According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions.
I disagree with Judaism on this point. If Abraham had been a great man, he would have told God to change those sinners who so offended Him into good people, thus negating the need to smite them. Then he would have gone back to doing whatever he was doing before YHWH interupted him.
You are making assumptions about the nature of God and free will that Judaism does not make.
YHWH doesn't have free will, then?
God I hate that "YHWH' thing. I mean, if want to say "yood hay vav hay", go for it, but pretended you can say the same thing in English letters just feels patronizing towards the Hebrew language. That wasn't a personal attack, I just wanted to get that off my chest.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the Jewish God has always seemed to place a large importance on free will, rather than making people do what he wanted he would tell them what to do and punish them if they diobeyed, or reward them if they obeyed. In fact, other than changing Pharoeh's mind when he almost let the Jews go once or twice, I cannot think of a time in the bible when God affected the actions of a person directly.
Then what is an acceptable English version of the Jewish God's name? I'd prefer not to call him 'God', as that is a class of beings, not a name.
As for free will, hardening Pharaoh's heart is a pretty big exception to the respecting free will element of His character.
There is no translation of his name. Call him the Jewish God or the Christian God (which are two seperate concepts of God) if you want to differentiate him from other gods.
-Plants have demonstrated a "pain" response, complete with screaming and sweating in terror. I shit you not.
D=
What?
edit: Evander, he isn't proving his own interpretations 'false.' His goal, at any rate, is to establish that his interpretations are the textually correct ones, and to show that the textually correct version is horrifying.
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpretting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while sayign nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
The very concept of God as "good" is completely flawed anyway. He's the omnipotent creater with infinate power and yet allows bad shit to happen all the time. Sorry, the whole testing us/free will whatever debate does not preclude his responsibility in this matter.
I can break for animals and give to charity, but if it is within my power to stop a child killer with the snap of my fingers, not doing so makes me just as culpable.
The big picture as I understand it is either: There is no god, or god is a sociopath
Are you a sociopath when you don't stop your pet dog from eating grass, affectively killing a living thing for no real purpose?
If the grass was capable of feeling pain and could communicate and form agreements with you, then yes, you are a sociopath.
According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions.
I disagree with Judaism on this point. If Abraham had been a great man, he would have told God to change those sinners who so offended Him into good people, thus negating the need to smite them. Then he would have gone back to doing whatever he was doing before YHWH interupted him.
You are making assumptions about the nature of God and free will that Judaism does not make.
YHWH doesn't have free will, then?
God I hate that "YHWH' thing. I mean, if want to say "yood hay vav hay", go for it, but pretended you can say the same thing in English letters just feels patronizing towards the Hebrew language. That wasn't a personal attack, I just wanted to get that off my chest.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the Jewish God has always seemed to place a large importance on free will, rather than making people do what he wanted he would tell them what to do and punish them if they diobeyed, or reward them if they obeyed. In fact, other than changing Pharoeh's mind when he almost let the Jews go once or twice, I cannot think of a time in the bible when God affected the actions of a person directly.
Then what is an acceptable English version of the Jewish God's name? I'd prefer not to call him 'God', as that is a class of beings, not a name.
As for free will, hardening Pharaoh's heart is a pretty big exception to the respecting free will element of His character.
There is no translation of his name. Call him the Jewish God or the Christian God (which are two seperate concepts of God) if you want to differentiate him from other gods.
I'll just use Jehova. Good enough for the Romans, good enough for me.
FCD on
Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpretting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while sayign nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
That, or he's saying that Judaism's interpretations of its source material are total bullshit entirely disconnected from both the texts themselves and the cultures that produced them.
MrMister on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpreting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while saying nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
What MrMister said, but also, how do does one go about "proving his own interpretations to be false"?
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpretting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while sayign nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
That, or he's saying that Judaism's interpretations of its source material are total bullshit entirely disconnected from both the texts themselves and the cultures that produced them.
he isn't looking at any of the jewish interpretation, though. he is refusing to
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
Evander on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No.
Edit: to be less flippant, the analogy you're trying to draw simply doesn't work. It's not that grass dying is a bad thing for the grass, and that it's merely insignificant to us because grass is insignificant to us. It simply isn't bad for grass to die, not even to the grass itself. It's no different from a river drying up. Is the 'death' of the river a bad thing? No, because rivers aren't sentient.
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpreting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while saying nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
What MrMister said, but also, how do does one go about "proving his own interpretations to be false"?
If I were to define 2+2 to equal 5, then prove that 2 and 2 do not in fact equal five.
The parallel would be to turn around here and declare that anyone who tries to add 2 and 2 is wrong, because I have shown that one possible answer is wrong.
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No. In the OT, god forms covenants with these mere sentient beings. You don't enter into a contract with your pet. This means he considered humans intelligent and worthy enough to give a shit about. He would just kill them. Many people consider killing animals immoral unless done for a reason. What reason might an all powerful being have?
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No. In the OT, god forms covenants with these mere sentient beings. You don't enter into a contract with your pet. This means he considered humans intelligent and worthy enough to give a shit about. He would just kill them. Many people consider killing animals immoral unless done for a reason. What reason might an all powerful being have?
You want a reason that we apply to animals?
how about over population?
Yeah, God enters into covenants with people, but do any of those covenants say that there will be absolutely no death or evil in the world?
I'm sorry, but existance of bad things in the world doesn't disprove the existance of God. Personally, I find the idea of God, should he exist, being a force of good to be laughable, but the possibility of a neutral God existing is still intact.
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No.
Edit: to be less flippant, the analogy you're trying to draw simply doesn't work. It's not that grass dying is a bad thing for the grass, and that it's merely insignificant to us because grass is insignificant to us. It simply isn't bad for grass to die, not even to the grass itself. It's no different from a river drying up. Is the 'death' of the river a bad thing? No, because rivers aren't sentient.
If you want to carry this train through to the end you need to prove that pople dying is a bad thing.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Edit: to be less flippant, the analogy you're trying to draw simply doesn't work. It's not that grass dying is a bad thing for the grass, and that it's merely insignificant to us because grass is insignificant to us. It simply isn't bad for grass to die, not even to the grass itself. It's no different from a river drying up. Is the 'death' of the river a bad thing? No, because rivers aren't sentient.
If you want to carry this train through to the end you need to prove that pople dying is a bad thing.
Well, this certainly got laughable fast.
Edit: while I'm at it, should I prove that we're not in the matrix?
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No. In the OT, god forms covenants with these mere sentient beings. You don't enter into a contract with your pet. This means he considered humans intelligent and worthy enough to give a shit about. He would just kill them. Many people consider killing animals immoral unless done for a reason. What reason might an all powerful being have?
You want a reason that we apply to animals?
how about over population?
Yeah, God enters into covenants with people, but do any of those covenants say that there will be absolutely no death or evil in the world?
I'm sorry, but existance of bad things in the world doesn't disprove the existance of God. Personally, I find the idea of God, should he exist, being a force of good to be laughable, but the possibility of a neutral God existing is still intact.
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
I guess someone should tell sharks and many of the birds that evolved on islands.
Also, Qingu. You seem to be calling God an asshole based on your own concept of morality. Keep in mind that with a deity of omniscient power and whatnot, he's sorta above your human definitions of morality.
Because you say so?
...right.
That you even exist is due to him. Your ability to act, think, and rebel against him was given to you, by him. It seems somewhat suspect then to try and base an argument on "god's a dick!"
By that logic, abusive parents can't possibly exist.
Right. The thing we can't define, can't even call a "thing" is above my definitions of morality, because I say so. You're trying to define an all powerful being that may exist in a way that no one can even possibly get near comprehending. Organized religions like Christianity and Judaism are based on texts and actions given to us by that god in order to help define what we need to try and do to live with one another in harmony.
And come on. You know full well that abusive parent thing is bullshit, unless you're really about 12 and can't comprehend the arguments here.
Sure, if you wanted to define god as a human in mindset, then yes, God's kinda a dick. At the same time however, a parent that punishes you for breaking a window isn't a dick, they're just trying to teach you a lesson. Don't break shit. Killed a guy? God smites you. Everyone else, don't kill people.
And Fencingsax, I am amazed you happen to have a knowledge of god's complex plan. Especially because you seem to have a way to simplify it. Of course, you don't know what the outcome of the plan is, or any steps of the plan, but the plan is overly complex? Well, alright.
Sure, if you wanted to define god as a human in mindset, then yes, God's kinda a dick. At the same time however, a parent that punishes you for breaking a window isn't a dick, they're just trying to teach you a lesson. Don't break shit. Killed a guy? God smites you. Everyone else, don't kill people.
What if everyone else includes only one family and the person being smited includes nearly all of humanity? That isn't teaching a lesson. That is committing genocide. What if you are punished for the sin of being a Palestinian because God decided that every person except for virgins are to be killed when one of his chosen people's invades a city in the OT? What if the sin is that God just felt like proving a point? What the hell did Job's family do to deserve death?
Also, Qingu. You seem to be calling God an asshole based on your own concept of morality. Keep in mind that with a deity of omniscient power and whatnot, he's sorta above your human definitions of morality.
Because you say so?
...right.
That you even exist is due to him. Your ability to act, think, and rebel against him was given to you, by him. It seems somewhat suspect then to try and base an argument on "god's a dick!"
By that logic, abusive parents can't possibly exist.
Right. The thing we can't define, can't even call a "thing" is above my definitions of morality, because I say so. You're trying to define an all powerful being that may exist in a way that no one can even possibly get near comprehending. Organized religions like Christianity and Judaism are based on texts and actions given to us by that god in order to help define what we need to try and do to live with one another in harmony.
And come on. You know full well that abusive parent thing is bullshit, unless you're really about 12 and can't comprehend the arguments here.
Sure, if you wanted to define god as a human in mindset, then yes, God's kinda a dick. At the same time however, a parent that punishes you for breaking a window isn't a dick, they're just trying to teach you a lesson. Don't break shit. Killed a guy? God smites you. Everyone else, don't kill people.
And Fencingsax, I am amazed you happen to have a knowledge of god's complex plan. Especially because you seem to have a way to simplify it. Of course, you don't know what the outcome of the plan is, or any steps of the plan, but the plan is overly complex? Well, alright.
I don't see why having a master plan would make God any less of a dick. If I kick a kid in the kidney's and then buy him an ice cream cone, that doesn't preclude me from being a cock of the first degree. Regardless of whether the kid knew he was getting an ice cream, he still probably would have declined rather then be kicked in the kidney. The fact that he didn't know what he would be getting afterward (if anything) probably just made it that much worse for him.
In otherwords, who gives a fuck about this master plan we have no evidence of if you live every day in pain.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
However, God does not merely want us to be obedient. God threatens us if we are disobedient. In the Old Testament, he threatens us with a litany of earthly tortures, including boils, slavery, and eating our children (Deuteronomy 28). In the New Testament, he threatens us with hellfire, and all the tortures of Revelation.
I..what?! The hellfire thing is purely an invention of the puritan reformation, trying to put fear into people's faith. And Revelation isn't a threat. It's a "hey, this is gonna happen when the world ends and when Jesus comes back." It's also somewhat widely believed to actually be a reference to the Romans, and not a foretelling of the end of the world.
Puritans? Christians have been talking about hellfire since, well, since Jesus.
Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17)
Condemned to what? Jesus spells it out in parable form:
Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40)
And in explicit threats on the sermon on the mount:
You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murderâ€; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.†But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,* you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister,* you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You foolâ€, you will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21)
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.†But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:27)
Jesus describes hell, Gehenna, as a place of fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Revelation—while I'll agree is supposed to be describing the imminent destruction of Rome—nevertheless describes a "second death" for all those people the Christians didn't like:
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)
This is not some Puritan invention, it is all over the Bible and all over the earliest writings of Christians. Iraneus, one of the earliest church fathers, believed unbelievers are destined for eternal torture in hell:
thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,' these shall be damned for ever....
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,28,2 (A.D. 180).
(quote fount here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/hell.html)
The fear of hell has always been an integral part of Christianity. And before "hell" or "afterlife" were invented, fear of worldly punishment was an integral part of Old Testament Judaism. Again, read Deuteronomy 28, where Yahweh threatens anyone who even breaks a single commandment with disease, rape, slavery, and eating the flesh of you're children, and promises to "take delight" in bringing you to destruction.
The entire Judeo-Christian tradition is based on fear and blind obedience.
Also, Qingu. You seem to be calling God an asshole based on your own concept of morality. Keep in mind that with a deity of omniscient power and whatnot, he's sorta above your human definitions of morality. That you even exist is due to him. Your ability to act, think, and rebel against him was given to you, by him. It seems somewhat suspect then to try and base an arguement on "god's a dick!"
Assuming, of course, that this particular Mesopotamian mythological tradition actually turns out to be true. I've seen Christians waste no time decrying the capricious natures of so-called pagan deities they don't believe in. Are you saying we're not allowed to critique fictional characters who religious people claim created us?
and YHWH isn't accurate for a variety of reasons, least of which is the fact that the "W" part of the word is the letter "vav" which makes a V sound.
And yet I believe I've seen you call Jesus "Jesus" instead of "Yeshua." (Jesus being an anglicanization of the Greek of the Hebrew)
The deity's name has been variously anglicanized as Jehovah, Yudhehvuvheh, or Yahweh. I guess you could say Yahveh to be really accurate but I like the way Yahweh sounds the best.
Sure, if you wanted to define god as a human in mindset, then yes, God's kinda a dick. At the same time however, a parent that punishes you for breaking a window isn't a dick, they're just trying to teach you a lesson. Don't break shit. Killed a guy? God smites you. Everyone else, don't kill people.
What if everyone else includes only one family and the person being smited includes nearly all of humanity? That isn't teaching a lesson. That is committing genocide. What if you are punished for the sin of being a Palestinian because God decided that every person except for virgins are to be killed when one of his chosen people's invades a city in the OT? What if the sin is that God just felt like proving a point? What the hell did Lot's family do to deserve death?
Good point. I will say that, while I haven't done an extensive amount of research into those specific topics, I would be inclined to say that the virgin killing is a justification written down by the perpetrators. Noah's ark is an example that would simply be a story. It's doubtful that the world was actually covered in water while God killed the rest of humanity. Even if, who's to say Noah's the only one that survived? Surely others could make boats. Quite a lot of biblical stories should not be taken literally. Lot's sins passing on to his family may not be exactly punishment for his family. Surely for Lot, seeing his family killed would be bad, but for his family, who's to say they weren't immediately whisked up to a glorious old heaven? There's plenty of instances where saints/martyrs and whomever else die as an act of God's love and mercy. However, excluding the possibility of those things, I can't honestly say I can answer you otherwise for those.
All jewish names for God that are used outsdie of religious services are considered proxies. Jewish law prohibits saying or writing God's name directly outside of religious service.
Correction : Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God that is nto used in regualr conversation
Others like Hashem, litteraly translated to "The Name" not "God"
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpretting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while sayign nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm saying nothing about the source material, Evander? I think I'm the only one to cite and discuss specific Biblical verses in this entire thread.
If you'd like to discuss or defend the Bible, feel free to jump in at any point.
As to "discrediting Judaism," as Judaism is ultimately based on the authority of the Bible, any attack on the Bible is generally an attack on Judaism, as well as Christianity. I'm certainly not singling out Judaism here though, and it's funny that a self-proclaimed Jew who doesn't even believe in God is trying to take me to task for it. I'm still confused as to why you haven't traced your ancestry and culture back to the Mesopotamian myths on which the Biblical stories are based.
Good point. I will say that, while I haven't done an extensive amount of research into those specific topics,
You haven't done a lot of research into the topic of whether or not the god you worship is an imaginary asshole?
Why on earth do you believe in him then?
I would be inclined to say that the virgin killing is a justification written down by the perpetrators.
So you don't believe your God when he lays out the exact commandment (kill all the men and take the women and children as "booty") in Deuteronomy 20:10 as instructions for conquering cities?
How on earth could this be a "justificaiton written down by the perpetrators" if they were just following your God's commandments? For that matter, why are you even calling them "perpetrators" as if they'd done something wrong?
Noah's ark is an example that would simply be a story. It's doubtful that the world was actually covered in water while God killed the rest of humanity. Even if, who's to say Noah's the only one that survived? Surely others could make boats.
And according to other myths, other people did make boats: Atrahasis (in the Atrahasis epic) and Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh epic), under the exact same circumstances as Noah. They even had roofs sealed with pitch, and after the flood they even made nice-smelling sacrifices to the gods, causing the gods to regret flooding the earth and institute new rules for humanity to follow.
The question is, why is this "story" that's obviously modelled after Mesopotamian mythology in a book you apparently believe is inspired or written by an omnipotent, omniscient God?
Quite a lot of biblical stories should not be taken literally.
How do you determine which ones should not be taken literally? The people at the time these stories were written certainly believed the world was flat, with an undersea ocean (fountains of the deep) and an above-sky ocean (windows of heaven); it was a very common cosmology reflected in Mesopotamian, Greek, Hindu, and Egyptian culture.
Let me guess, you don't think we should take certain Biblical stories literally because we know now that they aren't true. Sort of like how we know now that people can't come back from the dead—so we shouldn't take the whole Resurrection story literally.
Lot's sins passing on to his family may not be exactly punishment for his family. Surely for Lot, seeing his family killed would be bad, but for his family, who's to say they weren't immediately whisked up to a glorious old heaven?
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about here. Do you mean Adam? As far as I know Lot's sins weren't passed on to his family (Lot was the one who offered up his virgin daughters to the mob for them to rape, as is a father's right according to your God's wonderful laws).
However, God does not merely want us to be obedient. God threatens us if we are disobedient. In the Old Testament, he threatens us with a litany of earthly tortures, including boils, slavery, and eating our children (Deuteronomy 28). In the New Testament, he threatens us with hellfire, and all the tortures of Revelation.
I..what?! The hellfire thing is purely an invention of the puritan reformation, trying to put fear into people's faith. And Revelation isn't a threat. It's a "hey, this is gonna happen when the world ends and when Jesus comes back." It's also somewhat widely believed to actually be a reference to the Romans, and not a foretelling of the end of the world.
Puritans? Christians have been talking about hellfire since, well, since Jesus.
Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17)
Well, alright. This doesn't mention anything about a fiery hell death. In fact it recons more to that you are judged.
Condemned to what? Jesus spells it out in parable form:
Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40)
This doesn't mention hell or the afterlife. Just that the sinners will be punished, in a "furnace of fire."
And in explicit threats on the sermon on the mount:
You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murderâ€; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.†But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,* you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister,* you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You foolâ€, you will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21)
"Gehenna (22) - "'Valley of the Sons of Hinnom,' a ravine south of Jerusalem. There, according to later Jewish popular belief, the Last Judgment was to take place. In the gospels it is the place of punishment in the next life, 'hell'"(p. 153)"
I was wondering about the usage of hell there. In the greek, it said Gehenna apparently.
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.†But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:27)
Jesus describes hell, Gehenna, as a place of fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Revelation—while I'll agree is supposed to be describing the imminent destruction of Rome—nevertheless describes a "second death" for all those people the Christians didn't like:
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)
Where exactly does Jesus say that Hell and the fiery gnashing place are the same thing? As in, the afterlife that we see nowadays? Current catholic belief at the very least is that Hell is not a place where you writhe in fire and sulfur, but is a place where you are severed entirely from God. Every single solitary person of faith I have ever asked has confirmed that, and then pointed out to me that the hellfire movement was notably started by the puritans. I will gladly admit I'm wrong, but I have quite a few people of actual prestige claiming what I stated.
Also, Qingu. You seem to be calling God an asshole based on your own concept of morality. Keep in mind that with a deity of omniscient power and whatnot, he's sorta above your human definitions of morality. That you even exist is due to him. Your ability to act, think, and rebel against him was given to you, by him. It seems somewhat suspect then to try and base an arguement on "god's a dick!"
Assuming, of course, that this particular Mesopotamian mythological tradition actually turns out to be true. I've seen Christians waste no time decrying the capricious natures of so-called pagan deities they don't believe in. Are you saying we're not allowed to critique fictional characters who religious people claim created us?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that intrinsically your argument to call something you can't comprehend a dick is a bad idea. It's like trying to say that someone you've never seen, met, or heard of before from another country you've never heard of before is an asshole. Perhaps that person shows up and their greeting is to flick you in the nose. If that happens on a street in new york, you'd think the guy was nuts. He'd just think he was saying hello. God is an unknown in that manner. That was a weird analogy, but I hope the point got across.
Well, alright. This doesn't mention anything about a fiery hell death. In fact it recons more to that you are judged.
Not judged, condemned. Why are we condemned? Because we don't follow all the OT laws.
That's right. God wants to condemn you because you wouldn't want your virgin little sister to marry her rapist per Dt. 22:28.
This doesn't mention hell or the afterlife. Just that the sinners will be punished, in a "furnace of fire."
It's a parable for hell. Jesus makes the threat of hellfire explicit on the sermon on the mound, saying sinners will the thrown into the "hell of fire." Your cited source about Gehenna agrees with me.
I notice that you ignored the Iraneus quote about hell and condemnation as well. It's not the only one I could dig up, by the way.
Where exactly does Jesus say that Hell and the fiery gnashing place are the same thing? As in, the afterlife that we see nowadays?
It seems perfectly obvious that it's the same thing, but even if it's not, so what? So God not only tortures you in a physical body in the last judgment but also throws you into hell in the afterlife? That doesn't reflect much better on your deity.
The general point here is that your religion is based on fear of some looming threat of punishment or torture, seemingly one that involves fire. Whether or not that takes place in the "afterlife" or in the "last judgment" is sort of a tangent to that general point.
Current catholic belief at the very least is that Hell is not a place where you writhe in fire and sulfur, but is a place where you are severed entirely from God. Every single solitary person of faith I have ever asked has confirmed that, and then pointed out to me that the hellfire movement was notably started by the puritans. I will gladly admit I'm wrong, but I have quite a few people of actual prestige claiming what I stated.
They are wrong.
And Catholics aren't especially known for their fidelity to literal Biblical scripture. Didn't your Pope-man jump on the evolution bandwagon?
No, I'm saying that intrinsically your argument to call something you can't comprehend a dick is a bad idea.
Why can't I comprehend Yahweh?
I certainly feel like I can comprehend Zeus, Marduk, and Shiva and make judgments on their characters accordingly. How is Yahweh any different?
It's like trying to say that someone you've never seen, met, or heard of before from another country you've never heard of before is an asshole.
No, it's like saying a fictional character you've read about is an asshole.
Do you think the emperor from Star Wars is an asshole? There you go, you're in the same boat as me calling Yahweh an asshole.
Perhaps that person shows up and their greeting is to flick you in the nose. If that happens on a street in new york, you'd think the guy was nuts. He'd just think he was saying hello. God is an unknown in that manner. That was a weird analogy, but I hope the point got across.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about....
Good point. I will say that, while I haven't done an extensive amount of research into those specific topics,
You haven't done a lot of research into the topic of whether or not the god you worship is an imaginary asshole?
Why on earth do you believe in him then?
Oh that's rich. Yes, I clearly stated my religious beliefs already for you. For all you know I'm a pastafarian. I am not trying to defend MY personal beliefs.
I would be inclined to say that the virgin killing is a justification written down by the perpetrators.
So you don't believe your God when he lays out the exact commandment (kill all the men and take the women and children as "booty") in Deuteronomy 20:10 as instructions for conquering cities?
How on earth could this be a "justificaiton written down by the perpetrators" if they were just following your God's commandments? For that matter, why are you even calling them "perpetrators" as if they'd done something wrong?
[/quote]
That's the point of it being a justification. The Bible was penned by humans. Not God himself. Surely it has fabrications and story "enhancements." The idea here being that the people who were so devoutly blinded by faith that they would believe whatever their leader told them. Such as "I JUST GOT A MESSAGE FROM GOD GUYS!"
Noah's ark is an example that would simply be a story. It's doubtful that the world was actually covered in water while God killed the rest of humanity. Even if, who's to say Noah's the only one that survived? Surely others could make boats.
And according to other myths, other people did make boats: Atrahasis (in the Atrahasis epic) and Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh epic), under the exact same circumstances as Noah. They even had roofs sealed with pitch, and after the flood they even made nice-smelling sacrifices to the gods, causing the gods to regret flooding the earth and institute new rules for humanity to follow.
The question is, why is this "story" that's obviously modelled after Mesopotamian mythology in a book you apparently believe is inspired or written by an omnipotent, omniscient God?[/quote] Well, out of a million different answers for this question, the first one that comes to mind is, maybe God didn't just tell Noah to panic, because Noah restarting the entire human race himself was a bit hard. Assuming it's a truth, and not a story.
Quite a lot of biblical stories should not be taken literally.
How do you determine which ones should not be taken literally? The people at the time these stories were written certainly believed the world was flat, with an undersea ocean (fountains of the deep) and an above-sky ocean (windows of heaven); it was a very common cosmology reflected in Mesopotamian, Greek, Hindu, and Egyptian culture.
Let me guess, you don't think we should take certain Biblical stories literally because we know now that they aren't true. Sort of like how we know now that people can't come back from the dead—so we shouldn't take the whole Resurrection story literally. [/quote]Who dumped this can of worms on the ground? We know Jonah wasn't actually in a whale's stomach for three days. Because a human can't survive. Jesus coming back to life? Entirely difference circumstance. That's why it's such a special event, because it proved that Jesus himself was divine. As in, Jesus is God. Jonah was not God.
Lot's sins passing on to his family may not be exactly punishment for his family. Surely for Lot, seeing his family killed would be bad, but for his family, who's to say they weren't immediately whisked up to a glorious old heaven?
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about here. Do you mean Adam? As far as I know Lot's sins weren't passed on to his family (Lot was the one who offered up his virgin daughters to the mob for them to rape, as is a father's right according to your God's wonderful laws).[/QUOTE]I was trying to type something up for this, but I don't know enough about Lot off the top of my head to do it justice. So I won't try.
Current catholic belief at the very least is that Hell is not a place where you writhe in fire and sulfur, but is a place where you are severed entirely from God. Every single solitary person of faith I have ever asked has confirmed that, and then pointed out to me that the hellfire movement was notably started by the puritans. I will gladly admit I'm wrong, but I have quite a few people of actual prestige claiming what I stated.
They are wrong.
And Catholics aren't especially known for their fidelity to literal Biblical scripture. Didn't your Pope-man jump on the evolution bandwagon?
And with that, I will step out of this thread. I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
Because prayer works.
Right.
Excuse me. Pray, study, read the Bible. One can consider studying the Bible an act of prayer.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
And with that, I will step out of this thread. I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
People who spent large parts of their lives in seminaries and professors who studied the subject also used to believe in witches.
I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
Because prayer works.
Right.
Excuse me. Pray, study, read the Bible. One can consider studying the Bible an act of prayer.
People can pray, study, and read the Koran. doesn't mean they're right. Doesn't mean it's a means to be close to the truth.
And with that, I will step out of this thread. I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
People who spent large parts of their lives in seminaries and professors who studied the subject used to also believe in witches.
And the same thing can be said of pretty much any religion. Just because there are Buddhist and Hindu monasteries doesn't mean that I don't think reincarnation is simply wrong.
Posts
There is no translation of his name. Call him the Jewish God or the Christian God (which are two seperate concepts of God) if you want to differentiate him from other gods.
and YHWH isn't accurate for a variety of reasons, least of which is the fact that the "W" part of the word is the letter "vav" which makes a V sound.
D=
What?
edit: Evander, he isn't proving his own interpretations 'false.' His goal, at any rate, is to establish that his interpretations are the textually correct ones, and to show that the textually correct version is horrifying.
So death is irrelevant if no pain is felt?
I'll just use Jehova. Good enough for the Romans, good enough for me.
That, or he's saying that Judaism's interpretations of its source material are total bullshit entirely disconnected from both the texts themselves and the cultures that produced them.
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
Well, except for certain tile-based obstacles, of course.
What MrMister said, but also, how do does one go about "proving his own interpretations to be false"?
he isn't looking at any of the jewish interpretation, though. he is refusing to
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No.
Edit: to be less flippant, the analogy you're trying to draw simply doesn't work. It's not that grass dying is a bad thing for the grass, and that it's merely insignificant to us because grass is insignificant to us. It simply isn't bad for grass to die, not even to the grass itself. It's no different from a river drying up. Is the 'death' of the river a bad thing? No, because rivers aren't sentient.
If I were to define 2+2 to equal 5, then prove that 2 and 2 do not in fact equal five.
The parallel would be to turn around here and declare that anyone who tries to add 2 and 2 is wrong, because I have shown that one possible answer is wrong.
No. In the OT, god forms covenants with these mere sentient beings. You don't enter into a contract with your pet. This means he considered humans intelligent and worthy enough to give a shit about. He would just kill them. Many people consider killing animals immoral unless done for a reason. What reason might an all powerful being have?
Why not?
You want a reason that we apply to animals?
how about over population?
Yeah, God enters into covenants with people, but do any of those covenants say that there will be absolutely no death or evil in the world?
I'm sorry, but existance of bad things in the world doesn't disprove the existance of God. Personally, I find the idea of God, should he exist, being a force of good to be laughable, but the possibility of a neutral God existing is still intact.
If you want to carry this train through to the end you need to prove that pople dying is a bad thing.
Well, this certainly got laughable fast.
Edit: while I'm at it, should I prove that we're not in the matrix?
God specifically commanded humanity to populate the Earth.
I guess someone should tell sharks and many of the birds that evolved on islands.
Right. The thing we can't define, can't even call a "thing" is above my definitions of morality, because I say so. You're trying to define an all powerful being that may exist in a way that no one can even possibly get near comprehending. Organized religions like Christianity and Judaism are based on texts and actions given to us by that god in order to help define what we need to try and do to live with one another in harmony.
And come on. You know full well that abusive parent thing is bullshit, unless you're really about 12 and can't comprehend the arguments here.
Sure, if you wanted to define god as a human in mindset, then yes, God's kinda a dick. At the same time however, a parent that punishes you for breaking a window isn't a dick, they're just trying to teach you a lesson. Don't break shit. Killed a guy? God smites you. Everyone else, don't kill people.
And Fencingsax, I am amazed you happen to have a knowledge of god's complex plan. Especially because you seem to have a way to simplify it. Of course, you don't know what the outcome of the plan is, or any steps of the plan, but the plan is overly complex? Well, alright.
What if everyone else includes only one family and the person being smited includes nearly all of humanity? That isn't teaching a lesson. That is committing genocide. What if you are punished for the sin of being a Palestinian because God decided that every person except for virgins are to be killed when one of his chosen people's invades a city in the OT? What if the sin is that God just felt like proving a point? What the hell did Job's family do to deserve death?
I don't see why having a master plan would make God any less of a dick. If I kick a kid in the kidney's and then buy him an ice cream cone, that doesn't preclude me from being a cock of the first degree. Regardless of whether the kid knew he was getting an ice cream, he still probably would have declined rather then be kicked in the kidney. The fact that he didn't know what he would be getting afterward (if anything) probably just made it that much worse for him.
In otherwords, who gives a fuck about this master plan we have no evidence of if you live every day in pain.
Condemned to what? Jesus spells it out in parable form:
And in explicit threats on the sermon on the mount:
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.†But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:27)
Jesus describes hell, Gehenna, as a place of fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Revelation—while I'll agree is supposed to be describing the imminent destruction of Rome—nevertheless describes a "second death" for all those people the Christians didn't like:
This is not some Puritan invention, it is all over the Bible and all over the earliest writings of Christians. Iraneus, one of the earliest church fathers, believed unbelievers are destined for eternal torture in hell:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,28,2 (A.D. 180).
(quote fount here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/hell.html)
The fear of hell has always been an integral part of Christianity. And before "hell" or "afterlife" were invented, fear of worldly punishment was an integral part of Old Testament Judaism. Again, read Deuteronomy 28, where Yahweh threatens anyone who even breaks a single commandment with disease, rape, slavery, and eating the flesh of you're children, and promises to "take delight" in bringing you to destruction.
The entire Judeo-Christian tradition is based on fear and blind obedience.
Assuming, of course, that this particular Mesopotamian mythological tradition actually turns out to be true. I've seen Christians waste no time decrying the capricious natures of so-called pagan deities they don't believe in. Are you saying we're not allowed to critique fictional characters who religious people claim created us?
The deity's name has been variously anglicanized as Jehovah, Yudhehvuvheh, or Yahweh. I guess you could say Yahveh to be really accurate but I like the way Yahweh sounds the best.
Good point. I will say that, while I haven't done an extensive amount of research into those specific topics, I would be inclined to say that the virgin killing is a justification written down by the perpetrators. Noah's ark is an example that would simply be a story. It's doubtful that the world was actually covered in water while God killed the rest of humanity. Even if, who's to say Noah's the only one that survived? Surely others could make boats. Quite a lot of biblical stories should not be taken literally. Lot's sins passing on to his family may not be exactly punishment for his family. Surely for Lot, seeing his family killed would be bad, but for his family, who's to say they weren't immediately whisked up to a glorious old heaven? There's plenty of instances where saints/martyrs and whomever else die as an act of God's love and mercy. However, excluding the possibility of those things, I can't honestly say I can answer you otherwise for those.
Correction : Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God that is nto used in regualr conversation
Others like Hashem, litteraly translated to "The Name" not "God"
If you'd like to discuss or defend the Bible, feel free to jump in at any point.
As to "discrediting Judaism," as Judaism is ultimately based on the authority of the Bible, any attack on the Bible is generally an attack on Judaism, as well as Christianity. I'm certainly not singling out Judaism here though, and it's funny that a self-proclaimed Jew who doesn't even believe in God is trying to take me to task for it. I'm still confused as to why you haven't traced your ancestry and culture back to the Mesopotamian myths on which the Biblical stories are based.
Why on earth do you believe in him then?
So you don't believe your God when he lays out the exact commandment (kill all the men and take the women and children as "booty") in Deuteronomy 20:10 as instructions for conquering cities?
How on earth could this be a "justificaiton written down by the perpetrators" if they were just following your God's commandments? For that matter, why are you even calling them "perpetrators" as if they'd done something wrong?
And according to other myths, other people did make boats: Atrahasis (in the Atrahasis epic) and Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh epic), under the exact same circumstances as Noah. They even had roofs sealed with pitch, and after the flood they even made nice-smelling sacrifices to the gods, causing the gods to regret flooding the earth and institute new rules for humanity to follow.
The question is, why is this "story" that's obviously modelled after Mesopotamian mythology in a book you apparently believe is inspired or written by an omnipotent, omniscient God?
How do you determine which ones should not be taken literally? The people at the time these stories were written certainly believed the world was flat, with an undersea ocean (fountains of the deep) and an above-sky ocean (windows of heaven); it was a very common cosmology reflected in Mesopotamian, Greek, Hindu, and Egyptian culture.
Let me guess, you don't think we should take certain Biblical stories literally because we know now that they aren't true. Sort of like how we know now that people can't come back from the dead—so we shouldn't take the whole Resurrection story literally.
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about here. Do you mean Adam? As far as I know Lot's sins weren't passed on to his family (Lot was the one who offered up his virgin daughters to the mob for them to rape, as is a father's right according to your God's wonderful laws).
This doesn't mention hell or the afterlife. Just that the sinners will be punished, in a "furnace of fire."
"Gehenna (22) - "'Valley of the Sons of Hinnom,' a ravine south of Jerusalem. There, according to later Jewish popular belief, the Last Judgment was to take place. In the gospels it is the place of punishment in the next life, 'hell'"(p. 153)"
I was wondering about the usage of hell there. In the greek, it said Gehenna apparently. Where exactly does Jesus say that Hell and the fiery gnashing place are the same thing? As in, the afterlife that we see nowadays? Current catholic belief at the very least is that Hell is not a place where you writhe in fire and sulfur, but is a place where you are severed entirely from God. Every single solitary person of faith I have ever asked has confirmed that, and then pointed out to me that the hellfire movement was notably started by the puritans. I will gladly admit I'm wrong, but I have quite a few people of actual prestige claiming what I stated.
Assuming, of course, that this particular Mesopotamian mythological tradition actually turns out to be true. I've seen Christians waste no time decrying the capricious natures of so-called pagan deities they don't believe in. Are you saying we're not allowed to critique fictional characters who religious people claim created us?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that intrinsically your argument to call something you can't comprehend a dick is a bad idea. It's like trying to say that someone you've never seen, met, or heard of before from another country you've never heard of before is an asshole. Perhaps that person shows up and their greeting is to flick you in the nose. If that happens on a street in new york, you'd think the guy was nuts. He'd just think he was saying hello. God is an unknown in that manner. That was a weird analogy, but I hope the point got across.
That's right. God wants to condemn you because you wouldn't want your virgin little sister to marry her rapist per Dt. 22:28.
It's a parable for hell. Jesus makes the threat of hellfire explicit on the sermon on the mound, saying sinners will the thrown into the "hell of fire." Your cited source about Gehenna agrees with me.
I notice that you ignored the Iraneus quote about hell and condemnation as well. It's not the only one I could dig up, by the way.
It seems perfectly obvious that it's the same thing, but even if it's not, so what? So God not only tortures you in a physical body in the last judgment but also throws you into hell in the afterlife? That doesn't reflect much better on your deity.
The general point here is that your religion is based on fear of some looming threat of punishment or torture, seemingly one that involves fire. Whether or not that takes place in the "afterlife" or in the "last judgment" is sort of a tangent to that general point.
They are wrong.
And Catholics aren't especially known for their fidelity to literal Biblical scripture. Didn't your Pope-man jump on the evolution bandwagon?
Why can't I comprehend Yahweh?
I certainly feel like I can comprehend Zeus, Marduk, and Shiva and make judgments on their characters accordingly. How is Yahweh any different?
No, it's like saying a fictional character you've read about is an asshole.
Do you think the emperor from Star Wars is an asshole? There you go, you're in the same boat as me calling Yahweh an asshole.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about....
So you don't believe your God when he lays out the exact commandment (kill all the men and take the women and children as "booty") in Deuteronomy 20:10 as instructions for conquering cities?
How on earth could this be a "justificaiton written down by the perpetrators" if they were just following your God's commandments? For that matter, why are you even calling them "perpetrators" as if they'd done something wrong?
[/quote]
That's the point of it being a justification. The Bible was penned by humans. Not God himself. Surely it has fabrications and story "enhancements." The idea here being that the people who were so devoutly blinded by faith that they would believe whatever their leader told them. Such as "I JUST GOT A MESSAGE FROM GOD GUYS!"
And according to other myths, other people did make boats: Atrahasis (in the Atrahasis epic) and Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh epic), under the exact same circumstances as Noah. They even had roofs sealed with pitch, and after the flood they even made nice-smelling sacrifices to the gods, causing the gods to regret flooding the earth and institute new rules for humanity to follow.
The question is, why is this "story" that's obviously modelled after Mesopotamian mythology in a book you apparently believe is inspired or written by an omnipotent, omniscient God?[/quote] Well, out of a million different answers for this question, the first one that comes to mind is, maybe God didn't just tell Noah to panic, because Noah restarting the entire human race himself was a bit hard. Assuming it's a truth, and not a story.
How do you determine which ones should not be taken literally? The people at the time these stories were written certainly believed the world was flat, with an undersea ocean (fountains of the deep) and an above-sky ocean (windows of heaven); it was a very common cosmology reflected in Mesopotamian, Greek, Hindu, and Egyptian culture.
Let me guess, you don't think we should take certain Biblical stories literally because we know now that they aren't true. Sort of like how we know now that people can't come back from the dead—so we shouldn't take the whole Resurrection story literally. [/quote]Who dumped this can of worms on the ground? We know Jonah wasn't actually in a whale's stomach for three days. Because a human can't survive. Jesus coming back to life? Entirely difference circumstance. That's why it's such a special event, because it proved that Jesus himself was divine. As in, Jesus is God. Jonah was not God.
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about here. Do you mean Adam? As far as I know Lot's sins weren't passed on to his family (Lot was the one who offered up his virgin daughters to the mob for them to rape, as is a father's right according to your God's wonderful laws).[/QUOTE]I was trying to type something up for this, but I don't know enough about Lot off the top of my head to do it justice. So I won't try.
And with that, I will step out of this thread. I am flat out amazed that you would simply flat out drop the idea that men who have spent large parts of their lives in seminaries, women that do nothing but pray all day and professors that have studied the subject their entire lives are simply wrong.
Also, stop saying "Your God." That's bad form.
Because prayer works.
Right.
Conviction =/= being close to the truth.
Excuse me. Pray, study, read the Bible. One can consider studying the Bible an act of prayer.
People who spent large parts of their lives in seminaries and professors who studied the subject also used to believe in witches.
People can pray, study, and read the Koran. doesn't mean they're right. Doesn't mean it's a means to be close to the truth.
And the same thing can be said of pretty much any religion. Just because there are Buddhist and Hindu monasteries doesn't mean that I don't think reincarnation is simply wrong.