Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why create good and evil?
« Last post by natlegend on Yesterday at 08:10:13 PM »
How do YOU explain evil?

(Why does it exist? What is it? Etc..)

We are not allowed to sermonise, so that makes the answer hard to provide. But here is my exegesis of the passage:

Now?the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the?Lord?God had made.
The serpent was not a snake. Man did not fear the snake. But the crafty creation was there for a purpose. 

The serpent wasn't a snake? Then what was it?

The serpent found Eve at the tree, so the creation of God (serpent) did not take Eve there, she was already contemplating the tree. [/b]
Throughout the passage, God is referred to as The Lord (Yahweh = Creator) God (Elohim = Father)

Eve was already contemplating eating from the tree? Where in your book does it say that? Maybe Eve was just hanging around enjoying the perfect shade under this perfect tree. This is your own interpretation, and as per usual, it ignores what the bible actually says.
 
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You1?shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”?2?And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,?3?but God said,?‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
The deception the serpent introduced was to question whether Eve actually heard and understood correctly. The serpent tested the explicitness of the message. 
Why was the forbidden thing:
(a) A piece of fruit? And (b) Something mankind had to DO
God could have forbidden something else - like you are not allowed to dig over there, or you are not allowed to sleep with your head facing east. But God made it something that (i) you could not accidentally stumble upon and something where you actually had to think about it, then reach out to it and then bring it to you and then consume it and make it part of yourself.
The prohibition was explicit and the act of breaking that prohibition had to be deliberate.
The committing of a sin requires us to exercise our free will

 
I know you probably don't believe in free will, but there you go...

Whether or not picking a piece of fruit is made a worse act because it is something you have to DO is irrelevant. And my understanding of free will is that it gives you the ability to chose to do right or wrong. See the problem? Right now, Eve didn't have free will because she didn't know right from wrong.

?4?But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.?5?For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So unlike YAWEH, the serpent tells the truth. Interesting.

The promise of the temptation was built in an outright denial of what God wants. There was no grey areas here.

Then whose fault was it? You can't blame A&E, they were made that way. It can't have been YAWEH, he's perfect and can do no wrong. It must have been the serpent's fault. But wait, wasn't he created by ...YAWEH... and was thus also made that way?

The temptation here was not that our physical hunger will be stilled and that we could eat something nice, it was about what the fruit would do for us - and that was to make us equal or more like God! The temptation we yielded to is arrogance - a lack of humility> Today, seeking answers in science and putting our faith in our own institutions is exactly the sin that we have always been guilty of.
We were created one way (man) and desire to be another (god).

Then YAWEH screwed up. His creation, even before the fall, was flawed. Humans were flawed before they sinned. If I make a bicycle and give it only one wheel, am I not the one responsible for when it doesn't work properly?


7?Then the eyes of both were opened,?and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
After we committed the sin, the sin is revealed. We now understand sin. We now know God was right and we were wrong. We have the capacity to recognise sin.

Not arguing this bit. I'm arguing about what happened before A&E wised up.


8?And they heard the sound of the?Lord?God walking in the garden in the ...snip...

... YAWEH busts A&E, lists their forever punishments, boots them out, yadda yadda yadda. Not relevant.

Whilst there is an element of punishment we suffer, because of our sin, God also banishes us so that we can't continue to be tempted.

Dennis, I'm not talking about what happened after A&E 'did the dirty', I'm asking why was there evil in the world in the first place? Remember? The OP?

Quote
1. Why were A&E not told about good and evil/right and wrong? (Interestingly, I have heard Christians say that knowing right from wrong is what makes humans better than animals - well that's obviously not what Yaweh originally intended)

2. Would Yaweh have punished a 'pre-fruit' A&E if they had unknowingly done something 'wrong'?

3. Indeed, disobeying Yaweh and eating from the tree was something that A&E did 'wrong', and yet having no prior knowledge of what is 'wrong', A&E are still punished.

4. Why was it necessary to have the existence of good and evil, if presumably no part of Yaweh's creation was going to experience it?

Questions 1 and 4 interest me mostly (yes I agree, questions 2 and 3 are the same thing). Yet here we are, and no one has even taken a real stab at it.
82
General Religious Discussion / Re: A Question for Atheists:
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 08:05:38 PM »
Arguments are not facts. There you go again: stating your opinions as if they were facts.

Arguments are not evidence. Things that can't be proven without the other sharing in the delusion[1] is not evidence.

We require evidence. You provide none. Yet, we are ignorant?

-Nam
 1. because there's no evidence presented but one's guarantee it happened


As in ignorant of my views/arguments - not ignorant as in 'a person'
83
Reviews / Re: Rate the Last Film You Saw
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 08:00:46 PM »
Man in the Attic (1953) -- 7/10.

Jack Palance plays "Jack the Ripper" in this early 1950's film. I guess the censors back then made them change the prostitutes of White Chapel into actresses, or maybe they did it on their own.

I did like that they state The Ripper was most likely a doctor (which is what Palance plays) but so much can be theorized on this. It's slightly above average but quite enjoyable, all-in-all.

Oh, Frances Bavier[1] is in this.

-Nam
 1. Aunt Bea from "The Andy Griffith Show"
84
The Shelter / Re: Features of Atheist worldview
« Last post by Ataraxia on Yesterday at 08:00:22 PM »
There is no reason to believe there is an objective meaning to life.
There is no reason to believe evil exists.
There is not enough information to say conclusively that events are driven completely by chance.
There is no reason to believe that morality is anything but subjective.
There is no reason to believe that there is anything else but nature to be "just so".

Fixed those for you. Notice how your list turned negatives into positive assertions? Sorry, but I've seen through this transparency all too often.
85
General Religious Discussion / Re: A Question for Atheists:
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:58:22 PM »

You are right, logic can't prove anything is real.

But since supernatural can't be proven by the natural, all we have in common to talk about is 'reason and logic'.
The best we can do with logic is to justify the reasonableness of our respective worldviews.
You may even arrive at proving that deism is the most reasonable explanation.

You can't prove the actual existence of God, never mind the Judeo Christian version and even less Christianity.
All of these flow out from a worldview but each step down that path requires the previous step to accepted.



Hence:
1. I stated very clearly that I am not here to convert you (to my religion)
2. The structure of almost every conversation (at some stage) is as follows:

'OK, let's assume there is a God/Jesus/Bible is true' - how do you explain XYZ'
'This is how you explain XYZ'
That doesn't make sense because there is no God and I need evidence of God
We can't provide physical evidence, but think about it this way (ABC...)

That is just stupid because you don't have any evidence and you don't have any evidence because you are dumb/mislead/deluded/arsehole ....

Theist leaves the forum
Conclusion: Theists are dumb/mislead/deluded/arseholes .... PROVEN.

Well, I suppose it all depends on what a person believes in. A deist would certainly not expect that there would be any evidence of his deist god and it would have to be taken on faith. The thing is, though, that the deist sees his god as having started the universe and then left it to get on by itself. Whilst this sounds OK, it is, sadly, not Christianity.

<>

So, what does all that mean for showing if god exists? Well all of it requires god to interact with material things in some way. He might be invisible and elsewhere but if he is to do these things I have mentioned he must come into contact with the material and be able to change the material world as the only way we might know a response to prayer, say, is by the use of our material brain and our sense. So, though it might be a long shot, in principle we might be able to detect god at work where he interfaces with matter so to say that god cannot be detected would be wrong.

Why would God have to come into (physical?) contact with the 'material' in order to effect change?
If I get up on Sunday morning and go to church, I doubt you will see any physical difference between myself and my (hypothetical) identical twin brother who doesn't.

Yet, in my case you will see God influencing my behaviour and I am telling you so. But you won't believe it, right?

I mean you may see my endorphins on a a different level (or something) because I feel at peace. But there won't be a physical connection between the chemistry and God. (The chemistry is how God works, but it is not God)
86
General Religious Discussion / Re: random conversation with my 3yr old son
« Last post by Ron Jeremy on Yesterday at 07:50:26 PM »
Quick question, on topic;

How would one go about teaching "empirical reasoning" to young kids, who don't even know 99% of science?

With my older daughters (8 and 10), I encouraged them to 'Tempt Fate'. When on ships, we challenge any supernatural being to sink the boat. We challenge any being to make our car break down, or make it rain on a day out. I explain to them that if the car DOES break down, it's because some component has failed, not because a supernatural fairy made it happen. They now accept that just because you say something, it doesn't make it come true. I explain that sometimes good things happen, sometimes bad, but it's mostly our perspective. The car breaking down is bad for us but good for the family of the chap that fixes it.

I think this sort of thing is a good way to introduce kids to scoffing at the supernatural.
87
General Religious Discussion / Re: A Question for Atheists:
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 07:39:02 PM »
Arguments are not facts. There you go again: stating your opinions as if they were facts.

Arguments are not evidence. Things that can't be proven without the other sharing in the delusion[1] is not evidence.

We require evidence. You provide none. Yet, we are ignorant?

-Nam
 1. because there's no evidence presented but one's guarantee it happened
88
The Shelter / Features of Atheist worldview
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:29:26 PM »
(Giving the 'Shelter' a crack - not sure if it will be boring :))

I am really interested in understanding 'where you are coming from.
Just learned on main board that atheists (and the like) don't believe evil exists, for instance. Never knew that.

What I have learned so far and what I assume of your worldview (and or consequences of adopting a materialist/naturalist mindset) is that its features are:

<> There is no objective meaning to life (create your own).
<> Evil does not exists (just a version of bad)
<> Life events are driven completely by chance
<> Morality is subjective
<> Everything is comprised of matter
<> Laws of nature (physics) are just so

and so on.
I am keen to add to the list and/or to be corrected - even nuances - so that I can understand your POV better.

Thx




89
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why create good and evil?
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:14:35 PM »
I have a question for atheists:

How do YOU explain evil?

(Why does it exist? What is it? Etc..)


Yeah, nah[1], sorry dude, but you don't get to ignore the OP and then proceed to put forward your own questions. Can YOU tell me where evil came from? Because as you can see, there's a bit of a conundrum going on here, the tree already existed before the 'fall', and YAWEH plainly says that he created evil...

Care to take a stab at this, dennis?

Quote
4. Why was it necessary to have the existence of good and evil, if presumably no part of Yaweh's creation was going to experience it?
 1. This is real life Aussie speak. "Yeah, nah" means 'no', and "Nah, yeah" means 'yes'. Quite simple. Just try to imagine hearing it spoken in a drawly Aussie accent

We are not allowed to sermonise, so that makes the answer hard to provide. But here is my exegesis of the passage:

Now?the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the?Lord?God had made.
The serpent was not a snake. Man did not fear the snake. But the crafty creation was there for a purpose. 
The serpent found Eve at the tree, so the creation of God (serpent) did not take Eve there, she was already contemplating the tree.

Throughout the passage, God is referred to as The Lord (Yahweh = Creator) God (Elohim = Father)
 
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You1?shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”?2?And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,?3?but God said,?‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
The deception the serpent introduced was to question whether Eve actually heard and understood correctly. The serpent tested the explicitness of the message. 
Why was the forbidden thing:
(a) A piece of fruit? And (b) Something mankind had to DO
God could have forbidden something else - like you are not allowed to dig over there, or you are not allowed to sleep with your head facing east. But God made it something that (i) you could not accidentally stumble upon and something where you actually had to think about it, then reach out to it and then bring it to you and then consume it and make it part of yourself.
The prohibition was explicit and the act of breaking that prohibition had to be deliberate.
The committing of a sin requires us to exercise our free will

 
I know you probably don't believe in free will, but there you go...

?4?But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.?5?For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The promise of the temptation was built in an outright denial of what God wants. There was no grey areas here. What God doesn't want us to do, to this day, is not grey. If we are grey about it, we should test ourselves against the essential truth of what the Gospel is all about, and if we are sure we are pure in our intentions, we can question whether that greyness is caused by our culture and our interpretation of the 'sin'.
The temptation here was not that our physical hunger will be stilled and that we could eat something nice, it was about what the fruit would do for us - and that was to make us equal or more like God! The temptation we yielded to is arrogance - a lack of humility> Today, seeking answers in science and putting our faith in our own institutions is exactly the sin that we have always been guilty of.
We were created one way (man) and desire to be another (god).

 
6?So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,2?she took of its fruit?and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,?yand he ate.

The woman perceived everything to be OK. What LOOKS OK today may well be sin and the real test is not what it looks like, but whether it is actually what God prohibits. Human beings are not good judges of sin and we got it wrong once and will always get it wrong.
The committing of a sin requires us to exercise our free will - we look and think and judge in accordance with our own criteria and standards of 'goodness'.

 
7?Then the eyes of both were opened,?and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
After we committed the sin, the sin is revealed. We now understand sin. We now know God was right and we were wrong. We have the capacity to recognise sin.
 
8?And they heard the sound of the?Lord?God walking in the garden in the cool 3?of the day, and the man and his wife?hid themselves from the presence of the?Lord?God among the trees of the garden.
We were created without guilt, now we are racked by guilt.

 
9?But the?Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”4?10?And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid,?because I was naked, and I hid myself.”
God comes to us and seeks us out. We could have run to him and asked for forgiveness, but instead we hid. The ridiculousness of this response is that God cannot be hidden from of course. God called us - does not mean that he doesn't know where we are, it shows he cares to seek us out.
 
11?He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Does not mean God does not know, but it makes the point that we will have to account for our sins
 
12?The man said,?“The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”?13?Then the?Lord?God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said,?“The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Man blames women, woman blames serpent. Interesting that there is no denial and there is immediate recognition by mankind that they had been deceived. 
 
14?The?Lord?God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and?dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15? I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring5?and?her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
God follows the sin to the cause and punishes that first! Then later punishes the man and woman. God proclaims eternal enmity through all generations between the source of evil and mankind. But the pronouns change: instead of referring to them (mankind/offspring) there is a prophetic word that 'he' shall crush you. This may refer to the coming of Christ (singular he) that will conquer the snake, while snake can only bruise his heel, not damage or kill him
 
16?To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. jYour desire shall be for 6?your husband, and he shall?rule over you.” 
God originally made man and woman side by side. But here we get the idea that maybe the woman shall be the 'weaker' sex. Later God explains the relationship through Jesus, stating that Men should Honour and Women should Serve, creating a virtuous circle of subservience to each other. This is in line with the gospel message since the beginning; that when a person seeks to elevate themselves they will fall. 
 
17?And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18? thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19? By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and?to dust you shall return.” 
Both Adam and Eve were punished and both were doomed to suffer.
 

20?The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.7?21?And the?Lord?God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
The first thing after the curse, God demonstrated his love be immediately protecting and caring for them.
 
22?Then the?Lord?God said,?“Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand?rand take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”?23?therefore the?Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden?to work the ground from which he was taken.?24?He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the?cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Whilst there is an element of punishment we suffer, because of our sin, God also banishes us so that we can't continue to be tempted.
90
General Religious Discussion / Re: A Question for Atheists:
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 06:54:20 PM »
jaimehlers has a very good question.  It mirrors one that I asked you in reply #250 that got ignored:

"A good example would be for me to ask you to put aside this Christ Jesus thing and believe in Uhura Mazda.  I have no proof, but you still need to do it to save your soul.

See how strange that sounds to your christian mind?"

I seriously would like to know your reaction to this.


The reason I have not answered these questions is because I said upfront/early that I won't be answering questions like these. They are exactly the same type of questions as 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' - where a random historical individual or fictitious entity is posited.

Your argument is something like this:


1. There is no evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
2. There is no evidence for the existence of the XYZ.
3. Therefore, belief in the Judeo-Christian God and belief in the XYZ are on equal epistemic grounds.

Premise is false. You don't think so because te only evidence is natural evidence. You don't accept subjective experience, spiritual encounters or even logical arguments.

Many arguments have been given for the existence of God. And I have posed many of them to y'all: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments, and others.

The cosmological argument gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a God with attributes like: beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. [TRANSCENDENCE.]

This God has nothing in common with other mock-postulates.

To this there is the objective observation of the innate need of people to have meaning & purpose, and on and on.

All of this simply points to a God.

Now if you want to call this SAME God as mine anything else - WOW for instance - go right ahead. But  the nature/character and attributes of this God you propose must be EXACTLY the same or it is philosophically, spiritually and logically ridiculous.

This is how William Craig puts it:
"That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others."

Belief in God is:

(1) Prevalent among all peoples of all times.
(2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for God’s existence.
(3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, why logic is prescriptive and universal, why morality is objective, and why religion is ubiquitous.
(4) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

Belief in [Make your Own Monster]

(1) Believed by no one. (You are asking me to belive in something in you don't believe; why should I put ANY credence to your appeal?).

(2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the XYZ - as highlighted.

(3) Even those who sarcastically espouse that the XYZ exists don’t really believe that the FSM exists, nor do you think that the your proposition is a coherent explanation for finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc.

So that is why I don't answer 'arguments' like that: it is not even REMOTELY comparable, and if I am asked that question by someone, I consider them to be:
a) Ignorant
b) Willful
c) Provocative
etc... anything but serious.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10