im plannig on sending this website to this pasteur david brown, just so i can hear his opinions on matas greatness. http://logosresourcepages.org/magic-g.html. according to doc.brown if you arent a christian then you are a satanist. me particularly b/c not only am i a Unitarian Universalist, but i also play AD&D and M:tG. ill let you know what he says about matazone after i email him (i bet the internet is evil too! now where did i put his e-mail address?)

yeah, enough of my rant, there is enough false info in his report, that should cover me. if you have any questions let me know.

UU! I love UU's! So openminded...

That site made me laugh out loud.

"Second, The QVC home shopping channel announcer made the following announcement attributing it to an organization called the "Pog World Federation -- Every stack of pogs has its own aura. You concentrate on your ch'i". That is alarming because auras are rooted in Hindu beliefs and the ch'i is rooted in Taoism. Both have occult implications. Basically they are saying pogs have their own energy or life force and so do the players. To win you need to connect the two. That is the occult doctrine of pantheism."

Are they seriously believing that /pogs/ have auras?

What I want to know is, do they even know what Pantheism IS? Because they don't sound like they do.... (for those of you who may not know, it is the believe that there is no one entity that is god, that everything is divine). I could understand how the "life force" thing could be viewed as Pantheism, but that seems a bit of a stretch. And connecting the two? As far as I know, Pantheism has nothing to do with "connecting life forces." I could, however, always be wrong...but I haven't seen anything in my research into Pantheism about that. It has also been around a whole lot longer than Christianity.

On a side note, one of my friends from highschool is the daughter of a guy who does art for Magic: The Gathering. Or, at least he used to draw for them. Not sure if he does anymore. My husband also works for the guy's wife. Quenton (the artist) would probably crack up laughing at this site.

But, well, whoever runs it can believe things are evil if they like. I just don't understand how SO many things could be so bad. But, that's just me. I've nothing against anyone who thinks otherwise.

DocB on the forums? No, right?

o_o; I'm confused...

I don't think so.

In the original post they mentioned a pastor David Brown. I think that's who runs the site.

tee hee, im right now working on an article to send to him about "the evils of pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D and "god". in all of his articles he relays false information and hypocritical statements, like this one:

"do you realyl want your child playing 'for keeps' as we used ot say in marbles." hmmm..is taht jsut me?

anyways, there was a reason i quoted you but you knwo how these things are...ive totally lost all previous contemplation. o ya, this guy is a fanatic trying to promote his "god".

and about that thing you said about the UUs, are you a UU and if so did you go to GA this year?

Yeah, like you didn't expect me to comment.

Okay, quick reminder of my spirituality: Nondenominationalist, attends Methodist church, plans on being pastor, wants to reach out to people rejected by conventional Christianity, etc. You guys know this stuff. This is what I'm against entirely. I'm into fantasy and stuff, but I can understand those who don't see it as their cup of tea and some who see it as destructive (hey, is your whole life centers around playing Magic, from any angle you have problems). What pissed me the hell off about that article is that 1) it took Scripture completly out of context and 2) it told us Christians not to associate ourselves with Magic players. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? How are we supposed to love people by not befriending them and doing good deeds? What gain do we achieve by telling people how wrong we think they are? Jesus said, "Go and baptize all nations in My name." He didn't say, "Hang out and expect people to all-of-a-sudden become perfect and come to you." Most of my friends are nonbelievers and I feel that if I want to bless them and show them what God's all about, I can do it best by loving them and being a good example. That's what God wants us Christians to do, not condemn everything because it's different. If a Christian views fantasy as bad (because there are those who get way to carried away with it), then let him. First and foremost, however, he should love others the way God has loved us. Now albeit, there are pegan influences to the game, but that's neither here nor there. What matters is how the Christian treats others who are into the game. Hell, I know Christians who are into it themselves (I'd be if I had any money to buy cards or a starter deck). All in all, this is complete bullsh*t. To all non-Christians, please ignore crap like this. If you want to know the real deal, talk to me (but keep in mind I'm far from perfect myself) or read through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then you'll really understand what God's about.

P.S._ I use the terms"mana," "chi" and "Tao" in my normal conversations referring to Christian spiritual matters. These people really have no clue what the hell they're talking about.

ha ha, well said my friend.

seriously tho, i respect everyones beleif and traditions, yes even Dr.Browns, tho i do say i sent him a nice long letter about how wrong he is; and that report is coming along fine, i should have it done by the end of the month.

Eh, I do what I can.

No, I'm Methodist, though I might well become one after I leave my parents house (they're liberal Christians, but very strong Christians, they'd hate it if I went to a non-strictly-Christian place of worship besides for one visit or something).

I love these people who go to so much effort to get laughed at...

Just for the record- I also play AD&D and M:tG and im not a satanist... at least not to my knowledge lol

That's how my family is. I'm sure you like the whole "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors." policy of Methosism. I know my mom (the liberal church lady) and I are into that.

HOld ON
make sure you clarify who you are talking about .. i dont want peole flaming me.

As far as things being evil... i think things are neutral it is mans actions that make them good or evil. If a magic card ids used to slit somones thrat im thinking evil... if it is used to waste time im thinking stupid game that hasent been popular since i was in middle school.
all in all objects are just arrangements of atoms we apply the morality to them.

lol...ive been looking at your name oddly for a while. it sounded like a coincidence...but maybe dr.Brown foudn our website and is infiltrating us as we speak!

or maybe im just paranoid.

anyawys, this wasnt aimed at you, nor did i even know you were here when i posted.

sorry for the inconvienience

I wonder what the man thinks about chess. After all, you are sending an army to ruthlessly crush your opponent...

Capture not crush... Battle chess however Muahhahahahaha

no no no, you are trying to crush your opponent. its much like the crusades. now THAT went against the bible.

"strike down the heathens....but dont kill and be nice."

"dont find joy in the folley of thine enemies...but when my enemy f*cks up, laugh your ass of, then kick him while hes down"

im not trying to make fun of the bible or god or anything...more of the religios fanatics who started the whole crusade. its kinda pointless. and its happeneing again....*coughbushcough*

*coughhatebushcough*

Anyways. ; Mhm. I've always been somewhat mixed on religion in general, seeing as how I tend to go back and forth from not believing it, to believing and so forth. I've never truly distinguished the huge difference between different types of Christians because I've only been exposed to Catholism, but I really like the URL you posted, and I agree with those beliefs completely. This probably makes me sound pretty stupid 'n all, considering I should probably know these things, but thanks for opening up the whole Unitarian Universalist stuff up to me... ^-^ Struck my curiosity now...

Crazy. It never fails to amaze me precisely what fundamentalists will damn in their pursuit of the Ultimate Holiness.

I'm not religious. I don't believe there is any underlying structure or purpose, or anything. Of course, I respect and admire those who are true to their faith. Sadly, these people often fail to realise, that by it's very nature, you can't argue someone into believing. Either you believe or you don't. I don't. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that some outside incident or experience will cause me to rethink this, but some one just telling me to isn't going to work.

Sinewmire, I agree totally. Just telling someone to believe isn't good enough. Religion is based upon flawed assumptions and irrational argument, so trying to argue someone into believing is not good enough. I intend to e-mail this guy and challenge him. Bah to him! Bah!

THat's not particularly true. There are many logical arguments that have been made over the centuries to justify the existence of God. St. Anslem of Canterbury constructed the ontological argument while St. Thomas Aquinquias developed the cosmological argument, the degrees of quality argument and the design argument (each having several subarguements). Pascal, another philosopher, created a wager system where he believed that though we cannot prove God's existance, we can justify belief. Descatres (the "I think, therefore, I am" guy) applied his scholstic argument of objective and formal realityto the existance of God and provided an incredibly logical arguement when he was the one who founded skepticism. I could go into each of these arguements, but I'm really tired, so I'll have to go further into detail at a later date.

Each of those arguments can be readily undermined and argued against. Logic is all very nice, but it rarely works both ways with arguments for the existence of God (if and when we go into each of those arguments, I'll show how several can be turned on their head). Plus there is a complete lack of physical evidence. So religion bases itself on belief, not proof, and that is unscientific. Thus I spurn religion.

Oh, except the Universal Church of Life, which utterly mocks organised religion because it has no beliefs (only a couple of duties), and will ordain you at the cost of a few dollars, and sell you a doctorate for $100.

With all due respect, there's a lot more to these arguments than just blind logic and, mind you, a lot of science is based around logic. in fact, the whole science of chemistry is based on just a theory (literally). I'm at school right now and don't have time to illustrate all of these logical theorums, but come Saturday night (when I'll be at my folks' house), I'll lay all of these arguments down. Until then, don't attack what you don't know, Polo.

Blind logic? Is that an oxymoron, or am I imagining things? Actually, science is just logic (with a few assumptions, granted - but logical assumptions). Religion is not scientific, but it tries to masquerade behind a veneer of respectable reason sometimes.

well, if no one else is going to post any mathmatical arguments for the belief in god, i will. (not exactly mathmatical, this one, but it uses logic. which is taught in math class. therefore, using logic, logic is mathmatical)

in blaise pascal's 'pensees' (can't get the accent on to the e), pascal used logic to JUSTIFY, not prove, the belief in god.
(the italicised quote is taken from the pensees)

“If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing… we are compelled to gamble”"

there, one mathmatical argument for the belief in god.

Yay! My favourite argument. This has quite a nice response:
What if you gamble on the wrong God(s)? Then you just make the real God(s) more and more pissed off every time you pray or profess your belief in a non-existent God. So you still lose.

my counter argument:

well, gambling on a certain god gives you better odds than not gambling on any god. oh, and don't gamble on the non-vengeful gods, they're not worth it if you're concerned about an afterlife.

Actually, gambling on no gods at all is far better than gambling on a specific God. At least it allows you to argue things out in the afterlife (if you happen to believe in that). A good principle is to stick by common religious ideals (which coincide nicely with modern societal norms!) such as not murdering, stealing etc.
Choosing a single God leaves you open to attack for choosing the wrong God. Choosing no gods and just being vague and agnostic will do you best.

Besides which, this isn't an argument for the existence of God, and isn't going to get many converts, is it? Got any more arguments? This is quite fun.

don't even start me on the Crusades. You have NO idea how much they leave out in school history. I've just started researching it and...its half 9 and I don't want to go into a rant...

But seriously, a LOT left out. it was motivated by greed, more than politics. As for killing "those Barbarians" - yeah right. If my memory recalls it started quite nicely with the action of ONE insane king (and they judged the whole Islamic Empire on that?) what about them coming into Jerusalem (the whole world was in shock - it was completely unexpected) and killing every Muslim and Jew, man, woman or child. Not just in the streets, they ransacked homes/shops/places of worship. A French priest later said (and note this is without exagerration) that the city was knee-deep in blood for days after.

Yeah barbaric Arabs my arse...

well, it depends. out of all the religions out there, the three main ones believe in the same god. that would seem to at least slightly imply that that god IS the 'true' god. like i said, this's all about probablility. the probablility, of course, is effected by all sorts of factors.

and besides, i don't think there is a single surviving religion that believes that you get to argue your case in front of god. considering that if there is a god, he/she/it/they know/knows all about your life and can make the decision without listening to you, your own arguments make no difference

oh, and this's probably more likely to win borderline converts than spiritual arguments because it's more believable because it's backed up by logic.

You're forgetting that at least two billion people don't worship the God of the three "main" Western religions. Judaism barely counts (and this coming from the lips of a Jew) anyway as it's so small and elitist. And Islam and Christianity disagree pretty severely on the matter of Jesus. Sometimes I wonder if the Christians are even worshipping the same god. Picking the wrong god is going to be worse than picking no god in my opinion, I would prefer to play it safe myself.
And that logic is pretty arguable anyway (as we have just proven).

coming from the lips of a jew, judaism counts a damn lot because it is considered one of the three major faiths. and it's not elitist. you convert and you're in. simple.

Would that I could agree with you there, gerb. Judaism has relatively few adherents compared to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, which I would consider to be the four main faiths. Sikhism comes a close fifth. With numbers in only the tens of millions, Judaism isn't even on the same scale. Just because it is well-known, doesn't mean it matters that much.
And, no, Judaism is not an easy religion to get into. Really, really no. It usually takes at least six months, often more. My friend's parents tried to get him converted when he was a toddler. It took three years of endless interviews, a circumcision, ceremonies, blah, blah, blah. Judaism does not accept new converts at all easily. In fact, Judaism is notoriously difficult to get into. It is practically Jewish doctrine that Judaism is elitist, as Judaism considers itself to be special and set apart from other religions.

Well Crunchy...

Here's some proof, in the Qur'ran there is a passage where (I know this is going to sound oh so vague and skeptical as I don't know the details but you can research it if you like) it says that there is a pocket of air, in some ocean (Atlantic) and it gives the volume of this pocket of air, all the details are given. It has been recently proven that this pocket does exist and the volume given in the Qur'ran is correct. So nher

Aysha xxx

It really pisses me off that people can make such accusations. I have been a protestant lutheran all my life and grown up in a very liberal church, at the moment I am more pagan than anything else, Im choosing to explore my options. I think that its ridiculous to say that just because youre not christian that it means your a satanist. The bible recognizes other religons, yet ontop of that the bible was written by A MAN therefore it cannot be perfect because humans are at fault. I have never felt ashamed of my religon until recently. The people who feel that they are 'holier than thou' need to wake up and smell the coffee, religon is a choice, and where i come from people have died to have this choice. It means you do what is right for you, and as long as youre not downing anyone else and their religon, hurting anyone or anything, and performing immoral activities then knock yourself out - celebrate whatever religon that fits you best. Screw those who think that if youre not christian youre a statanist, if anything theyre closer to being one than you are.

lol sry about that long winded rant

love
kat

never be a ninja

Find that passage and prove it, Miss Clever-Clogs with your double-barrelled surname.

^^^ *sigh* that takes effort. I will, one day...

Aysha xxx

You wanted my arguements for the existance of God? Well, here they are. I'll lay them down one philosopher at a time.

St. Anslem of Cantubury

The ontological argument for the existance of God
1. Every entity exists in the udserstanding or reality.
2. Existence in reality is a greater-making quality. That is, if an entity exists in reality, it would be greater than if it were to exist only in the understanding.
3. The definition of God states that He is a being than which no other being can be concieved.
4. Suppose that God exists only in the understanding.
5. Then God is a possible being and if He were to exist in reality, he would be greater.
6. Thus, God, the being than which no greater being can be concieved, is a being greater than which a greater being can be concieved.
7. The preposition stated in point 6 is an apparent contradiction.
8. Therefore, the supposition in point 4 must be false on the grounds of a logical contradiction that God cannot exist in in the understanding alone.
9. Thus, God necessarily exists in reality.

St. Thomas Aquinas

The argument from motion
1. It is apparent to our senses thatsome things in our world are in motion.
2. Motion is to be understood as change i.e. a reduction of potentiality to a state of actual energy.
3. It is not possible for a thing to reduce itself from a state of to a state of actuality i.e. it impossible for a thing to account for its own actions.
4. Thus, every moving object is moved by something (a mover).
5. If the chain of movers were to extend infinately, the apparent motion in the universe would have no explanation.
6. The existance of a first (unoved) mover is sufficient to account for the motion in the universe.
7. To that mover, we give the name of God.

The argument from causation
1. It is apparent to our senses that there are causual relations in the world, i.e. some things in the world are caused by other things.
2. Cause always comes prior to effect.
3. A thing cannot be the cause of itself. I it were, then it would have to come prior to itself, but this notion is absurd.
4. Thus, there is a chain of causes.
5. If the chain of causes were to exted indefinately then the apparent causual relations in the universe would have no explanation.
6. The existence of of a first (uncaused) cause is sufficient to account for the causation in the universe.
7. To that mover, we give the name of God.

The argument from possibility and necessity
1. There are possible things in the universe, i.e. things that come into and out of existance.
2. Let us suppose the world consists of only possible things.
3. Then at some point nothing existed, i.e. when none of the possible things existed.
4. However if there was a time when nothing existed then it follows that existance has originated from nothingness.
5. But the proposition in point 4 is an absurdity and a contradiction.
6. Therefore, we have to reject the supposition in point 2.
7. Thus, the wold does not the universe does not consits only of possible things.
8. To this necessary being we give the name of God.

The arguement from degrees of quality
1. We are able to compare qualities of objects and individuals.
2. In order to assess degrees of perfection, there must be a standard of perfection.
3. The standard of perfection has more reality than degrees of perfection.
4. Thus, if there are degrees of perfection there is also ultimate perfection which we give the name of God.

The argument from design
1. Inanimate objects are incapable of moving and and acting toward a goal.
2. However, some inanimate objects follow a pattern e.g. the funiture in my apartment.
3. An intelligent being responsible for such patterns would be a sufficient reason for the explanation of this phenomena. In the case of my apartment, that would be me and my brothers.
4. However, there are bigger patterns among the larger natural objects. Such patterns, as described by the laws of physics, cannot be explained with human intelligent design.
5. Thus, if we are able to discover some design in the universe then there must be an almighty designer.
6. To this designer, we give the name of God.

Okay, I'm really tired, so I'll continure with more arguements arguments when I'm not so tired.

yes, i am aware of what happened during the crusades. thank you for informing everyone else though.

what the schools teach is what the outcome of important battles and such were.

what you (i) have researched is what happened almost exactly during the crusades. you about summed it up there.

Nice idea, but this is pretty much based upon Plato's ideas. The idea is that the Universe is split into two parts: physical reality and the world of ideas (which apparently only humans and maybe some clever dolphins have access to). That is the basic supposition on the argument. It is bullshit. It assumes that whatever humans think up is true, which is just crap. It does not allow for people's imaginations, and instead says that everything in reality and "understanding" are based upon each other.
Bleuch, I won't go into this because I myself find it horribly confusing, but Plato's basic philosophical assumption is the foundation to this argument. Plato, like all the other Greek philosophers was a anthropo-centrist, and basically believed that the Universe revolved around mankind and his wisdom. Which is crap, so I have to reject his supposition and thus the above argument. Point 5 is invalid, therefore so are points 6, 7, 8 and 9. Ta da!
I didn't explain that very well, did I?


Aquinas:
Aquinas's arguments are based upon one supposition: infinity is impossible, and there must therefore be a starting "cause" for everything. I reject this on the grounds that infinity is NOT impossible.
Aquinas talks about the fact that there must, at one point, have been something that started everything off. He thinks it is ridiculous to have a chain of causes stretching into infinity, and instead says that there was a first, uncaused cause - ie God. Well, I say that causes CAN stretch ad infinitum, and therefore there is no need for all of this God business. Anyway, calling the First Cause "God" is a pretty huge leap. Who's to say that it wasn't something totally random? And how could you start extrapolating a Christian God from that?

Ah, his second argument is quite Platonic too, so I start off by rejecting his "in potentia" theory. Oh, and he rejects infinity again, so bah.

In is fourth argument, Aquinas says that we have the ability to measure and judge perfection. As perfection is actually impossible, he claims that there must be something perfect that we got the idea from. This totally ignores that fact that perfection is perceived, so it can exist without God as a measure, and therefore his argument is invalid.

Oh, my second favourite: the argument from design. In this one he rejects the idea of randomness - how wonderful! He basically says that in everything in the Universe there is evidence of design. He rejects the idea that it could have been formed purely by accident/random acts. His great example is the "watch on a mountainside".
You are walking in the mountains, and you come across a watch. The watch shows evidence of design - surely something so exquisitely detailed cannot have occurred by chance. The probability of this watch occurring naturally is infinitesimally small. Therefore there must be a watchmaker out there. On a grander scale (where the Universe is the watch), we call the watchmaker "God".
Whoops, Aquinas seems to have forgotten that just because the chance of something happening is REALLY REALLY low, it is not impossible. That is, it is very UNLIKELY but NOT IMPOSSIBLE that the Universe happened purely at random with no design or purpose behind it. His argument is bunk.

And now I really need to do my homework.

Anyway, I think I ought to add the point: You can argue clever arguments 'til the cows come home, but there will always be a rebuttal (no matter how inadequate!) or counter-argument. Plus, you'll never actually be able prove that God exists. There is no God-particle (well, there is, but it has nothing to do with God) that you can point at and say "that there is God! Point proven". God is an assumption, a belief, and you cannot prove beliefs. Indeed, as Douglas Adams wisely pointed out, if God did prove his own existence, he would simply "vanish in a puff of logic". You cannot believe in something that has been proven to exist. It would be like believing in a rock. You can't believe in a rock. It exists, that's all there is to it. There's no believing to be done. You just accept it and move on. Ditto with God. If God did exist, there would be no point in believing, because everyone would just agree that He existed and promptly ignore Him. Without any proof, religion has been having a whale of a time. People may not believe in God, but they sure as hell believe in the wrathful hand of the Church.
I think I got a bit side-tracked there. Bleuch.

sorry polo, but your wrong on one account as i saw.

"people would ignore him"

first of all...it might be a her, but since it isnt human fo rall logical purposes lets called it "it". now if people did find that "it" existed, and it was proven, most of the population, even those beleiving in a different god and those who dont beleive in a god, would bow down and worship. now you are correct in assuming that people would not have god to beleive in anymore, "it" is fact, thats that. BUT!!!!!!!! people would now have an entity to do something else with, which ranges from persecution of said god or to a new idea, maybe something like FAITH in said god. yes, you can have faith in something that exists or even doesnt exist so long as you believe that what doesnt exist does exist. so people would no longer belive in god...but people would continue to, and more people would, and it would be stronger, having faith in "it".

OH NO!

It's the ontological argument!!!

Philosophy class is haunting me everywhere!!

But seriously...the ontological argument is very weak. You could use the same definition to prove that a perfect anything exists....a perfect island, a perfect student...when they obviously do not. But they would be more perfect if they did, wouldn't they? It CAN'T possibly work.

Like Polo said, you can't prove a belief. You may hold it dear to your heart and believe it is true...and that's great. But you can't prove it.

Here, I'll give you an example. Suppose I believe that I am, by all definitions, all perfections. I don't at all...tis just an example, but let's pretend that I TRULY believe this...with all my heart. And let's also pretend that a lot of other people believe it as well. Suppose also that we have determined that being purple is a quality that a perfect being should possess since all things that are purple seem greater than those that are not. Therefore, because I am a perfect being, and being purple is more perfect than not being purple....I am purple. It has the same logic as the ontological argument..yet it's obviously false. I could believe that I am all perfections. I could probably even get a bunch of other people to believe it. I bet I could even convince them that I am purple using that argument. Does this mean it's true? Of course not.

Descartes copied St. Anselm in his Meditations...and he basically ruined the whole ontological argument without any help from his peers telling him it wouldn't work. Way to go, Rene! Anyway, in the beginning of his book, he decides to throw out anything that can be doubted because there are several things that could trick him. I won't go into the unreliability of the senses and the dream hypothesis, but one of the things was that an evil genius could be tricking him...could be making him think certain things are true when they are not. Later on he uses the ontological argument (without giving St. Anselm credit..bad Descartes!). He decides then that he can rule out the evil genius tricking him about things because a god who was morally perfect would never allow that to happen. He left the argument at that, because he believed that solved everything. It doesn't though. This leads to the question...well how does he know God exists and would prevent that? Because of the ontological argument. But how does he know the evil genius wouldn't trick him about God's existence? Because a morally perfect God wouldn't allow that. Well how does he know God exists.....etc. Yay for circular reasoning!

Okay, I'm getting kind of long winded here, so I'll just end it.

ooo I'm sorry, I didn't mean that you personally had no idea, I was mostly talking to the board in general. But yeah, it is really facinating stuff though. What I wrote is just an account of one thing that happened. But the reasons for and why... I've just started researching it and it is really juicy!

Aysha xxx

OK, ignore is probably the wrong word. Allow me to embelish:
Religions rely upon God not coming down and personally announcing His presence and His chosen laws. What would be the point of having an organised religion if God was there to make sure you did it anyway? Religions would collapse. And God would ruin that whole free-will thing too, because when He is there, everyone can see exactly what to do and what is right, because it's been given to you on a platter. No more freedom of choice because God's law is clear and obvious and there's no room to argue. Religions rely upon God NOT proving his own existence, because that would ruin religion. [Which is why this omnipresent invisible God idea was such a great one. If you can't see God, but the Church assures you that He is there watching you (usually embodied as a priest or Inquisitor), you will be more likely to believe/follow Church doctrine.]
With a proven God, what's the point? Following God's commands would defeat the whole free-will thing (I am of course speaking only of the monotheistic religions here). Why bother to believe in Him when he's sitting right there? There's no believing to be done! You can choose to follow Him, but it really ruins the "fun" of religion - the uncertainty of it all. What I'm trying to say is this: a God that has been proven to exist cannot survive because 1) Religion and belief systems rely upon belief and faith, not proof, and 2) If God were to prove His own existence, he would make null and void free-will.

*Rereads post* God, I barely understand what I'm writing. Bleuch.

------------------^^^A pun!

you just HAD to write a pun underneath But nicely said all the same *cheers*

OK i play Diablo, FF, games that involve magic, but seriously it *is* just a game. I have read this before, I came upon it while trying to find some good HP websites...I was utterly mortified by his theories because they are so loosely based. He seems to be commiting a sin here by being so full of himself, boasting. looks like church boy isn't so good after all...he should really research this more and get ***other*** people's opinions because his alone are not making an impact on me at all. about the HP article, that made no sense whatsoever. J.K. Rowling is just pictured in a black cloak. whoohoo! doesn't prove what she uses it for, doesn't prove that she owns it, or had even seen it before the photo shoot. it's called publicity, not basis of belief. he obviously does not understand OR research the good outlooks on it, it's just a hobby and let's make a statistic of how many kids that read the books or play magic associated games DON'T go shooting up their school or their family. if some dumb kid decides that he's ticked off for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of society and goes and kills someone, that's his own fault. i don't believe in trying to put the blame of murder on a hobby, thank you very much.

(and by the way, i am a young teen myself and i haven't shot anyone yet)

Wow, Helix. Quite well put. I, too, am sickened by overzealous Christians who say that everythings a sin. The worst part is that their God is my God too (even if their Faith is far removed from mine). Now, this is just me talking, but this is my Faith in a nutshell: I'm not perfect. No one is. Regardless, God loves me. He sent His Son (Jesus) to die for my sins. He (Jesus) came, taught, performed miracles, was crucified, died and was buried. Three days later, He rose from the dead, hung out for fourty days and then acended into Heaven. That's about it. There's some philosical stuff, but nothing major. I don't buy into the doctrine that homosexuals are going to Hell when we're all sinners according to St. Paul. I'm the crazy guy who is going into ministry and wants to wed homosexuals, remember? Eh, well. Screw 'em. They'll get theirs in the end.

Bastards.

riteous...did you say what i think you said? you want to be a preist that weds homosexuals? oh my f--king god i love you! now if you ever need a body guard or a hitman(or hitwoman, i dont know what i am anymore) then gimme a line. so long as i dont have to hurt anyone.

anyways. helix, you have a very good argument but in oen of his reports he says that he gets this argument ALL TEH TIEM. what he fails to see, however, si that hes taking one statistic and using that as if it were the ONLY statistic. i wish someone would point THAT out to him, b/c as of yet no one has.

his defense for your argument:
"this is jsut teh childs way of justifying his or her worldly actions..."

BLAH F*CKING BLAH!

if we live by what he says we should live by, then we must isolate ourselves in a small white room in a church and surround ourselves with crosses til we die. BULL F*CKING SH*T! we cannot live like that, we partake in these worldly actions because we need something to occupy our minds and the iffyness of maybe a god exists just WILL NOT CUT IT!

okay, i have to go eat more pastries now...

And Christian too, and lets not forget they stopped off to wipe out the Cathar heresy on thier way to Jerusalem as well. The crusaders were pretty much "right on" when it came to equal opportunities, in killing anyway.


I love religious argument, it can (and does) go round and round forever.

Basically there are only two arguments that really mean anything everything else is just icing.

I have faith, therefore there is a God and nothing you can say can change my belief.

I don't have faith, therefore I don't believe in God and nothing you say can change my belief.

With a massive grey area in between.

If you enjoy religious lunacy Texe Marrs is good for a laugh http://www.texemarrs.com/.

RJ

high priest of the Church of Mighty God-King Brian Blessed.