Karmarie

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 16 2010,11:27)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,09:05) Well said Karmarie. Bodhitharta and Ed are not very 'great' at 'witnessing', it has to be said.  I've endured much better prostyletising than theirs (but all such preaching is nonsense though!).  Mindless screeds of koran and Dan Brown codes from the bible?  Convincing?  Hardly! Anyway, welcome to the 'outcasts' club.  In NZ those who are in the 'believers' group here are pretty much already outcasts in wider society, but only on occasions when they might speak publicly about their religious beliefs.  As a skeptic kiwi, I am in the mainstream!  Ironic, really. Stuart I have never really prostyletized to you. Where can you show me one time where I said that you should be a Christian or a Muslim. My conversation with you is to clerly show to others that you are not an intellectual or scientist. You keep talking about science as if you are schooled in it and I just call you on it to show that Atheism is full of hypocrisy, you will read something scientific and have “faith” that it is correct and yet you have not studied these things yourself. I have told you about God, but really it's to convey the the message. You can decide for yourself but don't pretend to know about science because I will call you on it.

OK. Fair enough on the prostyletising, although I have come across vast swathes of the koran, posted by you here. and if that is not prostyletising then it must come very close.

I have never claimed to be an intellectual. I am 'schooled' in science, as it happens, but that is not really the issue, is it. Science is not the knowledge or views of one person imposed on others. The evidence is there for anyone to reproduce or interpret. That is not to say that you would discount what the scientist himself says about his work.

It would be a mistake to conflate atheism with science, although it is true that scientists are much less likely to be religious believers.

Let me know when you have a single example of how 'atheism is full of hypocrisy'. Atheism consists of only one belief, and since you have no evidence to contradict that belief, I think you might find that it is not atheists who are being hypocritical in this instance.

You have told me much, and I cannot think of one convincing argument that you have made. As for science, I have not studied biology formally since I was 15 years old, and I can tell you that you don't know very much about it.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,15:33)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 16 2010,11:27) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,09:05) Well said Karmarie. Bodhitharta and Ed are not very 'great' at 'witnessing', it has to be said.  I've endured much better prostyletising than theirs (but all such preaching is nonsense though!).  Mindless screeds of koran and Dan Brown codes from the bible?  Convincing?  Hardly! Anyway, welcome to the 'outcasts' club.  In NZ those who are in the 'believers' group here are pretty much already outcasts in wider society, but only on occasions when they might speak publicly about their religious beliefs.  As a skeptic kiwi, I am in the mainstream!  Ironic, really. Stuart I have never really prostyletized to you. Where can you show me one time where I said that you should be a Christian or a Muslim. My conversation with you is to clerly show to others that you are not an intellectual or scientist. You keep talking about science as if you are schooled in it and I just call you on it to show that Atheism is full of hypocrisy, you will read something scientific and have “faith” that it is correct and yet you have not studied these things yourself. I have told you about God, but really it's to convey the the message. You can decide for yourself but don't pretend to know about science because I will call you on it. OK. Fair enough on the prostyletising, although I have come across vast swathes of the koran, posted by you here. and if that is not prostyletising then it must come very close. I have never claimed to be an intellectual.  I am 'schooled' in science, as it happens, but that is not really the issue, is it.  Science is not the knowledge or views of one person imposed on others.  The evidence is there for anyone to reproduce or interpret.  That is not to say that you would discount what the scientist himself says about his work. It would be a mistake to conflate atheism with science, although it is true that scientists are much less likely to be religious believers. Let me know when you have a single example of how 'atheism is full of hypocrisy'.  Atheism consists of only one belief, and since you have no evidence to contradict that belief, I think you might find that it is not atheists who are being hypocritical in this instance. You have told me much, and I cannot think of one convincing argument that you have made.  As for science, I have not studied biology formally since I was 15 years old, and I can tell you that you don't know very much about it. Stuart

No, I wasn't lumping atheism with science because they have nothing to do with each other.

What I call hypocrisy in Atheism at least concerning you and kejonn is that you claim that there are no “gods” and then you critisize and complain against what you say you don't believe in. If you practiced what you preached or believed in what you say you would be incapable of having such conversations.

Just like I will not even discuss “gods”, you should not be willing to discuss “God” or “gods”. If you were true to your belief your whole conversation would be centered on what man does or does not do.

Critisizing an entity that you say doesn't exist is to give the notion that you do believe yet disapprove of such an entity therein lies your hypocrisy

[Ed J]

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 16 2010,08:23)

Ed, Bodhitharta has spent his time back here witnessing to Stu and Kejohnn, WOW, do you not think that is great? Its obvious you do care Ed,  I also care about you,

Hi Kermarie,

Do you not believe that Stuart and Kejonn also witnessing to BD is great as well?
I suppose maybe to you that's not so great is it?

Is the help that you said that you were offering to me your posting here; to me alone?
I thought maybe you were going to engage in conversation amongst us all(Stuart, me and BD); is that the help you were planning to do?
OR is the 'only' help you offer expressing your opinions to me alone? That is the 'only' help I have seen so far!

God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,09:05)

Well said Karmarie. Bodhitharta and Ed are not very 'great' at 'witnessing', it has to be said.  I've endured much better prostyletising than theirs (but all such preaching is nonsense though!).  Mindless screeds of koran and Dan Brown codes from the bible?  Convincing?  Hardly! Anyway, welcome to the 'outcasts' club.  In NZ those who are in the 'believers' group here are pretty much already outcasts in wider society, but only on occasions when they might speak publicly about their religious beliefs.  As a skeptic kiwi, I am in the mainstream!  Ironic, really. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Why do you keep comparing me to Dan Brown?
Who is Dan Brown?

Ed J

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2010,15:51)

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 16 2010,08:23) Ed, Bodhitharta has spent his time back here witnessing to Stu and Kejohnn, WOW, do you not think that is great? Its obvious you do care Ed,  I also care about you, Hi Kermarie, Do you not believe that Stuart and Kejonn also witnessing to BD is great as well? I suppose maybe to you that's not so great is it? Is the help that you said that you were offering to me your posting here; to me alone? I thought maybe you were going to engage in conversation amongst us all(Stuart, me and BD); is that the help you were planning to do? OR is the 'only' help you offer expressing your opinions to me alone? That is the 'only' help I have seen so far! God bless Ed J

ED

Karmarie, has been conversating with everyone and with great respect I may add, so why be harsh towards her?

What number tells you to do that?

[karmarie]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2010,15:51)

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 16 2010,08:23) Ed, Bodhitharta has spent his time back here witnessing to Stu and Kejohnn, WOW, do you not think that is great? Its obvious you do care Ed,  I also care about you, Hi Kermarie, Do you not believe that Stuart and Kejonn also witnessing to BD is great as well? I suppose maybe to you that's not so great is it? Is the help that you said that you were offering to me your posting here; to me alone? I thought maybe you were going to engage in conversation amongst us all(Stuart, me and BD); is that the help you were planning to do? OR is the 'only' help you offer expressing your opinions to me alone? That is the 'only' help I have seen so far! God bless Ed J

Talk to the hand Ed cause im not listening!

I no longer wish to discuss anything with you- and dont answer. Pretend I dont exist.

[Ed J]

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 16 2010,17:49)

I no longer wish to discuss anything with you- and dont answer. Pretend I dont exist.

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2010,15:01)

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 15 2010,22:36) Do you believe your one of the 2 witnesses of Revelations? WOW! Ronald Weinland also claimed to be a witness. And MANY MANY more We are to follow God and not Man. We are to love, we are Not to condemn anyone!  It isnt your place to do that. Hi karmarie, Show me what claim I have made to indicate to you Rev.11 applies to me? And who is Ronald Weinland? All I have said is: “witness” in Joshua 22:34 is reference to me; the free e-book proving God's existence is the evidence of this. Please explain what you are talking about here? Ed J

Hi Karmarie,

Could you please at least explain what you have wrote here, which I have colored green?
You did say that you wanted to me help; didn't you? It would be a BIG help if you would explain it for me?
If you don't want me to respond any more after that, than as long as you feel that way, I won't!
God has to soften one's heart I cannot. Stuart may be a lot of things but a 'hypocrite' is NOT one of them!

Stuart at least listens to what I have to say even though he disagrees most of the time.
And it is he both you and BD seem to think needs the most help? Don't you find that a bit odd?
Stuart does not seem to have any problem with me! But both you and BD do for some strange reason?
It seems that I only appear to be an outcast to you and BD; I would really like to here an explanation on that point as well?

God bless anyways Karmarie,
Ed J (Eccl.9:12-16 / Isaiah 60:13-14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[karmarie]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,09:05)

Well said Karmarie. Bodhitharta and Ed are not very 'great' at 'witnessing', it has to be said.  I've endured much better prostyletising than theirs (but all such preaching is nonsense though!).  Mindless screeds of koran and Dan Brown codes from the bible?  Convincing?  Hardly! Anyway, welcome to the 'outcasts' club.  In NZ those who are in the 'believers' group here are pretty much already outcasts in wider society, but only on occasions when they might speak publicly about their religious beliefs.  As a skeptic kiwi, I am in the mainstream!  Ironic, really. Stuart

Lol thanks Stu

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2010,15:54)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,09:05) Well said Karmarie. Bodhitharta and Ed are not very 'great' at 'witnessing', it has to be said.  I've endured much better prostyletising than theirs (but all such preaching is nonsense though!).  Mindless screeds of koran and Dan Brown codes from the bible?  Convincing?  Hardly! Anyway, welcome to the 'outcasts' club.  In NZ those who are in the 'believers' group here are pretty much already outcasts in wider society, but only on occasions when they might speak publicly about their religious beliefs.  As a skeptic kiwi, I am in the mainstream!  Ironic, really. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why do you keep comparing me to Dan Brown? Who is Dan Brown? Ed J

Try this technique…

Stuart

[Stu]

BD

Quote

What I call hypocrisy in Atheism at least concerning you and kejonn is that you claim that there are no “gods” and then you critisize and complain against what you say you don't believe in. If you practiced what you preached or believed in what you say you would be incapable of having such conversations.

That is exactly what I have not said to you, if you care to remember. Let me remind you, in case:

1. I am agnostic, just like you and everyone else. My atheism is the quite reasonable provisional conclusion that there are no gods, based on the fact that there is no evidence for any god.

2. I reserve a tiny sliver of probability that you are right and I am wrong.

Do you reserve any of your consideration for my view?

I am’capable’ of having such conversations because, as part of my adolescent development I became able to think in the abstract and put myself in others’ shoes. I realise that is a stretch for a religiously-afflicted person, and that may explain why I never have religious people here pretend, for the sake of conversation with me that there are no gods. They are too earnest for their Imaginary Friend, although insecure from constantly having to reassure themselves that they are not just imagining it. Which they are!

Quote

Just like I will not even discuss “gods”, you should not be willing to discuss “God” or “gods”. If you were true to your belief your whole conversation would be centered on what man does or does not do.

I believe that god-belief, a human delusion, is dangerous and brutal, and like most delusions best avoided. I believe the god concept that you believe in is not worthy of worship, and in any case almost certainly is not there to worship. Pretty difficult to discuss those beliefs without using the word god (or gods) don’t you think?

Quote

Critisizing an entity that you say doesn't exist is to give the notion that you do believe yet disapprove of such an entity therein lies your hypocrisy

If you cannot put yourself into another’s shoes for a while without feeling like a hypocrite then I pity you. Anyway, as it should be clear to even the most limited reader, I am criticising your god-idea. As I have said to you numerous times already, to actually criticise something that does not exist would be insanity.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,19:45)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2010,15:54) Hi Stuart, Why do you keep comparing me to Dan Brown? Who is Dan Brown? Ed J Try this technique… Stuart

Hi Stuart,

That was great. So he wrote the Da Vinci Code.

But how does he compare to me, based on your view?
His book is not the least bit similar.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,20:02)

BD Quote What I call hypocrisy in Atheism at least concerning you and kejonn is that you claim that there are no “gods” and then you critisize and complain against what you say you don't believe in. If you practiced what you preached or believed in what you say you would be incapable of having such conversations. That is exactly what I have not said to you, if you care to remember.  Let me remind you, in case: 1. I am agnostic, just like you and everyone else.  My atheism is the quite reasonable provisional conclusion that there are no gods, based on the fact that there is no evidence for any god. 2. I reserve a tiny sliver of probability that you are right and I am wrong. Do you reserve any of your consideration for my view? I am’capable’ of having such conversations because, as part of my adolescent development I became able to think in the abstract and put myself in others’ shoes.  I realise that is a stretch for a religiously-afflicted person, and that may explain why I never have religious people here pretend, for the sake of conversation with me that there are no gods.  They are too earnest for their Imaginary Friend, although insecure from constantly having to reassure themselves that they are not just imagining it.  Which they are! Quote Just like I will not even discuss “gods”, you should not be willing to discuss “God” or “gods”. If you were true to your belief your whole conversation would be centered on what man does or does not do. I believe that god-belief, a human delusion, is dangerous and brutal, and like most delusions best avoided.  I believe the god concept that you believe in is not worthy of worship, and in any case almost certainly is not there to worship.  Pretty difficult to discuss those beliefs without using the word god (or gods) don’t you think?   Quote Critisizing an entity that you say doesn't exist is to give the notion that you do believe yet disapprove of such an entity therein lies your hypocrisy If you cannot put yourself into another’s shoes for a while without feeling like a hypocrite then I pity you.  Anyway, as it should be clear to even the most limited reader, I am criticising your god-idea.  As I have said to you numerous times already, to actually criticise something that does not exist would be insanity. Stuart

If you were agnostic then your conversation would be not geared towards even critisizing the “God-idea” because you have admitted the agnostic position of NOT KNOWING

So having no knowledge about something then critisizing it is acting out of Ignorance, Correct?

Ignorance is the Lack of Knowledge. So with that in mind how could you say that something that you have no knowledge about is or is not worthy of Worship?

You confess that you are “without knowledge”

and further you confess that because you are without knowledge your provisional conclusion is atheism which means because you don't know you don't believe

BTW, Everyone is not agnostic you only believe that because you are agnostic and you don't believe that someone can know what you cannot know.

So the fact is you don't know so why don't you learn instead of act out of admitted Ignorance?

Now you ask

Quote

Do you reserve any of your consideration for my view?

Should a person turn back to ignorance once they have been given knowledge, do you reserve for your consideration that 2+2 does not equal 4?

[karmarie]

Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 14 2010,20:27)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2010,19:30) AKJV John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world (i am=23) is judged.     The prince of this world is 'i am'(satan; the son of perdition). AKJV 2Thess.2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; AKJV 2Thess.2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God=63(YHVH=63), or that is worshipped; so that he as (i am)God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he(satan) is God. AKJV 2Thess.2:8-9 And then shall that Wicked (i am) be revealed,     Hang on, theres something a bit wrong there?

Hi Ed

As requested, this above belief you have is where I have the most concern (its one of two),

[Ed J]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 17 2010,07:05)

If you were agnostic then your conversation would be not geared towards even critisizing the “God-idea” because you have admitted the agnostic position of NOT KNOWING So having no knowledge about something then critisizing it is acting out of Ignorance, Correct? Ignorance is the Lack of Knowledge. So with that in mind how could you say that something that you have no knowledge about is or is not worthy of Worship? You confess that you are “without knowledge” and further you confess that because you are without knowledge  your provisional conclusion is atheism which means because you don't know you don't believe BTW, Everyone is not agnostic you only believe that because you are agnostic and you don't believe that someone can know what you cannot know. So the fact is you don't know so why don't you learn instead of act out of admitted Ignorance? Now you ask Quote Do you reserve any of your consideration for my view? Should a person turn back to ignorance once they have been given knowledge, do you reserve for your consideration that 2+2 does not equal 4?

Hi BD,

That is an excellent post!

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2010,08:17)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 17 2010,07:05) If you were agnostic then your conversation would be not geared towards even critisizing the “God-idea” because you have admitted the agnostic position of NOT KNOWING So having no knowledge about something then critisizing it is acting out of Ignorance, Correct? Ignorance is the Lack of Knowledge. So with that in mind how could you say that something that you have no knowledge about is or is not worthy of Worship? You confess that you are “without knowledge” and further you confess that because you are without knowledge  your provisional conclusion is atheism which means because you don't know you don't believe BTW, Everyone is not agnostic you only believe that because you are agnostic and you don't believe that someone can know what you cannot know. So the fact is you don't know so why don't you learn instead of act out of admitted Ignorance? Now you ask Quote Do you reserve any of your consideration for my view? Should a person turn back to ignorance once they have been given knowledge, do you reserve for your consideration that 2+2 does not equal 4? Hi BD, That is an excellent post! Ed J http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Thank you!

God Bless!

[Stu]

BD

Quote

If you were agnostic then your conversation would be not geared towards even critisizing the “God-idea” because you have admitted the agnostic position of NOT KNOWING So having no knowledge about something then critisizing it is acting out of Ignorance, Correct?

Neither of us can show he knows anything about your god, but I do have knowledge about your god-concept, which, as I have just finished explaining to you, is what I am criticising. Are you suggesting that your god-concept does not exist?

Quote

Ignorance is the Lack of Knowledge. So with that in mind how could you say that something that you have no knowledge about is or is not worthy of Worship?

You follow religious concepts dictated and exemplified by a person who I consider immoral, and whose actions most people would consider unethical if they really knew the details. Your god-concept is of a petulant monster (just going on the book you bow to) and the philosophy of your religion is brutally anti-human, in my opinion. Let me be clear: your god {b] were it to exist[/b], would not be worthy of worship. Note the conditional tense there!

Quote

You confess that you are “without knowledge” and further you confess that because you are without knowledge your provisional conclusion is atheism which means because you don't know you don't believe

Read that again, see if it makes any logical sense to you. It certainly means nothing to me! It is not true that I am without knowledge. I know why people see patterns where none really exist. I know some of the reasons why people take on Imaginary Sky Friends, even though there is no reason to think any exist. I know that there is little agreement on the characteristics of the one god that Abrahamic monotheists worship. I know that there are things I don’t know and therefore my conclusion can only ever be a provisional one.

That is true of you and polytheism too. You could be dishonest about it and say that you KNOW there is only one god, but then what would be the point of the word ‘faith’?

Quote

BTW, Everyone is not agnostic you only believe that because you are agnostic and you don't believe that someone can know what you cannot know.

Aside from all the religious islamic mythology written by humans, in which you are more versed than I, you don’t know anything more than I do about it. If you cannot demonstrate to me that your god exists then why should I not call you agnostic?

Quote

So the fact is you don't know so why don't you learn instead of act out of admitted Ignorance?

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell

Quote

Should a person turn back to ignorance once they have been given knowledge, do you reserve for your consideration that 2+2 does not equal 4?

2+2=5 for large values of 2.

If you do not question the ‘knowledge’ you have been given, then you are open to any crackpot who wants you to sincerely believe his fantasy story.

Did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?

Stuart

[Stu]

Ed

That was a pretty excellent post too, don't you think?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,10:22)

BD Quote If you were agnostic then your conversation would be not geared towards even critisizing the “God-idea” because you have admitted the agnostic position of NOT KNOWING  So having no knowledge about something then critisizing it is acting out of Ignorance, Correct? Neither of us can show he knows anything about your god, but I do have knowledge about your god-concept, which, as I have just finished explaining to you, is what I am criticising.  Are you suggesting that your god-concept does not exist? Quote Ignorance is the Lack of Knowledge. So with that in mind how could you say that something that you have no knowledge about is or is not worthy of Worship?   You follow religious concepts dictated and exemplified by a person who I consider immoral, and whose actions most people would consider unethical if they really knew the details.  Your god-concept is of a petulant monster (just going on the book you bow to) and the philosophy of your religion is brutally anti-human, in my opinion.  Let me be clear:  your god {b] were it to exist[/b], would not be worthy of worship.  Note the conditional tense there! Quote You confess that you are “without knowledge” and further you confess that because you are without knowledge  your provisional conclusion is atheism which means because you don't know you don't believe Read that again, see if it makes any logical sense to you.  It certainly means nothing to me!  It is not true that I am without knowledge.  I know why people see patterns where none really exist.  I know some of the reasons why people take on Imaginary Sky Friends, even though there is no reason to think any exist. I know that there is little agreement on the characteristics of the one god that Abrahamic monotheists worship.  I know that there are things I don’t know and therefore my conclusion can only ever be a provisional one.   That is true of you and polytheism too.  You could be dishonest about it and say that you KNOW there is only one god, but then what would be the point of the word ‘faith’? Quote BTW, Everyone is not agnostic you only believe that because you are agnostic and you don't believe that someone can know what you cannot know. Aside from all the religious islamic mythology written by humans, in which you are more versed than I, you don’t know anything more than I do about it.  If you cannot demonstrate to me that your god exists then why should I not call you agnostic? Quote So the fact is you don't know so why don't you learn instead of act out of admitted Ignorance? The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell Quote Should a person turn back to ignorance once they have been given knowledge, do you reserve for your consideration that 2+2 does not equal 4? 2+2=5 for large values of 2. If you do not question the ‘knowledge’ you have been given, then you are open to any crackpot who wants you to sincerely believe his fantasy story.   Did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary? Stuart

First of all the word Gullible is in the dictionary.

And second you have already admitted you are without knowledge i.e. a-gnostic

Now obviously if you are ignorant about God you are in no position to judge. You would be like a person who cannot understand that criminals should ever be punished.

Let me ask you though, should criminals ever be punished?

BTW, Since you primarily don't believe in God shouldn't you be of the opinion that anything that takes place on earth is completely human?

Once again your hypocrisy is showing

[Stu]

Quote

First of all the word Gullible is in the dictionary.

Quote

And second you have already admitted you are without knowledge i.e. a-gnostic. Now obviously if you are ignorant about God you are in no position to judge. You would be like a person who cannot understand that criminals should ever be punished. Let me ask you though, should criminals ever be punished? BTW, Since you primarily don't believe in God shouldn't you be of the opinion that anything that takes place on earth is completely human? Once again your hypocrisy is showing

BD, now you have done the old ‘gullible’ thing (Tee Hee) keep that dictionary handy!

Look up these words for your own education:
gnostic ( in its common usage it doesn’t mean just ‘knowledge’!)
agnostic (it does not have the same meaning as “not gnostic”, or “ignorant”!)
hypocrisy (it does not mean refusing to accept a strawman)
strawman (what most of your posts contain, especially in relation to natural history).

HOW does criminal justice have ANYTHING to do with it?

Look up:
irrelevant

How would humans be responsible for earthquakes, for example? That is a religious mythology, one that I don’t believe in!

Look up:
fatuous
load
of
bollocks

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,10:23)

Ed That was a pretty excellent post too, don't you think? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Your points were well presented.
There are thing I agree with and things I disagree with on both of your presentations.
I personally rank BD's presentation better, but on the flip side you have never considered me an outcast.
I really enjoy both of you and glad you were both put into “the matrix” with me.
I personally believe we all made a conscience decision to enter, rather than grew like some fungus.
It takes 'more' “faith” to believe in spontaneous combustible reconfigurations that grew out of NOTHINGness?
That is where the “logic” starts. But let me add to the “God idea”, in reference to God's enemy and “OURS”…

The many satan lies people keep falling for …
He tells adolescent children they are smarter then their parents.
He tells the same LIE to 'evolutionists', they are smarter then everybody that came before.
He tells the same LIE to 'religionists', that they are part of the very special 'end times' crowd.
He also tells 'religionists' they are going to be part in a very special 'rapture' crowd.
satan's lies go on and on seeking who he may destroy.

2Thess 2:1-4 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come , except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed(the man of sin is satan known in religious circles as the 'i am'=23),
the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is “called God”=63(YHVH=63),
or that is worshipped; so that he(satan) as (i am)God sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God. {satan}, the not so great 'i am'=23 is the 'fake'=23 god of religion!
The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distraction of spirit.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life. And not only so , but we also joy in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God bless you both,
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
PS. How does my post rate; guy's?

[Author]

Posts