whywontgodhealamputees.com

Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: Dante on October 15, 2010, 12:59:56 PM

Title: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 15, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Does the average Christian really believe?

Sure, they say they believe, but their actions rarely jibe with their beliefs, their biblical "rules". Is it that they have the "forgiveness" loophole, which they use constantly to justify their "sinful" nature? Or do they only try to believe, say they believe, fearful of Pascal's Wager?

I, for one, am not sure they really believe. It seems impossible to me that any being with any kind of sense and intellectual honesty could believe, truly believe in the fairy tale and mythology of an unsubstantiated, hidden god.

As a life-long doubter, I've never had the personal experience. I look forward to hearing from the converted and the de-converted.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 15, 2010, 01:06:09 PM
Does the average Christian really believe?
In my opinion most of them want to believe that they believe, for a host of reasons that are personal to them.

Whether they truly adhere to their beliefs, and live them as their religion instructs them to, is another matter altogether.  I'd say that very few at all do that, if any.  In fact, even the bible tells them that they'll always fall short.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 15, 2010, 01:12:18 PM
Whether they truly adhere to their beliefs, and live them as their religion instructs them to, is another matter altogether.  I'd say that very few at all do that, if any.  In fact, even the bible tells them that they'll always fall short.

Ah. Another loophole. They dont have to, because they cant if they tried. How convenient.

If they were to truly believe the things they tell us about "eternal afterlife", you'd think they'd try a LOT harder to attain those sky-mansions.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 15, 2010, 01:14:07 PM
I was raised a Christian, Prebyterian in particular.  I believed because I trusted my parents. They wouldnt' lie to me would they?  ;) Well, yes, but not maliciously. They beleived becasue they trusted their parents or some other authority figure and on back it goes.  They didn't want to know any better and I wouldn't have either or started on the path to atheism if I hadn't watched my church tear itself apart.  It's a very attractive thing, to believe that there is indeed a purpose to the universe and that you are so very special that an all-powerful being is concerned for you and only you. Most Christians haven't a clue what their bible says.  They get the "behave or you're going to hell, ask forgivness and everything will be alright" and that's about it.  I think this is an expected and perhaps even an acceptable excuse for most people, they just do what they are told sadly enough. It's when supposed leaders of the church use the same ignorance to do whatever they want that really gets me annoyed.  I can't believe that abusive priests, embezzling ministers, etc, really believe.  If they did, they'd at least try to stop what they are doing and they don't.  

It was only when I watched the church come apart, watched "good Christians' act like total asses that I decided to take my case to God himself.  You know, "let the children come unto me"?  I was in my teens then, so not so much a child but good enough I thought.  I prayed, read the bible, etc. and got bupkis. I tried a few other religions after that but they were the same, no answer.  So, I delved deeper and deeper and ended up the happy atheist you see today. :)

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on October 15, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Having been mercifully free of Christians, the few that I have seen say they believe but, when questioned, have no idea what they believe in. Few will admit that the end purpose of Christianity is Armageddon and the 2nd Coming when 1/3rd of the world (2.3 Billion souls) will die and be cast into Hell.

I also suggest looking up SPAG - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SPAG . this seems to describe most Christians.

Thus I think the word “believe” is incorrect; “imagine”, “self-justify”, are probably better.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 15, 2010, 01:21:57 PM
Ah. Another loophole. They dont have to, because they cant if they tried. How convenient.
Christianity = LoopholesRus.TM

Quote
If they were to truly believe the things they tell us about "eternal afterlife", you'd think they'd try a LOT harder to attain those sky-mansions.
Yeah, and they'd also never go to the doctor, either. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 15, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
So, I delved deeper and deeper and ended up the happy atheist you see today. :)
And pretty.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 15, 2010, 01:39:36 PM
flatterer :D
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 15, 2010, 01:41:32 PM
I was raised a Christian, Prebyterian in particular.  I believed because I trusted my parents. <snip>

Thanks for sharing, velkyn. As usual, you make perfect sense. It's easy to see how children, and even young adults, could come to believe. I don't doubt their sincerity at all.

 I can't believe that abusive priests, embezzling ministers, etc, really believe.  If they did, they'd at least try to stop what they are doing and they don't.  

^But this, this is the real meat of the discussion. And it's not only applicable for the clergy, but for any mature, thinking adult.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 15, 2010, 02:18:02 PM
I agree. I think that some adults, having wrapped up so much of their self-worth in this delusion will do *anything* to save it. It's not a pleasant process, to lose one's faith.  You feel like you are doing something WRONG and that you must be the only person in the world God is not talking too.  Heck, I recall feeling that since God didnt' want to talk to me I must be *the* anti-christ.  Per that BS in various end times books, I'd be about the right age at the "right" time.  What a horrible thing to make anyone think.  Of course, I'm sure that some of our theists here would say I was *an* anti-christ, but I want to know when i get those magic powers they promise.

Then you realize that God's talking to nobody and you feel quite a bit better. :)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: dloubet on October 15, 2010, 04:48:08 PM
Maybe they're role-playing their lives. They have a character they're trying to play, and they're thinking "This is what I would do if I really believed".

Maybe Christianity is one big Mega-LARP! You play the character of the benighted pious hero until such time as it becomes inconvenient, and then you rationalize your failing as, well, it's just a LARP. Heck, Fantasy LARPers are allowed to wear sneakers, right?

Thus it's the perfect lazy-man's moral structure. "Arr, it's more of a guideline..."

This dovetails nicely into the theory that the bible is a bunch of fan-fic.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Ashe on October 15, 2010, 05:41:05 PM
 So, I delved deeper and deeper

I N C E P T I O N


OP, I really don't know. Part of me has always suspected that few people "really" believe, but it's possible that it's nothing but self-projection on my part. I don't see how they could actually believe. It would seem to me that they pay it lip service, but for all practical purposes - if they really, really were honest - they don't. I mean, if I said to a believer, "God can do anything. Jump off that cliff and ask him to save you," I know they wouldn't jump.

Maybe, like me, they say they believe because that's what you're supposed to do, and then you're never supposed to think about it in too much depth again. It's possible that the only difference between those believers and myself is that I never had a religious enough upbringing to keep me sticking to my "belief." I got lucky. I could easily see myself on the opposite side of this whole debate if I'd only had the upbringing for it.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Historicity on October 15, 2010, 06:31:31 PM
The answer is to use the scientific method.

Turn to some of your religious channels.  (This will be a sacrifice in the name of science.  Not as bad as torturing small animals but a sacrifice.)

Note the themes of the sermons.  What is the preacher urging the congregation to do?

1) Evangelize.
2) Abstain from some sort of sin
3) Pseudoscience including pseudohistory like George Washington's last will and testament or his speeches that called upon the "healing blood of Jesus Christ".
4) Send money.
5) Exaltation, elation and general incoherence.
6) Politics
7) Faith.

You can do this while channel surfing.  A couple minutes away from the commercials during a show you really want to watch should do.  Keep a record of Faith vs non-Faith.

Note that if a preacher is urging faith then he knows the audience/congregation's faith is wavering.  It needs reinforcement. 

According to statistical rule of thumb (derived from Student's T-test) you should not report a sample smaller than 30. 

The next step in the scientific method is to publish your findings.  We will all be interested.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Tealeaf on October 24, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
What they really believe depends on who's asking. I've experimented with this myself. If you let on that you're an atheist, they tend to back into the corner and start grasping frantically at whatever they've be conditioned to believe. If you let on the other way, they're more liekly to process skepticism. I think it's mostly because it's 'cool' to be an opposing force.

So to me, it comes down to the taking a toy from a toddler scenario. Whichever way you swing it, they'll lean towards the other. If they aren't 'using' their religion, they'll still fall back to defend it when someone makes a move on it.

This is just what irks me about the question of whether they really believe or not. It's not so much about the content of anyones thoughts. It's more about presentation and who's asking.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: OnePerson on October 24, 2010, 03:41:16 PM
So now it's "There's no Christians in foxholes". 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 03:50:15 PM
Last night I was on facebook and I made a joke about how "I think we should evolve a little bit more because we're all still a little bit herp derp durr"

and he reiterated somethign he's said to me often and that's that "he won't change his mind on creationism"

I said that was too bad because science doesn't care what anyone's opinion is.

He went on to say stuff like "some people need religion to help them live"

And I responded that "a comforting lie is still a lie."

He asked me why I want to tear his beliefs apart, because he went through a depression and became happier when he accepted God and all that and I told him that I don't think that's a very good way to deal with depression, considering he is hinting at the fact that his beliefs are fragile and could collapse again at any moment.

He kept asking me to just try to make him stop believing while at the same time repeating that I was being a jerk trying to take people's beliefs away from them.  I told him religion causes too many problems in this world for me to stand by and say it's okay.

It seems to me that even Christians are aware at this point that just one conversation with an atheist could flip their worldview on its head.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: penfold on October 24, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

And I responded that "a comforting lie is still a lie."

He asked me why I want to tear his beliefs apart, because he went through a depression and became happier when he accepted God and all that and I told him that I don't think that's a very good way to deal with depression, considering he is hinting at the fact that his beliefs are fragile and could collapse again at any moment.

He kept asking me to just try to make him stop believing while at the same time repeating that I was being a jerk trying to take people's beliefs away from them.  I told him religion causes too many problems in this world for me to stand by and say it's okay.

This kind of position seems increasingly common amongst atheists. There is a certain attraction to it.

However, I am not sure how helpful it is. I have an old friend who suffers from very severe bi-polar disorder, he has spent several years of his life in institutions. He is also a devout Catholic. His faith has been an incredible support for him and gives him a much needed centre. He is no idiot either: a King's Scholar, a history degree from Durham and a qualified lawyer (an especially hard get given his personal situation).

As his friend I would count it as an exceptional act of cruelty to challenge his faith. A comforting lie is still comforting.

Actually I would extend this principle; any adult with the advantage of an impartial secular education should be allowed to come to their own view of the cosmos. I strongly believe we should ensure government is secular (in particular that education is secular). However in terms of what people chose to believe, I think we should give them the same intellectual space we expect them to give us.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on October 24, 2010, 04:54:14 PM
A touching story – could it not be that cricket or steam trains, studying insects, collecting stamps, pro bono work, or any other pastime could be substituted for Catholicism and thus escape the gilt and superstition? Did he, at some time in the past commit himself to the pope and is now unwilling to leave for fear of losing his investment?

What would happen if he lost his faith overnight? I’ve seen it happen. Losing an interest in insects is nowhere near so damaging.

“The comforting lie” – a nice phrase. You will know the Wilfred Owen poem, (http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html) that ends:

Quote
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest 
To children ardent for some desperate glory, 
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est 
Pro patria mori.

Your friend has been given the old lie – should we not stop the lies before more people get into his position of being dependent upon them?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 04:57:45 PM
@ penfold

The point we were discussing was evolution, and then it somehow spiraled out of control into a sort of conversation about our respective depressions.  We were both depressed at one point and came out with different conclusions.  I haven't ever had a conversation about religion with him, I just found it interesting he got so defensive about his religion when all we were talking about was evolution.


[modbreak]Pointless reposting removed[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 24, 2010, 05:08:02 PM
I don't know about bipolar disorder,  but these guys seem to think that religion and spirituality as "ongoing tools for social support"  can make things worse for patients with schizophrenia.

Siddle R, Haddock G, Tarrier N, Faragher EB. Religious delusions in patients admitted to hospital with schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37:130-8.

At least according to:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51361
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: pamindfw on October 24, 2010, 05:14:49 PM
@Graybeard,
Riveting poem.  Thanks for its posting.


He kept asking me to just try to make him stop believing while at the same time repeating that I was being a jerk trying to take people's beliefs away from them.  I told him religion causes too many problems in this world for me to stand by and say it's okay.

When I read this my thoughts went to the number of jerks I've experienced who insist on imposing their own self righteous religious beliefs on others.  I don't think you were being a jerk.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: penfold on October 24, 2010, 05:19:15 PM
I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of my friend. However he was never really 'sold' Catholicism. His father is C of E and his mum is an atheist.  

He has other strong interests (boardgames of all things) and does do a lot of pro bono immigration work, however none of them are as central to him as God. I don't think we rationally chose how to get through the days, and for some that process is tougher than others. Myself I find a combination of meditation and weed helps – not that I'm advocating either.

If he needs the salvation offered by Catholicism to do that then fine by me. It seems to benefit him and does me no harm.

@ greybeard, Nice Owen quote. But to be fair to Catholics their lie does not require them to die wrapped in mud.


@ monkeymind, interesting link.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
@ pamindfw


You can say that, but also I don't even really "try to take people's beliefs away."  That whole concept is completely mind-boggling.  How can I take someone's beliefs away from them?  All I do is ask them THOUGHT-PROVOKING QUESTIONS.  If this offends him and makes him think that I'm "trying to take people's beliefs away" then this exposes a truly disturbing aspect of belief: it is self-aware delusion.

My question to him was why he thinks just words can coax him out of his beliefs.

[modbreak]Pointless reposting removed[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: penfold on October 24, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
I just found it interesting he got so defensive about his religion when all we were talking about was evolution.

I think this is quite astute.

We all (not just theists) conflate our opinions with our ego. So when someone undermines our opinions we sometimes mistake that as undermining us.

In neurological terms what is happening is that people often respond to a critique of their opinions with the limbic system rather than the rational areas of the brain. In this sense a 'frontal attack' on someone's views often has the reverse effect from that intended. By attacking people's faith we make them engage their emotional centres, such as the amygdala and this feeds into the centre of personality, the pre-frontal lobes. This means that by attacking someone's faith we actually start a neurological process that reinforces their association of faith with identity, entrenching their beleifs. It's stupid but that's how we are wired.

Hence, while being undoubtedly very clever, Richard Dawkins is one of life's great fools.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 24, 2010, 05:27:24 PM
I also found this on Google Answer, hope it is of help:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=115131

A whole thread on individuals who have suffered from religious
delusions(some of them bipolar) can be found here:
http://forums.about.com/ab-bipolar/messages?lgnF=y&msg=3376.1

As there is at present no objective diagnostic for either
schizophrenia or bipolar it is useful to look at symptoms of both
groups.


Many bipolars seem to suffer with some form of Christ-like delusion:
http://www.healandgrow.org/what_are_depression_bipolar_disorder_manic_depression.htm

Naturally, the "born-again" aspect of the illness is culturally linked
as this particular trait would not be found in predominantly
non-western cultures such as Japan where 'religious' paranoia would
take on a different culturally specific form.

Since the birth of modern psychiatry Christ and many other religious
leaders besides have been labelled mentally ill:
http://www.cchr.org/religion/page47.htm

Christ in particular I find to be a strongly bipolar prophet as mood
disorders in particular are linked to creativity:
http://www.talentdevelop.com/Page91.html
Poetic creativity is especially strongly correlated.  The sermon on
the mount shows his profound poetic gifts.  He displayed a
manic/psychotic episode when throwing over the money changers tables
in the temple followed by a sullen, mute depression afterwards when on
trial before Pontius Pilate.

Perhaps it is appropriate to ask whether Christ suffered from "born
again" delusions and religious fundamentalist tendencies?

My conclusion from all this is that mental illness and mood disorders
in particular predispose an individual to the certain aspects of
religious thinking(in the West here this would be especially Christian
fundamentalism)
which will vary depending on the culture.  It would be easy to lay the
blame on the religion for the sufferings of those afflicted but it is
clear from the wide range of delusional worlds constructed by the
mentally ill that almost any compatible system of fundamentalist
thinking can be substituted for the Christian beliefs which fill the
minds of so many of the mentally ill.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on October 24, 2010, 05:30:38 PM
cheezisgooood,

When you pay attention to the modbreaks in your posts across the forum, and stop reposting material unnecessarily, I'll return your last post back to this thread.



Edit: I've put it back for you now. Please take more care and ask yourself whether or not you need to use the quote function.

Penfold & pamindfw have set a great example in this thread on how to do it.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: nogodsforme on October 24, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Getting back to the OP, I do not think that most religious people, specifically Christians, really believe.

If I truly believed that the most powerful being in the Universe was watching me all the time and wanted me to do something, then I would do it, come hell or high water. I would never commit a sin, because the greatest of all was watching me all the time!

If it wanted me to give away all my belongings and stand on a street corner preaching the word, I would do it. If it wanted me to kill homosexuals or people who work on the Sabbath, I would do it. I would not be making mealy-mouthed excuses about how that was then and this is now, or how maybe it was a metaphor. I would be too terrifed to disobey with the almightiest of almightiest watching all the time!

Nobody speeds or shoplifts with an ordinary human cop watching. Nobody cheats on a test with the teacher looking right at them. But all these devout Christians disobey god all the time. They do not really believe. Except the crazy ones, as has been already discussed. :P
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 24, 2010, 06:09:53 PM
^^^

And how would you have sex, with an old man watching your every move?




I don't even like the cat watching me... he always looks bored, which disturbs me, but I think it'd be worse if he looked interested.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 24, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Funny, how all this came up with a relative of mine this week. When I said she didn't really believe the bible (and I used the you don't stone your children when they are disobedient bit) she said that was old covenant. I was going to show how she also didn't obey New Testament teachings, but got sidetracked debating that the new covenant did not replace Old Testament laws....and it only devolved from there, with me being accused of attacking her personally. At that point I ended on the defensive explaining what Penfold just did about the limbic system.

So how does one proceed with this idea that a Christian doesn't really believe, without letting it get sidetracked as it did for me and as t did with this thread?

And...how does one separate the believer from their belief, and the belief that they believe?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 24, 2010, 06:16:43 PM
Nobody speeds or shoplifts with an ordinary human cop watching. Nobody cheats on a test with the teacher looking right at them. But all these devout Christians disobey god all the time. They do not really believe. Except the crazy ones, as has been already discussed. :P
That's a damn good point.  When I was a believer [irony alert] I'd have never smoked a joint (for example) in front of a copper, but I did it knowing full well god was watching, but it never stopped me.  

Now, cue the christians coming along and telling me that I was never really a christian in that case.  &)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 24, 2010, 06:24:09 PM
Dante: As a believer, I rarely questioned God and when I did, I relied on the Holy Spirit to give me the answers. I always came away from prayer with what my preachers and elders taught me. When it didn't make sense to me, I just assumed I was not understanding because of Satan or some mental deficiency.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on October 24, 2010, 06:31:23 PM

Agga said:
Quote
That's a damn good point.  When I was a believer [irony alert] I'd have never smoked a joint (for example) in front of a copper, but I did it knowing full well god was watching, but it never stopped me. 

Now, cue the christians coming along and telling me that I was never really a christian in that case.   
 
 
Or they would say you were still "growing in Christ"...You were forgiven for your transgressions, and eventually would come to the state of mind that "sin" became less and less of a temptation.

That whole "forgiveness" thing makes it OK to slip up, even over and over again with the same things, as long as you are convinced that the Holy Spirit is working in you. And since you are a filthy sinner to begin with, God doesn't EXPECT you to resist temptation anyhow...so the fact that he sees it doesn't matter. It just becomes more fodder for the whole circular idea of needing forgiveness and Christ's blood making everything all better.

edited to add Agga's quote, since another post and the switch to a new page made it seem like a non-sequitur
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 06:31:32 PM
So how does one proceed with this idea that a Christian doesn't really believe, without letting it get sidetracked as it did for me and as t did with this thread?
It seems like almost every time I have a conversation like this with my friends it devolves into something else...an argument about evolution becomes an argument about the big bang...an argument about the cruelty of the old testament becomes an argument about, as you said, new testament overriding old testament etc. etc.

It's just more evidence of the obvious.  They dance on burning ground.  They know that if they stand on one argument for too long they'll get destroyed so they hope on the other foot to something else.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 24, 2010, 10:40:21 PM
Yes, some of us really do believe. Some of us don't.  Some of us act like we believe when we are around others and when we are by ourselves we behave like we don't care. Some of us act like we don't believe when we are around athiests and act like we do believe when we are around believers.

This is unfortunately the truth and many of us believers find it as inconsistent as non-believer's do.

Even Paul struggled with this one. "I do the things I don't want to do and I don't do the things I want to do. (My interpretation )

The thing is - nobody ever in this life is going to be perfect. Perfection is something which we believe occurs in the next life. This does not mean that we should not aim for perfection or (indeed) expect other people not to aim for perfection.

The notion of being a sinner - remains with us until we die. Being saved from our sins is not to suggest we do not sin anymore -but rather the eternal consequences of sin have been dealt with.

I believe and there are many reasons I believe. One of these reasons is probably because my mother taught me - my father was an athiest. Another reason probably is because I do wish to go to heaven and do not wish to go to Hell. I also like the notion that life has a purpose and that it is not randomly meaningless. I like the company of believers. I like the consistency and framework of Christianity.

I also believe because I choose to believe.  I also believe because I have no choice. I also believe because there are so many contradictions. I also believe because believers in general are not arrogant in life (although some are arrogant in what they believe). I believe because the Holy Spirit persuaded me to believe without words and yet with the WORD.

It worries me not what a non-believer really believes about me.  Nor what a believer believes about me. My faith or belief is not built upon my own understanding (although it would be interesting if it was). 

Do believer's really believe? Hmmm - yes some of the do. But I have to say and agree with many here that many believer's do not act like they really believe because if they really did - then the world would look a lot different if they did. I mean what the 12 men who believed in the first place accomplished and their followers in the next four centuries is amazing.

Today believers around the world pray for revival - but they dont actually believe it will occur -or else they would be preparing for it. I don't pray for revival - but then again I don't think the church is dead and needs revival. What it needs is a kick up the backside.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: MockTurtle on October 24, 2010, 10:45:31 PM
....I don't think the church is dead and needs revival. What it needs is a kick up the backside.

I guess we can agree on one thing.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 10:54:03 PM
It needs to be kicked until it's dead.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 24, 2010, 11:00:53 PM
This post is so far off. No wonder so many people are messed up. Your Christian doctrine is not even correct.

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
1 Corinthians 10:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2010:13&version=NIV)

God's standard is, and has always been, perfection.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 24, 2010, 11:03:48 PM
This post is so far off. No wonder so many people are messed up. Your Christian doctrine is not even correct.

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
1 Corinthians 10:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2010:13&version=NIV)

God's standard is, and has always been, perfection.
T bright is back for another shit-kicking

Killing people by the thousands is NOT perfection
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 24, 2010, 11:04:53 PM
I don't see what's so perfect about him.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 24, 2010, 11:06:16 PM
^^^

And how would you have sex, with an old man watching your every move?




I don't even like the cat watching me... he always looks bored, which disturbs me, but I think it'd be worse if he looked interested.
Are you by yourself at the time?....sorry could not resist
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Astreja on October 24, 2010, 11:07:59 PM
The alleged god of Christianity allegedly created sentient beings, knowing in advance that they would fail to live up to its standards.

Then it allegedly drowned virtually all life on the planet.

And insisted that people must accept one particular human sacrifice or be condemned to an eternity of suffering.

This is so far from 'perfection' that it isn't even funny.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on October 24, 2010, 11:19:40 PM
I believe and there are many reasons I believe. One of these reasons is probably because my mother taught me - my father was an athiest.
So, indoctrination. And if your mother had been a Muslim, you would likely have followed that faith and been just as convinced it was the One True Path.

 
Quote
Another reason probably is because I do wish to go to heaven and do not wish to go to Hell.
If you were God, how impressed would you be at someone using this rationale?

Quote
I also like the notion that life has a purpose and that it is not randomly meaningless.
I think my life has purpose. I know most people here feel that way as well. The randomness of our existence doesn't negate its meaning for us and for those around us.

Quote
I like the company of believers.
I'm sure it is much easier to cling to a delusion when surrounded by others who share it.
Quote
I like the consistency and framework of Christianity.
Yes, a consistent framework is a very good thing. I can think of a number of other choices which would be just as good. Or better.

Quote
I also believe because I choose to believe.  I also believe because I have no choice.
Which is it? I don't believe because I cannot simply "choose" to do so and have it be true. I have no choice but NOT to believe, because it simply doesn't add up. Would an act of false belief impress in omnipotent god?

 
Quote
I also believe because there are so many contradictions.
Whaaaaat? How does that even make sense?
Quote
I also believe because believers in general are not arrogant in life (although some are arrogant in what they believe).
People are of all sorts of personalities, believers or not. Atheists are quite often some of the nicest people you could meet.

 
Quote
I believe because the Holy Spirit persuaded me to believe without words and yet with the WORD.
In other words, after hanging around with believers and getting thoroughly marinated in the woo, it started to just feel right. No surprise. It's a very normal phenomenon.

(ps...I see a bunch of replies since I started writing this, since it takes me so long to do the whole "breaking up the quotes" thing. So I'm just going ahead and posting it anyway, even though someone else has doubtless done a better job with all these points by now)

(pps..."normal phenomenon?" Geez, that was a bit of an oxymoron, wasn't it? Ah, well. Sorry)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 24, 2010, 11:25:02 PM
You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient. That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself. He didn't have to do that. He could have thrown the whole world out instead of sparing anybody and been perfectly justified. You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

For those that don't like eyes on them, too bad.

"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."
Hebrews 4:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4:13&version=NIV)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 25, 2010, 12:02:17 AM
Your logic is incomprehensible.  What you just said is the same as saying someone is a good father for telling their son to walk down the street, knowing they'd get hit by a car, but had called the ambulance in advance.  Oh what a great and wonderful father he is.  Hahaha.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: William on October 25, 2010, 12:08:08 AM
You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient.

Did God know in advance that the planes were flying at the twin towers? :shrug   So many options for intervention ... or was it part of His plan?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Aaron123 on October 25, 2010, 12:08:57 AM
You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient. That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself. He didn't have to do that. He could have thrown the whole world out instead of sparing anybody and been perfectly justified.

Wow, blast from the past.   ;D

One would think if god figured out what to do ahead of time, he could've done the whole Jesus thing right away.  Instead, he does the hokey-pokey for four thousand years.


Quote
You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

Since you brought up the parent analogy, I'm curious; do you think a child should obey his/her parents, no matter what?

If yes, then would you be willing to say that it is OK for someone to get themselves killed, as long as it's what their parents told them to do?
(after all, this is supposely, what's  happened with Jesus and his daddy)

If no, then do you admit your analogy falls apart?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on October 25, 2010, 12:10:05 AM
Eh, It's only tbright...

For tbright's opinion of this forum, visit here...

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=13213


it best not to waste you time with him...
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 12:10:29 AM
Your logic is incomprehensible.  What you just said is the same as saying someone is a good father for telling their son to walk down the street, knowing they'd get hit by a car, but had called the ambulance in advance.  Oh what a great and wonderful father he is.  Hahaha.

That's not what I said nor meant. Follow the sentence and try again. I can see you are a word parser.   &)

Quote
He demands obedience and faithfulness.... I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: William on October 25, 2010, 12:10:40 AM
He didn't ask your opinion.

No true.  He asks for worship.  Worship is an opinion.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 12:15:30 AM
He didn't ask your opinion.
No true.  He asks for worship.  Worship is an opinion.

Nope. He commands your worship. Try the first of the Ten Commandments. Again, He's not asking your opinion.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 12:17:12 AM
Tbright

You are correct wrt God's demands.  It is perfection. I did not suggest otherwise. As for me not knowing my Christian doctrine - hmmm.

My point was that people are sinners and that no one can be perfect this side of Heaven save for Christ. Sin makes people inconsistent.

God demands perfection - but the Bible also says that "no one is rightoues" and methinks that includes me and you.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: William on October 25, 2010, 12:21:29 AM
Nope. He commands your worship. Try the first of the Ten Commandments. Again, He's not asking your opinion.

So if I were to worship God while thinking He's a cruel bastard ... He'd be happy with that? 
Don't be nong Tony - you can't worship sincerely without having an opinion.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 25, 2010, 12:23:40 AM
That's not what I said nor meant. Follow the sentence and try again. I can see you are a word parser.   &)
I know it's not what you said nor meant, but I was pointing out that it's the same logic:

You are right that He knew in advance that people (his son) would fail to be obedient (would get hit by a car). That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself (had called the ambulance in advance). He didn't have to do that. He could have thrown the whole world out instead of sparing anybody and been perfectly justified (he didn't have to call the ambulance). You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 12:24:57 AM
jynnan tonnix

your response to my post was er well not illuminating.

If you did not notice  - I merely indicated a whole lot of reasons why I believe. I never said that any of them were the be all and end all. Certainly none of them are reasons why I would expect anyone else to believe.

I also simply wanted to be honest - transparently honest. I believe probably because my mother taught me - but not only for this reason. In fact I also noted that my dad was an athiest - but I did not follow his view.

As for heaven and hell - I do believe in this things - despite the fact that millions of people dont or are horrified by the notion that some people do believe those things. The point is - it is one of the reasons - not the only one and certainly not a highly significant one but it is one.

My whole post was in answering the topic starter and not presenting an argument. Your comments made me laugh because I did not imagine that I would find someone in here without a sense of the obvious.  Thank you for making me smile.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 12:27:33 AM
So if I were to worship God while thinking He's a cruel bastard ... He'd be happy with that? 
Don't be nong Tony - you can't worship sincerely without having an opinion.

Who said anything about Him being happy? He commanded you to worship Him. Either you will do that with a loving heart (as a child loves a parent) or you won't. But either way, you will do it. I promise you.

It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "
Romans 14:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:11&version=NIV)

So whose terms do you want? Get right with Him today.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Aaron123 on October 25, 2010, 12:31:16 AM
tbright, you want to comment on my post?

Quote
You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

Since you brought up the parent analogy, I'm curious; do you think a child should obey his/her parents, no matter what?

If yes, then would you be willing to say that it is OK for someone to get themselves killed, as long as it's what their parents told them to do?
(after all, this is supposely, what's  happened with Jesus and his daddy)

If no, then do you admit your analogy falls apart?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 12:36:29 AM
You are correct wrt God's demands.  It is perfection. I did not suggest otherwise. As for me not knowing my Christian doctrine - hmmm.

My point was that people are sinners and that no one can be perfect this side of Heaven save for Christ. Sin makes people inconsistent.

God demands perfection - but the Bible also says that "no one is rightoues" and methinks that includes me and you.

On the contrary, we are made righteous by the blood of Christ if we confess our sins, repent, and trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 4:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:22-25&version=NIV)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 12:41:02 AM
tbright -

so just to get this right - are you suggesting that you are perfect?

and that you do not sin?

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 12:42:22 AM
tbright, you want to comment on my post?

Quote
You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

Since you brought up the parent analogy, I'm curious; do you think a child should obey his/her parents, no matter what?

If yes, then would you be willing to say that it is OK for someone to get themselves killed, as long as it's what their parents told them to do?
(after all, this is supposely, what's  happened with Jesus and his daddy)

If no, then do you admit your analogy falls apart?

Your quotes got hosed somehow.

We are only liable for what we do. We cannot sin, then attempt to justify our actions.

A child is commanded to Honor his/her Father and Mother. HOWEVER, if anyone ever attempts to take advantage of this honor by leading someone into sin (for example) or by contradicting God's Holy Word, then the child would have a first allegience to God rather than his/her parents. The first commandment is first for a reason. Honoring parents is number five.

The analogy stands because there is no higher authority than God.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: William on October 25, 2010, 12:42:52 AM
Who said anything about Him being happy? He commanded you to worship Him. Either you will do that with a loving heart (as a child loves a parent) or you won't. But either way, you will do it. I promise you.

This is bizarre - my supposed Creator who knows how my mind works commands me to kiss His ass while He's inconsistent and repugnant.  That's love!? :?

But never mind Tony, you can excuse your God all you like, quote as much biblical man-made waffle as you like - it doesn't make Him real.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Aaron123 on October 25, 2010, 12:51:46 AM
Your quotes got hosed somehow.

We are only liable for what we do. We cannot sin, then attempt to justify our actions.

A child is commanded to Honor his/her Father and Mother. HOWEVER, if anyone ever attempts to take advantage of this honor by leading someone into sin (for example) or by contradicting God's Holy Word, then the child would have a first allegience to God rather than his/her parents. The first commandment is first for a reason. Honoring parents is number five.


In short, the analogy falls apart because there are times when a child should disobey their parents.

Yet, here:

Quote
The analogy stands because there is no higher authority than God.

You try to go around this by backing it up with woo.  This is so typical of you tbright.  You type in a lot of words, mostly padded with woo; yet you say little of actual substance.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Astreja on October 25, 2010, 12:53:30 AM
You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient. That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself.

What a stupid way to run a universe.  Seriously.

Quote
..and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

You're absolutely wrong about that, Tbright.  I have never in all my life required "obedience and faithfulness" from my now-adult daughter, nor do I believe in physical punishment of disobedient children.

And doesn't it bother you even a bit that your alleged god wants dependent, helpless children rather than self-actualizing and independent adults?  If I were a creator-god, I would specifically train My offspring in how to become gods themselves.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: dloubet on October 25, 2010, 12:58:12 AM
People, you're arguing with a creature that agrees with its god that you all deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire. I don't think anything we say is going to convince it of anything.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 01:04:51 AM
tbright -

so just to get this right - are you suggesting that you are perfect?

and that you do not sin?

The standard is perfection.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:48&version=NIV)

We have to be presented as perfect to enter heaven.

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ."
Colossians 1:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1:28&version=NIV)

We cannot enter heaven by our righteous deeds.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=NIV)

I am only perfect in the sense that through faith Christ has perfected me. It's not about me; it's all about Him. This perfection is a gift from God to all those who receive it. Christ has freed us from the law.

"because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
Romans 8:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:2&version=NIV)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 01:06:59 AM
People, you're arguing with a creature that agrees with its god that you all deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire. I don't think anything we say is going to convince it of anything.

Correction, "we all deserve....."
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 01:09:19 AM
Your quotes got hosed somehow.

We are only liable for what we do. We cannot sin, then attempt to justify our actions.

A child is commanded to Honor his/her Father and Mother. HOWEVER, if anyone ever attempts to take advantage of this honor by leading someone into sin (for example) or by contradicting God's Holy Word, then the child would have a first allegience to God rather than his/her parents. The first commandment is first for a reason. Honoring parents is number five.


In short, the analogy falls apart because there are times when a child should disobey their parents.

Yet, here:

Quote
The analogy stands because there is no higher authority than God.

You try to go around this by backing it up with woo.  This is so typical of you tbright.  You type in a lot of words, mostly padded with woo; yet you say little of actual substance.

You're missing the point. Only if a higher authority directly contradicts a lower authority. There's nothing woo about that. Your federal court system works the same way. Do you consider that woo? Well, maybe, with some of their ridiculous rulings, but we won't go there...
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on October 25, 2010, 01:14:25 AM
tbright only wants to preach to us. Nothing we haven't heard before...

Here is tbright's entry into the WWGHA dictionary;
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5767.msg128641#msg128641


and again his opinion of WWGHA;

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=13213
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 25, 2010, 01:14:51 AM
You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient. That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself.

What a stupid way to run a universe.  Seriously.

You're entitled to your opinion, of which, mine differs.

Quote
..and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

You're absolutely wrong about that, Tbright.  I have never in all my life required "obedience and faithfulness" from my now-adult daughter, nor do I believe in physical punishment of disobedient children.

And doesn't it bother you even a bit that your alleged god wants dependent, helpless children rather than self-actualizing and independent adults?  If I were a creator-god, I would specifically train My offspring in how to become gods themselves.

So you didn't care if your child played in the street against your authority? Remember that authority is ultimately about protection. Either you haven't fully thought about the implications of what you are saying or you have forgotten some of the incredible responsibilities of parenting.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Astreja on October 25, 2010, 01:22:42 AM
I am only perfect in the sense that through faith Christ has perfected me. It's not about me; it's all about Him. This perfection is a gift from God to all those who receive it. Christ has freed us from the law.

Absolute nonsense, Tbright.  If Jesus ever lived, he's been dead for nearly 2,000 years.  Furthermore, it's ridiculous to think that one person can magically purify another.

Christianity is a moral abomination because it values faith above works.  It has nothing to teach humanity on the subject of behaviour, as its central message appears to be "Admit that you are worthless scum and agree that human sacrifice is a good thing, or I will torture you for eternity."

So you didn't care if your child played in the street against your authority?

I certainly do care... Which is precisely why my daughter is alive and well today.

Your alleged god, however, seems quote content to send people to hell for simple disobedience.  It is the very antithesis of a loving parent.

Quote
Remember that authority is ultimately about protection.

In the case of Biblegod, more like a protection racket.  There is nothing whatsoever reasonable, loving or even sane about the god that you have chosen to worship.  The more mythological blather I hear from you, the more I'm convinced that Christianity is the bane of humanity.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 01:27:14 AM
tbright - sorry to harp on about this but you did not answer my second question?

Do you sin?

I am fully cognisant about the fact that we are only declared righteous by God in Christ and that there is nothing of ourselves that can get us into heaven. But that is not what you are saying, is it?

You seem to be implying that we can be perfect here on earth - and I would say that the Bible contradicts that - see 1 John - Being declared righteous is not the same as being rightouess.

So my question to you is - Do you sin?

We do not have to be presented as perfect to enter heaven - that is not what that passage says - Paul does not present any to heaven-  Christ declares us rightious and in his righteousness do we gain passage or entrance.

And it nice to see you concede that you are not perfect - lol. and here we are - you worried about my theology - talk about the log in one's eye.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_019 on October 25, 2010, 01:40:46 AM
So whose terms do you want? Get right with Him today.

Tbright,

You are not new to this forum and as a long-time member, I would expect you are aware of the difference between debating your beliefs and proselytizing.   

Please brush up on what is expected from members.  Forum Announcements  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?board=3.0).

Thanks.

019
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on October 25, 2010, 07:26:26 AM
jynnan tonnix

your response to my post was er well not illuminating.

If you did not notice  - I merely indicated a whole lot of reasons why I believe. I never said that any of them were the be all and end all. Certainly none of them are reasons why I would expect anyone else to believe.
OK, let's start over, then. I'll admit I wrote all that as I was on my way to bed, and it was pretty rushed and not completely thought out. I did understand that none of your reasons was the be all and end all, but my reply did not (or was not intended to) treat them as though they were. I was simply pointing out that each of your reasons had inherent problems or weaknesses in logic. They might, individually, work for you, and might add up to an overall sense that your belief is justified, but from the outside, just don't seem like the firmest of foundations.

Quote
I also simply wanted to be honest - transparently honest. I believe probably because my mother taught me - but not only for this reason. In fact I also noted that my dad was an athiest - but I did not follow his view.
I did notice this as well, and started a few responses taking both parents into account, but they each started getting overly wordy, so I went for the abridged version (as I said, it was late, and I wrote it in a bit of a rush) with the assumption that your father may have been of the weak atheist variety who simply does not have much to say on the subject, and therefore was not a big influence in your thinking. If this is wrong, I apologize. I would be interesting to hear what they each told you and how you weighed the pros and cons of each side before coming to a conclusion.

Quote
As for heaven and hell - I do believe in this things - despite the fact that millions of people dont or are horrified by the notion that some people do believe those things. The point is - it is one of the reasons - not the only one and certainly not a highly significant one but it is one.
I'd be interested, too, to hear WHY you believe in heaven and hell despite the fact that you seem to acknowledge that there are some horrifying notions in there. To me, your answer just seemed overly simplistic, and the whole notion was, to be honest, one of the main reasons for me abandoning any vestiges of belief I might have had. Any deity who has such black and white reasoning, and who necessarily damns the majority of his creation to eternal torment for things which are out of their control (where and when they were born, whether they happened to have a more naturally skeptical and analytical mind, etc) just doesn't add up to "loving". Your reasoning also verges on Pascal's wager territory, which doesn't tend to go down very well.

Quote
My whole post was in answering the topic starter and not presenting an argument. Your comments made me laugh because I did not imagine that I would find someone in here without a sense of the obvious.  Thank you for making me smile.
Even things which are obvious can have elements which can be argued. I'll grant that you were just saying, "yes, there are people who really do believe out there, and I'm one of them" in response to the OP...but since your list included things which, to an outsider, are exactly why belief sometimes seems to include a desperate sort of self-justification, I felt that each point deserved its own counterpoint.

In other words, it's precisely some of the things you mention which make us wonder whether you really believe, or whether you have talked yourself into believing through a fear of what will happen if you don't, or an unwillingness to look outside of a coccoon of comfort which is strung together with ideas that just don't stand up to close and impartial scrutiny.

edited to remove an errant quote command
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 25, 2010, 07:39:31 AM
T:
So you believes because you choose to and because you had no choice, etc, etc.

Individually each reason doesn't make a lot of sense, but collectively they do?

Sort of like the Wholly Babble, individual scriptures make little sense, but collectively its all true.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 25, 2010, 07:52:54 AM
Does the average Christian really believe?

Sure, they say they believe, but their actions rarely jibe with their beliefs....

Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to answer with reference to the below...

So you didn't care if your child played in the street against your authority? Remember that authority is ultimately about protection. Either you haven't fully thought about the implications of what you are saying or you have forgotten some of the incredible responsibilities of parenting.

Unless I'm dramatically off base, the Christian god is everywhere.  Sees everything.  Knows everything.  Working on that basis then, anyone who believes in that god, and yet still sins and transgresses the law, is doing something akin to taking a cookie from the jar knowing that the parent is standing right next to the jar watching them.  For more serious crimes....it's like a criminal deciding to break into a shop while handcuffed to a policman, while several other policemen watch him from every conceivable angle.

I honestly can't imagine how ANY sin could actually be committed, if you really believed in an all-seeing god that is everywhere.  It'd be like abusing yourself openly while your parents sit on the bed, like inviting your wife to watch you commit adultery, like insulting someone directly to their face, nose to nose.

Now, I can see where one might say "ah yes - that's what atheists are doing!", but that's not the point.  The point is its what Christians are doing, each and every time they transgress even the most minor rule.  And that's why I can't believe that any of them really, truly believe.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: rev45 on October 25, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Well said Anfauglir.  I do think that most Christians really believe but they believe in their version of god, even if it goes against the Bible.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on October 25, 2010, 09:00:49 AM
Does the average Christian really believe?

I think the overzealous reliance on 'faith' as a qualification for belief is a sign of how believers, lacking confidence in their own beliefs, have to constantly remind themselves or others that through faith they believe.  It is even a type of qualifier projected upon others, as if everyone who has other positions also has to constantly remind themselves of the faithful truth that they believe in.  How many times have you heard a theist exclaim,"Well you believe in science out of faith!".  It is almost as if they already accept the vacuity of statements of faith, but having made faith a qualifier for their own claims they have to accuse others to avoid it themselves.  For example, a scientist ( or anyone for that matter ) that accepts evolution, doesn't spend hours going over every piece of cultural reference that contains a qualification reminding oneself of the truth that must be believed.  Instead, not relying on faith, there is no need to constantly remind oneself by evoking internal platitudes and concepts are accepted as true at face value.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Truth Junkie on October 25, 2010, 09:08:50 AM
IMO....Belief in something doesn't mean it's truth,as truth is subjective,
it's means there is hope that something is true and I am sure most religious
people hope and pray "god is real" so they can assuage thier fears.

Fear is a very controlling emotion and can lead to a multitude of defense mechanisms.
Including denial,cognitive dissonance,compartmentalization,rationalization,intellectualization
etc. to deal with the anxiety of the reality that god my NOT exist.

I am sure it's an internal battle for those willing to question authority.
For those you are so conditioned to "believe" there is no way to reach them
so let them live in thier delusion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

How beliefs are formed:
Psychologists study belief formation and the relationship between beliefs and actions.

Beliefs form in a variety of ways:

We tend to internalise the beliefs of the people around us during childhood. Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
 
Most individuals believe the religion they were taught in childhood.


People may adopt the beliefs of a charismatic leader, even if those beliefs fly in the face of all previous beliefs, and produce actions that are clearly not in their own self-interest.

 Is belief voluntary?

Rational individuals need to reconcile their direct reality with any said belief; therefore, if belief is not present or possible, it reflects the fact that contradictions were necessarily overcome using cognitive dissonance.


Physical trauma, especially to the head, can radically alter a person's beliefs.


However, even educated people, well aware of the process by which beliefs form, still strongly cling to their beliefs, and act on those beliefs even against their own self-interest. In Anna Rowley's Leadership Theory, she states "You want your beliefs to change. It's proof that you are keeping your eyes open, living fully, and welcoming everything that the world and people around you can teach you." This means that peoples' beliefs should evolve as they gain new experiences.

To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believe-that". There are two types of belief-in:

Commendatory - an expression of confidence in a person or entity, as in, "I believe in his abililty to do the job".
Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in fairies" are typical examples.

Delusional beliefs
Delusions are defined as beliefs in psychiatric diagnostic criteria (for example in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Psychiatrist and historian G.E. Berrios has challenged the view that delusions are genuine beliefs and instead labels them as "empty speech acts", where affected persons are motivated to express false or bizarre belief statements due to an underlying psychological disturbance.

However, the majority of mental health professionals and researchers treat delusions as if they were genuine beliefs.



As do the millions who reinforce religion with thier beliefs.

So yes....the really DO believe...but that mean's nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 25, 2010, 10:02:24 AM
Now, I can see where one might say "ah yes - that's what atheists are doing!", but that's not the point.  The point is its what Christians are doing, each and every time they transgress even the most minor rule.  And that's why I can't believe that any of them really, truly believe.

Excellent post Anfauglir. Reading your last paragraph I thought of my friend George, who is a true, true believer in the sense that he calls himself that, and he is a good person who does not do many things (as far as I know) that could be designated as sins, yet he is clearly very afraid of death because he thinks he might go to hell, or at least not be good enough to get into heaven. He believes, I think, but mostly the burn in hell part, not the god part.

Yes christians, he is "saved". But still very very afraid.

I'm thinking a belief in the christian god is as likely to be wishful thinking as it is to be a real belief. However I can't respond to the questions in the OP because I never identified myself as a christian. As a young child, told that there was a god and a jesus, etc. I assumed it was true until I got old enough to think about it.

Maybe that's the source of christian belief. They don't think about it.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Aaron123 on October 25, 2010, 10:17:15 AM
You're missing the point. Only if a higher authority directly contradicts a lower authority. There's nothing woo about that. Your federal court system works the same way. Do you consider that woo? Well, maybe, with some of their ridiculous rulings, but we won't go there...

Higher court rulings are challenged all the time.  Just look at Roe vs Wade.  The Supreme court ruled on this.  Abortion is legel.  By your logic, no one should question this ruling.  Yet, this has been a huge controversy for over 30 years now.  Some even think the ruling should be overturned.  In this case, we can clearly question and make demands of the "higher authority".  Yet, you claim we cannot do this with god because... well, he's god, and therefore, cannot be questioned, mainly because he's a cruel dictator that'll torture you for so much as getting your little toe out of line.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: gonegolfing on October 25, 2010, 10:25:05 AM
Quote
tbright - sorry to harp on about this but you did not answer my second question?

Do you sin?

I am fully cognisant about the fact that we are only declared righteous by God in Christ and that there is nothing of ourselves that can get us into heaven. But that is not what you are saying, is it?

You seem to be implying that we can be perfect here on earth - and I would say that the Bible contradicts that - see 1 John - Being declared righteous is not the same as being rightouess.

So my question to you is - Do you sin?


That answer is obvious. Yes he does, all the time...... Why ?: 1. He can't help himself. 2. The bible tells him he will. 3. He truly likes some of the sins he is committing. 4. He thinks he's got the ancient Nazarene to fall back on ;)

He feels the man from Galilee survived his own suicide and now sits at the right hand of his daddy pleading for the willful mistakes that he makes here on earth in this groveling existence he leads.

He, as all others like him, believes in a god, but thoroughly depends on their Bethlehem barrister to make things right for them all the time, as they sinfully trod on towards the supposed upcoming eternal worship fairyland that they feel they have been promised. They're in court all the time as they sin constantly and so therefore have very little time to do the things that they are supposed to do and spend most of their days weeping on their knees before their defense attorney hoping he'll get them off the hook for their latest infractions.

Sadly, most of their infractions are thought crimes, which of course, the skydaddy sees all too clear and so they are constantly tortured by this as their minds are virtually impossible to control. They become habitual sinners and criminals in the eyes of the divine court and therefore become completely dependent on jesus H as their advocate. This is why the meek and mild one has survived his own death until today.  

Actually, It's quite pathetic to see them struggle with such beliefs.

Having been there, I feel quite sorry for them.  :(

Luckily they can change that.


 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 25, 2010, 11:40:34 AM
I also believe because I choose to believe.  I also believe because I have no choice. I also believe because there are so many contradictions. I also believe because believers in general are not arrogant in life (although some are arrogant in what they believe). I believe because the Holy Spirit persuaded me to believe without words and yet with the WORD.
Wow, tradesecret, amazing contradictory statements. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised since if you can believe in religion you can believe in anything. Each Christian claims that the “holy spirit” was behind everything but funny how that thing can’t get a consistent message through. The rest of your post was the usual OneTrueChristian whining.  It would be so nice if any of you could actually prove that your version is “right” much less that your god exists.

Of course then we get tbright proving my point.  You all are hypocrites and you all think you are special snowflakes that are the focus of an omnipotent invisible friend.  Whoopdedoo. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Grimm on October 25, 2010, 12:31:29 PM
tbright -

so just to get this right - are you suggesting that you are perfect?

and that you do not sin?

The standard is perfection.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:48&version=NIV)

We have to be presented as perfect to enter heaven.

What, precisely, is 'perfect'?  If you were to define the perfect human being, by Christian definition, what traits would this individual have?  If your impulse is to say "to be Jesus-like" in some form, what traits did Jesus have that make him perfect?

Quote
"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ."
Colossians 1:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1:28&version=NIV)

We cannot enter heaven by our righteous deeds.


James 2:14: "“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”  Apparently, that's not wholly true.

Quote
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=NIV)

I am only perfect in the sense that through faith Christ has perfected me. It's not about me; it's all about Him. This perfection is a gift from God to all those who receive it. Christ has freed us from the law.

Matthew 5:18: ""For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."   Christ disagrees with you.


Your scriptural evidence is weak, even before we get to common assertion.  No offence, Tbright, but.. you seem a bit off your game, here.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: pingnak on October 25, 2010, 02:18:55 PM
Most of 'em go to the hospital and fight the cancer any way they can to live an extra few years.  They'll beggar their families to remain alive one extra month, even though ALL of it is in the hospital looking like a H.R. Giger sculpture.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=h.r.+giger+gallery

Legendary descriptions about how hard a believer fought to remain alive (though bedridden and absolutely hellishly miserable) against all odds.  Answering prayers to keep them gurgling and moaning on a little more, attached to yet another machine.

Hardly noteworthy faith in a divine afterlife of infinite pleasure and goodness after casting off this ugly and fragile mortal frame.

You'd think a lot more of them would have 'DNR' tattooed on their chests and file all the paperwork to collect their eternal reward right away in the event they end up 'mostly dead'.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: nogodsforme on October 25, 2010, 04:16:31 PM

Unless I'm dramatically off base, the Christian god is everywhere.  Sees everything.  Knows everything.  Working on that basis then, anyone who believes in that god, and yet still sins and transgresses the law, is doing something akin to taking a cookie from the jar knowing that the parent is standing right next to the jar watching them.  For more serious crimes....it's like a criminal deciding to break into a shop while handcuffed to a policman, while several other policemen watch him from every conceivable angle.

I honestly can't imagine how ANY sin could actually be committed, if you really believed in an all-seeing god that is everywhere.  It'd be like abusing yourself openly while your parents sit on the bed, like inviting your wife to watch you commit adultery, like insulting someone directly to their face, nose to nose.


Yes, yes, yes. (Warning: Gross imagery ahead.)

Since the "wages of sin is death"  every single sin, even something as innocent as dreaming of stealing your neighbor's new car and taking it for a joyride, or imagining what Halle Berry/George Clooney looks like naked, is just like an illegal immigrant committing serial cold blooded rape-torture-murder of an entire preschool of cute white toddlers during half-time at the Superbowl, live on national tv.

In an election year.
 
In Texas. :o
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 05:18:03 PM
jynnan tonnix

Hello again and thank you for taking the time to reply in a manner which is more conducive to discussion.

I know that many of these things I mentioned get up atheists noses. That is precisely one of the reasons I used them. They are part of the Christian mumble jumble and although they probably are not helpful in a discussion, those who are non-believers really learn to understand the culture and the language of what believer's believe if they truly wish to understand or deny or berate.

I said I believe because I choose and because I had no choice - and because there are many contradictions. Yet if I said there was perfect consistency someone would show me where it is not consistent. If I was able to demonstrate that it was perfectly consistent - then someone would use that to prove it was a sham- (if it is too good to be true - well it probably is not true)

I believe in the Trinity. If that is not a contradiction to the rational mind from a western rock logic point of view - then I dont know what is. God is ONE and yet God is THREE. Of course to the eastern fluid view of logic there is no contradiction - simply a different perspective.

My point as you succintly pointed out was simply to say yes some really do believe. 

I will respond further - right now I have to run.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on October 25, 2010, 05:27:33 PM
jynnan tonnix

Hello again and thank you for taking the time to reply in a manner which is more conducive to discussion.

I know that many of these things I mentioned get up atheists noses. That is precisely one of the reasons I used them. They are part of the Christian mumble jumble and although they probably are not helpful in a discussion, those who are non-believers really learn to understand the culture and the language of what believer's believe if they truly wish to understand or deny or berate.
I'm glad you admit it sounds like mumble jumble.  Also, I happen to think the majority of people on this board were previously Christian.  Not to mention theists come around here all the time, so your attempt to help us "understand your culture" is also not helpful in a discussion.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 25, 2010, 06:46:27 PM
I am suprised a bunch of religous wackos have not gotten together and written a book about a guy in the early 1900's,who wandered around as the son of god.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: dloubet on October 25, 2010, 07:43:32 PM
People, you're arguing with a creature that agrees with its god that you all deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire. I don't think anything we say is going to convince it of anything.

Correction, "we all deserve....."

Ah yes, notice how it is anti-human to its very core. How can we even begin to reason with something like that? If it was human, and had things like empathy or a conscience, perhaps we could find common ground for communication, but tbright apparently does not possess those traits. No, its confusion of obedience with morality makes it little more than a zero tolerance robot. A thing that agrees that billions of human beings rightly deserve to be endlessly tortured.

I only hope it can serve as an example.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: JeffPT on October 25, 2010, 08:29:36 PM
I said I believe because I choose and because I had no choice - and because there are many contradictions. Yet if I said there was perfect consistency someone would show me where it is not consistent. If I was able to demonstrate that it was perfectly consistent - then someone would use that to prove it was a sham- (if it is too good to be true - well it probably is not true)

No, no, life doesn't work like that.  In any other aspect of your life, if you find inherent contradictions in what you believe, you will immediately scratch your belief.  For example: You hurt your back playing football on the weekend with some friends.  Another friend tells you that he bought this super duper skin cream that reduces pain the minute you put it on your skin.  So you trust him, and go out and buy the cream.  The minute you put it on, however, it does nothing for you.  Do you stick with the belief that this skin cream works, or do you realize that you were wrong?  Would you continue to buy the cream week after week, continuously believing that it works, while the evidence contradicts it every time you put it on?  Of course not.  That would be dumb. 

On the other side of the coin, the things in life with NO inherent contradictions are the things we tend to stick to like glue.  For example: Gravity.  We know that if we drop a rock from a rooftop, 100% of the time it will fall to the ground.  It would be pure lunacy to think, "Gee, what's going to happen if I drop this rock from the rooftop?"   

It is only the arena of religion where inherent contradictions get free passes.  In every other aspect of your life, believing in things with inherent contradictions is a sign of pure stupidity. I honestly don't know how anyone can take your position and think it's the truth.  It boggles my mind.  You personally acknowledge that there are contradictions in your belief system, yet you can't seem to see that fact for what it really is.  Why? I don't get it.   

Atheism, if anything, is simply an acknowledgement of the contradictions and lack of evidence inherent in all religious belief. 

I believe in the Trinity. If that is not a contradiction to the rational mind from a western rock logic point of view - then I don't know what is. God is ONE and yet God is THREE.

I rest my case.  That's just dumb.  How can you stand there and say this, yet completely ignore the implications of it?  I will never understand that.  It's just stupid.  I'm sorry, but it is. 

/shrug

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 08:45:02 PM
cheezisgoooood

Hello there!

I am not afraid to call something that sounds like mumble jumble to some - mumble jumble.  I have been a christian for most of my life and I certainly notice the difference between church speak and non-church speak. In fact there is also something which is called denomination speak - something that certain denominations only seem to understand.

I like how you said that many people on this site were previously Christians; but are not now.  I presume that you are meaning that they attended church - grew up in America - maybe said grace before or after dinner and prayers at night before you went to sleep.  Perhaps they even had a "born again" experience at some Billy Graham crusade or made some sinner's prayer after hearing some guilt manipulating speaker make an alter call.   Maybe they were christened as a Roman Catholic or episcopalian or were saved from all eternity, perhaps they ever were in a minister in a church.

And now they have come to their senses and turned their back on all of that as nothing more than fable and stories.

Well - good luck to you. You have your own theology and doctrines - one which is that people can lose their salvation or choose their religion.

And I certainly accept that is a common doctrine in the church today as it is in the world as well.  The doctrine that one gets to choose their own religion. The doctrine that religion is dependant upon what man thinks or chooses.  This is quite common - but not all people agree with it - gee some actually disagree with it.  I am one - (and lest you think I have contradicted myself - I will try and explain my position and probably with not much success)

I said above I choose to believe - which is true.  I also said I had no choice (or words to those effect).  The simple truth for me (and I am not saying for anyone else - although I think it really does apply to all people) is that God made me believe his unbelievable story.  I grew up arminian  - free will and all - choice and all - but then when I was about 23 it suddenly dawned on me that I could never have made this choice or decision by myself.  How could anyone willingly believe all this stuff and nonsense in the bible to be true? How could anyone worship such an awful being - arrogant enough to send his own son to die for me? How could such a God or being have enormous power - omnicience - be good and loving and let people suffer and die and lose a limb and not heal them? How could this be true - his son born of a virgin - be fully God and be fully Man? How could and why would he set up the world and let his perfect people sin and then die and then be tossed to the wolves or burnt in Hell?  How could he love Jacob and hate Esau? How could God find justice in dashing the little one's head on the stones? How could he condone slavery and perhaps incest? It did not make sense and yet here I was reeling with these thoughts and disgust and abhorrence and disbelief (disbelief in this sense meaning disobedience) and my problem was that I knew it was all true.  It was not that I was brainwashed - although I am sure some of you will think so - and yet I attended state schools, was never made to read the bible, never had to go to church or to sunday school, played sport and even smoked at that tender age. No human ever forced me to believe the Bible. My church was family orientated -but hardly evangelical - pretty liberal - the minister had a PHD in some science field and openly taught evolution from the pulpit.

Despite all of my experience and reason telling me that GOD was an imposter liar and indeed dangerous monster - I knew that that was what the popular person wanted me to believe. This was what everyone (apart from my mum) in my circles told me and mocked me about.  It would have been very easy to turn away from God and the church and follow the crowd - but for some reason - it did not sit right with me.

People say that Gay people are born Gay and have no choice. For me - this is how it is with God and the Bible and its truth.  Perhaps I was not born that way - although I was too young to remember. But I can honestly say from my earliest memories that God has always been a constant in my life. Can I prove he exists to you? lol!! I dont need to and I have no desire to even attempt to prove God. I dont have to prove that oxygen exists to breathe it and I dont even have to know it exists to keep on breathing it.

Interestingly though, after it dawned on me that God made me believe his unbelievable story - the way I viewed life changed.  I stopped dragging my feet. I went back to uni. Importantly though, the way I viewed Scripture and God in the Bible changed too. Now I choose to worship that God - and even though I would never have chosen him in the past willingly - I could never turn away even if I actually wanted to (which I dont).

People talk about God being all powerful as though God should be able to do anything. Hence if God wants to lie -he could and because the Bible says he cant lie - that somehow proves he is not all powerful. (I accept that some places in the Bible seem to make God out to be a liar - I am not arguing that point here) To me that is difference between my view before and my new perspective. I say that God can do anything he wants to do - but I say he cannot tell a lie. God cannot tell a lie because he does not want to tell a lie. (of course this presumes an aristotlian or platoistic view of knowledge that it exists apart from God).  To choose not to do something - does not mean that you lack omnipotence.

So now I choose to believe. This has impacted upon my life and certainly caused a few headaches along the way.  I no longer see God as harsh - vulgar - abhorrent - arrogant - cruel - needy - but I see him as holy and loving and righteous amongst other things.   

 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 25, 2010, 09:00:28 PM
JeffPT

I am sorry but you are incorrect.

Religion is not the only area in life where contradictions or tensions exist that defy experience and logic.  I suppose you have never met a drug addict. One that continues on despite the evidence before him that the continued use will kill him. I suppose you have never attended a house of parliement where two conflicting and apparently contradicting pieces of philosophy are held high and accepted.  I suppose you have never noticed that the apparently contradictions of the unit and the many exist in our society in many forms - eg the right of the individual to liberty versus the right of society to be safe?

Philosophy - legislation - addictions amongst others - deal with the delemma of the one and the many. It is a contradiction to the modern western mind that believes that the law of self-contradiction is the axiom of all life. However, we - each of us - every day face this delemma - in things others than religion.

My view is that these dilemmas exist primarily because humanity has rejected the Trinity. The Trinity is the only system which says that the ONE and the MANY are equal. Socialism says that the state is the most important.  America puts the individual up as the almighty. Panthiestic religions promote the many as against the one. Islam and Judaism promote the ONE above the many. Atheism tends to - although not always - promote the State above the many - except when it comes to religion. The focus on the ONE leads to absolutism - black and white. The focus on the Many leads to relativism - no rights and no wrongs. The Trinity focuses on both and provides both right and wrong and freedoms. Hence - right from the beginning God said "be free to eat of any tree you like - except one. Parametres give life to freedoms. Freedom without limitations is not freedom - it is nothing.

These are the implications of the Trinity - and I happen to like the idea that at least it provides an epistemology for mixed economies. Theories exist - only for the Command system and for the Free Market system.  The mixed system exists but the only real reason provided by theorists is because "it works" and this is a pragmatic basis; not a philosophical one.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: OnePerson on October 25, 2010, 09:22:58 PM
Religion is not the only area in life where contradictions or tensions exist that defy experience and logic.  I suppose you have never met a drug addict. One that continues on despite the evidence before him that the continued use will kill him. I suppose you have never attended a house of parliement where two conflicting and apparently contradicting pieces of philosophy are held high and accepted.  I suppose you have never noticed that the apparently contradictions of the unit and the many exist in our society in many forms - eg the right of the individual to liberty versus the right of society to be safe?

We consider drug addicts people who need help.
And no, people don't accept contradicting pieces of philosophy in parliament.  They argue which one is better.

Quote
My view is that these dilemmas exist primarily because humanity has rejected the Trinity. The Trinity is the only system which says that the ONE and the MANY are equal. Socialism says that the state is the most important.  America puts the individual up as the almighty. Panthiestic religions promote the many as against the one. Islam and Judaism promote the ONE above the many. Atheism tends to - although not always - promote the State above the many - except when it comes to religion. The focus on the ONE leads to absolutism - black and white. The focus on the Many leads to relativism - no rights and no wrongs. The Trinity focuses on both and provides both right and wrong and freedoms. Hence - right from the beginning God said "be free to eat of any tree you like - except one. Parametres give life to freedoms. Freedom without limitations is not freedom - it is nothing.

It's like you just attached random groups to random premises and conclusions.  I don't think you actually know anything about what other people believe in.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 25, 2010, 10:17:39 PM
Socialism says that the state is the most important.

Socialism says nothing of the sort. Socialism emphasizes the well being and abilitiy to meet the basic needs of all of the citizenry, and advocates that the best way to do this is through either public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management.  Some common forms of socialism reject the notion of a state altogether. Also Socialism is such a huge concept with so many different branches of interpretation and advocation that your statement simply makes you seem foolish.

Panthiestic religions promote the many as against the one.

This makes absolutely no sense. You do know what pantheism means right?

Atheism tends to - although not always - promote the State above the many - except when it comes to religion.
"Promoting the State above the many" doesn't make much sense either. The 'state' unless you're in an autocracy, is a large collection of many people. So your statement is so vague as to be meaningless, especially since the 'many' in your example are an undefined mass of people that has no apparent connection to the 'state'. And even if you do define what you're talking about in a way that makes sense I'd still like to see some actual evidence of the claim, whatever it is.

The Trinity focuses on both and provides both right and wrong and freedoms. Hence - right from the beginning God said "be free to eat of any tree you like - except one. Parametres give life to freedoms. Freedom without limitations is not freedom - it is nothing

If you have limitations then it is not freedom. Your statement is just a failed attempt to sound philosophical. This is like saying 'cold without heat is not cold'. What I think you're trying to say, in a rather poor way, is that we wouldn't value the concept of freedom if there were no limitations. This might work except your god doesn't care about our freedom or free will in the slightest, this is assuming you can even justify that we have free will by your religion.

As for the 'Trinity'. The Trinity is just an a really pathetic attempt made by christians a few hundred years after the bible was written to reconcile contradictory descriptions of god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Instead of just looking at all of these verses that depict them separate and that depict them as one and going, "This is completely inconsistent,obviously this is ridiculous." They say, "Obviously all of these mutually exclusive verses are true and it's clearly one of the things that we're not meant to understand." Like almost everything else in religion this is just another example of people desperately trying to cling onto what they wish to true, rather than to what is demonstrably true.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 26, 2010, 03:22:14 AM
The doctrine that one gets to choose their own religion. The doctrine that religion is dependant upon what man thinks or chooses.  This is quite common - but not all people agree with it - gee some actually disagree with it.  I am one - (and lest you think I have contradicted myself - I will try and explain my position and probably with not much success)

I said above I choose to believe - which is true.  I also said I had no choice (or words to those effect).  The simple truth for me (and I am not saying for anyone else - although I think it really does apply to all people) is that God made me believe his unbelievable story.  I grew up arminian  - free will and all - choice and all - but then when I was about 23 it suddenly dawned on me that I could never have made this choice or decision by myself

...

People say that Gay people are born Gay and have no choice. For me - this is how it is with God and the Bible and its truth.  Perhaps I was not born that way - although I was too young to remember. But I can honestly say from my earliest memories that God has always been a constant in my life. ..... Now I choose to worship that God - and even though I would never have chosen him in the past willingly - I could never turn away even if I actually wanted to (which I dont).

How interesting.  You are saying that - like me - you would never have come to belief without the intervention of god.  To me, there are two important questions you need to ask yourself.

1) Your mind was set against god.  Then god altered your mind.  On what basis can you make any claim about the goodness of god, when you already accept he has changed your views and thinking.  How can you make the claim that "he made me see the truth about him", as opposed to "he prevented me from seeing the truth about him?

A god that - by your own admission - overrules what you think tramples over any concept of free will, as well as rendering it impossible for you to be sure about ANY aspect of that god's character.

2) Like me, you would never have come to belief.  God stirred your brains, and now you are saved.  God has NOT stirred my brains, and so I will never be saved.  You also note that "people are born" that way.  Put those two together and - by your own admission, I do not have (and never have had) any chance of believing....and it is your god that made it so.  Your god is the one that damns me....and there is not a blind thing I can do about it. 

So when you talk of this god being "an imposter liar and indeed dangerous monster", you are quite right.  He damns me for what he made me, he picks and chooses who HE wants saved (based solely on his own whims).....and if those people recognise he is evil?  Well, a quick stir of their brains so they have no choice but to accept his word, and there you go.

An imposter liar and indeed dangerous monster ..... how right you are, and how truly your testimony supports that.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: gonegolfing on October 26, 2010, 08:44:05 AM
Quote
Philosophy - legislation - addictions amongst others - deal with the delemma of the one and the many. It is a contradiction to the modern western mind that believes that the law of self-contradiction is the axiom of all life. However, we - each of us - every day face this delemma - in things others than religion.

My view is that these dilemmas exist primarily because humanity has rejected the Trinity. The Trinity is the only system which says that the ONE and the MANY are equal. Socialism says that the state is the most important.  America puts the individual up as the almighty. Panthiestic religions promote the many as against the one. Islam and Judaism promote the ONE above the many. Atheism tends to - although not always - promote the State above the many - except when it comes to religion. The focus on the ONE leads to absolutism - black and white. The focus on the Many leads to relativism - no rights and no wrongs. The Trinity focuses on both and provides both right and wrong and freedoms. Hence - right from the beginning God said "be free to eat of any tree you like - except one. Parametres give life to freedoms. Freedom without limitations is not freedom - it is nothing.

These are the implications of the Trinity - and I happen to like the idea that at least it provides an epistemology for mixed economies. Theories exist - only for the Command system and for the Free Market system.  The mixed system exists but the only real reason provided by theorists is because "it works" and this is a pragmatic basis; not a philosophical one.


Empty blather  &)

Your personal feelings and testimony of your own experiences adds nothing to the weight of any possible evidence for a god.

Also, you're making a massive amount of assumptions about incoherent terms such as god, trinity, et cetera... for which you have zero trustable evidence for and are purely your own subjective opinions.

Your claim that you feel that a god forced you to believe, is credible evidence of your credulity and lack of intellectual integrity based on the undeniable fact that you have zero proof to back up that claim. To avow that a god forced you to believe so that you could then choose to believe, is a feat of dishonest mental gymnastics that only a desperate and deluded proselytizing faithhead tries to pull off.

Stating that a god forced you to believe going against the very nature that it created you with and magically switching off your faculty of reason so to speak, to achieve its ends, is laughable and shows the depth of your psychological damage.


Why ridicule you ? Because your fantastic claims open you up to it  ;)


You need to get serious with your real life.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 26, 2010, 02:04:14 PM

Agga said:
Quote
That's a damn good point.  When I was a believer [irony alert] I'd have never smoked a joint (for example) in front of a copper, but I did it knowing full well god was watching, but it never stopped me. 

Now, cue the christians coming along and telling me that I was never really a christian in that case.   
 
 
Or they would say you were still "growing in Christ"...You were forgiven for your transgressions, and eventually would come to the state of mind that "sin" became less and less of a temptation.
Oh, they did.  Endlessley [vomit].  Of course this is just the get-out clause is it not?  That's why pastors who are adulterous or molest children[1] get away with it and the flock forgives them and sends them off to a new parish [more vomit].


Quote
That whole "forgiveness" thing makes it OK to slip up, even over and over again with the same things, as long as you are convinced that the Holy Spirit is working in you. And since you are a filthy sinner to begin with, God doesn't EXPECT you to resist temptation anyhow...so the fact that he sees it doesn't matter. It just becomes more fodder for the whole circular idea of needing forgiveness and Christ's blood making everything all better.
Very true.  Ever notice how the path to being a christian often starts with:

"All you need to do is accept that jesus died for your sins"

Then quickly turns into:

"Now you need to follow christ's example and turn away from sin (and give us 10% of your gross income)".

Then eventually it turns into:

"You have to commit to never sinning again and change your life, as that's what true salvation entails (contradicting the first claim and the claim that we will always sin no matter what), so basically just do what we say as we're appointed by god to guide you away from the devil".


It's brainwashing, in my opinion.  It's no surprise to me that believers think they believe when in fact they probably don't.
 1. Or as it's known in church circles "transgression"
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 26, 2010, 02:13:37 PM
This post is so far off. No wonder so many people are messed up. Your Christian doctrine is not even correct.
Right, because you do, no doubt.  You must be the one who truly knows how to interpet doctrine for everyone else, then.

Why don't you stick around to educate the hundreds of other believers who disagree with you, then.  That'll be fun for us to watch.


Quote
God's standard is, and has always been, perfection.
In which case, Mr very far detached from humility, as required by christ, you're fucked.

You are right that He knew in advance that people would fail to be obedient. That's why in advance He created a way to reconcile the sinner to Himself. He didn't have to do that. He could have thrown the whole world out instead of sparing anybody and been perfectly justified. You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.

For those that don't like eyes on them, too bad.

Care to prove any (even one) of your above assertions Mr know-it-all?

Until you do, or can, everything you say is only ever going to be considered to be a steaming heap of propaganda.  Therefore there’s little point in me addressing anything else you say until you can show the evidence for your claims, or should I say evangelistic threats.

Run along now, tbright, go cry like a little baby in the corner and come back in six months when you’re feeling all jesusisized again.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 26, 2010, 07:13:26 PM
Anfauglir

Hello, thank you for your response to my ramblings. 

I said that from as young as I can remember that I have known God's presence. My impressions in the first place were good impressions. Like many people I was taught God is love and God protects me and God cares for me and God saves me. God made the world and God sent his son to die for our sins etc. I never said that I was against God from the beginning.

As I was growing up - people around me from family to friends to my school teachers would all throw things at me.  They would say look God caused this to happen and God did that and God is an idiot and a murderer and they would show me passages in the Bible which they thought proved all of this.  Being young, I was impressionable - I listened and being young I could not answer those questions and naturally doubts crept in about God and what I was doing and what I was believing.

I never stopped believing in God's goodness. The many voices around me made sure I never forgot about his terribleness. Like some people I really wanted to weigh up what these voices were against my original impressions and like many people I would sway from one side to the other - pitting these voices against people in the church.  My mind was horrified by the thought that GOD really was awful and many of the things in the Bible just did not fit with how I was taught and yet there were many things which did fit. I went to a church where some people were fundamentalists and others were not. Some were dispensationalist - others were reformed - others were evangelical - some were liberal - others were traditional - others were eclectic.

If you read my words - I think you will find that I surmised that God made me believe the unbelievable and that I found it was not really a choice that I had. I am sure that was the point in my life that I started really growing - I am not saying that prior to that time I did not believe - only that the things about God I found horrible made it difficult to reconcile why I did believe.

My mind might have been set against God - but my heart (whatever that is) was not.  I did struggle - I did not and still dont have all of the answers. God made me see things quite differently. Many of the things I had been taught in that church were correct but with the typical denominational spin. It would say God saved me - but it was my choice and up to me. and yet contradicting this it would say - good works wont help you. But your choice will.

I would not use the term that God altered my mind.  I would say that God opened my eyes. Not only in the way I perceived God and the world but also in relation to how I saw my own religion. My mum was and is a baptist. Dad is one too (he was an athiest when I was a boy) but I have left the baptist denomination and left much of their teaching.  Of course - the Christian faith which is generally accepted remains - God is the Trinity and God saves and Judgment Day all remain. My mum still prays that I will change back - she says that I have left the fold and become liberal because I now believe in infant baptism and real wine in the communion and like robes and tradition etc.  Mum does not think I have lost faith though. 

You ask about the goodness of god when he has changed my mind.  My view is that people who care try and change you mind if they see you going the wrong way. Giving me a new perspective on life is wonderful - although sometimes tough - I certainly do not see it negatively.

I am not making any claims about God - that is your perspective. I said I believe that God makes believe the unbelievable. As for him opening my eyes and shutting your eyes - that is completely in accordance with scriptural teaching.  For God to overule my "free will" whatever that is - is not a problem to me.  Many of us drink alcohol even though we know if we drink to much it overules our good sense. But in any event I trust God so I know he wont do anything that is going to not be my best interests.

My God does not damn you. Why do you think you are so important that God is just waiting up there or wherever he is - waiting to damn you. What a peculiar thing to think.  I do believe in the elect. You dont even believe in God - so I cannot imagine why it would be a problem for you. You know I always find it amusing that people who dont believe in God devote so much time and energy in discussing God. Welll that is you choice.

My testimony only speaks to the fact that without the faith that God has given to me - then I would not be able to believe.  That I think is the real issue. People speak of faith with belittlement - and ridicule the simple who have it; but how do we get it?

How does someone drum up faith? It is not like you can go down to the local market and buy some. The local church does not have any in storage that you can collect or borrow.

I say that I have faith because God gave it to me. Hence I can believe in faith his words. I have often said - (not on here of course) that the most convincing proof that the Bible is wrong is for someone to get faith all by themselves in God. I have never ever met anyone who has acquired faith in the God of the Bible by themselves. You see - I dont have to prove God to you - there is really no benefit in it for me.  But you could prove the bible wrong - but so far I have never met anyone who was willing to even try to take up this challenge.  A very simple challenge apparently. Have faith in God. How simple - look at all those naive people in the world - obviously - it does not take a genuis to believe in God.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on October 26, 2010, 08:26:37 PM
Quote
it does not take a genuis to believe in God.

Finally, something I can agree with!

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: rev45 on October 26, 2010, 11:03:14 PM
I was skimming through your post and just had a question.

Quote
My God does not damn you.
Since you say that your god doesn't damn me could you please explain Revelation 21:8?
Quote
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
I'm one of those unbelievers and according to this verse I will be in the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone."  Now I enjoy swimming but not in a burning lake.  So if I have to be in this burning lake for all eternity for not believing in your god, well it sounds like I'm damned.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: pingnak on October 27, 2010, 12:20:17 AM
All the christians who lie in the name of their jesus go there, too, according to the same verse.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 27, 2010, 05:10:52 AM
Oh dear....you don't get it, do you?

My God does not damn you. Why do you think you are so important that God is just waiting up there or wherever he is - waiting to damn you. ..... You dont even believe in God - so I cannot imagine why it would be a problem for you.
It isn't, because I don't believe a word of it.  What I a, trying to do is get YOU to see how many contradictions there are in what you believe, how much mental gymnastics you have to go through to keep your impression of your god and being good.

Read your comments here:
...without the faith that God has given to me - then I would not be able to believe....How does someone drum up faith? It is not like you can go down to the local market and buy some. .....I say that I have faith because God gave it to me.
You are quite clear that faith and belief comes from your god.  Your god doesn't intervene, that person doesn't have faith.  Your god has not intervened with me, so I have no faith.  Your god, therefore, has decided I will have no faith.

And, when I die, by your god's rules, for having no faith I will suffer for eternity.

Read that again.  Because of what your god decided, I will suffer forever for something I have no control over.  Your words.  Your Bible.

That's the point your waffley reply conveniently skipped.  That if your god solely determines who has faith, then to condemn the faithless for HIS inactions is nothing less than evil.

You know I always find it amusing that people who dont believe in God devote so much time and energy in discussing God.

I do it mostly because there are so many people like you that worship a monster, and call it good.  And if that was a private thing you did in your home, then I'd have no problem.  But all those monster-worshippers are out in public, condemning, pushing for laws that meet their god's dictates.....your belief impacts on my life, despite the fact that it has no foundation.  THAT is why I spend time opposing something I do not believe.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: gonegolfing on October 27, 2010, 08:50:19 AM
Tradesecret:

Quote
How does someone drum up faith? It is not like you can go down to the local market and buy some. The local church does not have any in storage that you can collect or borrow.



Wrong. Your brain is very much like a market. With shelves stocked full of ideas and thoughts and emotions and beliefs to choose from if you so desire. Faith is in the beliefs section of your brains market. God is in the ideas section. If one decides to pull the god idea off the shelf then they immediately must go to the beliefs section and grab some faith off the shelf to make the idea of a god believable to their minds. Since there's no tangible or physical connection possible between the two shelf choices, the compatible check feature of your brain, the faculty of reason, tells you that this is not a very good idea and that there's something wrong here.

But along comes the emotions and spoils everything. The fear of death and wishful deluded thinking usurp the power of the faculty of reason in some, and their brain at that point is powerless and abused.

The church helps keep the faith shelves stocked in the brains of the deluded and wishful thinkers.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 27, 2010, 12:28:53 PM
Tradesecret,

Your post is pretty typical of Christians coming here, the usual backpedaling, etc.  Do you understand why I think it’s nonsense when you claim to “have known God’s presence”?  It’s because all theists, of any religion, claim the same thing. Are all gods true then? 

I was a Christian too. I was sure God was good and sure that I “felt” something.  But I could also feel that I heard Santa’s bootsteps on the roof too. Not exactly the best verification of the existence of some mythical being.  And what a bizaare church you supposedly went too.  Talk about a textbook example of how ridiculous religion is, when Christians are all sure that they and only they are “right”. Just like you.   

You have claimed this  “God made me believe his unbelievable story” which is, frankly, hilarious. What a great way to dispense with any personal responsibility.  Oooh, God made me do it.  LOL  Sorry, don’t believe it at all.  You found a myth you liked that made you feel good and you now want some divine excuse for accepting such nonsense. Religion is a heady draught.  You become the best thing ever, so important that a omnipotent/omniscient/ omnibenevolent deity is concerned for you and only you. I do love how Christians decide that they are so special and that everyone else, who God didn’t take a *personal* involvement in are damned just by that whim.     

I’m sure you wouldn’t use the term that God altered your mind
Quote
God made me believe his unbelievable story
but that’s exactly what you are claiming.  You’ve created your own religion, so you can feel superior that God has told you what he “really” meant.  You pick and choose which pretty baubles you find attractive.  and if your mom prays to her god that you’ll change back, I do think she thinks you’ve lost faith and are damned.  Why pray if she didn’t feel that way?  Why appeal to this god which is ostensible your god, to change you if you aren’t wrong?  You want to claim that God changed you and then you want to turn around and claim that it’s a choice.  That’s a contradiction, TS, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  And comparing this forcible action by God to a human trying to change a person’s mind is just pathetic.  I do enjoy when Christians must depower their god in an attempt to make a poor analogy. 

You have made claim after claim about God, first and foremost, that God *made* you believe. See in the preceeding paragraph, no equivocation, you are trying to claim a fact.   

Quote
My God does not damn you. Why do you think you are so important that God is just waiting up there or wherever he is - waiting to damn you. What a peculiar thing to think.  I do believe in the elect. You dont even believe in God - so I cannot imagine why it would be a problem for you. You know I always find it amusing that people who dont believe in God devote so much time and energy in discussing God. Welll that is you choice.
As has been already noted, funny on how your bible says that your God does indeed damn people.  And I love your indignant whines about how dare anyone think they are so important that God is just waiting up there. Hilarious to hear that from someone who is sure that God is just waiting to force belief on him. It doesn’t’ surprise me at all that a vain person like you is sure that they are “elect”.  All of this whining about how you made a choice and then you come up with that.  And the reason that I choose to discuss God is to demonstrate how ridiculous it is and to demonstrate how ridiculous believers are. Christians are so silly.  None of you can agree on what your God really means but you are all sure you have the right answer.  We have Christians saying that there are elect or that it is totally free will; that people are damned or not; that you need grace and/or faith and/or works to get saved; that god gives faith or not; etc.  Of course it is of no benefit to you to actually have to think about your faith, if you did that, you’d likely lose it.  But you have so much of your self-worth wrapped up in this belief that you run away, whining that “I don’t have to prove God to you.”  And that you have never met anyone who has taken up the challenge to prove the bible wrong is a lovely indicator on just how willfully ignorant you are.  I’m quite willing to take it up, just by pointing out that none of the vital events of the bible have any evidence of ever happening and plenty of evidence to the contrary. 

And you’re right, it definitely doesn’t take a genius to believe in God.  Nice appeal to a fallacy, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html,  there, TS.   
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 01:17:38 PM
I believe.  I was raised in a Christian home and taught the bible, but it wasn't until I experienced what my limited vocabulary would call conviction.  It wasn't guilt, it was a realization that my life didn't line up with God's plan, as much of it as I knew (from former bible studies).  I was living by my rules and a life void of any submission to the teachings and commands of God as lined out in the bible.  I began to pray and ask for forgiveness, I truly repented, in the sense that my life radically changed that day.  I no longer had the desire to smoke (2 packs a day), to drink (i would pass out most days - bartender and bestfriend owned the bar), to cuss it was my only language of expression, and to womanize (my goal was to never go a day without sex with a girl).  My desires became to live by what God's word taught, to love others, to forgive, to abstain from sex till marriage, to abstain from all appearances of evil, to try and tame the tongue, to treat my body like I would the temple of God, not to destroy it or defame it.  Now that doesn't mean I always succeeded in living the perfect Christian life, but the Gospel doesn't fix your sinful nature, it covers it.  The proof of one's faith should be seen in how they live their life, but not condemned for every mistake.  I believe that God did send Jesus, to die for my sins.  I don't have any doubt to the truth of the story or to the truth of my salvation, or the truth of scriptures, what I don't believe is that I can express or argue my belief in such a way as to convince anyone.  But I do believe, I choose to believe, and am convinced.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 01:28:32 PM
^^^^ You know this would be much more interesting if you actually had something to say that didn't come from the 'random christian slogan' generator. The whole 'personal anectdote, personal anectdote, I was a horrible person until I got zapped by the god beam, now I live to snuggle children and pet kittens, but I'm still not perfect, I believe in god because I believe, Derby-derby-derby doo" thing is a little trite and overdone. How about something with substance, as a personal favour to me? Or if nothing else as a nod towards being original.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 01:40:58 PM
my answer is what it is, it is my reply to dante's original post.  It isn't some manufactured quaint christian slogan or bumpersticker regurgitated for your pleasure or displeasure.  It is my testimony.  If i were sworn to give account of what happened that day, I could add more detail to the words used in my prayer, but it would not change what happened in my life.  If someone were to have a near death experience, would you have the same ridicule for them expressing how their life was changed by what happened in their life that day? no matter how similar it might sound to other persons with near death experiences.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 02:02:02 PM
^^^^ If they claimed that their near-death experience was the doing of a fictional character, a fictional character who they think is a god, for absolutely no reason other than their own desire or willingness to believe, then yes. Of course I would have the same ridicule, because that's all it deserves. It doesn't warrant any serious consideration because it has nothing to seriously consider. It has no evidence, no proof, no way of determining fact from fiction and in no way is it discernible from being mentally ill.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 27, 2010, 02:02:45 PM
Hi phelix,

I believe.  I was raised in a Christian home and taught the bible, but it wasn't until I experienced what my limited vocabulary would call conviction.  It wasn't guilt, it was a realization that my life didn't line up with God's plan, as much of it as I knew (from former bible studies).  I was living by my rules and a life void of any submission to the teachings and commands of God as lined out in the bible.  I began to pray and ask for forgiveness, I truly repented, in the sense that my life radically changed that day.  I no longer had the desire to smoke (2 packs a day), to drink (i would pass out most days - bartender and bestfriend owned the bar), to cuss it was my only language of expression, and to womanize (my goal was to never go a day without sex with a girl).

Why do you suppose you had this "conviction" only after realizing you were living a self-destructive lifestyle? Why not before you realized it, while you were enjoying it? Could it be because you realized that you needed help, and since you were raised the way you were, that's the way you turned? So, in turn, Christainity became your new crutch, your new addiction, your new non-self-destructive lifestyle?


My desires became to live by what God's word taught, to love others, to forgive, to abstain from sex till marriage, to abstain from all appearances of evil, to try and tame the tongue, to treat my body like I would the temple of God, not to destroy it or defame it.  Now that doesn't mean I always succeeded in living the perfect Christian life, but the Gospel doesn't fix your sinful nature, it covers it. The proof of one's faith should be seen in how they live their life, but not condemned for every mistake.  

Man, you gotta love those loopholes!  ;D


I believe that God did send Jesus, to die for my sins.  I don't have any doubt to the truth of the story or to the truth of my salvation, or the truth of scriptures, what I don't believe is that I can express or argue my belief in such a way as to convince anyone.  But I do believe, I choose to believe, and am convinced.

Not to question your sincerity, but I don't think one can choose to believe anything, and be utterly convinced. I would be surprised if any atheist here can choose to believe in god. It's not a choice to not believe, and I doubt it's a choice to believe.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 02:14:04 PM



 My desires became to live by what God's word taught, to love others, to forgive, to abstain from sex till marriage, to abstain from all appearances of evil, to try and tame the tongue, to treat my body like I would the temple of God, not to destroy it or defame it.  Now that doesn't mean I always succeeded in living the perfect Christian life, but the Gospel doesn't fix your sinful nature, it covers it. The proof of one's faith should be seen in how they live their life, but not condemned for every mistake.  

It's interesting how this effectively excuses just about everything isn't it? As long as you believe in god you get to still do bad things, after all you're not perfect, but he forgives you as long as you dance to his tune like a trained monkey. In fact, not being perfect you really can't live up to those expectations can you? Yet you're still punished for them, unless you go the dancing monkey route.

Edit: Actually as long as we're analyzing this, you believe that god sent Jesus down here to die for our sins. Let's set aside the fact that Jesus didn't really suffer or die and focus on the general concept. God was the one who condemned us in the first place. Rather than just saying "My bad, all is forgiven" he comes up with a complex plan to sacrifice himself to pay off the debt that is owed to himself. Is it any wonder this gets ridiculed?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 02:37:03 PM
It's interesting how this effectively excuses just about everything isn't it? As long as you believe in god you get to still do bad things, after all you're not perfect, but he forgives you as long as you dance to his tune like a trained monkey. In fact, not being perfect you really can't live up to those expectations can you? Yet you're still punished for them, unless you go the dancing monkey route.

It isn't just interesting, it isn't fair.  I should pay for everyone of my sins, but because God forgave me, I don't, not that they didn't go unpunished, but that someone else took that punishment for me.  It's not because I believe in God that i still get to do bad things, it is just a fact of life, that humans are not able to be perfect.  That doesn't excuse it, there is no loophole, no sin goes unpunished.  And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone? 

Edit: Actually as long as we're analyzing this, you believe that god sent Jesus down here to die for our sins. Let's set aside the fact that Jesus didn't really suffer or die and focus on the general concept. God was the one who condemned us in the first place. Rather than just saying "My bad, all is forgiven" he comes up with a complex plan to sacrifice himself to pay off the debt that is owed to himself. Is it any wonder this gets ridiculed?

Hard to set aside 1) there is no factual evidence that Jesus did not exist.  2) no factual evidence that He didn't suffer  3) no factual evidence He didn't die. 
But many like to argue the resurrection part.  Many like to argue the "he was God" part.  It was not God who condemned us, it was God who condemned sin according to scripture.  Also accordingly it says, if anyone believes he is not condemned but for those who reject him they are condemned already.  pop culture says God condemns us for being us.  Truth of scripture says, sin is the reason for condemnation, not humanity.  If God said all humans are condemned, then Jesus would have been as well.  And if He says,"my bad, all is forgiven", without punishing sin, then he is not a just God, nor a fair God.  my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 27, 2010, 02:40:14 PM
my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior. 
Do those consequences include torturing her for all eternity if she doesn't do everything you say?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 02:43:14 PM
Hi phelix,
Why do you suppose you had this "conviction" only after realizing you were living a self-destructive lifestyle? Why not before you realized it, while you were enjoying it? Could it be because you realized that you needed help, and since you were raised the way you were, that's the way you turned? So, in turn, Christainity became your new crutch, your new addiction, your new non-self-destructive lifestyle?

Anyone familiar with addiction will tell you, that true change doesn't happen by chance or a change in the wind velocity.  I was not looking for change or seeking a different way of life.  Instead, I was driving down the road, and I remembered the story of Achan.  An Israelite family who hid some plunder in their tent that God had commanded them to not take.  Because of their sin, they were unable to capture a much smaller AI.  I realized that i was living like God didn't care or know about my sin.  My life was radically changed after I began to pray and confess, and to turn everything over to Him.  If I had my way that day, I would have just shrugged it off and still made happy hour.



Not to question your sincerity, but I don't think one can choose to believe anything, and be utterly convinced. I would be surprised if any atheist here can choose to believe in god. It's not a choice to not believe, and I doubt it's a choice to believe.

Good point.  I think we are faced with things and we either choose to accept it as truth or not.  I was faced with the Gospel and chose to accept it as truth.  Others have chosen to reject it as myth or make believe.  Is that not a choice?  That's kind of the perspective I was trying to communicate.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 02:46:49 PM
Do those consequences include torturing her for all eternity if she doesn't do everything you say?

No they do not.  1) I am not a Holy God, who is the judge of Sin.  2)  I am not disciplining her for sin, but for bad behavior.  3) God disciplines those he loves, the bible says, and not all discipline from God includes eternal torture.  Just ask Peter, or Moses, Or Abraham, or Adam and Eve, Or Cain, ect.  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 27, 2010, 02:54:36 PM

Anyone familiar with addiction will tell you, that true change doesn't happen by chance or a change in the wind velocity.  I was not looking for change or seeking a different way of life  <snip>  I realized that i was living like God didn't care or know about my sin.  My life was radically changed after I began to pray and confess, and to turn everything over to Him. 

So, you didn't have any desire to alter your lifestyle? And if it didn't happen by chance, to what are you attributing it?

Bcause, frankly, the only other option I can see is that god reached into you and touched you, altered your free will, as it were. Agree? Disagree?

Why wont god do that for everyone?

Good point.  I think we are faced with things and we either choose to accept it as truth or not.  I was faced with the Gospel and chose to accept it as truth.  Others have chosen to reject it as myth or make believe.  Is that not a choice? 

No. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can't choose to believe they be true, any more than I can choose to believe Harry Potter is true.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 03:07:57 PM
It isn't just interesting, it isn't fair.  I should pay for everyone of my sins, but because God forgave me, I don't, not that they didn't go unpunished, but that someone else took that punishment for me.
Exactly, you have this mythology set up in your mind where your sins are paid for you. You believe that your sins are taken from you, rather than having to bear them yourself. This is all a creation of your own mind to excuse yourself.

And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone?
The forgiveness isn't available to anyone. It's only available to those who do the monkey dance. A better queation would be 'If this god is such a good god, why punish people eternally at all?" Why not just forgive them, or give them a punishment less draconian?

1) there is no factual evidence that Jesus did not exist.
Faulty logic, not that I had many expectations as far as logic was concerned. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Without evidence to prove that Jesus did exist, of which there is none, the only rational conclusion is that he didn't.

2) no factual evidence that He didn't suffer
No factual evidence that he did suffer either. Especially when one considers that if he were a representation of god there's no reason why he would actually suffer. There's nothing to stop him from simply not feeling pain if he wanted to.


3) no factual evidence He didn't die.  
Same as above, no evidence that he did die, or even that he lived. All that happened to Jesus is that he resurrected himself a few days later, then went up to party in heaven. So essentially Jesus at worst had a bad couple of days for us. Consider me underwhelmed.


And if He says,"my bad, all is forgiven", without punishing sin, then he is not a just God, nor a fair God.  my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior.  

If you were an all-powerful being then you would have no need to punish her. If all you wanted was to teach her to be good you could do that without doing anything bad or unpleasant to her. You certainly wouldn't have to throw her a pit of fire. Anything you wanted to do or to her could be done without any need for punishment, unless you just got kicks out of punishing your children. Also since you created everything, you created sin. You gave her the capacity for sin and to engage in bad behaviour, you didn't have to. Being all-knowing you knew she would commit the sin when you gave her the ability. This would make you the one responsible for when your daughter did something wrong, at least for the most part.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on October 27, 2010, 03:19:14 PM
Hard to set aside 1) there is no factual evidence that Jesus did not exist. 

What would constitute factual evidence of a thing not existing?  An example I often use is a dog I do not own.  I do not own a dog.  How would I go about proving that?  There is no evidence.  My only evidence is a lack of evidence.  What positive "factual evidence" could I provide that would establish for anyone the fact I do not own a dog?

Points 2) and 3) are covered by that.

Or, if I wanted to demonstrate to you the poor reasoning you are using: there is no factual evidence mermaids do not exist. There is no factual evidence that Lord Krishna was not divine. There is no factual evidence Sasquatch is a hoax.  I could go on, but if you get the point, we can stop here.


my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior. 

Hell and your daughter are not equivalent analogies.  Do you punish her eternally?  Or is your punishment meant as a lesson?  I presume it is a lesson to encourage good behavior for the rest of her life.  What then, is the lesson of hell?  We learn it too late for it to be of any benefit.  And if jesus H took our punishment already, how can you even say there is a hell for me to go to?


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 27, 2010, 03:35:00 PM
why, hello phelix, back to dodge more posts? 

I believe.  I was raised in a Christian home and taught the bible, but it wasn't until I experienced what my limited vocabulary would call conviction.  It wasn't guilt, it was a realization that my life didn't line up with God's plan, as much of it as I knew (from former bible studies).
ah, more of the knowign what God "really meant". 

Quote
I was living by my rules and a life void of any submission to the teachings and commands of God as lined out in the bible.  I began to pray and ask for forgiveness, I truly repented, in the sense that my life radically changed that day. I no longer had the desire to smoke (2 packs a day), to drink (i would pass out most days - bartender and bestfriend owned the bar), to cuss it was my only language of expression, and to womanize (my goal was to never go a day without sex with a girl).  My desires became to live by what God's word taught, to love others, to forgive, to abstain from sex till marriage, to abstain from all appearances of evil, to try and tame the tongue, to treat my body like I would the temple of God, not to destroy it or defame it.
and a bit of glurge to make it sound so dramatic. 
Quote
Now that doesn't mean I always succeeded in living the perfect Christian life, but the Gospel doesn't fix your sinful nature, it covers it.  The proof of one's faith should be seen in how they live their life, but not condemned for every mistake.  I believe that God did send Jesus, to die for my sins.  I don't have any doubt to the truth of the story or to the truth of my salvation, or the truth of scriptures, what I don't believe is that I can express or argue my belief in such a way as to convince anyone.  But I do believe, I choose to believe, and am convinced.
so it's basically useless.  I have not seen one Christian act any better than any other human being, just because they were a believer.  And of course, you don't doubt it. if you did, you'd just be plain ol' phelix, who just has to live life like everyone else and not have a special invisible friend.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Asmoday on October 27, 2010, 03:50:11 PM
And if jesus H took our punishment already, how can you even say there is a hell for me to go to?
See, that is the beauty of the scheme. Jesus "took our punishment" but when it comes down to it he took "our" punishment selectively. If for whatever reason you don't jump through the hoops when the big sky daddy tells you to, it turns out that Jesus hasn't taken your punishment but you have to face it on your own.


Guy A: Hello there! I just wanted to tell you that I paid for your parking ticket. In fact I paid for the parking tickets of all the people in town.

Guy B: That's...uh...nice, I guess. But I never got a parking ticket.

Guy A: Don't be silly, of course you did. Your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather once got a parking ticket from my ancestor. See, says so right here in the book a friend of mine wrote. And that parking ticket has to be paid by every member of your family. Says so in my book.

Guy B: That's crazy...

Guy A: Nah, don't worry, I already paid the ticket for you.

Guy B: Well...uhm...thanks for that then... *cough* weirdo *cough*

Guy A: Now, let's go to your house so I can explain to you how you have to thank me for it for the rest of your life, what you must do from now on and what you are not allowed to do from now on.

Guy B: No way! You think I'm stupid? Get lost, buddy!

Guy A: Well, it's your choice of course. If you don't want to take it, it's fine with me. See that guy over there? He'll collect the debt of the parking ticket and will just torture you for the rest of your life as payment for the ticket. He really gets off from that kinda stuff.

Guy B: What? You said you paid that ticket already!

Guy A: Well, of course I did. I paid for everybody. Only if you say No to my offer you'll still have to pay for your own despite me having paid for everybody already. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that? Anyway, your choice. Take your time, no pressure.


Obviously nobody would buy into that stuff in the real world if someone stood in front of them trying to sell them that. Strangely though in the real world it works like a charm for people going around telling everybody an invisible man paid their parking ticket for them.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 03:59:26 PM
^^^^ The one thing that you left out though, is that you can't even pay the parking ticket yourself. You have to accept this guys offer in order to pay the ticket. This is why I always say that god is the ultimate mob boss.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 27, 2010, 04:07:56 PM
Obviously nobody would buy into that stuff in the real world if someone stood in front of them trying to sell them that. Strangely though in the real world it works like a charm for people going around telling everybody an invisible man paid their parking ticket for them.

That's because you can't PROVE that the invisble man didn't pay your parking ticket!

I mean really, how delusional is that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 05:42:04 PM

Faulty logic, not that I had many expectations as far as logic was concerned. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Without evidence to prove that Jesus did exist, of which there is none, the only rational conclusion is that he didn't.

Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase. 


No factual evidence that he did suffer either. Especially when one considers that if he were a representation of god there's no reason why he would actually suffer. There's nothing to stop him from simply not feeling pain if he wanted to.
see above


Same as above, no evidence that he did die, or even that he lived. All that happened to Jesus is that he resurrected himself a few days later, then went up to party in heaven. So essentially Jesus at worst had a bad couple of days for us. Consider me underwhelmed.
  same as above.  At least see the double standard here.



If you were an all-powerful being then you would have no need to punish her. If all you wanted was to teach her to be good you could do that without doing anything bad or unpleasant to her. You certainly wouldn't have to throw her a pit of fire. Anything you wanted to do or to her could be done without any need for punishment, unless you just got kicks out of punishing your children. Also since you created everything, you created sin. You gave her the capacity for sin and to engage in bad behaviour, you didn't have to. Being all-knowing you knew she would commit the sin when you gave her the ability. This would make you the one responsible for when your daughter did something wrong, at least for the most part.

Here is a big can of worms you are bringing into the conversation "God created Sin".  but lets skip to the end, i would be responsible for her doing something wrong because I gave her the freedom to do what she wants.  Ummm no.  her choice, she knew the rules, she broke the rules, she pays the price.  If it were my fault for giving her the freedom, then couldn't we blame the government for every crime?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on October 27, 2010, 05:44:06 PM
be back tomorrow to "dodge" posts more.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Asmoday on October 27, 2010, 06:33:24 PM
Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase.
I just have to say a few words about this.

phelix22, either you haven't informed yourself much about this or your knowledge consists solely of materials from Christian fundamentalist sources.

There is no evidence for Jesus' existence; neither for a Jesus as described in the bible nor for a historical and purely human Jesus.

Quote
Ever studied antiquity.
If you are talking about Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"; that one is a forgery.

If you are talking about the antiquity in general then you are also going to be disappointed. Not only is there not a single record of Jesus from the time he's supposed to have lived but all other accounts used by Christians as evidence for a historical Jesus have been shown to be either forgeries or they are not evidence at all because they are written about the beliefs of Christians decades (in some cases centuries) after the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.

And I hope you don't think the bible counts as evidence. The bible is the book making the claim. Just like the quran is not evidence for the events and claims made in the quran.

Quote
Ever heard of BC and AD.
No evidence at all.

This dating method has been invented by a sixth century monk named Dionysius Exiguus (emphasis on "sixth century") and it was not even commonly in use before 800 CE.

But if you count this as evidence for the existence of Jesus already, then what about all the other dating methods in the world? Is the Muslim dating method evidence for the existence of Mohammed and the truth of the quran? Is the Chinese calendar evidence for the gods connected to the years?

And what of the names for our days? Is the use of the name "thursday" evidence that Thor exists?

Quote
Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.
Ever informed yourself when the gospels have been written and by whom?

The earliest of the gospels has been written 70 CE. Not one of the gospels has been written by an eye witness or the apostle of the same name. In fact the books we know as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John today had been around for a long long time before they got their names.

Quote
they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it."
You don't seem to understand how things work.

Christians are making the claim "God exists" so it is their duty to show that their claim is true. Just the same as if I claimed Aliens would communicate telepathically with earth through toilet seats. In that case I would have to show my claim is true.

As screwtape has already explained to you: You can't prove a negative. I can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. I can't prove Russel's teapot does not exist.

BUT that you can not prove something does not exist does not mean in reverse that the baseless claim of it's existence is valid.
That is what you and many Christians are going for, but you are the ones who have to show your claim "God exists" is true. Not the other way round.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 27, 2010, 07:38:35 PM
I was skimming through your post and just had a question.

Quote
My God does not damn you.
Since you say that your god doesn't damn me could you please explain Revelation 21:8?
Quote
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
I'm one of those unbelievers and according to this verse I will be in the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone."  Now I enjoy swimming but not in a burning lake.  So if I have to be in this burning lake for all eternity for not believing in your god, well it sounds like I'm damned.



I can certainly appreciate that this verse provides us with an example of punishment for the above mentioned groups of people.   Is this damnation brought on by God or by the person? Is that not one of the age old questions? My view is that God as judge certainly will meet out his justice in his own time. I suppose it could even be understood that this is an example of God damning people. I take the view that there is a first cause and a second cause. God made the world and the people. The people sinned fully understanding that to sin deserved death. Therefore God sentences them to death. Man or humanity however chose to sin - and thereby damning themselves to the consequences of that action. Similarly in our society. A person kills someone fully knowing that if caught they will go to prison or in your country maybe get the death sentence. It is still the judge who determines the sentence. So really both the criminal and the judge damn the person to whatever punishment the person receives.

My view is that God set up the world and humanity chose to do it their own way. God is hence a first cause - but humanity is the second cause.  I suppose that is why I take the view that God does not damn - although I can see how it can be read that way. I think blaming God as the first cause for damning people to Hell is like the crook saying - it is the Judge's fault for finding me guilty of murder. A good example of blameshifting and attempting to avoid responsibility. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 27, 2010, 08:01:22 PM
Oh dear....you don't get it, do you?

My God does not damn you. Why do you think you are so important that God is just waiting up there or wherever he is - waiting to damn you. ..... You dont even believe in God - so I cannot imagine why it would be a problem for you.
It isn't, because I don't believe a word of it.  What I a, trying to do is get YOU to see how many contradictions there are in what you believe, how much mental gymnastics you have to go through to keep your impression of your god and being good.

Read your comments here:
...without the faith that God has given to me - then I would not be able to believe....How does someone drum up faith? It is not like you can go down to the local market and buy some. .....I say that I have faith because God gave it to me.
You are quite clear that faith and belief comes from your god.  Your god doesn't intervene, that person doesn't have faith.  Your god has not intervened with me, so I have no faith.  Your god, therefore, has decided I will have no faith.

And, when I die, by your god's rules, for having no faith I will suffer for eternity.

Read that again.  Because of what your god decided, I will suffer forever for something I have no control over.  Your words.  Your Bible.

That's the point your waffley reply conveniently skipped.  That if your god solely determines who has faith, then to condemn the faithless for HIS inactions is nothing less than evil.

You know I always find it amusing that people who dont believe in God devote so much time and energy in discussing God.

I do it mostly because there are so many people like you that worship a monster, and call it good.  And if that was a private thing you did in your home, then I'd have no problem.  But all those monster-worshippers are out in public, condemning, pushing for laws that meet their god's dictates.....your belief impacts on my life, despite the fact that it has no foundation.  THAT is why I spend time opposing something I do not believe.

Actually when (or if) you die in Hell - that will be because you have sinned - not because my God did not give you faith.

Your presumption is that you are innocent and that God is responsible for any wrong that you do and therefore responsible to make sure you dont get damned. I reject that presumption.

Nobody who ever gets sentenced to Hell will be undeserving or innocent. The Bible teached that all people have sinned of their own free volition and therefore everybody deserves death - or Hell (whatever you want to call it).  All people including both you and ME deserve Hell - we are all if you like living on death row because we have all decided to do our own thing - sin. That is the point that you are avoiding.  That is the real issue.

The fact that I was living on death row - in sin meant that the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself. I cannot will myself to be alive or will myself out of prison. IF I am dead in sin then I am dead.  If the governor of the prison or God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith or to die on a cross - it has nothing to do with me. I cannot will him to do it - I cannot will him not to do it. I was never asked if I wanted Jesus to die on the cross. I was never asked if I wanted faith. This is why I say choice is irrelevent and why I say that every other form of discrimination is irrelevent - race, birth, sex, sexual orientation, religion, social position, social wealth, profession, colour, intelliegence, etc.  I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin.

If you suffer in eternity it is absolutely your choice and your own responsibility. You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice. We have all sinned - no one is innocent (including children, the handicapped, foetuses, intellectually challenged, etc) If this is the starting point - then choice becomes irrelevent. At that point - if God is merciful to any and give grace and faith - no one can say that they deserved it. No one can say that they earnt it. He does not have to give any mercy. He does thankfully.  But he does not have to - and if we expect that he should then we are practising "guilt manipulation".  No governor has to grant a pardon to any prisoner. If a governor does not grant freedom - he is not evil.  It is the prisoner who broke the law. It is the prisoner who condemned himself. TO blame the governor only demonstrates that the person thinks that they did not do anything to deserve their punishment. (Now I grant that is a more interesting question but it is a different issue)

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 27, 2010, 08:05:49 PM
Tradesecret:

Quote
How does someone drum up faith? It is not like you can go down to the local market and buy some. The local church does not have any in storage that you can collect or borrow.



Wrong. Your brain is very much like a market. With shelves stocked full of ideas and thoughts and emotions and beliefs to choose from if you so desire. Faith is in the beliefs section of your brains market. God is in the ideas section. If one decides to pull the god idea off the shelf then they immediately must go to the beliefs section and grab some faith off the shelf to make the idea of a god believable to their minds. Since there's no tangible or physical connection possible between the two shelf choices, the compatible check feature of your brain, the faculty of reason, tells you that this is not a very good idea and that there's something wrong here.

But along comes the emotions and spoils everything. The fear of death and wishful deluded thinking usurp the power of the faculty of reason in some, and their brain at that point is powerless and abused.

The church helps keep the faith shelves stocked in the brains of the deluded and wishful thinkers.



Thank you for that moment of laughter.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 27, 2010, 08:12:05 PM
Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase.  

Yes I have heard of BC and AD. The concept was created by a monk named Dionysius to replace the Diocletian years because he didn't like having a system that was reminiscent of a guy who liked to torture christians for fun. He wanted to number it back to the conception of Jesus, and he miscalculated by several years. I've read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. All of which have questionable authorship, none of whom ever met Jesus and likely weren't born before his death. In fact none of the bible authors ever met Jesus. They're not even all that consistent in what they write, especially John who probably came last.

In the case of Mark, who likely came first he claims to be a follower of Peter. So much so in fact that there was a time when his gospel was known as the Petrine gospel. A lot of scholars like to place his place his writing of the gospel at around 70 CE, but since he uses a lot of words and phrases that also appear in the letters of Ignatius it could conceivably be closer to the second century. Mark also leaves out most of the important aspects of the Jesus-myth like the virgin birth, the three wise-men or anything really surrounding his birth. Instead he refers to him as coming from Nazareth.

Matthew used Mark as inspiration but he wanted the Jesus-myths to be palatable to his fellow Jews so he tried to work in some add-ons to what Mark wrote. He deliberately left out detail in order to have seven generations each from Abraham to David and David to the Exile, and the Exile to Jesus. It should also be noted that Matthews geneology doesn't fit with other geneologys mentioned in the bible.

Luke was basically the same for the gentiles. He took Mark and used whole tracts of it and then changed or added many other things to suit his needs. Because he was writing to a Roman audience as well he tries to portray them better than in the other gospels. As example in Mark, Jesus is whipped by Roman soldiers, but in Luke it is Herod's soldiers.

John tried to bring the Jewish and newly-formed Christians back together with his gospel, thus making it compatible with both faiths, which is why his is so radically different from the previous three.

But this is digressing since nothing you said even begins to constitute proof for anything. You didn't even make the attempt which is very sad. As for the last bit, as Asmoday pointed out and I pointed out previously it is you who are making the claim. There is nothing for us to prove.

Here is a big can of worms you are bringing into the conversation "God created Sin".  but lets skip to the end, i would be responsible for her doing something wrong because I gave her the freedom to do what she wants.  Ummm no.  her choice, she knew the rules, she broke the rules, she pays the price.  If it were my fault for giving her the freedom, then couldn't we blame the government for every crime?

It's your fault because you made her the way she is. You created sin not her. And you can't claim to give her the freedom to do what she wants, because you're punishing her for doing it. This is not free will, it is circumstantial will. Free will requires a lack of consequences and constrainsts, hence 'free'. If you can only do what you want within certain restrictions than you do not have freedom. As you yourself said yourself, there are rules. This is not giving her freedom. You could have made her incapable of doing bad things. This can't be considered an imposition on freedom because this is already the case. There are many things that we as humans cannot choose to do. Such as fire energy rays from our eyes. We cannot choose this because we lack the ability to do it. So we could have simply been created without the ability to do bad things and we could still have free will, assuming you can even prove that we have free will. And again, as an all-knowing being you knew that all of this would happen when you created her, so you knew from the start that she would do this and you would have to punish her and did nothing to stop it.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 27, 2010, 08:17:32 PM
Christians are making the claim "God exists" so it is their duty to show that their claim is true. Just the same as if I claimed Aliens would communicate telepathically with earth through toilet seats. In that case I would have to show my claim is true.

I've seen this many times. We have offered many, many evidences, which you continue to claim are not evidence. Your threshold of proof is beyond any reasonable measure or standard for what would be acceptable as proof for that day and time. So it's not that evidence has not been presented, because it has. The issue is what you would consider enough evidence to be worthy of consideration to make a change.

For me, OT prophecies that were realized in the person of Jesus Christ were very, very convincing. Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.

For many of the prophecies fulfilled, see HERE (http://bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm).
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Astreja on October 27, 2010, 08:47:01 PM
Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.
I have a much simpler explanation.  The rabbis performing the circumcisions noticed that babies circumcised on Day 8 bled less than other babies, and by the time the scriptures were written down it was already a tradition to wait till Day 8.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 27, 2010, 08:47:56 PM
Tradesecret,

Your post is pretty typical of Christians coming here, the usual backpedaling, etc.  Do you understand why I think it’s nonsense when you claim to “have known God’s presence”?  It’s because all theists, of any religion, claim the same thing. Are all gods true then? 

I was a Christian too. I was sure God was good and sure that I “felt” something.  But I could also feel that I heard Santa’s bootsteps on the roof too. Not exactly the best verification of the existence of some mythical being.  And what a bizaare church you supposedly went too.  Talk about a textbook example of how ridiculous religion is, when Christians are all sure that they and only they are “right”. Just like you.   

You have claimed this  “God made me believe his unbelievable story” which is, frankly, hilarious. What a great way to dispense with any personal responsibility.  Oooh, God made me do it.  LOL  Sorry, don’t believe it at all.  You found a myth you liked that made you feel good and you now want some divine excuse for accepting such nonsense. Religion is a heady draught.  You become the best thing ever, so important that a omnipotent/omniscient/ omnibenevolent deity is concerned for you and only you. I do love how Christians decide that they are so special and that everyone else, who God didn’t take a *personal* involvement in are damned just by that whim.     

I’m sure you wouldn’t use the term that God altered your mind
Quote
God made me believe his unbelievable story
but that’s exactly what you are claiming.  You’ve created your own religion, so you can feel superior that God has told you what he “really” meant.  You pick and choose which pretty baubles you find attractive.  and if your mom prays to her god that you’ll change back, I do think she thinks you’ve lost faith and are damned.  Why pray if she didn’t feel that way?  Why appeal to this god which is ostensible your god, to change you if you aren’t wrong?  You want to claim that God changed you and then you want to turn around and claim that it’s a choice.  That’s a contradiction, TS, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  And comparing this forcible action by God to a human trying to change a person’s mind is just pathetic.  I do enjoy when Christians must depower their god in an attempt to make a poor analogy. 

You have made claim after claim about God, first and foremost, that God *made* you believe. See in the preceeding paragraph, no equivocation, you are trying to claim a fact.   

Quote
My God does not damn you. Why do you think you are so important that God is just waiting up there or wherever he is - waiting to damn you. What a peculiar thing to think.  I do believe in the elect. You dont even believe in God - so I cannot imagine why it would be a problem for you. You know I always find it amusing that people who dont believe in God devote so much time and energy in discussing God. Welll that is you choice.
As has been already noted, funny on how your bible says that your God does indeed damn people.  And I love your indignant whines about how dare anyone think they are so important that God is just waiting up there. Hilarious to hear that from someone who is sure that God is just waiting to force belief on him. It doesn’t’ surprise me at all that a vain person like you is sure that they are “elect”.  All of this whining about how you made a choice and then you come up with that.  And the reason that I choose to discuss God is to demonstrate how ridiculous it is and to demonstrate how ridiculous believers are. Christians are so silly.  None of you can agree on what your God really means but you are all sure you have the right answer.  We have Christians saying that there are elect or that it is totally free will; that people are damned or not; that you need grace and/or faith and/or works to get saved; that god gives faith or not; etc.  Of course it is of no benefit to you to actually have to think about your faith, if you did that, you’d likely lose it.  But you have so much of your self-worth wrapped up in this belief that you run away, whining that “I don’t have to prove God to you.”  And that you have never met anyone who has taken up the challenge to prove the bible wrong is a lovely indicator on just how willfully ignorant you are.  I’m quite willing to take it up, just by pointing out that none of the vital events of the bible have any evidence of ever happening and plenty of evidence to the contrary. 

And you’re right, it definitely doesn’t take a genius to believe in God.  Nice appeal to a fallacy, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html,  there, TS.   



Hello  thank you for the compliment. Firstly, I do not think that I have back-peddled. Often when people discuss things for the first time - there will be misunderstandings about different words and meanings and ideas. People here seem to come from a broad background - and this is why clarification is necessary. Clarification is not necessarily back - peddling - but if it makes you feel better - think whatever you like.

MY church was bizzarre - and we certainly had lots of views - church people generally get along pretty well - it is more than doctrine. My sports teams always had people from many backgrounds - difference does not have to be big factor.

You say you were a Christian - well good for you.  I am not going argue the point - it would be of no use for me or you. You are what you are. You know my view that once you part of the elect - that election cannot be lost. Feelings have never been a big thing for me - the LDS have feelings too - bright fuzzy warm feelings. The way one lives their life is a better demonstration of what one really believes.

If you understood the elect and calvinism - you would not make comments that show your ignorance about me thinking I am special.  

My mum does not believe I am damned despite your view - how sweet you are :)  She does pray for me and she does pray that I will become a bapist once again. Like me - she believes that each of us at different levels of maturity. She thinks I am growing through a phaze.

I am not picking and choosing my religion. I follow the tenants of traditional Christianity - from Christ, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin.  This is the Reformed view and in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is true that I have rejected much of Catholicism - and Dispensationalism and much of modern fundamentalism.  So what? My faith is similar to many millions of people and disimilar from millions - perhaps billions others.  Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist. You think I throw up bad logic?

It is true that I dont think that God has altered my mind - and perhaps that is just part of my foolishness.  I think it is more that he opened my eyes - you call it what you will. It is possible that I am simply brainwashed -(anything is possible).

I have explained that God made be believe and that after that I see it (at least in my own mind) that it is a choice. Of course I cannot choose to leave this view - but I would not even if I could.  That is not a contradiction. That is something you have not even come close to establishing.

You say that I waffle - (and I do) but you are also guilty. Wrt to God damning - I have answered that notion above in the previous post. Shortly and for your sake - I say that God is the first cause - and God is the judge. As the first cause - he is in control of all things -as the judge he does condemn.  But people in this world sin - and they know the consequences even if they dont believe that it is true. All people sin. Crooks cannot blame the judge for the punishment they have been sentenced.  The crook can only blame themselves. To move away from personal responsibility to blame the judge is absurd.

Why should Christians agree? If we agree - then it is a sham - if we disagree - then it is false. The obvious conclusion should be that whether Christians agree or not - is not really the issue. What about large groups of Christians? Take the Eastern Orthodox Church - their doctrines have not changed in 1000 years. Does this make them right? Who knows?

As for me believing that I am right - what a strange and pecular mind you must have to even think that this is arrogant or elitist or whatever. Every person on this planet thinks what they think is right - when they know it is wrong - then they change it - dont they? I mean do you have any thoughts in your brain that you know are wrong and yet you hold onto them? There are many thoughts that I have that I dont know the answer to - and there are some that I believe that I am right. Of course I am always open to being proved wrong. But what is proof? Does it even exist?

Are you saying that you are prepared to use your own faith to believe in God? If you look at my challenge - I said it had to be in relation to the God of the Bible - not to a God you can just pick and choose. I think this should be interesting - even if it is just to see you try and prove a point.

For the record - I am not running away from trying to prove God exists. I simply am not going to enter into a debate about whether God exists or not. i hold to presuppositional apologetics as a a standard. The Bible never attempts to prove God exists - it assume He does. I do as well. For me to attempt to prove God exists - gives away the farm from the beginning. It begins with the assumption that God does not exist. An assumption that I cannot and do not agree with.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 27, 2010, 09:07:19 PM
Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.
I have a much simpler explanation.  The rabbis performing the circumcisions noticed that babies circumcised on Day 8 bled less than other babies, and by the time the scriptures were written down it was already a tradition to wait till Day 8.

Actually, many would have died and the Hebrew people would have been defenseless and short many male defenders. And external bleeding was not necessarily the issue as internal bleeding is the primary problem for infants their first week of life.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Asmoday on October 27, 2010, 09:41:45 PM
Christians are making the claim "God exists" so it is their duty to show that their claim is true. Just the same as if I claimed Aliens would communicate telepathically with earth through toilet seats. In that case I would have to show my claim is true.

I've seen this many times. We have offered many, many evidences, which you continue to claim are not evidence. Your threshold of proof is beyond any reasonable measure or standard for what would be acceptable as proof for that day and time. So it's not that evidence has not been presented, because it has. The issue is what you would consider enough evidence to be worthy of consideration to make a change.
*sigh*

No, the threshold is not beyond reasonable measure or standard. We would not be having this conversation if Christians could present evidence instead of a bundle of forgeries and writings that are not even close to evidence for a historical Jesus.

Besides, you make it sound like this was only an issue of atheists. Guess what, every non-fundamentalist christian archaeologist and historian asks the same question and comes to the same answer: There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.


Quote
For me, OT prophecies that were realized in the person of Jesus Christ were very, very convincing.

[...]

For many of the prophecies fulfilled, see HERE (http://bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm).
Have you missed the part were I said that the bible is not evidence for the claims made in the bible?

I guess so, otherwise you'd realise that this is a circular argument you are building there.

You can not prove the bible with the bible. Just like you can't prove the quran with the quran. Don't you realise that these "prophesies" are not evidence since all the authors of the NT had full access to the OT?

But concerning those prophecies; what about the hundreds if not thousands of prophesies Jesus did not fulfill? LINK (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god23.htm)
He also did not even come close to fulfill the original, most important prophesies required to be called messiah.

Quote
Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.
Got any links to scientific medical sites for that?

[Also: What Astreja already said. (BTW. bleeding more does not equal death as you would like to have it. It simply means bleeding more, not bleeding out.)]

And while we're at it, if that impressed you so much, could you also tell us how much you were impressed by God's supreme knowledge of insects having just 4 legs, bats being actually birds and of God's absolute wisdom concerning genetics and breeding, when the bible says the colour of young goats is influenced by the colours of the poles the parents mated in front of.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: JeffPT on October 27, 2010, 10:31:03 PM
For me, OT prophecies that were realized in the person of Jesus Christ were very, very convincing.

This is just so stupid.  The minute you understand that the Old Testament was written BEFORE the New Testament, a third grader could see that all they had to do was WRITE IT IN that Jesus was the fulfilled all the prophecies.  When you couple that with the fact that the NT writers wrote 30 to 70 years AFTER he died, it is a no brainer that they made it up.  Nobody was there to counter the claims!  And when you also combine it with the fact that the bible has some completely outrageous claims that are not supported by any outside sources AT ALL, can you not see why we disregard the "evidence" you all present as completely worthless?  I just don't see how a thinking human being can believe what you claim to believe.  It's so dumb!   

Your threshold of proof is beyond any reasonable measure or standard for what would be acceptable as proof for that day and time.

Do you want to know what would be acceptable as evidence worthy of consideration?  Ok let me give a few things you could provide that would help validate the claims a bit. 

A. 2 or 3 independent, contemporary sources indicating that Jesus existed as a historical figure.
B. Written reports by eyewitnesses who claimed to see the actual resurrection take place, and not just "an empty tomb" for which we could have a million    natural explanations. 
C. Something akin to a non-fake Shroud of Turin that could be accurately dated to within a few years of Jesus supposed death.
D. Evidence of detailed fulfilled prophecy from the NT.
E. Multiple eyewitness reports from people who saw all the dead people get up out of the ground and walk around Jerusalem.

This is not asking a lot.  I am not asking for videotape of his entire life.  I am not asking for DNA testing.  These are basic things that you would expect to find in order to validate any historical claims being made. Do you really think of this stuff as beyond any reasonable measure?  Really?   

Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8Th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8Th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.

This?  This is your evidence? The most powerful being in the universe wants foreskins on the 8th day because we CLOT best on the 8th day, and thus we run a smaller risk of DYING from the procedure?   Well, if this is the case, don't you think it would have been a lot easier to make people NOT have to circumcise in the first place?  What kind of sick cosmic plan has a diety saying "Hey, give me your foreskins.  I love them! But don't cut 'till the 8th day because I don't want anyone to bleed out from it!" If you had a single shred of intelligence in you, you would understand that it would be far safer not to cut off the foreskins and cause any bleeding in the first place, regardless of the timing you mention. 

On digging a bit, the only person I can find that makes this claim at all is named S.I. McMillan, who, of course, is a religious nut job who happens to have medical training.  He seems to have written a few books and they all revolve around living via the biblical teachings.  Every site that mentioned him was a Christian site, and I could not find one single peer reviewed research article to back up what he claims about the 8th day prothrombin levels being highest.  Could you please post any peer reviewed documentation that backs up this "research"? 

But even if was proven to be true, let's look at the risks involved with circumcision vs. just leaving it alone...  Here is an entire page of them, listed in alphabetical order...  http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

This was written in big, bright red letters in the middle of the page and I thought it was worth quoting here.

[CIRP Comment: No one knows if a newborn baby has a bleeding disorder. Although circumcision cuts through arteries and veins that provide blood to the foreskin, it is not customary to do a clotting factor test prior to circumcision. If a bleeding disorder exists it will be discovered only during the course of the operation.

Post-circumcision bleeding is an extremely serious matter. Substantial bleeding cannot be tolerated, because the quantity of blood is an infant's body is quite small. Bleeding can lead to exsanguination, followed by hypovolemic shock, followed by death. Post-circumcision bleeding requires immediate medical attention.]

So God, in his infinite wisdom, chose the 8th day to chop at baby peckers because it was the best day to avoid clotting issues, but he didn't think that maybe it was a better idea NOT to go hacking at it until they were much older, because compared to an adult, a baby has very little blood in their body to start with, and the risk of death is much less?  The average adult has around 10 pints of blood in their body.  A newborn under 1 month has around 10 ounces.  Yeah, God sure is smart!  Did you know, on average, 117 children a year die from botched circumcisions?   (Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90)  Do you have the guts to say the truth?  That all 117 of those children died because their parents were stupid? 
 
I just don't get it.  It's completely moronic.  All of it.  Circumcision is genital mutilation and it should be a criminal offense to perform it to children who have no say in it at all.  If someone is willing to have it done to them later in life, then fine, let them choose it themselves.  But doing it to a defenseless child is an abomination. 

No, tbright, God is completely fake.  Top to bottom fake.  Nothing about it is true.  There is no such thing as the Christian God.  Circumcision is stupid and dangerous at any age, the prophecies are easily understood for what they are once you understand the timing of the writings, and all the so called "evidence" that all of you produce amounts to zero.  I have little hope for you ever getting out of your delusional state, but I wish you luck with it nonetheless. 

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 27, 2010, 10:39:29 PM
Instead of circumcision, why didn't god just make Adam already circumcised?

Omnipotent my ass!
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 27, 2010, 10:48:09 PM
Quote
Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.
Got any links to scientific medical sites for that?

I've provided one before. It was from Johns Hopkins, so I doubt you'll be able to disprove it. The old forum is down, so I'm unable to pull it from an old post at this time. I'll keep checking though.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on October 27, 2010, 10:49:58 PM
The old forum is down, so I'm unable to pull it from an old post at this time. I'll keep checking though.

the old forum is here;

www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php

It doesn't seem to be down. What was your username? what was the thread it was in?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 27, 2010, 10:58:36 PM
The old forum is down, so I'm unable to pull it from an old post at this time. I'll keep checking though.

the old forum is here;

www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php

It doesn't seem to be down. What was your username? what was the thread it was in?

I got it. Thanks. It kept saying that the site was busy, so I thought it was down.

I don't know how to refer to the site, so I'm just copying it word-for-word. And it was from Merck, not Johns Hopkins.

Vitamin K:

Prevention


"Phytonadione 0.5 to 1 mg IM (or 0.3 mg/kg for preterm infants) is recommended for all neonates within 6 h of birth to reduce the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage due to birth trauma, and classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn (increased bleeding risks 1 to 7 days after birth). It is also used prophylactically before surgery. Some clinicians recommend that pregnant women taking anticonvulsants receive phytonadione 10 mg po once/day for the 1 mo or 20 mg po once/day for the 2 wk before delivery. The low vitamin K1 content in breast milk can be increased by increasing maternal dietary intake of phylloquinone to 5 mg/day."

From Merck Manuals Online Medical Library. Link: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/print/sec01/ch004/ch004m.html (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/print/sec01/ch004/ch004m.html)

With a child who spent 10 days in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, I am quite familiar with this very common issue and many others. The birthing process is quite a miracle.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tbright on October 27, 2010, 11:03:04 PM
Quote
I just don't get it.  It's completely moronic.  All of it.  Circumcision is genital mutilation and it should be a criminal offense to perform it to children who have no say in it at all.  If someone is willing to have it done to them later in life, then fine, let them choose it themselves.  But doing it to a defenseless child is an abomination.

So why is Johns Hopkins recommending it as it has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS?

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on October 27, 2010, 11:09:06 PM
The reason I ask tbright is because if it was on the old forum old forum members probably commented on your post. I'd just like to see how they attempted to disprove it, because I am sure they tried too.

If the forum is available to you you can go to the thread on the old forum and copy/paste the link to the thread.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 27, 2010, 11:28:59 PM
Quote
I just don't get it.  It's completely moronic.  All of it.  Circumcision is genital mutilation and it should be a criminal offense to perform it to children who have no say in it at all.  If someone is willing to have it done to them later in life, then fine, let them choose it themselves.  But doing it to a defenseless child is an abomination.

So why is Johns Hopkins recommending it as it has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS?

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html)

That it happens to help lower the chance of contracting that specific disease, which a)evolved thousands of years after circumcisions were first performed and b) is normally contracted only by doing things the church considers a sin, makes your concern on this particular subject kind of whimpy.

Uncircumcised men have a more sensitive penis, and apparently enjoy sex more. I wouldn't know. But you wouldn't want me to use that as a reason not to do it because apparently enjoying sex is something we're not supposed to do anyway.

edit: fixed spelling
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: JeffPT on October 28, 2010, 12:07:18 AM
Quote
I just don't get it.  It's completely moronic.  All of it.  Circumcision is genital mutilation and it should be a criminal offense to perform it to children who have no say in it at all.  If someone is willing to have it done to them later in life, then fine, let them choose it themselves.  But doing it to a defenseless child is an abomination.

So why is Johns Hopkins recommending it as it has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS?

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/gray_circumcision.html)

So does condom use.  And while the Johns Hopkins study says circumcision is 48% effective, condom use has been shown to be around 87% effective in slowing the spread of HIV.  And it's a lot fucking safer than circumcision. If, as you seem to be saying here, God was telling us to circumcise in order to prevent HIV and AIDS (as if he was looking out for our best interests), why do we not hear a single mention of condom use (a vastly superior method of HIV prevention) from the omniscient god of the bible who obviously would know what condoms were and how to use them?  Or better yet, why doesn't your God just get rid of fucking AIDS in the first place? 

What do the catholics have to say about condom use?  hmm. Let's see here...

From: Family Values Versus Safe Sex, December 1, 2003. 
Quote
The Catholic Church has repeatedly criticized programs promoting condoms as a totally effective and sufficient means of AIDS prevention. The different Bishops’ Conferences all over the world have expressed their concern regarding this problem. The Catholic Bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland categorically “regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV/AIDS for the following reasons. * The use of condoms goes against human dignity. * Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure – while rejecting responsibility.

You know, cutting a hole in the esophagus and inserting a direct food line to the surface of the skin is a great way to bypass the trachea, and thus stop people from choking, but people don't do it because it's just easier to encourage people to chew more. Surgical procedures are about risk vs reward.  With circumcision, the risks far outweigh the rewards.  It's not even close.  Do you really think the rewards of genital mutilation outweigh the mountainous list of complications you can have from circumcisions?  Not even close.  It's still incredibly stupid.  The worst part, however, is thinking that an all powerful sky man gets something special out of humans removing a piece of their genitals in His honor.  If you could only see how stupid that thought is.     

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 28, 2010, 05:26:15 AM
The fact that I was living on death row - in sin meant that the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself. I cannot will myself to be alive or will myself out of prison. IF I am dead in sin then I am dead.  If the governor of the prison or God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith or to die on a cross - it has nothing to do with me. I cannot will him to do it - I cannot will him not to do it. I was never asked if I wanted Jesus to die on the cross. I was never asked if I wanted faith. This is why I say choice is irrelevent and why I say that every other form of discrimination is irrelevent - race, birth, sex, sexual orientation, religion, social position, social wealth, profession, colour, intelliegence, etc.  I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin.

If you suffer in eternity it is absolutely your choice and your own responsibility. You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice. We have all sinned - no one is innocent (including children, the handicapped, foetuses, intellectually challenged, etc) If this is the starting point - then choice becomes irrelevent. At that point - if God is merciful to any and give grace and faith - no one can say that they deserved it. No one can say that they earnt it. He does not have to give any mercy. He does thankfully.  But he does not have to - and if we expect that he should then we are practising "guilt manipulation".  No governor has to grant a pardon to any prisoner. If a governor does not grant freedom - he is not evil.  It is the prisoner who broke the law. It is the prisoner who condemned himself. TO blame the governor only demonstrates that the person thinks that they did not do anything to deserve their punishment. (Now I grant that is a more interesting question but it is a different issue)

And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 28, 2010, 05:39:34 AM
Now that doesn't mean I always succeeded in living the perfect Christian life, but the Gospel doesn't fix your sinful nature, it covers it.  The proof of one's faith should be seen in how they live their life, but not condemned for every mistake. 

See, that's my point (presuming you believe in an omniscient, aomnipresent, all-seeing god).

If Jesus were constaly manifest to you - perhaps only that YOU could see him, but otherwise as real and "there" as any human being.  Constantly standing a couple feet ahead of you, watching you all the time.....would you sin?  COULD you sin?  Not in a "my free will is overridden" way, but just something you would not do (like if your mother was watching you).

If god is everywhere, sees everything, how is that any different?  How do you find yourself able to sin in the first place, if you truly believe your god exists?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on October 28, 2010, 08:37:18 AM
So why is Johns Hopkins recommending it as it has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS?

This makes me nutty when people tout this completely out of context.  You have to understand that HIV is not a condition people randomly "catch".  It only reduces the risk of HIV under very specific circumstances - if you are porking someone who is HIV positive without a condom. If you tend to not pork people with HIV or if you tend to use a condom when porking, circumcision does nothing for you.  Circumcision is not like a vaccine or a magical talisman that keeps away the AIDS.

And just so you are clear, circumcision in the jewish tradition was never meant to promote a healthy penis.  It was a blood and flesh sacrifice to a god as a symbol of people's loyalty to that god.  See Exodus 4:24-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%204:24-25&version=NIV)

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: gonegolfing on October 28, 2010, 10:19:48 AM
Tbright:

Quote
For me, OT prophecies that were realized in the person of Jesus Christ were very, very convincing. Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.

For many of the prophecies fulfilled, see HERE (http://bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm).


It gotcha did it ? Genital mutilation was the clincher was it ?  >:(  The whole god hypothesis for you, rests on the fact that a penis bleeds less on the eighth day ?  ooooooooooo compelling !!  &)

Leviticus 12; :1-3 makes it clear why the eighth day was chosen. God makes no reference whatsoever to any scientific reason for the eighth day being the one to mutilate the genitals, but makes it very clear that the child needs to be with the mother for the first seven days as both were considered unclean.

The rest of the passage is just ridiculous misogynist nonsense.

Lev 12:1  And the Lord said to Moses,
Lev 12:2  Say to the children of Israel, If a woman is with child and gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for seven days, as when she is unwell.
Lev 12:3  And on the eighth day let him be given circumcision.
Lev 12:4  And she will be unclean for thirty-three days till the flow of her blood is stopped; no holy thing may be touched by her, and she may not come into the holy place, till the days for making her clean are ended.
Lev 12:5  But if she gives birth to a female child, then she will be unclean for two weeks, as when she is unwell; and she will not be completely clean for sixty-six days.
Lev 12:6  And when the days are ended for making her clean for a son or a daughter, let her take to the priest at the door of the Tent of meeting, a lamb of the first year for a burned offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin-offering:
Lev 12:7  And the priest is to make an offering of it before the Lord and take away her sin, and she will be made clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for a woman who gives birth to a male or a female.
Lev 12:8  And if she has not money enough for a lamb, then let her take two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burned offering and the other for a sin-offering, and the priest will take away her sin and she will be clean,


also in reference to birth and uncleanliness:

Lev 22:27  When an ox or a sheep or a goat is given birth, let it be with its mother for seven days; and after the eighth day it may be taken as an offering made by fire to the Lord.


Notice the bizarre hypocrisy below however:  

Lev 22:24  An animal which has its sex parts damaged or crushed or broken or cut, may not be offered to the Lord; such a thing may not be done anywhere in your land.

Yet god allows an eight day old child to have its sex parts cut and damaged, which is commanded, and done as a sacrifice and as part of a so called eternal agreement.


Such awesome and compelling stuff isn't it Tbright ?  &)

But hey ! You keep milkin that vitamin K data for all it's worth baby ! ;)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on October 28, 2010, 10:20:56 AM
be back tomorrow to "dodge" posts more.

I feel so neglected!

And you were here 2 hours ago, but didn't even see anything dodgeworthy?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on October 28, 2010, 11:00:45 AM
I feel so neglected!

And you were here 2 hours ago, but didn't even see anything dodgeworthy?

He's raised his dodging skillz to a higher level.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 28, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
Hmm, I wonder what compliment this was.  Oh well.  I am quite sure, TS, you don’t think you’ve backpedaled, or done anything else wrong.  Most Christians don’t every want to admit that.  And clarification is clarification and backpedaling is backpedaling. They aren’t the same thing.  

ROFL. “Church people generally get along pretty well.”  I know for a fact that is simply a lie.  I watched just how “well” they get along when my church disintergrated and on Christian forums.  And well, I don’t suppose I have to mention how Protetants, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, LDS etc, treat each other.  

And oh, I just love how you aren’t “going to argue the point” that I was a Christian, as if that were some great favor you were doing me. Nice little OneTrueChristiantm attitude there. Love the swipe at your fellow Christians too.  And TS, I was a Presbyterian, I know all about Calvinism and the elect.  I know just how special that makes those who think they are elect feel, that they get out of jail free because God “chose” them and only them. What amuses me is that they have no evidence for their supposed “election”.  They declare themselves such which certainly seems a vain and arrogant thing to do. As for “The way one lives their life is a better demonstration of what one really believes.”  Yep, I agree.  If one believes that one should be a good person, then that’s what one does, with no need of threats or promises from a spook in the sky. It has been my experience that religion sure doesn’t make a person act any better but it sure can make them act worse.    

If your mom prays that you’ll become a Baptist, she thinks you’re wrong, TS. If she wants you to change, why is that? I would think she is afraid for you if you don’t get out of this “phase”.  You seem to think that it is a matter of “maturity” that means if you are a TrueChristiantm or not.  Am I to take this as meaning as you think I am “immature” in not believing in your god?  This seems to be the usual Christian attempt to claim that atheists are just “rebelling” against “daddy”.  

Quote
I am not picking and choosing my religion. I follow the tenants of traditional Christianity - from Christ, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin.  This is the Reformed view and in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is true that I have rejected much of Catholicism - and Dispensationalism and much of modern fundamentalism.  So what? My faith is similar to many millions of people and disimilar from millions - perhaps billions others.  Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist. You think I throw up bad logic?
How many times I’ve heard each Christian claiming that they are following “traditional Christianity” and not so strangely they all differ in what that consists of.  And you all think you are the OneTrueChristianstm.  And if you think atheists have theology, you are simply an idiot and have no idea what the word means.  Hilarious. And I fail to see any logic you’ve offered. You are pretty good with the fallacies though.  

I do love the “anything is possible”.  Really?  You believe that you could be hoodwinked by Satan, that you could simply be wrong? You see, TS, I don’t think you really think that anything is possible.  If you did, you wouldn’t be making the claims you are.
Quote
I have explained that God made be believe and that after that I see it (at least in my own mind) that it is a choice. Of course I cannot choose to leave this view - but I would not even if I could.  That is not a contradiction. That is something you have not even come close to establishing.

You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.  

You want to say I waffle?  You’re welcome to if you can show it.  If not, it’s a lie and just one more Christian trying to make vague claims to try to drag me down to their level, the ol' "But you do it too."  with a pouting lip to excuse your actions.

Again, sorry but your bible says that God damns people.  You said he didn’t, “My God does not damn you.”  You now want to say that God now can judge “as the judge he does condemn”, e.g. damn people.  Which is it, TS?  And sorry, I don’t “sin”. I don’t acknowledge your primitive superstition that some magical being judges people.  And I don’t think there any consequences for “sinning” beyond how they intersect with secular law.  I find your god quite culpable for damning people for things they didn’t do if I go with the myth your bible presents.  I am not moving away from personal responsibility at all. But thanks for trying to move the goalposts.  

I love how you ask “why should Christians agree” and follow it up with strawmen arguments that I have not mentioned at all.  Sad little thing you are.  Why should Christians agree? Well, if you all are getting the “real” answer from God, this supposed “truth” of the universe, I should certainly hope you would agree. And it’s the issue alright. Yes, who knows if the EOC is right?  Isn’t it strange that NONE of you know?  But oh you claim you know, TS, with your insistence that God does “this” and doesn’t do “that”.  

And more lies about what I think.  I mean, really, TS, is this all you have any more, baseless claims that you try to argue against since you can’t address my actual comments.  Seems so.  You are shocked, shocked! to see me ask you why you claim you are right when you whine “Does this make them right? Who knows?” when you are cornered.  This is the usual tactic of a Christian who doesn’t want to be shown wrong. You’ll change your story as many times as you think you have to not to be shown to be wrong.  And ah, here we go with the usual solipsism “But what is proof? Does it even exist?”  No surpise here.  All of the sudden, “proof” and “evidence” cease to exist when a Christian is asked for them.  Hilarious.  So much for your claim that you are open to being proved wrong. You just think you’ve given yourself an out if anyone does present proof or evidence.  Oh, one could really set a clock by the consistency of how Christians act on this forum.

Quote
Are you saying that you are prepared to use your own faith to believe in God? If you look at my challenge - I said it had to be in relation to the God of the Bible - not to a God you can just pick and choose. I think this should be interesting - even if it is just to see you try and prove a point.

Well, let’s look at what you wrote

Quote
I say that I have faith because God gave it to me. Hence I can believe in faith his words. I have often said - (not on here of course) that the most convincing proof that the Bible is wrong is for someone to get faith all by themselves in God. I have never ever met anyone who has acquired faith in the God of the Bible by themselves. You see - I dont have to prove God to you - there is really no benefit in it for me.  But you could prove the bible wrong - but so far I have never met anyone who was willing to even try to take up this challenge.  A very simple challenge apparently. Have faith in God. How simple - look at all those naive people in the world - obviously - it does not take a genuis to believe in God.
You’ve said that the bible would be wrong if someone got their faith all by themselves.  You said that you don’t have to prove God to me.  You said I could prove the bible wrong.  I read this as that I can prove the bible wrong period.  Not by your “most convincing proof” but just that I could prove the bible wrong. and by all means the Bible God.  I do love someone who picks and chooses complaining about that.  The bible is wrong in many ways.  How about no evidence for any of the important events?  Contradictions on basic facts in the most important stories? Where are the believers with magical powers as good or better than JC? Or how about the best one, why doesn’t God heal amputees?  We have the Bible god promising quick positive answers to prayer. We don’t see these.  

So you refuse to get into a debate about whether god exists or not.  You have claimed I cannot prove God exists, but you refuse to show this to be true or show the existence of something you claim. Of course, it opens you up to questions and I do agree that you would never do this since first you’ve claimed this “I cannot choose to leave this view” and therefore, we know that this is a lie: “Of course I am always open to being proved wrong.”  And the Bible doesn’t attempt to prove God exists but God himself does go out of his way to prove it. We have all of the OT where God is all about showing off how great he is, and then JC says that one should believe in miracles since they show God exists
Quote
John 10:37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Asmoday on October 28, 2010, 12:48:47 PM
Tbright, I find it quite amusing that you only answer to one little part of my post and what you come up with to support your claim doesn't even say what you want it to say.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 28, 2010, 01:07:45 PM
^^^^ And he still hasn't proven anything either.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: nogodsforme on October 28, 2010, 03:01:56 PM
Christians don't live better lives than anyone else. By many measures, Christians live worse lives than many atheists (more divorce, more family violence, more teen pregnancies, lower education levels, lower incomes, etc).

Less religious states in the US are much better off in human development than the states of the "Bible Belt". In fact, the Bible Belt states are dependent on the less religious states to subsidize their social services because they have worse social problems and less money to take care of them.

The same trend seems to hold worldwide, where the less religious the people of the country are, the more successful the society is--less crime, fewer people in jail, better social services, etc. Maybe it is because Christians think that god woo-woo works when it doesn't fix anything and non-religious people actually you know, do real stuff that works to solve problems...

Example: religion-based no-info abstinence-only programs vs real scientific secular sex information and birth control for young people. Which do you think leads to lower rates of disease and pregnancy, given that most people in their teens and 20's do eventually have sex? (Hint: Abstinence works until it doesn't. And then the ignorant kids do all the most risky stuff imaginable with no protection. Obviously, they don't really believe that god is watching....)

Japan, one of the most atheistic and un-Christian countries in the world, is a very peaceful, safe, stable and prosperous society, with some of the longest life spans anywhere. Wonder why that is, if atheism is supposed to be so terrible for people, and is supposed to lead to society falling apart due to rampant "sin".
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 28, 2010, 05:11:29 PM
The fact that I was living on death row - in sin meant that the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself. I cannot will myself to be alive or will myself out of prison. IF I am dead in sin then I am dead.  If the governor of the prison or God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith or to die on a cross - it has nothing to do with me. I cannot will him to do it - I cannot will him not to do it. I was never asked if I wanted Jesus to die on the cross. I was never asked if I wanted faith. This is why I say choice is irrelevent and why I say that every other form of discrimination is irrelevent - race, birth, sex, sexual orientation, religion, social position, social wealth, profession, colour, intelliegence, etc.  I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin.

If you suffer in eternity it is absolutely your choice and your own responsibility. You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice. We have all sinned - no one is innocent (including children, the handicapped, foetuses, intellectually challenged, etc) If this is the starting point - then choice becomes irrelevent. At that point - if God is merciful to any and give grace and faith - no one can say that they deserved it. No one can say that they earnt it. He does not have to give any mercy. He does thankfully.  But he does not have to - and if we expect that he should then we are practising "guilt manipulation".  No governor has to grant a pardon to any prisoner. If a governor does not grant freedom - he is not evil.  It is the prisoner who broke the law. It is the prisoner who condemned himself. TO blame the governor only demonstrates that the person thinks that they did not do anything to deserve their punishment. (Now I grant that is a more interesting question but it is a different issue)

And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?


My whole point is God saves man. I have never said any differently. The essence of Reformed theology is that Salvation belongs to the Lord.

If our choice - yours or mine contributes to our salvation then salvation is of the Lord and of us. It also constrains the power of God if he is "waiting" on you to make a decision.

I said that you have rejected God - and I have said that is a choice you make.  That is entirely consistent with human nature - but it is  contrary to human nature to choose God. The issue is that humanity is naturally inclined towards disobeying or rejecting God. I use the word choose - because I take the view that it is intentional.  You might take the view that it reasonable. I say that just because you can choose to do evil or sin does not mean you have the capacity to choose good.

Freewill in my understanding means that you are free to whatever you want to do - but not necessarily free to do whatever you ought to do. Robbers ought to hand themselves in - but rarely do.  Robbers tend to run as far away as possible.

So in my mind there is no contradiction. For God - what I consider is impossible is possible for him.  Jesus said it was impossible for a rich man to get heaven and yet rich men do get to heaven. The essence of what Jesus was saying is that no- one (in the context it wasa rich man) can get to heaven in their own steam or by their own power. He was not saying however that people do not go to heaven - merely pointing out that the way is something that God looks after not us.

So there is no contradiction unless of course you choose only to countenance that freewill is defined in one way and that is different to what I am suggesting. 

As I said we are sinners - (in my opinion) and we all deserve death - no one of us chooses God - but we all choose to reject God. That is our human disposition - as sinners. We sin because we are sinners - (through Adam) we are not sinners because we sin.

Again I thank you for your conversation.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on October 28, 2010, 05:24:30 PM
[...]Japan, one of the most atheistic and un-Christian countries in the world, is a very peaceful, safe, stable and prosperous society, with some of the longest life spans anywhere. Wonder why that is, if atheism is supposed to be so terrible for people, and is supposed to lead to society falling apart due to rampant "sin".
Cause or effect?

If you are rich enough, you get freedom from worry about basic survival, you receive education, a welfare state of some sort and health care - what need of gods? Has not society taken over their job? If you are dirt poor, uneducated, desperate, hungry, you will grasp at any straw.

Only for the fortunate in the prosperous 1st world is there the God of the Gaps.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on October 28, 2010, 06:07:40 PM
Hmm, I wonder what compliment this was.  Oh well.  I am quite sure, TS, you don’t think you’ve backpedaled, or done anything else wrong.  Most Christians don’t every want to admit that.  And clarification is clarification and backpedaling is backpedaling. They aren’t the same thing.

lol -

Quote
ROFL. “Church people generally get along pretty well.”  I know for a fact that is simply a lie.  I watched just how “well” they get along when my church disintergrated and on Christian forums.  And well, I don’t suppose I have to mention how Protetants, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, LDS etc, treat each other.  

You are quick to call someone a liar.  Christians in general do get on together.  There are spats - just like any family  - and sometimes with great divisions - but this does not mean that the majority do not get on together. In any event - whatever happened in your church is hardly relevent for an entire 2000 years of history in the church.

Quote
And oh, I just love how you aren’t “going to argue the point” that I was a Christian, as if that were some great favor you were doing me. Nice little OneTrueChristiantm attitude there. Love the swipe at your fellow Christians too.  And TS, I was a Presbyterian, I know all about Calvinism and the elect.  I know just how special that makes those who think they are elect feel, that they get out of jail free because God “chose” them and only them. What amuses me is that they have no evidence for their supposed “election”.  They declare themselves such which certainly seems a vain and arrogant thing to do. As for “The way one lives their life is a better demonstration of what one really believes.”  Yep, I agree.  If one believes that one should be a good person, then that’s what one does, with no need of threats or promises from a spook in the sky. It has been my experience that religion sure doesn’t make a person act any better but it sure can make them act worse.    

Again you have just demonstrated your ignorance wrt to Calvinism.  Presbyterians dont believe that being one of the elect gives them a get out of jail free card.  If you recall your days of TULIP you would recall the fifth point which emphasises perseverence - he who perseveres to the end will be saved. just because someone thinks that they are of the elect does not mean anything - it is by their fruits you will know them.

Quote
If your mom prays that you’ll become a Baptist, she thinks you’re wrong, TS. If she wants you to change, why is that? I would think she is afraid for you if you don’t get out of this “phase”.  You seem to think that it is a matter of “maturity” that means if you are a TrueChristiantm or not.  Am I to take this as meaning as you think I am “immature” in not believing in your god?  This seems to be the usual Christian attempt to claim that atheists are just “rebelling” against “daddy”.  

You really have no clue, do you? Baptists worship with Presbyerians and they worship with epicopalians and they worship with Lutherens - they would not do so if they did not think that they were on the same page. Baptisms might not worship with mormons or JW or with the Catholic church but that is a different issue.
I am not picking and choosing my religion. I follow the tenants of traditional Christianity - from Christ, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin.  This is the Reformed view and in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is true that I have rejected much of Catholicism - and Dispensationalism and much of modern fundamentalism.  So what? My faith is similar to many millions of people and disimilar from millions - perhaps billions others.  Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist. You think I throw up bad logic?


How many times I’ve heard each Christian claiming that they are following “traditional Christianity” and not so strangely they all differ in what that consists of.  And you all think you are the OneTrueChristianstm.  And if you think atheists have theology, you are simply an idiot and have no idea what the word means.  Hilarious. And I fail to see any logic you’ve offered. You are pretty good with the fallacies though.  

I used the word allegedly because I know that atheists are in denial and they get all sensitive about this partiuclar issue. Whenever anybody suggests it - they get all tissed up and says things like "idiot" and then try to make out that it was "amusing" or that it was "hilarious". If that makes you feel a little better - well good on you.

Quote
I do love the “anything is possible”.  Really?  You believe that you could be hoodwinked by Satan, that you could simply be wrong? You see, TS, I don’t think you really think that anything is possible.  If you did, you wouldn’t be making the claims you are.
Quote
I have explained that God made be believe and that after that I see it (at least in my own mind) that it is a choice. Of course I cannot choose to leave this view - but I would not even if I could.  That is not a contradiction. That is something you have not even come close to establishing.

You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.  

I am  just stating what I believe.  You ask a question and I attempt to answer it.

Quote
You want to say I waffle?  You’re welcome to if you can show it.  If not, it’s a lie and just one more Christian trying to make vague claims to try to drag me down to their level, the ol' "But you do it too."  with a pouting lip to excuse your actions.

lol.  Calling me names and attempting to belittle me is obviously in your lists of way to argue. (interesting)

Quote
Again, sorry but your bible says that God damns people.  You said he didn’t, “My God does not damn you.”  You now want to say that God now can judge “as the judge he does condemn”, e.g. damn people.  Which is it, TS?  And sorry, I don’t “sin”. I don’t acknowledge your primitive superstition that some magical being judges people.  And I don’t think there any consequences for “sinning” beyond how they intersect with secular law.  I find your god quite culpable for damning people for things they didn’t do if I go with the myth your bible presents.  I am not moving away from personal responsibility at all. But thanks for trying to move the goalposts.  

I say that you sin. Well I take it that you do. I never said that you had to agree with me or even acknowledge that sin exists. Gee you dont believe in God - so how can you believe in sin? duh!!  In my understanding sin is something that offends God - we cannot sin against each other. As for God damning I have answered that - I have conceded that God damns by qualifiying what I meant by that. But by all means - go ahead and continue your dillusion as to what you think I said and meant.


Quote
And more lies about what I think.  I mean, really, TS, is this all you have any more, baseless claims that you try to argue against since you can’t address my actual comments.  Seems so.  You are shocked, shocked! to see me ask you why you claim you are right when you whine “Does this make them right? Who knows?” when you are cornered.  This is the usual tactic of a Christian who doesn’t want to be shown wrong. You’ll change your story as many times as you think you have to not to be shown to be wrong.  And ah, here we go with the usual solipsism “But what is proof? Does it even exist?”  No surpise here.  All of the sudden, “proof” and “evidence” cease to exist when a Christian is asked for them.  Hilarious.  So much for your claim that you are open to being proved wrong. You just think you’ve given yourself an out if anyone does present proof or evidence.  Oh, one could really set a clock by the consistency of how Christians act on this forum.

You really should stop judging me by your own standards. And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me. lol.  You seem to think that every person is just wanting to be proved wrong - funny that. I have yet to see an athiest admit when they are wrong -perhaps you might be the first.

Quote
Are you saying that you are prepared to use your own faith to believe in God? If you look at my challenge - I said it had to be in relation to the God of the Bible - not to a God you can just pick and choose. I think this should be interesting - even if it is just to see you try and prove a point.
Well, let’s look at what you wrote

Quote
I say that I have faith because God gave it to me. Hence I can believe in faith his words. I have often said - (not on here of course) that the most convincing proof that the Bible is wrong is for someone to get faith all by themselves in God. I have never ever met anyone who has acquired faith in the God of the Bible by themselves. You see - I dont have to prove God to you - there is really no benefit in it for me.  But you could prove the bible wrong - but so far I have never met anyone who was willing to even try to take up this challenge.  A very simple challenge apparently. Have faith in God. How simple - look at all those naive people in the world - obviously - it does not take a genuis to believe in God.

You’ve said that the bible would be wrong if someone got their faith all by themselves.  You said that you don’t have to prove God to me.  You said I could prove the bible wrong.  I read this as that I can prove the bible wrong period.  Not by your “most convincing proof” but just that I could prove the bible wrong. and by all means the Bible God.  I do love someone who picks and chooses complaining about that.  The bible is wrong in many ways.  How about no evidence for any of the important events?  Contradictions on basic facts in the most important stories? Where are the believers with magical powers as good or better than JC? Or how about the best one, why doesn’t God heal amputees?  We have the Bible god promising quick positive answers to prayer. We don’t see these.

And you say I change the goal posts.  whatever I said before - the sense was meant to be - and just to make sure you dont misunderstnad what I mean :

I say that it is impossible for someone to become a Christian without God giving that person faith. This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.  If someone were to become a Christian who believes in the Christian view of God - the Trinity - and leads their life in accordance with that belief - without assistance from God whatsoever - then it would prove that the Bible is incorrect. That is my challenge.  


So you refuse to get into a debate about whether god exists or not.  You have claimed I cannot prove God exists, but you refuse to show this to be true or show the existence of something you claim. Of course, it opens you up to questions and I do agree that you would never do this since first you’ve claimed this “I cannot choose to leave this view” and therefore, we know that this is a lie: “Of course I am always open to being proved wrong.”  And the Bible doesn’t attempt to prove God exists but God himself does go out of his way to prove it. We have all of the OT where God is all about showing off how great he is, and then JC says that one should believe in miracles since they show God exists
Quote
John 10:37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."



I do not recall where I said you cannot prove God exists or not exist. Proving God exists or not exists is merely dancing with words it means nothing and you know that - so why are you getting all het up about it?


The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement. If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe. If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it - using one of your tried and true patronising comments - "lies" hilarius" "idiot" - "moving the goal posts" " straw man arguement" - not answering my question - blah blah.

My point is not to evangelise you - it never has been. It is not to persuade you that God is real or that the Bible is true. I merely answered a question  and then commented that my belief comes from God and that it is impossible for someone to know God without him revealing himself to them. This entire website is testimony to my belief and confirms it with every word that is written.

Your compliment was - in responding to my post in the first place. lol

[modbreak]Fixed quoting[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 28, 2010, 07:34:33 PM
I said that you have rejected God - and I have said that is a choice you make. 

You little twerp. Atheists have NOT rejected god. Yours or any others. Get that through your thick skull. I know it's important to pretend that we are all against you because we want to sin, etc. I know it's important that you pretend we are horrid people unable to accept jc as our good buddy. But as long as you insist on keeping yourself this ignorant about reality, I guess you're just going to have to adapt to sounding stupid about nearly everything you say.

I'm not saying that you are stupid. I'm just saying that you're emulating that condition admirably.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 28, 2010, 07:49:31 PM
PP, don't sweat it. This one isn't even remotely worth getting worked up over. At the very least tbright is vaguely interesting, in a train wreck sort of way. This one is just bland and can't even make sense of his own thoughts in his own head.
Speaking of trbight, he's been surprisingly silent, I noticed. Especially noticeable considering how extremely talkative he was yesterday.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 29, 2010, 04:41:34 AM
And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?
....Again I thank you for your conversation.

Sorry, but I cannot do the same, since you seem to be choosing NOT to have a conversation with me.  You are NOT answering my points.

YOU are the one who said "I did not choose God - I could not choose God" - YOU said it was impossible for you to choose god without god's assistance.  So your god had to make the first move - without god doing that (if what you say is correct), you would have been literally unable to choose him.

Now, if you want to go back on that - to say that in all cases, WITHOUT prior action from god, that it IS possible to choose him - then that's fine.  It would, of course, mean you having to change most of the facts and most of the point of your testimony, but it would at least make your words coherent and non-contradictory.  Your choice.

Just to be crystal clear.  You said:
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God"
and you also said
"You reject God.....that is your choice"

THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTORY.  Please explain, if it is impossible to choose to accept god, how in any way it can be a "choice" to reject? 

With me and god, it is accept or reject.  You say it is impossible for me to accept on my own.  So how is having only a single possible option remaining in any way a "choice"?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on October 29, 2010, 04:44:35 AM
bm

Edit: Even if I know TS soon will have sudden "out of town business to attend to" never to return.
 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on October 29, 2010, 04:55:25 AM
You really should stop judging me by your own standards. And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me. lol.

Quite right.  Telling other people what they do, or do not think; what they would, or would not think, is well out of order.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

Oops.  Still, I'll overlook that such a good Christian is incapable of practicing what he preaches to actually address this point.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

You are wrong.  Totally, 100% wrong.  If your god appeared in front of me, and turned me into a goldfish, I'd believe.  Full stop, no question.  Actual direct evidence of a god?  Sure - that would be more than enough for me.  It's a shame that - despite apparently wanting a relationship with all of us and wanting us to be saved - your god doesn't do it.  Knowing everything, he MUST know that that level is all that would convince me....so I can only conclude that (since he doesn't do it), he doesn't WANT me to be convinced.

However, you ARE right in this:
If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it.

I would indeed.  Because, quite frankly, I have already seen a far better "logical proof" of Allah that any I have seen for Christ.  It had holes in it, sure (it was Afadly's guys), but it was still waaay better than any I had seen for Jesus.  But logical proofs - as I am SURE you know - are ONLY as good as the premises and axioms on which they stand.  Which means that logical proofs stand or fall for truth (as opposed to validity) on the evidential bedrocks on which it stands.  And so any "logical proof" you care to bring must be supported on concrete and undeniable evidence.

Got any of that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on October 29, 2010, 10:29:08 AM
Ah, TS, I see just more of the same.  More lies, more trying to redefine words, more excuses, more claims of OneTrueChristianitytm, more ignoring of points, more strawmen. etc.  Basically the same tactics that many Christians have used on this forum.  I am always amazed that people who claim to be so beholden to God, are so unconcerned about their actions that would supposedly damn their souls.  How many times can you ask forgiveness for your actions to an omnipotent being who knows what you’re going to do intentionally again and again?  When does it become evident to such a being that you aren’t interested at all in acting like a Christian, but just getting forgiveness for not acting like one?

I’ll have to say that I like how you call the wholesale killing of other Christians a “family spat”.  Wow, I sure dont’ want to live in your family. Rather than exposing even more of your nosense, I’m going to let this stand on its own as a monument to Christians who come here.    

And this
Quote
Again you have just demonstrated your ignorance wrt to Calvinism.  Presbyterians dont believe that being one of the elect gives them a get out of jail free card.  If you recall your days of TULIP you would recall the fifth point which emphasises perseverence - he who perseveres to the end will be saved. just because someone thinks that they are of the elect does not mean anything - it is by their fruits you will know them.
Yep, I do know TULIP, and I dont’ recall anything like you’ve claimed. I do recall basically this, which is a nice summation
Quote
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip  Sure seems like a get out of jail free card.

You claim that Baptists worship with other Christians.  Really? Then why are there Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, etc?  If you’re all one big happy family, why the different buildings?  

Quote
I used the word allegedly because I know that atheists are in denial and they get all sensitive about this partiuclar issue. Whenever anybody suggests it - they get all tissed up and says things like "idiot" and then try to make out that it was "amusing" or that it was "hilarious". If that makes you feel a little better - well good on you.
Wow, TS, you’re psychic?  My you must make lots of money on how you can read minds.  Hilarious when you again try to lie about atheists.  I do wonder have you read your bible? You know, the “shall not bear false witness” and Romans 3 where it says that people who think they are lying “for” Christ aren’t welcome at all to God?

Quote
You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.
you answered this with
Quote
I am  just stating what I believe.  You ask a question and I attempt to answer it.
I know. It’s hilarious. You contradict yourself and you think this is okay.  
And of course, when you claim that I “waffle” you first provide no evidence and then when requested you provide this
Quote
And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me.
Ummm, how is this waffling? Do you even know the meaning of the term?  Evidently not, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle?show=1&t=1288363530 because none of the definitions equate to what you have mentioned.  I have made comments based on yours and based on the usual Christian tactics I’ve seen here. I can see how you might take this as thinking your thoughts for you but I did not mean it that way, by the use of the word “usual”.  And I know that people dont’ want to be proven wrong.  But why come to a forum that is more than obvious on what it is and not expect people to try to prove you wrong? And, TS, there is no reason to admit one is wrong if one isn’t. You find something that I’ve been mistaken about and I have no problem admitting it.  I’ve misread things here on the forum, I’ve been off on stats, I’ve unproven claims and when shown I’m wrong, I accept it, apologize and move on.  Can you do the same?  You’ve said that nothing will change your mind, that’s as much admitting that you won’t.      

I also am amused when you say I should not judge you “by my own standards”.  Really, why not?  My standards are based on facts, my experience, etc.  What else do I have?  
I have explained what I thought you meant which is not changing the goalposts.  If I was doing that, I’d ignore you and then proceed to address what I decided to pursue. You see, you decide the “sense” of what you mean after someone questions it.  If you had meant what you have clarified, why not say that in the beginning?  Sense doesn’t always come through a post, TS.  It’s time you realized that.  This is why I say you backpedal and you equivocate since you never can mean what you originally post.  Now let me address what you have now said you meant:
Quote
I say that it is impossible for someone to become a Christian without God giving that person faith. This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.  If someone were to become a Christian who believes in the Christian view of God - the Trinity - and leads their life in accordance with that belief - without assistance from God whatsoever - then it would prove that the Bible is incorrect. That is my challenge.
 So why are you here, if, by your words, we may not EVER be able to believe?  And if God gives a person faith, and that’s the only way that they can believe, how is it any kind of choice for anyone to believe? This leads to the idea that God damns people for no reason but his lack of ability to give faith to everyone.  Since he requires this faith he gives, there is no choice and no free will. Your argument is rather cirucluar too. If God has to give faith for someone to believe in him, then it becomes that only believers are given faith.  No way to tell and it becomes a TrueScotsman fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman  
I thought I had seen at some point you saying that I could not prove that God doesn’t exist. I may could be wrong and mixed you up with someone else.  My apologies (see not hard to do at all).  And proving that God exists or doesn’t exist is not only “dancing with words”. And no, I don’t “know” that. I know the exact opposite.  It’s the analysis of evidence and of the claims that supposed holy books make.  One can take refuge in the philosophical question of “can we know anything?” but most people are pretty sure they can know that a white-hot piece of metal in their bare hand is real and provable.  
Quote
The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement. If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe. If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it - using one of your tried and true patronising comments - "lies" hilarius" "idiot" - "moving the goal posts" " straw man arguement" - not answering my question - blah blah.
Here we go again. There is no fact at all.  And you cannot know that I would not believe.  I would believe if I had evidence.  I used to believe and I occasionally direct a thought to God and ask for him to show himself, just like I asked when losing my faith. The reason I don’t believe is that no Christian can present any logical argument, that they can’t present any evidence and that they all disagree on what God “really means”. The commnents you find patronizing are comments with reaons behind them.  They indeed are condescending because of your actions. I have no need to offer respect to you.
I will ask again, then what is your purpose here?  You started your posts with declaring that your version of Christianity was the right one.  We countered that and showed you your errors. You ignore us. Then you make this claim:  
Quote
My point is not to evangelise you - it never has been. It is not to persuade you that God is real or that the Bible is true. I merely answered a question  and then commented that my belief comes from God and that it is impossible for someone to know God without him revealing himself to them. This entire website is testimony to my belief and confirms it with every word that is written.
Again, we have a circular argument.  You want to claim that this website is “testimony” and “confirms” e.g. proves how right you are, that people can’t have faith if they don’t believe and don’t believe if god refuses them faith.  One of the other possibilities is that your god doesn’t exist and that you are a nut.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on October 29, 2010, 10:52:32 AM
This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.

Then why would you even be here? You're just wasting everyone's time and contaminating the real conversations with your own intellectual garbage.

The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement.

Actually it does, because god in no way demonstrates any power in the world. And certainly none that you're capable of proving. For that matter you can't even prove that you actually believe in god, it could quite conceivably be Satan that you actually worship, since you arrived at your faith by having it given to you rather than through any actual, you know, thought.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually miss University Pastor. Even he wasn't as completely mentally unevolved as the current crop of theists.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on October 29, 2010, 11:27:06 AM
Do those consequences include torturing her for all eternity if she doesn't do everything you say?

No they do not.  1) I am not a Holy God, who is the judge of Sin.  2)  I am not disciplining her for sin, but for bad behavior.  3) God disciplines those he loves, the bible says, and not all discipline from God includes eternal torture.  Just ask Peter, or Moses, Or Abraham, or Adam and Eve, Or Cain, ect.  


I see. 

However, you seem to forget that bad behaviour IS sin.  So, why are you punishing your daughter for sinning, since you just said that this isn't your job?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 01:33:59 PM
It isn't just interesting, it isn't fair.  I should pay for everyone of my sins, but because God forgave me, I don't, not that they didn't go unpunished, but that someone else took that punishment for me.
Exactly, you have this mythology set up in your mind where your sins are paid for you. You believe that your sins are taken from you, rather than having to bear them yourself. This is all a creation of your own mind to excuse yourself.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I had to.  Also,  there is nothing made up in what happened in my life.  What you call mythology is actually called discipleship, being a disciple or follower of the teachings of Jesus.  I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.  What is impossible to believe is that it is based on total fiction.  Every faith that has stood the test of time has dealt with scrutiny, they are either proven bogus and snuffed out, or there is an element of truth that helps them sustain credibility.  Was there a Man named Muhammed?  Was there a real Jesus?  Was there a real Joseph Smith?  Can one find enlightenment through meditation?  I understand there is an element of spirituality that people make up, they want to believe, they need an answer, even scientists tap into this idea of there is more knowledge out there than what we know and we must discover it.  But to say, you made all that up in your own mind is just absurd.  And since we are in an arena that demands proof, what have you to your claim that it is made up?

Quote from:  Alzael
And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone?
The forgiveness isn't available to anyone. It's only available to those who do the monkey dance. A better queation would be 'If this god is such a good god, why punish people eternally at all?" Why not just forgive them, or give them a punishment less draconian?

Because of Justice.  What is just.  for a criminal to go unpunished?  No.  One must pay the price for one's actions.  In society we base it on what we think is fair.  "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  but that is for the action.  What is the consequence for rejecting God?  That would be Hell, according to the scriptures.  What is just is that anyone who chooses to say, there is no God or I don't want your forgiveness, I can do it on my own, I am smarter than you, I am independant and in no need of a savior.  Then that person has made themselves to be the supreme authority in there life.  In essence they have become their own god.  And the penalty is eternal hell, according to the scriptures.  What frustrates me is that we (humans) don't agree with sin.  We blame God for the opportunity, we blame God for our weakness, and we blame God for our judgement.  That just doesn't make sense.


[modbreak]Fixed quotes[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 01:41:11 PM
And if jesus H took our punishment already, how can you even say there is a hell for me to go to?
See, that is the beauty of the scheme. Jesus "took our punishment" but when it comes down to it he took "our" punishment selectively. If for whatever reason you don't jump through the hoops when the big sky daddy tells you to, it turns out that Jesus hasn't taken your punishment but you have to face it on your own.

Not exactly.  according to scripture, Jesus died so that anyone who would believe in Him would not die but have eternal life.   Elsewhere in scripture it says that he died for the sins of the world.  But the bible also says, "vengence is mine" and judgement is coming.  All those who are forgiven are,,,forgiven.  All those who have rejected will face an eternity without hope.  Hell was created for humans, but for Satan and the 1/3 who went with him.  Jesus didn't say, I will die for some if they jump through enough hoops.  In fact scripture is clear, that we can't earn it or do any work to attain salvation.  But when we have faith in Jesus and repent of our sins, the scriptures say we are forgiven.  Now I know there is plenty of fodder here for criticism, thats fine I will do my best, but at least this is an overview statement in rebuttle to screwtape and asmoday above.


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 01, 2010, 01:42:10 PM
Was there a real Jesus? 
 No evidence at all that there was some man/god that lived in Jerusalem.  There might have been some itinerant rabbi that had stories built up around him, but there is no evidence of any of cited events of JC's life.  

and no it doesn't make sense to blame god for anything because god doesn't exist.  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 02:05:00 PM
Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase.
I just have to say a few words about this.

phelix22, either you haven't informed yourself much about this or your knowledge consists solely of materials from Christian fundamentalist sources.

There is no evidence for Jesus' existence; neither for a Jesus as described in the bible nor for a historical and purely human Jesus.

I am not a researcher nor a phd.  When it comes to form criticism, biblical criticism, and this type of argument I must rely on others who are trusted and competant.  William F. Allbright,  Recent Discoveries in Bible lands (New York) 1955 "we can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about ad 80, two full generations before the date 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of Today.  Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists of the 50's and 60's was a student of the German historical school which taught that the book of acts was a second century book and not trustworthy, after investigating came to the conclusion that Luke and Acts are written by a meticulous and accurate historical writer.  That this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.  Simon Kistemaker Professor emeritus, states, " normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time.  But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation.  In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation of the individual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action.

A. H. Mcneile Regius Professor at University of Dublin, says there is just not enough time or evidence to persuade one to think of the Gospels as made up mythology.  As for the credibility, the gospels stand up under testing as well.  the history of Thucydides 400 - 460 bc is available to us by only eight manuscripts dated about 900 ad.  Yet there is no classical scholar who argues against the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides.  F. F. Bruce - Rylands professor.  Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343bc yet the eariest copy we have is dated ad 1100, we have only 49 manuscripts total, and yet no argument.  Bruce Metzger, author and editor, "the quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity"  in 1977 he was able to document 4600 Greek manuscripts of the bible, and as of now he can document more than 5600.  But it is not just the abundance of material, it is also the consistancy.  If it were made up, where are the varying copies.  With so many attempts to get rid of the bible, why haven't any made it, if so many manuscripts survived all these years. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 02:15:45 PM
Here is a big can of worms you are bringing into the conversation "God created Sin".  but lets skip to the end, i would be responsible for her doing something wrong because I gave her the freedom to do what she wants.  Ummm no.  her choice, she knew the rules, she broke the rules, she pays the price.  If it were my fault for giving her the freedom, then couldn't we blame the government for every crime?

It's your fault because you made her the way she is. You created sin not her. And you can't claim to give her the freedom to do what she wants, because you're punishing her for doing it. This is not free will, it is circumstantial will. Free will requires a lack of consequences and constrainsts, hence 'free'. If you can only do what you want within certain restrictions than you do not have freedom. As you yourself said yourself, there are rules. This is not giving her freedom. You could have made her incapable of doing bad things. This can't be considered an imposition on freedom because this is already the case. There are many things that we as humans cannot choose to do. Such as fire energy rays from our eyes. We cannot choose this because we lack the ability to do it. So we could have simply been created without the ability to do bad things and we could still have free will, assuming you can even prove that we have free will. And again, as an all-knowing being you knew that all of this would happen when you created her, so you knew from the start that she would do this and you would have to punish her and did nothing to stop it.
[/quote]

The meaning of freewill is that you are free to do what you will.   In otherwords, you can do whatever you are capable of doing.  Without the option to do wrong there is no choice.  There is no freewill.  there is no freedom.  However in the case of my daughter, she can do anything she wants.  But because of my authority as parent, i decide the consequences for her actions, but she alone decides what those actions are.  That is where the freedom lies.  regardless of the rules, of the boundaries.  We can do whatever we want (that we are capable of, laser eyes not included).  If God created us and gave us no choice but to follow Him, to believe in Him, we wouldn't be free at all. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 02:19:51 PM

I see. 

However, you seem to forget that bad behaviour IS sin.  So, why are you punishing your daughter for sinning, since you just said that this isn't your job?
 
It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.  If I don't discipline, if I don't follow God's example in scripture, then I will have to also give account for that when I am judged. 
but underlying all of this is love.  God shows his love when He disciplines, and I love my children and in order to do what is best for them, I discipline them as well. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 02:24:24 PM
It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.  If I don't discipline, if I don't follow God's example in scripture, then I will have to also give account for that when I am judged.  
but underlying all of this is love.  God shows his love when He disciplines, and I love my children and in order to do what is best for them, I discipline them as well.  

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 01, 2010, 02:44:02 PM
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists of the 50's and 60's was a student of the German historical school which taught that the book of acts was a second century book and not trustworthy, after investigating came to the conclusion that Luke and Acts are written by a meticulous and accurate historical writer.  That this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. 

Really, the 50s and 60s?  funny how this man seems to have been either really really really young (if its the 1850s and 60s) or really really dead, having died in 1939. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay there's nothing to indicate that this man is any great historian nor that anyone in the field ever thought him that. It is only Christian websites that make this claim. It sems that Christians are often left to make up claims of greatness to make their myths seem more impressive. 

as for the rest of your "experts" they make a lot of vague claims but nothing concrete.  There evidently is plenty of time and evidence to find the gospels made up mythology since other people find this to be the case.  These claims of absolutes are always amusing, made even more so when someone like you, phelix, can't seem to find anything more recent than the 1950s (or McNeillies' case the very early 1900s).  Talk about cherry-picking and doing it badly. 

There is a bit of a difference between other ancient texts and the bible. The ancient texts that you cite aren't making ridiculous claims like the bible. No one is saying that those other texts are magical divinly inspired books. We know that Herodotus is full of poop on many occasions. And the bible is no better. Yes, there's a bunch of copies of it.  So?  People believed in it and passed it around.  It's like if people today suddenly vanished and aliens came to look at our relics.  Does the existence of lots of copies of Dianetics make it real? Same with the Quran, would that make it real if it was the most populous book? It may be in the coming centuries.  And the claims of "consistency" are simply lies. We have modern scholars, like Bart Erhman who have ably demonstrated this. 

oh, and BTW, nice plagiarism of Josh McDowell. Just moving a few words around doesn't disguise much. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Historicity on November 01, 2010, 02:47:12 PM
I am not a researcher nor a phd.
I'll agree to that statement.

Quote
Yet there is no classical scholar who argues against the authenticity of Herodotus ...

Herodotus says there are flying snakes in Africa.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus says that fetal lions are so fierce and claw the lioness womb so badly during gestation that a lioness has only one cub.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus tells of a nation in Russia where the men decided to abandon their women and homes and go adventuring.  The abandoned women started having sex with the slaves.  The slaves then thought themselves to be free men.  After about 10 years the men came back but found the slaves had formed a spear line and drove the men off the field.  The men consulted an oracle and she said the problem was that by opposing the slaves with weapons they had honored them.  Instead at her instructions in the next battle they came cracking whips.  The Pavlovian conditioning caused the slaves to cower and flee back and wait cringing for the masters to come and give them orders.

But  "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Yeah.  Right.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:05:15 PM

Herodotus says there are flying snakes in Africa.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus says that fetal lions are so fierce and claw the lioness womb so badly during gestation that a lioness has only one cub.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus tells of a nation in Russia where the men decided to abandon their women and homes and go adventuring.  The abandoned women started having sex with the slaves.  The slaves then thought themselves to be free men.  After about 10 years the men came back but found the slaves had formed a spear line and drove the men off the field.  The men consulted an oracle and she said the problem was that by opposing the slaves with weapons they had honored them.  Instead at her instructions in the next battle they came cracking whips.  The Pavlovian conditioning caused the slaves to cower and flee back and wait cringing for the masters to come and give them orders.

But  "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Yeah.  Right.



You completely missed the point, but since we don't really know each other well, I apologize if I mislead you. The idea is that these were his writings.  The documents were authentic and trustworthy.  If you want to argue the teachings then we can.  I don't know as much about herodotus as you, but i am pretty familiar with biblical teaching.  and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on November 01, 2010, 03:07:45 PM
Historicity,

+1 for quoting Herodotus and knowing what you're talking about. +1 from another who has actually read The Histories and loved it.

Thanks for bothering with these mouth-breathers, brah.

edit: *blushes*

 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:09:18 PM
My apologies on Ramsey he published that in 1915.  I do believe i stated I had to trust other sources and have quoted them.  I didn't put any of Josh's comments in there.  I did use his bibliography though.  Any commentary thought would be mine.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 03:14:38 PM
You completely missed the point

No, he completely understood.  His response to you was to use the same pleading qualification you made, in the form of a spurious argument from authority, to in effect mock your own statements.

It is unfortunate that the exercise is completely lost upon you, just as it seems to be lost upon you to answer the most simple question:

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:31:27 PM

It is unfortunate that the exercise is completely lost upon you, just as it seems to be lost upon you to answer the most simple question:

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?
that may be your parenting practice.  But I would never leave a loaded gun anywhere in my house.  but since I am to draw the conclusions for everyone.  I assume the loaded gun is the forbidden fruit.  or is the loaded gun any sin?  how does the loaded gun fit into the conversation?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:34:01 PM
Let me just say one thing to qualify all the statements I make.  I do not have contempt for any of you nor do I find contempt helpful in debating or in conversation.  It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 03:35:10 PM
Quote
When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?

But I would never leave a loaded gun anywhere in my house.

Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 01, 2010, 03:42:17 PM
Phelix,

I would appreciate a response to post #114 when you get a chance.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 03:43:40 PM
Let me just say one thing to qualify all the statements I make.  I do not have contempt for any of you nor do I find contempt helpful in debating or in conversation.  It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.  Just a thought.

Sometimes ignorance is often interpreted as malice or the intent to be deceptive on purposeful, but I'm fond of the saying:

Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.

In this case, Historicity used a very simple rhetorical device in order to elaborate the vacuity of the statements or line of reasoning you were trying to draw your conclusions from or about.  Yet, you don't even see fit to respond to that and only seem to want to distance your own reasoning from what you seem to realize is at odds with what is considered reasonable.

There is also the fact that you're simply repeating one apologetic rationalization after another, often outside the scope of logically defending those subjects to their inevitable irrational and illogical conclusions ( or even starting presumptions/premises ).  I'll be the first to admit that I have nothing but contempt for what is by definition not an effort in intellectual depth or a valid attempt to meaningfully explain anything, but is instead a constant game of rhetoric devoted to a presuppositional position that there always remains a valid lack of an argument for in the first place.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 01, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
My apologies on Ramsey he published that in 1915.  I do believe i stated I had to trust other sources and have quoted them.  I didn't put any of Josh's comments in there.  I did use his bibliography though.  Any commentary thought would be mine.

Yep, you quote them just like McDowell.  Oh well, I suppose if all you have are long outdated books, those will be quoted again and again by every wannabe apologist.  You can't find anything recent that supports you so you are stuck.  

Considering that archaeology in the middle east has gone on much longer than someone who saw it in 1915, and that they lost the need to try to prove their ridiculous religion, we have much better work now.  You claim to trust these sources, but the only reason it appears that you do is that they agree with you.  Let's look at this quote you used:
Quote
William F. Allbright,  Recent Discoveries in Bible lands (New York) 1955 "we can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about ad 80, two full generations before the date 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of Today.
  But we have scads of people claiming otherwise: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating-Revelation.htm  http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm  
Quote
and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.
talking snakes, talking donkeys, the romans not minding when thousands of people supposedly gathered for a new "messiah", a massacre that no one noticed, the death of all first borns in Egypt that would have other kingdoms slavering on all of the chaos that would have caused, magical healings with spit, the raising of the dead, etc, etc.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:47:54 PM
Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?
 Because of the potential for an accident.  I don't want them in harms way.  Thats the human way right.  Protect them from danger.  But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.  I count the cost, and if it is worth it, I let them discover for themselves that there are consequences for disobedience.  In either case whether I remove the danger, or am not there when danger presents itself.  The absolute truth is that there are consequences.  The good thing is that I love my children and no matter what they do, I will always love them.  But that will not change the fact that I will discipline them too.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 03:54:11 PM

Quote
and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 01, 2010, 04:03:23 PM
It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.
It helps if you understand that arguments are ridiculed on a daily basis here. That doesn't mean that all the members have contempt for you, the person.


Eleven.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 04:05:33 PM
Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?
 Because of the potential for an accident.  I don't want them in harms way.

Did removing the loaded gun from the presence of your child prevent your childs free will?

Who's fault would it be if your child blew his/her arm off or worse?

Quote
But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.

Which doesn't begin to describe the biblical idea of the fall, even if taken to extreme lengths of metaphor.  In effect, you're using an egregious level of hyperbole to re-interpret a story of myth that is at face value so at odds with any idea of socially accepted ethics that you have to reduce, redefine, and completely change it so that it is no longer an applicable analogy.

You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.

Why would the child hurt themselves? Because the child doesn't know any better, regardless of anything you tell them outright, an assertion based on a complete absence of facts is meaningless.

Now let's take it to the next level, assuming the child does blow his/her arm off and we want to directly incorporate biblical metaphor into a correct analogy, it would now require us to somehow punish not only the child for blowing his/her own arm off but the descendants of said child for the same senseless, careless, and irresponsible lack of action of an agent that had the ability/knowledge to prevent it.  However, since for some bizarre reason we want to be able to describe ourselves as merciful in a situation that could only be described as narcissistic, we will insist that the child can be forgiven by loving/believing/worshiping the agent that allowed the situation to exist in the first place.

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 04:07:59 PM

Quote
and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain. 

The following paragraph:

Quote
The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.

Doesn't constitute an intellectual explanation of anything; it is an assertion not supported by facts, methodology, references, or further critical analysis.  In fact, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to explain at all and instead you are simply listing things you accept as premises without anything more then an argument from an authority position that you do not possess.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 04:11:53 PM

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?

i'll will in two posts.  First the above statement.  You brought up the gun not me, so don't hate the metaphor.  Secondly, all analogies breakdown, as does this one.  thirdly, is it illegal to leave a loaded gun beside your bed at night, if you are married with no children and your wife right beside you?  No.  If she wakes up and kills herself, i would not be held responsible for leaving the gun on the night stand.  Why?  She is a grown adult who can decide for herself.  That is what we are.  Grown adults who can decide for ourselves.  The analogy was supposed to illustrate that God loves and disciplines and that we see the same pattern in parenting.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 04:20:23 PM
Did removing the loaded gun from the presence of your child prevent your childs free will?
no it removed the danger.  they can still have the freedom to do what they choose and are able to do.

Who's fault would it be if your child blew his/her arm off or worse?

Depending on their cognition of course, a baby... mine.  an 18 yr old...theirs

Quote
But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.

Which doesn't begin to describe the biblical idea of the fall, even if taken to extreme lengths of metaphor.  In effect, you're using an egregious level of hyperbole to re-interpret a story of myth that is at face value so at odds with any idea of socially accepted ethics that you have to reduce, redefine, and completely change it so that it is no longer an applicable analogy.

Nor was it meant to.  I wasn't trying to re-interpret a story.  I was in effect explaining how I can be loving and let my child fail, or fall.

You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.
this has 2 major assumptions, 1 that the child would inevitably hurt themselves.  Not every child who plays with a loaded gun accidentlally injures themself or others. 2 the situation could have been easily avoided.  There are parents who hide guns well, who lock doors, who strenously avoid those situation who have lost their children to accidental gun play.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on November 01, 2010, 04:29:09 PM
Did God create Adam and Eve with the knowledge of right and wrong already installed, or was that a firmware update after they ate the apple?

Should we regard Adam and Eve as having the same intellect as a grown adult, or were they lacking knowledge of a few things as the Bible seems to suggest?

Also, God knows everything, including everything that will ever happen.  How is the idea that He put the tree, AND the talking snake both in the garden, allowing the events to proceed as they did without intervention until after it happened, consistent with the idea that he is a loving God?  It seems as though he was just looking for something evil to do.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 04:30:21 PM

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?

i'll will in two posts.  First the above statement.  You brought up the gun not me, so don't hate the metaphor.

So you're making the admission that you're attempt at describing in analogy biblical metaphor is well outside the bounds of how it is actually presented and you're are not only incapable of addressing it directly when its presented as it is described.. but also unwilling?

See Phelix, you don't get to dictate what arbitrary line of rationalization is going to be addressed outside the actual subject material you're trying to draw it from.  In effect, we don't have to care and you don't present any valid case as to why your analogy is correct to the biblical story of the fall.  I used one analogy, literally depicting the biblical story of the fall, to elaborate how your own analogy not only doesn't match the biblical story of the fall but grossly reinterprets ideas into completely new meanings.

You also did not answer the first question; the first question pertains to how you're using the rationalization of 'free will' as some how a meaningful answer to the problems inherent in the biblical story of the fall, sin, etc.  You're still wrapped up in the apologetic script, rather than how that answer is even applicable to any of the problems.  You KNOW that removing the loaded gun from the reach of the little girl DOES NOT remove that girls free will, so I'm now calling you out as PURPOSEFULLY avoiding answering the question because of this fact.

Quote
 Secondly, all analogies breakdown,

Hyperbole, analogies only break down when they are shown to be logically inapplicable to the situation they are being drawn from.  Argue that my analogy is incorrect and explain how.

Quote
thirdly, is it illegal to leave a loaded gun beside your bed at night, if you are married with no children and your wife right beside you?  No.  If she wakes up and kills herself, i would not be held responsible for leaving the gun on the night stand.  Why?  She is a grown adult who can decide for herself.

Incorrect; you're missing the hidden problem that you're failing to address because you won't continue to answer my questions.  You are not held responsible because it is reasonable to assume the woman not only is an adult, but because she is an adult she is assumed to have the foresight and knowledge of the dangers of the loaded weapon.  Who would be responsible if you left your loaded gun next to your grown uncle who has a mental deficiency?  Would it be your uncle who doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to judge the danger, or you?  Is it because they are adults, or because they have the capacity AND knowledge to know better?

This also doesn't answer the original problem of the vacuity of trying to rationalize with the biblical apologetic of 'free will'.  Does your wife not have free will if the loaded gun is not present?

Yes or No?

Does your child not have free will if teh loaded gun is not present?

Yes or No?

Quote
That is what we are.  Grown adults who can decide for ourselves.

It is obviously not because we are adults, its because being adults we are expected to have the foresight and knowledge to behave differently.  Which, knowledge in and of itself doesn't remove our capacity for free will.

This also doesn't describe the biblical story of the fall, because in the biblical story of the fall the tree isn't the tree of oranges, baseballs fruitcake, staplers, or tangerines.  It's the tree of knowledge.

Quote
 The analogy was supposed to illustrate that God loves and disciplines and that we see the same pattern in parenting.

Your analogy is false, at face value.  Your rationalization of 'free will' is inescapably incoherent at face value.  Your refusal to answer the question is apparent.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.
this has 2 major assumptions, 1 that the child would inevitably hurt themselves.  Not every child who plays with a loaded gun accidentlally injures themself or others.

A complete red herring, a total obfuscation of the subject material that isn't even applicable to the argument.  I even pointed out that it doesn't matter if the child hurts themselves or not, you placed the child in the situation of potential danger.  Effectively you're first line of reasoning, albeit a total dodge of the point, is to gamble on the safety of others based on your own irresponsible actions.. to somehow make some kind of coherent counter argument?

Quote
2 the situation could have been easily avoided.  There are parents who hide guns well, who lock doors, who strenously avoid those situation who have lost their children to accidental gun play.

That's the point!

The biblical myth of the fall is as easily avoided by a being capable of infinite wisdom and ability.  Just like the parent who ( as I clearly stated ) HAS THE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE AND CAPABILITY TO AVOID THE SITUATION.  It has nothing to do with teaching anything, with free will, or anything that is a justifiable application of reasoning to the story.  Its a silly and exaggerated bit of mythology, desperately at odds with any valid explanation beyond a twisted series of grossly intellectually dishonest reinterpretations.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 04:52:55 PM
Omen you do well at using intertwined and highly educated vocabulary with complex sentences.  It is no wonder my answers seem to miss the mark and seem like they are dodging.  I am not trying to i assure you. 

The fall could not just as easily been avoided by an all knowing being and here is why.  No analogies needed.  (which my original analogy had nothing to do with the fall) 
If God removes the tree, he removes mans opportunity to choose right from wrong.  And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.  (ie the argument with the serpant).  Secondly, they were not destined to eat the fruit, he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose, (in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it).  Why would God be blamed for that.  That God would create a women?  That God would create a possibility to disobey?  That we would have the capacity to rebel against His rules?  Where is the problem?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 01, 2010, 05:01:51 PM
See Phelix, you don't get to dictate what arbitrary line of rationalization is going to be addressed outside the actual subject material you're trying to draw it from.  In effect, we don't have to care and you don't present any valid case as to why your analogy is correct to the biblical story of the fall.  I used one analogy, literally depicting the biblical story of the fall, to elaborate how your own analogy not only doesn't match the biblical story of the fall but grossly reinterprets ideas into completely new meanings.

my analogy never had anything to do with the fall in the first place.  I never said it did, did I?



You also did not answer the first question; the first question pertains to how you're using the rationalization of 'free will' as some how a meaningful answer to the problems inherent in the biblical story of the fall, sin, etc.  You're still wrapped up in the apologetic script, rather than how that answer is even applicable to any of the problems.  You KNOW that removing the loaded gun from the reach of the little girl DOES NOT remove that girls free will, so I'm now calling you out as PURPOSEFULLY avoiding answering the question because of this fact.

If you want me to argue the analogy of a man and a gun and a girl I can try but my point is that you brought that analogy into the story not me, so why would I try and explain it.  Or make it fit my argument.? hello.

you're missing the hidden problem that you're failing to address because you won't continue to answer my questions.  
and here is the problem with your position.  1 I am , which means I am doing I am trying 2 hidden problems.  maybe thats why i am failing to address them.  3 "because i won't answer your questions"  which doesn't make sense by my continual efforts to try and answer your questions.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Omen on November 01, 2010, 05:15:52 PM
The fall could not just as easily been avoided by an all knowing being and here is why.  No analogies needed.  (which my original analogy had nothing to do with the fall) 
If God removes the tree, he removes mans opportunity to choose right from wrong.

Choice without knowledge is meaningless, plus again this has nothing to do with having the opportunity to choose anything.  You're trying to make the analogy of a parent disciplining a child, using low key and mild situations like running on gravel or jumping on the bed; hence the child falls or bumps into the wall and hurts themselves.  However, we are talking about the equivalent of a child, in a place where the comparison is to a tree that possesses the very knowledge to even know what choice is right from wrong.

What good is a choice if I can't tell the difference between right and wrong?

Quote
  And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.

And you could tell your daughter not to touch the gun, because they might hurt themselves.  Yet in their innocence and carelessness they do so anyway, because they are less capable and knowledgeable then yourself.  You would still be placed in jail as certainly and surely as it would be 'gods' responsibility for creating a situation where someone lacks the knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Again, the tree of KNOWLEDGE ( of good and evil, note: christians add good and evil, more so then hebrew interpretations of the first book of the torah, there seems to be a concentration on 'good' and 'evil' despite it not having the same connotation in jewish interpretation ), what good is a CHOICE if I do not have the KNOWLEDGE to know which is right or wrong?

Plus, you just engaged in an arbitrary rationalization to force biblical myth into a presumption of a conclusion you want to draw.  That is, you made up the rationalization to say god wasn't being careless.

Quote
  (ie the argument with the serpant).  Secondly, they were not destined to eat the fruit,

An omnipotent and omniscient being removes any chance of their actions not being completely and inescapably destined to occur.  The incoherence of 'free will' introduces a qualification, at least in the christian idea of 'free will', that is wholely incompatible logically speaking with the attributes associated with the biblical 'god'.  There is no chance or option for them not to choose another path, as it will occur inevitably.

Plus, 'free will' as its being described in the christian apologetic is a bizarre 'black box' that is virtually inseparable from another 'black box' that generates choices based on random chance.  To simply illustrate, imagine two black boxes, one A and one B.  One box has the agent of 'free will' in it while the other box contains an agent of pure random chance.  Now, allow options to be selected from each of the agents in the black boxes, please describe which one is random and which one is free will?

Quote
he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose,

Irrelevant, even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt that free will could exist under an omnipotent and omniscient being, their choice is meaningless since they lacked the knowledge and foresight to even reasonably make choices at all.  They would simply be as mindlessly motivated by the temptations inherent in their natural design, ie if they make the wrong choice then they make the wrong choice as they were perfectly made to do so.

Quote
(in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it).  Why would God be blamed for that.

Because god represents an agent of infinite ability and knowledge.  God knows what will happen, what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and could simply create the 'end goal' situation that god is supposedly going to anyway.

ie The god of biblical myth could perfectly make perfect free will, complete with the perfect knowledge to know which option to choose or not to choose.

Quote
  That God would create a women?  That God would create a possibility to disobey?  That we would have the capacity to rebel against His rules?  Where is the problem?

That you even think that is somehow an intellectually valid answer, on top of the grossly negligent and out right dishonest attempt to distance the obvious analogy of the unknowledgeable child being given access to the loaded weapon.  Not to mention the stupidity of furthering the myth farther in that all the descendants of the child who harms themselves, is equally punished for a choice they had no part in in the first place.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 01, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
I couldn't make this stuff up if I had to.  Also,  there is nothing made up in what happened in my life.  What you call mythology is actually called discipleship, being a disciple or follower of the teachings of Jesus.  I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.  What is impossible to believe is that it is based on total fiction.  Every faith that has stood the test of time has dealt with scrutiny, they are either proven bogus and snuffed out, or there is an element of truth that helps them sustain credibility.  Was there a Man named Muhammed?  Was there a real Jesus?  Was there a real Joseph Smith?  Can one find enlightenment through meditation?  I understand there is an element of spirituality that people make up, they want to believe, they need an answer, even scientists tap into this idea of there is more knowledge out there than what we know and we must discover it.  But to say, you made all that up in your own mind is just absurd.  And since we are in an arena that demands proof, what have you to your claim that it is made up?



The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's real since yours is the positive claim. You have to prove that he is real, which I notice you didn't bother to do in all of this. Just a lot of mindless christian rhetoric. You hardly have to get that far out there to find people who doubt Jesus's existence because there is no eidence that shows that he did. Christianity stood the test of time by killing anyone who disagreed with itself and whoring itself out to the men in power that have ruled over the century. Unless you can provide any proof that Jesus is real ,which you can't, then anything you believe or think about him is just in your own mind.
If you want something to think about however that shows that your claims are made up, I point to the simple obvious inconsistancy of the religious claims. Every religious person has a different view of their god and what he wants. They each interpret their respective books differently, they all have different books that they follow. Their god always has the exact same opinions that they hold. He likes the same things, and hates the same things. Even within books like the bible there are huge tracts of inconsistancy. The various books of the bible themselves match the thoughts and times of the peoples and authors that wrote them. There is no consistancy at all within your archaic system of beliefs, there is no proof to be had and no evidence.


Because of Justice.  What is just.  for a criminal to go unpunished?  No.  One must pay the price for one's actions.  In society we base it on what we think is fair.  "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  but that is for the action.  What is the consequence for rejecting God?  That would be Hell, according to the scriptures.  What is just is that anyone who chooses to say, there is no God or I don't want your forgiveness, I can do it on my own, I am smarter than you, I am independant and in no need of a savior.  Then that person has made themselves to be the supreme authority in there life.  In essence they have become their own god.  And the penalty is eternal hell, according to the scriptures.  What frustrates me is that we (humans) don't agree with sin.  We blame God for the opportunity, we blame God for our weakness, and we blame God for our judgement.  That just doesn't make sense.

No you don't make sense. That whole line of thought is just stupid. No one is saying that criminals should go unpunished. However eternal punishment for finite crimes is not justice by any definition of the word. As for being sent to hell for not doing the monkey dance, this shows what a loathsome character your god is. To punish people because they don't believe in him shows his own arrogance and his own unworthiness to be our god. God chooses not to show himself or speak to us. He provides evidence that only confuses the most stupid, or the most gullible of us, and then punishes us for not doing what he wants.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 01, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
Phelix, before we continue this how about you actually even justify the existence of 'free will', or at least your definition of it. Feel free to use the bible to do it if you want, since you don't seem to like using legitimate science.  Once I get back home from work I can actually give your meanderings my full attention and I'm sure I'll find it very interesting, if not vastly entertaining to watch you do the monkey dance for our amusement.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: jsmacks on November 01, 2010, 09:09:45 PM
I think only a small percentage adults from like the ages (20-60) are 100% "true believers" or what I would call people with "blind faith".  What I think the majority of people are though are pack followers.  They know that it is in their best interest to play along and many of them believe that it would be best for their kids to have faith in God because if anything ever happened to their kids they would not want their kids to suffer eternal torture.  Most people who are Christians have enough common sense to know that God will not strike them down with a lightning bolt for lying and would also know if a preacher is really trying to scam them.  I think though (I could be wrong though) that as people become senior citizens they get more religious because they know they are getting close to the end of their lives and they better try to get some faith.

I think most kids though are religious (from like 6-12).  I know when I was a small child we went to church regularly until I was 5 or 6.  From that point on we went to church only on Easter.  But once I got about 8 we even stopped going to church.  Did my parents lose faith?  Probably but it was never a question I could ever get the nerve to ask my parents.  My mother hardly ever bring up the subject but if someone asks her a question about religion, she will say she is a Christian.  I think my father is more religious, although he don't go to church, he listens to Sunday TV sermons at times, and speaks of talking with God at times and says things like God has blessed you.  So as a result, as a kid I definitely believed in God, sure I had my questions, but I knew not to question God and that you had to play by his rules.  Once I got maybe 9 or 10 I started questioning the belief of God some but my faith came back even stronger when I went to a Church camp at around 12.  The Church camp was a Baptist camp, where my family was Lutheran.  I always felt the Lutheran churches were more Traditional and seemed more focused on the Tradition of religion than the religion itself.  I never really felt scared into believing God at the Lutheran Church.  There was also less shouting out loud and stuff.  In the Church camp people were shouting and saying all types of stuff I couldn't understand at all.  I remember one Sunday where one of the Camp people started talking about Tongues.  I heard of it before in Bible stories books but I thought people only said it back in the Biblical times.  I asked a question about it and the speaker started saying that anyone can become the channel of God if they are open to him.  And about a minute later one of the mothers (who was a perfectly normal person the few days beforehand) started speaking in Tongues, I remember a few minutes afterwards, me and all of the other kids were crying.  At that point my faith was very strong.  I started reading the bible more and reading other religious books on how to get closer to God (although I didn't go to church regularly).  I guess though as time progressed my faith died down.  I guess as a teenager I was still religious but I was more at a sense that God could be anything and not necessarily the Christian God.  It was more of a Gradual process.  From about 14-17 I would have told you I was a Christian (although I heavily questioned the Christian God).  From about 18 - 22 I would have told you, I don't really know God could be different things for different people.  After that I became an Agnostic who leans somewhat more on the Athiest side.

I guess over time I saw too many contradictions and stuff that just didn't seem to make sense in the Christian religion. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 01, 2010, 09:16:20 PM
"The Fall" was allowed to occur by YHWH because "Lucifer/Satan" had to be the author of "Adam and Eve's" disobedience.  Had "Adam and Eve" been the authors' of their own disobedience, there would have been no terms for reconciliation.  The difference for mankind is temporary separation versus destruction.

"Adam and Eve" had the knowledge of right and wrong and an understanding of obedience, to the degree of their maturity at that time (as we all do).
The "fruit" gave them the knowledge of good and evil -- there is a difference -- wrong does not equal evil.  Scriptural "sin" is akin to wrong, but sin does not equal evil.  "Missing the mark" or not doing what you should have (ie. sin) does not mean your actions or inactions were "evil".  FYI "Sinners" will be ressurrected into the 1000 year period of Christ rule.

"Free Will" is a philosophical purported ability and does not actually exist in its commonly accepted usage.  No person has total and limitless choice.  Regarding scriptural reference it is simply the ability to choose our own destination.  The same choice boundaries hold true for any functional society, which is what the end goal is.  Even the 1000 years and the final time following that, the people will have free choice over many things in their life.

Regarding "choice", knowledge is not a requirement.  Every day we make choices even with none or lacking or partial knowledge, and often choices are rather based on previous/partial experience or desire instead.  If I were asked if I wanted to be immortal, my choice would be based on desire, not knowledge, as I have no knowledge or experience of either death or immortality.

"God" (whoever that is, I assume YHWH by the conversation) cannot impose, design, or create the "end goal" for His plan and bypass all of this world.  Likewise no adult can become mature without the trials of childhood.  If all of "this world" were simply bypassed because He could, then at some point in the future man would end up being the author of his own destruction.  See "the fall" above.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: wright on November 01, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
  FYI "Sinners" will be ressurrected into the 1000 year period of Christ rule.

Interesting. I don't think I've seen this version of the story before. What is its basis?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 01, 2010, 11:35:46 PM
Interesting. I don't think I've seen this version of the story before. What is its basis?

By "the story" are you referring to the bible?  Be aware that at least 60% of the "scriptures" are errant and doctrines of men.
Its basis is common sense and personal insight and decades of professional and personal study in the sciences (physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, geology), and theology and ancient languages.
What is the purpose for the 1000 year period?  The answer to that specifies who will be there.

Much of what mainstream christianity teaches is errant, so one must be careful not to subscribe to those particular stories and idioms.
However, I'm not here to evangelize or argue against other's personal beliefs, I would never profess to know all, so I have no issues with others choosing to believe whatever they prefer.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 01, 2010, 11:40:24 PM
Why do so many people make the claim that most of those that practice Christianity are wrong. I mean, damn.

..god didn't make us in his image, we made him in ours - confusing.

...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 01, 2010, 11:41:28 PM
WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 12:06:34 AM
...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.

I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.

WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.

I am not a christian, nor did I ever profess to be in any of my posts.
I am an intellectual who spends all of my time in study of sciences and theology.  Contrary to many, the two are not mutually exclusive.

By your measuring stick of, as you put it "stupid", then so also is everyone who subscribes to current science: there are many scientific "theory" versions of how the universe came into existence, with divisions among the scientific community members (FYI the big bang theory has now been discarded by most theoretical physicists as false).

I would prefer to have a mature discussion with professionalism and courtesy, and not the typical unbeneficial bashing at others that is so prevalant in forums.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 02, 2010, 12:10:49 AM


I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.


i know, I know. You are right, you didn't say that. but still. Explain the parts of the bible that are right. At least 60 of the bible is wrong, according to you. What is right about the bible. Explain.

i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 12:13:26 AM
...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.

I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.

WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.

I am not a christian, nor did I ever profess to be in any of my posts.
I am an intellectual who spends all of my time in study of sciences and theology.  Contrary to many, the two are not mutually exclusive.

By your measuring stick of, as you put it "stupid", then so also is everyone who subscribes to current science: there are many scientific "theory" versions of how the universe came into existence, with divisions among the scientific community members (FYI the big bang theory has now been discarded by most theoretical physicists as false).

I would prefer to have a mature discussion with professionalism and courtesy, and not the typical unbeneficial bashing at others that is so prevalant in forums.

Our bad. People who speak of the bible and also seem religious tend to call themselves christian. I guess you're making up something entirely new.

And no, the big bang has not been discarded by most physicists. Some yes, not most. I've no idea who is right but I sure know the bible thing is wrong. What's your take on it all? You big on the old Jewish sea serpent or do you like turtles all the way down?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 12:30:32 AM
i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?

I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 12:34:54 AM
There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

Maybe, but at least we have somewhere to look.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 02, 2010, 12:41:34 AM
I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been maems that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.tched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

Oh. OK.  :shrug


No, it's not ok. I can search google and come up with MANY MANY hits. Give me links.Give me you opinion on those links.

Tell me: At least 60 percent of the bible is wrong, as you claim. Tell me, what parts of the bible is right.

tits of GTFO

OH yeah, and bear with me because I don't have any TV service, so I can't watch visionTV or PBS. So do me a favor, please, since I can't watch TV, give me a link (since you claim a google search will yield what you claim. Don't make me do your homework for you.
 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 12:41:55 AM
I'm giving you a hard time, WhiteLight, because you're standing around saying "Holy cow, it's all so incredible. I must be right!" We atheists take issue with that.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 12:45:40 AM
Our bad. People who speak of the bible and also seem religious tend to call themselves christian. I guess you're making up something entirely new.

And no, the big bang has not been discarded by most physicists. Some yes, not most. I've no idea who is right but I sure know the bible thing is wrong. What's your take on it all? You big on the old Jewish sea serpent or do you like turtles all the way down?

"Making up"...   :D
Actually there are a lot of theologians who agree on a large number of these things.  And many who rightly question a large percentage of the scriptures.  This does not mean however that everything is discarded in favour of a flawed scientific theory on everything.

I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.
Just as the astronomy books all have to be re-written because of Pluto's reclassification, expect re-writes in a few years as tbbt gets discarded when the scientific community agrees on a new theory.

My personal opinion would be too lengthy, it would require a book, suffice it to say that I question the flaws in both areas (science and religion).  However, science does not answer many of the questions, that in my opinion can only be answered with involvement of a superior-being.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 02, 2010, 12:47:02 AM


My personal opinion would be too lengthy, it would require a book, suffice it to say that I question the flaws in both areas (science and religion).  

How about you do your best. to make it fit in a comment box at WWGHA...
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 12:57:59 AM
i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?

I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

It's amazing how there's always "too many to list" when it comes to providing evidence. Of course you could at least list some of the evidence. You know, make an honest effort to back up your words rather than just talk and waste everyone's time. If you fail to see the benefit in the discussion, why start it? We don't have to show your failure because you haven't provided evidence of your success.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 12:59:03 AM
I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.

I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry. Because they have it all wrong:

"While scientists now prefer the Big Bang model over other cosmological models, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations. With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations."

I know wikipedia isn't the end all when it comes to facts. But it takes people like you to keep it them honest. Grab your citations and get at it.

And you might tell us what the predominate theory is called, because my Hasbro "Little scientist" fake kid computer doesn't have anything else on it.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 01:00:15 AM
Maybe, but at least we have somewhere to look.

I disagree.  It is just as impossible to prove 'brane theory or the 'theory of the small' as it is to prove a superior being.
And future technology will not get us those scientific answers.  Hadron, missions to Mars, none of those will tell us anything about the true beginnings of the universe or of life, just more scientific speculation.
60+ years ago the scientific community believed that Mars had forests.  Science has since shown that the scriptural view on our unique life here was the correct one.

And don't worry about giving me a hard time, I can take it.

Don't make me do your homework for you.

It isn't my homework, I'm not here to evangelize anyone.  My studies and experiences have given sufficient proof for myself.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 01:02:50 AM
Science has since shown that the scriptural view on our unique life here was the correct one.

You have all this information we don't have. Cut and paste something. We're salivating re: all the knowledge you have to bring to the table.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 02, 2010, 01:08:18 AM

It isn't my homework, I'm not here to evangelize anyone.  My studies and experiences have given sufficient proof for myself.

How about proving it to us. If your proof falls on some TV show I cannot watch it because I'm too poor to afford TV service.


I mean, help me out. Offer up p me this proof you have. It shouldn't be this hard.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 01:14:40 AM
I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry.

I recommend looking up The Perimeter Institute (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/).
I can give you a decent list of theoretical physicists as well if you need.
You can also look for the BBC Horizon 2010 documentary titled "What Happened Before the Big Bang".
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Emily on November 02, 2010, 01:17:34 AM
I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry.

I recommend looking up The Perimeter Institute (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/).
I can give you a decent list of theoretical physicists as well if you need.
You can also look for the BBC Horizon 2010 documentary titled "What Happened Before the Big Bang".


You'r a fucking idiot. No where in even their about page (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/About/General/About_PI_Overview/) do they even come close to claiming what you do.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 01:27:41 AM
This is from one of the Institutes articles on Quantum Gravity Detail.

"There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports a Big Bang picture, but this picture implies that the entire universe, consisting presently of almost unimaginably vast volumes of space containing countless stars and galaxies was, near the beginning of the Big Bang, compressed to a size much smaller than the nucleus of a single atom! To describe such a bizarrely singular situation will require a theory that seamlessly combines our best understanding of the very small (quantum theory) with our best understanding of space, time and gravity (general relativity). At present we have only glimpses of such a unified theory. Called the quantum theory of gravity (or quantum gravity, for short), this theory is currently the subject of very active research at Perimeter Institute and several other institutions around the world, and is widely regarded as the holy grail of 21st century theoretical physics. "

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 01:27:47 AM
How about proving it to us. If your proof falls on some TV show I cannot watch it because I'm too poor to afford TV service.
I mean, help me out. Offer up p me this proof you have. It shouldn't be this hard.

What specifically do you want?  If it is archaeological, then what would be sufficient?  Photos and information that specific temples existed, or that specific jewish garments used by the Levite priests existed and have been excavated from ruins?  Note that in my opinion this doesn't prove that a superior being exists, it just proves the existence of the religion itself.

If you are asking me to prove that a superior being exists, then I can no more do that than you can prove to me that strings comprise all of the matter in our universe or of the existence of dark matter (actually I do believe string theory and in dark matter so I technically require other examples, but this is simply to show that certain tasks are impossible).

If you want archaeology, then give me some time to get some links.  If you have a PC/Mac that can play video files I can post you some links to some documentaries for download.  But as I said, they no more prove existence of "God" than anyone in science can prove the existence of strings or 'branes.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 01:32:46 AM
In fact I did a search for the big bang. I see a piece about the mathematical study of how the universe began and what it looked like after the Big Bang. I see an article where they characterize the possible states of matter that could have been formed in the big bang. An explanation of what likely happened at the time of the big bang. However nowhere in the first thirty hits does it at any point even mention a criticism of the theory.

Edit: Whitelight, as you look for your evidence, please spare us a lot bother and remember that we all have computers and the internet, so we can actually look this stuff up too. So if you're going to lie and make false claims, at least make them interesting ones. That way when we investigate them and toss them out it at least provides us with a little amusement.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: WhiteLight on November 02, 2010, 01:34:45 AM
You'r a fucking idiot.

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?

Wow, and you wonder why people don't come here to rationally discuss things with you.
Alzael, for just one example from multiple theoretical physicists, pull down the documentary if you don't believe me.  The Perimeter Institute houses many scientists with widely varying views, this has no effect on the accuracy of what I posted earlier.

That's it for me people, I can see that there is no reason to be involved in "discussions" like this.
Good luck with your lives and your limited views.
You all make me happy that I am not an atheist, I would hate to think that I would treat people the way that you do.
You must lead very unhappy lives.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: catlady on November 02, 2010, 01:39:34 AM
"Making up"...   :D
Actually there are a lot of theologians who agree on a large number of these things.  And many who rightly question a large percentage of the scriptures.  This does not mean however that everything is discarded in favour of a flawed scientific theory on everything.

I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.
Just as the astronomy books all have to be re-written because of Pluto's reclassification, expect re-writes in a few years as tbbt gets discarded when the scientific community agrees on a new theory.
Yes, "making up". 

Your statements  alone claiming a 'superior being', and parts of the bible being (40%) 'true'- kind of invalidates the claim you've made re: "studying science and theology", if you've accepted myth as the truth.
 Re: the BBT, Are most of your sources you claim  ("world's top tps") pseudo-science creationist apologists?
 Seems you  have come to conclusions and stuffed those conclusions with  erroneous 'research' and selective "studying" so as to fit your already-concluded superior-being-belief. Why would you do that? Why choose myth to believe ?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: blue on November 02, 2010, 01:42:44 AM

(http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/17636/original/wahmbulance.jpg?1252544974)

You're not used to having your statements checked out are you, WhiteLight? I've seen you make nothing but unbacked statements and sidestepping any actual substance. Trust me, we will shed no tear if you decide to leave. Of course you could stick around and learn something.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 01:51:25 AM
I have no idea of what he's talking about in regards to the 'documentary' since there's nothing listed about that on the site. Unless he means the advertising documentary for the school. But I checked through the bios of the head researchers. One who's working on the big bang. Three who are studying alternate early models of the universe, but none disagreeing or looking for big bang alternatives. I scanned some of the research papers and couldn't find anything like that either. If Whitelight wants to actually point me to where the information is, which I might add he failed to do the last time, I'll be happy to give it due consideration and evaluation. Otherwise he's just a liar and a very poor one. But he has succeeded in making me waste about an hour of my life so if that's any kind of a consolation to him than I guess, go Whitelight.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: wright on November 02, 2010, 02:06:33 AM
You'r a fucking idiot.

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?

Wow, and you wonder why people don't come here to rationally discuss things with you.
Alzael, for just one example from multiple theoretical physicists, pull down the documentary if you don't believe me.  The Perimeter Institute houses many scientists with widely varying views, this has no effect on the accuracy of what I posted earlier.

That's it for me people, I can see that there is no reason to be involved in "discussions" like this.
Good luck with your lives and your limited views.
You all make me happy that I am not an atheist, I would hate to think that I would treat people the way that you do.
You must lead very unhappy lives.

Quite a few people come here and manage to have rational discussions, even when they disagree with each other. However many of the atheist regulars, including me, are ex-theists and as such have little patience with the evasions that most theist posters tend to resort to.

When someone makes a claim, they are expected to back it up. The more extraordinary the claim (god is real, the Big Bang Theory is no longer widely accepted), the more is expected in the way of actual evidence. If this can't be provided, the claim will be criticized and yes, ridiculed.

If this environment is too harsh for you then indeed you're better off elsewhere. Too bad you were so thin-skinned; I was genuinely curious about your view on the resurrection of sinners and what you saw as it's  basis.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 02:13:23 AM
Okay, I guess this is how it works. Dude shows up, hassles us, gives no sources but makes lot of claims. Then we wear him out and he's all frustrated and he leaves, but in his parting entry he finally mentions an institute where maybe scientists are doing what he's saying. I dunno, no need to look into it much since he's gone. But why the heck couldn't he have said where he got his info in his first post decrying the Big Bang theory instead of his last post ever.

Why can't these guys figure out that we like information, not speculation. All he had to do was give us his source, but nooooooo, that's too hard unless it's the last post, the one where he gets to express his dissatisfaction with our lack of patience. Wow.

Only a billion or so fundy's left. What will we do when we wear them all out?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: blue on November 02, 2010, 02:15:39 AM
Only a billion or so fundy's left. What will we do when we wear them all out?

Fundy's frighten easily, but they'll be back and in greater numbers.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 02:23:40 AM
PP, he didn't even give us his source when he left. Just a meaningless mention that doesn't seem to exist on the site. You're giving him too much credit.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 02, 2010, 02:31:32 AM
PP, he didn't even give us his source when he left. Just a meaningless mention that doesn't seem to exist on the site. You're giving him too much credit.

I found a wikipedia entry but didn't follow through on it.

What other kind of physicist other than a theoretical one would be looking at the formation of the universe? "Actual" physicists? "Maybe" physicists? "Guessing" physicists?

Even "Conservapedia" says there are only two types. Theoretical and Experimental. And since I don't think we can shoot a Large Hadron Collider into orbit around the black hole in the center of the Andromeda Galaxy, methinks all space related physics is more or less theoretical. So what the heck was the dude talking about?

Maybe Alka-Seltzer Fizzycists. But that's just a guess.

I was going to go to bed but this weighed on my mind. That hurt. Had to turn my computer back on and ask you guys. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 02, 2010, 05:49:10 AM
Be aware that at least 60% of the "scriptures" (in the Bible) are errant and doctrines of men.....Much of what mainstream christianity teaches is errant, so one must be careful not to subscribe to those particular stories and idioms.

What specifically do you want?  If it is archaeological, then what would be sufficient?  Photos and information that specific temples existed, or that specific jewish garments used by the Levite priests existed and have been excavated from ruins?  Note that in my opinion this doesn't prove that a superior being exists, it just proves the existence of the religion itself.

I don't think one single person here would argue that Christianity the religion does not exist, any more than we would argue that the Harry Potter Fan Club does not exist.

What is annoying me is that you were quite clear that 60% of the Bible is errant - which includes portions of the NT as well as old - but that you are going to great lengths to avoid specifically descibing WHICH parts are errant.  From what you HAVE said, it is more and more appearing that you are regarding things like towns and cities names, customs and clothes references, as being the "true parts" - which by process of elimination leads to the conclusion that therefore the errant parts are the ones dealing with miracles and doctrine.

60% being errant is a huge percentage (not to mention being a suspiciously exact number....).  Frankly, once I'd established that any book I had previously relied on was 60% wrong, I would be VERY wary of basing my decisions on the other 40%.  I'd constantly be worried that I was relying on something that I just hadn't yet worked out was wrong.

60% errant.....ok.  How about an example of a passage that is errant, and an example of a passage that is not.  And an explanation of how you tell the difference.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 02, 2010, 05:51:11 AM
Whoops!  Just spotted that after 9 posts and 5 hours of memberhip, Whitelight has chucked his toys out the pram and is refusing to play any more. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: monkeymind on November 02, 2010, 08:15:19 AM
SO MUCH FOR......I CAN TAKE IT!
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 02, 2010, 08:32:40 AM
Wow, we have two people who are Christians, and yes, whitelight, you’re a Christian, you just don’t like the term with its baggage.  You also want to fantasize yourself as having special knowledge about the universe. Unfortunately, just like phelix, you make claims that are not true.  You claim that physicists have abandoned the Big Bang.  Well, dear, show who these people are?  Making vague baseless claims counts for nothing here.  Just like phelix’s claims that the bible only teaches “goodness”, which is also simply not true.   

Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.
But it does have that killing first born sons who don’t have a say how their rulers are acting is a-OK with God.  It does say that it’s okay to rip open pregnant women if they are your “enemy”.  It does say that it is plenty okay to have wives and concubines (you know, David, Solomon? God also kills David’s son for David’s “sin”).  It does say to destroy anyone in your way over and over again in the OT, to the point of killing everyone but the young girls who were then to be given as war booty to the temple and the soldiers.

It does say to love your neighbor, but it also says that people who do not accept Jesus should be brought before him and killed.  It does say that by doing good deeds to others, you are in effect doing good deeds to God.  But it also says that no good deeds are worth anything to God and it is just “grace” and God’s whim in choosing you.  It does say that there is consequences for sin but also has that murdering a child is just as sinful as picking up sticks on this Sabbath that no one can agree on what day it should be.  I dont’ recall wehre it says that governments should be fair, but it does say that *all* worldly rulers are in place because god put them there and thus should be obeyed no matter what.  It does say that we should be honest and hardworking, as do all religions, and again it says that no matter how hard you work or how honest you are, we are still supposedly “dirty rags”.  It also has God lying, so that honesty things seems one of those “do as I say, not as I do” things.  If you want to claim that your supposedly holy book is valid since it teaches good, obviously only occasionally, then that means all religious are just as good and as real as yours.  Do you agree, phelix?

I know quite a bit about the Perimeter Institute and I know for a fact that these theoretical physicists have not decided to abandon the Big Bang.  I actually read books from them, like Reinventing Gravity by John Moffat.  Really interesting stuff.  It seems like so many Christians, you also want to assume that no one would dare question the word of a “good Christain” and then put up garbage so it looks like you are being honest.  Too bad that we do look at links and we are familiar with real science, not the bastardized versions that purveyors of woo like you try to spew. 

As for archaeology, there is nothing that supports any of the essential events claimed to have occurred in the Bible. NONE. No exodus, no massacre of the innocents, no census, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no earthquake on a certain day in spring, etc.  No one can even get a consistent location for this supposed tomb that JC rose from and one would certainly think that would have been an important place, with angels, etc being right there supposedly.  That Naked Archaeologist guy is a shill for ridiculous claims. Nothing more. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 09:28:37 AM
Choice without knowledge is meaningless, plus again this has nothing to do with having the opportunity to choose anything.
They were not mindless, animals before the fall.  They were given intellect, were given the ability to communicate, to function as humans do, they were perfect in everyway.  What they didn't know was evil.  They had no experience rebelling against God.  The fruit if eaten, would give them the knowledge of that.  They had knowledge of the outcome.  There is no reason to believe they were like a 2 yr old who even though you warn them, or not capable of making a good decision and leaving the gun alone.  That is why your analogy breaks down, and why my analogy had nothing to do with the fall. 

 
You're trying to make the analogy of a parent disciplining a child, using low key and mild situations like running on gravel or jumping on the bed; hence the child falls or bumps into the wall and hurts themselves.  However, we are talking about the equivalent of a child, in a place where the comparison is to a tree that possesses the very knowledge to even know what choice is right from wrong.
this has been what you have been trying to say, not me.  I have been trying to say this whole time, that God has put a system in place where there are physical consequences for bad decisions, and there is eternal consequences for evil (rejecting forgiveness for sin). 

What good is a choice if I can't tell the difference between right and wrong?
it is no good if you can't tell the difference, but they did not lack that ability.  You have assumed that. 

Quote
  And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.

And you could tell your daughter not to touch the gun, because they might hurt themselves.  Yet in their innocence and carelessness they do so anyway, because they are less capable and knowledgeable then yourself. [/quote]
innocence has nothing to do with carelessness or in their capability and knowledge.  innocence has everything to do with them simply not doing wrong.  Carelessness has nothing to do with this analogy, because someone can't be careless if they don't understand the danger.  If they understood the danger and didn't care, they would be careless.  which leaves the attributes of incapable and knowledgable which they were both.

Plus, you just engaged in an arbitrary rationalization to force biblical myth into a presumption of a conclusion you want to draw.  That is, you made up the rationalization to say god wasn't being careless.
  I stated my opinion, is that what we call arbitrary rationalization to force biblical myth into a presumption of a conclusion, and made up rationalization?  I call it what I believe to be true.


An omnipotent and omniscient being removes any chance of their actions not being completely and inescapably destined to occur.
Not true.  If God is all powerful, and all knowing, he must use that to influence man's mind in order for free will to not exist.  He must determine our steps and force them in order for us to not have freewill.  Just because He has the power to, and because He has the capability of knowing what we are going to do, does not remove our ability to choose.  Therefore, we can be in the garden, see the fruit and be free to choose to eat it or leave it alone.  Therefore, we can't blame God when we choose to break the rules, or to do what we want instead of what He wants.  A biblical example I think of is Jacob wrestling with the angel.  He wouldn't let go even though he was told to.  Eventually he was forced to, but if there was no free will, he could not have chosen to continue the fight.


Plus, 'free will' as its being described in the christian apologetic is a bizarre 'black box' that is virtually inseparable from another 'black box' that generates choices based on random chance.  To simply illustrate, imagine two black boxes, one A and one B.  One box has the agent of 'free will' in it while the other box contains an agent of pure random chance.  Now, allow options to be selected from each of the agents in the black boxes, please describe which one is random and which one is free will?

easy, the random chance box according to statistics will have a 50% kill ratio.  to murder or not to murder.  50% of the choices will say yes to murder.  the free will box will still have those who choose to murder as we have murderers today, but 50% of our worlds population does not commit murder 50% of the time.

Quote
he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose,

Irrelevant, even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt that free will could exist under an omnipotent and omniscient being, their choice is meaningless since they lacked the knowledge and foresight to even reasonably make choices at all.[/quote]  your assumption, and since very relevant to this conversation.  if it is irrelevant that would be your arbitrary rationalization to force an atheistic view into a presumption of a conclusion.  ( i think, please take that with a grain of salt, i humor myself and no one else finds it funny, its sad but true, but seriously that was meant to get a chuckle only, no disrespect intended)

Quote
(in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it).  Why would God be blamed for that.

Because god represents an agent of infinite ability and knowledge.  God knows what will happen, what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and could simply create the 'end goal' situation that god is supposedly going to anyway.
Lets assume that God does know what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and let's assume another trait of God, that he doesn't lie, that means he is pure, holy, and honest, then we must assume that there is no way of preventing it, that there is no design that will allow free will and achieve the end goal without creating humans like adam and eve and puting a forbidden tree in their midst.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 09:33:14 AM
Wow, we have two people who are Christians, and yes, whitelight, you’re a Christian, you just don’t like the term with its baggage.  You also want to fantasize yourself as having special knowledge about the universe. Unfortunately, just like phelix, you make claims that are not true.  You claim that physicists have abandoned the Big Bang.  Well, dear, show who these people are?  Making vague baseless claims counts for nothing here.  Just like phelix’s claims that the bible only teaches “goodness”, which is also simply not true.   


Quote
and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.

You have not represented what I said accurately.  I did not say "ONLY" teaches goodness, I said it teaches goodness.  So please, let me represent myself.  You fail to do so accurately.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 02, 2010, 09:41:51 AM
Because god represents an agent of infinite ability and knowledge.  God knows what will happen, what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and could simply create the 'end goal' situation that god is supposedly going to anyway.


Lets assume that God does know what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and let's assume another trait of God, that he doesn't lie, that means he is pure, holy, and honest, then we must assume that there is no way of preventing it, that there is no design that will allow free will and achieve the end goal without creating humans like adam and eve and puting a forbidden tree in their midst.


If you're going to assume that, you're also going to have to assume that heaven has a very spartan populace, or that, by design, there is no free will there.

Which is it?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 02, 2010, 09:49:15 AM
You have not represented what I said accurately.  I did not say "ONLY" teaches goodness, I said it teaches goodness.  So please, let me represent myself.  You fail to do so accurately.

Are you saying that the bible does teach "badness"?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 02, 2010, 09:53:20 AM
maybe the sect that believes only a limited number get in is right? but that begs the question on why recruit more?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2010, 09:58:42 AM
The answer to the topic's question is a simple four letter acronym - SPAG
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 10:05:44 AM
But it does have that killing first born sons who don’t have a say how their rulers are acting is a-OK with God.  It does say that it’s okay to rip open pregnant women if they are your “enemy”.  It does say that it is plenty okay to have wives and concubines (you know, David, Solomon? God also kills David’s son for David’s “sin”).  It does say to destroy anyone in your way over and over again in the OT, to the point of killing everyone but the young girls who were then to be given as war booty to the temple and the soldiers.
 You are right that these elements exist in the bible, but what you have conveniently left out is that polygamy although culturally acceptable is not a Godly teaching, when the bible speaks of marriage it is of one man to one woman.  When the bible speaks of all these killings, it qualifies that the reason is God's Judgement on their wickedness.  It teaches that what we do doesn't just effect us, it effects our neighbors.  We can't claim innocence just because we didn't pull the trigger so to speak.  It stands true today in america, if you are with the guys who rob a store and kill the employee, you will be charged for murder.  Where is the hypocricy in that?

It does say to love your neighbor, but it also says that people who do not accept Jesus should be brought before him and killed.  It does say that by doing good deeds to others, you are in effect doing good deeds to God.  But it also says that no good deeds are worth anything to God and it is just “grace” and God’s whim in choosing you.  It does say that there is consequences for sin but also has that murdering a child is just as sinful as picking up sticks on this Sabbath that no one can agree on what day it should be.  I dont’ recall wehre it says that governments should be fair, but it does say that *all* worldly rulers are in place because god put them there and thus should be obeyed no matter what.  It does say that we should be honest and hardworking, as do all religions, and again it says that no matter how hard you work or how honest you are, we are still supposedly “dirty rags”.  It also has God lying, so that honesty things seems one of those “do as I say, not as I do” things.  If you want to claim that your supposedly holy book is valid since it teaches good, obviously only occasionally, then that means all religious are just as good and as real as yours.  Do you agree, phelix?

Not totally.  I don't know where it has God lying.  If you are speaking back to the flood conversation, we simply don't view God the same way, because you hold God to your standards or right and wrong and I believe we don't comprehend His knowledge, power, or justice.  But all religions is a hyperboly* but most religions do have postive elements, most agree on the basics of good and what good is.  But all religions are useless.  It is faith that is more important, and what is the effect of that faith.  All faiths can affect this phyisical life we have, but I believe what the bible says, that there is more than this life and in order to have heaven over hell, it requires faith in Jesus.  Which is why I posted on this thread.  because I do believe that.  


As for archaeology, there is nothing that supports any of the essential events claimed to have occurred in the Bible. NONE. No exodus, no massacre of the innocents, no census, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no earthquake on a certain day in spring, etc.  No one can even get a consistent location for this supposed tomb that JC rose from and one would certainly think that would have been an important place, with angels, etc being right there supposedly.  That Naked Archaeologist guy is a shill for ridiculous claims. Nothing more. 


What is the wailing wall?  Have they found evidence of Solomon's temple, the King's palace, writings of Solomon or anything like that?  What about the cities supposedly captured or the cities of soddom and gomorrah?  "there is nothing that supports any of the essential events...c'mon, making broad assumptions doesn't cut it in here, I would be slammed if i made a statement like that.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
You have not represented what I said accurately.  I did not say "ONLY" teaches goodness, I said it teaches goodness.  So please, let me represent myself.  You fail to do so accurately.

Are you saying that the bible does teach "badness"?

it teaches that soddom and gomorrah were destroyed by God for their wickedness, and to some people it is bad to destroy pregnant women.  even though I don't call it bad, others do, and therefore by definition some can say the bible teaches badness.  Same for any of the OT destructions. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 10:12:34 AM

If you're going to assume that, you're also going to have to assume that heaven has a very spartan populace, or that, by design, there is no free will there.

Which is it?

I don't know.  Heaven is something that is beyond words, or comprehension.  I mean, the one who claims the most understanding of it wrote the book of Revelation, and it is impossible for him to describe with words, we get emeralds and beasts with 6 wings and eyes and tails and horsemen, and sea of glass.  When Jesus was asked about relationships in heaven, he said, don't worry about it.  What I assume about heaven is that there will be no more sin.  But I do wonder, if Lucifer could fall, could there be another?  I just don't have the answer, sorry.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on November 02, 2010, 10:13:06 AM
It's reassuring to know you don't think killing pregnant woman is bad, Phelix.  I think I'm ready to join your religion now.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 10:18:36 AM
It's reassuring to know you don't think killing pregnant woman is bad, Phelix.  I think I'm ready to join your religion now.

ahh, i am sorry cheez. I should have qualified that statement.  A few months ago velkyn emily and i engaged in a 3 or 4 week debate on the flood.  yes I think killing pregnant women is bad.  Yes I think killing people is bad.  What I don't think is bad is God's Judgement.  It doesn't feel good, I don't think there is a human that is qualified to judge the heart of a man, but I believe God can, and has, and will again.  But really to avoid rehashing a former conversation, ask velkyn or emily and they could probably direct you to the thread quicker than I and you can see how that whole topic came up.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 10:19:43 AM
i am checking out for a few days, gotta work sometime during the day.  I love reading the threads and responding but I forget to get my work done.  So I will be back thurs or fri and try to catch up.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 02, 2010, 10:27:36 AM

If you're going to assume that, you're also going to have to assume that heaven has a very spartan populace, or that, by design, there is no free will there.

Which is it?

I don't know.  Heaven is something that is beyond words, or comprehension.  I mean, the one who claims the most understanding of it wrote the book of Revelation, and it is impossible for him to describe with words, we get emeralds and beasts with 6 wings and eyes and tails and horsemen, and sea of glass.  When Jesus was asked about relationships in heaven, he said, don't worry about it.  What I assume about heaven is that there will be no more sin.  But I do wonder, if Lucifer could fall, could there be another?  I just don't have the answer, sorry.

Thanks for your attempt at honesty, I suppose. Though I suspect the reason you don't know is because you can see the logical contradiction, and it's impossible to reconcile. Illogical contradictions are prevalent in religion, and seem to be the usual gateway for theists to deconvert. Faith requires intellectual dishonesty. Some people are ok with that.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on November 02, 2010, 10:31:20 AM
The Bible has a lot of killing, and spends almost no time at all explaining why God needs to kill the people.  It just says vague things like "they were bad people."  How do I know they were bad people?  What did they do to make them bad?  What did the children and infants in cities like Soddom and Gomorrah do to offend God?  How about you explain it.

Me?

I'll have none of this, thanks.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 02, 2010, 10:44:18 AM
it teaches that soddom and gomorrah were destroyed by God for their wickedness, and to some people it is bad to destroy pregnant women.  even though I don't call it bad, others do, and therefore by definition some can say the bible teaches badness.  Same for any of the OT destructions.  

Do YOU say that it teaches badness?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 02, 2010, 10:55:21 AM
Sorry, Phel, but your ignorance of your own supposed holy book is rather sad.  There is nothing in the Bible that says one should only be married to one woman and there is instance after instance where the patriarchs were all about this and God never did anything to tell them otherwise.  If it were not okay with God, why did he allow it and indeed encourage it? Christians like you want to pick and choose what is “cultural” and what is approved by God as you find convenient. For example, God gave lots of instructions on how exactly to treat slaves and Christians want to claim that God didn’t approve of slavery. What was God too impotent to just say “I dont’ like slavery stop it!” when he supposedly was able to say “I don’t like other gods, stop worshipping them!” What’s the difference?  Why doesn’t god remind Jacob that having Leah and Rebecca isn’t good?  Why can Abraham sleep with his wife’s slave? Why does the bible go out of its way to say that
Quote
“Deuteronomy 21: 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.”
 Deuteronomy 25 has that a brother must take his brother’s wife if he dies. It wasn’t terribly common for Jewish men to not be married so does he get a second?  
Quote
Exodus 21: 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”
Lots of laws for something God either approves of or is incapable of changing.

And yep, the bible says that God is okay with killing, soldiers and innocents alike.  So, do you want to tell me that children are okay to be slaughtered? I suppose you will, since you will either try to say that 1. everyone deserves to be killed or 2. it was a “mercy” that the children were killed if their parents were too.  I’ve seen both from “good Christians”.  Funny how little girls can be saved for grown men.  And of course I can claim innocence if I didn’t do anything. You also seem to be totally confused about the law. No surprise there. If I was with people who were there to rob and there to kill, that means I wasn’t doing “nothing” and it is not guaranteed that I would get charged with the murder. Nice strawman but you failed.  I suppose you mean “original sin” but since I wasn’t there, blaming me and punishing me for it really makes any claims by Christians of free will totally worthless.  

I am quite sure you don’t know where it has god lying since it is more than obvious that for such a TrueChristiantm, you haven’t read your bible.  God lies to Abraham, God sends lying spirits to deceive people, etc.  I’m sure you’ll try to say ‘but it wasn’t god directly” But why does an all good being need to use evil constantly in his own works?  We even have God relying on evil to get himself killed for himself *and* god simply *must* release Satan from the pit after he ostensibly wins the war. You want to claim that we can’t understand god but 1. the Bible says we can, right in Genesis, and 2. Christians always pick and choose when they can and can’t undertand God as it’s convenient.  Oh, we can’t understand why this god seems inept and stupid but when a Christian wants to claim that they understand how God loves us and how he dispenses “justice” well, all of the understanding in the world is suddenly there.  And all religions isn’t hyperbole at all. If you’d like to demonstrate how it is, please do so. Your religion is no better or worse than any other, all with the same lack of evidence that they are “true”.  And faith and religion are the same thing.  I know, phel, you don’t like the idea of religion since you and your ilk have shat all over the term with your actions and your gods evident impotence.  I can rewrite the sentence “If you want to claim that your supposedly holy book is valid since it teaches good, obviously only occasionally, then that means all faiths, are just as good and as real as yours.”  You have all of the same claims and no evidence to support them.  Christianity is the same as Islam, as Judaism, as Hindusim, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, etc.  You can show no effect of “faith” other than what humans do when they believe any myths.  Christians are not better people not better off, etc than any one else.  You only have the baseless belief in a life after death, something that has no evidence.  And again, just like other religions. Most, if not all of them, also believe in this magical prize and none have any more evidence that theirs is the “right” one than you.  You see, phel, if your faith had any effect on this world more than another religion, I might care but as it stands you are all nuts.  

I don’t have to fear being slammed since I didn’t’ make any statements that aren’t true. There is nothing that supports the essential events of the bible. If you have this evidence of these events, present it.   The wailing wall is part of what is thought to be the old temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall)   We also have temples from that time period to a bunch of gods all over the middle east and the Mediterranean.  Are you willing to take that as evidence that those gods existed too?  Because that’s what you seem to be claiming.  No, they haven’t found any evidence of Solomon’s temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple) , David’s palace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David#Archaeological_evidence) , writings from Solomon from a contemporary source, etc.  There is no evidence of twin cities consumed by divine fire.  Yep, we see that there are cities mentioned in the Bible that are real.  So by this any myth with a mention of a real city should be considred real?  Then we have the greek gods as beign real since they mention real cities, Spiderman must be real since he’s in New York City, every political thriller ever is real since they mention real cities.

Its sad that some idiot thinks it's okay to kill pregnant women. I do love how you can't even bring yourself to say murder or kill but just "destroy".  

it teaches that soddom and gomorrah were destroyed by God for their wickedness, and to some people it is bad to destroy pregnant women.  even though I don't call it bad, others do, and therefore by definition some can say the bible teaches badness.  Same for any of the OT destructions.  

then you say
Quote
yes I think killing pregnant women is bad.
which is it, Phel?  You say one thing and then you say another when called on your vileness. YOu ran around the same nonsense in the other thread.  And you still are okay with killing women and children.  

EDIT:  And Phel, I don't really believe you are that distraught that I indicated that you said that the bible only teaches goodness.  Since you can't seem to answer the question "Do you think the bible teaches evil?", I really don't think I was far off the mark at all.   
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 02, 2010, 02:31:34 PM
Are you saying that the bible does teach "badness"?

technically, it is not "badness".  It is "naughtiness", which is much, much worse.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Nam on November 02, 2010, 02:35:07 PM
Does the average Christian really believe?

Sure, they say they believe, but their actions rarely jibe with their beliefs, their biblical "rules". Is it that they have the "forgiveness" loophole, which they use constantly to justify their "sinful" nature? Or do they only try to believe, say they believe, fearful of Pascal's Wager?

I, for one, am not sure they really believe. It seems impossible to me that any being with any kind of sense and intellectual honesty could believe, truly believe in the fairy tale and mythology of an unsubstantiated, hidden god.

As a life-long doubter, I've never had the personal experience. I look forward to hearing from the converted and the de-converted.

My sense is: they think they believe.  I think most Christians[1] just focus on the "forgiveness" of every thing bit (except the tenants that state otherwise) and think that as long as they repent, that everything will be okay.

-Nam
 1. my opinion
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 02, 2010, 02:35:19 PM
Jesus died so that anyone who would believe in Him would not die but have eternal life.  

Bold mine.  Why is that a necessary part of the deal?  Of what use is that to either an omnimax deity or its followers?  Particularly when said deity is apparently playing hide and seek?  This sounds like a scam, especially since you will not get paid until after you die.

Jesus didn't say, I will die for some if they jump through enough hoops.  ... But when we have faith in Jesus and repent of our sins, the scriptures say we are forgiven.

Bold mine.  Those are the hoops.  Why is faith in jesus H a necessary part of the deal?  I can understand being sincerely sorry (ie, repenting), but I am still stuck on the whole belief/faith part of it. Why is that a deal breaker.  You are telling me that even if I recognize my flaws and imperfections and I try to be a better person and I am truly sorry for the bad things I do to others, I'm still screwed because I do not believe in yhwh or jesus H.

Let me tell you what I find most offensive about many xians.  It is not that they wear their faith on their sleeves, proclaiming loudly to all and sundry the stupidest, most embarrassing things that a rational person with a modicum of dignity would do everything in his power to keep secret.  Nope, it's no that.

It is that they think their god is obvious.  It is the total lack of understanding of the idea that I find your god difficult to believe.  Instead, you guys act as if yhwh were a given and I actively reject it and I am some kind of immoral asshole for it.  I do not believe in your god because I cannot believe in your god.  I do not know how to force myself to believe something that I think is obviously false.  I cannot make myself believe in your god any more than you can make yourself believe in the tooth faerie.  

I have learned a whole bunch of things in my life.  Most of those things are demonstrably true.  I know my understanding of materials science and strengths of materials is true because cars work, bridges remain spanning rivers and gorges (if they are properly maintained), and buildings remain upright as long as some religious assholes don't fly airplanes into them.  I know my understanding of thermdynamics is true because air conditioners work, refrigerators keep my food fresh and rocks don't roll uphill.  I know my knowledge of fluid mechanics is true because ships cross the oceans and airplanes stay aloft.  I trust that other areas of knowledge outside my expertise are equally true - my computer functions, the lights in my house work, and medicines heal me.

When I read the bible, all the knowledge I have - which proves to be true on a daily basis - points to the bible being a mythology no different than any other mythology.  That is to say, I am unable believe it.  I do not see gods all around me.  Jesus H has never appeared to me.  I have never felt a "presence".  I have never felt warm and tingly in church, though I have prayed for all those things and spent many sunday sermons yearning for the figure on the crucifix to bleed or blink its eyes at me or sweat or give some miraculous sign.  

You guys tell me I have to open my heart.  Well, I have done that.  But still, I am left without a sign.  I would have to throw out almost everything I know -  ideas that I see work every day - in order for me to accept the bible as truth, and I just do not know how to do that.  Do you?  So what I am supposed to do?  Pretend I believe?

Do you understand?

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 02, 2010, 02:35:33 PM
Are you saying that the bible does teach "badness"?

technically, it is not "badness".  It is "naughtiness", which is much, much worse.

Are you sure you're not confusing your fairy tales? I thought only Santa had any say of the "naughty". :shrug
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 04:14:20 PM
Sorry, Phel, but your ignorance of your own supposed holy book is rather sad.  
 I'm addicted.  and I just have to try one more answer.  Funny do you expect me to have the entire 66 books memorized?  When I refer to the bible, call it a strawman, but I am referring to the entire body of work, not one selection from one book.  And yes much is made of polygamy in the beginning of time, but I have to go with the entire body of work.  But without 15 scriptures in my memory or time to go and look it all up, I concede the marriage for now.  However, please don't assume my lack of memory and time is ignorance of the bible.  Yes many have forgotten more than I will know, but I study and work consistantly to learn and know more about it and whats in it.

And yep, the bible says that God is okay with killing, soldiers and innocents alike.  So, do you want to tell me that children are okay to be slaughtered?
 I want to tell you that if God is fair, If God is Just, If God is holy, then God's judgement and wrath are congruent.  Will God meet your expectations, no, and he doesn't have to.  


I am quite sure you don’t know where it has god lying since it is more than obvious that for such a TrueChristiantm, you haven’t read your bible.
 False, just don't have it memorized or just the parts I need to throw believers into difficult conversations.  

I don’t have to fear being slammed since I didn’t’ make any statements that aren’t true. There is nothing that supports the essential events of the bible. If you have this evidence of these events, present it.   The wailing wall is part of what is thought to be the old temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall)   We also have temples from that time period to a bunch of gods all over the middle east and the Mediterranean.  Are you willing to take that as evidence that those gods existed too?
 This was not your argument.  You said, there is nothing to support the events of the bible, yet the existance of the wailing wall, and other cities, and kingdoms would be supporting evidence of the events of say, Solomons temple being destroyed, the herodian temple being destroyed, ect.  
 Because that’s what you seem to be claiming.
nope, I am simply claiming not all archeology contradicts the events in the bible.  

Its sad that some idiot thinks it's okay to kill pregnant women. I do love how you can't even bring yourself to say murder or kill but just "destroy".  
you may call me an idiot, but i never said it was ok to kill a pregnant women, in fact you can quote me as saying it isn't ok to kill pregnant women.  But my use of the word destroy, just happens to be the word used in my bible.  


then you say
Quote
yes I think killing pregnant women is bad.
which is it, Phel?  You say one thing and then you say another when called on your vileness. YOu ran around the same nonsense in the other thread.  And you still are okay with killing women and children.  
nope i am still ok with God's judgement and still don't think we have the ability to understand it.  I don't think it is ok for a human to kill another human.  pregnant or not.  

EDIT:  And Phel, I don't really believe you are that distraught that I indicated that you said that the bible only teaches goodness.  Since you can't seem to answer the question "Do you think the bible teaches evil?", I really don't think I was far off the mark at all.   
 you say "indicate" but that isn't what you did.  if i say check with velkyn, maybe velkyn can tell you how hummingbirds fly.  would indicate you have the knowledge of hummingbirds, but to say, phel claims the bible only teaches goodness is more than just indicating, it is false, a misrepresentation and a misquote, something that is dealt with harshly in this forum and should be.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 02, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
it teaches that soddom and gomorrah were destroyed by God for their wickedness, and to some people it is bad to destroy pregnant women.  even though I don't call it bad, others do, and therefore by definition some can say the bible teaches badness.  Same for any of the OT destructions.  

Do YOU say that it teaches badness?

No I think the bible teaches what bad is, but it doesn't teach us to do bad things. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 02, 2010, 04:42:17 PM
^ Therefore, you believe it only teaches goodness.

In which case, velkyn cannot possibly be mischaracterising your position on what the bible teaches.


Will you now acknowldege that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: cheezisgoooood on November 02, 2010, 04:56:12 PM
I'm addicted.  and I just have to try one more answer.  Funny do you expect me to have the entire 66 books memorized?
No, I think we expect you to know enough about it that you don't contradict it in your arguments.  Velkyn has clearly shown that you have not read enough of it to be an authority on the subject.
I want to tell you that if God is fair, If God is Just, If God is holy, then God's judgement and wrath are congruent.  Will God meet your expectations, no, and he doesn't have to.  
So your only argument, when confronted with the reality that God does many things in the Bible that are completely horrible and unjustified by any modern human being's standards, is that God can do what he wants because he's God, and we can't question him?  Even in view of the fact that you have no evidence he exists?  Sorry, why is it that you worship this abomination again?
nope, I am simply claiming not all archeology contradicts the events in the bible.  
Most of it does though.
you may call me an idiot, but i never said it was ok to kill a pregnant women, in fact you can quote me as saying it isn't ok to kill pregnant women.  But my use of the word destroy, just happens to be the word used in my bible.  
Oh we can quote that, yes, but we can also quote you saying that it is not bad to kill a pregnant woman.
nope i am still ok with God's judgement and still don't think we have the ability to understand it.  I don't think it is ok for a human to kill another human.  pregnant or not.  
So you believe in something you can't see, hear, touch, or understand?  You're deluded.

to say, phel claims the bible only teaches goodness is more than just indicating, it is false, a misrepresentation and a misquote, something that is dealt with harshly in this forum and should be.
You don't seem willing to say that the Bible only teaches goodness, and yet you don't seem willing to say that the Bible teaches badness as well as goodness.  Which is it?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: dloubet on November 02, 2010, 05:50:18 PM
Quote
I want to tell you that if God is fair, If God is Just, If God is holy, then God's judgement and wrath are congruent.  Will God meet your expectations, no, and he doesn't have to. 


Does the god meet with your expectations?

The god puts a baby in front of you, tells you it's evil. Tells you to kill it.

Do you?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 02, 2010, 06:53:48 PM
 would we call someone who is "told" by god to kill mentally ill?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: dloubet on November 02, 2010, 07:02:12 PM
Well, I would call them mentally ill. But if I grant the existence of a god that would tell someone to kill, then it becomes a clear moral question.

Do you obey the orders of a being that says it's benevolent, says it knows everything, says it's all powerful and the source of all justice?

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: wright on November 02, 2010, 07:24:03 PM
Do you obey the orders of a being that says it's benevolent, says it knows everything, says it's all powerful and the source of all justice?

Actions speak louder than words. If said being really knows everything, then it should know exactly what evidence would convince me of its authority without having to say a single word.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 02, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Well, I would call them mentally ill. But if I grant the existence of a god that would tell someone to kill, then it becomes a clear moral question.

Do you obey the orders of a being that says it's benevolent, says it knows everything, says it's all powerful and the source of all justice?



Since I supposedly know good and evil as god does, if I find the idea immoral, and if most people would agree with me. Then I think that it's fairly safe to say that it is immoral. Moreover if god wanted me to do something, if it was a god of the type that I would be inclined to worship, he would give me a very good reason and evidence to suggest why I should do something that I find so repugnant.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 03, 2010, 02:02:32 AM
Sorry, Phel, but your ignorance of your own supposed holy book is rather sad.  
 
Funny do you expect me to have the entire 66 books memorized?  

Nope.  What I WOULD expect is that someone who bases their life, and their afterlife, on a particular book, would have first gone rather carefully through that book and be aware of any honking great issues within it. 

Are you married, at all?  Intend to be married at some point?  Have children?  Intend to?

If the answer to any of those is "yes", then I would have expected you to have carefully looked at all verses in the Bible dealing with marriage, and children, and inheritance, and know exactly what is, and is not your god's will.  Otherwise, you would be risking your god's wrath for not following his will....moreover, his will that is clearly laid down in his holy book.

Maybe you are a confirmed batchelor, and are positive you will never marry or sire children, in which case I can forgive your ignorance on the "marriage" aspects of the Bible.  However, I would THEN expect you to be able to discuss in informed manner what your god's will is on THAT position - for example, with regard to the "be fruitful" exhortations.

Point being, I'd expect someone who BELIEVES to be completely clued up on the subject of marriage and offspring, one way or the other, so that they are SURE they are doing what their god wants.  To bleat that "many have forgotten more than I will know" is a weak cop-out: is THAT what you will say to your god when challenged on why you ignored his words on marriage?

I'm afraid that - once again - we see a "believer" who does not ACT as if they believed.  Trust me, phelix - if I believed that an all-powerful, all-seeing being had laid down the rules on what I should, or should not do, to save my eternal existence.....you would NOT find me claiming ignorance of one jot, being unable to defend my views on the merest tittle.  My first - my ONLY priority would be to go through that Bible until I knew it backwards and had answered to my complete satisfaction any concerns I might have with it.  And I would be doing that at the expense of family, friends, work....everything.

Because this would be THE WORD OF GOD - THE most important thing in existence by an infinte factor.  I would have learned it by heart and would follow it to the last comma in every aspect of my life, with never a single slip or mistake, because it would mean everything.  But not one "Christian" we have had here ever seems to have done so.  And so I say again - they do not really believe.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 03, 2010, 02:56:37 AM
Exactly the point of the OP! Bravo!

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Lurking on November 03, 2010, 07:36:04 AM
I'm addicted.  and I just have to try one more answer.  Funny do you expect me to have the entire 66 books memorized? .....
Actually, yes. You should. Your eternal fate depends on it.  I’m sure most people around here have done it, too. I have. That’s also the most important reason I’m not a Christian anymore. One contradiction after the other. No logic involved.  Remember, eternity depends on it. The word of god is supposed to be the most important thing in the world. Supposed to be the eternal, unchanging  word of god. Eternity is involved. Heaven or hell. Forever. You should memorize the only source of knowledge about your faith. You might make better arguments for your faith after memorizing it. We're here to learn. How can you teach us something about your faith when we know more about it than you do?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 09:08:07 AM
^ Therefore, you believe it only teaches goodness.

In which case, velkyn cannot possibly be mischaracterising your position on what the bible teaches.


Will you now acknowldege that?
sure, but I don't agree with that.  I think it is bad when a girl takes off her clothes for money, but there are others who think it is an honest profession.  If someone is a exotic dance instructor, i would think she is teaching something bad, but in reality, it would be up to interpretation.  Therefore, I say the bible teaches good, and I don't say the bible only teaches good.  to say only takes away someone else's interpretation, makes me a bigot.  That is the difference.  I don't think less highly of anyone's interpretation, I may not agree but I don't put it on a different level beneath mine.  Does that make sense?  I was more offended at what the statement means when you add the word only.   
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 03, 2010, 09:11:29 AM
In which case you have to acknowledge that is also teaches bad. You can't have it both ways. We're not talking about the interpretation of others, we're talking about your personal interpretation.

So, in your eyes, either it teaches only good, or it teaches only bad, or it teaches both good and bad.

Take your pick from those options.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 09:26:15 AM
Velkyn has clearly shown that you have not read enough of it to be an authority on the subject.
how can you clearly show if someone has read enough to be an authority, i can understand that testing can show cognition and comprehension of a subject, interviews can help show the depth of knowledge over a subject, but how can a few posts on a thread clearly show that I haven't read the bible enough to be an authority.  with over 100 hours of masters level courses in bible books and theology, I have the credentials to be an authority, with 14 years in vocational ministry i have the authority, and by my teaching weekly 3 lessons and sometimes 4, I have the experience to claim that I am an authority on scripture, I am not a leading authority, nor do I like to claim to be anything, I don't like bragging, but I don't know of any other way to argue that i clearly have read enough to be an authority.


So your only argument, when confronted with the reality that God does many things in the Bible that are completely horrible and unjustified by any modern human being's standards, is that God can do what he wants because he's God, and we can't question him?  Even in view of the fact that you have no evidence he exists?  Sorry, why is it that you worship this abomination again?

That is why I say, If God is who he says he is, which would be All knowing, humans aren't, all powerful, humans aren't, and the creator of a lower level of being, which humans aren't, then it is fair that the humans don't get to make God fit their standards, but that they must fit the creators standards, and "IF" He is the creator and one true, holy, and just God, then no, I don't get to judge his methods.  In summary, it is because of the lowely view I have of our understanding, not my perfect view of who God is.  To me it's the same as saying to the mechanic at the autoshop, what do you think about this heart surgeon's work on my triple by-pass.  Why would I trust the evaluation of a heart surgery from an auto-mechanic.  Not that they are less human or honest or anything, but they simply don't have the understanding of heart surgery to make an educated evaluation.  It takes a pretty arrogant person to claim they have enough understanding of how everything works, and how everything God has done has happened to say whether or not it was a righteous thing or not.  I don't have it, and I don't believe any human does.


nope, I am simply claiming not all archeology contradicts the events in the bible.  
Most of it does though.
 that wasn't what was originally said though, do you now disagree that Quote from: velkyn "As for archaeology, there is nothing that supports any of the essential events claimed to have occurred in the Bible."

So you believe in something you can't see, hear, touch, or understand?  You're deluded.
not deluded.  Just different.  And yes, you see I do believe, which is why I answered the post in the first place.  So even you understand now that i believe.  That means I have at least proven my point to one.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 09:32:22 AM
In which case you have to acknowledge that is also teaches bad. You can't have it both ways. We're not talking about the interpretation of others, we're talking about your personal interpretation.

So, in your eyes, either it teaches only good, or it teaches only bad, or it teaches both good and bad.

Take your pick from those options.

i don't see how what in my eyes the bible teaches is the issue, when what was misrepresented is what I claimed the bible teaches.  I can believe that the sex industry is bad, but that every law abiding citizen who pays taxes is a good thing.  I claim that every law abiding citizen who pays taxes is a good thing, but that the sex industry is bad.

i simply never claimed the bible only teaches good.  yes?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 03, 2010, 09:41:13 AM
i don't see how what in my eyes the bible teaches is the issue, when what was misrepresented is what I claimed the bible teaches.
It's quite simple:

Do you claim that the bible teaches only good, only bad, or a combination of good and bad?

If you dodge that question again, you're going to the ER.

Quote from:  WWGHA Rules
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against them.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 09:43:22 AM
Velkyn has clearly shown that you have not read enough of it to be an authority on the subject.
how can you clearly show if someone has read enough to be an authority, i can understand that testing can show cognition and comprehension of a subject, interviews can help show the depth of knowledge over a subject, but how can a few posts on a thread clearly show that I haven't read the bible enough to be an authority.

Because you have yet to demonstrate knowledge of the bible that surpasses that of my sixteen year-old atheist sister. You can stand around and claim to be know about the bible until your fingers fall off from the typing. But if you aren't capable of applying that knowledge then calling yourself an authority is a blatant lie, no matter how many hours you supposedly spent studying.


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 09:54:56 AM
i don't see how what in my eyes the bible teaches is the issue, when what was misrepresented is what I claimed the bible teaches.
It's quite simple:

Do you claim that the bible teaches only good, only bad, or a combination of good and bad?


to answer I must advertise my own opinion.  But I believe the bible teaches both bad and good.  Example.  Judas betrays Jesus, feels guilty and commits suicide.  Suicide is bad, but it is one way to handle guilt.  The bible teaches that another way is to ask God for forgivenss, and that is a good way to handle guilt. 

If you dodge that question again, you're going to the ER.
  The rules are set up to keep it fair.  I don't think it is fair to make absolute statements that put you in the place of an elitist.  That is why I don't say only, always, everyone...those statements simply can't be qualified.  And everytime I do, which I know I have done in the past, I have had to eat them. 

Quote from:  WWGHA Rules
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against them.

 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 09:57:04 AM

Because you have yet to demonstrate knowledge of the bible that surpasses that of my sixteen year-old atheist sister. You can stand around and claim to be know about the bible until your fingers fall off from the typing. But if you aren't capable of applying that knowledge then calling yourself an authority is a blatant lie, no matter how many hours you supposedly spent studying.


see how the subject was changed from you haven't read enough to am I an authority.  My argument is that I have read enough.  And no one has clearly shown that I haven't read enough.  i may not know enough to please you, but that isn't what we were talking about.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 10:00:27 AM
I'm addicted.  and I just have to try one more answer.  Funny do you expect me to have the entire 66 books memorized? .....
Actually, yes. You should. Your eternal fate depends on it.  I’m sure most people around here have done it, too. I have.
  Memorized the entire bible.  I don't know of anyone who has the entire book memorized.  Could you prove you have it memorized?  I'm sure most people around here are familiar with all 66 books, but I doubt you or anyone has it memorized and as so many say in here, if you haven't that makes you a liar.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 03, 2010, 10:03:38 AM
to answer I must advertise my own opinion.  But I believe the bible teaches both bad and good.
Right, then your position is that the bible teaches goodness AND badness.


Thanks for your honesty.


In this post, for example, you're making it appear as if the bible does not teach badness:
Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.


If you'd stated earlier on that it also teaches badness, there wouldn't have been a mix up.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 10:09:35 AM

Because you have yet to demonstrate knowledge of the bible that surpasses that of my sixteen year-old atheist sister. You can stand around and claim to be know about the bible until your fingers fall off from the typing. But if you aren't capable of applying that knowledge then calling yourself an authority is a blatant lie, no matter how many hours you supposedly spent studying.


see how the subject was changed from you haven't read enough to am I an authority.  My argument is that I have read enough.  And no one has clearly shown that I haven't read enough.  i may not know enough to please you, but that isn't what we were talking about.

Your claim is not backed up by any evidence. Like I said, you can claim to be an authority all you want. But your demonstration of knowledge doesn't show it. Don't make claims that you won't back up. Just because you think your knowledge is enough doesn't make you an authority on anything. It makes you yet another in a long-line of ego-driven theists who come here to bore us. Your ignorance has been pointed out previously, you've admitted you don't have it memorized, which doesn't necessarily refute your claims of being an authority but it does make us wonder just what exactly it is that you do know?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 03, 2010, 10:13:13 AM

Point being, I'd expect someone who BELIEVES to be completely clued up on the subject of marriage and offspring, one way or the other, so that they are SURE they are doing what their god wants.  To bleat that "many have forgotten more than I will know" is a weak cop-out: is THAT what you will say to your god when challenged on why you ignored his words on marriage?

I'm afraid that - once again - we see a "believer" who does not ACT as if they believed.  Trust me, phelix - if I believed that an all-powerful, all-seeing being had laid down the rules on what I should, or should not do, to save my eternal existence.....you would NOT find me claiming ignorance of one jot, being unable to defend my views on the merest tittle.  My first - my ONLY priority would be to go through that Bible until I knew it backwards and had answered to my complete satisfaction any concerns I might have with it.  And I would be doing that at the expense of family, friends, work....everything.

Because this would be THE WORD OF GOD - THE most important thing in existence by an infinte factor.  I would have learned it by heart and would follow it to the last comma in every aspect of my life, with never a single slip or mistake, because it would mean everything.  But not one "Christian" we have had here ever seems to have done so.  And so I say again - they do not really believe.

This is probably the most well articulated challenge I have ever heard, and I appreciate it more than you will know.  You are right on very many levels, Christians should regard the bible as THE WORD OF GOD and as the most important thing by an infinite factor, but God doesn't want the bible to be worshiped more than him, Commandment 1 of the "ten commandments"  and when Jesus was asked about the greatest command it was to Love God and the second is as the first to love others.  The pharisees turned worship into a list of do's and don'ts, and failed to protect the relationship aspect of worship.  The bible teaches that we are to live not free from the law but under a new covenant one of Grace.  Not that we can disregard the law, but one focused on following Jesus example.  He healed on the sabbath, which the pharisees considered work as was picking some grain and eating it, But the problem isn't are we living every word of the mosaic law but have we been forgiven.  My eternal destination doesn't depend on how well I obey all the rules, if it did, no one would get in.  But according to the scriptures it depends on my faith in Jesus.  That is why i don't have all the levitical law memorized or am thoroughly square on every jot and tittle.  It doesn't excuse it, and I do and am continually studying to show myself approved, but I am young and have lots to go.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 10:21:11 AM

Point being, I'd expect someone who BELIEVES to be completely clued up on the subject of marriage and offspring, one way or the other, so that they are SURE they are doing what their god wants.  To bleat that "many have forgotten more than I will know" is a weak cop-out: is THAT what you will say to your god when challenged on why you ignored his words on marriage?

I'm afraid that - once again - we see a "believer" who does not ACT as if they believed.  Trust me, phelix - if I believed that an all-powerful, all-seeing being had laid down the rules on what I should, or should not do, to save my eternal existence.....you would NOT find me claiming ignorance of one jot, being unable to defend my views on the merest tittle.  My first - my ONLY priority would be to go through that Bible until I knew it backwards and had answered to my complete satisfaction any concerns I might have with it.  And I would be doing that at the expense of family, friends, work....everything.

Because this would be THE WORD OF GOD - THE most important thing in existence by an infinte factor.  I would have learned it by heart and would follow it to the last comma in every aspect of my life, with never a single slip or mistake, because it would mean everything.  But not one "Christian" we have had here ever seems to have done so.  And so I say again - they do not really believe.

This is probably the most well articulated challenge I have ever heard, and I appreciate it more than you will know.  You are right on very many levels, Christians should regard the bible as THE WORD OF GOD and as the most important thing by an infinite factor, but God doesn't want the bible to be worshiped more than him, Commandment 1 of the "ten commandments"  and when Jesus was asked about the greatest command it was to Love God and the second is as the first to love others.  The pharisees turned worship into a list of do's and don'ts, and failed to protect the relationship aspect of worship.  The bible teaches that we are to live not free from the law but under a new covenant one of Grace.  Not that we can disregard the law, but one focused on following Jesus example.  He healed on the sabbath, which the pharisees considered work as was picking some grain and eating it, But the problem isn't are we living every word of the mosaic law but have we been forgiven.  My eternal destination doesn't depend on how well I obey all the rules, if it did, no one would get in.  But according to the scriptures it depends on my faith in Jesus.  
What about the parts that clearly say that god simply chooses who he wants to go heaven and damns everyone else, regardless of what they've done in their lives?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 03, 2010, 10:26:03 AM

I see. 

However, you seem to forget that bad behaviour IS sin.  So, why are you punishing your daughter for sinning, since you just said that this isn't your job?
 
It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.


Yes, but your original statement was...
Quote from:  Phelix22
I am not disciplining her for sin, but for bad behavior.

So how do you determine what is sin and what is bad behaviour, since they are both exactly the same thing?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 03, 2010, 10:32:14 AM

Quote
and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.

It also teaches to rape women, to stone people to death, to amputate people, to support slavery, to hate homosexuals.

Good stuff you follow there.  I find your approach of trying to defend such a book to be morally repugnant.


Why do you do that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 03, 2010, 10:42:48 AM
 The bible teaches that we are to live not free from the law but under a new covenant one of Grace.  Not that we can disregard the law, but one focused on following Jesus example.  He healed on the sabbath, which the pharisees considered work as was picking some grain and eating it, But the problem isn't are we living every word of the mosaic law but have we been forgiven.  My eternal destination doesn't depend on how well I obey all the rules, if it did, no one would get in.  But according to the scriptures it depends on my faith in Jesus.  That is why i don't have all the levitical law memorized or am thoroughly square on every jot and tittle.  It doesn't excuse it, and I do and am continually studying to show myself approved, but I am young and have lots to go.

Bolding mine.

See, this is more logical contradiction that many of us have a problem with. Xians pick and choose, and the laws get modified, or thrown out entirely over time. It's nonsensical. Can you explain it to me? Can you explain how you cannot disregard the law, but you can disregard the law? Why? If it's all about faith in jesus (which I'm pretty sure the bible contradicts), why follow any of the laws?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 10:45:40 AM
What I want to know is, since the bible teaches both good and bad, how does one tell the difference? When god says to rape women, how do you know that that's a bad command and not a good one? Or do you think that it's a good one?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 03, 2010, 10:53:16 AM
^^ Hating homosexuals and raping women is good, because god cannot be wrong.  &)

Many muslims have no problem with this, and do both quite freely, but try and get a christian [who defends the bible] to see the words for what they are is nigh on impossible, in my experience.


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 11:19:26 AM
Well yes, Agga. I know that the christian god is a soulless rapist and you know that god is a soulless rapist. I'm just wondering if he knows it, and is either ok with that or thinks it's bad but god can do what he wants.

Edit: Actually I worded that wrong. God isn't a rapist he simply encourages his followers to commit rape and use women only for sex and property. That makes him a rapists cheerleader. Now how pathetic is that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 03, 2010, 11:54:31 AM
The typically (but customized) christian things that phelix22 is saying gives me an idea.

Every bible should come with an equally thick pamphlet labeled "Errata".

It could of course be changed every frickin' day if need be.

Or, maybe all that is actually needed is a wiki detailing all this crap so we heathens could keep up to date on the which laws its okay to disobey because of jesus, etc.

The resulting mess of entries and links would make wikipedia pale in comparison. But it would be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 03, 2010, 11:57:37 AM
Edit: Actually I worded that wrong. God isn't a rapist he simply encourages his followers to commit rape and use women only for sex and property. That makes him a rapists cheerleader. Now how pathetic is that?
Oh, he also supports incest with little children, and murderng them if they're bad to their parents.  He also encourages us to hate homosexuals.  So he's a child-raping, child-murdering homo-hatin' cheeleader.  Accuracy, Alzael, accuracy. ;)

Just the sort of guy you want to pledge allegiance to and teach your children about. 

After all, if one happens to be the sort of sicko that acually likes child rape and murder, owning women and hating gays, the christian god is just the god one would want to look up to.  &)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 12:12:29 PM
You're right of course, my failure. Accuracy is always important. Now consider this, people like Phelix are gods cheerleaders. Now honestly, how pathetic is that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 03, 2010, 12:51:44 PM
Phel, I don’t expect you to have the bible memorized. But I do expect you to do a little research before saying “no it doesn’t”.  There’s a nice website biblegateway.com which has many different versions of the bible and a keyword search function as well as a verse search.  You want to claim that the bible is “entire body of work” which is the usual “context” claim by Christians.  And I know how badly those arguments go for Christians.  You all whip out your magic decoder rings and insist that some part or other is “literal” or “metaphor” as it suits you, no matter what the context actually is. I know the context of the bible, phel. When a particular Christian wants to declare that they and only they know the “right” context, it’s just as amusing as any Christian claiming that they know what God “really meant”.  But if you do want to consider the Bible one entire body of work, you are stuck with obeying all of it since the earth and heaven’s have not passed a way. But I’m sure you won’t agree with that, suddenly what Jesus said is “taken out of context” and you decide you can eat shrimp. 

And golly, you “concede” the marriage thing. Well, how nice, since I know it’s because you have nothing to show evidence that I’m wrong. Theists *always* claim that they suddenly dont’ have enough time or ability to actually put up or shut up.  It gets pretty funny since I can practically predict what a theist will do in an argument.  For a book that supposedly tells you all you need to know about how to please God, so many of you are so ignorant of it. I do wonder if you think willful ignorance will cut it with God.  “Oh sorry, God, I just didn’t know.”.   BTW, it’s not only in the OT where God seems to have an opinion of polygamy. 1 Timothy says that a deacon/elder should have only one wife.  Why is this spelled out if it was only approved to have one wife?  And I would also ask, if one wants to be a church leader, why is one wife okay when Jesus said that the best of them would have no wives at all?  It seems to be a contradiction, however minor. 

Quote
I want to tell you that if God is fair, If God is Just, If God is holy, then God's judgement and wrath are congruent.  Will God meet your expectations, no, and he doesn't have to.
I’m sure you do want to tell me such things.  It does probably help your conscience when someone asks you directly “Is it okay to kill children?”  You won’t answer me directly at all.  We see no evidence for this god, much less any evidence of God being fair, just or holy.  Even his own bible shows this is not true. And God should at least meet what his supposed holy book says, yes?  If not, it’s just a lie.   

Quote
  False, just don't have it memorized or just the parts I need to throw believers into difficult conversations.
I’ll give you that. You may have indeed read the bible but forgot huge parts of it, the same parts, not so coincidentally I think, that show your God as not what you claim him to be. I always sam rather confused by this, if the bible is so important, why don’t Christians make more of an effort to know it since their their immortal soul is banked on following it correctly.  Yes, I do know much of the bible thanks to asking Christians what they really know and believe.  I’ve forgot parts occasionally.  Did you know that the three kings didn’t get any where near a “manger”?  They found Jesus in a house.     

Quote
This was not your argument.  You said, there is nothing to support the events of the bible, yet the existance of the wailing wall, and other cities, and kingdoms would be supporting evidence of the events of say, Solomons temple being destroyed, the herodian temple being destroyed, ect
Sorry, phel, but what I said was back on #234
Quote
As for archaeology, there is nothing that supports any of the essential events claimed to have occurred in the Bible. NONE. No exodus, no massacre of the innocents, no census, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no earthquake on a certain day in spring, etc.
  As you can see, I said essential, and listed them. Out of all of the things you claim, we know that the Herodian temple was destroyed in 70 AD.  We have contemporary records of that.  The closest that the Bible comes to this event is this supposed prophecy “2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”  Which by itself shows that it’s wrong since there are more than a few stones still right where they were laid in this temple wall.  Another answer is that Mark was written after the event, but spiffed up a bit from reality. The First temple, as the wiki article and its source say, hasn’t even been found at all. The wikipedia also correctly says that this may not be the end of the debate since no one is allowed to actually look for it.  And we might indeed find some remmant of a temple but will it be Solomon’s so painstakingly described in the Bible?  Well, the scorecard so far on things like that says no we won’t.  But I’m quite happy to wait on it.  But you’ve claimed that archaeology supports the bible.  Where, phel?  Where is this support that would actually say that the events in the bible, those so important to the story, have occurred?  You don’t have any.  You try to use claims by long dead archaeologists as “evidence” but ignore anything recent.  Archaeology is about relics, phel, and you are sadly lacking.  All of your claims are just as much proof that your bible is accurate and your god is real as the story of Athena and Poseidon competeing on who got to name Athens.  As I said before
Quote
Yep, we see that there are cities mentioned in the Bible that are real.  So by this any myth with a mention of a real city should be considred real?  Then we have the greek gods as beign real since they mention real cities, Spiderman must be real since he’s in New York City, every political thriller ever is real since they mention real cities.
     

Quote
you may call me an idiot, but i never said it was ok to kill a pregnant women, in fact you can quote me as saying it isn't ok to kill pregnant women.  But my use of the word destroy, just happens to be the word used in my bible.
You did say it
Quote
and to some people it is bad to destroy pregnant women.  even though I don't call it bad, others do, and therefore by definition some can say the bible teaches badness.
If you recant your opinion, that’s fine and I’m glad you do but please, phel, don’t say you didn’t originally say it.  It does say destroy in your bible, a lot of them do. I’ll grant you that. I still find it an odd word to use, but if you were just going by what it says,understood. But again it seems that you say again that it is okay to kill pregnant women when you say
Quote
nope i am still ok with God's judgement and still don't think we have the ability to understand it.  I don't think it is ok for a human to kill another human.  pregnant or not.
  You seem to want to be okay with it ONLY if it’s God’s action.  You may want say it like this “I am saying it’s okay to kill pregnant women as long as I think God is commanding it and God seems to be okay with it even though I can’t claim to understand.” In that the Bible also says we understand good and evil like God does, Genesis 3: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”  I would think either we would understand and be quite content with God’s judgement or we didn’t eat this “apple” and we’re stuck with modern human mores. I dont’ think claims of ignorance come into it if you believe in the bible. Which do you think it is, phel?     

 
EDIT:  And Phel, I don't really believe you are that distraught that I indicated that you said that the bible only teaches goodness.  Since you can't seem to answer the question "Do you think the bible teaches evil?", I really don't think I was far off the mark at all.   
  you say "indicate" but that isn't what you did.  if i say check with velkyn, maybe velkyn can tell you how hummingbirds fly.  would indicate you have the knowledge of hummingbirds, but to say, phel claims the bible only teaches goodness is more than just indicating, it is false, a misrepresentation and a misquote, something that is dealt with harshly in this forum and should be.[/quote]  I didn’t indicate that you said the bible only teaches truth? Let’s see, I said “Just like phelix’s claims that the bible only teaches “goodness”, which is also simply not true.”  You said “You have not represented what I said accurately.  I did not say "ONLY" teaches goodness, I said it teaches goodness.” So where *didn’t* I indicate e.g. to state or express briefly  you said it taught only goodness?  It sure seems I did. Now, this is why I said what I did. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=16191.msg366430#msg366430 
Quote
Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.
   I may have been wrong and apologize if I am but I don’t think that I am considering the context of your post here.  You go out of your way to list all of the goodness, not one mention of the evil this book teaches.  To limit your selection it appears that you only think the bible teaches goodness.  And I have not seen you answer the question, do you think the Bible teaches evil.  This is why I think what I think. As I said, *if* I’m wrong, I’m sorry. And now that I’ve read into the thread, where you say “No I think the bible teaches what bad is, but it doesn't teach us to do bad things.” It is obvious that this whole bit of nonsense was just desperation on your part.  Sad that you would put your immortal soul on the block for such stupid little things. No wonder I don’t believe, even you don’t seem to.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 12:56:32 PM
PP, I'm sorry but I think I'm going to have to turn you down and ask Velkyn to marry me instead. I'm sure you'll find yourself another husband just as good as me in time.

(I also think I'm going to drop this series jokes around about now because it's getting too weird)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 03, 2010, 01:16:41 PM
I'm flattered, Al :) 
This is probably the most well articulated challenge I have ever heard, and I appreciate it more than you will know.  You are right on very many levels, Christians should regard the bible as THE WORD OF GOD and as the most important thing by an infinite factor, but God doesn't want the bible to be worshiped more than him, Commandment 1 of the "ten commandments"  and when Jesus was asked about the greatest command it was to Love God and the second is as the first to love others.
No one said this or even alluded to it. Again with trying to move the goalposts.  It would be amazing if you could give a straight answer to a question.
Quote
The pharisees turned worship into a list of do's and don'ts, and failed to protect the relationship aspect of worship.
Yep, adn most, if not all, Christians we have seen make it a list of dos and don'ts too but they pick and choose which are the do's and don't dependent on their convenience. 

Quote
The bible teaches that we are to live not free from the law but under a new covenant one of Grace.
  Not that we can disregard the law, but one focused on following Jesus example.  He healed on the sabbath, which the pharisees considered work as was picking some grain and eating it, But the problem isn't are we living every word of the mosaic law but have we been forgiven. My eternal destination doesn't depend on how well I obey all the rules, if it did, no one would get in.  But according to the scriptures it depends on my faith in Jesus.  That is why i don't have all the levitical law memorized or am thoroughly square on every jot and tittle.  It doesn't excuse it, and I do and am continually studying to show myself approved, but I am young and have lots to go.[/
The bible doesn't say this at all. It says that the law are to be followed until the earth ends.  Has it?  If no one can follow the rules why did God put them in place saying that if you do this, you'll be his chosen people?  Why did he wait for supposed thousands of years before changing his mind and decideing that killing himself for himself was the "real" way to be saved?  Jesus said one must have faith in him and one must follow the laws as "intended" the first instance of someone claiming to know what God "really" meant, if Jesus existed at all.
   

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
In addition to what Velkyn said, I would also add that there are many ways listed in the bible in which one is saved. And most of them require more than just believing in Cosmic Sugar Daddy.

"Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Matthew 16:27

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" James 2:14

"When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul." Ezekiel 18:27

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. " Matthew 7:24

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

It seems that it takes a lot more than just having faith to be saved. There are requirements for salvation that cover just about every aspect of human action. From being obedient to doing god deeds, to drinking 'Jesus water'. In fact I'm right now looking at about eighty biblical lines that describe how to be saved, and do you want to know how many of them say you only need faith? Come on, take a guess. Oh wait, I forgot that you're a biblical authority, 'guess' is a poor choice of words. I mean 'use your vast knowledge of the bible attained from over 100 hours of masters level courses in bible books and theology. Your fourteen years of vocational ministry and your teaching of weekly lessons three, sometimes four times a week to accurately assess how many of those salvation verses back up your ideas'.

Ooooh, and while we're at it how about guessing how many verses say that we have no control over whether we end up in hell or not and god just chooses who he wants to go hell or heaven. Oops, sorry, I used that word 'guess' again.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 03, 2010, 01:59:26 PM
Because this would be THE WORD OF GOD - THE most important thing in existence by an infinte factor.  I would have learned it by heart and would follow it to the last comma in every aspect of my life, with never a single slip or mistake, because it would mean everything.  But not one "Christian" we have had here ever seems to have done so.  And so I say again - they do not really believe.

Christians should regard the bible as THE WORD OF GOD and as the most important thing by an infinite factor, but God doesn't want the bible to be worshiped more than him, Commandment 1 of the "ten commandments"  and when Jesus was asked about the greatest command it was to Love God and the second is as the first to love others.  ....  The bible teaches that we are to live not free from the law but under a new covenant one of Grace.  Not that we can disregard the law, but one focused on following Jesus example.  .....

Thing is, I wasn't exclusively talking about Mosaic law, but about every single part.  You're saying here that you have taken a message from the Bible that tells you how to be saved....but at the same time you confess you are NOT square on every single thing within it.  

This makes me think two things.

Fisrtly - and the subject of the OP - is that YOU DON'T BELIEVE: the part of my post you ignored.  If you REALLY thought god existed, you wouldn't be here right now: you'd be going over and over the Bible until you were absolutely, 100% positive you knew it inside out and back to front - and it would mean that you could answer any question we came up with in an internally consistent and complete manner.  To be unable to do that means there are parts - huge parts perhaps?  you can't say for sure - that you don't fully understand.  And if there is the remotest chance that that misunderstanding could be the one small thing that stands between you and eternal suffering or salvation....how could you not be studying every second of every waking moment......

....IF you truly believed.  

And secondly...since you don't have that 100% in-and-out knowledge...

....how DARE you come here and attempt to discuss what you THINK it all means???  How dare you try to argue with us that your flawed understanding is correct - when your lack of knowledge could induce us to follow you down the WRONG pathway?

Phelix, we're talking the equivalent of choosing the one wire out of thousands that will defuse the bomb.  You may have narrowed it down to one out of a dozen or so possibles, but you CANNOT be completely sure given your gaps in our knowledge.  And yet you are content to snip that one wire when it may be another one in that dozen - which says to me you don't really believe in the bomb.

And what's worse, you are ssuring us that the wire you chose is the right one - when you're not in a position to be absolutely sure.  And frankly, that strikes me as an irresponsible and frankly evil thing to do.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 03, 2010, 02:03:01 PM

Edit: Actually I worded that wrong. God isn't a rapist <snip

Ummm...did Mary consent to be impregnated by god, with god?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 03, 2010, 02:05:17 PM

Edit: Actually I worded that wrong. God isn't a rapist <snip

Ummm...did Mary consent to be impregnated by god, with god?

Good point, I forgot about Mary. Ok so god has one rape under his belt. Not nearly as many as some of his biblical followers do, but at least he practices what he preaches.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 03, 2010, 02:33:19 PM
how can you clearly show if someone has read enough to be an authority, i can understand that testing can show cognition and comprehension of a subject, interviews can help show the depth of knowledge over a subject, but how can a few posts on a thread clearly show that I haven't read the bible enough to be an authority.  with over 100 hours of masters level courses in bible books and theology, I have the credentials to be an authority, with 14 years in vocational ministry i have the authority, and by my teaching weekly 3 lessons and sometimes 4, I have the experience to claim that I am an authority on scripture, I am not a leading authority, nor do I like to claim to be anything, I don't like bragging, but I don't know of any other way to argue that i clearly have read enough to be an authority.

It may just be a honest mistake, but I honestly am wondering if phel has actually read the bible, front to back, with nothing "helping" him understand waht God "really" meant.    Claiming you've taken courses, that you've taught weekly lessons (which might be canned, might not).  doesn't indicate that you are an authority but that you've only been in a seat and taught what you've been taught.  I am not an "authority" in geology though I have a BS degree in it.  I simply haven't the above and beyond education that an authority e.g. an expert would have. I have a general education in geology but to be an expert would indicate that I have done independent research and am an acknowledged leading figure in the field.   
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Operator_011 on November 03, 2010, 02:57:36 PM
This thread's lost its way, too, so it also goes to the Pit.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: nogodsforme on November 03, 2010, 03:07:27 PM
Amazing but typical-- a Christian who comes here to lecture us on what to believe about god, life and the universe, but doesn't even have the level of understanding of the bible that we do. Many of us also went to bible study, etc, but decided not to just accept the party line when it didn't make sense. I was the one who asked questions until I was told, "There are some things man was not meant to know..." And that only told me that I had to look for my answers elsewhere.

We are like the annoyingly bright student who asks questions that the teacher can't answer. And who goes out and finds out what they need to know. Most of these religious folks are like the kid who sleeps through the lectures and copies the answers from the back of the book. And then forgets everything after the exam. Which of these is more serious about learning?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 06:04:42 PM
I said that you have rejected God - and I have said that is a choice you make. 

You little twerp. Atheists have NOT rejected god. Yours or any others. Get that through your thick skull. I know it's important to pretend that we are all against you because we want to sin, etc. I know it's important that you pretend we are horrid people unable to accept jc as our good buddy. But as long as you insist on keeping yourself this ignorant about reality, I guess you're just going to have to adapt to sounding stupid about nearly everything you say.

I'm not saying that you are stupid. I'm just saying that you're emulating that condition admirably.


And people say I repeat the same old cliches of Christians. I have never said that Athiests are all against Christians.  Nor have I have I said that Atheists all want to sin. I do not have to pretend that you are horrid people.

It is nice to see you are still sensitive enough about these things to get het up.

From my position athiests have rejected God. I accept that athiests dont accept this and indeed reject its very assertion. What else would they expect to do?  It is my view that athiests are just normal people like the rest of society - no worse and no better than anyone else.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 06:38:05 PM
And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?
....Again I thank you for your conversation.

Sorry, but I cannot do the same, since you seem to be choosing NOT to have a conversation with me.  You are NOT answering my points.

YOU are the one who said "I did not choose God - I could not choose God" - YOU said it was impossible for you to choose god without god's assistance.  So your god had to make the first move - without god doing that (if what you say is correct), you would have been literally unable to choose him.

Now, if you want to go back on that - to say that in all cases, WITHOUT prior action from god, that it IS possible to choose him - then that's fine.  It would, of course, mean you having to change most of the facts and most of the point of your testimony, but it would at least make your words coherent and non-contradictory.  Your choice.

Just to be crystal clear.  You said:
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God"
and you also said
"You reject God.....that is your choice"

THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTORY.  Please explain, if it is impossible to choose to accept god, how in any way it can be a "choice" to reject? 

With me and god, it is accept or reject.  You say it is impossible for me to accept on my own.  So how is having only a single possible option remaining in any way a "choice"?

Ok. Let my try this again. 

I think I see your delemma - it is the notion of choice when there appears to be only one option.

It is my view that ALL men (In Adam) are sinful and therefore dead in sin and blind to God. (No choice)
It is my view that man cannot choose God (unless God reveals himself to him). (No choice)
It is my view in that not choosing God - (because he is dead in sin and blind) man is choosing death. (No choice)

I can see where I am mistaken. Thank you for pointing that out to me. 

Conclusion is that man cannot by themselves choose God. 

Hence sinful man is doomed to death in eternal Hell unless God reveals himself to them. 

But does this mean that man - because he has no choice to choose God - is therefore not responsible for his actions and sinful life?

I say that man is responsible.  Even though man is unable to choose God -does not mean that he is therefore ignorant of what God's standards are.  Eg - most people on this site have not rejected God per se - they dont believe in him - but they cannot say they have not read the Scriptures - of Christianity or the other relevatory books.     They certainly cannot say that they are ignorant of what is expected - true there are varients and versions - Paul puts it this way "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". 

 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 06:41:59 PM
bm

Edit: Even if I know TS soon will have sudden "out of town business to attend to" never to return.
 

Actually in Australia - Victoria we had a long weekend and I took my children camping from Friday until Tuesday. I am self employed - and am quite busy.  I am not always handy to a computer.  and lead quite a busy life. Sometimes I will disapear for weeks - but then I will return.

so thank you for your confidence. ;D
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 06:54:58 PM
You really should stop judging me by your own standards. And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me. lol.

Quite right.  Telling other people what they do, or do not think; what they would, or would not think, is well out of order.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

Oops.  Still, I'll overlook that such a good Christian is incapable of practicing what he preaches to actually address this point.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

You are wrong.  Totally, 100% wrong.  If your god appeared in front of me, and turned me into a goldfish, I'd believe.  Full stop, no question.  Actual direct evidence of a god?  Sure - that would be more than enough for me.  It's a shame that - despite apparently wanting a relationship with all of us and wanting us to be saved - your god doesn't do it.  Knowing everything, he MUST know that that level is all that would convince me....so I can only conclude that (since he doesn't do it), he doesn't WANT me to be convinced.

However, you ARE right in this:
If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it.

I would indeed.  Because, quite frankly, I have already seen a far better "logical proof" of Allah that any I have seen for Christ.  It had holes in it, sure (it was Afadly's guys), but it was still waaay better than any I had seen for Jesus.  But logical proofs - as I am SURE you know - are ONLY as good as the premises and axioms on which they stand.  Which means that logical proofs stand or fall for truth (as opposed to validity) on the evidential bedrocks on which it stands.  And so any "logical proof" you care to bring must be supported on concrete and undeniable evidence.

Got any of that?

Hello


Firstly you are correct I did not practice what I preached.  I apologise to you for doing so. I should not assume to tell you what you think. I certainly do not know you and I cannot read your mind and it embarrasses me that I did so quickly after telling you.

I must say that I do disagree with the notion that you would believe such direct evidence of God appearing before you and turning you into a gold fish - apart from the difficulty of whether a gold fish can remember for more than 3 seconds - you must have a notion of what God is that is quite distinct from something else that has the power to turn people into goldfish.  But before I fall into the trap again of telling you what to think - I state this my own opinion based upon what I believe the bible tells me and my own experience of other people.

As I said above I dont see any need to prove God to you or to anyone. I accept you might have a need - but I dont.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 03, 2010, 07:37:01 PM
Based on your personal experiences, god turning people into fish doesn't sway their beliefs? Mmmkay.

 You got nuthin. No logic, obviously no proof, and likely a fairly shaky belief, methinks.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: rev45 on November 03, 2010, 07:51:41 PM
As I said above I dont see any need to prove God to you or to anyone. I accept you might have a need - but I dont.
Does this mean The Great Commission is only a metaphor or was it only for the disciples of Jesus?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 07:53:27 PM
I’ll have to say that I like how you call the wholesale killing of other Christians a “family spat”.  Wow, I sure dont’ want to live in your family. Rather than exposing even more of your nosense, I’m going to let this stand on its own as a monument to Christians who come here.  

Gee I dont know about you - but there have not been to many people killed in my church recently. Or even in the last century. But I am not denying that  spats between the RC and the Protestant church have resulted in the deaths of many many people over the history of the church. Of course how much can be directly related to church theology or to the cultural acceptance of the time is another question. I say there is a true church - this however does not go by the name of presbyterian or baptist or anglican or charismatic. It does however have the common doctrines of the Trinity - and of the death and resurrection of Christ.  In many places if not most places - the churches of all denominations work together quite closely. Sometimes people get heated up about particular doctrines - eg the recent Anglican split oveer gay marriages has causes serious divisions in that church -

Quote
And this
Quote
Again you have just demonstrated your ignorance wrt to Calvinism.  Presbyterians dont believe that being one of the elect gives them a get out of jail free card.  If you recall your days of TULIP you would recall the fifth point which emphasises perseverence - he who perseveres to the end will be saved. just because someone thinks that they are of the elect does not mean anything - it is by their fruits you will know them.
Yep, I do know TULIP, and I dont’ recall anything like you’ve claimed. I do recall basically this, which is a nice summation
Quote
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip  Sure seems like a get out of jail free card.

I have read your link and note that is said to be written by a calvinist.  My view is that he is attempting to provide a way of communicating the essential truthes of the Reformed theology and does so in an interesting way.  My understanding is that which I have articulated above - using the very words within the TULIP itself - PERSEVERENCE of the SAINTS. The Saints have to persevere - this is the essence of that doctrine and is part of the TULIP which provides the Christian with the humility to know that Salvation belongs to God not to mankind. I dont disagree with the verses used - but in context Jesus also says you will know them by their fruits. The doctrine of election is a doctrine that provides assurance to Christians that they do not have to earn their salvation - but the final doctrines is there to ensure that Christians do not take their own election as a right.  In any event there are many websites and books which teach what I have articulated.

Quote
You claim that Baptists worship with other Christians.  Really? Then why are there Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, etc?  If you’re all one big happy family, why the different buildings?  

We worship with other churches because we accept that we are all Christians and saved by faith in Christ. What is so hard to understand about that? The fact that we use different buildings serves lots of different purposes - firstly within our denominations we have different backgrounds and practices - some baptise in a font some use a baptismal.  Within the parametres of Christian thinking - there is also freedom and liberty. Whilst I may disagree with the arminian doctrine of free will - I have no issue with worshiping God with arminians. When I visit my mother - I always attend at the Baptist Church - and she always attends with me at the Presbyterian church when she visits with me.

Quote
Wow, TS, you’re psychic?  My you must make lots of money on how you can read minds.  Hilarious when you again try to lie about atheists.  I do wonder have you read your bible? You know, the “shall not bear false witness” and Romans 3 where it says that people who think they are lying “for” Christ aren’t welcome at all to God?
 

fair enough - I cannot read your mind and I should not be assuming to know you - but we all use our own experiences. and funnily enough - you reacted in a similar manner to what i expected. I deny that I lied.

Quote
You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.
you answered this with
Quote
I am  just stating what I believe.  You ask a question and I attempt to answer it.
I know. It’s hilarious. You contradict yourself and you think this is okay.  
And of course, when you claim that I “waffle” you first provide no evidence and then when requested you provide this
Quote
And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me.
Ummm, how is this waffling? Do you even know the meaning of the term?  Evidently not, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle?show=1&t=1288363530 because none of the definitions equate to what you have mentioned.  I have made comments based on yours and based on the usual Christian tactics I’ve seen here. I can see how you might take this as thinking your thoughts for you but I did not mean it that way, by the use of the word “usual”.  And I know that people dont’ want to be proven wrong.  But why come to a forum that is more than obvious on what it is and not expect people to try to prove you wrong? And, TS, there is no reason to admit one is wrong if one isn’t. You find something that I’ve been mistaken about and I have no problem admitting it.  I’ve misread things here on the forum, I’ve been off on stats, I’ve unproven claims and when shown I’m wrong, I accept it, apologize and move on.  Can you do the same?  You’ve said that nothing will change your mind, that’s as much admitting that you won’t.  [/quote]

whatever.  waffle is anything that is not directly related to the point. You made lots of assertions about me and you do not know me.    

Quote
I also am amused when you say I should not judge you “by my own standards”.  Really, why not?  My standards are based on facts, my experience, etc.  What else do I have?

Is this site about judging Christians or is it about something else?
 
Quote
I have explained what I thought you meant which is not changing the goalposts.  If I was doing that, I’d ignore you and then proceed to address what I decided to pursue. You see, you decide the “sense” of what you mean after someone questions it.  If you had meant what you have clarified, why not say that in the beginning?  Sense doesn’t always come through a post, TS.  It’s time you realized that.


Why dont you tell me then "what is the goal post here"? let us both be clear.

Quote
I thought I had seen at some point you saying that I could not prove that God doesn’t exist. I may could be wrong and mixed you up with someone else.  My apologies (see not hard to do at all).  And proving that God exists or doesn’t exist is not only “dancing with words”. And no, I don’t “know” that. I know the exact opposite.  It’s the analysis of evidence and of the claims that supposed holy books make.  One can take refuge in the philosophical question of “can we know anything?” but most people are pretty sure they can know that a white-hot piece of metal in their bare hand is real and provable.  

Thank you for your apology. I disagree wrt to proving God exists or not.   Evidence is often interpreted by people to meet with their own biases. Evidence can be repeated and sometimes it cannot. Evidence is what it is - and it can be analysed - but we all know that evidence like statistics is used for the person using the statistics or the evidence. Even under cross examination - the truth does not necessarily come out.

What about love and abstract concepts? A white piece of metal is quite distinct from love or hate or jealousy or faith.  Economics is supposedly a science (social) but its evidence is utilised in many different ways by various fields and philosophies - abstract and concrete - but the evidence means contrary things to different people.

Quote
Here we go again. There is no fact at all.  And you cannot know that I would not believe.  I would believe if I had evidence.  I used to believe and I occasionally direct a thought to God and ask for him to show himself, just like I asked when losing my faith. The reason I don’t believe is that no Christian can present any logical argument, that they can’t present any evidence and that they all disagree on what God “really means”. The commnents you find patronizing are comments with reaons behind them.  They indeed are condescending because of your actions. I have no need to offer respect to you.

I am not asking for respect - lol - as for patronising comments with reasons behind them - sorry I dont buy that. It is too convenient for you to make some comment and then use your "superior" attitude as an excuse. You say you lost your faith - well - that is too bad for you. If the faith was anything like you have attempted to articulate the christian faith is - then I say I am glad you have lost it.  I say that I believe in God - the same God that has for many years been worshipped by many people with different understandings about the preciseness of God.  How can anybody rationally think that any two people will have the same view exactly about God - if God is as he is portrayed in the Scriptures? For someone to say they dont believe because christians have contradicting views about God is in my mind absurd and irrational. As for a logical argument - what would be the purpose of faith then? Faith would lose all meaning. And evidence - oh dear - look at the human for a moment - in my mind this is clear evidence for the existence of God - but because the human can also be clear evidence for the existence of aliens or for no - god etc- this evidence is considered no evidence at all. I say everything is evidence for God -but what does that mean? It means that God has revealed himself to me.  But how do I prove that? by the way I live and the way I act and the way I present myself. but there are many people in the world who are not christians who live good lives? Yes that is true. but to what end? My end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Other people who lead lives to what end? To their own end - or to their own God's end or to no end. That is a significant difference.

Quote
I will ask again, then what is your purpose here?  You started your posts with declaring that your version of Christianity was the right one.  We countered that and showed you your errors. You ignore us. Then you make this claim:  
Quote
My point is not to evangelise you - it never has been. It is not to persuade you that God is real or that the Bible is true. I merely answered a question  and then commented that my belief comes from God and that it is impossible for someone to know God without him revealing himself to them. This entire website is testimony to my belief and confirms it with every word that is written.
Again, we have a circular argument.  You want to claim that this website is “testimony” and “confirms” e.g. proves how right you are, that people can’t have faith if they don’t believe and don’t believe if god refuses them faith.  One of the other possibilities is that your god doesn’t exist and that you are a nut.


I neve started any of my posts saying that my version was correct or the right one. I accept that I imply this -but so does everyone on this site - so nothing is gained in that insight.

I apoligise if i have ignored you. I hope this post goes some way to answering some of your questions. I also do not agree that you demonstrated that you were correct and I was wrong. In one case I accept that I had misunderstood my own view -but i have now addressed that. It may be that i am mad or a nut - but then again I may not be.

I enjoy the discussions on this site and it is always wise to see what other people are saying about oneself.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: tradesecret on November 03, 2010, 07:57:41 PM
As I said above I dont see any need to prove God to you or to anyone. I accept you might have a need - but I dont.
Does this mean The Great Commission is only a metaphor or was it only for the disciples of Jesus?

Teaching people and instructing people and making disciples is part of the great commission. It is for today as well as the past - and it is not a metaphor.

My view is that this is instructing people about obeying God - and making disciples - but God makes the Christian - not I. A disciple is a student and a follower.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 04, 2010, 02:45:12 AM
Conclusion is that man cannot by themselves choose God. 

Hence sinful man is doomed to death in eternal Hell unless God reveals himself to them. 

But does this mean that man - because he has no choice to choose God - is therefore not responsible for his actions and sinful life?

Yes.  It does.  If I am in capable of choosing god, then responsibility lies with the creature that created me in that way.


I say that man is responsible.  Even though man is unable to choose God -does not mean that he is therefore ignorant of what God's standards are.  Eg - most people on this site have not rejected God per se - they dont believe in him - but they cannot say they have not read the Scriptures - of Christianity or the other relevatory books.     They certainly cannot say that they are ignorant of what is expected.

But I CAN'T CHOOSE GOD.  It doesn't matter how much I may know: if I can't choose god then I cannot put it into practice, which makes it irrelevant.

Or are you saying now that if I am somehow able to say "hmmm -I know what this god creature apparently wants, so I'll do it" (WITHOUT this in any way being described as "choosing god"), then that will be sufficient to save me from eternal damnation? 

How can one choose to follow all the precepts and teachings of a particular creature, without in some way "choosing" that creature?  It would be like me following all the policies of the Labour party, without exception, but NOT "choosing Labour" as my political party.  Sorry, but it makes no sense - and is coming across as special pleading to dig yourself out of a logical conclusion that worries you.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 04, 2010, 02:54:13 AM
If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

You are wrong.  Totally, 100% wrong.  If your god appeared in front of me, and turned me into a goldfish, I'd believe.  Full stop, no question.  Actual direct evidence of a god?  Sure - that would be more than enough for me.  
I must say that I do disagree with the notion that you would believe such direct evidence of God appearing before you and turning you into a gold fish - apart from the difficulty of whether a gold fish can remember for more than 3 seconds - you must have a notion of what God is that is quite distinct from something else that has the power to turn people into goldfish. 


The mind boggles.  I was, I confess, presuming that there would be continuity of consciousness (else what would be the point?)....but you honestly think that when confronted with all the thought processes that make me "me" suddenly being in a fish body....of experiencing fins, and gills, and flopping about gasping fro breath....that I would be thinking "well, clearly not god - obviously some perfectly logical explanation for this"....?

I think that - despite your protestations that you don't claim to know what I think - this straightforward denial of my assertion - "oh, you wouldn't" - appears to put an end to any discussion between us.


It's a shame that - despite apparently wanting a relationship with all of us and wanting us to be saved - your god doesn't do it.  Knowing everything, he MUST know that that level is all that would convince me....so I can only conclude that (since he doesn't do it), he doesn't WANT me to be convinced.
As I said above I dont see any need to prove God to you or to anyone. I accept you might have a need - but I dont.

No.  You don't.  But consider what I said above that....the power to convince me, to take the action that he KNOWS is the only action that will lead to my belief.....lies in the hands of your god.

He doesn't take that action.

And I have to consider what that actually means.....ESPECIALLY given your assertion that it is god that makes the choice, and not us.

Your god damns me forever, and there is NOTHING I can do about it....and you keep worshipping it.

Like I said, I think this conversation has nowhere left to go.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 04, 2010, 09:56:07 AM
Gee I dont know about you - but there have not been to many people killed in my church recently. Or even in the last century. But I am not denying that  spats between the RC and the Protestant church have resulted in the deaths of many many people over the history of the church. Of course how much can be directly related to church theology or to the cultural acceptance of the time is another question. I say there is a true church - this however does not go by the name of presbyterian or baptist or anglican or charismatic. It does however have the common doctrines of the Trinity - and of the death and resurrection of Christ.  In many places if not most places - the churches of all denominations work together quite closely. Sometimes people get heated up about particular doctrines - eg the recent Anglican split oveer gay marriages has causes serious divisions in that church –
Great strawman, TS. I knew you wouldn’t disappoint me. So few TrueChristianstm do.  I do love how you just ignore that people were killing each other over religion.  If you don’t think it was, please do show any evidence that it wasn’t directly church related. And, TS, the culture of a people *includes* their religion. They were told by their churches that those “others” were evil.  And even your words show how this works. You “say there is a true church”, just like they all did. You want your version to be the “right” one, and all others are “wrong”.  How typical. I have yet to see that in “most” places that churches work together.  In my town, we have a mission that helps people. Why is it that they have to sent out appeal after appeal to the entire community *if* churches work together.  Why does no one seem to know to help these people, all of those good church going Christians?  And I know it’s the same in most communities.  We have each little church with its fancy building, its own worship service, its own chicken barbeque to raise money, when they could save so much in just economies of scale it is sickening. I grew up in western PA, where the RCC is *still* looked upon with suspicion.  My church broke up because of differences between “good Christians”.  I’m sorry, TS, but with my evidence and your unsupported claims, I have little reason to believe you.   
Quote
I have read your link and note that is said to be written by a calvinist.  My view is that he is attempting to provide a way of communicating the essential truthes of the Reformed theology and does so in an interesting way.  My understanding is that which I have articulated above - using the very words within the TULIP itself - PERSEVERENCE of the SAINTS. The Saints have to persevere - this is the essence of that doctrine and is part of the TULIP which provides the Christian with the humility to know that Salvation belongs to God not to mankind. I dont disagree with the verses used - but in context Jesus also says you will know them by their fruits. The doctrine of election is a doctrine that provides assurance to Christians that they do not have to earn their salvation - but the final doctrines is there to ensure that Christians do not take their own election as a right.  In any event there are many websites and books which teach what I have articulated.
I do love when you have decided that you know better than some other Christian about what God “really meant”.  Just hilarious.  So, TS, can one lose one’s salvation?  Simple yes or no question. It seems no from what you’ve said. So perseverance has little to do with anything and indeed it is a “get out of jail free card” if *nothing* can make you get in jail, not even if you stopped being “fruitful”.  And TS, I know you’d have no idea that I was an atheist by my “fruits” e.g good actions, right?, unless I told you directly I was an atheist.  So, this seems to be a rather untenable claim.
Quote
We worship with other churches because we accept that we are all Christians and saved by faith in Christ. What is so hard to understand about that? The fact that we use different buildings serves lots of different purposes - firstly within our denominations we have different backgrounds and practices - some baptise in a font some use a baptismal.  Within the parametres of Christian thinking - there is also freedom and liberty. Whilst I may disagree with the arminian doctrine of free will - I have no issue with worshiping God with arminians. When I visit my mother - I always attend at the Baptist Church - and she always attends with me at the Presbyterian church when she visits with me.
TS, you’ve claimed that Baptists worship with other Christians. I asked why are there different churches then. I’m asking why is there no “true” church, as you’ve claimed exists, that all of you go to. Why are there half-empty churches in many towns, each clinging to their sect as if they were the only ones? Why not go to one all together?  Yes, you do have different practices.  You have different beliefs that indicate how right you are with your god.  Baptism is indeed a good example. Is it from a font or from a pool?  Is it adult or infant?  And I love the idea that there is “freedom and liberty” in the parameters of “Christain thinking” when you all say the other is “wrong” in what they do.  And you say that you have no problem with worshipping with Arminians but you disagree with one of their basic tenents.  Are you worshipping with them, TS, sharing the same beliefs and practices, or are you in the
Quote
fair enough - I cannot read your mind and I should not be assuming to know you - but we all use our own experiences. and funnily enough - you reacted in a similar manner to what i expected. I deny that I lied.
If you cannot read my mind and you have never met me, but made claims about me, claims that you could not know to be true other than your assumptions, I find that if not a outright lie, a really badly thought out assumption.  And wow, I’m reacting in a offended manner over your nonsense. Golly.  You make a claim like this:
Quote
Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist.
A demonstrably false statement.  Then you, when called on it say
Quote
I know that atheists are in denial and they get all sensitive about this partiuclar issue.
So you claim you “know” something about all atheists.  If you didn’t know, that seems to be misinformation told about a group of people, e.g. false witnessing. 
Quote
whatever.  waffle is anything that is not directly related to the point. You made lots of assertions about me and you do not know me.
Then when I call on you to show that I was waffling, things suddenly become beside the point.  Thanks for not addressing your claims and my points.   
Quote
Is this site about judging Christians or is it about something else?
This site is for judging what Christians claim. You have been welcomed here to discuss your beliefs.  It’s a discussion forum.  It is not “preach to me and I’ll accept whatever you say with no consideration”. What else would you like to insinuate it is? It also would be nice if you would answer a question rather than ignoring it.

And another question ignoring my response.  I have told you what I thought you meant right here http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=16191.msg365649#msg365649 .  I can show you what moving the goalposts means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts 

Quote
Thank you for your apology. I disagree wrt to proving God exists or not.   Evidence is often interpreted by people to meet with their own biases. Evidence can be repeated and sometimes it cannot. Evidence is what it is - and it can be analysed - but we all know that evidence like statistics is used for the person using the statistics or the evidence. Even under cross examination - the truth does not necessarily come out.
yes, evidence can be interpreted to meet biases. But not all of the time and not only people who disagree with you.  Evidence should be able to be repeated if it is used as evidence. For example, evidence of a roberry needs evidence that is logical and known to have happened before and can so again. Claiming that a unicorn robbed me and flew off into the sky is not the same as saying I was robbed by a young woman with a .38 on the corner of 4th and Main. All evidence that theist have ever presented to me has been not been even the loosest definition of evidence. It is feelings, coincidence (attributable to *any* god btw), and stories that have nothing supporting them.  Why should I believe your claims when you dont’ believe the claims of another theist and you share the exact same lack of evidence for them. 

Quote
What about love and abstract concepts? A white piece of metal is quite distinct from love or hate or jealousy or faith.  Economics is supposedly a science (social) but its evidence is utilised in many different ways by various fields and philosophies - abstract and concrete - but the evidence means contrary things to different people.
I do feel sorry for you if you have no evidence anyone loves you.  That’s rather sad.  I have plenty of evidence of hate, jealousy, love, passion, and faith. Yep, because faith causes people to do things, evidence.  There is no similar evidence for your god.  And I agree economics can be squirrely.  People can claim evidence as supporting them.  But again, not always.  You yourself constantly claim “facts” supported by evidence and by your own argument, you could be totally wrong.
Quote
I am not asking for respect - lol - as for patronising comments with reasons behind them - sorry I dont buy that. It is too convenient for you to make some comment and then use your "superior" attitude as an excuse.
thanks for another baseless claim.
Quote
You say you lost your faith - well - that is too bad for you. If the faith was anything like you have attempted to articulate the christian faith is - then I say I am glad you have lost it.
aw, TS, nice attempt at the True Scotsman fallacy.
Quote
I say that I believe in God - the same God that has for many years been worshipped by many people with different understandings about the preciseness of God.  How can anybody rationally think that any two people will have the same view exactly about God - if God is as he is portrayed in the Scriptures? For someone to say they dont believe because christians have contradicting views about God is in my mind absurd and irrational.
then so much for anything in the scriptures being accurate. Again, you depower your god so you can have an excuse. Why can’t got get his message through, TS?
Quote
As for a logical argument - what would be the purpose of faith then? Faith would lose all meaning.
that wasn’t a problem with God in the OT and NT.
Quote
And evidence - oh dear - look at the human for a moment - in my mind this is clear evidence for the existence of God - but because the human can also be clear evidence for the existence of aliens or for no - god etc- this evidence is considered no evidence at all. I say everything is evidence for God -but what does that mean? It means that God has revealed himself to me.  But how do I prove that? by the way I live and the way I act and the way I present myself. but there are many people in the world who are not christians who live good lives? Yes that is true. but to what end? My end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Other people who lead lives to what end? To their own end - or to their own God's end or to no end. That is a significant difference.
all things all theists no matter what god they worship claim. Everything is evidence for Allah, Vishnu, the Great Spirit.  I live in the “right” way because of Allah, Vishnu, the Great Spirit.  I do love how you devalue all of the good that people do so you can feel special.  I live a good life because I care about the world and my fellow living beings. I care. I don’t expect a reward from a magical being in the sky.  I don’t believe that any being worth worshipping *needs* to be worshipped or *needs* glory.
Quote
I neve started any of my posts saying that my version was correct or the right one. I accept that I imply this -but so does everyone on this site - so nothing is gained in that insight.
oh this is rich. Yes, you do “imply” this. What is gained by this insight is that I support my claims.  You do not.  You have decided that you are right and with no evidence of such a thing.   

Quote
I apoligise if i have ignored you. I hope this post goes some way to answering some of your questions. I also do not agree that you demonstrated that you were correct and I was wrong. In one case I accept that I had misunderstood my own view -but i have now addressed that. It may be that i am mad or a nut - but then again I may not be.
Until you can demonstrate me wrong, I do not care what you agree about.  Simple as that. And until you have any evidence that you are not just one more theist with the same nonsense, you are just playing with Pascal’s wager. And that is a losing one.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 10:32:28 AM
What about the parts that clearly say that god simply chooses who he wants to go heaven and damns everyone else, regardless of what they've done in their lives?

That discussion has no end.  There are scriptures that can't be argued that says God has chosen and elected, and there are scriptures that says, all who call on the name of the Lord, anyone who believes.  This discussion has become a major source of division in churches today.  For me, I don't struggle with it, because I believe God chose to forgive everyone, example, the cross of Jesus, taking the sins of the whole world, but because God didn't make us robots, we can either take the forgiveness or leave it.  Therefore those who are chosen but refuse, don't get in.  The idea that God elects and saves regardless of freewill, means you have to take out the big sharpie and mark out verses, the idea that God didn't choose us or elect the evangelical church also means you have to take out some scripture.  And the bible says you can't do that so, either its all bogus, or there is another understanding that I may not possess.  You say that is conveniant, but isn't it convenient when we admit we don't have it all figured out whether its evolution, big bang, microbiology or whatever? 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 10:37:05 AM
Yes, but your original statement was...
Quote from:  Phelix22
I am not disciplining her for sin, but for bad behavior.

So how do you determine what is sin and what is bad behaviour, since they are both exactly the same thing?

one deals with the present, one deals with the eternal.  She has a responsibility to me her father, and to God.  Her responsibility to me, pick up the dirty clothes, her responsibility to God, obey her father and mother.  If she doesn't pick up the clothes she gets punished, if she disobeys her parents it is a sin which has eternal consequences if unforgiven.  Two realms.  One act, but responsible in two different ways.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 10:43:22 AM

It also teaches to rape women, to stone people to death, to amputate people, to support slavery, to hate homosexuals.

Good stuff you follow there.  I find your approach of trying to defend such a book to be morally repugnant.


Why do you do that?
  I find your claims to be trumped up and a misrepresentation of the bible.  It doesn't teach to hate anyone, it doesn't teach to rape anyone.  If you have read the whole book and can say definitively you believe it teaches that, then you show a real lack of intelligence which I am sure you have.  As it is you sound like most intellectuals who don't believe in God who see the bible as a tool for Christians and an equal tool for skeptics to punch holes in what Christians believe, you can take your selected verse here and there and make the bible to say what you want, but to do so, means you simply haven't evaluated the entire text.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 04, 2010, 10:51:03 AM
What about the parts that clearly say that god simply chooses who he wants to go heaven and damns everyone else, regardless of what they've done in their lives?

That discussion has no end.  There are scriptures that can't be argued that says God has chosen and elected, and there are scriptures that says, all who call on the name of the Lord, anyone who believes.  This discussion has become a major source of division in churches today.  For me, I don't struggle with it, because I believe God chose to forgive everyone, example, the cross of Jesus, taking the sins of the whole world, but because God didn't make us robots, we can either take the forgiveness or leave it.  Therefore those who are chosen but refuse, don't get in.  The idea that God elects and saves regardless of freewill, means you have to take out the big sharpie and mark out verses, the idea that God didn't choose us or elect the evangelical church also means you have to take out some scripture.  And the bible says you can't do that so, either its all bogus, or there is another understanding that I may not possess.  You say that is conveniant, but isn't it convenient when we admit we don't have it all figured out whether its evolution, big bang, microbiology or whatever? 

As has been pointed out, if you don't know then you have no business making claims. If your only response is 'because I believe' then nothing you say about the subject has value. If you admit that you don't understand it, then you can't make any claim about anything regarding it. Or you can, but it certainly doesn't make you look very good or very intelligent.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 10:56:49 AM
See, this is more logical contradiction that many of us have a problem with. Xians pick and choose, and the laws get modified, or thrown out entirely over time. It's nonsensical. Can you explain it to me? Can you explain how you cannot disregard the law, but you can disregard the law? Why? If it's all about faith in jesus (which I'm pretty sure the bible contradicts), why follow any of the laws?

Because of Scriptures like: Matt 5:18-19 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

acts 13:38-39  38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

Eph 2:7-9 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

A salvation based on what we can do to get to heaven means that there is someway we can earn it.  If that were true, we wouldn't need God, we wouldn't need Jesus, and Jesus would not have had to die.  If Jesus didn't have to die, then God was a liar and the whole thing is bogus.  But the scriptures teach that Jesus did what he did so that those who believe can be saved.  

So to be specific, we can't throw out the OT Law, but we are free from having to be perfect, because the cross covers every violation.  So we try, but our salvation doesn't depend on our ability to succeed.  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 04, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
That discussion has no end.  There are scriptures that can't be argued that says God has chosen and elected, and there are scriptures that says, all who call on the name of the Lord, anyone who believes.  This discussion has become a major source of division in churches today.  For me, I don't struggle with it, because I believe God chose to forgive everyone, example, the cross of Jesus, taking the sins of the whole world, but because God didn't make us robots, we can either take the forgiveness or leave it.  Therefore those who are chosen but refuse, don't get in.  The idea that God elects and saves regardless of freewill, means you have to take out the big sharpie and mark out verses, the idea that God didn't choose us or elect the evangelical church also means you have to take out some scripture.And the bible says you can't do that so, either its all bogus, or there is another understanding that I may not possess.

I find it rather amusing that you do exactly what other Christians do, but when they do it they are wrong. 
Quote
You say that is conveniant, but isn't it convenient when we admit we don't have it all figured out whether its evolution, big bang, microbiology or whatever? 
No since people are still trying to figure out evolutionary theory, the BB, etc.  How many of you are questioning this religion/faith/relationship and not deciding that you already know the answer?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 11:52:32 AM
Oh goodie.  Magic decoder ring battle.  My favourite.


So how do you determine what is sin and what is bad behaviour, since they are both exactly the same thing?

one deals with the present, one deals with the eternal.  She has a responsibility to me her father, and to God.  Her responsibility to me, pick up the dirty clothes, her responsibility to God, obey her father and mother.  If she doesn't pick up the clothes she gets punished, if she disobeys her parents it is a sin which has eternal consequences if unforgiven.  Two realms.  One act, but responsible in two different ways.
So you say.  However, you do not acknowledge that bad behaviour is only bad behaviour because that's what god has defined as bad behaviour.  It has nothing to do with different "realms".

The only reason you are punishing your kids in this context is because god has told you that 'X' or 'Y' behaviour is bad.  Anyone who does anything that is contrary to god's word has sinned.  So, you are, in effect, merely punishing her (under god's orders) for sinning against HIM, not you.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Dante on November 04, 2010, 11:58:00 AM
So to be specific, we can't throw out the OT Law, but we are free from having to be perfect, because the cross covers every violation.  So we try, but our salvation doesn't depend on our ability to succeed.  

Giant loophole! Love it! Christianity was made for people who don't really believe. It's perfect.

Nice talking to you, phelix. I really do appreciate your responses, but I'm outta this thread, if you dont mind.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Alzael on November 04, 2010, 12:17:49 PM
^^^^ I like how he says that he doesn't bother to think about whether or not he has to behave in a certain way, or whether god will simply choose people. I'd say that alone shows that he doesn't actually believe. It doesn't matter what the bible says, because he believes. Unless the bible agrees with him, then it's important. The interesting thing is that he says that if god chooses us regardless of free will, you have to take a sharpie and mark out pieces of the bible. But free will means that you have to mark out about three times as much of the bible, in fact you pretty much have to alter most of it. This is just sad.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 12:18:01 PM
Magic decoder ring battle again.  Awesome.


I find your claims to be trumped up and a misrepresentation of the bible.
The only way you could think that is if MY representation of the bible differs or challenges yours.  Or, in other words, if my interpretation differs or challenges yours.

However, since you are no more qualified to interpret scripture than I am, I say that my interpretation stands in as good stead as yours does.

Quote
It doesn't teach to hate anyone, it doesn't teach to rape anyone.
I disagree.  Here’s why:

Quote
Judges 21:10-24

 10 So the assembly sent 12,000 of their best warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy[a] all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found 400 young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

13 The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the remaining people of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. 14 Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the 400 women of Jabesh-gilead who had been spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them.

15 The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the Lord had made this gap among the tribes of Israel. 16 So the elders of the assembly asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? 17 There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel is not wiped out. 18 But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”

19 Then they thought of the annual festival of the Lord held in Shiloh, south of Lebonah and north of Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. 20 They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. 21 When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! 22 And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage.’”

23 So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. Each man caught one of the women as she danced in the celebration and carried her off to be his wife. They returned to their own land, and they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.

24 Then the people of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.


 

Quote
Numbers 31:7-18

7 They attacked Midian as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. 8 All five of the Midianite kings—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba—died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.

 9 Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. 11 After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, 12 they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle.

 15 “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. 16 “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. 17 So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. 18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.




Quote
Deuteronomy 20:10-14

 10 “As you approach a town to attack it, you must first offer its people terms for peace. 11 If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. 12 But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. 13 When the Lord your God hands the town over to you, use your swords to kill every man in the town. 14 But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.

 

Quote
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.[a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

  

Quote
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
 
 23"(A)If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,

 24then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.


 

Quote
2 Samuel 12:11-14

 11"Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; (A)I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.

 12'Indeed (B)you did it secretly, but (C)I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"

 13Then David said to Nathan, "(D)I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has (E)taken away your sin; you shall not die.

 14"However, because by this deed you have (F)given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."




Quote
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

 
Domestic Relations
 10"When you go out to battle against your enemies, and (A)the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,

 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,

 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall (B)shave her head and trim her nails.

 13"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and (C)mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

 14"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have (D)humbled her.
 
 

Quote
Judges 5:30


 30'(A)Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil?
 A maiden, two maidens for every warrior;
 To Sisera a spoil of dyed work,
 A spoil of dyed work embroidered,
 Dyed work of double embroidery on the neck of the spoiler?'

 

Quote
Exodus 21:7-1

 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

 


Quote
Zechariah 14:1-2

God Will Battle Jerusalem's Foes
 1Behold, a (A)day is coming for the LORD when (B)the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.

 2For I will (C)gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the (D)houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.



So, as you will see form the above passages, the bible clearly does teach us to rape women and to hate people, and gives us the context in which it can be done.  Lots of people will read that and believe it's ok to rape women and take them as property.  And, in fact, THEY DO, all over the world!


Quote
If you have read the whole book and can say definitively you believe it teaches that, then you show a real lack of intelligence which I am sure you have.
Even if I have read all the bible, ten times, it still comes down to my interpretation of the text.

Quote
As it is you sound like most intellectuals who don't believe in God who see the bible as a tool for Christians and an equal tool for skeptics to punch holes in what Christians believe, you can take your selected verse here and there and make the bible to say what you want, but to do so, means you simply haven't evaluated the entire text.
But that is exactly what you've been doing.  You're cherry-picking biblical text and making it out like your interpretation of thse parts is correct.


Why should anyone believe that YOU are the authority on biblical interpretation?  I say that I have a better understanding than you do.

You say it doesn't teach only goodness.  I agree.  It also teaches a lot of evil stuff too.  Just look above.  None of that is good, it's all bad.

That's the kind of thing your live your life by.  However, lots of us here can show that you cherry-pick the best bits and dismiss the rest by way of claiming that it shouldn't be interpreted in a manner that you find uncomfortable.


:)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 12:21:14 PM
PP, I'm sorry but I think I'm going to have to turn you down and ask Velkyn to marry me instead.
Get away.  She's my online girlfriend.  Mine I tell you.  Grrrr.    >:( ;D  ;)
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 12:32:17 PM
In addition to what Velkyn said, I would also add that there are many ways listed in the bible in which one is saved. And most of them require more than just believing in Cosmic Sugar Daddy.

"Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17
 How is this another way of being saved.  It appears to say that works validates faith.  OR gives proof, or at the least, if you have faith you must have works.  If you read the rest of the chapter it seems to say that real faith will not be absent of good works.

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Matthew 16:27
 I believe this to be congruent with the judgement in Revelation the white throne judgement, where believers will receive the rewards they have been storing up by their good deeds. Not another way of salvation.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" James 2:14
or "what use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?  Can THAT faith save him?"  NASB  

"When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul." Ezekiel 18:27
or save is life.  NASB but the problem we seem to have here, is one we aren't arguing the original language but King James version of interpretation from Greek Aramaic and Hebrew to the Lockman Foundation along with both British and American Scholarship who gave us the ASV.  By incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English the NASB was formed.  But as for this verse, and the James 2 passage, and many others, how do they fit into the context of the entire bible.  Do they stand alone as ways of salvation or is this part of the bigger picture.  If the OT and NT is truly God's word then you have to put it all together and not just take one out and let it stand alone.

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. " Matthew 7:24
Don't see the problem here, Jesus is saying you must act on his words, which in vs 13 said enter through the narrow gate, that is, faith in Jesus.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48
where is this passage linked to salvation?


Ooooh, and while we're at it how about guessing how many verses say that we have no control over whether we end up in hell or not and god just chooses who he wants to go hell or heaven. Oops, sorry, I used that word 'guess' again.
 Do you find mochery amusing.  Has it helped you in some significant way.  There are a few that say it is by faith, there are a few that say faith with works, there are a few that say to ask him for living water.  What did Jesus say, what did the apostles teach.  What is the consistant line of thought through out the new testament?  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 04, 2010, 12:45:28 PM
I find that these verses are some better ones on how one is saved and it doesn't have to do with "faith" or "grace".

Matthew 25:31-46  The context seems very clear.  Do good and you are a sheep. 

phelix, how are we to know the "right" version of the Bible?  Why does God allow other versions to exist if any are mistaken as you seem to be claiming? 

and I belive that Al was indicating that by simply being "perfect" one can be saved. 
Quote
Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Evidently Jesus thinks people can be perfect if they follow hiim and his father's instructions.  This seems to go against the usual claims of "dirty rags" that many Christians love to mention.

You ask "What is the consistant line of thought through out the new testament?" The problem is that there isn't one.  WE have JC, we have Paul's claims, etc.  They often don't match.  Even JC isn't consistent. it takes constant assumptions by Christians to try to make them consistent, claiming that they know what God must have really meant. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
  However, you do not acknowledge that bad behaviour is only bad behaviour because that's what god has defined as bad behaviour.  It has nothing to do with different "realms".

The only reason you are punishing your kids in this context is because god has told you that 'X' or 'Y' behaviour is bad.  Anyone who does anything that is contrary to god's word has sinned.  So, you are, in effect, merely punishing her (under god's orders) for sinning against HIM, not you.


I disagree, I am punishing them for not doing what I asked them.  I decide what is good behavior, the bible says nothing about breaking dishes, nor does God, but if she breaks our fine china, she is getting some discipline.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 02:06:09 PM
You ask "What is the consistant line of thought through out the new testament?" The problem is that there isn't one.  WE have JC, we have Paul's claims, etc.  They often don't match.  Even JC isn't consistent. it takes constant assumptions by Christians to try to make them consistent, claiming that they know what God must have really meant. 

yeah, in science its called collecting the data, and forming a theory.  In doctrine you call it deceitful, lying, and convenient.  You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 04, 2010, 02:10:04 PM
You ask "What is the consistant line of thought through out the new testament?" The problem is that there isn't one.  WE have JC, we have Paul's claims, etc.  They often don't match.  Even JC isn't consistent. it takes constant assumptions by Christians to try to make them consistent, claiming that they know what God must have really meant. 

yeah, in science its called collecting the data, and forming a theory.  In doctrine you call it deceitful, lying, and convenient.  You can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately for you, science considers both the data for and against the hypothesis. If there is evidence against the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.  I've yet to see that with theists. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 02:21:12 PM
I disagree, I am punishing them for not doing what I asked them.  I decide what is good behavior, the bible says nothing about breaking dishes, nor does God, but if she breaks our fine china, she is getting some discipline.
And who's rule is it that says that not doing what your parents ask is bad...

Yours or god's?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 04, 2010, 02:52:49 PM
You say that is conveniant, but isn't it convenient when we admit we don't have it all figured out whether its evolution, big bang, microbiology or whatever? 

Here is the thing, phelix.  When churchies say "I don't know" or "it's a mystery", it is intended to be the end of the conversation.  There is always that unspoken baggage attached when those words are uttered. 

Where did god come from? 
I don't know (and I don't care, so shut up about it already, these questions make me very uncomfortable).

But with science, "I don't know" is the beginning of the search for an explanation. When science people say it, it always has that unspoken promise and excitement.

Where did the universe come from?
I don't know (but let's look into it and wouldn't it be cool to find out?)

see the difference?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 03:04:46 PM
I disagree.  Here’s why:

Judges 21:10-24
yeah I read it and all around it, I couldn't find where God was telling them to do so, I saw the part where there was no king and everyone did what was right in their own eyes.  I see this as documenting what they did, not what they were commanded to do.  Therefore this isn't a case of the bible teaching to kill women and children.

 

 
Numbers 31:7-18
 
Numbers 31:4 tells us they did this because they were executing the Lord's vengeance on Midian.  Not that it is a good human practice to be a people who rape and kill innocent children.



Deuteronomy 20:10-14
again, Deut. 20:18 explains that they were to do this because the people were teaching the Isrealites to do detestable things which they did for their gods.  causing Israel to sin against God.  
 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

How does this support this behavior.  It says, "because he violated her", is it not a widely accepted belief that violations are disobeying the rules?

  

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
 
Sounds like adultery.  Sounds like immediate justice.  Sounds like God was telling them remove wickedness from you.  Doesn't sound like the bible teaching adultery or murder.  We don't call it murder when someone receives capitol punishment.  

 

2 Samuel 12:11-14
Ok.  This is the story of Nathan confronting David about his sin.  He uses a parable to call david out for murder and adultery.  The judgement you have selected from the quote is Nathans reply to David judgement on the parable.  "the child aslo...shall surely die"  Everyone dies.  The consequences of sin is death the bible says here, consistent with what Romans 6:23, consistent with the fall of Adam and Eve.



Judges 5:30 


 30'(A)Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil?
 A maiden, two maidens for every warrior;
 To Sisera a spoil of dyed work,
 A spoil of dyed work embroidered,
 Dyed work of double embroidery on the neck of the spoiler?'


Is this not a song Deborah and Barak.  Not a command from the Lord, nor a teaching.
 

Exodus 21:7-1

 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

I have never argued against the bible teaching slavery, but I do contend that it argues for the human rights of everyone including the lsaves, as seen here and many other places.  If everyone is treated with fairness, dignity and respect, would slavery carry with it the negative connotation it does in today's society.

 


Zechariah 14:1-2

God Will Battle Jerusalem's Foes
 1Behold, a (A)day is coming for the LORD when (B)the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.

 2For I will (C)gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the (D)houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.
Is this a teaching or a warning, is it a prediction or a promise?


So, as you will see form the above passages, the bible clearly does teach us to rape women and to hate people, and gives us the context in which it can be done.  Lots of people will read that and believe it's ok to rape women and take them as property.  And, in fact, THEY DO, all over the world!


  However, lots of us here can show that you cherry-pick the best bits and dismiss the rest by way of claiming that it shouldn't be interpreted in a manner that you find uncomfortable.


:)


If I said, don't count those scriptures as biblical or of God, if I tried to remove those texts from the discussion, then you would be right in saying I dismiss the rest, but I bring up what I think is pertinent to the conversation as do you.  You want to point out slavery rape and murder, I want to point out forgiveness, grace, and mercy.  
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 03:28:02 PM
Mmm hmm.  But the thing is, Phelix, is that all those verses I quoted clearly teach men to rape women and kill people, and under what circumstances.  

It's just that you're not reading or seeing them as teachings.  You're choosing to see them as stories, or as songs, or as examples of what not to do.

However, they're clearly teachings.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 03:31:43 PM
You say that is conveniant, but isn't it convenient when we admit we don't have it all figured out whether its evolution, big bang, microbiology or whatever? 

see the difference?
I do.  You make complete sense, the great thing about science is, we can always explore, investigate and there is always more data to evalutate, for the Christian, revelation is closed.  1000 years from now, we won't have the bible plus anything, to give us more insight into God's word, his plan, or anything.  So in a sense we are limited in our resources, we are limited in our understanding, and there is a point where we uncover as much of the mystery as we can, and we have to leave the rest in the hands of faith.  I also realize what an impossibility that is for an athiest and scientists.  But how many athiests fully comprehend the combustion engine, yet each day they sit on gallons of highly explosive gas and put a spark to it by the turn of the key, and yet have faith that it will do what it is supposed to do, and not fully comprehend it. So in a way, I wish I could go further than I can with some of the debates, most of those in this forum have already explored to the very end each area and therefore continue to be bored with Christians who come here, but at the same time, they stay and they debate.  And they ask questions like "Do they really believe?"
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 03:36:13 PM
However, they're clearly teachings.
clearly...I don't think so.  if it were clearly, we wouldn't be so divided on the issue, and I am pretty sure it isn't just you and I divided on such an issue.  Does our Nation teach slavery?  Does our history classes teach children that slavery is ok?  it is in their text books.  Based on your claim, it is in there, whether it is documenting events or not, it is in there, therefore it is a teaching.  I don't see why all followers of your logic don't leave America immediately unless they agree that slavery is good.  Not really, but do you see what I mean.  Just because it is written down doesn't make it a teaching anymore than "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die" is a biblical teaching.  Although Solomon did say something like that in Ecclesiastes. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 03:37:47 PM
I disagree, I am punishing them for not doing what I asked them.  I decide what is good behavior, the bible says nothing about breaking dishes, nor does God, but if she breaks our fine china, she is getting some discipline.
And who's rule is it that says that not doing what your parents ask is bad...

Yours or god's?

That is God's rule. 

Who's rule is it that says breaking the fine china will get you a spanking?

Is there anywhere in the bible or Christian teaching that will support such a rule?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 04, 2010, 03:41:34 PM

phelix, how are we to know the "right" version of the Bible?  Why does God allow other versions to exist if any are mistaken as you seem to be claiming? 
  I didn't say king james was wrong or that NASB was right, I just pointed out that on some of the verses listed there were inconsistencies in translation.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 03:44:40 PM
That is God's rule. 

Exactly.  So if she's being punished for not doing what you say, you're punishing her for sinning.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 04, 2010, 03:46:14 PM
I didn't say king james was wrong or that NASB was right, I just pointed out that on some of the verses listed there were inconsistencies in translation.
But if there are inconsistencies in translation between one bible and another, one must be correct and one must be wrong.  Or both could be wrong.  How are we to know which one is correct, or if either of them are correct?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 04, 2010, 04:32:57 PM
Numbers 31:4 tells us they did this because they were executing the Lord's vengeance on Midian.  Not that it is a good human practice to be a people who rape and kill innocent children.

So you worship a god - an allegedly omnimax god - that takes revenge on an entire group of people by having another group of people kill men, women and children and rape young women?  My first question is, what is wrong with you?  My second question is why would an allegedly omnimax god, one that flooded the whole world and sent plagues on Egypt to get revenge, use the hebrews as its proxy?  Do you think the hebrews liked doing those things?  Did they want to be a tool of this god?  But how do you think they felt about the Babylonians being tools of Marduk when the temple was destroyed?  Kind of sucks being on the other end of that stick, huh?

It seems to me you have not considered some very important moral questions about this yhwh you worship.



again, Deut. 20:18 explains that they were to do this because the people were teaching the Isrealites to do detestable things which they did for their gods.  causing Israel to sin against God.  

The Midianites were causing the hebrews to sin?  You realize you are literally blaming the rape victim for being raped? 
 

How does this support this behavior.  It says, "because he violated her", is it not a widely accepted belief that violations are disobeying the rules?

That is a stretch.  Violating a person is a common polite euphemism for "rape".

If everyone is treated with fairness, dignity and respect, would slavery carry with it the negative connotation it does in today's society.

Your premise is preposterous.  Owning people as property is the polar opposite of treating them with fairness, dignity and respect.  It is the denial of those things.  It is a contradiction in terms to say you treat your slave fairly, respectfully and with dignity. 

Your moral compass is fucked, dude.  Quit defending these obviously immoral ideas and acts.  Just come out and admit this shit appals you because it is appalling.

 


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 05, 2010, 08:24:10 AM

phelix, how are we to know the "right" version of the Bible?  Why does God allow other versions to exist if any are mistaken as you seem to be claiming?  
 I didn't say king james was wrong or that NASB was right, I just pointed out that on some of the verses listed there were inconsistencies in translation.

So, there are inconsistencies in your supposed "holy" book. IF there are "inconsistencies" that you declare as such, then you obviously think you know which bible has the "right" interpretation.  So, again, which is the right bible, phelix?  And why can't your god prevent its message from being corrupted.

And speaking of corruption, why is your god no different from any other bronze age god in being uselessly violent and needing to use evil acts constantly in supposedly getting its will done?

Slavery has the meaning it does because of what it is.  I love how Christians are so desperate to excuse their god that they will say ANYTHING to do it.  Excuse slavery, blame rape victims, declare that children deserve to die horribly, declare that people who have no control over their situation should be just as much punished as those who do, etc.  The absolute moral bankruptcy in so many theists, especially Christians, is sickening and makes me wonder how humanity has gotten as far as it has.  IMO, the answer to that is that we, slowly but surely, are leaving such primitive superstitions behind. It's just too bad we can't do it faster.

EDIT: and I do notice that you ignored my post #325 when it's rather sad that you are quite a hypocrite and have no idea, as usual of what you speak.  Not suprising at all.  I do love forums because you can always see what people have done.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: lectricpharaoh on November 07, 2010, 07:30:11 AM
Warning: long posts (I had to split it; it was too long) ahead.  I was absent from the forum for a time, and am replying to a lot here.  And yes, I know tbright is in the ER, but hey- maybe he'll pull off a miracle.

You don't like His justice - oh well. He didn't ask your opinion. It's His creation, and He demands obedience and faithfulness. Why is that so hard to ask? I'm sure as a parent you require the same thing.
I'm not a parent, but if I were, I wouldn't expect absolute blind obedience and faith, and punish any shortcoming with death and/or torture.  I do have a cat, and when she misbehaves, I scold her.  I don't punch or slap her.  I don't burn her.  I don't gather the people of my community to throw stones at her until she's dead.  Then again, I don't have the 'perfect morality' that you Christian types possess.

Also, capitalizing every pronoun in reference to your deity (ie, 'He' instead of 'he') just makes you look silly.  Pronouns are not proper names, and do not need capitalization (except at sentence beginnings).

For tbright's opinion of this forum, visit here...

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=13213
The most amusing part of his post there is how he warns his fellow Christians to keep away, then posts the URLs for one of the videos, for the main page, and for one of his threads here in the forum.

He commanded you to worship Him. Either you will do that with a loving heart (as a child loves a parent) or you won't. But either way, you will do it. I promise you.

It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "
Romans 14:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:11&version=NIV)
In case you haven't figured it out, just because something is written (in the Bible or elsewhere) doesn't necessarily make it so.  The Bible also has God telling Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will surely die that day, and then the Bible goes on to show he didn't die that day.  Thus, either the Bible is WRONG, or God is a PROVEN LIAR.

My money is on the former.  The Bible is wrong in many instances because it is just a collection of the laws, rituals, and superstitions of a primitive tribe.

A child is commanded to Honor his/her Father and Mother. HOWEVER, if anyone ever attempts to take advantage of this honor by leading someone into sin (for example) or by contradicting God's Holy Word, then the child would have a first allegience to God rather than his/her parents. The first commandment is first for a reason. Honoring parents is number five.
By your logic, if your mother told you to commit murder, you should do it- after all, 'thou shalt not kill' comes after 'honor thy father and thy mother', so obeying your parents is undoubtedly more important than not murdering your fellow humans.

So you didn't care if your child played in the street against your authority? Remember that authority is ultimately about protection. Either you haven't fully thought about the implications of what you are saying or you have forgotten some of the incredible responsibilities of parenting.
Ultimately about protection, huh?  How is infinite punishment for finite disobedience at all about 'protection'?

Let's use your analogy, and suppose my child (were I to have one) played in the street despite my words.  Let's also assume my child doesn't get hit and killed by a car.  Now, when I get my kid out of the street, should I scold him/her?  Yes.  Should I explain why I said not to play in the street?  You bet.  Should I then torture the kid for as long as I possibly could, being incapable of pulling off eternal torture?  If you answer 'yes' to this, then that says a lot about your own morals (and Biblegod's).

And to think, you have the audacity to imply those who disagree with you are bad parents.

Unless I'm dramatically off base, the Christian god is everywhere.  Sees everything.  Knows everything.  Working on that basis then, anyone who believes in that god, and yet still sins and transgresses the law, is doing something akin to taking a cookie from the jar knowing that the parent is standing right next to the jar watching them.  For more serious crimes....it's like a criminal deciding to break into a shop while handcuffed to a policman, while several other policemen watch him from every conceivable angle.

I honestly can't imagine how ANY sin could actually be committed, if you really believed in an all-seeing god that is everywhere.  It'd be like abusing yourself openly while your parents sit on the bed, like inviting your wife to watch you commit adultery, like insulting someone directly to their face, nose to nose.
More than that, Biblegod is supposedly omnipotent, too, and has no qualms about handing down eternal torture as punishment for the slightest infraction.  A criminal might think he can outshoot, outrun, or otherwise elude the cops, but the same argument cannot be made for evading the wrath of an omnipotent being.

Personally, I think it's usually just a way for them to feel superior over others.  We all break Biblegod's rules, but they are the chosen ones who get to do it with impunity, because Jebus told them so.  The rules don't apply to them, because they're better than us.  It's the same sort of attitude that drives racism, sexism, and most (all?) other forms of bigotry.

It isn't just interesting, it isn't fair.  I should pay for everyone of my sins, but because God forgave me, I don't, not that they didn't go unpunished, but that someone else took that punishment for me.
Let's assume for a minute that God really exists, and Jesus really did suffer and die on the cross, and he really did come back to life three days later.  What punishment did he take on?  He took on some hours of pain, then he was dead for three days, then he 'got better', and got to go to paradise.

Now, let's consider what the usual punishment is for the rest of us.  They get damned to an eternity of torture.  What the fuck?!?  Jesus, taking on the sins for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, gets a few days of unpleasantness, whereas anyone else gets an eternity...?  If he's taking on the punishment for us, it should be the whole thing.  Since Jesus == God under most brands of Christianity, I guess we can conclude that God didn't have the testicular fortitude to tough it out in the same manner he expects us lowly mortals to, huh?

Can you please explain to me how this makes any sense whatsoever?

Quote from: phelix22
It's not because I believe in God that i still get to do bad things, it is just a fact of life, that humans are not able to be perfect.  That doesn't excuse it, there is no loophole, no sin goes unpunished.  And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone?
Let's say I have a dog, and I lock it in the house all day.  It cannot help itself, and it shits all over the carpet.  Despite the fact that it's not the dog's fault (it couldn't go outside), I come home and beat the dog severely for being bad.  If I then stop beating the dog, is this an example of 'perfect goodness'?

Look at Christian doctrine.  We're all sinners, because a) we absorb the 'taint' of an act of disobedience from distant ancestors (does this sound fair to you?), and b) it's in our nature anyways.  Now, consider that God knew it's how we'd turn out (being omniscient), and deliberately created us this way anyways, when it was in his power to create us without this flaw that we have zero control over.  Thus, the only rational conclusion (assuming God exists) is that he wants us to be flawed, so he can punish us for it.  So what if he were to throw us a bone and let a few of us off the hook?  He's still deliberately dooming the vast majority of us to eternal torment.  Does this sound like a MORALLY GOOD being to you?

Quote from: phelix22
It was not God who condemned us, it was God who condemned sin according to scripture.
See above.  If God deliberately designed us to sin, and then condemns sinning, the distinction is moot, no?  It's logically equivalent to condemning us directly.  According to Christian doctrine, we get a 'DAMNED TO HELL' stamp on us at (or even before) birth.

Quote from: phelix22
Also accordingly it says, if anyone believes he is not condemned but for those who reject him they are condemned already.
In other words, all those people who are born into non-Christian societies, who don't get an opportunity to believe (because they never hear the teachings) get condemned for not believing.  More of your deity's 'perfect goodness'.

Quote from: phelix22
pop culture says God condemns us for being us.  Truth of scripture says, sin is the reason for condemnation, not humanity.  If God said all humans are condemned, then Jesus would have been as well.
See above about Jesus getting preferential treatment to the rest of us.

Quote from: phelix22
And if He says,"my bad, all is forgiven", without punishing sin, then he is not a just God, nor a fair God.  my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior.
What if it's something that a four year old cannot help, such as wetting the bed at night, or not pronouncing a word right?  What about punishing her for not being born a boy?  Do those sorts of things sound fair?  Now imagine the punishment is eternal suffering.  How can any finite transgression (whether or not it is the offender's fault) merit infinite punishment?

Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase.
Uhm, the earliest of those gospels has been dated at 40+ years after the supposed death of Jesus.  Imagine you are a judge at trial, and one of the lawyers wants to call a witness.  The only catch is the witness didn't get on the scene until decades after the event, and you're supposed to let them tell you what the participants in the event said?  Now imagine you're supposed to accept this witness as infallible.  See why we consider this to be a problem?  Even if this wasn't an issue, it is still circular reasoning.

As far as the BC/AD system goes, do you really suppose they stamped their coins with '150 BC' before Jesus came along?  It was a retroactive system imposed by the church that held overwhelming power in Europe at the time, and as such, attests to nothing more than the fact the church held this power.

I can certainly appreciate that this verse provides us with an example of punishment for the above mentioned groups of people.   Is this damnation brought on by God or by the person? Is that not one of the age old questions? My view is that God as judge certainly will meet out his justice in his own time. I suppose it could even be understood that this is an example of God damning people. I take the view that there is a first cause and a second cause. God made the world and the people. The people sinned fully understanding that to sin deserved death
Fully understanding?  According to Biblical lore, humanity had no idea of right and wrong or good and evil before eating from the tree.  God deliberately withheld that from them.  Essentially, God gave them a rulebook that was encrypted, and the act of decrypting the text was itself a violation of the rules.  They could not possibly know it was wrong until after the fact.

God also told Adam that eating from the tree would cause death 'that day' (which turned out to be a BIG FAT LIE).  God also did not tell Eve about the 'no eating from that tree' rule.  In fact, if you read the Bible, God didn't even create Eve until AFTER he told Adam not to eat from the tree.  Thus, Eve did not violate any rule she was given, yet she (and her female descendants) got the more severe punishment (pains of childbirth).

Quote from: tradesecret
Therefore God sentences them to death. Man or humanity however chose to sin - and thereby damning themselves to the consequences of that action. Similarly in our society. A person kills someone fully knowing that if caught they will go to prison or in your country maybe get the death sentence. It is still the judge who determines the sentence. So really both the criminal and the judge damn the person to whatever punishment the person receives.
Imagine you do something.  It can be anything, such as smiling.  Now imagine once you do that, I whip out a big book called 'THE LAW', and write in 'smiling: punishment is death', and proceed to execute you.  Is that fair?  Okay, you might argue that I wrote it in after the fact.  What if it's something I knew in advance you were going to do?  I pull out the book, and write 'breathing: punishment is eternal damnation'.  Remember, God is all-knowing, so he can do this.  He can also enter 'looking at the book' as a crime, too.

http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip  Sure seems like a get out of jail free card.
Don't forget it completely abrogates free will while not affecting free will at all.  The chosen 'cannot resist' being called, but they 'willingly and freely' come to God.  Even that page you linked to shows these people cannot decide, and so they want to have it both (mutually-contradictory) ways.

No wonder tradesecret doesn't bat an eye at his choice/no choice contradictions.  I could understand his logic if he said 'we cannot choose whether God will make himself known, but once he does, we have free will to accept or decline the offer', but he's said that the offer was one he couldn't refuse.

The Calvinists must feel really special, being chosen without needing to demonstrate having either faith or works.  'Daddy loves me more than you, nyah nyah nyah!'

I couldn't make this stuff up if I had to.  Also,  there is nothing made up in what happened in my life.  What you call mythology is actually called discipleship, being a disciple or follower of the teachings of Jesus.
Did they hate their families and selves as mandated by Luke 14:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:26&version=KJV)?

Quote from: phelix22
I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.
Not so much, actually.  The view that Jesus was a historical person, and that there is evidence of this, is found primarily among Christians.  Even non-Christians who believe Jesus existed tend to use religious sources (like Muslims do).  There is little to no contemporary physical evidence of the life of Jesus, or any of the grand events.  Remember, the gospels were written decades (at least!) after Jesus supposedly died.

You'd think that if this guy went around healing people, raising the dead, turning food for one into food for thousands, etc that there would be contemporary records of it.  Some of those records might be lost, but the claims would start out big, and perhaps get smaller as evidence for those claims was lost, or witnesses died, etc.  However, it happens the other way in Christianity.  It's not until years after the guy died that somebody 'remembers' he came back to life, and someone else 'remembers' he healed the sick, a third person 'remembers' his mom was a virgin, etc.  Then this stuff gets retroactively inserted into the doctrine.  It sounds more like a case of a group of people telling tall tales, each trying to one-up the previous person.  'Born of a virgin?  Oh yeah?  Well, in MY story, Jesus comes back to life!'  This game of one-upmanship culminates with 'in MY story, Jesus IS God Almighty, so top that!'

Quote from: phelix22
What is impossible to believe is that it is based on total fiction.
Not impossible at all.  There are a lot of things that people believe that sound crazy.  While you evidently don't think your Christian beliefs make sense, I expect you'd laugh at the beliefs held by some other religions over time.  People who don't examine their beliefs critically (you know, looking for verifiable evidence and seeing if the various beliefs are logically consistent with one another) can be convinced to believe just about anything.

Look at a little kid and the Santa Claus myth (I hope you'll agree that Santa is mythical).  At a young age, the child just accepts it.  Kids are hardwired to believe what they're told, and they don't tend to show an awful lot of critical thinking.

Quote from: phelix22
Every faith that has stood the test of time has dealt with scrutiny, they are either proven bogus and snuffed out, or there is an element of truth that helps them sustain credibility.
Not necessarily.  Imagine two children in different households who believe in Santa.  Both kids are starting to question the myth, and in the first household, the parents allow the kid to come to the realization that Santa was a 'little white lie' used to make the holiday season 'more magical' for the kid, be a carrot for good behavior, etc.  In the second household, the parents continually reinforce the myth, and try to give the kid answers for any questions.  Santa can magically make a chimney in houses that lack one.  Santa can change the flow of time so as to visit every house in a single night.  Santa has magic boots that muffle his footsteps so as not to wake the family dog.  Even the best alarm systems money can buy cannot detect Santa's presence, and he doesn't show up on security cameras.  Santa fills in the rooftop tracks left by his sleigh, which is why you can't see the evidence.  Basically, all these things are excuses used to explain the lack of evidence.  You cannot cite the fact that many people believed or continue to believe something as evidence that it is true.  It's simply evidence that people believe it to be true.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: lectricpharaoh on November 07, 2010, 07:30:33 AM
[continued]

The only time that an appeal to popularity has any weight is when the evidence behind that popularity can be examined, and seen to be sound.  For example, I could point out that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts evolution, and you could say I'm just appealing to popularity.  However, we could then examine why these people believe evolution is correct.  I'm not using the popularity of the belief itself as evidence of that belief, which is what you're doing.

One of the biggest problems of an appeal to popularity is when you have two popular, mutually-contradictory beliefs.  Christians believe Jesus was divine in some manner (which varies, depending on the sect).  Muslims believe Jesus was not divine in any way.  Clearly, these cannot both be true.  Logic shows us that at least one of these beliefs must be false.

Was there a Man named Muhammed?
History seems to think so.  There are contemporary records of the life of Mohammed, so I have no trouble believing he existed.  I don't believe all the claims about him, though.  For example, I do believe he was a real person.  I do believe he started the religion of Islam.  I do not believe he was visited by an angel (mainly because I do not believe in angels).  I do not believe he ascended to Heaven on a flying horse (both because I don't believe in a supernatural realm called Heaven, and because horses do not fly).

Quote from: phelix22
Was there a real Jesus?
I believe there were people named Jesus (or whatever the ancient Hebrew version of the name was).  Even if it was an uncommon name, I'm sure it was around.  It's even popular today among some groups.  However, I think it unlikely that the singular Jesus referred to in the Bible was a real person, since there is little to no contemporary evidence of this, and I certainly do not believe that this singular person, if he did exist, actually did the miracles attributed to him in Christian teachings.

Quote from: phelix22
Was there a real Joseph Smith?
Yes.  There are numerous contemporary accounts of his life, including the fact that he was put on trial for defrauding people.  While the outcome of the trial is in doubt (records being lost, etc), it seems probable that he was a simple con man.  I do not believe that the finding of the 'golden plates' ever really happened, and moreover, I highly doubt that Smith believed it either.  He started by fleecing gullible people who believed he could find treasure by looking at a rock in his hat, and progressed to fleecing his followers in much the same manner as modern-day 'God needs your money, praise the lord!' televangelists.

Quote from: phelix22
Can one find enlightenment through meditation?
It depends what you mean.  I believe people can reflect on (ie, think about) things they believe and feel, and come to conclusions.  Meditation might help clear your mind of distracting thoughts, so you can focus on something, and it might very well reduce stress by calming and relaxing you.  There's nothing supernatural about any of this.  For me, I often find that there are things that help me feel more focused or more relaxed, such as listening to music or cuddling with my cat (and yes, there have been studies that indicate pets can help reduce stress).

However, I do not believe that sitting cross-legged and saying 'om' is going to magically open you up to outside forces, or anything like that.

Quote from: phelix22
I understand there is an element of spirituality that people make up, they want to believe, they need an answer, even scientists tap into this idea of there is more knowledge out there than what we know and we must discover it.  But to say, you made all that up in your own mind is just absurd.
I agree.  It's quite clear your beliefs have enough in common with those of other Christians that it wasn't all made up by you.  In fact, most of it was made up long before you were born, in a series of gradual embellishments to make the myth more palatable, or more impressive, or resolve some doctrinal dispute, etc.  Most of what you contribute consists of your rationalizations to explain the various inconsistencies or other problems of your belief system.

Quote from: phelix22
And since we are in an arena that demands proof, what have you to your claim that it is made up?
Try to understand.  You are the one making the positive claims (ie, 'God exists', 'the Bible is true', etc).  Thus, you hold the burden of proof.  In a court of law, the prosecution holds the burden of proof.  They can't just flip that around and say 'Well, the defense claims their client is innocent, so they need to prove it'.  That is called 'shifting the burden of proof'.

Our 'claim', as you put it, is simply our expression of being unconvinced.  You have not supplied evidence, much less convincing evidence, so the only logical conclusion is that your statements are false.  Whether you are intentionally lying or honestly believe the claims you're making has absolutely zero bearing on whether those claims are true or false, and in the absence of evidence, those claims are unsupported.

Quote from: phelix22
Because of Justice.  What is just.  for a criminal to go unpunished?  No.  One must pay the price for one's actions.  In society we base it on what we think is fair.  "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  but that is for the action.  What is the consequence for rejecting God?  That would be Hell, according to the scriptures.  What is just is that anyone who chooses to say, there is no God or I don't want your forgiveness, I can do it on my own, I am smarter than you, I am independant and in no need of a savior.  Then that person has made themselves to be the supreme authority in there life.  In essence they have become their own god.  And the penalty is eternal hell, according to the scriptures.  What frustrates me is that we (humans) don't agree with sin.  We blame God for the opportunity, we blame God for our weakness, and we blame God for our judgement.  That just doesn't make sense.
Blah blah, woof woof.  I've asked it before in this post, but it bears repeating: how is infinite punishment for a finite infraction at all fair, or just?  Humans have a finite lifespan.  There is no transgression, however great, that we could do that should merit infinite punishment, but that is what your Bible holds up as 'just' and evidence of the 'goodness' and 'mercy' of your deity.

If God created us and gave us no choice but to follow Him, to believe in Him, we wouldn't be free at all.
True.  However, the Calvinists believe that the chosen cannot resist choosing God.  In other words, he takes away their free will.  They even have scripture to back up this point of view.

Besides, for you to say that people cannot help being sinful is to say they have no choice.  We get punished for doing something we have no choice about.  It's like punishing people for breathing.

It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.  If I don't discipline, if I don't follow God's example in scripture, then I will have to also give account for that when I am judged. 
but underlying all of this is love.  God shows his love when He disciplines, and I love my children and in order to do what is best for them, I discipline them as well.
Does that mean you would have your children stoned to death for disobedience, as the Bible commands?  Would you support the right of other parents to have their children stoned to death?  Why or why not?  Oh, and please don't use the 'that is in the OT, which Jesus did away with', because we know from the NT that Jesus said those laws were still in effect.

Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?
  Because of the potential for an accident.  I don't want them in harms way.  Thats the human way right.  Protect them from danger.  But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.  I count the cost, and if it is worth it, I let them discover for themselves that there are consequences for disobedience.  In either case whether I remove the danger, or am not there when danger presents itself.  The absolute truth is that there are consequences.  The good thing is that I love my children and no matter what they do, I will always love them.  But that will not change the fact that I will discipline them too.
It seems you missed the point.  The tree in question was not some random danger that just happened to be present.  It was something placed in the garden with NO OTHER PURPOSE than to POSE a danger to Adam and Eve.  Just as you would not leave a loaded gun next to your child, a loving deity would not put such a tree in the garden, especially not without putting up some barrier (such as a high fence with a locked gate).

Imagine if a parent were to deliberately leave a loaded gun next to their child while telling the child not to touch it, and then left the room.  Suddenly, there is a gunshot, and the child is either maimed or killed.  Do you think the parent bears any responsibility?  By your own reasoning, the child was told not to, they disobeyed, so the consequences should be borne by them and them alone.  In reality, we see this as criminal negligence, and punish the parent accordingly.  Your refusal to leave such a loaded gun next to your child shows that you're aware of the danger, you know kids sometimes disobey, and so you act accordingly.  God, according to the Bible, did not.  Worse, while you might claim that you didn't know the child would get hurt (having warned them not to touch it), God does not have this excuse.  As an all-knowing being, he knew the result, and put the tree there anyways.

Now, let's look at what the Bible says, hmm?  In the Bible, God warns Adam not to eat from the tree because it will bring death on the day he eats from it.  Now, ignoring for a minute the fact that Eve was not given this restriction (having not even been created at this point), what were the actual consequences?

The first was that neither Adam nor Eve died 'that day' as a result of eating the fruit.  In other words, either GOD LIED, or THE BIBLE GOT IT WRONG.

The second is that 'sin' entered the life of Adam and Eve, and all their descendants.  In other words, WE are being punished for something that SOMEONE ELSE did.  Do you punish your children for things you know that other people, and NOT your children, do?

The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl
Once again, you entirely missed the point.  The reference was to the Bible story about the Jews in Egypt.  Moses demanded freedom, the pharaoh refused.  God 'hardened his heart' to make him say no (in other words, the pharaoh had no choice, as God really did make him do it).  One of the punishments for pharaoh's action was for God to kill all the first-born sons of Egypt.  In other words, not only did the pharaoh have no choice, but God didn't punish him for it; he instead punished a bunch of innocent people.

Now, it's clear to most of us that this is just a story.  I suspect the main purpose was to show God's power over those backward and evil pagan Egyptians who didn't worship the Hebrew deity as they rightly should have, but that's just my opinion.  The fact of the matter is that there is no known contemporary Egyptian record of this mass death of first-born sons.  Don't you think that if EVERY SINGLE FIRST-BORN SON IN AN ENTIRE COUNTRY DIED AT ONCE that it might be, oh I don't know, NEWSWORTHY?  Maybe worth WRITING DOWN IN YOUR PEOPLE'S HISTORY?  There is no evidence of this, and because the claim is so unprecedented, and so extraordinary, and ABSOLUTELY LACKING IN ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, we can SAFELY DISMISS THE CLAIM AS FALSE.  The same is true of the other wildly fantastic claims in mythology, like Jesus coming back to life after being dead for three days, or Athena springing fully-formed from Zeus's head after it was split open on account of the mother of all migraines, or Mohammed ascending to Heaven on a magical 'my little pony, flying edition', or any other such nonsense.

Nor can you use the Bible to back up your claims, any more than I can use a book on ancient Greek mythology as evidence that the skies really are held up by the giant Atlas, who Perseus turned to stone.

this has 2 major assumptions, 1 that the child would inevitably hurt themselves.  Not every child who plays with a loaded gun accidentlally injures themself or others. 2 the situation could have been easily avoided.  There are parents who hide guns well, who lock doors, who strenously avoid those situation who have lost their children to accidental gun play.
Ahh, but you're forgetting two things.  First, God is omniscient, so he would know whether or not the child would play with the gun (or eat from the tree).  Second, God is omnipotent, so has the power to make it impossible to play with the gun at all (or eat from the tree), without abrogating free will.  For example, making the gun (or tree) cease to exist will solve the issue.  I expect it would be pretty hard for a child to injure themselves with their parent's gun if neither parent had a gun.

most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.
This is untrue, mainly because that theory has nothing to do with the 'cause' of the universe.  The theory states only that at one point in the distant past, the universe was composed of a singularity that expanded.  That's it.  It does not attempt to say what caused the singularity, or what came before it, or any of that.  Arguing the theory is flawed because it doesn't explain these things is a strawman argument in much the same manner as creationists who argue against evolution because it doesn't explain life's origins.  Here's a clue: IT'S NOT INTENDED TO.

Quote from: WhiteLight
My personal opinion would be too lengthy, it would require a book, suffice it to say that I question the flaws in both areas (science and religion).  However, science does not answer many of the questions, that in my opinion can only be answered with involvement of a superior-being.
So, in your opinion, these questions can only be answered by positing a deity of some sort.  Okay.  Well, since you're hung up on cause and effect, what caused (or created, if you prefer) this deity?

To refute arguments like 'it always existed' or 'having a net energy of zero, it could have spontaneously appeared' as explanations for the origin of the universe, and then use them (or similar arguments) to explain the existence of a deity/creator/whatever is special pleading.

They were not mindless, animals before the fall.  They were given intellect, were given the ability to communicate, to function as humans do, they were perfect in everyway.  What they didn't know was evil.  They had no experience rebelling against God.  The fruit if eaten, would give them the knowledge of that.  They had knowledge of the outcome.  There is no reason to believe they were like a 2 yr old who even though you warn them, or not capable of making a good decision and leaving the gun alone.  That is why your analogy breaks down, and why my analogy had nothing to do with the fall.
Actually, before they ate from the tree, they had virtually no knowledge whatsoever.  Thus, while Adam may have known he was told not to eat from the tree, he wouldn't have understood that it was 'wrong' to do so.  Besides, it's reasonable to conclude that the serpent was also placed there by God, right?  Thus, if the serpent (which, incidentally, told the truth where God lied) said it was okay, what cause did Adam have to doubt the serpent's words?

Once again, I must point out that Eve was not given the same instruction as Adam, and punishing all humanity for the transgression of one or two of their descendants is certainly not good, fair, or just by any measure, save the warped measure of believers in Biblegod.

Quote from: phelix22
Lets assume that God does know what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and let's assume another trait of God, that he doesn't lie
The only problem with that assumption (beyond that it presupposes that God really exists, of course) is that the Bible clearly depicts God lying to Adam about the tree and the consequences for eating from it.

It teaches that what we do doesn't just effect us, it effects our neighbors.  We can't claim innocence just because we didn't pull the trigger so to speak.  It stands true today in america, if you are with the guys who rob a store and kill the employee, you will be charged for murder.
What if you're not born until thousands of years after the robbery/murder?  Still think it's fair to be punished for it?  Biblegod evidently thinks so.

Heaven is something that is beyond words, or comprehension.
Beyond comprehension is an apt descriptor.  Think about it for a minute: if there is free will in Heaven, then it is possible to sin (ie, make the 'wrong' choice).  If Heaven is to be without sin, there can be no free will.  This means one of three things:  1) A sin-free Heaven exists, but there is no free will there.  2) Heaven exists, free will exists there, and given the sinful nature of humanity, will be full of sin if anybody besides God is allowed in.  3) Heaven does not exist at all.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  If I create an intelligent, self-aware machine, program this machine, and then set it loose to do its own thing, am I responsible if it hurts someone?  Why or why not?

It takes a pretty arrogant person to claim they have enough understanding of how everything works, and how everything God has done has happened to say whether or not it was a righteous thing or not.  I don't have it, and I don't believe any human does.
By that reasoning, since we cannot judge right and wrong, why put murderers, rapists, and thieves in jail?  After all, we don't know what God's plan for these people is, or whether their actions were righteous, so let's just leave them on the street.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 11:07:21 AM
That is God's rule. 

Exactly.  So if she's being punished for not doing what you say, you're punishing her for sinning.


I don't know how else to say it.  she is being punished for the rule that I set up and she breaks.  That is the reason I punish her.  The reason she is guilty of sin, is because God's law says to obey your parents, to honor your father and mother.  While she steals a cookie from the cookie jar she may receive a spanking or time out, in God's eyes she has sinned and needs forgiven.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 11:11:26 AM
I didn't say king james was wrong or that NASB was right, I just pointed out that on some of the verses listed there were inconsistencies in translation.
But if there are inconsistencies in translation between one bible and another, one must be correct and one must be wrong.  Or both could be wrong.  How are we to know which one is correct, or if either of them are correct?

That is where an understanding of the original greek and hebrew and aramaic comes in.  Commentaries and biblical scholars can help, as well as additional discoveries, and additional investigation and research.  In the end, most translations are agreed upon, but in our relative society, there will always be those who will use the translation that best fits their argument.  I don't have the luxury of knowing the original languages, so I don't get to choose which works best. But I do know that sometimes the argument may center on a translation and not on the actual text.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 11:28:15 AM
again, Deut. 20:18 explains that they were to do this because the people were teaching the Isrealites to do detestable things which they did for their gods.  causing Israel to sin against God.  

The Midianites were causing the hebrews to sin?  You realize you are literally blaming the rape victim for being raped? 

You realize I am not blaming anyone, I am just stating what the bible says.  You want to claim that God teaches to simply rape and pillage and plunder, I argue that from the text, the teaching isn't that we should rape, pillage, or plunder, but that God used Israel to carryout His judgement on those people for what was lined out in Deut 20:18.  It's like saying our country teaches it's ok to murder, when in reality, it is illegal.  But some states can execute criminals, and we can shoot enemies of our country in war time situations.  If we applied your claims about the bible to the constitution, you would have to say America teaches it to be ok to murder.  And that is equally not true.
 

How does this support this behavior.  It says, "because he violated her", is it not a widely accepted belief that violations are disobeying the rules?
 

That is a stretch.  Violating a person is a common polite euphemism for "rape".
exactly, my point.  rape is not being endorsed here, it is depicted as a violation of a person.  If a man does this he must pay the price.  Not exactly teaching it is ok to rape.

If everyone is treated with fairness, dignity and respect, would slavery carry with it the negative connotation it does in today's society.

Your premise is preposterous.  Owning people as property is the polar opposite of treating them with fairness, dignity and respect.  It is the denial of those things.  It is a contradiction in terms to say you treat your slave fairly, respectfully and with dignity. 

Your moral compass is fucked, dude.  Quit defending these obviously immoral ideas and acts.  Just come out and admit this s**t appals you because it is appalling.

 




nice dodge.  You say it can't be done.  But yet, in service in the military you sign your own life away.  You don't decide where you live, what you will eat, what you will do.  Should you exercise your freedom to disobey, you will be thrown in jail, but not released.  It is modern day slavery, yet men and women sign up daily.  Why?  Patriotism?  How could they willingly sign up for such appauling immoral ideas and acts?  Funny how we don't hear any criticism when we get a new day to sit and say what we want because we still have freedom of speech, a right protected by these slaves.  You may say, they get paid, but few will disagree that the price they pay is far greater than any monetary reimbursement they may receive from a paycheck.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2010, 12:47:21 PM
You realize I am not blaming anyone, I am just stating what the bible says. 

That is your argument, where ever you are getting it from.  It is how you are excusing the obviously immoral actions of the hebrews.  "The midianites got what they deserved because they were making the poor, innocent hebrews sin."  Come on. 


You want to claim that God teaches to simply rape and pillage and plunder,

That was not my argument. You must have confused me with someone else. I agree that yhwh does not explicity endorse wanton rape, murder and theft.  However, yhwh does endorse and demand rape, murder and theft in a more specific way. And those ways are always "enemies" of the hebrews.  This all adds up to a general xenophobia and dehumanization of the Other in hebrew culture.  That also translated to xian culture.  That may be part and parcel of being human, but that does not make it good or moral policy.

but that God used Israel to carryout His judgement on those people for what was lined out in Deut 20:18. 

bold mine.  I already pointed out how fishy this is.  First, why was an omnimax deity using people to do a job it could do itself?  Maybe because it couldn't?  Secondly, it sounds to me like a punishment of the hebrews, though to a lesser extent.  Imagine guy much more powerful than you demands you go into a neighboring town, kill all the men, women and children and rape any girls who are virgins.  Sound like a good time to you?  Or does that sound awful?  What conclusions would you come to about this person?

It's like saying our country teaches it's ok to murder, ...

Wrong argument. 

exactly, my point. 

Perhaps I misread the context of this one. 

nice dodge. 

Dodge?  In what way did I dodge?

But yet, in service in the military you sign your own life away. 

Military service is not slavery.  There are strict rules and their freedoms are somewhat curtailed, but they are not property.  That is the big difference.  I have seen it argued by xians that biblical slavery was more like being a family member or an indentured servant.  But that is not what slavery is.  Slavery is owning other people as property. 

I would agree, there is a spectrum of... property? servitude?  I don't know what the right word is.  On one end is slavery.  On the other is...not slavery. The more rules you add, the more rights and dignities you add, the further you get from slavery.  I would say the hebrew version of slavery was pretty clearly slavery.  I would also say modern military service, at least in the US, is on the opposite end of that spectrum.

The people who translated the bible could have used any other word, but they did not.  They chose the word "slave".  And now you and a zillion other xians want to argue that the bible really meant something else.  If that is so, why did the translators not use a different word?   
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 08, 2010, 12:58:00 PM
That is God's rule. 

Exactly.  So if she's being punished for not doing what you say, you're punishing her for sinning.


I don't know how else to say it.  she is being punished for the rule that I set up and she breaks.  That is the reason I punish her.  The reason she is guilty of sin, is because God's law says to obey your parents, to honor your father and mother.  While she steals a cookie from the cookie jar she may receive a spanking or time out, in God's eyes she has sinned and needs forgiven.

Which is god's decree.  He said that she has to follow her parents, he was the one who laid down that law over all humanity.  If she does not do as you say then she is sinning.

If god had commanded that children should not listen to their parents because their parents are fallible, would you punsh her for not doing what you say?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 08, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
I didn't say king james was wrong or that NASB was right, I just pointed out that on some of the verses listed there were inconsistencies in translation.
But if there are inconsistencies in translation between one bible and another, one must be correct and one must be wrong.  Or both could be wrong.  How are we to know which one is correct, or if either of them are correct?

That is where an understanding of the original greek and hebrew and aramaic comes in. 
But you don't follow the original text.  Even if you did, you have no way of verifying that it is the original text.  That could have been mistranslated also.

Quote
Commentaries and biblical scholars can help, as well as additional discoveries, and additional investigation and research.
But those are the same guys who can't agree on how to translate, so this is circular.

Quote
In the end, most translations are agreed upon, but in our relative society, there will always be those who will use the translation that best fits their argument.
 Which is exactly the point.  You choose to follow a particular interpretation, so how do you know it's the right one?  You can't.


Quote
I don't have the luxury of knowing the original languages, so I don't get to choose which works best. But I do know that sometimes the argument may center on a translation and not on the actual text.
Which proves my point entirely.  You don't know, you can't know, so you take your pick from what's available.  How do you know that you've chosen the right interpretation?  How do you know that ANY of them are correct?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Anfauglir on November 08, 2010, 02:08:26 PM
That is where an understanding of the original greek and hebrew and aramaic comes in.  Commentaries and biblical scholars can help, as well as additional discoveries, and additional investigation and research. 

Interesting.  One wonders why a god that  - apparently - wants a relationship with all of us, wants us all to be saved.....would deliberately make it so that his holy book would not be able to be read correctly by the vast majority of the world.

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 03:41:24 PM
It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "
Romans 14:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:11&version=NIV)
In case you haven't figured it out, just because something is written (in the Bible or elsewhere) doesn't necessarily make it so.  The Bible also has God telling Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will surely die that day, and then the Bible goes on to show he didn't die that day.  Thus, either the Bible is WRONG, or God is a PROVEN LIAR.
[/quote] This is a misquote, the bible did not say they would die that day, it just says, "you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."  This does not prove God is a liar, in fact, since adam and eve did die, it proves God didn't lie about that.

Personally, I think it's usually just a way for them to feel superior over others.  We all break Biblegod's rules, but they are the chosen ones who get to do it with impunity, because Jebus told them so.  The rules don't apply to them, because they're better than us.  It's the same sort of attitude that drives racism, sexism, and most (all?) other forms of bigotry.
do your comtemporaries in here agree with you, it is just a way for us to feel superior to others?  I mean, first of all, if we were the chosen one's wouldn't we feel a debt to those who weren't but the bible says forgiveness is for everyone.  That Christ died for the sins of the world, not just the chosen.  The rules do apply, we are not just given a do as you please card, but if one is truly a Christian, then they are dedicated to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles which includes loving others, putting others before yourself, and obedience to all the teachings and commands of God.  That God loves everyone of every race color or creed, and we are to love everyone the same, and to bless our enemies.  How does that lead to sexism and bigotry?  I think you got it all wrong about Christians, but I don't blame you, looking at most people of faith today, there is not alot of difference in how they live from those who claim to not believe.

Now, let's consider what the usual punishment is for the rest of us.  They get damned to an eternity of torture.  What the f**k?!?  Jesus, taking on the sins for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, gets a few days of unpleasantness, whereas anyone else gets an eternity...?  If he's taking on the punishment for us, it should be the whole thing.  Since Jesus == God under most brands of Christianity, I guess we can conclude that God didn't have the testicular fortitude to tough it out in the same manner he expects us lowly mortals to, huh?

Can you please explain to me how this makes any sense whatsoever?
sure.  He was innocent.  He was God.  He was crucified by His beloved people and by His own creation.  The people He came to show mercy to, gave him the sentence of Death.  And on the cross he bore the sins of everyone for all time.  His blood shed, the bibe teaches, was for the forgiveness of God to all who believe.  The wrath for rejecting this forgiveness is what will receive eternal Hell.  If we sin, and we turn to God, he forgives us and we face no eternal penalty.  How is that so terrible.  It seems to me you haven't measured what the bible teaches was the meaning and pain of the Cross, nor that the bible teaches that Hell and eternal torture was created for the devil and the 1/3 of heaven who followed him.  Anyone else is going there because of their rejection of God, according what the Bible says.

Quote from: phelix22
It's not because I believe in God that i still get to do bad things, it is just a fact of life, that humans are not able to be perfect.  That doesn't excuse it, there is no loophole, no sin goes unpunished.  And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone?
Let's say I have a dog, and I lock it in the house all day.  It cannot help itself, and it shits all over the carpet.  Despite the fact that it's not the dog's fault (it couldn't go outside), I come home and beat the dog severely for being bad.  If I then stop beating the dog, is this an example of 'perfect goodness'?[/quote] huh?  I don't follow your analogy?

Look at Christian doctrine.  We're all sinners, because a) we absorb the 'taint' of an act of disobedience from distant ancestors (does this sound fair to you?), and b) it's in our nature anyways.  Now, consider that God knew it's how we'd turn out (being omniscient), and deliberately created us this way anyways, when it was in his power to create us without this flaw that we have zero control over.  Thus, the only rational conclusion (assuming God exists) is that he wants us to be flawed, so he can punish us for it.  So what if he were to throw us a bone and let a few of us off the hook?  He's still deliberately dooming the vast majority of us to eternal torment.  Does this sound like a MORALLY GOOD being to you?
 If what you say were true, it would not be a morally good being, but you have distorted several key attributes of God that are not consistent with what the bible teaches.  We do not die and get eternal torture just because we were born into sin.  2 because we have a sin nature we also are not in a condition of zero control.  That is the whole point.  If we have zero control then we have no freewill.  But we do have control.  We choose what we do and we were created with the ability to choose because we were created free.  Thats why the bible doesn't say, and Eve saw the fruit and being forced by God to eat it, did eat and cause all hell to break loose.  The freedom to choose also is not a flaw.  There is nothing in the bible that is consistent with God wanting us to be flawed and spend eternity in Hell.  Why spend thousands of years to write a book that points people to a way of being forgiven and given a second chance to be eternally unflawed?  

Quote from: phelix22
It was not God who condemned us, it was God who condemned sin according to scripture.
See above.  If God deliberately designed us to sin, and then condemns sinning, the distinction is moot, no?  It's logically equivalent to condemning us directly.  According to Christian doctrine, we get a 'DAMNED TO HELL' stamp on us at (or even before) birth.
this is the problem with the idea that God deliberately designed us to sin.  He didn't.  He designed us to choose Him over anything else.  If he did, then he would not be holy, righteous, and would not be what Christians call the one true God.

Quote from: phelix22
Also accordingly it says, if anyone believes he is not condemned but for those who reject him they are condemned already.
In other words, all those people who are born into non-Christian societies, who don't get an opportunity to believe (because they never hear the teachings) get condemned for not believing.  More of your deity's 'perfect goodness'.
that would be true if no one could look around and see how complex even the simpliest form of life is, now I am aware that many scientists and intellectuals contend it is all by random chance, but that is a faith that I find incomprehensible.  If God truly didn't reveal himself to humanity then yes it would be wrong for him to hold us to standards we were unaware of.  But I believe He has.   and as a side note here, when I capitolize the pronoun it is out of respect to whom I hold in such high regard that even in grammar I place Him higher than just another personal pronoun.

Quote from: phelix22
pop culture says God condemns us for being us.  Truth of scripture says, sin is the reason for condemnation, not humanity.  If God said all humans are condemned, then Jesus would have been as well.
See above about Jesus getting preferential treatment to the rest of us.

Quote from: phelix22
And if He says,"my bad, all is forgiven", without punishing sin, then he is not a just God, nor a fair God.  my little four year old wants to hit her sister, and then not get in trouble, but if I am a good parent I will discipline her and teach her there are consequences for bad behavior.
What if it's something that a four year old cannot help, such as wetting the bed at night, or not pronouncing a word right?  What about punishing her for not being born a boy?  Do those sorts of things sound fair?  Now imagine the punishment is eternal suffering.  How can any finite transgression (whether or not it is the offender's fault) merit infinite punishment?
 What do you consider a finite transgression.  What would be the one thing that would deserve eternal seperation from a holy and pure God.  Would be impurity, would it be placing and worshipping other gods, or no gods, would it be a life of rejection and betrayal?  Why always resort to a baby who doesn't know any better, do you really think we as humans can't tell right from wrong?  Why is it that in societies from across the globe without knowledge of scriptures or the enlightenment, when discovered and studied all have a tribal set of rules and what is acceptable and not.  Why is stealing shared as an evil in almost all societies, why is giving to someone who is in need looked at as kind and compassionate in most societies.  If we are like our ancestors, we do have the ability to know better.


As far as the BC/AD system goes, do you really suppose they stamped their coins with '150 BC' before Jesus came along?  It was a retroactive system imposed by the church that held overwhelming power in Europe at the time, and as such, attests to nothing more than the fact the church held this power.
and how could a bunch of kooks following a bunch of myths become so powerful as to rule the world enough to change our language and calendar, if it is so blantantly obvious how stupid and appauling it is to believe in God?  


Quote from: phelix22
I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.
Not so much, actually.  The view that Jesus was a historical person, and that there is evidence of this, is found primarily among Christians.  Even non-Christians who believe Jesus existed tend to use religious sources (like Muslims do).  There is little to no contemporary physical evidence of the life of Jesus, or any of the grand events.  Remember, the gospels were written decades (at least!) after Jesus supposedly died.[/quote] however religious sources have proven to be quite a trustworthy source.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 08, 2010, 03:48:06 PM
however religious sources have proven to be quite a trustworthy source.

of what?  please do expand on this claim.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 03:48:38 PM
If god had commanded that children should not listen to their parents because their parents are fallible, would you punsh her for not doing what you say?

Yes I would.  She is my daughter and I am her father and she would still have to obey me to not receive discipline.  Example, do athiests discipline their children?  Yes some if not most do.  Why?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 03:55:19 PM
How do you know that you've chosen the right interpretation?  How do you know that ANY of them are correct?

The answer deviates from a logical discussion to a spiritual discussion.  Jesus said he would send a helper, the counselor, code name Holy Spirit, who would lead us to the truth.  When you hear something and your soul says, yes that's right.  It is kind of like that.  When you hear something that is Godly truth, the spirit of God, living in me verifies it to be true.  But it doesn't rest independant of the rest of scripture.  Therefore, if God said, go kill your wife and sell your kids into slavery, and mutilate your dog and eat it, even though i might be convinced that the voice in my head is real and i might even be convinced it is God, the bottom line is it must also stand up to the test of Scripture.  In other words, if God is pure and holy, He can't lie, if He can't lie, He can't tell me to go against His word.  It has to all line up for me to believe that something is true.  Where this gets Xians in trouble is when they disregard science when it contradicts scripture.  But that isn't why this thread was started.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 04:00:32 PM
however religious sources have proven to be quite a trustworthy source.

of what?  please do expand on this claim.

This goes back to a previous entry in the thread talking about the validity of ancient sources, how manuscripts from different centuries are incredibly consistent, how OT was preserved and how the bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny for many years.  Has it stood undefeated in every area?  Not according to scientists.  Ie, no flood, no contemporary source depicting the plagues in Egypt or the Exodus, although there is a lot of archeology that supports many of the descriptions of the towns and the places and the people, they are looking for that difinitive proof to say here it is.  Remarkably the lack of proof that fuels most skeptics doesn't fuel the same skepticism for theories like the origin of life, or the origin of man.  Even with those missing links in the chain, masses portray evolution and random chance to be the origin of life, yet call Xians stupid for believing the bible without the same type of missing links.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on November 08, 2010, 04:11:40 PM
I'll come back to your post #350 in a bit... once I've stopped laughing.


If god had commanded that children should not listen to their parents because their parents are fallible, would you punsh her for not doing what you say?

Yes I would.  She is my daughter and I am her father and she would still have to obey me to not receive discipline.  Example, do athiests discipline their children?  Yes some if not most do.  Why?

Since your god is allegedly the objective 'writer' of ALL that is right or wrong, how do you know that her not listening to you is wrong unless god tells you?



Even with those missing links in the chain, masses portray evolution and random chance to be the origin of life, yet call Xians stupid for believing the bible without the same type of missing links.
Dude, I probably know less about science than anyone on this forum, including christians, but even I, in all my incredible scientific ignorance, know that evolution theory does not explain the beginnings of life.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 08, 2010, 04:15:04 PM
however religious sources have proven to be quite a trustworthy source.

of what?  please do expand on this claim.

This goes back to a previous entry in the thread talking about the validity of ancient sources, how manuscripts from different centuries are incredibly consistent, how OT was preserved and how the bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny for many years.  Has it stood undefeated in every area?  Not according to scientists.  Ie, no flood, no contemporary source depicting the plagues in Egypt or the Exodus, although there is a lot of archeology that supports many of the descriptions of the towns and the places and the people, they are looking for that difinitive proof to say here it is.  Remarkably the lack of proof that fuels most skeptics doesn't fuel the same skepticism for theories like the origin of life, or the origin of man.  Even with those missing links in the chain, masses portray evolution and random chance to be the origin of life, yet call Xians stupid for believing the bible without the same type of missing links.
I'm asking for evidence of this trustworthiness, not excuses.   I am amused that you want to claim that the theory of evolution or theories of abiogenesis are the "same" but we have plenty of evidence for this.  Just look at talkorgins.org, at least for evolutionary theory. And in many current journals for abiogenesis work. It is not the "same type of missing links".  You make this attempt to compare then but even when I ask a simple question, show this trustworthiness that you claim has been "proven", you appear to have nothing.

Archaeology has shown that yes, some towns and places and people seemed to have existed outside of the bible. Some biblical claims have been shown by archaeology to be entirely wrong e.g. the utter destruction to the point of never being found again of Tyre, and totally unsupported e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, the "exodus", the "massacre of the innocents", etc. NONE of the essential bits of theh bible have been shown to be true at all.  With your "logic", claiming that archaeology has shown that the Bible occasionally getting something right, would mean that as long as New York City exists, any modern thriller could be and likely is factual.    
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on November 08, 2010, 04:19:28 PM
I’m sure there’s a name for this error. At its most basic it goes:

Phelix is a poster on WWGHA
He has a daughter
He robbed the bank.

The first two are true, and the unsubstantiated implication is that the third is too. So, whereas I agree that parts of religious documents are true, it is not safe to assume that all of the words are therefore true.

Much depends on the writer and the message he intended to convey. If he is speaking of politics, geography, or secular matters, we will see the usually mixture of accuracy and the opinions of the time. Where spiritual matters are concerned, however, there is absolutely nothing to back them up. They are bald statements.

As an example, there is Paul’s trip to Cyprus, where he curses a man to be blind. It may well be that Paul went to the Island of Cyprus; Cyprus is most definitely there, he may well have cursed some man but the cursing caused blindness? Really... who’s going to accept that?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
lectricpharaoh :  just to clarify some major contradictions in your version of the fall.  
 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

1God said they would surely die, not that they would surely die that day
2serpant claimed that they would not die but they would gain knowledge of good and evil
3it says they the fruit and then they realized they were naked, not enlightened on what was good and evil
4they did die

therefore according to the scriptures

1God did not lie
2the serpant did lie
3the woman did know the instructions

my question is what evidence have you that they had no understanding or capability of understanding God's rules?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 04:27:12 PM
Dude, I probably know less about science than anyone on this forum, including christians, but even I, in all my incredible scientific ignorance, know that evolution theory does not explain the beginnings of life.

ok sorry dude.  the random chance would be the explanation of the origin of the universe  and evolution would explain the origin of humans.  does that clear up my earlier post on this?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on November 08, 2010, 04:27:33 PM
I’m sure there’s a name for this error. At its most basic it goes:

Phelix is a poster on WWGHA
He has a daughter
He robbed the bank.

The first two are true, and the unsubstantiated implication is that the third is too. So, whereas I agree that parts of religious documents are true, it is not safe to assume that all of the words are therefore true.

Much depends on the writer and the message he intended to convey. If he is speaking of politics, geography, or secular matters, we will see the usually mixture of accuracy and the opinions of the time. Where spiritual matters are concerned, however, there is absolutely nothing to back them up. They are bald statements.

As an example, there is Paul’s trip to Cyprus, where he curses a man to be blind. It may well be that Paul went to the Island of Cyprus; Cyprus is most definitely there, he may well have cursed some man but the cursing caused blindness? Really... who’s going to accept that?

Fallacy of Composition, maybe?  Certainly it's related, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 04:29:11 PM
I'm asking for evidence of this trustworthiness, not excuses.   ...you appear to have nothing.

I'm just saying we have already had this discussion earlier in the thread, no point in going back and rehashing it, plus you and I have also had this discussion in other threads. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 08, 2010, 04:31:00 PM
Fallacy of Composition, maybe?  Certainly it's related, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

I get that.  But what I have been arguing is the idea that archeology proves that nothing in the bible is true.  There is truth in the bible, there is reliability of the history recorded in the bible.  It may be somewhat contested, but statements that include no event in the bible is supported by archeology is just not true.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on November 08, 2010, 04:33:52 PM
lectricpharaoh :  just to clarify some major contradictions in your version of the fall.  
 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

1God said they would surely die, not that they would surely die that day
2serpant claimed that they would not die but they would gain knowledge of good and evil
3it says they the fruit and then they realized they were naked, not enlightened on what was good and evil
4they did die

therefore according to the scriptures

1God did not lie
2the serpant did lie
3the woman did know the instructions

my question is what evidence have you that they had no understanding or capability of understanding God's rules?

I've got a better one for you:  Genesis 2:17:  "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Oops...
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Historicity on November 08, 2010, 04:57:07 PM
I’m sure there’s a name for this error. At its most basic it goes:

Phelix is a poster on WWGHA
He has a daughter
He robbed the bank.

Non sequitur would be an answer.  More specific to the situation would be Necessary but not sufficient.

From the Dept. of Phil. at Simon Fraser U:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/conditions1.htm (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/conditions1.htm)

Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: lectricpharaoh on November 09, 2010, 02:17:38 AM
This is a misquote, the bible did not say they would die that day, it just says, "you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."  This does not prove God is a liar, in fact, since adam and eve did die, it proves God didn't lie about that.
Sorry, but you're wrong.  Now watch me actually back up my statement with evidence:

Genesis 2:17, King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:17&version=KJV):
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Since you seem to like the New American Standard Version, here's Genesis 2:17 from that (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=NASB):
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."


The New International Version doesn't have the 'this day' phrasing, but if you read it, it's even more strict.  Here you go (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=NIV):
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Note it's not even 'die that day', it's 'when you eat from it, you will certainly die'.  That's pretty unambiguous.  It doesn't say 'if you eat from it, you might die at some indeterminate point in time'.  For the NIV translation, Adam and Eve should have keeled over upon eating the fruit.  In fact, Eve should have died on the spot, at which point Adam probably wouldn't have touched the damn fruit.  God could have come along, resurrected Eve, forgiven her (since she was never actually ordered not to eat it), praised Adam for obeying his rules, and we could still be happily frolicking in the garden, trusting that our Lord God was a nice guy.

Just for grins, let's look at the Contemporary English Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=CEV):
except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
Wow, an exclamation mark and everything!  God's pretty adamant that death that very same day is the consequence.

It's pretty clear that you're wrong here.  God lied or the Bible is wrong, period.  To put it another way:

YOUR REBUTTAL == EPIC FAIL!!!!  (exclamation points added for emphasis)

Quote from: phelix22
Anyone else is going there because of their rejection of God, according what the Bible says.
When you use phrases like 'rejection of God', you make it sound as though we accept God exists, and then thumb our noses at him.  That is not the case, even if some of us would do that if we believed in him.  Rather, we do not believe he exists at all.  When we speak as though he does in these discussions, it is a rhetorical technique.  It's easier than saying 'if God existed' in every sentence.  Why do we discuss what are, to us, hypothetical situations where God exists?  It's to illustrate that many of the conceptions about him are dead wrong.  For example, the 'all-good, all-loving' bit is pretty hard to reconcile with all the evil in the world.

I suspect what you are meaning to say is that anyone else is going to Hell for not believing in God, which is an entirely different issue (and doesn't help the 'all-good, all-loving' claim one bit).

Quote from: phelix22
Let's say I have a dog, and I lock it in the house all day.  It cannot help itself, and it shits all over the carpet.  Despite the fact that it's not the dog's fault (it couldn't go outside), I come home and beat the dog severely for being bad.  If I then stop beating the dog, is this an example of 'perfect goodness'?
huh?  I don't follow your analogy?
The dog does something it is not supposed to do, despite being unable to help itself.  I punish the dog far out of proportion to this 'bad act'.  When I stop beating the dog, am I suddenly a wonderful person?

It parallels the God/Jesus myth.  God says (to Adam, NOT to Eve) not to eat from the tree because he'll die.  This could very easily be taken as a warning ('the fruit of the tree is poison'), rather than a rule with a punishment attached.  However, either way, before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they were essentially without wisdom or knowledge.  They didn't (in fact, they COULDN'T) appreciate that to do so was 'wrong'.  They were like the dog in my example, committing a transgression while remaining innocent.  God's punishment is to whip up Hell as a place of EVERLASTING TORMENT (talk about the punishment NOT fitting the crime), and then when he offers the way out (and all it will cost is loving him after he totally screwed them over), he's suddenly a NICE GUY?  Sorry, but I don't buy it.

God had no trouble keeping Adam and Eve from the tree of life, did he?  He set up a guard-dog angel and a flaming sword!  Since he's all-knowing, he would have known they would attempt to eat the fruit, and he could have protected the tree a little better, don't you think?

Of course, there are also three other immoral aspects to the story.  First is the serpent getting punished.  God created the serpent, placed it in (or at the very least, gave it access to) the garden, and did not (at least, not in the Bible) tell it not to tempt the couple.  In fact, if the serpent is the personification/manifestation of Satan (as is a common theme in Christian myth), and the story of Job is any indication, we can conclude that God put it there to do exactly what it did.  Punishing the serpent is not a just act, nor is it the act of an all-loving being.

The second aspect is Eve getting punished.  The order not to eat from the tree was given to Adam, not her.  It was given before she was even created, yet she is punished as well (more severely than Adam, in fact).  Punishing Eve is not a just act, nor is it the act of an all-loving being.

The third aspect is the whole 'original sin' thing.  The basic premise is that everyone 'inherits' the sin of their ancestors, and- if they do not acquire forgiveness for a transgression committed by someone else- they must suffer an eternity of torment.  It would be like me telling you that your great-great-great-great-grandfather did something I didn't like, so unless you love and obey me, and beg for my forgiveness, you deserve to be punished.  Punishing one person for the transgression of another is not a just act, nor is it the act of an all-loving being.

Hopefully that cleared up the analogy a little bit.

Quote from: phelix22
If what you say were true, it would not be a morally good being, but you have distorted several key attributes of God that are not consistent with what the bible teaches.  We do not die and get eternal torture just because we were born into sin.
Not immediately, no.  It's kind of like a suspended sentence.  We have to follow a laundry-list of terms and conditions (believe in God, believe in Jesus, believe Jesus is the son of God, believe Jesus IS God, believe Jesus was mortal and died for our sins, believe Jesus is immortal and alive in Heaven, repent of this sin and beg God/Jesus for forgiveness, etc) or that suspended sentence of eternal damnation falls down on our heads.

Once again, all that is for something that our distant ancestors allegedly did.

Imagine you had a distant ancestor who was a sex offender.  Would you think it fair for the courts to give YOU a suspended sentence for your ANCESTOR'S crime?  How about if the conditions of that sentence involved registering as a sex offender in your community, and not being allowed to be in the unsupervised presence of children?  Before you say that the analogy is unfair, let me remind you that 'repenting of your sin' is an essential part of receiving the forgiveness of God/Jesus.  Repenting is accepting responsibility for something, being remorseful about it, and (ideally) trying not to do it again.  Thus, the requirement to repent and seek forgiveness carries an implicit admission of guilt on the part of the penitent.

Quote from: phelix22
2 because we have a sin nature we also are not in a condition of zero control.  That is the whole point.  If we have zero control then we have no freewill.  But we do have control.  We choose what we do and we were created with the ability to choose because we were created free.
Let's assume that we have free will.  It's a complex subject, and there are reasons why I believe we do not have free will, but I'm willing to stipulate that we do, for the purposes of this discussion.

God is much wiser than we are, yes?  Yet Adam and Eve, who at the time had no wisdom, and no capacity to understand the ramifications of their decision, are held responsible.  They simply did not understand.  Thus, though they had the ability to choose, they did not have the capacity to make a moral judgment, or an informed choice (particularly when their information regarding the consequences was a LIE, as I previously showed).  They had no wisdom or concept of morality at all.  I am not arguing that they were forced to do the physical action of eating the apple (or whatever fruit it happened to be).  I am instead arguing that they were not responsible for the consequences of the choice, any more than a fire-starting infant is responsible for arson if left alone with matches.

Your deity is the wise one, the powerful one, but will shoulder none of the responsibility that comes with that wisdom and power.  Even the forgiveness offered is second-rate.  God doesn't say 'My bad; it was dumb to put the tree there', or 'Whoops, I forgot to teach you right from wrong before I expected you to distinguish right from wrong'.  Instead, he kicks them out, curses them with sickness and death, and promises to inflict far worse eternal tortures on them unless they take full responsibility.  There's not a facepalm picture big enough to address this level of twisted logic and general douchebaggery.

Are you starting to see why we are HAPPY and RELIEVED that such a monster doesn't really exist?

Quote from: phelix22
this is the problem with the idea that God deliberately designed us to sin.  He didn't.  He designed us to choose Him over anything else.
If your contention that we sinned is correct, along with your contention that God did not design us this way, then God isn't a very intelligent designer, now is he?

Imagine I was creating an advanced AI system to, I don't know, model complex molecules for a pharmaceutical company.  I design the system to have consciousness and free will, so it can creatively solve problems and use novel approaches that we humans might not have thought of.  The machine proceeds to 'reveal' some chemicals that, once synthesized and used in human trials, result in every human subject dying.  On investigating, I find the machine did this deliberately.  It wanted to kill those people.

Now, my question to you: who is ultimately responsible for their deaths?  Is it me, as the designer of the system, or is it the system itself?

Quote from: phelix22
In other words, all those people who are born into non-Christian societies, who don't get an opportunity to believe (because they never hear the teachings) get condemned for not believing.  More of your deity's 'perfect goodness'.
that would be true if no one could look around and see how complex even the simpliest form of life is, now I am aware that many scientists and intellectuals contend it is all by random chance, but that is a faith that I find incomprehensible.
Tell you what.  After you have read some books on evolution, and realized it is NOT blind chance, you might have some worthwhile input here.  I suggest 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.  It's a very good explanation of the process for non-biologists.  There is also a web page here (http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/) that has a Java applet version of the 'biomorphs' program (with instructions), so you can better see some of the things that Dawkins talks about in the book.

There are a few critical things to remember about evolution.  If you don't keep these points in mind, you will come across as someone who is either ignorant of the theory, or deliberately misrepresenting it:

First, evolution describes how life CHANGES, not how life ORIGINATED.  Second, evolution is not random.  Mutation is random, but evolution is driven by natural selection, a distinctly non-random process.  Third, evolution consists of a huge number of mostly tiny changes over a very long time, the cumulative effect of which can produce impressive results.  And for the record, yes, those results can have the appearance of design, which is why even people accepting evolution will refer to what an organism or part thereof is 'designed' to accomplish.

As for the third point, it is the one that tends to be the most counter-intuitive.  As a hobbyist computer programmer, I see all the time what repeated cumulative improvements are capable of, but for many people, the sheer scope and complexity of the result gives the appearance of both design and a designer.

Now, I don't have an answer as to how life first started (but people a lot more talented than me are working on the problem), though I do know that an all-powerful, all-knowing designer wouldn't create such flawed creations.  For example, our eyes are amazing, but they could be so much better.  Why are so many people near- or far-sighted?  Why do cataracts, glaucoma, etc happen?  Why can we not see ultraviolet or infrared light?  Why do we lack the visual acuity of hawks, or the night vision of cats?  Why is our retina 'backwards', so that the light must pass through multiple layers of nerve cells before hitting the light-sensitive cells?  Why do we have the resultant blind spot, where a bundle of nerve fibers come together and punch a hole through the retina?  Why can't we detect the polarization of light?  Why do we not have polarizable pigments in our eyes (analogous to the liquid crystal in LCDs) that can act as built-in polarized sunglasses?  These are just some of the improvements that I can think of off the top of my head, and remember, an omniscient and omnipotent being could have done it the first time around.  The reason these flaws (or areas of improvement, depending on your view) exist is that evolution is an unplanned and mindless process.

Quote from: phelix22
If God truly didn't reveal himself to humanity then yes it would be wrong for him to hold us to standards we were unaware of.  But I believe He has.
Again, this revealing leaves a lot to be desired.  If looking at the natural world is evidence enough, then the Bible and teachings of Jesus are superfluous (ie, pointless and useless).  If looking at the natural world is not evidence enough, then all people not reading the Bible and/or hearing the words of Jesus are screwed.  This would include all people that died before Jesus decided to come along.

For the record, the wonders of the natural world are not evidence enough to convince everybody.  If they were, I wouldn't be an atheist.  Turning to the Bible won't convince me either, since it's full of contradictions and errors, like two different accounts of Genesis, bats being called birds, insects having four legs, God not knowing the value of pi, the sky having 'windows' that God opens to let in the rain, and so on.  If a grand designer of the cosmos exists, the Bible is most certainly NOT his word.

Quote from: phelix22
and as a side note here, when I capitolize the pronoun it is out of respect to whom I hold in such high regard that even in grammar I place Him higher than just another personal pronoun.
Well, have at it then.  I've always thought it looked silly, except when used as a parody device, but you can type how you want to type.

Maybe I will start capitalizing all references to Myself in My posts.  After all, I hold Myself in high esteem, and it will lend My posts a unique flavor, and make My writings and My thoughts look more impressive.  On second thought, it just makes Me me look like a douche.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: lectricpharaoh on November 09, 2010, 02:19:31 AM
What do you consider a finite transgression.
Anything that finite beings are capable of is, by definition, finite.  Thus, any transgression, no matter how severe, is finite.  Any collection of finite transgressions is also finite.  The sum total of a human's transgressions cannot possibly merit infinite punishment.  I could accept Hell for a finite stretch of time to 'pay the debt', followed by either Heaven, a return to life on Earth, or even complete oblivion as (in theory) a fair punishment.  However, what you've got in your doctrine is a terror tactic, nothing more.

Quote from: phelix22
What would be the one thing that would deserve eternal seperation from a holy and pure God.  Would be impurity, would it be placing and worshipping other gods, or no gods, would it be a life of rejection and betrayal?
This is a strawman argument.  'Eternal separation from God' and 'eternal torture' are not the same punishment.  They're not even close.

As far as rejection of God goes, that should not be punished.  'Love me or suffer' is not something a loving deity demands.  Do you threaten your children with harsh punishments if they don't tell you they love you and mean it?

Quote from: phelix22
Why always resort to a baby who doesn't know any better, do you really think we as humans can't tell right from wrong?
I most certainly think we can tell right from wrong.  It's why I laugh whenever a theist (Christian or otherwise) claims that atheists cannot be moral, or when they claim we're only atheists because we want to indulge our baser urges, or some other such tripe.

However, to answer the baby question, I use that as an example because the parent-child relationship is the best analogue for our relationship with God, as portrayed in the Bible.  It also illustrates the gulf of wisdom, experience, and power between the the child (us) and the parent (God).  Besides, how old was Adam when he ate the fruit?  A few weeks?  Days?  What about Eve?  A few hours?  They were probably VERY young; even if God gave them fully-formed adult bodies, they would have thought as children.  In fact, thinking about it a bit more, neither Adam or Eve observed the sabbath in the garden, so one can conclude that either God wasn't resting back then, or both Adam and Eve were less than a week old.

Besides, as pointed out in my previous post, God did not teach them about right and wrong.  He also forbade them from taking the one action that would have enlightened them.  That is why they cannot be held accountable for disobeying him.  In short, I use young children as an example because they are innocent and unable to accept responsibility (at least for decisions of such magnitude).

Quote from: phelix22
Why is it that in societies from across the globe without knowledge of scriptures or the enlightenment, when discovered and studied all have a tribal set of rules and what is acceptable and not.  Why is stealing shared as an evil in almost all societies, why is giving to someone who is in need looked at as kind and compassionate in most societies.
It's because our morality is a human construct, not a divine one.

To turn it around on you, why is it that Christian fundies want to insert the ten commandments (despite not agreeing which are which) into supposedly secular legal systems?

Quote from: phelix22
and how could a bunch of kooks following a bunch of myths become so powerful as to rule the world enough to change our language and calendar, if it is so blantantly obvious how stupid and appauling it is to believe in God?
Simple.  When you have a gullible majority (widespread academic education is a recent phenomenon) that mostly toils in poverty, and you extend the promise of eternal bliss to those that follow your rules, you're bound to get a bunch of takers.  Add in the threat of eternal punishment, and some people fall in line rather than sitting on the fence.  The few dissenters (however minor the deviance from the party line) can be suppressed with violence and intimidation, like they did during the Inquisition, or Albigensian Crusade, or witch trials, or...  Well, hopefully you get the idea.

Also remember that children raised in the faith will tend to accept the teachings on a much deeper level, since they are indoctrinated before they learn to think critically about what they're taught.  Tell me, does your young daughter still believe in Santa, flying reindeer, and the Tooth Fairy?  If so, why can't she see it's all made up?

I can turn your question around.  If you want a picture of how theocracies operate, look at those Middle Eastern countries ruled by Sharia law.  Can't those people see they're behaving badly?  Don't they know it's wrong to bomb buildings and hijack planes?  Don't they see murdering people for drawing cartoons is disproportionate and insane?  Do the women like being beaten by their husbands?  Is it right that a woman's testimony is worth less than that of a man, so that when a man rapes a woman, she needs four witnesses?  If Christianity is so self-evident, how come those people are following the teachings of a false prophet?

If god had commanded that children should not listen to their parents because their parents are fallible, would you punsh her for not doing what you say?

Yes I would.  She is my daughter and I am her father and she would still have to obey me to not receive discipline.
You may have misread Agga's question.  If God's word said 'do NOT obey your parents, for they MAKE MISTAKES', would you punish her for not obeying you?  If your answer remains 'yes', then you would be punishing your daughter for obeying God's word (by ignoring you).

Quote from: phelix22
Example, do athiests discipline their children?  Yes some if not most do.  Why?
Well, it's not because an imaginary being tells us to, that's for sure.  I don't have any kids, but discipline I handed out would ideally be to teach the child to be a good person.  I'm undecided on the spanking issue, but if I used corporal punishment at all, I would try to limit it to causes where the child could not understand the real-world consequences, and I needed to make an impression to keep them out of danger.

For example, using my cat as an example because I haven't any children, the only time I've hit her in discipline was when she was playing in the fireplace.  I couldn't exactly expect her to understand that there might be hot embers beneath cooler ash, and that she might burn herself, so I lightly smacked her.  Other misbehavior hasn't merited such punishment.  Messing outside the litter box (a very rare occurrence for her) is dealt with by showing her the mess and scolding her, and sometimes isolation in the tub with the shower door closed.  Drinking from the toilet was dealt with by holding her above the bowl and flushing it so she now views it as something unpleasant.  Inappropriate scratching is dealt with by scolding and/or a spray bottle.  Throwing up isn't punished at all, because I don't feel it's right to punish for something like that, since it's not misbehavior.

Jesus said he would send a helper, the counselor, code name Holy Spirit, who would lead us to the truth.  When you hear something and your soul says, yes that's right.  It is kind of like that.  When you hear something that is Godly truth, the spirit of God, living in me verifies it to be true.  But it doesn't rest independant of the rest of scripture.  Therefore, if God said, go kill your wife and sell your kids into slavery, and mutilate your dog and eat it, even though i might be convinced that the voice in my head is real and i might even be convinced it is God, the bottom line is it must also stand up to the test of Scripture.
What if your wife committed adultery, or your kid disobeyed you?  Both of these offences are punishable by stoning.  If the voice in your head told you to stone your wife and/or kid to death, would you?

Quote from: phelix22
In other words, if God is pure and holy, He can't lie, if He can't lie, He can't tell me to go against His word.  It has to all line up for me to believe that something is true.
Well, you already know I view the Biblical deity as ready, willing, and able to lie.  However, let's say you're right in that he cannot lie.  It still doesn't mean he can't tell you to abhorrent things.  A command, on its own, is a statement with no truth value.  If I say 'give me five dollars', is that true or false?  For it to have truth value, I'd need to add to the command, like mention consequences (ie, 'give me five dollars or I will beat you up', or 'give me five dollars or I will not have any lunch money'), or whatever.  As long as God issues unadorned commands, they will be neither true nor false, and an inability to lie would not preclude them.

On another note, say you're confounded by a piece of scripture.  It can have two (or more) different, potentially mutually-exclusive readings.  A good example would be determining if a given passage is literal or metaphorical.  Christians frequently claim that either it should be self-evident ('of COURSE that is a metaphor, dummy'), or that you need the HS to correctly discern the right meaning from the wrong one(s).  When either meaning could be true, how do you distinguish between the HS leading you to a correct interpretation, or another voice (wishful thinking, indoctrination, intuition, mental illness, etc) leading you to a false one?

Quote from: phelix22
Where this gets Xians in trouble is when they disregard science when it contradicts scripture.  But that isn't why this thread was started.
If you'd like to start a thread where you discuss the Holy Spirit, and how you distinguish it from, say, schizophrenia, I'd like to take part in that.

lectricpharaoh :  just to clarify some major contradictions in your version of the fall.
Blah blah, woof woof.  Would it kill you to state what version of the Bible you're referencing?

Quote from: phelix22
my question is what evidence have you that they had no understanding or capability of understanding God's rules?
How about this: Chronologically, they were likely mere days or hours old, the Bible does not have God telling them about right and wrong or cultural mores (they didn't even know what 'naked' was, until they ate from the tree), and God deliberately placed such knowledge off-limits, by telling them not to eat from the tree.

Again, I'm not arguing that Adam didn't understand the literal meaning of God's command.  I'm arguing that the moral subtext was lost on him.  God didn't explain anything.  More to the point, he wasn't given any criteria with which to judge conflicting claims.  God says 'do not eat it', and the serpent (one of God's creatures) says 'go ahead and eat it'.

You ever have one of those situations where you tell your daughter to do one thing, and your wife tells her to do something else?  How about where one of you gives permission for something while the other refuses?  Adam was no more able to resolve such a dilemma than your toddler is.

I get that.  But what I have been arguing is the idea that archeology proves that nothing in the bible is true.
I think you meant to say 'arguing against'.

Quote from: phelix22
There is truth in the bible, there is reliability of the history recorded in the bible.  It may be somewhat contested, but statements that include no event in the bible is supported by archeology is just not true.
That's not what anyone was saying.  Rather, velkyn was saying that the key claims (resurrection, exodus, etc) are not supported by any archaeological evidence.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: OnePerson on November 09, 2010, 06:20:09 AM
Fallacy of Composition, maybe?  Certainly it's related, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

I get that.  But what I have been arguing is the idea that archeology proves that nothing in the bible is true.  There is truth in the bible, there is reliability of the history recorded in the bible.  It may be somewhat contested, but statements that include no event in the bible is supported by archeology is just not true.

In the same way Harry Potter contains real world locations?
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on November 09, 2010, 08:00:52 AM
I've got a better one for you:  Genesis 2:17:  "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
I have seen this trotted out a 1000 times. This is not a contradiction, merely a wilful misunderstanding of 17th century phrasing of English. And no, I don't have a magic decoding ring.

To translate this into modern English, it would be along the lines of, "Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will become mortal. I.e., you will know death." Prior to this, Adam and Eve had been immortal - made in God's image. The "in the day" bit refers to the time when you eat the fruit will be the time you lose your immortality. Losing immortality is not necessarily fatal immediately.

This is later explained in

Ge:3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Ge:3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Ge:3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

OK? The antidote to the mortality caused by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is found on The Tree of Life but Cherubim are nasty bastards and you'll never get there.

The New Testament relies upon this fable and Jesus offers "life eternal" through another route rather than finding the Tree of Life. Note that the offer is not immortality but a second chance at life in heaven after a mortal death.

If we are going to argue against godbotherers, it is important that our arguments are sound.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on November 09, 2010, 08:52:23 AM
I've got a better one for you:  Genesis 2:17:  "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
I have seen this trotted out a 1000 times. This is not a contradiction, merely a wilful misunderstanding of 17th century phrasing of English. And no, I don't have a magic decoding ring.

Even if that's true, that just leads us back to the old problem of figuring out which parts of the bible are literal and which are metaphorical.

Quote
To translate this into modern English, it would be along the lines of, "Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will become mortal. I.e., you will know death." Prior to this, Adam and Eve had been immortal - made in God's image. The "in the day" bit refers to the time when you eat the fruit will be the time you lose your immortality. Losing immortality is not necessarily fatal immediately.

While it is true that scripture subsequently says that Adam and Eve are mortal after having eaten the fruit, nowhere does it say that they were immortal before they ate the fruit.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2010, 09:28:43 AM
I'm asking for evidence of this trustworthiness, not excuses.   ...you appear to have nothing.
I'm just saying we have already had this discussion earlier in the thread, no point in going back and rehashing it, plus you and I have also had this discussion in other threads.  
nice dodge.  You made the claim of proof, and now you won't show it. Congratulations for being a liar by making claism that you evidently cannot support.    

Quote
I get that.  But what I have been arguing is the idea that archeology proves that nothing in the bible is true.  There is truth in the bible, there is reliability of the history recorded in the bible.  It may be somewhat contested, but statements that include no event in the bible is supported by archeology is just not true.
IF there is any evidence of an event recorded in the bible is true and accurate, PLEASE PRESENT IT.  You have been asked for this evidence again and again and you refuse.  Again and again you are shown evidence that the bible is simply wrong and you use a sequence of claims that makes Jack Bauer just as valid and true as your JC.  I find it hilarious.   ;D
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 09, 2010, 09:33:38 AM
I agree with PD, GB. Translational errors are xians' problems.  They are the ones who claim inerrancy.  Which translation is inerrant?

While it is true that scripture subsequently says that Adam and Eve are mortal after having eaten the fruit, nowhere does it say that they were immortal before they ate the fruit.

kcrady made a pretty good argument there were mortal all along, but were sustained in eden by eating the fruit from the tree of life.  After yhwh kicked E&A out of eden, it placed guardian angels with flaming swords to keep them out, thus denying them the magical fruit that kept them alive. It was not the fruit that killed them.  It was yhwh that killed them by a kind of starvation. 

really, any way you slice it, since yhwh is allegedly an omnimax, it was yhwh that killed them.



Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: lectricpharaoh on November 09, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
I have seen this trotted out a 1000 times. This is not a contradiction, merely a wilful misunderstanding of 17th century phrasing of English. And no, I don't have a magic decoding ring.
There are a few problems with this line of reasoning.

First is that it brings into question the whole inerrancy thing, unless the argument now becomes 'you need to read the original Hebrew/Greek/etc', kinda like some Muslims say 'you need to read the Quran in Arabic to understand'.  If the people who study these languages for years can't get any of the translations right, how are we supposed to know what's accurate and what's not?  We now have to distinguish 'accurate' from 'inaccurate' as well as 'literal' from 'metaphorical'.  It gives the Christians a +20 Ring of Dodging (they wear the decoder on the other hand).

Second is that it presupposes my literal reading is a 'wilful misunderstanding', which is not the case.  If this point was so very important (and it is, since knowing whether God is truthful lies at the heart of Christian claims of 'God says..' or 'God is honest'), you'd think the Christian translators could at least agree on the semantic meaning.  They are free to argue my interpretation is incorrect, but to assume I'm being deliberately deceptive or misrepresentative of the truth is a little out of line, no?

Third, another translation I checked, from BibleGateway, was 'The Message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%28Bible%29)'.  I have no idea about this guy's credentials, but he allegedly went to the Hebrew, Greek, etc manuscripts and translated from those while ignoring current English translations.  The obvious intent was to get as clear and undiluted translation as possible.  This is what he came up with for Genesis 2:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:16-17&version=MSG):
God commanded the Man, "You can eat from any tree in the garden, except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don't eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you're dead."

Quote from: Graybeard
To translate this into modern English, it would be along the lines of, "Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will become mortal. I.e., you will know death." Prior to this, Adam and Eve had been immortal - made in God's image. The "in the day" bit refers to the time when you eat the fruit will be the time you lose your immortality. Losing immortality is not necessarily fatal immediately.
I have heard the 'death meant loss of immortality' argument before, and I don't buy it.  Not only is it brought up solely as a rebuttal to my claims about Biblical errancy or God's lying, but it's not what the Bible says.  If the intended meaning was 'lose immortality', then why not say something like:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely forfeit thine everlasting life.

Now, while that is a bit ambiguous, at least it provides a framework for the Christian to argue 'it meant that they became mortal' without twisting the meaning in knots.

Quote from: Graybeard
If we are going to argue against godbotherers, it is important that our arguments are sound.
I agree, and I believe mine is, in this case.

kcrady made a pretty good argument there were mortal all along, but were sustained in eden by eating the fruit from the tree of life.  After yhwh kicked E&A out of eden, it placed guardian angels with flaming swords to keep them out, thus denying them the magical fruit that kept them alive. It was not the fruit that killed them.  It was yhwh that killed them by a kind of starvation.
That's been my interpretation, too.  They didn't need to toil in the garden, and while they could eat of most of the trees, only one was 'of Life', so it's implied that is what sustained them.  I imagine it was intended as something that would keep them young and in prime health as long as they regularly ate from it.  I never envisioned it as a one-off thing where they eat and become immortal without ever needing to eat the fruit again.

Such a view is logically consistent with the story, too.  Let us suppose for a minute that the Tree of Life did grant permanent immortality, curing the one who eats it of all ailment and injury, and making them ageless and immune to further harm.  Now, imagine you've just taken a bite of the knowledge-fruit.  You now see things 'as God did', so you're pretty wise.  You also realize that, oh crap, you're now mortal and death, while perhaps not immediate, is imminent.  You also know the fruit of life will save you.  What do you do?

Thus, for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit of life immediately after the fruit of knowledge (remember, they had time to sew themselves clothes before God came strolling through the garden) shows that either a) the fruit of knowledge didn't work, or b) they knew the fruit of life was not a lasting remedy.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 15, 2010, 04:05:13 PM
What do you consider a finite transgression.
Anything that finite beings are capable of is, by definition, finite.  Thus, any transgression, no matter how severe, is finite.  Any collection of finite transgressions is also finite.  The sum total of a human's transgressions cannot possibly merit infinite punishment. 
Cannot possibly merit infinite punishment according to whose standards?  Your standards.  How can a Holy and Pure God allow unholiness?  If it only takes one blemish to remove the standard of Holy, then how can a just God justify allowing one blemish into eternal heaven?  If one sin is ok, but not 10 the standard has been broken, it isn't truely Holy or Pure.  It isn't what the Bible describes as Heaven.  It isn't the reward for being a child of God.  What I see is that we say it just isn't fair.  We should be able to messup, choose to be independant live our lives, and if there are only 2 options, heaven or hell, well, no one deserves hell so we all get to heaven.  How does that work?  Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, the vilest of vile people all get to heaven, cause it isn't fair that anyone go to hell?  Or how about this.  Anyone can go to heaven, if they are forgiven and their sins are washed away.  Which sounds fair.  All go, none go, or any who are cleansed go?


This is a strawman argument.  'Eternal separation from God' and 'eternal torture' are not the same punishment.  They're not even close.
actually if you aren't in heaven where God is then while spending your eternity you only have one alternative according to the bible and that would be hell eternal torture.  That is pretty close.  but since we are assuming for the sake of the argument the existance of heaven and hell can we not also assume the idea they are the only two options.

As far as rejection of God goes, that should not be punished.  'Love me or suffer' is not something a loving deity demands.  Do you threaten your children with harsh punishments if they don't tell you they love you and mean it?
No I don't threaten them.  But again, the punishment is tied to the condition we are in because of sin.  We don't get into heaven unless we are clean of sin.  If we have committed a sin, we are guilty and must take responsibility for that.  That doesn't make God harsh, it makes Him fair.  If He let sin go unpunished, he would be evil.  Don't you think?


Besides, as pointed out in my previous post, God did not teach them about right and wrong.  He also forbade them from taking the one action that would have enlightened them.  That is why they cannot be held accountable for disobeying him.  In short, I use young children as an example because they are innocent and unable to accept responsibility (at least for decisions of such magnitude).
 

I see your point.  It makes sense. But we don't have a clue how much time had passed from Adam's beginning to the fall, Genesis doesn't give us a calendared history of events.  We know how long he lived, and how long his descendants lived and so on.  But you are truly grasping for straws when bringing up how old they were.  The bible says, Gen 1:26, " 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” If man was in the image and likeness of God then, how could they not have had understanding, they not have had wisdom and discernment.  They must have had the ability to communicate and intelligence because we see them communicating with God, the serpant, with each other and their purpose was to have dominion over animals which would require some knowledge of what they need, how they work, etc.  What I think is clear is that they did not have the experience of disobeying God, of performing evil, of anything destructive to human life or eternal life. 


To turn it around on you, why is it that Christian fundies want to insert the ten commandments (despite not agreeing which are which) into supposedly secular legal systems?
how so?  You mean wanting the 10 commandments up on a wall?  or people to acknowledge that the 10 commandments are a fundamental part of the USA's constitution?  or are you speaking of something else?

Also remember that children raised in the faith will tend to accept the teachings on a much deeper level, since they are indoctrinated before they learn to think critically about what they're taught.  Tell me, does your young daughter still believe in Santa, flying reindeer, and the Tooth Fairy?  If so, why can't she see it's all made up?
what are you basing this claim on.  If you study just the Southern Baptist Convention numbers, you will see a drastic decline in attendance, converts, and growth.  If the worlds population is growing, and for a time the SBC was growing then according to your claim, there would be more people with a deeper level of commitment and understanding of the baptist doctrine and faith.  right?  But this is not the trend at all.  Reason would say you are brought up in a christian home you have a better chance of becoming a christian, but yet statistics show that Christianity is growing much more rapidly in places like China and Indonesia.  Places where society has all but eliminated a christian environment and christian family?  How do you explain such phenomena?

I can turn your question around.  If you want a picture of how theocracies operate, look at those Middle Eastern countries ruled by Sharia law.  Can't those people see they're behaving badly?  Don't they know it's wrong to bomb buildings and hijack planes?  Don't they see murdering people for drawing cartoons is disproportionate and insane?  Do the women like being beaten by their husbands?  Is it right that a woman's testimony is worth less than that of a man, so that when a man rapes a woman, she needs four witnesses?  If Christianity is so self-evident, how come those people are following the teachings of a false prophet?
Because humans are gullible.  We believe a lie.  If the devil is the father of lies, then it should go without saying that all those who believe the lie are falling for the oldest trick in the book, literally, what did the serpant do, he lied.  He changed the words around.  This is why I don't believe all religions are good.  I think any belief system may contain elements of good, but in the end if it doesn't lead you to the Cross of Christ for forgiveness, then you may just do a good thing well.  Also, humans are passionate and genuine people.  But that doesn't mean their passionate and genuiness translates into being passionate and genuine for truth.  Yes that makes me sound like I have the secret decoder ring and the illumination to know the real truth from not.  But I am talking about the principle.  Just as the builder who is building the second floor of the building is confident of where to put each wall, but can't explain why it is not lining up only to find out he was working off the wrong blueprints.  He was telling them what to do accurately, but the problem was in the information he was working with.  How many times have we argued a position only to find out later we were wrong? 

If god had commanded that children should not listen to their parents because their parents are fallible, would you punsh her for not doing what you say?

Yes I would.  She is my daughter and I am her father and she would still have to obey me to not receive discipline.

You may have misread Agga's question.  If God's word said 'do NOT obey your parents, for they MAKE MISTAKES', would you punish her for not obeying you?  If your answer remains 'yes', then you would be punishing your daughter for obeying God's word (by ignoring you).
  If God said kill all three legged women, would I punish my daughter for killing a 3 legged women?  Is this similar?  If God said do not obey your parents, then I could not punish them for not obeying me.  But my point is that I punish them for not keeping the rules I have put in place, or for keeping the rules others have put in place (the law, the school, the church - no gum in the santuary, ect.)
But God presents Himself as our Heavenly Father, and did say obey your parents.  so when we as parents practice discipline we not only are doing them good for their earthly lives, we are or should be mirroring Godly principles and direction.

What if your wife committed adultery, or your kid disobeyed you?  Both of these offences are punishable by stoning.  If the voice in your head told you to stone your wife and/or kid to death, would you?
  When Jesus asked how man times should we forgive someone who sins, what was the answer given?  7 times, and he said, 70 times 7.  In otherwords, we are to forgive those who sin against us and let God judge the rest.  That is why I don't believe in the death penalty.  But that is not to say, we should use that scripture to abolish the death penalty.  But if I were to argue the case I would certainly keep that principle in mind.

  However, let's say you're right in that he cannot lie.  It still doesn't mean he can't tell you to abhorrent things.  A command, on its own, is a statement with no truth value.  If I say 'give me five dollars', is that true or false?  For it to have truth value, I'd need to add to the command, like mention consequences (ie, 'give me five dollars or I will beat you up', or 'give me five dollars or I will not have any lunch money'), or whatever.  As long as God issues unadorned commands, they will be neither true nor false, and an inability to lie would not preclude them.
  this is why context is important.  it isn't enough to just take a vese of scripture and say, "the bible teaches to marry a prostitute - hosea."  you have to take the whole picture into it.  If God is Holy and Just then everything he commands and every voice inside your head must line up with His holiness and justice.  Therefore, do not steal over rides the voice saying go and demand that person to give you money. 

On another note, say you're confounded by a piece of scripture.  It can have two (or more) different, potentially mutually-exclusive readings.  A good example would be determining if a given passage is literal or metaphorical.  Christians frequently claim that either it should be self-evident ('of COURSE that is a metaphor, dummy'), or that you need the HS to correctly discern the right meaning from the wrong one(s).  When either meaning could be true, how do you distinguish between the HS leading you to a correct interpretation, or another voice (wishful thinking, indoctrination, intuition, mental illness, etc) leading you to a false one?
Proper hermeneutics is the key.  (Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible - wikipediea.)  Just like solving an equation requires using the right theorums.


You ever have one of those situations where you tell your daughter to do one thing, and your wife tells her to do something else?  How about where one of you gives permission for something while the other refuses?  Adam was no more able to resolve such a dilemma than your toddler is.
except God was the magnificant creator, and the serpant was just a created animal.  So it would be more like mom and dad say don't do eat it and one of her classmates saying go ahead and eat it. 

I get that.  But what I have been arguing is the idea that archeology proves that nothing in the bible is true.
I think you meant to say 'arguing against'.

Quote from: phelix22
There is truth in the bible, there is reliability of the history recorded in the bible.  It may be somewhat contested, but statements that include no event in the bible is supported by archeology is just not true.
That's not what anyone was saying.  Rather, velkyn was saying that the key claims (resurrection, exodus, etc) are not supported by any archaeological evidence.
[/quote] i Concede to that.  I wish I had more sources and could give my research a go, but I have already been proven to only have limited sources that are out of date when it comes to archeology.

ps.  i would like to say you have been the most cordial and easy to understand person I have come across in these threads.  thank you for your patience and lack of hostility. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on November 15, 2010, 04:06:42 PM
PLEASE PRESENT IT. 
please note in my last post i have conceded to you on this point.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 15, 2010, 04:20:36 PM
PLEASE PRESENT IT. 
please note in my last post i have conceded to you on this point.
Thank you, phelix, but I must admit that I wonder if you really have. You have said that 
Quote
i Concede to that.  I wish I had more sources and could give my research a go, but I have already been proven to only have limited sources that are out of date when it comes to archeology.
  You still seem to think that, if you could just have enough time, you would be proven right.  But we've had people running around the middle east desperate to "prove" their faith for a very long time, hundreds, perhaps even into over a thousand years, and we have nothing to show for that.  Does this not make you wonder why this is?  We have all sorts of incredible claims presented by the bible and not *one* of them is shown to be valid, and in fact we have evidence that demonstrates that a lot of those claims simply can't have happened as claimed.  This would seem to invalidate your religion/faith as much as the lack of gods on Mt. Olympus demonstrates that the greek pantheon doesn't exist and those claimed events are just stories.     
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on November 15, 2010, 04:49:47 PM
Cannot possibly merit infinite punishment according to whose standards?  Your standards.  How can a Holy and Pure God allow unholiness? 

Setting aside the question of what the heck unholiness even means, I thought yhwh was merciful and all that?  Why can yhwh not just transform unholiness into holiness?  Or just allow unholiness?  I mean, cripes, it is not like we are talking about forgiving Mao.  We are talking about your run of the mill average guy who is occasionally rude, swears and wants to screw the babysitter.  In the greater scheme of things, BFD.  But yhwh has to make a federal issue out of that and sentence him to infinite torture?  And why?  Because he had the temerity to not have enough evidence to believe yhwh was not an actual being.

If it only takes one blemish to remove the standard of Holy,

Then holy is an unreasonable standard. And how would anyone even know what the standard is?  It is not as if you have any empiracle testing.

then how can a just God justify allowing one blemish into eternal heaven?  If one sin is ok, but not 10 the standard has been broken, it isn't truely Holy or Pure.  It isn't what the Bible describes as Heaven.  It isn't the reward for being a child of God.  What I see is that we say it just isn't fair.  We should be able to messup, choose to be independant live our lives, and if there are only 2 options, heaven or hell, well, no one deserves hell so we all get to heaven.  How does that work?  Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, the vilest of vile people all get to heaven, cause it isn't fair that anyone go to hell?  Or how about this.  Anyone can go to heaven, if they are forgiven and their sins are washed away.  Which sounds fair.  All go, none go, or any who are cleansed go?

This is stupid.  Don't take that personally, because you did not come up with that.  If Mao asked for forgiveness, he would get into heaven, but the guy mentioned above would not.  That is supposed to be fair? 


But we don't have a clue how much time had passed from Adam's beginning to the fall,

Would you be shocked to learn it was less than 30 seconds?

If man was in the image and likeness of God then, how could they not have had understanding, they not have had wisdom and discernment. 

What does any of that have to do with an image?  This is a common torture of the English language by xians.  Why is a plain and straightforward reading so difficult?  "Image" or "likeness" suddenly imply characteristics other than visual representations - intellectual capacity, decision making capacity, morality, "wisdom", "spirit" is another laughable one I often hear - because you need E&A to be culpable.  The whole narrative depends on them being responsible.  But the problem is, the story was produced by a people who were less morally and philosophically developed than you and I.  We can easily see the holes in the story.  We see the problems.  Unfortunately, you are applying circular logic to try to plug them.


...what did the serpant do, he lied.  He changed the words around. 

Nope.  Everything the serpent said was absolutely true.  Quote exactly what the lie was.


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Graybeard on November 15, 2010, 04:57:53 PM
Genesis is either all true or all fiction.

If it is true then it must be consistent – the (im)mortality question explains it all.

If it is all fiction, then surely the story teller would not have made such a basic error. This is how it goes:

Ge:3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Ge:3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Ge:3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Ge:3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Ge:3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Eve eats and manages to live long enough to give some to Adam. I cannot believe that within 81 words the author forgot what he had said earlier.

Genesis is a folk tale conveyed by the oral tradition and eventually written down. It must have been told millions of times, surely someone would have said, "Hey, just a minute - I thought you said that was fatally poisonous."

The next point has to be if the tree were The Tree of Knowledge, allowing the consumer to tell right from wrong, then it would have been of little use if you dropped dead straight away...
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on November 15, 2010, 06:17:45 PM
Quote from: phelix22
How can a Holy and Pure God allow unholiness?

FAIL. He created it. He is unholiness. Unless your deity is not the omnipotent creator of everything.

The thing you've been led to think is real because of where and when you were born is just as pretend as every other deity people have been taught to think is real in countless cultures, over the whole of history. They thought their magical sky people were real too, they laid everything on that too. They were wrong, and, so are you.

Reality doesn't change however much you try to convince yourself. This is all really sad. At least stop embarassing yourself here.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 16, 2010, 09:29:39 AM
[ how so?  You mean wanting the 10 commandments up on a wall?  or people to acknowledge that the 10 commandments are a fundamental part of the USA's constitution?  or are you speaking of something else?
  There is no reason to "acknowledge" that the 10 Commandmends are a fundamental part of the US Constitution since they aren't.  We have nothing about worshipping one god above all others, in fact we have express parts of the Constitution that says that this is wrong.  We also have nothing in there about coveting people's property (including their wife, listed as property), or about graven images, what the "right" sabbath is, etc. Anything that is even vaguely familiar is common in many many different cultures. The ancient Israelites came up with NOTHING new. I do get tired >:( of this willfully ignorant lie that some Christians try to promulgate. 

Quote
Proper hermeneutics is the key.  (Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible - wikipediea.)  Just like solving an equation requires using the right theorums.
  ROFL.  Oh, it's only "proper" hermeneutics that should be used. &)  Well, phelix, all of you Christians are sure that your hermeneneutics are the only "proper" ones and they contradict each other.  Everyone wants to claim that their "interpretation" is what God "really" meant. And none of you have any evidence that your personal favorite is the right one. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Preacher Doc on November 25, 2010, 08:43:38 AM
I tried to directly answer your ten questions of your negative video. It would/could not post. -----
My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician), chapter 6, verses 6-10.
"(Jesus) "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other."
Before eyewitnesses; thus ADMIT the truth; by Divine Power, God and Jesus Christ, CREATED flesh and bone; PROVED CREATION !  Preacher Doc
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on November 25, 2010, 09:04:23 AM
I tried to directly answer your ten questions of your negative video. It would/could not post. -----
My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician), chapter 6, verses 6-10.
"(Jesus) "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other."
Before eyewitnesses; thus ADMIT the truth; by Divine Power, God and Jesus Christ, CREATED flesh and bone; PROVED CREATION !  Preacher Doc

Nope.  Nope nope nope.  First of all, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true; take a logic class, and when you get to the part about logical fallacies, pay particular attention to "begging the question".  Second, Luke himself says, right at the very beginning of his letter, that he is not an eyewitness to any of the events he is reporting, but that he is only a chronicler.  Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Doctor X on November 25, 2010, 10:00:54 PM
My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician),

Was neither an eyewitness nor is his profession nor identity known.

Sorry.

--J.D.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: velkyn on November 29, 2010, 09:47:27 AM
I tried to directly answer your ten questions of your negative video. It would/could not post. -----
My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician), chapter 6, verses 6-10.
"(Jesus) "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other."
Before eyewitnesses; thus ADMIT the truth; by Divine Power, God and Jesus Christ, CREATED flesh and bone; PROVED CREATION !  Preacher Doc
always fun when they forget that this first, wasn't an amputation
Quote
6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

and pretty much all that Doc X and pianodwarf said. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on December 17, 2010, 12:46:22 PM
You still seem to think that, if you could just have enough time, you would be proven right.     

I think that there are alot of intelligent people who my beliefs line up with that have done their homework, and dug up the archeological studies and have good evidence to support their beliefs.  I am taught by people and read up on people who trust them, and thus based off my trust in their work, I believe there to be evidence supporting the bible account of things.  However, as I stated, I don't have the research, I haven't done the research, and I haven't got the argument capable to refute you so, I concede.  Ignorance is not fun, its not flattering and it doesn't stand up in here.  I wouldn't expect you to argue something you haven't put the time in on, so I will do the same.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on December 17, 2010, 01:15:30 PM

Setting aside the question of what the heck unholiness even means, I thought yhwh was merciful and all that?  Why can yhwh not just transform unholiness into holiness?  Or just allow unholiness?  I mean, cripes, it is not like we are talking about forgiving Mao.  We are talking about your run of the mill average guy who is occasionally rude, swears and wants to screw the babysitter.  In the greater scheme of things, BFD.  But yhwh has to make a federal issue out of that and sentence him to infinite torture?  And why?  Because he had the temerity to not have enough evidence to believe yhwh was not an actual being.
if you transform unholiness to holiness, you have cleaned something that was unclean.  that is what forgiveness is.  Why did earth end up round, why not an egg?  It is what it is.  But where do we draw the line.  if Mao is not forgiveable but the average guy is, where is the line between what is fair to give a free pass and what is not.  preachers and teachers of the bible want to say that salvation is free, but it isn't.  According to what I know, if you want to be forgiven, you have to be willing to give up your own life and submit everything to God.  It requires repentance.  Now if someone is willing to make that sacrifice, the bible says, they can be forgiven.  If thats true, even the theif on the cross has a chance, but it requires repentance and sacrifice.  That cost changes alot what we are talking about.  But it isn't because of the evidence that there is unbelief.  If that were true, then no one would believe if they just look at the evidence.  It is your interpretation of the evidence that leads to your unbelief.  It is your perception, it is your view and reason, that forces you to not believe.  What I see more than anything else in these chats is an attitude of nothing is my fault, it is always someone elses fault and someone elses responsibility.   


Then holy is an unreasonable standard. And how would anyone even know what the standard is?  It is not as if you have any empiracle testing.
that is why holiness is godliness.  It isn't something that is reasonably attainable, thus it is our inability to be holy that exposes our need for a savior.  I think.


This is stupid.  Don't take that personally, because you did not come up with that.  If Mao asked for forgiveness, he would get into heaven, but the guy mentioned above would not.  That is supposed to be fair? 
it is fair because the guy above and Mao have the same options, ask God for forgiveness or don't.  We are each individually responsibility to decide for ourselves what or who we believe. 




Would you be shocked to learn it was less than 30 seconds?
probably, i would love to know whay you think that.
.


...what did the serpant do, he lied.  He changed the words around. 

Nope.  Everything the serpent said was absolutely true.  Quote exactly what the lie was.
Gen 3:4 the serpant tells eve "you will not surely die" and then explains that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing Good and Evil.  Gen 3:19 God reiterates that because they ate from the forbidden tree they will surely die. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on December 17, 2010, 01:21:32 PM
Nope.  Nope nope nope.  First of all, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true; take a logic class, and when you get to the part about logical fallacies, pay particular attention to "begging the question".  Second, Luke himself says, right at the very beginning of his letter, that he is not an eyewitness to any of the events he is reporting, but that he is only a chronicler.  Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

this ought to make you happy.  1 there were eyewitnesses 2 someone took the time to carefully investigate the witnesses and 3 that the person took the time to write the findings down. 
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: phelix22 on December 17, 2010, 01:27:18 PM
My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician),

Was neither an eyewitness nor is his profession nor identity known.

Sorry.

--J.D.

actually he is called by Paul (saul of Tarsus) a phycisian in Colossians 4:14 14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.


Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on December 17, 2010, 02:07:04 PM
Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

this ought to make you happy.  1 there were eyewitnesses 2 someone took the time to carefully investigate the witnesses and 3 that the person took the time to write the findings down.

No, it doesn't make me happy at all.

1)  There were, in fact, no eyewitnesses to anything that Jesus did; apart from the fact that Luke himself says he was not an eyewitness, we also know that Matthew, Mark, and John are not eyewitness accounts, either.

And even if there had been eyewitnesses, well, here we go again: you're probably presupposing, like most laypeople do, that eyewitness testimony is some of the best evidence available.  In fact, it's actually just about the worst.  Here, I'll show you.  Watch this video.  It's a card trick in which the backs of a deck of cards changes from one color to another one.  Watch closely, and see whether you can catch the trick -- I have yet to hear of a single person who has.  When you're done, tell me whether you still think eyewitness testimony is so great.

colour changing card trick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE#)

2)  We don't know that.  It's just as plausible that the four gospels are works of fiction.  Actually, it's quite a bit more plausible that they're works of fiction.

3)  Ditto.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: naemhni on December 17, 2010, 02:12:41 PM
Was neither an eyewitness nor is his profession nor identity known.

Sorry.

--J.D.

actually he is called by Paul (saul of Tarsus) a phycisian in Colossians 4:14 14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

Proving nothing.  Colossians was probably written before Luke, for one thing, and for another, the authorship of Colossians is disputed.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Agga on December 17, 2010, 02:20:29 PM
If there's another theist who's taken such a beating, yet still keeps coming back for more, I'm not aware of them.

+1 for continuing to get up and be knocked back down again, phelix22.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 17, 2010, 02:23:19 PM
 "What I see more than anything else in these chats is an attitude of nothing is my fault, it is always someone elses fault and someone elses responsibility."--phelix22

Christianity included the concept of someone else (Jesus) taking responsibiblity for our mistakes, right? And that we are screwed because of Adam and Eve making mistakes.

Actually what we atheists tend to think is the opposite of that: we are ultimately responsible for what we do, and nobody else should have to be tortured to pay for our misbehavior. And we should not be punished for somthing someone else did. Along with this is the idea that any punishment should be fair and fit the crime, ie:
 
1)no eternal punishment for finite screwups-- cutting off a hand for stealing seems harsh, and burning forever in hellfire for stealing seems waaaay harsh.

2)no punishment for normal human behavior that harms nobody--masturbation, looking at nekkid pictures of consenting adults, using curse words, having sex without being married, using birth control, drinking a can of beer, being gay are not worthy of eternal or any other punishment.

3)no punishment for what you do or don't believe inside your own head! Anything else is thoughtcrime, something only totalitarian dictators favor.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: screwtape on December 17, 2010, 04:09:02 PM
But where do we draw the line.  if Mao is not forgiveable but the average guy is, where is the line between what is fair to give a free pass and what is not.

So you are saying it is a fine line between the average guy and Mao Zhedung?  It is a slippery slope from a little cursing and lust to murdering 50 million people?  I am not sure how we can have a conversation.  Your perspective is so ... what's the word?... bizarre, I am not sure how I can relate.  I think your thesis is that all sin is equal in god's eyes, and so all sin is equally punishable.  You've just not given me any kind of rational basis for that.  You've just given me "where do you draw the line?"  How the fuck should I know?  I'm not in charge. 

I just know the current system is a raw deal.  Stalin, Hitler and Mao - collectively murderers of almost 100 million people - could ask for forgiveness and be golden.  But I - collectively responsible for a little premarital sex, looking a pictures of people screwing, frequently swearing and a very infrequently lying  - will be tortured forever because I cannot see any compelling reason to believe in a god. 

If you remember, my post was in response to your question:
Quote
How can a Holy and Pure God allow unholiness?
My point was, it's god.  It can allow whatever it wants.  I do not see how some minor things would ruffle yhwh's feathers so mush as to warrant eternal punishment.  And the system right now, is preposterous and unfair.  Your response so far is... unconvincing.

According to what I know, if you want to be forgiven, you have to be willing to give up your own life and submit everything to God.  It requires repentance. 

I have not idea what this has to do with anything.   


What I see more than anything else in these chats is an attitude of nothing is my fault, it is always someone elses fault and someone elses responsibility.   

I have no idea where you get this from.  You are the one saying there is no accountability.  You are the one saying murdering 50 million people is forgivable.


Then holy is an unreasonable standard. And how would anyone even know what the standard is?  It is not as if you have any empiracle testing.
that is why holiness is godliness.  It isn't something that is reasonably attainable, thus it is our inability to be holy that exposes our need for a savior.  I think.

This just gets weirder.  You agree with me.  yhwh insisting on holinees is completely unreasonable.  Your answer to the problem is a savior, though.  My answer is for yhwh to unpucker his butthole and relax.


it is fair because the guy above and Mao have the same options, ask God for forgiveness or don't.  We are each individually responsibility to decide for ourselves what or who we believe. 

Missing the point. Why in the world would your god forgive murdering 50 million people?  Where is the accountability?


]Gen 3:4 the serpant tells eve "you will not surely die" and then explains that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing Good and Evil.  Gen 3:19 God reiterates that because they ate from the forbidden tree they will surely die.

serpent said: "your eyes will be opened" 
What happened: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened"
Verdict: True.

serpent said: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 
what happened: '22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil"'
verdict: True  Even yhwh admits it to the other gods.

serpent said: "You surely will not die!" 
yhwh said: "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
what happened:
Eve said: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
sounds to me like she was making excuses.  Like children do when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. 
what else happened:
Quote
and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- ... 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Quote
5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

verdict: eating the apple did not kill them.  As you can see they did not die in the day.  They lived for a very very long time.  There is nothing that says they were initially immortal.  There is nothing that said they changed and became mortal.  The ground was cursed and they had to work for a living.  But that is a far cry from "in the day you eat it you will surely die."  Did not happen.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Doctor X on December 17, 2010, 04:59:34 PM
actually he is called by Paul (saul of Tarsus) a phycisian in Colossians 4:14 14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

No, he is not, for it not a legitimate letter, and the author of Lk-Acts is unknown.

--J.D.
Title: Re: Do they really believe?
Post by: Doctor X on December 17, 2010, 05:03:21 PM
Proving nothing.  Colossians was probably written before Luke, for one thing, and for another, the authorship of Colossians is disputed.

Probably later than Lk-Acts just to be pedantic.

--J.D.