Believing

Descartes and St. Anselm both worked from a similar premise in trying to prove the existence of God. One component of which was that no more perfect being could be imagined.

If you're telling me that God suffers pain and hunger and loss and worry, I'd have to say he isn't a Supreme Being at all. He's the guy in the next apartment. And what the Frenchman and the monk would tell you is that since it's possible to imagine a God who suffers none of those human frailties, there must be another, greater God.

I think it's empathetic on your part to imagine a God who frets the same things we do, and in the same way, but I'm pretty sure it undermines the notion that He runs the universe. If He's prone to the same foibles, wouldn't He also have an impulse to the same goodness as our own? And when confronted by Rwanda or September 11th or the tsunami or the Plague, wouldn't He stop them in the same way that most of us would? Being all-powerful, by definition, would He not act on His love and compassion in the same way He seems to act on His vengeance and wrath? Or is He not all-powerful?

Do you imagine that God made you in His image? Or are you imagining God in yours?

 

I'm not sure how some Christians can ignore the fact that the Bible was compiled and written by men. Passages have been changed, some have been removed and some were added many years later. There are clear instances in which the words spoken by Jesus are completely different in the current version of the Bible from what they were in earlier texts.

I think people -- and that's both Christians and non-Christians -- need to keep in mind that this book has been passed down over several generations, translated by those who had obvious agendas and gone through several different transformations to get to its current form. Many a person has used the translation process to achieve certain goals, meaning the Bible we have now is not even close to its original form.

The question was asked how a Christian can overlook the Old Testament. Easy. The same way I give less credibility to a newspaper story that fails to quote someone, and instead relies on hearsay and interpretation of others. There are many good lessons to be found in the Old Testament, but at the same time, we're relying on a group of men to pass down the "Word of God." With the New Testament, despite its flaws, at least you can read many of Christ's actual words.

I think it's up to each individual to chose where they draw the line with the Bible. Some want to take it word for word and shout down anyone who dares question any sentence. Others, like myself, chose a less defined stance. The latter, of course, creates some problems, since those seeking to question the Christian faith always try to force you to take a position on selected passages. But I'm comfortable with my beliefs and interpretations, which might change from time to time depending on things I learn and life events.

I've never understood why people launch into heated debates over this stuff. Believe what you believe. If you're comfortable with it, what do you care what someone else thinks?

 

Well, if you go by the Bible and apparently you and the Frenchies are in giving God his powers, then he is clearly angry in parts and says so.

He also has to have a bit of vanity in him to require folks to praise him and only him.

That's cool. I can deal with that.

 

I don't have time to get into everything right now because I'm at work, but don't you think it's a little silly to assume any book would have everything in history, no matter if God Himself wrote it?
It doesn't specifically mention dodo birds either. Does that mean we Christians can't believe they existed?
I said before I believe in evolution. I'll explain that later.

 

just went to the mall and got that yellow sundress ace. i have to admit, i look smokin' hot.

 

Big Bird said 'Playing in the sand is fun.'
And lo, it was true.

 

Those dressing room mirrors tend to have a slimming effect, TP.

Make sure to shave your shoulders before Sunday.

 

mrs. petty agreed to hot wax my back and shave the back of my neck. ... hell, i'm even gonna clip my ear and nose hairs.


random thought: jesus has to hate noah.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

For the record, I consider myself agnostic.

 

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- 2 Peter 3:8

My take on it is that if God thought it was essential to our survival for us to know how old Earth is -- or for that matter, how long the creation process took -- He would have given us dates. The above passage is, I believe, God's way of telling us "look, you douchebags1, I work on My own clock, so you don't worry your pretty little heads about it."

1 -- sorry if You wouldn't use "douchebag", Lord. Just going for a touch of slightly heretical but well-intentioned humor.

 

I suspect that having a linear experience of time is something that's unique to material beings. I don't think God is stuck in one moment in time like we are.

 

I suspect that you blow goats.