> Archangel wrote:

> if he truly believes in them then he will tell us. it is worse if he is ashamed of his beliefs

in all fairness, he really should be ashamed of his beliefs.

anyway. i just heard god killed my neighbour's cat. naughty god. i'm told he's omnipotent but he still gets a kick from killing helpless cats. pathetic.

u go to sleep at 20:00 KtC ?

If your neighbours believe in God they wouldn't be worrying or be sad about it because they know it's in a better place right now. And if they don't then it was just God's way of telling them they need to stop turning their backs on Him. Everything happens for a reason.

and what would you tell her deci?

"sorry dear, your cat got hit by sum nutter driving back from the pub. it was great to watch cos the guy was totally plonkered."

?

Welcome Winter-een-mas

Thanks KTC for adding those points to my defense.  I mean no harm, but firmly stand for sound principles and will not compromise them to the desires of a liberal-atmosphere forum.

> "if people thank god for everything good that happens, to be logical we should also blame god for everything bad that happens."

I would like to respectfully argue against the idea that that is "logical."  I believe we are to praise God for all good, but accept blame for all bad that happens.  Pictures this: do you blame your boss at work for something bad that happens?  Most people, who do not have a personal relationship with their boss, do not.  Why?  Because that boss has a certain advantage of power over you.  God is far greater in power than your boss, but he doesnt reveal himself in a physical form, which seems to be the only way most humans can interpret something as logical.  As a result it seems easy for many to criticize him, instead of humble themselves before him.

"Fear not him who can only destroy the body (man), but rather him who can destroy the body and the soul (God)."

hello there Joe

True enough, it's not mentioned directly in the bible

But, He created the animals in the beginning, and I believe he will bring them back aswell in heaven.

> "i was merely arguing against the stupidity of thanking god for good things but blaming humans for bad things. it makes no sense whatsoever."

That statement is absurd because I just argued to you the contradiction, and how you are saying it is "stupidity" without providing any reason for such.  And if your going to say it doesnt make sense, please explain.  Perhaps it doesnt make sense to you, maybe went a little over your head, but it makes perfect sense to me.  So please provide an explanation here.

> "if you get a promotion from your boss, is that yours and your boss's doing? or god's? or if your boss fires you?"

Yea but what does that have to do with anything I said?

> "accept personal responsibility for both good and bad or for neither."

On a personal level, that may make sense to you.  But its not logical for me and I will not follow it.  Decimus, are you familiar with Total Depravity?  its something I soundly believe in when I say what I did above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

> "good people do good things"

Assuming you believe there are "good" people. If man is totally depraved, that is impossible.

so in your world, if good happens, it's because of god? but when bad happens, that's because of man?

That's pretty much it Decimus, but you forgot to put "not following God's rules and therefor sinning." behind that "man" part.

So it should be: "but when bad happens, that's because of man not following God's rules and therefor sinning."

"WFS, how do you know that History is correct?  there are many historical beliefs who heavily rely on the interpretation of the same history books.  And how do you know that Science is correct?  there are many scientific beliefs who heavily rely on the interpretation of the same science books.  And how do you know that Math is correct?

you see where I'm going with this, right?  That is how your argument sounds..."

>> History never uses history books to interprete the past. They use sources. And indeed, there's a lot of discussion going on about historical facts, but those are about "details" when you consider the world's history. At least there's a well reasoned idea behind a interpretation, backed with facts.

I always wondered where believers stopped following science..
For example, biology. I think it's safe to assume both believers and non-believers agree that it's not a scam and that it really contributed to our society. Out of biological knowledge, medication was introduced to the world, wich both believers and non-believers believe to be working (well, I don't see people use pages from the bible anymore to dure a disease ). Then we have DNA again something that's proven to exist etc. I do think believers accept the existance of DNA and how the genetic code of our offspring is formed. Now, with all these facts, how on earth is it possible to deny the evolutiontheory, wich so many believers denounce? Is there really a line where they say: "from here, we stop believing in science"? Really, the equasion isn't that hard to make

"Nope, your the first and only person WFS."

My point is still valid.