Hey, you should have made a path where christian actually won but it would seem so ridiculously stupid that it could make a good laugh. I hate games where you're bound to lose!
29 May 2008 19:29
Anonymous
I'm an atheist, so I found this whole thing pretty embarrassing. Whoever wrote this has a pretty poor grasp of the Christian argument, and you know there's something wrong when you can't ridicule something as feeble as that without making yourself look even MORE foolish and ignorant.
29 May 2008 19:34
Atheist?
You're an atheist my ass, anon. Rather a closet christian, admit it.
29 May 2008 19:42
Anonymous
Hah, somehow I expected that response. I recognise that I can't prove it on teh intarwebs, but I am a genuine atheist; I just like to understand an argument before I refute it. The only thing that annoys me more than a stupid, unthinking Christian is a stupid, unthinking atheist.
After all, they have faith; what's our excuse?
29 May 2008 19:49
chaos_engineer
Anonymous, genuine atheists are friendly and helpful, and if they spotted misrepresentations of the Christian argument, they'd post an explanation about where the author went wrong. Complaining about mistakes without helping to fix them isn't atheistic behavior. Complaining about mistakes without even saying what they are is, quite frankly, troll-like.
Now, obviously the game has a lot of humorous hyperbole, and some of the options are just silly. But I think the core arguments are sound. Is there some option that you think should be added? If you've got a suggestion, then maybe it'll be added to a future version of the game!
29 May 2008 20:18
wcl
Prayer *doesn't* work! see
29 May 2008 20:33
wcl
http colon slash slash whywontgodhealamputees dot com
29 May 2008 20:33
Anonymous
chaos_engineer, point taken, although I can't understand where you get the idea that all atheists are 'friendly and helpful'; certainly, the tone of this page, while tongue-in-cheek, is suggestive of a certain level of contempt for religious people (something which I, even as an atheist, do not have).
As it happens, though, I do like to consider myself a nice sort of person so I accept the rebuke. You are right to point out that I did not explain what I see as the problems in the argument; I can attribute this neglect to a combination of (a) laziness and (b) a (clearly wrong) assumption that the flaws were self-evident.
I was, and still am, disinclined to write out a point-by-point analysis of the page (although with the length of time I've spent writing on the comments page, I certainly could have by now) but since your criticism was fair I'll provide an example, being the 'does prayer work?' question. It failed right from the outset, by treating prayer as some sort of magic spell, whereby you entreat God to do something and he does it (or not, as the case may be). Anyone, I would have thought, would know intuitively that that is not the point of prayer at all, or else just the fact that 'good things happen to bad people' would be an irrefutable disproof of God's existence. The game presents an idea of prayer that is not accepted by mainstream Christianity (whatever that is), and asserts intellectual superiority when it is shown to be flawed.
Even if we think of prayer in this way, however (I notice at least one commenter does indeed pray for cancer's end, so maybe I have underestimated the scope of prayer), there is the question of the so-called 'Divine Plan', which the game touches upon. This is the point at which the game really derails, however. First, it attempts to compare the acts of an autonomous human being (i.e. a crucifix stabbing) to genuine 'acts of God' (i.e. cancer) by asking whether aforementioned stabbing features in God's plan, even though free will is a well-established aspect of Christian theology. Then, this baffling oversight leads into a bizarre inquiry into who is 'deciding' what is in God's plan and what isn't. This is not going to make any sense to a Christian, who works on the assumptions that (a) God is Good and (b) God is Powerful, and who therefore can't help but percieve any bad (God-caused) thing that happens as part of a greater good. No one authority is officially stating 'cancer is part of the plan', because just the very fact that it's happening (and isn't attributable to man) means that it is.
I hope that made some sense; I sort of lost myself there because I re-write sentences constantly and I end up losing focus on the meaning. The thing is, almost everything in there was riddled with these sorts of problems and these, coupled with the condescending manner in which they were presented, suitably inflamed me to the point where the expediency and forcefulness of my criticism became greater priorities to me than its thoroughness or detail.
We need some sort of a counter-Poe's law for all the, pardon me, clueless eedjits who always pop anywhere people employ sarcasm with their twaddle about them possibly being creationists. D*mn it, you guys are so humor-deficient it's painful to watch.
Anyway, sorry about flaming, had to get that off my chest.
Oh, and Anonymous -- have you ever heard of an artistic license? You are analyzing this way too seriously. Do you need a great big, flashing "this is a joke, not a serious argument" banner to get it? Also, I laugh at your claims of being nicer than the author of the game. Not very humble, are we?
P.S. What is wrong with the commenting system here? It keeps saying "That comment seems a little short. Probably not worth adding it.", although I have over 100 words.
Edit: the system is broken alright. I had to remove the proper Unicode em dash to get this to show up.
30 May 2008 00:20
extreme atheist
Anontmous: You inadvertantly gave yourself away with that insane and obvious comment: "After all they have faith; what's our excuse?" You are a phony creep, and got a lot of freaking nerve calling yourself an atheist! Don't demean what atheism stands for by your phony prattle and just come out and admit that you are a demented religionist posing as a person of sound mind. To reiterate: my ass, you are no atheist. Stop pretending to be like your betters and stick to your insane and demented superstitious crap.
Anonymous, the question "does prayer work?" has nothing to do with how the believer knows/feels/thinks it should actually work
If you or "the average christian" thinks it works within god's plan on a spiritual non interventionist level or if it really works on a first come first serve basis does not matter, either it works or it does not.
The follow up question does try to define how prayer works and gives an opening for it working in other ways.
And in my immediate family I have devout catholics who will refrain from certain things (drinking, smoking...) because other family members got better after they prayed to their god and said that they would not do those things anymore if god made them better, to them it is crystal clear that that prayer really really worked (remembering the hits, not seeing the medical care, ...)
It is however pretty strange that a self confessed atheist would actually write "genuine 'acts of God'" ....
30 May 2008 12:49
John Phillips, FCD
Anonymous: Get over yourself already, it is meant just as a bit of lighthearted amusement, not theology 101.
Sorry I don't have time to read everything on your site to see what it's ALL about. However, you're obviously articulate, creative and uh, interesting, so I'll certainly keep reading as time allows.
Why do call me a liar? Call it what you will - divine intervention, scientifically unexplainable events, or miracles - and occasionally, an error in the first place, miracles happen. I have no need to convince you, I am just responding because no one likes to be called a liar.
Why is it that miracles don't make the news?
Oh well, that's another topic entirely.
As for statistical probability, I don't think that would explain the nearly impossible event of a major lottery winner cashing in a second time (Eugene Angelo, MSNBC.com).
Crispy Christ on a cracker I thought I was gonna make it after I survived being crucified. I thought God was really turning me into a ninja-like ass-kicking Christian for a minute, oh well.
Don't know why he was such a bitter atheist. I mean really, who goes and crucifies people? Seemed more like a :a) satanist, or b) an atheist who needs to get laid.
bloglady said ... Why do call me a liar? Call it what you will - divine intervention, scientifically unexplainable events, or miracles - and occasionally, an error in the first place, miracles happen. I have no need to convince you, I am just responding because no one likes to be called a liar.
Nobody called you a liar. You're seeing something that isn't there. I said you were wrong but at no point accused you of outright lying.
bloglady said ... As for statistical probability, I don't think that would explain the nearly impossible event of a major lottery winner cashing in a second time (Eugene Angelo, MSNBC.com)
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. This is exactly what statistical probability explains. Let me try to explain:
Persons A, B, and C enter a lottery where the chances of either of them winning in a given week is 1 in a million.
Scenario 1. On the first week Person A wins. Nothing amazing here. There was a chance it would happen and it did.
In week 2 Person A wins again. What are the incredible odds of person A winning in week 2? 1 in a million, the same as in week 1. Why? Because winning in a second week is not affected by winning in a first. There's no relationship at all. There is nothing affecting the odds based on previously winning or not.
Now, you might think: ah, but what are the odds of Person A winning in week 1 and week 2? Let's call that 1 in a million million. Big odds. Must be a miracle? No. Let's carry on ...
Scenario 2. In week 1 Person B wins. Now, in week 2 Person C wins. The odds of each person winning in each individual week is 1 in a million. We've seen that. But what are the odds that Person B would win in week 1 and Person C would win in week 2? Why that's 1 in a million million! Same odds as our apparent miracle and yet nobody cares? Why?
Here's why. In scenario 1 it looks special. Humans see patterns and they think "ooh, mystical force at work!". But despite the looks it's just random chance and the same chance as two different specific people winning in each week as in Scenario 2.
Another quick example. Lottery numbers are drawn and come up with:
2,17,32,5,19,6
Big deal, right?
Now they're drawn again and they come up with:
1,2,3,4,5,6
Wow! Must be God! Or is it?
Do you want the know what the odds of the second set of numbers being drawn are?
Exactly the same as the first set. Exactly the same. Not slightly less chance. Exactly the same. But the second set gets people talking because ... it looks special.
But it's not special at all. The human brain is great at identifying patterns and assigning beliefs and symbols to them and thoughts around them. It's just that once you actually know what's going on to create the pattern you can take away the belief and replace it with understanding.
In the same way when you see a "miracle" you're assigning a mystical solution to something you just don't understand but have identified a pattern with. Someone prayed, someone got better - cause and effect: it's a miracle. Sure, unless you check and see that the "miracle" coincided with a new batch of drugs, an environmental change, etc. It could be anything. You have to know what went on. You can't take other people's words for it either.
To sum up:
I've demonstrated that your miracles of cures and lottery winnings can be explained using mathematics, statistics, and an understanding of pattern recognition in the human brain.
You will probably still maintain that an invisible spirit, apparently benevolent, goes around altering lottery balls to favour one man somewhere while letting millions of children die around the world in poverty, war, and disease.
Doesn't that strike you as even the slightest bit absurd? Just a smidgeon?
Anyway ...
bloglady said ... you're obviously articulate, creative and uh, interesting, so I'll certainly keep reading as time allows
Dale, .45: Agnostics were defeated in round 1 by the Freemasons. Arguments weren't the deciding factor, though. The masons knew people who knew people and, well, things were arranged and ...
Thanks for the statistical info on lotteries, it was quite interesting. Point taken. However, I never claimed that the man who won twice experienced a miracle. I was simply comparing two rare events, a two time lottery winner with an alleged miracle - neither of which can be explained with a sound scientific explanation other than applying statistical odds (which doesn't explain the good luck of one fellow as opposed to another's luck), as you so aptly proved.
04 Jun 2008 15:54
ageofreason
Human beings developed their ability for abstract thought as a matter of survival. (The caveman understands that the bison he draws on the wall of the cave represents the actual bison in the field.) Because humans are not as strong as other predators, abstract thought provided them with the edge needed to organize and survive. The same need, the need not to die, begot us our sense of agency. (It may only be the wind that rustles the leaves of the tree, but it's better for survival to assume that it was a tiger.) As a matter of fact, evolution has produced a hyper-developed sense of agency in humans to ensure survival in some really harsh environments. Our sense of agency is so strong that if you reread the previous sentence you might notice that while writing it, I was subconsciously verging on insinuating that evolution itself is an agent. (This is nonsense, of course. Nature has no agency.) Indeed, the above example of almost ascribing agency to evolution is a microcosm of the process of how we arrived at the idea of deities who are actively involved in our lives. The combination of agency with abstract thought produces something unique to homo-sapiens. (It would be safe to say that a sense of agency preceded the capacity for abstract thought. After all, animals have the former but not the latter. But it is of no relevance which came first. What matters is what happens when you combine the two.) Abstract thought PLUS sense of agency = invention of divinity. Life made god, not the other way around.
Bloglady you are ignoring Marks central point: you are seeing a pattern and ascribing agency where there is none. Just because someTHING happened does not mean that someONE made it happen. Cause and affect do not = agency.
Bloglady: you may be able to sell Frustration online. Have you considered this as a way to supplement your income?
bloglady said ... I was simply comparing two rare events, a two time lottery winner with an alleged miracle - neither of which can be explained with a sound scientific explanation other than applying statistical odds (which doesn't explain the good luck of one fellow as opposed to another's luck), as you so aptly proved.
neither of which can be explained with a sound scientific explanation other than applying statistical odds
This makes no sense. You're saying "neither of these things can be explained scientifically, except for the one that can be explained scientifically". Or: "I have four arms, except for the two that aren't arms at all and are, in fact, legs, but other than that, yes, I definitely am a four-legged person only without four legs".
which doesn't explain the good luck of one fellow as opposed to another's luck
Argggghhhhh! Yes it does. It does explain. It explains it through science. Probability. Statistics. Explanation. It explains luck as being the result of statistical probability uninfluenced by anything other than science. The way lottery balls are drawn could be explained and predicted with total accuracy if you could model everything involved: imperfections on the balls, weight, air density, humidity, gravitational force. Science has answers; not all of them just yet, but it's working on it. Religion has no answers, is stagnant, and happy to remain that way. Religion's answer of "God" could equally be "Frog". In fact, replace God with Frog everywhere in the Bible and it probably still makes as much sense and is just as completely untestable, unproveable, and, sadly, still believable by those who just won't stop and think about things for a moment.
Incidentally, you never answered my question:
me said ... I've demonstrated that your miracles of cures and lottery winnings can be explained using mathematics, statistics, and an understanding of pattern recognition in the human brain.
You will probably still maintain that an invisible spirit, apparently benevolent, goes around altering lottery balls to favour one man somewhere while letting millions of children die around the world in poverty, war, and disease.
Doesn't that strike you as even the slightest bit absurd? Just a smidgeon?
"Prayer does work. It comforts the christian when he's clueless. It's an utterly selfish thing to do; that brilliantly has the excuse of being the opposite. Depending on your view, the answer will be yes or no. Yes, if it comforts you in any way to practice it. No, if you look at the external results.
BTW: My parents gave me my name. I stick with it out of honour to them; not because it fits."
Yeah... me too.
05 Aug 2008 23:25
Amy
This is, more or less, the epitome of every awesome thing that ever existed.
Ever.
12 Oct 2008 19:33
djackson
This simulation was apparenlt created by an atheist who believes all believers in Christ are idiots and don't know when they are being made fun of by some lonely person stuck in a basement with no life and no happiness whose only goal is to try and make everyone else feel bad just as they do.
If you have to ask then you've failed at life already. Please try again.
Oh and "Curt and Randy" hahahaha. Sorry. Just seen your "website" and rightwing republican redneck "best friends" with that piece of crap referring to anything here or elsewhere on the web as losery is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Actually, 1234 if you're after funny then you should go there.
12 Apr 2009 11:21
Hey
All things work for good for those who love the lord
Romans 8:28
p.s. that "Do you Christians not pray for a cure to cancer" all of the awnsers are wrong. try to find a good response to that bible verse
if anyone does catch me at 'thwaitsy@gmail.com'
24 Apr 2009 12:55
ruvim
this is to francis scudellari
tell me whats fun about athiesm?
we christians have salvation
jesus is going to come and take the people that stayed faithfull to him.
tell me, how is christianity not fun? answer that question
jesus died for you so live for him
10 May 2009 18:41
Pete
I had a go of your little challenge and firstly would like to point out that you have represented the majority of Christians well. This is sad to say as I am a Christian who believes the masses of Christianity do not understand the basic answers to questions such as why does God not heal people of Cancer. So if most Christians don't even know, how can we expect atheists who are assessing what we believe to know either. But let me shed a little light on the matter.
Firstly I would like to point out that Jesus never said that he was going to abolish all pain and suffering while he was on earth. No instead he too died and suffered so how can we expect anything different. But he did perform miracles while he was alive to show that he does hold the power of sickness and death. So today we live in a time after Christ which theologically could be described as the 'now but not yet'. The 'now' is the fact that Jesus came into this world bring with him the kingdom of God, and all who put their trust in Him will enter into that kingdom, but while we live we are still subject to the functions of this world, we will get sick and we will die. The not yet though is our hope that one day Jesus will return and then the systems of this would will no longer apply and we will be free from sickness and death.
So I concluded by saying the Bible clearly shows that all people will become sick and die and to think other wise is only superstitious but where you say God is cruel because he could stop this I say He is loving because I can see the eternal picture that in time I will be restored and will not be plagued but sickness and death in the time to come.
PLEASE NOTE! New and infrequent commenters may be comment-moderated, depending on whether you attempt to post links or use a link URL that looks "unusual". Regular commenters (under 90 days counts as regular) whose browsers accept cookies will be auto-approved to comment instantly. That'll teach you not to visit. HTML is not permitted. BBCode is allowed. Please see the Help Page for valid BBCode.
After all, they have faith; what's our excuse?
Now, obviously the game has a lot of humorous hyperbole, and some of the options are just silly. But I think the core arguments are sound. Is there some option that you think should be added? If you've got a suggestion, then maybe it'll be added to a future version of the game!
As it happens, though, I do like to consider myself a nice sort of person so I accept the rebuke. You are right to point out that I did not explain what I see as the problems in the argument; I can attribute this neglect to a combination of (a) laziness and (b) a (clearly wrong) assumption that the flaws were self-evident.
I was, and still am, disinclined to write out a point-by-point analysis of the page (although with the length of time I've spent writing on the comments page, I certainly could have by now) but since your criticism was fair I'll provide an example, being the 'does prayer work?' question. It failed right from the outset, by treating prayer as some sort of magic spell, whereby you entreat God to do something and he does it (or not, as the case may be). Anyone, I would have thought, would know intuitively that that is not the point of prayer at all, or else just the fact that 'good things happen to bad people' would be an irrefutable disproof of God's existence. The game presents an idea of prayer that is not accepted by mainstream Christianity (whatever that is), and asserts intellectual superiority when it is shown to be flawed.
Even if we think of prayer in this way, however (I notice at least one commenter does indeed pray for cancer's end, so maybe I have underestimated the scope of prayer), there is the question of the so-called 'Divine Plan', which the game touches upon. This is the point at which the game really derails, however. First, it attempts to compare the acts of an autonomous human being (i.e. a crucifix stabbing) to genuine 'acts of God' (i.e. cancer) by asking whether aforementioned stabbing features in God's plan, even though free will is a well-established aspect of Christian theology. Then, this baffling oversight leads into a bizarre inquiry into who is 'deciding' what is in God's plan and what isn't. This is not going to make any sense to a Christian, who works on the assumptions that (a) God is Good and (b) God is Powerful, and who therefore can't help but percieve any bad (God-caused) thing that happens as part of a greater good. No one authority is officially stating 'cancer is part of the plan', because just the very fact that it's happening (and isn't attributable to man) means that it is.
I hope that made some sense; I sort of lost myself there because I re-write sentences constantly and I end up losing focus on the meaning. The thing is, almost everything in there was riddled with these sorts of problems and these, coupled with the condescending manner in which they were presented, suitably inflamed me to the point where the expediency and forcefulness of my criticism became greater priorities to me than its thoroughness or detail.
Anyway, sorry about flaming, had to get that off my chest.
Oh, and Anonymous -- have you ever heard of an artistic license? You are analyzing this way too seriously. Do you need a great big, flashing "this is a joke, not a serious argument" banner to get it? Also, I laugh at your claims of being nicer than the author of the game. Not very humble, are we?
P.S. What is wrong with the commenting system here? It keeps saying "That comment seems a little short. Probably not worth adding it.", although I have over 100 words.
Edit: the system is broken alright. I had to remove the proper Unicode em dash to get this to show up.
If you or "the average christian" thinks it works within god's plan on a spiritual non interventionist level or if it really works on a first come first serve basis does not matter, either it works or it does not.
The follow up question does try to define how prayer works and gives an opening for it working in other ways.
And in my immediate family I have devout catholics who will refrain from certain things (drinking, smoking...) because other family members got better after they prayed to their god and said that they would not do those things anymore if god made them better, to them it is crystal clear that that prayer really really worked (remembering the hits, not seeing the medical care, ...)
It is however pretty strange that a self confessed atheist would actually write "genuine 'acts of God'" ....
Why do call me a liar? Call it what you will - divine intervention, scientifically unexplainable events, or miracles - and occasionally, an error in the first place, miracles happen. I have no need to convince you, I am just responding because no one likes to be called a liar.
Why is it that miracles don't make the news?
Oh well, that's another topic entirely.
As for statistical probability, I don't think that would explain the nearly impossible event of a major lottery winner cashing in a second time (Eugene Angelo, MSNBC.com).
Don't know why he was such a bitter atheist. I mean really, who goes and crucifies people? Seemed more like a :a) satanist, or b) an atheist who needs to get laid.
Cute game though.
Nobody called you a liar. You're seeing something that isn't there. I said you were wrong but at no point accused you of outright lying.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. This is exactly what statistical probability explains. Let me try to explain:
Persons A, B, and C enter a lottery where the chances of either of them winning in a given week is 1 in a million.
Scenario 1. On the first week Person A wins. Nothing amazing here. There was a chance it would happen and it did.
In week 2 Person A wins again. What are the incredible odds of person A winning in week 2? 1 in a million, the same as in week 1. Why? Because winning in a second week is not affected by winning in a first. There's no relationship at all. There is nothing affecting the odds based on previously winning or not.
Now, you might think: ah, but what are the odds of Person A winning in week 1 and week 2? Let's call that 1 in a million million. Big odds. Must be a miracle? No. Let's carry on ...
Scenario 2. In week 1 Person B wins. Now, in week 2 Person C wins. The odds of each person winning in each individual week is 1 in a million. We've seen that. But what are the odds that Person B would win in week 1 and Person C would win in week 2? Why that's 1 in a million million! Same odds as our apparent miracle and yet nobody cares? Why?
Here's why. In scenario 1 it looks special. Humans see patterns and they think "ooh, mystical force at work!". But despite the looks it's just random chance and the same chance as two different specific people winning in each week as in Scenario 2.
Another quick example. Lottery numbers are drawn and come up with:
2,17,32,5,19,6
Big deal, right?
Now they're drawn again and they come up with:
1,2,3,4,5,6
Wow! Must be God! Or is it?
Do you want the know what the odds of the second set of numbers being drawn are?
Exactly the same as the first set. Exactly the same. Not slightly less chance. Exactly the same. But the second set gets people talking because ... it looks special.
But it's not special at all. The human brain is great at identifying patterns and assigning beliefs and symbols to them and thoughts around them. It's just that once you actually know what's going on to create the pattern you can take away the belief and replace it with understanding.
In the same way when you see a "miracle" you're assigning a mystical solution to something you just don't understand but have identified a pattern with. Someone prayed, someone got better - cause and effect: it's a miracle. Sure, unless you check and see that the "miracle" coincided with a new batch of drugs, an environmental change, etc. It could be anything. You have to know what went on. You can't take other people's words for it either.
To sum up:
I've demonstrated that your miracles of cures and lottery winnings can be explained using mathematics, statistics, and an understanding of pattern recognition in the human brain.
You will probably still maintain that an invisible spirit, apparently benevolent, goes around altering lottery balls to favour one man somewhere while letting millions of children die around the world in poverty, war, and disease.
Doesn't that strike you as even the slightest bit absurd? Just a smidgeon?
Anyway ...
Awesome!
Creative not creationist.
Claire: Thankyou.
Kinda hard to play a game between two crazies, anyway.
Bloglady you are ignoring Marks central point: you are seeing a pattern and ascribing agency where there is none. Just because someTHING happened does not mean that someONE made it happen. Cause and affect do not = agency.
neither of which can be explained with a sound scientific explanation other than applying statistical odds
This makes no sense. You're saying "neither of these things can be explained scientifically, except for the one that can be explained scientifically". Or: "I have four arms, except for the two that aren't arms at all and are, in fact, legs, but other than that, yes, I definitely am a four-legged person only without four legs".
which doesn't explain the good luck of one fellow as opposed to another's luck
Argggghhhhh! Yes it does. It does explain. It explains it through science. Probability. Statistics. Explanation. It explains luck as being the result of statistical probability uninfluenced by anything other than science. The way lottery balls are drawn could be explained and predicted with total accuracy if you could model everything involved: imperfections on the balls, weight, air density, humidity, gravitational force. Science has answers; not all of them just yet, but it's working on it. Religion has no answers, is stagnant, and happy to remain that way. Religion's answer of "God" could equally be "Frog". In fact, replace God with Frog everywhere in the Bible and it probably still makes as much sense and is just as completely untestable, unproveable, and, sadly, still believable by those who just won't stop and think about things for a moment.
Incidentally, you never answered my question:
"Prayer does work. It comforts the christian when he's clueless. It's an utterly selfish thing to do; that brilliantly has the excuse of being the opposite. Depending on your view, the answer will be yes or no. Yes, if it comforts you in any way to practice it. No, if you look at the external results.
BTW: My parents gave me my name. I stick with it out of honour to them; not because it fits."
Yeah... me too.
Ever.
Oh, what I'd give for a nice basement. Or even just a cellar; you know, somewhere to store the wine or humourless Christians etc.
Christians, not christains.
I, not i.
It's, not its.
Pharmaceutically, psychotropically, or possibly pie-logically, not phycologally.
Superior? Intellectually-speaking, without a shadow of a doubt.
Oh and "Curt and Randy" hahahaha. Sorry. Just seen your "website" and rightwing republican redneck "best friends" with that piece of crap referring to anything here or elsewhere on the web as losery is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Actually, 1234 if you're after funny then you should go there.
Romans 8:28
p.s. that "Do you Christians not pray for a cure to cancer" all of the awnsers are wrong. try to find a good response to that bible verse
if anyone does catch me at 'thwaitsy@gmail.com'
tell me whats fun about athiesm?
we christians have salvation
jesus is going to come and take the people that stayed faithfull to him.
tell me, how is christianity not fun? answer that question
jesus died for you so live for him
Firstly I would like to point out that Jesus never said that he was going to abolish all pain and suffering while he was on earth. No instead he too died and suffered so how can we expect anything different. But he did perform miracles while he was alive to show that he does hold the power of sickness and death. So today we live in a time after Christ which theologically could be described as the 'now but not yet'. The 'now' is the fact that Jesus came into this world bring with him the kingdom of God, and all who put their trust in Him will enter into that kingdom, but while we live we are still subject to the functions of this world, we will get sick and we will die. The not yet though is our hope that one day Jesus will return and then the systems of this would will no longer apply and we will be free from sickness and death.
So I concluded by saying the Bible clearly shows that all people will become sick and die and to think other wise is only superstitious but where you say God is cruel because he could stop this I say He is loving because I can see the eternal picture that in time I will be restored and will not be plagued but sickness and death in the time to come.
« 1 » « 2 »