, right? Well why won't he clear his name up since it comes out of so many "different" people's mouthes in so many different ways. They all say he is doing different things and they say he looks 100 different ways. Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

 

[devildog1776]

Us modern homosapiens are nothing more than genetically modified homoerutus and homoneanderthalensis... The Vatican knows the truth and refuse to lethe public know becausetheor power grip on world affairs would be shattered. The answers are out there, we jus have to search for it. The annunaki(biblical nephilim) are the GOD(s) that is responsible for our sudden explosion in humanoid feats. We are new to this planet still adapting still changing. We need to know who we are as a race before we move forward with our spiritual evolution.

 

[devildog1776]

Us modern homosapiens are nothing more than genetically modified homoerutus and homoneanderthalensis... The Vatican knows the truth and refuse to lethe public know becausetheor power grip on world affairs would be shattered. The answers are out there, we jus have to search for it. The annunaki(biblical nephilim) are the GOD(s) that is responsible for our sudden explosion in humanoid feats. We are new to this planet still adapting still changing. We need to know who we are as a race before we move forward with our spiritual evolution.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

So you are saying that if God really existed, he should have cleared all of this up by now?

For those that believe in God, why do you think he hasn't cleared any of this up?

If God is like us (man) than he should be about self-preservation as well, right? Well why won't he clear his name up since it comes out of so many "different" people's mouthes in so many different ways. They all say he is doing different things and they say he looks 100 different ways. Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

Damned skippy!



  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

So you are saying that if God really existed, he should have cleared all of this up by now?

For those that believe in God, why do you think he hasn't cleared any of this up?

If God is like us (man) than he should be about self-preservation as well, right? Well why won't he clear his name up since it comes out of so many "different" people's mouthes in so many different ways. They all say he is doing different things and they say he looks 100 different ways. Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

Damned skippy!



  

 

[diego]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

  Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

So g0d is a woman?

  

 

[diego]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

  Is he content on having multiple personalities? I think he is.

So g0d is a woman?

  

 

[zichardruniga]

jeez christ this post is intense, but to me theres no point in reading, i just ignore religious people, there lost beyond belief, still living by the rulers of centuries before, kinda pathetic if u ask me

 

[zichardruniga]

jeez christ this post is intense, but to me theres no point in reading, i just ignore religious people, there lost beyond belief, still living by the rulers of centuries before, kinda pathetic if u ask me

 

[zichardruniga]

jeez christ this post is intense, but to me theres no point in reading, i just ignore religious people, there lost beyond belief, still living by the rulers of centuries before, kinda pathetic if u ask me

 

[zichardruniga]

jeez christ this post is intense, but to me theres no point in reading, i just ignore religious people, there lost beyond belief, still living by the rulers of centuries before, kinda pathetic if u ask me