News

1. Comments are cramming up the pages. So I have added a comment summary to each post.

GOD needs to be worshipped

You do not understand the term GOD. That's the pill you need. Lack of this understanding is what makes you say about God all that you do say. You also don't seem to know what man is. So here is the comparison.

  • He is the creator of this universe.
    Man is one of the creatures God made.
  • God is the creator of this entire Universe is so powerful that human mind cannot comprehend.
    Man is a tiny creature who lives on earth, which is one of the planets in this solar system, which is one of the many solar systems in this galaxy, which is one of the many galaxies...
  • God dwells outside of time.
    Man lives in time and that too for a maximum of 100 years and that too if nothing unexpected happens to him. 
  • God created the many dimensions there are.
    Man lives in one dimension and does not even know if other dimensions exist.
  • God is all knowing.
    Man does not know anything. If he wants to know anything, he has to learn it and that too from another man who has in turn learnt from someone else.
 So that id God and that is man. Next time use the word GOD only if you know what you are talking about.   

30 comments:

  1. The Reverend Toni Rigatoni (CotFSM)16 September 2012 08:15

    This is all well and good, but you are automatically assuming the reality of a god. Atheists do not subscribe to this belief; you have not provided any evidence to support your stance on the existence of god, and so your assertions above are irrelevant. The internet is a powerful tool, please ensure that people researching on the net are presented with facts and not your inane bullshit. Present evidence of your god or shut the hell up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I am automatically assuming the existence of God, atheists are automatically assuming the non-existence of God. Therefore we are fully justified in asking you for evidences for the belief you are promoting.

      I cannot provide you any evidence for the existence of God. But you cannot say that I have not received any evidences. I do have evidences. The evidences are my experiences. God is a spirit and you can only experience Him and you cannot show Him to someone.

      Since the net is a powerful tool I do not want people to be deceived by the atheists. That is the very reason why I have started this site.

      Delete
    2. "The evidences are my experiences."

      Which also proves big foot, chupacabra, the loch ness monster, and alien abductions. This 'proof' has a name: "emotional coherence". To put it plainly, if you feel something then the thought that inspired the emotion becomes proof. Like a child who fears the monster under their bed, they feel real fear, therefore the monster is real.

      Sorry. Not good enough.

      Delete
    3. First, not all atheists believe there is no God, or gods. There is such a thing as agnostic atheism, where the atheist does not know if there is a God, or gods, but has no reason, or proof, to believe in a God, or gods.

      If you are to argue that experiences are evidence, how could you say that everybody in other religions who had "experiences" are wrong?

      You say you don't want people to be deceived by atheists. You shouldn't have to worry about that though, because mankind cannot totally disprove God. However, the burden of proof is on you guys, the religious people, to prove that a God, or gods, exist. You cannot claim that all atheists believe that there is no God, so they have to prove their belief. If you still want to use that though, how about this: "If I am automatically assuming the existence of the FSM, Christians are automatically assuming the non-existence of the FSM. Therefore we are fully justified in asking you for evidences for the belief you are promoting." Except, with mine, it works. In order to believe in the Christian God, you cannot believe in other gods, so you believe there are no other gods. So, this time it's on the other foot, an atheist trying to get a Christian to prove the non-existence of a God, in this case the FSM.

      Delete
    4. As I have already said, if the experiences were my single experiences, you could say this. But there are 1000s of people who share this experiences. So you cannot say that this is not a good enough evidence.

      Delete
    5. My worry is not that man is going to disprove God. I am worried about people. They need to be saved.

      Agnostic atheism, anti-theism, etc. are all various terms invented by people to hide behind. There can only be a 'yes' or a "no" or an "I don't know". Do not hide behind such senseless terms. If I ask you a simple question "does God exist?" what would your answer be?

      You cannot however place the burden of proof entirely on us. You cannot hide behind that. The burden lies on you also as yours is also a claim. Could you please tell me why I can

      Your FSM argument is absolute nonsense and I will show you why. You see we Christians do not believe in an FSM. But you cannot ask us for evidence. Why? Because we are not proclaiming that your god the FSM does not exist. But that is not the case with you. You have your beliefs and you promote atheism. Atheist always and everywhere come in and insist that God does not exist.

      Moreover we know the real God. The Only God of the universe. He has revealed himself to us. We know Him and we commune with Him. And we know that there is no other Gods but Him.

      Delete
    6. "But there are 1000s of people who share this experiences."

      There are thousands of children who fear the monsters under their beds, in their closets, or in the dark. There are thousands of people worldwide claiming to have been abducted by aliens or to have seen UFOs. Based on the "1000s of people" justification, this is all true too. Which must mean, Allah is real, 3.2 Billion people who share this experience can't be wrong so I have to assume you face Mecca when you pray to god.

      Delete
    7. Personal communication with God is not something that another religion. No other religion teaches about a God who wants a personal relationship with man. That God is the real God who communes in a personal way with each individual. Thus he communes in a personal way with each individual who accepts Him as God. That is the experience I am talking about as my evidence.

      Delete
    8. "Personal communication with God is not something that another religion. No other religion teaches about a God who wants a personal relationship with man."

      Actually, Islam teaches it's not deeds that gets you into heaven, it's a personal relationship with God.

      "On no soul doth God Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns. (Pray:) "Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith." - Qur'an Surah 2 verse 286

      As this scripture explains, god communes with each Muslim, increasing and decreasing the burdens placed on each person in accordance with how well their personal relationship is maintained.

      This is also true of Hinduism. The Hindu concept of god is that of a personal god, whom the individual can worship out of love and not out of fear.

      Seems your justifications apply equally the religions you are atheistic towards, which based on your own arguments means you don't understand their scripture and require saving.



      Delete
    9. Let me quote again what I have said before because you have evidently not understood what I have written. "No other religion teaches about a God who wants a personal relationship with man."

      The quote you made has nothing showing a God who want to maintain a personal relationship with individuals. There is a difference between 'catering to each persons needs' and 'wanting to have a personal relationship with each person'.

      Also by saying "this is also true of Hinduism" shows that you are saying this just for arguing and that you know very little about Hinduism. Hinduism is a pan-theistic religion. That means nature is their God. Also you may not know that Hinduism is not a name of any religion. But since that is out of the scope of our topic, I don't wish to go down that path.



      Delete
    10. "There is a difference between 'catering to each persons needs' and 'wanting to have a personal relationship with each person'."

      I guess I'll use your own responses as an answer then:"You don't understand scripture"

      There is no reason for a god to cater to a person's needs unless god wants a personal relationship.

      "Also by saying "this is also true of Hinduism" shows that you are saying this just for arguing and that you know very little about Hinduism"

      Actually, I travel to India for work, before I was allowed to travel there I had to undergo diversity awareness training so I could avoid any silly "American" mistakes which would embarrass my employer. This training included cultural awareness, customs, idioms, and an overview of the indigenous religions which are included under Hinduism. That was 5 years ago, two trips a year, 3 weeks per trip. In that time, I have met many wonderful people who have expanded my knowledge considerably on the subject. Sorry to tell you, Hinduism IS REAL.

      You may be arguing semantics, mentally separating denominations like Shaivism and Vaishnavism but these are factually part of Hinduism. Much the same way Baptist & Mormon are factually part of Christianity.

      Hinduism is NOT a pantheistic religion, it is typically considered polytheistic, however it does not fit neatly there. The problem is, Hinduism, like Christianity, encompass many traditions and philosophies. Some of which are pantheistic, most are polytheistic, but largely considered monotheistic since each god is simply one form of a single supreme being; like the holy trinity only larger.

      "But since that is out of the scope of our topic..."

      No it is not. You opened the door for this the moment you asserted, "No other religion...". I am now free to discuss every religion that claims you and Christianity are wrong.

      I am assuming you must be wondering why I am doing this? It is because your faith is just one of many, this is a reality. So long as your arguments apply equally to counter faiths then either it is all true, which can't be, or it's all just BS.

      Delete
    11. *******There is no reason for a god to cater to a person's needs unless god wants a personal relationship. ********

      Are you sure. Let us say you are the CEO of a company and you for a HR department to cater to every bodies needs. Does that mean that you want a personal relationship with each one of your employee?



      *******Sorry to tell you, Hinduism IS REAL. **********

      I live in India. Sorry to tell you that you are wrong about Hinduism.



      *******You may be arguing semantics, mentally separating denominations like Shaivism and Vaishnavism but these are factually part of Hinduism. Much the same way Baptist & Mormon are factually part of Christianity.******

      Mormonism is part of Christianity??? Please show some concern for truth.


      ****Hinduism is NOT...... only larger*****
      India was a land of many small kingdoms. All of them worshiped many different things found in nature. Those were not Hinduism. Later on during the reign of the British, this land was united to form one country. All the different parts of the country had their own forms of worship. The Indians were originally called "Sindus" after the river Sindu which is also called Indus. That name later became "Hindus". Since the British could not figure out what religion the Indians followed and they just wanted one common word to refer to the various religions followed by the Hinuds. They coined the word "Hindusim".

      The various gods seen India today are personification of various powers of the nature. "Devas" are simply godly characters. There is no concept of a GOd as in Christianity.

      Then there are the Vedas. They are considered the sacred text of the Hindus. But the Vedas speaks of a God that is right now not found anywhere in the Hindu worship. It speaks of a God who will come down as the "Prajapathi", born of a virgin and offer Himself as a sacrifice, hanging on a tree for the redemption of the people. The vedas were written at least 1500 yeas before Christ.

      Delete
    12. "Let us say you are the CEO of a company and you for a HR department to cater to every bodies needs. Does that mean that you want a personal relationship with each one of your employee?"

      This appears to be an incomplete though on your part. You may want to reframe the question as it makes no sense to me in current form

      "I live in India. Sorry to tell you that you are wrong about Hinduism."

      Which part? About it crossing definitions, as in not fitting neatly within pantheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic labels? The fact that all the deities are an aspect of one supreme absolute (Brahman); a concept similar to the holy trinity? Or about its existence? As if it matters who coined the term, even "The Times of India" uses the word to encompass the body of beliefs, obviously it is accepted lexicon.

      "Mormonism is part of Christianity??? Please show some concern for truth."

      Mormons self-identify as Christian. This is what happens when there is no burden of proof; any belief then qualifies as ‘truth’. Apparently they also have ‘personal experiences’ evidence, yet, somehow this justification only applies to you.

      Delete
    13. Though Indians today think that there is a religion called Hinduism, history shows us that this is not so. It is just a mess of stories about so called gods with zero evidence of its origins. However it is known that the Vedas were the texts that ancients used and built their beliefs on.

      Mormons cannot be called Christians at all. The simple reason is that they go against the teaching of Jesus and present a complete senseless story of god and and equivalently strange story of someone called Joseph Smith. It cannot be in anyway associated with Christianity.

      Delete
  2. The Reverend Toni Rigatoni (CotFSM)19 September 2012 03:32

    Thank you for replying to my post. You are incorrect when you say that atheists are automatically assuming god's non-existence. Many atheists are reformed theists that have NOT found any evidence to support the claims of the bible, in fact there is a mountain of evidence to refute the biblical claims; read some science books and the evidence will become clear, as will applying logic and rational thinking. Personal revelation cannot be submitted as evidence; before any evidence can be accepted as fact it should be able to withstand rigorous scientific investigation and produce repeatable and predictable results and survive intense peer review; personal revelation doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Last night an angel came to me in a dream and told me I am Napoleon Bonaparte, do you accept that or do you dismiss it? Of course you dismiss it, and it would be unreasonable to expect you to prove that I am indeed merely delusional; I can't prove to you I am what I say I am but I'm totally convinced. My question is, should I create a website and promote my 'belief', and if I did should I expect respect for it? You tell me. Finally Ann, atheism (not capitalized) is not a belief it is the lack thereof, but much has been written about the fallacy of atheism as a belief so I will not labour the point here, but I would suggest that as you are now a contributor to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you spend some time reading some of the posts and the responses to them.

    May the Sauce be with you.

    The Reverend

    ReplyDelete
  3. If that is what you mean by "automatic" then I can also tell you the same thing - Many theists are reformed atheists that have found evidence to support the claims of the bible.

    There are plenty of evidence to support the Bible claims. But they allowed to enter into those science books that you are talking about.

    Now you say "before any evidence can be accepted as fact it should be able to withstand rigorous scientific investigation and produce repeatable and predictable results and survive intense peer review;" This is a rule that man created to be used as a method of study of the physical world. But now we are studying about God who is not a physical being. Why do you insist that this rule should apply here too? God is out creator and man cannot use his method of study to know GOD. We must use the rules revealed by GOD.

    Your example is nonsense. If you claim that an angel told you that you are Napoleon. most obviously I would not believe you. But that example does not apply to us. I am not the only one who have such experiences. Thousands of Christians have experiences of God talking to them. So you cannot simply brush it aside.

    I am putting up this website to save people if possible from eternal destruction. That is why this site exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Reverend Toni Rigatoni (CotFSM)20 September 2012 06:40

      Sorry Annie, I just can't accept what you are saying, you are right when you say that the existence of god cannot be tested scientifically and there lies the basis of mine and many millions of others disbelief. If the only way to know god is through experience, why has he revealed himself to you but not to me? I'm a good person, a loving husband, father and grandfather; I live my life for the benefit of others both socially and professionally, what have you done that pleases your god to reveal himself to you that I have not? You say there is plenty of evidence to support the bible, but when I ask you to present evidence you revert to the old chestnut 'faith'. either you have evidence or you don't. If you do present it, if not, admit it.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the existence of God cannot be tested scientifically. But if that is driving you to conclude that He does not exist, then that only shows a narrow mindedness. God is not physical. Therefore if the methodologies used by scientists does not help you in your investigation why should you stop there and make a conclusion? In fact many people are just slaves of scientists. The scientists decide facts and they decide the methods of study. We have to use their methods and have to take what ever result that study produces. If scientific methods don't work we must try other methods. Why limit yourselves?

      Now here is the answer to your question. God did not reveal himself to me because I am a better person than you. No. I may not be a better person than you. The only reason He revealed Himself to me is because I acknowledged Him. That is what you don't do and that is why He has not revealed Himself to you.

      Now as for evidences I want to say this. God wants a person to accept Him first and then see evidence. Secondly, He want you to see evidence by yourself. You trust on so many scientific researches. But you have not done them personally. Scientists have done and you just trust them. But here God wants you to do the research by yourselves and see results yourselves.

      Delete
    3. "God is not physical."

      Another example of "comprehension" over something which the "human mind cannot comprehend".

      I see a pattern.

      Delete
    4. Yes that is. That is however what was revealed to me.

      Delete
  4. "But now we are studying about God who is not a physical being."

    This runs counter to your claim that:

    "God is the creator of this entire Universe is so powerful that human mind cannot comprehend"

    You claim the human mind cannot comprehend god and his power but yet you are defining, hence exhibiting 'comprehension', over what god is and what he is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who says I comprehended it? That definition (though not a complete one) was revealed to me not my own comprehension.

      Delete
    2. "Who says I comprehended it?"

      You did. "so powerful that human mind cannot comprehend" "dwells outside of time"

      Something which cannot be comprehended, cannot be understood, yet your bullet point display comprehension by placing a framework around the unknown which can only mean, god can be comprehended.

      Delete
    3. The Reverend Toni Rigatoni (CotFSM)22 September 2012 07:29

      You are mis-defining the word comprehension, if it was revealed to you you would then comprehend it and therefore you are negating your own argument.

      Delete
    4. We cannot understand God fully. The little that I know of GOD has been revealed to me. That is what I meant.

      You guys think that human intelligence is something great and in the process endanger yourselves.

      Delete
    5. I meant comprehending it by myself. I did not understand it all by myself. It was revealed to me.

      Delete
  5. I have moved this post here for easy management.

    Anonymous20 September 2012 12:58

    "If I ask you a simple question 'does God exist?' what would your answer be?"
    I would answer, honestly, that I do not know. There has been no proof, at least that I've seen, that convinces me that a god is real or not real.

    "The burden lies on you also as yours is also a claim."
    No, mine is not, as I have just explained. Therefore, I can place the burden of proof directly on you, as I have no belief whatsoever to disprove/prove.

    "Because we are not proclaiming that your god the FSM does not exist." Then, you say, "And we know that there is no other Gods but Him."
    Decide what you are going to say, either you know there is only the Christian God, or that you do not know that the FSM doesn't exist. However, since you did say that you know that there are no other gods than your God, prove that the FSM isn't real, as that's your belief.

    "Atheist always and everywhere come in and insist that God does not exist."
    You know, Christians basically do the same thing. If an atheist were to declare that there is no god, a Christian would (I'm just guessing here) disagree with that and insist that God does exist. Extremists do not (usually)represent the majority. Unless you're saying that most Muslims would blow themselves up if they were asked to? Or, you could mean that most Christians blow up abortion clinics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a more sensible position to take. Since you have not seen evidence it is only logical for you take an agnostic position.

      In your case since you hold an agnostic position I will admit that the burden of proof does not lie on you. However, there are evidence for the existence, but those evidence have a particular nature. Read about it here: http://atheistpill.blogspot.com/2012/09/nature-of-evidence.html

      We know our God. We know He is real. We are communicating with Him. He has revealed to us that He is the only God there is. That is our evidence that your strange idea does not exist.

      We declare there is a God and would disagree with the contrary. We do this because we know the truth and because those who do not use the escape route will be destroyed.

      Delete
  6. “Man is a tiny creature who lives on earth, which is one of the planets in this solar system, which is one of the many solar systems in this galaxy, which is one of the many galaxies...” - Good thing you have some faith in science, since its not a Bible or God reveals this to you.
    “God dwells outside of time.” – probably that is why iternal damnation his favorite punishment. “Man lives in time and that too for a maximum of 100 years and that too if nothing unexpected happens to him.” – Aren’t we supposed to have immortal soul (even if it’s going to hell)?
    “God created the many dimensions there are. Man lives in one dimension and does not even know if other dimensions exist.” – Somehow you know that they exist. That sounds realy illogical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a person who thinks for yourselves? Or do you just borrow ideas? When I challenge atheists I tell them that they are atheist because the ideas from other atheists have brainwashed them. But when I do that they object. They say that they are atheists because they searched for truth and did not find any evidence supporting the evidence of GOD.

      But when I talk them they keep presenting the same arguments that others have like:
      FSM
      God is cruel
      Provide scientific evidence
      Jesus did not exist

      etc.

      How is this so? You are been brainwashed by ideas of other atheists. I have never come across an atheists providing any unique arguments.

      So do you think for yourselves?

      Delete