Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[1robin]

And my point is that your statements regarding it's accuracy are false.

Based on what, the fact that it's accuracy is inconvienient for you. I have of course not verified all 25,000 facts but I have checked into hundreds maybe thousands of them by now. The bible has the reputation for making a mockery out of it's mockers. Wouldn't you think a book that contains so many tens of thousands of claims that can be checked if false would have faded away by now, not continued to gain credibility.

 

[1robin]

Yes, but that does not matter, since your reasoning is still fallacious; these two names are simply a classification of how.
The Spiderman fallacy is found only in the Urban Dictionary as of the moment, because I only codified it some time in 2007. The Dog Whisperer fallacy was created at the same time, it simply has not spread as widely as the Spiderman one did. It's possible that over time one or both may sit alongside the others in Wiki; in either case, they still accurately describe why your reasoning is false.

Are you claiming that the Spiderman fallacy was created by you. I am impressed. I found it reasonable but not applicable to the instance you used it for.

Additionally, I would be the first to admit, the Dog Whisperer fallacy is probably not a formal fallacy in the strictest sense. However, it is still a rational refutation of the idea that God may act irrationally.

I understand what it suggests but I didn't understand it's application for God. I do not claim that God requires anything of us that runs counter to reason or revelation. As I am not as sure about this one I will not comment further.

Yes, except it didn't establish that high degree, because YOU MADE THAT NUMBER UP. Not only did I state 'that number is false', you then, yourself, said that you did not in fact have 25,000 such checked facts.

I did not make that up (Is there no claim so unknowable to you that you won't state it as a fact) You know if you are debating someone and you allow yourself to claim something as a fact that only the other person knows the truth of, if he knows it's incorrect you have unnecessarily damaged your credability. Here are some sites that mention the 25,000 Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
THIS IS AMAZING SINCE I AM THE SOURCE FOR THIS NUMBER HOW DID THEY ANTICIPATE MY ESTABLISHMENT OF IT IN 2012 WAY BACK 1958 AND GIVE CREDIT TO SOMEONE ELSE. Once again a claim utterly destroyed.

Indeed by 1958 “over 25,000 sites from the biblical world have​

been confirmed by some archaeological discoveries to date.”

​

​

6 Forty years later, the list is longer.But let us refer the interested reader to the 17-volume survey, Archaeology—the Bible and Christ by Dr. Clifford Wilson, which brings together over 5,000 facts relating archaeology to the
Bible.7 Dr. Wilson begins volume 17 by stating,
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0604.pdf​

That there is an inexhaustable amount of data backing the validity of the historical accuracy of the bible is a forgone conclusion in most formal debates.​

By the Gods, how dense are you?​

Insults become you.​

Wow. It appears to me that you really cannot follow a simple conversational flow, at all.​

Rendered irrelevant for lack of interest.​

Yes, I am aware we have no say in it, but that does not make it right in any moral sense. I understand you are fine with the idea of 'might makes right', but that isn't moral. It simply makes God a bully.​

If God forced someone to make the correct choice then that would be bullying, to allow the free choice to choose the wrong path after the consequences have been explained is not bullying, it is the exact opposite.​

Morality is the actual issue. While he's waiting around for when he's good and ready, humans are suffering in Hell; if he's going to remove it at some point, those people suffer for nothing. And it matters to them. For a God who's supposed to be so loving, he doesn't really give much of a **** about people, does he?​

The most prevelant interpritation of revelations is that people are not in hell or heaven at this moment, they are put there at the second coming, until the final end. My POSSIBLE interpretation of the suffering in hell is due to the fact that they are seperated from God which is what their life and decisions have naturally led to. They don't want God so they don't have him. Of course this results in a seperation from all the good things of God - love, security, peace, etc.......That reflects the most logical conclusion. They don't want God and so do not get him. Keep in mind I am not stating my interpretations as truth but a possible and reasonable interpretation.​

He's immoral.​

Will there be any confusion if you wound up seperated from the God of the bible after spending your life making statements like this. By the way what are you trying to accomplish with all your posting anyway. You are not defending your religion, you are only attacking another one. What is the motivation?​

Yeah, I really don't care what the story says

. well then stop quoteing other parts of the bible or events found within it. You can't pick out something out of context and make any meaningful use of it. Either reject the whole or define things in context.​

And I don't care what he says either. He's not part of his discussion and his statements don't explain away the immorality of the situation. I mean, he's a professional apologist, so he's going to stretch reason and rationality to make ANY excuse for his God, no matter how heinous his actions are, so it's no wonder you worship this guy's book. As I said I can also find quotes from other people who will agree; that isn't of any concern here, it's just quote-slinging baby wars. In addition you provide small bits of what he says, then assert more of his writing will 'destroy my argument', but asserting that something which you haven't provided satisfies the argument somehow, is ridiculous. I mean, what is his argument, even?​

Since you did not read his statements how can you make a claim to knowledge based on them. Anyone who has such a fondness for argumentative procedure when it suites him should not make these primative mistakes. As far as this goes, if you do not accept him as a competent speaker on the subject even with his impeccable qualifications then why in the world should anyone listen to you.​

I have in front of me 87 books written by 5 authors who have 999 PhDs in everything between them, and their arguments in their books, destroy completely everything you have said. It's just too long to put down here

I understand and concurr with your sentament here. I was willing to list Dr Zacharias's impecable and inescapeable argumentation but since your point here is reasonable consider the assertion withdrawn. I was not going to go through the trouble of listing the whole thing until I had seen whether you wanted it or not. I never suggested it was true because he said it, the logic of his argument is what I found compelling.​

By your pathetic logic, I win.​

This will be at least the third time I say this. I do not appeal to numbers to make a case for the truth of the claim that would be a fallacy. I appeal to numbers to illustrate the suffeciency of the evidence for a decision to be made on. That is not a fallacy. Your inability to accurately account for my faith and your willingness to attempt it anyway is pathetic.​

I am a Norse Heathen. You can look it up. As to the Indian Gods, I believe they might exist; I don't know enough about them to make a decision. However, since we, as Caucasians, are descended from the people of India, it would not surprise me if some of these Gods are other representations of my own. As for 'why them', they are the Gods of my people. We are related.​

I have no opinion, but how do you derive that we are decended from India. What form of evidence and documentation do you use to support a faith in whatever it is a Norse Heathen believes? So no matter how illogical, unrealistic, un attested, or obscure another belief system is it's is still possible. But the most attested, logical, popular, and studied belief system is absolutely false. Typical​

They both were defined by me, and they both make sense.

The fact that you believe two things defined by you also makes sence to you is a meaningless statement. However I agree there is merit in the logic behind these fallacies.​

 

[Quiddity]

Super late on this one but a natural death would have sufficed for his death.

But he definately needed to be born and die to overcome the human condition.

 

[Sleeppy]

the point is sleeppy...visual learning cannot be exclusively applied to learning.
at one point ones hands will get dirty.

That was never the point. Convenience, remember?

all those things i didn't highlight are associated with religion and the greed for power, savvy?
no matter how much you don't want religion to be associated with those things it is. it's undeniable. again :sorry1:

Where's the empirical evidence? The witness testimony? The experiences?

remember, you are the one who put yourself in that position.
you have a choice to either answer a question or move on. my guess is that you wished you picked the latter

Because I have the time, and believe that debates can refine a person's thinking. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Count the times I've had to take a break from you.

birth control
same sex marriages
euthanasia
sexual discrimination
over population
and the ideology that says..."i'm on gods side therefore,
no one else is on the right side."

that to me is frightening.

And these are religious ideologies? There are non religious individuals on either side of these. Maybe you should make a thread seeing where everyone falls on each of these issues. I doubt everyone with a religion will all be on one side and you and everyone else will be on the other. You're frightening yourself.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

because when one makes extraordinary claims about something one has absolutely no verifiable evidence for they are showing they are not being honest about what one really knows but rather what they choose to believe with out the extraordinary evidence that is required to back up such a claim

It does not say they are being dishonest, just that their claim is unverifiable. If they genuinely believe something, then they are not being dishonest when they make claims about said beliefs. They can be unverifiable all they want, but again, that doesn't make them dishonest.

It comes down to belief and trust. You trust them, or you don't. You believe, or you don't. To demand evidence is to say you don't trust or believe. Point being that don't beat around the bush and say they need evidence for anything, as evidence cannot change belief, only knowledge. You have to trust to change your belief.

 

[waitasec]

That was never the point. Convenience, remember?

and knees will get scraped....

Where's the empirical evidence? The witness testimony? The experiences?

really?


Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been a main cause.

The true causes of unrest are sometimes difficult to determine. Frequently, there are a mixture of political alliances, economic differences, ethnic feuds, religious differences, and others: 1

In Northern Ireland, "the troubles" refer to about three decades of violence, largely between the Roman Catholics nationalist community who sought union with Ireland and the primarily Protestant unionist community who want to remain part of the UK. It was largely rooted in discrimination by the Protestant majority against the Catholic minority. Between 1969 and 2001, 3,526 people were killed by Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups and by British and Irish security forces. An uneasy peace was attained by the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and has endured.

The Rwanda genocide was mainly an ethnic conflict between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority. The religious split in the country (75% Christian, mostly Roman Catholic, and 25% indigenous) appears to not have been a significant factor. On the order of 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered, mostly by being hacked to death.

The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was among three faith groups, (Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Serbian Orthodox). The Serbian Orthodox Christian attacks on Muslims was elevated to the level of genocide.

The horrendous civil war in Sudan has a significant religious component among Muslims, Christians and Animists. But inter-tribal warfare, racial and language conflicts are also involved.

The Second Congo War (a.k.a. Africa's World War and the Great War of Africa) started in 1998 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By 2008, 5.4 million persons had been killed, largely from disease and starvation. Hostilities continue to the present.
A group of world religious leaders from the Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim and many other faiths met in Geneva Switzerland during 1999-OCT. They issued a document, The Geneva Spiritual Appeal, asking political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religions are not used to justify violence in the future. Delegates believed that many of the then-current 56 conflicts have religious elements.



Current conflicts and wars:

It is important to realize that most of the world's current "hot spots" have a complex interaction of economic, racial, ethnic, religious, and other factors. We list below some conflicts which have as their base at least some degree of religious intolerance:

Religiously based civil unrest and warfare

Because I have the time, and believe that debates can refine a person's thinking. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Count the times I've had to take a break from you.

then why did you say this?

Which is why you responded to a question that could only possibly be directed at Christians? "Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?"

this question btw, is not in the DIR section :no:

And these are religious ideologies? There are non religious individuals on either side of these. Maybe you should make a thread seeing where everyone falls on each of these issues. I doubt everyone with a religion will all be on one side and you and everyone else will be on the other. You're frightening yourself.

most people who deny birth control to another person does so for religious purposes...the philippines for example
anyone who denies a terminally ill person to die a death on their own terms denies it based on religious purposes
most who deny 2 ppl of the same sex to get married do it for religious purposes

and any ideology that says, 'god is never wrong, and guess what? i'm on gods side of the equation' leaves no room for error...now does it?

 

[waitasec]

It does not say they are being dishonest, just that their claim is unverifiable. If they genuinely believe something, then they are not being dishonest when they make claims about said beliefs. They can be unverifiable all they want, but again, that doesn't make them dishonest.

they are being dishonest as they have yet to qualify their belief, and if they haven't qualified it to themselves other than relying on blind faith, how could they expect someone else to believe?

It comes down to belief and trust. You trust them, or you don't. You believe, or you don't. To demand evidence is to say you don't trust or believe.

i call myself a skeptic for a reason

Point being that don't beat around the bush and say they need evidence for anything, as evidence cannot change belief, only knowledge.

evidence changed my POV and widened my knowledge

You have to trust to change your belief.

no you don't.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

they are being dishonest as they have yet to qualify their belief, and if they haven't qualified it to themselves other than relying on blind faith, how could they expect someone else to believe?

It is a flaw to expect someone to believe at all. You can only lead a horse to water, yes?

evidence changed my POV and widened my knowledge

Evidence changes how we understand things. When dealing with things we cannot understand, we cant use it. Hence belief.

no you don't.

You can trust or not, believe or not. Changing that is your choice. Evidence will not force you, nor will persuasion.

 

[waitasec]

It is a flaw to expect someone to believe at all. You can only lead a horse to water, yes?

yes..

Evidence changes how we understand things. When dealing with things we cannot understand, we cant use it. Hence belief.

can you give me an example?

You can trust or not, believe or not. Changing that is your choice. Evidence will not force you, nor will persuasion.

true.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Based on what, the fact that it's accuracy is inconvienient for you. I have of course not verified all 25,000 facts but I have checked into hundreds maybe thousands of them by now. The bible has the reputation for making a mockery out of it's mockers. Wouldn't you think a book that contains so many tens of thousands of claims that can be checked if false would have faded away by now, not continued to gain credibility.

Based on the fact that you made that 'accuracy' number up.

I mean, seriously dude, I already made that exact statement. You yourself later noted you were busted, and that you did NOT have any such list of 25,00 points of historical accuracy.

And no, I would not expect such a book to fade away, because gullible people the world over, have far too much of their lives invested in it, to let it simply go away. They will lie, cheat and steal, even from themselves, to keep it going. You did it yourself. This is the way it has always been and I don't expect it to change.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you claiming that the Spiderman fallacy was created by you. I am impressed. I found it reasonable but not applicable to the instance you used it for.

Yes, I am the author of the Spiderman Fallacy. If you ever read my signature you would have seen that I have been saying that since I arrived here. It is, in fact, true.

I understand what it suggests but I didn't understand it's application for God. I do not claim that God requires anything of us that runs counter to reason or revelation. As I am not as sure about this one I will not comment further.

It ONLY applies to God. For pete's sake.

I did not make that up (Is there no claim so unknowable to you that you won't state it as a fact) You know if you are debating someone and you allow yourself to claim something as a fact that only the other person knows the truth of, if he knows it's incorrect you have unnecessarily damaged your credability. Here are some sites that mention the 25,000 Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
THIS IS AMAZING SINCE I AM THE SOURCE FOR THIS NUMBER HOW DID THEY ANTICIPATE MY ESTABLISHMENT OF IT IN 2012 WAY BACK 1958 AND GIVE CREDIT TO SOMEONE ELSE. Once again a claim utterly destroyed.

Indeed by 1958 “over 25,000 sites from the biblical world have been confirmed by some archaeological discoveries to date.”
​

6 Forty years later, the list is longer.But let us refer the interested reader to the 17-volume survey, Archaeology—the Bible and Christ by Dr. Clifford Wilson, which brings together over 5,000 facts relating archaeology to the
Bible.7 Dr. Wilson begins volume 17 by stating,
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0604.pdf​

That there is an inexhaustable amount of data backing the validity of the historical accuracy of the bible is a forgone conclusion in most formal debates.​

WRONG

There are more than 25,000 ancient manuscripts of parts or all of the New Testament,

NOT 25,000 matches of historical evidence from things said in the Bible; 25,000 manuscripts of parts of the Bible.
25k traces of the Bible's writings, NOT 25k confirmed historical evidences which prove the information is correct.
YOU asserted the latter. Therefore, directly, you are wrong.

The 2nd site* also gives the same, evidence-less claim of the 25k number; again, where are these so-called 25,000 facts? It's just an impressively high number with no basis in fact, thrown out because it's a huge number to be able to claim. It sounds impressive and it impresses the yahoos who do not know it's false.
In other words, it's an exaggerated lie.
The pdf document lists 25. That's 'twenty five', an extremely, laughable far cry from 'twenty five thousand'.
If there are that many, list them; if there aren't, the claim is false.

* another small detail: the 2nd site claims that there is evidence of the Biblical Flood. hilarious. These are the sites you take seriously?

If God forced someone to make the correct choice then that would be bullying, to allow the free choice to choose the wrong path after the consequences have been explained is not bullying, it is the exact opposite.

Not 'if'. The threat of Hell IS the forced choice. 'Choose me, or eternal torture'.

The most prevelant interpritation of revelations is that people are not in hell or heaven at this moment, they are put there at the second coming, until the final end. My POSSIBLE interpretation of the suffering in hell is due to the fact that they are seperated from God which is what their life and decisions have naturally led to. They don't want God so they don't have him. Of course this results in a seperation from all the good things of God - love, security, peace, etc.......That reflects the most logical conclusion. They don't want God and so do not get him. Keep in mind I am not stating my interpretations as truth but a possible and reasonable interpretation.

If you're going to resort to offering a wide range of interpretations then there's no real value in the discussion, because you'll simply change between interpretations as suits you.

Will there be any confusion if you wound up seperated from the God of the bible after spending your life making statements like this. By the way what are you trying to accomplish with all your posting anyway. You are not defending your religion, you are only attacking another one. What is the motivation?

I am already separated from him, as I am a member of another religion with my own Fate in the hands of other Gods.
My attempted accomplishment is to point out the immorality of this system, so that readers can make an actual choice, and may see things as they really are rather than how the bible and it's adherents spin itself as a feel-good religion. It is actually quite heinous. The truth must be told.

. well then stop quoteing other parts of the bible or events found within it. You can't pick out something out of context and make any meaningful use of it. Either reject the whole or define things in context.​

What parts have I quoted? What parts have I taken out of context?

​

Since you did not read his statements how can you make a claim to knowledge based on them. Anyone who has such a fondness for argumentative procedure when it suites him should not make these primative mistakes. As far as this goes, if you do not accept him as a competent speaker on the subject even with his impeccable qualifications then why in the world should anyone listen to you.

I am making no mistakes, you are simply claiming there to be mistakes because you have no actual competent arguments. This ravi person you faun over is a professional apologist. that means he lies for God. He makes excuses for God's horribleness; that's his profession. And, as I pointed out, you didn't actually tell us what his argument is, you simply asserted how great it was.

I understand and concurr with your sentament here. I was willing to list Dr Zacharias's impecable and inescapeable argumentation but since your point here is reasonable consider the assertion withdrawn. I was not going to go through the trouble of listing the whole thing until I had seen whether you wanted it or not. I never suggested it was true because he said it, the logic of his argument is what I found compelling.

This will be at least the third time I say this. I do not appeal to numbers to make a case for the truth of the claim that would be a fallacy. I appeal to numbers to illustrate the sufficiency of the evidence for a decision to be made on. That is not a fallacy. Your inability to accurately account for my faith and your willingness to attempt it anyway is pathetic.​

Since you cite made up numbers, show no real grasp of logic, and make multiple statements that because so many people believe this it must be true, or ask why so many believe it if it weren't true, it is still obvious that you ARE making this fallacy, over and over again.

​

I have no opinion, but how do you derive that we are decended from India. What form of evidence and documentation do you use to support a faith in whatever it is a Norse Heathen believes? So no matter how illogical, unrealistic, un attested, or obscure another belief system is it's is still possible. But the most attested, logical, popular, and studied belief system is absolutely false. Typical​

Um, because we are.
Are you aware of the etymology of the word 'Caucasian', at all? Are you not aware it came about because of the migration of early man westward over the Caucasus mountains into what would later become Europe? Hence, 'Caucasian'? We are related to those people.

As for your faith system being 'the most logical, popular [APPEAL TO NUMBERS} and studied', it is the most illogical system going. I and others have been exhaustively showing exactly how. And I would imagine there's a tight competition between all the Abrahamic faiths as to whose is the most studied; and no mention of the Eastern faiths' scholarship at all at all? Really? Just more empty hyperbole.

​

The fact that you believe two things defined by you also makes sence to you is a meaningless statement. However I agree there is merit in the logic behind these fallacies.

I am SO relieved!

 

[Thief]

All of this digression is to avoid the topic title?

Was there a consensus made?...Anyone care to restate?

 

[sojourner]

Given the OP, and the copious amount of posting HH has accomplished here (much of which has been digression from that topic), I invite Heathen Hammer to directly answer the OP: Did Jesus really have to die for our sins? I'd like to see his opinion and any backing evidence, based upon a valid theological argument, not simply dismissive diatribe assuming the false nature of the bible.

 

[Sleeppy]

and knees will get scraped....

I really do not know how you just ignored that whole point.. Convenience!! Example: There are several different learning methods that cater to different learner's needs, so that they learn quickly and efficiently.

really?

Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been a main cause.

The true causes of unrest are sometimes difficult to determine. Frequently, there are a mixture of political alliances, economic differences, ethnic feuds, religious differences, and others: 1

In Northern Ireland, "the troubles" refer to about three decades of violence, largely between the Roman Catholics nationalist community who sought union with Ireland and the primarily Protestant unionist community who want to remain part of the UK. It was largely rooted in discrimination by the Protestant majority against the Catholic minority. Between 1969 and 2001, 3,526 people were killed by Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups and by British and Irish security forces. An uneasy peace was attained by the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and has endured.

The Rwanda genocide was mainly an ethnic conflict between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority. The religious split in the country (75% Christian, mostly Roman Catholic, and 25% indigenous) appears to not have been a significant factor. On the order of 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered, mostly by being hacked to death.

The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was among three faith groups, (Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Serbian Orthodox). The Serbian Orthodox Christian attacks on Muslims was elevated to the level of genocide.

The horrendous civil war in Sudan has a significant religious component among Muslims, Christians and Animists. But inter-tribal warfare, racial and language conflicts are also involved.

The Second Congo War (a.k.a. Africa's World War and the Great War of Africa) started in 1998 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By 2008, 5.4 million persons had been killed, largely from disease and starvation. Hostilities continue to the present.
A group of world religious leaders from the Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim and many other faiths met in Geneva Switzerland during 1999-OCT. They issued a document, The Geneva Spiritual Appeal, asking political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religions are not used to justify violence in the future. Delegates believed that many of the then-current 56 conflicts have religious elements.

Current conflicts and wars:

It is important to realize that most of the world's current "hot spots" have a complex interaction of economic, racial, ethnic, religious, and other factors. We list below some conflicts which have as their base at least some degree of religious intolerance:

Religiously based civil unrest and warfare

I'll start by saying this: All of this is unsupported. I'm not an expert on any of this, are you? How do you validate any of this?

Second paragraph states that it is a mix. 4 of the 5 causes they named (including "others") is apart from religion and may or may not be tied to "greed for power."

Third paragraph.. Catholic nationalists and Protestant unionists. Like I said, I'm no expert, but I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with the nationalist and unionist tags than the Catholic and Protestant ones. Why? I don't know of any Catholic or Protestant religious ideologies that would advocate violence between them. Do you?

Fourth paragraph seems to defeat itself by saying that it was an ethnic conflict. "Religious split appears to not have been a significant factor."

Don't know anything about paragraph five or six. Where's their evidence. Their word is just as good as yours to me, and mines to you.

Paragraph seven.. What stuck out to me was the religious leader's intervention. Obviously, that's significant. Do you know what religious elements were used to "justify violence?"

Last paragraph.. emphasis on the bolded.

then why did you say this?


this question btw, is not in the DIR section :no:

Because you were acting as if I was out of line for responding to the question in the way that I did. It's a Christian aimed question. You can't deny that, whether it's in the DIR or not.. Unless Jesus dying for our sins isn't Christian? Assuming you're atheist, what could you possibly have to say to the thread's question besides, "No, I don't even believe in Christianity?" Smh. I'm curious now. What is your answer?

most people who deny birth control to another person does so for religious purposes...the philippines for example
anyone who denies a terminally ill person to die a death on their own terms denies it based on religious purposes
most who deny 2 ppl of the same sex to get married do it for religious purposes

More completely unsupported claims. I'm not convinced. Also, show me the religious ideologies behind these claims.

and any ideology that says, 'god is never wrong, and guess what? i'm on gods side of the equation' leaves no room for error...now does it?

Well.. I don't know anyone who goes around saying their never wrong, because they're on God's side. Do you? As far as I know, most religious people say God is all-knowing, not themselves.

 

[waitasec]

I really do not know how you just ignored that whole point.. Convenience!! Example: There are several different learning methods that cater to different learner's needs, so that they learn quickly and efficiently.

not if one wants to learn how to ride a bike.

I'll start by saying this: All of this is unsupported. I'm not an expert on any of this, are you? How do you validate any of this?

i don't get what your position is.
do you deny that religion and the greed for power are re-occurring factors in mistakes that keep repeating throughout history?

More completely unsupported claims. I'm not convinced. Also, show me the religious ideologies behind these claims.

interesting how you are not so easily convinced by current events but you are by hearsay...

Well.. I don't know anyone who goes around saying their never wrong, because they're on God's side. Do you? As far as I know, most religious people say God is all-knowing, not themselves.

exactly

 

[Sleeppy]

not if one wants to learn how to ride a bike.

.....

i don't get what your position is.
do you deny that religion and the greed for power are re-occurring factors in mistakes that keep repeating throughout history?

I don't know any other religion but mine. I haven't felt the urge to cause any wars or genocides. I want to see your support. What religious ideologies caused these events?

interesting how you are not so easily convinced by current events but you are by hearsay...

It's not the current events but the causes I'm not so sure of. You know that. Stick to the debate and quit the insult attempts.

exactly

Smileys don't exactly help your argument.

 

[waitasec]

What can't be explained away?

the dilemma that the last piece has been provided, yet the world is not whole.

nuff said.

 

[waitasec]

.....



I don't know any other religion but mine. I haven't felt the urge to cause any wars or genocides. I want to see your support. What religious ideologies caused these events?

the religious ideology is that "my religion is the right one"
is that what you are getting out of this...what urges you get? no dear, we are talking about the mistakes that repeat...but for some reason you don't want religion to be involved.
whateva
i'm willing to bet religious people vote against same sex marriages , as god says it's an abomination...(or am i making that up :areyoucra)
and lets take it to the extreme, shall we?
what about 9-11
or that idiot in norway that killed 79 people

It's not the current events but the causes I'm not so sure of. You know that. Stick to the debate and quit the insult attempts.

the cause is; "i'm on gods side." which is all the justification one needs...
consider this post i just responded to

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2917276-post1226.html

 

[Sleeppy]

nuff said.

And yet, there was/are those like Mother Teresa.. Whole.

 

[Sleeppy]

the religious ideology is that "my religion is the right one"
is that what you are getting out of this...what urges you get? no dear, we are talking about the mistakes that repeat...but for some reason you don't want religion to be involved.
whateva

Because again, you're being inconsistent. It's not any religious ideology (unless you want to show me which one it is, and how), it's the person twisting an ideology wrongly out of religion.

i'm willing to bet religious people vote against same sex marriages , as god says it's an abomination...(or am i making that up :areyoucra)

I'm religious, and I do not believe in same sex marriage. I live in the Unites States, which is not a religiously centered country. According to US ideology, they should be allowed to marry. I'm not going to vote against that. If I have a serious enough problem with US ideology, I'll leave. Now, what were you saying?

and lets take it to the extreme, shall we?
what about 9-11
or that idiot in norway that killed 79 people

People crash planes and kill people all the time and for various reasons from drunkenness to depression to not knowing how to fly. You're being ridiculous. You're like the people who used religion as an invalid excuse to crash a plane into the those buildings.

the cause is; "i'm on gods side." which is all the justification one needs...
consider this post i just responded to

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2917276-post1226.html

Actually no it isn't. I believe I'm on God's side, and yet I'm not causing 9-11's or Norway killings. That's not a valid cause then, is it?