There Is No Such A Thing As God.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:25 am

No one ever came to me and said, “You’re a fool. There isn’t such a thing as God. Somebody has been stuffing you.” It wasn’t a murder. I think God just died of old age. And when I realized that he wasn’t any more, it didn’t shock me. It seemed natural and right.

Maybe it was because I was never properly impressed with a religion. I went to Sunday school and liked the stories about Christ and the Christmas star. They were beautiful. They made you warm and happy to think about. But I didn’t believe them. The Sunday school teacher talked too much in the way our grade school teacher used to when she told us about George Washington. Pleasant, pretty stories, but not true.

I wondered a little why God was such a useless thing. It seemed a waste of time to have him. After that he became less and less, until he was … nothingness.

Excerpt from “God Dies”, the controversial high school essay written by Frances Farmer in 1931.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:26 am

“It was pretty sad, because for the first time I found how stupid people could be. It sort of made me feel alone in the world. The more people pointed at me in scorn the more stubborn I got and when they began calling me the Bad Girl of West Seattle High, I tried to live up to it.”

Francis Farmer, on reaction to her essay “God Dies”

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:20 am

Is this the actress Frances Farmer? She led a fairly controversial life in general, didn't she?

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:26 am

tabby;1379920 wrote: Is this the actress Frances Farmer? She led a fairly controversial life in general, didn't she?

Yeah and I think it was her mother who had her commited toan asylum where she underwent a frontal labotomy! Very tragic.

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:02 pm

Oh too bad, I knew she was institutionalized at one point but I didn't realize she had undergone a lobotomy. Apparently that used to be an all too quick & dirty solution for handling "difficult" people.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:05 pm

tabby;1379923 wrote: Oh too bad, I knew she was institutionalized at one point but I didn't realize she had undergone a lobotomy. Apparently that used to be an all too quick & dirty solution for handling "difficult" people.

Yeah ............ It was the experimental "easy way out!" (for those fwho thought they were 'normal."

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:01 pm

jones jones;1379921 wrote: Yeah and I think it was her mother who had her commited toan asylum where she underwent a frontal labotomy! Very tragic.

I know her mom had her committed the Labotamy is a claim that was popularized in a film about her after her death but there is no real evidence of it. Though the assylum where she was had other barbaric treatments and they say she was also raped by the local soldiers and orderlies there on a regular basis during her stay. She did get out and tried to make a comeback to showbiz before she died. Only know this because I looked up when I was younger what a Nirvana song was about was a long time ago though.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:01 pm

Shouldn't this go in the Atheism forum? And Jones Jones, there's always time left as long as you're still breathing.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:16 pm

TruthBringer;1380209 wrote: Shouldn't this go in the Atheism forum? And Jones Jones, there's always time left as long as you're still breathing.
I guess only if Jones Jones was an atheist, which from all indications I have gotten, I believe Jones is not

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:57 pm

I think that what happened with your understanding of God happens to so many others, who after dealing with years of God's apparent absence fail to believe in the existence of such a being. The core reason I believe is quite simply, we grow up. We look around and realize that life is not a fairytale, with its indiscriminate injustices, pains, wars, cruelty, and God's glaring absence. It's very difficult for me to see God in any of this: We might be one who prays constantly, but can't get a break to save our life, while the blaspheming atheist down the street has everything life has to offer; or, we may not smoke, yet contract lung cancer, but the freak next door smokes 2 packs a day for twenty years and enjoys perfect health; or, we may try to help another with great sacrifice, but be rewarded for our effort with a bullet in the head; we may struggle unceasingly for an ounce of respect as a person or worker and get none, while the slothful jerk is loved beyond measure for their handsome face; we may be law-abiding, yet spend 20 years in prison for a crime we did not commit, while the local mafioso lives free as a bird for life...And so on, and so on...

Bottom line: there is no apparent way for me to reconcile a belief in a God that is cogent with this confused, nonsensical, unjust world. Where IS God? I ask; and I'm always left wondering how God can be discovered in this cesspool called life.

But then it happens on occasion, I see a baby smile, and I see the face of God; I do a dirty deed, yet am surprised with a pleasant consequence; I am thoughtless, but may get kindness in return; I may cheat a good outcome for myself, while my neighbor fails in hard work; I may suffer a temporary loss, only to discover later that it was the best thing that could have happened; I may cop out at work but still get the promotion, because my good looks have given me an edge over a coworker; I go a year without prayer or church yet live the high life, while my neighbor who is the epitome of faithful living is having the worst streak of their life, and so on...

Bottom line: There simply is no way for me to reconcile a non-belief in god when this world is so favorably inclined to my happiness and welfare. Where is God? I ask; and I'm always left wondering how one could not see the love of God in this magnificent thing called life.

That, in a nutshell, is the crises of my faith.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:37 pm

Infinite Stop;1387955 wrote: I think that what happened with your understanding of God happens to so many others, who after dealing with years of God's apparent absence fail to believe in the existence of such a being. The core reason I believe is quite simply, we grow up. We look around and realize that life is not a fairytale, with its indiscriminate injustices, pains, wars, cruelty, and God's glaring absence. It's very difficult for me to see God in any of this: We might be one who prays constantly, but can't get a break to save our life, while the blaspheming atheist down the street has everything life has to offer; or, we may not smoke, yet contract lung cancer, but the freak next door smokes 2 packs a day for twenty years and enjoys perfect health; or, we may try to help another with great sacrifice, but be rewarded for our effort with a bullet in the head; we may struggle unceasingly for an ounce of respect as a person or worker and get none, while the slothful jerk is loved beyond measure for their handsome face; we may be law-abiding, yet spend 20 years in prison for a crime we did not commit, while the local mafioso lives free as a bird for life...And so on, and so on...

Bottom line: there is no apparent way for me to reconcile a belief in a God that is cogent with this confused, nonsensical, unjust world. Where IS God? I ask; and I'm always left wondering how God can be discovered in this cesspool called life. Which kills the argument for many fanatics of the faith I have come across as the individuals I have spoken to are so obsessed that their view is the correct view on God-Allah-Yaweh that everyone must hold that veiw.

But then it happens on occasion, I see a baby smile, and I see the face of God; I do a dirty deed, yet am surprised with a pleasant consequence; I am thoughtless, but may get kindness in return; I may cheat a good outcome for myself, while my neighbor fails in hard work; I may suffer a temporary loss, only to discover later that it was the best thing that could have happened; I may cop out at work but still get the promotion, because my good looks have given me an edge over a coworker; I go a year without prayer or church yet live the high life, while my neighbor who is the epitome of faithful living is having the worst streak of their life, and so on...

Bottom line: There simply is no way for me to reconcile a non-belief in god when this world is so favorably inclined to my happiness and welfare. Where is God? I ask; and I'm always left wondering how one could not see the love of God in this magnificent thing called life.

That, in a nutshell, is the crises of my faith.

Where do you get God from anything you just said. We are left with the I said, he said, she said, you said, they said, they knew, you knew, she knew, he knew, I knew argument to God's existence which I am afraid only works in cartoons.

Which the problem with you statment is in the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph you talk about You-Your-them, then go directly to I, Me, Myself, and I disagree with the idea that the belief system of one (I, Me, Mine, Myself) should be the belief system of many (You, Them, Yours, They)

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:39 am

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:40 am

littleCJelkton;1388060 wrote: Where do you get God from anything you just said. We are left with the I said, he said, she said, you said, they said, they knew, you knew, she knew, he knew, I knew argument to God's existence which I am afraid only works in cartoons.

Which the problem with you statment is in the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph you talk about You-Your-them, then go directly to I, Me, Myself, and I disagree with the idea that the belief system of one (I, Me, Mine, Myself) should be the belief system of many (You, Them, Yours, They)

Re: There Is No Such A Thing As God.

You didn't get me. I was being satirical & somewhat whimsical, exposing the folly of thinking that way. True faith has nothing to do with ones condition in life; on the contrary, I'd say it's quite the opposite. If faith cannot transcend ones highs and lows, then it isn't faith, I say.

Still, like a addict that cannot change his behavior, I tend to vary my willingness to accept the divine principle according to the condition of my life; in the same way that I feel more receptive to love in a relationship when it is going good. I'm weak that way.

Logically, God cannot be proven. The only way a person can attain knowledge of God is if that God reveals itself as a revelation--I'm sure of this. That person then has knowledge of God, because axiomatically speaking, I say that a supreme being would have the power to communicate its existence, if it desired.

Has it happened that God has done such a thing? Well, if you haven't experienced a divine revelation, then for you the answer is "no."

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:34 pm

Infinite Stop;1388124 wrote: Re: There Is No Such A Thing As God.

You didn't get me. I was being satirical & somewhat whimsical, exposing the folly of thinking that way. True faith has nothing to do with ones condition in life; on the contrary, I'd say it's quite the opposite. If faith cannot transcend ones highs and lows, then it isn't faith, I say.

Still, like a addict that cannot change his behavior, I tend to vary my willingness to accept the divine principle according to the condition of my life; in the same way that I feel more receptive to love in a relationship when it is going good. I'm weak that way.

Logically, God cannot be proven. The only way a person can attain knowledge of God is if that God reveals itself as a revelation--I'm sure of this. That person then has knowledge of God, because axiomatically speaking, I say that a supreme being would have the power to communicate its existence, if it desired.

Has it happened that God has done such a thing? Well, if you haven't experienced a divine revelation, then for you the answer is "no."

if someone revealed to me that 0+0=1 and I didn't know anything about math to me 0+0 would equal 1 but does 0+0 really equal 1???????????????

I personally don't G.A.S how divine you are 0=0 and 1=1 but if someone else wants to think 0=1 because the great flying gumball, or spagghetti monster, or whispering fairies told them then oh well but it still doesn't make 0=1

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:19 pm

littleCJelkton;1388149 wrote: if someone revealed to me that 0+0=1 and I didn't know anything about math to me 0+0 would equal 1 but does 0+0 really equal 1???????????????

I personally don't G.A.S how divine you are 0=0 and 1=1 but if someone else wants to think 0=1 because the great flying gumball, or spagghetti monster, or whispering fairies told them then oh well but it still doesn't make 0=1

If one is misinformed about a truth (such as 0=1), then that ones conviction or belief may be considered contrary to prevailing opinion. But if one is revealed the truth, then prevailing opinion bears little significance in regard to that truth. A revelation of God, if one were to experience one, is not 0=1 as misinformation; it would be the ultimate truth of God's existence as 1=1--revealed by God Himself.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:31 pm

A revelation of God, if one were to experience one, is not 0=1 as misinformation; it would be the ultimate truth of God's existence as 1=1--revealed by God Himself.
Or, you're just plain nuts.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:58 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388189 wrote: Or, you're just plain nuts.

maybe even salted

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:58 am

We chose to kill God because sadly we think happiness can be derived only from our senses...through sense gratification. Accepting God's existence would interfere in our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But God has designed this world as a temporary and miserable place. There is no happiness here... Why? God wants us to leave this miserable place and go back to Him...where there is complete bliss, knowledge and eternity....and be happy!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:37 am

Vrindavana Das;1388234 wrote: We chose to kill God because sadly we think happiness can be derived only from our senses...through sense gratification. Accepting God's existence would interfere in our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But God has designed this world as a temporary and miserable place. There is no happiness here... Why? God wants us to leave this miserable place and go back to Him...where there is complete bliss, knowledge and eternity....and be happy!Maybe christians should cease believing life is only worth living if we chase after happiness. Life is much more diverse than that.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:30 am

Vrindavana Das;1388234 wrote: We chose to kill God because sadly we think happiness can be derived only from our senses...through sense gratification. Accepting God's existence would interfere in our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But God has designed this world as a temporary and miserable place. There is no happiness here... Why? God wants us to leave this miserable place and go back to Him...where there is complete bliss, knowledge and eternity....and be happy!

I have found little happiness in many people who say they have found God, they actually are seem quite irritated and angry that someone out there does not believe the same way they do. There is no evidence that quote "letting god in to your life" leads to more happiness then say eating ice cream, dancing at a club, or having sex. I find happiness in the fact that in your statement you say we choose to kill god, I find it difficult to fathom an immortal, all-powerful presence, being killed but I find happiness that something like that is now able to die and we have the power to do it too.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:14 am

AnneBoleyn;1388189 wrote: Or, you're just plain nuts.

You call that a rebuttal?

Okay, we know that your forte is ad hominem attacks. Now do you think you can actually say something intelligent and relevant to the discussion? What part of what I said do you not understand?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:18 am

littleCJelkton;1388229 wrote: maybe even salted

I see the best you could do is agree with someone with half your debating skills. Be brave, and tell me what part of my post don't you understand. You were the one using simple arithmetic; I'm just going with the flow.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:54 am

Infinite Stop;1388277 wrote: You call that a rebuttal?

Okay, we know that your forte is ad hominem attacks. Now do you think you can actually say something intelligent and relevant to the discussion? What part of what I said do you not understand?
I reread what I was reacting to, & sorry, I don't know why I said that. I think I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make, however----I'll try to understand you better. I'll take more time with your posts from now on.

Post by **jones jones** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:06 am

Infinite Stop;1388277 wrote: You call that a rebuttal?

Okay, we know that your forte is ad hominem attacks. Now do you think you can actually say something intelligent and relevant to the discussion? What part of what I said do you not understand?

Yo! Stop intimidating the ladies here Newbie!! Learn some manners!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:10 am

JJ is my knight in shining armor.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:20 am

Vrindavana Das;1388234 wrote: We chose to kill God because sadly we think happiness can be derived only from our senses...through sense gratification. Accepting God's existence would interfere in our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But God has designed this world as a temporary and miserable place. There is no happiness here... Why? God wants us to leave this miserable place and go back to Him...where there is complete bliss, knowledge and eternity....and be happy!

You say that "we" killed God because we think happiness can be derived only from our senses. I find that nonsensical, since Christ's death had nothing to do with sense gratification. That is if by "God" you were referring to Christ on the cross. If anything, killing Christ on the cross only enhanced our capacity for higher sense gratification, in the sense that we (allegedly) can be forgiven for our sins and mistakes, many of which include self-indulgent, sense gratification.

Thanks Jesus!

You then say that accepting God's existence would interfere with our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But in truth, nobody, whether they believe in God or not, can achieve unlimited sense gratification. There's no such thing as "unlimited" sense gratification for our finite selves. Further, there is no reason why a belief in God has to interfere with ones sense gratification if their desires are healthy and in proportion to good sense.

If what you say is true, that accepting God's existence would interfere with our seeking unlimited sense gratification, then the opposite should be true; that is, a belief in God should be sufficient motive to abstain from seeking unlimited sense gratification. But we know that's not true. For example, I know many unbelieving atheists that have no desire to rape children, while many believing priests have done just that. Here's a case then, where a one who professes God has no compunction about seeking "unlimited" gratification up a child's backside, while to the nonbeliever such a crime is unthinkable.

You then say that God has made this miserable place and that there is no happiness here. First, that is obviously not true. There are countless millions that live happy most of their lives. Even miserable people get lucky and have a happy day now and then. And where do you get the idea that God wants us to be miserable on earth so we can return to him and live in bliss, for eternity? Do me a favor: first prove God exists; and second, that the divine plan matches your description.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:30 am

AnneBoleyn;1388282 wrote: I reread what I was reacting to, & sorry, I don't know why I said that. I think I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make, however----I'll try to understand you better. I'll take more time with your posts from now on.

Well, don't get me wrong, Anne. I don't mind a scrap now and then. Listen, not everything that comes out of my pie hole makes sense; I know that. I simply feel that if you had had a legitimate beef with my post then you would not have wasted the opportunity to set me straight, and by doing so, exhibit your higher intellect to the forum. You didn't do that, so I'm asking you again, what part of my post didn't make sense? You may be correct, but you have to tell me.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:41 am

jones jones;1388289 wrote: Yo! Stop intimidating the ladies here Newbie!! Learn some manners!

I don't know if you are joking or not. So I'll play it safe and say, it's not my purpose to "intimidate" anyone. I'm just trying to have fun in here. I've been debating off-and-on for 8 years. Oh, I know I'm not that smart, but every once and I while I say something worth hearing. And I learn too, by listen to others and how they think; the dumb ones, and the smart ones.

If speaking my mind is "bad manners" then you might as well boot me now. I try to refrain from slanderous attacks, simply because, what's the point? And I'd like to gently remind you, it was Anne that used ad hominem on me, by telling me I was nuts, even though I wasn't talking to her in the first place. She just jumped in and decided, I was nuts. Not that I mind when someone jumps in with an opinion; I only mention it in passing. But that's all behind us. I'm not easily offended.

See ya 'round.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:48 am

Bottom line: there is no apparent way for me to reconcile a belief in a God that is cogent with this confused, nonsensical, unjust world. Where IS God?
But then it happens on occasion, I see a baby smile, and I see the face of God
Bottom line: There simply is no way for me to reconcile a non-belief in god when this world is so favorably inclined to my happiness and welfare.
That, in a nutshell, is the crises of my faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

...so I'm asking you again, what part of my post didn't make sense?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find you to be a contradiction to yourself. You believe (I think) but yet seem to be in turmoil over it. I don't understand your inner tumult, which possibly I saw yesterday as "nuts" which is wrong to say to a person genuinely searching for answers. Perhaps you are a deeply complicated person, or, as everyone used to say to me "you think too much."

I don't see this forum as a way to set anyone straight, or to show off the higher intellect I left behind years ago with academia.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:01 pm

And I'd like to gently remind you, it was Anne that used ad hominem on me, by telling me I was nuts, even though I wasn't talking to her in the first place. She just jumped in and decided, I was nuts. Not that I mind when someone jumps in with an opinion
Well, I'm glad you don't mind someone jumping in when you weren't talking to me in the first place, as this is a forum, & it's free-for-all. No private conversations on board. And I'd like to gently remind YOU of our first conversation:

Wow! You sure know alot about that rolled stone, Ann. I have to ask, where did you obtain that symbolic wisdom about why that stone was rolled? Did you come up with that interpretation on your own? or did a fairy whisper that in your ear while you were sleeping.

Thanks for trying, but I think I'll stick with the facts
I genuinely thought I helped you as that is the Protestant interpretation of the rolled stone & you responded in a rather sarcastic way.

I want to second something you wrote:

But that's all behind us. I'm not easily offended.

See ya 'round.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:35 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388299 wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find you to be a contradiction to yourself. You believe (I think) but yet seem to be in turmoil over it. I don't understand your inner tumult, which possibly I saw yesterday as "nuts" which is wrong to say to a person genuinely searching for answers. Perhaps you are a deeply complicated person, or, as everyone used to say to me "you think too much."

I don't see this forum as a way to set anyone straight, or to show off the higher intellect I left behind years ago with academia.

I was simply trying to convey the inner conflict that I--and I'm sure many others--feel about God. So much of my struggle for God is wrapped up in my daily travails. That post was a juxtaposition of two different mindsets that cloud my search for God: When things suck, God doesn't exist. When things are great, then it's, "Praise God!" Is that true faith? No, it's folly. To me, it's foolish to see God in every little thing. I have a relative that sees God in every healthy crap they take. Not long ago she prayed over her "broken" computer, and a couple hours later it was working again. Praise Jesus! What I failed to tell her is that I had unplugged it by accident and it screwed her system. Upon rebooting, it worked. Amen.

There's just no way to deduce God from this hodgepodge thing called life, not for me anyway. Bad things happen to "good" people, and good things happen to "bad" people; unjust things happen to the just, while the crooks get off scotfree; the saints live in squalor, while the gangsters live in palaces...

So that's what that semi-drunken post was about. That will teach me to drink and post.

As far as revelation being the way to "know" God...well, I truly believe that. That is the only way anyone will gain knowledge of God. I'm so sure of this. A direct communication from God is the only "proof" possible, but only to the one who has experienced God in that way. I'm convinced there can be no scientific proof of God. The only way to know of a sentient, living, supreme being would be to experience that being personally. Everything else is little more than hearsay. Believe it.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:06 pm

Infinite Stop;1388279 wrote: I see the best you could do is agree with someone with half your debating skills. Be brave, and tell me what part of my post don't you understand. You were the one using simple arithmetic; I'm just going with the flow.

I quite frankly have seen you repeat the same I said she said tactic and until you can come up with something better really don't care what you say in it but lets take your last post apart with a question.

Say this prophet says God revealed to them 0=1 so under your explaination since god revealed to him the truth it is alright to say 0=1

then there is another prophet that says God revealed to them that the prophet who said 0=1 is full of it and 0 does not equal 1 0=2

Besides the fact that they are both full of it because neither one of them can explain why God revealed to them something contrary to what is true (0=0, 1=1, 2=2) but you said God can do what God wants and reveal to

whom God pleases

so if we are taking all in to account is 0=1 or is 0=2 under those revealations

I don't try to understand senseless repeating dribble which is what you continue to do and not only that are hostile towards those who don't want to understand it, which makes it even more laughable that you post as if you want to have a serious debate

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:29 pm

I guess same feathers flock together in this thread.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:34 am

You say 'Christ's death had nothing to do with sense gratification.' Well, is it not that the rise in popularity of Christ was interfering with the ambitions of some leaders that ultimately lead to Christ's crucifixion? Sense gratification, on a gross level is physical, and at a subtle level on the platform of mind, intelligence and ego. It is expressed through ambition for power, prestige, fame etc. As for Christ being God, the answer is there in the Bible itself: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" is the message of the golden text of the Bible, John Chapter 3, verse 16.

You are right. I said 'accepting God's existence would interfere with our efforts for unlimited sense gratification'. Are we all not striving for permanent and eternal happiness?! That is the basic principle of all our actions at all times...to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

You said 'there is no reason why a belief in God has to interfere with ones sense gratification if their desires are healthy and in proportion to good sense.' Also, 'If what you say is true, that accepting God's existence would interfere with our seeking unlimited sense gratification, then the opposite should be true; that is, a belief in God should be sufficient motive to abstain from seeking unlimited sense gratification'. I partly agree with you here. See, senses are on a material platform. God does want to give us unlimited happiness, but we have to first come up to the spiritual platform to be able to receive it. We need to be qualified even to become an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc.; so is it only not fair that we have to first acquire spiritual qualification to receive the unlimited bliss?

You said: There are countless millions that live happy most of their lives. Even miserable people get lucky and have a happy day now and then. You yourself said we are finite beings. Even between the two of us, I am not aware of the pains and pleasures of your body and you are not aware of mine. So, how can we assume on behalf of the countless millions? In this material world, absence of pain is confused for pleasure. For example, I first feel that I should have a car, which I with rational brain, understand will give me happiness. This desire is a thorn I prick myself with. I work hard towards getting a car. I get it. Now that thorn is out and I am relieved. This relief I mistake for pleasure. It is temporary relief. Is it not that after some time we find that the happiness thus derived, no longer exists!?

You have said I prove that God exists...I have a question for you here. I do not know German language and you give me a German book to read. Will I understand? The answer is obviously 'NO'. You see, without requisite qualification, we cannot understand even a mundane book. How then can we understand the infinite, all-powerful, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, the Complete Whole...Absolute Truth, without first acquiring the requisite qualification?

Post by **jones jones** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:26 am

Infinite Stop;1388298 wrote: I don't know if you are joking or not. So I'll play it safe and say, it's not my purpose to "intimidate" anyone. I'm just trying to have fun in here. I've been debating off-and-on for 8 years. Oh, I know I'm not that smart, but every once and I while I say something worth hearing. And I learn too, by listen to others and how they think; the dumb ones, and the smart ones.

If speaking my mind is "bad manners" then you might as well boot me now. I try to refrain from slanderous attacks, simply because, what's the point? And I'd like to gently remind you, it was Anne that used ad hominem on me, by telling me I was nuts, even though I wasn't talking to her in the first place. She just jumped in and decided, I was nuts. Not that I mind when someone jumps in with an opinion; I only mention it in passing. But that's all behind us. I'm not easily offended.

See ya 'round.

Citizen Infinite Stop; When you have been on board a while longer you will find that I fiercely defend the right of freedom of speech. Judging by what I have read in your threads, you are anything but "not that smart."

Manners maketh man and this ..."You call that a rebuttal? Okay, we know that your forte is ad hominem attacks. Now do you think you can actually say something intelligent and relevant to the discussion? What part of what I said do you not understand?" is not the way to address a lady!

I am pleased that you are a seasoned debater and are not easily offended ... both traits are admirable and could well serve you in good stead here in time to come.

And speaking of bad manners, I have forgotten my own ... Welcome to FG, I did not notice your introduction thread.

You take care now and have an awesome day!

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:32 am

Vrindavana Das;1388407 wrote: You say 'Christ's death had nothing to do with sense gratification.' Well, is it not that the rise in popularity of Christ was interfering with the ambitions of some leaders that ultimately lead to Christ's crucifixion? Sense gratification, on a gross level is physical, and at a subtle level on the platform of mind, intelligence and ego. It is expressed through ambition for power, prestige, fame etc. As for Christ being God, the answer is there in the Bible itself: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" is the message of the golden text of the Bible, John Chapter 3, verse 16.

You are right. I said 'accepting God's existence would interfere with our efforts for unlimited sense gratification'. Are we all not striving for permanent and eternal happiness?! That is the basic principle of all our actions at all times...to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

You said 'there is no reason why a belief in God has to interfere with ones sense gratification if their desires are healthy and in proportion to good sense.' Also, 'If what you say is true, that accepting God's existence would interfere with our seeking unlimited sense gratification, then the opposite should be true; that is, a belief in God should be sufficient motive to abstain from seeking unlimited sense gratification'. I partly agree with you here. See, senses are on a material platform. God does want to give us unlimited happiness, but we have to first come up to the spiritual platform to be able to receive it. We need to be qualified even to become an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc.; so is it only not fair that we have to first acquire spiritual qualification to receive the unlimited bliss?

You said: There are countless millions that live happy most of their lives. Even miserable people get lucky and have a happy day now and then. You yourself said we are finite beings. Even between the two of us, I am not aware of the pains and pleasures of your body and you are not aware of mine. So, how can we assume on behalf of the countless millions? In this material world, absence of pain is confused for pleasure. For example, I first feel that I should have a car, which I with rational brain, understand will give me happiness. This desire is a thorn I prick myself with. I work hard towards getting a car. I get it. Now that thorn is out and I am relieved. This relief I mistake for pleasure. It is temporary relief. Is it not that after some time we find that the happiness thus derived, no longer exists!?

You have said I prove that God exists...I have a question for you here. I do not know German language and you give me a German book to read. Will I understand? The answer is obviously 'NO'. You see, without requisite qualification, we cannot understand even a mundane book. How then can we understand the infinite, all-powerful, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, the Complete Whole...Absolute Truth, without first acquiring the requisite qualification?

Now that`s what I call a reprimand from all the guys on this thread who does not believe in the existence of God ( smiling ).

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:25 am

rajakrsna;1388416 wrote: Now that`s what I call a reprimand from all the guys on this thread who does not believe in the existence of God ( smiling ).

Not so much as reprimand, as a poor attempt to use quotes from a fantasy book to justify the reasoning that in order to follow the morals of said fantasy book you have to believe the fantastical stories in the book are real. I believe the stories of Hercules, Thor, Kind Arthur, Paul Bunyan, and Spider-Man all teach good morals as well though I don't believe in the that any of the literal characters from those stories existed either.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:18 am

littleCJelkton;1388390 wrote: I quite frankly have seen you repeat the same I said she said tactic and until you can come up with something better really don't care what you say in it but lets take your last post apart with a question.

Say this prophet says God revealed to them 0=1 so under your explaination since god revealed to him the truth it is alright to say 0=1

then there is another prophet that says God revealed to them that the prophet who said 0=1 is full of it and 0 does not equal 1 0=2

Besides the fact that they are both full of it because neither one of them can explain why God revealed to them something contrary to what is true (0=0, 1=1, 2=2) but you said God can do what God wants and reveal to

whom God pleases

so if we are taking all in to account is 0=1 or is 0=2 under those revealations

I don't try to understand senseless repeating dribble which is what you continue to do and not only that are hostile towards those who don't want to understand it, which makes it even more laughable that you post as if you want to have a serious debate

This has nothing to do with any prophet. It's about how one attains the highest degree of certainty possible concerning God's existence. You really aren't getting this, are you? In a nutshell, I say that there can be no greater certainty in the mind than if one were to believe that God had personally intervened in their life. It is meaningless at this point for you to come back and declare, "But they could be mistaken! or deluded, or tricked by an invisible alien...!" That's not the point. The point is, there could be no more definitive reason for a belief in God than a personal experience of God.

If I believe that I have had a revelation of God, then I have attained my proof of God, and that will be the highest, surest proof possible. That revelation may come as part of a healing of some kind, or it could come simply as a gift from God, I don't know. It is not my place to say how God may choose to reveal itself to any member of its creation.

And it's not "dribble," it's "drivel." Just thought you'd like to know.

You can say "dribble," but most people know you meant drivel, but lacked the intelligence to know the difference.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:47 am

Vrindavana Das;1388407 wrote: You say 'Christ's death had nothing to do with sense gratification.' Well, is it not that the rise in popularity of Christ was interfering with the ambitions of some leaders that ultimately lead to Christ's crucifixion? Sense gratification, on a gross level is physical, and at a subtle level on the platform of mind, intelligence and ego. It is expressed through ambition for power, prestige, fame etc. As for Christ being God, the answer is there in the Bible itself: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" is the message of the golden text of the Bible, John Chapter 3, verse 16.

You are right. I said 'accepting God's existence would interfere with our efforts for unlimited sense gratification'. Are we all not striving for permanent and eternal happiness?! That is the basic principle of all our actions at all times...to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.

You said 'there is no reason why a belief in God has to interfere with ones sense gratification if their desires are healthy and in proportion to good sense.' Also, 'If what you say is true, that accepting God's existence would interfere with our seeking unlimited sense gratification, then the opposite should be true; that is, a belief in God should be sufficient motive to abstain from seeking unlimited sense gratification'. I partly agree with you here. See, senses are on a material platform. God does want to give us unlimited happiness, but we have to first come up to the spiritual platform to be able to receive it. We need to be qualified even to become an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc.; so is it only not fair that we have to first acquire spiritual qualification to receive the unlimited bliss?

You said: There are countless millions that live happy most of their lives. Even miserable people get lucky and have a happy day now and then. You yourself said we are finite beings. Even between the two of us, I am not aware of the pains and pleasures of your body and you are not aware of mine. So, how can we assume on behalf of the countless millions? In this material world, absence of pain is confused for pleasure. For example, I first feel that I should have a car, which I with rational brain, understand will give me happiness. This desire is a thorn I prick myself with. I work hard towards getting a car. I get it. Now that thorn is out and I am relieved. This relief I mistake for pleasure. It is temporary relief. Is it not that after some time we find that the happiness thus derived, no longer exists!?

You have said I prove that God exists...I have a question for you here. I do not know German language and you give me a German book to read. Will I understand? The answer is obviously 'NO'. You see, without requisite qualification, we cannot understand even a mundane book. How then can we understand the infinite, all-powerful, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, the Complete Whole...Absolute Truth, without first acquiring the requisite qualification?

This whole idea of yours, that Christ was interfering with the "sense gratification" of the rulers, and that was the primary motive for Christ's death is silly to me. You really seem to be straining to maintain you original position, which to me was very weak to begin with. You assume that every judge then and now is in the performance of their duty as some form of sense gratification, and I find that rather presumptuous. Most judges might find more gratification on the golf course than in sentencing a man to death, I think I'm safe in saying. Christ was sentenced to death by Pilate because he was interfering with law and order, not anyones sense gratification. Oh, sure, on some arcane and philosophical level one could say that Christ was interfering with some leader's sense gratification. But don't forget, the rulers did not know they were killing "God," they thought they were killing a blasphemer and law breaker. So your premise that "we" killed God for sense gratification is with out foundation, since those who allegedly contrived his death did not perceive Jesus as God.

Much of what you have in this post is little more than mish mash. I won't attempt it.

In regard to your last paragraph: Well, I'll agree with you there. How CAN we understand the absolute truth of God's existence without the requisite qualification? That's a darn good question you should ask yourself. You talk of God as if you know of God. Tell me, how do you know of God better than you know German? Where did you get that "requisite qualification" for God's existence, and would you please share it with us?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:52 am

Infinite Stop;1388612 wrote: This has nothing to do with any prophet. It's about how one attains the highest degree of certainty possible concerning God's existence. You really aren't getting this, are you? In a nutshell, I say that there can be no greater certainty in the mind than if one were to believe that God had personally intervened in their life. It is meaningless at this point for you to come back and declare, "But they could be mistaken! or deluded, or tricked by an invisible alien...!" That's not the point. The point is, there could be no more definitive reason for a belief in God than a personal experience of God.

If I believe that I have had a revelation of God, then I have attained my proof of God, and that will be the highest, surest proof possible. That revelation may come as part of a healing of some kind, or it could come simply as a gift from God, I don't know. It is not my place to say how God may choose to reveal itself to any member of its creation.

And it's not "dribble," it's "drivel." Just thought you'd like to know.

You can say "dribble," but most people know you meant drivel, but lacked the intelligence to know the difference.

no drivel would mean you not trying to go anywhere with your statements but you are trying to go somewhere even though where your going is meaningless. like the difference between setting off without knowing where your going as opposed to setting off to a destination that doesn't exist, but besides that you are continuing with you I said He said she said meaningless banter.

If someone where to say that something had mass they could hold it up and let it fall and that would be proof it had weight and thus proof it had mass so someone said to them that doesn't have mass they would have to readjust their statements as either out right wrong or made with out first having the knowledge that that thing falls toward the earth, but if someone were to say they had a revelation of God, and another said no you didn't god doesn't exist, and another say God exist but the first person's God doesn't exist my god does, then it is one's word versus the other's and at what point does it one's person word become more credible than others if we suppose creationism is real are we all created equally or are some of us not equal to the others and able to have revelations making those who have had revelations better than the rest.

Nope, I can say with certainty even though you are trying to debate that you are better than I am because you have had a revelation, you are not any better than me Jones Jones ,Raja, or Anne. More importantly than that it really doesn't matter if your god is real or not nor does it matter what that god may or may not have revealed to you if the intent of your actions due to those revelations are maleficent towards your fellow man/woman.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:40 pm

littleCJelkton;1388619 wrote: no drivel would mean you not trying to go anywhere with your statements but you are trying to go somewhere even though where your going is meaningless. like the difference between setting off without knowing where your going as opposed to setting off to a destination that doesn't exist, but besides that you are continuing with you I said He said she said meaningless banter.

If someone where to say that something had mass they could hold it up and let it fall and that would be proof it had weight and thus proof it had mass so someone said to them that doesn't have mass they would have to readjust their statements as either out right wrong or made with out first having the knowledge that that thing falls toward the earth, but if someone were to say they had a revelation of God, and another said no you didn't god doesn't exist, and another say God exist but the first person's God doesn't exist my god does, then it is one's word versus the other's and at what point does it one's person word become more credible than others if we suppose creationism is real are we all created equally or are some of us not equal to the others and able to have revelations making those who have had revelations better than the rest.

Nope, I can say with certainty even though you are trying to debate that you are better than I am because you have had a revelation, you are not any better than me Jones Jones ,Raja, or Anne. More importantly than that it really doesn't matter if your god is real or not nor does it matter what that god may or may not have revealed to you if the intent of your actions due to those revelations are maleficent towards your fellow man/woman.

Well, I do not know how to describe you. I might violate the rules here on name calling.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:07 pm

rajakrsna;1388667 wrote: Well, I do not know how to describe you. I might violate the rules here on name calling. Please do not violate the rules here. Be respectful.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:49 pm

rajakrsna;1388667 wrote: Well, I do not know how to describe you. I might violate the rules here on name calling.I don't know why you've written that , CJ was responding to someone other than you.

CJ makes a rather good and valid point. People who claim to know God or claim to be saved and have a personal relationship with God are claiming to be special, in fact, as far as christianity goes, that's pretty much what the bible claims Jesus said and what the old testament claimed for the Israelis, isn't it.

There is no hierarchy in life, that's ancient thinking these days.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:10 pm

Well, I just keep this to myself from now on.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:44 pm

rajakrsna;1388667 wrote: Well, I do not know how to describe you. I might violate the rules here on name calling.

thus proving; that bantering crusaders for god such as your self and Infinite have wrongly overestimated the value of proving your religion/god/belief as real, and devalued the morals, and the guidelines to life your religion/god/belief is supposed to give you.

Vrindavana Das · Post by **Vrindavana Das** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:50 pm

Friend, in the Gospel of Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. The Gospel of Mark, depicts Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as reluctant to execute Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus' actions. Time, place and circumstances, all have to be considered in understanding the judgement. It is obviously more than a 'Judge performing his duty'.

As for 'we killed God for our sense gratification'; we are not on the same page. I am not referring to Jesus as God. I am referring to God as God. Jesus himself says 'I am not God...I am son of God'.

If you understanding of what I have written in the post is 'a little more that mish mash.' What makes you believe that you have the requisite faculties to understand God, even if I explained.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:57 pm

Vrindavana Das;1388703 wrote:

If you understanding of what I have in the post is 'a little more that mish mash' what makes you think you have the requisite faculties to understand God, even if I explained.

You have explained nothing and can not explain it you try to cover it up with we are too stupid to understand again proving the fact that those who take a stance such as you devalue your fellow man/woman and loose sight of how to properly prove the value of your religion through your actions to others, and over value the idea that in order to be valued you have to prove your belief as the only belief there is, and the the thing that is probably the worst thing about it all is that there more than a few of you devaluing the ideas and life of other people just so you can feel better about what you believe in.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:04 am

littleCJelkton;1388619 wrote: no drivel would mean you not trying to go anywhere with your statements but you are trying to go somewhere even though where your going is meaningless. like the difference between setting off without knowing where your going as opposed to setting off to a destination that doesn't exist, but besides that you are continuing with you I said He said she said meaningless banter.

If someone where to say that something had mass they could hold it up and let it fall and that would be proof it had weight and thus proof it had mass so someone said to them that doesn't have mass they would have to readjust their statements as either out right wrong or made with out first having the knowledge that that thing falls toward the earth, but if someone were to say they had a revelation of God, and another said no you didn't god doesn't exist, and another say God exist but the first person's God doesn't exist my god does, then it is one's word versus the other's and at what point does it one's person word become more credible than others if we suppose creationism is real are we all created equally or are some of us not equal to the others and able to have revelations making those who have had revelations better than the rest.

Nope, I can say with certainty even though you are trying to debate that you are better than I am because you have had a revelation, you are not any better than me Jones Jones ,Raja, or Anne. More importantly than that it really doesn't matter if your god is real or not nor does it matter what that god may or may not have revealed to you if the intent of your actions due to those revelations are maleficent towards your fellow man/woman.

I had a hard time grasping what you have here; it seems rather confused. I'll do my best to respond.

I'll use your analogy in the 2nd paragraph and say, it's not about whose God is more credible, or whose revelation is better than someone elses. I already said that anyone who had attained knowledge of God could not even prove it to their self, let alone anyone else; so comparisons are next to meaningless aside from their testimonial value which may inspire others to faith.

This is what I am saying: Science can't prove God. Therefore if you or anyone else wants to know God, it will come via the miracle of revelation. Further, that revelation will have been a gift from God, perhaps as a result of prayer. You would not be able to prove that miracle to yourself or anyone else, because miracles cannot be logically proven; though your testimony may inspire others. And finally, that knowledge you would have gained in the experience would be the highest and only proof of God. There could be no greater proof than your belief that God had personally intervened in your life. Any other attempt to prove God is little more than hearsay.

In regard to your last paragraph: I did not say that one who has had a revelation of God is better than anyone else. Many people that claim to have had an experience of God are nuts, or criminals, or misguided. And by saying this I don't disprove my own claim of revelation as the only means of knowing God. I'm not saying that there aren't crooks and crazies; I am simply saying that revelation is the highest proof possible. You and I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

And of course, I would never condone "maleficent" behavior toward anyone, for any reason. Why you threw that in my face I don't know.

In short, if you want to know God, then that knowledge will come as a result of God's proactive participation. God will have granted you an experience in which Its existence will be self-evidently true. If you want to know of God's love, forgiveness, or power, then you must experience that love, forgiveness and power.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:12 am

littleCJelkton;1388702 wrote: thus proving; that bantering crusaders for god such as your self and Infinite have wrongly overestimated the value of proving your religion/god/belief as real, and devalued the morals, and the guidelines to life your religion/god/belief is supposed to give you.

I am not crusading for God. I am arguing rationally for revelation as the only means of ever attaining knowledge of God. And that would be true whether God exists or not. My argument does not depend on a presumption of God's existence. It depends on the application of cogent thought and the principle that all knowledge comes by way of experience.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:18 pm

Infinite Stop;1388769 wrote: I am not crusading for God. I am arguing rationally for revelation as the only means of ever attaining knowledge of God. And that would be true whether God exists or not. My argument does not depend on a presumption of God's existence. It depends on the application of cogent thought and the principle that all knowledge comes by way of experience.That's inaccurate. I can read any person's idea of god and have knowledge of it.