Question for the Religious (no flaming in this thread)

[korben]

I'd like to see the question and decide for myself whether it is offensive.

Why do you choose your God? Have you read each biblical text to confirm which one shares your beliefs? Why not just say you believe in a God as opposed to saying you believe in the Christian God? If God is all-loving, everyone would go to Heaven whether they believed in him or not. It wouldn't matter which document you adhere by. For example, Satan wouldn't burn or be tortured for eternity, but more so helped and cured by the God whom created him with his omnipotence of love and care. In simple terms, a God that cannot forgive someone for bad choices in life which is in reality (a rat race), is not an all-loving God. How could this God be considered all-loving with his ability of forgiveness only to be found in his followers?

I'll expand on the idea if needed or asked.

The above question is meant for all of the religious individuals, not just daytonturner. I'd like to know everyone's answers to such a question that are in fact religious.

[SkinWalker]

Admin note: I'm tempted to move this to Philosophy since it really is a philosophical question, but since most of the potential respondents that korben wants are frequent visitors here, perhaps well leave it for a while.

By the way, there is never any flaming allowed in any thread.

[korben]

Admin note: I'm tempted to move this to Philosophy since it really is a philosophical question, but since most of the potential respondents that korben wants are frequent visitors here, perhaps well leave it for a while.

By the way, there is never any flaming allowed in any thread.

Move this thread to the philosophy section if you see fit. I have no problem with that. It's entirely up to you, but i've only placed it in the religion section because that is where the religious frequent. As well, it is a question that i'm searching for the religious to answer. I am aware that it could be said as philosophical, i'll admit that it could serve a better purpose in the philosophy section.

[korben]

SkinWalker,

By the way, I believe to have used the phrase 'no flaming in this thread' as a diversionary tactic to disencourage individuals from using insults such as delusional, superstitious, or narrowminded towards the other members. In a way, I encourage rational discourse that is fairly if ever found in the religious section. It's kind of like saying 'we're all human, join the conversation' and 'here is a question for the religious' (which i've posted as the topic starter).

[Quantime]

Delusional, Superstitious, or Narrowminded are opinions of self absorbed people, not flaming.

To answer your question, 'God' as per se from the bible is a false god. There is no way that a god of that much power could be such an ass. The bible is full of contradictions. Personally I believe there is some divine text in there in some places yet most of it is written by angry men in caves.

Choosing god seems strange, as each person believes that the one god they believe in is actually the only god anyway so they did not make any choice in the first place. Personally I chose God when I was young because I had a big gap in my esteem and personality, I had so much pain, suffering and very little love that I needed something to fill that. I found that in God. Needless to say, when someone attacked that belief I very strongly guarded it (ask any member who saw my introductionary period on this forum). I guarded it because if it was to disappear then I would not be loved, be insecure again.

However that insecurity and lack of love never went away, I recently looked at my beliefs (about a year ago) and decided that it wasnt the right thing. I have since dealt with my insecurities and gone through every single meme in my mind that made me feel that way. I have no God anymore. So I chose my God when I did to help me feel in place and wanted, and loved. However this was a bad choice as I supressed my already hidden sexual desires and humanly urges; putting everyone ahead before me. It took a while to get these desires back on the surface of who I am... a horny young man, hey I cant help that, and I wont change that for anything.... the REAL god if there is one, understands that and respects me for that. That is the all loving god. See? I am commenting on a god I do not know exists.

Its complicated...

Anyway... Don't treat life so seriously, that's what I say. Each to his own.

Think of the Bible as the old fashion great british tabloid. The only thing decent in them are the comics and page three, and even some of them are disappointing.

PS I am aware that there is no comic or naked Mary on page three of the bible

[korben]

Delusional, Superstitious, or Narrowminded are opinions of self absorbed people, not flaming.

To answer your question, 'God' as per se from the bible is a false god. There is no way that a god of that much power could be such an ass. The bible is full of contradictions. Personally I believe there is some divine text in there in some places yet most of it is written by angry men in caves.

Choosing god seems strange, as each person believes that the one god they believe in is actually the only god anyway so they did not make any choice in the first place. Personally I chose God when I was young because I had a big gap in my esteem and personality, I had so much pain, suffering and very little love that I needed something to fill that. I found that in God. Needless to say, when someone attacked that belief I very strongly guarded it (ask any member who saw my introductionary period on this forum). I guarded it because if it was to disappear then I would not be loved, be insecure again.

However that insecurity and lack of love never went away, I recently looked at my beliefs (about a year ago) and decided that it wasnt the right thing. I have since dealt with my insecurities and gone through every single meme in my mind that made me feel that way. I have no God anymore. So I chose my God when I did to help me feel in place and wanted, and loved. However this was a bad choice as I supressed my already hidden sexual desires and humanly urges; putting everyone ahead before me. It took a while to get these desires back on the surface of who I am... a horny young man, hey I cant help that, and I wont change that for anything.... the REAL god if there is one, understands that and respects me for that. That is the all loving god. See? I am commenting on a god I do not know exists.

Its complicated...

Anyway... Don't treat life so seriously, that's what I say. Each to his own.

Think of the Bible as the old fashion great british tabloid. The only thing decent in them are the comics and page three, and even some of them are disappointing.

PS I am aware that there is no comic or naked Mary on page three of the bible

Good response, I applaud your humanity and realization of the human condition. It seems that understanding the human condition (urges to have sex) led you away from abstinence and God. Correct me if i'm wrong, is that right? I'm rather much further away from religion (atheist), but I do hold certain truths that I find self-evident if God is present.

It's very simple, if God is real, everyone would be in Heaven. You can't be omnipotent and all-loving, but allow Satan to be the saddest and most distraught creature wondering the realm of Hell in torture. You can't love all of your creatures with omnipotence and allow them to be tortured for eternity.

I heard a story once about how 'when religion truly means something', everyone from drug dealers to rapist would be finding help through religion, guidance, strangers, friends, and family. A location that when you walk in, you see numerous people that talk about their problems between eachother. This place would be open 24/7. I also envision it as having dogs and cats walking around and licking people, helping stressed individuals cope with life.

[mitchellmckain]

Why do you choose your God?

I don't. There is only one God. I can describe the God I believe in and this is pretty much defined by what I would be willing to call God. You can ask me to consider the hypothetically situation of encountering a different being and most likely I would simply tell that this being is not God -- what else? I think a being claiming to be God and making threats and promises, does not sound like a very good candidate to me and I doubt that I would cooperate.

Have you read each biblical text to confirm which one shares your beliefs?

"biblical text"? Do you mean read each sacred text of every different religion? No. Why should I? Why should I do that any more than I would read every book, study every science, learn every language, or master every profession? We make choices about what to with our time and find value where we find it.

Why not just say you believe in a God as opposed to saying you believe in the Christian God?

I don't do either. There is only one God. I simply say that I believe in God. But then that is only one of many things that I believe in, I also believe in the methodology of science, and I see a great deal of merit in existentialism, pragmatism, and secularism. But I don't buy packages, each of my beliefs is a seperate question and that goes for Christianity as much as any of the above philosophies.

If God is all-loving, everyone would go to Heaven whether they believed in him or not.

Incorrect. I don't think that whether you say "that you believe in God" has any relevance. I am not a Gnostic, who believes that we are saved by a secret knowledge or by our beliefs, I am a Christian, who believes that we are saved by the work of God, but I am not a universalist, who believes that everyone is saved.

"Going to heaven" has more to do with whether you love God than whether He loves you, and whether you love God is a lot more than whether you say any particular words. I think that whether you love God has to do with whether you love what God represents. I certainly don't believe in magic words. In any case God is not a stalker and He will not make you love Him.

Heaven is not a vacation resort but eternal life. And although God is your parent and loves you, He cannot force you to live. Living is something that YOU have do or isn't life at all.

It wouldn't matter which document you adhere by.

Would that include a terrorism manual or a "serial killing for dummies" book?

In simple terms, a God that cannot forgive someone for bad choices in life which is in reailty (a rat race). How could this God be considered all-loving with his ability of forgiveness only to be found in his followers?

God has no problem forgiving anyone. But any decent parent knows that forgiving unconditionally all the time is very bad idea. But this is beside the point, because Heaven is not a matter of being forgiven but a matter of change. Heaven is not where you are but who you are. There are are no bars to keep you anywhere but who you are is not something that you can ever escape.

[John Galt]

I am religious. I strongly suspect (=believe) that everyone is.

Why do you choose your God.

I haven't chosen one. I don't know if there is one (yet).

If God is all-loving, everyone would go to Heaven whether they believed in him or not.

I have no idea whether God, if he exists is all loving, all hating, indifferent, or some bizarre blend.

[korben]

I don't. There is only one God. I can describe the God I believe in and this is pretty much defined by what I would be willing to call God. You can ask me to consider the hypothetically situation of encountering a different being and most likely I would simply tell that this being is not God -- what else? I think a being claiming to be God and making threats and promises, does not sound like a very good candidate to me and I doubt that I would cooperate.

Doesn't the Christian God make threats to the disbelievers?

"biblical text"? Do you mean read each sacred text of every different religion? No. Why should I? Why should I do that any more than I would read every book, study every science, learn every language, or master every profession? We make choices about what to with our time and find value where we find it.

Is the term 'biblical text' considered inappropriate or derogatory?

I don't do either. There is only one God. I simply say that I believe in God. But then that is only one of many things that I believe in, I also believe in the methodology of science, and I see a great deal of merit in existentialism, pragmatism, and secularism. But I don't buy packages, each of my beliefs is a seperate question and that goes for Christianity as much as any of the above philosophies.

I'm questioning whether the Christian says 'God' or 'Christian God'? Are you a Christian? Does the word Christian follow God?

Incorrect. I don't think that whether you say "that you believe in God" has any relevance. I am not a Gnostic, who believes that we are saved by a secret knowledge or by our beliefs, I am a Christian, who believes that we are saved by the work of God, but I am not a universalist, who believes that everyone is saved.

"Going to heaven" has more to do with whether you love God than whether He loves you, and whether you love God is a lot more than whether you say any particular words. I think that whether you love God has to do with whether you love what God represents. I certainly don't believe in magic words. In any case God is not a stalker and He will not make you love Him.

Heaven is not a vacation resort but eternal life. And although God is your parent and loves you, He cannot force you to live. Living is something that YOU have do or isn't life at all.

In Gods description, he is all-loving and omnipotent. How could he allow the distraught Satan to wonder for eternity in Hell because of past events? Does he not forgive? We know that the description of God fits a capability of being able to help Satan, what is holding God back? On another note, from the description of God, you wouldn't need to even believe in him to appear in Heaven. I bet you'd see Atheists in Heaven. Along with Richard Dawkins, if God is real. What makes an Atheist an evil person that deserves eternal torture?

Would that include a terrorism manual or a "serial killing for dummies" book?

You're missing the phrase of an all-loving God. When those Jihadists appeared before God, they'd cry and weep, change and follow. If God is all-loving as well as omnipotent, every and anyone from Jihadists, Jews, Christians, Islamists, Hinduists, and even Atheists would appear in Heaven.

God has no problem forgiving anyone. But any decent parent knows that forgiving unconditionally all the time is very bad idea. But this is beside the point, because Heaven is not a matter of being forgiven but a matter of change. Heaven is not where you are but who you are. There are are no bars to keep you anywhere but who you are is not something that you can ever escape.

Therefore, God is not unconditionally loving his children. Why call him God? He has an omnipotent power to help evil instead of destroy it, but he decides against curing and instead focuses on destroying. Satan is no match for the description of God. Why doesn't God help this distraught, mange, and widely held view of a bad figure?

[korben]

I am religious. I strongly suspect (=believe) that everyone is.

I could agree with that, to a certain extent, even Atheists think of God.

I haven't chosen one. I don't know if there is one (yet).

Agreed, but I have suspected that the bible is not the work of an all-loving, omnipotent, and perfect God.

I have no idea whether God, if he exists is all loving, all hating, indifferent, or some bizarre blend.

Great sentence, the holy bible is far from perfect.

[John Galt]

I am religious. I strongly suspect (=believe) that everyone is.

I could agree with that, to a certain extent, even Atheists think of God.

I don't think you need to think of God to be religious.

[korben]

I am religious. I strongly suspect (=believe) that everyone is.

I could agree with that, to a certain extent, even Atheists think of God.

I don't think you need to think of God to be religious.

Explain, I do not understand. If God is not in your mind, where is he? How could someone be said as religious without thinking of religious texts?

[korben]

Korben: I have been working on a response to your question as to why I believe in the Christian God rather than some other God or some other philosophy. The first two were just way too long and a third attempt I tried to post but, apparently, the forum server was temporarily down or something and that effort was lost forever in eternal cyberspace.

Nevertheless, I think that is a reasonable question and in no way offensive. I will try to again respond in a reasonable length of space but, if you have ever had to rewrite something, you know the second attempt is never as eloquent as the first. Before I can explain "why" I believe, it is first necessary to explain what I believe.

I'm not all that sure how much belief preceded belief and how much belief developed after belief. However, it is safe to say that I believe that the Universe and life are the results of the efforts of a God who is still actively involved in the Universe.

I also believe this God created a special material living being in the image of his spirtual essense which we call human beings. This was done for the purpose of having fellowship. However, in order to have genuine fellowship, the human being had to have the free will ability to reject God, just as God retained the ability to reject humans. I also believe this God is holy and just and loving and perfectly righteous. In addition, this God instilled within each human being, an eternal spiritual essense which survives the physical body and which, during the physical life, is invited to spend eternity in His holy, just, loving and righteous eternal place. Those who reject this invitation are permitted to dwell in eternity in an existience which lacks these holy, just, loving and righteous qualities.

In the exercise of their free will, humans operate on a self serving, self preserving level in which they occasionally hurt or harm themselves or others. As a resuilt, the just aspect of God's character is offended and angered because something he loves has been harmed. And, as a just God, he must consider punishment of the offender. His sentence is that the person is declared unrighteous and impefect and unfit for admission into God's home.

Now then, it seems that we all are in some way and to some degree guilty of harming or hurting others and we have each one become the object of God's anger. The result is that we are estranged from God and he has withdrawn his invitation to spend eternity with him.

So, at this point, I can say that the reason I believe in the Christian God is that because of his love for his creation, He resolves this problem of estrangement more effectively than any other God or system to which I have been introduced.

His resolution was to send his son, who we call Jesus, in the form of a human and to live a perfectly righteous life in which he always obeyed the Father and was innocent of any wrong doing toward God or humanity. However, he was executed despite the fact that he was guilty of nothing. As such, he fulfilled the law of the Old Testament which required the shedding of blood by an innocent lamb to atone for the wrongs of the wrong doer.

In the Old Testament rites of atonement, there was a scapegoat upon which the priest laid his hand in a symbolic gesture of laying the wrongs of the people on the back of the goat which was then taken into the wilderness along with the wrongs of the people. In this way, the people were absolved of their wrongs as the wrongs were imputed to the scapegoat. God declared them free of the penalty of wrongdoing but, unfortunately, this act did not delcare them righteous.

In the same way, when Jesus was executed, God placed on his back all the wrongs of the people and phaysical Jesus experienced the feeling of being totally without God. The wrongs of the people were imputed to Him. But that is not the end. Not only were the wrongs of the people imputed to Jesus, but His righteousness was imputed to the wrong doers on the condition that they believe and trust this symbolic meaning of the death of Jesus.

The only requirements that the human needs to meet to be included in those who have had their wrongs imputed to Jesus and Jesus' righteousness imputed to them is to admit to God that they are sorry for their acts and that they will trust that Jesus' sacrifice restores their relationship with God.

I am not aware of any other religion in which the solution to man's imperfections have been provided by God himself through his son's death. Mohammed did not die for his people. Bhudda did not die for his people. Vishnu, or whoever is the main Hindu, did not die for his people.

I am aware that I have done things which have harmed or hurt others. I realize that these actions have put me in bad stead with a holy and righteous God. And I realize there is nothing I can do on my own to restore my connection to God other than what God Himself has done. That is why I continue to believe in this God rather than any other God or system I have been exposed to.

I am sure there some right now, having read this, who are saying "How could anyone believe a story like that.?" My only reply is, "How can you not believe it?"

When it comes to that final judgement, you must rely on your own righteousness or the righteousness of Jesus, remembering that God requires perfection.

daytonturner,

I'm busy at the moment and do not have the time to read this response, but will respond at a later time. I've copied your answer and placed it into this thread because I do not want to go off topic in the other thread. For the consideration of the question and your thoughtful answer, thank you. However, I did correct the spelling of my name at the top of your response, but that is the only change made. The quote within is completely yours.

[John Galt]

How could someone be said as religious without thinking of religious texts?

I must ask you to explain this question. Why would thinking of religious texts be a prerequisite for being religious? Certainly religious thinking necessarily preceded any religious texts.

Moreover religious texts are only relevant, or of primary relevance, for the religious dogmatists.

Wikipedia says:
A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(My emphasis.) I conflate the spiritual and the religious. Religion is how we choose to express, channel, constrain or develop the spiritual. The spiritual is the sense of awe and wonder we may experience when observing some aspect of the universe, the sense of oneness we may feel on occassion, etc.

Spirituality does not require a God, though one may exist. Religion does not require a God, though one may exist.

If God is not in your mind, where is he?

If God exists as an independent entity then it does not matter whether or not you think of her, she is there.

If God is purely a product of your mind, then that's not really God, is it?

[korben]

How could someone be said as religious without thinking of religious texts?

I must ask you to explain this question. Why would thinking of religious texts be a prerequisite for being religious? Certainly religious thinking necessarily preceded any religious texts.

Moreover religious texts are only relevant, or of primary relevance, for the religious dogmatists.

Wikipedia says:
A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(My emphasis.) I conflate the spiritual and the religious. Religion is how we choose to express, channel, constrain or develop the spiritual. The spiritual is the sense of awe and wonder we may experience when observing some aspect of the universe, the sense of oneness we may feel on occassion, etc.

Spirituality does not require a God, though one may exist. Religion does not require a God, though one may exist.

If God is not in your mind, where is he?

If God exists as an independent entity then it does not matter whether or not you think of her, she is there.

If God is purely a product of your mind, then that's not really God, is it?

This is going to be a difficult answer, but stay with me.

You're correct, religious thinking was the premise to religious text and it should not be said as the other way around. However, religious texts in this era are held as historical fact to some fundamentalists as truly occurring at an earlier date in time. If you do not adhere to the religious documents of that particular religion, should you be said as religious? I'd say you're more spiritual than religious if you do not follow word-for-word, but pick and choose sections as you see fit.

For example, an individual that considers himself a Nazi which does not follow the practices of the cult, but believes in white supremacy would be said as being just a racist, not a Nazi. If you don't go to church and you don't follow word-for-word that which is in the bible, should that person be said as Christian? Or, should that person be said as spiritual with ample faith in a God (no preference of God)? Why should someone with ample faith in the Christian God be said as following Christianity? Why don't they just say 'I believe in a God.' Is it because of their environment or region in which they grew up in that determines how they label their God as either Christian or Islam?

p.s. I don't know if that was the 'best' way of putting my thoughts into words, but I tried. At the moment, i'm truly struggling to find the words I need to match my ideas.

[John Galt]

You seem to be incorrectly restricting religion to fundamentalist Christian sects. That is a small minority of the planets population, so I don't see what it has to do with the broader issue of religion. It is akin to a small soccer club in a small town declaring that the offside rule is no more and that any game of soccer where it is applied is not really a game of soccer. Sports commentators and the world at large would rightly laugh at such.

[mitchellmckain]

Doesn't the Christian God make threats to the disbelievers?

There is only one God and no He does not make threats, though I am quite sure that anyone who cares at all would give us a warning when we are headed for disaster. But there are people everywhere who try to wield "God" and religions of every kind as tools of manipulation and power and thus they make threats in his name. But this "believe or else nonsense" is just intellectual blackmail.

"biblical text"? Do you mean read each sacred text of every different religion? No. Why should I? Why should I do that any more than I would read every book, study every science, learn every language, or master every profession? We make choices about what to with our time and find value where we find it.

Is the term 'biblical text' considered inappropriate or derogatory?

You used the phrase "every biblical text" and I have no idea what you mean by it. Biblical refers to the Bible. Yes I have read the Bible. What are you asking? I made a guess at what you mean I answered according to that guess. But to use the phrase "biblical text" to refer to the sacred texts of other religions is quite peculiar.

I'm questioning whether the Christian says 'God' or 'Christian God'? Are you a Christian? Does the word Christian follow God?

A Christian always says "God" and never "Christian God". The latter is a phrase that you would only hear a non-Christian say. Yes I am a Christian. I don't know what your last question is asking and I don't even have a guess this time.

Incorrect. I don't think that whether you say "that you believe in God" has any relevance. I am not a Gnostic, who believes that we are saved by a secret knowledge or by our beliefs, I am a Christian, who believes that we are saved by the work of God, but I am not a universalist, who believes that everyone is saved.

"Going to heaven" has more to do with whether you love God than whether He loves you, and whether you love God is a lot more than whether you say any particular words. I think that whether you love God has to do with whether you love what God represents. I certainly don't believe in magic words. In any case God is not a stalker and He will not make you love Him.

Heaven is not a vacation resort but eternal life. And although God is your parent and loves you, He cannot force you to live. Living is something that YOU have do or isn't life at all.

In Gods description, he is all-loving and omnipotent. How could he allow the distraught Satan to wonder for eternity in Hell because of past events? Does he not forgive? We know that the description of God fits a capability of being able to help Satan, what is holding God back? On another note, from the description of God, you wouldn't need to even believe in him to appear in Heaven. I bet you'd see Atheists in Heaven. Along with Richard Dawkins, if God is real. What makes an Atheist an evil person that deserves eternal torture?

Wow... there are a LOT of assumptions here, especially about what other people believe, and I certainly do not agree with them. And there are just too many questions here that are out in left field. Is Satan a being that you believe in that you are telling me about or are you asking about what I believe? In regards to atheists and having to believe in God, did you read what I said at all? You are either ignoring it or showing no comprehension of what I wrote.

God is omnipotent and love and life are His highest ideals, but He is bound by the limits of logical consistency. Force is not compatable with love or life. Making someone love is not love. Making someone live is not life. Furthermore ideals are limited by there opposites, love does not require you to love that which is opposite to love or destructive of love. A dedication to life does not require you to preserve the life of that which destroys life. There is nothing inconsistent in the action of a doctor who saves the life of a person by killing bacteria or cancer cells, because life is not absolute but highly quantitative.

As for me, I am betting that I will see atheists in heaven also. The only thing deserving of eternal torture is the choice to torture oneself etrnally. I see every evidence that people can and will do such a thing. No it does not make any sense, but people quite often do things that do not make sense.

Would that include a terrorism manual or a "serial killing for dummies" book?

You're missing the phrase of an all-loving God. When those Jihadists appeared before God, they'd cry and weep, change and follow. If God is all-loving as well as omnipotent, every and anyone from Jihadists, Jews, Christians, Islamists, Hinduists, and even Atheists would appear in Heaven.

Shall I repeat: love does not require you to love that which is opposite to love or destructive of love, and a dedication to life does not require you to preserve the life of that which destroys life.

God has no problem forgiving anyone. But any decent parent knows that forgiving unconditionally all the time is very bad idea. But this is beside the point, because Heaven is not a matter of being forgiven but a matter of change. Heaven is not where you are but who you are. There are are no bars to keep you anywhere but who you are is not something that you can ever escape.

Therefore, God is not unconditionally loving his children. Why call him God? He has an omnipotent power to help evil instead of destroy it, but he decides against curing and instead focuses on destroying. Satan is no match for the description of God. Why doesn't God help this distraught, mange, and widely held view of a bad figure?

How can unconditional love mean that one does something that is harmful to those whom you love? Most parents understand that forgiving their children unconditionally does more harm than good and it because they love their children that they will not do this to them.

Why call him God?

Because He is good and opposes all evil without fail.

He has an omnipotent power to help evil instead of destroy it

To help evil is to do evil. To destroy evil is to do good. God is good, therefore He will not help evil but destroy evil.

If you encounter a doctor working to save lives, will you help him to accomplish his work? If you encounter a encounter a serial killer killing innocent people, will you help him to accomplish his work? Perhaps you have more discernment and can see evil at work in the doctor interfering in his work and you can see good at war with the evil in the serial killer interfering in his work. So will what will you do? Are you going to help the evil? Will you help the evil at work in the doctor or will you try to remove it? Or how about the serial killer, will you help the evil in him overcome the good or will you help the good and destroy the evil, so that he will stop the evil that he is doing?

[korben]

I'm just done with this thread.

daytonturner, thank you for the post. You're not going to recieve a reply and i'm sorry.

[An inconvenient lie]

wow i have no players on my side! I at least suspected one lol well i dont claim to know everything in christian defense technique however though i will think it through a while and read my bible at my personal lavatory (lol my chosen place of study right across from my bed room)

[prasit]

daytonturner wrote:

I am not aware of any other religion in which the solution to man's imperfections have been provided by God himself through his son's death. Mohammed did not die for his people. Bhudda did not die for his people. Vishnu, or whoever is the main Hindu, did not die for his people.

Because Buddhism does not preach that the death of one will absolve the sin of the others. It preaches that every human being has to learn the law of nature and live in harmony with it by himself in order to reach enlightenment (a sinless state, approximately equal to perfection). What is required is wisdom, not obedience.

[John Galt]

I'm just done with this thread.

That seems rather precipitate. (That's a polite British way of saying 'how rude!')
Several of us have taken the time to respond to your enquiry - you will recall that it was your enquiry, it was your thread. Now, in the middle of the discussion your enquiry has initiated you pack up your bags and leave!
Do you feel that is polite behaviour? Perhaps you have a very good reason for it, but if so I for one would like ot know what it is.

[korben]

Ophiolite as well as MitchellMckain, thank you for your responses as well. I'm just having trouble putting my thoughts into words at the moment and I don't want to swim any deeper into writing a novel of a paragraph to explain. It's nothing against either of you. I'm just done with this site at the moment. Good luck and take care.

[mitchellmckain]

Entered on behalf of Ophiolite

Ophiolite as well as MitchellMckain, thank you for your responses as well. I'm just having trouble putting my thoughts into words at the moment and I don't want to swim any deeper into writing a novel of a paragraph to explain. It's nothing against either of you. I'm just done with this site at the moment. Good luck and take care.

Thank you for that explanation. It does seem a little peculiar. I hope that it does not reflect a deeper strain that you might currently be under. If that is the case I wish you success in resolving what ever concerns or uncertainties you currently have.