religion is slowly dying?

[The Hammer]

I don't think so this time, science has largely made what modern religion believes irrelevant and ridiculous. Now maybe, if a wholly different form of religion comes along, things might change, but if what we see in the world today remains accurate, I think religion is doomed as a defining force in humanity.

And a damn good thing that is too.

I disagree, but hey, your views are your views .

I don't think it is a good or a bad thing. Religion can be helpful, and a hinderance depending on the person and views held.

 

[suncowiam]

In all of the time that I have been a christian, I have never heard a christian deny the importance of science, or that it is not a prevailing factor in a successful civilization. It plays a significant part, but it is not the only factor. When combined with everything else that we have, it helps. We do not actually have a successful civilization you know. There are wars in our world. There is famine, cancer, moral decline, crime, paedophiles, poverty and a whole host of things that we are all struggling to keep in check. Just like religion cannot do it on its own, neither can science. We all need each other. Your argument tries to exclude religion just because you are an atheist and do not believe in a deity. Christians have a right to believe. How would you feel if I tried to say that atheists should be made extinct because I believe in God. Lastly, christianity is not dwindling, as you may think. Church attendance is. In the USA 83% of American describe themselves as Christian.

I believe you want to end it because your argument has no basis. I have not aired my views, that you say is set in stone, and many of them are, I have addressed your allegory and found it to be without substance.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/

Secularism grows as more U.S. Christians turn 'churchless' - Religion News Service

Christianity Sees Major Shifts In 100 Years, Percentage Of Population Remains Constant

I was debating to even post these links with you. Frankly, I don't think it matters what I present to you. It will be labeled as "ignorant", "no basis", "no substance."

You're a one way road. I infered that from your discussions with other folks here. Just stick to your beliefs, but no matter how defensive or argumentative you get, you can't change other beliefs on the subject. It's pretty clear to me which way religion is heading.

Concerning the last link, it states the % of Christians over the world remains constant over time but it has dwindled in US and Europe. I SPECULATE that component to be modern society and science. But this is just lighting another fire with you.

My reasoning to you all along is that science is the alternative for religion. Science does not need religion to go hand in hand. It needs capitalism to fund its various ventures and advance itself.

 

[Serenity7855]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/

Your own link points out that Seventy-five percent of Americans call themselves Christian, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 1990, the figure was 86 percent. Even if true, 75% is a lot of people, however, that was in 1990 and this article is now 6 years old. Just a couple of years earlier "abc News" published an article entitled "Most Americans say they are Christian" in which their poll declared that 83% of Americans describe themselves as Christian. You are quote mining, looking for the best article to corroborate your erroneous claim.

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian - ABC News

Secularism grows as more U.S. Christians turn 'churchless' - Religion News Service

This article deals with a slacking in church attendance, something that is undeniable and, by part, the result of Individualism. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do with it.

Christianity Sees Major Shifts In 100 Years, Percentage Of Population Remains Constant

Now this one is published by the "Huffington Post" no less, so it must be true, right? It says "With Christmas fast approaching, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life published a new comprehensive demographic report on the size and distribution of the world’s Christian population. The study finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages in more than 200 countries around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 6.9 billion 2010 global population. Christians are so geographically widespread that no single continent or region can indisputably claim to be the center of global Christianity. You do yourself no favours. You should read them first instead of picking the first one in your Google search. Another case of quote mining, that is, finding the best article to substantiate your claim

By the way, the last two links are unlinked links

I was debating to even post these links with you. Frankly, I don't think it matters what I present to you. It will be labeled as "ignorant", "no basis", "no substance."

To post in ignorance is not an insult. It just means that you are not sufficiently intelligent enough to talk about the particular subject being debated. It is clear that you are not familiar enough with this concept to be able to debate it. That you think I will debunk it regardless is follie. If what you say is logically sound then I would have no alternative but to agree. What you are saying is just another atheists illusionary concept attempting to discredit doctrine that has already stood the test of time from critiques and has emerged unscathed.

Please do not blame me for your inability to put forward a good argument against religion.

You're a one way road. I infered that from your discussions with other folks here. Just stick to your beliefs, but no matter how defensive or argumentative you get, you can't change other beliefs on the subject. It's pretty clear to me which way religion is heading.

Of course you detected that in my discussion with other folk here. It is a debating forum. Did you expect harmonious rhetoric between two groups of people who are diametrically opposed. You are stating the obvious and then trying to put a negative slant on it.

I have no desire to change other people's belief. I defend my faith on here, I do not proselytise. If you think that it is clear that the fate of religion is extinction then you have been deluded. Yes, congregations will waine and wither, but they will never die.

Concerning the last link, it states the % of Christians over the world remains constant over time but it has dwindled in US and Europe. I SPECULATE that component to be modern society and science. But this is just lighting another fire with you.

Not unless it is a falsehood.

My reasoning to you all along is that science is the alternative for religion. Science does not need religion to go hand in hand. It needs capitalism to fund its various ventures and advance itself.

You are wrong. So wrong are you that you make yourself sound ignorant. You sound like the kid in the playground claiming that his dad is bigger then your dad. Science cannot be an alternative to religion, as religion cannot be an alternative to science. It is preposterous to even consider it. They bear no similarity to each other. Are we considering that science will administer the sacrament, give sermons, ring church bells, marry couples in the site of God and baptise congregationalist? Your assertion would be better placed by saying that with science religion is not necessary. You would still be equally as wrong but at least it would sound better.

The last sentence sums up you entire problem. You agree with the pure evils of capitalism. It is inherently wicked and is responsible for death, suffering, abuse and satanic rituals that are immoral and demonic. You are not a typical atheist, no, you are a anti theist. You want to take away people's rights and freedom of choice to worship the God of their choice by ridding it from our world. That was Satan's plan.

 

[suncowiam]

Your own link points out that Seventy-five percent of Americans call themselves Christian, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 1990, the figure was 86 percent. Even if true, 75% is a lot of people, however, that was in 1990 and this article is now 6 years old. Just a couple of years earlier "abc News" published an article entitled "Most Americans say they are Christian" in which their poll declared that 83% of Americans describe themselves as Christian. You are quote mining, looking for the best article to corroborate your erroneous claim.

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian - ABC News



This article deals with a slacking in church attendance, something that is undeniable and, by part, the result of Individualism. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do with it.



Now this one is published by the "Huffington Post" no less, so it must be true, right? It says "With Christmas fast approaching, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life published a new comprehensive demographic report on the size and distribution of the world’s Christian population. The study finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages in more than 200 countries around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 6.9 billion 2010 global population. Christians are so geographically widespread that no single continent or region can indisputably claim to be the center of global Christianity. You do yourself no favours. You should read them first instead of picking the first one in your Google search. Another case of quote mining, that is, finding the best article to substantiate your claim

By the way, the last two links are unlinked links



To post in ignorance is not an insult. It just means that you are not sufficiently intelligent enough to talk about the particular subject being debated. It is clear that you are not familiar enough with this concept to be able to debate it. That you think I will debunk it regardless is follie. If what you say is logically sound then I would have no alternative but to agree. What you are saying is just another atheists illusionary concept attempting to discredit doctrine that has already stood the test of time from critiques and has emerged unscathed.

Please do not blame me for your inability to put forward a good argument against religion.



Of course you detected that in my discussion with other folk here. It is a debating forum. Did you expect harmonious rhetoric between two groups of people who are diametrically opposed. You are stating the obvious and then trying to put a negative slant on it.

I have no desire to change other people's belief. I defend my faith on here, I do not proselytise. If you think that it is clear that the fate of religion is extinction then you have been deluded. Yes, congregations will waine and wither, but they will never die.




Not unless it is a falsehood.



You are wrong. So wrong are you that you make yourself sound ignorant. You sound like the kid in the playground claiming that his dad is bigger then your dad. Science cannot be an alternative to religion, as religion cannot be an alternative to science. It is preposterous to even consider it. They bear no similarity to each other. Are we considering that science will administer the sacrament, give sermons, ring church bells, marry couples in the site of God and baptise congregationalist? Your assertion would be better placed by saying that with science religion is not necessary. You would still be equally as wrong but at least it would sound better.

The last sentence sums up you entire problem. You agree with the pure evils of capitalism. It is inherently wicked and is responsible for death, suffering, abuse and satanic rituals that are immoral and demonic. You are not a typical atheist, no, you are a anti theist. You want to take away people's rights and freedom of choice to worship the God of their choice by ridding it from our world. That was Satan's plan.

I knew it would turn out this way if I continued. Now, you've compared me to a kid. And you bring in satanic rituals, quoting "demonic", and bring up Satan's plan.

I think the debate is over...

Oh, I know exactly where on the scale of religious fanaticism you lie.

You can win this one and every other one, because you clearly have your own reality.

Yeah, I'm on the fence of being an anti-theist. People like you can make it very easy for me to continue that thought.

 

[Serenity7855]

I knew it would turn out this way if I continued. Now, you've compared me to a kid. And you bring in satanic rituals, quoting "demonic", and bring up Satan's plan.

I think the debate is over...

Oh, I know exactly where on the scale of religious fanaticism you lie.

No, not fanaticism, I am more of a realist. I believe in God equally as much as you don't. In my mindset a world without diety is in convieveable, as in your world it is perfectly logical that no God exists. I am not asking you to join me in my belief so why are you hear proactively preaching your flavour of atheism. What christians believe in is none of your business. I am happy to mind my own business, are you willing to mind your business? I somehow doubt it as your enjoyment is in the fight and winning it. Contention, agitation, aggression and disharmony is your game.

If the debate is over it is because you have no viable rebuttal.

You can win this one and every other one, because you clearly have your own reality.

Nobody wins in debates. You express your opinion and I express mine. I evaluate your opinion as you must evaluate mine. I then either change my opinion or stay resolute in mine, as you must do. It is usually the audience, of equally proportioned watchers, who decide who is right and who is wrong, not who has won or who has lost. But that is your agenda. Science must win over religion. To coexist is not something that you would consider or concieve. That Is narcissistic.

Yeah, I'm on the fence of being an anti-theist. People like you can make it very easy for me to continue that thought.

I cannot make you do anything. The choice is always yours, as is the consequences.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Sorry not to have got back to you earlier. Life happens.

To be able to answer that I would need to know what stunt you refer to and have evidence that 90% of people roll their eyes at it.

"A god who can’t get his own message across for most of his followers’ history doesn’t seem plausible..." Alex Gabriel.
Take Paul and his rows with various other apostles. Cephas, James and John have a different message. Peter ping pongs between Paul and them. Apollos preachs something else again. That is the before there is even such a thing as Christianity. I won't even mention the messages other Jews were getting from their god that didn't include Jesus. Then you have the Gospels. Third and fourth hand reports that don't agree with one another, let alone what Paul and others were reporting to have had first hand. In the second or third century a chap called Celsus asked Origen, an early theologian, why he should take notice of his god over any other since the story pretty much rips off the tales other cults had told from time immemorial. That remains the problem to this day. The signal is indistinguishable from the noise. How many books in the bible say the end of the world and the fulfillment of god's plan is imminent? The Gospel writers even have Jesus get this wrong. Which brings us to:

What makes you believe that the dice is loaded? If every one will receive an equal opportunity to here the Word of God, then how can the dice be loaded?

How can the dice not be loaded. Everyone mistakes the message that they hear and not a one is able to put what they hear over in a convincing manner. God would know this was likely, he is the designer/creator (or Christ is). When all that is available is poor argument you do not get very far. Two milleniia of history shows Christianity only succeeds on any large scale when it has access to knives and guns. Judaism and Islam have the same sorry template.

There are five of us on this forum and the numbers are increasing but you are appealing to a ad populum fallacy. Just because we are but few does not automatically make our beliefs unrealistic. As Jesus said "only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice"

So the grand sum of the saved out of the tens of billions is... five. Your doing a lot worse than Paul in your interactions with you interlocutors; and he is probably the most obtuse best-selling author in history! Who writes in one of his clearer moments that what he is talking about is foolishness to the wise. As I wrote earlier, I don't doubt your sincerity; but your attempt at engagement here is having a far more negatve than positive effect. You don't seem to be aware of this but god, if existent in the form you think, must be. QED loaded dice.

And not everyone has had or will have the opportunity to hear the Word of God/Plan of Salvation. In all that 103 pages I read through, I didn't find a coherent Plan; as I wrote earlier, I can't get my head around you. Thousands may have looked in but I doubt more than a few dozen read more than a few pages. I doubt three quarters of them could tell you what the Plan is. I'll grant the huge improbability of god for a moment. There are forty odd thousand Christian sects and umpteen more cults worshipping umpteen more gods; none of these sects, cults or gods are more or less likely than any other. How many thousands to one is likelyhood you have the right god, how many tens of thousands to one the right cult and then forty odd thousand to one the right sect? The odds you have been taken in by the embodiment of evil, misdirection and lies in the right cult are much, much, much more likely. I have read the Christian scripture; both coming and going.

I don't recognise Paul's god or his christ in the god of the Tanakh or the Gospels. Even if I were a believer I would have to say every Christian from Mark on has been taken in by the Demiurge, the Lord of This World; and you likewise. Possibly Paul misheard or what we have is miscommunicated; but even that supreme being and his hypostases come across as immmoral and unethical. Therefore I must beg to disbelieve in them even if they are real. I would have a hard look at yourself and this paraclete your in contact with. If it comes from God it should be able to couch the Word of God in an sensible, intelligent and persuasive fashion. If it can't, and you still think it other than delusion: for you soul's sake; seek elsewhere. A Power in the Darkness it might be; that it is God I very much doubt.

 

[Serenity7855]

Sorry not to have got back to you earlier. Life happens.

"A god who can’t get his own message across for most of his followers’ history doesn’t seem plausible..." Alex Gabriel.

Now, you see, I don't believe that this has happened. All those who want to hear the message have, in fact, heard it. You seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with the fundamentals of christianity. God has provided a place for us to be tried and tested in the flesh, in accordance to the Plan of Salvation. When Adam fell the world became mortal, so God, being perfect, was unable to personally communicate with his creation ever again, being imperfect. The point is that He has not tried to get his massage accross to us because he cannot. That is the job of the Holy Ghost, who looks for opportunities to testify to our souls that a God lives. The word of God is also, quite literally, written upon our hearts, helping us to find Him. Part of the Plan of Salvation is for us to find Him and His message. But do not feel troubled by your misunderstanding, most Christians do not know that we are here for a particular reason, that there is more to our existence then just life, 3 score and 10 years, and then death. That we agreed to come here under these circumstances and to be tried and tested whilst in the flesh. It is not a fairy story or a fable, though most atheist genuinely think that. It is a perfectly constructed plan with every eventuality being considered. It's complexity is wildly beyond our capability to concieve. We are spiritual being having a mortal experience for a reason which will filter the chaff from the good seeds. Those who recognise they are the seed, and act upon it, will have life eternal in a perfect utopia.But even the disbelievers will be satisfied with their lot, so, there should be no disharmony between atheist and theist. It is merely personal choice.

Take Paul and his rows with various other apostles. Cephas, James and John have a different message. Peter ping pongs between Paul and them. Apollos preachs something else again. That is the before there is even such a thing as Christianity. I won't even mention the messages other Jews were getting from their god that didn't include Jesus. Then you have the Gospels. Third and fourth hand reports that don't agree with one another, let alone what Paul and others were reporting to have had first hand. In the second or third century a chap called Celsus asked Origen, an early theologian, why he should take notice of his god over any other since the story pretty much rips off the tales other cults had told from time immemorial. That remains the problem to this day. The signal is indistinguishable from the noise. How many books in the bible say the end of the world and the fulfillment of god's plan is imminent? The Gospel writers even have Jesus get this wrong. Which brings us to:

I get the impression that you are not totally familiar with the Plan of Salvation. You seem to misunderstand the meaning and reasoning for the existence of Holy Bible. It is not about the characters who wrote the books, or who gave different accounts of differing events that is the focal point. No, it is all about the commandments, instructions, allegories, parable, concepts and principle that are needed for the convertion to Christianity to follow the Teachings of Jesus and His Plan of Redemption. They are hidden in the stories and allegories that you will find their. That Paul wrote his letters is irrelevant, it is the words that God needed to have in the bible. That their are four gospels instead of one, to ensure that the reader has a full account, is nothing to do with who or what the disciples were. It is the message that they contain. By following these teachings we will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. It is a book of commandments Written by men and compiled by the influence of God. What it contains is exactly what God wants it to contain. It certainly is not a historical record. It is not even chronologically correct. The fallacy is in the idea that the writers of the text have any role to play in the purpose of the bible. It is a fallacy that Satan has cunningly and subtlety persuaded mankind to believe. And a very good job he has done. Only if you know the real reason for the existence of the Holy Bible do you know how far from the truth this is.

How many books in the bible says that the end of the world and the fulfillment of god's plan is imminent?

Have you checked it? Not one. The word imminent does not appear in the King James Version of the bible, anywhere. The words "end of the world" appears 16 times but nothing connected to it being imminent. Jesus told us that "of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. Anyone seeking a sign of when it might be is also in serious trouble, "for it is a wicked and adulterous nation that seeketh after a sign"

The signal is indistinguishable, however, only those who recognise the master voice will make the kingdom of God.

How can the dice not be loaded. Everyone mistakes the message that they hear and not a one is able to put what they hear over in a convincing manner. God would know this was likely, he is the designer/creator (or Christ is). When all that is available is poor argument you do not get very far. Two milleniia of history shows Christianity only succeeds on any large scale when it has access to knives and guns. Judaism and Islam have the same sorry template.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the conversion process. Man cannot convert man. It is impossible. Only the Holy Ghost can testify to your soul of the existence of God. Christianity is personal to the individual not the congregation. I cannot give you what I have. The epiphany I received was personal to me. I can share that epiphany but I cannot give the testimony of the Holy Ghost to anybody. It is personal to each individual. Of course God knew it, as did we, it is an essential ingredient in the Plan of Salvation.

Judaism and Islam have the same sorry template. Remember that we were warned about false prophets who would try to deceive the very elect. Again, it is all about the trail of our faith. It is what we agreed to do.

I see no poor arguments for God. His existences is perfectly logical and utterly feasible in every aspect.

No, not when God gets access to knives and guns but when mankind get access to them and tries and act in the name of Christ, though Christ condemns such action. You cannot blame that which men do on Christ, who never sanctioned it. That is unfair

So the grand sum of the saved out of the tens of billions is... five.

Is that really what you thought I was saying. I saw a quote a couple of days ago, given by a representative of the Catholic Church. It said that a quarter of the congregation had been lost to individualism over the last decade. That is a tad more then just five. I am an individualist.

Your doing a lot worse than Paul in your interactions with you interlocutors;

It is a debate and not a conversation.

and he is probably the most obtuse best-selling author in history! Who writes in one of his clearer moments that what he is talking about is foolishness to the wise.

He knew that he was writing the words of God. The words of God are foolishness to the wise, as I hope that I have demonstrated here.

As I wrote earlier, I don't doubt your sincerity; but your attempt at engagement here is having a far more negatve than positive effect. You don't seem to be aware of this but god, if existent in the form you think, must be. QED loaded dice.

I believe that i know different. But we are all entitled to our own opinion. Satan works harder on the truth sayer. For those who have fallen there is little work to do, however, for those who know the truth more effort is required to destabilising them. That is why I wear the full armour of God to protect myself against the fiery darts of Satan. But please do not think that I think you are an adversary to Satan. Most people carry out the work of Satan without even knowing what they are doing. Atheists do not believe in Satan, like the do not believe in God. I am certain that they are clueless as to the part they are playing for Satan. It makes it all the more plausible. Just think about it. Why are you here conversing with me. What business is it of yours that I am a christian. I have not asked you to join me in the waters of baptism. I am not interfering in your life in anyway. So why do you find it necessary to try and discredit and ridicule my personal belief. I am not complaining, neither do I mind, I just want you to consider what is motivating you to be here when there is nothing for you to gain. Could it be Satan?

And not everyone has had or will have the opportunity to hear the Word of God/Plan of Salvation. In all that 103 pages I read through, I didn't find a coherent Plan; as I wrote earlier, I can't get my head around you. Thousands may have looked in but I doubt more than a few dozen read more than a few pages. I doubt three quarters of them could tell you what the Plan is. I'll grant the huge improbability of god for a moment. There are forty odd thousand Christian sects and umpteen more cults worshipping umpteen more gods; none of these sects, cults or gods are more or less likely than any other. How many thousands to one is likelyhood you have the right god, how many tens of thousands to one the right cult and then forty odd thousand to one the right sect? The odds you have been taken in by the embodiment of evil, misdirection and lies in the right cult are much, much, much more likely. I have read the Christian scripture; both coming and going.

Again, if you do not know what the plan of redemption is then why are you here? It is the core of christianity. Unless every single soul recieves the teachings of the Scriptures then the Plan of Redemption cannot work. Do you just think that christians believe in a God because it seems like a good thing to do. Do you think that people dedicate their lives to Christ without having a reason. Is it just a case of being good so that we avoid hell, with no reason for our existence or for being here. As for the numbers of my audience, I am seriously not bothered. I am not 'proselytising or preaching here, I am defending my belief system. Anybody can know the truth of the Gospel but nobody can give it to them, other then the Holy Ghost.

There is not a single faith on this earth who has the express permission from God to act in his name. They are All man made religions based on man's interpretations of scripture. Nowhere did God condone this. You are preaching to the converted. All of these denominations have a piece of the truth but none of them have it all, accept for the individual.

It is easy to read but far more difficult to comprehend. If your lifestyle is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ, then reading the scriptures is only a waste of your time. You need to read with the Holy Ghost, that requires having your life as much in harmony with gospel principles as it can be. As you read like this you will learn about the mind and will of God and your desire to keep his commandments will increase because of the knowledge you will gain. As your knowledge increases, so will your desire and resolution to increase your worthiness, to a point where you will receive sufficient knowledge to be able to stand as a special witness to God almighty. Eventually the words will come alive through the gift of the Holy Ghost He will testify to your very soul, without any doubt, that God lives and loves you. You have read, but you have not heard or understood or persevered.

I don't recognise Paul's god or his christ in the god of the Tanakh or the Gospels. Even if I were a believer I would have to say every Christian from Mark on has been taken in by the Demiurge, the Lord of This World; and you likewise. Possibly Paul misheard or what we have is miscommunicated; but even that supreme being and his hypostases come across as immmoral and unethical.

Well, he is a carnal being, as am I. I am immoral and unethical at times, however, I have the power of prayer and the desire to forsake sin. You talk of Paul and the disciples as though they were akin to Jesus. They were not. They were nothing like Him. They were just everyday men called to serve with Christ. Many complained and *****ed about it. None of them were perfect. The plan of salvation is all about the individual, it is not about ancient people or the authors of the books in the bible. It is about my relationship with God.

Therefore I must beg to disbelieve in them even if they are real. I would have a hard look at yourself and this paraclete your in contact with.

A that paraclete, the Holy Ghost, who has guided and directed me, quite successfully, through my mortal journey. I am the most introspective person that I know. I fought long and hard to disprove christianity before succumbing to its truths, because I could find no critique that could not be logically and satisfactorily answered, and then confirmed by the Holy Ghost. No, that old paraclete has served me well, in my life, and has produced offspring of the same ilk and level of success. But you do not have to invite him into your life. He will not come unless he is asked. So what's the problem?. What is your real concern over the choices that some people make?

John 14: 16, 26

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter , that he may abide with you for ever;

26 But the Comforter , which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name , he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[viole]

Have you checked it? Not one. The word imminent does not appear in the King James Version of the bible, anywhere. The words "end of the world" appears 16 times but nothing connected to it being imminent. Jesus told us that "of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. Anyone seeking a sign of when it might be is also in serious trouble, "for it is a wicked and adulterous nation that seeketh after a sign"

This is a sufficient condition to deduce that the Son and the Father are not the same. For sure, if God is omniscient, then Jesus cannot be God (by not knowing something that is known by at least another entity, and it is therefore knowable).

You might say that His humanity prevented Him to know that. But wasn't Jesus existing before taking human form? Or does incarnation entail some form of amnesia? You know, like that memory zapper in Men in Black.

I wonder whether the Holy Spirit knows. Two out of three ain't bad, is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

This is a sufficient condition to deduce that the Son and the Father are not the same. For sure, if God is omniscient, then Jesus cannot be God (by not knowing something that is known by at least another entity, and it is therefore knowable).

You might say that His humanity prevented Him to know that. But wasn't Jesus existing before taking human form? Or does incarnation entail some form of amnesia? You know, like that memory zapper in Men in Black.

I wonder whether the Holy Spirit knows. Two out of three ain't bad, is it?

Ciao

- viole

I am not a believer in the Trinity so I very much agree.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Serenity,

Why am I Here? To try and understand you. The question alone brings you across as a bit muddled. You are here for debate not conversation you say; but the question betrays an interest in neither. I have explained why I am scratching my head. If I have misunderstood, as you have said, what have I misunderstood? I still see nothing of what this Plan might be. If you are not 'proselytising and preaching' why are you here? Stating the Plan is perfectly logical over and over while not being at all clear what the Plan might be is not 'defending' it. Since it is your own private belief; not even communicated to your own family; what is your point? If only you and a voice in your head/feeling in your heart can know the Plan is true, your point being here is what?

How on earth can you diss Paul, he is the only person we can be sure of spoken to by Christ. What he describes is for all practical purposes what you describe as the Holy Ghost's communications with you; though he is a lot clearer what he is writing about even if folk will keep trying to make out he writes what he doesn't. If I understand you correctly this is a reworking of the LDS belief system. How then are your gods different from Paul? He held men could become Christs i.e. gods. Were not your gods also originally men? They are apparently physical, perhaps even mortal, creatures. Are they located in some other galaxy then? This 'core of Christianity' hasn't been Christian for millennia and even then it was the belief of only a small fraction; if any one at all until Joseph Smith serendipitously re-invented it two hundred years ago. It remains a minority Christian belief.

'It is about my relationship with God.'
Not about the Bible then. Nothing to do with it's authors who are the only reason we have it in the first place; nothing to do with the ancients; presumably by the same logic, nothing to do with Joseph Smith. It is your own invention validated post hoc by a voice/feeling in your heart/head. Perhaps this is why it is not known to your family and friends. Your aware of the reaction of Jesus' family in the stories and neither want to be locked up nor have the courage to be nailed to a tree.

'I see no poor arguments for God. His existences is perfectly logical and utterly feasible in every aspect.'

'Again, you seem to misunderstand the conversion process. Man cannot convert man. It is impossible. Only the Holy Ghost can testify to your soul of the existence of God. Christianity is personal to the individual not the congregation. I cannot give you what I have. The epiphany I received was personal to me. I can share that epiphany but I cannot give the testimony of the Holy Ghost to anybody. It is personal to each individual. Of course God knew it, as did we, it is an essential ingredient in the Plan of Salvation.'
These statements are contradictory. If it is perfectly feasible, utterly logical and rich argument for God you should be able to make it to the majority of others. If it can only be known through the spirit, then it is neither logical or feasible. Unless of course you are redefining up as down and black as white or up as white and black as down.

'It's (the Plan's) complexity is wildly beyond our capability to concieve.'
And yet you conceive it. You are your own confutation.

'The words of God are foolishness to the wise, as I hope that I have demonstrated here.' Well I think we can safely say you have achieved your goal.

Why am I here? a) I have an intellectual interest in Christianity b) If 'God', then 'God' is a natural phenomenon; a part, perhaps a completion, of the human; and therefore amendable and accessible to reason and the human mind. c) I would bring you to reason; in your terms salvation. I think it most probable 'God' is the misinterpretation of neurological phenomena common to everyone but it remains possible that 'God'; while neurological phenomena; might actually be 'God' - in the similar sense to 'I'. I think it was Einstein who said something like his mathematics just popped into his head. He didn't have a god hypothesis; but this might be the same phenomenon. Before that we have Socrates 'proving' a slave boy intrinsically knew all there was to know. I am just musing aloud here but it seems to me, as it does and has done to many others that, absent the cultural baggage and the inevitable misinterpretation of things we do not yet understand by all persons, there is a commonality to the message and the messenger. We might never find; but we should always seek. We might never know completion; but we should always approach it.

You seem to me to be uncertain in your certainty; I am certain in my uncertainty. Be content with yourself and happy in your own skin. If what you have come to believe helps you negotiate the uncertainties of life and gives your life meaning; that's great. You might have concluded that I and pretty much everyone else that isn't you are damned to perdition; but your harming no one by it, not even yourself. That I ridicule your personal belief or discredit it is structural to my reasoning. It cannot be helped if reason discredits or ridicules your beliefs. That is an inevitable byproduct of reason. Your arguments and belief may be ridiculous but you do no harm in holding them as far as I am aware. Do not mistake my finding it all ridiculous with finding you as a person ridiculous. I have approached you seriously and in sincerity. You have me scratching my head is all.

Take care now.

Edit: For some reason the block quote borked and I found I had replied to the wrong person. Apologies.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Strange if you look at many prophecies, even the pagan ones, it says people will lose their faith in religion and of course many bad things happen as this happens. I like to be religious and have faith in something.

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity,

Why am I Here? To try and understand you.

Why do you want to understand me. I pose no threat or offer no interference in your life, so why do you need to understand me.

The question alone brings you across as a bit muddled.

Not really. It is a question that always produced the same unreliable response, that is true, however, nobody has ever given a rational and honest response.

You are here for debate not conversation you say; but the question betrays an interest in neither.

If that is what you believe then let me assure you that I am here to debate points of interest to me and to defend, what I believe, is true. If I were not then I would say so. I do not lie or decieve.

I have explained why I am scratching my head. If I have misunderstood, as you have said, what have I misunderstood? I still see nothing of what this Plan might be.

The Plan of Salvation is the basis of all christianity. It is the core of Christianity and the reason for our existence. This is what Wiki says about it

Plan of salvation

The concept of a plan of salvation is a Christian concept which occurs first in the New Testament, for example in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, although some scholars consider the idea fully developed first in the Gospel of Luke.[1]

According to some writers, this plan of salvation is equivalent to the idea of a divine economy in history. This idea is developed by Ignatius,[2] Augustine[3][4] and Johann Albrecht Bengel.[5]

Plan of salvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This should demonstrate for you that the Plan of Salvation is fundamental to Christianity and not just to me.

If you are not 'proselytising and preaching' why are you here?

Originally I came here to debate with fellow Christians about their differing beliefs, that is, until I realised that these forums are predominantly frequented by atheists and anti theists. My reasoning very quickly changed from looking for a debate into defending the truth and then to being selective with the fires I fight, because some anti theists just want to argue mute points rather then understanding.

Stating the Plan is perfectly logical over and over while not being at all clear what the Plan might be is not 'defending' it.

If you check my post you will find that does not happen. There is usually retorts that require an answer in which the Plan of Salvation needs to be mention.

Since it is your own private belief; not even communicated to your own family; what is your point? If only you and a voice in your head/feeling in your heart can know the Plan is true, your point being here is what?

As previously mentioned, it is not my own personal belief. I am an individualist. There is an unknown number of us in the world today. A spokesman for the Catholic Church recently announced that individualism had taken 25% of their congregation over the last decade. That, on its own, equates to a significant voice that is gradually being heard. Most individualists believe in a reason for our existence. A cause for our effect, followed by a consequence. Anything else is apocryphal.

If it were a voice in my head, something I have never heard, or a feeling in my heart, which I have felt but not in relationship to the Holy Ghost, then I would question it, however, the communication from the Holy Ghost is separate and distinct, not to be confused by our own bodily reactions. Anyone who has felt the Holy Ghost will tell you that it is an external influence or force that enters the body and interacts with all of its neurons. It is unmistakably distinct. It never, but never, speaks in words. It is alway conceptual and invariable passes on knew knowledge. Thing which you did not know prior to the epiphany. Once you have received this there is no going back. It is impossible to lose your faith or go contrary to the existence of a loving God.

How on earth can you diss Paul, he is the only person we can be sure of spoken to by Christ.

I did not diss Paul. I describe him as he was. He wrote letters that God used to compile the Holy Scriptures. His life and persona are irrelevant to the bible. It is his words that God needed.

What he describes is for all practical purposes what you describe as the Holy Ghost's communications with you; though he is a lot clearer what he is writing about even if folk will keep trying to make out he writes what he doesn't.

I am sure that Paul's ability to convey his message is quiet eloquent and profound, and surpasses my own abilities by far, but God did not require my writings, he needed Paul's. That is one good reason why we have the bible as it is. Because people like Paul have been so eloquently descriptive in his words

If I understand you correctly this is a reworking of the LDS belief system.

It is true that Mormons believe in the Plan of Salvation, however, they have never owned it. There are numerous denominations who base their belief on it. So, no it is not a reworking of anything. It has existed from the foundation of the world.

How then are your gods different from Paul?

I have just one God, Elohim. The same God as Paul worshipped.

He held men could become Christs i.e. gods.

I have no knowledge about that. I do not consider it a relevance to our mortal probation.

Were not your gods also originally men?

I believe that God is an eternal being who has existed, in one form or another, for eternity.

They are apparently physical, perhaps even mortal, creatures.

I have never seen them and I have never seriously considered what their physical state is

Are they located in some other galaxy then?

I do not know where they are. I have never considered it necessary to know.

The 'core of Christianity' hasn't been Christian for millennia and even then it was the belief of only a small fraction; if any one at all until Joseph Smith serendipitously re-invented it two hundred years ago. It remains a minority Christian belief.

I suggest you investigate further at which time you will find this to be untrue.

'It is about my relationship with God.'

Not about the Bible then.

The bible plays a necessary part.

Nothing to do with it's authors who are the only reason we have it in the first place;

The only reason we have it is because God wanted it to be so.

nothing to do with the ancients; presumably by the same logic,

They were inspired by God.

nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

I am not entirely sure why you are introducing the first prophet of the Mormon Church. I was once a Mormon but Joseph Smith was one of my stumbling blocks. I neither know that he was what he said he was or do not know. There are some pretty fantastic claims made about him and what he achieved but there are some major concerns about his integrity and character. I do not take his word for it that he translated the Book of Mormon from brass plates, however, the Book of Mormon was at least written by him in a little over 60 days at which time he was quite illiterate. It is all very well people shouting charlatan, treasure hunter and scoundrel but how does a young man with very little formal education write a book about a ancient civilisation in such a short time that translates back into and from Egyption perfectly. Another thread maybe.

It is your own invention validated post hoc by a voice/feeling in your heart/head.

I should feel complimented that you think that I am capable of such a fête. I do not have that kind of knowledge and wisdom required to fulfil such a monumental task. You are correct though, the Holy Ghost has validated it for me.

Perhaps this is why it is not known to your family and friends.

I did not say it is unknown I said that we do not discuss it.

Your aware of the reaction of Jesus' family in the stories and neither want to be locked up nor have the courage to be nailed to a tree.

This is made up, unless you can prove otherwise.

Did Jesus have the courage or was it a lack of choice. He accepted his role in the council of the God but he didn't know just how bad things would be until he got to the Garden of Gethsemane where he pleaded with the father to take that cup from him. So bad was it that God sent an angel to administer to him and he continued on. This demonstrates that he was both a God and a man.

'I see no poor arguments for God. His existences is perfectly logical and utterly feasible in every aspect.'

'Again, you seem to misunderstand the conversion process. Man cannot convert man. It is impossible. Only the Holy Ghost can testify to your soul of the existence of God. Christianity is personal to the individual not the congregation. I cannot give you what I have. The epiphany I received was personal to me. I can share that epiphany but I cannot give the testimony of the Holy Ghost to anybody. It is personal to each individual. Of course God knew it, as did we, it is an essential ingredient in the Plan of Salvation.'
These statements are contradictory. If it is perfectly feasible, utterly logical and rich argument for God you should be able to make it to the majority of others.
I do not see what you see.

Anybody can obtain this. All you need do is to plant the seed of belief in your heart, nurture it and feed it and eventually you will experience the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The Majority of the world claim that some kind of divinity exists. It is those who do not believe who are in the minority. So, the majority of others already have it. It is a misconception to think that non believer's are in the majority. Out of 7 billion people there is only 1.1 billion who believe in nothing.

If it can only be known through the spirit, then it is neither logical or feasible. Unless of course you are redefining up as down and black as white or up as white and black as down.

How do you reach that conclusion? The only method of communicating a perfect God is via a spirit called the Holy Ghost. Perfection and imperfect cannot coexist less one becomes corrupt or the other is destroyed in an instant. The Holy Ghost is the intercessor between diety and mankind and his influence fills the immensity of space. There is no space where he does not exist. How else could billions of prayers be answered in the same instance?

'It's (the Plan's) complexity is wildly beyond our capability to concieve.'
And yet you conceive it. You are your own confutation.

I did not say I concieve it in its entirety. I am still learning. I learn much on here.

Why am I here? a) I have an intellectual interest in Christianity

That is the standard atheist response. If you are intellectually wise in claiming that deity does not exist, then how can you be interested in a nonentity, an nonexistent being. He does not exist. How can you have an intellectual interest in nothing. That you have no belief is fine. But you have to have continuity in your belief. There is either something or there is nothing, or there are fence sitters - agnostics.

b) If 'God', then 'God' is a natural phenomenon; a part, perhaps a completion, of the human; and therefore amendable and accessible to reason and the human mind.

Yes.

c) I would bring you to reason; in your terms salvation. I think it most probable 'God' is the misinterpretation of neurological phenomena common to everyone but it remains possible that 'God'; while neurological phenomena; might actually be 'God' - in the similar sense to 'I'. I think it was Einstein who said something like his mathematics just popped into his head. He didn't have a god hypothesis; but this might be the same phenomenon. Before that we have Socrates 'proving' a slave boy intrinsically knew all there was to know. I am just musing aloud here but it seems to me, as it does and has done to many others that, absent the cultural baggage and the inevitable misinterpretation of things we do not yet understand by all persons, there is a commonality to the message and the messenger. We might never find; but we should always seek. We might never know completion; but we should always approach it.

Yes, I can see this, however, as I said below, if God is the sum total of a bunch of neurons then that is fine. I will be dead so will not know either way. But if he is not then the choices I have made were correct. For me it is a win win situation. I cannot lose.

You seem to me to be uncertain in your certainty; I am certain in my uncertainty. Be content with yourself and happy in your own skin. If what you have come to believe helps you negotiate the uncertainties of life and gives your life meaning; that's great. You might have concluded that I and pretty much everyone else that isn't you are damned to perdition;

I presume you refer to the sons of perdition, which will be the fate of those whose calling and election was made sure, then they denounced it. There will be but few of these individual, so, I would not assign you to being a son of perdition. Damned, yes, possible, but perdition, no, never. Most of us will be enjoying the kingdoms of the damned.

Do you know, that in my belief, I am extremely happy in my skin. It works for me and my family and it gives me a fantastic eternal perspective of life. No end of life, no death, no separation of loved ones. And if I am totally wrong, so what? I will not care, I will be dead.

but your harming no one by it, not even yourself. That I ridicule your personal belief or discredit it is structural to my reasoning. It cannot be helped if reason discredits or ridicules your beliefs. That is an inevitable byproduct of reason. Your arguments and belief may be ridiculous but you do no harm in holding them as far as I am aware. Do not mistake my finding it all ridiculous with finding you as a person ridiculous. I have approached you seriously and in sincerity. You have me scratching my head is all.

Take care now.

Look, I really do not mind you ridiculing or trying to discredit my belief, especially in the constructive manner in which you do it. I to have done the same about my belief. If I could findmajor errors in it then It would be like a lamb going to the slaughter for me here. I am reasonably confident though that I can adequately defend my beliefs, or otherwise I would be pretty stupid to claim what I claim. If I didn't want that then I wouldn't/shouldn't be here. Yes, you are completely right. I appreciate your candor and honesty. It is a real shame that forums like this do not contain more like you.

 

[Mukkled]

you mean like religious people will step back and watch their religions die ? anyway , i don't think this is true at all ,people are not just logic , they are emotions as will and desires .. common sense could mean nothing to them if the conditions were different , most people left their religion because it's easy not because its logical .. life in the west is rich , every thing is out there , they can do whatever they want , the moment all this go away the moment all of them will go back to there religions and religious people understand this will , they will do anything to serve god , so its not that easy .

 

[cataway]

Religion is not going to die so much as its going to be killed off

 

[Leftimies]

I do not believe that religions will cease to exist. Most likely new ones are founded in the place of the old ones, as it has been for thousands of years. These new religions will probably have different emphasis, though, and probably will not grow to be quite as large as Christianity or Islam did - perhaps more limited spiritual movements, but in far greater quantity? That's what I'd forecast, anyways, seeing how there already is a surge in new religious movements.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religion is not going to die so much as its going to be killed off

Yeah, no. There's not going to be any violent anti-religious uprising.

 

[cataway]

I can see you have not spent much time in the book of Revelation

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I can see you have not spent much time in the book of Revelation

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, that would be an anti-Christian uprising, not against religion in general. Obviously Christians are being heavily persecuted in the world today. Maybe it's just the beginning of that.

 

[cataway]

you can expect all of false religion to fail

 

[Ashraf]

I can't remember where i read this, or perhaps heard it.. but i've heard/read that religions are slowl declining in favour of science.. would you say this is true? in 200 years from now might there be no religion ? your opinion I'm not sure, so I have no answer I guess..

As along as the human race exists, there will be religion