Dan56

Yes, that's how it works... I guess for some reason, they felt like the 'liker' should remain anonymous? If the liker wants to be known, I reckon they can identify themselves by replying to a post directly with a "good point", "I totally agree", right-on", or .

Hear! Hear!

Sometimes people don't believe because they don't like the message, they don't like the God depicted in the bible, they don't understand God's reasoning/judgements, or they don't view God as being righteous or loving.. Belief is a difficult thing when you can't rationalize or relate to a God or his message.. The 'Sufficiency of Scripture' isn't adequate for a lot of people simply because it proves nothing, is nonsensical, and requires blind faith to follow. People accept what they can understand and what makes sense to them, but resist what they can't swallow. Others are more open minded and willing to embrace a belief that touches them in some way. Whatever choice a person makes, there's no need to be apologetic about their decision or opinions.

Absolutely.. I believe morals are derived from our own experiences. We are taught manners, but our own sense of right and wrong essentially emanate and evolve from within ourselves, but of course outside influences can also weigh on our conscience. If you've ever been sick, you can certainly empathize with someone else who's sick, if you've ever suffered, you can develop compassion for others who are suffering. Our moral values are shared experiences, those kids didn't want to punch another kid because it wasn't warranted, and at some time, they undoubtedly had been hurt themselves, so they were opposed to inflicting harm and pain needlessly on another person for no reason.. Morality superseded authority and commonsense took precedence.. We can probably learn a lot from kids.

I imagine the Atheistic reply to that question would be; "Nothing" ... So the follow-up question'; "If you die....what would you want out of death?" becomes irrelevant, because nothing comes out of death, its an end to existence, dust to dust.. Imo, Atheist and Christians don't have a proof based definitive answer to what happens after you die, only Agnostics have logically derived the only correct answer, everything else is belief.

Judaism is just one of the 12 tribes of Israel, the prior periods of time are recorded in the bible. Adam to Noah = 2000 years, roughly 4000 BC to 2000 BC.. Abraham to Christ accounts for the following 2000 years. The bible follows the descendants of Adam (Hebrews- Israelites- Jews). Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah), so the time prior to 1500 BC was retrospectively recorded. I reckon that oral tradition transmitted history from one generation to another prior to that.. Nothing is missing.

No, I don't believe I've ever been offended by an unreal or irrational comment.. I guess I just don't get emotional or care about something that I perceive to be untrue.. If I did take a nonsensical statement to heart, that would make me as irrational as the person making the comment.

I actually don't believe Jonathan was offended at all, he just has a lot of disdain towards Christianity. He essentially wrote that he found my comment about the Christian God not accepting nonbelievers to be offensive. But surely he was already aware of that, its common knowledge. If a Muslim told me that Allah spits out Christians, it wouldn't bother me at all, because I don't believe Allah exist in the first place.

I suppose that an instinctive response doesn't always require a choice. If I were at a baseball game and through my peripheral vision saw a ball coming at my head, I'd instinctively duck, no time to consider my predicament and make a decision. But I think with most things, where we can assess a matter, a choice is always available, even if its a choice to remain neutral. I still don't get the insult? My point was that an indecisive person has a choice, even if its not choosing a direction because they don't have enough information to formulate an opinion and pick a direction. Nothing wrong with choosing to remain neutral because of insufficient data.. I often use bible verses to accentuate my point of view, and I felt the one I chose fit the bill. While it may only be applicable to my particular faith, it was not intended to insult anyone. All it meant to me was that God doesn't accept people who are on the fence, they either believe or they don't.. Sorry you were offended by it

If your offended by a bible verse, I can't help that.. Nor do I comprehend how a person can be insulted by something they don't even believe is true? If my opinion is biblical, your real problem is with the bible.. There are 31,103 verses in the bible, buckle-up. I'm just defining choice differently than you.. Wanting to believe your nephew, but choosing not to, is a choice. Your gut feeling about him overrides your desire to believe he's changed, so your decision (choice) is not to believe he's really changed. Having an instinctive response can be the basis of a persons choice too. To me, having faith is a choice, just as not having faith is a choice. You simply hear something and choose to believe or not believe it.. Having faith is not a matter of choice to you because you've chosen not to believe, but having a negative rather than an affirmative reaction to something does not negate choice. What you seem to be saying is something like; I don't want to get married, so marriage isn't a choice for me?

I don't believe God did create atheist.. He didn't create Christians either. God created human's, who independently decide the rest for themselves.

True, faith is not obtained via tangible evidence, which is why it boils down to a choice.. I believe because I've chosen to do so. Evidence is not a necessary ingredient in making a choice, we all make choices everyday without knowing the facts. I could also decide not to believe, that is also a choice. My other point was simply that if someone is idle because of indecision, they have not made a choice. They may be waiting or seeking more information prior to making a choice, but in the meantime, they are in that uncertain period of awaiting a resolution, and remain in that intermediate state as their indecision keeps them in limbo. My scenario of being lost in the woods was just to express that a believer and non-believer make a choice, but the indecisive makes no choice and remains idle. But of course, I guess you could define not making a choice as a choice? I just think that indecision is the inability or refusal to make a choice. These are just my opinions of how I look at things, ergo; no reason for anyone to take personal offense.

You seem to be insulted a lot, even when there is nothing to be offended by.. I simply believe in free will, and am convinced that everyone makes choices. If you disagree and feel insulted, then I'd agree that someone is closed minded and intolerant, but it ain't me.

Any belief is a choice, you hear it and choose whether or not to believe it. If you choose not to believe, that is also a choice. So imo, its a choice either way.. Choice is just a decision, using your own judgement to determine the veracity of something. Your either persuaded or skeptical, and then freely choose to accept or reject it. The only exception might be the; I don't know category (Agnosticism). These are people who have determined there is not sufficient data to arrive at a conclusion, so they make no definitive determination either way. Kind of like a person lost in the woods, they don't know whether to go north or south, so they just stand idle.. But I reckon that's a choice too? "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).

Nothing you wrote was offensive, its just that Atheist and Agnostics expect some tangible proof of what you believe to be true. If you told them that you drive a red Jaguar, they would expect a picture of the car with you standing next to it with the title in hand. "Prove it" is how they roll ... So don't be discouraged, they've just chosen not to believe what you've decided is true. So for some members, discussing the bible is tantamount to discussing Little Red Riding Hood, its just a fairy tale. But I'm sure you'd get a high five on your initial post if there were any Seventh-day Adventists here .

Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan to demonstrate that a priest and Levite walked right by a man in need, but a Samaritan was the good neighbor who helped. I guess the moral of the story is that being a religious person doesn't make you good (Luke 10: 25-37). Or as that saying goes; "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car." Compassion is not a characteristic exclusive to Christians..

I'd list a sense of humor in my top 5 attributes, but there was a time in my life when it was number one, only because there was nothing else. I've noticed that everyone thinks they have a good sense of humor, until they're the butt of a joke, in which case their appreciation for humor goes out the window.

If its wrong, my parents got a lot of explaining to do... False, innocent children act-up, sometime its a necessity to correct them False, not if it lands in your lap. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. False, not everyone cares about the sunset. If no one see's a sunset, is it beautiful? Kind of like; If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise? True... If it were false, I've been giving people the wrong change back for decades True, everyone knows that now. If these are the questions pondered over in philosophy classes, I'm kind of glad I never signed-up for one.. They are all questions a child could answer, but I'm sure the whole idea is to take a common sense answer and philosophically change or interpret the question to mean something else.... Or in layman's terms; Gibber Gabber

Sure, laws change from time to time, but 55 mph needs no interpretation, its literally black and white and means exactly what it says. The 55 can be changed to 65 or 45 mph from time to time, but once a law is enacted, it is what it is. That's why the judge refused to let me off the speeding ticket, he showed absolutely no interest in what the speed limit on that street had been before or what the speed limit should be in the future. I broke the posted law, and as far as the judge was concerned, there was no gray area about it.

True... But once a law is in effect, its generally black and white, it is what it is and is nonnegotiable.. E.g; If your going 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, a judge is not apt to negotiate.. I tried negotiating my way around a speeding ticket once, but the judge saw no gray area... I fought the law and the law won.

Nothing wrong with absolutes.... Unless we are absolutely wrong.. Theories and opinions can be black and white, but they are generally formulated in a gray area. We all believe our opinions are correct, otherwise they wouldn't be our opinions. Incorrect opinions always belong to the other guy. Its no surprise that a criminal justice major thinks in terms of black and white, right and wrong, legal or illegal, the law is nonnegotiable.

Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln Happiness? That's nothing more than health and a poor memory. ~Albert Schweitzer As people spin faster and faster in the pursuit of personal happiness, they become exhausted in the futile effort of chasing themselves. The happiness of most people is not ruined by great catastrophes or fatal errors, but by the repetition of slowly destructive little things. Unhappiness is not knowing what we want and killing ourselves to get it. Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for. You need to learn to be happy by nature, because you'll seldom have the chance to be happy by circumstance.

I'm persuaded that happiness is as much a state of mind as it is a condition.. If your a sad, depressed, and miserable person when your poor, and then you come into a lot of money, your still going to be a sad and depressed person, you just won't be miserable anymore. The root cause of nearly every problem I've encountered in my life can be found in the nearest mirror. We can't appreciate good without bad, health without sickness, joy without sadness, etc. But for me, this yin and yang only applies to the natural world. When the apostles were thrown in prison, they sang songs in praise of the Lord (Acts 16:25). This inspires an attitude adjustment in me, because I'd be drowning in self-pity and praying to get out of jail. Paul counted it a blessing to suffer loss in exchange for knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8). "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24). For me, the cares of this short life are just a temporary test towards something far better. That said, each life has its own trials and errors, some learn from their mistakes and makes changes for the better, while others never quite conquer much. I'm inspired by those doing better than myself and try to emulate their example. But while I can be happy, I'll never be content with this life, because I don't believe any of us were meant to be satisfied, we are spiritual beings stuck in corporal bodies. Perhaps Solomon said it best; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" (Ecclesiastics 1:1). "I Have Not Failed. I Have Just Found 10,000 Things That Do Not Work." ~Thomas Edison "Success Comes Through Rapidly Fixing our Mistakes Rather than Getting Things Right the First Time"

I think that making life better, is to learn how to experience and enjoy the trip, rather than relying on happiness coming upon reaching our destination. I have personally been frustrated, accomplishing some goals but never reaching others. I have been happy and unhappy, but never content. I've been broke and well-off, wanting something when I had nothing and wanting more when I had a lot. God grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference. "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" ( Philippians 4:11-13).

I'd definitely choose "Agnostic", its the only one that can be honestly defended. "I don't know" is the only honest answer that a person can logically come to. A believer chooses to believe, a nonbeliever chooses not to believe, but neither "know" anything. Anyone who claims to know for certain is a liar, because it just isn't possible. Atheism has no provable facts to substantiate what they don't believe, and Believers have no tangible facts to prove what they do believe. Suffice to say; "I don't know" (Agnosticism) needs no supporting evidence. A person can be very convinced of what they believe is true or not true, but at the start of the day, we are all born knowing nothing, and by days end, everything else is conjecture. jmo