T1B

Van wrote:What'd the Cubs ever do to God?

It's the fan base. Have you ever been to a Cubs game? Those douchetools make The Crew seem pretty cool.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Van wrote:What'd the Cubs ever do to God?

It's the fan base. Have you ever been to a Cubs game? Those douchetools make The Crew seem pretty cool.

Very true. Went to the Cubs/Stros at Wrigley and sat in the bleachers with my Houston hat on. The "act" those pussies put up is hilarious. And that beer? Old Style? Fucking AWFUL!

Okay, Wrigley Field Bleacher Fan may suck, but he can't be unique in his suckitude, and we're talking over one hundred years here! What about WWII era Cubs Fan, sitting there in his overcoat and fedora? Surely they haven't all been douchetools.

I'd say the obvious answer is that God is a Cards fan, except He's obviously a Yankees fan.

I believe it was Collin Cowherd that I heard say "What kind of person brags about being a Cubs season ticket holder? Most of their games are during the day. Know what I call a person who can go to all those day games? Umemployed loser."

IndyFrisco wrote:Very true. Went to the Cubs/Stros at Wrigley and sat in the bleachers with my Houston hat on. The "act" those pussies put up is hilarious. And that beer? Old Style? Fucking AWFUL!

Oh yeah. Laughing at dudes with their faux hawks, surfer shorts, and aviator sunglasses hurling drunken insults at players that were traded two years ago is all part of the experience. So is the swill. I don't mind it.

I can acquire a taste for most beers after one or two. That stuff was just so skunky and that was fresh out of the tap. I know that "old" is part of the name of the beer. I didn't realize it was supposed to taste old...

Old Stale is to beer what Annie is to feminine pulchritude.

IndyFrisco wrote:Know what I call a person who can go to all those day games? Umemployed loser.

Even more proof Cowherd is a bonafide, Grade-A, Gobbles-level dumbfuck. Stale take, plus unemployed losers can't afford to go to Cubs games. Even jizz-moppers working the night shift would have a tough time.

IndyFrisco wrote:I can acquire a taste for most beers after one or two. That stuff was just so skunky and that was fresh out of the tap. I know that "old" is part of the name of the beer. I didn't realize it was supposed to taste old...

It's bad, don't get me wrong. But strictly within the context of drinking Old Style at a ballgame in Chicago, I can handle it. Really though, $10.75 for 12 ounces of any domestic brand of urine can be tough to swallow in more ways than one.

Old Style is going for $10.25/12oz at Wrigley? Christ almighty.

No, it was hyperbole.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Really though, $10.75 for 12 ounces of any domestic brand of urine can be tough to swallow in more ways than one.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Old Style is going for $10.25/12oz at Wrigley? Christ almighty.

Great comprehension skills, dumbfuck.

M Club wrote:so this satan of yours is the standard for comparison?

though, are there actually any instances in the bible of satan murdering anyone, let alone facilitating genocide, aside from some delusional eccentrics holding forth about unclean spirits? the only thing i can come up with are job's sons and daughters, and even that was only done with g-d's blessing. comparing god and satan's work in the bible, it stands to reason that instances of large-scale death are probably your god's fault.

One might produce this take if they cut Genesis 3 out of the Bible.

Before I spoke to your question about "God's genocide," I stressed the basic message of the Bible.

Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.
Read Genesis chapter 3.

You are free to not believe it, but that is what the Bible tells us.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

huh? you make zero sense.

It was an easy question.

When God came to earth (Jesus Christ), did you have any problem with His conduct?

convert or die, asshole.

I don't advocate any group threatening violence.

you implicitly advocate violence by walking around 'doing the work of your father,' a deity far too busy killing off people to answer many prayers. jesus is basically kim jong-il.

Genesis chapter 3.

Satan brought death, not God.

my dad wasn't afflicted. he was trying to run his house like any delusional fuck who spews forth about the peace and love found in a book full of hate. curiously, he's a lot less 'afflicted' now that he's dropped the jesus charade.

Did he "give up" Christianity, or what is his situation?

Instead of just believing normally, many Christians believe in such strange ways.
It's embarassing.

If a person simply holds to Christ, normalcy settles in.

But SO many Christians say "Christ" but they hold to legalism or "mysticism" of some kind.

While they are no doubt saved, they act as goofy or more goofy than non-believers.



88, I see your post and don't have time to reply right now.

Will respond later.

poptart wrote:Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.

And who brought Satan to mankind?

poptart wrote: Before I spoke to your question about "God's genocide," I stressed the basic message of the Bible.

Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.
Read Genesis chapter 3.

You are free to not believe it, but that is what the Bible tells us.

genesis 3 states the devil brought about genocide? he told some chick to have an apple. pretty adventurous leap there, friend, especially since, as mentioned before, god's the one busy playing hitman throughout the OT, not the devil.

huh? you make zero sense.

It was an easy question.

When God came to earth (Jesus Christ), did you have any problem with His conduct?

restating your pointless question makes even less sense. i was born when jimmy carter was president, so technically i didn't think much about his conduct while he either did or didn't exist, let alone have a problem with it.

convert or die, asshole.

I don't advocate any group threatening violence.

yet you're proclaiming the righteousness of a god who advocates for death of unbelievers. why don't you just start using the word 'infidel.' it's more honest.

Satan brought death, not God.

you make a progressively worse case for believing in your god. satan invented death, yet god liked it so much he had a book commissioned to brag about how many people he killed? what's next, satan gives god a crack rock and you're running around talking about how it's god's creation so who are we to judge his drug addiction?

Instead of just believing normally, many Christians believe in such strange ways.
It's embarassing.

my dad is rather par for the course. he does believe normally, he's just dropped the smug attitude and stopped calling his kids assholes for their lack of faith in a make believe god. it's amazing how wonderful relationships can be when one of you isn't calling the other a hellbound sinner.

88 wrote:I sincerely appreciate the explanations of your faith. They appear completely bizarre to me. Probably as bizarre as my explanations seem to you.

Your explanations are not bizarre to me.
As I noted earlier, I was once in your camp.

Your questions below are all valid and reasonable questions to ask.
As I've said to Felix in the Theology Forum, I have my own questions for God, and some of them are along the lines of 5 questions you posted.

The Bible doesn't tell us all things.
It tells us what God has chosen to reveal to us.

We can all have our own natural human speculations and questions about things not revealed to us.

88 wrote:1. If God created everything, who or what created God? Where did he come from?

I don't know and the Bible does not say.
It tells us that God IS.

Imagine if you had a dog, and that dog was able to think and reason.
He would recognize that you are his master, his god, but he might wonder ... "Ok, well who created 88?"
It's sort of a normal question.

2. And if God created everything, then he also created Satan, correct? Why would God create Satan? And if he didn't create Satan, who did?

God did create satan.
God loved lucifer and lucifer was in a "lofty" position in heaven.
The Bible tells us that lucifer rebelled against God and was cast out to earth, where his mission became - destroy man.

Why exactly this is, is speculation, in that it isn't fully explained in Scripture.

3. If God is all powerful, why doesn't he just whack Satan and be done with it? Does that mean that Satan has power equal to God?

Satan has been defeated.
Those who take Christ participate in that victory.
Those who don't, are dragged around by satan and then follow him to Hell, which was created for satan.

4. Why are God and Satan involved in a spat in the first place? What caused their dispute and why can't they just work it out without jeopardizing the souls of the human beings God created?

You can read some about this in the following places, if you're interested.

Isaiah 14:12-20
Revelation 12:1-9
Ezekiel 28

Satan and his demons were "cast out" of heaven because they stirred up major shit - and they were cast into the earth.
Here, satan set it upon himself to try to destroy God's favorite creation, man.

Why exactly this is, would just be speculation on my part.
So I won't comment.

5. According to Genesis, God created Adam in God's image, and then created Eve from Adam's rib bone. Seems a bit far fetched to me, but I'll accept that as true for the purpose of my last question. God revealed his existence to Adam and Eve and started putting out rules right away (don't eat the forbidden fruit, for example). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian teaching requires that every human being that has ever lived descended from Adam and Eve. So, conceivably, some person in every human being's bloodline must have heard about God at some point in time. Here is where I'm going with this. When a child born to parents in a remote Amazon jungle tribe or an isolated Native American Indian Tribe that has never heard about Christianity dies (maybe the person who knew about God in their bloodline forgot to tell them or died before he could explain it or whatever), what happens to that child's soul? Since that child never "believed" in God and in fact most likely worshipped other Gods, is that child's soul destined to spend eternity in hell? Why would a God that loves ALL of his children damn so many of them to eternel hell without giving them any chance to believe? I could see that end game for a person like me that heard the Word and found it lacking. But it seems harsh to me that God would punish children. Why does he do this?

You can hear different takes on this, and I will just give you my take, based on what I see in the Bible.

In many places we see that God has predestined believers.
God knew the believers prior to creation, we are told.
All people, from Adam, are born spiritually apart from God, and at some point during a believer's life, God allows for us to hear the truth of Christ, take Him, and to gain back the life that satan had taken from us.
We are fully reconciled to God.

If the person living in remote Africa were "one of God's," then God would allow for that person, sometime during his life, to hear the Gospel.
The fact that a remote Africa person does not hear the Gospel means that God already knew that this person would reject the Gospel anyway - and God simply didn't even allow for him to hear it.

John 8:41-44- Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Ye are of your father, the devil.

Satan hijacked humanity in Genesis 3 and people have become his children.

Now why exactly some people are predestined for salvation and others are not would be speculation on my part, because the Bible does not explain exactly why it is.

But again, we are told that God knew the believers before creation.
Perhaps we might logically conclude that he also knew the unbelievers before creation?
And perhaps some things went down before creation, involving people, which would explain why some people become God's children and some people remain satan's children?

Did we already make some kind of a choice prior to creation?

I dunno.
That is speculation.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.

And who brought Satan to mankind?

Adam made a choice to follow satan.

You would have made the same choice.

You are making the same choice.

poptart wrote:

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.

And who brought Satan to mankind?

Adam made a choice to follow satan.

You would have made the same choice.

You are making the same choice.

evading the question. here's another one: did god build a snake pit around his children or did he sit his kids down in a snake pit? report his azz to child services..

Mvscal's question is off line.
We already know that God created satan and that He allowed satan to deceive man and weaken him, such that he chose to sin.


M Club, with all due respect, fundamentally, there is a mental hurdle to overcome.
That being, God is God and you are merely His creation.

And beyond that, you are not deserving of anything.

Romans 3:10-20 is good, but this in particular.

Romans 3:10,11
10 as it is written,
There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 there is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God.

You are not righteous and you do not seek after God.
You, like all of us, seek after yourself.

God does seek after those who are His.
He calls them and brings them back to Life.

And God has saved all that HE has chosen to save.

Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Nobody who is deserving of eternal life perishes.

PSUFAN wrote:And in what matters does Catholic Doctrine hold the Pope infallible, you may ask?

Faith and morality, of course.

For some reading on Papal infallibility . . . http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

As I understand it, the last time Papal infallibility was invoked was as to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (NOT that Mary also was the product of a Virgin Birth, as some have misunderstood it). That doctrine was proclaimed about 160 years ago, so as Tom pointed out, it's not invoked all the time.

Seeing as this pope is hell-bent on pointing out the inanity of this doctrine, doesn't the Friends Meeting House seem like a better place for good folks to congregate of a clear conscience? Make a clean break?

Since you seem so intent on pushing the Quaker faith on disgruntled Catholics, let me say a few things about that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm one who was raised Catholic, but who has significant differences of opinion with the Catholic Church. And those differences predate the disclosure of the extent of the Church's cover-up of molestation cases. For instance, one of my biggest differences of opinion with the Catholic Church is relative to artificial birth control. I won't get into the nitty-gritty of those differences here, that's a topic for another day and another thread. But suffice it to say that the difference of opinion is there.

Even so, I'd never consider becoming a Quaker for a number of different reasons.

One is convenience. I believe the nearest Quaker church to my house is about 1/2 hour drive away. The Catholic Church is less than a mile away.

A second matter is that I, like most people, am a creature of habit at least to some extent. Even after 12 years of marriage, I find the difference between the Catholic Mass I grew up with and the services at my wife's black Baptist church to be jarring. I'd probably find them even more jarring if my wife's church had more than 30 people attending. As for Quaker services, as I understand it they're held in complete silence. So I'd also find that jarring as well, just in the opposite direction.

Then there's the influence of my mother, and it's hard for any of us to break that influence. My mother is one of those old-school Catholics who believes that everyone is either a Catholic or a heathen. That influence is so strong that the first time I set foot in a non-Catholic Church, I half expected the walls to come crashing down on me. If I ever were to formally leave the Catholic Church, it would break my mother's heart, and she would be convinced that both she and I were headed straight for hell.

If I were to break from the Catholic Church, it probably wouldn't be for the Quaker Church. More likely, it would be for something somewhat closer to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran Church or the Episcopal Church, although as Mikey pointed out, that Church has its problems as well, not to mention that I'm not exactly a fan of the manner in which Henry VIII essentially started it.

For me personally, I believe in God. Organized religion -- not quite so much.

Terry wrote:doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin

Just for what it's worth - there is no Scripture to indicate that Mary was conceived without original sin.

Zero.

Not saying you say there is.
I'm just commenting.

poptart wrote:If the person living in remote Africa were "one of God's," then God would allow for that person, sometime during his life, to hear the Gospel.
The fact that a remote Africa person does not hear the Gospel means that God already knew that this person would reject the Gospel anyway - and God simply didn't even allow for him to hear it.

Wow. So that's why God stuck him in remote Africa. God hates black people.

Could be remote Wisconsin, too.

The land of single-digit teeth and very frightened farm animals.

poptart wrote:Could be remote Wisconsin, too.

The land of single-digit teeth and very frightened farm animals.

Plenty of thumpers of various stripes out there to be exposed to, and a negligible number of black people. Not the same situation. And those farm animals aren’t frightened. That’s breathless anticipation.

88 wrote:I respect that rather than to attempt to persuade me using some improper blend of spiritualism and reason

Like Freemasonry ?

poptart wrote:

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.

And who brought Satan to mankind?

Adam made a choice to follow satan.

You would have made the same choice.

You are making the same choice.

And all along I thought it was the Church Lady.

88 wrote:I appreciate the response, Pop. And I'll give you props for not being the kind of person this thread was originally started about. That person goes to church because his mother/father took him there as a child and he feels obligated to do so now as an adult. That person says he/she is a believer, but really hasn't thought about what it is he/she says he believes in and hasn't considered and resolved the hard questions in his/her heart and mind. You appear to have made a complete leap of faith. I respect that rather than to attempt to persuade me using some improper blend of spiritualism and reason, you seem comfortable relying 100% on spiritualism when you provide responses such as he just "IS" and the scripture provides no answers and you won't speculate. While I personally do not find the scripture or any of your interpretations of it compelling, I respect that at least your faith is genuine. And since it works for you, I'm happy for you.

You mean there's no legitimate reason to "go to church" other than an absolute unshakable faith in whatever, and unless you've resolved all of the "hard questions" you shouldn't be there?

How wonderfully cynical of you. You yourself definitely shouldn't be "going to church", and the fact that you even attend on Easter and Christmas outs you as somewhat of a hypocite. Believe it or not, though, many people find reasons to participate beyond the ones you've identified. Good thing too, or there would be a lot of empty churches and a lot of "faith based initiatives" going unfunded.

poptart wrote:

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Satan brought mass genocide to mankind.

And who brought Satan to mankind?

Adam made a choice to follow satan.

You would have made the same choice.

You are making the same choice.

Sorry, guy. I give even less of a fuck about "Satan" than I do about "God".

The Freemasons were very integral in the founding of this country, were they not ?

The intersection of Law and Spirituality should be especially an item of interest to man who practices law.

First word. Hammurabi.

Sudden Sam wrote:Hopefully, though, they can appreciate the fact that I don't scream while they're praying or jump up in
church and tell them they're all insane. :D

Thanks for the laugh. Picturing you jumping up and down along with them and "speaking in tongues" like ....


"You all are fucking crazy, oh my goodness, you're all fucking nuts, I got to get out of here".


Made me laugh.

Tom In VA wrote:The Freemasons were very integral in the founding of this country, were they not ?

Yes. And?

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:The Freemasons were very integral in the founding of this country, were they not ?

Yes. And?

On the surface they appear to buy into the notion of an intersection between spiritual principles and science. The existence of a "Great Architect" as it were, and that discipline, ritual, study and science would allow men to discover the means by which the "Great Architect" designed creation.

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:You mean there's no legitimate reason to "go to church" other than an absolute unshakable faith in whatever, and unless you've resolved all of the "hard questions" you shouldn't be there?

I think you missed what I intended. I think Pop would agree that you don't have to "go to church" to be spiritual, and that just because you "go to church" does not mean you are spiritual. As far as I am concerned, whether you go or do not go to an organized church is irrelevant to whether you are a spiritual person. If going to church for no reason other than it makes you feel happy for reasons you've never considered, then by all means go to church.

The issue I was attempting to address was that there are a multitude of people who "go to church" and say they are "believers" without ever thinking about what it is that they supposedly believe in. My wife is one of those people. We don't talk about her "faith" because she doesn't really know anything about it, except that she was raised that way. And I'm not picking on my wife. I've met many people just like her. These are the people who have no idea what the "good book" says, but regard themselves as practicing [insert denomination here]. They take communion, or participate in other rituals, and hear the gospels or sermons or whatever occurs in the one hour a week they spend in church, but they have never paused to consider what it is that they are supposedly believing in. They've got some general notions of what spirituality involves, but haven't studied it. Whether they attend church or not is immaterial.

Mikey wrote:How wonderfully cynical of you. You yourself definitely shouldn't be "going to church", and the fact that you even attend on Easter and Christmas outs you as somewhat of a hypocite. Believe it or not, though, many people find reasons to participate beyond the ones you've identified. Good thing too, or there would be a lot of empty churches and a lot of "faith based initiatives" going unfunded.

I would be a hypocrite only if I said I believed when in fact I do not. I go to church to support my wife and her desire to instill whatever notion that she has that our children ought to be raised Catholic. I don't take communion. I don't pray while I'm in there. I don't say the responses or kneel. I do exchange greetings with the people around me and I am respectful of their interest and desire to do whatever it is that they think they are doing. If you saw me there, you wouldn't know whether I was a believer or an athiest, unless you asked me. And then I might tell you what I believe is the truth in a more proper forum, such as the church parking lot. But more likely, I might say that it is none of your business and not tell you. No one can tell the sincerity of another's faith by looking at them or talking with them. But you can gauge the depth of one's understanding of their faith simply by talking with them. I don't find anything wrong with people attending church for any reason they desire. If standing around in a room filled with your neighbors with incense in the air does it for you, then that would be a great place to hang out. I'm only speaking of those who claim to be believers in a certain faith, yet have not taken the time to think about what it is that they supposedly believe in. Whether or not they attend church is a non-issue, as far as I am concerned.

OK. Never mind.

pop wrote:We already know that God created satan and that He allowed satan to deceive man and weaken him, such that he chose to sin.

Why did God do that to His own children? What possible good reason could he have for shitting in his own punchbowl?

Why did God doom so many of His own children right from the very start?

And yes, I still want to know, who or what created God?

Van wrote:

pop wrote:We already know that God created satan and that He allowed satan to deceive man and weaken him, such that he chose to sin.

Why did God do that to His own children? What possible good reason could he have for shitting in his own punchbowl?

Why did God doom so many of His own children right from the very start?

And yes, I still want to know, who or what created God?

g0d

Sudden Sam wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Hopefully, though, they can appreciate the fact that I don't scream while they're praying or jump up in
church and tell them they're all insane. :D

Thanks for the laugh. Picturing you jumping up and down along with them and "speaking in tongues" like ....


"You all are fucking crazy, oh my goodness, you're all fucking nuts, I got to get out of here".


Made me laugh.

That is a funny image. May have to run that by the wife.

Why don't you run it by her live at church. Don't forget the camera.

Better make sure you leave the hog running outside somewhere near the exit door.

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:I appreciate the response, Pop. And I'll give you props for not being the kind of person this thread was originally started about. That person goes to church because his mother/father took him there as a child and he feels obligated to do so now as an adult. That person says he/she is a believer, but really hasn't thought about what it is he/she says he believes in and hasn't considered and resolved the hard questions in his/her heart and mind. You appear to have made a complete leap of faith. I respect that rather than to attempt to persuade me using some improper blend of spiritualism and reason, you seem comfortable relying 100% on spiritualism when you provide responses such as he just "IS" and the scripture provides no answers and you won't speculate. While I personally do not find the scripture or any of your interpretations of it compelling, I respect that at least your faith is genuine. And since it works for you, I'm happy for you.

You mean there's no legitimate reason to "go to church" other than an absolute unshakable faith in whatever, and unless you've resolved all of the "hard questions" you shouldn't be there?

How wonderfully cynical of you. You yourself definitely shouldn't be "going to church", and the fact that you even attend on Easter and Christmas outs you as somewhat of a hypocite. Believe it or not, though, many people find reasons to participate beyond the ones you've identified. Good thing too, or there would be a lot of empty churches and a lot of "faith based initiatives" going unfunded.

mikey goes for the after mass spreads they put out, don'cha, fatboy?

my guess is that a considerable chunk of folks do it simply because it's a good way to meet decent god fearin' folk. and you know what? there is nothing wrong with it.

whatever floats yer spiritual or social boat, i guess.

smackaholic wrote:my guess is that a considerable chunk of folks do it simply because it's a good way to meet decent god fearin' folk. and you know what? there is nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing wrong with it until they come to me and say "Haven't seen ya in church in awhile, Frisco." That's when I want to say "Because I fucking hate going to church and then have to put up with holier-than-thous like you in conversations like this while you go hang out at a bar all the time and then decide to drive home but hey, damn me to hell for not going to church on Sunday to save face and pretend I'm this wonderful Christian because you know, God only watches you on Sundays between 10:30 and 11:30, dumbfuck hypocrite", but I usually laugh it off.