[Alty]

Tsila, can I ask what exactly you wished to discuss when you started this thread? Did you wish to discuss your belief that Christ died for the Ungodly, or did you wish to discuss your anger in another thread being closed when you believed you were "winning", or to discuss what this site is for, or one of the other things stated in your post?

Part of the motive for coming to these boards, at least for some, is to have some fun, get to know others who share similar opinions and debate and tease those who do not.

This is just my opinion, but to close a thread in the face of complete and total defeat is cowardly and childish. However, if anyone has a different opinion, please feel free to share.

As for closing a thread, that is done by the mods or admin when things get to volatile, most times a thread isn't closed down because the OP requested it, especially not in the religious discussions board. To say that someone is cowardly and childish because their thread was closed down isn't accurate, the thread was most likely closed down to prevent further fighting, or because things were getting repeated without anyone getting anywhere.

Religion is a difficult subject to discuss, put 10 people in a room and everyone will have different views on religion, even those that follow the same religion. I think we've proven that time and time again, not only on this thread, but others as well.

No, we cannot discuss the existence of God with each other. I do not recall trying to. I made a comment, saying, "I believe" as I was told to do...

Yes, you did make a short statement in your original post describing what you believe. The rest of your post was more of a dare to continue what was started in another post, a way to call out the people who went against you in another thread.

My gut tells me this thread will soon be closed, everyone, including me, is getting too angry, I think communication is no longer possible at this point.

Good luck. :)

[Credendovidis]

... In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality ...

Not true at all. Nothing in science is beyond correction. A hypothesis is updated to include the latest findings. But a Scientific Theory being abandoned ? Never heard of that.
A theory is a near-scientific-fact and seldom requires updating (except one-off's like for instance Einstein's modification of Newton's Law of Gravity).
Your statement only shows your limited understanding of science.

In religion nothing is open to questioning, no Objective Supported Evidence is provided, and even the validity of dogma's is beyond discussion.

In religion there are only wild claims that have no link with reality ....

:rolleyes:

·

[tsila1777]

Tsila, can I ask what exactly you wished to discuss when you started this thread? Did you wish to discuss your belief that Christ died for the Ungodly, or did you wish to discuss your anger in another thread being closed when you believed you were "winning", or to discuss what this site is for, or one of the other things stated in your post?



As for closing a thread, that is done by the mods or admin when things get to volatile, most times a thread isn't closed down because the OP requested it, especially not in the religious discussions board. To say that someone is cowardly and childish because their thread was closed down isn't accurate, the thread was most likely closed down to prevent further fighting, or because things were getting repeated without anyone getting anywhere.

Religion is a difficult subject to discuss, put 10 people in a room and everyone will have different views on religion, even those that follow the same religion. I think we've proven that time and time again, not only on this thread, but others as well.



Yes, you did make a short statement in your original post describing what you believe. The rest of your post was more of a dare to continue what was started in another post, a way to call out the people who went against you in another thread.

My gut tells me this thread will soon be closed, everyone, including me, is getting too angry, I think communication is no longer possible at this point.

Good luck. :)

Seems to me you are the only one who is angry here. I don't understand why. And that other was explained to you. Remember? I'm sorry you are so upset.

[Alty]

Seems to me you are the only one who is angry here.

No, but apparently I'm the only one willing to admit it.

Continue to "discuss" whatever it is you wanted to discuss, because it isn't clear to me at all what the actual purpose of this thread was.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

Good luck to everyone. :)

[tsila1777]

In religion nothing is open to questioning, no Objective Supported Evidence is provided, and even the validity of dogma's is beyond discussion.

In religion there are only wild claims that have no link with reality ....

So why do you spend so much time discussing it?

[Credendovidis]

So why do you spend so much time discussing it?

Why not? Why do you want to know? What has that to do with you?
Why don't you first anwer my questions on who were these "ungodly", in a topic about "ungodly"?

Besides all the rest, this board provides an excellent view on religious hypocrisy !

:rolleyes:

·

[tsila1777]

Why not? Why do you want to know? What has that to do with you?
Why don't you first anwer my questions on who were these "ungodly", in a topic about "ungodly"?

Besides all the rest, this board provides an excellent view on religious hypocrisy !

:rolleyes:

·

Cred, the topic was not about 'ungodly', can't you understand? You and some others said if I was going to make a statement of faith, I should use the words "I believe" which I did. So what is there to discuss about that?

The question was how is one to chose what to believe? Or in your case not to believe.

Again, I think this thread should be closed. You are off on science now, and Alty is mad about something... and I think the rest of 'us' :) are tired of this now.

Why don't you start a topic Cred?

[Credendovidis]

Cred, the topic was not about 'ungodly', can't you understand?

"Ungodly" even appears in the topic name...

... "I believe" which I did. So what is there to discuss about that?

In no way did I attack that Christ died or existed. Nor your belief on that point. All I questioned is the word "ungodly". Do you perhaps think that any topic or statement by you that contains "I believe" becomes completely off-line? If you want that, you should post on the Christianity Board - though I think even there whatever you post is not above questioning by anyone.

... you are off on science now

I only replied once to a statement by Smoked. That is not the same as being "off on science".

... and Alty is mad about something...

May be... why would that be, and who would that be ? :D

... and I think the rest of 'us' are tired of this now.

Speak only for yourself.

Why don't you start a topic Cred?

I have several topics open at this moment. So why should I open another one? May be a new topic about why some people post about "ungodly" but fail to specify these "ungodly" upon request ? Hmmmmm...

I think this thread should be closed.

If the one who posted the topic suggests that, I think it is indeed time for that. If you can't explain or reply to questions on your own topic header...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

[Unknown008]

Hum, Cred? Your post saying that 'only OSE will do that', I remind you that YOU started to pick statements from the bible, and in the context of the bible, smoked explained why that and that was so.

[Credendovidis]

Hum, Cred? Your post saying that 'only OSE will do that', i remind you that YOU started to pick statements from the bible, and in the context of the bible, smoked explained why that and that was so.

I actually stated : "Smoked shows perfectly what religion does to you : you lower your standards of logic and support to fit your religious belief. But that still does not make your religous belief valid : only OSE will do that !"

I did not argue any statement in the bible. All I did was presenting a list of clear CONTRADICTIONS in the various bible books.

I still stand by my statement :

.... But that still does not make your religous belief valid : only OSE will do that !

Unless you can provide reasons (OSE'd of course) why that is incorrect!

:rolleyes:

·

[Unknown008]

I chose that mine is valid, an that can only be done by myself, with proof or not, I feel it to be, and once more, there are no contradictions in the bible, supporting my belief.

What you stated above should have been separated from the statement to Smoked, I read that quickly, and thought that you were saying that you need OSE to show that the Word was wrong. Careful next time!!

[Credendovidis]

Careful next time!!!

Ok, I stand in the corner for the next 10 minutes as penitence !

;)

·

[Unknown008]

Haha! Lol Now stop that, or tsila will be furious we got off his topic.

[Credendovidis]

Haha! lol Now stop that, or tsila will be furious we got off his topic.

I'm afraid she already is... She wants to close the topic anyway!!

:)

Tsila in action :

[tsila1777]

Cred I am amazed to see you have a sense of humor. That looks nothing like me by the way, but I have had those fits from time to time.

I wish we could communicate better, but anyway, thanks to my dear friend Unk,

Blessings in Christ.

[tsila1777]

If the one who posted the topic suggests that, I think it is indeed time for that. If you can't explain or reply to questions on your own topic header ....

Well not exactly YOUR question but THE question.. refer to # 12

I answered your question: Well, of course He did, who said He didn't? He had everyone on His mind, He died for everyone who has ever lived and for everyone who will live; He had each one of us in mind while He was on the cross.

If you want to make a big deal about the word ungodly... I was quoting the Word of God, which says 'there is none godly, no not one... " and “Christ died for the ungodly….”

That is why He came to die for the ungodly, which includes everyone; the good, the bad and the ugly.

Good enough?

[Smoked]

In religion nothing is open to questioning, no Objective Supported Evidence is provided, and even the validity of dogma's is beyond discussion.
·

If this is what you think I feel for you. You should question early in your growth. Objective supportive evidence? How about just looking at historical events that coincide with the events in the bible? But, you are right... When it comes to matters of morals and faith (dogma) I believe the bible gives the prescribed guidelines. Does that mean that its not debatable?

If it wasn't debatable then you could not come to a forum like this and actually talk about it right? If it wasn't debatable then a nation where over 70% of the populous professes Christianity would probably ostracize the other 30% into complete submission right? Wait, I am sorry you think that is what is currently happening.

I only posted a couple acceptable translations to expose the fact your argument on the point of contradiction was truly flawed. People see that and think I am trying to hit you over the head with a bible then the point will always be lost on them. For the people who are on the cusp of belief or disbelief they can see more then one jaded side of the story.

By the way when someone shares their beliefs, despite your vanity, its more for them and not you.

On a side note, I personally enjoy when we have a constructive conversation. I don't view this as a "us vs. them" scenario despite the fact it seems to go that direction. I just hope you realize that certain christian views are only shared by the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately the people who are against christian views only pick up on what even the Christians think is crazy whacked out junk.

Oh, and ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat..

[Fr_Chuck]

Way past time to close, thread closed