chaosrage

Not to sound insensitive, but think of the can of worms that would open. He gives food to them and think of all the stuck up, self centered idiots that would be all "what about me? Give me food" Pretty soon we won't do anything for ourselves cause we'll expect God to do everything for us. Soon the whole world will fall into Laziness. I think God is waiting for us to start bringing food to the hungry. After all he asked us to do it. It would be more accepted if we did it as opposed to God singling them out for food delivery. God asked "us" to bring food to the hungry. We're the ones who are falling down on the job. You wouldn't let your kids starve to death just so they wouldn't be lazy though. So why would he? He knows what's going to happen before he even "asks us" and we try to help. Even if he didn't, it'd still be pretty idiotic to use the same plan after hundreds and thousands of years of failure. Change it already.

I'm not the one who said "With God, all things are possible". That's from the bible. If they meant something else, then they should have said something else. Omnipotence means limitless power. If God can't make 2+2 = 5 or make squared circles, then he isn't omnipotent. Is it impossible? You bet. Just like making someone rise from the dead like a zombie, or being human and not human at the same time, or creating the universe out of nothing is impossible. Even if you were to just say God is mostly powerful, you're still not going to make me believe he can create the universe and can't make food fall from the sky to feed starving countries. Why doesn't he? If most people in the world called the Big Show a good wrestler, and you said he wasn't, that wouldn't mean you're not talking about the same person, would it? It would mean that they're wrong and you're right, or they're right and you're wrong. Just because someone can read about God killing people in the flood or sending plagues down to kill every first-born child and somehow get love out of it doesn't mean that's the way it is or that's the way it's even supposed to be read. While I did say that too, this was about various violent acts of terrible suffering that God himself committed in the bible. The bible was written in a barbaric time and it reflects on it, like any other literature from the era. The main problem I have is if God is ALL-powerful, and ALL-good, then everything in the universe must also be ALL-good. But it's not. If he was perfect, everything in the universe that happens must be the way he obviously intended for it to happen. With suffering and evil and HHH and everything. Not only that, but it says he created evil. I don't understand the contradictions people have with it either. If you take out all bad from the world, how can that possibly be... bad? Does not compute. What about eternal suffering? Wouldn't it more merciful just to wink people out of existance? Again though, that's kind of like saying, at least to me, that Hitler IS good because he MAY have had reasons to kill millions that we don't know about. You can believe that and have faith in it if you want, but come on, that's not in any way rational. Even when I was a christian, I never thought it was anything close to that.

I wish we had Jericho/HBK again, so we could get one great match instead of 2 okay ones. If this happens, Foley has to win, doesn't he? They can't keep the belt on HHH forever.

Give your boss the razor's edge Edit: And then steal his wallet

I never said it was perfect now, but for the most part we're a LOT better off. 1,000 years ago the whole world was like Afghanistan. Now only about half of the world is. We've wiped out or controlled hundreds upon hundreds of diseases. Just 500 years ago 7 out of ten children died before they reached adulthood. Now we can reach ages that people wouldn't have even dreamed of. Torture, slavery, and a lot of other things used to be considered acceptable, but now isn't, meaning we not only improve technologically, but morally. You're not making a point for it, you're just excusing it. The people who suffer all the time would get to the same light at the end of the tunnel as those that hardly suffer at all. If there's no suffering in heaven, then that must be a horrible place, an eternity full of robots who just float through life and never learn anything, right? Otherwise, this life is superfluous, and suffering is unnecessary. Why don't you bang your head against the wall a few times to see how good it feels when you stop? It wouldn't be your responibility because there were so few people that could interpret the Bible. It was all up to the pope, and what the pope said was the very definition of Christian. Popes were supposed to have been ordained by God. So what he said was the absolute truth, don't you see that? Back then, Church endorsement = christianity. It doesn't matter if it was wrong or not. All that matters is if it was Christian or not, it was. Just because you believe that God wouldn't prescribe it doesn't make it change the fact that he did prescribe it according to the only authority that could say so.

It's a huge difference between preachers and the Pope. The Pope pretty much was Christianity. He wasn't supposed to be wrong ever. It's not like some random people went up and said "Hey you guys, go do this", this was an act wholly endorsed by the Church. No one else even had the ability to interpret the bible at the time. If the Church's truth (since no one knows any better, it is truth) says that the Crusades are for liberating the holy land, then it's the truth and Catholic doctrine. I just don't see why we should make excuses for it. He has the power to do whatever he wants but he lets millions starve and die. His motives for that are about as irrelevant as Hitler's motives were IMO.

You just said he was omnipotent, nothing is necessary or unavoidable for an all-powerful god of course. Ignoring that, why exactly would it be necessary say to have 40,000 children starve to death everyday, anyway? That God doesn't exist though. It's a contradiction. You can't be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. But that's not something to worry about, because I don't even think the bible said he was omni-benevolent. I mean, according to the bible, with the exception of one family, God drowned the entire population on earth, including children and animals, he incinerating every living thing in two cities, tortured David's newborn son to punish David, killed all the first-born Egyptian children, tested Abraham's faith by seeing if he would kill his son as a human sacrifice, and sent bears to rip children to shreds. It's pretty sick shit. Actually, whether or not God is good or evil shouldn't affect your belief in him at all. All I'm trying to figure out is why people would worship such a monster. Edit: Scratch that last one. I see that you're just saying what I said above.

Well people have been suffering less and less as we go throughout history, with medical and technological advances and such, and we still have individual character and compassion. We actually have more of it than we had back then. At what point does it just disappear? No, even if I was a Christian, I'd still say suffering was in vain, at the very least excess suffering. There's absoloutely no reason for it. No matter how hard you look, it always comes down to being totally unnecessary. There's millions of people around the world that have known nothing but misery from the time they were born until the time they died. What's the point to that? Also, do we suffer in heaven? If 2F2F told people to go out and run people over, then you could say it contributed. But the difference here is that christians during the crusades were following the church's teachings, and the pope. For that time, in general what the Pope said was the correct thing for Christians to do. You couldn't question him. What they said was what was Christian.

About the wars, religion is a huge motivator. Saying it didn't out-right cause them is just being picky. The Crusades were over land, but would people have cared as much if it wasn't supposed to be holy land? The Pope told them the Holy Land had to be liberated at all costs. According to Church doctrine, the Pope does the will of God. Doing what the Pope said was just being a good christian in those times. Whatever he said was the truth.

And being god, he could have done that without creating suffering. That's the whole point. There's no greater good that comes from hurricanes or earthquakes. There's nothing good that can come from some people living out their entire lives in misery and in poverty. Imagine a world 500 years from now. Where science has advanced so far that all poverty and disease have been eliminated. Would we be better off then or not? Think about it. Would we be better of living in the Stone Age than right now?

Even if what you're saying was true, it would only be true because that's the way god set it up in the first place. He could just as easily created a utopia of learning where suffering WASN'T necessary.

Since all my posts got no-sold. I don't understand why anyone would worship an omnipotent being. No matter what other excuses you make for everything else, an omnipotent is always able to make the world as perfect as to how he wants it. He doesn't have to make anything any certain kind of way. Which means he WANTED to create a world full of suffering. He WANTED for there to be natural disasters and diseases. He WANTED to make a human sacrifice necessary for salvation. He WANTED to make a place of eternal torture for people who don't grovel at his feet, and yet still create those people despite knowing where they're going to end up. How sick is that? Besides, I don't think there's anyone that would try to argue that the God in the bible wasn't blood-thirsty. I totally don't get it. Someone explain to me how you can worship this character.

...and who's not even a guy. That too! Damn you internet.

So these "militant atheists" were basically just one guy who's not even an atheist. Alright, heh. And although it might be nice to think flinging insults automatically negates any logical points made and makes the other person look better, the fact is they don't. If you can't handle a little insulting (he's not even flaming you), why are you on this board?

Path of Destruction is really good, but get Barely Legal first. It's probably the best ECW PPV ever from top to bottom. But more than that, it was their first PPV. This is where they went all out to try to prove to people who haven't seen them that they were a legit contender to WCW and WWF. They don't even expect you to know anything about them beforehand. It'll show you what ECW's all about.

Militant atheists? We must be reading different threads. This is one of the most laid back religion arguments I think I've ever seen.

Yes! Isn't Christianity fun? They ate the magic apple! What else could a loving God do?

To punish Adam and Eve, duh

If hot was all that existed, then yeah, there wouldn't be a reference point. But since you're only taking out cold, cold to you would just be normal room temperature. It would still feel better than being hot and sweaty. Love would still feel better to you than indifference or just liking something.

Isaiah 45:7 "I make light and darkness, good and evil; I the Lord do these things."

How can they be aware of the possiblities of the actions when he FORBADE them from learning the difference between their choices? How could they make the right choice without knowing that it was evil to listen to the snake instead of God?

If he knows it already, then that would mean it's set no matter what. If our futures are set in stone, then of course we can't make a choice either way. We would just think we could. But that's not true. If you took away hate, you could still just feel indifferent, like, or love. Just like if you took away cold, hot would still exist. It would still burn or make you feel uncomfortable.

Oh come on, God doesn't need anything. Supposedly, there is nothing he can't do. He makes all the rules. An omnipotent would have the power to create whatever reality he wanted, including a world that has all the benefits without sadness and suffering. But he didn't.

The GAC match with Sabu was just awful. I don't remember why, but their 30 minute draw on hardcore TV was a lot better. I think the matter of respect match was their best. You got to see RVD use actualy psychology (and this was in 96!), spending the whole match going after Sabu's neck. Using moves that I don't think he's done before or after, like the brainbuster off the top rope to get the win. It started off a pretty cool stoyline too. Oh and you have to see some RVD/Sabu against Eliminators matches if you didn't see them yet.

I'm not saying he should be high on the list, just maybe on it. Flair is in the 300's, what did he do in the last six months that Shawn didn't?