And remember, God knows what answers are true and which are false. HAHAHAHAHA! Don't piss him off here...\n\nCatch 22, aint it?
135206
Absolutely not.  I honestly believe that I am not religious just for any reward of afterlife.  I believe that doing what is right is good for its own sake.  And I believe that being religious in my case helps me to be good.
474765
It all dependent on ho your look at the question, o asking the question. it is stander to belie that 2 + 2 = 4. if you take it out of perspective you could see that that 2 puls 2 =22
140774
It is much better not to force belief. Sooner or later you will reject it if forced. Best to look at all the evidence and accept what you can, if necessary, piecemeal. For the rest, try and be comfortable to put it on hold until either you learn more or understand more, or grow in maturity. Use also your own gut feeling. That is much more reliable than most of us give it credit for.
657834
Quote: "You do realize that not everything in the cosmos is logical, yes?"\n\nAbsolutely. But answering these questions with "God created such and such" goes no further in explaining them. In fact, it simply muddies the waters more by pretending to know the unknowable.\n\nQuote: "Do you think it's wise to arbitrarily mythologize every faith?"\n\nLet's face it, most religions have wrapped themselves in myth far more than we could ever do by offering up fables and patently ridiculous stories. These stories, by the way, suddenly ceased to happen around the same time that science became prominent enough to refute them. \n\nQuote: "The truth is there, but it's not always elegant, and it's not always what we wish it were."\n\nJust briefly, take a look at how science approaches a problem and then how religion does it? Do you see a difference? Science STUDIES a problem, it pursues it from different angles and attempts to understand through hueristic methods. In the end, science pursues truth. Religion simply assumes that it already knows.\n\nEdit: To ChrimsonCarrots below: The Bible has credentials? What credentials? These people were NOT historians with an eye on detail and accuracy. Gospel itself means "good news". The goal was to push the idea of Christianity into a positive light and to perpetuate it. If I remember correctly, the story of the crucifiction is told within four books of the bible, Mathew, Luke, Mark, and Paul, the earliest of which was written AT LEAST forty years AFTER the crucifiction. Are you suggestiing that this is reliable and accurate information?
130454
First of all, you are to be commended for struggling to find the truth amidst misinformation and predjudices! Titus 2:7 says in "all things show yourself uncorrupted in your teaching,showing seriousness and speech which cannot be condemned, so that the man on the opposing side may get ashamed,having nothing vile to say about us." So keep up the good work!     When I study my Watchtower, I read it once, just to read it.Then I go through it with my daughter and we answer the questions together. The third time I go through it, I look up the scriptures mentioned and usually write them in the margins of my magazine. That way,even later, I can always go back and look in that magazine and see at a glance what scripures were brought out,the definitions of any words I did not understand or the pronunciation of any Biblical name I couldn't get right( which I also write in the margins) I also underline in pencil (I use colored pencils,different colors have different meanings for me)the scriptures in the Bible that have any sort of special meaning for me.  These are just MY studying methods;you will come into your own in time!! Good luck to you,and your efforts to come into the truth please Jehovah God more than you could know!!  By the way, real Christian-like ,your comments,Rev,Kipp. I'm sure God is real proud of you...
437476
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.\n\n"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner of later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy."
270887
Interesting how so many people quote a different part of the bible without dealing with the fact that there is a clear contradictino here.\n\nTHis guy posted a verse that says basically, ask and you shall receive. Not "I'll think about it", but you shall receive.  And you all quote verses saying "not so fast".  Well, which is it? Can we move mountains with faith? Only if it's for a good cause? What?
142817
Since nitpicking is also about noticing the neat details, here's something I picked-up and appreciated. You may or may not be aware of the importance of the numbers 17 and 23 in conspiracy literature. It's in the Robert Anton Wilson Illuminatus stuff, it's everywhere really. Just like Star Trek's 47s. :) \n\nAnyway, we're well past the halfway point of the picture when I notice, in rather large script, the number 417 on the subway car. (Now, I'm used to catching 47s and there's one there.) I immediately whispered to my friend the appearance of a 17 and that 23 might soon follow. He didn't know what the heck I was talkin' about, but there it was, right on Julia Roberts' cel-phone: 17-23-!!! Clear as day! \n\nThere was also a floor level or warehouse space 17 I think (went by too fast.) AND
641095
Ok.  My answers are in my bedroom in the 3rd drawer from the left.  Come and read them careful, tell me what you think. Give me your answers, I don't grade on a curve. God is straight.
174018
George they will never figure it out. Come on your smart, clever and in league with Satan. They can't prove a thing. Buck up little soldier everything will be fine.
183055
UH-OH! Another non beleiver!\nSince you have soo many questions, perhaps this will help you.
467772
No it isn't true.  \n\nCoach
112746
Some have exploited these statements to argue their point that the Bible is unreliable or untruthful.\n\nBut, in a court judges WILL NOT BELIEVE statements by witnesses that are TOO PERFECT--without any minor inconcistencies. The judge's conclusion would always be that these statements--even under cross examination--were made up, or were too good to be true.\n\nIn reading contracts and law--w/c by the way the Bible is--we look for other provisions of these documents to really understand the whole thing.\n\nHere is a simplistic example:\n\nStatement (1): "Mike is fat".\nStatement (2): "Mike is thin".\nStatement (3): "When Mike was a kid he got sick with polio which severely affected his feet".\n\nIf you read only statements 1, and 2 you will conclude that these are really contradictory--or inconsistent--statements. But Statement (3) gives a clarification.\n\nSo, the correct conclusion considering Statement no. 3 is: "Mike is a fat man with thin legs". Agree, or disagree?\n\nNow let's go back to the 2 examples in question. Godshew(?) was correct. The case about God's warning to Adam, and his age could be reconciled. According to the apostle Peter's statement--a clarificatory one--1,000 years is just like 1 day to God. So, when Adam died at the age of 930, he died within one day in God's own time frame. \n\nAgain, Jesus did not contradict himself when he said that he and the father are one; and that the father is greater than he is. The apostle John was the one who wrote these statements and so he is the one in the better position to explain this (just like a witness in court). In John 17:20-22 he explains that the father, the son--including the disciples--are one in purpose, one in work, one in mind. \n\nFurther, if you will read John 10:25-33--and NOT just isolate John 10:30--then you will immediately notice that Jesus did not claim to be of equal power, or might, than his father. He and the Father are one in deeds (or works). Ps. read the account carefully.\n\nYou know what the problem is? some try to suit Biblical verses according to their beliefs--just like the ungodly trinity--and not suit their beliefs to what the Bible says.\n\nThis in turn is exploited by those eager to insist that the Bible is really unreliable.\n\nHope this helped a lot of people examine their Bibles closely.
316011
The ingredients you find to rationalize your disbelief amuses me! Come on, dude, FLEAS!!!LOL that is your way of proving their's no God!? Weak proof at best. You should go back to the guy who put that into your head and slap him!!!LOL( just kidding, don't do that!) Appendectomies, right? Well I don't remember any of God's prophets killed from a lack of appendix surgeries! Yet God has always healed HIS CHILDREN who love Him. God uses such problems as the appendix to judge grown ups,yet things go wrong, and little children die, but isn't it better that they don't have to go on in this world but rather in a perfect world with their Father? Ohh yea, you believe that's it for the child, no chance, no hope, no love. Your beliefs sentence those children to nothingness and loss. Is that right? The "beef" as you say is in the Bible and you're starving yourself trying to devour the scraps dropped from Darwin's table. But his table is empty by Darwin's own admission. Darwin said "If one could prove that single-celled organisms can split then I am wrong." (I'm paraphrasing) And they can split as your precious science has proven. So why do scientists continue to back Darwin's THEORY? Because they would rather back a lie that they discovered rather than the truth that makes them useless. I'll tell you another miracle of God, friend. The miracle of God changing your heart, and that's the one that's harder than any other, but IT CAN HAPPEN if you'd let it.
354456
I think the truth is in all of these place and in none. I know that sounds like a bunch or philosophical garbage, but bear with me.\n\nLet's assume there is a God (or gods) who created the universe (and by extension, Earth and all of us). Let's further assume that the divine creator(s) decided to communicate some universal truth and wisdom to us, and that this is what actually made it into a holy book somewhere (meaning that there is validity to at least one religion, and that all religions were not necessarily created by power-grubbing people). Most religions preach that God is good and loves us. Most relgions preach that we should try as hard as possible to live in peace and harmony with one another. If this is the case, why would and God give the truth to one group of people and not another? If people are spread all through the world,then why would people thousands of years ago in, say, Israel or India be any more deserving of the truth than people anywhere else?\n\nFrankly, I don't think God "chose" one group of people to recieve the truth and misled (or allowed to toil in ignorance) all the rest. This would contradict the idea that God is good and wants us to get along. What would make sense (at least to me) is that the universal truth is way, way bigger than any mere mortal could possibly grasp, so God wouldn't try to give all that truth to one person (it would be like explaining to your dog how to build a house - you could lecture all day, but he still isn't going to understand!). And what primitive, stone-age people could understand would be much less than what we modern humans can understant (we just know more about the world and ourselves, learned through experience over thousands of years). An all-knowing God would understand this, and might give some part of the truth to one group and another part of the truth to another group. That way, both groups have a good start and neither has been deceived. And as an added bonus, when those 2 groups meet up in a few thousand years, they'll need to come to some kind of understanding as to the differences in what they believe. People from Group A will need to understand the beliefs of Group B and accept those as valid (unless they just want to fight with each other, which doesn't seem to be what God's interested in). Eventually, Group A and Group B could find a shared value system that encorporates both groups' beliefs, thus bringing both groups one step closer to the whole truth, and at the same time working together peacefully (which, as I said, seems to be a theme in most major religions). \n\nSo, where is the truth? It's in all the places you mention, because God inspired it to be there. But it's in none of these places, because no book could ever hold all the truth of God or the universe. The real truth comes in understanding as much as possible and not taking any single viewpoint as being the only correct one. Only God has the single, ultimate viewpoint, and no religion can mimic that. Look for what is common - common to many religions, common in many people, common in many societies and ways of life. This is where the truth lays.
67110
Amen! If you think the Bible is false, you would be calling Him a liar. If you think it's written just by men, you are calling God a liar. How could you believe in a God that would lie? You wouldn't. So no, you cannot believe God and not the Bible. Without the Bible how would you know God? God Bless!
13922
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.