So.... Him actually existing instead of just being a figment of people's overactive imaginations would somehow defeat the purpose? A god of convenience then, he only exists if you believe he does? Kinda like I'm only invisible if you don't look at me and believe I am? Lol... Funny to add to all of that, people invented a religion in recent years in which they worship a flying spaghetti monster (no lies, google it). So should we believe that wholeheartedly in another 2000 years because any evidence of it's falsehood may have been lost to time by then?

Also, given a scenario(the one in your head) in which god does exist,
he whips you like his own personal slave and you oblige?
I'd quote the phrase, it's better to die free then to live as a slave but like I said he doesn't give you much choice, follow me or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Anyone that defied that either didn't know what they were getting into or were just being dramatic and likely regretted it later.

Also not really fair is it, if we don't believe in god and follow his ways despite him giving us NOTHING solid from which to believe in, he sends us off to burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Like "Guess what?!?! I'm real!! LOVE YOU!! Buh bye!". Dick...

No, he exists for every, only some give him the credit of that which is spoken bout.



That would totally be your choice, again not here to change your perspective.



What are you talking about? None of which you state goes with anything of the Christian belief or my specific believe. There is but one judgement.



Nothing is "flimsy" bout it either, even through the thread of "evidence of God". Nothing can "prove" God wrong so how can it not be "solid" proof?

You can't disprove the non-existence of something, that's an impossibility by definition since nothing 'exists' until we discover it. But does that mean we should believe every wild-eyed story that's told to us? God exists in the same category as pixies, fairy godmothers, magic and many other fairy tales that exist only in the minds of people. You can't argue his existence based on lacking evidence of non-existence, otherwise you break the very rules that we build our reality upon.

"That would totally be your choice, again not here to change your perspective."
You've just put your god in the same basket as the flying spaghetti monster, lol. So you'd just believe anything you're told so long as the story is old enough not to be immediately disproved.

If someone hadn't filled your head with wild stories as a kid, you would have dismissed feeling 'his presence' as something logically explainable like emotions or a change in the weather.

What do other people have to do with this discussion? Did I state that I was raised Christian or had any affiliation of Christianity growing up? Not claiming to either as that's irrelevant too the discussion, as was your post about such.

Again as I stated, I am the OP so if I go out of bounds a little on my own discussion, I won't be offended, trust me.

You also failed to address any other part of the post. I did make an assumption that you were a raised christian since the people that stick that hard to their religion and ignore any form of logic are often the ones brainwashed from a young age, so it's at their core and a bit harder to look away from. The other types usually being the ones that cling to religion because it "saved" them from a worse lifestyle such as alcohol or drug abuse. Then there's those that cling to it because they cannot find love in their life or purpose and therefore they turn to one that was invented by man 2000 years ago.

Apologies if I'm focusing this discussion too much on you but the participants on this convo have grown slim so I'm simply using you as an example for all those that believe without proof, it's not personal.

You have your god along with whatever other friends and family that you have accumulated. I have random forum threads and not much else. I was never that close to my family and pretty much no friends. I know, off-topic, just opening a window to me and why I may be so cynical and not believe in a god so easily as you.

Off topic as well and probably will be the end of this thread. But I too have no friends, and only family I have are mom and dad due too brother's choices of life that ended in prison or after prison along with the life that proceeds. None of which that has directed me toward my belief. I personally feel as I do because I have personally felt and experienced it. I've always been "raised" a Christian. But I've come too my own thoughts and my own conclusions from my own research and discover in the matter. I do give my condolences that this is the reason you've come too your conclusion. In the area of "friends/family" remember we all have free will. It's not God's will specifically, or God's choice on who/what stays in your life or accumulates in your life. That is their own choice, their decision. Not 100% of what happens in our life is accordance too God's desire. As people have free will... and if "free will" was foreknown, there would be no such thing as free will and judgement together. Regardless of the choice you make in the end my friend, I wish all happens greatly in your life and everything that happens for a reason, hope you see the reason in whatever you choose to be.

Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad.
And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can.

No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others.

You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering.

That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is.

I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice.

Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are:

1.Serve God.
2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.)

Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right?
Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance.
And, yet...many, many of them rebelled.

So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly.

I'll add to this off-topic part of the discussion that I, too, have little family left, and even less friends. So, it's unanimous. Maybe it's because we are on a dating site, debating philosophy and religion! Just kidding.
FWIW-I respect, and like, both of you, and wish you both the best. I suppose we could be cyber-friends, at least.

But God has, he just did it "yesterday" and you don't believe in what we have gathered together through many many separate situations and times in what we now call the "Holy Bible".

That you David, would like to also accommodate you for your "generosity" through the discussions on here. Never take it personally offensive or state/post anything personally offensive toward another :). Just keep in the "discussion" level, and appreciate that VERY MUCH.

Ya, I might get a bit offensive when it comes to my thoughts on religion but I can respect those that are able to carry on a cool headed debate and not let it get to their heads.

As for this thread ending, not likely, it's three years old. Just wait a while for some new people to chime in or some old people to get bored and start replying again. It's a debate over a non existent thing that lacks proof or disproof. I've even grown tired of the convo at this point. Revisiting it gives me something to do on the daily but I've gone from putting up a decent debate with strong points to just straight up denial of the existence of a god. Like I said, I didn't start the thread believing but I did make better arguments earlier on.

Also Cowboy, I'm sorry, I've seen your picture so many times now, you have such chiseled features, you look like some guy that would apply for the role of hercules in a movie or something. I'm not hitting on you, I'm just sayin, with a face like that you should have a girlfriend for sure.

No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him.

Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept?

On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not.

Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other.

No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know.

I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God.

You're welcome, Sir. And, I appreciate the fact that you have extended the same cordiality and respect to me. :)

No doubt! Cowboy kinda' reminds me of Tom (Loki) Hiddleston.

I was thinking more like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrIiLvg58SY
Like that unique 80's-90's hot guy look.
Or this guy from season 3 of game of thrones

Not too point out the obvious, but that is because that was the language spoken at that time. Of course the original wouldn't have been in english, it wasn't even in existence at that time.



That is because the bible only contains the important books that we have pertaining to salvation and or how things came about that possibly effected such. Eg., reason the OT is included in most bible even though they pertain no direct knowledge/information regarding salvation. And of course Catholics, Protestant, and Jewish bibles are different, they are different beliefs in the long run. Jews are still waiting for their promised messiah as they didn't believe Jesus was whom the prophecies spoke of that was to come. Catholics are not "Christian". Thus they have confession booths, the pope, ect. And Jesus has said he is the only path too Heaven. No one comes between man and Jesus or before Jesus. Now confession booths in general, not saying they are a bad thing. As we are told to confess our sins. But more towards the pope and what not area. Nothing wrong with him per say, just he's no more important in that way then Joe Bob down the street, he's no closer too God then anyone else.



The book of Enoch is a Jewish book, and again as my previous statement has nothing too do with Jesus Christ or "Christians". So still no comparison between them and isn't another "canonical" in it all. Not the same belief, no fighting or arguing, no nothing of such.

All the books of the OT are Jewish books, too!

Anyway...that's what you say now. But, it was considered to be the word of God for longer than you and I have been alive by many who called themselves Christians. And, as I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox CHRISTIAN Church still considers it to be. How can you be so sure that you are right, and they are wrong. You're a Christian, and they are Christians. I would also point out that many of the books in the Bible do not mention Jesus. Are you saying that they shouldn't be in the Bible, either?

But, once again, you're making my point for me. You say one thing, other Christians say something else...meanwhile "Dad" just keeps driving, saying nothing. You'd think he could at least speak up and tell us which holy books are his official holy books.

Yeah...I can see that, too.
But, he made me think of Tom Hiddleston right out of the gate.

Very correct. The OT is not "Christian". They are kept in the bible for history reference. Any laws contained in the OT have been fulfilled with Jesus' crucifixion, thus why he stated "Think not that I come to change the law, but too fulfill". Sorry if those aren't the EXACT words. Then while he was on the cross, he bowed his head and said "it" is finished. Just again, Jews don't believe Jesus too have been the prophesied messiah. So thus the break of from Jewish to Christianity began.



Not saying it's not the word of God. It was indeed the laws we were to abide by at the time of that "covenant". Now that covenant is fulfilled and we live by another covenant signed in Jesus' blood. Thus again the separation of Jews and Christians.



The scriptures/books contained in the every day bible are there to either put things in context, or too directly give us laws/information. Just because they don't reference Jesus specifically is not relative. The books "epistles" contained in the bible were not written to specifically be gathered together into one book. They were epistles too a certain group of people for a certain reason.



Why does "Dad" have to repeat himself?

Are you kidding me?! I'm not a moron. Of COURSE English wasn't in existence yet. My point in mentioning the languages was to indicate yet another barrier to our receiving and understanding God's all-important message; the language barrier. All the more reason an All-Knowing God wouldn't have employed the written word for this purpose. Especially since he was supposedly the one who "confused" our languages, anyway. (Of course, the much older Mesopotamian myths credit Enki/Ea with this, but that's another story.)




Important according to whom? Who gets to decide which of the books are the most important? And, what makes him/her so special?



And, what makes you so certain that the Jews are wrong and you are right? Perhaps the Jews stayed on the correct path, while Paul (Assuming he even existed.) was a heretic who misled a bunch of people. After all, nowhere in the NT did Paul see Jesus; he just saw a bright light, and heard a voice claiming to be Jesus. Hmm...let's see...bright light...why does that sound familiar? Oh, yes:

2 Corinthians 11:14

"14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

And, assuming that it was Satan who used the snake as a ventriloquist dummy in order to trick Eve, as Christian tradition states (Even though Genesis says nothing of the sort.), it's not hard to imagine him using the same tactic in order to dupe Paul.



That's a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy. Nominally, they are Christians.
But, hey, I'll play along. Okay, we have many different sects of "Christians," all claiming to be the RIGHT one; the "TRUE" Christians. How can anyone really know which of them, if any, really IS the true one?
Like I said...God could settle it once and for all, if he would just speak up.



Well, obviously I agree with your last sentence there, as I don't think anyone is any closer to God than anyone else, since one can't be closer to something that doesn't exist.That said, I must point out that, despite your issues with Catholics, the Catholic church has been around longer than any of the other Christian denominations.

Furthermore, if you can't read Greek, then you not only don't even know what, if anything, Jesus really said, you don't even know what the NT authors claimed he said.





Where does it say that in the Bible?



Again, maybe they're right. After all, Jesus didn't fit the image of the messiah that was expected for centuries. Also, I would recommend that you look into the ways the early Christian writers played fast and loose with their interpretation of the Hebrew in the Tanakh in an effort to provide the illusion that their Jesus character "fulfilled" OT scriptures.

Furthermore, those same writers quite often quoted from the Septuagint, which had its share of mistakes. I'll give you an example, the "prophecy" of the miraculous virgin-birth:

Isaiah 7:14

"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Which was "fulfilled" by Jesus, as recorded in the gospel attributed to Matthew. (And, amazingly enough, ONLY in the gospel attributed to Matthew. I guess the other Gospel writers weren't impressed with a virgin-birth.)

Matthew 1:18-23

"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Why, I declare! As if a virgin-birth wasn't impressive enough, it was even foretold centuries in advance!
Ehh...not really. The passage in Isaiah doesn't refer to Jesus, it refers to Hezekiah. There is nothing in the context (Remember to keep it in context.)to suggest a secondary fulfillment centuries later. Also, the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew is quoting from the Septuagint here, and the translators of the Septuagint erred here, because they used the Greek word "parthenos," which means "virgin," while the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," which means "young woman." It CAN be used to denote a virgin, but it is not a given. And, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Isaiah was referring to a virgin. This was a strained interpretation on the part of the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew.




According to you. The only evidence you could possibly offer, short of claiming that God personally told you this, is to quote the Bible, which would bring us back to the start of this conversation.




And, all of what you just said is once again your opinion. What makes your opinion of greater value than other Christians who argued for the inclusion into the canon other books that eventually didn't make it? (After much wrangling, and voting, by the bishops.)

Again, God could've prevented all that hassle, by just saying which books he wanted collected together and preserved, if he insisted on employing the written word.




He CAN'T repeat himself until he actually speaks up the first time. And, again, a bunch of ancient books that claim to be speaking for him is NOT the same thing as him actually speaking. How can you not see the distinction?

I'll use Ra again. If I told you something along the lines of "Ra is the true god. He has been worshiped for five-thousand years; much longer than Jesus or Yahweh. And, Ra says...blah, blah, blah..." and I started quoting stuff from tomb inscriptions and Egyptian myth, you would be telling me the same thing I'm telling you; that Ra hasn't SAID anything. All we have is preserved writings attributed to him.