Deep thinking

[Waterfall]

Hello everybody

I have some questions for atheist and theist.

Why do atheist put children into the world?

Nobody wants to be born without legs. Nobody wants a terrible disease. Nobody wants to be murdered.

But all these things happens in this world.

If atheist say that there isn't anything after death, then they are undermining there own ability to put children into the world, because there is nobody (intelligent) who wants to be born into that kind of world.

Have atheist thought about that?

I don´t think Christopher Hitchens (R.I.P.) or Richard Dawkins have thought about that...

Now (some) theist also have a problem, because why do they put children into the world, if God is sending them to a eternal hell?

I think the christian worldview is very strange, because if I put 10 children into the world, then God will send 9 of them to a eternal hell.

Very strange and not a good reason for me to put 10 children into the world.

Maybe I only should put one child into the world...but then I won't be doing Gods will...because God needs 10 children...because 9 have to go to a eternal hell...because that is what the good book say...well...what shall I do?

If I only put 1 child into the world then I destroy this book...because this book is based on me putting many children into the world.

Isn't it?

In fact we could blow the world apart today and the book would have failed completely...but why should we blow the world apart...just to prove a point.

That would be insane...but then again...we are going to die anyway...so why not go out whit a big bang...and stop the madness on earth.

Why do we keep on putting children into the world? Don´t we know the price for that action? How many children will suffer? Are we willing to pay the price for a day more on earth? Who are selling life? Who are buying life?

Do you wanner be born into a world where there is no heaven...where there is no place to put your dead parents? Your dead wife/hosbond...Your dead children...Your dead friends...Yourself.

Don´t we have a good reason to talk about a soul?

Maybe people like Putin don´t have a good reason to talk about a soul...maybe a soul is a scaring thought for them...because they have a lot to answar for.

So there are also a good reason not to talk about a soul...

But here we all should remember that God have a great plan for us all.

Maybe Putin haven´t heard about the great plan...justice...compassion...understanding...forgivenes...love...development...reincarnation.

Lets talk about reincarnation...because I don´t think we have got this right...are the soul created? How many souls are there? How many bodies are there? Are there more souls than bodies?

Now we are back to some kind of strange thinking...because every time there is created a body...then a soul have to fall down from heaven...and so we are in control of that fall...because we can stop putting bodies into the world.

Do the soul fall down from heaven or do it chose to come down from heaven or do it start from earth and then is on a road to heaven? Or? Where did Jesus come from? Heaven? Where did Hitler come from? Hell?

A thought on all this helltalk...because if God (the almighty) have empty the hellworld for resident, then why are we still talking about a hell? Maybe there was a hellworld at one point in time? Maybe it is gone now? Maybe Satan have turn around? Maybe Satan is asking for forgivenes? How great is God?

Who created the human body? Why don´t animals have a soul? When did God connect a soul to the human body? And why? What is the good news? That we have got it all roung? What is the real story about life on earth? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What should we tell our children? See you in heaven? Who is writting the story on earth?

Together we can change the world...but how? What are we going to teach our children? Be a good son/daughter? Well...maybe we should be a good father/mother first?

What kind of world are we putting children into?

Lets say I put 3 women and 6 men on the planet...then I have created a problem for them, because what are they going to do? 1 women and 2 men...is that aloud? What shall they do?

Just thinking out loud...

Here at the end of all this thinking I have to say that my english aint to good, so I hope you will bear with me on this.

And merry christmas to you all

[Waterfall]

But I don´t think you can come up with a better story about life/God.

I would like to address this in a bit more detail.

I personally don't feel that the Bible is a very good story for even what it claims to be. If I were going to write a story about mankind supposedly falling from grace from an all-benevolent God I could have done a far better job than the authors of the Bible.

The story of Adam and Eve supposedly "Falling from Grace" is not the least bit convincing to me. To begin with the story claims that Adam and Eve are totally innocent and aren't even aware of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore the story is an oxymoron from the start. How can totally innocent people knowingly choose evil before they even know what evil is?

Not only that, but in the Biblical story Adam and Eve were so innocent that they had to be deceitfully beguiled by an evil serpent in order to get them to fall from grace. Something they certainly had no choice of avoiding considering that they weren't even aware of evil in the first place. How could they be leery of this evil serpent if they had no clue that evil even exists?

So if I were going to write a story where mankind purposefully chooses to refuse to obey a God I would do precisely that. I would have Adam and Eve plot to disobey God on their own. No need for any evil serpent to beguile them at all. And secondly when God catches them in their plot instead of having them totally confess everything to God and cooperate full (which should have resulted in their amnesty via repentance), I would have had them blatantly standing up against God refusing to cooperate and screaming at him that they are totally determined to not obey him.

After all, if you're going to have humans rebel against a God why not just do it?

The actual story of Adam and Eve in the Bible isn't convincing at all, IMHO. It's already in gross contradiction with it's own claims anyway. It claims that Adam and Eve were being withheld the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE they fell. That's ridiculous and presents an oxymoron because it would be impossible for them to knowingly choose evil before they even know what it means to be evil.

So no, Waterfall, the Bible isn't even well-written for what it claims to be. It's an extremely poorly written fable that doesn't even make any sense at all.

The Bible has Adam and Eve being innocently beguiled by an evil serpent. And then it has Eve confessing to everything and fully cooperating with God even to the point of testifying against the Evil Serpent. Eve should have been exonerated from any wrong-doing right then and there.

So it's a totally failed story. It's not the least bit convincing, IMHO. It's an extremely poorly-thought-out fairy tale. It's not even convincing for what it claims to be happening.

So I could even write a better "Fall from Grace" story than the Bible if I wanted to go that route.

There would be no need for an evil serpent at all. Are you kidding me? If mankind is capable of falling from grace on his own why would an evil serpent be required to deceitfully beguile Eve?

So the Bible isn't even convincing for what it claims to be.

Maybe this will clarify some things about this book.

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/

Mankind has not fallen into sin...but has been put in a world of sin and death.

The fall is about the angels...

They created the human body (but not the soul).

Mankind has startet (or the soul has) on a road from earth to heaven.

With regard to Adam and Eve I have found something in the book (a note).

But I havent been able to find the note in the english translation (I don´t no why it isn´t there) and my english isn´t good enough to translate it, so...

But according to this note there is some truth to the myth...

I will try and translate it into english.

With regard to the bible then I understand your problems with it...but why throw the baby out with the bath water...

The bible has its place in history.

And in peoples hearts, so...

[Divine Insight]

With regard to the bible then I understand your problems with it...but why throw the baby out with the bath water...

Because it can be shown to be nothing more than fiction. Why not treat it as fiction? We don't need to throw it out, just recognize it for what it is.

The bible has its place in history.

And in peoples hearts, so...

So do many works of fiction. Santa Claus. Alice in Wonderland. Peter Pan. Cinderella. The Wizard of Oz. Etc.

Holding the Bible up as "The Word of God" causes serious problems in the world.

You have said:

That is true...but the goal seems pretty clear to me...peace on earth. Can´t muslims and christians live in peace together...they are not at war with each other here in denmark, so...things seems to be going consistent with a good plan.

From Wikipedia:

In January 2016, 76.9%[163] of the population of Denmark were members of the Church of Denmark (Den Danske Folkekirke), the officially established church, which is Lutheran in tradition.[164][N 16] This is down 0.9% compared to the year earlier and 1.5% down compared to two years earlier. Despite the high membership figures, only 3% of the population regularly attend Sunday services[165][166] and only 19% of Danes consider religion to be an important part of their life.[167]

Less then 4% of the population of Denmark are Islam.

Also, of the 76.9% that have evidently checked survey boxes indicating that they were members of the Church of Denmark only 19% consider religion to be an important part of their life.

So in reality Denmark is most likely far more secular than Danes are willing to officially acknowledge.

Also note the following:

LGBT rights in Denmark

The rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Denmark are some of the most extensive in the world and a high priority.

Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1933, and since 1977, the age of consent is 15, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.[1] Denmark was the first country in the world to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions, in the form of "registered partnerships", in 1989. On 7 June 2012, the law was replaced by a new same-sex marriage law, which came into effect on 15 June 2012,[2] and Denmark recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was entirely prohibited in 2004. Same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt since 2010, while previously allowing stepchild adoptions and limited co-guardianship rights for non-biological parents. Gays and lesbians are also allowed to serve openly in the military.

This would be a form of Christianity that many other "Christians" in other parts of the world would passionately (and potentially violently) object to.

Also if the percentage of Christianity to Islam was 50/50 in Denmark there would also most likely be some serious religion problems as well.

It's actually quite dangerous to look around and see a majority "Christian Society" (many of whom aren't not truly concerned with the religion at all), and think that this demonstrates a "peaceful religious environment".

What it more likely suggests is that Danes simply aren't overly passionate about their religious beliefs. They may as well believe in "The Wizard of Oz".

In fact, if only 19% of Danes think of religion as an important part of their life, it's probably true that 81% have already realized that it has no more merit than Santa Claus.

Just saying.

[Waterfall]

With regard to the bible then I understand your problems with it...but why throw the baby out with the bath water...

Because it can be shown to be nothing more than fiction. Why not treat it as fiction? We don't need to throw it out, just recognize it for what it is.

The bible has its place in history.

And in peoples hearts, so...

So do many works of fiction. Santa Claus. Alice in Wonderland. Peter Pan. Cinderella. The Wizard of Oz. Etc.

Holding the Bible up as "The Word of God" causes serious problems in the world.

You have said:

That is true...but the goal seems pretty clear to me...peace on earth. Can´t muslims and christians live in peace together...they are not at war with each other here in denmark, so...things seems to be going consistent with a good plan.

From Wikipedia:

In January 2016, 76.9%[163] of the population of Denmark were members of the Church of Denmark (Den Danske Folkekirke), the officially established church, which is Lutheran in tradition.[164][N 16] This is down 0.9% compared to the year earlier and 1.5% down compared to two years earlier. Despite the high membership figures, only 3% of the population regularly attend Sunday services[165][166] and only 19% of Danes consider religion to be an important part of their life.[167]

Less then 4% of the population of Denmark are Islam.

Also, of the 76.9% that have evidently checked survey boxes indicating that they were members of the Church of Denmark only 19% consider religion to be an important part of their life.

So in reality Denmark is most likely far more secular than Danes are willing to officially acknowledge.

Also note the following:

LGBT rights in Denmark

The rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Denmark are some of the most extensive in the world and a high priority.

Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1933, and since 1977, the age of consent is 15, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.[1] Denmark was the first country in the world to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions, in the form of "registered partnerships", in 1989. On 7 June 2012, the law was replaced by a new same-sex marriage law, which came into effect on 15 June 2012,[2] and Denmark recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was entirely prohibited in 2004. Same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt since 2010, while previously allowing stepchild adoptions and limited co-guardianship rights for non-biological parents. Gays and lesbians are also allowed to serve openly in the military.

This would be a form of Christianity that many other "Christians" in other parts of the world would passionately (and potentially violently) object to.

Also if the percentage of Christianity to Islam was 50/50 in Denmark there would also most likely be some serious religion problems as well.

It's actually quite dangerous to look around and see a majority "Christian Society" (many of whom aren't not truly concerned with the religion at all), and think that this demonstrates a "peaceful religious environment".

What it more likely suggests is that Danes simply aren't overly passionate about their religious beliefs. They may as well believe in "The Wizard of Oz".

In fact, if only 19% of Danes think of religion as an important part of their life, it's probably true that 81% have already realized that it has no more merit than Santa Claus.

Just saying.

But what if it can be shown to be more than fiction...what if there is some reality behind it? What kind of world are we living in? Is there not good and evil? What about the movie...Starwars...great movie...is there not some truth behind that movie?

With regard to denmark then you are right...there are not 50 % muslims here...and we do have problems with integration...but I´m a optimist

There are a lot of good people here...

With regard to the 19 % does that mean people don´t believe in a God or a afterlife? I don´t think people here think so mush about life...maybe because others are doing the thinking for them? The priests and politicians and others...

Something I don´t understand is...why do people baptize there children? I was baptize but has never believed in Jesus dying on a cross for my sins...or the trinity...or the virgin birth...or the resurrection of the flesh...but my parents has said yes on my behalf...so...how many of those who are baptize here believe in these things? And when they are going to confirmation...at the age of 14/15...then its more or less for the party...its a tradition...and they are just doing the same as everyone else...there is not a lot of thinking going on in the "childrens" minds...and thats okay...but how many of them understand what they are saying yes to? Its ridiculous...

With regard to LGBT then you are right...its not good to have those sexualities everywhere...I don´t have a problem with those sexualities...maybe I will be gay in my next life...who knows...there is a lot to experience...why don´t people look at the bright side of life...a gay more...means a Girl more is free to find you...what is the problem?

With regard to the bible then I don´t hold it up as "The Word of God"...but who can say what the reader finds? How dangerous is the book? Here in denmark its a book among a lot of other books...

If the Imam say...you must not read other books than this book...then we have a problem...not with the book...but with the Imam...because The Qu'ran is saying...come with a better book than this (or is it a verse)...well...I would point to this book...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/

How can they say it isn´t a better book if they don´t read it? And if they read it...how can they not be toush by the story?

[Divine Insight]

But what if it can be shown to be more than fiction...what if there is some reality behind it?

To date no one has been able to show that the Biblical stories are anything more than pure fiction. Especially in the details they claim supposedly came from some God.

To the contrary we can demonstrate that the Bible clearly contains false claims.

Mark 16:
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Have we ever seen any believers who can actually lay their hands on the sick and heal them?

Nope. So either no one truly believes, or the Bible makes false claims.

Your choice.

[Waterfall]

But what if it can be shown to be more than fiction...what if there is some reality behind it?

To date no one has been able to show that the Biblical stories are anything more than pure fiction. Especially in the details they claim supposedly came from some God.

To the contrary we can demonstrate that the Bible clearly contains false claims.

Mark 16:
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Have we ever seen any believers who can actually lay their hands on the sick and heal them?

Nope. So either no one truly believes, or the Bible makes false claims.

Your choice.

But are those word to be taken literally?

Its like the virgin birth...are those word to be taken literally?

I would not recommend anybody to drink poison...so...maybe they just meant lisent to bad stuf?

[Divine Insight]

But are those word to be taken literally?

Its like the virgin birth...are those word to be taken literally?

I would not recommend anybody to drink poison...so...maybe they just meant lisent to bad stuf?

We could make these kinds of arguments for Greek Mythology too.

My point is simply this. Those who are desperate to believe in these things will find all manner of ways of making excuses for them. But those excuses aren't going to be compelling to those who have no need to believe in this ancient religion.

Keep in mind that this is just the tiniest drop in an ocean of absurd claims made by the Bible. We have to believe that this God commanded his people to commit mass genocide on another supposedly "evil" culture yet he also told them to keep the virgin girls as their own property.

Do you really want to believe in a God like that? On pure faith? On pure faith that needs to be constantly defended for the rest of your life because of the endless absurdities that the Bible proclaims about its God?

Seems to me like that's an awful lot of work. Especially if a person is concerned with convincing others that their belief in this religion makes sense.

Why even bother trying to defend the belief?

What would be the point to that?

I believe that there is a mystical essence to reality. But I don't feel a need to convince anyone else. It's totally unimportant to me what they believe, unless they are going to try to push their beliefs onto me, even if only to try to convince me of what they believe.

Why should that be important to them? Are they not convinced of their own beliefs so they feel a need to convince others in an effort to shore up their own faith? That's what churches are for. The congregation is supposed to shore up each others faith.

[2Dbunk]

I have perused this thread and have been mesmerized by the Homeric siren in its early stages -- until the rubber hit the tarmac. The thread's title "deep thinking" is a come on that certainly caught DI and my eye. What followed after the music was a shifting of gears: Waterfall into low and DI into overdrive! Intense to say the least.
my congrats to DI for his magnificence in juxtaposing imagination.

But the enormity of the argument is lost on the simple fact (or rather my opinion) that life is taken too seriously. "Bringing or not bringing children into such an unforgiving world" is much too serious a question. I think it was Bust nak who suggested they were "glad" that they had been brought into the world. Me too! (though I spent my first 20 years lamenting that fact.)

My point is (not being a theist): Life is an enormous opportunity, possibly unknown elsewhere in the galaxy -- or even the universe. As serious and as fortunate as that may be, enjoy it! Live it up . . . what are the odds of it happening again? There are no caveats to it beyond what we conjure up.

Our problems stem from taking life too seriously. Gods, no gods, so what? Trump, Putin, Santa Claus. . . they got where they are through serious fairy tales. Lighten up and enjoy the Cosmos -- it's all we've got.

[Waterfall]

But are those word to be taken literally?

Its like the virgin birth...are those word to be taken literally?

I would not recommend anybody to drink poison...so...maybe they just meant lisent to bad stuf?

We could make these kinds of arguments for Greek Mythology too.

My point is simply this. Those who are desperate to believe in these things will find all manner of ways of making excuses for them. But those excuses aren't going to be compelling to those who have no need to believe in this ancient religion.

Keep in mind that this is just the tiniest drop in an ocean of absurd claims made by the Bible. We have to believe that this God commanded his people to commit mass genocide on another supposedly "evil" culture yet he also told them to keep the virgin girls as their own property.

Do you really want to believe in a God like that? On pure faith? On pure faith that needs to be constantly defended for the rest of your life because of the endless absurdities that the Bible proclaims about its God?

Seems to me like that's an awful lot of work. Especially if a person is concerned with convincing others that their belief in this religion makes sense.

Why even bother trying to defend the belief?

What would be the point to that?

I believe that there is a mystical essence to reality. But I don't feel a need to convince anyone else. It's totally unimportant to me what they believe, unless they are going to try to push their beliefs onto me, even if only to try to convince me of what they believe.

Why should that be important to them? Are they not convinced of their own beliefs so they feel a need to convince others in an effort to shore up their own faith? That's what churches are for. The congregation is supposed to shore up each others faith.

I´m not sure I understand you...

In denmark we have a website (a Christian newspaper) where you can ask questions to a panel of various people.

Here one ask...

Is there a life after death according to Judaism?

A former/retired Chief Rabbi answer the question...

In Judaism, there is not a unambiguous answer to, what life after death means. The soul´s immortality, the coming world and the resurrection of the dead has all a prominent place in jewish tradition, but what these things are, and how they relate to one another, has always been ambiguous.

The reason is probably the one, that Judaism consider life here on earth to be the essential, and deals very little with, what comes thereafter.

Most Jewish ideas about the after life is developed in postbiblical time, as the Bible itself has very few reference to life after death. Later jewish tradition is however not aware of, who will be resurrected, when it will happen, and what will happen.

I don´t concider a religius person like that to be a threat to pease on earth. He might be a threat to my foreskin and that I might have to talk with him about

Maybe this makes sense to you...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-o17.htm

I will highlight this...

All warfare is against God's Will and is in conflict with the laws of the Light, and it benefits neither one nor the other warring nation to call upon God's assistance as supreme war lord; any supplication to God to bless the armaments or to bless the armies, so that under His leadership they may gain victory over their opponents, is therefore a blasphemous prayer.
Any conception of God as war lord or war leader must be rooted out, since all bloodshed, all destruction, all subversion is completely irreconcilable with the nature of God. Again and again God has sought to lead human beings to a complete understanding of love for their neighbours and respect for all that belongs to them. Time and again ever since the dawn of history God's emissaries have proclaimed to human beings: "You shall not kill, nor take by force, nor rob, nor plunder!" But so far the appeal has been in vain, human beings have not yet been able to free themselves from the primal urge of brutish self-assertion through violence to the detriment of their fellow human beings. So long as the individual members of the nations of the world do not unite and strive toward mutual peace and forbearance, so long as human beings cannot with complete faith in God's Fatherliness and Justice place everything in His hand and with trust submit to His leadership, so long as the will of the many is not one with His Will, so long can bloodshed, violence and war not cease, and so long can the hope for peace not be victorious on Earth.
Human beings must overcome the influence of Darkness, overcome hatred, curses, envy and lust for power through belief in God's existence and by trusting His guidance, rather than through prayers for help to crush their enemies and opponents by acts of violence for God never hears and never answers such prayers.
If it could be conceived that an entire people were united in complete trust in God and in the absolute certitude that no evil arising from ambitious, envious or rapacious neighbours could befall them, then even the most evil of designs would fall to the ground, since it would be lost on so unanimous and complete a faith. But where can such a people be found? Humanity is still in its infancy, and centuries or millennia may pass before full understanding of such an unshakeable relationship of trust between God and human beings can be attained.

And then point to this...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a11.htm

If we are going to talk about religion, then why should I not point to this book? It talks about religion and what it is about...

Now we can "debate" the question...is there a God? We can try and say no and we can try and say yes...what happens if we say no? What happens if we say yes? Is maybe like saying no and yes at the same time? Confusing?

Maybe you have another approach?

[Divine Insight]

I don´t concider a religius person like that to be a threat to pease on earth. He might be a threat to my foreskin and that I might have to talk with him about

I'm not saying that "all" religious people are dangerous.

I'm saying that supporting religious dogmas is dangerous on the large scale. And has been historically proven to be dangerous.

The Christian crusades were extremely brutal. Many pagans who "believed in gods" were murdered for supposedly believing in the "wrong gods". Even Christians killed each other over disagreements on what they believed about Christianity and Christ.

Over 300 years of "Witch Burning" was carried out based on the Bible's decree that we should not suffer a witch to live. The fact that Witch burning was inspired by and associated with Christianity is crystal clear.

Even in our modern times these ancient religions are still the cause of violence. From the Taliban to Al Qaeda, to ISIS or "Islamic State". There are also many violent religious traditions going on in countries all over the place that aren't even affiliated with these extremely violent groups. For example, in Pakistan women are still be murdered as religious "honor killings" that are accepted based on the Biblical paradigm of God. The men who brutally kill these women are not being charged with murder.

One man hung his wife by her ankles. Cut off both her ears, her nose, and plucked both of her eyeballs out of her head with a knife. She actually survived the event and went on to live with no ears, nose or eyeballs. The many was exonerated because his wife had cheated on him.

These religious beliefs are clearly dangerous and violent.

Now you may argue that modern day Christianity doesn't support any of that. But that's a mistake. For one thing to support the Christianity has any validity at all is the same as supporting that Islam has validity because they are both based on the same original fokelore of the same God.

To support that Christianity is believable and credible, is to support that ISIS is credible. You can object to this all you want, but the fact it that once you support the divine credibility of these ancient religions you are unwittingly giving you support to the credibility of all of them.

So even when you support the most passive and loving view of Christianity, in doing so you are loaning your support to Islamic extremists. Clearly you don't support what they actually "believe". But you are supporting the idea that it makes sense to believe in Biblical religions none the less.

Also, modern day Christianity is not quite as passive and harmless as you might think. In America there are Christian preachers who openly proclaim from their pulpits that gays should be executed by law, and that it's the government's responsibility to uphold "God's Law".

How is this any different from Islamic State tossing gays off the roof tops of high-rise buildings? Clearly these Christian preachers would be doing the very same thing if they could just get the US Government to give them the go-ahead.

Christianity is also clashing with Science in America. They want Evolution Theory to be reduced in American schools to having no more merit than Biblical mythology. They fight against the advancement of medical technology through stem cell work.

Many of them would love to see Islam banned as a religion of terrorism and mosques proclaimed to be churches of Satan.

Christianity still has plenty of potential to become a modern day violent religion, all being carried out under the banner of "Love" in the name of "Christ".

So, no, I'm not saying that every religious person is dangerous. What I'm saying is that religion in general is dangerous, especially the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity.

And then point to this...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a11.htm

If we are going to talk about religion, then why should I not point to this book? It talks about religion and what it is about...

Why should anyone care about this book you keep pointing to?

If the book you point to supports the Biblical God in any way, then we're right back at square one with the Bible being supported as the foundation of the religion.

Also, where in the Bible does it prophesize the book that you are pointing to? Did Jesus mention this book in any of his prophesy?

And if the book you point to doesn't support the Biblical picture of God, then why call it "Christianity"? In fact, why even mention Jesus at all? Especially in terms of referring to him as "The Christ"?

In short, this book that you keep pointing to cannot save the Bible no matter what it has to say.

Now we can "debate" the question...is there a God? We can try and say no and we can try and say yes...what happens if we say no? What happens if we say yes? Is maybe like saying no and yes at the same time? Confusing?

Maybe you have another approach?

Why do we need to say "yes" or "no" in answer to this question. What's wrong with just telling the TRUTH and saying, "We don't know"?

I don't claim to know that there is no "God". To the contrary, haven't I already pointed to Buddhism as a religion that at least appears to be plausible?

I believe that I have already said that IF a God exists may possibly be as Buddhism describes. I don't claim that there is no God.

However, I can offer reasons why even the God of Buddhism presents problems that pure secular naturalism actually has far better answers for.

For example, "If there is a creator God why is the world not perfect?", well even in Buddhism this requires that even God has no choice but to create a world that is not perfect if it is to be meaningful and interesting. They give very good arguments for why a God would 'need' to do this. But even this requires that God has limitations. (i.e. God cannot create good without necessarily also creating evil). In other words, it's like trying to create something that has a front but not a back. It's just not possible. One requires that the other exists.

Secularist actually have a far better answer. The world is just an accident. Why should anyone expect an accident to be perfect?

The only time this even becomes a problem is when one tries to introduce the idea of a perfect God who can supposedly do anything without limitation.

Even religions end up having to limit their Gods in order to try to make their theologies "work".

The secular naturalists have an advantage in that they have no need to justify a perfect omnipotent God in the first place. If no such entity exists, then there's no explanation required for why the God is neither perfect nor omnipotent.

So the secular naturalist's answer to your question would simply be. I see no reason to imagine that a perfect omniscient God exists when I see no evidence that one exists. To the contrary, all that exists is evidence for why a God cannot be perfect nor omnipotent anyway. For if such a God existed then the world we live in should be perfect. There's no excuse for it not to be perfect.

Therefore the fact that our world is not perfect is actually evidence that it was not created by a perfect creator.

Sounds like a pretty STRONG argument to me.

What do you think?

[Waterfall]

I don´t concider a religius person like that to be a threat to pease on earth. He might be a threat to my foreskin and that I might have to talk with him about

I'm not saying that "all" religious people are dangerous.

I'm saying that supporting religious dogmas is dangerous on the large scale. And has been historically proven to be dangerous.

The Christian crusades were extremely brutal. Many pagans who "believed in gods" were murdered for supposedly believing in the "wrong gods". Even Christians killed each other over disagreements on what they believed about Christianity and Christ.

Over 300 years of "Witch Burning" was carried out based on the Bible's decree that we should not suffer a witch to live. The fact that Witch burning was inspired by and associated with Christianity is crystal clear.

Even in our modern times these ancient religions are still the cause of violence. From the Taliban to Al Qaeda, to ISIS or "Islamic State". There are also many violent religious traditions going on in countries all over the place that aren't even affiliated with these extremely violent groups. For example, in Pakistan women are still be murdered as religious "honor killings" that are accepted based on the Biblical paradigm of God. The men who brutally kill these women are not being charged with murder.

One man hung his wife by her ankles. Cut off both her ears, her nose, and plucked both of her eyeballs out of her head with a knife. She actually survived the event and went on to live with no ears, nose or eyeballs. The many was exonerated because his wife had cheated on him.

These religious beliefs are clearly dangerous and violent.

Now you may argue that modern day Christianity doesn't support any of that. But that's a mistake. For one thing to support the Christianity has any validity at all is the same as supporting that Islam has validity because they are both based on the same original fokelore of the same God.

To support that Christianity is believable and credible, is to support that ISIS is credible. You can object to this all you want, but the fact it that once you support the divine credibility of these ancient religions you are unwittingly giving you support to the credibility of all of them.

So even when you support the most passive and loving view of Christianity, in doing so you are loaning your support to Islamic extremists. Clearly you don't support what they actually "believe". But you are supporting the idea that it makes sense to believe in Biblical religions none the less.

Also, modern day Christianity is not quite as passive and harmless as you might think. In America there are Christian preachers who openly proclaim from their pulpits that gays should be executed by law, and that it's the government's responsibility to uphold "God's Law".

How is this any different from Islamic State tossing gays off the roof tops of high-rise buildings? Clearly these Christian preachers would be doing the very same thing if they could just get the US Government to give them the go-ahead.

Christianity is also clashing with Science in America. They want Evolution Theory to be reduced in American schools to having no more merit than Biblical mythology. They fight against the advancement of medical technology through stem cell work.

Many of them would love to see Islam banned as a religion of terrorism and mosques proclaimed to be churches of Satan.

Christianity still has plenty of potential to become a modern day violent religion, all being carried out under the banner of "Love" in the name of "Christ".

So, no, I'm not saying that every religious person is dangerous. What I'm saying is that religion in general is dangerous, especially the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity.

And then point to this...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a11.htm

If we are going to talk about religion, then why should I not point to this book? It talks about religion and what it is about...

Why should anyone care about this book you keep pointing to?

If the book you point to supports the Biblical God in any way, then we're right back at square one with the Bible being supported as the foundation of the religion.

Also, where in the Bible does it prophesize the book that you are pointing to? Did Jesus mention this book in any of his prophesy?

And if the book you point to doesn't support the Biblical picture of God, then why call it "Christianity"? In fact, why even mention Jesus at all? Especially in terms of referring to him as "The Christ"?

In short, this book that you keep pointing to cannot save the Bible no matter what it has to say.

Now we can "debate" the question...is there a God? We can try and say no and we can try and say yes...what happens if we say no? What happens if we say yes? Is maybe like saying no and yes at the same time? Confusing?

Maybe you have another approach?

Why do we need to say "yes" or "no" in answer to this question. What's wrong with just telling the TRUTH and saying, "We don't know"?

I don't claim to know that there is no "God". To the contrary, haven't I already pointed to Buddhism as a religion that at least appears to be plausible?

I believe that I have already said that IF a God exists may possibly be as Buddhism describes. I don't claim that there is no God.

However, I can offer reasons why even the God of Buddhism presents problems that pure secular naturalism actually has far better answers for.

For example, "If there is a creator God why is the world not perfect?", well even in Buddhism this requires that even God has no choice but to create a world that is not perfect if it is to be meaningful and interesting. They give very good arguments for why a God would 'need' to do this. But even this requires that God has limitations. (i.e. God cannot create good without necessarily also creating evil). In other words, it's like trying to create something that has a front but not a back. It's just not possible. One requires that the other exists.

Secularist actually have a far better answer. The world is just an accident. Why should anyone expect an accident to be perfect?

The only time this even becomes a problem is when one tries to introduce the idea of a perfect God who can supposedly do anything without limitation.

Even religions end up having to limit their Gods in order to try to make their theologies "work".

The secular naturalists have an advantage in that they have no need to justify a perfect omnipotent God in the first place. If no such entity exists, then there's no explanation required for why the God is neither perfect nor omnipotent.

So the secular naturalist's answer to your question would simply be. I see no reason to imagine that a perfect omniscient God exists when I see no evidence that one exists. To the contrary, all that exists is evidence for why a God cannot be perfect nor omnipotent anyway. For if such a God existed then the world we live in should be perfect. There's no excuse for it not to be perfect.

Therefore the fact that our world is not perfect is actually evidence that it was not created by a perfect creator.

Sounds like a pretty STRONG argument to me.

What do you think?

All the things you are saying are this book also saying and did it in 1920...

Is this book supporting the Biblical God?

No way...but it says that behind the war-god there is glimpse of the true God. The God Jesus was talking about and prayed to. In this book you get another understanding of Jesus life. Many things about Christianity is being explained.

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a11.htm

Why is he Christ?

I would have to point to the first five question and answers in the book (Ardor's Account).

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a00.htm

If you want a good understanding of it all.

But if you want the short version, then he (the one who incarnated and got the name Jesus) was the first to say yes to go down on earth and help mankind.

Because of that God made him "chief"...

Now...what shall we do?

If we reform Christianity the rest will follow?

The world is changing...people are changing...and music has a big role in that change...and movies...and internet...

I point to this book because its a very good book about unconditional love.

Maybe we should just let this book do the talking?

Or we could ask a lot of questions?

Do the Bible have to prophesize about this book? Why?

This book stands on its own...it has its own creation story...it comes with a historical presentation from the earliest times to our day...it explaines the Bible...It explaines the Qu'ran...

I don´t think you will find anything in this book that you can´t agree with about the Bible and the Qu'ran...

With regard to the truth...what is the truth?

Is the truth not that we can say no and yes? What happens if we say no? What happens if we say yes? If I say no then I´m not able to put children into the world...I can´t just say...I like children...because the wulf like children to...and my children would not like to have a "chat" with the wulf...so...I have to come up with something that I can live with...something the wulf can´t destroy...I don´t wanner lose my child...and my child don´t wanner lose me...so...the solution to my problems is not no but yes...is that the truth...why should I put my child in a bad situation? Or myself? Are we animals? Animals just do there thing...they can´t do it any different...they can´t say no...but we can...we can think...we can say no and yes...we are free

Don´t we live in a perfect world? We have heaven and we have earth...is that not perfect? What problems do we have? Did we have to follow Hitler? I love the movie with Charlie Chaplin (The Dictator)...what a funny movie...but the background (Worldwar 2) was not funny...it was insane...Starwars in reality?

What is your argument based on? That there is no heaven? What would be a perfect world in your eyes? We can´t create heaven...thats not our job...but we can say yes to heaven and live our life in that context...why should we say no to heaven? Because we haven´t seen it? Is that a good reason to say no? Why can´t we see heaven? Because we are here on earth? Because heaven dosen´t exist? What is the reason?