Muffie

I ask because I see so much Net writing where erstwhile religious folks will re-spell god in an effort to not take his name in vain. I know, I asked. I find the whole thing faintly ridiculous, got into a big argument about it and the results were:

1) It's the act. If you do not spell god, then you are not taking his name in vain.

2) It's the intent. It doesn't matter how you spell god, you're taking his name in vain, so any spelling, even puppy, is the same thing. Which means that saying jeez is the same as using Jesus as a curse word.

So, do you think it's still taking his name in vain if you spell it differently? Why?

Are two states in the Holy Land (Israel) unrealistic and the Palestinians need to just get the heck out and find some other place to set up shop?

For more info:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_re_mi_ea...

For anyone non-religious, please conduct this as a thought experiment. I understand that heaven isn't real to a lot of people.

Sociopaths are people who feel no guilt or remorse for anything they've done. They are indifferent to any pain, suffering, or hurt they've caused others, from telling a girl she's gained weight all the way to serial murder. Any empathy they extend is a false mask to manipulate others into gratifying their self interest. In other words, they can never be repentant. Ever. They cannot be trained to be repentant, they cannot even understand the concept.

Some historians believe that if Xerxes had conquered Greece, the Roman Empire would never have occured, instead, the Persian Empire would have covered Europe instead.

It's one of those things people trot out in the does god exist/does god not exist debate. Logicians prove negatives all the time.

Steve Hales has a lovely essay on it: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/con...

Fully, mostly, or in tiny parts?

What kind of study have you done of other religions, academic (meaning approaching without belief that the religion is Truth) or questioning (meaning approaching with an open mind that the religion might be Truth) or in disbelief (meaning that you just know it's wrong)?

I've seen it stated quite a few times here and other places that only someone who had been filled with the Holy Spirit or has a true desire to serve God can truly understand the Bible. Atheists and other non-believers simply can't understand it because no one can understand it without God's help.

I just gotta wonder sometimes. Some people just can't seem to stop doing it, especially at the most inappropriate times and places. Not everyone who is in a proselytzing religion does this, but there are a few who do.

Why/why not?

How would you know that God did/didn't command her to do that?

Note: offerings do not always have anything to do with sin.

Could it be considered a religious cop-out to claim that anyone who leaves Christianity behind was never a real Christian to begin with? Why/why not?

Are there any arguments to support the ex-Christians were never truly Christians claim other than the argument that an ex-Christian could only turn his/her back on God because he/she was never filled with the Holy Spirit?

How do Christians know they are truly filled with Holy Spirit, other than by not leaving Christianity behind?

If the idea that ex-Christians were never truly Christian is true, why did the Holy Spirit choose to make these people false Christians?

If the ex-Christians were never truly Christian premise is true, how can one tell the difference between a true Christian and a false Christian before the false Christian leaves Christianity?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Did someone miss the hypocrisy memo?

Like 666 points or 1666 points or 4666 points or 6660 points. Etc. Would you leave it on that point number, or would you do something to change the number before you logged off? Christianity, specifically, has a bit of an issue with 666.

I'm curious because I noticed my points yesterday (which didn't have those numbers in it) and got to thinking about what happened when I lived in Alaska. The driver's license numbers rolled into the 666000s and there was enough hew and outcry to have the state skip the 666000s and start with 667000.

"Our Age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes.

"Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not a history of theirs?

"[... W]hy should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also."

A very good question from Emerson in the introduction of Nature. If he could spend a moment on Yahoo!Answers, he might still ask.

This is a hypothetical question. I am not attempting to indict any person's belief system.

By unassailably revealed, I mean that he proved beyond any doubt that you, personally, would or could have that he's god.

Me, personally, I'd pass out with shock, then probably have to brush up on my Aztec. Quetzacoatl, or pretty much any other god(dess) could easily work with my Zen, though I'd have to ditch the atheist part. That would annoy me. I'm not very good at being wrong. Then I'd just have to pursue with questions on String Theory.

Mormons have been saying they're Christians, but they still send missionaries to thoroughly Christian areas. The missionaries find out that the person they're proselytzing to is a Christian and still try to get that Christian to convert. Why would a Christian try to convert a Christian to Christianity? Other Christian denominations, upon finding out that the person they're proselytzing to is a Christian, no matter the denomination (excluding LDS and JW), still continue with proselytzing. So, why? I know it happens, I've both watched it and experienced it.

I've been curious about this for a while and the spate of Mormon questions got me to thinking of it.

Non-Christian as in atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Witch, Druid, agnostic, Taoist, Hindu, Sikh, Voodun, and so on and so forth.

Please don't use tautology as reasoning/evidence. Thank you.

"Unequally yoked" would be a marriage where the two participants don't have the same religious beliefs. The Bible specifically says not to do it in the New Testament.

Actually, I think that this is one of the few real take-home messages to be found in the Bible: It's not a good idea to marry someone too many standard deviations outside of your religious beliefs and/or religious zeal.

Seriously. Someone demanded to know how I could believe in a god like Buddha (FYI, Buddha isn't a god) that's fat and ugly. This isn't the first time I've seen/heard this. It crops up here in Y!A every once in a while, when theists attack Buddhism. How can you pray to a fat god?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize there was a photo shoot involved. Maybe the ugly looking gods were "airbrushed" until they were sexy and the laughing Buddha missed his turn or something.

Sheesh.