The Passion of the Christ: please help me

Originally posted by L. O. Cutionist:
concept doesn't pass the logic test:

If God is all powerfull, then why did HE create such a fucked up system wherein we have to be redeemed? Why not be redeemed from the gitgo?

well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.

anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.

pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?

nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.

(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all)

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Because then we get to choose God. Is it not better to be loved out of choice rather than a forced to love due to fear.

Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.

But you seem to be missing the point:

Why create a system wherein "choice of God/choose God" is such a major factor? An all-powerful God could create a cosmos where this "choosing" wasn't neccessary. Why do we need this pepsi God-challenge anyway?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.

anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.

pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?

nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.

(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all)

This is all VERY interesting mental masturbation. Why doesn't God just cut-to-the-chase and dispense with all of this "testing of belief" nonsense. He's all-powerful, after all.

if you're really interested in these questions, read this

You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.

Originally posted by econo:
You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Although it seems to me only the young and stupid or old and scarred of dying people believe in God.

throw down your gauntlet! slap him across his face with your glove!

<img src="http://droognet.ca/dreamweaverltd/duel.jpg" alt=" - " />

Glove slap! I don't take crap!

Nah, I'm just calling Markie out. It's well known that the US is full of religious loonies. The ones that move here eventually turn into them…

Originally posted by econo:
You talk a lot of shit on the board that I am positive you wouldn't say to anyone's face. Quite a bit like Rhett, really.

I have no qualms about saying things like this to peoples faces. I have no particular desire to be universally liked and I love to get a rise out of someone.

But feel free to keep singling me out. But perhaps it would be more interesting to forward your own viewpoint, rather than using a red herring, which makes you like Rhett.

Originally posted by econo:
The ones that move here eventually turn into them…

When they get old and scared of dying? Are you trying to further my argument? Thanks!

42

nevermind, markie learned to spell.

I spell as well as some people use punctuation. Same mistake twice…. Not even the edit function can help me now.

Originally posted by elj:

Originally posted by O'Mankie:
How can you say it's "factual" when the whole bible crap is fiction anyway?

There are more secular sources backing up that there really was a person named Jesus then there is confirming there was someone named Oliver Cromwell.

there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.

There's an awful lot of Rhett calling around here, is everybody really that bad?

Apparently, your high school English teacher didn't exist.

Originally posted by TheWaz:
there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.

Originally posted by econo:
Apparently, your high school English teacher didn't exist.

Originally posted by TheWaz:
there are also alot of scientists saying bigfoot and the lak ness monster exist. oh, and dont forget about king aurthur, he existed.

It was his science teacher who didn't exist.

well, you see. . .god created adam, and out of adam, god created eve. . .eve, tempted by a serpent, convinced adam to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge. upon finding this out, god banished adam and eve from paradise, as such, each one of us has had to deal with the result of their sins. so, each of us have original sin, which can only be redeemed through faith and/or good works (depending on which christian religion you follow). however, god also gave man the ability to have free will (a point that's also debatable depending on which christian religion you follow). man has the option to believe or not believe, to act one way or not act one way. if you choose to reject god, you can, but do so with certain repercussions.

anselm argues that since we can conceive of the idea of something higher and more powerful than man, there must in fact be something higher and more powerful than man. i know, it's rather silly argument, but it sufficied for near 400 years.

pascal puts forth the following wager (unlike previous a priori arguments, such as anselm's above, or descartes): if you believe there is no god, and in fact, there is no god, then nothing happens, if you believe there is no god, but there is a god, then you are damned to hell, if you believe there is a god, but there is no god, then nothing happens to you, but, if you belive there is a god, and there is a god, then you end up in heaven. so, pascal asks, what would you choose? nothing, hell or heaven? how does it hurt you to believe in god?

nevertheless, kierkegaard would probably agree with you. . to a point. he argues that being a christian should be the most miserable existence because you know that your life on earth can only be terrible, in comparison to your life in heaven, but, you can't (or shouldn't) do anything to end your life sooner. therefore, a christian is doomed to despair that he/she cannot be reunited with god and jesus until he/she dies, and no sooner. so, he/she can only feel despair knowing that the best life is in fact not on earth as a living person, but when one is dead.

(and yes, i'm aware that i could be using God, but i feel that the distinctions between the two are irrelevant. . .faith is faith, whether it's the christian God, or anything else for that matter. . as well all have our own "faith," be it in god, science or believing in nothing at all) [/QB]

first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.

in response to pascal, if you belive dont believe in god, theny ou dont end up in heaven of hell, because there is no god, and this is what you believe, so making an argument that you COULD end up in heaven if you belive in god isnt going to sway anyone who doesnt belive in god.

Originally posted by TheWaz:

in response to pascal

this is a great ep

<img src="http://pascalgoespop.com/Images/HRH-031.jpg" alt=" - " />

im liking the cover

Originally posted by TheWaz:
first of all, before i go into any detail, you claim that all life stems from 2 individuals, which is impossible because there would not have been enough ginetic diversity to create generations of children.

Actually you are wrong on multiple levels.

Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. So it would be fine generating a multiple generations from them. Over time mutation would lead to the diversity we have today.