Author Topic: Two Questions For Believers  (Read 1820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2013, 06:46:53 AM »
OCG if you wish to seek medical help for something you may feel is bad that God has commanded you to do,why have you not sought it out for a feeling you think is God that is a good feeling?

 What,basically is the difference from the comforting and uneasy feeling,where you would seek help for one and not the other? Does this mean you could have doubt in God if he asked you to do what you perceive to be evil? Over the early Christian centuries in the Bible when people followed the example of God,they slaughtered millions,but you would somehow doubt him?

We know God won't do that anymore though. After Jesus sacrifice, it was finished. No more sacrifices needed to atone for our sins.

So you can be 100% sure that if you hear voices to do that, it is certainly demons, without a doubt.

How do you know this? Are you setting limits for your god? Are you telling Him what He can and cannot do? By your words have you not just forbade God from ever testing you this way?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2013, 07:28:55 AM »
So, OGC, how do you account for the fact the god si shown as having told people to kill others in the bible? Not just Abraham and Isaac but all those populations destroyed. Surely if god told Joshua to kill everyone in a whole town he might ask you to do something like that too. Afterall, isn't something morally right because god says it is - isn't he the absolute morality?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4557
  • Darwins +103/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2013, 10:40:52 AM »
OCG if you wish to seek medical help for something you may feel is bad that God has commanded you to do,why have you not sought it out for a feeling you think is God that is a good feeling?

 What,basically is the difference from the comforting and uneasy feeling,where you would seek help for one and not the other? Does this mean you could have doubt in God if he asked you to do what you perceive to be evil? Over the early Christian centuries in the Bible when people followed the example of God,they slaughtered millions,but you would somehow doubt him?

Getting back in touch with this website is an example of a good feeling and one I am willing to ascribe to God thumping me on the head (a gentle thump by the way).  I honestly see no reason to seek medical help for getting back in touch with this group. 

Of course I would doubt God if I perceived a message from Him telling me to do harm to another.  The idea of knowingly harming another person is not something I enjoy.  If this means I am a hypocritical theist, so be it.  I don't recall ever claiming full knowledge of God but if I did, please forgive my arrogance. 

While I am convinced God exists I am equally convinced God gave me a brain to use.  I am a believer in free-will as opposed to seeing myself trapped in a battle between forces of good and evil.

Definitely a great question to start off the day.

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Are you sure the thumping of your head and coming back into the "fold" here is not just a decision you have made? I can understand your answer,but your free-will could make you defy God?

 If you were getting bad vibes from God you would ignore them and seek help,when you feel good you attribute it to a God rather than just to rational thought,why?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1908
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2013, 10:59:18 AM »
We know God won't do that anymore though. After Jesus sacrifice, it was finished. No more sacrifices needed to atone for our sins.
That's what this demon wants you to think.  It wants you to sit on your laurels and assume that no more sacrifices are needed to combat sin.  It wants you to think this so that it can continuing spreading sin without worrying about any more pesky sacrifices to throw a wrench in its plans.
Quote
So you can be 100% sure that if you hear voices to do that, it is certainly demons, without a doubt.
Just what this demon wants.  This demon has succeeded in preventing you from listening to the True God.  If god instructs you to do something to combat this demon...just a voice in your head.  This demon no longer has to worry about you doing anything for god - it has succeeded in tricking you into thinking that you're following The One True Path when in actuality you are serving a demon.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Darwins +533/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2013, 11:02:26 AM »
Meaning no offense as one theist to another, but I am not here to "fight the good fight".  I feel led by God to be here but not to convert lost souls or show the participants the error in their ways.  Rather, to show to myself and the other participants on this web site that atheists and theists can have a lively civil exchange and also respect each other in the process.
This, I think, illustrates the problem with religion.  People assume that they're correct in terms of faith, and act that way towards others.  Even if they were correct, that attitude would rub everyone else the wrong way.  But since there's no way to tell if they're correct in the first place (and claiming that someone will know after they die is useless), it simply guarantees division.

Quote from: OldChurchGuy
If I had proof in the way this website asks for proof, presented it and was still rejected by the atheists, then I would gladly fight the good fight.  But to the best of my knowledge, that kind of proof does not exist.
Agreed.  It's all people trying to come up with answers to the unanswerable.  We don't even know for sure what the question is that needs to be answered, or if there is one to begin with.

Quote from: OldChurchGuy
I cannot explain the smites.  Perhaps it is the old axiom, " it's not what you say but how you say it" that matters.  Just a thought with no proof to back it up.
It's a combination of both, in my opinion.  He's insisting that everything that contradicts what he personally believes to be incorrect is either inspired or directly caused by demons, and refuses to address anything that contradicts his assertion.  Worse, he often doesn't even address them.  It's this sheer, blatant intolerance - not just disagreement, but the blatant refusal to even consider most of what people say to him - that causes him to get so many smites.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2013, 10:09:14 PM »
So, OGC, how do you account for the fact the god si shown as having told people to kill others in the bible? Not just Abraham and Isaac but all those populations destroyed. Surely if god told Joshua to kill everyone in a whole town he might ask you to do something like that too. Afterall, isn't something morally right because god says it is - isn't he the absolute morality?

I cannot explain it. 

Regretting not having a perfect answer I remain,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2013, 10:30:14 PM »
So, OGC, how do you account for the fact the god si shown as having told people to kill others in the bible? Not just Abraham and Isaac but all those populations destroyed. Surely if god told Joshua to kill everyone in a whole town he might ask you to do something like that too. Afterall, isn't something morally right because god says it is - isn't he the absolute morality?

I cannot explain it. 

Regretting not having a perfect answer I remain,

OldChurchGuy

Do you find the Muslim religion to be immoral regarding their teachings on killing infidels/non-believers (which stem from the Koran)?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2013, 10:36:16 PM »
So, OGC, how do you account for the fact the god si shown as having told people to kill others in the bible? Not just Abraham and Isaac but all those populations destroyed. Surely if god told Joshua to kill everyone in a whole town he might ask you to do something like that too. Afterall, isn't something morally right because god says it is - isn't he the absolute morality?

I cannot explain it. 

Regretting not having a perfect answer I remain,

OldChurchGuy

Do you find the Muslim religion to be immoral regarding their teachings on killing infidels/non-believers (which stem from the Koran)?

I have not read the Koran so am not able to know if your assertion is correct or not.  Presuming the idea that the Koran states one should kill infidels / non-believers then I would find that particular passage immoral.  The Muslim faith, as I understand it from those I have talked with about it, is one of peace.  So either the ones who advocate killing the infidels are wrong or the majority of Muslims who do not with to kill infidels are wrong.  Personally, I agree with the majority of Muslims. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2013, 11:44:58 PM »
OldChurchGuy

Deuteronomy 17 states that the non-believer should be put to death; of course Muslims would have something similar as in the Qu'ran: Surah 9:3.

The problem with the Christian, or the Jew, or the Muslim, is that they state is God's Word and yet they all mainly pick and choose which to follow. I respect you but you're a part of it. Do I see it as a bad thing? No, I don't. I just find it contradictory.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2013, 06:18:15 AM »
OldChurchGuy

Deuteronomy 17 states that the non-believer should be put to death; of course Muslims would have something similar as in the Qu'ran: Surah 9:3.

The problem with the Christian, or the Jew, or the Muslim, is that they state is God's Word and yet they all mainly pick and choose which to follow. I respect you but you're a part of it. Do I see it as a bad thing? No, I don't. I just find it contradictory.

-Nam

At the risk of sounding like a politician, I see the contradictions as a human thing.  We tend to strive for consistency yet also make allowances for exceptions in our lives and in the lives of others. 

For me, the proof is more in the actions of a person rather than their pronouncements of theology. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2013, 07:02:29 AM »
OGC,

Isn't this what we have been talking about here and in other threads - the dis-join between what the bible says and how believers think and act. The way I see it is that there is, actually only two possibilities here -

1. That the texts in the bible (or other holy books) and the instructions therein are binding on believers who must stick to them. Ultra-orthodox Jews di this for example.

OR

2. The texts and instruction in the holy books need to be filtered by the individual believer so that, based on the individual believer's morals, an instruction will be carried out or ignored. Thus, you, OGC, decide that killing people from other faiths is  abad thing to do and don't do it, even though there may be an instruction in the bible that says it must be done.

I don't quite see how there can be any other choices other than the above. However, there is a huge difference in meaning -

1. The holy book and hence the god is the bearer and source of morals and what he or his prophets say is moral - by definition.

OR

2. Each human has a sense of morals based on biology and upbringing and he looks at texts and instructions in the holy books and decides, according to modern morals, if what is being asked is valid or should be rejected as from a long gone age.

By choosing to filter what the bible says, the source of moral has moved from the god in question to the individual - originally from the society in which he was brought up. Replacing god's morals with an individual's own morals means that the god in question is significantly lessened in influence - over the individual as well as the society. It is the slippery slope hat leads to realising that life without a god works just as well if not better.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2013, 08:04:39 AM »
^^The source of morality never moved away from the individual, as it's a moral decision to relinquish all your moral judgements and follow the diktats of someone else. Ironically, I'd say the decision to place morality on something else and be amoral is possibly the most crucial moral decision you could ever make.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2013, 09:33:11 AM »
^^The source of morality never moved away from the individual, as it's a moral decision to relinquish all your moral judgements and follow the diktats of someone else. Ironically, I'd say the decision to place morality on something else and be amoral is possibly the most crucial moral decision you could ever make.

Well, maybe, but there is an alternative view - that the source of morality is an objective source not a subjective source such as we possess. An objective source of morality is one which is fixed for all time and, oddly is set out by a god. This is well explain by Lane Craig as it is one of his key arguments. The thing is, that if god is the source of objective morality then that was so when the first people appeared (let's say Adam and Eve) who would have been presented with this morality by god (who used to like a chat back then!) in the same was as we have laws of the land which are objective in the sense they are written down and don't change according to our whims. It's easy to see how and objective morality would bolster the  notion of the existence of a god - indeed it is probably necessary for belief. After all, if the existing god doesn't have objective morality there's a big problem with the world-view of believers.

On the other hand, atheist do not have this objective morality at all as there is no possible source of such. So we work with subjective morality - judging each matter on its merits. So, for example, if someone approached us and asked us to kill another person we would, I hope, immediately decide this was against our own morality and refuse. However, a believer in objective morality, and hence of god, would have little choice if his god told him to kill someone.

This is the critical bit because, if a believer would reject a command of his god then he has rejected objective morality and, as it were, re-created his god in his own moral image. The god of the Old Testament was quite keen on instructing killings but nowadays we are told he wouldn't do that. Why - because the god moralists have created doesn't do that sort of thing or because the OT god has changed his mind and now doesn't like the OT morality? Either way, we are lacking a god that can be worshipped seriously. That's why this objective / subjective morality is important.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2013, 09:49:30 AM »
The idea of an objective morality doesn't escape, and especially not WLC's argument for it. While at face value, it looks like a conclusion drawn from an intellectual judgement, it isn't. Concluding that morality is objective, is by definition, a moral judgement made by the subject. Little Willy hasn't removed himself from his own experience and is no objective observer, even if he likes to think he is.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2013, 09:55:46 AM »
The idea of an objective morality doesn't escape, and especially not WLC's argument for it. While at face value, it looks like a conclusion drawn from an intellectual judgement, it isn't. Concluding that morality is objective, is by definition, a moral judgement made by the subject. Little Willy hasn't removed himself from his own experience and is no objective observer, even if he likes to think he is.

True, though belief in the supernatural does rather mess with one's mind. I am not arguing that objective morality exists at all but just presenting it. So far as I can see it doesn't have a leg to stand on - for the reason you give as well the problem of the differing morals in the OT and NT along with the variable morals people have drawn from the bible since it was written.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2013, 10:10:38 AM »
No, I know you're not arguing for its existence. :)

I was just pointing out that the differing morals strewn throughout the Bible are a secondary issue, as the foundation of objective morality on which they stand is constructed by sky hooks.

As a disclaimer, I'm not strictly saying that objective morality doesn't exist, only that if it does, we can't know that it does and therefore shouldn't believe that it does.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2013, 03:07:07 PM »
I have told you that I am skeptical of atheism. Atheism doesn't offer you anything or make your life any better or make you a better person in the way Christianity does.

The LACK of belief in gods is not intended to promise or offer ANYTHING other than I don't know, TRUTH and a reality-based outlook. There's no promise to those that wish to "join the atheist number" of a better life or an eternity of paradise, but so what?!?!

There are other things in like that a person can look to to derive pleasure, meaning, joy, etc. All atheism is is me saying to you, "I don't buy the god-crap you're selling." Nothing about atheism defines me or positively identifies who I am as a person.

I can show you the changes in my life when I became Christian.

I can show you changes in my life when I 1st got layed, when I got my driver's license, when I got married, when I had kids, after I had a bout with gout, when I when no longer a believer, when I learned how to cook, when I starting using the internet, when I got a cell phone, etc. In life, things happen that have a way of affecting change in our lives. We learn, we hurt, we reevaluate, we..............EVOLVE.

Can you show me what atheism does for you? This is part of the reason we Christians don't understand why people would be atheist. It's such a depressing and hopeless point of view.

What's wrong with believing in Heaven? Is it really such a bad thing? How is it better to not believe in Heaven?

The problem with believing in Heaven is that it is very highly likely to be unreal and a false hope. It's like being on an island with a bunch of sick folks who are longing for a cure to the ills that afflict you. They decide to get a boat and go to other islands as they devise ways to hopefully raet the illness. You on the other hand, decide to do NOTHING but believe you will get better because your personally imagined friend will miraculously cure you. You believe this so strongly that you convince others to stay with you and do nothing as well which serves to hold back the effort of the masses at discovering a way to better everyone's lives all because of your superstition. That is what's wrong with believing in Heaven my friend!

What atheism does for me is absolutely nothing ASIDE from giving me the wherewithall to not buy into the crap you're selling that's holding back the masses from assisting in finding real ways to better our human condition.

Offline Iamrational

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2013, 04:10:17 PM »
This is the problem I was talking about with atheists taking everything literally

You theists are the ones that say the bible is the literal word of god. We are just trying to keep true to that concept.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2013, 04:16:42 PM »
This is the problem I was talking about with atheists taking everything literally

You theists are the ones that say the bible is the literal word of god. We are just trying to keep true to that concept.

To be fair it isn't every Christian that takes the bible as the literal word of god - that is really the more recent movement called fundamentalism. Many Christians are happy to see that some parts of the text are describing something that actually happened whilst other parts are metaphorical.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2013, 04:23:02 PM »
This is the problem I was talking about with atheists taking everything literally

You theists are the ones that say the bible is the literal word of god. We are just trying to keep true to that concept.

To be fair it isn't every Christian that takes the bible as the literal word of god - that is really the more recent movement called fundamentalism. Many Christians are happy to see that some parts of the text are describing something that actually happened whilst other parts are metaphorical.

Trouble is though, there is no guide that tells them what is literal and what is metaphorical. They just make it up as they go along. My father-in-law thinks Genesis literally happened, others think it didn't.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2013, 04:31:03 PM »
Yes, I suppose that is a problem. I think every sect denomination has its own view and what is literal and what is not.  of course if they did agree there would juts be one church - just like Jesus wanted ... apparently
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2467
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2013, 05:43:40 PM »
This is the critical bit because, if a believer would reject a command of his god then he has rejected objective morality and, as it were, re-created his god in his own moral image. The god of the Old Testament was quite keen on instructing killings but nowadays we are told he wouldn't do that. Why - because the god moralists have created doesn't do that sort of thing or because the OT god has changed his mind and now doesn't like the OT morality? Either way, we are lacking a god that can be worshipped seriously. That's why this objective / subjective morality is important.

No! This has been explained! ignoring the explanation is dishonest!

God doesn't do it anymore because Jesus said "it is finished!" on the cross. No more people will be killed. Jesus is the final sacrifice.

If this was the time before Jesus' sacrifice, then God will kill people because of their evil ways. it is not evil to do away with evil. the OT is ripe with examples of God giving people chance after chance after chance to repent and the people refuse. Why should God keep letting them enjoy His free gifts if they don't appreciate the one who gave them the gifts in the first place?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2013, 05:50:26 PM »
This is the critical bit because, if a believer would reject a command of his god then he has rejected objective morality and, as it were, re-created his god in his own moral image. The god of the Old Testament was quite keen on instructing killings but nowadays we are told he wouldn't do that. Why - because the god moralists have created doesn't do that sort of thing or because the OT god has changed his mind and now doesn't like the OT morality? Either way, we are lacking a god that can be worshipped seriously. That's why this objective / subjective morality is important.

No! This has been explained! ignoring the explanation is dishonest!

God doesn't do it anymore because Jesus said "it is finished!" on the cross. No more people will be killed. Jesus is the final sacrifice.

If this was the time before Jesus' sacrifice, then God will kill people because of their evil ways. it is not evil to do away with evil. the OT is ripe with examples of God giving people chance after chance after chance to repent and the people refuse. Why should God keep letting them enjoy His free gifts if they don't appreciate the one who gave them the gifts in the first place?

So you are saying that in John 19:30 when Jesus is quoted as uttering the phrase 'it is finished' prior to his demise, he was refering to 'it' being God doing or commanding people to do evil stuff? What do you base this claim on dude? I swear you have a knack for making some pretty wild assertions.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
  • Darwins +180/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #81 on: December 03, 2013, 05:56:00 PM »
This is the critical bit because, if a believer would reject a command of his god then he has rejected objective morality and, as it were, re-created his god in his own moral image. The god of the Old Testament was quite keen on instructing killings but nowadays we are told he wouldn't do that. Why - because the god moralists have created doesn't do that sort of thing or because the OT god has changed his mind and now doesn't like the OT morality? Either way, we are lacking a god that can be worshipped seriously. That's why this objective / subjective morality is important.

No! This has been explained! ignoring the explanation is dishonest!

God doesn't do it anymore because Jesus said "it is finished!" on the cross. No more people will be killed. Jesus is the final sacrifice.

If this was the time before Jesus' sacrifice, then God will kill people because of their evil ways. it is not evil to do away with evil. the OT is ripe with examples of God giving people chance after chance after chance to repent and the people refuse. Why should God keep letting them enjoy His free gifts if they don't appreciate the one who gave them the gifts in the first place?
Will someone please recalibrate skep's magic decoder ring?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2013, 06:08:48 PM »
...Why should God keep letting them enjoy His free gifts if they don't appreciate the one who gave them the gifts in the first place?

A gift is not free if the giver is expecting something (appreciation) in return.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2467
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #83 on: December 03, 2013, 06:17:59 PM »
...Why should God keep letting them enjoy His free gifts if they don't appreciate the one who gave them the gifts in the first place?

A gift is not free if the giver is expecting something (appreciation) in return.

Everything we have is because of God.

It's like a child who's mother cooks him a lovely dinner and the child throws it off the table and says "I don't wanna eat that! I hate you!" I bet the mother would get fed up after a while.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2467
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2013, 06:20:39 PM »
This is the problem I was talking about with atheists taking everything literally

You theists are the ones that say the bible is the literal word of god. We are just trying to keep true to that concept.

To be fair it isn't every Christian that takes the bible as the literal word of god - that is really the more recent movement called fundamentalism. Many Christians are happy to see that some parts of the text are describing something that actually happened whilst other parts are metaphorical.

Trouble is though, there is no guide that tells them what is literal and what is metaphorical. They just make it up as they go along. My father-in-law thinks Genesis literally happened, others think it didn't.

Yes there is a way. It's called analyzation of the context.

For example when Jesus says, "I am the bread of life" it is metaphorical. It doesn't mean that Jesus is literally a piece of bread.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #85 on: December 03, 2013, 06:56:39 PM »
This is the problem I was talking about with atheists taking everything literally

You theists are the ones that say the bible is the literal word of god. We are just trying to keep true to that concept.

To be fair it isn't every Christian that takes the bible as the literal word of god - that is really the more recent movement called fundamentalism. Many Christians are happy to see that some parts of the text are describing something that actually happened whilst other parts are metaphorical.

Trouble is though, there is no guide that tells them what is literal and what is metaphorical. They just make it up as they go along. My father-in-law thinks Genesis literally happened, others think it didn't.

Yes there is a way. It's called analyzation of the context.

For example when Jesus says, "I am the bread of life" it is metaphorical. It doesn't mean that Jesus is literally a piece of bread.

That seems easy then. So Genesis; literal or metaphorical?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2467
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Two Questions For Believers
« Reply #86 on: December 03, 2013, 06:58:44 PM »
That seems easy then. So Genesis; literal or metaphorical?

Literal. I don't know who said this quote but here it is:

 "If God can not be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Sun, how can we expect to take god literally when He speaks of the rising of the Son?"
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)